The Naming of Maritime Features Viewed from an International Law Perspective

Full text

1
The Naming of Maritime Features
Viewed from an International Law Perspective
Erik Franckx,* Marco Benatar,† Nkeiru Joe‡ and Koen Van den Bossche§
I. Introduction
Toponymy, the study of place-names, albeit a scientific endeavour, has strong political
implications. The appellation of places invokes sentiments of belonging and nationalistic claims. History
is replete with examples ranging from fairly benign quibbles over cartography to actual wars being
waged over the names of areas. Mutatis mutandis similar problems have arisen and continue to endure
with respect to hydronyms, the names of bodies of water, especially salt water bodies.
Setting aside for a moment these political, cultural and historical ramifications, we turn our
attention in this contribution to the potential legal aspects of toponymy as it relates to the sea. So far,
not a single piece of scholarship has been devoted to this conundrum. Thus, we can fairly ask: does
international law überhaupt come into play in the naming process as regards maritime features?
The first section of this article acknowledges the usefulness of framing this issue from an
international law perspective. An initial examination of the right of states to attribute appellations will
be followed by an inquiry into the possible legal implications that can be derived from the names of
maritime features. The latter will mainly draw upon a discussion of international case law, chiefly the
jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
The second section narrows our scope of analysis to two bodies with specific competence vis-à-
vis geographical names. First of all, the work of the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical
Names (UNGEGN) will be singled out. Its procedure and the legal nature of its recommendations
highlight this organ’s key role as a developer of procedures as well as major promoter of place names.
Secondly, the involvement of the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) in the naming of
maritime features will be studied in some detail. This section examines the possibilities for co-operation
between states in the area of hydrography. On the one hand the influence of international organizations
on sovereign states in the maritime naming process cannot be underestimated. On the other hand
* Research Professor, President of the Department of International and European Law and Director of the Centre
for International Law, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
† Doctoral Research Fellow, Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO); Member, Department of International and
European Law, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
‡ Doctoral Research Fellow, Department of International and European Law, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
§ Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Department of International and European Law & Institute for European Studies,
Vrije Universiteit Brussel.

2
limitations to achieving solutions in politically sensitive cases still loom large, as can be observed for
areas beyond the outer limits of states’ territorial seas.
Finally, this contribution offers some sober thoughts on the lacunae in the current legal
framework of naming maritime features.
II. International Legal Framework
A. The right to attribute names to maritime features
States are singularly distinct in that they all share a fundamental attribute, sovereignty. This
quality, which is entirely compatible with the notion of international law (after all, the ability to enter
into international engagements is precisely an expression of sovereignty; Wimbledon 1923, 25), enables
states to exercise their competences. The powers that accrue to states by dint of sovereignty are far-
reaching, tantamount to freedom of action within the strictures of the law. Could this autonomy
encompass the faculty to give names to seas? International law appears to be silent on this issue,
containing no express rules regulating this matter. In the absence of a clear-cut answer, we must shed
some light on the dual nature of state sovereignty.
Internal sovereignty bestows government structures with exclusive jurisdiction, effectively
raising them to the rank of primacy (Shaw 2008, 487). The jurisdictional reach of these governmental
institutions is however confined to the territory of the state in question. Thus, territory fulfils a double
function. On the one hand, it is an enabler: territory constitutes a title empowering states to exercise
their full powers. On the other hand, territory operates as a boundary (“delimited in space”, Island of
Palmas 1928, 838) beyond which the state’s competences cannot be exercised (Daillier, Forteau & Pellet
2009, 456-457) (although there are a limited amount of instances in which “extraterritorial” modes of
jurisdiction can be exercised, these are exceptions to the general rule of “territoriality” (Lotus 1927, 15)).
Thus, the fact that a state enjoys jurisdiction to the exclusion of others seems to imply that it can
authoritatively give names to areas within its territory. Consequently, the chosen name will be
opposable. This means that the act of attributing a name will produce legal effects and can be invoked
vis-à-vis other international legal actors (Mahinga 1994, 302). From the perspective of international law,
the territory of a state not only includes the land but “extends to the internal waters and territorial sea
of every State and to the air space above its territory” (Military and Paramilitary Activities 1986, 111).
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) acknowledges sovereignty of the coastal
state over the territorial sea (1982 Convention, Art. 2), stipulating that its breadth may not surpass 12
nautical miles as measured from the baselines pursuant to the rules it establishes (id., Art. 3).
External sovereignty entails the independence and juridical equality of states in the international
realm (1970 UNGA Resolution). Many scholars have taken this to mean that states retain their freedom
in international relations and thus their actions will be in accordance with international law as long as
there is no rule expressly prohibiting such conduct. The adherents of this school of thought approvingly

3
cite a famous dictum in the Lotus case in which the Permanent Court of International Justice (the
predecessor of the ICJ) held that “[i]nternational law governs relations between independent States. The
rules of law binding upon States therefore emanate from their own free will as expressed in conventions
or by usages generally accepted as expressing principles of law (…). Restrictions upon the independence
of States cannot therefore be presumed” (Lotus 1927, 15). In other words, one needn’t seek a
permissive rule that allows a state to take a certain course of action. This categorical take on the Lotus
principle bears witness to a highly consensual understanding of international law which has rightly been
criticized on numerous occasions (for a recent example, see Judge Simma’s declaration in the Kosovo
Advisory Opinion 2010). A better, more nuanced approach would be to accept that external sovereignty
per definitionem is limited in scope: in a legal system in which all states are equal, the freedom of one
state must be partly curtailed by that of all other states (Pellet 2007, 229).
Less extensive powers inevitably have bearing upon the right to attribute names to maritime
zones beyond the territory of states. It would be erroneous to treat the waters beyond the territorial sea
in a monolithic fashion. The modern law of the sea has brought about a compartmentalization of the
seas and other maritime features. The 1982 Convention acknowledges a variety of zones in which
certain rights devolve to coastal states. Hence:
- Contiguous zone – “exercise control” in certain instances (exhaustive list) (1982
Convention, Art. 33(1)).
- Exclusive economic zone (EEZ) – “sovereign rights” with respect to exploration and
exploitation (id., Art. 56(1) (a)); “jurisdiction” in certain instances (exhaustive list) (id., Art. 56(1) (b));
“other rights and duties” as set out in the Convention (id., Art. 56(1) (c)).
- Continental shelf – “sovereign rights” with respect to exploration and exploitation (id.,
Art. 77(1)).
The wording used to describe the rights connected to the contiguous zone and the EEZ
enumerated in Art. 56(1) (b) and in pursuance of Art. 56(1) (c) of the 1982 Convention are clearly limited
in scope. Therefore, they cannot be reasonably interpreted as encompassing an entitlement to
authoritatively impose toponymic choices on other states. The sovereign rights coastal states enjoy in
the EEZ (Art. 56(1) (a)) and the continental shelf are broader in scope, especially the continental shelf,
which respect to which the sovereign rights of the coastal state are “exclusive” (art. 77(2)). Nonetheless,
these rights are meant to serve a certain purpose, namely exploration and exploitation, which does not
seem to include the power to attribute names.
The silence of the 1982 Convention does not rule out the possibility for a state to create a new
right to impose its chosen nomenclature of a particular maritime feature on the international
community. The technique that could give birth to such an entitlement is the unilateral act. Indeed, the
legal nature of such acts has been acknowledged (Eastern Greenland 1933, 69; Nuclear Tests 1974, 268)
and recent years have seen a sharp rise in their usage: “(…) unilateral acts have become the most
frequent tool of State interaction. They weave, so to speak, the daily web of international relations”
(Zemanek 1998, 210). It is via this method that subjects of international law can incur obligations and

4
assert rights. Whether a state can successfully acquire rights via this method depends on several factors.
As regards the declaration itself, certain criteria must be met, including the will of the author to claim an
entitlement under international law as well as the notoriety or publicity of the act (Shaw 2008, 122).
Owing to the principle of sovereign equality, a unilateral act asserting a new right cannot be opposable
vis-à-vis third states voicing their protest. In expressing disapproval, they shield themselves from this
novel claim. If on the other hand states expressly acknowledge the assertion made by the author, they
accept that the act can be invoked against them.
The situation becomes all the more complex when third states do nothing. In other words, the
international community remains silent. Can one interpret this lack of condemnation as a form of tacit
consent? Much will depend on the specific circumstances in casu, such as the amount of time that has
passed since the issuance of the declaration, whether or not the situation requires a reaction, etc. But in
any event, one must remain wary of deducing the expression of the will of a state from a lack of
response. Not all situations call for a reaction and states can remain silent for a multitude of reasons.
For this reason, the ICJ has set a high standard for inferring acquiescence from silence (see e.g. Fisheries
case 1951, 139).
In the context of dispute settlement before the World Court, disagreements on maritime
nomenclature have not given rise to noteworthy problems. This can be ascribed to two factors. Firstly,
many cases involving disputed maritime features, chiefly islands, have been entertained by the Court as
a result of a special agreement (rather than via a unilateral application). In their special agreement the
parties are required to indicate not only their identity, but also the subject of their contention (1945
Statute, Art. 40). Inevitably, this will prompt the opposing sides to agree on the names to be used with
respect to the disputed maritime features. When a consensus cannot be reached on a single name, the
result will be a reference to both names sometimes separated by a slash (“/”) with the implicit
understanding that the order of the names has no legal significance whatsoever. One practical outcome
is the consistent use of both names throughout the judgment as well as in the title of the case (see Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh 2008 and Kasikili/Sedudu Island 1999). The Court specifically noted in the
former case that “for the purposes of this Special Agreement the order of the use of the names Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh or vice versa shall not be treated as having any relevance to the question of
sovereignty to be determined by the Court” (id., 18). Secondly, in an effort to appear impartial, the
Court in collaboration with its Registrar will strive for a high degree of “name neutrality” (Kamto 2001,
12).

