Memorial submitted by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany

SECTION B.PLEADINGS

SECTION B.MEMOIRES MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BYTHE

GOVERNMENTOFTHE FEDERAL

REPUBLTC OF GERMANY
(Fderd Republicof GermanyiDmmark)

INTRODUCïIOY

1. This Mcmorial is submittedtu the Court in pursuaofanOrder made
by theJudgediçchargingthe dutics of Presidcnt of the InternationalCourt of
Justiceunder Articlc 17 ofthe Rulesof Court, &ted 8 March 1967. The
Ministcrof ForeignAffairofrhe Kingdom of the NciherIandshad transmitted
bya Ietter,dated 16February1967andrmcivcdin the KegistvoftheCourt on
20 February 1957,rhcSpcciaIAgreement,signedat Bonnon 2 Febniary 1967
forth Guvernmcnt of the FederaIRepubliol Germany and theGovemment
of theKingdomof Denmark, for thc submissiato theInternationalCourof
Justiceofa dispute betwccn the FederalRepublicofGemany and thc King-
doriiofDenmark mncerning the delimitationas betwcenthe Partiesof the
Continental Shelfinthe North Scd. Attachcdto this lctter was an original
cnpyof a protocolsilgiedatBonnan 2 Febniary1967 for thGoernments of
theFedemi RepublicofGermany,the Kjngdumuf anmark, and the Kingdom
of theNetherlands(infrapara.51,in which provisiismadefor thenotifica-
tion ofthe Specjal Agreement to the InternaiionalCourt of Justibythc
Netherlands Governrnent.

2. As it isctforth in the prean'tofthe SpecialAgreement,the Fderal
RepubIic ofGermany, not being a partytn the Statuteofthe International
CriurtofJustice,by declamtionof 29 April 196andin conformitywiththe
resolutionof thcSccurity Chunci1of theUnitNation of 15October 194Cion
conditions underwhichthe International Court rJusticshallbe open to
Statesnot partiesto tStatutof theCourt.hasacceptedthejurisdictiofthe
Court in respectoal[ dispiiteswhich marisebetweenthe FdcraI Republic
of Germany andany of the particts the EuropeanConvention of 79 ApriI
1957 for the Pea~~fuISettlcrnentof DisputThe Kingdom of Dei~mark iua
party to the süidConvention. The Danish instrument of ratificatiowas
deposited on17Jury1959andbyvirtutof itArticle41theConvcniioncnterd
into force for rheKingdomofDenmark on the sanxedate.
3. The SpeciaAgrPemmr, whichprovidcsfor itsentry into force ontheday
crfits signatureads as follows:

"SpeciaIAgreernet
far
rhc suhmissionto the TntcmationalCourt of Jwtice of a differcnce
herweenthe FedcraIRepublicof Germiinyandthe Kingdom of Denmark
concerningthe dclimitation,as betweenthe FodcraI RepubofGermany
and the Kingdnm ofDenmürk,of the continent ahelfin the KortSca.
Thc Governrnentof the Fedenl RepubIicof Gerinanyandthe Go~ern-
ment of the Kingdom ofDenniark,

Consideringthatthe delimitationothecostal contincnta1shclf in thc
North Seabelween the FederalKepriblicof tiernianyandthe Kingdom of14 NORTH SEA COXlliENTAL SIIELF

Denmark has been laiddownhy ü Conventioiiconcludcd on 8June 1955,
Considering thai in regard to the furthcrcourse of the bounday
disagreement exists tietweenthc German and DanishC;ovcmmcnts,ivhich
could not be settled bydctaiIcncgotiations,
lnrcncfingto xttle theupen questions in the spirof the friendly and
good-nei&bourIy rcIationsexisritigbetweentheni,
Recalling the obligation laid doivin Article1 ofthe Daiiish-German
Trcaty of Conciliationaiid Arbitraiion of 2 June 1926to submit to a
procedureof conciliation orto judicial ettiementa11controvcrsicsivhich

cannot be settledby diplamacy,
Bcaring in mincitheobIigatioiassumedby them underArticles 1and28
of IheEuiopean Conventionfor the PeacefulSettlcmcntof Disputcs of 29
April 1957to submit to thejudgmcnt of th^InternationalCourt ofJustice
al1 interiiationaIcgd controversies to the extcnt tht no speckI ar-
rangernent liabeerior wi1b 1emade,
By virtue of the fact that tKingdom of Deirmark isa party tothe
Statuie ofthe International Court of Justiceandof the Dedalaratioof
accepiance ofthejurisdictionofthe InternaiionalCburtofJusticcniade by
the FedcrtllRepublic of Gemiany on 29 April 1961 in çonfvrmity with
Article 3 of thc Cotiventiun of 29 April 1957 and with the Resolution
adcipiedby the SccurityCouncilof the United Nation oii15Octobcr 1946
conceminythe 'Conditionsunder which theInternationalCourt of Justice

sIiall be opcntriStates riotpartie to the Statute of the IntematiomI
Couri of Justice',
Havc agrccd as follows:

(1) TheIi~ternationaClourtuf Justicisrequestcdto dccidcthc folrowing
question:
What principlesand rules of internationalIaw areapplicableto thc
delimitationas bctweenthe Parties ofthe areas ofthc continentalshelf
iritlie North Sm ivhich appcrrair!O each of them beyrind the partial
bounda~ detennined by the ahove-mentioned Convention of 9 Junc
1965?
(2) The Governmentsof thc Kingdom of Deiimark and of the Fedaral
Rcpublic of Gerrnanyshall deIimittheçonrinenta1shelf in the North Sea

as bctwecn tl-reircountriesby agreentenr in pursuance of the Jecision
rzquestedfrotn the internationaCourt ofJustice.
Arrick 2

(1) ThePrtrticsshallprcserittheirwri~renpleadingsto the Court in the
order statedbeIow :
1. a Mernorialof theFederaI Republiçof Germany to be suhrnittod
within sixrnonths fromthe notificationofthc prcscnt Ageement to tlie
Court;
2. aCuunter-Menloi-ialof the Kingdom of Denmark tolx submitted
rvithin six nionrhhm the dcliveryof the GermanMemorial;

3. a Gcrman replyfullowed by a Danish rejoinder to be delivercd
witliin suchtime Iiinias theCourt may order.
(2) Additional written plcading may be presented if this isjointly
proposcd by the Partiesandwiisidered bythe Court to be apprnpriatcto
the caseand tlie circumstances. MEMORiAL OF THEFEUEKALREPURLIC OF GERMANY 15

(3) The forcgoing order of preseniaiion iswithout prcjudice to any
questionof biirdenofpruufwhich ri1igb.tarie.

The presentAgreementshll cntcr into forcc nn the day of signature

thereof.

DUNE atBonn on 2 February1967 intriplicatcin thc EngIishIanguagc.

For the Governrncnt ofthe Federd
Rcpublic afGermany
(Signcd) Scnü rï~

For the Covernmentof the Kingdoni
of Denmark

(Signcd)K. KNCTH WI~TERFELDI-"

4. In accordancewithArticle2 of ihc Spccial AgreenientandwirhArticle 37
of the Rules ofCourt, the Judge disciisrginçIheddutiesof Presidcnt of the
InternationalCourt of Justice underArticle II of the RulesofCourt, in the
Order datcd8 March1367,has fixcd21 August 1967as the time-limifor rhe

ftIingof the Mernoria1ofthe Fcderal Kepublic of Gennany and 20 February
i968 as the timc-Iitifor the tilingof the Counter-MernoriofDenmark.
5. This Mcmorial takes into accuuni thc fact that an identicaldispute hs
arisen between rhe FerteralRepubIic of Gerniany and the Kingdoni ofthe
Net herlandswhich was submit ted to the InternationalCourt of Justice bya
siniilar Special Agreement cqually signcat Bonn on 2 February 1957 and
trammi ttedto the Courttogethe with theGernian-Danish Special Agreement
bythe abuve-nicntioncd letter of the MinisteofForeign Affairsof the King-
dom of the Kethedands datd 16 Fcbniary 1967. Moreover, the Gerrnan-
Ilanish and the Grmmn-Nethcrlands Special Agreements are linked by a
trilateralProtml, signcd together with the SpxkaI Agreementsat Bonn on2
Febniary 1967,foi the Governmentsof thc FcdcraIKcpublicof Germany, the
Kingdom of Denrnark,and thc Kingdoni of the Neiherlands atid equalIy
transrnittetcithe Courthy the M inisteof Foreign Affairsofthe Kingdom of
the Nethcrlands,which readsas fullows:

At the signatureof the SpecialAgreement oftoday's date ktween ihe
Governmrntof thc FcderaI Utpublic of Germany aiidthe Guvtrnments of
the Kingdom ofUenmark andthe Kirlydomof thc Ncihcrlünds rcspcctive-
ly,on the subrnissioto theIntemtioml Courtof Justice of the difference
bctwen ihe Partics conccrninthe delimitalionorrhe coiitinenralshelTin
the Korrh ka, the threeGoveriimentswish tostate thcirageemcnt on th
following:
1. The C;overnmcntof the Kingdom of the Netheriandswill, within a
nionth horn thc signature, nolify thetwo SpeciaI Agreementsrogethcr
wirh the prcsentProtocoI to thc International Court of Justicc in accor-
diincc wifh Ariicle 40, paragrapliof theStatute ofthe Court.16 NORTHSEACOKIINEWAL SHELF

2. After rhc notification iii accordancc with item I above the Parties
wilIask the Court tojoin thetwo cases.
3. The three Governmentsagree that,for the purposeof appointinga
judge ud hoc, the Govemrncnts of the Kingdom of Dcnmark ami the
Kingdom of the NeiherIandsshall be considered parties in the samc
interestwithinthe meaninofArticle 1,parawsph 5,of theStrituiof the
Court.

DONE atBonn on 7 Febniary1967in friucopiesinthe Englishlanguage.

For the Government of the FederaI Republic
ofGermany
(SignerlSCI~ÜTZ

For the Govcmment ofthe Kingdom
ofUcnmark
(Signcd) K.KNUTH-WIMTR~LDT.
For the tiovernnieni of the Kingdom
of the Netherlands
(si;gnfnVA)N ~~EKSUM**

Thc prcsent Memorial, therefore,refersin thesameway to the German-
Danish disputeas tothe German-NetherIands dispute.

6. This Memorialis divided intu the following parts:
Part 1 reports uponthe facts of thecase and mords the historyof the
dwelopmcnt of thedispute.
Part 11contains the legalargumentsbroughrfnrwardbythc German side.
Part III contains the subrnissionsto the Courasto what principlesand
rulesof internationaIaware applicableto the delimitation of areasof the
continentalsheIfin theNorth Sea appertainingto theParties.
PartIV contains the Annexes,with EngIishtranslationil thetextisnot in
Endisfi. MEMORIAI. OF TWF FEDF.RAL REPUBLICOF CIERMANY

PART 1. FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE DISPUTE

CHAPTER 1

7. TheNorth Sea ia shallowsea on the peripheryof theAtlanticOcean and
alrnosentlreIysurroundedby thelandmasses of theEuropcanwntjncnt andof
the BritishIsla (videinfrafig. l,page24). Itsdepthasfaras6l0latitudeNorth,

wheie ijoinstlic AtIantiOcem, is on rhewhoIeles than 200 m., and in ihe
southerp nart evenlessthan 100m. The siope into nccanic dcpths hcgionIy
north of61" latitude. nere isonly one areaof grPaterdepth and tliat is a
subri-iaritrcnch 20to 50 nauticaImiles wide running along theNomegian
Coast, known as the Nonvegian Trou* (2W650 m. dwp). The cxtcnsivc
Dogger Bank in the nliddlc ofthe North SIAiisnotable for its shaIIowness
(20-40 in.deep).
From thegeologic paont ofview, thesubsoilofthc North Scais partof the
continentalplatformon whch thc European mainlandandthe I3ritishJsIesoff
the mainlandrest. A largepart ofthe North Sea covers landwhich onlysub-
merged ina relativelyrecent geological perioAfter the di~avcry of a vcry
rich fielofnatural gas nmr SIochtcren in the Dutch provinceof Groniiigen
cIoseto the mouth of the Ems,the firsttesdrillingwere made in 1963.Since
then a number or findshavebeen made, includingseveralexploitabledcposits
of naturalgas in the British ara othe continentalsheIfof tlie NortSa.

8. The waters of the North Sea that are Iessthan 2(0 m. dccp covcr a
continental sheI fithin the meaning of internationa1law. Article1 of thc
Geneva Convention on the Contincnial SheIf of 29 ApriI 1358 definesthe
terrn"coniinentnlshelf"as-

'-the seabeand subsvilorthe submarineareasadjacent tothe mst but
outsidc thearcaof thc territorisa, to adeplh of 200metresar,beyond
thattiniitto where the depth of ihc supcrjacent watcrs admitsof the
exploitationof the naturaIreiourcesof thesaidamis";

Article2,pawgraphs (1) and (21,of theConvention recognizesthe excIusive
rightof thecoastalStates to exercisti

"over thecontinental shclsovcreignrightsfor the purposeof exploring it
and exploiting itsnaturaresourms".
This definitioof the continentalshelfatIeartas faras if appIics to waters

up to a dcpthof 200 m., and the said riyhofthe coasialStates in relationto
the contineiitasheIfso defined,are today gencral Iycognize The Federal
Republic of Germany has not yet ratified the <;eneva Convcntion on the
Continental SheIfbut recobmiies thatthe submarine areas of the Yorth Sea
wnstitute a continental sheIf ovcr which the coastal States are entitlto
exerciçe therights dcfinedin Articlc7of thcConvcntion. Yeitisnecessaryto
point uut alreadyaithis slagelhnt the North Sen representa speciaIcase in
that, on accorintof itrelativeshililowness,itsubrnarineareas constitutc a
singlecontinental shelf which musf be divided up among the sucrounding
clrasla1Slatesin itentirety.In this respect,the North Sm isdiffercnt from18 NORTH SEA I'ONTISEPXAL SKELY

orhcr casesofdeIjmiiarion of continenral shelf amas where the conrinental
shelfconstitutesbuta narrnwhcIt off thc cwast.
9, The German North Sca coast foms aImost a right anglebeaux ofthe
bend at themouth oftheEIbe. It lias deeindentationsatthe rnouth osfthe
Elbe,the Weser, and the Ems, as weIl asin the Jadebirsenand the DoIIart.
All ofthe Korth Frisian and Ea-t Frisian IsIandsoff thc Gcrmsncoüstfrom
Sylt toBorkurn are les than 3 to 5 nauticaIniifedistant from each other
and from the mainland. Thc shaIlows Landwards from these chains of is-
lands as we1I as those between the West Frisian IsIands and the northern

toast ofthe Ncthcrlands, arc iotcmal national waters. IIIdeterminirigthe
outer Iirno ftthetierman territorialseato a width of 3 nauticalmilessea-
wardsfrom those islands, a nurnber of çandhinks and Batsas well aselella-
tinnsdrying atlow tide musthetaken inio account. Thc rockisliind ofHcliyo-
land Iie approaimateIy17 nauticatmilesseawardsin the angleofthe Gerinan
North Sm coast. MEXfORIALOF 'I'HEFEDERALHliPIIRI.OF GERMANY

DKI.l~liTATION OF COhTIir;EN?;iL SHELF AREAS BY
THE COASFAL STATIB IK TIIIS NORTH SM

Secfion1.UnilatcraAcfsof theCmstiI StsiteCIaimingConfimntaIShetTAra9

IO.Since 1963, Norway, Denmark, the Fcderal Kepublic of Germany,
Great Britain, and fhc Ncththlands, that order, haveclaimed,by executive
orIcgislativeacts,exclusivrjghlover the continental &cl€ of thc horthSea
off tiiecoasts.
Nurway: Royal Rcsolution of 31 May 1463 (Norsk Lovtidend 1963,
No. 21, p. 573); Law of 21 June1963 (Norsk Lovtidend 1963, No.23,

p. 659);
Dutirnr~rk: oyal Dt~reeof 7 Junc 1963(Lovtidcnde A, No. 259, 1953,
p. 457);
F~ticruiKepuhficofGernrtz~t.P:roclümatiotofthcFedc~aL Gavcrnnient
of 20 Janiiary 1964 (FederaLaw Gazette 1964,Part11, p.10.1);Lawof
24 July 1964(FcJcraI Law Gazctre IYM,Part J,p.4W);
Grfnt Britain: ContineiitalSheIfAct 1964of 15 Aprii 1964(Statutory
Insrruments 1964Ch. 29); ContinentalSheIf(Desimation ofArras) Order
1964of 12 May 1964 (Statutory Instrument19&, No. 697); Continental
Shelf (Dcsignation of AdditioiiaAreas) Order 1965of 3 August 1965
(Statutory Instruments1965,No. 1531);
iVrttwrlniids: Law of 23 Scptcrnbcr1965 (Staatsblad 1965 h-o.428,
p. 1141);Government Resolution of27 January1967(StatsbIad 1967,
No. 74,p.67).

The aforernenlionedacts by coastalStatesof the North Sea contain the
folIowirig provisions rcgarding thc dclimitatitheaareasof thecontinental
shelf whichthcydaim:
11. .h70rivnThe Rom1 Proclainat oif31 May 1963states:

"The natural resourcesof the subsoiland seabcd of the submriiie
areascuritiguous to thc Coast ofthKingdom of Norway areregardcd a5
appcrtainingto tliKingdom of Komray, liorvevenut.beyond abouiidary
midway betiveen Kombayand other countries."
In thz sanic way,ArticIe1 of theLaiv of21 June1963 statesthatthe outer

Iiniiof thc Norwegian partof thecontinentaIshelfis "the boundaryniidway
bctwcen Norway and other corinrrics".
12. Denlimrk:nie Royal Dacree on !lieExerciseof Danish SovercignRights
oyerthe ContinentalShclf,dared 7 June1963, states:
"The delimitatioof the contiiientshelfin relation to foreign States

whose coasts are opposite thecoüsts of the Kingdom of Denmark or
which arc adjaccntIO Dcnmark shali be derermined inaccordancewith
Article 5of the Coiiveiiiion" (itheGenevaConvention Lin the Conti-
ncntal Slielf, signeon 29 April 1958) "so that, inthe absenceof any
special agrccment, thc boundary shalbcthe medianIinc, cvery point of
which isequidistantfrom the nearest points of the baselinesfrom which
thc breadthof lhe ierritoriseaofeachState jsmcasured."20 NORTII YEA CON'IIELNTAL SHELF

The content of tIiisdecree was transmitted tn thc Gcmn iMinistry of
Foreign Affairs by Kute Verbale ufthe RoyalDanish Ernbassy iiiBonn oii
IOJuly 1963. Ina fiirtheNote Verbale,datcd 10September 1964(Annex 11,
the Danish Governmentstates-

"that Denniark, by virtue ofa Koyal Dccrce of 7 June 1963, exercises
sovereign rights over that part of rhe continental shelf which according
to the Convcntion an the ContincntalShclf signcdat Geneva oii29 April
1958at the United Yations C'uiiSerencen the Lrtwofthe Sea bclongsto
theKingciumof Denmark, andthat the delhiitation in relationto Foreign
States adjacenttn ilenmark shallbc dctcrmincd in accordanc weiihArii-
cie 6of the saidCunvention, so thal the bouirdary, in thabsenceof any
special agreement,shaII be the mcdian Une, every point of which is
eqtiidistan~from the neases poinrs of the baseiincs from which the
b~adth of the territorial seofeach State is measured*'.

These Notes Verbalesledto contacts between thc Gcrman MiriistryufForeign
Anairs and the Royal Dünish Embassy at Bonn resultingiithe formal Ger-
man-Danish negotiations dcscribed iirfr{paras.24 etseq.).

3. Fedcr~71ReparblicofGermany:The FederalGovernment'sPrwlarnation
of 20Janriary 19M statewith regard to thequestion of delimitaiion:

"In particular, the delimitatiotiof the Gerrrianpartthe continental
shcIfin relationto thepartsof thecontinental shelf of foreiStatesshall
remain subjectto agreements with those States."

The Iawfor the Provisional Determination of Kights over the Continentai
Shdf, dated25July 1964, rcguiirtcs the exploitatidn naturalresourcesin the
Gerrnan continentalshelf area within tlie nleaning of the FederalGovern-
ment's Proclamation of 20 January 1564. Accordingly, Iicenccs for thc ex-
ploitation ofthcscd and its subsoilhvc been ganted.

14. GTPUIflriiuin:The Continenta1ShelfAct 1964, passcdon 15 April 1964,
authorizedthe execuiivtto dcsignateby Order in Councilthose areas within
which exploitation rightswithrespectto theseabed and subsoiIareexercisable.
By virtue of these powers, the Continental Shelf (Designation of Arras)
Order 1964 was issued on 12 May 1964, which for ihc timc being provi-
sionalIy deiiiiedthe shelf boundary in the North Sea as "atemporary median
Iine". In view of the expected contractuai scttIement of boundaries rvith
the orher coastal Stales, this liwas drawn soas not quiteto coincide wiih
thc mcdian Iinc bctivccn the Continent andthc British Isles. After the con-
clusion of the agreements between the Government of the United King-
dom on the one hand and the Governments of the Kingdom of Norway,

the Kingdom of thc Ncthcrlands, and the Kingdom of Denmark on the
other hand reIating to the deIimitatioof the continentalsheIfbetween the%
corintries(videinfrpaaras. 17, 19 an21), the Conlinenta1 SheIf (Lksignation
of Additional Areas) Order 1965, dated 3 August 1965, eaended the spherc
of application of the Continental SheIf Act tu include theareas ivirhinthe
boundaries fixed bythe aforesaidagreements.

15. The Ncrherlands:The Law onthe Kegulation of Mining in the Nethcr-
lands ContinentaI SheIf Area, düied23 September 1965, did noi cuntain
any dcIimitation of thc area subjec10the provisions of NetherIandsmining
law. However, a nlapofthenrea Tor whichthe Netherlands Govmnrneni consi-
ders itseIfentitlIO grantlicencesisattached cftthe CiavtrnrncntResolution .UEMORIALOF THE FEDERALREPUBIJC OF GERMAhY 21
of 27 January 1967impIementingArticIe 12 of that Law. The boundaries
of Ihat areain relationto irs neighbourStatesare determinedin accordance

with thc agrcemcnts concIutIed(vidiiifrparas. 16,19,22) and,in particular,
vis-A-visthe Federal Republicof Germany, on the principleof equidistance.
The Royal NctherIands Govwnment had alreadyby Note Verbale or21 June
1953 (Annex 2) decIarcdthaithe partof thccontinentalshcIfofthc North Sa
over which itcIainisuvereignrigiits inconfoiniitwiththeConventi oonthe
Continental SheIfsigned atGeneva on 29 ApriI 1958 is delimiiedto the east
by thecquidistancc linc bcginninatthc pointwhcrc thc talweg in[themouth
of ihe Ems reaches the territorialwaters. ThisannouncemcntIcd to the Ger-
mn-Netherkands negotiationsdescribeci infra(paras.24 et seq.).

Section II. BiIaterrilAgreementbehveenthe CoastmtStates of th North Sea
regardingthe DelimitationoftheirContinmfalSheIfAreas

16. Trcaty lxtwccnthe FederalRepublic ofGerniutrand the Kingdom ofthe
,Vetkerlandswncerning the LateralDelimitation of the ContinertralShelf near
the Coast, dated1Dewrnkr 1964,inforce sincc 19Scpfcmbcr 1965(Annex 3):
ArticIe 1of ihatTreat yixesthe dividingline ktween tlie Netherlands and
Germanparts ofthecontincntaIsheIfby meansof co-ordinatesestabIishedby
arcsof Grazr Circlefront apointonthe seaward Iimit othe icrritorial waters
through two othcr pointsup to a point on 54"latitude North. The Treaty
thereby fixeonlya partiaIboundar yxtendingapproximately25 naulicalmiles
from the coast,following,withoutexpresslyrnentioningit,bctwccn the threr:
lastseaward points of thc boundarythe equidistanceline.

The Joint Minutes tothe negotiations(Annex 4)drawn up inThe Hague on
4 Aumst 1964 on the te2sion of the initialling of the dtrearystatcsthc
rcasons for whichthc borindaryof thc continentalshelfcouIdonly be deter-
nrined nearthe coast.The German delegation dcciared that it should not be
inferredfrom the courseof the partial boundary that itwoiild havc to be
ct>ntinucdin thc samc direction. The NcthcrlandsdeIegaiion statd tliarhe
further courseoftliboundarywouldalso haveto be determinedin accordance
wiih the principleof equidistance.

17. Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Grcar
6iri~aiand Northern Ircland andthe Govmrnenr of the Kingdom of Nnrway
relatingtothe nelimitation of theContinentalShelf bcrwccnthe two Courilries
of 10March 1955,inforccsince 29 June 1965(Annex 5):
According to Article1of the Agreement---

"the dividirigline between that part of the CantincntaI Shewhich ap-
pertainstothe UnitedKingdomofGreatBritain andNorthernIrciandand
that partwhichappertainsto theKingdom ofNorway shall k basedw ,irh
certain minordiverçenciesforadministrativeconvcnicnm, on a line,every
point of whichisequidistünt fromthe nearestpointof the basclinesfrom
which theterritoriaSt'aofcach country is measured."

In implemetitationof thisprinciple,Article 2 stipulthatthedividirigline
shalI lxarcs of Great Circle ktween 8 points dctermined by CO-ordinates.
The souttiernmost point meets the British-Danish and Danish-Konvegian
continental shclf boundaries {vide irrJia paras.20, 71).The Ncirwcgian
Trough (videpara. 1si~pruisno:mentioned in theAgrccmcnt, beingincluded,
in spitc:of its grcadcpth, togcthcrwjth that partofthe shelfheyond it,as
part nf the Nom~egianarea.22 NORm SEA CONTiNESTAL SHELP
18.Trcaiy bctwccn ihe FcdcraIRcpubIic ofGfrmny and theKingdom of

Dejiniarlicunceriiinthe Deliniiiaiiunof theConiinenialShelf of the North
Seanear the Coast,drttcd9Junc 1965,inforce since27 May 1966 {Annex 6).
Article 1ofthatI'rcatystipulatethar theboundary hetweentheGcrman and
Danish parts orthe continentaIshelr shall run in a straight Iine fromthe
former seaward termination point of thlateralboundaiyin ~heierriiorialsea
to apointfixedby CO-ordinateat a distanceof approximatcly 30nauticalmiIes
from the coüst. The Trraty thus onry deterniines the boundary near the
Coast.
The Protoco {lnnex 7) draan up on 9 June 1965 on the occasionof the
signingof thc aforcsai Agrccrncnt, statcd that divcrgcviews esisled on the
principIesapplicableto the deIimitationof the continentalshelf of thc:North
Sea,that agreement coiilbe reachedonly on theshelf boundnry neartliccmst,
and thüt,asregardsthc furtlicr coursc of the dividinglineeach ContracLing
Party rexrved itslegal standpoint.

Inthe joint press communiqué issiied on18 March 1965 (Annex 8),the
folIowing view kvasexpressecloii thpoint :
"ln the drdfta partialboundüryapproxinlat3e 0Inyauiicdmiles Ivng
has beendrawn as faras a point whichis equidisranfrom Kap Blavands-
huk"(in Denmark) "andthe Island of Sylt"{German);"thc ncgotiatians
brought no agreement on the furthcr course of the boxiirdary.Each
dclcgation has i'eserved its viewpoiasto the principlesthatshouIdbe
applied ..."

19. Agreement betwccn the Govemment ofthe United Kingdotn 01-Greut
Brilainand Northern Ireland and the Government of the Kingdom of'the
!Vrtfirr/andrektiiigto 11ieDelj~niiationofthe ContinenraIShclf uiidcr the
North Sea between the two Countrics of6 October 1965, in forcesinc2 e3
Ilecember 19h6(Annex 9).
According to ~hePreamble of theAgeenient thecontractingpartiesdesirc-

"to estabIishthc baundary bctwccnthcrespectiveparts of the Continental
ShcIf undertlie North Sea m the basisof a linc, cvery point of which is
equidistant froni thenearesrpoinr ofthe baselinesrrom which the tcrri-
torialstxof cach country is at prescritrncasured."
In inipimentation oftl-lisprincipIc,Artic1eof that Agreemeiltstipulates
that the dividing line shallbe arm of Great Circlaqbetwetn 19 points fixtd by

CO-ordinatesA . rticlecharacterizesthe terrninatioiipoint in thc so(point
No. I) as rhc pointof intcrsc~tionof thc dividing lines between riie Hiitish,
Netherlands, and Relgian parts of the continentashelf,and the terniinaion
point inihç north [point 30. 19) as thc point of intcrscctionof the dividing
liiies betxeen the BritisIi, Netherlands,and Danish parts otheconlincr:rital
shelf. The Meral ReptibIic oGermany, by Aide-Mémoire of 12 Jury1966
[Arinex 101, protestcdagairis1tthischarücierizat ofupoint No. 19 which
impliesthattlrepartofthecontinentalshelfof theFederalRepublicofGcrmany
does not touch on rhe Britishpartof thecontinentaIsheland pointedout that
the finalsettlernentof ihe delimiiationof thccnntincnta1shinthe NortIiSea
betweeii the FederaI Republiof Germany, the Kiripdomof Dcnmsrk, and the
Kingdumof theNetherIands wüsstill ouistanding.

20. Agreement bctween the Guxemrnentof the Kingdom ofilct~niarkand
tl-iGoverrimentofthc Kingdom of ;\'orwc aoyncei-ningtlieDelirniioiiof ihe
Coniinental SIielTdated 8 Deceniber 1955,inforce sinw 22 Junc 1965(An-
nex Il): ME%IORlAL OF'IIIE FEDERALKEIaUBLIC OF (;tRMAXY
ArticleI offhat Agreement rads:

"-l'heboundarq b.etween that partof the continental shelf oi7crwliich
Nonviy and Denmark exercise respective sovcreiyn riyhts shaI1 be the
mcdianIine to lx determincd so that cvcrypointof that Iincis cquidistant

îroitthe liearesi pointsof the baseIinesfrom wliich the bieadih of the
outer territorialwatcrsofthe ContractingStatesis measured."

In implementation of this principle, Article2 stipulates that rhe boundary
shali be clrawn as straightlines (compass lintut) hrough eight puiiiis. The
Norwegian 'I'rougli (visupra pan. 1) is not inciltionedinthe Agrecmcnt,
king induded, in spiteof irsgreaterdepth,tngetherivith thatpart of ihc shdf
beyond it, apar1 or the Nurwegianarea. ,
21. Agreementbetweenthe Governmentof the United Kingdorn of Grrai

BuiiaiandNorthern Irelandandthe Gnvernmcnr of theKingdom of Ueritnark
rerating to lie DeIiriiitaiiof the CuiiiinenialShelr betffeen the two C'oun-
tries of 3 Mai-ch 1x6, inforce sinc6eFebriiary 1967 (Annex 12):
According to Article I of thAgrecmcnt-

"the dividing line between thntpart of the CrintinentaISheIfwhich ap-
prtajnu to the United Kingdorn ofGrcat Britiiiriiirid Northern Ireiand
andthatpartwhichappertains tothe Kingdom of Denmark isin principIe
a Iinewhich at every point is equidistanfsom the nearest point nfthe
basdinesfrorn whichiht: territorial sofc~ich coutitryiuirieasured."

Jn implementarion of this principle, Artic2edefines the dividingIineas an
arc of Great Circle betwecn two points fixed by co-urdiniiteswhereby the
northern point ischaracterized as tIie point of intersectioof the dividing
lines ktween the British, Danish, and Norwegian parts of the continental
shclf, and thc southcm point as thc point af intcrsoctionofthcdividing lines

between the British,Daniçh, and Netherlands parts of the coiitinentasheIf.
Thc FedcraI Republic of Gerinany, by Aidc-Mvitrnoiro ef 12JuIy 1965 (Ali-
nex 131,protested ag;iinsttliischarxterkationof the termination point inthc
svuth whichirnp1it.uthatthe Gcmn part ufthccontinentaishelfofihe North
Sea docs not touch on the Britishpart, and pointed out that the finaI settle-
ment of the delimitation of the continental shelin the North Sea hctwccn
ihe FederalRepubIicof Gcrmany, thcKingdom of Dcnmürk,and the King-
dom of the Nctherlands was still outstanding.

22. Agreement between theGovernmentof the Kingdom of thc R-eiherids
and the Governitrent.ofthe Kingdorriof Dentticrrcoiicerning the Delimitation
of the ContincntüIShelf under the Yorth Sca betwt.cn thc Two Counrries,
dated 31 .March 1966 (Annex 14):
The Agreement isbased on Iheaçsumption thatthe submarineareasOf the
North Sea have tobe divided among thecoastalStatessolely by applicationof
the principl of equidistance,even in relationtothe FederaI Kepiiblicof Gcr-
manSr,and that, conscqucntly, ihc mntincntül shclfarcas ofDenmark and the
Ncthcrlands are contiguuus.The ContractingParties havestatedin thePream-
b1e to the Agreementthaf rheydesire to deIimit ~heirrespective partsofthe

continentalshclf in the NorthSm by a Iine evcrypointof whichis cquidistant
froiii tlinearest pointsr~fthe baselinesfrom ivhichthe territorial wntcrof
either country areat present rncasured ,nd inArticle 1of the Agreernenr in
irnpicmentation ritheprincipleofthe niedianline, haveIaiddnwn thc bounclriry
Iineby fvurco-ordinatesjoincd by arcs of Grcat Circle,the w-ordiiiates ofFigure 1 MEMORLAL OFTHEFEDERALREPUBIdC OI:GERMANY 25

the nnortherntcrmination point coincidingwith the northern terrninatio~ipoint
ufihe British-KeiherIaiidsboundary Iine(visitprpara.19)and thesouthem
terminationpojnt oftheBritish-DanishboundaryIine (videsupru para.21).
The FederriRepublic of Germany ha^lodgcd a IcgaI protcst ügagathis
Agreement. By Aide-Mbmaire of 25 May 1966(Annex I5jw,hichwas delivered
to the Embassies ofthe Kingdom of Denmark and of the Kingdom of the
Netherlands in IIonnit waspointedout that this bilateralarrangcnicntcünnot
prejudicethecontinentalshelfbundary of the FcderalKepuhlic ofGermany.
That protcswasalso comrnunicated totheGovemment of theUnitedKingdom
of Great13rita andNorthern Irciand by thcabovc-mcntionedAide-Mkmaire
of 12July 1956(vide suprnpara. 19).
23. Thc boundarits as faasfheyhave ken Lxed by the bilateralagreements
spcciiîedsripra in paragraphs16to 22 arei1Iustratein adiagram (figure 1,
page24). The resuItingsharesof the coastal States conccrncd arc thc follow-

ing:
(a}The bnundarics of theBritishpart of the continental shelfuntheNorth
Sea have ben fixedby the British-Norwegian,British-Netherlands,and
British-Danishagreementson the bais or the equidistance method. The
FederaIRepubIic of Ciemany raisesna abjection on principlcto this delirni-
tationof thc British pi&lem1 protestisIevelleonly atthe assuniptiocon-
tainedin theRritish-Netherland(vide supra para19) an< he British-Danish
agreements <videsuprapara.21) that the Gemn partof the continenta1 sheIf
does not touch upan the mcdian Iinc bcti,t.the BritishIslrs and the Con-
tinent.
(b) Thc boündaries ofthe Norweginn pari have been ftxed hy the British-
Norwegian and Danish-Norwcghn agrcernents on the basisd equidistance
between theoppositecoitstsirrespect oithe Norwegian Trough. TheFederaI

RepubIicof Germany has no objection tothisdelimitation,either.
(rj DcAnitc boiindarics of thosc:parts in the remaareasof iheNorth Sea
whichthe Kingdoni of Denmark and the Kingdom of the Ne~h~rzhndosn the
one hand and the Federal Republic ofGermny on the otherhave todividc
between them, exisasyet aniy nearthc coast, the scawüextensionsof those
partiai bounrkiriking undecided .le boundary IineIaiddm inthc Nethtr-
lands-DanishTreatyof 31 March1966, asshown in the diagram(figur1)by a
dotted tinebeingWd on the equidistancemethrid,isnot rccognizodby the
Federal Rcpublicof Gtmny (videsuprapara.22). NORTH SEACûNTIYEhTAL SHELF

CHAPTER 1 I1

THE NEGO?'IA'I'IONSHKWEEN THE PARTIES TO TIJE DISPUTE
RELATINC TO THE DELIMITATION OF THE COXTINEETAL SHELF
BE3EA'Si-i THE NOKTIISEA

24. Since 1964 therehave b&n negotiationsbctween the Kingdam of Den-
~riark, heKingdvmof th Netherfands,and the Federal Repuhlicof Germany
conmrningthcdclirnitationofiheirrespativeparlsufthecontinentalshelfofthe
North Sea. Kegotiationswiih Nethcrlmds delcgationshave takenpIa~u :n 3 to
4 March,4 Junc, and 14July 1964.Negotiations withDanish delegationsfoI-
loutedon 15 to hOctober 1364 and 17io 18 March 1965.

