From Diplomacy to Arbitration: Ghana’s Maritime Boundary Dispute with Togo at ITLOS

Published: February 24, 2026

Introduction: A Legal Path to Resolve a Gulf of Guinea Border Conflict

After eight years of unsuccessful bilateral negotiations, Ghana has formally referred its long-standing maritime boundary dispute with Togo to binding arbitration under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This pivotal shift from diplomacy to adjudication will see the case heard by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), a specialized court in Hamburg, Germany. The dispute centers on the delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental shelf in the resource-rich waters of the eastern Gulf of Guinea. For Ghana, this move secures a definitive, legally enforceable solution to a conflict that has cast uncertainty over offshore investments, fisheries management, and regional stability. This article provides a comprehensive, SEO-optimized analysis of the dispute’s background, the legal mechanisms invoked, its economic stakes, and its broader significance for maritime governance in Africa.

Key Points: Quick Takeaways on the Ghana-Togo Maritime Arbitration

• Dispute Escalation: Ghana has initiated binding arbitration against Togo at ITLOS under UNCLOS after 8 years of bilateral talks failed.
• Core Issue: The conflict involves delimiting the overlapping maritime entitlements (EEZ and continental shelf) of the two neighboring states.
• Legal Basis: The case relies on UNCLOS Articles 74, 83, 286, and 288, which govern equitable maritime boundary delimitation and the arbitration process.
• Economic Stakes: The disputed area is believed to hold significant offshore oil and gas reserves and supports vital fisheries.
• Precedent: Ghana previously won a similar case against Côte d’Ivoire at ITLOS in 2017, providing a legal and technical template.
• Regional Context: The arbitration aligns with the African Union’s Lomé Charter, promoting peaceful, rules-based resolution of maritime disputes.
• Institutional Role: Ghana’s Boundary Commission provides the critical technical and evidentiary foundation for the state’s legal arguments.
• Outcome: An ITLOS award will be final, binding, and internationally enforceable, providing long-term legal certainty for both nations.

Background: The Genesis and Evolution of the Dispute

From Diplomatic Talks to a Legal Standoff (2017-2026)

The concrete origins of the maritime conflict trace to December 2017 and May 2018. During this period, Togolese authorities intercepted two Ghanaian seismic survey vessels operating in an area near the mutual maritime border. Ghana asserted the vessels were within its undisputed EEZ, while Togo claimed they had entered its claimed maritime zone. These incidents ignited the first major crisis in the bilateral relationship over maritime jurisdiction.

Ironically, these events occurred shortly after Ghana secured a landmark victory in a separate maritime boundary case against Côte d’Ivoire at ITLOS in September 2017. That tribunal had definitively delimited the Ghana-Côte d’Ivoire maritime boundary, granting Ghana a clear western maritime frontier. The Togo incidents highlighted that Ghana’s eastern flank remained unresolved.

In response, both nations established a Joint Maritime Boundary Technical Committee to pursue a negotiated settlement. Despite multiple rounds of talks, the process collapsed due to fundamental disagreements. The points of contention included:

• Delimitation Methodology: Disagreement on whether to apply the principle of equidistance or other relevant circumstances.
• Baseline Coordinates: Conflicting interpretations of the correct base points from which to measure the maritime zones.
• Nautical Chart Interpretation: Differing readings of historical hydrographic data.
• Naval Presence: Togo’s concerns regarding Ghanaian naval vessels in the contested area during talks.

In 2021, Ghana submitted a formal proposed delimitation line to Togo. This proposal was rejected, and no further progress was made. After exhausting the diplomatic channel, the Government of Ghana formally notified Togo in February 2026 of its intention to initiate compulsory arbitration under UNCLOS, seeking a final and binding delimitation.

Analysis: The Legal Framework and Strategic Implications

The UNCLOS Architecture for Maritime Delimitation

The entire dispute is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the foundational treaty for all ocean affairs, ratified by both Ghana and Togo. The specific provisions for delimiting overlapping EEZs and continental shelves between adjacent states are found in Articles 74 and 83.

These articles mandate that states reach an equitable solution through agreement. If negotiations fail, Article 74(2) and Article 83(2) explicitly allow parties to resort to the dispute settlement procedures in Part XV of UNCLOS, which includes arbitration. The specific procedural articles invoked by Ghana are:

• Article 286: Provides for the submission of a dispute to arbitration if it cannot be settled by other means.
• Article 288: Declares that arbitral tribunal awards are final and binding on the parties.
• Article 15: Pertains to the delimitation of the territorial sea, stipulating that, unless agreed otherwise, the median line (equidistance) should be used, subject to adjustment for special circumstances.

While Articles 74 and 83 do not prescribe a single method for delimiting the EEZ and continental shelf, international jurisprudence, including from ITLOS and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), has developed a three-stage approach: (1) construct a provisional equidistance line, (2) consider relevant circumstances that might require adjusting the line to achieve an equitable result, and (3) check for a disproportionality between the allocated maritime areas and the coastal lengths of the parties.

Ghana’s Institutional and Technical Foundation: The Ghana Boundary Commission

Ghana’s legal case is materially supported by the Ghana Boundary Commission (GhBC). Established under the Ghana Boundary Commission Act, 2010 (Act 798), the GhBC is the statutory body responsible for all matters relating to the delimitation and demarcation of Ghana’s international land and maritime boundaries.

