Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway) - Judgment of the Court

INTERNATIONAL COURT

:acePalac2517KJ TheHague.Tel. Intercou,heHague.

unofficial
for immedisterelease

No. 93/14
14 June 1993

Maritime Delimitatioin the Areabetween Greenland anJan Mayen

(Denmarkv. Rorwav)

Judmnentof the Court

The followinginformations communicated ttohe Pressby the
Registryof the International Court Jofstice:

Today,14 June 1993,the International Court of Justice delivered
itsJudgmentin the abovecase. In theJudgment theCourt,by
fourteenvotesto one, fixeda delimitation line for botthe continental
shelfand the fisheryzonesof Denmarkand of Norwayin the area between
Greenlandand Jan Mayen.

The Courtwas composedas follows:PresidentSir RobertJennings;
Vice-PresidentOda; JudnesAgo, Schwebel,Bedjaoui,Ni, Evensen,
Tarassov, Guillaume, Shahabuddeen, Aguilar Mawdsley,amantry,
Ranjeva,Ajibola; Judvead hoc Fischer;Repistrar Valencia-Ospina,

The full textof the operative paragrapis as follows:

''94.For thesereasons,

THE COURT,

By fourteenvotesto one,

Decidesthat, within thleimitsdefined

1. to thenorthby the intersection of the li ofe
equidistance betweethe coastsof EasternGreenlandand the
western coastosf JanMayen with the200-milelimitcalculated
as fromthe saidcoastsof Greenland,indicatedon sketch-map
No. 2 as pointA, and 2. to the south,by the 200-milelimit around Iceland, as
claimedby Iceland, between the pointosf intersectionof that
limitwith the two said lines,indicatedon sketch-mapNo. 2 as
points B and D,

the delimitation line thatividesthe continental shelf
and fisheryzones ofthe Kingdomof Denmarkand the Kingdomof
Norway is to be drawnas set out in paragraphs91 and 92 of the
presentJudgment.

IN FAVOUR: PresidentSir Robert Jennings;
Vice-PresidentOda; JudaesAgo, SchwebelB,edjaoui,Ni,
Evensen, Tarassov, Guillaume, Shahabuddeen, Aguilar Mawdsley,
Weeramantry,Ranjeva,Ajibola.

AGAINST: Judgead hoc Fischer."

Vice-President Oda,JudgesEvensen, Aguilar Mawdsle andRanjeva
append declaration to the Judgmentof the Court.

Vice-PresidentOda,JudgesSchwebel, ShahabuddeeW n,eramantryand
Ajibolaappendseparateopinionsto the Judgmentof the Court.

Judgead hoc Fischer appendsa dissenting opiniotno theJudgmentof
the Court.

(A summaryof thesedeclarations and opinionsis attached.)

The printed textof the Judgment will become availabilnedue course
(ordersand enquiries should b addressedto the Distributionand Sales

Section,Officeof theUnited Nations, 1211 Geneva 10; the Sales
Section, United NationN s,w York,N.Y. 10017); or anyappropriately
specializedbookshop).

A summaryof the Judgmentis givenbelow. It has been preparedby
the Registryand in no way involvesthe responsibilitoyf the Court. It 1
cannotbe quoted against the textof theJudgment,of which it doesnot
constitutean interpretation.

Summarvof the Judnment

Reviewof the ~roceedinnsand summarvof facts(paras.1-21)

The Courtoutlinesthe successive stage of the proceedings afrom
the datethe casewas broughtbefore it (paras.1-8) and setsout the
submissionsof the Parties(paras. 9-10). It recalls thatDenmark,
institutingproceedingson 16 August 1988, hadasked the Court "todecide,in accordance with internationallaw, wherea
singlelineof delimitation shall be drawn betwee Denmark's
and Norway'sfishingzonesand continental shelfareasin the
waters betweengreenland andJan Mayen";

andhad, in the courseof the proceedingmsade the following submissions:

"To adjudge anddeclarethatGreenland is entitledto a
full 200-mile fishez ryneand continentaslhelf areavis-à-vis
the islandof Jan Mayen; and consequently

To draw a single line of delimitation of fthehingzone
and continentalshelfareaof Greenlandin thewaters between
Greenland andJan Mayenat a distanceof 200 nautical miles
measuredfromGreenland's baseline."

"If theCourt, for anyreason, doesnot findit possible
to draw the lineof delimitationrequestedin paragraph(2),
Denmarkrequests the Cour to decide,in accordance with
internationallaw and inlightof the facts and arguments

developedby the Parties, wherethe line of delimitation shall
be drawn between Denmarka 'sdNorway'sfisheries zonesand
continentalshelf areasin thewaters between Greenlaa ndd
Jan Mayen,and to draw thatline.''

and thatNorwayhad asked the Cour to adjudge anddeclarethatthe
medianlineconstituted theboundary for thp eurposesof delimitatioonf
the relevantareasof both the continentas lhelfand the fisherieszone
between Norwaaynd Denmark in the regionbetweenJan Mayenand
Greenland.The Court thendescribesthemaritimeareas,which have
featuredin the arguments ofthe Parties(paras.11-21).