25.At the negotiationsthe Kin~dnm of Deninork and thc Kingdotriof
ihe ~Vcrhcr!ai~clerrsistedin theirvjew tthe boundaries niust bedelirnited
by thc equidistance rnethod in thsouth-castareaof theNoahSea, rou. They
base lhisassertioon paragraph (2)of Article of the Ceneva Cnnventionon
thecontinentalSiielof 29ApriI1958,which,failingagreementandunless sp&d
circumstancesjustifyanotherboundary Iiiic,prescriba deliinitation according
to theequidistanccmethad. Paragraph(2) ofArticIe5of theConventionreads
as follows:

"Where the sanie cuntinental shclfis adjamntto tlic territorofsthe
two adjaccnt States,theboundary of the continenlal shelf shal be deter-
mined hy agreement betwecn thcm. Inthc abscncc of agecment, and
unles another bountfary Iine is justified hy spcciaI circumstances,the
boundary shallbc dctcrrninedby applicationof the principleofequidis-
tance from the nearestpoiiitsof the basetints:irvwhich thebreadth of
thc territorisea of eachStüti csmcasurcd."

The Kingdom ofDenmarkandthe Kingdom of the Netherlands have taken
the standpoint that the provisionscontainedin ArtiGIof the Convention are
to beregarded as generaliniernationalIawand apply also tcthosc States thiit
have nor yetratificd the Conventioit,
The Convention enlered jnioforcc on IOJune 1964.

Those IiltoraStateson ihc North Sea thathave ratifictheConvention
are the Kingdom of Dcnrnark (on 12 June19631 t,e UnitedKingdom of
Gmüt Briiain and Northern Ireland (on IO June 19641,and th? Kingdom
of thcNetlierlands(on 18Febmüry 1966);thc FrcnchRepublicacceded to
the Convention(on14 June 1965)but inade reservationswith regard to
ArtÎcIcG (vide infrpara.55); the FederalRrpubIicof Germanyhas sigicd
thc Conventinit(on 30 Octobcr 19581,but not yct ratifiedit; the Kingdom
of Helgiuntand the Kingdom of Komay haveneithersignctd heConsen-
tioii nor as yet ücccdetoit.

25. At the negotiations,the Fideral RepublufGern1at1-hasmaintainedthe
standpoint thattIicdclimitationof the respective pasf thecaniincntal shclf
of the NorthSea rcquireswntractuiilügrecnicntsbctweentheStatescoiicerned.
In the German vjew the application offile eqriidjstanccmethud is nejther
diclaied by internationaLaw nor doesitresuit in an equiratile division ofthe
Partsor the cuntinentalsheiin theNorth Sm betweenthe coastalStates con-
ccrned-The diagram (figure2,page17) shows tlie delimitatiasitwould be in ?f
MEUORIAL OF THEFFDERALREPUDLIC OFÇERMANY

Figure 228 SORTH SEA COKIlNtYrAL SHELF

thc south-east arcaof rhe Norih Sca if the cquidistancemetliodwere applied
strictlyIf the <;erman part ofthe continental dhelf inCheNorth Sea were
delirriitedirelationtoihe Kingdorriof theNethcrlands,on thconc hand, and
the Kingdom of Derimarkon the other, on the equidistanccprincipleitwouId
be contined, as a result of the right-angIed configural oiothe Gernian
Norih Seacoasi,to ihearea showninfigure 7,and wouldnot rcachfhc rniddIe
of th<Korrh Sea. Siich delimitationwuuldreducctheGerman partof thc con-
tinentalshcIftoa srnaIIfraction {ahoufi25)of the totaareaof theconlinenta]
sheIfin the KorthSa; its areaworrldbe approxiniately but25 orthe Ne~er-
lands andof the Danish partsresprctively.
Thc Gcrmün dclcgütionsuphcld thc view that ihcGerman part of thecon-
tinental shelf in the KortiiSeashould touch the median line bctwen lhe

BritishIdes and the Continent and that itarea, cornparedwiththe parts ap-
pertainingto theStatesconcerned,should be proportiunal to the lenythof the
coast. As altcmativc snlutions, the Gcrman dclcgati onggestedthedivision
ofthe continentalshelfof the Nurih Sea bysector vide itfia para84) or the
joint exploitatioof thedisputedareas.
27. As the Netl~erlandsand .Danislidelegationsshowed no indinationto
negotiateon my otherkasi than thatofthestrictapplicationoftliequidistancc
principle, thnegotiatio only led to theconclusio ofnthetierman-Nether-
lands and German-Danish partial delimitation trcalics mcniioned above

(videsupra paras,16and 18) inwhich boundarylinesextendingtu adistanceof
25 to30nauticalmiles from the coastwere agwd upon.
After tht conclusion of thc Gcmüin-NcthcrIands and the Grmün-
Danish partialdelimitationtreatics,tripartitetalkswere beguoii28Febmary
1966 inThe Hague betweenGemlan, Netherlands, and Danish delcgations
conccrning thc division of thc continental shclf in thc south-eastof the Korth
Sea. Inthecourse offurthertripartitediscussions heldinBoniion 13May 1966,
it ultiniately kcame clear rIiatagreement could not k reached about the
furtherdelimitaiionof the Gemün part ofthç contincntüI shclf bccause hoth
sidesrnaintainedtheirrespective legal standpoints.The Kinçdom ofDenmark,
the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the Federal Republic of Gemany then

agecd to subrnitthc casc to thc Intcrnational Court of Justice. MEMORIAL OF THE FkDtKAL REPUBLICOF GERMANY

PART TLTHE LAW

28. By thc Spccial AgrwrnentsVT 2 February 1967t,he Court is rei~uested
to decidewhat principlesand rulcsof InternationaLaw are appIicab1cto thc
deIirnitation of rareas of the continental shcIf in ihc NoSea which ap
pertainto eachof thc ParticsbcyondLhe partiaboundaries determinedby the
akvc rnentionedTreaiiesof 1 Deceinber 1964 and 9 June 1965 (cf. supra

paras. 16,18).
Ttshouldbeobservcd thatthe qucstivn submittedtctheCourt refersonlyto
thecontinentalshelfbuundariesin the YortI~Sea,in pürticrilarinthapart of
the North Seautherethe Kinpdom ofDenmark, the Kingdom of the Netlier-
lands, and the FederaIRcpublicofGcrmany claim jurisdiction over the con-
tincntal shebeforeiheircoasts.Fnr the purposcof finding the Iawapplicable
in thiscase, iisto be awrtained, in the firsplace,whether there are any
principleor ruIesofinternational law govcrning thdelimitationof thecon-
tinentalsheIfbetween two or more Statcsadjacent to thütshelf,and if sa,
whcthcr suchprinciplesand rulesof international IappIy inthe speci aase
of the canrincnta1 shclf ofthc North Seüwhichasto bedividcdup between
severallittor Saltes surroundingthe North Sea basin. MEMORIAL OFTHE FEDERALRREPUBLI CF GERMANY 31

continentaIshelf. AlreadyPresidentTruman'sProclamationof 28 Scptcmbex
1945, by which the Cnited States of Arnericli claimed the conlinentai sheIf
adjaccnt toitscnast, providd for dcIimitation vis-h-vis ncifibuurStatesas
follows:

"In caseswlieretIiccontinentalshelfextends to the shoresor another
State,oris sharedwithanadjacentState, theboundary shalllxdctcrrnincd
bythe Unitcd Statcsand thc Stat cvncerned in accordancewithe~uifable
principlc.~(Unitcd Nations LcgislativeSeries,Laivsand Reguhtions on
the Regimeof the High Seas,Vol. 1,1951,p. 38;italics addcd).

This ProcIamation was îciliciurby siinilaractionon the part ofvarious
IittoraStates ofthe PersianGulf:
Article2 of an IraniarBiII,subrnitteto thc iranian ParIiamenon May 19,
1349, rdating ioPersianGulf subsea resources,contained the provision:
"ShouId the continentalshelfof Inn extend to thecoasts of another
country orbecommon with anoiher adjacentcountry. theIirnitsof the
intcrcstcd countrics wilx fixd equitably between the interestgolem-
nientswith respecttthenarurar lesourcesofthc continentalshelf"(italics
aclded; citeby M. &VM- Motlion, he Continental Shel1952, p.IO)."

Kriya1I?anauncemcnt of the Kingdoni of Saudi Arnbia withrespectta the
subi1 and seabed ofareas in thePersianGulf of28 May 1949:
"The boundaries of srich areas wilI be deterrninedin nccur&nrewilh

trq~riraprini:iph by Our Governmentin agrcemcnts with other States
having jurisdictionand control overthesubsoiland seabed of adjoining
areas" (Law and KeguIatioi~son the Regimc of the High Seas, Vol. 1,
1951,p. 72; jtalics adùed).
ThePruclamatiunsof thc SultanofBahrein of5June 1919,the Shcik ofQatar
of 8Junc 1949,the Sheikof Kuwait of 12lune 1949,the RuIer ofAbu Dhabi of
10 Jiine 1944. the Ruler of Dubaof 14June 1949t,he Kuler of Sharjahof 16
Junc 1949t ,hc RuIerof liaq-al-Khaimah of17 June 1949,the Ruler of Ilml-

al-Qaiwainof 20June 1949,and the RuIerofAinran of20June 1949,apartfrom
sIightvariationsin the text, a1cuntained the formula that fhcir righ#ver
the continental shclfcxtcnfo-
"boundariesto k determinedmore preciselyasoccasion aristron~qnifu-
bie (~[IsI)principi, after cunsultatjons wirh the neighbauringStates"
(ibid., pp23-30;italics added).

Article 2 of the Declaratioofthe two Homes of Parliamentof r'ficarugitof
28 May 1949 makesprovision for treatie with the neighbriuring States on the
dcljmitation of thc cnntinenta1 shcIf to which a daim is mad"on the basis
of equity":
"En 10s msm en que la platafcirmacontinentalse extienda hasta las
playas de otro Eslado, Li Ilneadivisoria seresiablccida mdiante con-

venios a base de equinad" (italicadded; cited inFnncesco Dilrante,
La Piattafoma litorde ne1 Diritto internazionale,Milano, 1955,p.291).
32. When the menibers of the It~~rrnuiiorraLlaw Co~i~niissiotii,n lheir 1951
and 1953 Sessions,discussed possible methods for the deiimitation or the
continental shelf between Statcs Iying adjacent oropmite to cach other,
thcirprcoccupation was to finda formula thatwoüld yarantee ajust and
equitableapportionmentamurig theStatesconcerned. The rcpon of the rap-
porteurJ. P.A. Francais,which wa..submittcd to the Commissionin thc 195132 NORTIISI~ACOST~NENTAL SHELF

Session providcd for the boundary being drawn in the first place through
"communaccordentre lm parties",and in the secondplace,shouldagreement
not be reached,through an extensionof the laterablndary of theterritorid
waters: inthe caîcof Statcslying oppositeach oiher, the inedian line shouId
form the boundary.

Yearbook of the IntemationaI Law Commission, 1951, Vol. Il, p.102
(textinfra para. 48).

Ihemcrnbersof the InternationalIaw Commi~qionwcrc inclin& to adopt the
first partof rhispropod, but not the secoiid part. The chairman of this
sessir inL,.Brierfysaidthat thecorrect solutionwas that-
"the allotment should bemade by agreements bctwccn the States con-
cernedor by amicabicarbitration,no1by means of hardand fastrulcs ..
Any rulewhich ihe Coinmission laid down was boiind to be arbitrary"
(ibidV ol.1,p.288).

The meinber of the Intemational LawCommission Sh. Ifsu, wishedto see
thesecon dart of theproposalof therapporteurreplaccdby ihc words-

". . or faiIing agrocrncnby arbitrationoiia fairandequitable basis"
(ibiri.,Vol. 1,p.289).
Furthcr discussion thcn concentratal upothequestionof theway inwhich
provisioncouIdbe made forobIig~toryarbitration,inorder tassureajustand
tquitablt solution in eaccasewheretheStates failod to mach an agreement.
Article 7of thc Draft AiticIcoit the ContinentaiSlreiadoptedat the 1951

Sessionof ttie InternationaI LawCommission rcad as follows:
*'Twoor more States to whmc tcrritories thsame coiitinentalshelfis
contiguous shuuld cstablish boundariesin the area of the çontinenla1
siielfby agreement.Failingagreement.the partiare underthe obligation
to have the boundaritsfixedby arbitration*'(ibidVol.TI,p. 143).

In the commentary oftlicCommissionadded to rhisArticlejtwasstated:
"Itis nor feasibito lay down any gcneral ml: which States shouid
fcillow;andit isnot unIikcly tht difliculiiesmaarise...1: is proposed
thecefore thatifagreementcannot be wached and a prompt solution is
needed, the interesteStates should bcunder an obligation tosubrnitto

arbitrationex acqrroet bono"(ibid., p. 143).
When discussion on thesubject was renewed ai the 1913 Sessionof the
Intcm~tionalLawCommissiont, he Rapporteurfrunçois suggestedtheequjdis-
tance line asitsubsidiarymethod of drawing a boundary, in thccase of a
failureto mach agreementon delimitation. Again voices were raisedagainst
such an inflexibIerule; in particuiartheSovietmember, I;.1. Ko.~hevitiknv,
opposcd the attempt to Iay downa hard and fasrruleestablishingadeiinite
method of boundary drawing,and spoke infavourofthe former solutio tn,t

the estabIishrnentof the boundary shouldbe ieftexcIusive1yto agreement
betwc.cnthe Statesconccrned.
Yearbook of the IntcrnatiandLaw Commission,1953, Vol. 1,p. 128.

Finallythe equidistancemeihod wasacceptec l ythemajority aso.subsidiary
ruleif no agreementwas frirthcoming. butthc imwrtaiit resenation wasaddd
thatits ap&cation shuuIdnot be conçideredsolong as "speciaIcircurnstanccs"
justifiecianotherdelimitation. A more detaiiedaccount of teiscussionswiII bc givcn Iater (vidii$m paras. 68-73); for thmoment it is suffidcnthere to
pointoui ttiattheInternaiionai Law Commission tricd hard to frnda so1trrion

which inevery casewoutd Icadto an cqriitableapportionnienl.In thiscontcxi
it might bc u~cful ro cite the Reporof theInremlional Law Association COm-
mirteeut]~lieRi;vhrsofthe Sea Bedand Sftbsoil,prcpsredhy R. Yowig for the
46th Conference ofthe Internationai Law Association Conference 1954 in
Edinburgh, which contained the folIowingjudpent on the muIt of tliedis-
cussions in the InternationalLaw Commission:
"The new ILCformulawouIdappear to besuperior to theold becausc
of thcmore preciseand objectivenatureof the ruIe proposed.So longas it

is understood thai geornetricprincipl arc nnotappIicdad ahsrvditnithey
can beusefulnleansof wccrtainingwhatsl~ouIdbeprimcrfucie anequitabic
division"(IntcrnationaILaw Association, Report of the46th Conference,
1954, p.439).
33.When the proposal of the InternationalLaw Commission u7asdebated
at theGcnevn C'onf~r~nceonrieLclw oftheSeiin 1958.thesamepreo~upations
bmme apparent. Duriiig the discussions of the Fourth Cornmittee of the
Conferenceseveraldelegaies emphüsizedthat the proposed rnethods forthe

delimitation of fhc mntinental shelf between neighbouring Stares must bc
judged froni ihe pointofviewwhcthcrand towhat extcntthey wouldlead toa
fair and equitüble apportionmentof the contiiientalsIie1fbetweenthc States
conccrncd:
The VenezuelandelegaieSchn:arckAngIaded~~larcd-
"... lhat failurta make due provision for specialciramstances suchas
were lrcquenflyirnposcd by geography couldnot resultin a soh~tionwliich
~,ou/dhcfnir Io411Sruzrs"(United Nations Conference on thc Law ofthe

&a, OtIicial Records,Vol. VI: Fourth Cornmittee (Continental Sbelf),
p.92; itaIicsaddcd).
The BritishdclegateKeniredy saidthatmaritimeboundariesby extension of
thc land frontieror by otherrnethods-

"... oftendid not rcsuItin a faif apportionmeitof the seaara between
the two Statesconceriied"(ibid.,p. 33; italicadded).
Tlie ItaliandelegateCabrieIlisiid-

"... that, whiIethe criterionof the inedianline proposcdbythe Inter-
national Law Cbmrnissioncouid not k contcstcd in principle,it might, if
ripidly applied, ieadto ilrequiiahie results and considerable technical
ditticuIties'*(ibid., p;italicadded).

Thedclcgateof the Cniied Statesof Americü Miss Whiremojxstütedthat the
median Iine-
"... wouIdenabIc eqztitahtapprtioirmarl to be ma deoftheseabedarea
to each cciastal Statconcerned"(ibid., p.95; italics addeii).

These quotations sliowthat the delegatesattributcdody secondary valm to
thc gnmetric methoci of drawjng boundaries, and that also those who ac-
cepled the medisinor cquidistance line as the general method of delimitingthe
continentalshelf,did notaccept ilbeuusc:of its intrinsicIcga1valui:but rathcr
bccausc ofits quaIityasa method whichin theirvicw ivouId nornlallylcadto
a justand equitableapportionmcnt ofthe continentalshelf.

34. The doc~rinc has up to now concerned itselr oniy very Iiltiewitlithe34 NORTH SEACON TINENTAL SHE1.P
probteinof boundürydelimitation. Most of the authorswho ha\?devotedat-

tentionta this questionwcre, however,ofthe opinion that the delimitatiof
thesharcsof Ststcsin acornmon continental sheIfconld nobecffcctcd bythe
rigd application of some geometric mcthod, but that suctimethadscou1d
only beregarde asastartingpoitiorasa means toachieveajust andquitable
apportionment. The followingauthors may be cited{italicsadùcd):

Sir JIersfh Lolrferpocht, "Sovereigover Submarine Areas", British
Yearbook or InteriiationalLaw, Vol. XXVIE (1950), p.410: "As adum-
brated in thevarious proclamations, the dcIimitation can prriperIbe
e ffeçteby teferencetoeqüirabfeconslderutionand my formüb based on
a system of median and Iaterallines oughtobe no more than thc starting
point inseurch for an equitabsollrtion";
Oiiviede FerrutiLe Droit de laMer, Vul.II, 1960,p.201 (referrinto
the"medianiine"):"PIusieurspays ontcritiquéAlaConférence deGenève
cette dispositioqui, daprès cux, manquerait de souplt~seet ne saurait

repondrcà touslescas qui peuven te présenter.ppliquée d'iinc mani2re
rigideeIIepeut conduire 5 cieinjustice et donner lieu des dificultés
d'application";
Aaron L. Shalowitz,Shore and Sea Boundaries, Vol. II, 1964,p.384
(referringto "lateral buundaries")"Jn delimitinysuchboundarim,the
objectivisto apportiontheseaarca in siica manneras wjlt beeqiiiruble
toboth States";
Leu J. Bout:hez,The Regime of Bays in Intcmational Law. kgden
1964,p. 188:"In the expIoitationof the resourcof thesubsoilthe 1waI
circumstanccsmust betakeninto considerationfor theestablishmentofan

equitubfrappofiianment;
Myrrs S. ~UcDuugnlWj iiIia9:iBr~rke, hePublicOrder ofthe Oceans,
New Haven and London, 1362,p.428: "The major community pviicy
at stake withrespecto thehoundaryproblems ofadjaccnt and opposing
Stateisthatofachieving~q~~i(c.i6lriapporiiu~inei,rcbyavoidingdisputes
arisinout of insisten byonc or bolh Statesona mrthod of delimitation
which dues not respecttheintcrcstof the other."

35.nie problem of the division of a cornmon continental shelf among
scvcraIIittoraStates isby no merinsa singuIar problem in intcrniitiona!Iaw.
ln al!cases where Iimited natutal resourccs haveto be dividcd up between
severalStates havinga right cqual in kind to such rcsources,the problcm of
apportionme fiarises,A caseof hissortisfhe useof thc watcror rriverbasin

which extends ovcrthe territorieofsevcraIStatcs.There iswidcspreadagree-
ment Lodaythat sucha rivcrbasinmustIx regarde asdanintegratedwholc,and
that,if newssary,its Iimitedamountof water resoiirccmus$be ~pportioned
between the basin States. The principles of internalionlaw governingthe
distributionof waters havc bwri thoruudiiy iiivcstigatedby the competent
Cornmitte of tIieInternationaLaw Association;the principlthateach of tlie
participatingStatecan claiman eqiiiiahlc hre ofthe rewurccsavailabie has
ben accepted 3sa niattcr of course and consideredasexisting intcrnationaI
law. The "Helsinki Rules on theUses of the Watersof InternationaIRivers",
which wert:proposed by theCornmittocon theUses ofWatersof International
Füvem unanimnwly and adopted atthe 52ndConference of thc International
Law Association on 20Auyst 1966 i,nHelsinki,havelaid down the foIIowing
principIe:36 NOKTH SEA COSTNENTAL SHELF

37, itisrespectfuIlysubtnittedthat the fullowinggencralprinciple gowrns the
delimitation ofthecontincntiilshelf betwecnthe Partiesin the Korth Sea:

Where thesanre co~rinefiro.cheffis ut+.centto ~heferriiories ofssir~rnlStares,
eachof rheseSrnies isctitit/eto ajus1 and cquitnbie shnre of~hat co!iritzciiini
she& f,rrespecti~euJ the ~nethod used furthe dertrtnination of [he hirtrJ(~ries
betiveetthe Stutc~ concemii. 39.The Kingdom of Denmai-k and the Kingdom of thc Ncfhcrlands contend
that the sociiI1c"principleorequidistan scoe"ldgowrn tIie deliini~atioliof
the continental slieIfbetwecn two adjacent Srates,and conscquenriy aIso thc
dclirnitationof the continental shelf beneaththe NortSca bciwccn the King-
doln of Denmark,the Kingdom of the Nethcrlands, and the FederaIRepublic
of Germany. 'Thiscoii~entionsccrns to imply tht the principIe of equidistancc

which has ken adopted in ArticIe6 of the Convention on the Continental
SIielfof 29April1958,as wcll asinthe Articles 12and 24 of the Conwntioit on
the TerritoriaSea and the ContigunusZone, andinArt icIe 7 of the Convention
rin Fishingof rhesame date, under the conditions spcrficd thcrcin a?method
fur Jrawing miuitimc boundaries,hadalrcadydcvelopedinto a rule of general
international !a\and wouldcr>nsequcnilygovern the delimitationof tlie con-
tinental shclfalso betweenStatesnot parties to theseConventions.The Fedcral
KepubIic of Gerrnüriyisunable to foIlowsuch a rrasoningand maintainstlie
view that the principle of equidistancc:dom not consrirutea nile of general
jntcrnntional iaw, but offeonsIy oneusefulmetliod amoiig others fordrdwjng
nnritime boundarim bctwccn opposite or adjactnt StütesThe cquidistancc
method maylcad, aIbeit noi iiec&ly, io an equitable andjustapportionment
of the cantinenral shelbfetweenadjacent States; oiithe otherhand, thex arc
enough cases cvnccivübIc where Ihe application of the principle of equi-
distance would Iead to an utijust and jncquitahlc rcsult.
Thcrcforc,the German Govcrnmcnt rnaintaiiisthat.the quidisiance linecan

be aaepted as a boundary Iineonly under the coridition that it willIetoan
eqiiitable andjustapporlionirieiii, and thaitis forihe Partywhich relies on
the equidistancc linetoshow that sucliconditions are fuliiliI(.would thei'e-
fore appeai necessliryto dcmonstrate the Iimitedscope of appIication of the
equidisrance Iine.

40. Çtate practict:anddoctrine use the tcrms"niedian 1Uie"and "equidis-
tance line" sometimes synonyrnously andsametimes differently, in die Iatrer
casc making the ddistinctioiiwhetliera boundüry hs to be shawn beiween
States lying vppositc or adjacent each othtr.This ,Liernoriausestheseterms
in the FoIIowingsense:

(rzj Maritime boundaries ktrvccn two States Iyingiuijurenrtoeach other, if
thcy are drawn in application or the equidktancc mcthod, will br:tçmed
"lateralequidjsfance boundaries" or "latei-a1equidistaiice lines". Thmeans
that the boundary isdrawn in such away thar every point onthe boundaryline
is cqiiidistanfrum thc nearest points of the coastIin~y:or baselines ufthe
neighbuuring States frornwhjch the breadlhof the territorisea isrneasured.
The cxpressioii "mcdian Iine" which is occasionallyused for lateraequidis-
tance bounhries should be avuided,sincc thcsc arcnottme mcdian lincs.

TheNctherlandsdt.lcgitcJ7cr2ij iroposed in theFirstCommittreon rhc
Canfcrcnceoti the Law of theSea ".. .thatthe tcrm 'median'be delrtrd
front paramph 1ofthe Norweyian proposd. The paragraph was appli-38 NOZl'H SEA COhTINEYïAL SHE1.F

cablenotonIy to thc cascof oppositccoauts,but also tothe case ofad-
jacentcoasts aiidin theIattercase,it wasclearIy inappropriateto spmk
of a medianline" (U.N. Cunference on the Law of the Sea, Of. Rec.,
Vol. IIIDuc. A/Conf. 13j39-p 192j.
Sl~nlowitop. Wt.,VoI.3,1962,p.23I: "Thisdistincionberween anqui-
distant line anda median line seernsvaIid from a geometrical pointof
view,fora truemedianline psesupposcsalinethatisjnthemiddle.Tiieorcti-
cally,at lcast, a bounkry Iine tIiroughthe territoriasm betwcen two
adjacentStates. whilean cquidistantIine,jnot a true median line."
(b) Maritimeboundariesbetweentwo Stateslyingoppositeachother, if they
aredrawn in appIicationofthe equidistancemethod, willbc tcmcd "median
lines".Thismeans thatthc boundary isJrawn in sucha way tht everypoint oti
the boundary line isequidistnntfrontthe nezrest pointsof the cuastlineor

baselinesoftheStateslying opposite toeach other fom which thehreadth of
the territorisea ismeasured.
Lateral equidistance lincs andmedianIines are not geometrica1 straight
lines, but what arcaIIed Great Circlc lincs, narnelythe shortest line joining
two points on the earth'ssurface.
cf. K.M. Xeirizcdy,Brief Rematkson Median Lincs and Linçs ofEquidis-
tanc end on the Mcthodq Uscd in Thcir Construction (Paper distributed
by the BritishDeIegationto the Geneva Conferenceon the Law of the
Seüon 2 April1958):"... {vi)FinaIly,tslioüldbe statedthatthereisno
simplemcthod of drawing lin- of equidistance throughthe ocedns or
through extensivetracts ofseaor continentalshelSfu.ch lines ofequidis-
tance are not straightIinesut are each partsof a 'greatcircle'and the
mcdian Iincs themeives are aIso formedby portionsof 'greatcircIes'."

41. Lateral equidistance linw and medianIineshave incornmon that they
are drawn awrording tothe samegeomctrical methud of equidistancefrom the
nearestpoints on thecoastsof bo~h States; dependinguponthe cvnfiguration
of the corist the IatcralcquidistIinemay merge intoamedian Iinc, asdoes
forinstancethe Finnisli-Sovietboundaryintht:Gulfof Finland.Theconditions
under which the two boundary lineshave-been appIicdare, however, notthc
same:
(a) Mediun lims assea,lakeor riverboundari hesveexisted for a long time
past.In mat cases-Ieaving out of accnuot irrcgukitiesin the geographicsii
configuration of thccossts oppositeeach otherand providcd no iskandsIie
bctwcen them-tiiey effectuatea justand quitable apportionment of the
waters betwcen the two Statescrincerned.
S. Wh.Buggs,International Boundaries,1940,p. 179:".. .in fact, the
divisionintotwo cquniar~asscems tobean importantelemcnt of thc con-
cept"(italics adùed).

G. Gide{, Lc droit de la mer, Vol. 111,1934, p. 768: ".. .la ligne
médianec,'esth direlasolutionquitend à attribueraux étaislimitrophes
uneGgaiepar~i~deseauxmaritimes proche% dcladtç ..." (ilaliaddcd).
During tlidiscussi iotseInternationalLaw Commissinn onthcJelimitation
of theterritoriaSM and of thecontinentalsheif ihc medianIinewas regardeci
as an appropriatebuundary, long berorethe equidistanceline had beensug-
gested forlateralboundaries.
(6) Lafrralequidisfuticr?houndoriesare, incontra nowl metbd of drawing
watcr boundarics; thcyhad not been putto the testMore the GenevaCon-
ferenceonthe Lawof the of 1958.Nor is it bany means as abvious asin
the crisofthe median Iinethatthelateraequidistanccboundary leadstoa just WEMORIAL OF THE ETDERAI.REPCBLIC Ok CiERMAKY 39

and equitable division of the inaritirneareasinquestionsince sucha resuIt
depcnds upori ihc configuration of tcoast toa fnrgreatcr dcgreethanin the
case uf the rnediailine.This point will be dealt witin greaterdetail Iatcr
([email protected]. 42et seq,).
(cl A vcry spccial situatioariseswhen-as in the asc nf the North %a-ü
coniinc~ftalshe&whichis surroanded&Y severaliirrnrnlSrutehasto bc divided
among these States. IIero.problcmsuigeneris arjseswhich cannot be solved
satisfactor byIthe applicationof methodsdcvclopd for drawing maritime
boundariesin norrnaI geographicalsituations,

F.A. V. ( Va!/orJ"nie Continental Shelf",British Yearbook of Inter-
~iationalLaw, Vol. 23 11946).p. 33K.,335-336: "...Where a largebay
ora @If isboundcd hyseveral States the problem is niorecomplicatcd.
Perhaps themostequitablesvIutian wauld be todivide thesubrnarinearea
outside territoriwatersamongthe contiguous statcin proportionto the
Iength of ther coast lines.Evenif thiswereadoptd asabasis,iwouldnot
provide the necessab ryundaries.It wouIdprobabIy notIie possibleto
draw thcse accordin tg anysimplegeometricrule."
RichardYoung" ,The Legal StatusofSubmarineAreasbeneaththe High

Seas",Amcrican Journatof InternationalLaw, Vol.45119511,p. 236-237:
"Submarin areasin shalIa weasor guIfs-such asthe Baltic,the Per-
sian Gulf, and the CruIf of Paria-prcscnt perhaps the most diRcrilt
situationofaII... .In theabsenc of any largarea lying bcyond the11X1-
fathornIin~ucIi asisfond in the narrowbutdeep Red Sea-the entire
bcdandsubsoil mustbe divjdedequitably among theiittoral State..The
lines of division insuch casesmust almost inevitably bc artificial in
characte rrsuItingfrom negotiation and agreementamkg the interested
governments.andit seernsdiEcu1t to lav down in advanceanJ- -inciples
if generalapp~ication."
P. C. L. Anninos,The Continental Shelfand Public InternarionaI Law,
1953, p. 99-100:"Suhmarine areas of concern to more than Iwo Sratcs:
The main type ofcase that bclong to this grnup isthat oa guIfor bay,
whcrc thera eresevcrallittoral Stat... it is jxrhaps satnsasthat jtis
wcll-ni& jmpossible toformulate one gcncraIprinciple...".

