Ghana–Ivory Coast relations

In 2010, the West African country Ivory Coast petitioned the United Nations to complete the demarcation of the Ivorian maritime boundary with Ghana. This occurred just days after the American exploration firm Vanco discovered oil in the Dzata-1 deepwater-well. The issue attracted considerable media attention, and some Ghanaian press sources claimed that the petition was an attempted oil grab by Ivory Coast. The Ghanaian authorities responded by passing the Ghana Boundary Commission Bill, establishing a commission with the purpose of undertaking negotiations in order to determine the country's land and maritime boundaries. The Boundary Commission held a meeting with Ivorian delegates at the end of April, and the Ivorian delegation was led by Désiré Tagro, the Interior Minister. The two sides did negotiate on the delimitations according to international law. The results of the fourth meeting were not announced, and no meetings have occurred since then. However, the presidents of the two countries did meet at the Presidential Palace in Abidjan on 15 July 2010 and discussed the boundary dispute, amongst other bilateral issues. At the moment, progress appears to be slow, and the nature of the discussions is uncertain.

Both countries have however expressed a desire to peacefully solve the dispute. Both countries had previously submitted routine documents to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in April–May 2009. Both countries’ submissions mentioned that neither has signed any maritime boundary delimitation agreements with any of its neighbouring states.

Ghana instituted arbitral proceeding under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS) against Ivory Coast relating to a dispute regarding maritime boundary in 2014. Both parties subsequently agreed to submit the dispute to a special chamber in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) constituted under Article 15(2) of the Statue of Tribunal contained in Annex VI. The Tribunal, with the agreement of the parties, constituted the Chamber with the following five judges; Bouguetia (President), Wolfrum, Paik, and ad hoc judges, Mensah and Abraham.

Once the Chamber was constituted, Ivory Coast requested for the prescription of provisional measures against Ghana in accordance with Article 290(1) of the UNCLOS. The Chamber, having heard both parties held that it had prima facie jurisdiction over the dispute; and went on to prescribe inter alia, that Ghana should take all necessary steps to ensure that no new drilling takes place in the disputed maritime areas; also in addition, Ghana should take all necessary steps to prevent undisclosed from being used to the detriment of Ivory Coast information on past, ongoing or future activities in the disputed area.

Once the provisional order was delivered, the main proceedings followed. Ghana, the country which instituted the action, based its preliminary basis to delimit the boundary on an equidistance-based single maritime boundary in the territorial sea, EEZ, continental shelf within 200 M, and the same to continue on the same azimuth as the boundary within 200 M to the limit of national jurisdiction. Further, Ghana took the view that the said equidistance-based single maritime boundary is mutually recognized, agreed, and applied by Ivory Coast and there was a ‘tacit agreement’ between parties where the latter was estopped from objecting.

The Special Chamber of the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) ruled in favor of Ghana in the three-year-long maritime dispute between the country and Côte d'Ivoire. In a unanimous decision, the Tribunal found that contrary to the claims of the government in Abidjan, Ghana did not violate Côte d'Ivoire's maritime boundary in anyway. The Chamber also rejected Côte d'Ivoire's legal argument that Ghana's coastal lines were unstable. At the same time, none of the oil exploration areas indicated in the maps submitted by Ghana were also not compromised in laying the provisional maritime equidistance boundary. Generally, the final boundary, which is an equidistant line, is in favor of Ghana and loses little from their original claim. The Chamber also found that Ghana's oil and gas exploration activities in the disputed basin did not violate Côte d'Ivoire's sovereign rights.[2]