Introduction

Ghana has formally escalated its maritime boundary dispute with Togo to international arbitration under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), marking a significant shift from prolonged diplomatic negotiations to a legally binding adjudication.

The move comes after eight years of bilateral discussions that failed to produce a mutually acceptable agreement, highlighting the complexity of maritime governance in the resource-rich Gulf of Guinea.

To “delimit” a maritime boundary means to legally define and draw the line in the sea that separates the maritime zones of two neighbouring countries. Just as land borders divide territories on land, maritime boundaries divide rights and responsibilities at sea.

Under UNCLOS, coastal states are entitled to several maritime zones, including:

• A Territorial Sea (up to 12 nautical miles),
• An Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (up to 200 nautical miles), and
• Rights over the continental shelf, which concerns seabed resources.

When two countries lie next to each other - as Ghana and Togo do - their maritime zones may overlap. Delimitation resolves that overlap by determining which state has sovereign rights over specific areas of water and seabed.

Historical Context of the Dispute

The maritime boundary dispute between Ghana and Togo began to take concrete shape in December 2017 and May 2018, when Togolese authorities halted two Ghanaian seismic survey vessels conducting deep-sea data acquisition in an area near the border that Ghana considered part of its offshore maritime zone.

Togo claimed that the vessels were operating in waters within its own claimed area, leading to the first significant flashpoints in the disagreement.

These incidents occurred shortly after Ghana won its maritime boundary case against Côte d’Ivoire in September 2017 at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

That ruling provided a binding delimitation of the boundary between Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire, giving Ghana legal clarity on its western maritime frontier.

Following the 2017–2018 incidents with Togo, both countries formed a Joint Maritime Boundary Technical Committee to negotiate a mutually acceptable boundary.

Technical teams from Accra and Lomé held multiple rounds of discussions and exchanges. However, these rounds failed to produce agreement because the parties differed on delimitation methodology, baseline coordinates, and interpretation of nautical data. Togo also raised concerns about the presence of Ghanaian naval vessels in the contested area during negotiations.

In 2021, Ghana proposed a formal demarcation line, but Togo rejected the proposal, and neither side could bridge the substantive differences.

After eight years of bilateral negotiations without achieving a settlement, the Government of Ghana notified Togo in February 2026 of its decision to pursue international arbitration under UNCLOS to secure a legally binding delimitation of the contested maritime boundary.

Legal Context of the Dispute

This dispute is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which establishes the legal framework for the delimitation of maritime boundaries between states with adjacent or opposite coasts, as set out in Articles 74 and 83.

Article 74 requires states with overlapping exclusive economic zones (EEZs) to reach an equitable solution through agreement, taking into account relevant circumstances. Similarly, Article 83 requires states with overlapping continental shelf claims to cooperate to achieve equitable boundary delimitation and provides that, if negotiations fail, parties may resort to conciliation, arbitration, or adjudication under Part XV of UNCLOS.

Ghana’s prior case with Côte d’Ivoire, in which arbitration before a Special Chamber of ITLOS from 2014 to 2017 resulted in a binding delimitation of the maritime boundary, demonstrates the procedural and legal precedent for seeking a binding resolution through international adjudication rather than unilateral measures.

Globally, the move resonates with the maritime governance principles of the High Seas Treaty, or Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Treaty, which entered into force on January 17, 2026. It emphasizes the orderly management of marine resources and transboundary cooperation. Though the disputed waters lie within EEZs, arbitration ensures clarity of jurisdiction and predictable governance.

Regionally, the African Charter on Maritime Security, Safety and Development in Africa (Lomé Charter), adopted by the African Union in October 2016, provides guidance to AU member states on resolving maritime disputes peacefully, promoting security, and ensuring sustainable and equitable use of offshore resources.

By seeking arbitration, Ghana demonstrates adherence to these continental norms, signalling its commitment to rules-based dispute resolution and regional cooperation.

Economically, the arbitration aligns with Ghana’s Blue Economy strategy, which emphasises the sustainable exploitation of ocean resources, including fisheries, hydrocarbons, and shipping lanes.

Clear boundary delimitation provides legal certainty for investors, enhances resource management, reduces the risk of conflict, and supports long-term national development planning.