Section11.TechniqueandEffccts of theEquidishnce Metùod

42. Maritime boundarieswhich arc drawn by applicalion of the eqrridis-
tance mcthod are boundary lincs al1pointsof whicharc cquidistant from the
nearesi points on thecvastsof thetwo Statesconcernod.Sincethe solefactor
dctcrrniningthecourse of theequidjstanccline ithedistancefroni the nearest
points on thc coasts of both States,itispossible,bymeais of geomctrica1
construction, to drawü prcciwboundarly int iindera11possible gographical
circumstances,providcd that thereisno difi'crencewith regardto basepoints
or haselinesfrom whichthe iedisranccare tobe measured.This wouid not bc
the case,forinstance,ifihc badine ofthe territoriasa, theterminusof the
land frrinrier, or tlatera bolundaryof the territorialsea areunsettledor
coatested.It may alw be questioncd whether poinls oii so-caller"straight
baselines"shouldbe acceptcd asbarepoints for the cülculatiof quidistance.
Strict application of the metboto crimplcxconfiguratio onthe coast may
notalwnysproducc practicalboundav Iines; indrawing theequjdistanmlinc
nurnerousangles rnayddevlop,so that the boundary Iinebecornesangularand
bizarre.40 NORTH SEA CO~TINENTAL SHELF

R. ,M. Keirnedy, British deicgat o the ricncva Crinfeni~ca 1958:
"Wh~n pr~perly drawn, the median Iincwas a precise Iineconsistingoa
seriesof shortstraight lincsIn agreeingupon a boirndary,adjaccnt or
opposite Statcsmight welldccide to srraighret?thc sçroflines sn asto
avoid anexcessivenumkr of anglcs, giving UIeqrrd seaarcarocach Stute
and alsotaking into account aiiy special circiinrsraircrs"(UnitedNations
Conference on the Law of the Sea, Officiai Iiccords, VulV1 (Fourth

Cornmittee),p. 93; italicsadded).
In such cas% therefore,Iioundüriesmusr bcsimplifiedor straigbtcncd.This
was the procedurefolluvieci inthcboundarytreaties between the Yorth Sca
littoralStates(supraparas. 17, IY-22).
43. The undeniableadvantsges of a method which produccs in any geo-
grüphicd situationa preciseanduncontestableboundary linedo not,hower~r,
per seguarantee ajustand fairapportianrncntof thewaters bct\vecntheStates

concerne dhe reaiobject ofal1the inetliods developerocdrawing maritime
boundarjes, toassure ajurtand equitable&are for cach Stiite,isiiothercby
achicv~ autumatically.
cf. HichardYuuty, "The GenevaConvention on the Continental Çhelf",
American Journal or Internatinna1Law, Vol. 52 (19581,p.737: ". . its
applicationin cnmplcx gcugraphicai situationsisnot ahvayscasy, and if
applied strictilty, ftenprodu~*s a line which is undulycomplicatodor
which,inthe lightof otherconsiderations,appearirtcquiiabiorimpracri-
cubic"(italicsadded).

In drawing a boundary betwecn two neighbour States,the equidistanct:
method etablishes a Iinc which nt al1pointsjs equidistantfrom the nearest
points on thc coastlineor baselineof the two StatesThe maritime areas on
thetwo sidesofthe boundaryIincarethereby allocatedto one orotherof the
two Wüfes,according tothejr~iropinqriityta pointon itsshore.The equidis-
tance method thusattempts,bytrikinginto riccount indeenlalioof thecoasi,

Figure 3Mt:MOR[AI.OFTHE FEDERALREI'IIIILIOF GERMANY 41

Figure 4

Figure 542 SOUTH SEA CONTINEI\T,~LSIIELF

Figure 6

toavoid the shortcomings of anoihcr mcthod of boundarydrawing wtiich
usesitlinedrawn \~rtiwlly onthecortstlincSincethe ri&& ofcoastaI States
tothe continental sheifarbasedupon thegeagi.aphicaIcontiguity or identity
ofthe continentalshelfwith thc non-submerged contiguou cssr, itmay not
sccm unrczrsonabietu takepropinquity to thecoast as a main criterionfor
delirnitingthe sharof neighbouringStatesin tirecontinentalshclf. Even this
point of viewcannot justify that a sinpoint on a saiientpartof thecoast

shoulddccidcthe aiIocatioor extensiveseaareas.ThiswouIà meanprornoting
asinglegeographic factor,theimportanceO€ which is veryquestionablctrian
absolutcdetermina nht,leIeavingolhefractor estireIyout of accounl.
Wit hout goinghcrc intofurther detaifregardintgliese factor{xe infra
paras.78-81),the followingdiagrams {figures3-6, pages 4042) arc prcsented
iiiustratingtheetfecoftheeqiiidiçtancemcthod on thedlocatioiof seaarcas
under variouscoastatconfigurations.
That these diaprarnsare not hypothetjcalconstructions, bcorrespond to
actuagleographicaisituations, is showhy thc followinptrue-t+xaledratvingç
(fifigu7-14,pngcs434) of wme coiislsa11uver thworIdif equidistancelines
wouId be usedforthe division of the waters before thesecoastsamung the
coastal Slales.
As a mattcrof fxt, it musbe added thatbewuse of thedepth of theseaoff
thesecoasts,tIicproblemofdrawingboundaries in thesepartsofthe oceeaiiis

not anacute problem forthemoment. But as Article1of the ContinentalShelf
Conventionmakes the assertio onsovereig right sver the seabcd and
subsoildcpendent on the techniça1 possibilities of exploitathenquestion
whethersuch partsof the occansshould alsbedivided up betwccn thecaaçtal
Statesmaydemand an answer inthenot toodis ta^futlire.
44. As demunstratedgraphicaUy,the equidistance method, by niaking the
distünce from the nearestcoaçtat points the absoiutc criterion, necessarilyMEMORIALOF '1HEFEDERAL REPUBLIC:F GERMANY 4344 NOICI'HSEACONnNi\hiAL SHELF MEMORIAL OF THE FEDEHAL HEPUBLIC OF GERMAXY 45

Yu

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND CANADA

(4 TLANTIC OCEAN]

I......

attributesundueweight to projcctiog partof thecoasi,and sonotinfrequently
leadsta ineqiiitablesolutionsThe danger of overratingthe principleof equi-
distance was c1earIyenvisaged during the clebüte on the princide of cqui-
distancein the International Law Commission and at rhe Conference onthe
, Law of the Sm.

cf. the reinark of ihe Venemelan dclegatc Schwarck Anglade (Unitcd
Nations ConFerenceun the Law of the Sea, Micial Records, Vol. VJ,
p. 94): "Thcsituationsthat existedin ditferen1parlof the world were too
varied tojustifytheadoption ofanysuch gcncralrulc. Marcoixr thc cascs

inwhichthemedian linewould offer the bar solution wereIikely toarise
lessfrcqucntlythan any athers, srhat exceptionswould be more numerous
than thecases coveredby thtgeneralmlc. 'rhc mcdian linc wasonIy onc of
the systernsthat might have ken selected by the International1,awConi-
mission ... nosingle oneof thesesystemscouId, any more than the niedian
line method, meet thc rcquirements of al1the situations that would be
e~countcrcd."46 XiJRTtl SECOKTINEXAI, SïlELF

These doubts have aisobeen expi'essedin the doctrine.
cf. !WcDougat-Bzirke,op. cit. p. 436: "Tite Iast farniliarity with tex-
trernelycornplexgeographical conditions, noto mention conditionsof use,
invoIvedin concrete insianc iessuficientto indicaiethat any special in-

sistencf ona median line isirnposib1eMp ;.725: "ln thcabsence ofmutual
agreement eitl~eron the boundary itsclf or on a process of resolving
disputa becauseof the great variety of factors inspecificcontexfsno
meaningful,dctüild reconimendation seems possible".

Figure Il MEMORIAL OF TIIE FEDERALREPUBLICOF GEKMANY 47

45.The eflectsresultingfrorn thc utilization the equidistancctechnique
undervariousgeographiccircuinstances (vide suprapuas. 43, 4-41lead tu the
gencraIconclusio tnar theapp1icabiIityof theequidistance method becornes
the more questionableas thc diqtance which the boundaryline ru- from the
coast increases.A further point which hasnut alwsiys receivedsufficiecon-
sihcation, is thatheequidistancemtthoù was developd solclyfor the delimita-
lion ofterritoriawaters between two ncighbur States.

Boggs, op.ri!. p.184-192; idetfi"Delimitatioi~of Seaward Areas under
National Jurisdiction", American Journa1 of International Law, Vol. 45
(19511,p.240-266.

Th: construction of lateral equidistance bounùaries in territoria1seas
developcd by hggs is hsed upon the idvathütthe scaward boundary ofthe
tcrritririSM of each of the two adjacent Stateswill be the envelope of the
arcsoTa circlt:of a 3 miles'radiusdrawnt'rom a11pointson itscoast, and tht
the two boundaries so construci weidthen nocrssüriIy internt ala poitit
which will be equidistant-3 mile-from theneai-estpointsof bothcoasts.

This is a "triple point" in the borrndary sen=, Le.,a point wherc thrcc
houirdariesmeet: the boundary between the territorialseas of the rwo States,

and the two seawrirdboundaries of theterritorial saof=ch orthe two States.
This "cquidistanr" point is the nccessüry consequencc ofthe geometric:con-
struction of the staward boundarics of thc territfirisea, providcd that thc48 NORTH SEA cos-~INENT A~EL,P

breadthof the territoriasca clairned by thetwo States isthe samc. This con-
struction,thereforc, isnubasedupon considerationsof anequal or appropriate
division of inantinieareas but raiherupon purelygeometric deductions. The
application of this construction io the diawing of boundaries beynnd the
territorialsea,thercforc, necessitatesa special justification whichcan oniy
consist of the proof that thc application of the equidistanceincthod wilI in

such a case resultin a boiinda~r Iinewhich will apportionto each Statc con-
cerned a justandequitablc shareof the cvntinentalshclf.

e\ .
fiÇ\ '
cv0

.d

r , ',-- ' *. FRANCE , . .Gu\? of Vene.7.ue:u

VENEZUELA50 NORTH SEA CONTINENTAL SHELF

SectionILI G.enesisof theEquidistanceLie as a Methodfor th DeIimitation
ofa CanfinentalSheIf '

46. OnIy relatjve recently has the equidistance Iinc hccnadopied as a
~ec/~firniquetfhoerdrmvofrnarifimehoundarics.It tme that niedianIineshave
beenconstructeci byappliwtion of the equidistancemethodaIreadyand have as
a ruleproduced an equal division ofthe watersbetwecnthtwo oppositc coasts,
unlesi ssIandhsave tobe taken into corsidcration. Ilie occasiondilisioiof
rivcrs,lakcs,orinland scas between two States Iying opposite each orherby
medianlines is no proof of ageneralrecognitionof the su<alled principlcof
equidisiance also for other geographical situations than thoseof opposite
cmsts. The drawingof a maritimchoundary bctwcm two coasis Iyingopposire
eachother isby tlie very naturofthe circuinstancesdiilèrent from thc draw-
ing of aIateraIbounday between fwo neighbouringStates into the open sea.
For the drawingof latcralboundariesthe cquidisrancemethod hashardlybeen
practisedat all. Iamoiig lhe existingboundarjesa smlI nurnbcr of rncdian
Iines areIO be found which grosso modo correspond to an cquidistanceIine,
it does not frilIowthcrefrom that the equidistan Ine has ken generally
recogiimd astheprincipal ruIefor thedrawingof maritimehunditri~s.

47. Maritime boundarics established by treaty are not cornmon. State
pracîicein this fielhasjustly been describeciasparse and inconclusive.

cf. DavidJ. Pudwu, Internatiund and ComparativeLaw Quartcrly, Vol. 9
(1960)p,.629: "Statt practic .e..has not only heen sparsc,but incon-
clusive. Whilc severai techniques have been utilised in the wasionaI
treatide eIimitingmaritime borindürits, iheir rcfcrence to loml gco-
graphicalconditions and theyantain IittIeofgneral applicability."
US Deparrn~enr ofSiare, Sovereignty oftheSea,Geographiwl Rullelin
No. 3 (April 1%5),p. 13: "Anytwu countrie with contiguvus offshore
waters may agree un a comn lineof demarcationhetwccnthem, but
usuall ygreements of this typare non-existent."

As faras States thought it necessaryto fixmaritimebuundaria betwen
them,they have notdeveloped a consistentand uniformpracticein the caseof
IateraIsea boundarics. This is apparentlydue tothe geographica vlrietyof
coastal confi~ntion. Even wiih regard to rivers,laka, =id inIatldseas no
unifor mmefhod forthe drawingof boundaricscan txascertained.The nledian
Iinebetweeiitheoppositcshores campses withthe "thaIweg". ?'hcrniddleofthe
riveror Iakcwhich, moreover,corresponds only apprvxirnaielytcthe equidis-
tance lineisgenerallytaken astheboundaryonly if the demands olnavigation
or other speciaIcircumstitnccsdonotcal1 for a differcntboundary.
cf. K. Schuliht.ss,Das infcmationalc Wasscrrccht, Zürich, 1915,p. 19:
"Wohl so ziernlicheinhelligbetrachtetman in der Doktiin die Mitte als
die prasurnptive Grenze, wennnicht besondere Verh$ltnisseeine andere

Abgrenzuirgerheischen.SoIchc bcsondercn Ycrhiilrnisscsinz.B.dic Fillc,
da mehrals zwei Smaten an einemGrenwe beteiIigtsind, wieetwa bcint
Bodcnscc."
Auggs, up.cit.,p. 184:
"The medjan lineis1-7 used asa bouiidarythan formerly,so far as rivers
arc concerned. Inlakes itisfrequtritIy thmost desirable boundary: but
inriversand strearns,particularIy if navigabby any watcr craft, sincc
about 1800theboundaryhas moreoflen beendeiiiied asthe Iinof greatest
depth orthestr~arnlinc ofthefastestciirrcntwhich is caIlcdinGerman
'ihalwcg'." .UEMORIALOF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GEKMANY 51

lt appearsthat the existinglateralhoundariesin the territorialsea thave
been estabIishedby treaty,do no1 includea singleone whichhasbeen drawn
exclusivc acsyordingotthe equidistanceprinciple.

48. The Inicrnutiot~af aw Cominissio~ofthc Unitcd Nations dcaIt ingreat
derail with the questionof the continental sheland its delimitationduring
the pcriod 1949to 1956.Their debatesprovide a gwt dealof informationon
theIegalsituation up to the Gtncva Confcrcncc onthe Law of thSca of 1958:
François,as Rapporteur, submitted hisfirst reparii1950;in reswt of the
treatment of thc continental sheifitcontainecionIy a few remarks on the
apportionnient (or internatianaIisation)of the continenshclf in the caseof
several States being interesteThe question put bythe Rapporteurto thc
Govcmmcnts as ta their ideason the probIen1of apportionment had remincd
unansweredai lhat tirne.

Yearbook of thc InternationalLawCommission 1950,II, pp.52-65.
Discussions in the Commission duringits1950Sessionwere morewiicerned
withfundarncntalpoints than with detaiIs; theshowed,as was only naturaa L,
grcatdealof unçeriaintyregarditn hc ivaytosrtlvthc problcmof delimitation
and regardinganyruIes which mightbe applied.

Ycarbook 19501,pp. 214-239.

- Here,as aIsolater, suggestiowere niadethat the internationalcornmunity
aiid nut thc LittoralStates shoiild be entrustedith the exploitatioof the
continentalshelf-suggestions which, as is known, wcrc not followcd.
ihid.,p. 215 et seq.,p.305, but also pp. 221, 227 et scq.;cf. forPater
pertinentrcrnarks Ycarhook 1951 1, p. 407er seq.; 1953 IIp. 16; 19531
p. 82, 84,113 etseq.

At thisfirstdixussion ontheIegalreginiof thecontinentalshelfthequcstion
of apportionment between severalStates wits aIso toucheclupon,on which
occasiotnhc necesçityof contractualagreementsbetweenthe Statesconcerned
was ernphasiredseveraltintes. 'îhc questiowas aIsoput atthat timc of what
would applyshould trieSlatesconcerned Fdito reach agreement, towhich a
nicmbcr of the Commission-Amado replied that in that case an arbitral
tribunalshouid decide, sincc no othcr gcnera1principlc cxistcd.

ibirl., pp-332-23305.

ManIey O. HU&OIm I dc refcrcnce toa report drawn up in thcIntcmational
Law Association, according to which,among other factors"theconfiguration
of thc cmstlines, the emnomic value of proven depasits OFminerais, etc."
shoiildbe laken ititocon&icirtiqn in thedelimitationof thccontinentashelf.
ibiifp. 233.
Thc principleof equidistance receivedno mention at dl.

Forthe Sessionof thc Camrnissionin1950a mernorandrirnhad beenprepa~d
by the Secretarjaof the United Nations on the existing lawofthe seüwhich
atsudealt with the continenta1shelf:
For the drawing or boundaricsbeiwwn twoor moreStatesinterested inthe
same continental shelf referencewas made to the 'SrumrinProchmation of
1945 ;furthcrmrirevarious possibiliriesof delimitatiowere rnentioncd, but
were considered unsuitablefordoing justicc tu the puliarities of individual
cas-; the matter wassummed upas follows:

"L'estdonc cn definitive &des ententes entre Etats intkrcdou h da52 SOR'i'n ÇEA CONTïNEYTAL SHF1.F
solutionsahtcniics par Icsmodcs amkaMa dudroit qu'ifautlaisserIz soin
d'opérer [esrépartitionet non pas hdesréglesrigidcsqu'ilseraitprématurk

de vouloirposer cièsmaiiitenant" (Yearbook 1950IT, pp. 67et seq.,Il 2).
At the 19-71 Sessionof the International hw Commission a furthcr report
was subrnittcd by François. On the queslionof delirnitaionof the coniiiiental
shelf the Rapporteur again suggested agreements between rhe parties nnd
added:

"Faute d'accnrd, la deniarcatinncntrr: Ics phteaux continentaux de
deux Etirtsvoisinsseraconstituéepar taproIongation de laligne séparant
les eaux terriroriaIes et Ia démarcailon entreleplateauxcoiitinentauxde
deux Etats séparépsar la mcrscraconstitukcpar IülignemCdianeentreles
deuxcbteç'' (Yearbook 1351 II,pp. 75 et seq.,102).

It appearsiioterwrtliy thathere, as ive11asin Iaterdiscussions,the mcdian
Iineum considercd as a normallyappropriate boundaryin the caseof States
Iying oppositc cach othcr, but was appiirentlyrlot envisaged in the case of
neighbouriiig States.The discussion by the Comn~issionon the qucstion ol
delirniation
Yearbook I951 1,p.285 et seq.

againshowedthe varie!? ofpossiblemethods, and thc impossibility of findina
general rule which ivouId be appIicabIewiihout exception. Thrissuggestions
weremade,forinstance,that thecontinental shelfshouI de divided through a
proIongationof the boundaryof the territoriawaters (Cordova), or tht the
boundary should br Jrüwn as it line verticatcithe coat (Spiropoui(ls)A
short rcfcrenceismade tothe principleof equidistance;jtishowever,re~arcled

as "hardiy... possible" (Hrid~onj . Once again iitlcnicntby agrocmerit was
advocated, siiice "anyrule which tlie Commissionlaid down was hoünd to be
arbitrary" (BrierIy). NxturaUythe question was again put of what should
appIy shouIdncighbouring Statcs fa1to rcachagccmcnt. It was suggesled ~hat
incaseof a disputenone of theStaies concerneclshould be entitlero exploit the
continentalshelf unilatemllll, ut appfal shouId be madeto the International
Courtof Justicc (Scdle). To thisthc objoctiun\vasrüised thattheInlernaiional
Court of Justice wouIdnot he able to find anyclcarruks of Iaw on which it
ntighr base ifsdecision. Finally the opinion prevailedthat in case of disputc
rccourscshauld bchad to an arbitraliriburialwhichwould decideex aequo et
bono.

ibid., p. 291 etseq.;Yearbook 1951 II, p. 143 (Article 7 of the draft
adoptcd at the 1951 Session t;xt supra parri32).
lt appcard that untiI thcn the TntcrnationaI Lliw Commissioii rvasaf the

opinion tliatno ruleof generalappIication existcdforthc apportionme~itof the
continentalshelf.
49. Thc equidistance method was first mentioned as sitch in19-52by the
liapporteur. Fimipis when lieagain suggestcd tlic mcdian linc for deiirrtiting
the terriiorjal seabetween livo coastslying opposjte to each othei; with the
reservation, however, thüt it ivaspracricaland acceptable onlyiindes un-
compl icated geographical conditions.

cf.Yearbook 1952II, p. 38: "Maiscetie solution ne çauraitètrcrctcnuc au
casoù la configuration spkcial cxiyeraitdes modifications."
As,howcvcr,nciihcr the rncmhcrsof thc Inicrnationül LüwComniissionnor
the Governmenisconsulleciagreed to thisproposal, a committec ofexperts
was appointed which shouId invcrtigatc-firstandforen~o fsrrthedelimitation MEMDKIAL OF T11BPEDERXLIIEI'LIILICOF GEKMANY 53

ciftwritvriat waters-the movt apprvpriuienielliodof bouiidnry drau7iirpT , he
rcport of thiscommittce

U.V.Doc. A]CKA!61]Acid.l/Annex, Yearbook of the Internatiniial '
Laiv Crirnrni~~ion1953 Il, pp. 77-79
is of particulirimportanec for the ruson that the equidislance method, albeit
envisaged only for the delimitation of tlie territorsea,now appeared inthe
forzground for the first tirne. The memberof thecornmittee of experts, whoas

tcchnicians wcrc abovc aHintcrcstcd in a gcncrdly applicable procedure,had
achie~ed srrtisfactorresultswiih the equidistanw methodin drawing median
Iinesin Iakes,enclwd bays,andstraits. Whenthey decided torecommend the
equidistance method foih the drawing nfboundaries in territorial watcrs, thcy
restrictedits applicabiIiby thefollowing reservatjon:
"Ina nuinkr of mses lhis may ilotlead toan equitabLesolutio which
shodd then be arrivedai by negotiations" (ibid.par. VII, 2).

The experts had investigated several methods for thc dclirnifation ufter-
ritoriül waters as, forexamplea prolongation ofthe land froiitieintothe sca,
a perpendicu Ineron thecoast at the intersectioof the land frontierand the
coastIine,aIine drawn verticalIy onthe generadlirecrion of thcoast, nmcdian
Iine. Finallythey came tothe cvnclusionthat ihe foIlouring solutio~iwa~ tlic
kst one to put forrvard-

"... that rhe lateraI boundaryshoiildbe drawn acriording ro the principlc
of cquidistancc frorn thc rrcp,cctivccoastlines" (ibid., par. VII, 1).
AU that wassliidabout the deIirnitatioti orthcontinental siielwirs:

"Tlie Cornmittee considered itimportant to find a formulafor rlrawing
the inrernational boundaries iiIieterritorialwaters of Statewhich could
alsobc uscdfor thcdclimitation ofthc rcspcctiveconlitientat shelvcsotwo
Statesbordering thesame continental shelf" (ihrd.,p.79).
50. In the dixusions during the 1953 Sessio of the International Law
Commission, the rapporteur Françoisreferred to the concIu~ionsof the com-

mittee ofexperts and again adYmted the tquidistuiice principlenot without
pointing out, however, tl~at the experts had stated that no universallyand
generally acceptable prjrtciple of delimimlion could be round. Srimc of the
members of thc Commission wcrt:thcn in favour uTFrançois' iiewsuggestion
whilcothcrs werc agriinstit. Other voiccswercnjsed in favourof coupling the
delimitation of rhecontineni shaelf with thaof the territorial watcrs, while
vthers spokeagainst it;the miijority stiil hvoured the solutithat the bound-
aria should in the firstplace beestabLishedby agrccmcnt between the Siates
concerneci.

After prolonged discussieo ventuaHy the tquiciistanceline was adoptcd in
principlc,hur its applicationwas restrictcdhy important reservations:agree-
ments betweeri the Statesconceriiedwhichmighl establishanothcrboundary

should lx the first approach to the solution of the boundary problem, and
considcration should bc givcn in oncway or anothcr to the exisieiice of special
circumstances. A suggestion in accordance with that vicw was fist made by
Sandstriini,
ibid.p.126: "Hc was conccrncd about thc point na deby the expertsto
thecfFectthatthcre nlight bespcciaIreasons,such asnavigationandfishing
rights, which niiçht divert the boundary from thc mcdian Iine... The NOKTI1 SEA CONTiKENTAL SI1ELF

Commissionsiiould perham considerwhetherrulesshouldno tbelaiddown
for suchspwial cases where ihe applicationofthe normal rute woutd
Ierrdto manifesthardship"

whereupon Frairçu isggestedthat the principle of equidistance shoube
recognizedonly "asa gcneral NIc", whichproposa1met with oppositionThis
was fviivwed by a proposal from SpiropouIusthatthe following resewation
shouldbeadded tu theequidistanceprinciple:
"udess another boundary line isjustjiied by specialcircumstances"
(&id. p. 130).

This isohviously thc oriin thereferen~ to spial circumslanceinArljcIe
6 ofthe ContinentalShelfConvention. Inthe furîhercourseof thedjscussion
thcrewas no lackofsuggestiom toreplacethe equidistanceIinebyanotherfor-
mula, e.g.thatcontractualagreementsshauIdbethe only solution, thatdclirni-
tation shouldaiwaysbccx aequo et bonoetc.or thatthe equjdisbnce principle
shouldbe furnish wih anotherreservationthantliaofspecinlcircum~tariccs.
cf. Lnu~crpc~chitbid.p. 131: "In cases in which such delimitation is
physicallyirnposible or in whicit may causeundue hardshipto onc of
thecoastai States...".

However,the equidistance Iinegainedacceptane inthe end, but subjcctto
considcrablt:restrictions. According to rhe final text adopted by the Inter-
nariona1 Law Commission at its 1953 Scssion thc cquidistancç Iine would
amly-
"... in theabsenc ef agreementbetween thoseStatesor uniessanother
boundav fine is justified hy specia1 circumstan..." {ibid., p134,

Yearbook 1953 II p.213).
Thecommentary of tiie Intemtional Law Commissio to thiarticleaddsin
explanation:
"As in thecaseof thchnundaricsofcoaqkalwatcrs, provision mustbe
made for depanures necessitaledby any exceptionaconfigurationof the
coast,as wellasthc prcsenceof islmdsor of navigablechannek. To that
extentthe ruleadopted partakesof somc chsticity"(Ycarbaok 1953 II,

p. 216).
51. The dcliberationsat the 1956 Scssiurof rhp Inreriraiiunhw Com-
mission did not produceanything nea on thequestion of dclimitation. The
dixussioiiun this question was onIy shorl; it was pointout that "special
circumstanccs"might exist veryoften (Fiiztnaarricr) and the superiorofy
settlemcnt by agreementbctween thc Statcs conccrncd\vasagsin emphasized
{Zuilrek).

Yearbook 19561,pp.150-1 53.277.
The formula adapted at the 1953Scssion(supra para50) rcsteunchangrd.
Itssubstance wasernbodiedin Article72 oftlie final drafi of the International

Law Cornmissiun on the Law of llieSea.Article 72 (which becamc latcr
Articlc 6 of thc Continentd ShelfConvention) made separate, though in
substance identiwI provision for the deIirnitatiof the continental shelf
between Stateswhoçe coasts areIying opposii~to eadi other, andhciwcen
a&ccnr Statcs.Primarily,the buundaries wcretobedetemined byagreement
ktwccn the Statcsconcerned;intheabsenceof agreement, and unleççanother
houndarylinervouldbejustifid byspccialcircumrtanccsthchoundarybetween
opposite coasts should be the medianline, drawn in accordance with the MEMURIAI.OF THE FEDFML REFUBLIC OF GERMANY 55

equidistancemethod(paragridph (1)of Article721,andthe boundary bctween
adjriwntStatcsshdd bcdctcrmined by applicationofthe equidistanccrnethod
(paragaph (2)of Article72).
The text of ArticIe72 readasfoIIows:

"1.Wcre the samecontinentalshelf is adjacenttothc tcrritoriesof
twoormore Stateswhose coastsareoppusiteto each other,the bvundary
of the continentalshclf shaUIJCdctermined by agreement berwcenthcm.
Intheabsence of agreement, andunless another boundary Iinc isjust ikd
by specialcircumstances,the boundrrris the median line, eveiy poiof
ivhich is equidistant from thc Rasclinfrsm which the breüdth of the
territoriasea ofeach country isineasured.
2.Where thesame continentai sshisadjacentto the territoriof two
adjacentStatcs,thc boundary of ihc continentashelfshalIbe determined
byagreemen btetween therir. Ithe absence of agcemcnt, and unless
another boundary Iineisjustifiedbyspecialcircum%mncetsh ,e boundary
shallkedcterrnincd hyapplicationof the principle of equidisrfrom the
baselinesfronwhich the beadth ofthe territuriascaofeach of the two
countriesis measured."
The commcntary addedbythe InternationaILawCommissjonto Article 72

onthis point read:
"... provisionmust be madefor depariuresnefesjtatcd hyanyexcep-
tionalconiigurationof the Coast,as wellas rhe prcsenceof islai~or of
iiavigablechannds. This casc may arisc fairiyften, so that the ruIe
adoptedis fairlyelastic(Yearbook1956II, p. 300).
Jt ÏsaIsoworthy to notethat the subsequcntArticle73 ol thedraft ofthe
InternationaI Law Commission provided that any dispute conccrning the
interpretationorapplicationof theArticles of thcContinentaISheifwas to be
submitted to the International Courtof Justiceat therequestof any of thc
partia. mis article,howwer, has notbeenretaineù in the Conventionon the

Continental Shelf;inits phe an optional Prot-1 providing forthe compul-
sory settlerncntofdisputes ws openedfor signatureio the partics ofihc
Convention.
At thispoint it appcars ncccssarto draw some cnnclusio~ufrom the ùeIib-
erationsin the IriiernatioLaw Comniissiori:
(1) There can be no doubt tht, at lcast untiI 195the sowlled principIof
equidistancc was not a mle of customarq. internationalIaw.No cvnstant
practice in applicatiof the equidistancemethod canbc shoim; nor is ihere
any prouf that theprincipIcof cquidistanhad been accepted asa ruleof Iaw.
It wu not untjl 1953,thatthe meihodof establishingmaritimeboundariesby
appliwtion of theequidistancefvmula had bccn put forward seriously inthe
Commission, and its usefu1nes.as a reasonable solutioiof the hundary
prohIemconiinued to bequestionedbg the mernbers of ihe Commission. This
makescertainthat no customary lawcxistcdinrcspect of thedelimitatioofthe
continentalshelfat rhat tirne.

(2) The Commissjondid acccpt the principlc of equidistaiiceonlyunder Iwo
conditions:-prior of ysettlrment by agreement anda resensation with
respectto speciaIcircurnstant~s.Dcmands for a flexible provisionplayed a
verygreat partinthe discussionamong tltelnernberofthe Commission; some
membea were stiil rineasyabout the ell'ectsof the cquidistancemetTherc
can be no doubt that the Commission hy adopring the formula contained in
Articie72,by no means açsumed a generaIappIicabiIityof thcccquidistancclinc.56 SURTH SEA CO~TINENTAL SHELF

Thcsc concIusions ~411not bc prciudiced by the fact ihatthe righfs ofthe
coastalState over thecontinentaIshelf befnre its Coastwcrcatthat timeprob-
ably already rerarded as Parr orcustomary internationalaw; the codification
work of thc International LawCommission may contain both: rulçswhichare
already partol 'he kx /riluas weIIas rulesproposed dcIqe fercrida.
52. The negotiationsat the Grneva Co~ifercnceu~trlieLuw ofthe Sen in 1958
wcre bascd uponArticle72 of thedraft Articiespreparedby the International
Law Commission. Some attempts were made io repIacc the flcxihIc systm

containcd in Articlc72 by morc rigid nil~y. But 811amendmenis proposed iii
tIiis directianiet with overwhelitiiiioppositioii both in thc Fourth (Con-
tinental Shelf] Cornniiltee(8-9 ApriI I95and in thePlenary Session(22 April
19581,and wcrt: rcjatcd.
Lnited Nations Conference on the Law of the Sm, OfticialRecords,
Vol. VI: Fourth Cornmittee p. 91 tu 78; 130 lo 134, 138, 142; VoI. Il:
I'lcnaryniuctings, pp. 11-15.

The propcisal of the Yugoslav delegale, rhat thc cquidistancc: mcthd
should declareddetenniniitit,withoutraiematioiis,fuitheapportionment of
the contincnta1shelf,was rcjectcdat thcPlenary Session of the Conferenceby
45 votesto 5 (~vithII abstentions).A rerylargemajoriry of thc Stiitcs wasnot
preparrd to makcthe equidistirnccm: ethod a solely applicabliule.Rather did
the Conferencerecognize vcryckarly thatthe equidisrancemethod was suitable
for thc drawing ofboundaries only undercertain circumstances.

Thc substancc of ArticIc 72of the hft of thc Tntcrnationalaw Con~rnission
-as finallyembodied inArticle5 ofthe GenevaConventionon the Continental
Shelf, with sliglitamendmenis,in the worùing, but without anychangcs in th
substancc. Thusparagraphs (1) and(2) of this Article reiid:
"(1jWhere the%?me continental sheIfisadjacentta thctcrritorics of twu
or InoreStateswhosc:coasts are cippositeeachother, Ihe boundaiy of the

continental shclf appertaining to such Statcs shall be deternlined by
agreenientbetween rhem. In the absenceof agreement,andudcss ünother
boundary linc is justificd bspocial circiimstances,thebounJary is the
medianline, every pointof which isequidistantfroin tlinearestpoints OS
the baselinefrom which the breadth of theterritorialseaof =ch Siatc is
meaqured.
(2) tVhcri:thcsümc continentalshclf isadjacentiotlieterritorieof two
adjacent States,the boundary of the continental shcIfshail be deiermined
by agreement between them. Inthe absence of agrccmcnt, and unless
anotherbuunddry line is justifidby speciiilcircutnsiances,the boundary
shalibe dctermined by applicationof thc principIe of equidistancefrnm
he nearestpoints ofthe baselinesfrom whichthebrcadth of theterritorial

seaof each State is muasurcd."
It shouIdfurther be pointedout tt~atpursuant to the expressstipuIation of
Article 12,paragraph (1) ofthe Converitiuri,any Swte may makc rescrvations
to a11article of the Convention othcr than Articles Ito 3; tllatmeam that
rcservationsto Article 6 are aIluwed.Thercfrornjt fo1Iows cIearly lhat the
substance of ArticIe6 was neiriterregardedas partof cn<t.storiiintcriiatioiiiiI
Inwnui"accordd atiy sort of fundanimital signiticance.

53. It was necçssaryto dcscribc thc gcnais of Article 6 othe Genem Con-
vcntion on the Coiitinental Shelf in detail here in ordctushow that the s~-
called principleol equidistane was iiot laiddown in thc Continental SheIf
Convention for thc rcason that itwas a gcncrüliyrecogiii7td rule of inter- MEMORiAt. OF THE FEDERAT. RFP1:RLIC OP GERMASY 57
national larv. Rather did the InternationalLaw Commission as wellas the
signatory Statesregard itasa usefulmethod for an equitableapportionment

of the continental sheIr beliveen States Iqvingoppositeor adjacenito eiich
othcr,insofa arcircumtmcs pcrmittcd. Thus Article 6isnot a codification
of alreadyexisting internationallawbut it isthe outcorof aneffortto develop
the çxistiny IegaIsituation, witits hmand for an equitablesolution,by the
establishn~entof a method which it \vasassurned ivould, under normaI geo-
graphitaicondifions, leadto an equitable andjust apportionment ofthe con-
tincntd sheIfbetwcen theStütcs conccrncd. Article 6 musbt ritcrpretcdin this
sen.=,with thcconstquence lratan cquidistance boundary maynot be imposcd
upnna Statewhich has not acceded tothe Convention, solong a% ithas not
been provedth~t itivould be the bat method of apporlioning the contineiitnl
sheIfbetween the adjaccntStatcs inajust and equitablemnner, having regard
to tliespeciaIgeagraphicalsituationof the individualcasc.

