Somalia v. Kenya (Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean ICJ 2021)

1. Introduction 

The case of Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya) is one of themost significant international legal disputes to reach the International Court of Justice (ICJ) inrecent decades. Decided on 12 October 2021, the case addressed the long-standing maritime boundaryconflict between the Federal Republic of Somalia and the Republic of Kenya, two neighboringEast African states along the Indian Ocean. 

The dispute revolved around sovereign rights and jurisdiction over a maritime areaofapproximately 100,000 square kilometers, believed to contain valuable natural resources suchas oil and gas. Beyond resource implications, the case tested the application of international lawon maritime delimitation, particularly under the United Nations Convention on the Lawofthe Sea (UNCLOS), and examined how the ICJ balances equitable principles with geographical realities. 

This summary provides a comprehensive analysis of the case’s background, legal issues, arguments, judgment, and its broader significance to international law and African maritimesovereignty. 

2. Factual Background 

The dispute between Somalia and Kenya arose from differing interpretations of howtheirmaritime boundary should extend into the Indian Ocean from their land border. 

• Somalia’s Position (Since 1979): Somalia maintained that the boundary should continuesoutheastward, following the same direction as the land border —effectivelyusingaline of equidistance, consistent with Article 15 and Article 83 of UNCLOS. 
• Kenya’s Position (Since 1979): Kenya, however, claimed that the boundary shouldrunparallel to the line of latitude, extending eastward, based on its domestic legislationand historical practice. 

This disagreement led to overlapping claims over a wedge-shaped maritime area rich in potential resources. Between 1979 and 2014, diplomatic efforts, joint commissions, and negotiationsrepeatedly failed to resolve the issue.

In 2014, Somalia filed an Application before the ICJ, seeking judicial determinationof themaritime boundary. Kenya objected, arguing that the case was inadmissible becausebothcountries had allegedly agreed to resolve the dispute through negotiation and that Kenyahadmade reservations to ICJ jurisdiction on maritime boundaries. 

Despite Kenya’s objections, the ICJ ruled in 2017 (Preliminary Objections Judgment) that it hadjurisdiction to hear the case, finding no binding agreement preventing judicial settlement. 

The final hearings were held in March 2021, and the final judgment was deliveredon12October 2021. 

3. Legal Issues 

The ICJ had to address several key legal issues: 

1. Jurisdiction and Admissibility: 

Whether the ICJ had jurisdiction to hear the case despite Kenya’s reservations andclaimsof prior diplomatic arrangements. 

2. Applicable Law: 

Which principles and provisions under UNCLOS and customary international lawapplied to the delimitation process. 

3. Maritime Delimitation Principles: 

How to determine an equitable maritime boundary considering geography, proportionality, and relevant circumstances. 

4. Effect of Parties’ Conduct: 

Whether previous negotiations, maps, or agreements constituted tacit consent or estoppel. 4. Arguments of the Parties 

Somalia’s Arguments 

Somalia argued that: 

∙ The maritime boundary should be determined by the equidistance principle, asrequired under UNCLOS and consistent ICJ jurisprudence.

∙ Kenya’s reliance on a parallel of latitude was legally unfounded, inconsistent withmodern international law. 

∙ Negotiations had not produced a binding agreement, and thus the ICJ hadfull competence to adjudicate. 

∙ Somalia emphasized fairness, stability, and the need for consistency in the applicationofmaritime law to developing states. 

Kenya’s Arguments 

Kenya, on the other hand, argued that: 

∙ Somalia had agreed to resolve the issue through bilateral negotiations and memorandaof understanding (MoUs), making the ICJ process inadmissible. 

∙ The MoU signed in 2009 between the two governments constituted an agreement tonegotiate after submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf(CLCS). 

∙ The equidistance line proposed by Somalia produced inequitable results, giventhecoastline configuration and security implications for Kenya’s coastal region. 

∙ Kenya further claimed that the case was politically motivated, and Somalia had violatedthe principle of good faith by unilaterally taking the matter to court. 

5. The ICJ’s Reasoning 

The Court’s reasoning followed a structured three-stage approach to maritime delimitation, consistent with its prior jurisprudence (e.g., Romania v. Ukraine and Nicaragua v. Hondurascases): 

Stage 1: Provisional Equidistance Line 

The ICJ began by drawing a provisional equidistance line based on the coasts of the twostates. The Court used precise base points and geographic data to create an initial line that reflectedequal distance between the closest points of each country’s coastline. 

Stage 2: Adjustment for Relevant Circumstances

The Court then examined whether any relevant circumstances warranted adjustment to achievean equitable outcome. 

