Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
Not an official document
CASECCJlNCERNIN T<H;E CONTINENTAS LHELF(TUNISIA/LIBYAN
ARABJAMAHmRIYA (A)FPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO INTERVENE)
.ludgment of14April1981
In its Judgmentin respectcbMalta's applicaforper- "Mcle 62
mission tointerveneunderArticle 62 of the Stah~tein the "1. Shoulda Stateconsiderthatit htm interestof a
caseconcerning theContinentalShelf betweenlbnisia and legal naturewhichmaybe affectedby the decision in the
Libya,theCourtfound unanimouslythat Malta'srequestfor case, it maysubmita requestto theCourttsbepermitted
permissiontointervene couldnotbegranted. tointervene.
"2. It shall be for the Court to decide upon this
request"
UnderArticle81,paragraph2, ofthe Rulesof Court, an
applicationfor permissionto intervene underArticle62 of
TheCourtwascomposedasfollows: theStatuteshall specifythecasetowhichitrelates,andshall
PresidentSir HumphreyWddock; Vice-Presidt~nEtlias; setout:
Judges Gros, Lachs, Morozov, Nagendra Singli, Ruda, "(a) the interestof a legal naturewliichState
Mosler, Oda, Ago, El-Eria~~,Sette-Camara, El-Khani, applyingto intervene considersmay be affectedby the
Schwebel;JudgesadhocEvensen,JimCnezde:Adchaga. decisioninthat case;
Judges Morozov,Oda and.Schwebel apjended to the "(b) the precise objectoftheintervention;
Judgmentseparateopinionsmallkigleartheir positionswith
regardtocertainmatters raisedintheCourt'sreasoning. "(c)anybasisofjurisdictionwhichiscllaimedtoexist
tothe case."Stateapplyingtointerveneandtheparties
ThecontentionofMaltaandofthettammes
Proceedings befortheCourt (paras. 12-16)
(paras. 1-10)
The Court summarizedthe contentionsput forward by
In its Judgment, theCourt recalled thator11 member Malta in its Applicationand oral arguments,and by the
Libyan Arab Jamahiriyanotiiied to the Coura.Special twoPartiesin their respective wobservationsandoral
Agreementwhichthey had cor~cludeon 10;rune1977for arguments.
the submissionof the qued.on of the continental shelf
betweenthetwocountriestothe InternationalCourtofJUS- LegalproblemsraisedbyMalta'srequest
.---. @ara~.1-1-27)
InaccordancewiththeStatuteandthe RulesofCourt,the TheCourtnotedthatobjectionsinrelationtoallthreemat-
proceedingsthen tooktheirursehavingregad totheterms terspecifiedin Article81, paragraph 2,of the Rules had
of thatAgreement.TheMemadalsof the Partieswerefiled beenraisedbytheParties,whichhadallegedthatMaltahad
and exchangedon 30 May 191h0t,he Counter-Mernorialof notsucceededinshowingpossessionofaninterestofalegal
lbnisia and that of the LibyanArabJamahiriyawerefiled naturewhichmightbe affectedby the decisionin thecase,
respectivelyon 1December19180and2 February1981,and thatthe objectofitsrequestfellaltogetheroutsiscope
were exchangedonthe latterdate. of the foim of interventionfor whichAr62cprovided,
SincetheCourt didnot includuponthebenchajudgeof andthatIt had not establishedanyjurisdictionalwith
lbnisian or of Libyannationality,eachof the Parties exer-m. If rinyoneof thoseobjectionsshobedfoundjusti-
cised the right conferredby Mcle 31 of the Statute to fied,itwould,saidtheCourt, clearlynotbeopentoittogive
choosea judgeadhocto sit i~t~e case. The Libyan Arab anyfurtherconsiderationthe request.
Jamahiriya designatedMr. E. Jimhnez de IMchlaga and Before consideringthe objections theCourt retraced
lbnisia Mr.J. Evensen. historyofthe provisionsof itsStatuteandRulesconcerning
On30January1981MaltafiledanApplicationrequesting interventionandnoted how, fromthebeginning,ithadbeen
permissiontointervenein thcaseunderArticle 62of the substantive questionswhich hadeneraised but toleave
Statute.bnisia andthe LibyanArab Jamahiriya submitted themtobedecidedon the basioftheStatuteand the light
written observationson this Applicationon February oftheparticularcircumstancesofeachcase.
