Summaries of Judgments, ANot an official documenters of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
71. CASECONCERXWN TGHECONTINENTAL SHELF (LIBYA NRAB
JAMA131RNAfMALTA ()PPI,ICATION FORI'ERMISSION TOINTERVENE)
,ludgment of21Marclr 1984
InitsJudgment inrespeafItaly'sapplicationforpermis-underArticle62oftheStatute.The GovernmentsoftheLib-ene
concerning the ContinenShelfbetweenLibyaad Malta,hecaya ArabJamahiriyaand Maltasubmittedwrittenobserva-
theCourt,by 11votes to foundthatItaly'srequastforper-tions omthis Applicationon 5 December 1983,within the
missionto intervenecouldnotbegranted. time-linlit fixed for that purpose. Objectionhaving been
raisetoItaly'sapplicationtointervene,theCourt,inaccord-
ance withArticle 84of its Rules, held sittingsbetween25
and 30January1984tohearthePartiesandtheStateseeking
tointerveneon thequestionwhether theItalianApplication
The Court was compoal & follows: PZesiakntElias; forpermissionto interveneshould or shouldnotbegranted.
Vice-PresidentSette-Camma; Judges Lachs, Morozov,
NagendraSingh,Ruda,Oda,Ago,El-Khani.,Schwebel,Sir Provisionsof the Statuteand Rulesof Court concerning
RobertJennings,de Lacharricke,Mbaye,Badjaoui;Judges intervention
adhocJimenezdeMhaga, CastaiIeda. (para10)
~udgesMommv, ~a~endrasin@, MbayeandJ'imenez de
Ar€chagaappendedseparatelopinionstothe Judgment. Article62oftheStatute,invokedbyItaly,pmvidasfol-
VicePresident Sette-Cmara, Judges Odla, Ago, lows"1. Shoulda Stateconsider thatithasaninterestof a
SchwebelandSirRobertJenn~ingasppendedciisse~igpin-
ionstotheJudgment. lega118m which may be affectedby be decisionin be
case, it maysubmitarequest totheCourt tobepermitted
Proceedings befotheCoun! tointervene.
(paras.1to9) "2. It shall be for the Court to decideupon this
request."
In its Judgment,the Courtrecalled thaton 26July 1982,UnderArticle81, paragraph2, of theesof Court, an
the Governmentsof LibyaandMaltajointly notifiedto it applicalionfor permisstointerveneunderArticle62 of
1976forthesubmissiontothe:Courtof adisputeconcerning theStatuteshall specifythecasetowhichitrelates,andshall
the delimitationof the continentalshelfbetweenthose twotout:
countries. "(a) the interestof a legal nature which the State
applyingto interveneconsidersmay be affectedby the
proceedingstooktheircow: having regardto the termsof decisioninthatcase;
the Agreementbetween thewocountries.ThMemorialsof "(b) thepreciseobjectoftheintervention;
both Partieswere.filedon 215April 1983and the Counter- "(c) my basisofjurisdictionwhichisclaimedtoexist
Memorialson 26October 1983. asbetween theStateapplyingto intervenetheParties
tothe:case."
SincetheCourtdid notinciudeuponthe benchajudgeof
the right conferredby Art3:1 ofthe Statuteto choosea Formaladmissibilityof theItalianApplicationfor pennis-
judgead hdcto sitinthecw:. TheLibyanPuabllamahiriya siontointervene
designated JudgeJim6nezcleMhaga and Malta Judge (paras10-12)
CasWeds.
NotingthattheItalianApplication compformallywith
On 24 October 1983,thelkegishyreceivedfromtheItal- thethreconditionssetoutinArticle81,paragraph2, ofthe
Continued on next pagecluded thatithad no formal defectwhich wouldrender itcon- wouldbeoneeitherrecognizingt "orfrejectingthem,inwholet
inadmissible. orin part.
