Summaries of Judgments, AdviNot an official document of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
CASEC : ONCERNING THECONTINENTAL SHELF(TUNISIA/LIBYAN
ARABJAMAHXRIYA)
Judgmentof24February1982
In its judgment in the ContinentalShellfcase between 'hrning to the SpecialAgreementbetweenlbnisia and
Msia and Libya, the Court declaredthe:principlesand Libyaby which theproceedingshad beeninstituted (paras.
rulesofinternationallaw whichare applicablethedelimi- 22-3 I), theCourtrecalledthatunderArticle1,paragraph1,
tationof the areasof continental shelf appertaining respec- had been requestrxlto state "the principlesand rules of
tivelyto kisia and Libyain the regionconcernedin the internationallaw" whichmight"be appliedforthe delimita-
dispute. tionoftheareasofthecontinentalshelf' respectively apper-
It enumeratedthe relevant circumstanceo betakeninto tainingtoeachofthe:twoStates,and lradfurtherbeenspecif-
accountfor thepurposeof arrivingat anequitabledelimita- ically called upon,in renderingitsdecision, totake account
tion and specifiedthe practicalmethodtobe used for the ofthefollowing thm: factors:(a)equitableprinciples;(b)the
delimitationitself. relevantcircumstanceswhichcharacterizethe area; and(c)
ThedelimitationlineindicatedbytheCourtismadeup of thenewacceptedtrendsintheThirdUnited Nations Confer-
two segments:thefirst segmentof the line startsfrom the enceontheLawoftheSea.
outerlimitofthe Parties'territorialsea, attheintersectionofArticle 1, second paragraph,of the SpecialAgreement
that limit witha straight lineconstructed fromthe frontierequired theCourt to"clarify the practicalmethodfor the
point of RasAjdir at a bearing approximately26"east of applicationof these :principlesandru.e.. soasto enable
north;itcontinuesat thesamebearing untilit meetsthelati- theexpertsofthetwocountriestodelimittheseareaswithout
tudeofthemostwesterlypointoftheGulfofGabes, approx- difficulties".TheCourtwasthereforenotcalleduponitself
imately 34" 10'30"N. There begins theslecondsegment, todrawtheactualdelimitationline. The Partieswereindis-
whichisinclinedfarthertotheeastatabearingof 52". agreementastothe scopeofthetaskentrustedtotheCourtby
TheCourt'sJudgmentwasadoptedby 10votes to4. ments onthepointledthe Courtto concludethat therewasu-
onlyadifferenceofemphasisastothe respectiverolesofthe
Court and of the experts. Articles 2 and 3 of the Special
Agreement madeitclearthatthePartiesrecognizedtheobli-
gation to comply with the Judgmentof the Court, which
The Court was composedas follows: A.ctingPresident wouldhave theeffectandbindingforceattributedtoit under
Elias; JudgesForster, Gros, Lachs, Moromv, Nagendra Article94 of the Charter,Articles59 and60 of the Statute
Singh, Mosler, Oda. Ago, Sette-Camara, El-Khani and andArticle94, paragraph 2,of theRulesofCourt.The Par-
Schwebel;Judges adhoe EvensenandJim6nc:z & Adchaga. ties weretomeet as quicklyas possible afterthe Judgment
Judges Ago, Schwebel and Jimbnez de Adchaga was given with a view to the conclusionof a treaty. The
appendedseparateopinionstotheJudgment. Court'sview wasthatatthatstagetherewouldbeno need for
JudgesGros,OdaandEvensenappendeddissentingopin- negotiationbetweentheexpertsof the Parties regardingthe
ionstotheJudgment. factorstobetakenin11a0ccountintheircalculations,sincethe
In these opinions the Judges concern:edstated and Courtwouldhave determinedthatmatter.
explained thepositions they adopted in regard tocertain
pointsdealtwithintheJudgment.
The Courtthen dealt with the questionof the principles
andrulesof internationallawapplicableto.thedelimitation
TheCourtbeganitsJudgmentby recapitulating the vari- (paras.36107), whichitexaminedinthelightoftheParties'
ousstagesoftheproceedings(paras.1-15),definingthegeo- arguments. After firstsettingforth some general consider-
graphicalsettingofthe dispute,namelytheregionknownas ations (paras.36-44). it examined the roleof the new
the PelagianBlockor Basin (paras.174 and32-36), and acceptedtrends atthe United Nations Third Conference on
notingthatpetroleum prospectionandexploitationhadbeen theLaw oftheSea (paras45-50). Nexittturnedtotheques-
carriedouton the continentlhelf(para.21). tion whetherthe nalural prolongationof each of the two
Continued on next page States couldbe determinedon the basisof physicalcriteriathe continentalshelfareas appertainingto the coastal State
(paras. 51-68); havingfound that therewas justoneconti- and thelengthof the relevantpart of its coast,measd in
nental shelf commonto both States, it concluded that thethe generaldirectionof the coastlines,account being taken
extentofthecontinentalshelfiueaappertainitoeachcould forthispurposeof theeffects,actualor prospective,of any
not beascertainedfromcriteriaofnaturalprc~longatiT.he other continentalshelf delimitationbetween States in the
Courtwentontoconsiderthe implicationsofequitableprin- sameregion.
