Overlap between the Maritime Domain Boundary and Port Area Boundary: Dualism of the Legal Regime Governing Nautical Tourism Ports and Property Law Challenges

Abstract

This paper analyzes the relationship between the maritime domain boundary and the port area boundary in the context of nautical tourism ports, examining the legal and property law implications of their potential overlap. The hypothesis is that the current dual boundary determination system is not fully adapted to the specific characteristics of nautical tourism ports. The study focuses on the relationship between the maritime domain boundary and the port area boundary, with particular emphasis on the property law consequences of their overlap. The maritime domain is a public good outside private legal circulation, managed by the state, while the port area is a functionally defined space intended for port activities. In practice, the port area boundary is generally located within the maritime domain, but the procedures for determining these boundaries arise from different legal frameworks and are implemented through distinct administrative and normative mechanisms. This normative dualism can create legal ambiguities, especially in nautical tourism ports (marinas), where the maritime domain and port area almost always coincide both spatially and functionally. Problems arise when the maritime domain boundary has not been clearly established before determining the port area and granting a concession for the economic use of the maritime domain, or when the maritime domain boundary has been established but the port area boundary remains unclear. These situations can result in inconsistencies between the concession scope, the land registry status of the properties, and spatial planning documents. The consequences include legal uncertainty for investors, disputes over the extent of concessions, and challenges in managing and developing port infrastructure. The paper uses a range of scientific methods, including inductive and deductive reasoning, analysis and synthesis, abstraction and concretization, generalization and specialization, proof and refutation, classification, description, historical analysis, compilation, and comparative methodology. The application of these methods confirmed the hypothesis and led to the conclusion that the possibility of unified determination of the maritime domain boundary and the port area boundary needs to be considered during the establishment or concession granting process of a port.