Separate Opinion of President J. L. Bustamante y Rivero (translation)

SEPARATE OPINION OF

PRESIDENT J. L. BUSTAMANTE Y RIVER0

1. 1share the opinions expressed in the text of the Judgment and the
conclusions in its operative provisions, except so far as concerns para-
graph 59, with regard to which 1must express the reservation that will
be found below. Nevertheless, 1 believe it to be possible to state some

further considerations in support of certain principles and rules of law
upon which the Parties might also base themselves for the purpose of
carryirig out the delimitation, the effecting of which they have reserved
to themselves by Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Special Agreements
whereby the Court was seised.
2.The reasoning 1 have followed in drawing up the present opinion
was the following: although the institution of the continental shelf is

a new institution, itis the fact that its application has now become very
widespread. Numerous States, in al1continents, have adopted its funda-
mental principles into their legislation and constantly apply them. In
this sense. it is not going too far to Say that the régime of the con-
tinental shelf has today a concrete existence and a growing vitality.

Since the governrnental proclamations which lay at its origin (about
25 in number) have 'butrarely been challenged, but have, on the contrary,
set a trend in motion, they have thereby acquired the characteof relevant
factors fioin the point of view of international law. While it is true that
some proclamations formed the subject of reservations on the part of
certain other States, those reservations arose from the fact that the

rights proclaimed over the continental shelf gave to this concept an
ambit which the objecting States considered excessive; it must conse-
quently be concluded therefrom that the expression of such reservations
merely constitutes further evidence of the effective nature of the institu-
tion from that time on. The writings of publicists have firmly supported
the concept of the continental shelf and have recognized as legitimate its
legal foundation, namely: the utilization of the natural resources of the

seabed and subsoil for the benefit of the neighbouring peoples and of
mankind in general. In several bilateral agreements, States have subse-
quently confirmed the system by adopting it for their mutual relations.
Finally, the Geneva Conference tried to systematize the principles of the
new institution in the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf and
soiight to define the methods by which they can be applied. Having regard to the recent appearance of this new branch of maritime
law and to the still limited and not always happy experience that has
been had of its methods of application, it is understandable that some
hesitation might have been felt with regard to the formal incorporation
of al1its principles and norms into general international law. It seems to
me, however, that certain basic concepts, at any rate, the acceptance of
which corresponds to a well-nigh universally held opinion, or the sense

of which necessarily flows from the very concept of the continental shelf,
are already sufficiently deeply anchored for such incorporation to be
possible. This is, moreover, what the Judgment States so far as concerns,
for example, the two principles set forth in paragraph 85, sub-paragraphs
(a) and (bj, the former referring to the obligation to negotiate incumbent
upon the States concerned for the purposes of delimiting their conti-

nental shelves and the latter referring to the application of equitable
principles for deterrnining the rights of the participating parties. These
two principles, expressly stated in theTruman Proclamation, respectively
reflect the exclusive right of the State, as sovereign, itself todecide on
the boundaries set to the national territory, and the need to introduce
into the negotiatioris on the continental shelf, complex in themselves

and frequently full of unforeseen factors, that factor of good faith and
flexibility which equity constitutes and which reconciles the needs of
peaceful neighbourly relations with the rigidity of the law. A third
principle is laid down in the Judgment(paragraph 85, sub-paragraph (c)),
when it considers as established the notion that the continental shelf of
every maritime State is the natural prolongation ofirs land territory and
must not encroach upon that which constitutes the natural prolongation

of the land territory of another State. This concept of "prolongation"
is also implicit in the expression "adjacent to the coast", which is em-
ployed in the description of the continental shelf in Article 1 of the
Geneva Convention of 1958. 1 shall demonstrate later that the concept
of "prolongation", which takes on the aspect of "convergence" in the
particular geographical circumstances of closed seas, involves certain

limitations regarding the drawing of the boundary line of the shelves
situated in such seas.
3. 1am nevertheless of the opinion that besides the essential principles
which 1 have just mentioned, it is possible to deduce others from the
accepted concept of the continental shelf, whether they be sought in the
Truman Proclamation or in Articles 1and 2 of the Geneva Convention,

or whether they be the logical and necessary consequence of adapting
the basic principles to certain unavoidable geographical facts of which
examples are to be found throughout the world. 1 have listed such
possible supplementary principles below.
4.The concept, already examined, of "natural prolongation" of the
land territory of the coastal State implies, as an obvious logical necessity,
a relationship of proportionality between the length of the coastline of

the land territory of a State and the extent of the continental shelfappertaining to such land territory. Parallel with this, so far as concerns
inter-State relations, the conclusion is inescapable that the State which
has a longer coastline will have a more extensive shelf. This kind of
proportionality is consequently, in my view, another of the principles

embraced by the law of the continental shelf. The Judgment, in para-
graphs 94 and 98, mentions this element as one of the factors to be taken
into consideration for the delimitation of a shelf; the Court nevertheless
did not confer upon it the character of an obligatory principle.
The preceding question leads quite naturally to that of the method to
be applied for measuring the length of the coastline of the land territory
of a State and, so far as concerns the continental shelf, 1 do not share
the idea that that length must be measured as in the case of the territorial
sea, from the low-water line. That criterion, laid down in the 1958
Convention, probably originates from the fact that the institution of the
continental shelf is historically subsequent to that of the territorial sea
and it was perhaps thought that an apparent similarity between the two
cases rendered the adaptation thereof possible. In reality, the cases are
different. The continental shelf, being but a natural prolongation of the
land territory, forms an integral part thereof and is physically identified
with it, so as to constitute a single land mass. A dividing line between

the land territory and the shelf consisting of the low-water mark would
be a boundary that would be variable, capricious and, furtherniore,
foreign to the concept of the continental shelf. After al], the low-water
mark relates only to a changeable and irregular surface element, viz.,
the relief or topography of the coast. This uncertain element, subject to
numerous physical and geographical circumstances, does not seem to be
the most appropriate for defining the starting-point for a land mass
such as the continental shelf, the close link between which and the land
territory is beyond discussion. A more stable baseline must be found
and it might be obtained by measuring the length of the coastline ac-
cording to its general direction, by means of a straight line drawn between
the two extreme points of the marine frontier of the State concerned.
In paragraph 98, the Judgment mentions this solution as one of the
possible solutions irithe present case. 1 must add that the principle of
equity, which would apply at the same time as one of the elements which

must govern the delimitation to be effected, would enable any difficulty
which might arise iri practice to be surmounted.
1 must deal here with another, very closely related, subject. Neither
do 1 share the viewpoint of the Geneva Convention of 1958,according
to which the continental shelf commences only beyond the outer limit
of the territorial sea. Such a viewpoint seems to me artificial and even
highly debatable, not only because it contradicts the idea of adjacency
to the coast referred to in Article 1 of the Convention, but, above all,
because it upsets the geological concept of the land territory of which
the continental shelf is but a physical prolongation under the territorial
sea and even beyond it. Geology admits neither a break nor an inter- CONTINENT.4L SHELF(SEP. OP. BUSTAMANTE Y RIVERO) 60

mediate space between the coast of the land territory and the line where
the continental shelf would be deemed to commence at the outer liil-iit
of the territorial sea. Jt seems to me that the truth is otherwise: that the
territorial seais superjacent to that part of the shelf which is closest to
the coast. But there is no geological difference between the bed of the
territorial sea and that part which extends beyond the outer limit of
that sea. These two beds constitute in fact but a single geological forma-

tion: the continental shelf, the characteristic of which is to constitute an
area of shallow depth in relation to the level of the superjacent sea,
gradually prolongs thecontinent until the continental platform isreached,
from whichthere isa sudden sharp drop to thegreat depths ofthe high seas.
5. If, on the basis of the criterion adopted in the Convention, the
possibility of utilizing the natural resources of the seabed and of its
subsoil close to the coast was the deternlinant reason in the creation of
the continental shelf, it goes without saying that certain fundamental
principles must bestated which furnish a basis for the legalsystem govern-
ing the exploration and exploitation of those resources.
In my opinion, the fact of taking into consideration the existence or
the location of natural resources in the area of a continental shelf, far
from constituting in principlc an essential factor for judging where to
draw the boundary with a neighbouring shelf, rather entails the risk of
constituting a disturbing factor to the detriment of equity. But a court

cannot ignore reality, which latter shows that at the origin of the concept
of the continental shelf, opening to coastal States the possibility of
exploiting the riches which it contains, is to be found a criterion of social
and economic import. That is why it isindispensable to consider whether,
on the basis of the elements furnished by the accepted concept of the
continental shelf and contained in the initial proclamations, in the
writings of qualified publicists, in the proceedings at Geneva and in the
practice of States, it is possible to formulate certain postulates aimed
at CO-ordinating the basic concepts of the institution and the factors
represented by geographical circumstances, technical requirements or
economic needs. This notion of CO-ordination is summarized in the
principles and rules stated hereunder :