5
B. Legal implications of the names of maritime features
Names as a claim to historic rights
The concept of historic rights with respect to water bodies must be distinguished from historic
waters because whereas the latter deals with “waters which are treated as internal waters but which
would not have that character were it not for the existence of an historic title,” (Fisheries case 1951, 130)
the former, a broader term, relevant to our study because it concerns rights, deals with claims to
exercise “certain jurisdictional rights in what usually are international waters, most particularly fishing
rights” (Symmons 2008, 4). In other words, historical waters, usually bays, are zonal claims and need
title to prove their existence such as the case of El Salvador/Honduras, vis-à-vis the Gulf of Fonseca
where the Court established the joint sovereignty of the three coastal states bordering the gulf (see
Island, Land and Maritime Frontier Dispute 1992, para. 404) whereas historic rights refer to rights
claimed to exercise jurisdictional rights in usually international waters. These rights may be fishing
rights, pearling rights, etc.
As historic rights are not zonal claims, nor are they exclusive to maritime features, but rather
assertions of certain rights over certain zones, states may claim these rights in zones that are not
necessarily appurtenant territory by establishing continuous usage and acquiesce by other relevant
states. Without the hurdle of the adjacency requirement (Symmons 2008, 6), a necessary condition to
claim title over historic waters, states such as Bahrain in Qatar v. Bahrain claimed historic rights for the
purpose of delimitation of territories on the basis of its pearling banks, known as “Bahrain pearling
banks” (Qatar v. Bahrain 2001, 40). Moreover, the whole Qatar peninsula and the islands were recorded
in an 1838 map as Bahraini. The ICJ in its judgment held that the nature and ownership of the pearling
banks had no bearing on any exclusive recognition of territorial rights, neither was it a relevant
circumstance for the purpose of delimiting the boundaries (id., 236-237). Therefore in the event that
state parties rely on name giving as an element of claims to historic rights, the Court is of the opinion
that the principle of general international law with regard to claims still applies (id., 229).
One may argue that because the adverse interest in relation to this claim is the interests of other
states and/or competing claims beyond territorial waters, claims to historic rights must be consistent and
traceable to the date of competing claims, a factor that is difficult to prove with toponymy. In other
words, it is “evidentially important to prove historic title so as to show evidence of sovereignty” for this
will benefit claims of a historic right to a feature (Symmons 2008, 109) and a toponymic argument may
be insufficient. Authors such as Keyuan acknowledge that designations of fishing zones in areas such as
the East China Sea beyond territorial waters may lack specific arguments in support of such designations
(Keyuan 2000, 159) and the ICJ may be troubled by such assumption of rights based on the argument by
Keyuan that “there must have been compelling reason” (Keyuan 2001, id.).

6
Names as an act of ownership
The number of cases in the Court’s jurisprudence in relation to geographical features may be
arguably scarce but the case of Minquiers and Ecrehos is a useful starting point to establish the ICJ’s
jurisprudence in relation to names as a claim to ownership.
In relation to the Ecrehos group, the UK noted that its geographical features had no name. In
fact these rocks had various names given by Jersey fisherman (UK Memorial in Minquiers and Ecrehos
1953, para. 7). As for the names of the geographical features of the Minquiers group, British admiralty
charts gave names solely for navigational purposes (id., para. 11). This absence of naming on the part of
the British was highlighted in the French submission. The French submission argued that the lack of
name giving by the British constituted a “caractère limitatif”. The argument here was that failure of the
British to name the disputed island in any relevant document implied that the disputed islands were
outside the UK government’s control (France Counter Memorial in Minquiers and Ecrehos 1953, p. 382-
383). The French report then noted that the first mention of the Ecrehos island can be found in the grant
of the Ecrehos islets by Pierre de Preaux-Bailli du Cotentin in 1203, to the Abbey of Val Richer in the deed
of the gift and on this basis these islands are French.
The arguments of the parties in Minquiers and Ecrehos case beg the question whether a lack of
enumeration of a geographical feature in a key document affects any claim to effectivités especially
where name giving is claimed by one party as an act à titre de souverain.
The British memorial (UK Memorial in Minquiers and Ecrehos 1953, Annexes to the Memorial
(No. A47), para. 250) argues au contraire by focusing more on possession of title through acts of
administration such as legislation and deeds. However, the question of where the name for these
features comes from remained unanswered. Hence, the British argument that although the deed of
Pierre de Preaux was the first document that named the Ecrehos islets, the islets came in the possession
of Pierre de Preaux by the charter, by which King John of England in 1200 had given to the Bailli the
islands of “Gerse, Gernese and Aurene” (id.). The dependency of the deed of Pierre de Preaux and the
Ecrehos on the three largest Channel Islands was further proven in the fact that the deed of gift from the
Bailli stated that the Islands were given to him by King John (id.). So the Pierre de Preaux deed might
have named the islets Ecrehos but he was given the islands as a collective gift albeit without a definite
name.
Therefore the argument that the UK’s lack of name giving was a “caractère limitatif” as the onus
was on the UK to prove that it had named the islands individually (France Counter Memorial in Minquiers
and Ecrehos 1952, p. 382-383), was countered by the UK argument that at that time the islands were
generally referred to as groups with names such as “les Illes de Guernese”, “les Isles” etc. (UK Reply in
Minquiers and Ecrehos 1953, para. 118, 139).
The Court noted specifically that it “cannot draw any conclusion from the naming of the islands
since this question must ultimately depend upon evidence which relates directly to the possession of
these groups” (Minquiers and Ecrehos 1953, 55). Name giving as an act of ownership did not therefore

7
feature in the unanimous judgement in favour of the UK for it was taken not to be equivalent to
ownership or in this case a proof of effectivités.
Name giving as a way of dating claims
There might be instances where states are keen to proceed with the dispute on the
understanding that the disputed feature was not terra nullius at the commencement of competing
claims by the parties. In this instance, proving the origins of the feature’s name and its provenance may
be a useful way of dating a state’s claim to a feature. Indonesia/Malaysia is a case where the parties
relied upon name giving as a way of dating claims to disputed islands in the past with the intention of
preventing any arguments that the feature was at the critical date terra nullius (Indonesia/Malaysia
2002, para. 108).
The disputed islands in this case were not included in the original cession made in 1878 and in
1903, the “confirmation of cession” made by the Sultan of Sulu with the British North Borneo Company
(BNBC), they were not specifically named in the document but as a group. Indonesia argued that this
proved that the Sultan of Sulu, the predecessor of Spain, never considered the islands under Malaysian
sovereignty. Indonesia argued that its right over these islands lies in the boundary line that specifically
attributes the island to the Dutch, subsequently Indonesia (Indonesia Memorial in Indonesia/Malaysia
2002, para. 3.68, 5.48-5.50).
Any danger of determining these disputed islands as terra nullius due to the island’s lack of
mention on the “confirmation of cession”, argued Malaysia, could be determined from the name, which
was Malaysian. In an argument that was more cultural than it was cartographical, Malaysia argued that
the names of the islands originated from words such as “Ligit” which means thorns in Bajau and related
to the word “Palau Ligitan” which means “Islands of Thorns” (Malaysia Memorial in Indonesia/Malaysia
2002, para. 3.10). Sipadan, on the other hand, was argued to have originated from the word “Siparan”
and in due course “Sipadan” (id., para. 3.14).
Malaysia further argued that the naming of the islands as a group in the 1903 confirmation can
still be proof of ownership and occupation in the absence of which the disputed islands were therefore
terra nullius (Malaysia Counter Memorial in Indonesia/Malaysia 2002, para. 3.16) for these cultural
names existed prior to the “confirmation of cession”. Indonesia followed on this argument on the basis
that not naming an island is not tantamount to a terra nullius status (Indonesia Reply in
Indonesia/Malaysia 2002, para. 4.9 (ii) et seq.) and by way of example noted that Turtle Island,
unequivocally administered by the BNBC in the nineteen hundreds, was not mentioned by name
specifically or generally in the treaty (id., para. 6.18).
Any hopes that the ICJ might consider the issue from the perspective of names was groundless
for the Court decided that although “Malaysia does not name any of the islands in any of the relevant
legal instruments to prove title or transfer of title” (Indonesia/Malaysia 2002, para. 108), it had title
based on sufficient proof of effectivités (id., para. 149). Note here that the ground of this claim was not
based on the cultural significance of the disputed island’s names but on proof of effectivités, not proof of
provenance of name. This leads this study to argue that it may be taken that the issue of name giving

8
only went to prove and maintain that the islands in question were not terra nullius and therefore subject
to the laws of occupation (id., para. 108) but this was not the issue under consideration by the Court.
The issue under consideration was who has sovereignty over the disputed feature and on what basis.
Limited legal implications
It follows therefore that names are not a basis for determining sovereignty. Although names
may feature in competing claims and states may base claims over features on nomenclature, the Court is
apt to concern itself with objective proof of sovereignty. Just as maps are taken to represent the
“physical expression of the state or states concerned,” its “varying reliability or unreliability” (see
Frontier Dispute 1986, 582-83) may be comparable to the issue of names and are not a contributing
factor in the Court’s determination of rights and uses over maritime features in international law.
III. Specific Bodies Having Competence Concerning Geographical
Names
A. The United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names
1. Description
The UNGEGN is one of the seven standing expert bodies of the United Nations (UN) Economic
and Social Council (ECOSOC). ECOSOC was established under the UN Charter and comprises at present
54 member governments (1945 UN Charter, Art. 61). It assists the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in
promoting international economic and social cooperation and development. The ECOSOC may make or
initiate studies and reports with respect to international economic, social, cultural, educational, health,
and related matters and may make recommendations with respect to any such matters to the UNGA, to
the members of the UN, and to the specialized agencies concerned (1945 UN Charter, Art. 62).
The UNGEGN’s origins are to be traced back to the ECOSOC debates held in 1948, during which
the problem of standardization of geographical names was raised, particularly with regard to
cartographic services (1948 ECOSOC Resolution). It was established in pursuance of ECOSOC Resolutions
715 A (XXVII) (1959 ECOSOC Resolution) and 1314 (XLIV) (1968 ECOSOC Resolution) and the Decision
taken by the Council at its 1854 meeting, on 4 May 1973.
Through Resolution 715 A (XXVII), the ECOSOC requested the Secretary-General to set up a small
group of consultants to consider the technical problems of domestic standardization of geographical
names, including the preparation of a statement of the general and regional problems involved, to
prepare draft recommendations for the procedures, principally linguistic, that might be followed in the
standardization of their own names by individual countries and to report to the Council on the
desirability of holding an international conference on this subject and of the sponsoring of working
groups based on common linguistic systems.
On the basis of the recommendations adopted at the first UN Conference on the Standardization
of Geographical Names held in Geneva from 4 to 22 September 1967, the ECOSOC approved the terms of

9
reference for the Ad Hoc Group of Experts (Resolution 1314 (XLIV)), which was renamed the “United
Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names” by the ECOSOC Decision of 4 May 1973.
One of the main aims of the Group of Experts consists in emphasizing the importance of the
standardization of geographical names at national and international levels and to demonstrate the
benefits which could be derived from such standardization. In doing so, it builds on the results of the
work carried out by national and international bodies dealing with the standardization of geographical
names and proposes principles, policies and methods suitable for resolving problems of national and
international standardization (2002 UNGEGN Statute, I.(a)-(c)).
2. Legal Analysis of Method of Functioning
a) Organizational Chart
UNGEGN
The Group of Experts is composed of experts in the fields of cartography and linguistics (2002
UNGEGN Rules of Procedure, Rule 2). Such experts are designated by the governments of member
states of the respective geographical divisions (id., Rule 2; 2002 UNGEGN Statute, IV.1.1), or invited in
their personal capacity by the UN (2002 UNGEGN Rules of Procedure, Rule 22). The Group of Experts
elects a Chairperson, two Vice-chairpersons and two Rapporteurs (2002 UNGEGN Statute, IV.2.1; 2002
UNGEGN Rules of Procedure, Rule 5). The UNGEGN meets every two years, and in years when a UN
Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names is held (2002 UNGEGN Rules of Procedure,
Rule 3). One of the basic aims of the Group of Experts is to implement the tasks assigned as a result of
the resolutions adopted at the Conferences (2002 UNGEGN Statute, I.(f)). The Group of Experts normally
reports to the United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names. In addition,
the Secretary-General presents a report on each Session of the Group of Experts to the subsequent
Session of the Council. To date, twenty-four UNGEGN Sessions and nine Conferences (which are
convened every five years) have been held since 1967.
The Group of Experts is organized into 23 linguistic/geographical divisions (id., Annex). As
demonstrated in the table below, the number of divisions, participants and countries represented at the
Sessions and Conferences has varied over the past Sessions.

