Exploring Maritime Border Disputes using the Issues Approach : Comparative analysis of Ghana-Ivory Coast and Kenya-Somalia

Sammanfattning: Maritime boundaries are man-made constructs which are critical to resources like oil and gas, fisheries as well as trade. Recently, these delimitations in the sea have also gained importance in the environmental discourse because the role of the sea has become scientifically more significant in the field of climate change. Drawing upon the disciplines of international law of the sea and political science, this study scrutinizes the causes that underpin the peaceful settlement of a maritime delimitation dispute between two states. This thesis delves into maritime border disputes in Africa. It aims to examine the question “why do some states resolve their marine border disputes while others do not” by opting for a qualitative approach to compare two cases: Ghana--Ivory Coast and Somalia--Kenya. It outlines how the governance of the sea through UNCLOS is important, differences as well as similarities between land and sea border issues, and then delves into wider political connotations that impact the resolution of maritime borders issues between countries. Using the issues framework, it tests the hypothesis: the more the number of security issues between two states, the less the likelihood of the resolution of maritime border issue between them.