(a) The coastal State exercises sovereign rights over the continental
shelf appertaining to its territory for the purposes of the exploration
and exploitation of the natural resources to be found therein.
(b) The sovereign rights of a State over itscontinental shelf are exercised
independently of the existence or non-existence of natural resources
in the said shelf.
(c) The delimitation of any given continental shelf is not in principle
subject to the location or direction of fields or deposits of such
natural resources as may exist in the region in which the shelf is
to be found, unless decisive circumstances so require, or an agree-
ment to the coritrary is reached between the States concerned, with-
out prejudice to the rights of third parties.(d) The exploitation of a deposit extending across the boundary line
of a continental shelf shall be settled by the adjacent States in
accordance with the principles of equity and, preferably, by means
of the system of joint exploitation or some other system which does
not reduce the efficiency of working or the quantities obtained.
(The Court, in paragraph 97, touched upon the question of deposits
as one of the factors which must reasonably be taken into considera-
tion by the Parties.)
6. The specialgeographicsituation of thecontinental shelvesconcerned
requires, in my opinion, that rules of law, theinselves also special, must
be sought so as to enable the Parties to arrive at a just and equitable
delimitation. The problems with which the Court has to deal must be
placed within their particular geographical context. The continental
shelves of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Nether-
lands, whose delimitation has to be carried out, appertain respectively
to the territories ofthose three States, which are situated on the eastern

coastline of the North Sea, while several other States border the rest of
the approximately oval perimeter of this quasi-closed sea on the north,
south and west. The area thus circumscribed is taken up by the various
national continental shelves lying no deeper than 200 metres below sea-
level (with the exception of the Norwegian Trough). The Parties agree as
to this fact.
This special geographical configuration of the North Sea confers on
the continental shelves included within it certain characteristic aspects
so far as their location, form and mutual delimitation are concerned,
and these aspects have an influence upon the legal régime.The aspects
in question are as follows:
(a) In this kind of configuration, the natural prolongation of the

territory of each State, starting from the shore, moves in a seaward
direction towards the central area of the sea under consideration; while
the lateral boundary lines of each shelf naturally and necessarily converge
towards that same central area. The principle of convergence is therefore
normal for the delimitation of the shelves in this kind of sea unless the
Parties agree upon another solution.
(h) The natural convergence of the lateral delimitation lines of
adjacent shelves belonging to such seas in fact precludes the possibility
of giving to those lines parallel directions and, in consequence, of obtain-
ing shelves of a rectangular shape. This convergence thereforeintroduces
a new factor, one which the necessity of avviding al1 overlapping or
encroachment renders practically inevitable, Le., the progressive narrow-
ing of the shelf as it approaches the central apex; the shelf then takes on
approximately the form of a trapezium or triangle, according to whether
the central maritime area is more or less elongated or, on the contrary,
more nearly circular.
Inthe light of these facts, which demand that the concept of "prolonga-

tion" be adapted 1.0the exigencies of geography, and refcrring for thetime being solely to the problem of lateral delimitation, 1 believe that

there is jiistification for laying down in the present instance, as a rule to
be followed by the Parties, the adoption of the system of convergiiig
delimitation lines for the purpose of drawing the lateral bouiidaries of
the continental shelf of the Federal Republic of Gerinany, both as con-
cerns the German-Danish boundary to the north and as concerns the
German-Dutch boundary to the south; of course the following two
essential elements must also be borne in mind:

(i) the delimitation will be made only beyond the partial boundary
lines determined by the treaties of 1 December 1964and 9 June 1965
already cited (points D and B on the map shown as Annex 16 in

the Counter-Meinorial);
(ii) the extremities of the two lateral boundary lines to be drawn will
meet the line or, as the case may be, the point indicating the western
side or apex of the German shelf, the special legal situation of
which is described in sub-paragraph (f) of the present paragraph.
It is for the Parties to choose the method or methods for carrying

out this lateral delimitation, in conformity with the terms of the
Special Agreements now in force, as well as to combine those
methods with the principle of equity, as contemplated in paragraph
85 of the Judgment.

(c) The convergence of the lateral boundaries of this type of shelf
necessitates the consideration of a new and different delimitation, that
of the apex or end boundary of the shelf in question, in the area where
as a result of contact with the extremity or apex of the slielf of the opposite
State there is a danger of a conflict of rights. This delimitation is cus-

tomarily effected by the drawing of a inedian line, except in the case of
agreement of the Parties to the contrary, or of the existence of special
eircumstances. So far as the North Sea is coiicerned, the use of the
median line by the rnajority of the coastal States in the agreements for
delimitation of their shelves of which mention will be niade below shows
that a regioiial customary law lias corne into existence on this point.

('LI) The characteristics consiciered in the three preceding paragraphs
are not, in my opinion, new expressions or concepts of the law of the
continental shelf, but are simply logical adaptations of other principles,
which have already been described, uiider the inescapable influence of
the geographical facts. For example, convergence is nothing but an
aspect of the principle of the natural prolongation of the land territory,
this prolongation being to a certain extent restricted as a result of the

pressures resulting from local geography. The determination of the apex,
as one of the bouridaries of the continental shelf, is implicit in the
definition thereof, since it must not be undefined ai-id must not be
prolonged beyond the neighbouring domain, that is to say beyond the
apex of the shelf of the opposite State, nor yet beyond the points where
the depth of the sea exceeds the 200-metre depth line, if the Conventionof 1958 is adopted. The principle of what is rrasonablc applies, in iny
view, iii al1cases, for the recognition as legally proper of these occasional
variants of the principles and rules which are the basis of the legal
r2gime of the continental shelf, as contained in its generally accepted
definition. nliich principles have been backed by siifficiently repeated
support of the opiriiojirris among States,and by the writings of publicists.

