ROMANIA VS.

UKRAINE
FACTS:
In 1997, Romania and Ukraine signed a treaty in which both states "reaffirm that the existing border between
them is inviolable and therefore, they shall refrain, now and in future, from any attempt against the border, as
well as from any demand, or act of, seizure and usurpation of part or all the territory of the Contracting Party".
[1] Both sides agreed that if no resolution on maritime borders could be reached within two years, either side
could seek a final ruling from the International Court of Justice. Ten million tonnes of oil and a billion cubic
meters of natural gas deposits were discovered under the seabed nearby.[when?]
BP and Royal Dutch/Shell signed prospect contracts with Ukraine, and Total contracted with Romania. The
Austrian OMV (owner of Romania's largest oil company, Petrom) signed a contract with Naftogas of Ukraine
and Chornomornaftogaz to participate in an auction of concession rights to the area.\
Due to its location, Snake Island affects the maritime boundary between the two countries. If Snake Island is
an island, its continental shelf area would be considered Ukrainian waters. If it is an islet, in accordance with
international law the maritime boundary between Romania and Ukraine would not take it into consideration.
Romania claimed that Ukraine was developing Snake Island to prove it was an island, rather than an islet.[2]
Court hearings
On 16 September 2004 Romania brought a case against Ukraine to the International Court of Justice as part of
a dispute over the maritime boundary between the two states in the Black Sea, claiming that Snake island had
no socioeconomic significance.[3] Islands are generally considered when boundaries are delimited, by the
states themselves or by a third party (such as the ICJ). Depending on individual circumstances, islands may
theoretically have a full, partial or no effect on determinations of entitlement to maritime areas.
However, in practice even islets are often respected in maritime delimitation. For example, Aves Island was
considered in the United States Venezuela Maritime Boundary Treaty despite its small size and the fact that it
was uninhabited. Most states do not distinguish between islands and LOSC Art. 121(3) islets, claiming the
shelf as an EEZ for all their islands. Examples include the UK's Rockall Island, Japan's Okinotorishima, the
United States' Hawaiian Islands and a number of uninhabited islands along the equator, France's Clipperton
and other islands and Norway's Jan Mayen.
Decisions by international courts, tribunals and other third-party dispute-resolution bodies have been less
uniform. Although Art.121(3) rocks are taken into account when delimiting maritime boundaries, they may be
overlooked, discounted or enclaved if they have an inequitable distorting effect in light of their size and
location. Even if such islands are not discounted, their influence on the delimitation may be minimal. Therefore,
existing decisions have not reached the level of uniformity necessary for a rule of law.

Until this dispute, there had been no third-party international review of a particular feature's status as a LOSC
Art.121(3) rock or Art.121(2) island, and the ICJ's decision was difficult to predict. If it declared Snake Island an
island, in delimiting the maritime zones the court could consider special or relevant circumstances (giving
Snake Island full, some or no effect on the boundary). On September 19, 2008, the court closed its public
hearing.[4][5]

Judgment
Maritime boundary established by the ICJ
The court delivered its judgment on February 3, 2009,[6] dividing the Black Sea with a line between the claims
of each country. On the Romanian side, the ICJ found that the landward end of the Sulina dyke (not the
manmade end) should be the basis for the equidistance principle. The court noted that a dyke has a different
function from a port, and only harbor works form part of the coast.
On the Ukrainian side, the court found that Snake Island did not form part of Ukraines coastal configuration,
explaining that "to count [Snake] Island as a relevant part of the coast would amount to grafting an extraneous
element onto Ukraines coastline; the consequence would be a judicial refashioning of Geography" The court
concluded that Snake Island "should have no effect on the delimitation in this case, other than that stemming
from the role of the 12-nautical-mile arc of its territorial sea".[7] While the judgment drew a line equitable for
both parties, Romania received nearly 80 percent of the disputed area (allowing it to exploit a significantbut
undeterminedportion of an estimated 100 billion cubic meters of deposits and 15 million tonnes of petrol
under the seabed).[8] However, according to UN International Court Ukrainian commissioner Volodymyr
Vasylenko nearly all the oil and gas reserves are concentrated in the seabed going to Ukraine.[9] Ukrainian
President Viktor Yuschenko considered the ruling "just and final", hoping that it "opens new opportunities for
further fruitful cooperation in all sectors of the bilateral cooperation between Ukraine and Romania".