Ghana v. Côte D’Ivoire (Judgment of the Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, 23 September 2017)

Clicks: 3
ID: 318682
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #1,340 of 1,518 articles by views in Oxford University Press eBooks

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 1,518 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract The 2017 Ghana/Côte d’Ivoire judgment of the ITLOS Special Chamber delimited a single boundary for the territorial sea, EEZ and continental shelf, including beyond 200 nautical miles, in a hydrocarbon-rich area. The Chamber rejected Ghana’s claims of a pre-existing “customary” equidistance boundary by tacit agreement or estoppel, finding oil-concession practice and related unilateral acts insufficiently compelling, especially given Côte d’Ivoire’s objections and the parties’ negotiation record. Applying the equidistance/relevant circumstances method throughout, it extended the land boundary to the low-water line, selected its own base points, and drew an unadjusted equidistance line to the outer shelf limits, holding that concavity, Jomoro, navigation, neighbouring interests and hydrocarbons did not warrant adjustment; proportionality confirmed an equitable result. It also accepted jurisdiction beyond 200M and dismissed claims that Ghana’s pre-judgment oil activities breached Côte d’Ivoire’s sovereign rights, Article 83, or the provisional measures order. The case is an authority on disputed resource development.
Reference Key
openalex_W7165874492 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Stephen Fietta, Robin Cleverly
Journal Oxford University Press eBooks
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/law/9780192883414.003.0027
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780192883414.003.0027
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.