SectionIV. The Practiceafter the 1958Conferenceon theLawoftheSa

54.If, aocordingly,itcannot beconicndcd that ArticIc 6 of the ContinentaI
SheIf Conveiition codiîied cusioniary interiiationai law, thisequally little
ground for the contentio that the principle ofequidistance has now been
gencwIly acccptcd as a ruk of intcrnationalIaw by thcintcrnational corn-
munity-includingthose Stateswho have not yetbecorne partieto theConven-
tion eirhcr by ratificatornaccession.This isexcludednotonIy bythe Sactthat
the Convention has, up to now.been accepted only by a minnrity ofthc States
(to dale371 ,nd that rtxrvaiions to Article 6 have been made bsome States,

but ahve a11 by tlie fact that Çtate practnccessaryfor the developmcnr of
such a customary ruIeisup tonow stiHIacking.

55. Article 12, paramph (11,of the Convention alrowsforreservations being
madc to a11articles afthe Convcntian, oihcr than to Articles 1 to 3, which
therefore indudes Article 6.Two States,Irariand Vrncziiclrr,avaiIcd thm-
selvesofthisrjghtat rhe tirneusigning theConvention: the Iranian raservatirin
isnot of intcrcst hcrc, stipulating thagivcn ccrti~incircurnstances,the higli
waterline should be taken asthe baseliiiefor determining the contincntaIshelf
boundriry.

Unitcd Nations, Statu- of MuItiIatcral Conventions, ST{LEtiJ3,
Key.1 p.XXI-24,
The Venczuclanresenation contained the statemcnt that in certain areasoff
the Yene7uelan coast "swcial circurnstan wcthi" the mcaning of Article 6
existed,which exciudcdthe application ofthe quidislance method.

United Nations, Status or Multilateral Conventions, STj'LEGJ3,
Rev. 1 p. XXI-24.
When Fra11c:rcceded ~o the Convention on 14 Jury 1965,shc made, in
addition to vthw rcscrvations, thcfoilowing rcstrvtititciArticle6:

"Le Gouvernement de IaRkpubliqur française n'acceptcm pas que lui
soit opposée ,ans un accord exprts,une délimitationentre des platmux
coniinentaux appliquant leprincipe de I'équidistancc:
sicelle-ciest calculipartir de lignes base instituéespostericurement
au 29 avriI1958;
si clIeest pralnngk au-delà de I'isohathc dc 200 métrede profoiideur; NOK'l'SEA COYTINENTALSIIELF

si ellse situedans des zones où ilcoiisidèrequ'iexis~edes 'circonç-
rancesspéciales',au sens des alinéas1et 2 de l'articlàsavoir:Iegolfe
dc Gascogne, la haie dc GrandvilIeet les cspaces maritimesdu Pas-de-
CaIais et dela mer du Nord au Iargedes cBtesfrançaises."
(Journa Olffrcicldcla Rbpubliquefrançaise, Lois etDkrets, 1965,
p. IO859}.

By thisrescrr~tionFwnce spccifiedwidearcasoff hernorth and west coasts
risarex where she did notconsider Iheequidistance principltobe an appro-
priateand jus;melhod ordivision.A point of particularintcrcst in thisrEscrva-
tionisthat itisbasedonthe viewthatthe equidistanΠIine,asfaras itito be
appIiedal all, should usedas a method of apporiiming submarineareasonly
near theAtlanticcoast (tu a depth of 200nietrcsn)d shodd in particular not
be used for the apportionmentof the North Sca.The NetlierIand~,on tlioc-
casion qf thcir ratification 18 February 1966, protestedagainst the Vene-
uielan and Frenchreservativnsivithout, however,being ableto deprivethese
rtrcrvatio ofnhcir eiïect.

B.STATE PRACTIC SIPI'C1958

56. In accordance with Article38, paragrriph(l), [ette(b)of the Statute
of thelnternational CourtofJustice,two eIementsaregenmaliydemanded for
the developmcntof mstomary Iaw :constant pracriceextcnding ovesome con-
siderabIctime and a lem[ wnviclion in supporof thispractice.

P.C.I.J., LotusCasc 1927, Seria A.IO p. 18 ". .usagc gcncrdly ac-
cepted as expressing principofslaw";
I.C.J. Reports1950 ,syiunrCase, p. 276:"... Constant and uniforni
usagc ...";
G. Juetricke, "Vvtkerrechtsquellen", Wfirterbuch des Viilkemhts,
Vol.III (1962), p766,775;
O'Co~iticil,International Law1965, Vol. 1,p. 15 et seq. as iveIIas
furtriesourcesreferredtohere.
Rcgarding tlie legai rkgime of the continentalshelf, no such practiceover

some Ienglh ofiimeexists. Howcvcr,thc pcriodneccssary for thestablishment
of customaryIawcannot bedefincdgeneralfyfor al1circum3tances.As a rult a
constant practiccextendingover rnanyyears.ofren overdëcades, is rcquir~d.
Itmust beadrnitted,however,that inncrvtechnicriiflieinswhich urgentneed
for asetlIementcaIi forthe immcdiatc establishmentofIcgaIruics,short-term
deve1opmcntof mIcs of custornarylaw is not excluded.This might dsriapply
to the régime on the continenta1shelf,silicas the result of technologica1
dcvcIopment, the exploiraiion of thseabed, even atsome distance frontthe
shore, hasbeen intensificdin rcccnt tinicsa,d a dclirnitationof subrnarinc
areas affordingpossibili ofiexploitation has beconie increasinglyurgent.
For this rcxson the short time whichkapasse sdincthe adoption of'theprin-
cipie of equidistancin thc Cantincntal Shclf Convention,in itself atcon-
stitulesno argurntritagainst the developmentof customary law in this field.
On thc othcr hand considerationmust be given to the foIIowing:the shorrer
thelcngthof time in which a rulof customary Iawis saidtu havedeveloped,
thestrict arerthe requirementsfor consistency and unifmity of usage and
for proof ofan underlyinglegal conviction in support of this usage.3t is
not thelençthofijmc alonc which is decisivc, rathcr thc fact ofwhether or
not during thistime a spaificusage, supported by legai conviction, cabe
proved. In thiscase such usage has becn lacking.The fcw manifestations in favour of the quidistanceprinciple,which are, moreover, wntcstcd, cer-
tainIydo not sufxicefothe developmentof cüstomary Iaw.
57. ïhe cases in which States,wwhh haw no! yct bccome parties to the
Continental SheIfConvention,have reiiedon thepciircip1of equidistan fcc
thedelimitationof theirshm ofthecontinentaI shelfor at lcast ha~ in fact
applicdjt,arc vcry few indced.It issignificant that eveone of ihem,deAs
withcoasts which lieopposite eachother, wherethe medianlineis applied; in
the establishmentof lateraI bomdaries betweenadjdcicenSttates the principle
ofequidistancc basnot yci hcen appIid+-not cvcn in thccase of die North
Sea tok dealt with below (paras.58 to60). As hasbeen pointedout itlrcady,
ffiemedianIinedues normallyresuitinanequitable,if not equaIdivisionofthe
seaaxas betwc.cniwo opposite crimts,prnvided no islandf Iying inbetween
wouldwnsiderabIy deflect the bounùary Ijne. The followingcas may be
mentiuned :

(of Tite IsianofMUIIUArt uf28 Jufy 1960(Act No. XXXV to Make Pro-
visionaslo theExpiorationand Exploitation of thc ContincntiilShclf)contains
initsSecrion2 the follawingprovision:
"... the boundary of the continentalshclf shalI he that dctemined by
agrecmcnt between Malta and such othe Srtate..., orin theabsence of
agreement,the median line, namelya IincGVCry point of which iscqui-
distantfrom thenearest pointsofthe baselines"(Suppliment ta1Gazetta
ta1Gvem ta' Marta,Nru 11,922, 29t'IuIju,1966,Taqsima A,A 282).

(b) 7ïrtIlkeoiyheiween ~ltUnion ojnSovieiSoriiuIis~Rfp;ibIiCsotFinland
ofrMny20,1%5, oit the boundary of theterritorisea aiidthecontinentalshelf
intheGulf ofFinland. This treatiynestablishingthe boundar ycar thecout
(Articlc I), whcre it may be regardas a Iateralboundary betwee andjacent
Strites,does not follow the principle of equidistance.Only onits sraward
extension where itbecorna a boundary bctween rwo opposite coasts,it is
hsed on thc principleof the median Iinewhich is referreto in the treaty
(Articles2 and 3).
\'e'eJornostiVcrchovnogo Sovicta Sojusa Sovictskich Sozialisticaskich
RcspubIik,1966,Art. 740; Finhds F6rfattningssading, Fürdragsserie,
1966, No. 24 p. 122to 125.

{cl The Proroco t the Trco~ berwcenfkc Kingdoni ofDenmark atrd~ht-
Federa Repubiic ofG~rmony of 9 Jtuie 1965(sg~prpara. 121aftcrstatingthat
divergentopinionesxist coiicerning theprinciplesfor the deliinitatiof the
continent shellof theNorth Sa, laysdown the followingforthe deUnGtation
of theconlinenta1shclf in the &fricSen:
"With respectto the continental shelfadjacent tothe coasts of the
Baltic Seawhich areopposite each other,itis agrecd thatthemedian line
shaII bethe ieboundaryA.ccordingly,both ContractingPartiesdeclarethat

theywilI raiseno basiobjectionsta the othcr Contraciing PartydeIimiting
its part of the continensheifofthe BalticSca on thebis of themedian
line".(Fcdcral Law Gazette of theFederalRepublic ofGermany, Ilart 11,
1966,p.207, translatiofrvm the Germaii text).
These sporadic casesin which theprinciple ofequidistancewas applied,
ccrtainlydo not sufficetoprove its generalrecognition beyondthe xope of
Articie 6 of thc Coniincntal Shclf Convention. Thc methmi O€ boundary
drawjng on rhe principleof the median Iinemy Iiavea certainchance of
gaining graduaily generaIrecognition as a suitable method for a justand
cquitabIeapportionmcnt of the mntincnta1 shclf between oppositecvasts,be- ofGermüi~y 011 Dei~rnkr 1964(supra para. 16) aridktwccn thc Kingdom of

Denmarkandthe Federal RcpribIiof Gern~any of9Junc 1965 (suprctpara,18)
havecreated precedentsfor the recognitionof the quidistance mcthod in the
North Sa. Itjstruethat in thetreatybetwmnGcmany and thc Ncthcrhnds
the boundaryline,to someextcnt,foIlowsinfact theequidistmce line,withoul
hoiveverceferring[Otheequidistar nceethodandthat theseaward lernünusof
the Germaii-Dritiishpartialbouticlaryisequidistantfrom the Gcrmirriandthc
Danish coasts.Thcse boundüries, howcver,had heenagi-eedupon onIy because
both sideswere interested ina speedy determination of the borindary, and
bccüusc thc:boundary lineçvcn if it in fsictfoIlowcd thc cquidisiant Iinc to
some extent in the vicinity othecoast, was not considered inequitable.The
FederalRepublic of Gemriy stated clcarIywhen signing the treatiesthat it
didno1recogni7.etheequidistancemethod as determiningtheextendedseaward
wu% of thç buundaries in the North Sca (supra para. 1G and para. 18).
These treatiescannot, tbereforebeinvoked againstthe FederaI Republic of

Germanyas prccedentsfor rhcappIicationof theprincipIeof cquidistanceinthe
apportionment of the Nori hSea.
61. Ttcan also not bz assertedthat theqprovisioncbntained in Articl6of
fhc ContinentalShdf Convcntionhas becornegcncral intcrnariana1lawforthe
reasonthat the exclusiveriglits of the coastal State over the contineiitalsheIf
lying adjacentto its coastsspecified in Articles to 3 are today genemIIy
rccognizcd aIso bcyondthe scopc of application of thc Convcntion. If it is
establishedthat the basicprinciplesof a muItiIaternlcvnvention are nlready
generalIy rrcognized as custvmary law beyondthe scope of their applicability
as frcatyIaw, thc qucstio ariscs whcth~rthe same must appIy fo orhcrprovi-

sions contained in the conveniion. The reply to thisquestion dependsupon
whetheror not thescothcrprovisionsarc bound upsoinsolubly withthe basic
principlm,that the conventio wnould not be capableof applicationor iniple-
metitiitiunwithout them. OnIyiiit wcrcimpossibleto apportion thcoritinerital
shelfamong the coastalStatesin an equitableandpracticable way witliout the
application of theequidistancemelhoù, itcould perhapsbe assertedthat the
custorniiryIawchractcr or ArticIcs 1to 3 of thc Contincntal Shclf Convention
mus1extend aIsoto Article6.Thatis ceriainlyiiot thecase It istrue iliat a
nwessary, logical consequence of the recognitioo fnthe right ofthecoasral
State over the cnnrinentai shelFis that, in thwse of conflicting daims of
severalcoaslalSlates adjacentlo the sameconlincntalshdf, aiiappurlionrnent
must be made betweenthem, and that tlieinternationallcgordermust provide
metho& and standards forthe apportionment. There is, hoivever, no cogent
rcason that this üpportionrncnt must he madc according to thc equidistance

method. Tlie dnfting of Article 6 showsthat the equidistance inethod was
onIy one method among others of attaining ajust andequitable apportion-
ment, ütid thst thc ohjcctiom against making thc cquidistancc mcthod the
excIrisivcruIewere so strong that the equidistancemettiod was adoptcd only
underthecondition that itwuulù not appIy in the presenceof any "special
circurnstanc~~"T. he apportionrncnt of acontinental shelf shared by severaI
Statcs hasnot Leenmadecasierby ArticIe 5.Even urlienArticlc6 is applied,
the qucstinn remains openwhether the equidiçtan c ethridissiiitablc or
ahetker in a concrete case "sper:i cicumstances"enisl svhichwouIdjustify
anorher boundüry Iine.
62. From the arguments pritforwardin paragraphs 46 to 61 it follaws that
the so-ruk! priircipk ufequidistanceis trot ariirofcustomary itirernational
faw detrrmining ~hedclimiroriunofthe corifiricntalshclf aliis ih~r~fon roef
applicahfeassuchheiween the Pnrties. ". ,. annther boundary Iine isjüsttjïed bysPeccii circirnisrorrc.. .'*
(itaIicsadded).

Whereas the cquidistance lineislooked upun asthe mostsuitabIemettiod
forthe ddimitatjon ofthe tcrritoriaI scatobe deviated frûm only for cogent
rcasons,in the dclimitatioof the continentalshelfthewses in which bouiidary
Iineçbasecion ather principIesof delimitation arcjustified,are considcrcdas
far morefrequent aIteriiativesThc diflcrcncc in the wording nf thctwa pro-
visionshasan important bearjngon the interprelation of Article 6 (viinfm
para.68).

65. The gmerally recognizcd exdusiverights orthe coastal Stateover con-
tinentalshelfareac kfore itscoast do noi neccaariIy jmpIy a certainmode of
thedelimitaiion of the areas under control ncithcrby theirvery naturc nor by
the farce of juridiclalic. The rights ovethe continental shelfimplya certain
spatial extension of the areaunder controI into the hi@ sea,but by no means
provide any rule for their Iateral&limitation. The contincnta1 shcfnder the
North Sea iscommon to al1the coastal Statessurxounding it. The degree to
which it "appertains" to each of them mnnot br deduced hm the leml
characier vofthe rights every coastaStatc rnay daim nvw thccontincnia1 shclf
bzfore its coast. With respect to tlie part othe Doggcrbank situated in the
middIeof the NorthSea, forinstance, no singl onc ofal1the lttoraI Stales may
be regard& as the Stateto whiçh this shcIf area "apprtaim" incontcstably,
unlcss sIight differencesin distance-sorne nautical miles in this case-are
takenas the sole factor forallocating thiarea10 one of theseStales.

K~I<F EnI~Rechtsfragender internationüIcnOrganisation", Festschrift
für Hans Wehberg 1955,p. 203, criicisessarcasticalIy the point ovitw
thsitcontjguity should hrcgarded as theunderlying principle of the rights
ofacoastal State to the continentashelf:... "the conthenta1 stielof one
stare isalmostalwayscontiguous to the contincnta1sheIfof another state".

66. The cquidistance method as cievelopedby geeographerslias introduced
the distance from the nmrest point on each of the two coasts asthe sole and
decisivecriterion for theaitrihurion oa submarine area in onc coastal Statc or
another, without regardto the fact whether projwtin# sandbanks,headIand5,
capes, uninhribited promonfories, harbourIessislands, or densely inhabited
stretches ofcoüsts with pIcnty of liarbnurs are involvcS da.licnt parts of the
coast are given predominaittinfluence on the directionof the boundary, bays
and gulfs are neg[ecied."Coririguity"as justification for the daiora cmsral
Stare tu the continental shclf bcforitscoast wn, howc%~r ,oi bc intcrpreied
excIusivttlyas gcographical neainess to jiidividualpoints on the coast.The
idca of "contiguity" to rvhich also those appeal whoadhere to the principle of
equidisiance, isin itseI sfund. "La turc domine ia mcr" is a rundarnenta1
principle of maritime law. In the FiFhtiriesrasebetwcen Great Britain and
Norway thc International Court of Justice ruled:

I.C.J., Rcports 195I, p.133: "C'estIaterre qui canféreà I'Etat rivcrain
un droitsur les eaux quibaignent scscatcs."

If undcr thc Icgal concept of "contiguity" net only the propinquiiy to thc
coast in general, butaIso the propinquity to thenearest point on the coast is
understood, this may be justificd insituationsin which-as in the case of
controI ovcr ihe territoriasea-the decisive factor is thc actual distancc frvm
the ncarestland in a certain situatio(e.g.the position of a diip)There is no
justification, however, fusuch ancxclusi~c reference tosingle points on the .MEMORIAL OF THEF~~IERAL RF.PUBLICOFGERMANY 65

"... the questiownüs whcther it was equitable to exlend scawards [he
dividing-linbetween tlieterritorin1waters, sincethatline would Vary
acmrding to rhe configurationofthe Coast.Thc dividing-linewould be
relatively unimportant in the case of territorialwaters, which ulera
narrow klt, but mi&t takeon greatsignifiarice andcause injustice:if
applied ta continen~al shelveswhich werc sornctirnesof considerable
extenl" (Yearbook of the InternationaLaw Commission, 195I,I p.288).

However, thememkrs oftheTnternationaI Law Commissionandthe dele-
gatesvfthc StatcspresentattheGencvaConference on theLaw of theSeawere
obviousiy rnoreconcmed withfindin agpraçiicabIesolutionforthedrawingof
boundariesin arcasnear thecoast.HerctheequidistanceIinenomlty succeeds
in producing justand equitablcboundarjes.
The fact tlütttheequidistancemethodis unsuitablefortheapportionment of
extensivesca arerifar from thc coasi hasbecome obvious since exploitation
of thc seakd atEreaterdeptlisandat greaterdistancesfromthe cmst cari fsr
alegal settlement.Thediah figure15 (pages6h,67) showing an apportion-
mentoftheNorth AdanticontheIincs ofequidistancem, akescIearhowgotesque
ihc prospectsforthefuturcwouldbeshodd thcequidistanoemethod be applkd
to sucho.situation: Canada,Greenland, Icefand.IreLand ,nd PortugaIwoiild,

by virtueof theirprojectingposition, excludethe other IitroStatesfrom the
northern part of the occan; reiativeluriirnportantgroups of islandswould
attractenvrmous sca arcx. This hypothesis showstliat the basis upowhich
the cquidistance method rests must be reconsidered,and that the Iimitsof
the applicabilitofthe quidistance methodmust becl~arlyrmlized.

68. The authors of the Continental Sheif Convention were indeed not
unaware ofthe fact thattheequidistanccmcthd has only a Iimited wpc of

appIicatjon.Article of the Convention(text suprapara. 52) providesthat the
equidistancelineapplies only if nagreement on the appropriatedeIimitation
of thecontinenta1sheif -- ---che..etwe- - -he Staics cnncerintheconcrete
case and iftherc arcno "special circrimstances"presenwhich wouIdjustify
another boundaryline. This formulaconfainedin Article 6 lirnithe scope of
applicationof thequidistance methodconqiderablyandconfrrrnsthe opinion
put fomatd ahove (suprapara. 63) that theequidistancemethod isapplicable
only tuthccxtenl thatarid aslongas,it is siiitablassur ajustandequifable
iipportinnmentof thecontinental sheIfarcas bctween the Statmconcerned. It
has been sugl~cstcd that the exclusioof the equidistancemethod in casa
where"specialcircumtanccs" are present, shouIdbeinterpreted as a narrow
cxccption rom the nileas if the real rneming of ArticleHW that the equi-
distanceIinecvuld bc discardeconIy incase whereexceptionalcircumstan~~s
requiredit.Such a restrictiveintcrprctatiisnot in harmony with Article6 as
it stands,neiiher witilswording norwith itshistoryorprirposc.

69. The reservation that "specjacircumstancar" rnightcal1for a diReferen1
method of delimitaiion of the continental sliell been formulaicd hy the
InternationalLaw Commission in its 1953 SessioI n. viw of the objections
against thc genetal applicahiIiof the equidistancc rncrhd the Rapporteur
Franç~isat ftrssuggcsted thar the equidistancemethod should be prwribed
only "as a general rule", which should be departedfrom if necessas.. He
substantiatcdthis with the followingexample:Figure 1568 KOKIH SEA CON~NE~XAL SHELF
"There wcre cases, however,where a departurc from the gencral ruIe
was necessaryinfixinbuundaries,acrossthecontinentalshelfr;cexample,

wlierca srna11islandoppositeone State'sccostbeIonged to another,the
continental shcIfsurroundingrhat islanmusr aIso &long tn thesecond
Statc.A genernlrule was necessary,but it wasalsoneccssaryto provide
for exceptionsto it"(Yearhook of the InternationaLaw Commission,
1953,Vol. I, p. 128).
Sinc he wording "as a ge~eiiealle" appeared not sufficien~clear as a

legal tem to some mernbersof the InternatiamlLaw Commissio ntwas
replacedat thesuggation of SpirnpouI osthe wording :
"... udess anothcr delimitation is justibyespeciaIcircumstances..."
(ihid.,p.130133).

The discussion on the rescrvatioof "specialcircumstanccs"showed tliat
ths clairswas undcrstood iiot somuch as a limitedexception taa generally
appIicable ruibut morein the senseof an alternativof eqiiai rankto the
eauidistance method.The widc ficid of anolication whiwas ascribd tothis
diemat ivemay bcgatathereram a remik byG. Aniado,Vice-Chair mathe
Commission andChairman of the mating,thatthiswording laidmore cmph-
sison the exception than on thc rule-

". ..thatthe formula proposcd by Mr. Sandstrom and Mr. SpjmpouIos
stressedthccxccptions ratherthantheriile. Ihopcd, therefore, that the
SpecialRapporteurwouIdacceprthat formuIawhich waspreferablcto the
IiaIdexpression'asa dc' " (ibid., p. 133).

This is also confirnied hythe commentary which the Intcrnütion Lalw
Comtnissionadded to Art.77 of itdraft(subsequentlyArticle 6 of thCon-
tinental SheIfConvention):

"provisionmu~tbc madefor departures"(i.e., from the equidistanceJinej
"neccssitatedbyanyexceptional configuratiunof theCoast,as well asby
the presenceofislandsorof navigabl ceiannclsThis casemay arisefairly
ohen, so that thc rule adopted ifairIeIristic"(Yearbookof the Inter-
nationlilLawCommission, 1956,II,p.300).

Attempts made at the Gencva Coilierence on theLûrvof theSea again IO
strikeoutthcalternativof"specialcircumtances"and tomake rheeqiiidistancc
method the only rule, wcrcrejected balargemajoiity.This was righrlydone
bccause the arrangements undcr discussi dea1twitli novcIinstitutions, the

patrcrn ofwhich must be kept flexible, in ordcr totanticipate ils furthcr
deveIopmcntand its interpretatioby international jurisdiction.
Titeciifferencein thc wordinofArticIe6of the ContinerltaShclfConven-
tian onthe onehandandof the correspondingArticle12of the Territoria%a
Convention on the other, which hasaI~ady ken referred to above (supro
para. 64),confirmsrhe intention of thStatescnncliidjngthe Convention to
concede awiderfiefdofappliatjon to "specialcircumstanccs"in thedrawinof
boundaricsacrw the confinenta1shelfthan in drawing of boundariesin the
territorialsea.

70. "Speciatcircumsiances"are always presentshould thesituation display
notinconsiderabledivergencicsfrom the normal case.The nomla1 case,in
which theappiieativnof theequidistancemethod lcadsto a just 2tnequitable MEMORIALOF THE FEDERAL RKPUIILJCOF GERUANY 59

apporiionmcnt,is amore or less srrai_ScoastIine,so thatthearcasof theshelf
apportionedihrough the equidistancçboundary more orlesscorrespond to the
shorelines(façades)of the adjacent States.Sliouidthis not be the asc, and
shouId thcrcforeno cquitable andappropriate solution result,thclauseof the
"speciaIcircurnstances"appli~. This intcrpretaticinis linnot onIy with the
Comentary of theInternational Law Commission citerl abo5.r:bara. 69but '
aIso with the opinions expressed in the literature on the appIicabilofythe
equidistai-tcemethod.In additiontu sprciaI situations aftechnjcaI nature-
suchas navigüblechanne4 cablcs, safetor defencerequiremcnts,protcctinn
of fishcrics (fibanks), indivisible deposits of minera1 oiI ar natural gas-

special gevgraphicatsituations suchas spccial coaqtal configurations hve,
above alI, been regardecfüs "specialcircurnstan cits"rithe meaning of
Article 6:
Sir HerscRLniir~rpaciirIoc .it., p. 410"The probIem involvd may
&corne particularI1;complicated if islands belongirigto one srateare
situated witlrinthenrea ofthe coiitinental shcl...af another slate...
A furthertechnical problem of cmsiderable.potentiaI importance and
complcxity, requiringadjusfrnenrand regulaiion, wilarisein connexion
withthe existenceof pools of deposits sjtuatcd acrmq tsurface bound-
ariesof the respectivesubmarinc arcas."

M. W. Moutoit, "The Continental Shelf", Récrieildes Cours, Vol. 85
(1954 T) p. 420: "It isaipulated that thisruIe is applicable in the
absence of agreementbelween the States conccrned andiinlew anorher
boundaryIine isjiisiifiby specialcircuhtstances.ie modificationstothe
gcneralrule areaUoweJ cithcr bccause thexceptiona1configuration of the
coasts,the prescnceof islandsornavigabIechaniielsneccssitatc dcpartrire
from these rulesor because of the existenceofcommon depositssituated
across th.:mlrthematicaI boundary."
Cu!ombos, Tlie InternationalLaw of thc Sca, 1959, p,70: "The rule,

however,admits of some elasticitin the case of islandsor navigable
channcIs aswcIIas in thcaseof anexceptional configurationof thcoast."
de Ferron,op. cit. Vol.p. 202:"L'arti cleela Conventionde Genève
stipuIeeneffetqu'ells" (i.e.themedian Iine andthc Iatcraicquidisfance
line) "peuventcire mudifiéesd'un commun accord entre tesEtats inte
re& &nsIe cas oii 'dmcirconstances spécialesjustifient une autre délimi-
tation par exemplclorsque laconfiguraiionexceptionnelledeIa côte ou Pa
pikence d'iles ou de chenauxnavigables I'exigcnt. Les r$gles adop-
tées par la CmfCrencc dc Gcnève sont donc assez souples pour per-
mettre unesolution équitabledans tousIescris."
Yadwa,Ioc. cit. p.645: "It isconceivablc tht the dwtrine ofspecid
circumstancesmaybe invokedinstilIanothercontext, ivhichrelates tothe

geugaphy of thercsourc~s.Thus, forexample,anoiIpool niight be divided
by a Iine basedon the principleof equidistaricc... Whilc thc prcscnce
ofvariousexceptionaliçsuesmaygiverise toan allegationof specialcircum-
stances, the doctrine is mast liketobeinvoked with respect tocertain
pureIy geographicaiconditions afrectiti higmeasurementof the line of
equidistance" (the authorcontinues discussinggographial featurcsindc-
rail,sucaspeninsuhs,capcs,artificialharbourworks, islandcf.p.o45-651).
Sfzalowilr,op.cil.Vol. 1,1852, p. 232 footnotc 55: "ExccptionaIcon:
figurations ofa Coast,the presence of islands,the existence of special
mincral or fishcryrights in oneof tStates,or the presence afnavigabIe70 NORTII SEACONTINENTALSHEI.F

channcl are amongthespecialcircumst wahihemightjustifyadeviation
frornthe mcdian Iine".
McDougul/Burke,op.cit.p.436,437:"Itwa admittedduring Cornmittee
dismqsion that ncidefinitiforit"ti.ç., the speciaIcircunrsta"could
be given,but that ccrtain 'speciaIcircumstances'were readiIy identifiable,
includingthe Ioatinn of thena\jgabl ceannel and the complication

masioncd bysrnaIIislandsin rhevicinityof thetwo states".
Shigeru O&, Internati onntrol of Sca Rcsouas, 1963,p. 168:
"... some additionalsituations constituting 'specialcircumstances:'the
geoIogicsatIuctureof siibmarineareasand thegeographicaloreconomic
situationofeachcoastaIarea".
71. A rcwgnizcd case of"specialcircumstances"is the presencrif islaiids

inthe areaunderdivision.ALreadyin thediscussionsofthcGeneviiConference
on the Law of the Seathe qucçtion of islandwas raisedwitltoutany resuh.
Unir4 Nations Conferencc on the Lawofthe Sea, OH. Km., Vol. VI,
Fourth Committcc,p. 93-95;cf.in particularthe remarks bthe British
delegateKennedy (p.93), theSwdjsh 4Legate Cihl(p.941,and theAmeri-
can delegateMiss Whîteman@. 95).The BritishdeIegate Miss Gurieridge
describcdtheproblemin her reportonthe Gcneva Conferenceonthe Law
ofthe Sea asfrillnws:
"There is aIso sorneohscurity in Article 6 ofthe Convention as to
what is meant by 'specialci~u~tanccs'. One clearexainpIe of'speçiai
circumstances'Ïshowcver, the presenceof islands.
Wherethecoontinenta hclfunderliesanareaof shallowsea,such asthe
Persian Gulf, whichhasmanyislands andissurroundedbythe coastsof
opposite nradjaccnt Statc-s, the drawing ofthe boundaron thestrict

priricipofthe median linc corild,it is clear, resmanyncuriciusand
incquitabledeflectionof the mcdian Iinc. There mayforinstance, bea
verysrnaIisIandwhichliesapproximtely intliemiddle of theshalIsut;
or thermay be islandwhich aresu ckusetothe mainland asto be justi-
fiablyconsiderd part of the mainiand for the purposofworking out
the boundary of the continentalsileIf.Again thcre may be islandswhich
althoughnear theCoastofState A are under thesnvercigntyof StateB.
Al1thcsccircumstances not only showrhcdifimltof a uniforrnapplica-
rion of rhmcdian Iinç principlebut also expIaiwhy the 1958Gcnc-
vaConferencefound itself unabIe(as did the lntcrnatianLaw Com-
missioinnitsdraft Articlm)to includcin the Cuoventionany specificpro-
visionsabout thc cffw othe presenceof isIandon the delimitaiion of
the boundariesofthe continental fieIf." (J.A.CGiltrcrirk"The 1958
Geneva Convention on the ContinentalShelf",The British Yearbookof
International Law, XXXV (1959 ).103 ff.1120).

States have aIrcadyrclicdonthepresenceof islandas aground for invoking
the clauseof"specW1 circurnstanccs".hus Venezuela,whcn siyiing theCon-
rincntai ShelPConvention,d~ckred inher reservatioto Article6that inthe
Gulf of Paria, ithccontiguous zone betweenthe CoastofVenezuel aad the
NetherlandsisIand of Aruba,and inthe Gulf of Venezricia, "speccirnrni-
stances i" thesense of Article existed.Fraircc also, wheaccedin togthe
Convention on 14 July 1965, declirredin her resentation to Artidc 6 thitt
"specialcircumstances" existeinthc Gulf of Gascony, thc Straiof Dover,
in the North Sea before the Frenchcoast, as wclas in the Bay ofGrand-
vilIeOtherStates have hcsitütcd toratii or to accedeto the Convention, obviouslyon account ofthe stilI unrcsolved probIemhow isIandsshould be
trcatcd in the delinlitation of thc contisheifIn thcIiteraturon the sub
jcct,therefore,islandsarctrcatcdasa typical,bualso asa niostiinportant and

ccimplicatedcascfor the application ofthç reservation on "speckl circum-
stances".
Sir Hmch Lautrrpucht,iuç. c.,p. 410;
Nic.:lfuieesco, Vers unnouveau droit internationalde lamer, Par1950,
p. 137;
lVo.vtonIoc.cit., p. 420;
0dk. op. cir., p. 168;
ciFeervon,op.cit.p.201 ;

Anninm, op.cit., p95-97.
Ifislandaretaken as basesfordrawingboundaricsaccording to theequidis-
lance rncthod,rcgardesç ritheir position, size or iinportaiice,very ptruliar
resultsmay emerge,inpmicular whcn itisasmall,unimportant jsIandwithout
harbriurs,whichis not even suitableas a basefor thc cx~Ioitation thesur-
rounding confincnts alelf. The piesenceof islandç ky cause enormous
dislocüti onnhe ari~ortionmentof shelf areasand reduce thc cauidistance

The ArgentinedelegdtcR. Moreno referredin theFourth Cornntitteeof
theConference on the Law of theSea1958 to ihccascof the smallisland
St. Helena intheAtlanticoff theutestcoastofAfrica:
"... I1resumably,the intentionwas ]lot, by drawing the median Iinc
hctwccn thatIslandandrhc Afrkn Coast,to grsintrights overcnormous
streichesof occan to wht was a merepinpoint in the Atlantic"(United
Nations Conference on thc Law of the Sea, Officiai Records, t70VI,
p. 95).