10
Table 1: Participation in the UNGEGN Sessions since 2000
Session Number of
participants
Number of countries Number of divisions
present
Observers
25 (2009) 138 53 22 out of 23 14
24* (2007) 300 90 23 out of 23 29
23 (2006) 250 67 21 out of 22 15
22 (2004) 190 63 21 out of 22 15
21** (2002) 282 88 22 out of 22 na
20 (2000) 131 52 18 out of 22 31
* held in conjunction with the Ninth United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names.
** held in conjunction with the Eighth United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names.
na not available
Source: Expert Group Session reports (2000-2009).
The divisions support the Expert Group in its activities (2002 UNGEGN Statute, IV.1-2). Countries
decide for themselves to which division(s) they wish to belong (id., IV.1.4). Each division, if composed of
more than one sovereign state, must select a division chairperson and an alternative representative (id.,
IV.1.5). It is the task of the divisional representative to stimulate activities in the standardization of
geographical names within his or her division by all appropriate means. He/she is also responsible for
ensuring that the work of the Group of Experts and its potential for technical assistance are brought to
the attention of the individual countries in his or her division and for reporting any special problems in
the division to the UN (id., IV.1.7-8).
Under the umbrella of the UNGEGN, several working groups have been created to follow up on
topics and issues and to carry out special tasks which cut across the divisional structure of the UNGEGN,
such as the setting up of training courses in toponymy, the comparative study of the various systems of
transliteration towards a single romanization system for each of the non-Roman writing systems and the
production of international gazetteers (2001 ECOSOC Report). Currently, there are nine working groups:
Working Group on Country Names; Working Group on Toponymic Data Files and Gazetteers; Working
Group on Toponymic Terminology; Working Group on Publicity and Funding; Working Group on
Romanization Systems; Working Group on Training Courses in Toponymy; Working Group on Evaluation
and Implementation; Working Group on Exonyms; Working Group on Pronunciation; Working Group on
the Promotion of Recording and Use of Indigenous, Minority and Regional Language Group Geographical
Names. Furthermore, the UNGEGN has a task team for Africa and provides assistance in coordinating
the efforts of countries developing their toponymic guidelines.
During the Sessions of the Group of Experts, ad hoc study groups may be appointed to deal with
particular issues (2002 UNGEGN Rules of Procedure, Rule 38). The Group of Experts may establish inter-

11
sessional working groups composed of specialists to study particular problems between Sessions of the
Group (id., Rule 39).
The Group of Experts is assisted by a Secretariat, responsible for making all necessary
arrangements for meetings and generally performs all other work which the Expert Group may require
(id., Rule 9). The Secretary of the Group of Experts is appointed by the Secretary-General and acts in that
capacity in all meetings of the Group of Experts (id., Rule 8).
Conferences
Each state participating in the Conference is represented by an accredited representative. If
more than one representative is appointed, one of them is designated as head of the delegation. Each
delegation may also include alternate representatives, advisers and experts as may be required (2007
UNCSGN Conference Rules of Procedure, Rule 1).
The Conference elects a President, two Vice-Presidents, a Rapporteur and an Editor-in-Chief
among the representatives of the states participating in the Conference (id., Rule 6). The Executive
Secretary of the Conference is appointed by the UN Secretary-General.
The Conference may establish such committees as may be necessary for the performance of its
functions (id., Rule 39). Each Committee elects its own Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Rapporteur (id.,
Rule 40). The Rules of Procedure of the Conference apply to the proceedings of the committees (id.,
Rule 41).
Representatives designated by entities, intergovernmental organizations and other entities that
have received a standing invitation from the UNGA to participate in the Sessions and work of all
international Conferences convened under its auspices have the right to participate as observers in the
deliberations of the Conference and its committees (id., Rule 42). Also representatives designated by the
specialized agencies and representatives designated by other intergovernmental organizations may
participate in the deliberations of the Conference and its committees on questions within the scope of
their activities (id., Rule 43 & 44). Also non-governmental organizations invited to the Conference may
designate representatives to sit as observers at the public meetings of the Conference and its
committees (id., Rule 45).
b) Founding Documents
UNGEGN
The Statute and Rules of Procedure of the UNGEGN were adopted by the Group of Experts at its
fifteenth and sixteenth Sessions and endorsed by the sixth UN Conference on the Standardization of
Geographical Names. They were approved by ECOSOC at its substantive Session of 1993, which took
place in Geneva from 28 June to 30 July 1993 (1993 ECOSOC Decision). The Statutes and Rules of
Procedure have been amended by the Group of Experts at its twenty-first Session and approved by
ECOSOC on 25 October 2002. The Group of Experts acts as a collegiate, consultative body. Agreement
on non-procedural matters is reached by consensus and not by voting (2002 UNGEGN Statute, II.1). In

12
the event that consensus is not achieved, the matter is deferred for reworking and re-submission (2002
UNGEGN Rules of Procedure, Rule 23.1). In the absence of a consensus on procedural matters, the
chairperson may and at the request of any member must put the proposal to a vote (id., Rule 23.2). Each
expert representing a division has one vote, and decisions of the Group of Experts must be taken by a
majority of the divisional representatives present and voting (id., Rule 24.1.). If a vote is equally divided,
a second vote is taken. If this vote is also equally divided, the proposal or motion is rejected (id., Rule
24.2). Representatives of divisions who abstain from voting are considered as not voting (id., Rule 25).
Conferences
The Conferences’ Rules of Procedure were adopted at the ninth UN Conference on the
Standardization of Geographical Names on 21 August 2007. A majority of the representatives
participating in the Conference constitutes a quorum (2007 UNCSGN Conference Rules of Procedure,
Rule 12). Each state represented at the Conference has one vote, and the decisions of the Conference
are made by a majority of the representatives of states participating in the Conference present and
voting (id., Rule 24), i.e., representatives present and casting an affirmative or negative vote.
Representatives who abstain from voting are considered as not voting (id., Rule 25). The President can
not vote, but may designate another member of his delegation to vote in his place (id., Rule 7).
Observers and representatives designated by the specialized agencies or other intergovernmental
organizations and non-governmental organizations have no right to vote (id., Rules 42-45).
c) Legal Nature of Output
The decisions of the Group of Experts are submitted as recommendations to the United Nations
Conferences on the Standardization of Geographical Names, and, if approved, submitted to ECOSOC for
final endorsement, with the request that member states give them the broadest possible publicity and
exposure through appropriate means and channels such as professional organizations, research and
scientific institutions, and institutions of higher learning. The decisions of the Group of Experts have a
recommendatory character (2002 UNGEGN Statute, II.2). ECOSOC may make recommendations, either
under Article 62(1) or, without being related to any particular study, under Article 62(2) of the UN
Charter. The word “recommendation” signifies the non-obligatory character of the resolution and these
are thus not binding upon the member states (Sands & Klein 2009, 59; Sloan 1948, 26). Nevertheless,
such resolutions are not devoid of all legal value. It has often been argued that the addressees of UN
recommendations have a duty to consider their content in good faith. Thus, if a state does not wish to
comply with the recommendation, it must give its reasons (Conforti 2005, 292-293). In practice, ECOSOC
has limited itself to endorsing the recommendations to organize Conferences on the Standardization of
Geographical Names and to invite the Secretary-General to take measures, where appropriate and
within available resources, to implement the other recommendations adopted at the Conferences (2003
ECOSOC Decision).
3. Substantive Rules Adopted
The UNGEGN is not a geographic names decision-making body, nor an arbiter of disputes. Its
functions, as set out in the UNGEGN Statute, are inter alia to develop procedures and establish
standardization mechanisms in response to national requirements and particular requests. The UNGEGN

13
encourages discussions and studies on practical and theoretical steps directed towards standardization
and makes mapping organizations aware of the importance of using standardized geographical names.
In doing so, it liaises with international organizations dealing with related subjects (2002 UNGEGN
Statute, III; Palmer 2005, 2). As recognized at the first Conference, it is up to each state to standardize
the geographical names within its jurisdiction, i.e. to decide what the name should be of every feature,
and how that name should be written. In that sense, it was recommended that “each country should
have a national geographical names authority (…) having clearly stated authority and instructions for the
standardization of geographical names and the determination of names standardization polity with the
country” (1967 UNCSGN Resolution I/4). The UNGEGN is thus not mandated to decide on names, to
compel countries to establish place names standardization processes or to follow a particular protocol or
method. Likewise, the UNGEGN Statute mentions that “[i]n its activities the Group of Experts must
adhere to the principle that international standardization of geographical names must be carried out on
the basis of national standardization” (2002 UNGEGN Statute, II.4). Moreover, questions involving
national sovereignty cannot be discussed by the Group of Experts (id., II.3).
Some recommendations related to maritime features beyond the limits of national jurisdiction
have been issued at the UNGEGN Conferences. These recommendations are worded in a general
manner and mostly relate to procedural aspects and/or stress the need for cooperation with other
relevant organizations: Resolution II/22 recommended the UNGEGN to study existing national and
international practices concerning the delimitation and naming of oceans and seas beyond the limits of
national jurisdiction, with a view to recommending improvements in nomenclatural practices and
procedures; Resolution III/21 recommended the UNGEGN to coordinate its programmes with those of
the IHO. Resolution IV/12 observed that the UNGEGN Working Group on Undersea and Maritime
Features had completed its tasks with regard to undersea features, but that in regard to maritime
features further coordination with the International Hydrographic Office (sic) was required. Therefore,
the task of the Working Group was to be limited to maritime features (1982 UNCSGN Resolution IV/12).
The UNGEGN Maritime and Undersea Feature Working Group was disbanded in 1984 (Palmer 2005, 5).
Some resolutions relate specifically to the names of maritime features in shared waters or
beyond “a singly sovereignty”. Resolution I/8 set the stage for a series of subsequent resolutions
providing guidance in such cases. With respect to features common to, or extending across the frontiers
of two or more nations, this resolution recommended the establishment of a common name or a
common application and that in case of conflicting names or applications the nations concerned attempt
to reach an agreement (1967 UNCSGN Resolution I/8). Resolution II/23 recommended that the UNGEGN
work on a model statement on the treatment of Antarctic undersea feature names which could be
suggested for adoption by interested countries (1972 UNCSGN Resolution II/23). Resolution II/25
recommended countries to agree on fixing a single name for features within the sovereignty of more
than one country, or which are divided among two or more countries. In case such agreement could not
be reached, it was recommended that for international cartographic purposes the name forms of each of
the languages be accepted. Only technical reasons, e.g. in case of small-scale maps, could make it
necessary to dispense with the use of certain name forms belonging to one language or another (1972

