Summary of the Judgment of 20 February 1969 | INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Document Number

5563

Document Type

summary

Case

52 - North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands)

Number (Press Release, Order, etc)

1969/1

Date of the Document

Thu, 02/20/1969 - 12:00

Document File

5563.pdf

Summaries of Judgments, AdNot an official documentrs of the Internationa
l Court of Justice

NORTH SEA CONTINENTAL SHELFCASES

Judgmentof 20 February 1969

The Court deliveredjudgment, by 11 votesto 6, in the tors to be taken into considerationfor that purpose. It was
NorthSeaContinentalShelfcases. nowfor thePartiesto negotiateon the basisof such princi-
Thedispute,whichwassubmittedtotheC:ourton20Feb- ples,asthey haveped todo.
ruary1967,relatedtothedelimitationofthecontinentalshelf The proceedings, relatingto the delimitation asbetween
between theFederalRepublicof Germanyand Denmarkon the Partiesof the areasof therth Sea continentalshelf
theonehand,andbetween theFederalRepublicofGermany appertainingtoeachofthem,wereinstitutedon20February
andtheNetherlands ontheother.ThePartiesaskedtheCourt 1967by the communication to the Registryof the Court of
to statetheprinciplesandrulesofnternatioinallawapplica- twoSpecialAgreements,betweenDenmarkandthe Federal
ble, and undertookthereafterto carry out the delimitationspublic andthe Federal Republicand the Netherlands
onthat basis. respectively.ByanOrderof26April 1968,theCourtjoined
The Court rejectedthe contentionofDenmarkand the theproceedingsinthe twocases.
Netherlands tothe effect that thedelimitati.onsin questionThe Court decided thetwo cases in a single Judgment,
hadtobecarriedoutinaccordancewith theprincipleofequi- whichit adoptedbyelevenvotes tosix. AmongsttheMem-
distanceasdefinedinArticle6ofthe 1958Geneva Conven- bers of the Court concumng in the Judgment, JudgeSir
tionontheContinentalShelf,holding: Muhammad ZafrullaKhanappendedadeclaration;andPres-
identustamanteyRiveroandJudgesJessup,hdilla Nervo
-that the Federal Republic,which had not ratified the andAmrnounappendedseparateopinions.Inthecaseofthe
Convention,wasnotlegallyboundbythe pmwisionsofArti- nonconcumng Judges, a declaration of his dissent was
cle6; appendedby Judge Bengzon;and Vice-President Koretsky,
-that theequidistanceprinciplewasnotanecessarycon- togetherwithJudgesTanaka,Morelliand Lachs,andJudge
sequenceof the generalconceptofcontinentalshelfrights, adhoc Serensen,antendeddissentingopinions.
andwasnotaruleofcustomaryinternationallaw. Inits Judgment, the Courtexaminedin thecontextof the
The Court also rejected the contentionsof the Federal delimitationsconcernedthe problems relatingto the legal
Republicinsofarasthesesoughtacceptanceoftheprinciple dgime of the continentalshelfraisedby the contentionsof
of an apportionmentof the continentalshelf intojust and theParties.
equitable shares. Itheld thatPartyhad anoriginalright
to those areasof the continentalshelf whichconstituted tTheFactsand theContentionsofthekrties
naturalprolongationof its landtemtory inand under the (paras. 1-17oftheJudgment)
sea.Itwasnotaquestionofapportioningorshiaringoutthose
areas,butofdelimitingthem. The two Special Agreements had asked the Court to
The Courtfoundthatthe boundarylines inquestionwere declaretheprinciplesandrulesof internationallawapplica-
tobedrawnbyagreement between the Partieasndinaccord- ble to thedelimitation asbetweenthe Partiesof theareasof
ancewithequitable principles,and it indicatedcertainfac-theNorthSea contine.ntshelfappertainingtoeachofthem