In this dispute, the GhBC’s functions are critical:

• It conducts precise hydrographic and geodetic surveys in the disputed area.
• It prepares official maritime charts and geographical coordinates defining Ghana’s claimed boundary.
• It develops technical arguments based on international law and state practice regarding the application of the equidistance principle and the assessment of relevant circumstances.
• It compiles the historical and cartographic evidence necessary to establish Ghana’s title and the basis for its proposed line.

The quality and credibility of the GhBC’s technical dossier will be paramount for Ghana’s success before the arbitral tribunal. Its prior work on the Côte d’Ivoire case, which resulted in a favorable award, demonstrates its capacity to meet international standards.

Economic Stakes: Oil, Gas, and Fisheries in the Balance

Maritime boundaries are not abstract lines; they define sovereign rights over valuable resources. The disputed area in the Gulf of Guinea is of considerable economic importance:

• Hydrocarbons: The region is a prolific basin for offshore oil and natural gas exploration. A definitive boundary determines which state has the exclusive right to license exploration and production activities, award contracts to international oil companies, and collect royalties, taxes, and production-sharing revenues. Uncertainty deters investment and delays development projects.
• Fisheries: The EEZ is a critical zone for commercial fishing. A clear boundary is essential for effective fisheries management, enforcement against Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) fishing, and the allocation of fishing quotas. This sector is vital for food security and local economies along both Ghana’s and Togo’s coasts.
• Maritime Security: Defined boundaries aid in coordinating naval patrols, combating piracy, armed robbery at sea, and other transnational maritime crimes, which are persistent challenges in the Gulf of Guinea.

Therefore, the arbitration is fundamentally about securing long-term economic stability and predictable resource governance. A clear delimitation removes a major source of diplomatic friction and creates a stable environment for the Blue Economy—Ghana’s strategic focus on sustainable ocean-based growth—to flourish.

Regional and International Significance

Ghana’s decision to seek arbitration carries weight beyond the bilateral relationship:

• Adherence to African Norms: It aligns with the Lomé Charter on Maritime Security, Safety and Development in Africa (2016), adopted by the African Union. The Charter promotes the peaceful settlement of maritime disputes and cooperative resource management (see Articles 30, 32, 34, 37). By using ITLOS, Ghana reinforces the preference for legal over confrontational solutions within the African framework.
• Precedent for the Gulf of Guinea: The region has several pending or potential maritime disputes (e.g., between Cameroon and Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon). A transparent, rules-based resolution between Ghana and Togo sets a positive precedent for managing similar conflicts through UNCLOS mechanisms rather than through unilateral actions or escalation.
• Support for the High Seas Treaty (BBNJ): While the disputed area is within national EEZs, the orderly delimitation of boundaries supports the broader goals of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Treaty (effective January 2026), which aims for coherent and cooperative ocean governance. Clear national jurisdictions are a prerequisite for effective regional and global marine conservation efforts.
• Signal to Investors: The move demonstrates Ghana’s commitment to predictable, rules-based dispute resolution. This enhances its reputation as a stable jurisdiction for offshore oil and gas investment and strengthens its position in regional economic communities like ECOWAS.

Practical Advice: Lessons for States in Maritime Disputes

The Ghana-Togo case offers instructive lessons for any nation navigating a complex maritime boundary disagreement.

1. Exhaust Diplomatic Channels First

UNCLOS dispute settlement is generally considered a last resort. The eight-year negotiation process between Ghana and Togo demonstrates a commitment to peaceful settlement, which strengthens a state’s legal and moral position when it finally refers a case. It shows good faith and that arbitration is not the first option but a necessary step after talks fail.

2. Invest in Robust National Boundary Institutions

A well-resourced, technically competent national boundary commission is indispensable. The Ghana Boundary Commission is the engine of Ghana’s case. Such a body must maintain up-to-date hydrographic surveys, master legal precedents, and possess the expertise to translate complex geographical data into legally persuasive arguments. States should enact clear domestic legislation (like Ghana’s Act 798) to empower and fund this institution.

3. Build a Coherent Technical and Legal Case

Success in ITLOS hinges on a seamless integration of law and geography. The legal team must work hand-in-hand with hydrographers and geodesists. The case must present:

• A technically sound construction of the provisional equidistance line.
• A well-substantiated argument for any adjustment based on “relevant circumstances” (e.g., marked coastal instability, presence of small islands, or extreme disparities in coastal lengths).
• Historical evidence (treaties, maps, past conduct) to support the claim.
• Consistency with prior international jurisprudence to demonstrate the reasonableness of the proposed line.

4. Consider the Strategic and Diplomatic Dimensions

While the legal process is technical, it does not occur in a vacuum. States should:

• Maintain diplomatic communication with the counterpart state to avoid escalation and keep channels open for a negotiated settlement even during arbitration (cases can be settled at any time).
• Engage regional partners and organizations (like the AU) to frame the dispute as a test of regional rule of law, which can encourage a cooperative approach from the other party.
• Manage public and investor expectations by communicating that arbitration is a standard international law procedure aimed at creating long-term stability, not an act of aggression.

5. Prepare for a Lengthy and Costly Process

ITLOS arbitrations are complex. They involve written pleadings, extensive evidence submission, and oral hearings. The process from initiation to a final award can take 2 to 4 years or more. Costs include legal fees for specialized international lawyers, technical expert witnesses, translation, and logistical expenses. States must budget accordingly and