14
UNCSGN Resolution II/25). Resolution II/26 recommended the UNGEGN, for the purpose of drawing up
a system for naming undersea features beyond a singly sovereignty, to cooperate with the IHO.
4. Conclusion
The UNGEGN has not been established to decide on names with respect to maritime features
outside the sovereignty of a single State, but promotes the consistent use worldwide of accurate place
names. The decisions of the Group of Experts are submitted as recommendations to the United Nations
Conferences on the Standardization of Geographical Names. The Resolutions adopted by the Conference
have a non-binding and recommendatory character. In practice, ECOSOC has limited itself to endorsing
the recommendations to organize Conferences on the Standardization of Geographical Names and to
invite the Secretary-General to take measures, where appropriate and within available resources, to
implement the other recommendations adopted at the Conferences, e.g. ECOSOC Decision 2003/294
(2003 ECOSOC Decision).
B. International Hydrographic Organization
1. Description
The IHO was established in 1967 by means of an international agreement (1967 Convention),
which entered into force three months after twenty-eight states had become a party to it (1967
Convention, Art. XIX(1)), i.e., on 22 September 1970. It succeeded to the International Hydrographic
Bureau (IHB) for only the governments participating in the work of that Bureau on the day of conclusion
of the 1967 Convention had an automatic right to become a party to the successor organization (1967
Convention, Art. XVIII(1 & 2)). Other states can only accede to the 1967 Convention if their application is
approved by two-thirds of the members (1967 Convention, Art. XX).
The predecessor of the IHO, the IHB, is a good example of the typical early development of an
international organization when studied from the perspective of the law of international institutions.
Starting from the obvious disadvantages of convening internal ad hoc conferences (who takes the
initiative; who to invite; how to do away with the rigidity of statements of state policy by the
participants; how to do away with the strict rule of equality; etc.), more permanent fora were
established taking the form of international organizations, especially in the administrative and technical
field, where the cooperation between states imposed itself most urgently. One of the basic setups in
this respect took the form of periodic conferences working in tandem with a permanent bureau (Sands &
Klein 2009, 3-8).
When at the end of the 19th century the need for cooperation in the area of hydrography
became apparent, a number of international conferences were convened on this issue: Washington
(1899), Saint Petersburg (1908 and 1912), and finally in London (1919) (IHO 2010: About the IHO). By
that time, it was agreed that a permanent body should be created. The Director of the French
Hydrographic Service of the Navy, M. Joseph Renaud, had already floated the idea at the time of the
1912 Saint Petersburg conference. But inter alia because the United Kingdom was not represented at
the conference, one had to wait until after the First World War for this initiative to be carried further.
London invited all countries possessing hydrographic offices, of which 22 participated in the 1919

15
Conference (Spicer-Simson 1922, 293-294). The proposal to create a permanent International
Hydrographic Bureau was endorsed by the 1919 conference and a triumvirate combining the French, UK
and US hydrographic services was instructed to draw up statutes and subsequently obtain the adhesion
of maritime states thereto (id., 294).
The election of the Directors and Secretary of the Bureau took place on 21 June 1921, the first
meeting of the Directing Board on 6 July, the first full Board meeting on 25 July (1922 Summary of IHB
First Annual Report, 358), and the organization started to work actively in September of the same year
(Anon 1958, 1074). This multitude of dates, together with the rather peculiar legal technique by which
this international organization was established, makes it rather difficult to pinpoint the exact date of
establishment of the IHB. Indeed, unlike the majority of international organizations today, the IHB was
not established by treaty, but rather by an informal agreement. This process has been described in the
following manner: “No parties were named, and there were apparently no signatures nor ratifications.
An organization was set up by informal agreement which states could join, and certain duties are
established for them” (Eagleton 1934(a), 230). Indeed, the statutes of this organization remained silent
about ratification and various governments are said to have “informally signified their approval”
(Eagleton 1934(b), 380). And even though other examples exist of international organizations having
been established by such a procedure (Syersted 1964, 49), the United States nevertheless made the
suggestion during the meeting on 25 July 1922, mentioned above, that it might be more appropriate to
conclude an agreement (1922 Summary of IHB First Annual Report, 358). This request should
nevertheless be placed against the broader US state practice in this respect. By 1947 this country had
adhered to about half of the international organizations it was a party to by way of a mere resolution of
a conference, and the other half by way of formal acceptance of a treaty or charter (Klooz 1947, 922).
The Directing Board of the IHB, however, considered the American proposal not to be advisable since the
process of approval of a mere resolution adopted by an international conference was considered to work
quite satisfactorily (1922 Summary of IHB First Annual Report, 358). During this starting up procedure of
the IHB, the statutes of the organization were moreover revised in accordance with the wishes expressed
by some countries prior to having signified their approval, and these revised statutes were only sent
around to members in January 1922.
This results in the fact that one can find different starting dates for this organization. Some take
it back to the Conference of 1919, where the initiative was taken (Kunz 1945, 45, mentioning a “treaty”
of 30 June 1919; Anon 1924(b), 244, stating it was created by a conference held in 1919), others to
somewhere during the course of 1921 or 1922, when states started to signify their approval of a worked
out set of statutes. From an international law point of view, the better option appears to be the latter,
namely that consent is given at the time states accept a concrete invitation extended to them. The
Special Rapporteur of the International Law Commission explicitly referred to the example of the IHB
when commenting on his draft article on acceptance of international treaties (Lauterpacht 1953, 122). In
casu, this uncertainty had specific legal importance for the application of the primary function of the
League of Nations, i.e., the promotion of international cooperation and coordination, and thus the
relationship between the IHB and the League of Nations. The Covenant of the League of Nations stated
in this respect:

16
“There shall be placed under the direction of the League all international bureaux already established by
general treaties if the parties to such treaties consent. All such international bureaux and all commissions
for the regulation of matters of international interest hereafter constituted shall be placed under the
direction of the League.
In all matters of international interest which are regulated by general convention but which are not
placed under the control of international bureaux or commissions, the Secretariat of the League shall,
subject to the consent of the Council and if desired by the parties, collect and distribute all relevant
information and shall render any other assistance which may be necessary or desirable.
The Council may include as part of the expenses of the Secretariat the expenses of any bureau or
commission which is placed under the direction of the League“ (1924 Covenant, Art. 24).
On 27 June 1921 the League decided to postpone placing the IHB under its direction, for it
needed more precise information on whether the IHB had been fully constituted (1921 Hanotaux Report,
761). It was only later that same year, namely on 2 October 1921, that the Council decided to place the
IHB under the direction on the League, because by that time detailed information had been obtained on
the final constitution of the IHB (1921 Bourgeois Report, 1166). It is clear from the motivation of the
accompanying report that this was a case of “automatic” application of Art. 24 of the Covenant of the
League of Nations, meaning that the League considered the IHB to have been constituted after its own
creation (id.). Since the London 1919 Conference took place during the month of July, and thus
preceded the entry into force on 10 January 1920 of the Treaty of Versailles, which contained as Part I
the establishment of the League of Nations, this implies that the League considered the IHB to have been
established in 1921, even though the exact date, as mentioned above, remained unclear. It is in this
respect indicative that the preamble of the IHO founding document only mentions “June 1921” (1967
Convention, first preambular paragraph).
These Bureaux retained in fact a large measure of autonomy, contrary to the conclusion that
could easily be drawn from a strict reading of Art. 24. They were most certainly not merged in the
League’s organization, and the latter’s authority over these Bureaux was in fact confined to giving moral
support and did not include the authority to interfere in the internal organization or require
amendments to their organizational structures. The most the League could do was to suggest and
recommend improvements relative to their way of working (1921 Hanotaux Report, 760). Authors
analyzing this particular relationship with respect to other international organizations have concluded
that the League has “to all intents and purposes, made no use whatever of any authority that is may be
presumed to possess” in this respect (Warner 1932, 291). The League, in other words, quickly realized
that a policy of as little disturbance as possible of the existing organizations was to be adhered to (Myers
1939, 320). It should therefore not come as a surprise that only six Bureaux, one of which was the IHB,
were formally in this relationship with the League (id., 321). A quick study of the Official Journal of the
League of Nations reveals that the IHB used this medium to provide summaries of information exchanges
between national offices, one of the goals of the IHB according to its Statute (1922 July Communication
IHB, 731-732), as well as to communicate new adhesions to its Statute (1922 September Communication
IHB, 1041-1042). The League at times also proposed Bureaux, like the IHB, to participate in international
conferences organized by it on topics related to the particular expertise of these Bureaux (1930
Organisation for Communications and Transit, 99), as was the case with the IHB with respect to the
Conference for the Unification of Buoyage and Lighting of Coasts (1931 Final Act, 51 and 55; Anon 1926,

17
294; Anon 1927, 311). The IHB cooperated particularly with the Advisory Committee for Communication
and Transit of the League (Anon 1925, 563).
This rather loose relationship is well illustrated by the particular situation of the United States, a
non-member to the League of Nations, but which apparently had no problem in joining the IHB later on
the same year it was established -- this date of establishment, as discussed above, being located
somewhere in 1921. This particular example has been relied upon by others when the United States
started to threaten with reservations to the founding documents of other international organizations
containing similar provisions of cooperation with the League of Nations (Warner 1932, 292). To treat the
IHB as an organ of the League in order to prove the commitment of the United States to the League is
therefore probably incorrect (Anon 1924(a), 63). The better approach when undertaking such an
analysis seems to stress the cooperation with the League first, and only after concluding that part, state
that there are “other Committees on which Americans have served from time to time, or in which
American influence has been felt”, where the IHB can then be relied upon as an example (Hubbard 1931,
756). Like the Permanent Court of International Justice, which had no direct link with the League, the
IHB can best be described as an autonomous international organization related to the League (Anon
1978, 86-87).
The relationship of the IHB with respect to the general international organization competent for
shipping has been along the same lines. For a long time, there was no such permanent organization with
overall maritime competence in existence (Marx 1946, 1214). Prior to the establishment of the
Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) in 1959, the idea of the creation of an
International Maritime Bureau, of which the IHB would form a part, had certainly been suggested, with
autonomous decision-making power covering not only the coastal waters, but also beyond (Gidel 1932,
29). But when the Institut de droit international adopted its final resolution on the subject in 1934 (1934
Résolution de l’Institut de droit international), the final compromise took out the above-mentioned
salient features (Okere 1981, 520). The relationship between IMCO and the IHB was mainly one
between equals, as evidenced by the practice of attending each other’s conferences (Johnson 1963, 43
and 55), certainly not one of subordination. The IHB was not only sending delegates to IMCO
conferences, but also to the organization itself (Silverstein 1976, 385), ever since the latter organization
decided in 1963 that its Secretary-General must ensure the “maintenance of co-operation and exchange
of information on matters of mutual interest” (IHO 2010: MoUs and Agreements).
What appears to be certain is that the IHB had 22 states associated with it at the end of 1922
(1922 September Communication IHB, 1041-1042; Anon 1931, 209). An analysis of the Statutes of the
IHB for present purposes is interesting, for it clearly indicates that the IHB has no authority over the
national hydrographic services whatsoever. The latter remain entirely independent and retain their
complete freedom and right of initiative (1921 IHB Statutes, Art. 7(a)). Moreover, it is explicitly stated
that the IHB will never concern itself with questions of international politics (id., Art. 7(b)), nor, as a
general rule, with questions which can be directly treated between two hydrographic services (id.,
Art. 15(b)). The structure created is a permanent Bureau, located in Monaco (id., Art. 20), coupled with
five yearly conferences, to which, besides the members of the IHB, also a representative of the League