1981,thedatefixedasthetimelimit forthatpurpose.Objec-
tion having been raised tolta's request, :theC:ourt,iInterestofa legalnatureandobjectoftheintervention
19-21 and 23 March1981for the purposeof hearing the on(para s8-35)
threeStatesbefore decidingwhetherit shouldbepanted or
not. TheCourtthenconsidered whetherthe interestof a legal
.naturerelieduponbyMaltaandthestatedobjectof itsinter-
Provisionsof the Statuteand Rulesof Cow? concerning ventionwere suchasto justify the grant of permissionto
intervention intervene.
(para. 11) The interestof a lenaturewhichMalta had invoked
consistedessentialinits ssibleconcernwitlhanyfindings
The Articleof the Statuteirlvokedby Maltaprovidesasof theCourtthatidentif8andassessedthe geographicalor
follows: geomorphologicalfactorsrelevantto thedeIiniitationof theLibynnisia continentalshelf and with any pronounce- in the Judgment,the requestwas not one to which, under
mentsmadebytheCourtregarding,forexample,thesignifi- Article62oftheStimte, theCourtmightaccede.
canceofspecialcircumstancesorthe appliciatiofequitable
principlesin that delimitation.Any such findingsor pro- Jurisdictionallink
nouncements, inMalta's view,werelikely.thaverepercus- (para.36)
sions upon Malta's own rights and legal interestsin any
future settlementof its continentalshelf boundaries with Having reachedthe conclusion that Malta's requesftor
Libyaandlhnisia. Maltahadunderlinedthatonlysuchele- permissiontointervenewasnotonetowhich itcouldaccede,
ments weretheobjectof its requestandthatit wasnotcon- consideration the questionwhetherthe existenceof a valid
cerned with the choiceof the particularline to delimitthelinkofjurisdiction.withthe partiestothecasewas anessen-
boundary between those two countriesor with thelaying- tial condition for the grantingof permissionto intervene
downof generalprinciplesbytheCourtast~tweenthem. underArticle62oftheStatute.
ThefactthatMalta'srequest relatedtospecificelementsin
the case between lhnisia and Libya implied, the Court
found,thatthelegalinterestwhich itreliedonwouldconcern
matters which were.or mightbe. directlyin issuebetween
thePartiesand,as~alta hd presentedthem .erepartofthe
very subject-matterof that case.tMaltahad at the same requestforpermissiionto interveneinthepraceedingsunder
tirnemadeit thatit didnotmeanby i,tsinterventionto 62oftheStatute notbe granted.
submit its own interest in those matters for decision as
between itself and Libor'hnisia, since its objectwasnot SUMMAR OFOPINIONA SPPENDED TO
to obtainany decisionfromthe Court concerning itsconti- THE JUM~MENT
nentalshelfboundarieswitheitherorbotholfthosecountries.
WhileMalta,asithadasserted,clearlypcpssessedacertain JudgeMorozovvotedfor the operativepart of the deci-
interestin the Court'streatmentof the physicalfactorsand sion, but for the followingreason: he considered thatno
legalconsiderationsrelevanttothe delimitationoftheconti- applicationforpemnissionto intervenecouldbe entertained
nentalshelf boundariesof Stateswithin thecentraliter- by the Court unlelssit had competence, in one form or
ranean regionthat was somewhat morespecificand direct another,under ChapterI1 of its Statute.The principle
thanthatofStatesoutsidethatregiont,hatinterestwasnever- enshrinedinthat Chapterwasthat theCourthadno powerto
thelessof the same kindas those of otherStateswithinthe consideranydisputewithouttheconsentofalltheStatespar-
region. But whatMaltahad to show inord:erto obtainper- tiestothat dispute.ThecornerstoneprovisionsofChapterI1
missionto interveneunderArticle62of the Statutewas an hadequallytobe takenintoaccountbeforeanyintervention
interest of a legal nature which might be affectedby the underArticle62couldbeauthorized.Hencetherequirement
Court'sdecisioninthecase. ofconsentappliedtoMalta's request, asit wouldalsoapply
UndertheSpecialAgreementtheCourtwascalleduponto to that of any StaterequestinginterventionOnthe basisof
decide the principlesand rules of internationallaw to be Article62.