Attempts to arrivcat cquitable solutionshehave gi\m preferenceto adivi-
sionintoequalareaso\,erthecriterionof equidislance.Iorder roexcIudemaII
islandsfrom consideration or at Ieast reducethe continentashelfareas at-
tractedby thcrn under Article I ofthe ContinentaIShelf Conveniion, jthas
been suggested

Padwa,Ioc. cil.p. E48-650, rcfcrringto similarproposais made by
Boggs, American Journal of InternationalLaw,Vol.45 (1951)p. 257-259.

thatislandsshould bctreattdlikeenclaveswith separatecontii~entashdfareas
proportiona1 to tiieir size, thcrchyleavithe division ofthe areü between
opposite coastsintowual parts by means of thc median line unaffected.
72. Anothcr typid category of speciaI coastal coiitiguratioundcr the
heading of"specialcircumstanccs"are grilf, buys,anshallowsens surroundcd
by land. The facthat thesegeographjwlsituationscal1forspccialsolutionsin
order toarrivc at an equitableapportionmentnf thejoint seabedaiid subsoiI
OC siichwaters,has beerirccognize idtheliteratureon thesubjectat anearIy
datc :

RichurdYoung, American Journa of InternationalLaw,Vol. 45 (1951).
p. 2361237:"Submarjne arcas inshalIowseasor gulfs-such as the BaItic,
the PersianGulf, and theGulf ofParia-present pcrhapsthc mostdifficult
situalionofall.Inaddition to dueregardfortheinteiestsof adjoiningstates
lying dongtliesrirnecocist,thcinierestsofal1Statesfacingon sabudy of
watermust betükcninto accaunt.ln thc atrçcnccofany Iargcarea IyingMEMORIALOF 'THE FEDERAL REPLBLIC OF GERMANY 73

Figure17

North Sea

SITUAT!ON INCASE
!stc?/tqvnd~iIincs)

Figure 1874 NOKTH SEACONTIKENTAI. SHELF

part of thecoastof a neighhour Stateinfluencesthc course oran equidistance
Iine drawninto the sea even ata greaterdistana from the coast.
The enclosureofthe coast ofa State by projcctedpartsof the coa5ts of the
two neighbour States to the lcftand to therjghthas a cvrnuIativegeonietric
effect;at a rclatively shordistancefrom the coast the two cqiiidjstancr.Iines
interseci, therebycuttingoffthe insidetoastfrom the high sea.The diagrams
(figures 17, 18, pagc 73) demonstrate this geometrical conxyuence very
clearly. Figure 18showsthesituation of the North Sea CO& contours, sinipl-
ficdto thebaçelin ef the territorisa, wherethe Gcman part isilankedon

the one sideby the West Frisian lslandsof the Netherlandscoast, and on the
other sideby the Danish coast of Jutland.It is obvious thaa division ofthe
submarinc arcas ixtweeii the three Statcs made on tliestLinescanRot be
cunsideredas an equitablc result.Geogtaphid situations of such a kind,
aKcctjngthe course of the cquidistanceline to suchan extent, represent a
spcciai configuration of the coast which excludes thc application of the
cquidistanwrnctliod.

73. The iuregoinganalysis of the scope of application of the equidistanw
rncthod (supra paras. 53-72) has shown that this mcthoù is not geiieralIy
applicable.Thc so-callcdprincipleofequidistance isiiotaruIe ofinternational
iaw, but mereIyageometncal construction which, under norrnalgeographical
situations,may lead to ajust and equitablr:apportionmcntof the continental
shelf, butmy ako, underother geographicalcoi~ditions,producc unjust and
inequitablereaults. Befoi-eapplying the eqriidistancemethod, thercforc, an
investigrion ought Rrsttabemadçwhethcr or not,undertheyivengogrriphiml
conditions, it isIiketolead to ajustand cquitable apportionmentof the sub-

marine areas hetween thc Statesconcemed. This ismore frequently thcase
with the medianline, andiess SEwith the lateralcquidistance Linespeciallyif
the hoonddary extendsîarther intothe sa and submarine areas at a greater
distance frornthe coüst have to be apportioned. This explains why "specid
circumstances" are accordcddiffcrenttrcatmentin Article12of theConvention
on thc TcrritonalSea cornpared with Article6 ofthe Convention on the Con-
tinentalShelf.Article 11uf the Convention on the TerritorialSea cn~~isagea
wide scope of applicationof the equidistancernethod in the delimitation the
territorial wsthüt k:near thecoast (cf.suprapara. 64). Article6 of theCon-
tinenlalShcIfConvmtion, on the other hnnd,excludesrheeqiiidistanccmcthod
aIready if "another houndary isjüstificby spwial circumstances";according
to thc interpretatioiipfonilard liefcthisis aIwys thcaseshoulù theapplica-

tion oftheequidistance method not Iead toa justandequitableapportionmetit
(supra paras.66 et seq.).

Section VI. Condusions

74.Inview ofthearynients putforwardinparagraphs39 to 73the foIlowing
wnclusions rcgarding the delimitation of the contineiitasheIf between the
Partiesin the North Sca arc respectfullysubmittcd:

1. The ineffiod01ktermining ho~tndorieof the continent siiv Nisuch a wny
lhar everypoilsof the boundury is eyuiriisfufrotnthe neares1poiritsof the
ôuseiintisfiuni rvhichthehreadtof the rerrizorise0 ofmrh Sfote isnieositued
{equidisiancem~thod), isnuta rlrfof rusioniory interttarionailnrrdisthrre-
fore nnrapplicableas such berweenthe Parties. MEMORIAL OF TIIEFEDERALREPUBLICOF GERMAXY
75
II. The equidis~nm method cnnnotbe empluyedfnr ~ke drIitnirafiof the coniî-
ncntdsheif rrnlessitiscstablishcdby agreement,arbif~arion,or orherwise,rhr

itrvilachieveu jiutajidequlrubk appor~wnmerif ofthe ~.onliilen#shewanrong
zhc Sratc.roncerried. NORTH SEA CON-ïISkXTAL SHEL.F

CHAPTER JII

THE SPECIAL CASE OF THE NORTH SEA

75. It has already bcen pointed out (supra para. 8)that the North Sea
represcnts a spwial case: ilis asliaIlowsea surroundedby sevcral coastül
States;becauseof ifshalio~nessitobferliasingicwntinrntal shelfivhichmust
be apportionedamongthecoastalStates.Anequitableapportionment ofsuch a
welIenclascdseaannot beachieved byseparatelydrawingbilateralhoundarics

ktween each pair of adjacentor opposite masta1 Statcs asan isolatecact;
the apportionment rather must bc considered as ajoint concern of al[ the
coartal Statcs andshuuld be effectuatcd accordingto a uniforrn standard
which wiI1 assurce ach coasfaIState a just and quitabIe share. The most
appropriateprocedure to achicvt.a genemIlyacceptableapportionmentwould
bc a multilatewl ~greementbetween a11theKorth SeaStates.To ihis purposea
conference of al[ NorthSea Stateswas sugmred by the FederalRepublic of
Gemany during thenegotiations with itneighbours; unfortunatelythe sug-
geçfionmct wjth no xsponse.

Section 1. Criferifor a Jmf and EquitableApportionment ofthe Confinentai
Shelfin thc NorthSea

76.The Kingdom of i)enmark and thc Kitigdom ofthe Nctherlands are
appartntly of the opinion that the quidistance niethod is properlyapplied

here not onlybecriuseimut be regardedas a ruleofgeneraIinternationalIaw,
butalsobecause Ïwould Ieadta an cquitablcapportionmentof theNorth Sea.
The fact that the utilizirtionufthe equidistance methùoes not ncccssarily
Iead io an equitableapportionment of large maritimeareas kas already,u7e
believe,beensuRicientlydemonsirated (szrprparti67).Theshortcoming of ttie
rnethodapplies:especiaI1yto lateboundarics ,hereit brinçabout rcsultsthe
doubtfulnessand arbitrariness of which increasesdircctlywith the distance
from the Coast.
The equidistanw: methodissuitablefor tlie drawingof boundaries, iat 311,
only to theextentthatirltadsta anequiiableapportionmentofthe Karth Sea
continental shelf among thecoastal States. Thisraisethe question of what
constitut- an "equitable"apportionment of the seabed and subsoil of the
North Seaunder thegiven circumsiances.

77. The just and equitable apportioninentof the seabed and subsoil ofa
shaIIow sea which may be con~idcred as a common continental sheIf ofall
adjacen States ia special prribIetota1Iydiffcrerfrom tiiaof dividing the
waters of thc ttrritorisea or ofihe contiyous zone between twa adjacent
States.ln thelattecase thccmcial poinrisnot the apprtioning of Iargeareas
of warer,but the establishingof a practicsblt: boundary cornmensuratetothe
needs of controlofthe territoriseaand thecontiguouszone. Inapportioning
a commonwntincnta1 sheIf over whichal1thecmstal Statcs can equaIIyclaim
rightsunder theprincipleofcantiguity, thpnrnary issueisto assurethateach
af thc Statcscoiicernedshouldreceiw a jiisand equitatilesharof that conti- MEMONAL OF THE FEDCKALWtPUBLIC OF CiERMAIY 77
ncntalshclf.Itis not thc course ofthc boundaryIintawhich the standardof
equityisto be applied,but ratlrerthe size of tshareto be apportionedto
ach of theStates concerned. What mus1 be considered,thexfore, arc: the
critcriaby whichthcshare of cachcmstaI Stateshciuldbe measur.4.

B. FACTORD SETEMKING THE SHAKE OF EACH ADJACEN STTATE
(u) TheGeographical Factor

78.Thecostal Stateysprivilegeof exploitjngadjacentsubmarin aeeasrets
upon thc gcographical-gcalogiaI wnncction of these areas with the coast.
Therefore,the degree ofthe naiuralconnection or the Iandtcrritorywith thc
submarine arcas adjoiningthecoast shouldbe rcgarded as the dccisive factor
in measuring the share ofeachof the State rvhichsurround a shaIIowsea.In
the caseof the North Sea lhiwouId mean that theshart:ofeachcoastalState
shouldbe masurcd by the Iengthof itsNorth Sea coastline. The Iength of
the coastIinewas mentioned jnthe relevantIiteraturat an earIydate asa
decisivefactor, particuIarin the apportionmentof wcIIcncloscd scasamong
sevcraIcoastalStates.

F.A.V. (VaIlai)loc .it., p. 33et sieqp.335-335 "...Whcrc a large
bayor ylf isboundedbysm-en1States theproblem ismore complicated.
Perhapsthe most equitable solution wodd be to divide the submarine
area outside territorwaters among ihc c~ntiguous Statesin proportion
totheIcngthof theircvastlincEvenif thiswereadopledasabaçis,itwould
not providethe necessab royundaries.Itwould probably not be pussibIe
to &aw thesi: according toany sirnplc gcamctric ruIe.The mere seaward
extension of the landboundariescertainlywouIdnot do. A moresatisfac-
torymethodwouldk totake apoint ora Iine, the position of whichcould
be caIcuIatedto givethedesireddivision oaxa, and fodraw thc briunda-
riesof thesubmarine areasfromthe pointorIineto thelandboundariesof

thelimitropheStates."
The objectionto thelengthor coastlinecriteriohhaken raiscdthatthereby
States withLongcoastlineswouIdbedisproportionatelyprivileged.

J.M.Py, Les limites maritimes des Etats dans la théoric du plateau
continental,Paris,1949,p.70.
This criticism wouIdonIy be justifird,ho~vcvcr,if thentireIength of the
coastlinewith al[ its curveand indcntatioiiswere takenas the standard. It
should, however,no1 bea relevantfactor whetherthe coastlinc nrnsstraight,
or whethcr it contajns fquent and dwp indentations which incrcaqc its
Iength. The degrec of the geographic connection betweeiithecoast and the

submarine areas Iyingin fronof itdoesnot manifestitself by thelengthof the
cmstljne measuredwithitIIitsarticulations,buby thcbreadthofcontact of the
coast with the sea-the country'scoa~talfromage. The degree of connection
of the German Coastwith the submarineareasof theNorth Sea wouId accord-
ingly be measured by the Iinear distance betwccn Borkum and Sylt, two
Germün islandsimmediattIyadjacent to bothend pointsof the Genirancmst
between the Danish and NerherIandscontinental territories.If the breadof
the Gerinan coasl isevaIuat endthis fashiun,and thc hrcadt h of thc Danjsh
and Kethertands cuastswere ro beascertaincdin Iikefashion,then the shares
ofthwc couniri- wouId standin the ratio 6 :9 : Y respectively.Irhisratio
is cornparedwith the aIIwtion of subniarine areas which, accorditigiothe
Danish andNetherlands view, wouId rauIt £roman appIication of thecqui-78 NORTH SEA CONTINESTAL SIIELF
distanccrnethod(Dcnrnark61,500sq.km.,Neiherlands51,803sq.krti.,Germany
23,600sq.km.)it isobvious thatapportionmentaccording to the equidistance

method doesnot correspon tdgeographical realitiesand îstherefore,not a
justandequitahlcsolution.

79. While the geographical factnrby its nature iscssential in apportioning
thesubmarine areas between severaladjacenrStates,otherfactors can by no
means Leexdudcd, if ajust balance betweenthe interestsoal1adjacentStates
were to beachieved. Whcrms among such other factorsonIy the presenceof
"navigable channeIs"had been mentioncd by tlie InternationaLaw Commis-
sioni,n its comrnentaryon the propoçed formula for the delimitation of the
cantincntaIshclf (now crnbodicd in Article5 ufthe ContinentaI Shelf Con-
vention),~he Literatureon the subjectattributesrelevanceaIso tu historjcal,
economic a,ndtachnid factorin s,particrilato the geographicaldhrihution
of themineralrmurccs of thc continental shelfandtu themaintenanceof the
unityoftheir deposits.

cf.the ailthorcited suprapara.70 and No. II para.(3)OFthe Propos& of
theInternatinna1Law Amociation Cornmitfor:on Rightv io the Sea-Ikd
andits SubsoiI:"Criteriafor the divisioof thesca-be (dnd subsoil)ofa
çontinenta1sheIfsharedby two or more coastaIStatesshould bcdevcInpcd,
takinginto accounftactors such a?the configuratitofnihecoastlinesthe
ecoiicirnivalue ofproven depositsof rninerals,etc."(Report ofthe 44th
Conference of thc TntcrnationaILaw Association, Copnhagcn 1950.
p. 135).

Up to now no such particularfactorare ascertainablewhichwould havcto
be taken info accnunt in appnrtinninthc North Sw betweeti the Partiestlre
case may be different regarding BeIgium and France which, dcspite thejr
maritirntand economi cmportance,hve only a nârrow link with thc conti-
ncntaI shclf of thc NorthSca. In itsncgotjütjonswirh its iieighbuurStates,
ho~wer, the Federal Repu bIicof Gerinanyhas ncverinsistedth~tits economic
needs (e.g.,thesix of ifs population, the degree of its industrializa ittsivn,
rcquircments of pnwer supply, etc.or its particularecoiiorniccapacit(c.g.,
expioitationcapacity)shouId be given particular consideration. Despiteits
nmi and capacity to exploit the continental shelf, Germanydocv nul wisli
in basc its claim on thcsc considcrations. the more,therefore,the FedcrüI
Repubiic of Germanyis of the ieopiiiiotitheapportionmcnt of the submarine
arrasO€ theNorth Seashou1d bemade primarilyaccordingto the gcogriiphi~al
criterion describedabove.

80. Ifthc apportionmentof rhe North Sca arnongits cvastaI Slates ista be
aiiequiiablcone, il mustalsvfakeinto accounf rhcprinciplc ofequalityof al1
adjacent States.The ccostal Statcosfthe North Sea form a community witti
acommon interestthatthepntenrials andresourccs of theNorth Sea should be
exploitedin aii ordetly fasIiion.Tliey a11interestedin the maintenanceand
saferyof iheroutesof navigation,in the regulation andconservation offishery,
and in thc appropriatccxploitafion of thcmincral depusifsof the scabed in
order toavoid wasteful orharrnfuInicthodsof extractionwhich would Iead to
despolialion.
This conimon intcrcst ha.. alrçadynianifcstciwlf in a nuniber of agreed
regulations,mostly of atechnical naturiiithefieldsof navigationand fishcry.80 NORTH SFA CO'[TIKF.NTAL SIIELF

cannot be maintaine tat the middle of thsa "appertains" hy necessit ty
one singlc ofthc coastaStatcs, al1of them havinan equaI IeçaItitlto the
contineiitashelfunder thesea.WhiIethis does not mean that the apportion-
mcnrof the NorthSeamust nersssarilbe made in such a way tiiat the conti-
nental sheIfof the FederaRcpublicof Gcrmny rcüchestu the rniddte of the

sea, it sliouId, howeveat Iem demonstrate that the equidistancemethod,
which would accord the FederalRepublic of Germanyonly a corner of the
HcligolandBay, docs not lcato ajust andquitable solution, havingregarto
thegeograpliicconditionsoftheNorth Sea.

SectionII.The Sectbr PrlncfpIe
A. THEPOLAR S~OR T~IEORY

87. The problem of the equitahleapportianrncnt6fa sm surroundcd by a
nurnberul Statesis nut new.Ihasgivm rise,albeialsoforother reamns,to the
soaHed polarsector theory.Thc principlewasput forwrirdas earlyas19M in
the CanadianSenate, when itwas assertedthat a11islandsIyingbctn~centhc
CanadianArctic cuastljne and theNvrth Pole wiihin the Iine of longitude
drawnfrom theeasternand westernendsof the coastIi beeonged asof right

to Canada.
SenaiorPascal Poirier, finadianSenate Debate, 20 February 1907,
p. 266-273.

After a serieof semi-officia!and official announccmcnts to the sarneefîect,
the CanadianMinjster of theInterior in 1925formallyclaimeal1the territory
Iying betwecnrhe meridians 50"W and 141"W, andextendin tg the North
Pole, aCanadian territom
Canada, Houseof Cornmoiis Debaies, 10Jnne 1925,Vol. IV, p.4069,

4084, 1 June1925,Vol. IV, p. 377;cf. alsG. W. Smiffi,"Sovereigntyin
the North: The Canadian Aspcct of an Intcmational Problem",in:The
ArciicFrontiered.by R. StJ.Macdonald, 1966,p.194,214-216.
The declarationby the Canadian Ministerof the Interiowas followed on
15 April 1926bya Dccrol: ofthc Soviet Government which forinallckimed
aillandsand islandsalreadydiswvered, asweIla?those tobt discover4 in the
future, Iyinbetween the Soviet Arcticoasiand the North Pole, from longi-
tudc 32"4'35" East to $6849'30"Wcst.

Britisand ForeignStittePapers I926, VolCXXIV, pp. 1064-106s;see
alsoLukhfine,"RightsovertheArctic",ArnericanJournalofIntcrnational
Lw, Vol. 24(1930),pp. 703-717.

Ina similarway, a divisionof theAntarciic Continentritasought by thc
scctor daims madc by thc finitcd Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (1908,IY17), New Zealand (19231,Australia (19331 France (19381,
Argenrina (1939},Norway (19391,and Chile (IMO) although somc ofthe
çkaimscunf icwith cach othcr.

sccG. W. Smilliop.cit. p. 215-217.
The division of thc Antarctic andtheArctic resulting froni thessector
claims is illustratedbysketch(figur1es,IO,pages81,87).

83.The pographid sectorsctaimedin the Arcticand Antamtic regions
correspond togeometric sectors.By reasonof its geometricsyrnnictrythe
sectvr principhas ben advocated asthe mosi Iogicalaiid equitabiway of MEMOHIALOF THE FEDERALREPUBLIC OFGERMAW 81

Figure 19

apportioning spheres of intereintthe polar regîuiis, the breadofthe sur-
rouriding coatiines bejng takeas basis for the delimitationthesesphercs.
It istme that the territordaims bascd upon the sector theory have been
contestedby othcr StatesTtis indeeddouhtful whether the wctor theory couId
confersovereigntyoverthe tcrritoriesclaimedaIthough inthefiterato ur hc

subj~~tthe closesimilaritto the Iewlconccpt of''co guity"has repeatedly
beenpointcdout.87 SORTïI YEA CONTINENTALSIIELF

Figure 20
(Map rcproduced from R. SI.J. bfmdontifrl, The Arctic FrontieToronto 1966,
p.219, bwring the Iegcnd:"Map 2, Arctic soctors. The linealong 10"Wshows
Danish and Norwegian-Finnish scciorsa proposcdin 1927byL. Brcitfuss,whoaIso
assigned an Alxkan scctor tothe UriitedStatcs.Scale of milesisappruxirriately
accurate trnly near tPolc.")

Sir lfersrlr Larr!~rpuchl,c. cilp. 376 ct scq.,427: "Some aspecrs of
thedoctrine of contiguity also undcrlie thclaims to Arcticand Antarctic
regionsput forward by a iiuiiibeofStates-siiciias Grcat Britaiti.Cananada,

Ncw Zeahnd, France, Russia,and Norway- in su faras itis based onthe
so-calledsectorprinciplc".
Jl-leritornndztftlze IrN. Secrcrariarof 14.7.1950to the 1iitermt ional
Law Commission,Yearbook of thc InterriatioiralLaw Commission 1950,
Vol. IIp. lil6,para.302: "Cependaiit,les points de contact nc rnaiiquent
paq entre Ies deux thkories, Le syslèriiedes sÿctcun estun procédéde
répartitiondes terres polaires cntrc les Etats qui se trouvent placés
au voisinagede cm tcrrcs, dans desconditions géographiques déterininées.
Acct tgard oiiaperçoit zinc anaIogieavec la doctrine du plateau conti-
nentalqui se propose d'tliminer lcs compit iionset lesconcurrcnccspour MEMORTALOF mt FEDI:RAI.REPLBLICOF GERMANY 83

l'exploitation deressourcesnaturelIesdesplateaux en attribuant desdroits
spickauxauxEtats dontilsproIongent lemases terrestres. C'esune penkc
poIitique qui itispirc l'ctl'autre dessysttrnesen rrestreigwüntles possi-
bi1ittde participation deEiais au btncftccd'une situatiodonnée."
A~i~finos,p. cit. p.12: "Sume aspcctsof thedoctrine of contiguity also
underIicthe cliiirnsta Arctic and Antarctic regions put forwürd by a
number ofStates, such as Great ilritain, Canada, New ZcaIand, France,
Russi,, and Norway since 1939.In so far as itisbased on the so<aiied
scctor prindple, with rcgard to the Arctic thestareas are, in a sense,
contiguous ta the territories of the States conccrnediiithc casc of the
Aiitarcticthc contiguity is distinctly syrnbolic."

Opposition to the poIarsectotrheoryisdirccted, howcvcr, primariIy against
the attcmpt toassert,on-itsbasi sovereign rightsovtr territorieswhich wcrc
not attlietime cff~rtivcIy occupied. On the other hand, apparentlynoserious
objections have been raisd agdinst thc view that the gcornctric principles of
division by scctorsbsed upon the castern and wesieni endpoints of thetout
wouIdbe an equitable mcthod of delimitingthe sphercsof interescinthe Arctic
man or the Antarctic Conlinent. To this cxtent the application of ts~tor
principlc in theArctic and AntarcticregionsisstiIla viilidprecedentforü just
and equiinbIe division of suchencloseù regions.

84. Thesugg&tion that the sectorprinciple shouidbe applied in thcappor-
tionment of thc subrnarinearea of a gulor "cnclosed" ses borindcd by several
States has aIreadyben ~dvancedin the iiterature.
F. A. Ynilur,foc.cit. (suprpara. 78).

Assuniing [kat thebreadthof the "coastal froniagc" nf the littoStatesisa
just standard for the appurtionment of a gulîor an "enclosed" sea (stpra
para. 78) ,nd assuming furthemore chat no spzcialintcrestof any onc coastat
State merjr special considexatjon, then anappnrtionmerit bxwd upon sectors

does in faci represenrthe most equitabfe soIution.If the maritilne aralo be
dividcd isroumy circular, swtoraI division, by reasvnof its geometrical con-
stmctinn, guarantws notonlyan slpportionmcnt proportional to the breadih of
the "coastaIfrontage", but alsoa division in thmiddIe betwccnthe opposite
coasts.In theappurtiiinmcni nf circtilar-sh maaritme areas among çeveraI
coaqtal Statessectord divisioii assumes thc samc function asdms thc mcdian
linc inthesirnplcrcase OFthe apportionnient ofmaritime aras betwcenStates
tyingoppvsiteachoiher: itwilIcffcct an apportionment that woulbecquitable
both xgarding the sizeof theareas allocatedtueach of theStates andregarding
the distanceof the dividing point or dividing lifrom the çoasts of thStates.
85. Ir the soctoi principle is applicd in apportioning thsubrnarine aieas
beneaththe North Sea, this procedurc shauld nar ix undcrstood inthe sense of
a slricruidexactmefhudof boundary deIimitalion.ïhe sectoraIdivisionshould
rathersuppty ü gcncral guidingIineastohorvanequimbleapportionmentof the

North Seüshouldby and largebc niade, ifeverycoasial Statisto rcceir~ajust
atidquitable +arc. For thisapprucich to thc mattcr it is sufiicientthat the
suhmarine tn be divided shodd be approximately circiilaror clIiptic in
shape ;t leastthedive~gcncm icust nor beso grmt that considerable distor-
tions arise and the sectorsareno longerin proportion to the ''coastalfrontage"
ofthe coastalStates.The construction ofa sectora1divisionprovidcsa standard
for evaiuritingthe extent to which a certain bouiidary dclimicatian, evenaboundarydrawn by application ofthe eqiiidistancemethcd, cm still bere-
gardcd asjust andcquitabie;if theanswerisnegativc,another boundary must
beagreed uponbetweenthe Statesconcerned.
86.If the scctor pnnciplisundcrstuodin this Iargersen= as beinga stan-
dard of evaluation,iisappIicablein thcasc of theNorth Sea.Excludingthe
far northcrn partof the North Sea, whichconcerns only Great Britain and
Norway, the remainderorthe North Seacan be regarded asroughiy cin'uIar,
without cioing violence to the geographic realitics. The sketch (figure 21,
page85) js iI1ustrativcin this respeTheequidista ncundariesaIrcady
agreedupon betwceriGreat Dritainon theone hand, andDcnmark,theNerher-
lands and Norway on the other hand (sm figure 1, page241,show tht a
geograpbical centreof thc Norlh Sertcan be found. From this centre thc
North Sea can be divjded into sectors, the areaofwhich is roughly pro-
portionalto the "NorttiSeafrontage" of each coastaI State. Figur21(page

85) iIIustratesucha division ofthe North Sea.Iflinesare ùrawn from thc
centre of thc Norlh Sea to the scaward ends of the Crerman-Danishand
Gcrman-Netherlandspartial boundaries (siipra paras16, 181and the othcr
North Sea boundaries wjth Great BritainandNomay alreüdy agreed upon
arctaken int~ account, the resultingarcasmeasureroughIy 36,700 sq. km.
for thc FederaIRepublicof Gerrnany, 56,300 sq. km.for the h'etherlands,
and 53,900sq.km. forDenmark.Thisratia ofrriughly6 9:4correspon tdsthe
ratio considzrzdequitable on thbais ofthebreadih of thecoslstai Frnntagc
which each of the lhrm States presmts towards the North Sea ide srrpru
para. 78).
87. Theseçtor principleprovidesthereforea wellsuitcd standarof evafua-
tion ofwhat constitiiteajust andequitableapportionment ofthe subniaiine
arcas of the North Sca among the adjacentStates. Tlùs standardcou1d be
applieduniforml forthe apportionmmt oftheentireNorth Sca,and no1only

tu thebwndaries underdispute here. As we havc previouslysubmitted(vide
supra para.751,the continental shelf the North Sea shoulù be viewcd as a
whnle cntity, andmust,therefore,bedividodwith a view triwardsthe righof
al1thecoasta1States.Whilethe applicationofthc sectorprincipItO rheNorth
Seain ifs tnlirery should nat bc:understauas a jubgmenr un the boundaw
agreements aIreaJy concIuded biiaterally between somc ofrhe Kurtli Sea
States, this principleneverthelessprrividcsa stanturensuretharno malter
what thevalidity ofsuch agmenients,thg cannot prejudiceor pre-empt the
rightsofthird partietoajustandequitableshare of thecontintt~tishelof he
North Sea.

Fieaio nII. ThcApplimbiiityof the Primiipof F5quidistancintheKoh Sea

88. On the bais ofthe criteriastateabove (paras.78etscq.)forü justand
equitableapportionmtnt of thesiibmarincare&$ofrhc North Sea, t musr now
be cxamined to what extcnt the equidistancrnethodcan k applied inthe
drawing of bounùariesor whetherthe boundary must besettIedbyagreement.

89. If thesecior aivision of thc NorthSca bsed on the breüdth or ~he
coüstal frontage facing the NortSeaC.7upi.apara.86, figure21,pas 85) is
cornparcd tothemedian lineboundary drawnbyapplicationof the equidistance
method, asagreed upon beiweenGreat Britain on the onesideand Denmark,
the Netherlands.andNorway on the otherside(supraparas.I7,IY 7-1figure1,86 KORTH SEA CONTISENI'AI.S~I~LF

page 24), itwill beseen that this medianlinc boundarydwiatm only sliatly
fromthe theoreticalsectord boundary.The dcviationsarerelativelunimpor-
tant sothat thc boundaw drawn on theeauidistancenrethod (median Iinel be-
tween theBritish IslcsGd the ~ontinent'admittedl~apportions cach party a
justandequitableshare. ?'ha!Grc-dtBritairlshouldrcceivsuch a large sliaof
theconrincntal shelf uf thNorth Sea is thc consequencof naturalgeographic
coiidiliuns:thc landmiss of the Britislslcsenibnces almost onc hali of the
North Sea;this justiftesanappropriatesharof thccommun continentalshelf.
in thisca~cthe medianline betwccn Grcat Britainand the continentarcoastai
S!ates may be regrirdedas an equitable made of division. This mcdian ljne
divides the North Sea into a wcsterii and an eastern sector.Whercas the
wcstcrn soctor fall10the sl-tarofonesingle State, namelyGreat Brilain,the

easternsectormust be apportionedbetweena numberof States.Whafever rom
this apportionmenttakcs, iitwould not affect the equiiableneof the British
sharc.
W. Froin the argumentsadmnced above, therehre, no objection can bc
raisedügainst theresultsreachcd byapplication of the equidistancemethodin
delimitingthc Britishshare mder thebilateralagreementsconcluded between
Grcat Britainon the one hand and Denmark, theNetherlands,andNorwayon
the other hand.The Federal RepubIicof Gcrmany, in cooscqucntz, has not
objectedto thedrawing of thisbuundary, insofarasitconcernsthedelimitation
of thc Britishshare.

31. If the sectora1divisionuf the North Sea based on the breadth of the
cvastalfrontage facing the North Sea(siirprapara.86,iîgure 21, page 85) is
appliod to thc area eut of Lhemedian Iine betwccn Gwat Britain andthe
Continent, itis obviousthatheierehe drawingof boundaries by appiication of
the equidistancemethod, if cornpared with IRCscctoral division, would ltod
considcrabIc dispropvrtivnsasto the boundary lines and asto the sizeofthe
areas aliocatedto each of theStatesconcerneci. The differcnccsin rcsulasc-

cording to the method of scctoral division and to the equidistancemethociare
illustratcdby figure 21.(page 85).The ditferencesare so disproportinnatc
(shre of the FcdcraIRepubIic ofGermany accordin tgthc scctoriiIdivision
35,7M) sq. km., accordin gothc equidisiaiiw rnethd 23,600 sq.km.) that a
dclimitationüccordiirglo thecquidistance methodcannot beregard& as ajust
andequitableapportionment.This makcs theequidistancemethodjiiapplicablc
for the delimitationofthcconlinental shelfin thipart of the North Sea and
obtigcstheStatescoiiceinedtoswk rinequitableapportionmentof thesubmarine
areas in this rcgiony con~ractuaiagrccmcnt.
92. The cornparison of the equidistanceboundüriçs with a divisionof the
North Sea according to thesectoralprincipidoes no: mean thatthe boundary

IinernustnecessariIyfcilIowthe hypo~hetica@omet ricsectorlincs. Statcsmay
by agrc-ment fix anorher boundarj.line if it cnsurcs that tareaallottedto
each State would lxequiiable oii trie&is of the proportional breadthof its
coasialfrontagefacingthe North Sea.If the boiindariesberwecnfhcKingdom
of Denmark and the Kingdnm of the Netherlandson tlie onhand and the
Fcdcral Rcpublicof Gerrnaiiyon the otherhand,would beùrawn inapplication
of theequidistancemethod, as pruposedhytheKingdom of Denniarkand the
Kingdom of the Netherlands, these boundariescuuld iiot be regardcd as
acccptablc undcr this test. Iissubmitted, however, that the sector solution ~MOKIAL OFTHE FEDEXAL KEPUBLIC OF GERMANY 87

appears to bethe bwt method of attainingajustand eqiiitableapportionment,
and as lonn asnoamwment on another boundai Iinc isforthcrimin& the
Federal~epub~icofGermay may welldaim a sharë ofthe submarinear&s of
theNorth Seü whichcorresponds tothemost equitablemodeof divisionLe.,the
sectoraldivision.Furthermore, the Kingdom ofDenmark and the Kingdomof
theNetherIands, asneighbourState of theFederal Republicof Gcmany, have
aIrcady tixed fheir boundariescuntractuaIlyvis-à-vis the other North Sea
States insucha way aslcavcs thcmIittIroom for otherso1ritiunin an appor-
tionment of the North &a.

SectionIV. I*&blishmeno tfthe BuuridarybyAgreement

93.Fror nhe fvrcgoing argurncntitfnllowsthat theequidistance methodis
not suitablefordelimitingthe areas orthe continentaI shclf the North Sm
bctweenthe FederalRepublicof Germanyand the Kingdomof Denmark, as
weI1as betweenthc Fcderal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of the
Nethcrlandî,since its appIicutionpreventsajust andcquitahlc apporrinnnient
among the North SeaStates.The FederalKepublic,therefore,failto perceive
the basisuoon which thc Kingdom of Denrnark and the Kinrrdom of the
Getherlands'couldpIeadthat tlie-boundarymust bc drawn byappl&itionof the
couidistanccmcthod. Therefore. furtherne~otiati arcsnecessarvbetween tlie
iingdurn of Denmarkand thc'~ingdorn gf the Netberlandson ihe one hand
and the Fedvnl Republic ofGermanyon the othcr handto comc to an agrec-
mcnf on an equilable delimitationofthe continentalsliclas provided for in
Article I,paragraph(21, of the SpecialAgreements between the Parlies or 2
Febniary1967.The GerrnanGovernmnt hopes that it wbclpmiblc by mcans

of negotiati oonsjnùasuitabledelimitationwhichcorresponds tuanequitable
solutionas expoundcdhcrc. 'I'heFederalRepubIicof Germanywvouldalso be
preparcdto resubmit thecaseagaiiitothisCourt or to anarbitraltribuna10be
agrd upon,inorder tohavethe locationof the boÿndriryfineestablishedby
judicia1decisionifthesukquen tnegotiationsbetweenthe Partiesdu not Iead
to an agreement on the bwndacy line. The FdulcralRcpubIicof Gcrrnany has
rcpeatcdly madethis oKerto theotherParties.Contractualagreementsbetween
the Statesconcerned arc thc kst merhod of arrivitiat ajüst and equitabIe
solution in thc apportioniireof thesubmarinearcas ofthc North Sca.This
mcthridisnot only given prominence in Article6 of the ContinentalShelf
Convention,but isalso regardedin the literatureon the subjecr asthe only
suitable method of deatiiigadequiitelywithcomptcx gcographical siruations.