coastalreadydeterminedbetween the Fede:ralRepublicand the Netherlandsby an agreementof 1December1964and betweentheFederalRepublic andDenmarkbyanagreement
A boundary based onthe equidistanceprincilple,i.e., an "equidistanceline", lefttoeachofthePartiesconcernedall thoseportionsof the continentalshelfthat werenearerto a ofthe otherParty.Inthecaseofaconcaveorrecessingcoast effectof the equidistanceethodwasto pi11t1heline ofthehe boundaryinwards,in thedirectionof the concavity.Conse- quently, where two equidiatancelines were &awn, they would,ifthecurvaturewerepronounced,illevitablymeetat arelativelyshortdistancefromthecoast,fias '' the coastal Statefromthe area of the continentalshelfout- side. In contrast,theeffectof convexor olltwardlycurving
justify a departurefromthat methodof delimitationin this
particularcase.
/> TheApportionmenT t heoryRejected
(paras. 18-20 oftheJudgment)
The Court feltunableto accept, in the particularform it
had taken, the firstcontentionput forward onbehalfof the
sea- FederalRepublic.Itstaskwastodelimit,nottoapportionthe
me processofdelimitationinvolvedestab-
lishingtheboundariesofanareaalready,inprinciple,apper-
bining tothecoastalStateandnot thedeterminationde
of suchanarea.Thedoctrineof thejust andequitableshare
waswhollyatvariancewiththemostfundamentalof allthe
rulesoflawrelatingtothecontinentalshelf,namely,thatthe
rightsofthecoastalStateinrespectoftheareaofcontinental
shelft;onstitutinga naturalprolongationof its landterritory
underthe seaexistedipsofacto andab initio,byvirtueofits
sovereigntyovertheland.Thatrightwas inherent.In order
On the toexerciseit,nospeciallegalactshadtobeperformed.Itfol-
lowedthat the notionof apportioninganas yet undelimited
area as a whole(whichunderlaythe doctrineof
thejust andequitableshare)wasinconsiskntwiththe basic
conceptof continentalshelfentitlement.
Non-ApplicabilityofArticle6 oftheI958 ContinentalShelf
Convention
(p,s. 21-36 ofthe judgment)
TheCourtthenturned to the question whetheir ndelimit-
ingthoseareastheFederalRepublicwas undera legalobli-
gationtoaccepttheapplication oftheequidistanceprinciple.
While itwasprobablyme thatnoothermethodofdelimita-
tionhadthesame combinationof practicalconvenienceand
certaintyof application,thosfactorsdidnotsufficeofthem-
selvestoconvertwhat wasamethod intoaruleoflaw. Sucha
cuttingoff" method would have todrawits legal forcefromotherfactors
than theexistenceofthoseadvantages.
/> Thefirstquestionto be consideredwaswhether the 1958
GenevaConventionon theContinentalShelfwasbindingfor
allthePartiesinthecase.Undertheformalprovisionsofthe
Convention,it wasinforceforanyindividualStatethathad
also sllbsequentlyratifiedit. Denmarkand,the Netherlands
hadbothsigned and ratified the Convention anwdereparties
to it, buttheFederalRepublic,althoughoneof the signato-
riesofthe Convention,hadnever ratified il:,andwasconse-
quentlynot a party.It was admitted on behalfof Denmark
(effectthat in the andtheNetherlandsthatinthe circumstance:t^heConvention
couldnot,assuch,bebinding on the FederaR l epublic.Butit
wascontendedthatthe r6gimeofArticle6oftheConvention
had becomebinding on theFederal Republic, because,by
conduct, by public statementsand proclzunations,and in
otherways,theRepublichadassumed the obligationsofthe
Convention.
It was clear that only a very definite, very consistent
courseofconductonthe partofaStatein thesituationofthe
FederalRepubliccouldjustify upholding those contentions.
Whena numberof Statesdrew upa conventionspecifically
providingfor a particularmethodby whichthe intentionto
become boundby the r6gimeof the conventionwas to be
manifested, it was notlightlyto be presumedthat a State
whichhadnotcarriedout thoseformalitieshadnevertheless
somehow become bound in anotherway.Furthermore,had
the FerderalRepublic ratified the Geneva Convention, it
couldhaveenteredareservationtoArticle6,byreasonofthe
facultytodosoconferredbyArticle12oftheConvention.

