Soomaaliya laguma laha inay magdhaw ka siiso Kenya aagga badda ee ay iyadu iska dhiibtay markii ay heshiiska la gashay Tanzaniya
Garsoore AbdiQawi Ahmed Yusuf oo ah Soomaali ka mida garsoorayaasha Maxkamadda Caalamiga ah ee Cadaaladda ICJ ayaa qoraal dheer ku faahfaahiyey diidmadiisa laba qodob oo ka mida go’aankii kasoo baxay maxakmadda ee lagu xadeeyay Xuduudka Badda ee Somaliya iyo Kenya.
Nuxurka diidmada Garsoore Abdiqawi ayaa ku dhisan in qaloocinta ay Maxkamadu ku sameysay xariiqii toosnaa ee ay u xukuntay Soomaaliya, sidaasina xuduud badeed lagu siiyey Kenya aysan sharci ahayn, ayna tahay mid ay Maxkamadda ku hareer martay sharciyadeedii iyo go’aano hore ay u soo saartay.
Qareen Cabdi Qawi wuxuu caddeeeyay inaysan cadaalad iyo sharci ahayn in Kenya ay Maxkamadda siiso xuduud badeed iyadoo la cuskanayo bad ciriiri kasoo wajahay heshiis ay iskeed ula gashay dalka Tanzania oo ay ku weysay xuduud Bad oo dhan 25,000 Miles, taasina aysan wax saameyn ah ku yeelan karin dacwadda kala dhaceysa Soomaaliya.
QORAALKA DR. ABDULQAWI HOOS KA AKHRISO
IV. Delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles
49. I agree that the Court should proceed to a delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles as requested by both Parties. I disagree, however, with the manner in which the delimitation has been implemented for the following reasons.
50. First, for the same reasons as described above, I disagree with the extension of the same geodetic line that was unjustifiably adjusted within the 200 nautical miles. There was no valid reason to do so. The Court cannot simply assert that a delimitation line should take a certain course without justifying it or giving convincing reasons for it. The narrowing of the coastal projections of Kenya is in fact more pronounced after the 200 nautical miles due to Kenya’s maritime delimitation agreement in 2009 with Tanzania. However, this is not specifically mentioned in the Judgment.
51. It should be recalled, in this connection, that in that agreement Kenya deliberately chose the parallel of latitude delimitation instead of an equidistance line in order to gain about 10,000 sq km within 200 nautical miles, which, however, made it lose more than 25,000 sq km of maritime space beyond 200 nautical miles. Thus, if there is a cut-off effect in the area beyond 200 nautical miles, it is purely and simply due to Kenya’s choice in 2009. Moreover, the agreement between Kenya and Tanzania cannot have any legal effect for Somalia in accordance with the principle pacta tertiis nec nocent nec prosunt.
For this reason, Somalia cannot be required to compensate Kenya for the maritime area it surrendered on the basis of its agreement with Tanzania by shifting the equidistance line northwards in its favor as has been done in the Judgment.
52. Secondly, the extension of the adjusted equidistance line beyond 200 nautical miles along the above-mentioned geodetic line also creates a new problem with regard to what the Judgment refers to as the “grey area”. It is the erroneous manner in which the adjustment of the equidistance line is made in the present case that produces this “grey area” as depicted in sketch-map No. 12. Although it is stated in the Judgment that such a “grey area” is only a possibility, and therefore the Court “does not consider it necessary … to pronounce itself on the legal régime that would be applicable in that area” (paragraph 197), the mere reference to it and its representation in a sketch-map which is an integral part of the Judgment may create a new and unnecessary controversy between these two neighbouring States in the future.
(Signed) Abdulqawi A. YUSUF.