It is as well to add that the expression of these ideas does not imply
that the pseseiit writer would wish to propose the application, in the
prescnt case, of the sector system (a concept which, from the strictly
technical point of view, does not correspond to the situation in the
Nortli Sea). arid less still to distribiite between the Parties shares of such
sectors taken from the shelf as a whole. The present writer's argument is

particularly directeci to the fact that, in the North Sea, taking into
accouiit its peculiai- configuration, particularly on the eastern coast,
the lateral demarcatioii lines of the national shelves necessarily converge
toward the central area, and the fact that it is necessary to demarcate
not nierely the lateral boundaries of each shelf but also the apex or end
boundary in order to fix in law tlie neighbour-relationship with the

shelf of the opposite: State.
/P/ It reniains to be added-and this observation seems to me not
inerely importaiit, but possibly decisive-that in practice a substantial
number of the coiitinental shelves of the Nortli Sea have already been
delitnited, ~holly or in part, according to the very principles which
I Iiave just expressed. In other words, a body of treaty-law whicli is

f~tirlywidespread and generally accepted exists on this question among
the coastal States of the North Sea. An examination of the Anglo-
Norwegiaii Agreeineiit of 10 March 1965, the Anglo-Dutcl-i Agreement
of 6 October 1965, the Danish-Norwegian Agi-eeii~entof 8 Deceinber
1965, and the Anglo-Danish Agreement of 3 March 1966, is sufficient
to sho\v that the system of convergence iines towards the central space,

and the use of tlie median line, have invariably been adopted for the
delimitation of the shelves between opposite States, with seference to
their apices. The Geriiian-Dutch Agreement of 1 December 1964 and
the German-Danish Agreement of 9 June 1965on the lateral delimitation
of tlie shelves near the coast also show that the two partial lines wl-iich
\vere drawn iip by these Agreements, although their course was inter-

rupted, arc clearly lateral lines converging towards the central region of
the sea. Consequently, when in this opinion 1draw the Parties' attention
to the obligation to refer, for the delimitation of the German continental
shelf, to the rule set out in paragraph 6, 1do no more than observe the
existence of a custcitnary law of a regional nature, which in the form of
treaty law has generally prevailed for soine years in the practice of

coastal States of the North Sea.
if) It still remains to determine the principles and rules according to
which the delimitation of the apex (west side) of the shelf of the Federal
Republic of Germany should be effected by the Parties. This demands CONTINENTAL SHELF (SEP. OP. BUSTAMANTE Y RIVERO) 64

first that theegal situation be examined which results in this connection

froin the Agreement of 31 March 1966 between the Netherlands and
Denmark on the delimitation of the continental shelves which these two
countries have allotted to themselves on the basis of the equidistance
principle: this also requires that the situatiobe studied which derives
from the Agreements of 6 October 1965and 3 March 1966, determining
by an unbroken median line (points G-F-H on the map, Annex 16to the

Counter-Memorial) the boundaries between the apices of the Anglo-
Dutch and Anglo-Danish shelves respectively.
As to the first of these three agreements. the Court has considered
that it was not opposable to the Federal Republic of Germany which,
not lia!-ing been a party thereto, informed the contracting parties of
its reservations (.4nne15 to the Memorial). The Court has also indicated

that, Denmark and the Netherlands not being adjacent States, their
application of the eq~iidistance system was not in conformity with the
text of Article 6, paragraph2, of the 1958Geneva Convention.
So far as concerns the two other agreements mentioned (Netherlands!
United Kingdoin and DenmarkjUnited Kingdom), in regard to which
the Federal Republic of Germany has also made observations (Annexes

10 and 13 to the Memorial), it is not foi-the Court to make any finding
as to their content or validity, since there is among the contracting
parties thereto a State which is not a party to the present cases; according
to the terms of the Special Agreements, the Court lacks jurisdiction.
Since this is how matters stand, there would be no possibility of the Court
laying down any rule concerning the drawing of a median line as between

the United Kingdorn and the Federal Rep~iblic. From the hypothetical
point of view, various possibilities could be envisaged for the future:
one might contempl:ite an Anglo-German settlement, in which the Nether-
lands and Denmark would acquiesce, which would enable the Anglo-
Dutch-Danish median line to be redrawn so as to introduce therein,
probably with a slight eastward inflection, a small section of Anglo-

German mediaii line, or simply a point, if it is the apex of a triangle
which is envisaged; one might also imagine a tripartite agreement between
Federal Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands in which the theoretical
or mathematical position of a German-British median line would be
fixed for the sole purpose of situating upon it the line (or point) where
it would meet the: two Danish-German and Dutch-German lateral

boundary lines of the continental shelf of the Federal Republic, which
lines would be drawn in conformity with the indications of paragraph 6
(b) above-the purpose thereof being the final completion of the delimi-
tation of the German shelf. In the latter hypothesis, a narrow passage
would probably preserve the junction of the extremities of the Dutch
and Danish shelves behind the German shelf and, that being so, it

would not be necessary for the United Kingdom to participate contrac-
tually for the purpose of adjusting the present median line. These hypo-
theses or perhaps others, more acceptable or more practical, might beenvisaged outside the ambit of the proceedings before the Court; but
they al1 give rise to the profouiid conviction that in order to settle this
situation in a satisfactorp manner the Court has, in my view no other
rule to prescribe to the Parties than observance of the principle of

equity,alwaqs inspired by thetwo legal factorsalready defined; theconcept
of lateral convergence starting from points B and D of the map referred
to above, and the concept of access to what would at least in theory
be the Anglo-German inedian line or a point thereon, whether it be that
the negotiations provide for the apex of a trapezium, or whether they
provide for that of a triangle. At this point 1 must revert to the text of
paragraph 85 (a) and (b) of the Judgment:

"the parties are under an obligation to enter into negotiations
[which] .. .are meaningful, ... [and] are under an obligation to
act in such a way that, in the particular case, and taking al1 the

circui~istances into account, equitable principles are applied".

Having tlius expressed my separate opinion, 1 must go on to add the
following declaration:

The cornparison given in paragraph 59 of the Judgment by \vay of
example is quite correct when it shows the quite different effects on the
equidisiance line of certain irregular configurations of the coastline
according to whether the line is used for drawing the lateral boundaries
of territorial waters, whose seaward extent is not considerable, or for
defining the lateral boundaries of more extensive continental shelves.

But from the fact that no uniform agreement, still less unanimity, exists
between States as to the breadth of the territorial sea of each of them,
and that it is not always certain that in every case the breadth of the
continental slielf of a given State will extend beyond that of its territorial
sea, it is impossible to conclude with certainty that the deviation-effects
affecting the equidistance line will occur in practice in the way and to
the extent indicated in that text. 1 have therefore thought it preferable

to express sonie reservations so far as concerns my adherence to the
content of the snid paragraph 59, the more so in that if the problems
of the territorialsea are connected problems, they do not directly con-
stitute the principal object of the dispute, which concerns the continental
shelf inconcreto.

(Signed) J. L. BUSTAMANT YERIVERO.

Bilingual Content

OPINION INDIVIDUELLE

DE M. BUSTAMANTE Y RIVERO, PRÉSIDENT

1. Je partage les opinions exprimées dans le texte de l'ar~êtet les
conclusions de son dispositif, sauf en ce qui concerne le paragraphe 59

au sujet duquel je dois faire la réservequ'on trouvera ci-dessous. Je crois
néanmoins possible d'énoncer quelques considérations supplémentaires,
à l'appui de certains principes et règles de droit sur lesquels les Parties
pourraient aussi se fonder pour procéder à la délimitation dont elles se
sont réservéla mise en Œuvre dans l'article premier, paragraphe 2, des
compromis par lesquels la Cour a étésaisie.

2. Le raisonnement que j'ai suivi pour élaborer la présente opinion a
étéle suivant: bien que l'institution du plateau continental soit une
institution nouvelle, ilest de fait que maintenant son application s'est
largement généralisée.Nombreux sont les Etats, appartenant à tous les
continents, qui en ont adopté les bases fondamentales dans leurs Iégisla-
tions et qui les mettent constamment en Œuvre. Dans ce sens. iln'est pas

exagéré dedire que le régimedu plateau continental a aujourd'hui une
existence concrète et une vitalitécroissante.
Les proclamations gouvernementales qui étaient à l'origine de sa
création(au nombrede vingt-cinq àpeu près)n'ayant étéque iarement con-
testéeset, au contraire, ayant fait école, acquièrent de ce fait le caractère
d'élémentsvalables au point de vue du droit international. Certes,
quelqucç proclanlations ont étél'objet de réserves de la part de certains

