INTERNATIOCOURTOF JUSTICE
PLEADINGS,ORAL ARGUMENTS,DOCUMENTS
CASE CONCERNING THE
CONTINENTAL SHELF
(LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYAJMALTA)
VOLUME IV
OralArguments (concluded);Correspondence
COUR INTERNATIONALEDE JUSTICE
MEMOIRE PLAIDOIRIESET DOCUMENTS
AFFAIRE
DU PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
(JAMAHIRIYA ARABELIBYENNEIMALTE)
VOLUMEIV
Procédure(suiet fin); correspondance Abbrewiatedreference :
1.C.J. Pleadings, ConrinenralShelf (Libyon
Arab Jarnahiriya/Malta),Vol, IV
Référence abrégke :
C.I.J. Métnoires,PZuteoucontinental(Jornuhiriya
arabe libyenne/Malte), volIV
Salesnumber
ISSN 0074-4433 No de vente:
ISBN 92-1-070677-3CASE CONCERNINGTHE CONTINENTALSHELF
(LIBYANARAB JAMAHIRIYA/MALTA)
AFFAIREDU PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
(JAMAHIRIYAARABELIBYENNE/MALTE) INTERNATIONCOURTOFJUSTICE
PLEADINGS, ORAL ARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS
CASE CONCERNING THE
CONTINENTALSHELF
(LIBYANARAB JAMAHIRIYAIMALTA)
VOLUME IV
OralArguments (concCorrespondence
COURINTERNATIONADE JUSTICE
MÉMOIRES,PLAiDOIRIESET DOCUMENTS
AFFAIRE
DU PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
(JAMAHIRIYAARABE LBYENNEIMALTE)
VOLUMEIV
Procedureor(suet fin); correspondance The case concerning the ContinentalShey (LibyanArab JamahiriyalMalta),
entered on the Court's General List on 26 July 1982under nurnber 68, was the
subject of Judgmenls dekiveredon 21 March 1984(ContinenfalShelf (Libyan
Arab JarnahiriyuM / alfa), Application to Intervene, Judgment,1. C.J. Reports
1984,p. 3)and 3June 1985(ContinentalShelf(LibyanArabJamahiriyo]Malta).
Judgrnent,I.C.J. Reports 1985,p. 13).
The pleadings and oral arguments in the case are being published in the fol-
lowingorder :
Volume 1. Special Agreement; Mernorials of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and
Malta.
Volume II. Counter-Memorials of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Malta;
Application by Italy for Permission to Intervene, andconsequent proceedings.
Volume III. Replies of Tunisia and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; commence-
ment of Oral Arguments.
Volume IV. Conclusionof Oral Arguments; Documents submitted to the Court
after closure of the written proceedings;Correspondence.
Volume V. Maps, charts and illustrations.
Certain pleadingsand documents of this edition are reproduced photographic-
ally from the original printed text.
In addition to the normal continuous pagination, the Volumesfeature on the
inner margin of pages a bracketed indication of the original pagination of the
Memorials, the Counter-Memorials, the Repliesand certain Annexes.
In interna1references,bold Roman numerals (in the text or in the margin) are
used to refer to Volumes of lhis edition; ifthey are immediately followedby a
page reference, this relates to the new pagination of the Volumein question. On
the other hand, the page numbers which are preceded by a reference to one of
the pleadings relateto the original pagination of that document and accordingly
refer to the bracketed pagination of the document in question.
The main rnaps and charts are reproduced in a separate Volume (V), with a
renumbering, indicated by ringed nurnerals, that is also added in the margin in
Volumes I-IV wherever corresponding raferences appear; the absence of such
marginal reference means that the map or illustration is not reproduced in the
present edition.
Neither the typographical presentation nor the spellingof proper names may
be used for the purpose of interpreting the texts reproduced.
L'affairedu Plateaucontinental (Jamahiriyaarableibyenne/Malte),inscriteau
rôle ginéralde la Cour sous le numéro68le 26juillet 1982,a fait l'objet d'arrêts
rendus le 21 mars 1984(Plateou rontinentai(Jamohiriyoarabe iibyenne]Mahe),
requêtà efin d'intervention, arrêC t,.I.J.Recueil1984,p. 3) et le3juin 1985(Pla-
teau continental(Jamahiriya arabelibyenne]Malte), arrêt C,.IJ. Recueil1985,
p. f3).VI11 CONTINENTAL SHELF- PLATEAUCONTINENTAL
Les pitces de procéduretcrite et les plaidoiries relatiBecette affaire sont
publiéesdans l'ordresuivant:
Volume 1. Compromis ;mtmoires dela Jamahiriya arabe libyenneet de Malte.
Volume II. Contre-mémoiresde la Jamahiriya arabe libyenne et de Malte;
requêtede I'ltaliI fin d'interventionet procédure yrelative.
Volume III.Répliquesde la Jamahiriya arabe libyenneet de Malte;débutde la
procédure orale.
Volume IV. Suite etfin de la procédureorale; documents présentés I la Cour
aprésla fin de la procédureécrite;correspondance.
Volume V. Cartes et illustrations.
Certaines piices de la présente éditionsont photographites d'aprts leur texte
imprimé original.
Outre leur pagination continue habituelle, les volumes comportent, entre cro-
chets sur le bord inttrieur des pages, l'indicationde la pagination originale des
mémoires,des contre-mkmoires,des répliqueset de certainesde leurs annexes.
S'agissant des renvois,les chiffres romainsgras (dans le texte ou dans la
marge) indiquent le volume de la présenteCdition; s'ils sont immédiatement
suivispar une réftrencede page, cette rkfkrencerenvoiAla nouvellepagination
du volume concerné. En revanche, les numérosde page qui sont préctdksde
I'indication d'une piécede procédurevisent la pagination originale de ladite
piéceet renvoient doncI la pagination entre crochets de la piécementionnée.
Les principalescartes sont reproduites dans un volumesCpark(V) où ellesont
reçu un numtrotage nouveau indiqué parun chiffre cerclt. Dans les volumesIà
IV, les renvois aux cartes et illustrations du volume V sont portés en marge
selon ce nouveau numérotage,et l'absencede tout renvoi A la prhsente édition
signifiequ'une carteou illustration n'pas reproduite.
Ni la prksentation typographique ni l'orthographe des nomspropres ne sau-
raient êtreutiliséesaux fins del'interprétationdes textesreproduits.Oral Arguments (concl.) . Plaidoiries (suiteetfin)
ARGUMENOT F MR . EL-MURTAS DUILEIMA(N LIBYA) .............
General framework and contexr of the dispute ..............
Legislative background ...........................
Emergence of the dispute .........................
Steps leading to the submission of the dispute to the Court .......
The Special Agreement and the task of the Court .............
The main issues of fact and law ......................
Equality of States and international law of the sea ............
The law of continental shelf delimitation .............
The concept and the role of natural prolongation ............
The concept of natural prolongation can provide criteria for the deli-
mitation of thecontinental shelf ...................
Interpretation and application of the concept of natural prolongation.
Rôle du facteur de distance dans le droit international applicable à la
notion de plateau continental ......................
Le «principe de distance» n'est pas une règle de droit positif en
matiérede plateau continental .....................
Sens et portéede l'utilisation d'un critère de distance dans la nou-
Influence du concept de zone économique sur la notion de plateau
continental ...............................
Le crithe de distance n'estpas appropriék la prksenteaffaire de déli-
mitation ................................
L'équidistance n'est pasune réglejuridique ................
Les déclarations unilatérales ........................
La convention de Genéveet l'interprétationde son article 6 ......
La troisième confërence sur le droit de la mer et la convention de 1912
Les versions successives de 1975 à 1981 ................
Le dilemme équidistance/priticipeséquitables .............
La solution équitable ..........................
Le sens de l'histoire ............................
Les accords internationaux de délimitation ne consacrent pas comme
méthode prépondérante I'kquidistance ni la ligne radiale pluridirec-
tionnelle ................................. Examen généraldes accords ...................... 103
Observations genérales ........................ 103
Les observations de caractèrejuridique .............. 103
Les observations de caractèreméthodologique .......... 105
L'objetde la délimitation .................... IO5
Les attitudes des Etats ...................... 106
Leszones géographiques ..................... 107
Méthode pr.pe.e délimitation ................. 107
Observations portant sur des donnéesnumtriques ........ 109
Analyse de la présentation maltaisedes accords de délimitation ... 112
Les omissions ............................. 112
Les erreurs............................... 114
Analyse des accords présentés spécialemenp tar Malte ........ 119
La théoriede la ligne radiale pluridictionnelle ............. 124
Les circonstances non pertinentes introduites par Malte ......... 128
Les facteurs invoquéspar Malte sont dénués depertinence juridique . 130
Le cadre iuridiaue ........................... 130
~ncorn~at~bilité'defsacteurs invoquéspar Malte avec le droit de la
dklimitation du plateau continental ................. 133
Premier point. Rejet des considérationséconomiquespar la juris-
prudence .............................
Deuxiémepoint. Non pertinence des intérêtd se pêche......
Troisième point .Non pertinence des intérêtd se sécurité .....
Quatriéme point. Non pertinence du «statut juridique » d'Etat
insulaire ..............................
Cinquierne point . Inadaptation du recours par Malte 1 la notion
d'n lslarid dcveloping counrry - .................
Lc theme non juridique du partage des ressources ..........
Les considérations alléguéep sar Malte ne commandent pas une déli-
mitation effectuéesur la base de l'équidistance ...........
Frmclion des circonstances pertinentes ................
Absence de lien logique .........................
Pêche ................................
Intérêtdse sécurité .........................
The trapezium ................................
Malta's diagram of the "proportionality line of Libya's type" ......
The relevant facts and circumstances of the case .............
The Court's task .............................
Difference in approach of the Parties..................
Geography ................................
The Libyan coast ...........................
Malta's coast .............................
Malta's propositions ..........................
Coasts count equally ......................... Basepoints generate shelf ......................
Situation "normal" or "simple" ...................
Location and distance count ....................
Sumrnary of differences ........................
Geology and geornorphology ......................
Description of the facts ........................
.........................
The general setting
Conduct of the Parties ..........................
Actual and prospective delimitations with third States.........
The reflection of al1the facts and circumstances in an equitable result .
Malta's approach .............................
Libya's approach .............................
Geography ...............................
Geology and geomorphology .....................
Producingaline ...........................
The axial ridge line .........................
The thalweg ..............................
Conduct of the Parties .........................
Delimitations with third States ....................
Proportionality as an indispensable requirement of continental shelfdeli-
mitation..................................
The applicability of the concepi of proportionality inthe present case
The application of the concept of proportionalityas a final test of the
equitableness of delimitation methods ................
RESUMITIO NF THE ORALPROCE~EDINGS ...................
Statement by the President of the Court ..................
Declaration of Mr . El-Murtadi Suleiman (Libya) .............
EvIDENCE OF EXPERTC SALLED BY THE GOVERNMEN OFTTHE LIBYAN ARAB
JAMAHIRIYA .................................
Examination of Professor van Hinte by Professor Bowett ........
Examination of Dr .Jongsma by Professor Bowett ............
Cross-examination of Professor van Hinte by MrBow.Lauterpacht........
Examination of Professor Mascle by Mr.Lauterpacht ..........
Examination of Professor Morelli by Mr .Lüuterpacht ..........
Cross-examination of Professor Mascle by Professor Bowett ......
Exrrmiiiationof Professor Mîsclc by Mr.-Lauterpacht ..........
Cross-examinîtion of Professor Morelli by Profcssor Boweit ......
Introduction .................................
Length of coasts. proportionality and relevant area ............XII CONTENTS . TABLE DES MATICRES
Making legal sense of geography ....................
Malta's views concerning the relevant area ...............
Logical inconsistencies in Libya's position concerning lengthsof coasts
The test or criterion of proportionality .................
Encroachment: its relation to distortion and proportionality ......
Libya's graphics indicating the relevant area ..............
Recoasts and proportionalityo.......................nce of lengths of
Proportionality in relation to third States................
The devance of territorial magnitude .................
Malta's purpose in invoking State practice ...............
General comment on Libyan argument concerning State practice ...
The State practice relating to the equidistance method as evaluated
by Dean Colliard ............................
State practice relating to proportionality and the significance of the
lengths of coasts as evaluated by Dean Colliard ...........
Long-coast States and island States in an opposite relationship ...
Long-coast States and short-coast peninsular States opposite ....
Groopposite related long-coast States o.................) and
General conclusions on the State practice relating to propottionality
Staie practice and the significance of trenches and troughs. ......
Sumrnary of argument ...........................
REPLY OF MR. LAUTERPACH (MTALTA) ....................
Element of security asoa relevant circumstancens................
Geology and geomorphology ........................
Seen in perspective. the scientific aspects are largely irrelevant...
Focus on the area between Malta and Libya ..............
The distinction between geomorphology and geology .........
Geological time is very long ......................
Developments can stop .........................
The distinction between data and interpretation ............
Limited quantity of data .........................
The disagreements between the Parties are therefore prirnarily about
interpretation of data .........................
If the Court enters into the scientific controversy. it eventually has to
Scientiftc interpretations can and do change. Should the Court rely
on them in determining boundaries? .................
Implications of procedure followed in eis case ............
The issues affected by science .....................
The evolution of Libya's plate boundary argument ..........
The relevant facts ............................
The significance of the scientific literature and of the evidence ....
Geomorphology .............................
The escarprnents and the Ionian Sea ..................
Conclusion ................................XIV CONTENTS. TABLE DES MATIERES
The area which is relevant for delimitation in the present case ......
The definition of the "relevantarea" .................. .......
The identification of the relevant area in the present case
Le modèlethCoriqueel fictif de la projection radiale...........
L'application pratique de la projection radiale et ses conséquences
absurdes dans la présenteaffaire ....................
La ligne mediane prétendumentdictéepar la projection radiale .....
Geography .................................
The legal principles ...........................
Thefacts .................................
Relevant coasts ............................
Relevant area .............................
Geomorphology and geology .....................
The physical factors . geomorphology and geology ........
The Rift Zonets ..............................
As a plate boundary ........................
As a division between two shelves .................
The conduct ofthe Parties .........................
Delimitations with third States.......................
The method or methods appropriate to produce an equitable result ...
The criteria for location of any line ....................
Salient points of Libya's views ......................
Submissions of Libya ...........................
READING OF THE JUDGMEN T..........................
DocProceedingsit.ed Documents présentéa s la Courosaprèsf la ctôture de
laprocédureécrite ............................
Correspondence . Correspondance .................... ORAL ARGUMENTS (Concluded)
MINUTES OF THEPUBLICSITTINGS
held ar tPencePalace, The Hague,fro6 to 1December 1984,
froni ro22 February 1985 anon 3 June1985,
Presidenz EIiaspresiding
PLAIDOIRIES (Suite etfin)
PROCÈS-VERBAUXDES AUDIENCESPUBLIQUES
tenuesau Palais de la PdiL.aliaye, du 6 au 14 décembre1984,
du4 au 22février 1985 et le 3 juin 1985,
sous la présidencede M. EIias LISTOF ABBREVIATIONSUSED IN THEORALARGUMENTS
LM Memorial of the LiArabJamahiriya
MM Memorial of Malta
LCM Counter-Memorial of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
MCM Counter-Mernorial of Malta
LR Reply of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
MR Reply of Malta
LISTEDES ABREVIATIONS UTILISÉES
DANS LES PLAIDOIRIES
ML Memoire de la Jamahiriya arabe libyenne
MM Mémoirede Malte
CML Contre-mémoide la Jamahiriya arabe libyenne
CMM Contre-mémoire Malte
RL Répliquede la Jamahiriya arabe libyenne
RM Replique de Malte SIXTEENTH PUBLIC SITTING (6 XII 84. 10 a.m.)
Present :[See sitting of 26 XI84.1
ARGUMENT OF MR. EL-MURTADI SULEIMAN
AGENT FOR THEGOVERNMENTOF THE LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA
Mr. EL-MURTADISULEIMAN: Mr. President. Members of the Court. Out
of its respect for international law, Libya has submitted, for the second tirne, a
case concerning the delimitation of its continental shelf with one of its neigh-
bours. For me. it isagreat privilege indeed to appear again before this honour-
able Court as Agent of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. this time
to open Libya's oral presentation in this important case. also honoured to be
associated in this case with the Agent of Malta, Dr. Mizzi, with whom 1have had
an excellent working relationship, and with counsel ofsuch distinction on both
sides of the bar.
In speaking of counsel, 1 must note with sadness the absence of Our good
friend, Professor Antonio Malintoppi, who had rejoined the Libyan delegation
shortly before his death. Professor Malintoppi's reputation as an international
lawyer was too well known to the Members of the Court and to al1the counsel in
this room for me to Saymore than what we al1know, that the loss of this friend
will long be felt and that his contribution is irrepïaceable.
Mr. Resident, Members of the Court, let me start by saying that this case is not
vital or urgent merely for Malta, as the words of the Maltese Agent seem to sug-
gest. The case is also of great importance to Libya,and not just from the juridical
or political aspect (IIp.276). Indeed. as1indicated. the importance of resolv-
ing issues relating to continental shelf delimitation is such that it has led Libya
to submit, within a relatively short period of time, two cases involving the deli-
mitation of its continental shelf to this eminent Court. 1 believe 1am right in
saying that, in this respect, Libya is thely State to have done this. And it is
precisely because Libya views these issues as vital that it has followed this
course.
A decision by this Court has another aspect as wellAs with previous disputes
involving continental shelf delimitation which have been resolved by this Court,
it willbe of significance to the entire international community. Thecan be no
doub: that the decisions of this Court,as they have in the past, will continue to
contribute to an important and growing body of law in the field.of continental
shelfdelimitation.
Of course. it is evident that the delimitation of al1of Libya's continental shelf
boundaries cannot be accomplished simultaneously. It was for this reason that
Libya adopted an orderly. step-by-step approach to delimitation. an approach
which, 1am happy to Say, appears to have been followed by other States in the
region as well, including Malta. For, as we have heard from the Maliese Agent
the other day, Malta's initial priorilies were to establish a continental shelf boun-
darywith Italy, not with Libya.
It is not correct to say that the delimitation of the continental shelf with Malta
is low on Libya's listof pnonties, as hasbeen suggested by Malta. In fact, 1was 6 CONTINENTALSHELF
glad to hear the Maltese Agent confirm a point which Libya has made in its writ-
ten pleadings. This is the fact that no difference or dispute arose between Libya
and Malta until 1973 (III, p. 281). Prior to that time, Malta's interna1 legisla-
tion - enacted in 1966 and based as it was on the concept of exploitability -
raised no prospect of any dispute and was not then of concern to Libya, as will
be brought out by Sir Francis Vallat. And as 1have just noted, Malta itself was
preoccupied with issues related to delimitation with Italy. During the same per-
iod, as the Court will recail from the TunisialLibyocase, Libya and Tunisia had
already commenced discussions over their continental shelf boundary. These, in
fact, hadstarted in July of 1968,some five years before the dispute in the present
case arose.