StatementofthecontentionsofItalyandoftlie two hm'es TheconsequencesoftheCourt's finding,thattopermitthe
(paras.13-27) interventionwouldinvolvethe introductionof a fresh dis-
pute, could be defined by reference to either of two
The Courtsummarid thecontentionsadvancedby Italy app~naches tothe interpretationofArticle62ofthe Statute.
initsApplication andoralargument(paras. .13-17).Itnoted Accordingtothefit approach, sinceItalywasrequesting
inparticular thatthelegal interestinvokedyItalywascon- the Courtto decideon the rightswhichit had claimed,the
stitutedby the protectionof the sovereign rightswhich it Court would have to decide whether it was competentto
claimedovercertainareasofcontinentalshelf encauseinthe give, by way of intervention procedure, the decision
casebetweentheLibyanArabJamahiriyaandMalta.It also requestedbyItaly.Asalreadynoted, theItalianGovernment
noted thattheobjectoftheinterventionwastc3permitItalyto maintainedthattheoperationofArticle62oftheStatutewas
defend thoserights, so that the Court should beas fully itself sufficienttomatethebasisofjurisdictionoftheCourt
informedof them as possible, and so that it mightbe in a inthiscase. It appearedto the Court that,if itweretoadmit
positiontotake due accountof theminits&cisionandpro- theItalian contention, itwouldtherebybeadmittingthatthe
vide the Partieswith every needfulindicatio:nto ensure thatan exceptionto the fundamental principles underlyingtits
they do not, when theyconclude their delimitation agree- jurisdiction: primarily the princiof consent,but alsothe
ment pursuantto the Court's Judgment, include any areas principlesof reciprocityand equalityof States. The Court
over which Italy has rights. Finally,thec~urtnoted that, consideredthatanexceptionofthiskind couldnotbe admit-
accordingto Italy,Article62of theStatuteaffordeda suffi- tedunlessit were veryclearlyexpressed,whichwasnotthe
cientbasisofjurisdictioninthis case,whichdidnot needto case.It thereforeon!riderethatappealtoArticle62should,
be complementedby a special jurisdictional linkbetween ifitweretojustifyaninterventioninacasesuchasthatofthe
itselfandthePartiestothecase. Italian Application,be backedbyabasisofjurisdiction.
TheCourtthensummarizedtheargumentsputforwardby
the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (paras.18-24)and by Malta State requestingthe :interventionaskedthe Courtto give a
(paras.25-27),bothintheirwrittenobservationsonthe Ital- judgmentontherightswhich it wasclaiming, thiswouldnot
ianApplicationandintheirCounsel'soral aq went. be a genuine interven~tinithinthe meaningof Article62.
That Article would :notderogate from the consensualism
Interestofa legalnatureandobjectoftheintervention whichunderliesthe jllrisdictionof theCourt,since the only
(pa. 28-38) casesofintervention i~ordedbythat Articlewouldbethose
In orderto determinewhetherthe Italian requestisjusti- in whichtheintervenerwas onlyseekingthe preservationof
fied t,e Court hadto considerthe interestof a legalname itsrights,withoutattemptingtohavethemrecognized.There
which,itwasclaimed,mightbeaffected,andltodothisithad was nothingto suggestthat Article62was intendedas an
to assessthe objectofthe Applicationandthe:wayinwhich alternativemeansof twinginganadditionaldispute asa case
thatobjectcorrespondsto whatis contemplatedbythe Stat- beforethe Court,or as a methodof assertingthe individual
ute, namelytoensuretheprotectionof an"interestofalegal rightsof a Statenota partyto the case. Sucha disputemay
nature", bypreventingitfrombeing"affected" bythedeci- not bebrought beforetheCourtbywayofintervention.
sion. The Court foundttratthe intervention requestedby Italy
TheCourtrecalledthatinthecaseofan int~rvention,it is fell into a category which,on Italy's own showing,is one
normallybyreferencetothedefinitionofitsinterestofalegal which cannot be accepted. That conclusion followedfrom
nature andtheobject indicatedbythe State seekingto inter- eitherof the two approachesoutlined above, and theCourt
venethat theCourtshouldjudge whetheo rrnc~ttheinterven- accordinglydidnotha.vetodecidebetween them.
tion isadmissible.It had nonethelessto asct:rtainthe true
objectof the claim.In thiscase, takingintoEccountall the SincetheCourtconsideredthaittshouldnotgobeyondthe
circumstancesas wellas thenatureof the sutbjectmatterof sion, thevarious.otherquestionsraisedcbeforethe Court in
theproceedingsinstitutedbyLibya andMalta,it appearedto the proceedings asto the conditions for,and operation of.
theCourtthat, whileformallyItalywas reques,tintheCourt interventionunderArticle62oftheStatutedid nothavetobe
to safeguarditsrights,the unavoidablepracticaleffectof its dealtwithby theJudgment. In particular theCourt,inorder
requestwasthattheCourtwouldbecalledupon torecognize to arriveat its decisionon the Applicationof Italyto inter-
thoserights, and hence,for thepurposeof beingableto do veneinthe presentcase,did nothave toruleonthe question
so, tomakea finding,at leastin part, ondisputesbetween whether, in general, any interventionbased onArticle 62
Italyandoneorbothofthe Parties. Italywasinfactrequest- must,asa conditionfclritsadmission,showthe existenceof
ing the Courtto pronounce only on whag t enuinelyapper- a validjurisdictional link.