18
(without voting power), the Directing Board and the Secretary General of the IHB (id., Art. 49) are
invited. These conferences have been said to constitute “the deliberative and legislative assembly” of
the IHB (Anon 1952, 636). Most of the decisions of the IHB were taken by simple majority (Klooz 1947,
924), with the admission of new members requiring a two-thirds majority of the existing members (1921
IHB Statutes, Art. 52(b)). In the latter case, moreover, a system of weighted voting applies, with votes
being allotted on the basis of the maritime importance of states as reflected in the amount of shipping
tonnage sailing under a particular flag (Spicer-Simson 1922, 296). All members had to contribute a flat
fee, augmented by a supplement based on the maritime importance measured according to the same
system just explained with respect to weighted voting (Klooz 1947, 924).
2. Legal Analysis of Method of Functioning
After having analyzed in some detail its predecessor, the IHB, the present part will treat the IMO
mainly by comparing its functioning to that of the IHB.
a) Organizational chart
If one looks at the organs involved, essentially the same structure remains as the one
operational at the time of the IHB, but mostly with new names. The IHO, located in Monaco (1967
Convention, Art. 1), still works by means of a permanent Bureau, called the International Hydrographic
Bureau in full (id., Art. 4), coupled with five yearly conferences, still called as in the past the International
Hydrographic Conferences (id.). The Bureau, new style, is still composed of what is now called a
Directing Committee and retains three members, as in the past, elected for five years. The Directing
Committee is headed this time by a President, who is said to represent the IHO (id., Art. 10), assisted by
the necessary technical and administrative staff (id., Art. 9). If the present amendment procedure were
to be successful, the IHO would move much more toward a “normal” contemporary international
organization, with as main organs an Assembly, a Council, and a Secretariat (2005 Protocol of
Amendments, new Art. 4).
On paper, the relationship between the IHO and the UN is of a totally different nature than the
preexisting one between the IHB and the League of Nations. If the IHB was placed under the direction of
the League of Nations in accordance with the explicit provisions of the Covenant (see supra sub III, B, 1),
the IHO stayed totally outside of the UN system (Churchill & Lowe, 415). The IHO’s founding documents
were adopted months before Arvid Pardo gave his speech before the General Assembly of the UN on 1
November 1967, triggering the Sea-bed Committee and later the Third United Nations Conference on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III). The IHO made interventions during both processes, highlighting the
importance of hydrographic expertise, and thus the role of the IHO, in many areas related to the law of
the sea. It indicated that the organization intended to cooperate fully with the work in progress and that
it was willing to provide technical assistance if necessary (Kapoor 1974, 70). During UNCLOS III the
working relationship between the IMCO and the IHO, mentioned above, was duly recognized (1974
UNCLOS III Document on IMCO, paras 55 and 126). The expertise of the IHO was mainly relied upon
during UNCLOS III with respect to the drawing of maps visualizing the outer limits of the continental shelf
according to the different formula proposed during the debates (1978 UNCLOS III Document on
Illustrating Continental Shelf Formulae; 1979 UNCLOS III Document on Preparing Large-scale Maps). In
the ultimate outcome of these long negotiations, i.e., the 1982 Convention, the IHO is finally mentioned

19
once, namely in Annex II on the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), allowing the
latter body to cooperate with the IHO “to the extent considered necessary and useful” (1982
Convention, Annex II, Art. 3(2)). Some proposals made during UNCLOS III would have given the IHB more
extended competences with respect to the CLCS, like Canada giving it the power, together with the
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO to appoint the members of the CLCS
(Oxman 1979, 20), but they did not succeed.
At present, the IHO has signed Memoranda of Understanding with eight other associations,
federations or commissions, concluded two cooperative agreements with the International Association
of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities (IALA) and the International Mobile Satellite
Organization (IMSO), and enjoys observer status at the UN since the end of 2001 and with IMO (IHO
2010: MoUs and Agreements). The merging of a good number of specialized agencies with maritime
interest, including the IHO, under the aegis of the IMO, even though uttered at times because of
anticipated financial and operational efficiencies, does not seem realistic(Lampe 1983, 324-325). It has
moreover formed, together with the International Association of Geodesy an Advisory Board on the Law
of the Sea, staffed by four members of each organization and an additional member from the UN
Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (Anon 1996, 239). The International Hydrographic
Bureau of the IHO has also concluded an administrative agreement with the Tribunal for the Law of the
Sea in Hamburg to foster future cooperation (International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea 2004, 54). In
this respect it is also worth mentioning that the proposed amendments to the founding document of the
IHO intend to add a preambular paragraph elevating the organization to the status of “competent
international organization, as referred to” in the 1982 Convention (2005 Protocol of Amendments, new
second preambular paragraph).
b) Founding Documents
A first notable difference with its predecessor, the IHB, is certainly that this time an international
agreement was relied upon, which members had to sign, subject to ratification or not, in order to
become a party (1967 Convention, Art. 18). If the founding documents of the IHB are hard to find
because of the rather informal way of its establishment, this is most certainly not the case with respect
to the IHO. On the contrary, even though the General Regulations and the Financial Regulations, which
are both attached to the founding document, are explicitly stated in that agreement not to form an
integral part thereof (id., Art. 11), both were nevertheless included at the time of publication in the
United Nations Treaty Series (id., 65-91 [General Regulations] and 81-99 [Financial Regulations]). All
these documents, together with the Rules of Procedure for International Hydrographic Conferences and
the Headquarters Agreement, are also to be found on the official webpage of the IHO (International
Hydrographic Organization 2007, 3-50). There is even a certain tendency of duplication, for some of the
provisions of the Rules of Procedure for International Hydrographic Conferences are a mere copy of
identical provisions to be found in the General Regulation (compare for instance 2007 IHO Conference
Rules of Procedure, Rule 14, with 2007 IHO General Regulations, Art. 9). The interrelationship between
all these documents is structured in the following three leveled manner. If the General Regulations and
Financial Regulations thus do not form an integral part of the 1967 Convention, as just mentioned, this
implies a superiority of the 1967 Convention over both these Regulations, despite their being published

20
together in the United Nations Treaty Series. The Rules of Procedure for International Hydrographic
Conferences, on the other hand, are said, in case of conflict, to be overridden by the 1967 Convention,
including the two regulations annexed thereto (2007 IHO Conference Rules of Procedure, Rule 14).
The 1967 Convention is not as specific as the IHB Statutes with respect to the limitation of the
competence of the organization. It simply states that the organization shall only have a consultative and
purely technical nature (1967 Convention, Art. 2). One has to turn to the General Regulations to find
provisions as detailed as the IHB Statutes, namely that the IHO is a mere consultative agency with no
authority over the national hydrographic offices of the member governments (2007 IHO General
Regulations, Art. 1) and that its activities, being of a mere scientific or technical nature, do not involve
questions of international policy (id., Art. 2).
At present the organization is going through an amendment procedure of its founding
document. The proposed amendments, which are yet to enter into force, will move the organization
from an intergovernmental to an inter-state level. As already discussed, it will substantially change the
structure of the IHO and intends to anchor the organization more securely to the 1982 Convention.
From 22 members at the end of the year of its establishment, i.e., 1921, the membership of the
IHB has steadily grown over the years (e.g. Anon 1958, mentioning a membership of 37). The IHO has
continued this trend and lists at present 80 member states, even though two of them have been
suspended since 1983 (International Hydrographic Organization 2010(a), 306-313). Five new demands
for membership are listed as pending at present (id., 313). Even is one disregards the landlocked
countries, given the fact that this organization relies primarily on the hydrographic services of its
member states, the present membership, roughly speaking, still only represents about half of the
remaining world community of states.
c) Legal Nature of Output
The Conference, whose function it is to make “decisions in respect of all proposals of a technical
or administrative nature submitted by Member Governments or by the Bureau” (1967 Convention,
Art. 5(d)), votes these normal questions “by simple majority of the Member Governments represented at
the Conference” (id., Art. 6(5)) with each Member Government having one vote (id., Art. 6(4); as restated
in 2007 IHO Conference Rules of Procedure, Rule 56). The term “Member Governments represented at
the Conference” is defined by the Rules of Procedure for International Hydrographic Conferences as
meaning “Members present at the meeting. Participants in the session who are not present at the
meeting at which voting takes place shall be considered as not present” (2007 IHO Conference Rules of
Procedure, Rule 51). If these decisions contain resolutions to be included in the Repertory of Technical
Resolutions, the above mentioned simple majority must moreover include at least one third of the
Member Governments (1967 Convention, Art. 6(5); as restated in 2007 IHO Conference Rules of
Procedure, Rule 52). Voting on behalf of another Member Government is not allowed (2007 IHO General
Regulations, Art. 5; as restated in 2007 IHO Conference Rules of Procedure, Rule 52).
The founding document allows for committees to be created (1967 Convention, Art. 6(7)).
Committees are also mentioned in the General Regulations (2007 IHO General Regulations, Art. 8(b)),

