ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 287, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANNEX VII, OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: GUYANA - AND - SURINAME AWARD OF THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL The Arbitral Tribunal: H.E. Judge L. Dolliver M. Nelson, President Professor Thomas M. Franck Dr. Kamal Hossain Professor Ivan Shearer Professor Hans Smit Registry: Permanent Court of Arbitration The Hague, 17 September 2007 Page intentionally left blank AGENTS, COUNSEL AND OTHER REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES GUYANA SURINAME • Hon. S.R. Insanally, O.R., C.C.H., M.P. • Hon. Lygia L.I. Kraag-Keteldijk, Minister of Foreign Affairs Minister of Foreign Affairs and Agent • Hon. Doodnauth Singh, S.C., M.P., • Mr. Caprino Allendy, Deputy Speaker of Attorney General and Minister of Legal Parliament Affairs • Mr. Henry Iles, Ambassador of Suriname • Ambassador Elisabeth Harper, Director • Mr. Winston Jessurun, Member of General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Parliament • Mr. Keith George, Head, Frontiers • Ms. Jennifer Pinas, Ministry of Foreign Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Affairs • Ambassador Bayney Karran, • Mr. Krish Nandoe, Ministry of Justice Ambassador of Guyana to the United and Police States • Mr. Hans Lim A Po, Co-Agent for • Ms. Deborah Yaw, First Secretary, Suriname Embassy of Guyana, Washington • Mr. Paul C. Saunders, Co-Agent for • Mr. Forbes July, Second Secretary, Suriname, Attorney, Cravath, Swaine & Embassy of Guyana, Washington Moore LLP • Sir Shridath Ramphal, S.C., Co-Agent for • Professor Christopher Greenwood, CMG, Guyana QC, Professor of Law, Essex Court • Mr. Paul S. Reichler, Foley Hoag LLP, Chambers Co-Agent for Guyana • Mr. Stephen S. Madsen, Attorney, • Professor Payam Akhavan, Associate Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP Professor, Faculty of Law, McGill • Mr. David A. Colson, Attorney, LeBoeuf, University, Co-Agent for Guyana Lamb, Greene & MacRae LLP • Professor Philippe Sands, Q.C., Professor • Professor Sean D. Murphy, Professor of of Law, University College London International Law, The George • Professor Nico Schrijver, Professor of Washington University Law School Public International Law, University of • Professor Bernard H. Oxman, Professor Leiden of International Law, University of • Mr. Lawrence Martin, Foley Hoag LLP Miami School of Law • Mr. Andrew Loewenstein, Foley Hoag • Professor Donald M. McRae, Professor LLP of International Law, University of Ottawa • Ms. Sarah Altschuller, Foley Hoag LLP • Professor Alfred H. A. Soons, Professor • Ms. Nienke Grossman, Foley Hoag LLP of Public International Law, Utrecht • Ms. Clara Brillembourg, Foley Hoag LLP University • Ms. Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh, Matrix • Professor Alex Oude Elferink, Professor Chambers, London of Public International Law, Utrecht University • Dr. Galo Carrera, Scientific/Technical • Mr. Coalter Lathrop, Cartography Expert Consultant, Sovereign Geographic, Inc. Boundary Consultation and Cartographic • Mr. Scott Edmonds, International Services Mapping Associates • Mr. David Swanson, Cartography • Mr. Thomas Frogh, International Consultant, David Swanson Cartography Mapping Associates • Mr. Brian J. Vohrer, Attorney, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae LLP • Ms. Michelle K. Parikh, Attorney, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP • Ms. Rebecca R. Silber, Attorney, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP • Mr. Matthew Pierce, Technology Consultant, Trial Team One • Ms. Elaine Baird, Manager of Courtroom Systems, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP • Ms. Brittany Olwine, Legal Assistant, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP • Ms. Anika Rappleye, Legal Assistant, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I - PROCEDURAL HISTORY...............................................................................1 CHAPTER II - INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................27 A. Geography.............................................................................................................27 B. Historical Background...........................................................................................29 C. The Parties’ Claims...............................................................................................34 CHAPTER III - ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES..............................................................39 A. Submissions on Jurisdiction..................................................................................39 Guyana’s Position........................................................................................39 Suriname’s Position......................................................................................42 B. The Parties’ Interpretation of the Factual Record.................................................47 Guyana’s Position........................................................................................47 Suriname’s Position......................................................................................53 C. Guyana’s Delimitation Claim................................................................................56 1. Applicable Law and Approach to Delimitation...........................................56 Guyana’s Position........................................................................................56 Suriname’s Position......................................................................................60 2. The Role of Coastal Geography...................................................................62 Guyana’s Position........................................................................................62 Suriname’s Position......................................................................................64 3. Conduct of the