<![CDATA[Maritime boundary delimitation is a complex field of international law characterized by uncertainty and unpredictability. Historically, States have relied on case law to develop and elaborate on the ambiguous provisions stipulated under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) concerning maritime boundary delimitation. However, case law related to the maritime delimitation of archipelagic States is limited, leading to conflicting interpretations of the basic principles of maritime delimitation in the context of archipelagic States. This paper aims to examine the legal implications of the latest Mauritius v. Maldives case on the maritime boundary delimitation of archipelagic States. The research methodology employed for this study consists of a comprehensive literature review and an in-depth analysis of the relevant cases. The paper finds that despite the Mauritius v. Maldives case clarifying some of the key complications faced by archipelagic States, the case has ultimately added to the confusion owing to the Special Chamber’s approach concerning the allocation of half effect to Bleinheim Reef in the second stage of the delimitation process. The paper concludes that although further elucidation of the maritime delimitation law in the context of archipelagic States is required, any new jurisprudence should prioritize clarity, transparency, and consistency in the delimitation process, particularly in relation to the selection of base points and the effect given to insular features.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