Mr. President, Mernbers of the Court, it may seem trite - or banal, to use a
term favoured by Malta - to ernphasize at the outset that this case is about the
delimitationof the continental shelf. The Parties have asked the Court how they
can delimit without difficulty their respective areas of continental shelf in accor-
dance with the principles and rules of international law.
Libya considers that inorder to assist the Court it is necessary to put before the
Court al1 the facts and circumstances relevant to the case, in as complete and
objective a manner as possible. This we have endeavoured to do. 1 stress the
phrase "al1the facts", since- contrary to what counsel for Malta have conten-
ded - geology and geomorphology do not constitute the alpha and ornega of
Libya's case. While they are key elements which cannot be overlooked, Libya's
case rests on al1the relevant facts and not jusa select few. It is for the purpose
of assisting the Court in its appreciation of these facts that Libya considers that it
must present to the Court, along with the geographic and other relevant factors.
the scientific evidence which has such an important bearing in the case. It is
appropriate, in Libya's view. that such significant evidence should be produced
for the Courtclearly and concisely through the testimony of scientists rather than
in the course of legal argument by counsel.
This case is about facts, and facts in a particular setting, and how the well-
esiablished principles and rules of continental shelf delimitation apply to these
rather special facts. It is not about abstract theories or concepts, and itis not
about geornetricalconsmcts.
.
In order to place the problem of delimitation in its proper context and perspec-
tive,itis necessary - first- to look at a rnap showing the broad geographical
circumstances in which the delimitation is to be decided. I have had such a rnap
placed behind me on the easel, and Members of the Court have small copies of
this rnap, which is No. 1, in the folders provided by Libya. What the mapso
vividly brings out is the relationship and size of Libya and Malta in the Central
Mediterranean. It also shows the location of neighbouring States in this setting.
As can beseen from the map. the delimitation between Libya and Malta is
focused on the physical setting of the two States in the Pelagian Sea. But the two
States do no1 sit in isolation. As a result. this case must also be viewed in the
broader geographical context, that is, of both Libya and Malta in the Central
Mediterranean and surrounded by othet States.
If 1might narrow lhe focus somewhat, the relevant areas of continental shelf
and the abutting coasts of the Parties are shown on the next,rnap. just put up on
the easel. This is a bathymetric chart of the area between Libya and Malta which
is on a considerably larger scale than the previous rnap and shows more detail.
@) This is No. 2 in the Judges' folders. Of course. the full range of relevant factors
cannor necessarily be discemed on any one rnap or. indeed, on any collection of
maps. But 1 do suggest that this rnap gives a good picture of what must be the
two rnost striking aspects of the present case: first. the vast difference in the ARGUMENT OF MR. EL-MURTADI SULEIMAN 7
lengths of the coasts of the Parties; and second. the existence roughly here of a
zone of troughs and channels which make up the Rift Zone and which effeciively
divide the area between Libya and Malta into separate shelves. We are not, as
Professor Weil has suggested. operating in a fog here. Nor are we shadow-boxing
with abstractions. We are dealing with concrete, readily ascertainable facts.
It ison the basis of the facts which, in a very general way,1havejust referred
to that we are concerned with reaching an equitable result through the application
of the principles and rules of international law. In reaching this result, the juris-
prudence of the Court must be a primary guide since it is that jurisprudence
which has given the clearest articulation tothese principles and rules. In invoking
the jurisprudence. 1mean in no way to suggest that we are unaware either of the
contents of the 1982Convention signed by Libya or of State practice in the form
of delimitation agreements. It is not my task, however, to address the substance
of either of these subjects. My leamed colleagues, Professor Jaenicke and Profes-
sor Quéneudec,will deal with those aspects of the 1982Convention which have
a bearing on the case. They are intimately familiar with the Convention jtself and
wjth the history of ils evolution into its present form.
AS for the relevance of particular delimitation agreements, this will be dealt
with in large part by Dean Coiliard. At this stage, however, 1 would like to refer
to one comment which first appeared in the Maltese Reply and which, more
recently. has been repeated by Professor Brownlie (III, MR, para. 265, and III,
p. 468). This is the reference to "what may be described quite properly as the
Libyan fear of State practice".
Libya's two-volume Annex of' Delimitation Agreements fumished with its
Counter-Memorial (II), complete with the text of each agreement, bathymetric
maps and commentary. is a strange way to manifest fear. Aside from discussing
the true legal significance of State practice in the area of continental shelf delimi-
tation, it will be demonstrated during Libya's presentation that, on the factual
plane, State practice does not show what Malta claims for it. Libya intends to
present to the Court a thorough analysis of the highly selectiveexamples cited in
the Maltese pleadings as well as of the faulty analysis of many of these examples.
Mr. President, the main point regarding State practice still seems to have
eluded our opponents. It is the point which I just made in referring to the map
here on the easel. The case before the Court is about this area of the Pelagian
Sea (painting)- the area lying between Libya and Malta. It is not about other
areas of the world in different geographical settings which are not comparable.
If there can be said to be any indication of fear in this case, it is Malta's fear
of the facts. Apart from constant references to distance and basepoints, we have
seen relatively little of the relevant geographical facts in Malta's written plead-
ings. They almost totally ignored the essential facts regarding the coasts of the
Parties and gave short shrift to the characteristics of the sea-bed and subsoit. 1
would invite the Court to peruse again the Maltese Reply. Itis striking that not
one map showing Libya and Malta appeared in that pleading. Instead, we were
given diagrams and abstract drawings of situations that do not represent at al1the
area between Libya and Malta. 1 suggest that this approach is symbolic of
Malta's attempts to get rid of the presence of the important geographical, geomor-
phological and geological facts by down-playing their existence and denying
their legal relevance. Yet in contrast, the striking preoccupation of Malta during
these oral hearings with the lengths of the coasts of the Parties and with the Rift
Zone in particular suggests that the coasts of Libya and Malta and the sea-bed
and subsoil features in this area relevant to the present delimitation are of very
real concern to Malta. We welcome this shift towards reality although we would
have preferred to have seen it earlier in Malta's written pleadings.8 CONTINENTAL SHELF
1 should like now to tum briefly to three particular subjects to whicitis appro-
priate to devote more specific a~tentionas Agent of Libya. The first has todo with
certain comments that have been made by Ouropponents about Libya's reaction
to Malta's equidistance claim of 1972; the second concerns Libya's 1973 pro-
posai, and the third relates to the no-drilling understanding between the Parties.
Tuming first to Malta's 1972 claim, the distinguished Agent for Malta may
have given the Court the wrong impression conceming the first meeting of the
Parties in 1972, for he suggested that Libya, in only contesting the use by Malta
of particular basepoints in the construction of its median line, "was accepting that
the equitable and otherwise appropriate dividing line was the median line"
(111,p. 281). Any such impression is wrong and 1 would respectfully refer the
Court to what was said in the Libyan Reply (III) at paragraphs 1.08 to 1.12.It is
sufficient for me to recall that Malta's 1972 claim did not even appear on the
agenda for the meeting of July 1972 and was not discussed in substance at all.
Indeed, such a discussion would have been beyond the authority of the Libyan
delegation which, on that occasion, had instructions only to engage in explora-
tory discussions with Malta as well as with other counlries in the region. What is
perfectly clear is that at no time did any Libyan delegation give the slightest indi-
cation of accepting the validityof Malta's equidistance-bine claim.
Nine months later. Libya advanced its 1973proposal. That proposal was made
during discussions between the Parties who were attempting to agree upon a line
of delirnitation between theareas of continental shelf appertaining to each. It was
a proposal which was made after Malta had first unveiled its claim to an equidis-
tance line - a clüim which then, as now, Libya considered to be wholly inequi-
table given the circumstances of the case. Moreover, Libya's 1973proposal did
not represent "a radical change" in Libya's position, as the Agent for Malta has
asserted, since there had been no previous Libyan position vis-&-vis Malta that
could have changed (III, p. 281). This proposa1 seemed to Libya to reflect the
geographical and other relevant factors particular \O the Libya-Malta setting.
Libya has throughout sought a result which would be equitable in the circum-
stances of the present case and has consistently pursued this course. It is unfor-
tunate, however. that Malta dismissed this proposal out of hand on the very day
it was made without any serious discussion at all. At thai very moment, at the
highest levels of the Maltese Government, petroleum concessions were being
offered by Malta which, subject to certain qualifications. reached as far as the
median line. At this stage,1 do not intend to dwell further on these events, which
have been fully discussed in Libya's written pleadings (II, LCM, para. 1.12).
There isone thing that must be made clear in the light of Malta's continual
efforts to give the impression that the 1973proposal represented some sort of
formula for a sharing out or partition of areas of shelf lying between the Parties.
This is simply not true. To the contrary, the 1973proposal - advanced as it was
in the context of discussions between the two Parties in order to reach an agreed
delimitation line - reflected, among other factors. the great difference between
the respective lengths of the coasts of the Parties. lt did not seeto divide areas
of continental shelf in fixed proportions. Itcannot have escaped the notice of
Malta that the Chamber in the Gulfof Maine case adopted a somewhat similar
approach in respect to the second sector of that delimitation, even though the dif-
ferences in coastal lengths of the Parties in that case were not nearly so great as
in the present case.
As for the no-drilling understanding, 1must confess to great surprise atseveral
comrnents the Agent of Malta made. He suggested that Libya "would have pre-
sented a more balanced picture of the situation if it had quoted the Secretary-
General's report more fully". ARGUMENT OF MR. EL-MURTADISULEIMAN 9
That Report, of course, discussed in more detail the background to the no-
drilling understanding. But, Libya annexed the entire Report to its Mernorial. It
was Malta that was reluctant to mention this important element of mutual
conduct of the Parties in its written pleadings, just as it was Malta that did not
bring to the Court's attention the fact thatit had requested its concession holders
to cease activities in this area (1, LM, para. 4.73). Thus, 1 would respectfully
refer the Court to the Secretary-General's Report, once again, to refute the state-
ment of the distinguished Agent of Malta that there is no evidence of a no-
drilling understanding in the sense of a binding commitment. Sir Francis Vallat
will add some additional comments on this aspect of the background.
While 1 do not intend to repeat the observations which have been made in
Libya's written pleadings on the significance of the no-drilling understanding, I
would like to note that it has, in effeca,dual significance. First, it refutes among
other things, any notion at al1 of acquiescence or "status quo". And second,
through the mutual conduct of the Parties, it points to the area which is really in
dispute in the present case. This is an area lying somewhere between the lines
proposed by the Parties in 1972 and 1973. The observance by the Parties of this
understanding betwe.cnthe time of the signing of the Special Agreement in 1976
- when the understanding was created - and the unfortunate incident of 1980
- the Texaco incident - when Malta opted to breach the understanding, is evi-
dence of the conduct of the Parties which is not without relevance.
Having dealt with these points, 1 would now like to make one comment about
the Special Agreement relating to certain observations of Malta made during
these oral hearings. Of course, Libya does consider that the Court has been
entrusted with the important task of indicating the principles and niles of intema-
tional law and how they can be applied by the Parties in the light of the facts of
the case throughout the entire relevant area. But this does not mean that either the
presence of third States or of third State claims in the area are irrelevant and
should be ignored. On the contrary, Libya considers that the presence of third
States constitutesan important relevant circumstance in the present case. For it is
obvious frorn a glance at the mai, that there are certain areas, particularly those
areas lying east of the Escarpments, that are no more relevant to delimitation
between Libya and Malta than were areas north of the latitude of Ras Kaboudia
or east of the longitude of Ras Tajoura to the delimitation in the TunisiuiLibya
case. Libya has noted the Judgment of the Court on the Italian Application
for Permission to Intervene (I.C.I. Reports 1984, p. 3) and recognizes that the
Court will need to take steps in the Judgment in the present case to protect poten-
tial interests of third States.
Mr. President, Members of the Court: 1have begunrny remarks by discussing
what this case is about. I should now like to tum very briefly, and with a good
deal less enthusiasm, to a number of considerations raised by our opponents
which point to what this case is not about. In so doing. 1must make it clear that
it was not the intention of Libya to engage in a debate about rnatters which are
ctearly not relevant to the principles and rules goveming continental shelf deli-
mitation. Nevertheless, a number of statements made during Malta's oral presen-
tation, regarding what Libya seeks in this case, require correction.
Libya does not seek the "lion's share" or a "monopoly" of the continental
shelf. It is not engaged in a "remorseless attempt to shrink Malta's continental
shelf". Nor does it "covet" what legally belongs to Malta. The Court will recog-
nize al1these terms as having been used during Malta's oral presentation. Libya
seeks only what it is entitled tounder the law, and it looks to this Court to point
the way to a final solution between the Parties which is equitable.
In speaking about the facts and circumstances that are relevant to continental10 CONTINENTALSHELF
shelf delimitation, it is clear that neither Libya nor Malta arebefore the Courf io
detemine "boundaries of wealth". as Malta would have it. This theme was intro-
düced as early as Malta's Memonal and has persisted throughout its written and
oral pleadings. In the very opening pages of the Maltese Memonal the matter
was put in the following way: "it must be stated without delay that the present
case isreally about access to resources". It is this formulation of what apparently
Malta sees as the guiding theme of this case that prompts me to say - also
"without delay" - that Libya regards this to be a fundamental misconception of
the case before the Court.
As Professor Lucchini will bring out, economic issues are of no legal rele-
vance to the question of the delimitation of the continental shelf. The economies
of the world have greatly changed over the past 25 years. It may be said that in
many respects nature has smiled on Malta. As for Libya, which was one of the
poorest countries. even now its econorny is far more dependent on oil, including
offshore oil,than is that of Malta. And Libya's present oil reserves are a rapidly
depleting asset. In the future this resource wiHno longer exist, and it rnay be that
Libya will tK in the position of having to import oil. But the Court has not been
asked to rule on the way in which either Libya or Malta handle their economies.
These matters are irrelevant to continental shelf delimitation.
Whether or not the areas of continental shelf in dispute in the present case
contain valuabie deposits of petroleum or other minerals is a matter of sheer specu-
lation. So also is the past or present prosperity of one State or the other and
their prospects for the future. Such questions lack pertinence to the present case.
We are not here to decide on an "apportionment" of resources, but upon the deli-
mitation of the continental shelf according to the applicable principles and rules
of international law regardless of whether resources rnay or may not exist. This
is not a case of a dispute over areas where there are known resources or where
substantial sums have already been expended in developing producing fields. To
make the point more directly. this dispute is not about a specific area such as the
Georges Bank, which was indeed the focus of the Gulfof Maine (CanadalUni~ed
States of America) case by the admission of both Parties in that case. There the
area contained valuable and proven economic resources - in that case fish
stocks - and a Chamber of the Court had been specifically requested by the
Parties to that case to determine a single maritimeboundary line that included the
fishing zones of each State as well as their continental shelves.
In the present case, no such situation prevaiis. So far as Libya is aware, no
wells have been drilled which indicate the existence of petroleum within the area
of dispute in the present case whether in the Rift Zone itself or under the gentle
banks and valleys lying south of the Rift Zone. The statement made by the Agent
of Malta that Malta is "fairty confident" that there are minera1 deposits in this
area to the south of Malta is not supported by any data that Libya has seen in
Malta's pleadings or, in fact, of which Libya is aware.
There are, in this regard, certain recent developments to which the Court's
attention has not ken drawn by Malta and which suggest that the prospect for oil
may be ktter in the region north of Malta than to Malta's south and east. It
appears that there has been renewed interest by oil companies in the area of shelf
north and north-east of Malta in the Ragusa-Malta Plateau. Libya believes that
drilling activity byMalta has recently been undertaken there, as suggested in the
Maltese press. Since Malta regards such evidence as material, perhaps Malta can
confirm whetber or not petroleum deposits of some interesthave been found.Itis
well known that important oil finds have been made at the Italian VEGA-1disco-
very on the Ragusa-Malta Plateau. 1understand that the production forecast has
recently been increased to between 60.000 and 80,000 barrels perday. Estimated ARGUMENT OF MR. EL-MURTADISULEIMAN II
teserves are now around 300 million barrels. This important discovery has been
made on the area of shelf upon which Malta is indeed lying north of the Rift Zone.
Who knows what tomorrow will bring? And it is precisely this uncertainty
which makes this son of consideration irrelevant to the determination of the
continental shelf rights of Libya and Malta.
In this same vein, and in spite of repeated references in the Maltese written and
oral pleadings to the exclusive economic zone, 1must state that this matter too
has nothing to do with the present case.While counsel for Libya will developthis
point further, 1need only recall that it was Maltawhich vigorously rejected the
inclusion of the exclusive economic zone in the terms of teference to the Court
at the time the Special Agreement was negotiated. And 1 note, with satisfaction,
that fisheries have not figured with any prominence in Malta's oral argument.
One final matter must bernentioned by me, if only briefly. This concems the
apparent misundersandings in Malta's pleadings regarding whai Libya's scienti-
fic advisers have said in their papers attached to Libya's pleadings in both the
present case and in the previous case with Tunisia.
1should like to clarify one example, surprisingly to befound in the oral state-
ment of the Maltese Agent himself. 1 refer to pages 291 and 292 (III). Here, it
was said that, in the case with Tunisia, Libya referred to the eniire area between
Sicily, Libya and Tunisia as the Pelagian Basin and that "without the shadow of
a doubt" - 1am quoting the exact words of the Maltese Agent - "without the
shadow of a doubt" - Libya characterized this entire area as a geological and
geophysical unit. In so stating, Maita has misunderstood Libya's position in
thinking that during the previous case Libya called the relevant area in the
present case a geological continuum but now, miraculously. has discovered the
Rift Zone and, with ita basic discontinuity.
Mr. President, permit me to clririfythis misunderstanding. The relevant area in
the previous case was very different from the relevant area in the present case.
The Pelagian Basin was defined on numerous occasions as extendingonly to the
troughs which form part of the Rift Zone. Definitions aside, the Rift Zone and the
Escarpments were of no relevance to the case between Libya and Tunisia; they
lay outside the area relevant to that case. The present case does not involve the
same geornorphological and geological elements discussed in the previous case.
That case was entirely different in this respect. Malta's effort to compare the two
cases ismerely another diversion which attempts to play down sea-bed and sub-
soi1 features - as well as the geographical setting - which can neither be
ignored nor p1ayeddown.
Libya and Malta have referred their differences to this Court because they
could not reach agreement theniselves. Were equidistance recognized by both
Parties as a reasonable solution to this delimitation or even as the appropriate
starting-point, Libya and Malta would not have needed to have recourse to you
today. In this respect,asimilar difference of view between States rnay befound
in many situationsaround the world. This certainly is seen in the large numberof
agreements yet to be arrived at between States involving maritime delimiiations :
an estimate has been made that some 300 such situations remain to be resolved.
