Réponse écrite de Malte à la question posée par M. le juge Oda à l'audience du 30 janvier 1984

CORRESPONDENCE 503

66, THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE UBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA

27 January 1984.

I have the honour toacknowledge receipt of the letter dated 23 January 1984
in which you give your views on the accessibility to the public of the written
observations of the Parties on Italy's Application for permission to intervene in
the case conceming the Continental Shelf (Lihyan Arah Jamahiriya/Ma/ta).

67. THE AGENT OF MALTA TO THE REG1STRAR

6 February 1984.

I have the honour to refer to the question put by Judge Oda to Malta and
Italy at the sittingof 30 January 1984, in the oral hearing held on lta\y's appli­
cation for permission to intervene in the Lihya-Malta Continental She/f case,

and to enclose the reply by Malta to the above question.

Question by Judge Oda 1

"Considering that the expressions 'median line' and 'equidistance line'
are used in the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf in two different
situations, is the sector between B and C of the red line on the map on the
easel regarded as a median line in the case of opposite States or an equidis­

tance line in the case of adjacent States, in the sense of these concepts in
the 1958 Convention?"

Rep/y by Malta

Malta notes in the first place that the dichotomy between on the one hand
"median line in the case of opposite States" and "equidistance line in the case of
adjacent States" is not entirely exact. The Convention on the Continental She\f of

1958, Article 6, in relation to opposite coasts speaks of "the median line, every
point of which is equidistant from the nearest points of the baselines ... ", while
in relation to adjacent coasts it does not use the expression "equidistance line"
but says that "the boundary shall be determined by the application of the prin­
ciple ofequidistance from the nearest points of the baselines ... ". Thus white the

expression "median line" is expressly used in relation to opposite coasts, its use
is not excluded in relation to adjacent coasts, especially since the equidistance
method is, in the circumstances stated in the Article, applicable to both.
Malta also notes, in passing, that ltaly isnota party to the 1958 Convention.

Another pertinent observation of a general character is thal the expressions
"opposite coasts" and "adjacent coasts" do not represent ail the geographical
situations in which the delimitation of continental shelves is to be effected; nor
are such geographical situations easily classifiable into these two classes only.

1
See Il, p. 646.504 CONTINENT AL SHELF

As may be clearly seen from the Libya-Tunisia Continental Sheif case and the
Anglo-French Continental Shelf case, there are geographical situations which
possess both "opposite coasts" and "adjacent coasts" features and even ones
which are neither exactly the one or the other, but cases of "laterally re\ated
coasts", as the Atlantic region between France and the United Kingdom was
described in the Anglo-French case.
lndeed in the case just referred to, and in relation to the Atlantic region
which is quite comparable to parts of the geographical situation of Malta and
ltaly, the Courtof Arbitration in paragraph 242 of its decision expressly stated:

"In so far as the point may be thought to have importance, the Court is
inclined to the opinion that the Atlantic region falls within the terms of
paragraph I rather than paragraph 2 of Article 6. As the United Kingdom
emphasizes, there are a number of precedents in which equidistance bound­
aries between 'opposite' States are prolonged seawards beyond the point
where their coasts are geographically 'opposite' each other: and the as­
sumption seems to be that these are prolongations of median lines."

It is therefore quite in consonance with these views that Malta has from the
outset and also by reason of its island character, treated ail the delimitation
situations by which it might be effected as being "opposite coasts" situations.
Language corresponding to this first appears in Malta's Continental Shelf Act,
1966, where section 2 provides that

"... where in relation toStates of which the coast is opposite that of Malta
it is necessary to determine the boundaries of the respective shelves, the
boundary of the continental shelf shall be that determined by Malta and
such other State or States or, in the absence of agreement, the median line,
namely a line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points of
the baselines . . .".

In its relations with ltaly Malta has not distinguished between "opposite
coasts" and possible "adjacent coasts" situations, or perhaps more accurately a
situation of "laterally related coasts". When referring in its Note Verbale of
31 December 1965, to the provisional arrangement with Italy, Malta treated the
whole situation as an "opposite States" situation and used the simple expression
"median line".
Malta's position in this regard has been consistent as may be seen from the
terms of the drafl delimilation agreement presented by Malta to Italy at the dis­
cussions of 19 June 1975 (see draft auached to Annex 15 to Malta's obser­
vations on ltaly's Application). This draft was entitled "Agreement between the
Govemment of the Republic of Malta and the Govemment of the Republic of
Italy relating to the delimitation of the Continental Shelf between the two coun­
tries". This was clearly intended to be a comprehensive agreement, settling the
whole of the continental shelf boundary. Article 1 drew no distinction between
"opposite" and "adjacent coasts"; and the boundary of the continental shelf
appertaining to each of the Contracting Parties is the median line every point of

which is equidistant from the points nearest to the baselines from which the
breadth of the territorial waters of Malta and Italy is measured, with the excep­
tionof the Islands of Linosa and Lampedusa.
The position taken by Italy is quite similar to that of Malta. Thus the Italian
Continental Shelf Law of 21 June 1967 refers to the "median line", even though
the delimitation might, in certain circumstances, e.g., near the termini of the
land boundaries with France and Yugoslavia, involve an "adjacent coasts" situ­
ation. CORRESPONDENCE 505

