Analyzing the Persian Gulf Naming Dispute from International Law Perspective

Name disputes regarding geographical areas can be analysed from various perspectives. In international law, the legal determination of the names of geographic entities, including water bodies, mainly relies on four criteria. These criteria encompass historical reasoning and the application of the 'critical date theory', judicial precedence exemplified by the Macedonia v Greece case, the practices of international organizations, and legal obligations stemming from relevant treaties. By employing deductive and historical methodologies, this article concludes that the Persian Gulf naming dispute can be effectively examined by focusing on the year 1957 and, more broadly, the 1960s as the critical date. Historical documents from the period preceding this critical period substantiate the usage of the term 'Persian Gulf'. Furthermore, the procedures and practices of international organizations generally favour the use of the name 'Persian Gulf'. Inferences drawn from both customary and treaty law, including the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and bilateral agreements, among others, underscore the preference for the term 'Persian Gulf'. It is worth noting that the International Court of Justice, in the 2011 Macedonia v Greece case, upheld the principle of 'prior in tempore potior in jure', which recognizes established practices or conflicting legal claims. This authentication by the court further emphasizes the significance of historical precedence.