In fact. it couldbe said that it has been the less controversial or less cornplex
situations where delimitation agreements have been signed between States. A
number of these, of course. have employed. at least in part. the equidistance
method. And equidistance is the obvious, easy solution to the straightforward
cases. But the cases which come.to litigation are not of this character. As in the
three previous cases which have corne before this Court, this formula does not fit
the facts of the present case.,And so Libya and Malta have come to seek the
Court's assistance.12 CONTINENTAL SHELF
Given the very distinctive nature of this case,1 do not think it is an exaggera-
tion to Say that if the sea-bed and subsoil features to which Libya has called
attention are not regarded as relevant to the present delimitation, then it is diffi-
cult to see how geomorphology or geology will ever have a role to play in conti-
nental shelf delimitation. Equally, if Malta's thesis supporting equidistance is
regarded to be the appropriate way of reaching an equitable result in the present
case, then it is hard to see how equidistance will not afortiori be applied in vir-
rually every future case of continental shelf that can be imagined. 1cannot close
my remarks without a word about Libya and Malta as friendly neighbouring
States. Our relations are excellent. Itis a matter of pride to Libya that the two
States have over the years en~eredinto a substantial nun~berof important agree-
ments of CO-operation and assistance. It will be recalled that as recently as
19November of this year, aTreaty of Fnendship and Co-operation wassigned by
Libya and Malta. Regrettably, during Ouroral presentation by counsel for Malta,
there have been some statements which are out of step with the close relations
that exist berween the two countries. We have been surprised of talk of Libyan
claims within 15 nautical miles of Malta's shores; of helicopters within a few
minutes' flying time to Valletta; and even "2 la fenetre de Malte", and so forth.
Libya has asserted no such claim. This whole line of argument is preposterous
and is an attempt to deflect attention from the real issues of this case.
If Libya has felt it to be necessary to put to the Court al1of the geographical,
geological and geornorphological elements of the case. including such matters as
comparative size and coastal lengths, it has done so in no sense in deprecation of
Malta's status as a sovereign State. on an equal footing with Libya and every
other State.
Mr. President, 1shouldnow like to give a general indication of Libya's presen-
tation. Sir Francis Vallat will follow next. He will discuss the background of the
dispute and identify the main issues before the Court.
Professor Bnggs will follow with a discussion of the meaning and application
of the principle of the equality of States and how it has been misused by Malta in
their pleadings.
Professors Jaenicke and Quéneudec will then take up a number of the legal
issues that appear to exist between the Parties, with particular emphasis on the
concept of natural prolongation and the distance criterion.
Dean Colliard will follow with a discussion of the status of equidistance as a
method of delimitation. This will include an analysisof many of the various deli-
mitation agreements on which Malta has relied.
Professor Lucchinj will deal with a nurnber of considerations advanced by
Malta which Libya regards to be irrelevant to the present delimitation.
Then, Professor Bowett will discuss the facts and relevant circumstancesof the
case. relating them to the rnanner in which, in Libya's view, an equitable result
may be achieved.
Professor Jaenicke will then retum to discuss the role and application of the
test ofproportionality. ARGUMENT OF SIR FRANCIS VALLAT
COUNSELFOR THE GOVERNMENTOFTHELlBYANARAB JAMAHIRIYA
Sir Francis VALLAT: Mr. President, Members of the Court. May 1with al1
sincerity Say what an honour, privilege and pleasure itis to appear once more
before this eminent Court. May 1also associate myself with the tribute paid by
the Agent for Libya. and by Professor Weil, to our former friend and colleague,
Professor Antonio Malintoppi, whose loss we so deeply regret.
Mr. President, tirne is short. 1 shall therefore corne irnmediately to the sub-
stance of rny statement.
This staternentis intended to serve as a general introduction to the case to be
presented orally on behalf of Libya. It will be divided into three parts, of differ-
ing length. Part 1will deal with the framework and background of the dispute;
Pan IIwi\l touch briefly on the Special Agreement and the task of the Court; in
Part III 1shall try to identify the main issues, in an effort to help the Court in
reaching its decision. This part will also be designed to provide a brief overall
view of Libya's case.
In the first par- the background of the dispute - 1shall deal with the fol-
lowing four subdivisions :
(a) general framework and the context of the dispute;
(hl legislative background ;
(c) emergence of the dispute; and finally
(d) steps leading to the submission of the dispute to the Court.
(a) GeneraiFramework and Conrextof theDispute
The natural starting-point for a consideration of the case is of course Article 1
of the Special Agreement itself. The aspect of that Article to which 1 should like
tu refer at this stage is the essence of the question which the Court is requested
&O decide. As is repeatedly called to the attention of the Court, the question is
focused on the principles and rules of international law applicable to the delimi-
tation and how inpractice such principles and mles can be applied by the two
Parties in thisparticular case. The Parties are thus seekinga determination of the
applicable principles and mles of international law and the method for their
application.
Article 1of the Special Agreement contains no reference to particular rnatters
which the Court is requested to take into account. The subject-matter of the first
part of the question is the principles and mles of international law. It is not the
interpretation and application of the 1958Convention on the Continental Shelf or
of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Neither of these two Conventions is applicable in the present dispute between
Libya and Malta over the delimitation of the area of continental shelf which
appertains to Malta and the areaof continental shelf which appertains to Libya.
So far as this dispute is concerned, the fact that Malta is a Party to the 1958
Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf. and that it is in force, does not14 CONTINENTALSHELF
make the Convention or any of its provisions opposable by Malta against Libya.
Similarly. the 1982 United Nations Convention has not yet entered into force and
become applicable as between Malta and Libya. 1 will not speculate as to when,
if ever, the Convention will enter into force but up till now (that is to say by
4 September 1984) it has only received 13ratifications.
In this situation, as agreed by the Parties, the dispute is governed by customary
international law and not by convention or treaty. This is not to Saythat neither
of the two Conventions has any relevance. What it means is that the principles
and rules to be enunciated by the Court are those of customary international law,
of which the Conventions may, or may not, be evidence.
This much is cornmon ground between the Parties. But there are important dif-
ferences between them as to the effectof the 1982United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea on the principles and rules of customary international law
applicable to delimitation in the present case. As Professor Prosper Weil made so
clear in his speech on 28 November (III, p. 361), the proposition that the rules
of customary international law find their expression in Article 76 of the Conven-
tion lies at theem of Maltais case. Can this proposition really be nght? Where
is the State practice to support al1 the detailed rules contained in Article 76?
In the light of the general principles relating to the emergence of customary inter-
national law, 1suspect that the Court, notwithstanding the eloquenceof Professor
Weil, will feel bound to adopt a much more cautious approach. It is not for me to
examine the changes inthe text as compared with Article 1of the 1958 Conven-
tion on the Law of the Sea but 1will simply suggest that attention has to be paid
to two matters: first to the fact that Article 1 of the 1958 Convention has been
treated as stating a rul- and they cal1it that -of customary international law
and. second, to the reasons why Article 76 of the 1982 Convention came into
being. In any event, the latter Article cannot possibly be regarded as a codifica-.
tion of custornary international law; at leas; in the sense in which that expression
is used in theStatute of the International Law Commission.
Of course, distance could beused in the definition of the outward limit of the
continental shelf of States in certain circurnstances. But this does not justify
converting this into a "distance pnnciple" which. as Malta would have it, over-
rides those considerations which up tilt now have govemed continental shelf
delimitation.
It is so easy and convenient to slip into the habit of speaking of the "distance
pnnciple" but, even in the context of Article 76, one has to have regard not to
some unexpressed general principle but to the actual use made of distance in the
Article. 1will leave to my colleague, Professor Quéneudec.further development
of this point and continue on the more general level appropriate to an introduc-
tion.
There is no need for me at this point to go further into the subtleties about
codifying conventions as evidence of customary international law or possibly as
factors in the emergence or crystallization of its principles and rules. But there is
one voint that should be made: it is that there is a considerable difference be-
twein the negotiation of a treaty by delegationsgiven authority for that purpose
by their Governments and the ~eneralaccevtance by States of what is stated inthe
convention as a pnncipie or mie of custokary international law. In some circum-
stances, the process of consensus may be deceptive. The process may be
designed to enable the inclusion of a particular provision in a draft treaty or set
of articles as a kind of compromise which may or rnay not in the long run prove
to be acceptable to States as a rule of law. Therefore, while the adoption at a con-
ference of a provision by consensus may be some evidence of the acceptability
of that provision to States, it is not in itself conclusive evidence. Many other fac- ARGUMENTOF SIR FRANCISVALLAT 15
tors, including the history and the purpose of the provision and its very nature,
have to be taken into account. Although the procedure by way of consensus was
not used when the text of the 1958 Geneva Convention was adopted, the distinc-
tion drawn by the Court in 1969 between Articles 1 to 3 and Article 6 of that
Convention provides a useful illustration.
Since we are here operating in the field of customary international law,the role
of the Court is of paramount importance. This is true not only for the Parties but
also for the process of the evolution of the law in the field of continental shelf
delimitation. 1 stress the word "evolution": it is no part of the function of the
Court to behave in a legislative or revolutionary manner. On the otherhand, indi-
vidual cases ofthis kind cannot be decided without important contributions being
made by the Court to the evolution of customary international law.
The importance of the role of the Court in this connection is indeed underlined
by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea itself. Article 83 deals
with delimitation of the continental shelf and paragraph 1 clearly reflects the
important role which it is contempiated that the International Court of Justice
should play in the process of delimitation. Delimitation of the continental shelf,
says paragraph 1 :
"shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred
to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order
to achieve an equitable solution".
It is pointless for Professor Weil to try to downgrade or sterilize Article 83
of the 1982 Convention as he attempted to do on 28 November (III, p. 366).
1 am sure that he does not thereby intend to downgrade the role of the
Court and its jurispmdence, which are in effect given the mark of approval by
Article 83. Indeed, that this is not his intention is proved beyond doubt by the
wealth of references made during this oral hearing to the Judgments of the Court
and the Judgment of the Chamber of the Court in the recent Gulfof Maine case
(CanadatUnited States of America, Judgment of 12October 1984). The reference
back to existing customary international law and the vital role of the Intematio-
na1 Court of Justice is itself confirmed by the statement in paragraph 10 of
Article 76 of the 1982 Convention, which says expressly that the provisions of
the Article are without prejudice to the question of delimitation of the continental
shelf between States with opposite or adjacent coasts. It is indeed the view of
Libya that the pre-existing pnnciples and rules of customary international law
continue to govem delimitation, and in particular to govern delimitation in the
present case. Itis also the view of Libya that, in the absence of agreement, this
honourable Court is the proper tribunal to decide questions in dispute.
Furthermore, it is not correct to treat paragraph 1 of Article 83 as devoid of
content. In Article83 we find a reflection of the most fundamental principles of
customary international law in this field:these are the requirements of delimita-
tion by agreement and the requirement of an equitable result. These are the ele-
ments echoed through the decided cases from 1969 to 1984 and they are basic
elements on which Libya has consistently relied throughout the present dispute.
The Court adjournedfrom 11.20 am. to 11.50 am.
(b) LegislariveBackground
In cases concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf, the maritime
legislation of the parties is alwaysikely to throw lighton the problem, if only as
sorne indication of their traditional attitudes. So far as Libya is concemed, there16 CONTINENTALSHELF
is no need ai the moment to add to what is said in its written pleadings except
with respect to its petroleum legislation. Sufficient details are given in para-
graphs 4.12 to 4.19 of the Libyan Memorial (1)and the appropriate Annexes.
Dunng his speech on 26 November, the Agent for Malta. Dr. Mizzi, while
admitting that Libyan concessions granted after 1973 extended northward of the
median line, tried to minimize the significance of this fact by suggesting that the
concessions were indicative of "hesitation and doubt" on the part of Libya
(III,p. 279). In the light of observations such as this and a number of minor
accusations made in the written pleadings, idoes seem necessary to clarify some
points concerning Libya's petroleum legislation which waspassed as long ago as
1955and which provided the authority for the grant of the concessions. Mr. Pre-
sident, Members of the Court, 1regret having to do this because the Court is
already familiar with that legislation, but it is necessary to read facts in their
proper historical setting. So 1shaHhave to go over the ground again.
The basic provisions were, as the Court is well aware. made by the Petroleum
Law of 1955 and Petroleum Regulation No. 1.Both the Law and the Regulation
came into force on 19July 1955 and were published in the Gazette. An official
map of Libya entitled "Map No. 1" was published in the Gazette together with
the Petroleum Regulation. These documents are mentioned in paragraphs 4.20 to
4.23 of the Libyan Memorial (1) and copies are to be found in Annexes 32 and
33 to the Memorial.
The first point to stress is that the Law and the Regulation and the rnap, being
published in the Gozerte were. from August 1955 onwards, freely available to
Malta or any other interested State. It is apparent to anyone who chooses to read
the Law, the Regulation and Map No. 1 together in the ordinary way that Libya
made no attempt in those instruments either to define or to limit the northward
extent of its continental shelf. Article 3 of the Law identifies the four petroleum
zones by reference to four areas correspondingto the three provinces of Libya. It
does not in itself deal with offshore areas at all. These are the subject-matter of
Article 4,which does indicate the extent of the Law. The Law is to extend "to the
sea-bed and subsoil which lie beneath the territorial waters and high seas conti-
guous thereto under the control andjurisdiction of the United Kingdom of Libya"
(as it then was). The question of the boundaries of the territorial waters and of the
high seas is left open. But the possibility of the inclusion of areas of the high seas
in the zones is indicated by the second sentence of paragraph 1 of Article 4. This
says: "Any such sea-bed and subsoil adjacent to anyzone shall for the purposes
of this Law be deemed to be part of that zone."
Articles 1 and 2 of the Regulation deal with the definition of the petroleum
zones for the purposes of the Law. Article 1 provides for the official map of
Ljbya(Map Nu. 1) attached as the first schedule to the Regulati~n. The rnapindi-
cates international frontiers, petroleum zones and the grid. Of the four zones, the
first and second are the only ones that border on the sea. So far as there is an
established international land boundary, this is referred to in the description in
Article 2 and is indicated on the map. The western boundary of Zone I (Tripo-
litania) and the eastern boundary of the second zone (Cyrenaica) are projected
seaward from the respective land boundaries with Tunisia and Egypt. There is,
however - and this is the point 1really want to make - no attempt to indicate
how far seaward these projected lines would extend. nor how farnorth the off-
shore areas of Zones 1 and 2 might extend. It is obvious that the arbitrary line
acrossthe top end of the mapwas never intended to be an international boundary.
This procedure is. of course, in accordance with the description in Article 2 of
the Regulation which, following Article 4 of the Law, says with respect to the
first zone that it "consistsofthe provinces of Tripolitania bounded on the north ARGUMENT OF SIR FRANCIS VALLAT 17
by the limits of territorial waters and high seas coniiguous thereto under the
control andjurisdiction of the United Kingdom of Libya"; and virtually identical
language is used with respect to the second zone. This provision, read together
with Articles 3 and 4 of the Law, effectively leaves the northern boundary of
the zone open to be settled as and when Libya is able to establish a northern
boundary or boundaries to its continental shelf to the north of its continental
mainland.
The position of'libya was, and has consistently ken, that the establishment of
the northern boundaries is a matter for settlement in accordance with intematio-
na1law by agreement with any other State or States concerned. It is accordingly
entirely correct to Saythat Libya's claimto areas of continental shelf to the north
was not in any way lirnited by the Law and in that sense extended indefinitely
northward. It may perhaps be observed in passing that it is absolutely impossible
to construe the Law and the Regulation and the map as in any way constituting
the slightest acknowledgment that the northem boundary should be defined by
means of an equidistance line.
In connection with this Libyan legislation, it only remains to observe that the
Lybian concessions were granted and their areas defined in accordance with the
provisions of the Law andthe Regulation. Where appropriate, the grant of
concessions was made bearing in mind the need to settle continental shelf bound-
aries by agreement. and it has been the policy of Libya, in this connection, to try
to avoid imposing obligations oii the concessionnaires which might provoke
international incidents with Libya's neighbours.
The most significant piece of Maltese legislation for the purposes of the pres-
ent case is the Continental Shelf Act of 1966, and 1would like to Saysomething
about this.As1havejust said, Libya's legislation contained no provision concern-
ing the outward limit of its continental shelf, which extends broadly speaking
northward of the African continent. But it may also be noted that it adopted no
definition of the continental shelf. By contrast, the Maltese 1966 legislation
enacted a definition of the continental shelf for the purposes of the Act which
echoed some, but not al], of the elements of the 1958Geneva Convention on the
Continental Shelf, to which Malta had recently become a party.
The definition is quoted in paragraph 4.06 of the Libyan Mernorial (1) and the
text of the 1966Act is at Annex 15 to the Memorial. The definition contained in
section 2 of the 1966 Act is divided into two parts, and 1should like to analyse
this a little. Theirst part is a definition in the proper se;sthe secondpart indi-
cates a method of delimitation in relation to certain other States.
As regards the definition proper, Malta had, in 1965,adopted a position closer
to that of Libya, leaving the extent of the continental shelf to bedetermined in
accordance with international law. If 1rnay refer ta footnote 1 on page 46 and
Annex 14b to the Libyan Mernorial, it will be seen that the Maltese Act of 1965
(the Petroleum Production Amendment Act) said :
"the 'continental shelf' means that part of the sea-bed and subsoil of the
submarine areas adjacent to the Coastof Malta but outside territorial waters
over which Malta is entitled by international law to exercise sovereign
nghts for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources"
(1, pp. 64 and 238).
But in section 2 of the 1966 Act, Malta adopted a depth and exploitability test,
broadly on the lines of Article 1 of the 1958 Convention. The relevant part of
section 2 of the 1966Act provides :
"the 'continental shelf' means the sea-bed and subsoil of the submarine
areas adjacent to the coasts of Malta but outside territorial waters to a18 CONTINENTAL SHELF
depth of 200 metres or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the super-
jacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said
areas".
Apart from the omission of the reference to areas adjacent to the coasts of
islands, this definition follows Article 1 of the 1958 Convention very closely.
The importance of the depth and exploitability test was by no means overlooked
by the Maltese Government. It was referred to in statements made on behalf of
the Maltese Government, in its Parliament, which 1shall mention shortly. But it
does appear that the depths in the area of the Rift Zone were at the time of the
1966 Act regarded by the Govemment of Malta as excluding the possibility of
exploitation and as a barrier to delimitation with Libya.