In truth it may be said that very often the terms "median line" and "equidis­
tant line" are used interchangeably and no safe conclusions can be drawn from
the use of either of these terms. For example, the geographical situation be­
tween ltaly and Tunisia is not exactly and in all respects one of opposite States
and yet the two countries agreed that the "boundary of the continental shelf be­
tween the two countries shall be the median line ... with the exception of
Lampione, Lampedusa, Linosa and Pantalleria" (Agreement of 20 August
1971). Conversely, the geographical situation between Italy and Spain, namely
between Sardinia and the Balearic Islands is almost exactly that of opposite
coasts; this notwithstanding the words used in the Agreement of 19 February
1974 is the following: "The dividing line of the continental shelf between Spain
and Italy will remain established following the criterion of equidistance from

respective baselines."
ln conclusion Malta wishes to state that it has provided a somewhat full
answer in order to be as much of assistance to the Coun as possible. However
in the absence of an indication of the issue to which the question is intended to
relate, Malta must reserve the right to supplement or qualify this answer should
any later developments in these or other proceedings so require.

68. L'AGENT DE L'ITAUE AU GREFFIER

Romé,le 6 février 1984.

En vous priant de bien vouloir les soumettre à l'examen de la Cour, j'ai
l'honneur de vous envoyer les réponses du Gouvernement italien aux questions
posées oralement par MM. les juges Oda et de Lacharrière au cours de
l'audience du 30 janvier 1984.

P.-S. - A toutes fins utiles je vous joins aussi une cane avec les indications
à la réponse au juge de Lacharrière.

1
Reply to the Fol/owing Question Put by Judge Oda
toPro/essor Arangio-Ruiz on January 30th, 1984

"As Counsel will be aware, the expressions 'median line' and 'equi­
distance line' are used in the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf in
two different situations. 1 wonder whether Professor Arangio-Ruiz, or Pro­
fessor Virally, and Mr. Lauterpacht regard the sector between B and C of
the red line on the map on the easel as a median line in the case of oppo­
site States or an equidistance line in the case of adjacent States, in the
sense of these concepts in the 1958 Convention."

1. Professor Arangio-Ruiz is aware, as well as the eminent Judge, of the dif­

ference set fonh in Anicle 6 of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf,
between a median line as a boundary line between States "whose coasts are

1See II, p. 646.506 CONTINENT AL SHELF

opposite each other" and the "principle of equidistance" by "application" of

which should be determined the boundary line between "two adjacent States".
2. With regard to line 8-C in the map used by counsel for ltaly during the
oral procedure (January 25-30, 1984), it was meant to correspond to the line as
drawn on the map presented to the Court by counsel for Malta in March 1981.
As stated by counsel for Italy during the recalled oral proceedings, that line was

presumably understood by Malta as a line of equidistance, drawn as a continua­
tion of line A-B. Line A-B in its turn seemed to be understood by Malta, as
corresponding to the line provisionally agreed upon with Italy for the part of the
sea-bed situated between Sicily and Malta.
ltis possible that in the Maltese conception, line 8-C was intended more

for the purpose of delimitation between adjacent coasts than of delimitation
between coasts facing each other.
3. In any case, considering the very small coastal and territorial dimensions
of Malta as compared to Sicily and the southern part of continental Italy (and
other Italian islands ), and considering also, in addition to geography, the geo­

logy and geomorphology of the area, counsel for ltaly finds il very difficult, as
he stated before the Court, to understand how the line B-C could ever be justi­
fied in law, either as a "median" line, or as a line of "equidistance".
4. lt should also be noted that, in the measure indicated in the ltalian Agent's
reply to the question put by the eminent Judge de Lacharrière the area situated

south of line B-C is considered by Italy to be part of the ltalian continental
shelf.

Réponse de l'agent du Gouvernement italien à la question qui lui a étéposée
en date du 30 janvier 1984 par M. le juge de Lacharrière 1, dans les termes sui­
vants:

«Monsieur l'agent pourrait-il donner des indications précises sur les
zones de plateau continental sur lesquelles l'Italie considère qu'elle a des
droits?»

l. L'agent du Gouvernement italien croit interpréter la question qui lui a été

adressée dans le sens qu'il lui est demandé de préciser seulement les zones de
plateau continental sur lesquelles l'Italie considère avoir des droits et qui sont
comprises dans la région qui est vraisemblablement l'objet de l'affaire en cours
devant la Cour internationale de Justice.
2. L'agent du Gouvernement italien croit, qu'au cours de la phase orale du

débatqui a eu lieu à La Haye du 25 au 30 janvier 1984, lui-mêmeet les conseils
de l'Italie, notamment M. Arangio-Ruiz, lors de son intervention du 25 janvier,
ont fourni des renseignements assez détailléssur les revendications italiennes et
sur leur localisation géographique. Toutefois, dans l'actuelle phase de la procé­
dure, il n'a pas paru approprié de s'entretenir trop longuement sur une question

qui devra êtreapprofondie lors de l'examen du fond.
3. L'agent du Gouvernement italien est toutefois en mesure de préciser
davantage les zones sur lesquelles l'Italie considère avoir des droits et remercie
le juge de Lacharrière de l'occasion qu'il lui a offerte de revenir sur ce point
important. Il se réserve, si la demande à fin d'intervention de l'Italie sera

1 Voir II,p.646.