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

"9

b F r - . L F-ri'I.3'-W ?Ti&--*

INTERNAT CO I O RT N O AF J L USTICE

Peace Palace, 2517 KJ The Hague. Tel. 92 44 41. Cables: Intercourt, The Hague
Teiex 32323

- Communique
uno fficiôl
for lmmediate release
iu'c.82/6
24 February 1982

Continent al SllelL (Tuni.sis,/Libyan Arab ~mahiriy~t)

Judgment cf t-e Court.

The following information is made available to the press by the
Registry of the Icternatiorial Court of ;un''1ce:

Today, 24 February 1982, the Tnterilational Court of Justice

delivered its cTudgment in the Continental Sliêlf case between Tunisia
and Libya.

The Court declares the principles md rul-s of international law
which are &yplicz8tjle to the dc?limite.tion of tile nreas rif continental
shelf appertainine respecti ve1.y tc Tunisia and Libys in the region
concerned in the disp~ite .

It enurnerates the relevant circimistcxnees to be taken into account
for the ourpose of arrivinf; at a2 eq~jtit'-~lcfielinitation and specifies
.Lhe practical methocl to be use2 for the delinitation itself,

The àelinitstion line indicpte2 by th? Court is made up of two
seg~nents: the îirst segment O; cht- line sC,arts from the outer 1-imit
of the Parties' teîrito;lzl ses, at L:??intersection oi?thzt limit
with a straight lirie cc,r;structeclfrm th$- fr-ontier point cf Rss Ajdir
a bearixig approximat,ely ?6O 2ast n? nf,rth; it coritinues at the
same bearing until It mets the lC~ticu3e of the rnnst westerly point
of the Gulf of Galles , anproxiriate iy 34' 1C ' 33" N. Tiiere begins the
second segment, which is incliiieC Yarther tn the east at p,bearing of 52 0.

The Court's Judgment, w-as ndcir.tcdl-'y-19votes to h th^? nmes of

the aaj0rit.y and the minority zre sive~i on page 6).

The Court waz com~oscd 2~ foilows: Acting Pr~sident Elias; Judges
Forster, Gros, Lachs , Moroz,ov, Nagèridra Sin@, Moslei', Oda, Ago, Sette-Cmara,
El-Khai cuid Schr>rebel; Judgès ad hcc Evensen ??d ~iménez de héchaga.

, .-L %-L ~*OO)
Sudges Ago ... Judges Ago, Schwebel and Jimjnez de !&chaga appendcd separate
opinions to the Judgment.

Judges Gros, Oda and Evens-n anpende6 dissenticg opinians to the
Judgment .

In these opinions the Juàges concirncd skie 3n3 explairi f,he
positions they edc~ted in rega.r? tc cerkain points ilezlt with in ~1-i~

Judpnt .

The printed text of the Judgment and of thc scpzratc and dissentin;;
opinions will become available in a few weeksl time. (0rders and
enquiries should be addressec to the Distri3ution and Sales Section,
Office of the United Nations, 1211 Geneva 10; the Sales Section,

United Nations New York, N.Y. 10017; or any appropriately specialized
bookshop. )

An analysis of the Judgment is gixn hcl-ow, follcwed by the complete
text of the operative par2graph. The srialysis has Seen prepared by

the Registry for the use of %he pi-ess and in no way involves the
responsibiiity of the Court. It cannot he quoted againçt the actual
text of the Judgment, of which it does not coxistitutc an interpretation.

The.. . The Court brgan its Judpent by recqitulating the-various stages
of the proceedings (pixr:ts. 1--15), c!efi~ir;~$ .the ceographicel settirig of
the dispute, namely the regiori knowi a9 the Ijelstgizn Biock or E,asin

(paras. 17-20 and 32-36) , ar!d not.irp;: thot 7etrcleu-n prqsgention and
exploitation had Feen carried out on the c~nYinentel shelî (pra. 21).