73 Only theexistenceof a situationof estoppel couldlend Stateson28Septem'ber 1945couldberegardedasa starting-
substance to the contentionof Denmark ;md the Nether- pointofthepositive:lawonthesubject,andthechiefdoctrine
lands-i.e., if the Federal Republicwere now precluded it enunciated, thatthe coastal Statehad an original,natural
from denyingthe applicabilityof theconve:ntionaldgime, andexclusiverighttothecontinentalshelfoffitsshores,had
byreasonof pastconduct, declarations,etc..,which notonly cometo prevailoverallothersandwasnowreflectedinthe
clearlyand consistentlyevincedacceptanceof thatdgime, 1958GenevaConvention.Withregard tothe delimitationof
butalsohadcausedDenmarkorthe Netherlands,inreliance boundaries between1the continental shelvesof adjacent
on suchconduct, detrimentallyto change positionor suffer States,theTrumanProclamationhadstatedthat such bound-
someprejudice.Ofthistherewas noevidence.Accordingly, aries "shallbedetenninedbytheUnitedStatesandtheState
Article6 ofthe Geneva Convention wasnot.,as such,appli- concernedin accordancewithequitable principles".These
cable to thedelimitationsinvolvedin the present proceed- two concepts, of delimitation by mutual agreementand
ings. delimitationin accc~rdancewith equitable principles,had
underlain allthe sulxequent history of the subject. It had
TheEquidistancePrincipleNotInherentin theBasicDoc- been largely on the:~~~n~mendation of a committee of
trineoftheContinentalShelf expertsthat the principofequidistanceforthe delimitation
(paras.37-59 oftheJudgment) of continentalshelf boundarieshad beenacceptedby the
United NationsInternationalLawCommissioninthe textit
It hadbeenmaintainedby Denmarkand theNetherlands hadlaid beforetheGenevC a onferenceof 1958ontheLawof
that theFederalRepublicwas in anyevent, andquite apart the Sea whichhad a.doptedthe ContinentalShelfConven-
from theGenevaConvention,boundto accrtptdelimitation tion. It couldegitimatelybe assumedthat the expertshad
on anequidistancebasis, sincetheuse oftha.tmethodwasa been actuatedby co~nsiderationnsot of legal theorybut of
ruleofgeneral or customaryinternationallaw, automatically practicalconvenienceandcartography.Moreover,thearticle
bindingontheFederalRepublic. adoptedby the Comimissionhad given priority todelimita-
Oneargumentadvancedbytheminsupportofthisconten- tion\byagreementandhadcontainedanexceptioninfavour
tion, whichmightbe termed the apriori argument, started of ''special~~rcumstamces".
fromthe positionthattherightsofthecoastalStatetoitscon- TheCourt consequentlyconsideredthaD t enmark andthe
tinentalshelf areas were basedon its sovereigntyover the Netherlands invertedthe trueorder of things and that, far
landdomain,of whichthe shelfareawasthe naturalprolon- fromanequidistancerule havingbeengeneratedbyanante-
gationunderthesea. Fromthisnotionof appurtenance was cedent principleof pi:oximityinherentinthe wholeconcept
derived theview,whichthe Courtaccepted,that thecoastal of continentalshelf appurtenance,the latter was rather a
State's rights existipsofactoandab initio.Denmarkand rationalizationofthe former.
theNetherlandsclaimedthatthetestofappurtenancemustbe
"proximity": all those partsftheshelf beingconsideredas ~h, ~~~idi~~p ~rin~i~leN~~a ~~l~of~ustomaryinter-
appurtenanttoaparticularcoastalStatewhich werecloserto ,tio,l L~~
it thanthey wereto anypointonthe coastof'anotherState. (paras.60-82 of thejudgment)
Hence, delimitationhad to be effectedby a method which
would leaveto each one of the Statesconcc:rnedall those Thequestionremained whetherthrough positivelaw pro-
areasthatwerenearestto itsowncoast.Asonlyanequidis- cesses the equidistanceprinciplmustnowberegardedasa
tanceline woulddo this, only sucha linecoluldbe valid, it ruleofcustomaryinternationallaw.
wascontended. Rejecting the contentionsof Denmark and the Nether-
Thisviewhad muchforce;thegreaterpartofaState'scon- lands, the Court considered that the principlof equidis-
tinentalshelfareas wouldnormallyin fact te nearerto its tance, asit figuredin Article6 of the GenevaConvention,