appliedin the delimitationof therespective areasof conti- Malta had recognized that no such consent existed
nentalshelf appertainingtolhnisia and Libya. Thosetwo betweenit andthe Ikties, Libyaandlhnisia, whofortheir
Stateshadthereforeput in issue theirclaimswithrespectto parthadobjectedthattheCourtwasnot competent.Therein
the matterscoveredby thatinstrumentand,havingregardto lay,asa matterof principle, the decisivequestwhichthe
thetermsofArticle 59oftheStatute,theCourt's decisionin Courtshould haveconsideredfirst.
the casewouldaccordinglybe bindingin respectof those
express reservationthatits interventionwasnotto havethe *
effectofputtinginissueitsown claimsvis-ibvis'hnisia and * *
Libya. Thatbeingso, the verycharacterof the intervention
for whichMalta sought permission showetdhattheinterest Judge oh statedinhisopinionthathehadvotedin favour
of a legalnaturewhichit had invoked could notbe consid- of theJudgment in deferenceto the competence
eredas one which,withinthe meaningof Article62 of the exercise ingnnting or refusing toinfer-
Statute,mightbeaffectedbythedecisionin thecase. ,,,, underArticle62 of the Statute. That provisionhad,
however,beentoonarrowlyinterpretedintheJudgment,for
TheCourt foundthatwhattherequestineffectsought to it wasfarfromclearthatan interveningStatemust inallcir-
securewastheopportunityofarguinginfavourofadecision cunlstancesplaceitsinterestsinissuelikeapartytothecase.
inwhichtheCourtwouldrefrainfromadoptingandapplying The Court had also, in JudgeOdds opinion, imposed too
ateforthedelimitationofthecontinentashelfoflhnisia andri-severe a test of whetherMalta had a legal interestwhich
Libya.Toallow sucha formof interventionwouldleave the mightbeaffectedby thedecisioninthecase. On thequestion
Partiesquiteuncertainastowhetherandhowfarthey should whetherajurisdictional linkwasrequiredbetweentheinter-
consider theirown separate interestss-a-visMalta as in authorized, JudgeOdaexpressedthe view that thatwouldldbe
effectconstituting part of the subject-matteroease.In dependinteralia 011whetherthe thirdState claimeda right
theviewoftheCourt,aStateseekingto inte~venunderArti- btly involvedinthesubject-matterofthecase.
cle62oftheStatutewasclearlynotentitledtoplacethepar-
tiestothecaseinsuchaposition. *
The Court understood Malta's preoccupationsregarding * *
possibleimplicationsforitowninterestsoftheCourt'sfind-
betweenlbnisia andLibya.Evenso, forthereasons set out Judge Schwebetlrppendeda separate opinionwhichcon-
curwedin the Court.'sJudgmentthat the object of Malta's
114inkmentionwasnotinterventionwithin themeaningof Arti- shelf-the criticalpointis notthe objectof the casebutthe
cle62 oftheStatuteoftheCoturt.Inhisview, theCourtcould subjectsofthecaseastheCourtis likelytotreatthem. Those
reasonably decide todebar hl[alta9srequestointerveneas subjects,asdealtwithinpassagesoftheCourt'sJudgmentin
thatofa "non-party". However,he didnotagreeahatMalta themaincase,could wellaffectthe legal interestsof Malta.
had failed toshow that it hat1an interestof a legal natureJudge Schwebel addedthat, while the Court had rightly
which merely "may" be no more than "afifected"by the refrainedfrom passinguponwhetheraStateseekingto inter-
decisioninthecase. JudgeSct~webes lubmittedthat,in view vene mustdemonstrateajurisdictional linkwiththePartiesto
of the geographicalsituation~f alta,Libyaand'lbnisia- the principalcase,hewasoftheviewthat Article62ofitself
whichMaltaconstruesasthatof sharinga singlecontinental providestherequisitejurisdiction.
Summary of the Judgment of 14 April 1981