Parties..................................................................................65 Guyana’s Position........................................................................................65 Suriname’s Position......................................................................................66 4. Delimitation of the Territorial Seas..............................................................69 Guyana’s Position........................................................................................69 Suriname’s Position......................................................................................71 5. Delimitation of the Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone........71 Guyana’s Position........................................................................................71 Suriname’s Position......................................................................................75 D. Guyana’s Third Submission: Alleged Unlawful Threat and Use of Force by Suriname................................................................................................................78 Guyana’s Position........................................................................................78 Suriname’s Position......................................................................................80 E. Guyana’s Fourth Submission and Suriname’s Submissions 2.C and 2.D: Breach of Articles 74(3) and 83(3) of the Convention..........................................82 Guyana’s Position........................................................................................82 Suriname’s Position......................................................................................83 CHAPTER IV - JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE MARITIME BOUNDARY........85 CHAPTER V - DELIMITATION IN THE TERRITORIAL SEA..........................................87 i A. The Parties’ Positions............................................................................................87 Suriname’s N10°E Line to 12 nm................................................................87 Special Circumstances and Historical Evidence of an Agreement..............87 Evolution of Historical Territorial Sea Agreement from 3 to 12 nm...........89 Application of the Inter-temporal Law.........................................................89 Guyana’s N34°E Line to 12 nm...................................................................90 Historical Evidence of an Agreement on an Equidistance Line...................90 Absence of Navigation by Early 1960s........................................................91 The N10°E Line, if it Governed Relations Between the Parties, Did Not Exist Beyond 3 nm.......................................................................................92 No Justification for Departure from the Provisional Equidistance Line......92 B. The Tribunal’s Findings Pertaining to the Delimitation of the Territorial Sea.....93 Special Circumstances and Historical Evidence of an Agreement..............93 The Boundary Between 3 and 12 nm...........................................................99 CHAPTER VI - DELIMITATION OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF AND EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONES.....................................................................................107 A. Relevant Coasts...................................................................................................110 The Parties’ Positions.................................................................................111 The Tribunal’s Findings.............................................................................113 B. Coastal Geography..............................................................................................113 C. The Provisional Equidistance Line......................................................................115 The Parties’ Positions.................................................................................115 The Tribunal’s Findings.............................................................................118 D. Conduct of the Parties.........................................................................................122 E. Conclusion of the Tribunal..................................................................................127 CHAPTER VII - GUYANA’S THIRD SUBMISSION........................................................131 A. Jurisdiction and Admissibility.............................................................................131 1. The Tribunal’s Jurisdiction over Claims Relating to the UN Charter and General International Law...................................................................131 2. The Obligation to Exchange Views...........................................................132 3. Article 297 and the Characterisation of Guyana’s Claim..........................134 4. Good Faith and Clean Hands.....................................................................135 5. The Admissibility of a State Responsibility Claim in a Maritime Delimitation Case.......................................................................................139 B. The Threat or Use of Force.................................................................................140 C. Law Enforcement Activities................................................................................145 D. State Responsibility.............................................................................................148 CHAPTER VIII - GUYANA’S FOURTH SUBMISSION AND SURINAME’S SUBMISSIONS 2.C AND 2.D..............................................................................................151 A. Jurisdiction and Admissibility.............................................................................152 ii B. The Obligations Provided for by Articles 74(3) and 83(3).................................152 1. Provisional Arrangements of a Practical Nature........................................153 