coaststhantoanyother. Butthereal issuewaswhetheritfol- hadnot beenproposeclbytheInternationalLawCommission
lowedthatevery partoftheareaconcernedmustbeplacedin as an emerging ruleof customary internationallaw. This
thatway.TheCourt didnotconsiderthisto followfromthe Articlecouldnotbesaidtohavereflectedorcrystallizedsuch
notionofproximity,whichwasa somewhatfl.uidone. More a rule. This wasconfirmedby the factthat any Statemight
fundamentalwastheconceptofthecontinentalshelfasbeing makereservationsinrespectofArticle6, unlikeArticles1,2
thenaturalprolongationofthelanddomain.Bvenifproxim- and 3, on signing, ratifyior accedingto the Convention.
ity might affordoneofthe teststo beapplied,and animpor- Whilecertain otherpirovisionsof the Convention, although
tantoneintherightconditions,it mightnotnec:essarilbethe relatingto mattersthatlay withinthe fieldof receivedcus-
only, nor in all circumstancesthe most applropriate,one. tomarylaw,werealsonotexcludedfromthefacultyofreser-
Submarineareasdidnotappertaintothe coastidStatemerely vation,theyall relatedtorulesofgeneralmaritimelawvery
becausethey werenearit, nordidtheir appurtenancedepend considerably antedating the Convention which were only
onanycertaintyofdelimitationas totheirbou.ndaries.What incidentalto continentalshelfrights assuch, and had been
conferred theips0jure titlewasthe fact that the submarine mentionedintheConventionsimplytoensurethattheywere
areas concernedmightbe deemedto be actuidlypart of its not prejudicedby the:exerciseof continentalshelf rights.
temtoryinthesensethatthey wereaprolongationofitsland assuch,andsinceitwasnotexcludedfromthefacultyofres-rights
identified withthe notionofnaturalprolongation, since the ervation,it wasalegitimateinferencethatitwasnotconsid-
useoftheequidistancemethod wouldfrequentlycause areas eredtoreflectemergentcustomarylaw.
whichwerethe natural prolongationof the krritory of one
Stateto be attributedto another.Hence, thenotionof equi- ~thadbeenargued(3nbehalf of knrnark andthe~~th~~-
distancewasnot an inescapableapriori acc0InpaIIimeno tf landsthat even if at tile daofthe GenevaConvention no
basiccontinentalshelfdoctrine. rule of customaryinternationallawexistedin favour ofthe
equidistance principle,such a rule had neverthelesscome
A review of the genesisof the equidistancemethodof into beingsince theC:onvention,partly becauseof its own
delimitationconfirmed theforegoingconclusion. The"'lku- impact,and partly onthebasisof subsequentState practice.
manProclamation" issued bytheGovernmentoftheUnited In orclerfor this process to occur it was necessary that
74Article6ofthe Conventionshould,atall eventspotentially, objectof agreementbetweenthe States concernedand that
be of a norm-creatingchar:zter. Article68was so framed, suchagreementmustbearrivedatinaccordancewithequita-
however,astoputtheobligiation tomake useoftheequidis- bleprinciples. TheF'artiwereunderanobligationto enter
tancemethod afteraprimaryobligationtoeffectdelimitation intonegotiationswithaviewtoarrivingatanagreement and
byagreement.Furthermore,the piartplayetlbythe notionof not merelytogothroughaformalprocesssf negotiationasa
specialcircumstancesinrelationto theprinciplt:of equidis- sortofpriorconditionforthe automaticapplicationof acer-
tance, thecontroversiesasotheexactmeaning;mdscopeof tain method odelimitationintheabsenceofagreement;they
that notion,andthefacultycsfmakingreservationstoArticle were soto conduct themselvesthat the negotiationswere
6 must all raisedoubts as to the potentiallynorm-creating meaningful,whichwouldnotbethecasewhenoneof them
characterofthat Article. insistedupon its own position withoutcontemplatingany
Furthermore,whilea very widespread and representative modificationof it. This obligationwas merely a special
participationinaconventio~mmight showthataconventional applicationof a principleunderlyingall international rela-
rule had becomea general rule of internationallaw, in the tions, whichwasmoreover recognizedin Article33 of the
presentcasethenumberofratificationsandaccessionssofar Charterof theUnitedNationsas oneof the methodsfor the
