The principle that “land dominates the sea” is the doctrinal cornerstone of international maritime boundary law, affirming that all maritime entitlements derive from lawful sovereignty over land territory under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982). This study re-examines the principle through a comparative analysis of four landmark cases; Ligitan and Sipadan (2002), Black Sea (2009), Colombia v. Nicaragua (2012), and the South China Sea Arbitration (2016), to assess how courts and tribunals have applied land-based entitlement and to identify gaps between judicial authority and state compliance. Using a normative-doctrinal approach, the paper traces the doctrinal sequence of title, entitlement, method, and compliance, revealing that while jurisprudence has strengthened legal certainty, enforcement remains undermined by power asymmetry and institutional fragmentation. To address this gap, the paper proposes targeted legal innovations, including an Implementing Agreement under UNCLOS Part XV, expanded advisory jurisdiction of ITLOS, and a binding ASEAN–China Code of Conduct (COC) to reinforce regional compliance and cooperation. The findings demonstrate that transforming the “land dominates the sea” doctrine into an operational rule of enforcement is essential for ensuring equity, predictability, and stability in contemporary maritime governance.
Cornelis Djelfie Massie (Thu,) studied this question.