21
but for their way of creation and functioning one needs to consult the Rules of Procedure for
International Hydrographic Conferences (2007 IHO Conference Rules of Procedure, Rules 21-26) as well
as Resolution 11 of 1962 on the formation of IHO subsidiary organs and subordinate bodies, relating
specifically to inter-sessionary subsidiary bodies (International Hydrographic Organization 2010(b), 2).
Decisions of committees and subsidiary bodies, according to the Rules of Procedure for International
Hydrographic Conferences, are also normally taken by simple majority, with each member having one
vote (2007 IHO Conference Rules of Procedure, Rule 25(b)). With respect to the inter-sessionary
subsidiary bodies, their Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedure must either be determined by the
Conference itself, or the Finance Committee or any subsidiary organ (International Hydrographic
Organization 2010(b), 2). For present purposes, only the Sub-committee on Undersea Feature Names
(SCUFN) needs to be singled out (see infra sub III, B, 3). If one consults the Rules of Procedure of SCUFN,
it is stated that this body should strive for consensus. But if consensus proves elusive, simple majority
voting will be the rule, with the Chairperson having a casting vote in case of a tie (International
Hydrographic Organization (s.d.), Rule 2.9). Since this Sub-commission functions under a joint IHO-IOC
umbrella, decisions are subsequently submitted to a joint Guiding Committee for consideration and
decision, where identical voting rules apply (International Hydrographic Organization/Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission 2008, Rule 6).
It can be concluded that IHO committees normally follow the same general voting procedures as
those applicable to the Conference itself. The outcome of deliberations of these committees, be they
reports, conclusions or recommended resolutions, must moreover be submitted for approval either to
the appropriate plenary session (2007 IHO Conference Rules of Procedure, Rule 26) or to the supervising
body (International Hydrographic Organization (s.d.), Rule 2.11).
This means, in practice, that as little as about 30 states can adopt “decisions” containing
resolutions to be included in the Repertory of Technical Resolutions. The IHO is moreover well aware of
the fact that certain countries with important hydrographic interests are not yet a member of the
organization and has expressed the unanimous opinion in a 2009 resolution that the cooperation of
these countries would be greatly beneficial in order to further promote the goals of the organization
(International Hydrographic Organization 2010(b), 6).
And even though the 1967 Convention, its annexes as well as the Rules of Procedure for
International Hydrographic Conferences, remain absolutely silent on the legal nature of these
resolutions, it follows from the consultative nature of the IHO, its history, and the fact that is has no
authority whatsoever over hydrographic offices of the Member Governments, demonstrated above, that
the content of this publication can only have a recommendatory nature for these national hydrographic
offices to follow. Neither the IHB Resolution adopted in 1932 to create the said Repertory (International
Hydrographic Organization 2010(b), 60), nor the preface of the Repertory itself shed any further light on
this point (id., ii). Like all international organizations, of course, as far as internal matters are concerned
like the budget, legally binding decisions can be made (Sands and Klein, 284-285). But whether the
recommendatory powers of the IHO can lead to legal effects beyond that organization, as is sometimes
the case (id., 291-297), seems highly unlikely.

22
The conclusion to be reached about the binding nature of the resolutions adopted by the IHO
must consequently be that they are not legally binding on member states, but that through the process
of harmonization, they probably nevertheless substantially affect the behavior of states in practice. Or,
as stated by two US delegates to the fifth international conference held by the IHB in 1947:
“The technical recommendations, which constituted the bulk of the agenda, are not binding upon the
member states, but experience has shown that they will be put into practice in nearly all instances and
thereby preserve and extend a high degree of uniformity in the nautical charts and books that must, in
many instances, serve the mariners of all nations” (Glover and Cobert 1947, 1204).
3. Substantive Rules Adopted
The involvement of the IHO with geographical place names has already been analyzed in some
detail by one of its former directors (Kerr 1998, 153-158). It appears from this study that the IHB already
showed an interest in the matter at the 1919 London Hydrographic Conference, where the need was
expressed to have the limits of enclosed seas laid down (id., 154). The issue of the limits of oceans and
seas was subsequently placed on the agenda of the first International Hydrographic Conference held in
1929 (Anon 1931, 213) and this resulted in a 1929 publication by the IHB entitled “The Limits of Oceans
and Seas”, a publication which was for the third and last time so far amended in 1953 (International
Hydrographic Bureau 1953). The latter states clearly in its preface that the limits it contains have no
political significance whatsoever (id., 2).
A second area where the IHB became involved was the transcription of maps using another
script into the Latin alphabet (Kerr 1998, 154). The third International Hydrographic Conference adopted
in this respect the following resolution:
“Geographical names
a) It is desirable that, on Charts and in nautical documents, original place names (as shown on original charts in Latin
characters) should be used or, at any rate, they should be inserted in brackets after the place name used;
b) Place names should be distinguished as far as possible in Sailing Directions by the type and size of the print. The
country which issues the original Directions will thus itself indicate that which may be translated and that which may
not” (Anon 1932, 186).
A third area finally where the IHB took an interest in the issue of naming relates to the
submarine areas. In this area the IHB took interest by means of a circular letter of 1924 and, in a way,
continued the work started by the International Geographical Congress in Berlin in 1899 (Kerr 1998,
154).
The IHO has carried the work forward in these three domains and now has a number of
resolutions adopted on the issue. It concerns first of all Resolution A4.1, entitled Uniform Policy for
Handling Geographical Names (first adopted in 1919; latest amendment in 1974) (International
Hydrographic Organization 2010(b), 25-26). The rules of thumb of this resolution are, primo, that it is up
to the coastal state to name the features on its own coast; secundo, in naming features on foreign coasts
of states using the Roman alphabet, other states have to show names “in exact agreement” with the
names given by the state having sovereignty; tertio, same as the previous rule, but relating to the coast
of a foreign country not using the Roman alphabet: a UN approved transcription method is to be used;

23
quarto, with respect to features on foreign coasts, use for the generic part of complex geographical
names the word (transcribed if necessary) used by the country having sovereignty; quinto states may use
on their own charts their own conventional national usage for names of oceans and subdivisions thereof
with the possibility of showing the names used internationally in a subordinate manner. The latter rule
will be applied “until an international convention by the United Nations on standardization of
internationally recognized names has been adopted” (id.).
Of more importance for present purposes is Resolution A4.2, entitled International
Standardization of Geographical Names (first adopted in 1972; latest amendment in 1974) (International
Hydrographic Organization 2010(b), 26-27). The origins of this resolution are to be traced back to the
first UN Conference on the International Standardization of Geographical Names held in 1967 (Kerr 1998,
155). Resolution 8 adopted by that Conference, entitled “Treatment of Names of Features Beyond a
Single Sovereignty”, stated that even though two or more names are sometimes given to such features,
the preferred solution should be to have only one common name applied and furthermore
recommended states to attempt to reach agreement. More specifically with maritime and undersea
features, the same reasoning applied and the Conference recommended that consultations with inter
alia the IHB should be intensified in order to try to reach such standardization (United Nations 1968, 12).
Resolution A4.2 reciprocated by promoting further cooperation with the UN Group of Experts on
Geographical Names. Of particular importance for the present study is the last paragraph of this
resolution, where it is stated:
“It is recommended that where two or more countries share a given geographical feature (such as, for
example, a bay, strait, channel or archipelago) under a different name form, they should endeavour to
reach agreement on fixing a single name for the feature concerned. If they have different official
languages and cannot agree on a common name form, it is recommended that the name forms of each
of the languages in question should be accepted for charts and publications unless technical reasons
prevent this practice on small scale charts. e.g. English Channel/La Manche” (International Hydrographic
Organization 2010(b), 27).
Finally, also Resolution A4.3, entitled Naming of Undersea Features, should be mentioned here
(first adopted in 1987; latest amendment in 1991) (International Hydrographic Organization 2010(b),
27)). During the attempt to put together a general bathymetric chart of the oceans, for which the IHB
and later the IHO have been working closely with the IOC of UNESCO, the naming issue quickly became
important. For this purpose SCUFN was established. It is first of all interesting to note that this Sub-
committee is not allowed to consider undersea feature name proposals “that are politically sensitive”
(International Hydrographic Organization (s.d.), Rule 2.10). In the Guidelines for the Standardization of
Undersea Feature Names, one can read as first general guideline, namely I.A, that international concern
in this respect is strictly limited to features beyond the 12 nautical mile territorial sea of states
(International Hydrographic Organization/Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission 2008(b), 2-1).
This is noteworthy, for it seems to be an issue that the IHO and the IOC were able to clarify. Indeed, Kerr
in his 1998 publication still mentions that the term used was jurisdiction, making it unclear whether the
exclusive economic zones and continental shelves should be included or not (Kerr 1998, 156). This
uncertainty has now been clarified by using the word sovereignty in the first general guideline. What
remained unchanged is guideline I.E, stating:

24
“In the event of a conflict, the persons and/or agencies involved should resolve the matter. Where two
names have been applied to the same feature, the older name generally should be accepted. Where a
single name has been applied to two different features, the feature named first generally should retain
the name” (International Hydrographic Organization/Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
2008(b), 2-1)
to which Kerr attaches the following consideration: “It would seem that the guidelines are just
that and do not provide an authority” (Kerr 1998, 156).
4. Conclusion
Based on the above analysis, the conclusion seems to be justified that neither the IHB, nor its
successor, the IHO, have the competence to settle issues of naming maritime features beyond the outer
limit of the territorial seas of coastal states if different countries insist on different names. If states are
not in a position to solve such issues between them, it implies that one is leaving the field of technical
consultations and moving into questions of international policy. The latter questions have generally
been explicitly excluded from the competence of these organizations ab initio, either through a specific
provision in the IHB Statutes or in the IHO General Regulations. Politically sensitive issues have,
moreover, specifically been excluded with respect to the naming of undersea features through the Rules
of Procedure of the SCUFN. Based on its still rather limited membership, where some important players
are moreover still missing, and some regions clearly underrepresented, like Africa, this organization has
thought it wise to adopt a low profile and leave such sensitive issues to the UN. Until the UN has
adopted an international agreement on the standardization of internationally recognized names,
therefore, not much is to be expected from the IHO as gremium to settle this kind of disputes. Even
though the founding document of the IHO contains a rather far-reaching compulsory arbitration clause,
to be used unilaterally since the arbitrator will be designated by the President of the International Court
of Justice (1967 Convention, Art. 17), this procedure can hardly be deemed to apply to an issue which
has been clearly excluded from the field of application of the treaty from the very beginning, namely the
settlement of politically sensitive issues.
IV. Conclusions
In this contribution we have demonstrated that international law is relevant to maritime
nomenclature by addressing a number of general legal principles as well as specific rules related to
international bodies that are active in this field. At the same time, we have endeavored to highlight the
limitations of the law of nations in this area.
At the level of general international law, the appellation of maritime features within the limit of
12 nautical miles can be authoritatively decided by the coastal state. Beyond this zone however, the
names of the seas are “up for grabs” so to speak. When the maritime feature in question is a hotspot
the end result will be a stalemate, owing to the sovereign equality of all states and the inability of
imposing unilateral toponymic choices without considerable international support. How all this applies
to the EEZ and continental shelf is not so clear and has given rise to specific difficulties within the
UNGEGN as well as the IHO. The distinction between sovereignty and sovereign rights seems
detrimental in this respect, and both organizations have been struggling with it.

25
The current multilateral efforts to standardize maritime nomenclature have not enabled the
international community to overcome this problem. Rather, we are faced once more with a malaise
common to many international bodies with a technical mandate. Firstly, without the opprobrium of the
political powers that be (the governments that created these bodies) the outcome of their work will be
merely non-binding. Secondly, by preventing these organs from “trespassing” on politically sensitive
issues, their scope of action is severely curtailed. Thirdly, the representativeness of a body such as the
IHO leaves to be desired, for even in the eventuality that this organization would receive the power to
bind its members, quod non, this would only concern the member states of that organization. For all the
other members of the world community of states, such decisions would remain a res inter alios acta and
thus not legally binding on them.
In conclusion, it seems apparent that the law as it stands today (lex lata) is poorly equipped for
resolving maritime naming disputes in a satisfying and decisive manner. As long as a representative
international body, with decision-making competences in this respect, is not created, all future efforts to
standardize the names of maritime flashpoints, and thereby meaningfully contribute to interstate
stability, will be relegated to the realm of power politics.