The contention that daelimitationalreadv exist(sparas.22-40)

A principalcontention ofNorway is thata delimitationhas already
been establishedbetweenJan Mayenand Greenland. The effectof treaties
in forcebetweenthe Parties - a bilateral Agreemen of 1965and the1958
GenevaConvention on the ContinentalShelf- has been, accordingto

Norway, to establishthemedianlineas the boundary of the continental
shelf ofthe Parties,and thepracticeof the Partiesin respectof
fisheryzoneshas represented a recognition ofexistingcontinental shelf
boundariesas beingalsoapplicable to the exerciseof fisheries
jurisdiction.Thesecontentions, that the applicabil ofty medianline
delimitationin the relationbsetween the Parties ha longbeen
recognizedin the contextboth of the continentaslhelfand of fishery
zonesand thata boundary is alreadyin place, will neet do be examined
first.

The 1965 Agreement(paras.23-30)

On 8December 1965Denmarkand Norway concludea dn Agreement
concerningthe delimitationof the continental shelf Article 1of that
Agreementreads: "Theboundary betweet nhosepartsof the continental shelf
overwhichNorwayand Denmarkrespectively exercise sovereign
rightsshallbe themedianline whichat everypointis

equidistant frotmhenearest pointo sf the baselinesfromwhich
the breadthof the territoriaslea ofeach ContractinP gartyis
measured."

Article2 providesthat "In orderthat theprincipleset forthin
Article 1 may beproperlyapplied,the boundary shallconsistof straight
lines"whichare thendefinedby eight points, enumeratw edth the
relevant geodetiC cO-ordinateand as indicatedon the chartthereto
annexed; the linesso definedlie in the Skagerrakand partof theNorth
Sea,between the mainlandterritories of Denmarkand Norway. Norway
contendsthatthe textof Article 1 is generalin scope,unqualified and
without reservation and thatthe natural meaningof that text musbte
"to establish definitively the basisaf l1boundaries whicw hould
eventually fa11to be demarcated" betwee the Parties. In itsvieu
Article2, whichadmittedly relates onlyto the continental shelveof
the two mainlands,"is concernedwith demarcation*'N.orwaydeducesthat
the Partiesare and remain committetdo themedianlineprinciple of the
1965Agreement. Denmarkon the other hand argues that A theeementis
not of suchgeneral applicatio and thatitsobjectand purposeis solely
the delimitatioi nn the Skagerraand partof the North Seaon a median
linebasis.

The Court considertshatthe object and purposeof the 1965
Agreementwas to providesimply for the questionof the delimitation in
the Skagerrak and partof the NorthSea,where the whols eeabed(with the
exceptionof the "NorwegiaT nrough")consistsof continental shelaft a
depthof less than200 metresand thatthereis nothingto suggest that
the Parties hadin mind the possibilitythat ashelf boundary between
Greenlandand Jan Mayen mightone day be requiredo,r intended that their
Agreement should appl to sucha boundary.

After exarniningheAgreementin its context,in the lightof its
objectand purpose,the Court also takes intoaccount thesubsequent
practiceof the Parties, especiala lysubsequent treatiyn thesamefield
concludedin 1979. It considers thatif the intentioonf the 1965
Agreement had beet o commit thePartiesto the medianlinein al1
ensuing shelf delimitation istwould have beerneferredto in the 1979 J
Agreement. The Courtis thusof the viewthat the1965Agreementdid not
resultin a medianline delimitatio nf the continental shelf between
Greenlandand Jan Mayen.

The 1958 Geneva Conventio on the Continental Shel(paras.31-32)

The validityof the argumentthat the1958 Conventiornesultedin a
medianline continental shelf boundary alr" eadyplace" between
Greenlandand Jan Mayen isfoundto dependon whetherthe Courtfinds
that there are"specialcircumstancesa "s contemplateby the Convention,
a questionto be dealt withlater. The Courttherefore turnt so the
arguments which Norway bas upon the conductof the Partiesand of
Denmarkin particular. Conductof the Parties(paras. 33-40)

Norway contendsthat,up to some tenyearsago at least, the Parties
by their"conjoint conduct" had lr ongognizedthe applicabilityof a
medianline delimitatioinn theirmutualrelations.The Court observes
thatit is the conductof Denmarkwhichhas primarilyto be examinedin
this connection.

The Court is not persuaded that aanish Decreeof 7 June 1963
concerning the Exerciose Danish Sovereignty ovtere Continental Shelf
supports the argument which Nor seeks to baseon conduct. Nor doa
Danish Actof 17 December 1976or anExecutiveOrderof 14 May 1980,
issuedpursuantto thatAct, commit Denmarkto acceptance of a median
line boundary in the area. An Agreementof 15 June1979 betweenthe
Parties concerningthe delimitation between Nora way theFaroe Islands
doesnot commitDenmarkto amedianline boundary in a quitedifferent
area. Danishstatements made in the courseof diplomatic contact and
duringtheThirdUnited Nations Conferen ocethe Law of the Sea had also
not prejudicedDenmark's position.

