Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) - Judgment of the Court

Peace Palace, 2517 KJ The Hague. Tel. 92 44 41. Cabies: Intercourt, The Hague

Telex 32323
Cornmunigué

---ntirient%l S1lei.f (~unisis/~ibyail Arab Jaa.iliriya)
blicczion by Malta for permission to interven.e)

Juagpent of the COL&
-

The following information is iriade available to the press by the
Registry of the 1ritfrnat.ions.l Coart of Justice:

Today, lh 2-pril 1361, the International Court of Justice delivered
its J-dd@znt ic rzspect of ?.!alta's a;'1plication for germission to intervene
under Article 62 of the Statute iri tne cas? concerning the Continental
Chelf between Tunisis an3 Libys.
--

The C:olïrt found unanincusly that 14alta's requesl; for pernission to
irltervrne coiilcf not he (:r,.tnteü.

3

The Court was conpoised as follos~s:

President Sir !Tu-i~;h:reWs3-dock; Vice-President Glias ; J'làges Gros,
Lacns -, JdIorozov, Nagencrti. Sinch, Ruda, ?Ylosler, Oda, Aga, El-Erian,

Sette-C~~ara, El-Khanl , [ichwebel ; Jud,7;es ad lige Evensen , ~iménez de réc ch aga.

Judc;es .Yorozov, Oda and Sc,Lk7e'oel ap;?endec! t:, the Judgnêrit separate
opinions mrtking clear their positions witn regErd to certain ~atters
raised in the Ccurt's rkasoning,

A short simary of these osinicsns i.stc Se found in the mnex to this

comgu11iqué . The srinked text will become available within tht: next few weeks
(enquiries should be addressed to the Sales Ucction, United Nati~ns,

121; Gene~rz 1'3 ; '~:12 S.~les Sc'c~io~, Lnit~ci ;?zt ians , YJex Yo~k, B.Y. 10017 ;
or an)- suitY~lc 'ciookseiler.) .

An analysis of th,? Ji!d&ment I; given belo~~. This nnalysis has Seen
prepared 5y the Reglstry tc sssj-s-6 the pi?csS a?Q does not cormit the

Court in any \iay - Zt ,zannof b? quoted ag~iinst thc ectuai text of the
Judgient; and does not constitute arl iriterpret%+io~i 02 it,

-nalysis - of the J'udgment

In itç ~udgie~lt, the Co-arL i.eca.i>.: tt,at on necemoer 1978 and
19 FeSru:ry 1 9:3, res-pecl i-~eLy, Tuni.;: a :7wd the Libyan lira5 Jm~ahiriyz
~citifi?? LO tile Cz~ur.t L SpecS:tl ~;gree;.,:,lt wnicl? they h3d concluded on
10 Jude 1317 l'a: the sub:n?ssi~n of the u-ues~ion of the continental

shelf' between thc tw.j ?ountries :c the Intei-natioria? Court cf Justice.

In ~cco~dzrice ~6th the Statute alid the Rules of Court, the
prcceedingr then to3S the?'.r cours(> brving rega.rd to .the terms of that
Agreeineni,. The iknoi-irlu o:r the P:-i.r-;ies ver filed i,nd exchanged on

30 ?lay 1980; -th? C9uctêr-Viemurial r)Ï Tunisla ~rid 1;ha.t of the Liby8n
Arab ,lenshiri:-2 ver? i7il~2- res-cct>i--,rely c;:i1 rieceniber 1990 ai~d
2 February 1.921 1:1d SJ~TL? exc1iani;ea OD the latter Late.

Since t,he Cci?rt 6i.d not iiicl~de upori +he hench a judge of Tunisian

or cf Libya:? n,ati.or,;li-:y, each of tlie T'*,r-ci.es exercised the riqht
conferrec7. by.Ar-t.!cle 37- nf the Sta.tu2w -~c chaoee : judge -.i hcic to
sit in the cwc. T'lie Li..'j;jan firaJamahiriya :itsignnted
Mr. E. ~ixgnez de C-6?he,r;z. and 7unisj.a Mr. Z. Eveilsen.