When we turn to the second part of the definition in section 2 of the 1966Act,
we find that it haç some curious features. First of al1it is expressed as a ctarifi-
cation of the definition of the continental shelf which hasjust been given by refer-
ence to the depth and exploitability test. But it is also in part expressed as a qua-
lification or condition which applies, "where in relation to States of which the
coast is opposite that of Malta it is necessary to determine the boundaries of the
respective continental shelves." The formulation of this condition seems to imply
that there were "States of which the coast is opposite that of Malta" with which
it would not be necessary "to determine the boundaries of the respective conti-
nental shelves." Could Libya in particular have been in mind here or did the Mal-
tese Govemment reafize that the length of the Maltese Coasttruly opposite to the
coast of Libya was so short as to make the contemplated method of delimitation
inapplicable? In this respect, one cannot fail to contrast the geographical rela-
tionship between the coast of Malta and that of Libya with, for example. the geo-
graphical relationship between the south coast of England and the north coast of
France. Admittedly, these thoughts are speculation but lhey do reflect the facts of
geography. Besides, the changes in language from Article 6. paragraph 1, of the
1958 Convention to the words used in section 2 of Matta's 1965 Act do invite
speculation.
After the passage in the Act to which 1have just referred, there follows a pro-
vision which is perfectly sound in principle and is in accord with Article 6 (1) of
the 1958 Convention. lt says: "The boundary of the continental shelf shall be
that determined by agreement between Malta and such otherState or States." But
why, one may ask, have the words "where . . . it is necessary to determine the
boundanes of the respective continental shelves" been added as compared with
the text of Article6 (1) of the 1958Convention and inserted before the perfectly
proper provision for determination of continental shelf boundaries by agreement
between Malta and "such other State or States"? Surely the words "where it is
necessary to determine the boundaries of the respective continental shelves" can-
not have been inserted to provide an excuse, a cloak or a cover for unilateral
action by Malta?
As is well known and well established, the requirement of delimitation of
continental shelf areas by agreement is basic and paramount under customary
international law. However subtle in language the Maltese Act may be. it could
not displace the corollary to the pnnciple, namely. the requirement of bona fide
efforts to reach agreement by meaningful negotiations. lt is clear that both in
Article 6 (1) of the 1958Convention and Article 2 of the 1966Act the expression
"in the absence of agreement" rnust be interpreied so as togive full effect to the
principle and its corollary. The expression cannot be used,1suggest, as anexcuse
to bypass the requirement of agreement and meaningful negotiation in good faith
so as to justify delimitation of continental shelf areaby unilaterat action. ARGUMENT OF SIR FRANCIS VALLAT 19
It is true that the 1966 Act provides for a median line delirnitation in the
absence of agreement.But most astonishing is the omission from that provision,
ascompared with the text of Article 6 (1), of the condition, "unless another boun-
dary is justified by special circumstances". The omission of these words could
only be excused on the ground that any such circumstanceswould be duly taken
into account during the course of meaningful negotiations leading to agreement
as contemplated in section 2 of ihe 1966 Act and in Article 6 of the 1958
Convention. Mr. President, even if Malta itself considered that there were no
special circumstances, Malta, 1suggest, had no right to assume that other States
would take the same view or thar States not parties to the 1958 Convention
would accept the terms and the text of Article 6. There is no need to remind the
Court again that Article 6 of the 1958 Convention has not ben accepted as
expressing a rule or principle of customary international law as to the applicabi-
lity of the equidistance method and is in no way binding on States not party to
the 1958 Convention.
In any event, it is apparent that the lack of clanty in Articie 2 of the Maltese
Continental Shelf Act of 1966 and the potential conflict with both customary
international law and the 1958Convention make it a broken reed as a support for
the plea of status quo or acquiescence made by Malta in its written pleadings.
May 1now respectfully refer Mernbers of the Court to Chapter IV of 'he Mal-
tese Memorial (1). 1 am not suggesting that we look at that chapter now, of
course. This chapter virtually states the essence of Maltais case. It is a case
founded on a claim to a unilateral right of delimitation and the legal validity of
the median line said to have been established by Malta by its unilateral action.
The purported delimitation is so described in the heading to the chapter which
reads: "Maltais Equidistance Line" or in the words of the sub-heading "Malta's
Delimitation".
The key paragraphs 105-106 contain assertions one after the other which are
patently not in accord with customary international law, as it wasin 1966or as it
remains now, nor with the 1958 Convention, nor even with the provisions of the
1966 Act to which 1have been referring. For example, the second sentence of
paragraph 105 states: "The provisions of the Act estoblished a median line deli-
mifation" (emphasis added). Whatever may have been the effect of the Act from
the intemal point of view in Malta, from the point of view of international law
this simply cannot be true. And it was international law to which any delimitation
had to be subject.The Act itself could not, and 1submit on a proper interpretation
did not, purport to establish by unilateral action a iegally valid median or equi-
distance line either in general or in relation to Libya in particulat. In fact, any
atternpt by Malta publicly to define an equidistance line with respect to Libya
only came some years later. The Court will no doubt recail the gasps of astonish-
ment when Malta's equidistance line was first unveiled to the Court in 1981
during the oral proceedings on Malta's application for permission to intervene in
the proceedings between Tunisia and Libya.
Later we shall of course have a good deal to Say about that line. For the
moment let me continue with the story of Maltese legislation concetning the
continental shelf.
in paragraphs 2.08 to 2.12, the Libyan Reply (III) called attention to a second
reading debate in the Maltese Parliament on the draft Bill which led to the adop-
tion of the 1966 Act. Without repeating the comments made there, 1 should like
to refer the Court in particular to what was said by the Maltese Minister of Jus-
tice, as set out in Annex I to the 1,ibyan Reply at pages 2 and 3. Nowhere is it
claimed that Malta was establishing by the Act a particular equidistance line. The
requirement of agreement flowing from Article 6 of the 1958 Convention is20 CONTINENTALSHELF
acknowledged.Attentionis calledtothe fact thatthe Prime Ministerwasto begiven
power to designate areas where Malta's rights over the continental shelf are exer-
cisable and it is at the very least acknowledged that a median line could only be
provisional and would have to besubject to agreement with any State with which
there might be a difference of view regarding overtapping claims. The recogni-
tion of the requirernent of agreement is wholly inconsistent with any concept of
status quo or acquiescence.
In referring to these statements in the Maltese Parliament, Dr. Mizzi confirmed
that while, in 1966,Malta saw a necessity to reach a delimitation agreement with
Italy, it saw nosuch necessity in the case of Libya to which it merely gave notice
of intentions for the future (III, p. 278).
As far as Libya is concerned, it is made perfectly clear by the statements of the
Minister ofJustice that he did not consider that there was any existing delimita-
tion, established unilaterally by Malta or otherwise, between Malta and Libya.
This point is already made in paragraph 2.08 of the Libyan Reply. It is also
confimed by the exchanges between the Minister of Justice and Mr. Mintoff,
then in opposition, at the resurned debate on 22 July 1966 (see III, LR, Annex 1
at p. 5). Whatever Mr. Mintoff may have thought, the Minister was absolutely
firm that there was no problem regarding the continental shelf of the African
States, for the moment at least, because they were separated by a depth which
could not be exploited. In view of this position taken by the Government of
Malta on the effect of the projected Act, it clearly cannot be maintained that the
effect of the 1966 Act was ro establish an equidistance line opposable by Malta
against Libya.
So Faras Malta's equidistance line is concerned, the indeterminate and incon-
clusive effect of the 1966 Act, as such, is demonstrated by the steps that fol-
lowed. To provide for the grant of production and exploration licences in ac-
cordance with the Continental Shelf Act of 1966, Malta made the Petroleum
(Production) Regulations 1969fotlowed by the Continental Shelf (Designation of
Area) Order 1971. These instruments are referred to in paragraphs 4.07 and 4.29
of the Libyan Memorial (1) and attached as Annexes 16 and 35.It is worth taking
a brief look at these two instruments.
In section 2 of the 1969 Regulations, "the continental shelf' is given the same
meaning as in section 2 of the 1966 Act. By paragraph 4, read with paragraph 5,
of section 4, every application for production licences had to be in respect of one
or more blocks described or specified by a notice published from time to tirne by
the Minister in the Government Gazette describing or specifying, by reference to
a map, numbered areas (referred to in the Regulations as "blocks"). This provi-
sion clearly is in accordance with the power given by section 3, subsection 3, of
the 1966Act to the Prime Minister to designate areas within which the continen-
tal shelf rights of Malta are exercisable. Paragraph 6 of section 4 authorizes the
exploration Licences tobe made in respect of the whole or any part of Malta and
"the continental shelf". But this only constitutes a reference back to the 1966Act
and does nothing - and this is the point- it does nothing to confirm the estab-
lishment of an equidistance line.
The first designation of areas over which Malta was claiming that rights were
exercisable. so far as Libya is aware, was the Continental Shelf (Designation of
Area) Order 1971. It is a short Order which, as can be seen from Annex 35 to the
Libyan Memorial, recites that it is made in exercise of the powers conferred by
section 3 of the Continental Shelf Act 1966 and, following the wording of the
Continental Shelf Act itself.provides :
"The area described in the Schedule hereto is by this Order designated as ARGUMENT OF SIRFRANCISVALLAT 21
an area within which the rights mentioned in subsection (1) of section 3 of
the Continental Shelf Act, 1966are exercisable."(1.p. 328.)
@ The Schedule contains the CO-ordinatesof the area which is shown on Map 7
facing page 56 of the Libyan Memorial.
Mr. President, 1should now like the Members of the Court to look at one par-
ticular map - the only map 1intend to put before the Court at this stage. This
map is No. 3 in the folder of maps provided by Libya for the convenienceof the
Court. Whatever words one may use to describe the areaitis perfectly clear that
the area has no relation whatever to any equidistance line between Malta and
Libya and is, if anything, more closely aligned with ihe 200-metre isobath. In any
event, it seems to show the tendency of Malta to surround itselfby areas within
which, in accordance with the depth and exploitabiliiy test,t deemed its conti-
nental shelf rights to be exercisable and noi to push out to the equidistance line,
which has more recently become the subject-matter of its claim. Naturally, Malta
is at pains to minimize the significünce of the Designation Order and the conces-
sions which, as shown on this map, were granted in the areas affected by it. But
even though the licences were in due course surrendered, the significance of the
Designation ûrder, and their grant, caonotbeallowed to escape notice.
Again, so far as Libya is aware, the next public step taken by Malta in pur-
suance of the 1966 Act was the Prime Minister's Notice, LN 41 of 1973 (1, LM,
@ para. 4.38 and Map 10).Although it was unknown to Libya at the tirne, it was in
fact virtually contemporary with the presentation to Malta of Libya's 1973 pro-
posai.
It is tme that in 1972 Malta hsd disclosed to Libya its claim to an equidistance
line, but it is difficult to find in the legislative stepsby Malta any ground
whatever for a plea based on status quo or acquiescence. Perhaps 1 should add
that itis not possible seriously to contend that the time from July 1972 to April
1973taken by Libya to study the Maltese proposal could in any way be regarded
as the slightest indication of acquiescence.f it were. it would make a mockery
of the principle of delimitationy agreement.
For the sake of completeness - and 1realize this is a little tedious. but it is
quite important - Chapter 4 of the Libyan Memorial (1) dealt in some detail
with the maritime legislation of Malta and Libya other than measures conceming
the continental shelf. Forthealtese legislation. reference may be made to para-
graphs 4.03 and 4.08 to 4.1 1, and for the Libyan legislation. paragraphs 4.12 to
4.20. Those paragraphs. together with the related Annexes, speak for themselves.
The only comment that 1would like to add refers to Malta.
In paragraph 23 of its Counter-Memorial (II), Malta accuses Libya of arguing
for a delimitation which approximates to an enclave solution and thus of dis-
regarding the principle of equality of States. Like others in the Maltese Counter-
Memorial. and especially in Chaptrr 1,this accusation is wide of the mark and is
patently illogical. It obviously flows from Malta's misunderstanding and mis-
application of the principle of equality of States. about which my colleague,
Professor Bïiggs, will have more tosay later.
At the moment, 1only wish to comment on the aspect of the accusation which,
although with a vague reservation in the word "approximates", charges Libya
with seeking an enclave solution. If it is intentosuggest that Libya is seeking
to surround Malta with Libyan continental shelf, the accusation is patently false.
If, on the other hand, it contemplates Malta's continental shelf king surrounded
by that of other States in the Central Mediterranean, this is an inevitable conse-
quence of the geographical location of Malta in the Mediterranean Sea. This
natural consequence cannot possibly depend on any disregard of the principle of 22 CONTINENTAL SHELF
equality of States. Even Malta'sequidistance line itself. extreme as it is, involves
in this sense an enclaving of Malta.
Of more practical significance in this connection is the traditional outlook of
Malta, which may well be described as one of "self-enclave". 1would likejust to
mention very briefly the legislation. By the Fish Industry A1953, the exercise
of fishery junsdiction over foreign vessels was limited to Malta's territorial
waters which were then three nautical miles wide. By the Territorial Watersand
Contiguous Zone Act of 1971. the breadth of Malta's territorial waters was
entended to six nautical mitesand. for the purpose of the laws relatingto fishery,
to 12nautical miles. The 1971Act also declared a 12-milecontiguous zone. All
of these measures inevitably created a band around Malta, thereby constituting
an enclave. The extension of the fishery and contiguous zones to 20 nautical
miles, by an Act of 1975,conjures upthe sarne picture. To similareffect was the
Territorial Waters and ContiguousZone (Amendment)Act 1978, whichextended
Malta's territorial waters to 12 miles, and the contiguous zoneto 24 miles and
the exclusive fishery zoneto25 nautical miles.That, Mr. President, was in 1978.
In each of these measures. Malta, quite properly, created a band or enclave of
waters arounditself. Aslate as 1971one sees the same picture emerging from the
Continental Shelf (Designation of Area) Order. 1971, to which 1 have already
@ referred, and the effect of which is shown on Map 7, facing page 56 of the
Libyan Memorial. Here, however. it looks as if the enclave effect was resulting
from the application of a depth criterion, 1shave said, such as the 200-metre
isobath. It was not until July 1972 that Libya was faced with CO-ordinatespro-
posed by Malta involvinga claim to adelimitation linefarto the southof the 1971
Maltese"blocks". It was only in 1973that thePrime Ministerof Malta issued his
Notice LN 41 inviting applicationsfor production licencesfor 16 blocks.in the
interveningarea between the 1971blocks and Malta'sequidistanceline, reaching
as far south as the line indicated to Libya in July 1972.
Happily, at this poin1can leave the question of legislation; this is not really
material for a statement before the Court, it is really material for study. Never-
theless, it has a bearing on the dispute, and 1fe1was obliged to go into some
detail.
(c) Emergenceof the Dispute
It was in the circumstances tha1have described that the dispute rapidly came
to a head. It is remarkable that, at the tirne when issue was joined between the
Parties, no concessions had been granted by Malia reaching as far south as its
equidistance line. Indeed. it was at the very time when the conflict of views
becarne apparent that the Prime Minister of Malta issued his Notice inviting
applications for production licences in blocks or areas which lay between the
original blocks of 1970-1971and the equidistance line.
There is a good deal in the pleadingsof both Parties about the rather bnef his-
tory of the emergence of the dispute. It is not my intentionto compare the details
presented by each Party. 1 would, however, comrnend to the attention of the
Court the objective outline, which is given in paragraphs 4.30 to 4.41 of the
Libyan Memorial(1) and the related Annexes and maps. The story itself can br:
virtually reduced to a single sentence. The dispute arose out of Malta's proposal
of July 1972 followed by Libya's rejection and counter-proposa1 made nine
rnonths later in Apnl 1973. Forconvenience of reference. 1would mention that
the CO-ordinatesof Malta's proposal are given in paragraph 4.31 of the Libyan
Memorial and the CO-ordinatesof Libya's proposal in paragraph 4.34. These are ARGUMENT OF SIR FRANCIS VALLAT 23
@@ depicted respectively on Maps 8 and 9, opposite page 58 of the Libyan
Memorial.
Malta's rejection of the Libyan proposa1 was immediate and out of hand. It
cannot have been based on a careful consideration of the proposa1and it left no
room for meaningful negotiation. By a letter dated 23 April 1973, the very date
on which the Libyan proposals were presented by the Libyan delegation to the
Maltese, the Prime Minister of Malta sent a written message to Colonel Qadhafi
saying that the Libyan delegation had suggested as the underlying principle an
"inequitable yardstick", which was completely unacceptable to the Govemment
of Malta. It would almost seem that this answer was pre-prepared. At any rate,
there cannot have been any tirnefor serious consideration on the part of Malta.
It is true that the method for delimitation used by Libya was novel, but it was
adapted to the circumstances of the particular case. It is not the position of Libya
that its 1973proposal is necessarily the last word but Libya does suggest that it
is on the nght lines and going in the right direction. It is not open to the criticism
made by Dr. Mizzi (III, p. 279) that it encroached on Malta's exclusive fish-
ery zone or its contiguous zone, for the simple reason that the 1973 proposal
was made years before Malta exteiided its fishery zone to 25 miles and its conti-
guous zone to 24 miles by the Territorial Waters and Contiguous Zone
(Amendment) Act 1978. In any event, the overlap is slight and could easily have
been adjusted in negotiations. Unfortunately, the precipitate action of Malta and
the rigidity of its position prevented any serious discussion of the proposa1
between the Parties. Any negotiations might well have taken account of points
such as these.
The visit of the Libyan delegation to Malta in May 1973 only served to
confirm the deadlock and the determination of Malta to proceed unilaterally. The
result was a complete absence of meaningful negotiations and in particular the
exclusion of any opportunity to explore the basis of any flexibility in Libya's
position. The situation wasagain confirmed when, in March 1974, Malta offered
to send a delegation to Libya to discuss thedefinition of the median line". Such
an approach offered no hope of progress. This was apparently recognized by
Malta because, in April 1974, MaIta proposed refemng the dispute over delimi-
tation to arbitration and submitted a draft agreement for that purpose.
It is remarkable that during these exchanges Malta did not raise or rely on the
status quolacquiescence contention raised in the written pleadings. It is also
remarkable that "overlapping concessions" were granted by both Parties in 1974,
following the 1972 and 1973 propcisals,the crystallization of the dispute and the
collapse of negotiations.
In these circumstances,1suggest, the areas covered by the grant of concessions
obviously have much less significance than they would have in a case where the
grant of concessions by the Parties precedes or even leads to the emergence of
the dispute or where they indicate what the Partiesmight have considered to be
equitable. Nevertheless, sorne comments have to be made in this connection.