ciples (patas. 69-71) and t~ review thevarious circum- C. me practicalmethodforth applicationoftheafore-
stancescharacterizingtheareawhichwerelikelyto berele- saidprirrciplesandrulesofinternationallaw intheparticular
vantforthepurposesofthedelimitation(paras.72-107). situationofthepresentcaseisthefollowing:
Finally theCourtexaminedthevariousmethodsof delimi- (1) thetakingintoaccountoftherelevantcircumstances
tation (paras. 108-132) colltended for by the Parties, which clharacterizheareadefinedinparagraphB, subpara-
explainedwhyit couldnotacmPtthem, andindicatedwhat graph(1)above,includingitsextent,callsforit tobetreated.
methodwouldinitsjudgmentenableanequitabletrolutionto forthepurposeof itsdelimitationbetweenthePartiesto the
be reachedin thepresentcase. presentcase, as madeup oftwosectors, eachrequiringthe
applicationof a specificmethodof delimitationin orderto
se achieveanoverallequitablesolution;
* * (2) in the firstsector,namely inthe sectorcloser tothe
coastoftheParties,the startipointforthelineofdelimita-
The conclusionsreachedb!~theCourtareindicatedinthe tionis thepointwheretheouterlimitoftheterritorialseaof
operativeparagraphof the Judgment,which is wordedas the Partiesis intersectedby a straight linedrawn fromthe
follows: landfrontierpointof RasAjdirthroughthe point33"55'N,
TheCourt,byten votesto four,findsthat 12"E,whichlineruns atabearingofapproximately26"east
A. Theprinciplesandrul~eosfinternationallawapplica- of north,correspondingto the anglefollowedby thenorth-
bleforthedelimitation,tobeaffectedbyagreementinimple- western boundary0fLibyanpetroleumconcessionsnumbers
mentationofthe presentJudgment,of theareasofcontinen- NC 76, 1379NC41 and NC 53, whichwas alignedon the
tal shelf appertainingto the Republic of Tbisia and the so~th-eastemboundaryof mni~ian petroleum CO~C~SS~O~
SocialistPeople'sLibyanklb Jamahiriyarespectively,in "Permis complCmentaire offshoredu Golfe deGabbs" (21
the area of the Pelagian~lmk in disputebetweenthemas October 1966);from the intersectionpointSOdetermined,
&finedin paragraphB, subp:uagraph(1)below, asfol- thelineof delimitationbetweenthetwocontinentalshelves
lows: istorun north-east throuthepoint33"55'N,12%,thuson
that samebearing,tothepointof intersectionwiththe paral-
equitableprinciples,and takillgaccountof dl relevantcir- lel passingthroughthe most pointof the mnisian
cumstances; coastlint:betweenRas KaboudiaandRasAjdir, thatistosay,
themostwesterly pointonthe shoreline(low-watermark)of
(2) the area relevantfor the delimitation constitutesathe(julfof
single continentalshelf as the naturalprolongationof the (3) in the second sector, namely in the area which
landterritoryof bothParties,sothat intheplresentcase, noextendsseawardsbeyondthe parallelof the most
criterionfordelimitationof s]lelfareascbz &rived from pointoftheGulfof Gabes,thelineofdelimitationofthetwo
theprincipleofnanualprolongationas such; continentalshelvesis to veerto theeastin sucha wayasto
(3) the particulargw$jraphical of the take accountof the KerkennahIslands;that is to say, the
presentcase, the physicalstnulctuof the continentalshelf delimitationlineis trun parallelto a line&awnfrom the
areasisnotsuchastodetermine anequitablelineofdelirnita- mostwesterlypoint ofthe~~lf of G~~~bisectingtheangle
tion. formedbya linefromthatpoint to Ras Kaboudia and a line
B. Therelevantcircumstancesreferred toin IP~PP~ drawnfiom that samepoint alongthe seawardcoastof the
a A* subpmgraph (1)above, to be taken illto account in KerkennahIslands,thebearingofthedelimitationlineparal-
achievinganequitabledelimitiitionincludethefollowing: lel to such.ectorbeing52"tothemeridian; theextensionof
(1) the fact thatthe area relevantto the delirrlitationinslinenortheastwardsis a matterfalling outsidethejuris-
the present caseis boundedby thelbnisian coast from Ras dictionoftheCourtinthepresentcase, asit willdepend on
AjdirtoRas KaboudiaandtheLibyancoastfiomRasAjdir thedelimitationtobeagreedwiththirdStates.
