APPRAISAL OF THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF COASTAL STATES WITH RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF OVERLAPPING HYDROCARBON DEPOSITS UNDER UNCLOS 1982

Disputes between coastal states of maritime areas with transboundary hydrocarbon deposits are often caused by unilateral act of a particular coastal state. This act exists in both law and literature, though it is shrouded in doubt. In the recent time international law has become more pronounced in boundaries dispute between maritime states and are often resolved after a long time. It is a known fact that coastal states are often in deadlock over delimitation of the boundary issues, but the need for exploration and exploitation of the transboundary hydrocarbon deposits is imperative for the sake of social welfare, energy security and economic development. On this premise, one may ask about the right and obligations of Coastal States with special respect to the development of hydrocarbon deposits in the overlapping claimed area. It is therefore certain, that in determining maritime delimitation, Coastal States may exercise control and jurisdiction over certain hydrocarbon deposits. In order to avoid dispute as a result of the transboundary hydrocarbon deposits, Nigeria and Sao Tome and Principe agreed to enter into a joint development treaty of the hydrocarbon deposits within the overlapping maritime area in the context of a provisional arrangement pending the final delimitation without hampering or jeopardizing any of the parties. This paper examines the relevant provisions of UNCLOS 1982, international jurisprudence and state practice on the rights and obligations of parties. In the case of Guyana v Suriname, the Tribunal agued extensively on the decision of the International Court of Justice (ICS) in the Aegean Sea continental shelf case that determines on interim measure which is significant in this regard; clarifying, at least to certain extent, the scope of unilateral conduct. The maritime boundary dispute between Ghana and Cote d’ Ivoire judgement gives a different light on the issue, in comparison to the earlier case law, thereby creating the legal room to revisit the topic of what the rights and obligations of states are in a disputed maritime area. It is also pertinent to note that the International Tribunal on Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on September 2017 decided on the lawfulness of unilateral conduct by Ghana in the disputed maritime area with Cote d’ Ivoire; hence foreclosing on the rights and obligations of each Coastal State.