Summingup, theCourtconcludes thatthe Agreement entered into
betweenthe Partieson 8 December 1965 canno be interpreted tomean,as

contended by Norway,that theParties have already defined the
continental shel boundaryas the medianline between Greenlan add
Jan Mayen. Nor can the Court attribut suchan effect to the provision
of Article 6, paragraph1, of the 1958 Conventionso as to concludethat
by virtueof thatConvention the medianlineis already the continent :al
shelf boundary between Greenla anndJan Mayen. Nor can sucha result be
deduced from the conduo cttheParties concerning the continental shelf
boundaryand thefisheryzone. In consequence, the Court doesnot
considerthat amedianlineboundaryis already "in place",eitheras the
continental shelf boundary,ao srthatof the fisheryzone. The Court
therefore proceed to examine the law applicab atepresentto the
delimitation question still outstanding betwee Parties.

The a~~iicabïelaw (paras.41-48)

The Courtnotesthatthe Parties differ on the question whether what
is requiredis one delimitation line or t liones,Denmarkaskingfor "a
single lineof delimitationof the fisheryzoneand continental shelf

area",and Norway contendit ngatthemedianline constitutes the
boundaryfor delimitatioo nf the continental shelaf,d constitutesa190
the boundary for th delimitation.otfhe fisheryzone,i.e.,that thetwo
lineswould coincide, but tt heo boundaries would remain conceptually
distinct.

The Court refersto theGulf of Maine cas in whichit was asked
whatwas "thecourseof thesingle maritime boundat ryatdividesthe
continentalshelfand fisheryzones ofCanadaand theUnited States of
America". It observesthatin the present case it is not empowered- or
constrained- by any agreementfor a singledual-purposeboundaryand
thatit has alreadyfound that there is not a continentashelfboundary
alreadyin place. It therefore goeson to examine separately the two
strandsof the applicablleaw: the effectof Article 6of the 1958
Conventionif appliedat the present tim to the delimitatioonf the
continentalshelfboundary, and thenthe effectof the application ot fhe
customarylawwhichgovernsthe fisheryzone. The Court further observtesatthe applicabilit of the 1958
Conventionto thecontinental shelfdelimitation in this casedoesnot
mean thatArticle6 of thatConvention can be interpreteadnd applied
either without referent cecustomarylaw on the subject, or wholly
independentlyof the fact that faishery zone boundarys also in
question in thesewaters. After examiningthe case-lawin thisfieldand
the provisionsof the 1982 United Nations Convent onothe Law of the
Sea, the Courntotesthat thestatement(in thoseprovisions) of an
"equitable solution"as the aim of any delimitation process reflethes
requirementsof customarylaw as regardsthe delimitation botohf
continental shelafnd of exclusiveeconomiczones.

The provisionalmedianline (paras.49-52)

Turningfirst tothe delimitatioo nf the continental shelfhe Court
finds that it is appropriateboth on the basisof Article6 of the 1958
Convention and on thebasisof customary law concerning t continental
shelf,to beginwith the medianlineas a provisional lina end thento
ask whether "special circumstances" require any adju ortmenttingof
thatline. After subsequent examinati ofnthe relevantprecedentswith
regardto the delimitatioo nf the fisheryzones,it appearsto theCourt -
that,both for the continentalshelfand for the fishery zones in this
case, it is properto beginthe processof delimitationby amedianline
provisionallydrawn.

"S~ecialcircumstancesa "nd "relevancircumstances("paras.54-58)

The Courtthenobservesthat it is calledupon to examineevery
particularfactorof the case which might sugge antadjustment or
shiftingof the medianline provisionall drawn. The aim in eachand
every situation mus be to achieve"an equitableesult". Fromthis
standpoint, the 1958 Convention requt ihreinvestigatioonf any
"special circumstances"; the customarybasedupon equitable
principleson the otherhand requiresthe investigatioonf "relevant
circumstances".

The conceptof "specialcircumstancesw"as included ithe 1958
GenevaConventions on the Territorialea and the Contiguous Zone
(Art. 12) and on the ContinentaShelf(Art.6, paras.1 and 2). It was
and remainslinkedto the equidistancemethodtherecontemplated.It is 4
thusapparentthatspecial circumstances at reosecircumstances which
mightdistort the resultproducedby an unqualified application tofe
equidistanceprinciple.General internationl alwhas employed the
concept of "relevantcircumstances".This conceptcan be definedas a
fact necessaryto be takeninto account,in the delimitatioprocess,to
the extentthatit affectsthe rightsof the Parties over certain
maritimeareas. Althoughit is a matterof categories whicahre
differentin originand in name, thereis inevitably a tendency towards
assimilation betwee the special circumstances Article6 of the 1958
Conventionand the relevantcircumstancesundercustomary lawa,nd this
if onlybecausetheyboth areintendedto enablethe achievemeno tf an
equitableresult. Thismustbe especially trui en the caseof opposite
coastswhere,as has beenseen,the tendencyof customary lawl ,ikethe
termsof Article6, has been to postulatethemedianlineas leading
prima facieto an equitableresult. The Courtthenturnsto thequestion whethet rhe circumstances of
the presentcaserequire adjustmentor shifting of that lin takingint.0

accountthe argumentsreliedon by Norwayto justifythemedianline,and
the circumstanceinvoked byDenmarkas justifying the 200-mile line.