Having regard to the accusations made by Malta in paragraph 16 of its Reply
(III), Libya has again checked the details of the chronology given in footnote 1
of page 16of the Libyan Counter-Memorial (II). am authorized to confirm the
details there set ouforthe convenience of the Court and the Parties. The date of
the principles of agreement between Libya and Total concerning NC 53 was
14 April 1974and thedate of the EPSA resulting from them was 13October 1974.
The accuracy of these dates now seems to be accepted by Dr. Mizzi (III,
p. 280). As pointed out in the parentheses at the bottom of the footnote, the date
of July 1977 for the Total EPSA given on Map No. 3 in the Map Annex in the
Maltese Memorial is not correct. The correct date is 13October 1974. 1thought 24 CONTINENTALSHELF
we ought to get the position of the quesofothe dates straightened out because
of the accusations which have ken made.
While referring to Map No. 3 and without accepting the accuracy of the map
itself, the m-p which, of course, was produced by Malta- by the legend and
by the lines attributed to the Libyan concessions makes it clear that Malta well
knew that the Libyan concessions did overlap withhose granted by Malta and
did extend north of Malta's equidistance line. So the concessions themselves
were again a clear rejection of the median line. The areas of the Libyan conces-
a sions are shown on Map Il opposite page 62 of the Libyan Memorial, to which
1invite the attention of the Court in due course. has only to check the co-
ordinates of the Maltese equidistance line and to compare these with the areas of
the Libyan concessions to see that their grant involved a rejection of the median
line.
1tis necessary to recall, however, that in the application of Libya's 1955 Law
and Regulation No. 1the concessions have a northward reach based on the extent
of Libyan jurisdiction and control which were not defined in the Law. However
thenorthern boundaries of the concessions do not in any way restrict the full
extent of Libyan jurisdiction or claims. In this case, one has to look for that pur-
pose to the proposa1 made by Libya in 1973. As regards the area of NC 53,
1am [Oconfim that the position of Libya iç correct and the situation is clearly
explained in paragraphs 2.14-2.16 of the Libyan ReplyII).
From what Dr. Mizzi said in his opening speech on 26 November (III, p. 283).
he now seems to accept that the boundary of the concession as shown on the
a Libyan map (LM, No. 11 facing p. 62) is substantially correct, but he still has
some reservations with respect to the area of "the work programme"1 am not
going into that question1 need only add thai the areas in which the conces-
sionaires undertook commitrnents to operate are really of no importance.
As 1have already indicated, the mainspring of the dispute in this case was the
Prime Minister's message of 23 April 1973 to Colonel Qadhafi, which is quoted
in Annex 41 to the Libyan Memoriaf. The grant of concessions by Malta as well
as by Libya followed the crystallization of the difference and indeed of the dis-
pute between the Parties. Hence, protest and counier-protests following the
concessions and even the grant of concessions do not have the importance for
delimitationwhich they might otherwise have. ln the circumstances, I will limit
myself to calling attention to the exchanges mentioned in paragra4.49-4.57
of the Libyan Memorial (1)and the fact that in these exchanges there appears no
hint of a status quo claim or of acquiescence on the part of Libya. The evidence
is to the contrary.
(d) SrepsLeading to Subrnissi oothe Disput to theCourt
It is necessary at this point to make a few observations on the steps leading to
submissionof the dispute to the Court. Without intending any discourtesy either
to the Court or to the delegation of Ma1shall limit rnyself to a large extent to
making references to the Libyan written pleadings. Beginning with the initiative
taken by Malta in April1974 by presentinga draft proposai for submission to
arbitration and ending with the signature of the Special Agreement on 23 April
1976, the pertinent facts are stated in the Libyan Mernorial (1, LM, paras. 4.41,
4.47 and4.58-4.67).
Very briefly, the facts were these. There were discussions in December 1974
between Prime Minister Mintoff and Colonel Qadhafi with little progress. How-
ever, in October 1975, there was a meeting between Prime Minister Mintoff and
Major Jalloud, the Prime Minister of Libya, ai which Malta agreed to reference ARGUMENT OF SIRFRANCISVALLAT 25
to the International Court of Justice instead of arbitration as the means for the
settlement of the dispute. This opened the way to further negotiations which ulti-
mately led to concentration on the difference between the Parties as to whether,
as Libya proposed, the Court should pronounce on the principles and rules of
international law or whether. as Malta wished, the Court should draw the delimi-
tation lineA suggestion by Mr. Mintoff for a compromise solution was accepted
by Colonel Qadhafi and the formula was embodied in the Special Agreement
which was ultimately agreed. 1mention this point in particular because it was a
compromise formula, and not a surrender to the view of Malta that the Court
should actually determine the delimitation line.
As the Agent of Libya has already recalled, the signature of the Special Agree-
ment was accompanied by a no-drilling understanding. On 26 November at the
beginning of the oral hearing, Dr. Mizzi seemed to deny the very existence of
that understanding (III, p. 280). 1shall have somethingto Sayabout this denial in
a moment.
Let me just briefly complete the story. Following signature of the Special
Agreement in April 1976, there were difficulties and delays involved in ratifica-
tion. But States frequently do meet difficulties and delays in ratifyinan agree-
ment as quickly as they might wish. Exchange of ratifications duly took place on
20 March 1982. followed by joint notification to the Court on 26 July 1982.
Further details may be found in paragraphs 4.68 to 4.85 of the Libyan Memorial
(1).It is clear that the delay in ratification involved no breach by Libya of any
express or implied term or condition of the Special Agreement or of the no-
drilling understanding.
However, Dr. Mizzi's remarks, coupled with the allegationsmade in Chapter 1
of Maltais written Reply, makes some examination of this question necessary.
With reference to the "no-drilling understanding". paragraph 18 of the Maltese
Reply (III) makes this extraordinary allegation: "Paragraphs 1.23-1.27 of the
Libyan Counter-Mernorial contain no less than three significant distortions of
fact." What are these sa-called distortions of fact?
In subparagraph (i), Malta complains that, while relying on the confirmation of
the acceptance by Malta of the no-drilling understanding as recorded in para-
graph 6 of the Secretary-General's Report, Libya did not also relyon the follow-
ing sentence in the Report. That sentence merely recorded Malta's view that as
Libya had failed to ratify the Agreement. Malta was legally entitled to commence
drilling operations. This was a legal positionaken by MaIta which Libya did not
and does not accept as well founded. The false nature of this accusation of dis-
tortion is demonstrated by the fact that Libya quoted the whole text of the Report
in Annex 72 to its Memorial and it is that Annex which Malta uses as the source
of information for its accusation!
Having regard to the denial by Dr, Mizzi of the very existence of the no-
drilling understanding to which 1 have already referred, may 1,with your per-
mission Mr. President, read the first two sentences of paragraph 6 of the Report
of the Secretary-General of 13 November 1980 (UN Security Council doc.
S/14256), a copy of which is in Annex 72 to the Libyan Memorial:
"Malta has confinned that it had accepted an implicit understanding,
when the Agreement was signed in 1976, that it would not begin drilling
operations until the Court had reacheda decision and an agreement on deli-
mitation had been concluded in accordance with Article III of the Agree-
ment." (1. p.379.)
And the next sentence to which. it is claimed, Libya made no reference is:
"Malta considered that since the Libyan Arab Jarnahiriya had failed to26 CONTINENTALSHELF
ratify the Agreement. it was legally entitled to commence dnlling opera-
tions." (1,p. 379.)
Mr. President. what clearer confirmation of the no-drilling understanding
could there be lhan this? No further evidence is necessary having regard both to
this statement in theSecretary-General's Report and the considerable history of
the no-drilling understanding which is referred to in the wtitten pleadings. If any
further confirmation were needed, it is to be found in the second sentence that 1
have just quoted. If there had been no understanding, whydid Malta have to pro-
vide a legal excuse in order to Say that it was legally entitled to commence
drilling operations? Malta's excuse for repudiating the understanding was
Libya's failure to ratify the Special Agreement. 1believe that no more need be
said on this particular point.
The precise charges made in subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) are somewhat obscure
but they seem to relate essentially to the same point as was raised in subpara-
graph (i). This is the legal allegation by Maita that delay in ratification of the
Special Agreement entitled Malta to repudiate the no-drilling understanding. I
cannot emphasize too strongly that this was a claim by Malta which was not and
is not accepted by Libya.
As regards subparagraph (ii), the point being made at the end of paragraph
1.26of the Libyan Memorial (1) was the waming by the Prime Minister of Libya
that Libya would prolest against and resist drilling by Malta as threatened by the
Pnme Minister of Malta dunng his visit to Tripoli on 23 Apnl 1980. Whatever
the Prime Minister of Libya said about prospective ratification it had nothing to
do with that point. As it happens. Libya does not disagree that at the end of the
meeting Major Jalloud mentioned the prospects of ratification. Without neces-
sarily accepting the accuracy of the unilateral notes of the meeting on that date,
now appearing as Annex 3 to Maltais Reply, Libya does consider that the last
sentence of the notes is more accurate than the Iast sentence of paragraph 100of
the Memorial of Malta (1)quoted in paragraph 18of its Reply (III). In the notes,
Major Jalloud is quoted as saying : "The Agreement which was signed (Le., the
1976 Agreement) will be ratified by the Congress in June and we will then go to
the Court."
1am sony to have to trouble the Court with such minute details. However, the
difierences between the two texts are not without significance. It is clear from
the reference to ratification"by the Congress in June" that Major Jalloud was
expressing an expectation and not rnaking apromise. It is also clear that he was
not giving June as adate for going to the Court. In other words. thestatement at the
very end of paragraph 100 ofthe Maltese Memorial (1)"that the two sides would
go to the Court in June (1980)" is itself not entirely accurate. Even according to
the notes, Major Jalloud stated riomonth when the Parties would go to the Court.
With reference to subparagraph (iii),1 would retort that Malta seems to claim
the unilateral right to drill in spite of the no-drilling understanding. without
appearing to appreciate that there had been no breach of legal obligation on the
part of Libya which gave Malta the right to terminate or repudiate the no-drilling
understanding. The difference between the Parties in any event is again one of
law and there is absolutely no question of any distortion of fact on the part of
Libya.
The tmth of the matter is that Malta seerns to be exceptionally sensitive about
the no-drilting understanding. There may be two explanations which may be
cumulative and not alternative. These are: first. that the Texaco drilling was
clearly in breach of the understanding and, secondly, that both the understanding
itself and Malta's attempts to secure modification by the establishment of ARGUMENTOF SIRFRANCIS VALLAT 27
"buffer" zones are wholly inconsistent with Malta's status quo/acquiescence
contention.
Mr. President, in reviewing briefly the background to the dispute and its his-
tory, 1 have incidentally called attention to the absence of foundation for the
contention made by Malta in its written pleadings based on an alleged status quo
or acquiescence. I had intended to add a separate part to my introductory obser-
vations dealing with that contention. However, as it is so obviously without foun-
dation and has not been revived in Malta's oral pleading, 1 am not going to
trouble the Coun with arguments on this point. 1shall now tum immediately to
the Special Agreement, followed by the identification of the main issues in the
case.
May 1 now pass from the background to the case to the second part of my
observations. This is concerned with the Special Agreement and the task of the
Court. There is in fact littleCO add to Chapter 5 of the Libyan Memorial and
Chapter 1 of the Libyan Reply.
I should like to confirm the position of Libya, as expressed in those passages
of the written pleadings, and call particular attention to paragraph 5.05 of the
Memorial (1), which gives the essence of the views of Libya on the interpretation
of Article 1of the Special Agreement, and to Article III, by which agreement on
the boundary line between the areas of continental shelf appertaining to each of
them is left to the Parties to determine. As stated in paragraph 5.05, in the view
of Libya the scope of the present case falls between the scope of the request in
theNorth Sea Continental Shelfcases and the one made in the TunisialLibyacase.
Although there is no express reference in the Special Agreement to equitable
principles, the effect of Artic1ei~fthe Special Agreement is to request the Court
to tell the Parties how to reach a goal whose result would be in accorwith qui-
table pnnciples and represent the most appropriate application of the existing
principles and rules of international law. As stated at the end of paragraph 5.07,
this would naturally involve an assessment by the Court of the relevant circum-
stances and the weight to be attached to them. Those words will not be unfamiliar
to Members of this distinguished Court.
Malta seems to be compelled by its median line contentions to adopt a dif-
ferent approach to the interpretation of the Special Agreement. This emerges
clearly from Part II, and in particular paragraphs 68 and 69, of the Maltese Coun-
ter-Memorial (II). In this connection may 1 call attention to the submissions of
the two Parties, and note that the views expressed by Malta on interpretation are
related to its Second Submission. According to Malta (quoting from its Memo-
rial), "the Court should indicate the boundary which in its view would result
from the application of such method as the Court may choose for the Parties to
achieve the relevant determination". This is directly related to the Second Sub-
mission in the Maltese Memorial which asks the Court to adjudge and declare
that:
"in practice the above principles and niles are applied by means of a
median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest pointS.on
the baselines of Malta and the low-water mark of the Coast of Libya" (1,
p. 503).
In other words, Malta is asking the Court to rubber-stamp its pre-ordained
rnedian or equidistance line and, by its submission, is compelled to interpret
Article Iof the Special Agreement to accord with that restncted task.28 CONTINENTALSHELF
The Libyan Ninth Submission gives greater scope to the Court and freedom to
assess the facts and circumstances with a view to determining a method of deli-
mitarion which would achieve an equitable result. Contrary to what was argued
at length by my leamed friend Mr. Lauterpacht on 27 November (III, pp. 319-
320), this submission in no way deprives the Court of its proper role under the
Special Agreement. 1shall, therefore, not take the time of the Court by arguing
in detail the contention which has no substance.
Reverting to the written pleadings, it is quite wrong, as Malta has done, to de-
scribe the role attributed to the Court by Libya'is nterpretation of ihe Special
Agreement as less significant than the role which Mafta has tried to attribute to
it. Indeed, in a casef this kind, the role of the Court cannot be insignificanAs
the representatives of Malta are well aware, the requests in the North Sea
Continenlal Shelf cases were clearly restricted to the statement of the relevant
principles and rules of international la: yet. as evidenced by the frequent refer-
ences made to those cases by counsel for Malta, they occupy a position of prime
importance in the elucidation of customary intemational law conceming conti-
nental shelf delimitation. While maintaining the task of the Court in the present
case does not extend as far as the actual determination of the line, Libya agrees
that it does go beyond the role assigned to the Court in the North Sea Continental
Sheifcases.
The task of theCourt, as we have said, is undoubtedly an important and adif-
ficult one. The purpose of Libya is not to put blinkers on the Court and try to
lead it te a predetermined line; it is to assist the Court to reach conclusions that
will enable the Court to decide for the Parties how the principles and rules of
international law may be applied by the Parties so as to achieve without difficulty
an equitabIe result in the present case.
Ultimately, the case is not about a particular line and daims up to that line. It
is about delimitation and how the Parties are to effect that delimitation in appli-
cation of the relevant principles and rules of internationallaw. That is the pur-
pose of this litigatioand that is the diwction in which out presentation will go.
Mr. President, this brings me to the end of my second part. I shall next pass to
the identification of the issues.
The Court rose ut 12.50p.m. SEVENTEENTH PUBLIC SITTING (7 XII 84, 10 a.m.1
Preseni: [See sitting of 26 XI 84.1
Sir Francis VALLAT:
III
Mr. President, 1finished yesterday speaking briefly about the interpretationof
the Special Agreement and indicating the direction of our presentation in the
light of the requirements of the Special Agreement. 1 should now like to indi-
cate what seem to me. at any rate, to be some of the main issues of fact and
law in the present case.
1do not intend to an~icipatethe arguments which will be put before you by
counsel for Libya, or to burden my remarks with references, which will no
doubt be made subsequently. My intention is simply to try to provide for the
Court points of focus that may assist in weighing the arguments presented to it
by the two Parties.
In connection with the considerationof the issues in the case, there are two
preliminary observations that 1ubouldask Members of the Court, with great res-
pect, to bearin mind throughout. The first is that in the written pleadings Malta
seemed to be at pains to provoke a diversionary banle of charge and counter-
charge. Wappily,this attitude has not been revived during this oral hearing. For
their part. the representatives of Libya before this honourable Court have no
intention of king drawn into any such battle. Their intention is to concentrate
on the issues and on the merits.
The second consideration is this: it has also becorne apparent from the wnt-
ten pleadings that, while Libya is concerned with the facts of this particular
case. Malta has ventured further and further into abstractionsending in its
Reply with a series of Figuresand diagrams which have little or no relation ro
the actual facts of the present case. Unhappily,this approach has been repeated
at this hearing. It is quite extraordinary. Mr. President, that while accusing
Libya of ignoring the facts, it is Malta which seeks to minimize, obscure and
avoid the facts by highly theoretical legal arguments.
Turning now to the issues themselves, one of the underlying themes in the
Maltese argument is the principle of equality of States. Malta leans heavily on
this principle as justifying. in one guise or another, equal reach of jurisdiction
or as justifying its claim to an equidistance line. Of course, the principleof
sovereign equality of States is well known and is consecrated in the United
Nations Charter. But itis also well known thatthe principle does not mean that
al1 States have precisely the same or equal shares of wealth and natural
resources, territory or areas of continental shelf. 1 will not elaborate further on
Matta's misuse of the principle of equality of States. The Court will shortly
hear more on this subject from rnycolleague ProfessorBriggs who will, in this
context, deal with the question of non-encroachment. There will, of course, be
more about non-encroachment later. I do, however, wishto stress here the need
to beware of the theme of equality as used by Malta.
In Libya's view, the principleof the equality of States is properly protected30 CONTINENTALSHELF
by the application of the well-established principles and rules of international
law, including the application of equitable principles. But nowhere does one
find any authority among these principles and rules for the automatic or
a priori application of the equidistance method of delimitation.
Here lies a basic difference in the approach of the Parties. It begins with the
very tems of Article 1of the Special Agreement and runs through the entire
course of the written pleadings. Libya has sought to identify the principles and
mies of international law applicable to the delimitation and to establish the facts
so as to enable the Court to tell the Parties how they may delimit their respec-
tive areas of continental shelf without difficulty. Malta, on the other hand. white
paying lip service to the Special Agreement, has sought by every conceivable
means to maintain its own a priori method of delimitation and even its own pre-
selected line.
Libya, however, does agree with Maha that basis of title has some relevance
to delimitation. This is not for me to develop. More about Libya's views on this
will be given later by my colleague, Professor Jaenicke. when he deals with the
subject of natural prolongation. But Libya does not accept the theory of the
substitution of distance for natural prolongation as the new basis of title toeas
of continental shelf now put forward by Malta. It is well established in custo-
mary international law that title to continental shelf areas is founded on the
extension of the territory of a State into and under the sea; in other words, on
natural prolongation. This is the basis of the ipsojure title of a coastal State to
areas of continental shelf.
Before actually embarking on the problem of delimitation itself, the Court
may well wish to consider the question of the relevant area for the purpose of.
the delimitation. This iscertainly one of the questions on which the Parties are
in disagreement. The importance of this question needs no emphasis. It will not
have escaped the attention of the Court that, while Libya takes a comparatively
modest view as to the relevant area, Malta wishes to reach out in the direction
of the far end of the Mediterranean and would ask the Court, in its Judgment in
this case, virtually to ignore prospective delimitations with other States.