Etats tiers, mais ces réserves étaient motivées par le fait que les droits
proclamés sur le plateau continental donriaient à cette notion une portée
considéréecomme excessive par les Etats opposants: il faut donc en
conclure que la foimulation de telles réserves n'a fait que constituer un
témoignage de plus du caractère désormais effectif de l'institution. La
doctrine des auteurs a fermement appuyé la conception du plateau et

reconnu comme légitimeson fondement juridique, à savoir: l'utilisation
des ressources naturelles de son lit et de son sous-sol au profit des peuples
voisins et de l'humanité en général.Dans plusieurs actes contractüels
bilatéraux, desEtat$ ont ultérieurement confirméle système en l'adoptant
pour leurs relations mutuelles. Enfin, la conférence de Genève a essayé
de systématiser les principes de la nouvelle institution dans la Convention
sur le plateau continental de 1958et de chercher à préciserles méthodes
qui permettent de les appliquer. SEPARATE OPINION OF

PRESIDENT J. L. BUSTAMANTE Y RIVER0

1. 1share the opinions expressed in the text of the Judgment and the
conclusions in its operative provisions, except so far as concerns para-
graph 59, with regard to which 1must express the reservation that will
be found below. Nevertheless, 1 believe it to be possible to state some

further considerations in support of certain principles and rules of law
upon which the Parties might also base themselves for the purpose of
carryirig out the delimitation, the effecting of which they have reserved
to themselves by Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Special Agreements
whereby the Court was seised.
2.The reasoning 1 have followed in drawing up the present opinion
was the following: although the institution of the continental shelf is

a new institution, itis the fact that its application has now become very
widespread. Numerous States, in al1continents, have adopted its funda-
mental principles into their legislation and constantly apply them. In
this sense. it is not going too far to Say that the régime of the con-
tinental shelf has today a concrete existence and a growing vitality.

Since the governrnental proclamations which lay at its origin (about
25 in number) have 'butrarely been challenged, but have, on the contrary,
set a trend in motion, they have thereby acquired the characteof relevant
factors fioin the point of view of international law. While it is true that
some proclamations formed the subject of reservations on the part of
certain other States, those reservations arose from the fact that the

rights proclaimed over the continental shelf gave to this concept an
ambit which the objecting States considered excessive; it must conse-
quently be concluded therefrom that the expression of such reservations
merely constitutes further evidence of the effective nature of the institu-
tion from that time on. The writings of publicists have firmly supported
the concept of the continental shelf and have recognized as legitimate its
legal foundation, namely: the utilization of the natural resources of the

seabed and subsoil for the benefit of the neighbouring peoples and of
mankind in general. In several bilateral agreements, States have subse-
quently confirmed the system by adopting it for their mutual relations.
Finally, the Geneva Conference tried to systematize the principles of the
new institution in the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf and
soiight to define the methods by which they can be applied. Etant donné l'apparition récente de cette nouvelle branche du droit

maritime et l'expérienceencore limitéeet pas toujours heureuse que l'on
possèdede sesméthodes d'application, ilest compréhensibleque certaines
hésitations aient pu êtreéprouvéesau sujet de l'incorporation formelle de
tous ses principes et normes dans le droit international général.II me
semble cependant que certains concepts de base au moins; dont l'accep-
tation répond à une opinion à peu prèsunanime, ou dont le sens découle
nécessairement de la notion mêmedu plateau continental, sont déjà

assez profondément ancrés pour que cette incorporation soit possible.
C'est d'ailleurs ce que déclarel'arrêten ce qui concerne, par exemple, les
deux principes énoncésau paragraphe 85, alinéas a) et 6) visant, le
premier, l'obligation de négocier imposéeaux Etats intéressésa ,ux fins de
la délimitation de leurs plateaux, et le second l'application de principes
équitables pour déterminerles droits des parties qui y prennent part. Ces
deux principes, expressémentformulés dans la proclamation Truman,
traduisent respectivement la facultéexclusive de I'Etat, en tant que sou-

verain, de décider lui-même des limites assignée au territoire national, et
la nécessitéd'introduire dans les négociationssur le plateau continental,
complexes en elles-mêmeset fréquemmentpleines d'imprévu, cet élément
de bonne foi et de souplesse qu'est l'équité eqtui concilie les besoins d'un
voisinage pacifique et la rigidité dela loi. Un troisième ptincipe est posé
par l'arrêt (par.85, al. c)) lorsqu'il considère comme établi le concept
que le plateau continental de tout Etat maritime est le prolongement

naturel de son territoireet ne doit pas empiétersur ce qui est le prolonge-
ment naturel du territoire d'un autre Etat. Cette notion du ((prolonge-
ment 11est également implicitedans l'expression (adjacentes aux côtes 11,
quiestutiliséedans la description du plateau continental à l'article premier
de laConvention de Genèvede 1958.Je montrerai plus loin que la notion
de ((prolongement )),qui prend l'aspect de la c convergence 1)dans les
configurations géographiques particulières aux mers fermées, entraine

certaines limitations touchant le tracédes plateaux situésdans ces mers.

3. Je suisnéanmoinsd'avis qu'outre lesprincipes essentielsqueje viens
de citer, il est possible d'en déduire d'autres dela notion acceptéede
plateau continental, soit qu'on les recherche dans la proclamation

Truman ou dans les articles 1 et 2 de la Convention de Genève, soit
qu'ils puissent constituer la conséquence logiqueet nécessairede l'adap-
tation des principes de base à certains faits géographiques inéluctables
dont on trouve des exemples dans le monde. J'énumèreci-après ces
principes supplémentaires éventuels.
4. La notion, déjàexaminée,de ((prolongement naturel 11du territoire
de 1'Etatcôtier implique, par une nécessité logique évidenteu ,n rapport
de proporrionnaliré entre la longueur des côtes du territoire d'un Etat et
l'étenduedu plateau continental relevant dudit territoire. Parallèlement, Having regard to the recent appearance of this new branch of maritime
law and to the still limited and not always happy experience that has
been had of its methods of application, it is understandable that some
hesitation might have been felt with regard to the formal incorporation
of al1its principles and norms into general international law. It seems to
me, however, that certain basic concepts, at any rate, the acceptance of
which corresponds to a well-nigh universally held opinion, or the sense

of which necessarily flows from the very concept of the continental shelf,
are already sufficiently deeply anchored for such incorporation to be
possible. This is, moreover, what the Judgment States so far as concerns,
for example, the two principles set forth in paragraph 85, sub-paragraphs
(a) and (bj, the former referring to the obligation to negotiate incumbent
upon the States concerned for the purposes of delimiting their conti-

nental shelves and the latter referring to the application of equitable
principles for deterrnining the rights of the participating parties. These
two principles, expressly stated in theTruman Proclamation, respectively
reflect the exclusive right of the State, as sovereign, itself todecide on
the boundaries set to the national territory, and the need to introduce
into the negotiatioris on the continental shelf, complex in themselves

and frequently full of unforeseen factors, that factor of good faith and
flexibility which equity constitutes and which reconciles the needs of
peaceful neighbourly relations with the rigidity of the law. A third
principle is laid down in the Judgment(paragraph 85, sub-paragraph (c)),
when it considers as established the notion that the continental shelf of
every maritime State is the natural prolongation ofirs land territory and
must not encroach upon that which constitutes the natural prolongation

of the land territory of another State. This concept of "prolongation"
is also implicit in the expression "adjacent to the coast", which is em-
ployed in the description of the continental shelf in Article 1 of the
Geneva Convention of 1958. 1 shall demonstrate later that the concept
of "prolongation", which takes on the aspect of "convergence" in the
particular geographical circumstances of closed seas, involves certain

limitations regarding the drawing of the boundary line of the shelves
situated in such seas.
3. 1am nevertheless of the opinion that besides the essential principles
which 1 have just mentioned, it is possible to deduce others from the
accepted concept of the continental shelf, whether they be sought in the
Truman Proclamation or in Articles 1and 2 of the Geneva Convention,

or whether they be the logical and necessary consequence of adapting
the basic principles to certain unavoidable geographical facts of which
examples are to be found throughout the world. 1 have listed such
possible supplementary principles below.
4.The concept, already examined, of "natural prolongation" of the
land territory of the coastal State implies, as an obvious logical necessity,
a relationship of proportionality between the length of the coastline of

the land territory of a State and the extent of the continental shelfen ce qui concerne les rapports entre Etats, la conclusion s'impose que

celui qui possède une côte plus longue aura un plateau plus étendu. Ce
genre de proportionnalité est donc, à mon avis, un autre des principes
que comporteledroit du plateaucontinental. L'arrêt,dansses paragraphes
94 et 98, mentionne cet élémentcomme l'un des facteurs à prendre en
considération pour la délimitation d'un plateau; la Cour ne lui a pas

cependant conféréle caractère d'un principe obligatoire.
La question qui précèdeamènetout naturellement àcelle de la méthode
à appliquer pour mesurer la longueur de la côte du territoire d'un Etat
et, en ce qui concerne le plateau continental, je ne partage pas l'idée
selon laquelle cette longueur doit êtremesuréecomme dans le cas de la
mer territoriale, suivant la laisse de basse mer. Ce critère, établi par la