Disparitvof lennthof coasts(paras.61-71)

A firstfactorof a geophysical character, a onde whichhas
featuredmost prominentlyin the argumenof Denmark,in regardto both
continentalshelfand fisheryzone,is the disparity o disproportion
betweenthe lengthsof the "relevantcoasts".

Primafacie, a medianline delimitation between opposite coasts
resultsin generalin an equitablesolution,particularlyif the coasts
in question are nearlyarallel. Thereare however situation-sand the
presentcaseis one such - in whichthe relationshi betweenthe length
of the relevantcoasts,and themaritime areasgeneratedby them by
applicationof the equidistanc eethod,is so disproportionat thatit
has been foundnecessaryto takethiscircumstance intoaccount inorder
to ensurean equitablesolution.

In the lightof the existingcase-law thCeourtcomesto the

conclusion that thestrikingdifferencein lengthof the relevant coasts
in this case(whichhad been calculate as approxirnately (for
Greenland) t1o (forJan Mayen))constitutes a special circumstance
withinthe meaningof Article 6, paragraph1, of the 1958Convention.
Similarly,as regardsthe fisheryzones,the Courtis ofthe opinionthat
the applicatioonf themedianline leadsto rnanifestliynequitable
results.

It followsthat, inthe lightof the disparityof coastal lengths,
themedianlineshould beadjustedor shifted in sucha wayas to effect
a delimitationcloserto the coastof Jan Mayen. It should, however ,e
made clear thattakingaccountof the disparityof coastallengthsdoes
not meana directand mathematical application t ofe relationship
betweenthe length ofthe coastal fron of easternGreenland andthatof
Jan Mayen. Nor do the circumstances require the Co tortphold the
claim ofDenmarkthat the boundaryline should bedrawn 200miles from
thebaselineson the coast of eastern Greenland,.e.,a delimitation
giving Denmarkmaximum extension of its cla tomcontinental shelfnd
fisheryzone. The resultof sucha delimitation woulbde to leaveto
Norway merelythe residualpart of the'*aresrelevantto the delimitation

dispute"as definedby Denmark. The delimitationaccordingto the
200-mile line calculated fromct oastsof eastern Greenland mafyrom a
mathematicalperspective seem morequitable thanthat effectedon the
basis ofthe medianline,regard being had to the disparityin coastal
lengths; but this doesnot mean that theresultis equitablein itself,
which is the objective ofverymaritimedelimitation basedon law. The
Courtobserves in this respectthatthe coastof Jan Mayen,no less than
thatof eastern Greenland ,enerates potential tit toethemaritime
areasrecognized by customarylaw,i.e.,in principleup to a limitof
200miles from itb saselines.To attributeto Norway merely the residual
arealeftafter giving fulleffectto the easterncoastof Greenland,
wouldrun whollycounterto the rightsof Jan Mayenand also to the
demands ofequity. At this stageof its analysis, thCeourtthusconsiders thatneither
the medianlinenor the 200-mile line calculatedfromthe coastsof
eastern Greenlani dn the relevant areahouldbe adoptedas theboundary
of the continental shelf o or the fishery zone.It followsthatthe
boundary line mus be situated betweenthesetwo linesdescribedabove,
and located in sucha way that the solution obtaii nejustified by the
specialcircumstances confrontb ed the1958 Conventioonn the
Continental Shelf and equitableon the basis of theprinciplesand rules
of customary internationl alw. The Courtwill therefore nex consider
what other circumstances may also aft fectositionof the boundary
line.

Accessto resources(paras.72-78)

The Courtthenturnsto the question whether acce tsosthe resources

of the areaof overlapping claims constitua tefsactor relevanto the
delimitation.The Partiesare essentially in conflict over acces to
fishery resources; the principxalloitedfishery resourceeing
capelin. The Courthas thereforeto consider whether any shifting or
adjustment of themedianline,as fishery zone boundarw y,uldbe
requiredto ensureequitable accestso thecapelinfisheryresources. w

It appearsto the Courtthat the seasonalmigrationof the capelin
presentsa pattern whichn,orthof the 200-milelineclaimed by Iceland,
may be said to centreon the southernpartof the areaof overlapping
claims, approximately betwe that lineand the parallelof 72' North
latitude,and thatthe delimitatioo nf the fisheryzoneshould reflect
this fact. It is clearthatno delimitation in th area couldguarantee
to eachPartythe presence in everyyear offishable quantities of
capelinin the zoneallotted to ib ty the line. It appears howevetro
the Courtthatthe medianline is too farto theWest for Denmarkto be
assuredof an equitable accessto the capelinstock,sinceit would
attributeto Norwaythewholeof the areaof overlapping claims. For
this reason alstohemedianline thusrequiresto be adjustedor shifted
eastwards.The Court is furthersatisfiedthatwhile iceconstitutes a
considerableseasonalrestriction of accessto thewaters,it doesnot

materially affect accet ssmigratoryfisheryresourcesin the southern
part of the areaof overlappingclaims.