Turnirig to the Special Agreement t,etwcen Tirnisis and Libya by which
the proceedings had keen in~titute~! (par%s. 22--3 1) . the Court recdl-ci thst

ur-der Article 1, paragrciph 1, it hzc: been rcqucsted to state "the principles
and rules of internatio~al law" wnich ni,:ht "73~ applied for the del-imitation
of the areas :)f the conti;~ental skielf" rcspectively apperteining to ettch of
the two States, znd had further heeri specificslly called upon, in rendering
its decision, to take account nf the following three factors: -(a) egritable

principles ; (b) the rele-r 'nt circurnstances vliich chnrricterize the area;
and (c) the. nekT ~~cce~ted trends in the Thjrd United Nations Conferencc on
the Law of the Ses.

Article 1, srcond parngia~~h, af the Snecial grce ce me rit rcquired the
Court to "clarify the ~r~ctical metho3 f~r the applic~ti~n of these

princinles and rules ... sa as tn ~11able the t:xperts of the two countries
tc delimit these aress witl~ciut di ificul+ic~sf'. The Court was therefore not
called upon itvelf to rlraw the rictual c;eliir,itation iine. The Fstrties were
in (lisagreenient as to the scope 6f the tusk -~ntrilsted to the Court by that
text, -out carerul -~r~s.lysis of' the pI?1~adings ctnd or-.;mients on the poillt lcd

the Court, to c$>ncliide that thme ~8s on3y a cirfer~nce ot' cmptle.sis as to the
respf;ctive roles cf the Coilrt mC, of the è-iine:*ts. Articier 2 ,?=id 3 cf the
Special Agreement clade it rléa? that, the I-srties recoynized the obligation to
corn-ly with the Judjnner,t .sfthe C'curt, wliich woulci kave the effect and
binding force ulttribirte,: ta it unwr Cirticle 914 cf the Charter, Articles 59
and 60 of the Statute rLl;d ilrticle 94, nnragrapr. 2, ct' the Rules of Court.

The Parties xerc ts me~t as illi.clrQr :~s coosible after the Judgment was given
with a view to the ccncl~sion cf Q trectjr. T11e Court's view was that at that
stage there ~ould 5e no nee3 for ncg2tlntion bctwr-e:~ the cxpèrts of the
Parties regardini; the S~ictors tc, bc taken intr; c.cicount ir. thcir
calculationr, since thc Court woüla have determined that natter.

The Cciurt tnen dcalt with the yilcsti~c of the principles and rules of
international lzw applicable tc the deliniitatinn (paras. 36-1 ~7) , whicli it
After first setting forth
exmined in the light of the PartiesT ar.gwents.
some general considerationu (r~rfis. 36-LL1:), it exzninêd the role of the new
accepted ircnds et the Unitee Nations Ihir3 Ccnfcrcsnce on the Law of the Sea
'45-50). Ne:& it turccù tc the v:~esticn vhether the ratura1
of' ticzcll of the twci Sth-tes cr~uld ne determine3 ai: the basis of rhysical criteria

(paras 51-68); havin,.; l",,iu;.thst tnex w:~s j:içt cne crntirientsl skielf ccrnmon
to bnth Etates, it concludecl that the extèi?t of the c~ntl~iental shelf area,
qpertaining t~ esch c~uld not bz asczrtain~d from criteri s cf natursl
prolongation. 'ilne Court went f)n ta consifier the iiil~lications G€ eguit~ble

principles ,..princiyles (Paras. 69-71) and to review the various circumstances
characterizing the area which vere likely to be relevant for the

purposes of the delimitation (paras. 72-107).

Finally the Court examinec? the various r:iethocls of it~lirnitatic~n
(paras. 108-132) contended for by thc Far%ies, exnlained why it could
not accept them, and indici-ted vhnt metkoci, woillC? in its judpent enable

an equitable solution to he reached in tlie preser,t case.