Cn 30 Jariusry 198l Piaita f.?cd an i~px!licritior;_ requesting permission

to in'-tcr~renc- In -';;!.ecase unc7_er llrticle 62 ::)f th? Skatute. Tunisia and
the Libyaa .Arab .J;imei.iriya subiii.t.teu vritten observatjons cn this
ApplicaC,ion on 2t) F?truai-y lci:;l.,the cia.t,ei'ixed as the the-lirnit for
that pu.rpo.c;?. Objection hauii?~ beëri r?iseÜ to blalta's request,
the cour'^ LI aczordccce vitn Artic1.e 84 «Y its Ruies, sat in public

on 19-21 an2 23 &CazcS 1931 for the guipcse CS hearing the tnree States
'before +?CL-'.;ng ~.r>rthe~ il; zhculd ùe gran-ted O;- rioi.

--ovisions ...Provisions of the Statut2 2nd R-lés of Cmrt concerning intervention (parc. 11)

The Article of the Sta~ute invoked by Malta src,?iides -LS f~llowç:

1. S!loulil 7" Ft%te consider thet it fins an interest 3f a
le@ nature which majr be zffec~cd by tnc 3zcision in the crise,
it may subzit 2 rt(?uest t 3 thc Cowt tc be >).,er~!itted to intervene.

2. It shall Se fcr the C~urt tc' d3cide epon this request ."

Under Article- il, ;)araers~21 2, of th? R~ZS of Court , 5n application
for permission t~ int~rv~ine urldcr ~Irticilc 62 of the Statutc shcsll syt.cify
the case to wliich it.re~-cites, aiid slia~l set o?it :

"-a) the inter3st of ü legal nâture which t.he State applying tc
intervene ccnsiders may be affected by the decision in that case;

(b) the precise rhject ~2f %he ict~rvention;

-(c) any hasis cf jurisdicti-on which is claimed to exist as between
the Sta-te appl-ying to iritervene and the parties to the case."

The contentioils /;f Malta and of the Parties (p.~ras. 12-16)
---

The C~urt swxiarized tnr cdntentions put forward by Malts in its
Ap2lication aid oral arg:u~ents, anc! by the tw~ Parties in their respective
written observations an? arr11 arpx11ents.

Lecal. problems misec? -- '!Q hlnlt:~'s req-1-t -- 17-27)

The Court noted th5.t. 07.).jections in relation to al1 three matters
spci.fied in Article 81, paragrn,pli 2, of the Eules 1ja.d beerl raised by the
Parties, wliich hfid zllc@;eci ths-C Mel.ta hzd nut succeeded in snowing

p~ssessiori of 2ii i~tcrest of' r leg.1 nztur.3 which might Se affected by the
decisioii in the c;ise, thut .the chjeet ;,f its reqiiest fell zltogether
oütside the scopè of thl: fora ci iriterve:ntioi; fr,r which îirticle 62 provided,
anü thst it ho.d r~r?t estabiisheù acy jurisdictlorial llnk with thea. If
any me nf -th;se ob,jzs-ctic~nu siiouIC! be foruld j:~stifi.ed, it; woüld, said

the Court, clezrly :iot be Gpen .tait to give any fürtlier considere.tion
to the request.

B2forc: considericg the objections the Cou:-t retraced th? history
of the provisions or' its 3tntutè lncl Ftules conceriling interventivn
and noted ilov, frori th€ 'ocpinnine: it kacl bee~ ügreed not to try tc

resclve iii the Rules nf Court the various substantive questions whicki
had been rniscd biit to 1e:zve them ta be decided <,n the bssis of trie
Statute cnd in tht lipnt of the particulsr circmstances of eaah case.

Interest.. .--terest ~f a, leqal-,.ture 2nd object ----f thc interventior, (psras. 28-35)

The Court then considercd whether the interest of a le@ noturê

relied -on by Iv'?ultn r~iid the statt?. at?.le?t sf itu intervent,icn were such
as to justify tiit. gant ûî nerriission tc inter-wne.

The interest cf n leg~l i,:lture ~,?licli Malte, hacl invoki;d ro:isisteil
essenti~~lly ir; i-Ls possible conccrn witl-i any findings of the Court that

identifiecl and aseessed the geogrn$~icai or ~~c.~~.rphologicnl factsrs
rélevnïit to the delinitz,tic;ri si'the LTbjrn/~ui~~-.;ic~.canti~ciital riielf 2nd
vlith any pron9uncenents madt-: 'by the L'curt regsrail?@ , fr)r -:x,:ple, the
significance of s;?ecinl cii*cw;.istsnces cir ti-e -i?plicati.or, c:in ?pitable
princi-les in that delirxitaticn. !lny such f indi-rigs 01- ;?roncuncer?erits, i:?