Populationand economy(paras.79-80)

Denmarkconsiders as also relevanto thedelimitation the major
differences between Greenla and Jan Mayenas regards populatioand
socio-economifcactors.

The Courtobservesthatthe attributioo nf maritimeareasto the
territoryof a State, which,by its nature,is destined tobe permanent,
is a legal processbasedsolelyon the possessionby the territory
concernedof a coastline.The Court recalls in thepresentdisputethe
observationsit had occasionto make,concerningcontinental shelf
delimitation, itnhe Continental ShelfLibvanArabJamahiriva/Malta)
case,namelythat adelimitation shouldnot beinfluenced by the relative
economicpositionof the twoStatesin question, in sucha way thatthe
areaof continental shelr fegardedas appertaining to thlessrichof
the two Statewsouldbe somewhat increasedin orderto compensatefor its

inferiorityin economic resources. The Court therefore concludes that,n the delimitatiotno be

effectedin this case, thereis no reasonto considereither thelimited
nature of the populatio onJan Mayenor socio-economif cactorsas
circumstancetso betakeninto account.

Securitv(para.81)

Norwayhas argued,in relationto the Danishclaimto a 200-mile
zone off Greenlandthat"thedrawingof a boundarycloserto one State
thanto anotherwould imply an inequitable displacemeontthe
possibility of the former Statto protect interest whichrequire
protection".

In the Libya/Maltacase,the Courtwas satisfiedthat

"thedelimitation whic will result from the applicati ofnthe
present Judgmentis ...not so nearto the coastof either
Partyas to make questionosf securitya particular
considerationin the present case"(1.C.J.Reports1985,p. 42,
para.51).

The Courtis similarlysatisfiedin the present casa es regardsthe
delimitation to be describebelow.

Conductof the Parties(paras.82-86)

Denmarkhas contended that the condu oftthe Partiesis a highly .
relevant factoi rn the choiceof the appropriate methoof delimitation
where such conducthas indicatedsome particulamrethodas being likely
to producean equitableresult. In this respect, Denmarkrelieson the
maritime delimitation between Nor andyIceland,and on a boundary line
established bNyorway betweenthe economiczoneof mainlandNorwayand
the fisheryprotection zono ef the Svalbard Archipela(goearIsland-
BjBrn0ya).

So far as Bear Islandis concerned, this territo rysituatedin a
regionunrelatedto theareaof overlapping claim now to be delimited.
In thatrespect, the Courtobservesthatthere can be no legal obligation
for a partyto adisputeto transpose, for the settleme oftthat
dispute,a particular solution previoua sloypted byit in a different
context. As for the delimitation between Icel andNorway,
internationallaw doesnot prescribe,with a view to reachingan

equitable solution, the adopto iona single method fotrhe delimitation
of the maritime space onal1 sidesof an island,or for thewholeof the
coastal frontof a particularState,ratherthan,if desired, varying
systemsof delimitation for thevariouspartsof the coast. The conduct
of the parties willin many cases therefore havno influenceon such a
delimitation.For thesereasons, the Court concludes that the con ofuct
the Partiesdoesnot constitute an elementwhichcouldinfluencethe
operationof delimitationin thepresentcase.The definitionof the delimitation lin (paras.87-93)

Havingthuscompletedits examination of the geophysicaland other
circumstances brough to its attentionas appropriatto be takeninto
account for thepurposesof the delimitation otfhe continental sheland
the fishery zones the Courthas come to the conclusiothatthemedian
line,adoptedprovisionally for bothas firststagein the delimitation,
shouldbe adjustedor shiftedto becomea linesuchas to attribute a
largerarea ofmaritime space to Denmarkthanwould the medianline. The
linedrawnby Denmark200nautical miles from the baselineosf eastern
Greenland would however be excess asven adjustmentand wouldbe
inequitable inits effects. The delimitation line must therefore be
drawn withinthe areaof overlapping claims, between l theesproposed
by eachParty. The Court will therefor now proceed toexaminethe
questionof the precise positio of thatline.

To give onlya broadindication of themannerin whichthe
definitionof thedelimitation line should be fix and, to leavthe
matterfor the further agreeme ntthe Parties,as urgedby Norway,
would in the Court'sviewnot bea complete discharg of itsdutyto J
determine thedispute. The Court is satisfiedthat it shoulddefinethe
delimitation line i sucha way that any questiow nsichmightstill
remainwould be matters strictlyrelatingto hydrographictechnicalities
which the Parties, with the ho elptheirexperts,can certainly
resolve. The areaof overlapping claims in this ci asedefined by the
medianlineand the 200-mil line fromGreenland,and thoselinesare
both geometrical constructs; therehtbe differencesof opinion over
basepoints, but given defined basepointts,e twolinesfollow
automatically.The medianlineprovisionalld yrawnas firststage inthe
delimitation proces has accordingly beenefinedby reference to the
basepointsindicated by th Partieson the coastsof Greenlandand
Jan Mayen. Similarly the Court maydefinethedelimitation line now to

be indicated,by referenceto that medianlineand to the 200-mileline
calculated byDenmarkfromthe basepointo sn the Coastof Greenland.
Accordingly the Courtwill proceedto establishsucha delimitation,
using for thispurposethe baselinesand CO-ordinatewshichtheParties
themselves have bee content to emploin theirpleadingsand oral
argument.