26
Bibliography
International legal documents
1921 Bourgeois Report
International Hydrographic Bureau: Report by M. Leon Bourgeois, and Resolution adopted by
the Council on October 2nd, 1921, League of Nations Official Journal 2 (issue 10-12): 1166.
1921 Hanotaux Report
General Principles to be observed in placing the International Bureaux under the Authority of the
League: Report by M. Hanotaux, approved on June 27th, 1921, League of Nations Official Journal
2 (issue 7): 759-761.
1921 IHB Statutes
As partly reproduced in Anon 1931.
1922 July Communication IHB
International Hydrographic Bureau: Communications concerning Interchange of Information
Between National Offices, League of Nations Official Journal 3 (issue 7): 731-732.
1922 September Communication IHB
International Hydrographic Bureau: Adhesion of Egypt to the Bureau; Communications
concerning Interchange of Information Between National Offices, League of Nations Official
Journal 3 (issue 9): 1041-1042.
1922 Summary of IHB First Annual Report
International Hydrographic Bureau: Summary of the First Annual Report Prepared by the
Bureau, League of Nations Official Journal 3 (issue 4): 358-360.
1924 Covenant
Covenant of the League of Nations (including Amendments adopted to December, 1924).
Multilateral convention, 28 April 1919, League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1, 8. This treaty
entered into force on 10 January 1920 (available at:
<avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp>).
1930 Organisation for Communications and Transit
Organisation for Communications and Transit: Convening of a Conference on the Unification of
River Law applicable to Navigation on the Main Systems of Navigable Waterways in Continental
Europe, League of Nations Official Journal 11 (issue 2): 98-99.
1931 Final Act
Final Act of the Conference for the Unification of Buoyage and Lighting of Coasts, League of
Nations Official Journal 12 (issue 1): 46-55.

27
1934 Résolution de l’Institut de droit international
Institut de droit international: Création d’un Office international des eaux (rapporteurs: MM.
Karl Strupp et Gilbert Gidel), 19 October 1934 (available at: <www.idi-
iil.org/idiF/resolutionsF/1934_paris_02_fr.pdf>).
1945 UN Charter
Charter of the United Nations. Multilateral convention, 26 June 1945, United Nations Treaty
Series, vol. 1, 16. This treaty entered into force on 24 October 1945 (available at:
<www.un.org/en/documents/charter/>).
1945 Statute
Statute of the International Court of Justice. Multilateral convention, 26 June 1945, United
Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1, 993. This treaty entered into force on 24 October 1945 (available
at: <www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0>).
1948 ECOSOC Resolution
United Nations Economic and Social Council: Co-ordination of Cartographic Services of
Specialized Agencies and International Organizations. Resolution 131 (VI), 19 February 1948.
1959 ECOSOC Resolution
United Nations Economic and Social Council: International Co-operation on Cartography.
Resolution 715 A (XXVII), 23 April 1959.
1967 Convention
Convention on the International Hydrographic Organisation (with annexed General Regulations
and Financial Regulations). Multilateral convention, 3 March 1967, United Nations Treaty Series,
vol. 751, 41 [General Regulations: 65; Financial Regulations: 81]. This treaty entered into force
on 22 September 1970 (available at: <www.iho-ohi.net/iho_pubs/misc/M1Eversion07.pdf>).
1967 UNCSGN Resolution I/4
First United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names: National
Standardization. Resolution I/4, 4-22 September 1967 (available at:
<unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNCSGN-Reports/1-UNCSGN-Rpt-en.pdf >).
1967 UNCSGN Resolution I/8
First United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names: Treatment of
Names of Features Beyond a Single Sovereignty. Resolution I/8, 4-22 September 1967 (available
at: <unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNCSGN-Reports/1-UNCSGN-Rpt-en.pdf >).
1968 ECOSOC Resolution
United Nations Economic and Social Council: Standardization of Geographical Names.
Resolution 1314 (XLIV), 31 May 1968.
1970 UNGA Resolution
United Nations General Assembly: Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning
Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United
Nations. Resolution 2625 (XXV), Annex, 24 October 1970.

28
1972 UNCSGN Resolution II/22
Second United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names:
Standardization of Maritime Nomenclature. Resolution II/22, 10-31 May 1972 (available at:
<unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNCSGN-Reports/2-UNCSGN-Rpt-en.pdf>).
1972 UNCSGN Resolution II/23
Second United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names: Names of
Antarctic and Undersea Features. Resolution II/23, 10-31 May 1972 (available at:
<unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNCSGN-Reports/2-UNCSGN-Rpt-en.pdf>).
1972 UNCSGN Resolution II/24
Second United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names:
Standardization of Names Beyond a Single Sovereignty. Resolution II/24, 10-31 May 1972
(available at: <unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNCSGN-Reports/2-UNCSGN-Rpt-en.pdf>).
1972 UNCSGN Resolution II/25
Second United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names: Names of
Features Beyond a Single Sovereignty. Resolution II/25, 10-31 May 1972 (available at:
<unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNCSGN-Reports/2-UNCSGN-Rpt-en.pdf>).
1972 UNCSGN Resolution II/26
Second United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names:
Standardization of Names of Undersea Features Beyond a Single Sovereignty. Resolution II/26,
10-31 May 1972 (available at: <unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNCSGN-Reports/2-UNCSGN-Rpt-
en.pdf>).
1972 UNCSGN Resolution II/34
Second United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names: International
Standardization of Names Beyond a Single Sovereignty. Resolution II/34, 10-31 May 1972
(available at: <unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNCSGN-Reports/2-UNCSGN-Rpt-en.pdf>).
1974 UNCLOS III Document on IMCO
Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: The Activities of the Inter-
Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization in Relation to Shipping and Related Maritime
Matters, 10 June 1974, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/27 (available at:
untreaty.un.org/cod/diplomaticconferences/lawofthesea-1982/Vol3.html).
1976 Exchange of Letters
Exchange of Letters Constituting an Agreement Concerning the Privileges and Immunities of the
International Hydrographic Organization. Bilateral treaty (France-Monaco), 31 May 1976, United
Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1047, 297. This exchange of letters entered into force on 23 March
1977. The English text is a translation of the original document drafted in the French language.
1977 UNCSGN Resolution III/20
Third United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names: Names of
Features Beyond a Single Sovereignty. Resolution III/20, 17 August - 7 September 1977
(available at: <unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNCSGN-Reports/3-UNCSGN-Rpt-en.pdf>).

29
1977 UNCSGN Resolution III/21
Third United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names: Maritime
Feature Names. Resolution III/21, 17 August - 7 September 1977 (available at:
<unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNCSGN-Reports/3-UNCSGN-Rpt-en.pdf>).
1977 UNCSGN Resolution III/22
Third United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names: Undersea
Feature Names. Resolution III/22, 17 August - 7 September 1977 (available at:
<unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNCSGN-Reports/3-UNCSGN-Rpt-en.pdf>).
1978 UNCLOS III Document on Illustrating Continental Shelf Formulae
Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: Preliminary Study Illustrating Various
Formulae for the Definition of the Continental Shelf, 18 April 1978, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/C.2/L.98
and ADD.1-3 (available at: <untreaty.un.org/cod/diplomaticconferences/lawofthesea-
1982/Vol9.html>).
1979 UNCLOS III Document on Preparing Large-scale Maps
Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: Study of the Implications of Preparing
Large-scale Maps for the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, 9 April 1979,
UN Doc. A/CONF.62/C.2/L.99 (available at:
<untreaty.un.org/cod/diplomaticconferences/lawofthesea-1982/Vol11.html>).
1982 Convention
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Multilateral convention, 10 December 1982,
United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1833, 397. This treaty entered into force on 16 November
1994 (available at:
<www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf>).
1982 UNCSGN Resolution IV/12
Fourth United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names: Maritime and
Undersea Feature Names. Resolution IV/12, 24 August - 14 September 1982 (available at:
<unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNCSGN-Reports/4-UNCSGN-Rpt-en.pdf>).
1987 UNCSGN Resolution V/25
Fifth United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names: Features
Beyond a Single Sovereignty. Resolution V/25, 18-31 August 1987 (available at:
<unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNCSGN-Reports/5-UNCSGN-Rpt-en.pdf>).
1988 ECOSOC Decision
United Nations Economic and Social Council: Standardization of Geographical Names. Decision
1988/116, 25 May 1988.
1993 ECOSOC Decision
United Nations Economic and Social Council: Report of the Secretary-General on the Seventh
United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names. Decision 1993/226,
12 July 1993.

30
2000 UNGEGN Report
United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names: Report on the Work of its Twentieth
Session, GEGN/20, 24 March 2000.
2001 ECOSOC Report
United Nations Economic and Social Council: Subsidiary Bodies of the Economic and Social
Council and the General Assembly in the Economic, Social and Related Fields. E/2001/INF/3, 12
April 2001.
2002 UNGEGN Report
United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names: Report on the Work of its Twenty-first
Session, GEGN/21, 2 April 2003.
2002 UNGEGN Rules of Procedure
United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names: Rules of Procedure, as amended by
the Group of Experts and approved by United Nations Economic and Social Council Decision
E/2002/307, 25 October 2002 (available at: <unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/24th-GEGN-
Docs/GEGN-24-2-Rules.pdf>).
2002 UNGEGN Statute
United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names: Statute, as amended by the Group of
Experts and approved by United Nations Economic and Social Council Decision E/2002/306, 25
October 2002 (available at: <unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/24th-GEGN-Docs/GEGN-24-2-
Rules.pdf>).
2003 ECOSOC Decision
United Nations Economic and Social Council: Recommendations made by the Eighth United
Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names. Decision 2003/294, 24 July
2003 (available at: <www.un.org/docs/ecosoc/documents/2003/decisions/edec2003-294.pdf>).
2004 UNGEGN Report
United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names: Report on the Work of its Twenty-
second Session, GEGN/22, 2 July 2004.
2005 Protocol of Amendments
International Hydrographic Organization: Protocol of Amendments to the 1967 Convention,
November 2005. Not yet in force (available at: <www.iho-
ohi.net/mtg_docs/misc_docs/basic_docs/ProtocolNovember.pdf>).
2006 UNGEGN Report
United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names: Report on the Work of its Twenty-
third Session, United Nations Economic and Social Council E/2006/100, 25 April 2006.
2007 IHO Conference Rules of Procedure
International Hydrographic Organization: Rules of Procedure for International Hydrographic
Conferences (revised version 2007; available at: <www.iho-
ohi.net/iho_pubs/misc/M1Eversion07.pdf>).