The conclusiomreached by the Court are indicated in the operative
paragraph of the Judgnent, which is worded as follows:

The Court, by ten votes to four, finds that

A. The principles and rules of international law applicable for
the delimitation, tc be effected by agreement in implementztion of the
present Judgment, of the sreas of continental shelf appertaining to

the Republic of Tuqisia and the Socialist People's Libyan Arzb
Jamahiriya respêctively, in the area of the Pelagirui i3lock in dispute
between tliem as de fineci in paragraph B , subpar8graph ( 1) below , are
as follows:

(1) the delimitation is to bc effected in accordance with equitable
principles , acd tain6; xcount of a11 relevant circumstsnces ;

(2) the area relevant for the rielinitation constitiltes a slngle
continental shelf as the natural -;?rol?ngation of the lmd territory
of both Parties, s:, that in the present, case, n2 criterio11 for

delimitation of shelf areas cm be cierived from t-ie principle of
natural prolongation es such;

(3) in the particulsr pe~gr~.pkiical circumstances of tlie present case,
the physical structure ~f the continent21 shelf areas is not such

as to determine -zn equitable lin? cf :klimitation.

B. The relevant circuoistzilces refcrre? toin pbragraph A,
subparagraph (1) above, to bc tzken into account in achieving an
equitable delimitation include the f~llowjng:

(1) the fact that the area relevant to the delimitation in the present
case is bound-d by the Tunisien coast fron Ras Ajdir to Ras Kaboudia
and the Libyan coast from Ras Ajdir to Ras Tajoura and by the
parallel of latitude passing through Ras Kaboudia and the meridian
passing ,througl? Ras Tajoura, the rights of third States being reserved;

(2) the... (2) the general configuration of the coests of thc Parties, and in
particular the rnarked change in 6irect.ion of the Tunisian
coastline between Ras Ajdir and R?,s Kaboudil;

(3) the existence md position of the Kerkennsh Islands;

(4) the land frontier bctveen the Pzrties, and th~ir ccnciuct prior tc
1974 in the grrtnt of petrol?uci concessions, resulting in the

eniployment of z Oine seawarcls frcm Eas Ajdir ~zt m angle of
approximately 26 e~tst cf the m~ridi an, which linc corresponds
to the line perpendicular to the coast at tke frontier point which
had in the past Seen ~bserved ?.s a $ facto naritirne limit ;

(5) the element cf a reeson8l)le desrce >f pr~?~~rticnality, which a
aelimitatlon carrieil out in accordance with equita5le principles
ouqht to bring about betwcen the extent of the continental shelf
areas appertaining to th2 coastal State an6 the length of the
relevant purt of its coast, neasured in the qener~l direction of

the coastlines , account being taken fcr this purpose of the
effects, actual or prospective, of sny other continental shelf
delimitation between States in the snrne rcgion.

C. The pract,lcal method for the application of the aforesaid

principles md rules of interntitional law in the particular situation
of the present case is the follow?ng:

(1) the taking int? sccount rJf the relevant circwst~mces which
characterize the area definec! in p-trqyrapli B, suLparagraph (1)
above, incl-uding its extent, czlls for it to be tre~ted, for the

purpose of its delimitation between Jhc Parties to the present
case, as made ur> of twc sectors, esch réquirine the wplication of
a specific method ?f delinitatinn in order to nchi~ve an overall
equitable solution;

(2) In the first sector, namely in the sector closer to the coast of the
Parties, the starting point fsr the line of d.elimitation is the point
where the outer liai-t of the territorial sea of the Parties is inter-
sected by % straight line dr~+-vn from the lznd frontier point of
Ras hjdir through the point 33 n55 'ET, 12 OE, which line rwls at a
O
bearing of approximazely 26 east of north, correçponding to the
angle followed by the north-westerr hn~mdaqy of Libyan ~etroleum
concessicns numbêrs PIC 76, 137, KC 41 and NC 53, which was sligned
on the south-eastern Soundary of Tunisian netroleum ccncessim
IPermis coql6mentaire offshrsre du Gclfp de ~abês" (21 October 1966 )

from the intersection pcint so determine.3, the line of dclimitxtion
between the tw9 continent~.i sheivcs is to run north-esst through the
point 33'55'~, 12'~, thus on thrit sane benring.;, to the point of
intersection with the pslrallel passinc through the most westerly
point of the T7misiari constline hetwccn Eas Kabcuditi snd Kas Ajdir,

that is tc ssly, the nost westerly ?oint on khe shorelirie (low-water
rcark) of the Gulf of Gabes;