[Para.911 The delimitation linies to lie between theedianline
and the 200-milelinefrom thebaselinesof easternGreenland. Itill
run frompoint A in the north, thpeointof intersectionof thosetwo
lines,to a point on the 200-mileline drawn from the baselinclaimed
by Iceland, between points (theintersectioo nf themedianline with
the 200-milelineclaimed by Iceland) andB (theintersectionof
Greenland's200-milelineand the 200-mile lineclaimed by Iceland)on
sketch-mapNo. 2. For the purposesof definitionof the line,and witha
view tomakingproperprovision for equitable accessto fishery

resources, theareaof overlapping claims wi beldividedintothree
zones,as follows. Greenland's 200-mil lene (betweenpointsA and B on
sketch-mapNo. 2) showstwo markedchanges of direction indicatedon the
sketch-mapas points 1 andJ; similarly thmeedianline shows two
corresponding changoes direction, markeads pointsK and L. Straight
linesdrawnbetweenpoint1 and point K, and betweenpointJ and pointL,
thusdividethe area of overlapping clai mstothree zones,to be
referredto, successivelyfrom southto north,as zone1, zone2 and
zone 3. GREENLAND
SEA

NORWEGIAN
SEA
Kolbein.ey

ICELAND 5' [Para. 921The southernmostzone,zone1, corresponds essentialt ly
the principal fishingarea. In the viewof the Court,the twoParties

should enjoyequitable accessto the fishingresourcesof thiszone. For
this purposea point,to be designated pointM, is identifiedon the
200-mile lineclaimed by Icelandbetween point s and D, and equidistant
from thosepoints,and a line is drawnfrornpoint M so as to intersect
the line betweepnoint J andL, at a pointdesignated pointN, so as to
dividezone 1 into two partsof equalarea. The dividinglineis shown
on sketch-mapNo, 2 as the line between pointNsand M. So far as
zones 2 and3 are concerned,it is a questionof drawing the appropriate
conclusions,in the applicationof equitable principles, fr the
circumstanceof themarked dispariti yn coastal lengthsd,iscussedin
paragraphs61 to 71 above. The Court considertshatan equaldivisionof
the wholeareaof overlapping claims would give too ga reatightto
thiscircumstance. Takinginto account the equal diviso ifozone1, it
considers thatthe requirementsof equity wouldbe met by the following
divisionof the remainderof the areaof overlapping claims: a point

(O on sketch-mapNo. 2) is to be determineon the line betwee n and K
such that the distancefrom1 to O is twice thedistancefrom Oto K;
the delimitatioonf zones2 and 3 is theneffected by the straig line J
from pointN to thispoint0, and the straight line frp omint Oto
point A.

The Court setsout theCO-ordinates otfhevariouspoints,for the
informationof the Parties. Annex to PressCommuniaué 93/14

Declarationof Vice-PresidenOtda

In his declarationJudgeOda explains that, theCourthavingtakena
decisionon the substance ofthe casedespitehis own view thattheApplication

shouldhave been dismissedas misconceived,he votedwith the majoritybecause
the linechosenlay withinthe infiniterangeof possibilities open to selection
by the Parties hadtheyreachedagreement.

Declarationof JudneEvensen

In his concurring declaratioJnu,dge Evensen stressethatthe
UnitedNationsLaw of the Sea Conventionof 10 December 198expresses a number
of principles thamtust beconsideredgoverning principle of international law
althoughthe Conventionhas not yet enteredintoforce.
\
Jan Mayen must beregardedan island andnot solely a rock. Article 121,
paragraph2, of the Conventioprovidesthat in principleislands shall be
governedby thesame legalrégimeas "other land territory". ThusJan Mayen
mustbe takenintoconsideration in the delimitation ofthemaritime zones
vis-à-visGreenland, a continentalsizearea.

It lies withinthe Court'smeasureof discretion to establisha systemof
In his
equitableaccessto fishresources in areasof overlappingclaims.
declaration, JudgeEvensenendorsesthe proposed systemfor thedistribution of
theseresources ofthe adjacentseas.

Declaration of JudneAnuilar

Judge Aguilarvoted for theJudgmentbecausehe concurs with its
reasoning.He is,however,not persuaded that th delimitationlineas drawnby
the Courtprovidesfor an equitableresult. In his opinion,the differencein
the lengthsof thecoastsof Greenland andJan Mayen is such thatGreenland
(Denmark)should havereceived a large rroportion ofthe disputedarea. Given
the importance attache to this factorin the Judgment,it wouldhave been
logicalat leastto make an equaldistribution of zone 1, 2 and3.