toRasTajoumandbytheparalleloflatitudepassingthrough IN FAVOIJR:ActingPresidentElias;JudgesLachs,Morozov,
RasKaboudiaandthemeridianpassingthrough RasTajoura, NagendraSingh,Mosler,Ago, Sette-Camara,El-Khani.
therightsofthird Statesbeingreserved; Schwt:belandJudgeadhocJimdnezdeAdxhaga;
(2) thegeneralconfigurationoffie coastsoftheParties, AGAINSTJ:udgesForster, Gros, Oda and Judge ad hoc
and inparticularthemarkedchangeindirectionofthelhi- Evensen.
siancoastlinebetween RasAjltliraRas Kaboudia;
SUMMARY OFDISSENTIN OPINIONS
(3) theexistenceandpositionoftheKerk~ennaIh slands; APPENDED TOTHE JUDGMENT
(4) thelandfrontierbetweentheParties, and theircon-
duct priorto 1974in the grant of petroleumconcessions, In Judge Oda's view, the Court failsto suggestanypsi-
resultingin the employmentof a line seawads from Ras tive principlesorrulesof internationallaw,and thelinesug-
Ajdiratanangleofa~~roxima@l~ 26"eastofthe meridian, gested is not groundedon any persuasiveconsiderations.
whichlinecorrespondstothe linepewndicu'lartothecoast Indeed,thejudgmentappearsasoneappropriatetoacase to
atthefrontierpointwhichhad.inthepastbeenobsc:rvedasa decidedexaequoet bone underArticle38, paragraph2,
& factomaritimelimit; of the Statute. Consideringthat the distance criterion has
(5) the elementof a reasonabledegreeof prolmrtional- becomedominantinthenewconceptofthe limitsofthecon-
ity,whichadelimitationcarriedoutinaccordancewithequi- tinentalshelf, as alsothe limitsof the exclusive economic
table principlesoughtobringaboutbetweenthe extentof zonewhichinevitably hasa significantimpacl:onthe exploi-
117tation of submarine mineralresources. an equidistance sufficient attentionto this geographicfact. It has also disre-
method is appropriateinprincipleforthedelimitationofthe garded suchrelevatitcharacteristicsof thecoastsconcerned
continentalshelf between'hnisia and Libya, but only on as uheIsland of Jerba, the promontoriesof Zarzis and the
condition that the lineis adjustedin the lightof anycoastal KerkennahArchipelagowiththe surroundinglow-tideeleva-
features which might otherwise resultin some distortion tions. Nor had the Court'given sufficientconsiderationsto
from thegeneralviewpointof proportionalitybetween the suchnewtrendsinthe UnitedNationsLawofthe SeaConfer-
lengthsofcoastlineand theareas tobe appc~rtionedH. esug- enceas the200-mile exclusive economic zoneandthe trend
gests,forwhatisquiteanormalcaseofdelimitationofacon- towardsdistancecriteriaforcertainaspectsofthecontinental
tinentalshelf between twoadjacentStates,itline equidistant shelf. He felt that, in this case, the equidistancecriterion
from thecoastsof both countries,disregardingthe Kerken- mighthavebeenamoreappropriatestarting-pointfordelim-
nah Islandsand surrounding low-ti&elevations, asshown itation purposes,adljustedby considerationsof equity,than
onattachedmaps. themethodproposed bytheCourt.Hefeltthatthedistinction
Judge adh& Evensenheldthat,althoughe ~quity is partof betweenadecisionbasedonprinciplesandrulesof interna-
internationallaw, itcannotoperateinalegalvoid.In thecase tionallawinaccordancewithArticle38,paragraphl, ofthe
at hand,thecoastsofthetwoStateswere adjacentbutatthe Statuteand an exaequo et bonodecisionunderArticle38,
sametimealmostoppositeeachother.TheCourt hasnotpaid paragraph2, hadbecomeblurred.
Summary of the Judgment of 24 February 1982