31
2007 IHO General Regulations
International Hydrographic Organization: General Regulations (revised version 2007; available
at: <www.iho-ohi.net/iho_pubs/misc/M1Eversion07.pdf>).
2007 IHO Financial Regulations
International Hydrographic Organization: Financial Regulations (revised version 2007; available
at: <www.iho-ohi.net/iho_pubs/misc/M1Eversion07.pdf>).
2007 UNCSGN Conference Rules of Procedure
Ninth United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names: Provisional
Rules of Procedure. United Nations Economic and Social Council E/CONF.98/135, 15 August
2007 (available at: <unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/uncsgn.htm>).
2007 UNGEGN Report
United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names: Report on the Work of its Twenty-
fourth Session, United Nations Economic and Social Council E/2007/89, 14 September 2007.
2009 UNGEGN Report
United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names: Report on the Work of its Twenty-fifth
Session, United Nations Economic and Social Council E/2009/58, 26 May 2009.
Cases
International Court of Justice:
Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo,
Advisory Opinion, Declaration of Judge Simma, I.C.J. Reports 2010, 22 July 2010.
Fisheries case (United Kingdom v. Norway), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1951, 18 December 1951.
Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, 22 December 1986.
Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1999, 13 December 1999.
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua Intervening), Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 1992, 11 September 1992.
Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain),
Judgment, Merits, I.C.J. Reports 2001, 16 March 2001.
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America),
Judgment, Merits, I.C.J. Reports 1986, 27 June 1986.
Minquiers and Ecrehos (France/United Kingdom), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1953, 17 November 1953.
Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974, 20 December 1974.
Sovereignty Over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore),
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2008, 23 May 2008.
Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2002, 17
December 2002.

32
Permanent Court of International Justice:
Case of the S.S. “Wimbledon”, P.C.I.J., Series A, n° 1, 17 August 1923.
Legal Status of Eastern Greenland, P.C.I.J., Series A/B, n° 53, 5 April 1933.
Arbitration:
Island of Palmas case (Netherlands, USA), United Nations Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. 2,
829, 4 April 1928.
Literature
Anon 1924(a). "A Plan to Secure Cooperation Between the United States and Other Nations to Achieve
and Preserve the Peace of the World," International Conciliation 10: 61-71.
Anon 1924(b). "Year Book of the League of Nations: International Hydrographic Bureau," World Peace
Foundation Pamphlets 7 (Issue 3-4): 244.
Anon 1925. "Year Book of the League of Nations: International Hydrographic Bureau," World Peace
Foundation Pamphlets 8: 562-563.
Anon 1926. "Year Book of the League of Nations: Buoyage and Lightning of Coasts," World Peace
Foundation Pamphlets 9: 294.
Anon 1927. "Year Book of the League of Nations: Port and Coast Signals; Buoyage and Lightning of
Coasts," World Peace Foundation Pamphlets 10: 311.
Anon 1931. "Le Bureau Hydrographique International (Monaco) et la question des cartes
aéronautiques," Revue Aéronautique Internationale 1: 209-214.
Anon 1932. "International Hydrographic Bureau: 3rd International Hydrographic Conference," Revue
Aéronautique Internationale 2: 182-186.
Anon 1952. "Sixth Hydrographic Conference," Department of State Bulletin 26 (Issue 669): 636.
Anon 1958. "President Extends Benefits to Hydrographic Bureau," Department of State Bulletin 38
(Issue 991): 1074.
Anon 1978. "A.S.I.L.S. International Law Citation Manual Draft Selections," A.S.I.L.S. International Law
Journal 2: 54-88.
Anon 1996. "Monaco: Formation of International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) and International
Association of Geodesy (IAG) Advisory Board on the Law of the Sea," International Journal of
Marine and Coastal Law 11: 239-240.
Bantekas, Ilias 2009. "The Authority of States to Use Names in International Law and the Macedonian
Affair: Unilateral Entitlements, Historic Title, and Trademark Analogies," Leiden Journal of
International Law 22: 563-582.
Churchill, Robin and Lowe, Vaughan 1999. The Law of the Sea. Manchester University Press,
Manchester.
Conforti, Benedetto 2005. The Law and Practice of the United Nations. Nijhoff, Leiden.
Daillier, Patrick, Forteau, Mathias and Pellet, Alain 2009. Droit international public. L.G.D.J, Paris.
Eagleton, Clyde 1934(a). "Problems of International Legislation: International Legislation and the
Drafting of Treaties," Temple Law Quarterly 8: 218–234.
Eagleton, Clyde 1934(b). "Problems of International Legislation: Signature, Ratification and Accession of
Treaties," Temple Law Quarterly 8: 376–390.
Gidel, Gilbert Charles 1932. Le droit international public de la mer: le temps de paix. Mellottée,
Chateauroux.

33
Glover, Robert O. and Colbert, Leo O. 1947. "Fifth International Hydrographic Conference," Department
of State Bulletin 16 (Issue 416): 1203-1204.
Hubbard, Ursula P. 1931. "The Cooperation of the United States with the League of Nations and with the
International Labour Organization," International Conciliation 14 (Issue 274): 671-825.
International Hydrographic Bureau 1953. Limits of Oceans and Seas (Special Publication N° 23, Third
Edition). IHO, Monaco (available at: <www.iho-ohi.net/iho_pubs/standard/S-
23/S23_1953.pdf>).
International Hydrographic Organization 2010(a). Yearbook 30 July 2010. IHB, Monaco (available at:
<www.iho-ohi.net/iho_pubs/periodical/P5JULYCOPYRIGHTxx.pdf>).
International Hydrographic Organization 2010(b). Resolutions of the International Hydrographic
Organization (Publication M3, Second Edition, Updated to May 2010). IHB, Monaco (available at:
<www.iho-ohi.net/iho_pubs/misc/M3-E-May10.pdf>).
International Hydrographic Organization/Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission 2008(a).
General Bathymetric Charts of the Ocean Project (GEBCO), Terms of Reference and Rules of
Procedure, Joint IHO-IOC GEBCO Guiding Committee (available at: <www.iho-
ohi.net/mtg_docs/com_wg/TOR/GGC_TOR.pdf>).
International Hydrographic Organization/Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission 2008(b).
Standardization of Undersea Feature Names: Guidelines, Proposal Form, Terminology
(Bathymetric Publication No. 6, Fourth Edition). IHB, Monaco (available at: <www.iho-
ohi.net/iho_pubs/bathy/B-6_e4_EF_Nov08.pdf>).
International Hydrographic Organization (s.d.). Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedure, Sub-
committee on Undersea Feature Names (SCUFN) (available at: <www.iho-
ohi.net/mtg_docs/com_wg/TOR/SCUFN_TOR.pdf>).
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea 2004. Yearbook 2002 (Volume 6). Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden.
Johnson, D.N.N. 1963. "IMCO: The First Four Years (1959-1962)," International and Comparative Law
Quarterly 12: 31–55.
Kamto, Maurice 2001. devant la C.I.J.," Revue belge de droit international
34: 5-22.
Kapoor, D.C. 1974. Intervention on behalf of the IHO on 28 June 1974 during the 22nd plenary meeting of
the second session of UNCLOS III, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/SR.22, 3 July 1974 (available at:
<untreaty.un.org/cod/diplomaticconferences/lawofthesea-1982/Vol1.html>).
Kerr, Adam J. 1998. "The International Hydrographic Organization and Its Involvement With
Geographical Place Names," International Hydrographic Review 65: 153–162.
Keyuan, Zou 2001. "Historic Rights in International Law and in China's Practice," Ocean Development and
International Law 32: 149-168.
Klooz, Marie Stuart 1947. "Analytical Note on Certain International Agencies in Which the United States
Participates," American Journal of International Law 41: 920-927.
Kunz, Josef L. 1945. "Experience and Techniques in International Administration," Iowa Law Review 31:
40–57.
Lampe, W. H. 1983. "The 'New' International Maritime Organization and Its Place in Development of
International Maritime Law," Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 14: 305–329.
Lauterpacht, H. 1953. "Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Law of the Treaties," Yearbook of the
International Law Commission 2: 90-163.
Marx, Daniel Jr. 1946. "International Organization of Shipping," Yale Law Journal 55: 1214–1232.
-goire 1994. "L'opposabilité des normes et actes juridiques en droit international
(première partie)," Revue de droit international et de droit comparé 71: 301-343.
Myers, Denys P. 1939. "National Subsidy of International Organs," American Journal of International Law
33: 318–331.

34
Okere, B. O. 1981. "The Technique of International Maritime Legislation," International and Comparative
Law Quarterly 30: 513–536.
Oxman, Bernard H. 1979. "The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: The Seventh
Session (1978)," American Journal of International Law 73: 1–41.
Palmer, Trent 2005. "Geographical Names and UNCLOS," Advisory Body on the Law of the Sea (ABLOS)
Conference. Marine Scientific Research and the Law of the Sea: The Balance between Coastal
Rights and International Rights (available at:
<www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/ablos/ABLOS05Folder/PalmerPaper.pdf>).
Pellet, Alain 2008. "Lotus que de sottises on profère en ton nom! Remarques sur le concept de
souveraineté dans la jurisprudence de la Cour mondiale," In: Belliard, Edwige (Ed.) Mélanges en
l'honneur de Jean-Pierre Puissochet: L'État souverain dans le monde d'aujourd'hui. Paris:
Pedone.
Sands, Philippe Joseph and Klein, Pierre 2009. Bowett's Law of International Institutions. Sweet &
Maxwell, London.
Seyersted, Finn 1964. "Objective International Personality of Intergovernemntal Organizations: Do Their
Capacities Really Depend Upon the Conventions Establishing Them?," Nordisk Tidsskrift for
International Ret 34: 3–112.
Shaw, Malcolm 2008. International Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Silverstein, H. B. 1976. "Technological Politics and Maritime Affairs: Comparative Participation in the
Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization," Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce
7: 367–407.
Sloan, F. Blaine 1948. "The Binding Force of a ‘Recommendation’ of the General Assembly of the United
Nations," British Yearbook of International Law 25: 1–33.
Spicer-Simson, G. 1922. "The International Hydrographic Bureau," Geographical Journal 59: 293–296.
Symmons, Clive R. 2008. Historic Waters in the Law of the Sea: A Modern Re-Appraisal. Nijhoff, Leiden.
United Nations 1968. United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names
(Geneva, 4-22 September 1967; Vol. 1, Report of the Conference). UN, New York.
Warner, Edward P. 1932. "The International Convention for Air Navigation: And the Pan American
Convention for Air Navigation: A Comparative and Critical Analysis," Air Law Review 3: 221–308.
Zemanek, Karl 1998. "Unilateral Legal Acts Revisited," In: Wellens, Karel (Ed.) International Law: Theory
and Practice: Essays in Honour of Eric Suy. The Hague: Nijhoff.
Internet sources
IHO 2010: About the IHO
Official webpage of the International Hydrographic Organization (available at: <www.iho-
ohi.net/english/home/about-the-iho/about-the-iho.html>).
IHO 2010: MoUs and Agreements
Memoranda of Understanding and Cooperative Agreements (available at: <www.iho-
ohi.net/english/letters-and-documents/mou-agreements.html>).