Let me now turn to the question of delimitation itself. Libya maintains that
the method of delimitation in any particular case is to be determined by the
application of equitable principles so as to achieve an equitable result. An exa-
mination of the First Submission in the Maltese Mernorial rnight lead one to
suppose that Malta shared this view. It would not. however, be confirmed by an
examination of the text of Malta's written pleadings or ils oral argument.
Although there is considerable ambiguity in Malta's position, these pleadings
and arguments seem to assign to the facts and circumstances of the case a sub
sidiary role merely for the purpose of testing the result. In the view of Libya,
this approach is repugnant to the jurisprudence of the Couri but is tailor-made
for Malta's assumption of legal priority for the equidistance method.
In its effort to maintain its apriori method and its pre-selected line. Malta
started by relying on Article 6 of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Sttelf
- adjusted, as 1have shown, to suit its interests- and has in these proceed-
ings passed to reiiance on Article 76 of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention.
As has been amply demonstrated and has already been confirmed during this
oral hearing, Malta's reliarice on Article 6 of the 1958 Convention was in itself
defective and as will beshown the reliance on Article 76 of the 1982 Conven-
tion is misplaced.
Mr. Resident. as 1 remarked at the beginning and is indeed common ground
between the Parties, this case is govemed not by the Conventions, whether in
force or not, but by customary international law. Article 6 of the 1958 Con- ARGUMENT OF SIR FRANCIS VALLAT 31
vention has been held by this Court not to be expressive of customary intema-
tional law. How far, if at all, Article 76 of the 1982Convention is so expressive
has yet to be determined. In any event, in the view of Libya, Maltais view of
the so-called "distance principle" is not well founded even on the language of
Article 76 itself. Nor is this "distance principle" as presented by Malta a true
reflection of customary international law on continental shelf delimitation. In
Libya's view, if any Article of the 1982 Convention could be regarded as rele-
vant, it is Article 83. So far as distance is involved, Article 76 is concerned
with the determination of the outer limits of the continental shelf; the present
case is concerned, like Article 83, with delimitation of continental shelf areas
between States. If there were any doubt about this distinction, it would be
removed by paragraph 10 of Article 76. It stipulates that the provisions of this
Article, i.e., Article 76, are without prejudice to the question of delimitation of
the continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacent coasts. It is, of
course, Article 83 which deals with such delimitation. Malta chooses to ignore
or side-step paragraph 10 of Article 76 and this distinction between Article 76
and Article 83. Now, at this oral hearing, Professor Weil tnes to downgrade or
neutralize Article 83, a process which Libya cannot accept.
Arguing on the basis of the "distance principle", allegedly supported by State
practice, Malta has contended both in its written and oral pleadings for equidis-
tance and virtually nothing but equidistance. lt has admitted that the equidis-
tance method is not obligatory. Indeed, in the face of the existing jurisprudence
on which counsel for Malta have now relied so heavily, it could not seriously
be contended otherwise. They have, however, tned to achieve what is tanta-
mount to the same legal position by arguing on legal grounds for priority for
the equidistance method of deliniitation. They have also tned to support this
position by appeal to State practice. It will be dernonstrated (if any demonstra-
tion is really necessary) that it is equitable principles and not any method such
as equidistance that has priority.
While not really within the main issues, 1 should mention the non-relevant
factors to which Malta has attached so much importance, both in the written
pleadings and at the oral hearing. In the view of Libya, factors such as econo-
mics, including fishing, cannot make equitable a delimitation which is otherwise
inequitable.
Having disposed of the non-relevant factors, we shatl tum our attention to the
relevant circumstances. It is fundamental to Libya's case that due account
should be taken of al1the circumstances relevant to the delimitation. 1 will not
trespass on that field except to add a few remarks on the very important ques-
tion of coastal lengths to which so much attention has ken paid in the written
pleadings and in the oral arguments presented by Malta.
The significance of coastal Iengths isapparently rejected by the first sentence
of paragraph 245 of Malta's Counter-Memorial (II). It says : "The entitlement
of Malta depends upon the relationship (opposite) and the distance between
Libya and Malta." This omits any mention of coastal lengths.
The apparent rejection of the relevance of coastal lengths by Malta drives
Malta into reliance on a novel and untenable doctrine. As stated in paragraph
251 of its Counter-Memorial (II), MaIta contends "The generation of shelf
rights depends upon the pertinent control points and the measurements taken
from them in order to give effect to the distance principle." Malta is forced to
go this fx in order to try to sustain its theoretical case in support of its equidis-
tance line.Malta is at pains to support the equidistance line at al1costs.
An inequitable result in the present case would be inevitable if Malta's claim
were admitted because it not only seeks to prevent proper account being taken32 CONTINENTALSHELF
of the facts, such as the coastal lengths relevant to the areas of delimitation, but
also facts such as the exceptional character of the Rift Zone, both in ternis of
depth and geological features and the Escarpments-Fault Zone.
Having failed in its Counter-Mernorial to shake Libya's factual case on the
geomorphological/geol foatirea,fin its Reply Malta appears to ignore them
completely. In the view of Libya such important features cannot be ignored.
Libya is encouraged in this view by the strong attack on the Rift Zone mounted
by Malta in this first round of oral pleadings.
Finally, there is the question ofproportionaIity in connection with which the
views of Libya have been so vehemently attacked by Malta.
1 should like to conclude these introductory remarks, Mr. President, by stress-
ing again the importance of natural features, including al1 relevant aspects of
geology, geomorphology and geography. Natural features, such as the Rift
Zone, may in themselves provide criteria for delimitation, for example by rea-
son of a fundamental discontinuity in the continentai shelf. In any event, they
are factors to be taken into account. Malta, in the teeth of al1the jurispmdence,
takes an opposite position. It pins its flag to distance as ovemding everything
and tries to force the Court to the inexorable decision to bless the equidistance
method. In this process, Malta by one device or another has tried to sweep
aside al1 relevant physical factors except distance and the fact that the two
States are opposite to one mother. Although the continental shelf starts frorn
the coasts, Malta would attach no real importance to coastal relationships but
only to radial projection frorn a few points on or near the coasts and tries to
ignore or destroy the importance of the relationship and relative lengths of the
coasts of the two States. As has been made clear in the written pleadings, and
will now be explained by my colleagues, these views are not shared by Libya.
Mr. President. Members of the Court, may we now start with the tïrst main
issue, the principle of equality of States. For this purpose,1 would invite you,
Mr. President. to cal1on Professor Briggs. ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS
COUNSELFOR THE GOVERHMENT OF THE LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHlRlYA
Professor BRIGGS: Mr. President, Members of the Court, it is always an
honour to appear before you and 1should like to take this opportunity to salute
my learned fnends on the wrong side of the bar.
My task is to analyse the reliance placed by Malta on what she correctly
tenns "the fundamental principle of international law relating to the equality
of States" (II, MCM, 26 October 1983, para. 192). It is also my task to throw
light on the egregious misapplication of the principle throughout the Maltese
pleadings.
Obvious misunderstandings of the principle need not detain us, as in the con-
voluted reasoning of paragraph 192 of Malta's Counter-Memonal (II) by which
Malta pretends that, because Libya is nch and Malta is poor in oil resources,
Libya therefore violated the principle of the equality of States by delaying -
the word they used was"procrastinating" - the conclusion and entry into force
of the Special Agreement instituting these proceedings. Such an obvious distor-
tion of the principle merely betrays confusion as to its legal nature.
What requires closer analysis here is the principle itself- the principle of
the equality of States - and its misuse by Malta as an umbrella to cover a
diverse array of propositions and slogans claiming "equaI reach", "equal projec-
tion of coasts", "equal radial projection", "equal entitlement", "equality of
opposite States", "equal significance ofcoasts", "equality of seaward reach of
the opposite coasts of the Parties". These diverse claims of equality appear like
an incantation at least adozen times in Malta's Reply alone.
Although terms like "equality of seaward reach" or "equality of seawlird pro-
jection of the.coasts" are sometimes used to refer to jurisdictional rights over
a maritime belt like the temtorial sea (with which the claim is irnproperly com-
pared, III, MR, para. 87), in the circumstances of this case these slogans are
clearly directed to obtaining forMalta entitlement to an area of conlinenta1shelf
which far exceeds the limited natural projection from her relevant coasts
towards Libya. The repetition of the words "equal" and "equality" in these slo-
gans is an attempt ro find a factitious or contrived justification in the principle of
the equality of States.
The concept of the equality of States in international law is a legal principle
which has nothing whatever to do with equal rights of States to equivalent terri-
tory, wealth, natural resources, lengths of coastlines or areas of appurtenant
continental shelf.
When the United Nations Charter (Art. 2, para. 1)based the Organization on
the sovereign equality of States it was merely enshrining a centuries-old
concept of the equality of States before the law. Twenty-five years later - in
1970 - the United Nations General Assernbly in its Declaration on Principles
of International Law concerning Friendly Relations referred to this concept in
four words: "States are juridically equal" (GA res. 2625 (XXV)).
Completely alien to this concept of juridical equality was any theory that the
legal principle had somehow equalized or abolished the actual inequalities with
which history, politics, economics and geography, among other things, have left
States.34 CONTINENTALSHELF
The legal principle of the equality of States has perhaps never been more
clearly expressed than by Léon Bourgeois, the first French delegate at the
Second Hague Peace Conference, held downtown in the Ridderzaal in 1907,
when th? States of Latin America were being welcomed for the first time (they
had been excluded from the First Hague Peace Conference in 1899). In wel-
coming them Léon Bourgeois stated that equality of States meant that each
nation had "whether small or great, weak or powerful, an equal claim to respect
for its rights, an equal obligation in the performance of its duties".
And that means that each State is entitled to the equal protection of the Law
for whatever rights it may possess, for example, to its territory or to its conti-
nental shelf. It does not mean a right to acquire a larger area of continental
shelf in the name of equality.
However, this is precisely what Malta is claiming. The phrase "equality of
seaward reach" becomes in paragraph 98 of Malta's Reply (III) equality of
"entitlement" with Libya to as much as possible of a continental shelf of 200
miles from the baselines; and in paragraph 180, the claim is expressed as "the
concept of equal entiflement in rems of seaward reach";in paragraph270 (a)
the claim becomes "the entitlement of island States to appurtenant shelf areas
on a basis of equality with other coastal States".
This shift from "equality of seaward reach" as a claim to maritime jurisdic-
tion to a claim of enrichment or entitlement to an equal area of the continental
shelf between Malta and Libya cannot bebased upon any emanation from the
legal principle of the equality of States.uch a misapplication of the principle.
if generally applied, would have the effect of opening Pandora's box. As the
1977Anglo-French Court of Arbitration observed (para. 195) :
"The doctrine of the equali~ ofStutes. applied generally to the delimita-
fion of the continental shelf, would have vast implications for the division
of the continental shelfarnong the States of the world, implications which
have ben rejected by a majority of States and which would involve, on a
huge scale, that refashioning of geog~aphy repudiated in the North Sea
Continental Shelfcases." (Emphasis added.)
Malta realizes that the principle of the equality of States in international law
is insufficient of itself to confer title to areas of continental shelf on maritime
States or toprovide a delimitation line between them. However, Malta does use
the principle of equality to support equidistance in delimitation, claiming "an
equaIity of distance" which you will find repeated at page 315 (III). The Mal-
tese pleadings therefore attempt to read into the Law of the Sea Codvention their
mistaken interpretation of the equality of States asjustifying equal entitlement to
continental shelf areas within fixed limits of 200 miles.
On 29 November. my learned friend, Professor Weil, gave us an jnsighr into
the rather curious form of State equality espoused by Malta (III, pp. 387 ff.).
We learned :
First. that the equality pursued at the Third Conference on the Law of the Sea
was not the equality ofa11States before international law, but only equality for
coastal States.
Second, that equality did not really mean equality, even for al1coastal States,
since they will not have equal areas of continental shelf.
Third. this conception of equality which is not equality, andit is certainiy
not the equality of States, was, we were told, designed by the Conference to
eliminate inequalities with which nature has left States. In other words, the
political purpose was to refashion nature and ignore geology and geography. ARGUMENT OF PROFESSORBRIGGS 35
Fourth, the equality of States was to be the motive force in the effacement of
the role of natural prolongation and the emergence of the so-called distance
principle which Malta finds in Article 76, paragraph 1, of the Law of the Sea
Convention (III, p. 385).
This playing fast and loose with State equality before the law culminates in a
Maltese plea that the adoption of this political compromise by the Conference
has created a new international law which equates equality of distance with
equidistance for purposes of continental shelf delimitation.
The purported basis for this plea liesin the persistent misreading which Malta
gives to Article 76, paragraph 1,of the Law of the Sea Convention.
The Court is familiar with this text; my colleagues will discuss it further -
but 1find it necessary to quote in the context of my discussion of State equa-
lity.
Article76, paragraph 1, of the Law of the Sea Convention provides in part,
that :
"The continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the sea-bed and sub-
soi1of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea throughout
the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the conti-
nental margin .. ."
and the provision continues that "where the outer edge of the continental mar-
gin does not extend up to that distance" the "distance of 200 nautical miles"
applies.
In other words, the 200-mile outer limit applies only where the projection of
a State's landmass into and under the sea falls short of 200 miles. Where that
natural prolongation continues beyond 200 miles, the outer limit of a State's
entitlement to continental shelf shall not exceed 350 miles (according to para. 5
of Article 76).
There is no provision in Article 76 for a unifonn 200-mile limit for al1coas-
ta1States.
Malta, however, reading the Law of the Sea Convention in the light of her
misinterpretation of the legal principle of the equality of States, professes to
find therein a right of enrichment, a nght to acquire continental shelf on a basis
of equality with other States, irrespective of what this Court has termed "an
inherent right" to continental shelf derived through natural prolongation (North
Seo Continental Shelfcases, paras. 19.43, 85, 96).
Modifying the interpretation of this Court in its TunisialLibya Judgment
(I.C.J.Reports 1982. p. 48, para. 47) that "the distance of 200 nautical miles" is
the basis of title to continental shelf only "in certain circumstances", Malta
would base title in al1circumstances to a continental shelf of up to 200 miles.
Thus, paragraph 67 of Malta's Reply (III) States:
"Article 76 sets out two mles of equal force: up to 200 miles from the
coasts, distance is the basis for the legal title of the State; beyond 200 miles,
the coastal State has rights based on physical natural prolongation, these
rights themselves being limited to a distance not exceeding 350 nautical
miles."
Mr, President, neither of these rules as formulated by Malta - and claimed
by her to be rules of customary international law (II, MCM, para. 80) - neither
of these mles is in fact international law. No rule that natural prolongation
is the basis of title to continental shelf only beyond 200 miles frorn the Coast
has ever existed in international law ; and such a conclusion is contradicted by
the very words of Article 76.36 CONTINENTAL SHELF
As for the other alleged rule of international law - narnely that a lirnit of up
to 200 miles somehow confers equal entitlement to continental shelf on al1
coastal States - this is a misconception of the equality of States which
constantly recurs throughout Malta's pleadings.
Ai times it appears as "a distance criterion or principle of distance, in general
international law" (1, MM, para. 249). However, no such distance principfe or
concept exists in general or in customary international law. Maritime limits of
varying distance for specific purposes (territorial sea, contiguous zone, conti-
nental shelf, fisheries zones. econornic zones, air defence identification zones,
etc.)- maritime lirnits of varying distance with spcific purposes have been
created in the practice of States but no general "principle of distance" as as-
serted by Malta exists in international law. Nor has customary international law
ever provided that coastal States have title to continental shelf up to 200 miles
from their coasts or baselines - let alone equality of entitlement. The concept
which Malta would have this Court promulgate as law appears for the first time
in a treaty which has not entered into force. You heard Sir Francis Vallat on the
point.
Are the States which have not signed the Law of the Sea Convention obli-
gated by its terms? Are the more than 100 States, including Libya now. which
have signed it, but not ratified it.are they obligated by its terms? Even the 13
States which have ratified, are they bound by a treaty which has not entered
into force? What rnakes its provisions binding - that includes Article 76 -
and 1mean binding as a matter of law - on the rights, obligations and conduct
of any State?
Malta attempts, of course. to assimilate Article 76 to "present-day customary
international law" (II, MCM, para. 98) - hence the phrase "present-day custo-
rnary international law" - and places on itan interpretation that in "the new
conception of the continental shelf, as expressed in Article 76" (III, MR,
para. 56). the old concept of the continental shelf shaltbe replaced; replaced by
a spatial distance frorn the Coast measured at the surface of the sea (II, MCM.
para. 116).
My colleagues, Mr. President, will deal with this question in more detail and
will deal with the argument whether or not a mle has been consecrated in the
practice of States.
An attempt to support this proposition of Malta's is displayed in the frequent
use (III, MR, paras. 56-58, 63. 156, etc.) of the cryptic phrase "continental
shelf as understood in international law" - a phrase originally used by the
Court in paragraph 36 of its TunisialLibyaJudgrnent in order to distinguish the
differing concepts of the continental shelf used by geologists and geographers
from those held by an international lawyer (cf. also ibid., par41), but used here
in the Maltese pleadings asa disparagement of the role specified in Article 76 for
natural prolongation in continental shelf entitlement.
Natural prolongation, of course, is not based on any pseudo-rule of equal
entitlement of States ta continental shelf- and this dispteases Malta.
Delimitation - said this Court in the North Sea Continenral Shelf cases
(para.101 (C) (1)) in its disposirif- should :
"leave as rnuch as possible to each Party al1those parts of the continental
shelf that constitute a natural prolongation of its landnitory into and under
the sea, without encroachment on the natural prolongation of the land terri-
tory of the other".
Malta quotes this holding with approval in paragraph 98 of its Reply (III). but
radically changes its meaning by observing : ARGUMENT OF PROFESSORBRIGGS 37
"This means, in ioday'I segal context, that delimitation must leave to
Malta as much as possible of its entitlement to a continental shelf of 200
miles from its baselines without encroachment on a similar right of equal
validity possessed by Libya." (Emphasis added.)
Thus, delimitation and equal entiilement are to go hand in hand. and we heard
that repeated also by Dr. Mizzi and by Professor Weil here in this room (Mizzi,
III, p. 296; Weil, III. p. 371). To emphasize the point. Malta's Reply
added that by asserting "a necessity to treat Malta on a footing of equality with
Libya, in the sense that entitlement of each has the same validity as that of the
other . . .".
In an effort to prove that Article 7- viewed through the prism of the equa-
lity of States- provides for zones of equal entitlement of up to 200 miles,
Malta invokes the exclusive economic zone to which Sir Francis also averted.