Declaration of JudpeBanleva

Judge Ranjevaappended adeclaration to the Court'sJudgmentindicating
thathe had votedin favourof the operative par and subscribedto the
arguments on whichit is based. In his view, theresultwas an equitableone.
He would nevertheles savewishedthe Court tobe more explicitin statingits
reasons for drawintghe delimitatiolnineadopted. For in the exercise ofits
discretionarypower,the Courtcouldindeedhave been morespecificas regards
the criteria, methods andrulesof law applied. Also,he wouldhave preferred
the Courtto make it clearthatit was in relationto the rightsof the Parties
to their maritimespacesthat thespecial orrelevant circumstancc esuldor
sometimesshouldbe takeninto account in a delimitation operation; threse
were facts affectintghe rightsof States,as recognizedin positive law,either
in their entiretyo,r in the exerciseof the powersrelatingthereto. The
proper administratio on justiceand legal securitydependon the certaintyof
the legal rule.

On the otherhand, in theview ofJudgeRanjeva, althougt hhe Court- and

rightly so- had no need to explorethe legalscopeof statements madeby a
Stateat theThirdNationsConference on the Law of the Sea, the Court should
not, consideringthe exceptional procedure adopt ondthatoccasion, havetaken
account ofpositions which wereunofficialonly and entirely non-committing.Separateopinionof Vice-PresidenO tda

In his separateopinion JudgeOda emphasizesthatthe Courtcanbe endowed
with the competenceto delimita maritimeboundaryonlyby specificagreement of

both partiesconcerned.Denmark's unilateral application ought, consequen toly,
have been dismissed. Denmark'ssubmissions furthermore supposed, wron gly,
the exclusiveeconomiczone (EEZ)couldCO-exist with a fishery zone otfhekind
eliminated from th1982Convention on the Law of theSea. Its requestfor a
single-line boundary also overlooked thseparatebackgroundand evolution ofthe
continentalshelfrégime.

In that respectJudgeOda considers thatthe Court wronglyfollowedthe
Partiesin applying Article 6 of the 1958Convention,which relatesto a
superseded concep of the continentaslhelf. What applies todayto the
delimitation of eitherthe continental shelf or theEZ is the customarylaw
reflectedin the 1982Convention,which leavesthe Parties freeto reachagreement
on any line they choose,sincethe reference to an "equitablsolution"is not
expressiveof a ruleof law.

A third party calle upon to settlea disagreementoverdelimitation may
either suggest guidelintes thepartiesor itselfchoosea lineproviding an
equitable solution. In JudgeOda'sview the Court, as a judicialbody applying

internationallaw, is however precluded frtomkingthe secondcourseunless
mandatedby bothpartiesto do so. It should not have soproceededon an
application whichreliedon declarations underArticle36, paragraph 2, of the
Statute,sincesuchdeclarations confe jurisdictiononly for strictly legal
disputes, whereasan act of delimitation requir aesassessmentex aeauoet bono.

JudgeOda further criticizesthe Court'sconcentratioonn the areaof overlap
between claimst ,o the neglecof thewholerelevantarea,as well as its failure
to give any good reason why acctessfishingresources should have be tenken
into accountin relationto a boundary applyintgo the continentashelf.

Se~arateopinionof JudneSchwebel

JudgeSchwebel,in his separateopinion, maintain shat theCourt'sJudgment
is questionablewith respectto the following thre questions:

1. Should thelaw of maritime delimitation rbevisedto introduceand apply
distributive justice? 1

2. Should thedifferingextentof the lengths of oppositecoastlines
determine the positioon the lineof delimitation?

3. Shouldmaximalist claimsbe rewarded?

However,he concluded that,sincewhat is equitable appeartso be as variable
as the climateof The Hague,groundfor dissent from theCourt'sJudgment is
lacking.

Se~arateopinionof JudneShahabuddeen

In hisseparateopinion, Judge Shahabuddee says thathe understandsthe
Judgmentto be upholdingNorway'sview that the1958 conventional delimitation
formulameans that,in the absenceof agreement anodf special circumstances,
boundary is themedianline. He giveshis reasons for agreeing wit thisviewand
for decliningto acceptthatthe conventional formui lato be equatedwith the

customaryformula. He is not persuaded that thequation suggesteby the1977
Anglo-French arbitra decisionshould befollowed. He thinksthatthe conceptof natural prolongation, considei reda physical
sense,has placedlimitson recourseto proportionality. In his view, the
movementawayfromthe physical aspeco tf natural prolongation shou bedfollpwed
by arelaxation of thoselimits.

JudgeShahabuddeen giveshis reasons for holdin ghat thedecisionof the
Courtis not ex aequoet bono. He has somedoubtsas to whethera single line is
possiblein the absenceof agreementby thePartiesto sucha line being
established.He agreesthatin the atateof the technical materialbeforethe
Court,an actualdelimitation line shoun ldt bedrawn,but considers thath,ad
thematerialbeen adequate, the Couc rtuldcompetently have drawnsucha line
notwithstandinNgorway'snon-consentto that beingdone.

Finally,in his view, where Partie have failedto agreeon a boundary,the
resultingdisputeas to what is the boundaris susceptibleof judicialsettlement

via aunilateral Application madenderArticle36, paragraph2, of the Statuteof
the Court.