Through arbitration, Ghana seeks not only a legal resolution but also a framework for long-term cooperation, resource security, and rule-based governance, consistent with both regional expectations and international maritime law principles.

Current Arbitration Process and Legal Mechanism

The ITLOS arbitration process requires Ghana and Togo to submit legal, technical, and historical evidence, including hydrographic surveys and historical documentation.

Ghana’s recourse to ITLOS aligns with:

• Article 286 – allowing arbitration if negotiations fail.
• Article 288 – confirming tribunal awards are final and binding.
• Articles 74 & 83 – guiding equitable delimitation of EEZs and continental shelves.
• Article 15 – ensuring the equidistance principle for adjacent coasts.

Beyond the legal framework provided by UNCLOS, Ghana’s ability to present a coherent and technically sound case rests significantly on the work of the Ghana Boundary Commission.

Institutional Backbone: The Ghana Boundary Commission

Established under the Ghana Boundary Commission Act, 2010 (Act 798), and hosted under the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources (MLNR), the Ghana Boundary Commission (GhBC) serves as the principal national authority responsible for the delimitation, demarcation, and management of Ghana’s land and maritime boundaries.

In the present dispute, the Commission provides the technical and evidentiary backbone for Ghana’s recourse to arbitration under UNCLOS Articles 15, 74, 83, 286, and 288. It undertakes hydrographic and geodetic surveys, prepares official maritime charts and coordinates, and develops equidistance lines consistent with international law. These technical outputs form the foundation of Ghana’s legal submissions before an arbitral tribunal.

Why This Matters: Oil and Gas, Fisheries, and Economic Stability

Maritime boundaries are not abstract legal lines; they determine real economic rights.

The waters in question are believed to contain offshore oil and gas deposits and valuable fisheries. A clearly defined boundary, therefore, determines:

• Which country can explore and extract hydrocarbons,
• Who regulates fishing activities,
• Who licenses offshore operations, and
• Who collects revenues.

Without delimitation, uncertainty persists. Investors hesitate. Regulatory enforcement becomes complicated. Diplomatic friction increases.

Implications of the Arbitration Process for Ghana

Economic Diplomacy

Ghana’s maritime arbitration represents strategic economic diplomacy, demonstrating the country’s ability to protect national interests through legal frameworks while maintaining cordial relations with neighbouring states, especially Côte d’Ivoire, Togo, Benin, and Nigeria.

The arbitration also serves as a signal to investors and regional partners that disputes are managed in a predictable, transparent, and legal manner, thereby enhancing confidence in offshore investment opportunities.

Furthermore, economic diplomacy also provides leverage for joint development agreements and investment treaties, fostering sustainable exploitation of oil, gas, and fisheries while ensuring compliance with international and continental legal frameworks.

This reinforces Ghana’s maritime credibility, strengthens its bilateral and regional diplomatic relationships, and establishes a template for responsible maritime governance in Africa.

Regional Integration

The arbitration process contributes to broader West African and African Union objectives for regional integration. Peaceful dispute resolution through ITLOS demonstrates that legal mechanisms can support institutional coordination, cross-border resource management, and collective maritime security.

Clear boundaries facilitate joint monitoring, coordinated fisheries enforcement, and maritime safety operations, enhancing cooperation among AU member states.

The Lomé Charter positions regional integration as a core strategy for maritime governance. Articles 30, 32, 34, and 37 of the Charter mandate cooperation in resource exploitation, crime prevention, intelligence sharing, and structural alignment with Regional Economic Communities, reinforcing collective approaches over purely national strategies.

Arbitration also promotes a predictable legal environment, which is essential for cross-border trade, shipping, and investment, thereby supporting regional stability.

Conclusion

Ghana’s referral of the maritime dispute to ITLOS exemplifies the effective use of international law to resolve complex maritime conflicts. By invoking UNCLOS arbitration (Articles 15, 74, 83, 286, 288) and aligning with the Lomé Charter, Ghana ensures a rules-based, impartial, and legally binding outcome, while reinforcing regional cooperation.

The author is Dr Samuel Dotse, Chief Executive Officer, HATOF Foundation, Former Deputy Presiding Officer, AU ECOSOCC