G. Gidcl, La platafnrma continentaIante el derecho, \7a1iadolid1951,
p. 154:"Es,cndefinitivo,mediantescuerdos entrc las Estados intcrcsados,
o par solucionaelcsanmdas por medios juridicos arnistosos, chnio podrin

rali~arse 10soportunos rcpartw, y no mediante reglasrigidaçque seria
prematuroqucrer wtablecer desdeahors."
J.Azchvugu y de Bus~omnnte, ta plataforrna subrnarina ycldcrccho
internacional,Madrid 1952,p.206-207: "Lamejar solucib para evitarlns
posiblesconRictosCS, sinduda alguna, lade conceriar ncuerdosparri-
cularccnirclos Estadosqiiecompartanla misma phtaforma, ycomo muy
ciaramente ha viçtel iIlustn:Gidcl,CIprohlcrnpodricomplicarsc cuando
la fronreraatraviese un yrciiniento minero, sobre tudo cuaiido seii
petrolifc Erlprincipio queno dekr8 perderse de visra,y que aconsejar8
la prÿcticcs clde unidadde yacimiento.Los acuerdosparticularesque88 NORM SEhCD~TR~ENTAL SHELF

suscriban los Estadosinteresadostendrhn,lbgicamente, una base fisica,
pro habri que atcnder tambi6n a wnsideraciona cquitativas aducidas
con cjertfiexibilidad."
M. W.Mouron,TheContinentalShclf,Thc Hague 1952,p.294: "... we
believe that it should be Ieft entireto the coiintriesconcerned. Tfie
situations may Jiflérvery muchfrom one caseta anotherand WC do not
believe that ruiygeneral ruIe couid begiven, not even principIes.We
think tImt the Truman Procbmatjonand Article 2 of the IranianBilex-
pxss theideaclearly. Similarwordingis useintheinstrumentof thevther
courttrieof the PersianGulf"(supm para. 31).

Durante,op,cit.,p17 1:"Sieamprende, perci#, lagrandeimportanza
chegliaccordiparticoIariasqurncranno perquestoaspettodeUa teoriadeiia
piattafoma litorale,downdo l'appiicaziondieventuaiiprincipigeneraiidi
deiîmitazioneessereintegrate corrcttadaaccordispecificidi naturaquan-
to mai delicata dataIacumplessità ed importana dei problemitecnicie
scientificichne sonoda base."
G.E.Pearcy, "GeographicalAs pers ofthcLawufthe %a," Annds ofthe
Assocjation of American Geogriiphers,Vol, 49 (1959) No. 1, p. 20:
"... the coasis of the woild are suficiently irregultn dcfy any pre-
determincdrinivewalpattern. Each boundarymust becoiistructedin the
lightofitsown physicaIsurrounding and inaccordance withthe principles
acccpted in iiiteriiational.law. Tarticleof the Conventions, i.e.the
Geneva Convention on theContinentalShelfprovidingfor theboundaties
... can do no morc than providean equitabIeguidefor successfulagm-

ment S."
R.Young,AmericanJournal ofInternationaLaw, Vol. 52(1958),p.738:
"Oneis Ied by theseconsiderationsto the conclusion that, inspiofthe
effortinArticle 6to providean acceptable method of determining Mun-
dariesinthc cvcntof disageement, theonlyreliablebwndary Iine rcmains
one fixedbyagreementor hy thejudgmentof a compctcnt tribunal."

In view of the friendlyrelationsandthe spiritof CO-operatiprcvailng be-
tween al1thc North ScaStatesand, furtherniore,in view of the negotiations
pending between the Partieson an agreementabout thc dcIimitation ofthe
areas ofthe continenta1 shelin the North Sca, theFederal Kepublicof Ger-
manq' has inthcpastrcfraind and, iiiview of thcasenow pending heforc the
Court,has continued to refraifrom fixinguniIaterallythc scawardboundaries
of the German continentaIshell'vis-&visitsncifShbours.

95. Thc Court coulù restrict its decision to a rding oii the issue or the
applicabilitof theequidistanc~mcthod. TheCourt may, however, go farthcr
and, within its competenceand discretion,feel inciintoindicatcthe criteria
whichshouIdgovcrn anagreementbetweenthePartieson a justand equitabIe
sertlementof the boundary qiicstionIf the Court decides thateach of the
Statçsadjacentto thecontinentalshelfoftheNorth Sea isentitledta justand
cqsiitablskare,wc submit,respectfully, thitwould ix withinthecompetence
of the Court triinterprct whatinthe specialcase of theNorth Sea, isIO be
uriderstoudunder a "justand equitah1eshare".3t wouid bc partof theprowr
cornpetencc of the Court, and also within thcfcms of reference underthe
specia!Agreement of2 Fcbmry 1967 ,o ddnc the meaning OCanyprincjple
or ruie governingthedeIirnitationof the continental shinfjtapplicationt0
the specia clsesubmilted bythe Partics tothe Court. ?le Court worildthus
not bc prcvcntcd,if inclinetodo so,to indicatethecriteriawhich,as dreadysubmittedin this Meinorjal(supra para. 1et seq.)should bc takcn intoac-
count in ordertoachievea justandequitabIeapportionment ofihesubmarinc
areasof fhe North %a.

Secüon V. Conclusions

96. In view ofthe argumentsput lorward inparagraphs 75to 95 the fol-
Iowing concIusionsrcgardingtheddirnitationofthe continentalsheIfbetween
the Pastiein the NorthSea are respectfu slblyitfed:

(1) Itt appor~ionitherontinentalshelfamongthecoastaiStates, the breadth
of~heircous~alfrunt fagcingthe NorthSeoshoüidbe #tipriricipf criterionfor
evaluuti~gwherherttrare0aiiiorarffoone offh~seSIale ssnjusfand eqüirnbie
share.
(II) The most equitableapportionmeni of the continenral sheif amorrgthe
coasralStaws wouid be ascctornldivisiobased on thebreud~hoftheir coastal
fmruge facing theNorth Seo.

(III) AsCO thedelimitaiionofthe rnnfi~e~rtshev bet~veenthe Partiestfie
eguidisfonce merhodcaniiafi& applicationsime ii wouldnot apportion jus#
and equitabie shorfathe Federa RepubiicofCermony.
(IV) ne boundaryfinedividi nreconrittefishe(fberweenthp Parii~smusr
beseltledby agreementin accordancewiththejudgmerrtofthe Court. MEMWTAC OF THE FEDERALREPUBLIC UF GERMANY 91

PART III. SUBMTSSII)SS

In viewofthe factsrrnd thcargumentput forward inPart s mcl IIof this
Mcmorial

May iiplwsc theCourt torecognizeanddechre:

1. The delirnitatitf the contincnia1 shbetwee the ie3artintheNorth
Sea isgovemcd bytheprinciple thateachcoastalStateisentiiletu ajustand

cquitableshare.
2. ne method ofdctcrmining boundario efsthecontinent saellf isucha
way tht cvcrypointofthe boundatyisequidi fsromnheneare stintsof the

bascliucsfrnm whichthebreadthof theterritorisea ofeach Statismeasured
(equidistancemethod), isnot a ruIc ofcustornary internationalIawand is
thereforenotapplicablassuch betweenthe Parties.

3. Theequidistancemethod canno te employed for thedelimitatioofthe
continental sheunlessit is estabIisbyagreement,arbitraticin,otherwise,
thatit wiiiachievajustandequitable apportionment oftriecontinentashclf
among theStatesconcerned.

4. As tothe delimitatioof thecontinentasheIfbelcveenthePartiesinthe
North Sea, the quidistancemethod cannot fmd application, sincc it would

not apportionajustand equitablcsharcto the Fedeml Rcpuhlicof Cermany.

(sifnedj fiiinthcr JAENICKT!
ProfessorDr. iur.
Afenffor the Govertimettt
ofrhcFederuiRepiibiic
ofGerntany MEMORIALOF THE FEDERALREPUBLIC OF GERMANY

PART IV. ANWXFS TU THE MEMORIAL

SURMITTED RY THE GOVERNMENT

OF THE FEDERAT,RF;PURX,IC OF GF=RMAKY

Annex i

Non VERBAL EATED 10SEPTEMB1 E964,FROMTHE ROYAD LANISH E~ASSY
YC BONN 2-0IHE GERWA N~'~~ISTHOF FORE~G ANFFAIRS

btes voe 6.hr;ust 1964 - I 1 80.5u3 - 3 iliinena-khat dl*

KlniglichIltlnieclie Borsahadi6Ehre. reiaungsgoniiamFtcritel-
leu, da88nsn danisahereeita den Vorsobiag.mü~dllchdia Bqa

Pvr Pbgraneuq der an da0 d#utoah*ruid dee daanoh8Hohsitagabict

aQreaesndenToile dom mstlandiookmlr su .rortsrn,rustlemsn
uann.Dis dnniochaaBsEirrdoir b*gr<+!eferasr Pen Potaahlag,di*

Be~prschungsnin der Zoitvom 15. bis 17. Oitober1954in Bonn

durcbeuhihrin.

m dissarIerbinduq findot dis WriircboSqieniag
Adlaai,dsran zu oriantni.deos Baemrk durch Wnig1ich.n Erlasi

vas 7. duni 1963,Bassin Inhultdan luri*tigen imte in 8irgli-

ncher ~erasteung mit Verbalnote der astuchaiVQm 10. &li 1963
b-kamtgegebec aurds, ieln Hobsitaroch tbsr denToiLPan ?#nt-

laadiockelaauagadeht kt, der naoh der auf der Sierschtaton-

feriasder YureintanUstioaenna 29. lpril 1958uatoreofcàneton

Konventioaüber ds~ Featlaudrocksldem Dknia8h#nBsioh @hart,
und dase di* lbgresrunginVerUltnio rri andsren Staatandie pn

Dhremark grertzenin Dharainatimuq nit Artik%l5 dieasrXowen-

%ion erfolgt,no daae 3is Grmnza mngels banondersr Yarabredung
PieXLttallinis tut, diain jedas ninkt glaioWnafg relt *nt-

firatvon den Wchsten Atokten arridan Baalslinianliagt, vonwo

Itndsa iusmartfgeb~t, NORTHSEA COMïI'IEhTAI. SHF.1.T:

-2-

die Breite des ausaoron Territorislgew&ssera jeden Sta~tes

genessen wird.
Auf die Prase der Zusamensetzuc~ der daniachenVer-

handlungadelegation, die wahrsckeinlich etwa fCnf Personen um-

faasen wird, wiri die 3otac5aft sich gestatren, zu gegebener

Zsit zurückeu2ommen.

Eie Botschaft bamtat diesen Anlasa, daa luswartige

Ut ernaut ihrer ausgezeictineten Zochnebtüng zu veraichern.

Bonn, den 10, Septenber 1964. .MtlMORIAl. THE FEDERALREPUBLIC OF GtHMA-IY

Anner 1A

JourrialNo.119.A.6.

With refemnce to the Note Verbale, ref. No. V I-80.52/ 3-hcmark,
transmittedby the Cierman FederaIForeign Officeon 6 hügust 1964, the
Royal Danish Enibassy hrisbmn dircctc td statethat theIlanish side can
agree IOthe proposal to discussonlly the questiof thedelimitationof the
partsof thcContincntaI Shelf adjacentathe Germanand Danish territories.
The IlanishauihoritieaIsowelcomethe proposal that thetalkshouldbe held
inBonn betwetn 15and17 October 1964.
In this connexian rheDanish Government frnds aGcasion to rcmind the
FederalForeignOfficeihat Denmark, by virtucof aRoyal Dccreeisrued on 7
June 1963 he contents ofwIiichwere made knowii \O theFederal Foreign
ORrcc in an English Note Verbaletrandtted by the Danish EmWy on

10July 1963 ,ascxtendedhcrsovcrcignrightsmer thatpartof theContinental
Shelfwhichamordine to tiie Conventioon the ContinentalShelfsigncd on
29 April 1958ailhe United Nations Conference ontheLaw ofthe Seabelungs
to the Kingdom ofDenmark,and that thc houndary af thecontinenta&eIf in
relationtoforcign States adjacenCo Deninarkisdetamined in accordsnce
withArticle6 of thai Conventionso that,intheabsenccofanyspwial agree-
ment, the boundary shoiild hc thc median line, every point of wjsequi-
distantfrom the nearestpoints othebaselin= from whichthe breüdthof the
tcrriforiseaof eachStareismeasureù.
The Erribusy will return to thc qut~tion of thc compositionof the Danish
negotiatingdelcgatianwhich wiIlcompriseapproxirnatelyfivepersons, aihe
appropriatetirne.
The Erribassavailsitselrof thisopportmittrrcnewta thcFederaI Foreign
Officetheassuranceofitshighconsideration.

Bonn, 10 Scptcrnbcr 1964 'rORTK SEACOhTINEhTAL SIIELF

Amex 2

N~E VERBALE DA,TED21Ju're 1963, FROM TH' ROYAL NETHERLAY EMDSASSY
ATBOYN TO 'ME GERMAM NI~TRY OF FOREIGN APFMRS

AMBASSADE
DER
NEDERLANDEN

Dia K6niglich I7isderLhdiache Eutsohaft baahrt
sich im Auftrag lhruirReglemg d8m buswktigm &nt

folgsndes mitmt;ailen.
Lm Zueamm- mit der baabaichtfgteF nkfliflkstion
dus am 29. April 1958 in Cenf untsrealchnsten Ubaraia-

komem ffber den r'ietlendsccksl,legt'die Koniglich
Iliederlbdiscbe-Ragierung Ysrt dard m erkiBren,

dans aer Tai1 dea Pestlandsockbla dir Iorâees über
den sie konfonn dam ebengenerintsnObereinkommert Xoheita-
reohte zur Geltung brlngt, irach Ostonbegrenotirrird

duwh die mittlare Oreaslinio (*equidiatanau lins*),
anfangend m dan Pwkt w0 der Tdw(g fn der Einimündung

die Tirritorialginbrer erreicht*
Die Bctsuhaft erlaubt eich dam AusrErtig* ht m
bitten dia zust&ldigen ilX38rdatIS~hUIBuh%rdsn n8tigOn-

falle auf da8 Obenemhts mfmarkaarn zu meohin,
Die K8niglichBiederl&diache mtscli~ft benutzt

diesen dnlasa daa busrktie ht ern6-UFihrer aurage-
zeichnitenHochacbtungau vsraiohem.

Bonn, den 23. Juni 1963.

hn d8i hl~adiga bt

Bonn, - MEMORIALOF THE FEDERALREPLBLIC OF OERMAW

Annex 2 A

Translation)

Thc RoyaI Nethcrlands Embassypreseiits jtscomplimcnts to the German
FederaI Foreign Ofice and, on the instructionsof its Government, has thc
honour to communjcate the following.
In connecticinwith thc proposcd raiscation of the Convention on the
ContinentalSheIf sjgned alGenew on 29 April 1958,the RoyalNethcrlands
Govcrnment wishes to statethat the parof the continental sheof the North
Seaover which itclaimssoveereignrightsinconformitwiththe saidConvention,
jsdefimitecitu theeastbytheequidisianceIinebeginning atthc point whcrcthe
thalwegin themouth ofthe Emsreaches the territoriwaters.
The Embassy fakes the liberty of asking fhc Federal ForeOfice, if nece-
sary, toinvitetheattentionof theappropriate German domcsticauthoriticstri
theforegoing.
The Koyal Netherlands Embassy avails itsclf of this opportuntorenew to

the FederalForeign Oficetheassurance ofitshighconsideration.

Thc Gcrman Fderal Foreign mce

BONN 98 NORTH SEA C ~ E ~ A L SHELF

Annex3

Twn BEWE't THE FEDERAR LEPUBLI CF GERMANY AND nlE KIKGDO OF
TEENETFIERLAN DOSNCEKE*~ THE LATERA DLELIMITATI OOFNTHE ~=oN~I-

-TAI, SHLI.F MAR TIIE COASTD , ATED 1DECEMBE 1K9&

Verirag

zwisdien derBundesrepublik Deutsdland
und dem Künigreictr der Niederlande
überdieçeitlictieAbgrenzung deçFestlandsodcie nls üstennahe

Verdrag

tuççen deBondsrepubliek Duitsland
enhet KoninkrijkderNederlanden

inzakedezijderingsebegrenzingvan hct continentaIe plat
in de nabijheid van dekust

DIEBUNDESREPUBLIK DEUTSCHLAND DE BONDSREPUBLIEK DUiTSLAND
un6 en
DAS KUNIGKEICH DERNIEDERLANDE, FlETKONINKRiJK DER NEDERLANDEN
OVERWEGEIIDEdat het dringend noodzaketijkjs.de
IN DER ERWAGUNG, daD eine einvemehmlfhe zeib
!ide Abgren-suny ansIhreHohcitsgebIoic angr-den begtenriagvan hct ann hun grondgebied grenrende
Fesilandsodieder Xordseo furdus kùrwanahe Gebfet conilnenialplaider Kaordzcevuur het wblefiin de
vordrinylidisund dafi die Teilgrmze Im AhKtilan nabkjheld vde kustin gemeensdiappel1jlr overleg vas1
die im ZusateabkornmunVOm 14.Mrii 1952 lm Ems- tcstclieeiida<datgrensgedaeltdioriteworden rdst-
Doilart-Vertravom 8.April1960 grtmtfew gcrncin- gestelin aanaiuiting op de in de AanuulIoremen-
sdiaillj&Regoluri-rzfehenist, koresvan 14 mei t9B2 bij hEems-UoHsrdverdragvan
8 aprH 1960 getrofren gemeensQiappelircgoling, Ajn

IIABEN FOLGMDES VEREIPI'BART: IET VOLGEWE OVEREENCiEKOMEN:

AriIkel 1 Arlikct I
(1)Dir!Grenzeawivmea dem dwtshen und dcm nie- (1)Toi am de Slstc noordelijke breediegraad Ioapt
de grenstusscn hnt Duilse en Nederlandsr dwil van
dcrlbndiachen Anleam Feritand&el der Nordsccver-
16ulIhiszum 54.BreftengraKord von dern nordlihen hct continrnlale plat der Noordzeehet noordeIifke
Wpuekt der h Zusntzubkommcn vom 1CMdi 1962 eindpuntvan de in de Aiovul~onde ~verMrIkomst va,
zum Emr.Doilari-Veruag vom8.Aprii vereinbarkn 14 mei 1962 bij het Eerni-hllardverdv8 spri1960
Linie.die den Grentberel& dcr.iksmündung in der overeengekomenlijn die het grensgebiRdder Wr-
LiIngrri&lungLeIl~su1 dcr kürzestenLinle aber die mondlng in longtorrditing Ymdeclt, voidenkorlsle
PunlteEiundEt zum Punkt 6. lijn ovde puntenElen E lot punEz.
(2) Die Koordiaate(na& den doutsdmn Seckarien t2j DEcoiirdinaten[volgens de Duitsazeekaarlan
Nr.50. Aurgdbe 19%.Y11und Nr. W. Ausgabc IW, V) No. W, uitgavI9%,VII enNo,90.uIfgave1964. V) ijn:

des PunktuEi shd:5f045'06N, GoIYSB'O. vanhetpuni El:53'45'W'EI6%96" 0.
der Ainkres ESSD1W5ü N. b915'4'1' vanhct puxtE::53°WW N, B"lS4Y"O,
las AinkleEsaSOOO'OO N. 6°06'X' 0. vanhct puntEi:MqW'MllN. 6'WW 0.

Artikcl 2 Artfkal 2
(1)Die brimmlingen~dicscsVcrtragcs bcrührenoimt ($Dc bcpaljngcn van dit Verdragznie1vaninvloed
die Frage des Vcrlnuts dcrSta~fsgrenrin der Erna- op hcivraagslukTan hct verloop deutaatsgrenla de
mtlndung.JcdcVcrtragspa~tei behiilr slrti iihrcnitEemsmonding. IeüereVertragsiuitendaIBrtij behoiidt
Rechisstandpunvkotr. zi& in dit opridit haar ramtssianvwr.t

(2)ElneEniuçtrekdmgnachArtlkel46 Abs.2 dw Ems- (2&ri hcslissing ing~vollid 2van artike(6 van
Dollar[-Veiwûges 1hRidiesVcrtragunbrxührt. hcl Irims-hildrducrdrlaat dit Verdrdg onverlet.

ArtlkeI 3 Artikel 3

Dincr Vetirag giit auch Iùr dLand Berlinsolern DIt Verdrag geldovfneonsvoor hct "Land' Beriijn.
nlrhidieRegierungder Bundssrepubl Dikutsddand ge- temii de Rsgering van do üondsrcpubliek Duiidand
genBber der Rqientngdes KOnigreih der NiMlcriande binnen Jrie maandan na dr:inwelkingrrfding van dit
liinerhalb von drei Moniiton nach Inkmfdes Ver- Verrlradge Rfperivan hei Koninkrijk dlYcderienden
tmges eingegenteili~ ErklkrunabgibL medcdfling doft vahetiegendel. MHKORIAL OF THE FEDERALREPUBLIC OF GERhIANY 99

Artikel 4 ArtlkeI 4
(1)DiessV rartrag heriarl der Rafifikatidi^ Ratlfi- (1) DL!Verdtagmoetwordtn belrrachligde alrlenvan
katioasurkundensolle= sobatd me rnagli& inDen Haag bekraditigingdicncn zo s&ig mogebjk k 'a-Graven-

ausgetauadit werden. hageleworden uiigewhld.
(3 Djeser Vertreg triuan dem Tug In Kraft.der &of (2) DII Verdrag tr&tinwerking op de dagvolgaiide
den Tag desAustaus&es derRatifil;atimurkundenfolgt op de dag van uitw~ling der akta van bckrad~tlgbg.

GESCHEHEN zu Bonn am 1.Dtzemkr 1964 In me1 GEDMN ti Bonn, 1 december 18M. ln twaeuoud,
UrshriIten in de-er und niedtrl&dIs&tr SpraQa. in deDuitse ende NcdirInndra tkal zlJnde beki~ tslrPten
woki jader Wortlautglei&ermeIltnvtlbjndlimjiL golljlelijk authantiek.

Furdl* Bddearepublit Deu?s&land;
Voor de BoudsrepubIfek Duktsland:

Nr dm X&lgrel& dm Nliderlands-:
Voor Koninlullkder Nederiunden: MEMORIAL OF THEEDERAL REPUBI.1COF GERMANY 101
hx3A

TREATY BEïWEEN THE FEDERAL REPUUW OF GERMAN AXD THE ~ODDM
#Y THE NE~HERIANDS CC)h'CF.RNINTHE LATERAL D~~~ATIOY OF ïïIE
CON~NENTS AHLEL FUR IXE COA~

THE FF.DERAKL~PUBL IF GERMANY
and
THE K~NG~XIM OFTIIENETII~LANDS,

CONSIDERItN hat a Iateral deIimitation by magreementofthe continental
shelfnearthe coastadjacenttotheirierritorijsurgentlyrequired,and ihat
thc partialboundarin extensionoftheIine deterntjncdtheSupplementary
Agreement of14May 1962in thcEms-DollartTreaty of 8Aprii1960has tobe
deftned,

HAVE AGRF.E~ AFOLLOWS:
Articl1
1. Theboundary betrv~xnthc German andthe Netherlandspartsof the wnti-
nentaIshelofthe North Seaup to th54thdegree oflattudeNorih shalstart
at the northern termination point theIineagreedin the Supplwnentaiy
Agreement of 14May 1962 tothc Ems-DoIIartTreaiyof8 ApriI 1960which
dividesrheboundas.areaintheinouth oftheEms lengthways,andfdows ihe
shortcst IitopointW throughEI and E2.
2, The coardinates (iaocordingta GerrnSca ChartsNo. 50,1956Edition,
VII, andNo. 90,1964Editioii,Vjof pointEl are: 5Y45'06 N",5'19'56 E,
ofpointE2: 53"48'5 N5"6'15'49E, of point E354"00'0 N,"6'06'2 6"

Article 2
1. The provisionof the pracntTreaty stiallnoaffectthequestion ofllie
course ofthchomdary line inthe mouth of the Ems. Inthal respecteither
Con tractingPartreserveitslegai standpoint.
2. Any decisionunderparagaph 2 ofArticle46 of theEms-DoIlarTt realy
shdI notaffcct the presentTreaty.

Articl3
The presentTreaty*a11aIsoapply toLand Berlinprovidcd tht theGovern-
mentofthe FcdcraiRcpublicof Germany has notmade a contrardedaration
to theGovernment of the Kingdom ofthc Ncthcrlands within th months
ofthedateofentry intoforce theTreaty.
Articl4
1.TliepresentTreaty issubjm toratification; the instrumofratification
shalIIxexchangcdas soonas pmsibIein The Hague.
2. The presenTreatyshaIlentcr into force on thc day fuUuwingthe day on
which the instriimentsofratification areexchmged.

DOKE alBonn on 1 Decernber 1964induplkate inthe Crermanand Nether-
Iandslanguages,eachtexi bejngcquaIlauthcntic.

For theE'ederaIRepnbIjcofGermany:
CARSV-NS
For theKingdom ofthc Ncthcrlands:
G. E. vhn TTTERSUM JOLW OPGERMA ANDNETEERU~VDSELEGA~ODKA,~4Auaus~
1964

lrwisohen einer deùtachen Delegation,geleitat von

Herrn Miniaterialdirigent Professor Dr, Meyer-
Lindenberg, AuawiirtigeaBmt ,

und einer niederlaridischenSelegation,geleitet von

Herrn ProfeascrRiphagen,Bechteberater de8
Ministeriums fitr Auaniirtigebngelegenheiten,

haben mn 4. und 23. Miir~, 4. Jwi, 14. Juli und 4,
Buguet 1964 in Boiinund Den Haag Besprechungen fiber die

Abgrenzung des an dasedeutsohe und nfederlëndische Ho-
heitsgebiet angrensenden Teilea ,des Peatlmdeockela der

Nordsee ~tattgefunden.
Die beiden Delegationenaind iibereingekomnen,

ihren flegierungen den AbschluB dea am heutigen Tage im
EntwurfparaphiertenVertrageszwischen der Bundeera-

publik Deutschlandund dem KUnigreich der Hiederlande
über die seitlicheAbgrenzungdea Festlândsoukels in
Kiistennkhe vorzuschlagen, der eine Yereinbarung gea0

Artiksl 6 Abe. 2 Satz 1 der Genfer Featlmdsockelkonven-
tion vom 29. April 1958 darstellt,Sie sind hierbeida-

von ausgegangen, daB eine Greneaiehungim küstennahen
Seegebietvordringlichiat und da8 die Teilgrenze im
Anschl.uB an die im Zuaatzabkomen zumms-Dollart-Ver-

tPag getrof fene gemeinschaf tliche Regelung unter Beriick-
sichtigung der im Emsmündungsgebietvorliegenden beeon-
dersn Umstiinde zu ziehen ist.

Die beiden Delegationen stellenfest, da13ea

sich im Laufeder bisherfgen bilateralenBeaprechungen
herausgestellthat, da0 kein Einversthdnis über die
Fortsetzungder Grsnzlinie auf dem Pestlandsockel itber

den 54. Breitengradhinaus besteht, so daB den Delega-
ttonen eine einvernehmliche Peatlegmg der gemeinsamen

Festlaridsockelgrenze in ihrer gesamtenLange nicht m6glic
war . MEMORZALF THFEDERAREPUBLOF GERMANY
103
-2-

Die deutsche Delegation hat hiersu folgenden

iandpwikt ver.treten:

Der deutscheAnspruch in bezug auf den Verlauf
:r Grenalinieauf dem Festlandsockel uber den 54. Breiten-
&adhinaus wird durch dia Festlegwtg der vorgaschlage-

!n Teilgranze nicht berührt; inabeaondsre darf aus dem
:rlauf der in Aussicht genommenenTeilgrenzenicht ge-

mhlo~sen werden, daa eie weiter seewarts in deraelben
.chttmg fortgesetztwerderi müBte.

Die niederlandiache Delegationist der Ansicht,

.L3der weitere Yerlauf der Grenzlinie auch durch daa
uidiatanzprinzip bestimmt nird.

Im übrigen Iründigte die deutache flelegation an,
e Bundesregierungsei im Begriff, auf dia Eiirberufung

ner Konferenz der Nordseeanliegerataaten hinzuwirken,
t dem Ziele, eine angemesaene Aufteilurig dea Festlanà-

mckels in der Nord~ieemitte gemal3 Artikel 6 Abs, 1 Satz 1
.àAbs. 2 Satz 1 der Genfer Pestlandsockelkonventfon

rbeizuftrtiren.
Die niederl3ndische Belegationhat von dieser

lsicht Kenntnis genommen,. NORTH SM CONflNEhTAL SHELF

Amex 4 A

A GermandeIegation ledby Assistant Ministerial DircctorProfessorDr.
Meyer-Lindcnberg, ofthe Feàerd ForeignOffice,aridaNetherland? deleption
Ied by ProfessorRiphagefi,kgal Adviser tothe Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
held talksin Bonn and The Hague on 4 and 23 hlarch,4 Junc, 14 Suly,and
4 Auguqt1964, on thesubjectof the delimitationof thecontinentashelfofthe
North Seaadjacent tothe Cerman and Netherlands territories.
The two delegarions have agreed to propose to their Govcrnments €lie
conclusi ofna treaty,a draft of which was initialIetoday, hetwoen the
Fcdcral Republicof Germanyand thc Kingdom of thc NetherIandsconcerning
the Iateraldelimitation of the continental sheinear the coast, suchtreaty
constitutingan agreement in accordancewith thcfimtsentenceof paragraph 2
of Article5ofthe Geneva Convcntion an theContinentalShelf,dated29 ApriI
1958. The two delemions started from the assumption that it is urgently

necemry to draw a dividingIinein thesea arca ncar thecoast and thar the
partial boundaryinextension of thc Iine determined in the Supplernentary
Agmcment to the Ems-DoIlart Treaty shouldbe defined with due regardto
thespecial circumstancesprevaiIingin themouthof theEms.
Thetwo delcgations note that it haken evident during the bilatcraltalks
heldthatnu agreemcnt erists un the boundriry Iine on thc continental siielf
beyond the 54th degree of latitude,so thatit has notbeen possiblefor the
dclegationsto deermine byagreemcnt the ruIlIengthofthe common boundary
on the continental shelf.
The Gerrnan detegaiion hasexpressedthe fnlIowingview onthis point:
The deterinination of the partihloundary as suggcsteddoes nor afïcctthe
German claim with rcspcTt to the boundary iine on thc contitientnl shelf
beyond the 54th degree of Iatitude; in particuiar it munot beconcluded
frcimtiiedirection of thpropriscdpartisboundrtry that the lattwould have
to bccontinuedin thc sanidirection.
The Nethcrlatidsdelemiionconsiders thatthefurihercourseof the boundaw
is &und tobealsu dete&tinedbyapplicationof the princjpiofequidistance.-
TheGerman delemticin moreoverannounced that thc FeJeraIGovernment
issccking to bring aboua conference of Statcsaaacentto theNorth Sea wi!h
a vjew toarrivingatanappropriate divisionof thecontinentalshclfsituatedin
themiddle of thcNorth Sea inaccordance with thcfirstsentenceof p-dph

(1)and the firssentenceofparagraph(2)of ArticIe5 of theGcnevaConvention
on theContinentaiShelf.
The NetherIandsdelegationhas takennote of this intention.

Honn, 4 August 1964 AGREEMENT BETWEEX THE GOYERNMENT OF THE UNITED
KINGDOh1OF GREAT BRITAIN ANI) NORTHERNIRELAND
AND THE GOVERNhIENT OF THE KIh'GDOM OF NORWAY
RELATINGTU THE DELIMITATION OF THE COhSfINEXTAL
SHELF BETWEEYTHE TWO COUNTRIES

TheGovernmtnt ofthe UniteKingdomofGreat Britaiand Northern
Irelanand theGovernment ofthe Kingdom ofNorway;

Desiring testablisthe boundaryixtween the respectivepartsthe
ContinentalShelf;

Have agreedasfolIows:

The dividingline bctweenthatpartof the ContinentaSheIfwhich
appertainto the United KingdomofGreat Britaiand NorthernIreIand
and that part which apptrtatothe Kingdomof Norway shaII lbased.
with certaimiriordivergeaciesfor administraconvenienceon a line,
every poinofwhich isquidisfant frothe nearespointof thebaselines
from whichtheterritonaseaofeach country imeasured.

(1)Inimplcmcntation ftheprincipsltforthinArticlI.thedividing
line shall barcsof GreatCircIes between the foIIowing poiinthe
sequenegivenbelow:
Point1. 56"OS'12" N..3"15'ûû"E,

Point2. 56"35'42"N.,2'36'48"E,
Point 3.57' 5418"N..1" 57'54E.
Point4. 58" 25'48"N.1" 2900" E.
Point5. 59"17'24"N.,1" 42'42E.

Point 5. 59"5348"N.,2"04'36"E.
Point 7.51"21'24" N.1"47'24"E.
Point 8. 51"44'12"N., 33'35"E.

The positionsofthe points in this Artiare dehed by Iafitudeand
longitudon EuropeanDatum (1stAdjustment1950).
12)The dividiriSinehas been drawn on ihe charannexedto this
Agreement.' 106 NORTHSEACONT1.VEETALSBELF

(1) Inîhe souththe terminatiopoint ofthedividingIine shalbe point
No. 1.. which is tpoint ofintersectionof thedividinlinesbetwcenthe

Continent ShleIvesof the United Kingdomof Great Britaiand Northern
IrelandtheKingdom of Norwayand the Kingdom ofDenmark. Theposition
ofthe above-mentioned pointNo, 1 shaIIbe subjecttoacceptanceby the
Kingdomof Denmark.
(2) Forthe tirne being theContrachg Parties have not deemed il
necessarto draw the dividinlimefurthenorth thanpointNo. 8.

If any single geologjal petroleustructureorpetroleum field,or any
single geoIogical strucorrfidd of any othcrmineraideposit,inciuding
md or gïavel, extendsacrothe dividingliaendthe partofsuch structuré
orfielwhichis situateon onesideof thedividinIineis exploitabwhoiiy
or inpart, fiom the dher sideofthe dividingline. the ContracrParties

shallin consultatiowith thelicensecsifany.se& toreach agreementas
tothemanner in wbichthe structureor fieid shali bmost eff~ctively
exploit4 andthe marner inwhich theproceedsderivingtherefromshallba
apportioned.