Separateo~inionof JudneWeeramantry

Judge Weeramantry ,n his separateopinion, expressehis agreement withthe
Judgmentof the Courtand examines the special ropleayed byequityin the
Court'sreasoning and conclusionA s. theuse of equityin maritime delimitation
is currentlypassingthrougha criticalphase, the opinion studi ess operation
in this casefromseveralangles. It looksat the relevance to the Judgment of
equitable principles, equitable procedures, equitable m andhodsitable
results. The opinion stressetshatequity operatesi,n theJudgment,infralenem
andnot contralenemor ex aeauoet bono,and traces the variousroutesof entry
of equityintomaritimedelimitation. dtistinguishes thae rior reiploymentof
equityto work towardsa result fromits a ost te ri employment,to checka
resultthusobtained, and setsout thevarioususes of equita ynd itsvarious
methodsof operationin thiscase. It also analyses the Judgmentin the lightof

the severalcomponent elementof an equitabledecision.

Examiningthe variousuncertainties in theuse of equityin maritime
delimitation,the opinionseeksto show that thesedo not constitute a sufficient
reason for rejectingthe useof equityas an aid both to particular delimitations
suchas the present and t the general developmeont the law of the sea.

The opinion also lookat the particufarinvocations,by treatyand
otherwise, of equityin maritimedelimitation.It concludes by examiningthe
conceptof equityin globalterms,showing that a searchof global tradition sf
equity canyield perspective of far-reachingimportanceto the developing la of
the sea.

Separateopinionof JudneAJibola

In his separateopinion, JudgAeJibola,while strongly supporting the
Court'sdecision, consider thatsome areasof theJudgment should be
elaborated.He first refers to some procedural issues relatt injurisdiction:
Could the Courdtraw any line,and should theline havebeen a dual-purpose
single lineor two lines? Should onlya declaratoryJudgment havebeen given?
Can theCourtengagein a delimitation withou the agreementof the Parties?
Howeverthatmight be, the Court, once convin thatthere is an issuein
dispute,ought to proceed to adecisionon themerits. As to the questionof whetherthereshouldbe one lineor two,the
development of the law of maritime delimitatiand the relevant case-law
supports the Court'sconclusions.

Characterizingthe Danishsubmissionsas more aclaimof entitlement thana
cal1 for delimitation, JudgAjibolapointsout that,despitethe disparityof
size,the entitlement of Norwayin respectof Jan Mayen is equally justifiable
and recognized ininternationallaw.

He thenexaminesthe equitable principles in maritimboundary delimitation,
comingto the conclusiot nhat theyare the fundamentaplrinciplewhichnow apply
to maritime delimitatio in customary internationlalw and thattheycan be
expectedto underlieits future development.

FinallyJudge Ajibolaexamines the concept of "specialcircumstancesu"nder
the 1958 Conventionand of "relevant circumstanceundercustomary international
law, concludintghatthere is effective equivalenbceetween,on the one hand,the
triadof agreement, special circumstana ceds equidistancend,on the other,
thatof agreement, relevantcircumstancesand equitablperinciples, witthhe
last-mentioned constituti theultimateruleundermoderncustomary law.

Dissenti- opinionof Judnead hoc Fischer

JudgeFischerhas votedagainst the decisionas he considersthat themost
equitable solution would have beeandelimitationat a distanceof 200nautical
miles from EastGreenland. His main reasonsare the following.

He doesnot thinkthatthe Courthas sufficiently takenthe difference
between the relevantcoastsof East Greenland (approximat5 elykilometres)and
Jan Mayen (approximately58kilometres) intcoonsideration.The ratiois more
than9 to 1 in favour oGreenland whereas theratioof allocatedarea is only
3 to 1. The delimitation 200 miles fr Greenland woulhdave allocatedareasto
the Parties inthe ratioof 6 to 1 which,accordingto JudgeFischer,wouldhave
been in conformity wit the generally accepted principofeproportionality.

Contraryto the standpoint of thCeourtJudge Fischerconsidersthat the
fundamental differenc between Greenland aJndn Mayen withrespectto their
demographic,socio-economiacnd politicalstructures shoulhdave beentakeninto

consideration.He has underlined thaG treenlandis a viablehumanSocietywith a
populationof 55,000 whichis heavilydependenton fisheries and withpolitical
autonomy whereaJsan Mayenhas no population inthe propersenseof theword.

JudgeFischerfurthermore considersthatthe Iceland-JaM nayendelimitation
which respectsIceland's 200-mil zoneis highlyimportantfor the presentcase.
As the relevantfactorsin the twocases arevery similarit would havebeenjust
and equitableto draw thedelimitation linien thepresentcase ina manner
similarto the Iceland-JaMnayendelimitation.

JudgeFischer is opposedto themethodof usinga medianlineas a
provisionallydrawnline. Judicialpracticeis in his opinionambiguous andno
suchmethodcan be deduced froA mrticle6 of the 1958 Convention onhe
ContinentalShelf.

Finally,JudgeFischer considers tm hethodof dividingthe areaof
overlappingclaimsintothreezonesand of dividing each of thesezonesaccording

to differentcriteriato be artificial and withofuotundatioin international
law.