2. Hampering or Jeopardising the Final Agreement......................................154 C. The Tribunal’s Findings on the Duty to Make Every Effort to Enter into Provisional Arrangements of a Practical Nature.................................................157 D. The Tribunal’s Findings on the Duty not to Hamper or Jeopardise the Reaching of a Final Agreement...........................................................................161 1. Suriname’s Submission 2.C.......................................................................161 2. Guyana’s Fourth Submission.....................................................................162 E. Declaratory Relief...............................................................................................163 CHAPTER IX - DISPOSITIF................................................................................................165 APPENDIX - Technical Report of the Tribunal’s Hydrographer..........................................A-1 MAPS Map 1 – Parties’ Claim Lines...................................................................................................37 Map 2 – The Tribunal’s Delimitation Line in the Territorial Sea..........................................105 Map 3 – The Tribunal’s Delimitation Line in the Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone........................................................................................................................................130 Map 4 – The Tribunal’s Delimitation Line of the Maritime Boundary Between Guyana and Suriname.................................................................................................................................164 Map 5 – Construction Lines of the Maritime Boundary Between Guyana and Suriname.....A-5 iii Page intentionally left blank CHAPTER I - PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. By its Notification and Statement of Claim dated 24 February 2004, Guyana initiated arbitration proceedings concerning the delimitation of its maritime boundary with Suriname, and concerning alleged breaches of international law by Suriname in disputed maritime territory. Guyana has brought these proceedings pursuant to Articles 286 and 287 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the “Convention”) and in accordance with Annex VII to the Convention. Guyana and Suriname (the “Parties”) ratified the Convention on 16 November 1993 and 9 July 1998, respectively. 2. In its Notification and Statement of Claim, Guyana stated that the Parties are deemed to have accepted arbitration in accordance with Annex VII of the Convention by operation of Article 287(3) of the Convention. Guyana noted that neither Party had made a declaration pursuant to Article 287(1) of the Convention regarding their choice of compulsory procedures, and that neither Party had made a declaration pursuant to Article 298 regarding optional exceptions to the applicability of the compulsory procedures provided for in Section 2. 3. In its Notification and Statement of Claim, Guyana appointed Professor Thomas Franck as a member of the Arbitral Tribunal in accordance with Article 3(b) of Annex VII. In its 23 March 2004 “Notification under Annex VII, Article 3(c) of UNCLOS Regarding Appointment to the Arbitral Tribunal with Reservation”, Suriname appointed Professor Hans Smit in accordance with Article 3(c) of Annex VII, but reserved its right “to present its views with regard to jurisdiction and any other preliminary matters to the full Arbitral Tribunal when it is constituted”. 4. By joint letter to the Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”) dated 15 June 2004, the Parties noted that they had agreed to the appointment of the remaining three members of the Tribunal in accordance with Article 3(d) of Annex VII, being: H.E. Judge L. Dolliver M. Nelson (President); Dr. Allan Philip; and Dr. Kamal Hossain. 1 5. In their 15 June 2004 joint letter to the Secretary-General of the PCA, the Parties also requested that the PCA serve as Registry to the Tribunal. 6. On 16 June 2004, the Secretary-General of the PCA responded that the PCA was willing to serve as Registry for the proceedings. Ms. Bette Shifman was appointed to serve as Registrar with Mr. Dane Ratliff acting as assistant. Ms. Shifman was subsequently replaced by Ms. Anne Joyce, who was in turn replaced by Mr. Brooks W. Daly. 7. On 30 June 2004, the Parties sent draft Rules of Procedure for the conduct of the proceedings to the Tribunal for consideration at a procedural meeting to be held on 30 July 2004 in London. 8. At a procedural meeting held on 30 July 2004 in London, the Tribunal adopted its Rules of Procedure and Terms of Appointment with the Parties’ consent. The Rules of Procedure specified that Guyana should submit its Memorial on or before 15 February 2005, Suriname should submit its Counter-Memorial on or before 1 October 2005, Guyana could submit a Reply on or before 1 March 2006, and that Suriname could submit a Rejoinder on or before 1 August 2006. 9. On 3 September 2004, Dr. Allan Philip tendered his resignation. Dr. Philip died later that same month. The Tribunal regrets the loss of his commendable service. 10. In a letter dated 3 September 2004, the President of the Tribunal asked the Parties to attempt to agree on a replacement for Dr. Philip in accordance with Article 6(1)(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Article 3(d) of Annex VII to the Convention. 11. In a joint letter dated 29 September 2004, the Parties informed the Tribunal that they had agreed that hearings should be held in Washington, D.C., at the headquarters of the Organization of the American States (“OAS”). 12. In a further joint letter dated 30 September 2004, the Parties informed the Tribunal that they had not been able to agree on a substitute arbitrator for Dr. Philip and requested the Arbitral Tribunal to select the substitute arbitrator in accordance with Article 6(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. 2