This Agreement hall not affectthestatusof thesuperjacenfwatersor
air spaçeabove.

(1) ThisAgreement shdibe ratifid, Insmments ofratificatishaIlbe
exchangedat Osloas smn as possible.
(2) The Agreementshali enterintofora on thedate oftheexchangeof
inslnrmentof tatification. In witneswhereofthe undersigned.beingdulyauthoriscdtheretbytheir
respectiveGovernrnent. avesignedthe prestAgrecmen t.

Donein duplicaîafLondon thc 10thdayofMarch, 1955,in the EngIish
and Norwegian languages,bofhtextbeing cqua1Iyauthoritative.

For the GovernmentoftheUnitedKingdomof GreatBritainandNorthern

Ireland:
WALTER PADLEY.

FortheGovernment ofthe Kingdomof Norway:

ARNE SKAUG. Annex6

Vertrag
zwisdien der BundesrepubI Dekutsdlan dnddm KGriigreid Danemark

über die Abgrenzung des Festlandsodiels derNordsee inKustcnnahe

Overenskoms t
rnel1em ForbundsrepubIik k enkIand ogKongeriget Danmark
om afgrensningen afdenkontinentale sokkeI iNordsram i kystomridet

DIE BUNDESREWBLIKDEVISOUAND FORBUNDSREPUBUKKBNTYSKLAND
und
9
DAS KUNiGREICH DANEMARK KONGERIGETDANMARK er

IN DER ERWXGUNG. daD eine einvemehmli&e Ab- 1 3ElRAGTNIXC AF, ai dcl CI tiliraenglmddet
grenzungdesan IhreHuht~trgcblelangrenzundm Fesf- nrerm-i kysten ued anale nt foreteneafgranuiing aT
1andiod;eladerNordee lür dacküstcmahe Gebietvor- des Imllnentale sokkel i Eioheen,der sbder op til
dringti&kt, dcrcsh%jhedscmr&der.

HABEN FOLGENDES VEREINBART: BLEVRENIGE OM FBLmMDE:

Vie Crenze zwMai dm deulsdienund dem dËni&en Gransma meiIernden fyskog den danskedttrl Nord-
AnreU am F~rlanddcl derNordiee verlad: in Xilstenmens kcnrinentale mkkd forIahr I orsrddel narmcrt
nahe In gerader Linie vderninder Grenxbesmiciburig kystea iItge linttradeti griensebe&rivelsen a1921
von 1921gemnten Punkii,n demdie Ver[!.ngcrunder nawnte punk!, i hvilketorkngelsen allinlengennem
Verbiudungsllniedes Ltrt-Ost-Feuers mlt derMittel- Usb istre fyr,~ micltpnktcrnellem Lirts to verlyr
punkt der Verbirtdungsiinie der beiden LIrt-West-Fenhr &L &buehov,til punktct ?detû'û?N.P" 3309.6"O
das freieMeer errdchi. ru dePuntte 5.5' Iüû3.a"N, som angivtt efter European Daium Syslem (suarende lil
heriboldav& dodanske geugrafillrkoordlnaterSFiIV
9' 33'C$r O ciesEuopean DarumSyatem (entsprchmd
den dintscbegeogrdphirde~ Xmrdinateri 55Ola' O1N." Ot,l"N,7=33'16.1"0q de tyskr qeogranskkoordknater
7' 33'16,'O und den deursmm gaographls&en Xoordt- sSD iQ'07.IN, 7-33' 07.7O).
mien 5SQIO' ü7.iN, 7'3Y 07,T O].

Artikel 2
Dieser Vertmg gilt au& fdrdas land Berlinsofcrn Derme overtnskamst gatdeogsdfor LandRerUn.med-
nl&r dte Regbruag dw Bundesrepublik Deutschland mlndre Forbundrregub~ikken Tysktasds regcrlng inden
gcgen&ber der legierung dai Xontgretdm Dinemark ue meneder fraoueren~komsicns ikraliirsdebar al.
innarhnlbvon dreIMonaren nad Inkrafttrelen dVcr- givei mûdithenda trkIllaring ofor KongerigetDnn-
tragesehe gegtnteiljgErkiMningawibt. marks regering.

Artikel 3 Artikel 3
il) DieeeVertrag bcdaffderRaUWution.Die Ratiff-
katlansurkundm solleu sobild wiemüglidt in Kopen-
hgen ousgeiaus&t wtrden.

12)Dieser Vtnragtdttmit dem Tage nu& dem Aus-
taus& der RatiükationsurkuIa ndKernaft

GES(3IEHPN au Bornam B.Junl 1965 Inrvei Un&rif- UBFERDIT 1Bonn.den 9.]uni 1985ito origlnsl-
ten In àeotimer und d&nf&ir Spracb& uobet jeder eksmplarer pi tyakog danrk, og dledm alhver tekst
WortIautgleWexma&n vexbindliht, hursommegyldlghsh

Nlr die BundesrepubllkDeutsdlsnd: ForPorbundslepubiîkkmTysktand:
SchrBdar Schroder

F& du migreid Dan-: For ICongedgetDanmark:
Haekkerup Haekkerup115 NORTH SEA CONTINENTAL SHF.1.F MEMORIALOF THEFEDERALKEPWUC OF GERMANY

hnex 6 A

TRUTY BEï5VEF.THE FF~ERA L EPUBLI CF G~KMANY AND TIIE ~GWM
OF DENMAK KOTs'CERKIKTHE DELLMITATI OFNTHE ~WNE~TAL SHED OP
THE ~QRTH SEA NF- THECOAST

THEFEDERA RLEPUBLI CFGERKANY
and

THE ~GI'IOM OP DENMARK,
CONSIDERK tNat a ddirnitatbynmutualagreementof ihe continental shelf
adjacenttuthtir tcrrjtoriarIhecoastisurgentlyrequired,
HAVE AGKEEDAS FOL~WS:

Artide 1
The boundary betweentheGerman and thc Danish parts ofthe continenta1
siielofthe NorthSea nearthe çoasshaIIrun inasinighrIinstartingfrom
thepoint mentioned in the houndarydescription oat1whichtheextension
ofthe connectinIinebetweeitlheListEastbeacon andthc centraipoofthe
connccting Iine ktiveen two L,istWatbacons miches the higseasand
ending aipoint 55"10'03,4"7'33'09.6"Eof the European Datm System
{in accordancc with theDanish gcographical CO-ordinat55"10'01.1'N,
7"33'16.7"Eand the German geographiaico-ordina les10'07.1" 7'33'
07.7"E).

Artide 2
Tite preseTreatyshaiaisoappiyta Land BerlinprovidethatheGovern-
ment ofthe FederalRepubIiofGerrnanykas not madeacontrary dechration
to theGovernment ofthe Kingdom of Denmarkwithinthree months of the
dateofcntryintu forcof the Treaty.

ArtjcIc3
1. The presentTrealissubject to ratificatioinstniments oratification
shalIbeexchngtd as snonas pmibie in Coptnhagen.
2. Theprescnt'rraty siinenterintoforceon thedayafterthe exchange of
instrumentofratificatiun.

Dosa al Bonn ihis nintda? of June1965 indupliate inthe Gcman and
Danish languagesbothtextking cqualIyauthentic.

For rhc FederalRcpublicof Germany:
SCHRODER

For the Kingdom oDcnmark:
HAEKKEKUP 112 NORTII SU W&TlIi;EN~I'AL SHELF

PmlokoU

zumVertmg zwisdxen der BundesrepublfkDeutstWa~Id
unddm KBnigreld~ Dhemark
iikr dfeAbgrazung desFestlandsntkeis derNordsee in Kttsiennahe

Protokol
a1overenskomst mellem Forbmdsrepubilkkan TyskIand
og K~IIgerfgel Danmark
rim afgrmsnitigen aiden kontinenteIe sokkel 1Norbmen i kystomradet

De p& tpsk loranlcang ferle lysk4anske forhand-
Die auf dtulidkAnrcgmg gefiihrtedeuis&dbh&ex linger mgderde atgraainlngen 81den ud forden lyslre
Verhandlungen über die- Abgrtmung dcs &; demis&
rind dar d~khen Kusle vorgelagenen Fmtlaa&o&elets og den danrlre kystliggende hntlneetale sokkel ha?
haben ergeben daB Ühr die GmdrBtrc &PrAbgr~nning vis!, a1 dar bestaivlgende opfailels med hensyn til
dm Festla~elr der Nordiw ebweicbends Auflasmn- gruridsfuiingerneforafgrensdugen et den k~~tl~entale
gen besleheu Eine Einigung konnlc i&îgliaaber den sokkel i Nordsaen. Der kunne kun nha tilentghed on
Verlaut der Çod;elgreiizin Xdstt~llbeedelt werdeni forlmbeîai mkkelgraeseni orn~hàct nennest iyrrenr
btxhgllEh des veiterenGrfmverIauis behalt il& jede medheasyn iü gratnsenr videre Inrlab forbeholhvtr
Vtnregapartci ihrm Redilsstandpu vo&L. konlraherendepart slgsIt retsstaridpmkt.

BuagUrh des FcstIand%xkeIsvm &n einandergegen- Med hensyn tll den knntisentnle sokkelud for de
ükrliegenden Kiuien der Ostsee beslebtElnverslaodais owr for hinenden lfggende sstermkyster Wstbr der
darüber, daB si& die Grennw nach der Mlitellisis be-enighed m. ei.grensen beslemmes eiter midterlinfe1.
stirnm2 &mgcmËB erklarenbejdc Yeflragswrtciemda8 overenaalammtlse hem& erkl~rer de tokontraherende
sic Irtjagmnd4izliùten Einwsndungm dagegen erheben parler ikke et ville ge~e princlpielle Indvendinnbr,
werden. wenn die andere Venragsparlei lhrenTeil des den anden kunlraherende partelgrerwr alndel afden
Fesit-cls der OsCseu unler Ziigmnde?cgiing der koatjnenraltxikkel t Bstcramen ph grundlagal midler-
MIiielllnIs abgreut. IinIm.

WWEY zu Bonnam 9.Junl 1935in zneiUrshrii- UDFRRDIGET1 Bonn,den 9. Juni 1865. i io original-
ten in deutrmer und deniscùer Sprade, wubei jeder ekscmpl~er pt rpk ag da* og skledeî athver teksr
WorUaut gleidistmalen verbindltch lsL har sommegyldtghcd.

Fardie Bundesrepublik i3eutsaIand For ~orbundsrep~blikkmTyskland
Schrdder Schrodwr

Mr das K6nigreIh Dinamark ForKmgtriget Danma~ir
Hsekkerup Hackksrup MEMURIALOF THE FEDERALREPUBLICOF GERMANT 113

Annex 7A

FROTOCO TL THE TREATY BETWEEN THE FEDERA LEPIJRLI CF GERMANY
AND THE KINGDOM OF DEMARK CCi'iCERMKG THE DELIMITATIO ON THE
CON~~IENI;\LSHELP OF THEHORTH SEANEAR THE COAST

The German-Danish negotiatic oonducteciatthe suggestionfC~rmany
on thc dcljmitation of the continentai sheIfadjacentGermane andthe
Danish coasthaveshown thatdiverge vitwscxjsonthe principIapplicable
tothe deIinutatiof thecontinentashelfoftheNorth Sea.Agreementcould

be reachcdonIyon thc shclf boundmy ncar the coasasregardsthe fuher
courseofthedividingIine,achContractingPartyreserveits lcgalstandpoint.
With respecto the continental shelfadjt tthecoasrsofthe BaltiSea
which are opprisitcach othcr, it isamcdthat the boundary shaibethe
median Line.Accordingly,bot11ContractiiigPartiesdeclarethat thraiseli
no basicobjectionto the other Cantracting Party's delimitin~its part of the
continental shcIfofthcBalticScthcbasisofthc medialine.

D~NE at Bonn this nintdayofJune 1955in duplicatinrheGerman and
Dmish hnguages, each tcxtking eqdy authcniic.

For the FederalRepubliofCermany

SCHRODER
For thcKingdom ofDcnmark
HAEKKERUP 114 NORTH sm CONTINE~TAL SHELF

Zwlschen einer dhischen und einer deutsehm Dalagation

haben im Oktobsr 1964 und im Mare 1965 Ver-ndlungen iiber

die Abgremung doa an das daniacheund da6 deutsche Hoheita-

gebist angmmeriden Telles dee Peatls~deockel der Hordaaa

stattgefunden .ls Ergebnfa aieaer Yerhandlung%nhaben aich

die beiden Blegationen IIber sinan Vertragaen*rf geeinigt,

der numehr den bsiaan Regfarungen sur Zustimmung vargalegt

nird. Der Yertrwaantwurf ~ollnach Zuatimung der Regieningen
in Bonn unterselchne wterden; er bedarf der ~atiffkation.

In den Entwurf wird elne et- 30 Seemeilen lange Ceilgrenze

gezogen bis eu sinamPunkt, der Ton BarnKap Blaavsnd~huk und

der Inael Sylt gleich weit entfernt Let; über den weiteren

Yerlauf der Grenelinie konnte in den Yerhandlurgeri noch keine

Efnfgung arzielt werdan. Die beiden Verhandlungapartner haben

sich ihreAuIfaasungen über aie hierfür maesgeblichen Grund-

s&tze vorbehalten, Die deutsche Delegatfon hat ~orgeschlagen,~
Yerhandlungenüber den weiteren Yerlauf der Gremlinie in

ntich~ter Zeit aufzunehrnen, Dieaer Yorschlag vira daniacher-

aeita geprfiftuarden. XlEhlOHIAOF THE FEDERALREPUBLICOF GERMANY
Anncx 8A -

(Transiaiion)

In October 1964and March1965 negotiationswereheld betweena Danish
and German deIegationon the delimitatioofthose partsafthe continental
sheliofthe North Seaadjacentto Danish andGcrman territoryAs aresul tf
those negotiations,ttno delegttions Iiaveagreoiiadrafttreat yhic1will
now be submitted totheir respectiGovernments fortheirapprovaI.Itwill
then besignedinBonn and be subjecto ratification.
Inthednft a partialboundaryapproximately30mutical rniIelongha been
drawn as farasa point whjchisequidistantfrom Kap HIaavandshuk and the
isIand ofSyItThe negotiationshave not produced agrcemcnt on thc furthcr
courseofthe bounduy line. Eachdelegaii onsreserv etdvicwpointas to
the principIethatshould be applied. The Geman dclegatihoans proposed
that ncgoiiations onthefurthcourseof theboundarybe resumed inthe ncar
future.TlieDanishside wiIIconsider this proposal.116 NORTH SEA CONT~AL SIIELF

AGREEMEB NTTWEE TNE GOVERNME O~TTHE UNITED ~NGWM OF GREAT
Bmm AND NORTHERN TRELAN AND THEGOVWNMEN OF THE KKGDOM OF
THE N~RI,ANDS RELATING TO THB DELJMTATIDN OF THB ~NTZ~ZN~AL
SHEL FNDËR THE NORTHSEA RETWEEX THETWO COUNTRIE DA,TD 6 Ocro~en

1965

Orereenkod en dt Rwrfmg vanhetKoninkiijkdcrNederianden

tn & Rtgrnng vanhrtYmd Koninkrljkvan Cwt-Brittnnaië
tn Noord-lthpad Imkt dc bgrctuing van htt- dezclaadta
ttkgcn conllmntPIepht ondrrde Nonrùma

De Rcpring vanhct Koninkrijkdcr Ntdrrlandendt Regtring
van kt Vmaigd KoninkrijkvanGrooi-Brittannictn Eloord-luland;

Vcrhngcndt de gcnstussen dt ondeachtidddtn van het con-
tincnlalcpbi ondc& Nmrdzee vast tstellcn op bks vancen
Lijnwaarruieikpuntop gelijktafstandllandc dichistbgclcpn
puntcnvanbebasisIijncvÿnwaarde terrilorizrcvan cik Iandop
ditmoment wordr gtnrcrcn;

Zijn vvemngtkonun ab volgt:

Artikel1

1. Met inafhtneniviangariiktlvandezeOvertenkams&wordt
degrcnslijnhmen kt dd Taohet #niinentalplaldattoebehmr!
aanhct Kminkrijkder Nederlanden en het detl dat t~choaan
htt VrrcnigKonintn'jkvanGroot-Brittmnië en Nmrd-Icrhngc-
vormd dmr de bogcn vafgrooicirkeIsiuswde volgendpunkn,
inde volgordtals hiemndtr aangcgtvcn:
HI. 51. 48' 18"N., 2' 28' 54"0.
d2. 51 59 09 2 37 36
~3. 52 01 00 2 39 30
4. 52 05 18 2 42 12

A. 52 06 00 2 42 54
N6. 52 12 24 2 50 24
~7. 52 17 24 2 55 rX,
,S. 52 25 00 3 03 33
/'9. 52 37 18 3 11 00
010. 52 47 00 3 12 18
AI. 52 53 00 3 IO 39
At. 53 18 06 3 03 24
A3. 53 28 12 3 01 00
014. 53 35 06 2 59 18
MIS. 53 40 06 2 57 24
~16. 53 57 48 2 52 09
017, 54 22 48 2 45 48
018. 54 37 18 2 53 54
119. 55 M 06 3 24 M3 MEMORIAL OP THE FEDERALREPUBLIC OFGERMANY 117

Agreement hnecn the G~vrrnmcntof thtKlngdofttof tht Neib
hi& and thcGovernmcntof iht United Kbdm d GrratBd&
and Nhrm IrelnndreIatita ihc DrliminsiiontheCmfimnt*I

SheMundu IhtNa& Sen briwecn fbe fCmn*

The Governmtnt cf theKingdom of thtNethtrhds and the
Gwernment of the Unifcd KingdoofGreat BriiainandNarIbun
Ireiand;

DcsiRng fo estabIishihboundary btlwttn the respectiparu
ofthe Contincnial ShcIfundeibeNorthSes on iht basii affine
tverypoint of whichiscquidiitanfrom lht ncartst polnoftpb
basetinefromwhich the tcrriiorscaof cachcountryisa!pment

measured;

Have agrcedpz f~llows:

Article 1
(1f Subjectto Ariiclc2 of ihis AgrterncntthedividingIioc
between îhut parofthe Cantinenta%If which appertair10the
United Kingdom ofGrcaiBritainand NorrhcrnIregaand thatpari
which appertainto tbeKingdom of the Nttherlandi shaIlbm
ofGreat Circies betwtcn the follopointsin thesequencgtivm
beIow;

1. 51°48' 18"N.. 2'28' MME.
2. 51 59 DD 2 37 36
3. 52 OI 00 2 39 30
4. 52 M 18 2 42 12
5. 52 G6 00 2 42 54
6. 52 12 24 2 50 24
7. 52 17 24 2 56 00
8. 52 25 00 3 03 30
9. 52 37 18 3 II 00
IO. 52 47 00 3 12 18
11. 52 53 00 3 IO 30
12.53 18 06 3 03 24
13. 53 28 12 3 O1 00
14. 53 35 06 2 59 18.
15.53 40 06 2 57 24
16. 53 57 48 2 52 00
17.54 22 48 2 45 48
18. 54 37 18 2 53 54
19.55 50 06 3 24 a0118 NORTH SEA MhTNENTAL SHELF

Iigginvan de inditnrtikcgeaocmck pirntcnis uiigrdmkin
Itngrc en brccdtt volgtm Europw ~edinatcn (le Vereffcfcning.
1950).
2. Dc grcrulijisaangcgcvcn op de pan h Ovetctnkamst gc-
hahte kaart.
Artikel 2
1. Inzuidelijke richlinghetendpunt van & grcnslijnpunt 1,
da;htt snijpunt vomt van dt grcnslijncntusstn de toatincntile
plaitm vanhct KoninkrijkdtrNcderlrindenhetVtrcnigd Koninkrijk
van Groot-BriUannïètn Nmtd-Icrland tn bet Koninkrij&Igie.

2. ln mrdtIijkc ricbtinghht! eindpuntvaadegrensiijnpunt 19,
hi hct snijpunt vomi ran dc grenslijntn trnstde wntincnt*lt

phttcn vanhtt KoninkrijkderNcdcrhn-, kt Vtrtnigd Kwinejk
van Grd-Briltannië ut Nad-ldand en hei Kminkrijk Dmt-
mirken.
Artikd 3
Indien ertcn gtschii mwhr rijzur~nyude de poaitisrrn em
installatofandcrcinrichiiag, dan wtl mu #n dtiitugcpun tB
em king, tm opzichte vandc grenrlih îtellca dtOvcteerh~~t-
sIuiltndc Partijcn oridcrlinmerlcg v~st ma wclkc Sjda rin de

pxulijn de insiallatofde andtreimidting, &a wel kt Wp
punt van & king. n gtlcgen.

1. Dtzc Ovcrmkornrt wrdt kfrachtigd. Dt ittm nn kkm&
Wg wcirduizo spotdig mogclijte'&~wmhigc uitgc-.
2. Ika Qvemnkwist t d in wcrüng ap de damm vin &
uitwisKIingvan & aktcn vtn kkhltgiak

TEH BLIJKEWMRVAN & -f.dw, W-
&k gema&tigd hun ondcrrebcitkn Rqeringm, dttt Ov-
ItomrtM n rwidutcktnd.

Voa de Rrgahg vnn bct KoainLrijk&r N-n:
<W.&) D. W. VAN LWDEN -

Vair & &@ng van kt Vcnnigd ria G&-w
tn Nmd-I~rlrnd:
(W.&) WALTERPADW 119
MEMDRIALOF THE FEDER AL REPURLICOF GERMANY

In ic
Thc pwitiom ofthe points in hArriclcarc dciinec
and Iwigitudon EuropcsnDzturn (1st Adjustrnent 195~).

(2) Thc dividinglinha$ kcn drawn on th chsrtanncxad io
thisAgrctmurt.
Articia 2
(1) In the muth iheterminatiopoint ofihcdividing ltne shaii
b point No. 1, which istk point of intemeciiof the dividing
limr betwten tht Contintnia1 ShcloIthe UnitcdKingdomof
Gmt Brihin andHarthem Ircld, theKingdom of thc Ncthcrland~
ad tbcKingdam oiBelgiurn.
(2) In themirththe terminaiionpoinofibc dividing Ii%hall
k point No. 19.which Q îhc poinofinitriect ofohc dividing
iim Wtwtcn thc Continental Sbdw of the Unittd Kingdom of
GreatBritainandNorthcrn Ircland,tKingdom of theNethtrlandz
id tk Kingdom of Dtnrnark.
Article3

aq dirpukuistfoncuniog thepîiicrn oany installation
w utk &vk ar iiveIl'siniake inrelabiihc dividing Iithe
CPoirscth PartiesbaU in consultaiiondtrtrmonewhich si& of
tbtdividiq linc thimt%kiionw otbcr dence orthe weWsintakt
a htd.

WlTES WHEREOF tbeiiridtrsignking &Iy.iuthoriwd
tbemto tbci YC haw iigd Ihe pracnt
A2rsearnt.

Fa Lk rdtb UnitedKigh ofGnat BRkm
*ad Hdkrn Irelad:
(ia.) WALTER P m
Fa th Govcnimeat d tbe ofihc NeiirerIdr:

(d) n. W. vm LWEH SORTH SEA CONTINEYl'ALWELF

Annex 10A

Tlte Federal Government has bcen informedthat the Government ofthe
United Kingdom ofGreat Britain andNorthem Irelandatid the tiovernrnenf
of the Kingdom of theNetherlandssignedon 6 Octobcr 1965 an Agreement
concerning the deiimitationof thcir rcspwtpartsof thecontinentalsheiî in
the North Sea.Paragridph2ofArticle2 ofthat Agreementdefinesthenorthem
terminationpointof the British-Netherhndsboundary lincto be the pointof
intersectionof the dividing lines bctwccri the continensheives of Grcat
Britain,Dcrmwk, andthe Netherlmds.
With referme totheNote Verbale ofthe Fdcd Foreign OfficKo. V 1-80.
5213-S-GBdated 17Septembcr, 1964,the FederalGvvcrnmcnt wishes to point
out to thc BritishGovernmentthat the bal settIementof the qucstioof the
Iateraldelimitationof the continentalshcIfin the North Sea between the
FederalRepublicafGcrrnany, the Kingdom ofDenmark, and the Kingdom of
thc Ncthcrlandsis stiI1outsmdrng.The FederalGovernment would moreover
bring the Aide-mémoire of25 May 1966, a copyuf whichisattached, to the
attention of the BritishGovemrnent anwouldadd thatthe arrangementmade
inthc aforcmentioned &*ment cannot prejudice thequestionof thc delimita-
lion ofthe continental sheibetween the Federal RcpublicofGermanyand
theNetherIandsinthe eastcrn part of the NortlSea.

Bonn, 12Juiy 1956
L.S ~IEMORJALOFTHE FEDERAL REPURLOF GERMAW 123

Annex Il
AGREEMEB Nrrw~m THEGOVERNME ONTHE I(LNGDOMOF DENMAR KND
THEGOWRNME ~TTHE~NGWM OF NORWA CONCERMNCITiIEDELIMITATION
OF THECC>N~NF~TS ALELPD,ATED8 DECEX~~E 1R65

Overenskomst onr avpmning av kontineutulsokkelen

meUom Norge og Danmmk.

lW3 Uverenskornstum avgreaaningen av kontinentalmkkeIeii
8. des.
meIIom Soige og Danmark.
Regjeriyen i KongeriketNorge ogregjeringen Kongeriket Dan-

mark,som har besluttet k futleggden felles grense mellde deler
av kontinentaIsokkclensomliorge, respekti~Danmark, uhver hm-
hetsrett rivfor skvidt an& utforskning ogutnyttelse anaturfare-
komster, erbIitt eniom falgende:

Grensen meliom den del avkontinentaIsokk Somehenholdsvis

Norge og Danmark utavw hsyhetsrett overskal vme midtlinjen,

* Overenskomstcntrddtc krafi rnedhold av ar5 f.f. 2juni 1966.
Ratifikarjondokurnentbleundertegnet 22: apriI 1968i mcdhold av Kgl.
resolusjav amme dato,jfr. St.prp. nr.58 (1965-66o)g S.nr.125. FIORTHSEACOXTiKXNTALSHELF

- 1363 -

sclm bestcmmes slik cihvert punkt pb linjeu Iigger like langfra de 196.5
nærmeste punkter p& de grunrilirdersom bredden av dc kontrahermde 8. deR.
pariera ytreterriororialfmann beregnes frs.

For A fb cn hensiktsrnesas nvendelse av dct prinsipp som er
kommet til uttrykki art. 1,trekkesgrensenSomrette linjer (kompa~s-
linjer)gjennom fsigendo punkter i den angitte rekkefdge:

De geograiiskekoordinats com er nevnt overiforreferererseg til
vedlagte norske sj~kart nr. 301 utgave 1941, trykt inovember 1963,

hvor grenselinfen er inntegriet.Kartet utgjar en integrerende del av
denne overenskoms t.

Endepunktene for den norsk-danske grenselinje ar de punkter
hvor linjen mrater greiiseliizjenfor rrndrestaters deavrkontinental- ,

sokl~elen.
De kontraherentie parter har til hensikt,om nodvendig, endeIig
H fastsett disse punkter etter konsultasjon med vedkommende tredje
land.

Dersom det konstateres at naturforekoptcr ph hovbunnen eller
i dennesundergrunn xtrekkerseg pi?begge sider av grençen mellom de
kontraherendeparters kontinentalsok keel,den folgeat forekomçter
som finnes phden cne partsonrade, helt elleddvis vil kunneytvinnes

fra denannen parts omrAde, skaI det, etterbegjaing fra den me sv
de kontrsherende partér,treffes avtalorn utnytteIsen av dissenatur-
forekomster. MLMORIAL OF THE FEDERAL RF2URLICOFGERMANY 125

1965 ArtikkeI 5.
8, des. Denne overenskomst er avfEittet i to originaleksemplarer,i en
norsk og en dansk tekst,Bornhar samme gyldighet.

Overenxkorrstcn skd ratifiseres og utveksling av ratifikjons-
dokumentene skaI finne sted i Kabenhavn,
Overenskomsîen ber i kraft den dag ratifikssjonsdokumen tene
utvekslw, NORTH SEA COWINENTAL SllELF

Annex 11A

AGREEMEN-r
COYCERNIXG THE ~HLIMITA'KIONOP THE SENTAL AL SIIELF BfWEEN NORWAY
AND DENYAKK

The Governmentof thc Kingdom of Nonvayand the Government ofthe
Kingdom uf Denmark resolved soifnras theexploraionand exploitatioof
naturalresourcesarci:volved,to establishthecnmmon boundarybetwecn the
parts of the continental shclf avcr which Norway and Denmark exercise
respectivesovereigrights,and haveagrced asfollo~.:

Articic1
The boundary betwmn that part of thecontinentshelover which Norway
and Dcnmark exercisrespectivesovereignrights,shd bethe medianlintobe
determined sothatevery point othatlineisequidistanfromthe nearestpoints
of the baselinesfrom which thc brcadtof theouter territoriwaters ofthe
ContractingStates ismsured.

Article2
In order toarrivcat a practicaMeapplication of the principleexpresind
Article Iof the presentAgreement, theboundar yhal1hc drawn as straight
Lines(compas Iines) through thefnllnwing poininthesequene given below:

Point 1. .................. 58'15, 8'N 10'02, O'E
Point 2. .................. 57"59, 3'N 9"23,WE
Point 3. .................. 57O41,8W S053,3'E
Point 4. .................. 57"37, 1'N 8"27,5%
Point 5. .................. 57'29, 9's 7"59 ,'E
Point 6. .................. 57"10,5'N 6"55,2'E
Poirit7. .................. 56"35, 5'N 5'02,WE
Point 8. .................. 56'05Z ,'N 3"15,O'E

The geographicaICO-ordimtcsdesignated above rcfcr to the attached
Numegian chart No. 301, 1941,cdition, printedinNovember I963 ,n which
the boundaryIineis indjcated.That chartskaIIconstituteanintegalriofthe
present Agieemen .
ArticIc3

The terminatianpoints of thçNowegiaii-Danish boundary Iine shallbthc
points at thelinemees the boundar ine of the continental sheiofs
other Statts.
The ConfractinyPartiesinteiidifnecmary, to estabiishthospoints defini-
tivcly aftconsultation withthc tltiStatesconcemed.
Article4

Ifit is discoveredthnaturalresourcesonthe seabed orsuhsojl extend over
both sidesof the boundary between the contincntasheIfof the Contrücting
Parties,sothat resourcesIocatcintheterritoryofoneContraciingParty cm,
cithcr iwhott:orin partbe extractedfrom the territoryof thc othcr Contract-
ing Party,anarrangementshall beconcluded at thc icquest of eitherContract-
ing Party conccming thi: expioitatofntiime liaturatresources. MEMORIAL OF THE FEDERALREPUBLIC OF GERMAHY 127

Article5
The prcscnAtgreement shalbedrawnup in dupliateinthe h'omegianand
Danishlanyages, bothtextabcingequaIlyauthentic.
The presentAgreementshailbesubjectto ratification andthc instrumeofs
ratification shalIexchangedinCopenhagen.
Thepresent Agrmmcnt shaIl enterintoforce onthe dayof theexchangeof
theinstrumentsof ratification. AGREEME BETWEE?THE GOVERNME OF UNITED ~(INGDOM(>GREAT
BRITA~NAZIDNORTHER IRELAN Dv-nTHEGDVERSMEN OT THEKINGDOM
OF DENMAR KËLA~G TQTILEDELIMITATI OPNTHE COXT-INEYT SHEI.F
BFTWEEKTHETWO Corn-IRES,DATF.3 MAKCH 1966

AGREEMENT
BETWEEN T-HE GUVERNMENT OP TEE UNITED KIBGDOM OF
GREAT BRSTAJNAND NORTHISRNIRELAND AND THE

GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF DENMARKRELATING
TU TEE DELIMITATION OF TEE CONTINENTAL SHELF
BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES

The Goyernmentof IheUnitedKingdomof Great Brjiain anNortbern

Irelandand the Government ofthe Kingdomof Dcnmark;
Having dtcidedtoestabiish their cornmon boundarybetween the paris
of the continental shelf over which the United KiofdGreat Britain
and Northern Irelanand the Kingdom alDenmark respectiveIyexercise
sovereign righfor the purpose ofexploratioand exploitatioof the
naturalrcsourceofthe ContinentalSheff.

Have agreedasfollow:

The dividing line between that partthe Continental Shclf which
appertainto the United Kingdomof Great Brita.and Norfhern lreIand

and thatpartwhichappertainstothe Kingdom ofDenmark isin principle
a linewhich atevery point is cquidistfrom.the neareçpointsofiht
baselinefrom which theterritoriseaof each countryis mcasured.

(1)In implemantationof the princsetforth in Article1, the dividing
Iim shallbeanarc ofa GreatCircIe betweethefollowinpoints:
56' 05' 1N.,3O15'OO"E.

55O50'Ob'N.,3"24'00" E.
The positionsothetwo above-mentionedpoints aredefibydIatitudand
IoagitudeonEriropeanDatur(1stAdjustment 1950).
(2)The dividing linhas been drawn on the chart annexaito this
Agreement.

(1)In the north the terminarion point of ihc dividingthenpoint
of intersectionof the dividing Iincs between the Continentathehelves of
UnitedKingdom of Great Britain and Northcrn Ireland, the Kinofom
Denmark andthe Kingdom ofKorway.

(2)In the south the termination pofnthe dividing Iine is the point
ofintersectionothe dividingIinbe~ween the Continental Shelvethef
United Kingdomof Great Britain and Norrhern IreInnd,the Kingofm
Deamarkand the Kingdomof theNethcrlands. MEMORIALOF ME FEBERAL REPUBLICOFGERMANY 129

If any srngle geologicpaltroletistructureor petroleuin fieId, or any

single geologic structureor field of any other minera1 deposit, inctuding
sand or gravel, extends across the dividing line and the part of such
structuror fieldwhich is situatedon me side of the dividing iine is
exploitable,who11yor inpart. from the orher side ofihedividing Iinethe
Contracting PartiesshalIseek ta reach agrccmentas to the exploitatioof
such stnicturcor field.

(11 This Agreement shaII be raified. Instruments of ratificationshall
be exchanged at Copenhagcn as soon aspossible.
(2) The Agreement shaIenter intoforce on thcdateof the exchangcof
instrumentosf ratification.

In witness whçreof the undersigned,king duly authorisedthereto by
thejr respectiveGovcrnments.have signedthe preseiitAgreement.

Dane indupIicatear London the 3rddsy of March, 1956,in theEngIish
andDanish Ianguages,borh textsking equaIIyauthoritative.