Convention de 1958, trouve probablement son origine dans le fait que
l'institution du plateau continental est historiquement postérieure à
celle de la mer territoriale et l'on a peut-être pensé qu'une apparente
similitude entre les deux cas en rendait l'adaptation possible. En réalité,
il s'agit de cas différents. Le plateau n'étant qu'un prolongement naturel
du territoire, en fait partie intégrante et s'identifie physiquement avec

lui, pour former une seule masse terrestre. Une ligne de séparation entre
le territoire et le plateau constituée par la laisse de basse'mer serait une
limite variable, capricieuse et de plus étrangèreà la notion du plateau.En
définitive, la laisse de basse mer ne tient qu'à un élémentchangeant et
irrégulierde la surface, à savoir le relief ou la topographie de la côte. Cet
élément aléatoire,soumis à des circonstances physiques et géographiques

multiples, ne semble pas être le plus adéquat pour définir la ligne de
départ d'une masse terrestre comme le plateau. dont le lien étroit avec
le territoire est indiscutableJIfaut trouver une ligne de base plus stable
et celle-ci pourrait être obtenue en mesurant la longueur de la côte
d'après sa direction générale, au moyen d'une ligne droite tracée entre
les deux points extrêmesde la frontière maritime de 1'Etat considéré.Au

paragraphe 98 l'arrêtmentionne cette solution comme l'une des solutions
possibles en l'espèce. Je dois ajouter que le principe de l'équité,qui
s'appliquerait simultanément comme l'un des élémentsdevant régir la
délimitation iieffectuer, permettrait de surmonter toute difficultépou-
vant se présenter en pratique.

II faut aborder ici un autre sujet très voisin. Je ne partage pas non
plus la conception de la Convention de Genève de 1958 selon laquelle le
plateau continental ne commence qu'après la limite extérieure de la mer
territoriale.Une telle conception me semble artificielle et mêmefort
discutable, non seulement parce qu'elle contredit I'idéede I'adjacence

aux côtesévoquéedans l'article premier de ladite convention, mais surtout
parce qu'elle bouleverse la notion géologiquedu territoire dont le plateau
continental n'est qu'un prolongement physique sous la mer territoriale
et mêmeau-delà de celle-ci. La géologie n'admet ni rupture ni espaceappertaining to such land territory. Parallel with this, so far as concerns
inter-State relations, the conclusion is inescapable that the State which
has a longer coastline will have a more extensive shelf. This kind of
proportionality is consequently, in my view, another of the principles

embraced by the law of the continental shelf. The Judgment, in para-
graphs 94 and 98, mentions this element as one of the factors to be taken
into consideration for the delimitation of a shelf; the Court nevertheless
did not confer upon it the character of an obligatory principle.
The preceding question leads quite naturally to that of the method to
be applied for measuring the length of the coastline of the land territory
of a State and, so far as concerns the continental shelf, 1 do not share
the idea that that length must be measured as in the case of the territorial
sea, from the low-water line. That criterion, laid down in the 1958
Convention, probably originates from the fact that the institution of the
continental shelf is historically subsequent to that of the territorial sea
and it was perhaps thought that an apparent similarity between the two
cases rendered the adaptation thereof possible. In reality, the cases are
different. The continental shelf, being but a natural prolongation of the
land territory, forms an integral part thereof and is physically identified
with it, so as to constitute a single land mass. A dividing line between

the land territory and the shelf consisting of the low-water mark would
be a boundary that would be variable, capricious and, furtherniore,
foreign to the concept of the continental shelf. After al], the low-water
mark relates only to a changeable and irregular surface element, viz.,
the relief or topography of the coast. This uncertain element, subject to
numerous physical and geographical circumstances, does not seem to be
the most appropriate for defining the starting-point for a land mass
such as the continental shelf, the close link between which and the land
territory is beyond discussion. A more stable baseline must be found
and it might be obtained by measuring the length of the coastline ac-
cording to its general direction, by means of a straight line drawn between
the two extreme points of the marine frontier of the State concerned.
In paragraph 98, the Judgment mentions this solution as one of the
possible solutions irithe present case. 1 must add that the principle of
equity, which would apply at the same time as one of the elements which

must govern the delimitation to be effected, would enable any difficulty
which might arise iri practice to be surmounted.
1 must deal here with another, very closely related, subject. Neither
do 1 share the viewpoint of the Geneva Convention of 1958,according
to which the continental shelf commences only beyond the outer limit
of the territorial sea. Such a viewpoint seems to me artificial and even
highly debatable, not only because it contradicts the idea of adjacency
to the coast referred to in Article 1 of the Convention, but, above all,
because it upsets the geological concept of the land territory of which
the continental shelf is but a physical prolongation under the territorial
sea and even beyond it. Geology admits neither a break nor an inter-intermédiaire entre la côte du territoire et la ligne où serait censécom-
mencer le plateau à la limite extérieure dela mer territoriale. Il me semble
que la vérité estautre: que la mer territoriale est surjacente la partie du
plateau la plus proche de la côte. Mais aucune différence géologique
n'existe entre le lit de la mer territoriale et celui qui s'étendau-delà de la
limite extérieure de cette mer. Les deux lits ne constituent, en effet,
qu'une seule formation géologique: le plateau continental, dont la
caractéristique est d'êtreune zone peu profonde par rapport au niveau

de la mer surjacente et qui prolonge graduellement le continent jusqu'au
socle continental à partir duquel une forte déclivitése produit brusque-
ment et où l'on arrive aux grandes profondeurs de la haute mer.
5. Si, en partant du critère adopté par la Convention, comme il a été
dit, la possibilitéd'utiliser les ressources naturelles du lit et du sous-sol
maritime proches de la côte a étéle motif déterminant de la création du
plateau continental, il va de soi qu'il faut énoncer certains principes
fondamentaux qui donnent une base au régimejuridique pour l'explora-
tion et l'exploitation de ces ressources.
A mon avis, le fait de prendre en considération l'existence ou la loca-
lisation de ressources naturelles dans la zone d'un plateau continental,
loin de constituer en principe un élément essentielde jugement pour le
tracé d'une délimitation par rapport au plateau voisin, risque plutôt
d'intervenir comme un élémentde perturbation au détriment de l'équité.
Mais le juge ne peut pas non plus rester étranger à la réalitéet celle-ci

témoigne qu'à l'origine de la notion de plateau continental, ouvrant
aux Etats riverains la possibilitéd'exploiter les richesses qu'il contient,
on trouve un critère d'intérêt sociaelt économique. C'est pourquoi il est
indispensable d'examiner si,sur la base des élémentsfournis par le con-
cept accepté de plateau continental et contenus dans les proclamations
initiales, dans la doctrine, dans les travaux de Genèveet dans la pratique
des Etats, ilest possible de faire certaines formulations, visant la coor-
dination entre les notions fondamentales de l'institution et les données
présentéespar les circonstances géographiques, les exigences techniques
ou les impératifs économiques.Cette idéede coordination est condensée
dans les principes et règlesque j'énonceci-après:

a) L'Etat riverain exerce des droits souverains sur le plateau continental
relevant de son territoire aux fins de l'exploration et de l'exploitation
des ressources naturelles qui s'y trouvent.
b) Les droits souverains de 1'Etat sur son plateau continental sont
exercés indépendamment de l'existence ou de l'inexistence de res-
sources naturelles dans ledit plateau.
c) La délimitation de tout plateau continental n'est pas en principe
subordonnée à l'emplacement ou à l'orientation des dépôts ou gise-
ments de ressources naturelles pouvant exister dans la région où le
plateau se trouve,à moins que des circonstances décisivesl'imposent
ou qu'un accord en sens contraire n'intervienne entre les Etats
intéresséssans préjudicedes droits des tiers. CONTINENT.4L SHELF(SEP. OP. BUSTAMANTE Y RIVERO) 60

mediate space between the coast of the land territory and the line where
the continental shelf would be deemed to commence at the outer liil-iit
of the territorial sea. Jt seems to me that the truth is otherwise: that the
territorial seais superjacent to that part of the shelf which is closest to
the coast. But there is no geological difference between the bed of the
territorial sea and that part which extends beyond the outer limit of
that sea. These two beds constitute in fact but a single geological forma-

tion: the continental shelf, the characteristic of which is to constitute an
area of shallow depth in relation to the level of the superjacent sea,
gradually prolongs thecontinent until the continental platform isreached,
from whichthere isa sudden sharp drop to thegreat depths ofthe high seas.
5. If, on the basis of the criterion adopted in the Convention, the
possibility of utilizing the natural resources of the seabed and of its
subsoil close to the coast was the deternlinant reason in the creation of
the continental shelf, it goes without saying that certain fundamental
principles must bestated which furnish a basis for the legalsystem govern-
ing the exploration and exploitation of those resources.
In my opinion, the fact of taking into consideration the existence or
the location of natural resources in the area of a continental shelf, far
from constituting in principlc an essential factor for judging where to
draw the boundary with a neighbouring shelf, rather entails the risk of
constituting a disturbing factor to the detriment of equity. But a court

cannot ignore reality, which latter shows that at the origin of the concept
of the continental shelf, opening to coastal States the possibility of
exploiting the riches which it contains, is to be found a criterion of social
and economic import. That is why it isindispensable to consider whether,
on the basis of the elements furnished by the accepted concept of the
continental shelf and contained in the initial proclamations, in the
writings of qualified publicists, in the proceedings at Geneva and in the
practice of States, it is possible to formulate certain postulates aimed
at CO-ordinating the basic concepts of the institution and the factors
represented by geographical circumstances, technical requirements or
economic needs. This notion of CO-ordination is summarized in the
principles and rules stated hereunder :

(a) The coastal State exercises sovereign rights over the continental
shelf appertaining to its territory for the purposes of the exploration
and exploitation of the natural resources to be found therein.
(b) The sovereign rights of a State over itscontinental shelf are exercised
independently of the existence or non-existence of natural resources
in the said shelf.
(c) The delimitation of any given continental shelf is not in principle
subject to the location or direction of fields or deposits of such
natural resources as may exist in the region in which the shelf is
to be found, unless decisive circumstances so require, or an agree-
ment to the coritrary is reached between the States concerned, with-
out prejudice to the rights of third parties.il) L'exploitation d'un gisement s'étendant des deux côtés de la limite
d'un plateau continental sera régléepar les Etats limitrophes con-
formément aux principes d'équité et, depréférence, selonle sytème

d'exploitation commune ou un autre système qui ne nuise pas à
l'efficacitédes travaux ou à l'importance des rendements. (La Cour
a, dans le paragraphe 97, abordé la question des gisements en tant
que l'un desfacteurs devant être raisonnablement pris en considération
par les Parties.)

6. La situation géographique spéciale des plateaux continentaux en
cause exige, à mon avis, la recherche de règlesde droit, elles aussi spéciales
pour permettre aux Parties d'aboutir à une délimitation juste et équitable.
Les problèmes dont la Cour est saisie doivent Etre situésdans leur cadre
géographique propre. Les plateaux continentaux du Danemark, de la

République fédérale d'Allemagne et des Pays-Bas, dont la délimitation
doit êtrefaite, relèvent respectivement des territoires de ces trois Etats,
qui se trouvent du côté est de la mer du Nord, plusieurs autres Etats
bordant au nord, au sud et à l'ouest le reste du périmètre approximative-
ment ovale de cette mer quasi fermée. L'espace ainsi circonscrit est
occupé par les divers plateaux nationaux, dont la profondeur ne dépasse

pas 200 mètres au-dessous du niveau des eaux (exception 'faite de la
fosse norvégienne). Les Parties sont d'accord sur ce fait.

Cette configuration géographique spéciale de la mer du Nord confère
aux plateaux continentaux qui s'y trouvent compris certains aspects
caractéristiques en ce qui concerne leur localisation, leur forme et leur

délimitation réciproque et ces aspects influent sur son régimede droit.
Les aspects en question sont les suivants:
cr)Dans cette sorte de configuration, le prolongement naturel du
territoire de chaque Etat, en partant du littoral, est orienté en direction

du large, vers l'espace central de la mer considérée,les lignes de délimi-
tation latéralede chaque plateau convergeant naturellement et nécessaire-
ment vers ledit espace central. Le principe de convergence est donc normal
pour la délimitation des plateaux dans ce genre de mer à moins que les
Parties ne conviennent d'une autre solution.

h) La convergence naturelle des lignes latérales de délimitation entre
plateaux voisins appartenant à ces mers élimine en fait la possibilité
de donner auxdites lignes une direction réciproquement parallèle et,
par conséquent, d'obtenir des plateaux de forme rectangulaire. Cette
convergence introduit donc un facteur nouveau et que la nécessité
d'évitertout chevauchement ou empiétement rend pratiquement inéluc-

table, à savoir: le rétrécissement progressifdu plateau à mesure qu'il se
rapproche du sommet central; le plateau prend alors approximativement
la forme d'un trapèze ou d'un triangle, selon que l'espace maritime central
est soit plus ou moins allongé, soit plutôt circulaire.
Compte tenu de ces faits qui exigent d'adapter la notion de ((pro-

longement 1aux impératifs de la géographie, et en ne me référantpour le(d) The exploitation of a deposit extending across the boundary line
of a continental shelf shall be settled by the adjacent States in
accordance with the principles of equity and, preferably, by means
of the system of joint exploitation or some other system which does
not reduce the efficiency of working or the quantities obtained.
(The Court, in paragraph 97, touched upon the question of deposits
as one of the factors which must reasonably be taken into considera-
tion by the Parties.)
6. The specialgeographicsituation of thecontinental shelvesconcerned
requires, in my opinion, that rules of law, theinselves also special, must
be sought so as to enable the Parties to arrive at a just and equitable
delimitation. The problems with which the Court has to deal must be
placed within their particular geographical context. The continental
shelves of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Nether-
lands, whose delimitation has to be carried out, appertain respectively
to the territories ofthose three States, which are situated on the eastern

coastline of the North Sea, while several other States border the rest of
the approximately oval perimeter of this quasi-closed sea on the north,
south and west. The area thus circumscribed is taken up by the various
national continental shelves lying no deeper than 200 metres below sea-
level (with the exception of the Norwegian Trough). The Parties agree as
to this fact.
This special geographical configuration of the North Sea confers on
the continental shelves included within it certain characteristic aspects
so far as their location, form and mutual delimitation are concerned,
and these aspects have an influence upon the legal régime.The aspects
in question are as follows:
(a) In this kind of configuration, the natural prolongation of the

territory of each State, starting from the shore, moves in a seaward
direction towards the central area of the sea under consideration; while
the lateral boundary lines of each shelf naturally and necessarily converge
towards that same central area. The principle of convergence is therefore
normal for the delimitation of the shelves in this kind of sea unless the
Parties agree upon another solution.
(h) The natural convergence of the lateral delimitation lines of
adjacent shelves belonging to such seas in fact precludes the possibility
of giving to those lines parallel directions and, in consequence, of obtain-
ing shelves of a rectangular shape. This convergence thereforeintroduces
a new factor, one which the necessity of avviding al1 overlapping or
encroachment renders practically inevitable, Le., the progressive narrow-
ing of the shelf as it approaches the central apex; the shelf then takes on
approximately the form of a trapezium or triangle, according to whether
the central maritime area is more or less elongated or, on the contrary,
more nearly circular.
Inthe light of these facts, which demand that the concept of "prolonga-

tion" be adapted 1.0the exigencies of geography, and refcrring for themoment qu'au problème de la délimitation latérale,je crois qu'il est
justifié d'établir dans le cas d'espèce, comme règleà suivre par les Etats