The so-called "principle of distance" is asserted by Malta to be "its inseparable
corollary" (III, MR, para. 45). And provision of Article 57 that the exclusive
economic zone "shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles" is alleged actually
to confer such economic zones on States (III, MR, para. 47); and again "the
multi-purpose jurisdiction of the exclusive economic zone as defined in Article
56" (III, MR, para. 46), itis alleged, has led to the actual "absorption" of the
concept of the continental shelf within that of the concept of the exclusive eco-
nomic zone.
This, of course, is contradicted by the third paragraph of Article 56 of the
Law of the Sea Convention. which specifically provides that the "rights set out
in this article with respect to the sea-bed and subsoil shall be exercised in
accordance with Part VI". Part VI includes Article 76 which refers to natural
prolongation. The provisions on the exclusive economic zone thus furnish no
support for the rhesis that Article 76 confers a 200-mile zone of continental
shelf entitlement without regard to natural prolongation.
A comparable "absorption" argument by counsel for France that ihe Geneva
Convention of 1958 was obsolete and that "the notion of the 'exclusive econo-
mic zone' rends to substitute itself and to absorb, in a large measure, the concept
of the continental shelf' (VR-4. p. 151) was not accepted by the Court of Arbi-
tration in 1977 (Cmnd. 7438, paras. 45-48).
Mr. President, it must be kept constantly in mind that in the present case no
issue as to the exclusive economic zone arises for determination by the Court.
The case relates only to the legal iippurtenance and delimitation of the continen-
tal shelf between the Parties.
The "distance" mystique incessantly resorted to in the Maliese pleadings
finds no basis in the principle of the equality of States and is without relevance
to any established legal criterion. It constituaemisapplication of the very pro-
visions contained in the Convention on the Law of the Sea and of State practice
pursuant thereto.
My learned friend Professor Quéneudecwill have more to say on this topic.
Now the fact that Malta and Libya are not 400 miles apart and that 200 miles
of shelf entitlement for each is geographically impossible, has led Malta to
contend that the equality of States principle requires an equal division of the
continental shelf lying between them, and an equidistance boundary line. In the
words of Malta's Memonal (1, MM, paras. 151, 153) "the principle of equality38 CONT~NENTAL SHELF
in the case of opposite States" requires that "in the present case, the median line
'must effect an equal division' of the area involved".
The concept of "opposite State equality" which Malta calls an "equitable
principle" (ibid.,para. 134) has no inherent meaning which gives precision to
the phrase either in fact orin law. If it were intended by Malta to refer to coasts
of approxirnately equal length - as was done half a dozen times in the Award
in the Anglo-French case as a justification for a median line in the English
Channel. then "opposite State equality" might acquire a meaning - even
though imprecisely phrased. However, it is explicity clear from Malta's asser-
tion (I, MM, para. 264) that "in the present case the length of coastlines is of
little or no consequence for the law of delimitation" this was not the meaning
sought by Malta in proclaiming what she terms "opposite State equality".
Although the slogan lacks precision as a legal concept. it is clear that by
opposite State equality Malta is claiming a legal righi to an equal or an equidis-
tance division of the continental shelf lying between Malta and Libya. It is
equidistance in disguise - claimed as equality.
No support can be found in Article 76 for equal division of areas of continsn-
ta1 shelf between States which are, because of geography, unable to claim 200
miles each. The reason, of course, is that Article 76 does not deal with anydeli-
mitation of continental shelf boundaries whether between opposite or adjacent
Stares. This is made explicit in paragraph 10 of Article 76. The word "delimita-
tion" is not to be found in Article 76 until the tenth paragraph, which says that
the Article is "without prejudice" to delimitation of the continental shelf.
Furthemore, reference to the equidistance method was deliberately excluded at
the Conference from the provisions of Article 83. which does deal with delimi-
tation. There is no support therefore in the treaty for what Malta has been
claiming.
Malta has therefore been forced to place her reliance on phrases - "equality
of seaward reach", "equal radial projection". "equal significance of coasts",
"equal entitlernent", "entitlernent as an island Stat-" whose purpose is more
clear than their content. The constant references to equaliiy are less a claim to
recognized legal rights already possessed by Malta as a State than a piea for
acquiring a larger area of continental sheif than the easity understood facts of
geology and geography warrant. The slogans conceal a complete disregard of cir-
cumstances relevant for a delimitation, the smali size of Malta as revealed in its
short facing coast and appurtenant natural prolongation in relation to Libya's
longer coast and farger natural prolongation. Malta would sink relevant circurn-
stances of geology and geography in a seaward reach of equality and equidistance.
Mr. President, difficult as it has been for Libya to grasp from the written
pleadings what Malta means by the equaiity of States, the uncertainty has been
compounded in Malta's oral pleadings. Thus, Mr. Mizzi, the learned Agent of
Malta, stated on 27 November (III, p. 315) that when this Court in 1969 held
that, failing agreement. overlapping areas must be divided equally, the Court.
he says, did not necessarily rnean divided "in equal pans". What the Court
intended, he says, was a relative equality, "dependent mostly on the configura-
tion of the coastlines including their length". He saw in the Court's words a
reference to "equaliiy of distance" as a "seaward reach".
Similarly confusing is the concept of "approximate equality" invoked so fre-
quently by rny learned friend. Professor Brownlie (III. pp.437-469).
These concepts of "relative equality" and "approximate equality" have been
used by counsel for Malta to assure Libya that Malta did not quite mean what she
said in her written pleadings when she claimed an equal division and asserted
that the rnedian line effects an equal division of the continental shelf. ARGUMENTOF PROFESSOR BRlGGS 39
One thing is clear: "reIative equality" and "approximate equality" do not mean
that States are approximately equal before the law or relatively equaljuridically.
The equality claimed by Malta is thus not really based on the legal principle
of the equality of States at all.It is a bid for acquisition of larger areas of conti-
nental sheif in relation to Libya, clothed in the language of equality.
The same misconception of the legal principle of equality of States which
underlies so rnuch of Maltais pleadings. reappears in statements such as that
found in paragraph 242 of Malta's Memorial that : "Malta's coasts count as much
as the coasts of othet opposite States in terms of the generation of continental
shelf entitlement." (1, MM, p. 119.)
Of course, Malta is entitled to the continental shelf appurtenant to her short
facing coast. The seldom-quoted third paragraph of Article 76 of the Law of the
Sea Convention refers to the continental shelf as a "submerged prolongation
of the landmass of the coastal State". Incidentally, it is interesting to note that
despite favourable quotations from selected parts of the 1969 North Seo
ConrinenralShelf Judgment, Malta tends to regard the Judgment as rather old-
fashioned, because it mentions natural prolongation and landmass. It appears,
however, that these words - natural prolongation and landmass - achieve
recognition in the new bible. in the Law of the Sea Convention, in Article 76,
Now physically, of course. the continental shelf appertaining to a smaller
landmass and shorter coast will necessarily be smaller khanthat appertaining to
a State with a longer coastline. Coasts do not by nature generate equal entitle-
ment to areas of continental shell; Under the guise of a rnisconceived nght of
equality, Malta is really claiming an exceptional and privileged position by
asserting an equidistance line, depite the disparity of the coastal lengths of the
Parties.
This contrasts strangely with the admissions made by Malta in paragraph 166
of her Reply (III). It is there admitted that "the function of the concept of equa-
lity is related to the actual geography of the region" and that "there is no room
for a radical policy of equality of States in the form of a refonnation - a re-
fashioning - of geography". Yet, in disregarding actual geographical disparities
in size, landmass and lengths of coast, Maita. contrary to her professions - just
quoted - claims to redress her natural and geographical disadvantages by
refashioning nature in the name of a misconceived equality concept.
This Maltese claim of equal entitlement is contradicted by the jurisprudence
of this Court, and of the Anglo-French Court of Arbitration - 1 shall read that
first- the Anglo-French Court of Arbitration said, in paragraph 249: "Equity
does not, therefore. cal1 for coasts, the relation of which is not equal, to be
treated as having cornpletely equal effects." And in its North Sea Conlinenru1
ShelfJudgment, this Court said in part :
"There can never be any question of completely refashioning nature, and
equity does not require that . . . there could be a question of rendenng the
situation of a State withan extensive coastline similar to that ofa State with
a restrictedcoastline." (1.C.J.Reports 1969, pp. 49-50, para. 91.)40 CONTINENTAL SHELF
A brief word about non-encroachment. beyond the equidistance line claimed
by Matta. The very purpose of these proceedings is to permit the establishment
of a boundary line delimiting the respective areas of continental shelf legally
appertaining to the Parties. But the boundary does no1yet e~ist ; and the curious
insistence of Malta in her Memorial (1, MM, paras. 133-134. 234 (k), 242, etc.)
that the principle of non-encroachment "can only be applied inthe present case
on the basis of equidistance" (1, MM, para. 134) culminates in this assertion in
the Maltese Memorial, paragraph 150 :
"Given the simple coastal relationships of Malta and Libya, an encroach-
ment northward of the median line would involve an affront to the prin-
ciple of the equality of States and, in particular, of coastal States." (I, MM,
P. 47)
An obligation not to encroach beyond a non-existent line makes no sense.
Moreover, Maltarecognized the correct application of the non-encroachment
principle when she quoted this Court in her Reply. paragraph 98, that a delimi-
tation should leave to each Party as much as possible of the natural prolonga-
tion of a State's Iand territory into and under the sea without encroachment on
the natural prolongation of the land territory of the other. Acceptance by Malta
of this principle can also be found in her statement (1, MM. para. 268) that "the
concept of non-encroachment is another form of the principle of natural prolon-
gation and rests on the premise that the land dominates the sea". In making this
statement the Maltese Memorial cited the separate opinion of Judge Jiménezde
Aréchaga(I.C.J.Reports 1982, p. 119) where he observed that "the principle of
non-encroachment is inherent in the principle of natural prolongation".
While it may be conceded that if States have agreed to establish an equidis-
tance line - or any other boundary line - they are under a legal obligation not
to encroach beyond the boundary thus established. no agreed boundary exists in
the present case. Non-encroachment, as used in the ex post facto argument of
Malta, fails to provide a criterion for drawing a boundary line. in particular an
equidistance line.
The attempt of Malta to find in the principle of non-encroachment a basis, or
method, for deterrnining the placement of an equidistance line or for preventing
encroachment beyond this non-existent line is to substitute fantasies for facts. In
Libya's submission, the facts of geology and geography are more relevant to a
delimitation than a misconceived legal theory of equal entitlement of continental
shelf.
On the basis of this misconceived theory of the equality of States - some-
limes explicit but constuntly implicit throughout her pleadings - Malta has
confronted us with a truly remarkable set of propositions :
1. "Continental shelf' is to become a legal term of art without relation to the
shelf ofthe continent. Not even Article 76, paragraph 1, goes that far.
2. "Natural prolongation" must no longer be understood as nature's prolonga-
tion of the landmass of a State into and under the sea but must be conceived of
as a mere linear measurement on the surface of the sea untit more than 200 miles
from the Coastit becomes permissible again to recognize the facts of natural pro-
longation.
3. "Non-encroachment" becomes an expost facto argument against encroach-
ing beyond a non-existent line.
4, The pseudo-principie expressed in Maltais Counler-Mernorial, para-
graph 339. that "the equality of lateral reach from the coasts which results from
equidistance" must be used to refashion nature - they do not tenn it that - ARGUMENT OF PROFESSORBRIGGS 41
and in the name of "equal entitlement" to equalize the short facing coast and
appurtenant shelf of Malta with the lengthier coast of Libya.
5. The doctrine of "equal entitlement" to continental shelf. we are told, must
prevail over the wise admonitions of this Court that "the equitable pnnciple
requiring al1relevant circums~ancesto be taken into account" (emphasis added)
must apply in a continental shelf delimitation; and the Court mentioned expli-
citly geography and geomorphology in making this statement (I.C.J.Reports
1982, paras. 72, 80, 81and 133).
6. Finally, it appears that the legal principle of the equality of States before the
law can be distorted in order to determine the magnitude of the continental shelf
area claimed by Malta.
Libya rejects these misconceptions as a contrived effort to equalize that which
is not equal. A disregard of relevant factual circumstances in the name of a
misunderstood and misapplied concept of the equality of States fails to provide a
legal basis foran equitable delimitation. Mindful of this Court's pronouncement
in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases (I.C.J.Reports 1969. p. 49, para. 9l),
that "equity does not necessarily imply equality", Libya seeks a delimitation -
as her submissions indicate - on the basis of equitable principles.
Mr. President, that concludes my statement and 1would ask you, respectfully,
to cal1on Professor Jaenicke.
The Court adjourned from ff.20 o.m. to 11.35a.m. ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR JAENICKE
COUNSELFOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE LIBYANARAB JAMAHlRlYA
Professor JAENTCKE :
Mr. President, disiinguished Judges, it is a high honour and a special privi-
lege for me to appear again before this Court, this time as counsel for the
Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and a third time in a case of mari-
time zone delimitation.
The basic principles and rules of maritime zone delimitation which are still
uncodified have been developed by the jurisprudence of this Court. The devel-
opment of these principles and rules is one of the outstanding accomplishments
of this Court; it has not only influenced State practice but has also contributed
to legal security and equity in this field of law. 1am sure that the Court will
use the opportunity of this case to reaffirm these principles and rules and to
clarify and develop them further in the light of the special features and the
special factual situation of this case.
The present case before the Court is a case of continental shelf delimitation.
We are not concerned here with the delimitation of 200-mile zones or with the
determination of a single maritime boundary for al1kinds of coastal jurisdiction.
Therefore the principles and rules of continental shelf delimitation as they have
ken established by the jurisprudence of this Court will apply to the present
case. It is Libya's position that the concept of natural prolongation is still the
basic concept which has formed the legal régimeof the continental shelf. and
the criteria and methods for delimitation derived therefrom, and these criteria
and methods remain valid for this case.
My presentation has the object to put the present case in the proper perspec-
tive within the law of maritime zone delimitation. 1shall examine the principles
and rules of delimitation that are applicable to the special factual situation of
this case, and 1 hope to show that the cnteria for delimitation put fonvard by
Libya - or, as the other side liked to cal1 it. the "process of delimitation"
followed by Libya - are in harmony with the Court's jurisprudence and the
dictates of equity.
My presentation will consist of the following parts:
Part1 will address the concept of natural prolongation and the role it has to
play in the particular situation of this case.
Part II will address the question whether and to what extent the source and
basis of title to theubmarine areas before the Coastmay provide criteria for its
delimitation between the Parties.
Part III will draw some conclusions from the analysis in Parts 1 and II for
selecting the proper criteria for delimitation in order to reach an equitable
result.
Mr. President, distinguished Judges. before addressing the concept of natural
prolongation, 1 would like to recall some important facts which distinguish this
case from others which so far have been resolved by treaty or judicial decision: ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR JAENICKE 43
First, a zone which by its special geological and geomorphological properties
separates two geological plates, runs through the area of delimitation; no
previous judicial decision has yet been confronted with such an extraordinary
phenornenon.
Second, the coasts of the Parties which face the area of delirnitation are
extremely different in length; they differ on a scale never before experienced in
litigation or even,1would submit, in delimitations by treaty.
Third, Malta is a small group of islands within a narrow sea surrounded by
much larger coasts of other States sa that Malta's shelf is necessarily enclaved
and each delimitation of Malta's continental shelf vis-à-vis any one of the sur-
rounding States rnust take into consideration the prospective delimitations vis-à-
vis the others.
These facts present a delirnitation problem of distinct particularity and this
will have to betaken into account in reaching an equitable result. Neither the
so-called "distance principle" nor the equidistance method is capable of taking
cognizance of these facts so that other methods of delimitation rnust be applied.
Libya has demonstrated the reasons for the inapplicability of the equidistance
method to the present case at length in its written pleadings. and 1 shall not
want to bore the Court by repeating these arguments. 1shall rather concentrate
on the criteria and methods of delimitation which relate to the distinctive facts
of this case.
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, the first part of my presentation will exa-
mine the content and legal significance of the concept of natural prolongation.
In view of the Court's consistent jurispmdence in this respect, this would not
have been necessary were it not for the fact that Malta seeks to change radically
the meaning and content of that concept. In particular, Malta asserts that natural
prolongation, as a legal concept, has tobe divorced from its traditional geologj-
cal and geographical components and should now be based solely on distance
from the coast. Malta conteods that only such a concept provides the legal basis of
title to continental shelf nghts in present international law MCM. paras.121-
132; III, MR, para. 63). This new theory of natural prolongation is at vari-
ance with the generally recognized meaning of this concept as it has been
developed by the jurisprudence of this Court and, as such, embodied in the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Nor is it admissible to give
the concept of natural prolongatiun a new legal content in contradiction to its
established meaning; this only creates confusion and does not assist in the pro-
cess of delimitation.
This concept of natural prolongation is neither a purely physical phenornenon
to which the law attaches no legal consequences, nor is it a purely legal term
which can be totally divorced from itsphysical basis. Natural prolongation is a
legal term in so far as it attributes to the physical continuation of a State's tem-
tory into the sea the entitlement to continental shelf rights over the respective
submarine areas. On the other hand. natural prolongation as a legal terni cannot
operate independently of its physical basis, which consists of the physical link
between the temtory of the State and the subrnarine areas into which its tem-
tory continues from the coast into and under the sea. Mere distance cannot pro-
vide the indispensable physical basis of the concept of natural prolongation.
Such a theory seeks to promote the fact of mere proximity, of mere distance
from a point of the coast. to a legal mle which determines the better right of a44 CONTINENTAL SHELF
coastal State in continental shelf delimitation. This in effect re-establishes equi-
distance as a primary legal rule in maritime zone delimitation. Such a status of
the equidistance method had been rejected by the jurisprudence of this Court in
continental shelf delimitation cases since 1969; it has again been rejected in a
case of a single maritime boundary delimitation by the Chamber of this Court
in the Gulf of Maine case. 1shall return to the distance criterion and its proper
role in the law of maritime boundary delimitation at a later stage of my presen-
tation.
Before proceeding further in the analysis of the concept of natural prolonga-
tion, 1would like to clarify that at present I am talking of natural prolongation
as the factual or physical basis and justification of the coastal State's legalen-
titlement to jurisdiction over the submarine areas in front of its coast. 1am not
yet dealing with the legal significance of naturai prolongation for delimitation
between States whose claims for continental shelf junsdiction conflict with each
other, nor with the legal significance of natural prolongation for determining the
outer limit of a State's continental shelf vis-à-vis the international sea-bed area.
The legal significance of natural prolongation in these three different respects,
namely, first as a basis of title, second asa criterion for delimitation between
conflicting claims, and third, as a factor in determining the outer limit of a
State's continental shelf, should be clearly kept separate in order to avoid
misunderstandings and wrong conclusions.