Kenya argued that factors such as the concavity of the Somali coast and security considerationsjustified altering the line. The ICJ, however, found that: 

The geographical features of the coasts did not create a disproportionate effect requiringadjustment. 

Political and security factors were irrelevant in determining maritime boundaries underinternational law. 

Thus, the Court made minimal adjustment to the provisional line, maintaining its general direction southeastward. 

Stage 3: Proportionality Test 

Finally, the ICJ conducted a disproportionality test, comparing the ratio of coastal lengthstothe maritime areas allocated. The Court concluded that the result was equitable and proportionate, affirming the validity of the delimitation. 

6. The Judgment 

On 12 October 2021, the ICJ delivered its final judgment. The Court: 

1. Rejected Kenya’s claim that a prior agreement excluded ICJ jurisdiction. 
2. Confirmed that the 2009 MoU did not constitute a legally binding delimitationagreement. 
3. Adopted a new maritime boundary starting from the land border and extendingseaward along a line that: Initially follows the equidistance line for approximately 200 nautical miles; o Then slightly adjusts southward beyond the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). 

This effectively split the disputed maritime zone, granting Somalia the larger share, consistent with its claim. 

The ICJ also clarified that both states must respect the rights and obligations arisingfromUNCLOS and refrain from any unilateral exploitation of resources in the disputed area.

Importantly, the Court emphasized that its judgment was final and binding, though it lackedanenforcement mechanism beyond international goodwill and diplomatic compliance. 

7. Aftermath and Reactions 

The decision was met with mixed reactions: 

∙ Somalia hailed the judgment as a “historic victory for justice and sovereignty,” affirmingits territorial integrity and faith in international law. 

∙ Kenya, however, rejected the decision, calling it “biased and flawed,” and announceditswithdrawal from the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction. 

The ruling temporarily heightened diplomatic tensions between the two nations, leadingtotherecall of ambassadors and suspension of bilateral trade talks. Nevertheless, the judgment set alegal and moral precedent on how maritime disputes in Africa can be peacefully resolvedthrough international adjudication rather than armed conflict. 

8. Legal Significance 

The Somalia v. Kenya case holds profound implications for international maritimelaw, African diplomacy, and the ICJ’s evolving jurisprudence. 

1. Reaffirmation of UNCLOS Principles: 

The Court reaffirmed that maritime boundaries must be determined using the equidistance/relevant circumstances method, ensuring fairness regardless of political or economic power. 

2. Clarification of Jurisdictional Competence: 

By dismissing Kenya’s objections, the ICJ strengthened its authority to adjudicate maritime disputes even when political negotiations are ongoing. 

3. Contribution to African Legal Sovereignty: 

The case underscored Africa’s increasing reliance on legal mechanisms for dispute resolution, moving away from historically militarized or politically mediated approaches. 

4. Protection of Small-State Interests: 

Somalia’s success illustrated that weaker or smaller states can prevail through adherence to international law and legal institutions.

5. Precedent for Resource Governance: 

The judgment discourages unilateral exploration or exploitation in contested waters andencourages joint development or cooperative agreements. 

9. Analytical Commentary 

The ICJ’s approach reflects a balance between geometric precision and equitable justice. Byadhering closely to the equidistance method, the Court reinforced legal certaintyandpredictability — critical for global maritime governance. 

At the same time, the Court resisted political influence, maintaining the integrity of judicial reasoning in the face of Kenya’s diplomatic objections. The judgment’s strength lies not onlyinits technical precision but also in its symbolic reaffirmation of rule-basedorderininternational relations. 

From a legal analytical standpoint, the Somalia v. Kenya decision aligns with the ICJ’s broadertrend of standardizing the three-stage delimitation test, reinforcing consistency across cases. However, critics argue that the Court could have given greater weight to regional stabilityandhistorical practice, which are sometimes recognized as relevant factors under customarylaw. 

Nevertheless, the Court’s strict adherence to UNCLOS principles ensured the outcome remaineddefensible in law and not swayed by political expediency. 

10. Conclusion 

The Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya) case stands as a landmarkininternational adjudication. It reaffirmed the ICJ’s role as the final arbiter of maritime boundarydisputes and solidified the legal foundation of UNCLOS as the guiding framework for oceangovernance. 

For Somalia, the case symbolized legal empowerment and sovereign affirmation; for Kenya, areminder of the limits of political negotiation when confronted by binding international norms. For Africa and the world, it demonstrated the power of law to resolve high-stakes disputespeacefully. 

Ultimately, the decision represents a triumph for justice, equity, and international legal order— affirming that even in complex geopolitical contexts, the rule of law remains the compassguiding nations toward fairness and peace.