tainstoMalta andLibya.ButfortheCourtto b: abletocarry
out suchan operation,it wouldfirst haveto determine the ProtectionofItaly'sinterests
areasoverwhichItalyhasrights andthose overwhichithas (paras.39 to43)
none.Itwouldthereforehave tomakefindings ristotheexist-
enceofItalianrightsovercertainareas, andas1:otheabsence Italyhadalsourgedtheimpossibility,oratleastthegreatly
ofsuchItalian rightsinotherareas.TheCourtwouldthusbe increased difficulty, of the Court's performing the task
called upon, in orderto give effect tothe intervention,to entrustedto it by the SpecialAgreementin the absenceof
determineadispute,orsomepartofadispute,betweenItaly participationinthepramdings byItalyasintervener.Whilst
andone orbothoftheprincipalParties,whichvvouldinvolve recognizingthatiftheCourtwerefullyenlightenedastothe
it in adjudicatingon the legal relationstweenItaly and claimsandcontentionsofItalyit might beinabetterposition
LibyawithouttheconsentofLibya,oronthose'between Italy to givetheParties such indicationsas wouldenablethemto
and Malta without theconsentof Malta. Its decisioncould delimit their areasof continental shelf withoutdifficulty(eventhoughsufficientinformationforthepups of safe- principalPartiesto the case, the Court recalled thatit had
guardingItaly'srightshad beensuppliedduring thepresent alreadymade a summaryoftheorigin and evolutionofArti-
proceedings), the Courtnoted that the questionwas not cle62ofthe Statuteofthe CourtinitsJudgmentof 14April
whetherthe participation of1:ralymight be usefulor even 1981ontheApplicationofMaltaforpermissiontointervene
necessary totheCourt;itwaswhether,assumiingIdy 'snon- intheZbnisialLibycaase:The Courthadfounditpossibleto
participation,a legal interestof Italywouldbe encause,or reachadecisiononthepresentApplicationwithoutgenerally
waslikelytobeaffectedbythe!decision. resolving thevexedquestionof the "valid link ofjurisdic-
tion" (seeabove),andno moreneeded tobe saidthanthatthe
The Court considered thatit was possible to take into Court was convinced of the wisdom of the conclusion
accountthe legal interestofItiily-as wellas,ofother StatereachedIbyitspredecessorin 1922thatit shouldnotattempt
oftheMediterraneanregion-while replyingtothequestions toresolveintheRulesofCourt the various questionswhich
raisedinthe SpecialAgreerne~xTt,herights claimedbyItaly havebeenraised,butleavethemto be decided asandwhen
providesthat"ThedecisionoftheCourthasnobindingforceich theyacc~lrreinpracticeandinthe lightof thecircumstances
exceptbetweenthe parties andin respectof that particular ofeachparticularcase. .
case". It wasclear fromthisthat the principlesandrulesof
internationallawfoundby the Courttobe applicableto the
delimitationbetween Libyaand Malta, andthe indications
givenbytheCourtastotheir applicationinpractice, couldbe
reliedonbytheparties againstmy otherState.Furthermore,
there could be nodoubt thatthe Court would, in ifuture Operativeclause
judgmentinthecase,takeaccount,asafact,oftheexistence (para. 47)
of other Stateshavingclaims in the region. Thejudgment
wouldnotmerelybelimitedin.itseffectsbyArticle59ofthe Forthese reasons,theCourtfoundthat the Applicatioof
Statute;it wouldbe expressedl,uponits face, to be withwt theItalianRepublicforpermissiontointerveneunderArticle
prejudicetotherightsandtitlesofthirdStates. 62ofthe StatuteoftheCourtcouldnot be granted.
IN FAVOUR: President Elias, Judges Lachs, Morozov,
InterpretatioofArticle62 Nager~draSingh, Ruda, El-Khani, de: Lacharrihre,
Mbayle,Bedjaoui;Judgesad hac Jimbnezde Arkhaga
@=. 44-46) andCstaileda.
Revertingtothequestionastowhetherorncrtanintervener AGAINST :ice-Presidentette-Camara,JudgesOda, Ago,
has toestablisha jurisdictionallink as betweenit and the Schwt:belandSirRobertJennings.
Summary of the Judgment of 21 March 1984