For the Governmcnt of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Nwthern Ireland:

WALTERPADLEY

For theGovernmeno t fthe Kingdom of Denmark:

E. KRISTIAKSEN ~DE-~~~~OLROFTHE GERMA EMEAS SYLONDON D,ATED12JULY 1966,
RELATINCTO TIISIGNATUR EPTHEBRITLSH-DAM ASHEEMEAT(APIKLY12)

(Copy of Poreign Of£ice draf t)

Die 3~ndesregie rung is t darüker unterriciitc t , da9
die Regierung des Yereinigtelz Konigreichs vor, Grol3kri-

tannien und Bordirland und die 3egierung des Kocig-
reicns der Niederlande an 6. Okt~ker 1965 einen Vertrag

üker die Abgrenzung ihrer Anteile am Pestlandsockelin

der Nordse8 unterzeichnet haben. Der nordliche Endpunkt
der kritisch-nied erlii.nischen Grenzl inie rvird in Artikel

2 Absatz (2) dieses Vertrages als derjenige Punkt Fezeich-
net, an dem die l'estlandçockel GroBtritanniens, 13a.nemarks

und der Wiederlande Inainandergrenzen.

En-ter Rezugnahze auf die Verbalno te des Auswart igen
Ants vom 17. Septemker 1964 - V 1 - 80.52/3 - S - GB -

mochte die Bundesregierungnicht verfehlen, die kritische
Zegierung darauf aufmerksürn zu machen, daW eine endgültige

llegelung der Frage Qer seitlichen Abgrenzung des Pcst-
landsockels in der Iqoràsee zwf schen der Rundesrepublik

Deutschland,dem Ksnigreich Danemark und den Konig-
reich der Niederlande noch aussteht.Die Bundesregieruhg

mocàte der britischen Regierung fesner das in Abschrift
Eeigef ügte Aide- P:iénoire vom 25. ?;lai 1966 zur Kenntnis

kringen und bernerken, àai3 die in dem erwshnten Vertrag
getroffene Regslung die Praze der ktgrknzung des Pest-

land sockel s z~iischen der Rundesrapuklik Deutschland und
den Jiiederla~àen in der ostlichen Nordsee nicht prajudi-

zieren kann.

Bonn, den 12. Juli 1966

- -- L.S.132 KDRï'H SW CONTIYEKTAI.SHBLF
Annex 13A

(Translation)

Thc Fcdcrd Government has been informed that thc Governmeiitofthe
United Kingdom of Great Britain andNorthern Iretandand the Government
offhe Kingdom of Denmarksignedon 3lviarch1966an Agreement concerning
thc dclimitatiooftheir respective parts of the continshdflin the North
Sea.I'aragraph2ofArticle3ofthat Agreementdefinesthesoutherntermination
point oftheIiritish-Danishboundarylinto bethe pointofintersectioof the
diiidingIinesbetweenthecontinental sheli~s Great Britain, Denmark,and
the Nethcrkands.
Withrefcrcnccto theNote Verbaleofthe FederaIForeign OfficNo.V 1-80.
5213-S-GB,dated 17 Septcmber1954t ,heFedcralGovernmentwishes to point
out tothe BritishGovernrncntthat theiinasettlemcntofthequestion ofthe
Iateral delimitation of the continental sheIf in the NScahbetween the
Fcdd RepubIicof Germany,the Kingdomof Dcnrnuk, andthe Kingdumof
theNethcrlands içstill outstandiTheFaderal Goverriment would rnorcover
bring the Aide-mémoireof25 May 1966,a copyofwhich isattachd, tothe
attcntiw oftheBritishGom-nmentand wouldadd that the arrangememade
iitheaforementioned Agreementcannot p~judicethe qwtion of thedelimita-
tion ofthe contincntsahleif between the FecleralRepublicofGcrmai~yand
Dcnniark in the easternparof the North Sea.

Bonn, 12 July1966
L.S. MEMORLAOF 1HE FEDERALREPUBLICOF GERMAEI'Y 133

AGREMEX BETWEE MK GOVERNMF~ OFTTHE~NE~DOMOF THNETHERLANDS
AND THE GOVERN.ME NFTTHE KINGDOMOF DENMAR KONCERNIXG THE
DELIMITATION OF TCONI~NE~TASLHELFUM3F.'ME NORTH&A ~WEEN
nraTwo Coms, DATED 31MARCH 1965

TRACTATENBLAD

VAN HET

KONXNKRLTK DER-NEDERLANDEN
--

JAARGAYG 1966Nt.130

Overeetikomt iumn het Konder Nederlanenhet
KoniiikrijkDenemurkeninzake de begrentussenn ket
deze lundgelegeit rontinen#ml pIdeNoordae;

k-Gravenhage, 31 maart 1965134 NORTH SEA COWITNENTALSHEtF

130 2

-- T m

Overeenkomsttus~~ de Rqering van bpt KouInk@j der Neder-
hden ende Regerlngvan het Konnikfik Denemarken inuike

dehcgreuzingmn het fusscnhze hden gtlegen
contlnenblephf onder de N~ordzce

De Regeringvan hei Koninkrijkder Nederlandca cn Je Regering
vanhet Konin9ijk Denemarken,

VerIangendedegens tussen dc onderscheidendrlencm het con-
tincntaIepiat rinder de h'oorvrtstteskUen op hasisvanecn Iijn
wnarvan eIk punt op bwlijke afsMnd ligvÿn de dichtstbij geleger
puntenvandc husisIijnevanwaarcitt:rritoria7m vanelk land op
ditmomentwordt gcmetcn;

Zijncvereengekomen alsvulgl:

1. Ter uitvoering van het bcginsel vadc gclijkc afstand. neer-
siegd in de preambure van dczcOvcrwnkum\t, wrdt de grenslijn
tussen hctdeel vau het contincntüleplatdat toclrchnnrtnan hd
Koninkrijk der Nekrlanden en ket deel dat tnebchoclrlaan hct
KoninkrijlcDcncmarken gevorrnd door de bogn vm gwtcirkeIs
tuwn de vulgende punten, in de volgordaIsIiicrondcranngguen:
A. 55°02'36"N-50 29'09"U.
H. 55O 26'11"3 -- 4" 25' 34" 0.

C. 55' 46/22'' - 3' 36'4G" O.
D. 55"50'06"N-3°24'UU"0.
Dc liçging van deinditartikclgcnocmdcpunten isuitgedrukt in
lengte cn breedte volgcns Europese coordinaten (le Vcrcffmirtg
1950).

2. De grcnslijis aangege:tr~pode aan dezc Ovcxenk~~msige-
hcchtckaart.

1. Op verzoekvan cen van beide OvereenkomstsliiiPtac rtjen
maakt de andere Parlij70 spoçdig mogclijhaar standpunt bekcnd
betreffendede positic, tcn opzichvan de grenslijn,vaeen recds
aanwczigc oCnog op terichten instaliaofeandcreinrichting, dan
weI vanern drainagepuntvan ecn boring.
2. Indien er een-geschilmwht rijzcn aangasndc dc positic van
eeninstalhtie ofandcre inrichlingdün we1 van een drainagepuntUvtrtmkomsî mciitm KongmMfieN t edwInhdenosregering.q Konge-

rigrf Danrnarb regeringom afgrmmhgcn af dcn kontjnen*
sokkel under Nodséen rneUcrnde to lnnde

Konpcrigct Nederlandenes regeringog Kongeript Daarnürksrege-
ring,

der ensker at fasdzgge grsnsen rnellem deresrespckiive deleaf
&n kuntintntaic wkkel under NordsflenpB basis afen linie,Mm i
çthvcrtpunkt ligger lige langt Ira nsermestepunktcrp& dc basis-
hier, hvorfra hvcrr lands ydre territorialfmandp& indev~rende
tidspuiiktniAles.

1. Ved mvrndeIs~ at midtcrlinicprinci soppcdet er udtrykt
iindledningentil nrervarendeoverenskomst ,knlgrirnselinirnelIern
&n del af den kon~inentalesokkel,der tilhorcrKongerigt Danmark,
q den del, der tiIh@rerK0nb~rigt.t Nederlandenevzere storcirkel-

buer rncllun f*Igcndcpunkteridenangivne rzLkef0lp:

Pmitimerne for punkterne idenne nrtikelerhesterntved bredde
og hngdileiheohold til Eurnpean Daturn (fprste revision1950).

2. Gmnselinien er indtcgnet pH et kort,der er vedfejet denne
wcrenskomst.

1. PA kglering afen kontmherende partskd denanden kontra-
herendepansnares belejligt fremsætic sine synspunktcrvedrarende
beliggcnhcdcni forho1dtil grznselinjenaen bestiende ellerpIanIagt
installatioandeianlxg dlrr rt brbndindtag.

2. I iiWældeaftvist orn bctiggenheden i iorIiolJ ti1grrewlinien

af en installaiioneIlandet anhg eller et hrpndindtaakgaldekm-136 NORTH SEACO~EP*TAL SHELF

van ecn boring.ien opzichie vadc grenslijn.steilendOvercen-
konistsIuitcnde Partijfn inonderlinpowsflaan wetkezijdçvan
de grcnslijndinstalloatdceandereinriçhiidan WI hctdwinaw
puntvondehoriog, isgclcgen.

1. Dczc O~rieenkomsiwordtbekrachtigcl.De aktcvan bekrach-
tiging wordcn zspoedigmogeIijkte Kopenhagen uitgewisscId.
2. Deze Overecnkomsttrcedt in werkiog op dc datuinvan de
ùitwkeling vande aktcn van belcrachtiging.

TEN BI,IJKF,WAARVAN dconder~etekenden,dx~rtcbeehmr-
Iijkgemachtigddoor hiin onderscheidenKegcringedeze Ovcreen-
knmst hebben ondcrtrkend.

GEDAAN in twecvoud te '~Gravcnbagc, de 31e maart 1966,
in de Nederlandse ende Decnse ml, zjjnde debeide tckstenge-

tijkeiijkauthcntiek.

Voor deRcgcringr7aihet Krininkrjjkderh'ederlandcn:
For Kongeriget Nederiandent-;regering:
{W.&) 3. LUNS

Vmr de Regeringvanhet KoninkrijkDenemarken:
Fm Kongcrigct Dammks regcrin$:
(w.g.1Fi.HJORTII-XIELSEN -RIAL OF THE FEDERAI.REPUBUC OF GERhiANY 137

trahcrçndepartcr i saniradhcsiernme,p3 hvilkenside aï grznselinien
itirtaibiionen,anlxtMerçbrbndindtrigtcbeliçgcndc.

1. Den nc ovc~cnskomstskai ratifice Rresifikationsinstrumen-
terneskaisoarestmuligt udvcksliKfibcnhavn,
2, Overenskornstentrsder i kraft p%diin fur ratifikations-
instrumrnternwudveksling.

TIL BEKWEk'I'EISE HERAF har undertegntde,Som crbltvet
beh$rigt bemyudigededertiiifdcm rcspcktivcregeringerun&-
skrevcdenrtcovercnskomt.

VDPEWIGET i Haag den 31. mm 1966 ito eksempher,
pi hoIlandskog dansk,beggeteksteraf samme~Idighed.

[For inapaftuchedfo Annex 14 seepocket idde back covet-]138 NORTH SEA CONTIKENTALSHEU

Annex 14A
(Translaiio~)

AGREEMENT
B~VEEN THEGOVERSME OPTTHE &E~GDUM OF TiINETFIERLAN ANS THE
~VWMEKT UF THE KINGDOM OF DEKMAR COSCERlZiNCTHE DELIMITATON
OP THE COXINENTAL SHELF UNDW THE NORTHSEA BFIWX THE TWO
Cou-s
THEGOVERXMEN OF THEK~XGDDM OFTHE NETHERLAXDS

and
THE GOVERNME NTTHE KINGWA ~FDENMARK,
DEXRING toestaMishthe boundary.betwtcheeir respectivepartsof tCon-
tinentaI Shelfundthe NorthSeaon thebasisofaIine evcry poinl nf whish
equidistanfrom fhc nearespoints othe baselinesfrowhichthe territarial
watersof cithecountryareatpresentmeasured,
HAVE AGREEVAS FOLWWS:

Article1
i.-I nrderto appItheprinciplof equidistancelaiddowninthe pmmble to
the prwent AgreementtheboundaryIinc bctweenthe parof the Confinenlai
Sheiîappertai nitnegKingdom oftheNetherlandsandthepartappertaining
totheKingdomofDcnrnlrrk sMI be fomed byarcsof GreatCircIcbetweenthe
followingpointsintheçequencegivenkhw:
A. 5SC02'3 6# - 5"29'WW E.
B. 55"26't1N - 4"25'34'E.
C. 55O46'22N - 3"36'4OWE.
D, 55"50106N - 3"24'00"E.
Thc positionofthe pointsentioncdinthisArticlczrdef-rneinlatitudeand
longitude on EuropeaDaturn Systern(1sadjustment1950).

2. Theboundarylineisindicatedozhemap attachedto theprcseAgreement.
Article2
1. Attherequestofeither Contracting Party the othcr ContractingPartyshall
as soonaq possiblmakeknown its viewrcgardingtheposition-in rcIation
tuthe boutidarline-of anyexistior plannedinstdktion or athdevice,or
a well'intake.
2. Shouida difFerenof opinion arisewitregard ttheposition, in rclation
totheboundaryIineof any installationor other deorof arvcii'sintake,the
Contmting Partiesshd determineinmutualagreement on whichsideofthe
boundary line the installaor other dcvice, ortwcll'intake issituated.

Article 3
1. The presentAgreementshaIIbcsubjxl to ratificatTihoenstrumentsof
ratificatishall he exchmg4as soonas possible in Cupenhagen.
2. Thc presentAgreenlentshalIenterinto foonethe dayofexchangeofthe
instrumentsofrafificatjnn-
IS ~'E?s WIIEREOF,the undcrsignedking duIy auihorizedthereta. have
&ed their signatures.
DOSE atThe Hagueon 31 Mmh 1966indupIicate inthc ich'herlandsand
Danish Ianguaga, both texts beingequallyauthçntic.
For the Govemment of theKingdom ofthe Nethcrliintls:

(signedJ. Lv~s
For the Government of the Kingdgdomof Denmrk:
(signed) H. IEIORTH-NIELSEN ME.UORTAOF 'MEFEDERALREPUBLIC GERMAW
139
Anncx15

Aide -nemoire

Die Bundesregierung ist darüber unterrfchtat,
dass die Regierung des Iionigreichs Danemark und die
aegierung des Kdni~~eichs der Niederlandeam 31. PSiz

1966 einen Yertrag iiber cLieAbgmnzung der beidersei-
tigen Anteile am Festlandsockelder IJordsee unter-

zeichne t iiaben.

Die Bundasregierun~ mgchte nicht verfehlen,
die danische ( bzw. niederlandische 1Xegierung
darauf aufmerksam su machen, dass die in.dem

dknisch-niederlandische Ynertrag getmffene flegelung
die Prwe der Abgrenzunf: des deutsch-nl.ederl&ndischen

und des deutsch-daischen Festlandsockels In der
Nordsee nicht prajudizieren kann.

Bonn,,den 25, Mai 1965 XORTH SEACOh'TNENCAL SIIELF

Amex 15A

V I -80.52j2North Sea

The FederaI Government has been informedthat the Government of the
Kingdomof Denmarkand the Oovemmentof theKingdomofthe Netherlands
signedon 31 March 1966a Treatyon the Dclimitation oftheir respectiveparts
oftheContinentaI Shelfinthe ieurth Sea.
TheFederal Governmnt wjsha todrawthe attention ofthDanishmether-
lands)Govemment to the factthatthe arrangemcrit made inthe Danish-
NcthcrlaudsTreaty cannot haveany effaonthe questionof thedelimiiation
ofthe Gcm-NetherIands or the Gcrman-Danish parts of thContinental
Shelfinthe North Sea.

Bonn,25 iMay 1966hinaus Aosprudi uuf elne angemessene Riaikopr5mle, lid 3, Inda mcdrgemaakte ko11eq amspraak op+m p~-
sowert niat awiscùm aen üert&I~gten ch andenieitrge müdc risicopramie, vour zover nlet tiideegerPQtig-
Verelnlianingnach ArtAei 7 Abs.2 gctmflon isl. deningcvoige artike1?,Itd2, eenaPdere rcgtllng tge-
troff=

Artiltel f

II] Dit Btrecùtigttder elnm Sert+werden di den- (Il Degeredttigdcnaan da mi zljdevan de IIJndm
der anderen Stib kl der Atifsudung und Gerlnnung blj deopnpming cn wiaolng naawsam-erh met de
eng zuammewrbeitm. HiarNr hah sic alle Planungen gerecbtigdtnaando andera zllde. Te dim etade dlenen
fiir A~beiten LGrtntberoidiand dereu ErgebnLm aus- dJ nit pima voor de werkzaamhuienIIIbet vert&
mtauadlen. qebltden dr nsuIiatandaaman LIUtu ~lssc~cu

(2) Die BerecbUgten s&UeBen zum Zwear dei Zutsm- (2)De gar&tttgden ilulten tcm khmvs van dui M-
menarhelt baldmwliht VertrageIfber tolgendtAiigdû- mtnwerklng zo rpapdtg mogclijk wereer*omta m
gdellen: aùdun vandevoIgmde a~gcnheden:
a) Dls Art und Weire dm BereQnq dm Erd6l- a) de wljte van krelenlng dtr aardollrM wd-
und Erdgasvorrdb und dtrenEiptbniii ~voolradeu ui de uitiunut daunspi

b) die Einrehellen der AuReiluug dm Roduktt b) de bijzonderhedeo betnfftndede vsrdelhg der
rmd hien gemU Arükej 5 wwie die Budi- produkten en kosltD wuaenkomrtig artlkeï 5.
tflhr& und R&ungrpmIuagi uIsmeddae boeghcuding &uaccountanisniriïroIe;
c} de Prage, ob und in rolcher H6be Wnfkqxa- c) de vraagof cntoi wufi bberagdslcupremfeails
mlen n&i Arlütt 8 Ah. 3 gaw1bmnahdi Mdd ln ariüe1 6,1id 3,dl- te wmden

t~epekeMr
d) dt geschilknregdIng.
(3)EJ blemt den Bdtigten unknmmeri, V8rtIhgi (3)hr ot~tde gere&tlgdui vrlJowremkmien aite
rlulteover rndere met bun sumunxsrkin verbbad hou-
über FragrnUt- Zusammtnarbeit zu uhlkebn~
indlesen Verhagen kanoen sudi îür aoldm Falls mdk* àende vraagstukken,in dere ov&umstea ku~m
praaiio. rirstnbart werdtIndenendl8 Voraurselrringm ook voor andere gevanen dan dis bdoeld ln adhl B.
desArükeLr 8 Abs. 3 dchtgegaben dnd 1Id3, rlsicopremfwordcn overeengelomen.
f4] VertrBgeIm Slnne von AbMix 2 und 3 dnd &a (4)Ovmmkomslen ab bcdaeld InUd 2aniI& 9 di+
~egierungeÜ bcidrr Verîragapartelenmltautcllrb. Vur- nan aan de regerlngm der OvffeenkomsLsIuItmk Pw

trae na& Ahh 2 undVereinbanrmcn Inadtren Vsr- tljente worden rnedegedeelO dw.ree&~~~~ltn& k a
tragen, tdenen dteGewBhrung eh; Rklkopramlaodor dŒld InIid2 en in andireovexewkcrmien *matte rp
ehe von Arttkel 5 Ahr.3 abweihck AuIttiIunp der geIlngendievaorzlcn in de iaekenningvan ten dstco-
Xosfea vorgesehen fatbedzïrlen der Cenehmigua du1d-t premle of eenvan artiket 5, I3, afwijkcnda korltnvrr-
jde der beiden Regierirng~n Ming. behoerw da goedkeudng van ek vün &Ide rr
geringen.

(5)frfttau die Sielle einesBore&itgren ein ueutr (5)Indien10de piaa~ van tca ger4tl#de een niiuwe
Bercditigttrru mirBerwinendm In Ahta 2 bereI&ne- gercrhtlgdetreedigeldi ttn ovwenkoma ala Bedc-zld
ien Ytriragtgegtn stch gelien lassen,biseiaamr Var- in lid 2tegenowr dezt aleuwo gaedtlgda tuidai cen
trrqgdlosstn Isl. nieuun overeenkomi 1sg~lofen.

Artiksl 8 Artikat 8
Xomml ttn Vertreg UPQ Anlir6-7 Abs.2 nI&t Inner- Indieneen ovenenkwrrt ah -Id Inarttkel7,M?,
hatb efntr angmtmm Frla eustuode, nu werden dts nie1blnwn redtlilki torrailtoi aiandkomt, zd1m da
regerhgtn &r OvtrwnLom~uitende Parttjm IDmsr-
Rtgferungender Verttagsparteh ln Vexhandrungenetn-
tretrn.irm d8n BaMtigien elwn gemeiniamen Var. teg lndtn icn efnde de g%reQtlgdw een geme&ap
aaag zu madmn. Fclhm dlt krnithungtn der Reglem pelijk votrrawl 18 dotaIadtw de bemoefinge van da
gen ni& zu aincr Einfgimgnrlhen ütn Bc~rchiigtenso rqerinrpa nitt lotovereoofiemmingtussen da
kmn j& Regieniag da lnKaplta1 12desEms-hllart- tigdw laiden, kan fcdere reprrlq mm beroep dŒu op
Vtrlr- vorgesehineSmiedsgerI&t MN!-. hei S&etdwgtrtQt, wa&n tduk r2van bt
Doiimivcrdrag wniei.

Aztik.1 4 Artfkel 9
Wfrd von alner odir bofdenRqiemngen dIs Gerdmi- Indfends mkwrlag bMd d &l 7. Ild 4, dat
guag narbArtikel7 Ab. 4 nlbitionerbaibva vier M+ bhuea vie; mMnden door e0n rûgû~lnogf door ?Ads
nateri erltilno vtrdtn die R%gl8mngen tn &ratuugtn regeringenwordt verhd, tr& dersgcrtngen Inuver-
eintrelenFuren dia nidi zuetner Etntgung.ro kmn leg. Indiendltovcrlog nletrot weraenrtmiming IeldZ
jede Regfermg darSehtcdsgsrlQt anniten.Die Beralun-km tlk van kida ropsrlngm %an bcroep daen op bet

gen kBnnenau& zu tinem gtmalnsamenVorimlag lm- Meidtgere&t. Hel overleg kan tevems letden tot atm
ren,su1 den Artikd 8 tritspre&endiAawdung flndel. gemeenamspgcllfk voorrt.1,waarop MiLe1 8 van ovcr-
eenkmstlge towsslng ir.

(1) Inden FaIlen. In dcnen daa Sctitedrgurt&t au! (1)Inde gwallcn waarIn op gmnd van arilketB of
Cnind der Artlkel 8 odtr 9 angerutenwlrd, gclrowelt artikel9tea btrotpwordr gadaan op het=Msg%&t.
sfd~ aus dcn nnrhlolgendtn Abohlztindieses Artikels iijn. vorimverult dabiernav~!gendeladen v8n dltarll-
niditsa3deres ergibidie ksilmmungsn dsa Kapfkh 12 kei nht anders blljlt, do bepallngavinn hcufdstu l2r
des EmrDotlurI-Vcrtruqsenuprecbtnd. van het Eemi-bcllnrdverdragvan overrenkomstlp b
passlng. 144 NORTII SEA MhTINEWAl, SIIELF

{2] q Fgcring van de 73onds:epublieirDuitsIand be-
(2) Die Rrgicrung Iltr Bundesrepublik Oculscfil~nd
crnenni Rie na& Arlikel Si voiiihr ziietnenncnden 3ei i;ni'ml cc iiigcvolgc drlik51 duur Lmar ie bynoemen as-
iiizerAUF Y~PI von1 Prasicianten des Bundesgeriditshuf~s xrssorrn uil uiçr r!uur dc ~ircii,!t.ni van hei .tlundaige.
votzushlagcnden Ri&!erri dresas Ceriaiti. Die Rcgieiung r~htshol' voor tc ilrdgcn rcdilcrivdn dit culleye De He-
der KbnIqrci&s dcr Niederlande ernennt die nadi Ar- gerlng van hcl Ko~iiikri;k der Neilerlantlerbeiiueir,i de
rikel sr von Ihr nu crncncendcn BeiJitzei aiis vies uuiii ingecolge drlikcf SI dnnr haar Lr hnwmen assesroren

P~iisidrnicndcs H-c Rudd der Nederlanden vorzurdila- uii vlel door de prrridcnivlin dc Hajc Raad der Neder-
gcnrlrn Ridiicrn dieses Geridits. landcn voor te diaqcn rr&icrs vari di1 college
(3) Die Klagc%iirillen irn Sinne von Adikel 52 Ab$. 1 (3) Ile concIusrc%uun cis ats bedoeld In arlikcl 52.

und 4 mUsscn eiricnAntr&q enihallcn,dcr cir~e Kcgelung tid 1cn lid 4. dii!iicecn voot%lel le bevaitm da: vnor-
cler slreitigen Fragen vurriehl. zretin ccn ,regcling vande gcsdiilpunien.
(4) De Aegcring drc de conclüsie uan ois indienl. doei
(4) Ein DQppelder KlagcMriir wird van de? Regiciirag.
die sic einreht. jedem der beiroflerien Bere&tigrcn dnaruaiicvn rliiplicaol lockomcn dan irrlcr der kirokten
zügeleitel. Artikst 52 Xbs.2 findet keine Anwendung. geterfiligden. Arlrkel 5lrd 2. ir oievantoeparsing.
15jIedcrc hcirokk~n qcrrdiii@r> tan als partij dan de
f$j Mer beiroitene &irtdiiigte kann siai am Verlah.
ttn als Parte1 beieiligcn Dic betrofienen Berechtiyien pr~cdure dcelriciitiiFic brtrokken gcredi:igden iienien
nehnren au& an den Erbrtcrungex nadi Artikel 52 Abs. 3 eveneens rleel aan de t~spr~kingcn overee:lkoinslig dl-
und5 tell. tikcl 52. lid ? cn Ild S.

(6) Dds Sdiiedsgerirht siclIthinriWlicb alter strcjtigen (6) Hel Sçtieidqerechr srelt tcn aanniex van alle om-
Redits- und ErmessenrIragen etne ldr die Verlragf- stredrn jitrtdische en ùelcidsvraqcn @envoor de Overeen-
parteien und die betrotlrnen Berechtiglen verbindlidie komslsluilcnde Pariijcn cn voor dr! tcLroklien gercch-
Regelung kst, Es kann in dirrer EnirdIe~dunqaudi Billiy- Ligden bindcnde reg~liiig variIn zijn heslis%inghan het
Mejr!sgarcdit tevens rekcning houdcnnrer overweglngen
keilsgesj&tspunkle berüdisiailigen.
uaii billijklieid.
(7) Das S&iedsgeri&i regelt =in Verïahren wlbsL (7!fIc1 Srhcidsgcrr~hl slcll zeliaijn procedure vasi
vnorzovcr rie tocpasringvan dit drlikel iilwijkingen van
iowcit dic Aowcxdurig ditse s rtikels Abweiaiungen von
der in Kapile1 12 vurgesehenen Yerfahrensregclung er- dc proccdurcrqcling uwrzicrl in t,coldsluk 12 nood.
foràerlid mtadit. ?akc!ijkrnaalit.
18) IIdi!qcviillcn bnlnrld iri ùriikc8 kan hrl Sdiridr-
(8) In den FaIlendes ArtikcIs 8 kann dds Süiiedsyericht
die Kosten der Verfahrens gbnz dcr ~exlweisedem der geltufi: de Laiicn u,inde prorcdurc ychecl ut gedeelle-
den am Vcrfahren beteiligieo Icrediiigten aulertegen lijkupleg!len ùan de ~ererhtiqdc nt gcr&:igderi die adn
de yrucedute clcelnecnii oldeclncntcn.

ELne Enistfieldung na& hrtikel 46 Abs. 2 des Ems. Eccnbeslrssin inggevolgc arlikcldG. lid2. vanI1e1Eems-
Dotlart-Ve~irips llinl dira- hhkommm unberührt. Rollardverdrag lnntdcze Ovcrcriikuinst onverlet.

Ariikel 12 Arlikcl 12
I)as Sd~luBproiokolt au diesern Abkomrnen und der lie4 Sloiprolocol bij dele Ovcrccnknmst en dc btjqe-
heigefügte Briefwealsel vom hentigen Tage sindBesinnd- vocgdetiriclwisscIing van licrlcnmaken Jeel uit van derc

tefiedieses Abkommens. Overeenkomst.

hrlikcl 13 Ariikel 13 '

Dieses Abkommerrgilt au& ttr da6 tandBerlin. uifern Me Overeenbomsi geldi evenccns vmr tiet ,Land'
nidit die negterung der Biindesmpubljk DculsrfrIdBd Borlijn, tcnrij de llcgerlngvon ile Rondsreputiliek Duils-

gegenfiber de? RegieIung des Kdaigrel&s der Piieùer. land binncn drje muandcii iia de jnwcrkinytreding van
lande innerhulb von dreiMonaten na& Inkraitireien des het Ems-Dolturdvcrtlfaq dc Regerinq von Iict Kontnkrjjk
Ems-Dollart-Vert riagsgegenteilige Erklhningabgibt. der Xederlondtn rnedodeling doci van hel lqcndeel.

Dieses Abkomrnen bedart der Ratifikaiion. Die RaliR- Deze Ouerecnkurnsioioei wordcn hekradtigd. De akien
kationsurkundea sollen 60 bold wie mogliQ in Bonn van bekracftllglng dlcnen ui spofding mqelijk te Bonn
ausgelausait werdea. te vorden uiigewiweld.

Arlikel td Artikel 15
Dieses Abkommen tritielnen Monsi na& Auuaud Dete Overeenkonisi irwdi ccn maand na de ultwisse-
der Ratifikaliomurkundan In Krafi. Es iri Bestandie deI ling der akicn van bekrnhtiqinq in werking. Zij maakl

Ems-Liollart-Vertrags. deel ult van lie1 Eems-ihllarducrdreir. MEMORIAL OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GtKMANY 145

ZU URKUSD DESSEN haben dle BsvoIlrnild~tigder TEN BUJKE WAARVAN de gevolmaditigden dermer-
Verlragsparkien dieses Zusatzobkonimenunter&ri&en. eenkomatsluitendePartijendae Wereenkomst hebben
undertekend.

GESCAEHEN zu Bcnnekom am 11.Mat lm, In me1 GEDAAN la Bcnnckom. 14 mi 1962.in iweevoud. In
Ursdirillen.jrdc in deulscùer und nicdcrldndlsdicr de Duitse endc Nederlandso laal,zijxdebelde tekstsn
Sprache,woliri jcder Worilaugleirhermaflenverbindllcb gclijkelijk aulhcniick.
1st.

FUr dieIIundesrepubDtelukidlannd:
Vuor de hLiondsrepubIikuftstnd:
R. Latir

Für dasK6nigreIrhder Nhdetlande:
Voor hel Xonknkrijkder Nederlanden:

Dr.H. R.van Houleri NORTH SEACONfISiWTAL SHEIX
Annex 15A

to theTreaty,signedon 8 April19M, betweenthe Kingdomof theNetherlands
and the Fderaf Republic of Germany concerriiiig the Rcguiation of C+
operation inthe Mouth ofthe Ems (Ems-DoIlartTrcaty)

TheKingdomof the~etherhnds and the FederalKepubIicor Germany,
desiringto prornotethc exploitationof minera1resourcesin the subsoii of the
mouth of the Emsand intending inso doing to CO-operatein the spiriof
Article48 of the Ems-DaIIartTreaty,
have agreed asfoIlows:

Article 1
1n the preset Agreement
"boundary am" shall mean the areaand its subsoil hatchcdan the map

attached to thepresentAgreement;
*'lineshaiImean the line whichdividesthe boiindarara lengthwaysand is
indicatcdin gecnon thc attachcd map;
"minera! resources"shallmeanal1 soiid, liquido@seclus subsiancesin ihe
subsoii the extractioofwhich is subjectto authorization undcr the mining
legdation ofeitherof thetwo ContractingParties;
"bmeficiary"shallmean the person ivhohas the rightto exploreor exlract
mineral resources(authorizalion).

Article 2
The Contractjng Partia shallcooperate in spiritof good-neighbourlinein
al1mattcrsarising in conncction withtheexplorationandcxtractionof mineral
resouscesin the subsoilofthe mouth of the Ems and where mutual intertxts
areaiïected.

Article 3
ArticIes4 to 10 ofthe prwnt Agrcement refer to any OB or gas dcposits
present inthe boundary ara beforeextraction begins a,swell as othersub
stancesyielded in extractinsuch depasits. The Contmting Partiesshaü, in
an additiotialagreementagxc oniI-Ianalogousapplicütionof theseprovisions
to othcr minera! resourcesintheboundary arca ifeither of theni declarethis
tok ncccssary.

Article4
1. Intheboundary arca
a) explorationandexlractioii

b) actsor omissions inconnection withsucliexpiorüt ionandextraction
c) instdkationset up forsuch explorationandextraction
shall, notwithstanding thc provisiofstheFm-DoIIarc Treaty, be subject,on
the Netherlandssideof the tineto Ncthcrlandslaw, and, on thc German si&
of thelineto Germm Iaw.The sme shalI appIywithregard to rhecornpetencc
of authoriticsandcourts;in relationto stationaryinstallationsfor explora-
tion or extraction of mineralresourccs the pmvisioofsparagrüphs2 to 6 of
Article 33ofthe Ems-DoIhrtTreatyshaIlapply mutatis mutandis.5.'Thcarbitrd tribunalshaltGx a settkment with regarto al1pointsof Iaw
and discretionat issue whichshallbe bindingupon th Contractirig Parties
and fhe beneficiarieconcerned.ln making this awardit may alsojudge ex
aequo etbnno.
7. ThearbitraltribunaishaI1regdate itown prnccdurcto thc cxtcnthatthe
applimtion ofthis Articlmakes it nwessarytodivergefromthe arrangement
of procedurcprovidcd foin Chapter 12ofthe Ems-DoUartTreaty.
8. Incasesarisingunder Articl8 the arbitrriltribunalmay award tcosisof
ilteproceedingsin whole or in part againsi the beneiîciaor beneficiuries
canerneci in the praccedings.

Article II
Any dccision mder psinigrap1i2 of Article 16 of theEms-DoltartTrealy
SM tioaffectthepresenAgreement.

Articles 12-15
(finalclsrist~not transiami)
1';wrr~tss wriwwF thc pIenipotentiarieof the Contraciing Partieshave
signedthjs SupplemenlaryAgreement.

Done atiknnekorn on 14 May 1952, intwo originds, tach in the Nerherlands
and Gerrnan Ianguages,both textbeingequaIly authcntic.

For the Kingdnrnofthe Netherlands:
Is&zed) Dr. R.R. wn HOUTEN

For the Fderal RepublicofGermany:
{sigriedlRLAHR