washardlysufficient.Asregardsthetimeelement,although peacefulsettlementofinternationaldisputes.
thepassageofonlyashortpc:riodoftimewasnot necessarily ThePartieswereunderanobligationto actinsucha way
a bar to the formationof a newrule of customary interna- that in the particularcase, and taking allthe circumstances
tionallaw onthebasisof whatwasoriginallya purely con- into account, equitable principlwere applied. Therewas
ventionalrule,it wasindispensablethat Statepracticeduring noquestionoftheCourt'sdecisionbeingexaequoetbono.It
thatperiod,includingthatofStateswhose interestswerespe- waspreciselya ruleof lawthat called fortheapplicationof
ciallyaffected,shouldhaveIkenbothextensiveandvirtually equitableprinciples,andinsuchcasesasthe presentonesthe
uniform in the sense of the provisioninvokedand should equidistancemethodcould unquestionably lead to inequity.
haveoccurredinsuchawayastoshowageneral recognition Othermethodsexistedand mightbe employed, aloneor in
thataruleoflawwasinvolved.Some 15caseshadbeencited combination,according tothe areas involved.Althoughthe
in which the Statesconcerr~edhad agreedto draw or had Parties intended themselves to apphe principlesandrules
drawnthe boundariesconcernedaccordingtlothe principleof laiddownbytheCourtsome indicationwascalledforofthe
equidistance,but there warsno evidence thatthey had so possiblewaysinwhich theymight apply them.
actedbecausetheyhadfeltlegallycompellettiodraw them in Foralltheforegoingreasons,theCourtfoundineachcase
that way by reasonof a rullcof customarylaw. The cases thatthe useof the equidistancemethod ofdelimitationwas
citedwereinconclusiveand insufficientevidenceofasettled not obligatoryas betweenthe Parties;that no other single
practice. methodof delimitationwasin allcircumstancesobligatory;
The Court consequentlyconcludedthat theGeneva Con- that delimitationwastobeeffectedbyagreementinaccord-
ventionwas not inits originsor inceptiondeclruatoryof a ancewithequitableprinciplesand takingaccountofall rele-
mandatory ruleofcustomaryinternationallawenjoiningthe vantcircumstances,insuchawayastoleaveasmuchaspos-
use of the equidistance principle, itssubsequenteffecthad sibletoeach Part allthose partsofthe continentalshelfthat
notbeenconstitutiveof suclia rule, andStatepracticeupto constituteda naGralprolongationof itslandterritory,with-
datehadequallybeeninsuffi,cienftorthepwpose. outencroachmentonthenatural prolongation oftheland ter-
ritoryof the other;and that, if suchdelimitationproduced
overlappingareas,they weretobe dividedbetweenthePar-
ThePrinciplesand Rulesof.lawApplicable ties in agreedproportions,or, failing agreement, equally,
(paras.83-101oftheJudgment) unlesstheydecidedonadgime ofjointjurisdiction,user,or
Thelegalsituationwas thatthePartieswereundernoobli- exploitation.
gationto apply the equidist:anceprincipleeither underthe In thecourseof negotiations,the factorsto be takeninto
1958 Conventionor as aruled generalorcustomaryinterna- accountwere to include:the generalconfigurationof the
tionallaw. Itconsequentlyrxameunnecess.ary fortheCourt coastsd theParties, aswell asthepresenceofanyspecialor
to considerwhetheror not theconfiguratioriof the Gem unusualfeatures;so far as knownor readilyascertainable,
North Sea coast constituteda "special ci~rcumstance".It thephysical andgeologicalstructureandnaturalresourcesof
remainedfor the Court,however,to indicateto the Parties thecontinentalshelfareasinvolved; the elementfareason-
theprinciplesandrulesof larvinthelightof whichdelimita- abledegreeofproportionality betweenthe extentofthecon-
tionwasto beeffected. tinental shelfareasappertainingto eachStateand the length
ofitscoastmeasuredinthegeneraldirectionofthecoastline,
Thebasicprinciplesinthematterofdelimitation,deriving takingintoaccount theeffects, actualorprospective,ofany
from the mman Proclamalion,were that it must be the othercontinentalshelfdelimitationsinthesameregion.

Document file FR

5562.pdf

Document Long Title

Summary of the Judgment of 20 February 1969