What are the Distinguishable Components of the Jan Mayen (Norway and Iceland) Conciliation in Relation to Maritime Delimitation of the Continental Shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone?

Especially focusing in the matter of the international law of maritime delimitation as interpreted by adjudication and arbitration, an unusually large number of pending and decided maritime boundary disputes suggest the need for alternative methods of dispute resolution. In critically examining the law of maritime delimitation vis-à-vis the political dimension, this study will argue that given the nature of a maritime boundary dispute, conciliation as seen in the Jan Mayen process can be an alternative to adjudication or arbitration. Stressing the indeterminacy of international law rules of maritime delimitation, the individual chapters reveal a number of core themes such as the indeterminacy of a primary focus on geography; the tensions between equity as a context-specific approach and the struggle to reconcile this approach both in case law and within the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. If a dispute resolution operates to establish an agreement that is somewhat acceptable by both parties, and where the dispute is underpinned by a number of concerns and issues, categorising these factors into a hierarchy of applicable rules may become of particular importance. A hierarchy or model nuanced by case specificity ensures a maritime delimitation that is not only generalisable but also flexible in the light of new concerns and issues. These chapters highlight the impact of a lack of generalisable model and argue for an alternative, it being proposed that the future development of maritime delimitation requires legal predictability, geographical appreciation and a context-specific approach in maritime boundary dispute settlement procedures.