(3) in... (3) in the second sector, namely in the sres which extends seawards
beyond the parallel of the most westerly point of the Gulf 9f GaSes,

the line of delimitation of the two continents1 shelves is to veer
to the east in such a way as to take account af tlie Kerkenmh Islands;
that is to say, the delirnitetign line ?s tc run $sralle1 tc a li.ne
dram froni the most westerly noint cf the Culf of Gd~es bisecting
the angle formed »y 8 lirie fr~n thst pc?int to lins Kaboudia aicl a

line drawn from thnt sme point ?-long the seawsrd cosst of the
Kerkennah Islands, the bearing of the delinit~tion line narzllel
to such bisector beinc 52' to the meridian; the extensivn of this
line northeastwards is 2 matter fallin, uts si de the Jurisdiction
of the Court in the present case, as it will depend cn the

delimitation to be s~reed with third States.

IIJ FAVOUR: Acting President Elias ; Judges Lachs , Morozov, Nagencira Singh,
Mosler, . A--, Sette-Camarn, El-Khani, - Schwebel and
Judge ad hoc Jiménez de ~récha~a;

AGAINST: Judgeç Forster, Gros, Oda md Judge ad hoc Evensen. Annex to Press ~ommuniqu6 No. 82/6

Summary of dissenting opinions apj-ended to the Judgment
- -.--

In Judge OdaP s vie~, the CoWt fails to çuggest zny i?ositive
principles or ruies of international law, 2nd the line suggested is
not grounded on any sersuasive consideratioris. In~ced, the judgment
appears as one appropriate to a case to be decided ex uequo et bono

under Article 38, paragraph 2, of the Statuté. Considering that the
distance criterion has become dominant in the new concept of the
limits of the continental shelf, as also the limits of the exclusive
economic zone which inevitably has a significant ingact on the
exploitation of subrnzrine mineral resources, an equidistance method

is appropriate in principle for the delimitation of the continents1
shelf between Tunisia and Libya, but only on condition that the line
is adjusted in the light of any coastal featureç whiclz might otherwise
resuit in some distortion from the general viewpoint of proportionality
between the lengths of coastline and the areas to be apportioned.
Fie
suggests, for what is quite a normal case of delimitation of a
continental shelf between two adjacent States, a line equidistant
from the coasts of both countries, diçregsrding the Kerkennah Islands
and surrounding low-tiae elevations, as shown on attached maps.

Judge ad hoc Erensen helci that,although equity is part of
international law, it cannot operate in a legs1 vaid. In the case
at hand, the coasts of the two States were adjacent but at the same
time almost opposite eaci other. The Court has not paid sufficient

attention to this ger>graphic fact. It has alsc disregarded such
relevant characteristics of the coasts concerned as the Island df
Jerba, the promontories of Z~rzis and the Kerkennah Archipelago
with the surrouriding low-+ide elevations. iT3r had the Cout given
sufficient considerations tc such new trends in the United Nations

Law of the Sea Confereace es the 200-niil? exclusi7re econoniic zone
and the trend towards distance criteria for certaln aspects of the
continental slzelf . He f elt that, in 5his csse, the e~~uidistance
criterion might have beert a more aasropriate starting-point for
delimitation purposeç,adjusted by considerati-ms of equity, than the
method prososed by the Court. He felt thst the distir~ction between

a decision based on principles ari6 rules of intzrnationnl law inaccordanceith
rirtiîle 38, 2aragraph 1. of the Ststute c.nd an c3x aequo et bono
decision under Article 36, paragrspl; 2 Ilad becorle blurred.