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 Mapping Associates Consultant, David Swanson Cartography • 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