Parties, l'adoption du système des lignes de délimitation convergentes
pour le tracédes limites latéralesdu plateau continental de la République
fédérale d'Allemagne, aussibien du côté germano-danois, au nord, que
du côté germano-néerlandais, au sud; tout cela bien entendu en tenant
compte des deux élémentsessentiels suivants:

ï) la délimitation ne sera faite qu'au-delà des lignes de délimitation
partielle déterminéespar les accords du 1" décembre 1964 et du
9juin 1965, déjàcités(points D et B de la carte figurant comme annexe

16 au contre-mémoire),
ii) les extrémités des deux lignes latéralesà tracer rencontreront la ligne
ou, le cas échéant,le point indiquant le côtéoccidental ou sommet du
plateau allemand, dont la situation juridique spéciale est décrite à
l'alinéaf) du présent paragraphe. C'est aux Parties de choisir la
méthode ou les méthodes pour mettre en Œuvre cette délimitation
latérale, conformément aux termes des compromis en vigueur, ainsi

que de combiner lesdites méthodes avec le principe de l'équité,comme
il a étéprévuau paragraphe 85 de l'arrêt.

c) La convergence des limites latérales de ce type de plateau amène
nécessairement à considérer une délimitation différenteet nouvelle, celle
du sommet ou limite finale du plateau en cause dans la zone où le contact
avec l'extrémitéou sommet du plateau de I'Etat qui est en face risquerait
de produire un conflit de droits. Cette délimitation s'opère habituellement
par le tracéd'une ligne médiane, sauf convention contraire des Parties ou

en présence de circonstances spéciales. En ce qui concerne la mer du
Nord, l'emploi de la ligne médianepar la plupart des Etats riverains dans
les accords de délimitation de leurs plateaux dont mention sera faite plus
loin montre qu'un droit régional coutumier s'est forméà ce sujet.
d) Les caractéristiques viséesdans les trois alinéas précédentsne sont
pas à mon avis des expressions ou concepts nouveaux du droit visant le
plateau continental mais constituent simplementdes adaptations logiques

d'autres principes déjà exposéssous l'influence insurmontable des faits
géographiques. Par exemple, la convergence n'est qu'un aspect du
principe du prolongement naturel du territoire, ce prolongement se
trouvant rétrécidans une certaine mesure par l'effet de contraintes
résultant de la géographie locale. La détermination du sommet, en tant
que l'une des limites du plateau continental, est implicite dans la définition
de celui-ci, puisqu'il ne doit pas êtreindéfiniet ne pas se prolonger non

plus au-delà du domaine voisin, c'est-à-dire au-delà du sommet du
plateau de 1'Etat opposé, ni au-delà des points où la profondeur de la
mer puisse dépasser l'isobathe des 200 mètres, si l'on adopte la Conven-
tion de 1958. Le principe de ce qui est raisonnables'applique, je le crois,time being solely to the problem of lateral delimitation, 1 believe that

there is jiistification for laying down in the present instance, as a rule to
be followed by the Parties, the adoption of the system of convergiiig
delimitation lines for the purpose of drawing the lateral bouiidaries of
the continental shelf of the Federal Republic of Gerinany, both as con-
cerns the German-Danish boundary to the north and as concerns the
German-Dutch boundary to the south; of course the following two
essential elements must also be borne in mind:

(i) the delimitation will be made only beyond the partial boundary
lines determined by the treaties of 1 December 1964and 9 June 1965
already cited (points D and B on the map shown as Annex 16 in

the Counter-Meinorial);
(ii) the extremities of the two lateral boundary lines to be drawn will
meet the line or, as the case may be, the point indicating the western
side or apex of the German shelf, the special legal situation of
which is described in sub-paragraph (f) of the present paragraph.
It is for the Parties to choose the method or methods for carrying

out this lateral delimitation, in conformity with the terms of the
Special Agreements now in force, as well as to combine those
methods with the principle of equity, as contemplated in paragraph
85 of the Judgment.

(c) The convergence of the lateral boundaries of this type of shelf
necessitates the consideration of a new and different delimitation, that
of the apex or end boundary of the shelf in question, in the area where
as a result of contact with the extremity or apex of the slielf of the opposite
State there is a danger of a conflict of rights. This delimitation is cus-

tomarily effected by the drawing of a inedian line, except in the case of
agreement of the Parties to the contrary, or of the existence of special
eircumstances. So far as the North Sea is coiicerned, the use of the
median line by the rnajority of the coastal States in the agreements for
delimitation of their shelves of which mention will be niade below shows
that a regioiial customary law lias corne into existence on this point.

('LI) The characteristics consiciered in the three preceding paragraphs
are not, in my opinion, new expressions or concepts of the law of the
continental shelf, but are simply logical adaptations of other principles,
which have already been described, uiider the inescapable influence of
the geographical facts. For example, convergence is nothing but an
aspect of the principle of the natural prolongation of the land territory,
this prolongation being to a certain extent restricted as a result of the

pressures resulting from local geography. The determination of the apex,
as one of the bouridaries of the continental shelf, is implicit in the
definition thereof, since it must not be undefined ai-id must not be
prolonged beyond the neighbouring domain, that is to say beyond the
apex of the shelf of the opposite State, nor yet beyond the points where
the depth of the sea exceeds the 200-metre depth line, if the Convention63 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL (OP.IND. BUSTAMANTE Y RIVERO)

dans tous les cas, pour reconnaître comme légitimesen droit ces variantes
occasionnelles des principes et des règlesqui constituent le fondement du

régime juridique du plateau continental contenu dans sa définition
généralement acceptée,et qui ont étéavalisés par l'adhésion suffisam-
ment répétéd ee I'opil~juris entre les Etats et par la doctrinedesauteurs.
IIconvient d'ajouter que l'exposéde ces idéesn'implique pas que son
auteur désire préconiser l'application, dans le cas d'espèce, du système

des secteurs (notion qui, du point de vue strictement technique, ne
correspond pas à la situation dans la mer du Nord) et moins encore
distribuer entre les Etats parties des portions de pareils secteurs pris
sur l'ensemble du plateau. La thèse de l'auteur concerne notamment le
fait que, dans la mer du Nord, compte tenu de sa configuration particu-
lit:re, et surtout dans le côtéest, les lignes de démarcation latérales des

plateaux nationaux convergent nécessairement vers la zone centrale et
qu'il faut démarquer non pas seulement les limites latérales de chaque
plateau mais aussi le sommet ou limite finale afin de fixer en droit la
relation de voisinage avec le plateau de 1'Etatopposé.

e) 11reste h ajouter - et la remarque me parait non pas simplement
importante mais peut-être décisive - qu'en pratique bon nombre des
plateaux continentaux de la mer du Nord ont déjàétédélimités,totale-
ment ou en partie, d'après les principes mêmesque je viens d'énoncer.
En d'autres termes, un droit conventionnel assez généraleinentrépandu
et acceptéexiste sur ce sujet entre les Etats riverains de la mer du Nord.