Maltc?'s view, vert- liiiely to h:-lvc re~!ercussioiis ~pun lialttt'i; cwn rit;bts
and lepa.1 interrsts ir aa;y I'ui-.ure settiemcnt ~?f'its coi-itinerit.-1 shelf
boundaries with Libyn and Tuni sia.. 1:l:il2 had ui-iderlinitd. thut only çuch
elements were the object of' its requcst 3nd th:it it. vas not c,~ncerned
with the choict- of the psrticular line to Uelixit the boundc,ry between

those two ccuntries or witk tki<.1ayin~;-dowri. (::g Yenerai principles ty
the Court :+s Se'twcen then.

The fnct tbct ?k,ltnls rcquect relatcd to s~~ecific elemënts in the
case between Tunisia ard Libya inplicd, t2ie Court Seund, tlizt the li:?g:21

interest whj.~l- it reliecl on .trciuld coiicern ms.tters ~~i?i~hw~ere, or niight
be, directly in issue between thc Parties ana, ns Melta hz2 prdsented
them, were part of the -rery sub,ject-niatter of th:it case. Ys-t Ednlta
haci ai; the saxe ti.ne nade it plain th~t it did not aeeri by its
intervention to s~lbniit its cm icterest i.n thoçe ~attérs for decision

as between itself and Liby~l or Swisia9 since its 5bjec.t was not tc btain
any decision lron th* Cour-t cf>ricerning its cor,tinental_ shelf boundaries
with either. or both of those countries.

While Malte., as it hsd asçertêd, clearly possessed a certniii
interest in tne Court's treatnient of the ;~!ysic%l fsctors %r~cllegzl

consid.eratians relevlnt to th? dt:limitatic;n O:? the continental shelf
boundaries of States >rithin tlle cerltrt~l Mcùiterranean regior, that WRS
somewhat nore specific ,:in(? direct than ti;kit of St:>:kes outside t'nat
region, that interest uav nr.vertheless of the s,?me kind as those of

other Stcztes witl-iin the region. But whu.t !,ialttc huü ti; show i:~ order
tc obtair, perrnissivn to intervcrie und.er i,rticlc 6% cf th:: Statute wizs
an interest of n legctl il~ture iTk<ch xight 1i,e ;?,ffecte2 b,y the Cfsi~t's
decisi~n in thr c::r-e.

Under the Speci-,l Lgreer!ient th: Csw-t. xa:; r;rLiled upon to decide
the principles and r-ules zi' iritern:l-tiorral L:?,~Atç 11e nji~lit-d in the
delimitation of the rt-s-ectivi c-rec?.;; of coritinen-bel. si-ielf a:?~er-tzining
tc Turiisia and Libya.. 'Ynose twc:) States h~i: thczreforc rut iii issue tiieir
clnins with resliect ti; the mattex cnvered by ti-is.-'cinstriin;cnt aiid,

hnving reg;ard to the terns of' Iirticlc 53 iif the :3tat;ute, the Court 'Y
decisiori iri the csse would cccordingly be binSin,g ir: respcct O!: those
xstters . Xalt i,, however , hr~d a.ttaclied t~ it r, request an Exnre:;s
reservation that its in tervmti9;n was rio.:, tç: heve the ef fect of putting
i:; issue i;ts c;wri claims vis-&-vis 'Yunisi::. :inci Liby:.,. That 'i-)cine so,
the vcry clïaracter 2f t'ne
int~rven-ciori f'or ~filicil t~!alt,a s.iiug2it pernission
showed that the interest of a lepl n:-turc vhic:~ it kaCi iin~r:>ked clouïd
not be considered as me which, witliin the mcaning of Articlti 6% ûf the
Stat~te, might t>e ttfilëctec! by the decision in the cr~se. The Court found that what the request in effect sought to secure
was the opporturrity of arquing in favour of a decision in which the
Court would refrain frcm adc2ting end applying particular criteria that
it might otherwise consider appropriate fcr t!ie delimitation of the
continental shelf cf Tunisia and Libya. To allokr such a form of

intervention would leave the Parties quite urlcertain as to whether and
how far they should consider their owil separate interests vis-&vis
Malta ss in effect constituting part of the subject-matter of the case.
In the view of the Court a Statc seeking to intervene undcr Article 62
of the Statute was clearï,y not entitled to place the parties to the case

in such a position.

The Court understood Malta's preoccupaticns regarding possible
implications for its own interests of the Court's findings and pronounce-
ments on perticular clements in the case between Tunisia ad Libya. Even

so, for the reasons set out in the Judgment, the request was not one
to which, under Article 62 of the Statute, the Court might accede.

Jurisdictional link (para.

Having reached the conclusion that Malta9s request for permission
to intervene was not one tn which it could accede, the Court found it
unnecessary to decide in the case urider consideration the question
whether the existence of a valid link of jurisdiction with the parties

to the case was an essential condition for the granting of permission
to intervene under Article 62 of the Statute.

For those reasons, the Court (para. 37) found that Maltass request

for permission to intervene in the proceedings under Article 62 of the
Statute could not be grarited. Annex to Communiqué No. 81 /6

Swnraary of' Qpinions cispended tc the Jcdgment

Judge MOHOZOV vcte? for the operative part of the decision, but
for the following reason; he conuidered thz1-L no ~pslicaticr for
permissisn tc intervene couici be cntertaiL:-S by the Zourt unless it
ha2 compctence, in oi7c for^ or snother, under Chapter II cf its

Statutc. I'he principle cashrine? in th3t Cha?tcr vas that the Ccurt
had no pnwer to consider Hny Zispi~tn without, the cansent cf al1 thé
States parties t~ tha't (2ispiite. The cnrnèrçtone prz-risioas c/S
Chspter II ha6 cquallb- tn be taken intc accrunt befrrc any interventicn
under Article 62 cruld be authcri~e?. Bcnre the requirement r,f ecnscnt

ap~lied to Melta'ç request, as it wruld -asp apx-ly t? tlict cf sny Stete
reqiiestinp interventio=i ?!i the F'~sis of 'irtici? 62.

14dt2 hsd recognized thet no such consent existed between it and
thr JJsrties, Libya and Yunisia, whû fcr their part had cbjected thnt
the Court WES nct competent.
Ikerein lay, as n matter of principle,
the decisive questii:n which the Ccurt shoulc2 have cr,nsiderrd tirst.

Judge ODA stated :in his ~piriicn t!l,r,the 11ad vote6 in favour c)f th.e
Judgrnent in deference tc' the Cc;wt?s coilipetence tc esercise a.uthority
iri zranting or refusin!:; pernissiori t.ointervene under Article 62 of

the Statute. That provirion l%d however becn toc; ncrrowly interpreted
in the Judgment, fc;r il;:?asfar f:roo cle:ir tha-t an i:it,ervening State must
in al1 circmstancf-s p:La.ce its in.ter?s4"s ic issue iike a r>~,rty to -the case.
The Court had also, in Jud.ge O5a's c-pïnlon, ixposed ton severe -iitest
cf whether Malt3 had a lcgcil interest vlliccli rnight Se ai?fé:cte? by the

aecision in the case. On Yfle que:;tinn wiiethcr a. j?irisr?ictic~nal lirik
was required bctween the intervê:u?r and the cirigi~~al litigants befcre
intervention cc~uld be authorize?, Ju&p;t: Oda expressec! the view that
that; wou1.d Sepend. intel- alia cm wketl'ier the third Stnte clained a riçht
Ciirectly involved in the subieet--natter af thc case.

Judge SCHWEBELappndcd a seyarete cpinion which concurred in the Court!s
Judgment that the objec't of iL1altaPs intervention was not, intervention within
the meanin- r?Î Article 62 of the L;ta+,ute of the Court. ,n l-iis view, the
Cl?ilrt could rr+asonabl.y cieci.de t:, cle?)ar Maltavs rea-uest to intervene a:; that
of a "non--pr,rty" . Howe~rer, he: Ciii!ne-t agree that Malta. hsd frziled to show

that it ha.d an interest of a legal nature which rnerely "maJr" be nc more than
?'sffectedi' by thc? ,?ecisior?. In the ezse. 2udge Schwebel submi%ted that, ir!
view of the geog~:apnical situstj.on of Malta, Li.Sya and Tunisia - whiciî Plalta

construes ...construes as that of sharing a single ccntinental shelf - the critical
point is not the object cf the case but the subjects ?f the case as the
Court is likely to treat them. Those subjects, as declt with in
passages of the Court7s Judgment iri the m:%incase, could well affect
the legal interests of I'lalta. Judge Schwebel sddc<: t'nat, %rhile the

Court had siphtly refraines from psssing upon whether a State seeking
to intervene nust demonstrate a Lju_risrlictiona,l link with the Parties
to the principal case, he was of the view that Article 62 of itself
provides the requisite jurisdiction.