II suffit d'examiner les accords anglo-norvégien du IO mars 1965, anglo-
néerlandais du 6 octobre 1965, dano-norvégien du 8 déceinbre 1965 et
anglo-danois du 3 mars 1966 pour s'assurer quc le système des lignes de
convergence vers l'espace central et l'utilisation de la ligne médianeentre
Etats se faisant face ont étéinvariablement adoptés pour la déliniitation
des plateaux, en ce qui concerne leurs sommets. Les accords germano-

néerlandais du 1" décembre 1964et gernlano-danois du 9 juin 1965 sur
la délimitation latérale des plateaux h proximité de la côte montrent eux
aussi que les deux lignes partielles qui y ont ététracées, bien qu'inter-
rompues dans leur trajet, présentent le caractère de lignes latérales con-
vergeant vers la régioncentrale de la mer. Par la suite, quand dans cette
opinion, je signale aux Parties l'obligation de s'en tenir pour la délimita-

tion du plateau continental allemand aux rkgles énoncéesdans le para-
graphe 6, je ne fais rien d'autre que de constater l'existence d'un droit
coutumier de caractère régional qui, sous forme de droit conventionnel
prévaut très ghéralement depuis des années dans la pratique des Etats
riverains de la mer du Nord.

,f) 11reste encore A déterminer les principes et les règles selon lesquels
la délimitation du soinmet (côté occidental) du plateau de la République
fédérale d'Allemagnedevra être effectuéepar les Parties. Cela exige auof 1958 is adopted. The principle of what is rrasonablc applies, in iny
view, iii al1cases, for the recognition as legally proper of these occasional
variants of the principles and rules which are the basis of the legal
r2gime of the continental shelf, as contained in its generally accepted
definition. nliich principles have been backed by siifficiently repeated
support of the opiriiojirris among States,and by the writings of publicists.

It is as well to add that the expression of these ideas does not imply
that the pseseiit writer would wish to propose the application, in the
prescnt case, of the sector system (a concept which, from the strictly
technical point of view, does not correspond to the situation in the
Nortli Sea). arid less still to distribiite between the Parties shares of such
sectors taken from the shelf as a whole. The present writer's argument is

particularly directeci to the fact that, in the North Sea, taking into
accouiit its peculiai- configuration, particularly on the eastern coast,
the lateral demarcatioii lines of the national shelves necessarily converge
toward the central area, and the fact that it is necessary to demarcate
not nierely the lateral boundaries of each shelf but also the apex or end
boundary in order to fix in law tlie neighbour-relationship with the

shelf of the opposite: State.
/P/ It reniains to be added-and this observation seems to me not
inerely importaiit, but possibly decisive-that in practice a substantial
number of the coiitinental shelves of the Nortli Sea have already been
delitnited, ~holly or in part, according to the very principles which
I Iiave just expressed. In other words, a body of treaty-law whicli is

f~tirlywidespread and generally accepted exists on this question among
the coastal States of the North Sea. An examination of the Anglo-
Norwegiaii Agreeineiit of 10 March 1965, the Anglo-Dutcl-i Agreement
of 6 October 1965, the Danish-Norwegian Agi-eeii~entof 8 Deceinber
1965, and the Anglo-Danish Agreement of 3 March 1966, is sufficient
to sho\v that the system of convergence iines towards the central space,

and the use of tlie median line, have invariably been adopted for the
delimitation of the shelves between opposite States, with seference to
their apices. The Geriiian-Dutch Agreement of 1 December 1964 and
the German-Danish Agreement of 9 June 1965on the lateral delimitation
of tlie shelves near the coast also show that the two partial lines wl-iich
\vere drawn iip by these Agreements, although their course was inter-

rupted, arc clearly lateral lines converging towards the central region of
the sea. Consequently, when in this opinion 1draw the Parties' attention
to the obligation to refer, for the delimitation of the German continental
shelf, to the rule set out in paragraph 6, 1do no more than observe the
existence of a custcitnary law of a regional nature, which in the form of
treaty law has generally prevailed for soine years in the practice of

coastal States of the North Sea.
if) It still remains to determine the principles and rules according to
which the delimitation of the apex (west side) of the shelf of the Federal
Republic of Germany should be effected by the Parties. This demandspréalable que I'on examine la situation juridique résultant à ce sujet
de l'accord du 31 mars 1966 entre les Pays-Bas et le Danemark sur la

délimitation des plateauxcontinentaux que ces deux pays se sont attribués
sur la base du principe de l'équidistance; cela exige queI'on étudieaussi
la situation découlant des accords des 6 octobre 1965 et 3 mars 1966 qui
détermine par une ligne médiane ininterrompue (points G-F-H, carte,
annexe 16 au contre-mémoire) les limites entre les sommets des plateaux
anglo-néerlandais et anglo-danois, respectivement.

Quant au premier de ces trois accords, la Cour a estimé qu'il n'était
pas-opposable à laRépublique fédérale d'Allemagnequi, n'y ayant pas
participé, a fait connaître ses réserves aux contractants (ann. 15 au
mémoire). La Cour a indiqué aussi que, le Danemark et les Pays-Bas
n'étant pas des Etats limitrophes, l'application qu'ils ont faite du sys-
tème de-l'équidistance n'est pas conforme au texte de l'article 6, para-

graphe 2, de la Convention de Genève de 1958.
En ce qui concerne les deux autres accords mentionnés (Grande-
Bretagne -Pays-Bas et Grande-Bretagne -Danemark) et sur lesquels
l'Allemagne fédérale a égalementformulé des observations (ann. 10
et 13au mémoire),ce n'est pas à la Cour de seprononcer sur leur contenu
ou leur valeur, étant donné que parmi les contractants figure un Etat

tiers qui n'est pas partie aux présentesaffaires. Aux termes descompromis,
il y a pour la Cour absence de compétence. Etant donné cette réalitéla
Cour n'aurait aucune possibilité d'établir unerègle quelconque visant le
tracé d'une ligne médiane anglo-allemande. Au point de vue hypothé-
tique, diverses possibilités pourraient être envisagées pour l'avenir: on
pourrait songer à un arrangement germano-britannique, auquel acquies-

ceraient les Pays-Bas et le Danemark, qui permettrait de retracer la ligne
médiane anglo-hollando-danoise afin d'y introduire, avec vraisembla-
blement une légèreinflexion vers l'est, une petite section de ligne médiane
anglo-allemande, ou simplement un point si c'est un sommet triangulaire
qui est envisagé; on pourrait aussi songer à un accord tripartite entre
l'Allemagne fédérale,le Danemark et les Pays-Bas où la position théo-
rique ou mathématique d'une éventuelle ligne médiane germano-britan-

nique serait fixéeà seule fin d'y situer la ligne (ou le point) de rencontre
avec les deux lignes latérales germano-danoise et germano-néerlandaise
du plateau continental de l'Allemagne fédérale, tracéesconformément
aux indications du paragraphe 6, alinéa b) ci-dessus - tout cela pour
compléter finalement la délimitation du plateau allemand. Dans cette
dernière hypothèse, un passage étroit maintiendrait probablement
unies les extrémitésdes plateaux néerlandais et danois en arrière du

plateau allemand et, cela étant, aucune participation contractuelle de la
Grande-Bretagne ne serait nécessaire pour rectifier la ligne médiane
actuelle. Ces hypothèses ou peut-être d'autres plus plausibles ou plus
pratiques peuvent êtreconçues en dehors de la voiejudiciaire; mais elles
éveillenttoutes dans l'esprit la conviction profondeque pour réglerd'une CONTINENTAL SHELF (SEP. OP. BUSTAMANTE Y RIVERO) 64