In its oral argument Malta reproaches Libya with using different and incon-
sistent concepts of natural prolongation in its pleadings. This is not the case:
Libya regards natural prolongation in its physical sense as an objective fact
which is scientifically ascertainable; as such it is the same in al1 contexts in
which it produces legal consequences. Natural prolongation, however, produces
different legal consequences according to the legal context in which it becomes
relevant and according to the respective legal principle or mle under which
legal consequences are attributed to it. Thus. natural prolongation may have dif-
ferent legal significance for entitlement to continental shelf rights, for delimita-
tion between neighbouring States, and for determining the outer limit of a
State's continental shelf vis-&-visthe international sea-bed area.
1need not dwell very long on the legal significance of natural prolongation as
the primary, if not the sole, basis and justification of the coastal State's Iegal
title to the subrnarine areas adjacent to its coast. It will suffice here to refer
to the jurisprudence of this Court. The Court has stated very clearly in para-
graph 43 of its Judgment in the North Sea Conrinenial Shelfcases :
"Submarine areas do not really appertain to the coastal State because -
or not only because - they are near it. They are near it of course; but this
would not suffice to confer title, any more than, according to a well-estab
lished principle of law recognized by both sides in the present case, mere
proximity confers per se title to land territory. What confers the ipso jure
title which international law attributes to the coastal State in respect of its
continental shelf. is the fact that the submarine areas concerned may be
deemed to be actually part of the territory over which the coastai State
already has dominion. - in the sense that, although covered with water,
they are a prolongation or continuation of that territory, an extension of it
under the sea." (I.C.J.Reports 1969, p. 31, para. 43.)
In its Judgment in the TunisialLibya case, the Coun reaffirmed this view and
commented in detail on the concept of natural prolongation and its significance
as the factual basis of a State's legal title to the continental shelf in front of its
coast, and, on the other hand. as a criterion for its delimitation (I.C.J.Reports ARGUMENT OF PROFESSORJAENICKE 45
>
1982, pp. 46-48, paras. 43-48). The Court will be well aware of that and 1 need
not quote any passages from these paragraphs. 1think it is a correct assessment
of the Court's considerations to say thatthese considerations confinned that the
concept of natural prolongation remains the primary basis of a coastal State's
legal title to continental shelf rights. The Conference on the Law of the Sea
endorsed the concept of natural prolongation as a primary basis of the coastal
State's title to its continental shelf and embodied it in Article 76 of the Law of
the Sea Convention.
Now it is true that in the TunisialLibya case the Court also referred to the
subsidiary clause in Article 76, paragraph 1, of the Convention, whereby in
those cases where the continental margin does not extend up to 200 miles, the
coastal State's continental shelf jurisdiction wilbe extended beyond the conti-
nental margin up to the 200-mile limit. The Court remarked that in such a case
the basis of the coastal State's title departs frorn the principle that natural pro-
longation is the sole basis of title tohese submarine areas in front of the coast
(I.C.J.Reports 1982, p. 48, para. 48). Apart from the fact that this provision,
which was designed to accommodate States with narrow geological shelves, is
not yet in force, it in no way affects the validity of the concept of natural pro-
longation for submarine areas as far as they consist of shelf in the geological
sense. My leamed friend and colleague Professor Quéneudec will address the
development of continental shelf law at the Third United Nations Conference
and the interpretation of the relevant provisioof the 1982 Convention in more
detail, and you will permit me to refer to his presentation in this respect.
Malta has relied very heavily on this subsidiary clause in Article 76 of the
new Convention which, if it should become law. will confer continental shelf
rights in the absence of natural prolongation in certain circumstsnces; the
simple answer to that approach is that in the present case there is no submarïne
area between the Parties to which this subsidiary clause of Article 76 could
apply if it were enforced because the area between the Parties covers only
continental margin as defined in that Article.
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, the concept of natural prolongation
emphasized this very much. The concept of prolongation has geographical as
well as geological and geomorphological elements. In fact, Libya has always
considered the geographical component to be as important as the geological or
geomorphological components because al1of them provide critena for delirnita-
tion. It is not true that Libya, as Malta asserts, "continues to see the continental
shelf as anessentially geological and geomorphoIogical phenomenon" (III, MR,
para. 65); nor is it correct, as Malta asserts, that the concept of natural prolon-
gation is only a geological and geomorphological concept divorced from the
geography of the area of delimitation; nor is it mie that there is a recognizable
trend away from a geological or a geomorphological concept of the natural pro-
longation. Such unwarranted conclusions probably stem from the observation
that the delimitation cases which have so far been decided by international
courts have not been decided on criteria of geology or geornorphology but
rather on the geographical relationship of coasts as well as on other relevant
factors,such as the conduct of the Parties.
Malta's attack on the relevance of geological and geomorphological features
overlooks the fact that in the continentalShelf Arbitration between France and
the United Kingdorn as well as in the TunisialLibya case the Courts carefully
exarnined the geological and geomorphological criteria put forward by the
Parties before they discaràed thern as unhelpful, given that the whole area was
one of essential continuity in those particular cases. Thus, it is well estabIished
that natural prolongation has an inherent and indeed inseparable geological and46 CONTINENTAL SHELF
geornorphological element because of the natural link and continuity between
the land temtory and the submarine area in front of the coast. But, natural pro-
longation also has a necessary geographical component because it is from the
Coast that a State's continental shelf extends into and under the sea. 1 would
lik tu recall that ithe North SeaConrinentalShelfcases where the Court relied
on the concept of natural prolongation, the Court derived from that concept
criteria of delimitation and indicated criteria to the Parties which were mainly
related to geography.
Thus. Libya understands natural prolongation as a geographical as much as a
geological and geomorphological phenomenon. Each of these elements contri-
butes to the coastal State's title to the submarine areainfront of its coasts and
as such may provide relevant criteria for delimitation.
At this juncture it is necessary to deal with Malta's contention that the emer-
gence of the exclusive economic zone concept and the alleged absorption of the
continental shelf into that concept has had a changing impact on the rules
governing the delimitation of the continental shelf. By this reasoning Malta
seeks to diminish, if not to negate, the rule of the concept of natural prolonga-
tion as the basis of title and alsots role as a primary criterion for delimitation;
Malta wants to substitute in its place the criterion of distance from the coast in
order to seek support for its thesis that thereby the equidistance method has
now acquired the status of a primary rule of delimitation. This attempt to under-
mine the validity of the concept of natural prolongaiion must fail for some
reason.
First, it cannot be maintained that the continental shelf concept has been
absorbed by the economic zone concept under present international law. There
is no evidence in State practice that the continental shelf rights clairned by
States by proclamation, legislation or otherwise have been affected by the
declaration of fishery or exclusive economic zones. It was rather the protection
of the coastal States' interests in the fishery resources of these waters andnot
the consideration of creating a uniform jurisdictional régime for al1 purposes
which prompted the declaration of the 200-mile fishery or exclusive economic
zones. The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea presewed
the legal régime of the continental shelf as a separate legal rkgirne; the new
Convention on the Law of the Sea regulates the legal rkgime of the continental
shelf in a separate part independent of the pan relating to the economic zone
regime; this part, on the continental shelf, contains special articles which define
the continental shelf on the basis of natural prolongation and provide also for
separate delimitation. Article 56 of the Convention, which defines the juris-
dictional orbit of the exclusive economic zone concept, expressly, in its para-
graph 3, preserves the autonomy of the legal rkgime of the continental shelf by
leaving the regulation of the continental shelf rights to that special part of the
Convention. My learned friend and colleague, Professor Quéneudec,will have
more to Say on the history of Article 56 and its relationship to the established
legalregime of the continental shelf. The Court will allow me to refer to his
presentation in this respect.
The second point: it is also wrong to maintain that the establishment of
fishery or exclusive economic zones has fundamentally changed the law of
maritime-zone delimitation or has placed the cntcrion of distance from the coast
in a more prominent place than before. The overriding principle that the land
dominates the sea is the source of a State's jurisdiction over its adjacent waters
in the same way as it is the source of title over the submarine areas in front of
its coast. Whether termed adjacency or natural prolongation, in both cases the
coast is the geographical basis from which the jurisdiction of the coastal State ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR JAENICKE 47
extends into the sea, beit the waters of the exclusive economic zone or the con-
tinental shelf. In so far as the geographical relationship between the coasts to
the area of delimitation is determinant. the pnnciples and rules of delimitation
and the criteria derived from geography will be basically the same. The conti-
nental shelf delimitation cases which have so far been decided by internaliorial
adjudication have al1 been decided primarily on the basis of the relationship of
the coasts of the Parties to the area of delimitation. taking into account the
requirements of a reasonable degree of proportionality between the length of the
respective coasts and the maritime areas attributed to them. There is no valid
reason why the critena which have been considered relevant by this jurispru-
dence should not beequally applicable to the delimitation of exclusive econo-
mic or fishery zones; in particular. there is no valid reason why the criterion of
distance from the coast should be more relevant here than in continental shelf
delimitation.
In the Gulf of Maine case where the Chamber of this Court drew a single
maritime bouncÏary between the Parties solely on the basis of geography, he
Chamber noted in its Judgment. that the terms "adjacency", "proximity" or
"distance" might correctly describe the link between the coastal &te's térrito-
rial sovereignry and its jurisdiction over the waters and submarine areas in front
of its coast but the Court noted also, and emphasized it, that these concepts
could not be used for deducing a rule that a State, any part of whose coast is
less distant from maritime areas than the coast of another State should, ipso
jure, beentitled to have such areas recognized as its own: the Chamber con-
firrned that in maritime-zone delimitation the equidistance rnethod remains only
one rnethod among others for reaching an equitable result (I.C.J.Reporfs 1984,
pp. 296-297, paras. 103-107). Thus, there is no convincing argument that the
ernergence of the exclusive economic zone concept has changed the established
principles and rules of continental shelf delimitation and the methods and cri-
tena established thereunder.
Third point: it cannot be maintained that since the emergence of the exclu-
sive economic zone concept geophysical facts have lost their reievance in conti-
nental shelf delimitation on the argument that both jurisdictional régimes should
be delimited on the basis of the same cnteria. The cnteria for delimiting the
exclusive economic zones or the continental shelves of States need not necessa-
rily bethe same and there may be other criteria whicharenon-geographical and
which must beconsidered relevant only for the delimitation of the one or the
other jurisdictional régime under the application of equitable pnnciples. This
need not, but may. have the effect that different boundaries have to be drawn
between neighbouring States for their exclusive economic zones and their conti-
nental shelves respectively; in fact. there is State practice in this respect. There
is no cogent legal reason why the boundaries of both régimesmust necessa~ly
be the same.
It is significant in this context that the new Convention on the Law of the
Sea contains two separate Articles for the delimitation of the exclusive economic
zone and for the delimitation of the continental shelf (Art. 74 and Art. 83).
Although both Articles are framed in identical terms, their CO-existencepresup
poses that the criteria for drawing the boundary line may be different in view of
the different character and object of each jurisdictional régime. Ofcourse, the
States concerned may regard it as practical to have a single maritime boundary
for both thc water column and the continental shelf. In such a case, it might be
considered equitable to take into Bccountonly those criteria which are common
to both jurisdictional régimes andwhich are not typically or excIusively bound
up with the particular characteristics of only one of the two régimes (I.C.J.48 CONTINENTAL SHELF
Reports 1984, pp. 326-327, paras. 193-194). In the present case, however, both
Parties have asked the Court to decide on a continental shelf delimitation only.
In fact, when the Parties negotiated the Special Agreement, it had been the wish
of Malta to confine the adjudication to the continental shelf. Therefore, what-
ever criteria may be considered relevant for the delimitation of an exclusive
economic zone, for the delimitation of the continental shelf - and that is only
what is in issue here - the concept of natural prolongation and the criteria
inferred therefrom by the jurisprudence of the Court remain valid and appli-
cable, including the geology and geomorphology of the area of delimitation.
In concluding the first part of my presentation 1would like to stress the fol-
lowing points :
1. There is no reason to abandon the concept of natural prolongation because
of new developments in the iaw of the sea.
2. The concept of natural prolongation is an integral and indispensable ele-
ment of the legal framework governing the jurisdiction of States over the sub-
marine areas adjacent to their coasts; it explains and justifies why States have
claimed jurisdiction over the submarine areas adjacent to their coasts and why
this jurisdiction has been recognized by the international community.
3. The concept of natural prolongation expresses and defines the physical
link between the territory of the State and the submarine areas extending €rom
its coasts. This is true even in those cases where States with narrow geological
shelves claim continental shelf rights beyond the outer limit of their shelves, at
least to the edge of their geological continental shelf. While the coast is the
starting-line of the extension of a State's continental shelf into the sea, it is the
territory of that State, not isolated basepoinis ai the coasiwhich generates con-
tinental shelf rights of that State.
4. The criterion of distance from the baseline of the coast does not constitute
the basis of continental shelf rights; its function is rather to set limits to the
seaward extent of a State's jurisdiction vis-A-visthe international area. Distance
from the coast does, therefore, neither prejudge the delimitation of the continen-
tal shelf between neighbouring States, nor determine the ktter right of one of
them to a certain continental shelf area.
5. The jurisprudence of this Court. which has regarded the concept of natural
prolongation as the basis of title to the continental shelf, and as such the pri-
mary source of criteria for the delimitation of the continental shelf between
neighbouring States, remains valid and applicable in the present case.
Mr. President, distinguished Judges. the second part of my presentation will
address the question to what extent the concept of natural prolongation provides
criteria for the delirnitation of the continental shelf between the Parties to this
case.
In the absence of conventional law the delimitation between the continental
shelves of the Parties is govemed by the fundamental nom that delimitation is
to be effected in accordance with equitable principles, taking account of al1
relevant factors and circumstances in order to achieve an equitable result. This
means that it is necessary to identify these criteria and methods of delimitation
the application of which is equitable with regard to the factual elements of the
area of delimitation and other relevant circumstances of the case. Libya is of
the opinion that, arnong others, the concept of natural prolongation can providt
such criteria in the present case. ARGUMENT OF PROFESSORJAENICKE 49
Both Parties are in agreement that the entitlement and delimitation are inter-
connected. But Malta, relying on its misconception of distance as the sole basis
of title for continental shelf rights, neglects the geological, geomorphological
and geographical components of natural prolongation which are of particular
importance in the present case. Libya does not go so far as to argue that the
extent of the geophysical continuation of the land territory into the sea always
constitutes an absolute criterion; al1the relevant circumstances of the case have
to be taken into account and have to be weighed against each other. But in
those cases where other equitable critena point to the same or a sirnilar division
between the continental shelves of the parties, and the result is on the whole
equitable, the criteria derived from the concept of natural prolongation assume a
determinant weight.
As 1said before, the concept of natural prolongation has geological and geo-
morphological as well as geographical components. Let us first examine the
geological and geomorphological components ofthe concept of natural prolon-
gation, and ascertain the weight of cnteria derived therefrom in general as well
as under the circumstances of the present case. (For convenience and brevity, 1
shall henceforth use the term "geophysical" for comprising both the geological
and geomorphological characteristics of the sea-bed.)
This Court has always recognized therelevance of geophysical characteristics
of the area of delimitation if they assist in identifying a line of separation
between the continental shelves of the Parties. In the North Sea Conrinental
SheIfcases, the Court remarked that :
"it can be useful to consider the geology of that shelf in order to find out
whether the direction taken by certain configurational features should in-
fluence delimitation because, in certain localities, they point-up the whole
notion of the appurtenance of the continental shelf to the State whose terri-
tory it does in fact prolong" (I.C.J.Reports 1969, p. 5l, para. 95).
In the TunisialLihyacontinental shelf case, the Court recognized that
"identification of natural prolongation rnay, where the geographical circum-
stances are appropriate, have an important role to play in defining an equi-
table delimitation, in view of its significance as the justification of conti-
nental shelf rights in some cases" (I.C.J.Reports 1982, p. 47, para44),
and, again, in the TunisiaiLicb ontinental shelf case, the Court remarked that
"a marked dismption or discontinuance of the sea-bed" may constitute "an
indisputable indication of the limits of two separate continental shelves, or two
separate narural prolongations" (ihid.p. 57, para. 66).
In the Gulf of Mainecase, the Chamber af this Court examined whether or
not the Northeast Channel, which was claimed by the United States as consti-
tuting a natural boundary within the submarine structure of the Gulf, had the
"characteristics of a real trougharking the dividing-line between two geomor-
phologically distinct units", but the Court came to the conclusion that, in that
case, too, the situation was "different from the situation that may prevail in
areas where a natural separation does exist from the factual viewpoint between
the respective continental platforms of the Parties in dispute" (1.C.J.Reports
1984, pp. 274-275, paras. 46-47).
Although the Court has made the reservation that the identification of the
contours and limits of the geophysical prolongation will not per se be conclu-
sive for an equitable delimitation (para. 44 of the 1982 Judgment), the Court
nevertheless indicated that evidence of a clear and ascertainable separation50 CONTINENTAL SHELF
between the natural prolongations of the temtories of the States concemed was
a higher-ranking critenon than other supporting circumstances. The high-rank-
ing character of such a criterion is clearly evidenced by the differentiation the
Court made between the geophysical features, which constitute a separation so
as to indicate a legal title to the natural prolongation up to a certain point but,
on the other hand, that natural prolongation may be only one of several circum-
stances considered to bethe elements of an equitable solution. This differentia-
tion waç taken in paragraph 68 of the Court's 1982 Judgment. This differentia-
tion between geophysical features that do amount to a separation of the natural
prolongations of the parties, and those other features which merely constitute
supporting elements, or circumstances, for determining the division between the
two continental shelves of the parties, clearly shows the significance of the geo-
physical reach of the natural prolongation as a determinant critenon for equi-
table delimitation, where it can be identified.
Libya, therefore, acts in full hannony with the jurispnidence bf this Court
when it puts the geophysical characteristics, of what has been termed the Rift
Zone, in evidence before the Court as clear proof of the separalion of the
natural prolongation of Libya and Malta along this Zone. These facts will be
described and evaluated in more detail and depth later in the oral argument of
Libya. In the present context, however, it willbenecessary to put these facts in
the correct legal perspective:
First, Malta does not seem to deny the existence of the geologica1 and geo-
morphological phenomena which have been described by Libya in order to
demonstrate the exceptional geophysical character of the Rift Zone as clearly
separating Libya's and Malta's natural prolongation. Malta does, however,
contest, in principle. the relevance of geological or geomorphological features
for continental shelf delimitation; and if such features were to be considered
relevant,Malta challenges their legal quality as an interruption, or discontinuity,
constituting a separation between the natural prolongations of the temtones of
-
the ~artiesl
Second, as to the general legal relevance of geophysical features, 1need not
add anything to whai 1have already said before. The question remains whether
the features of the Rift Zone are such as io constitute a discontinuity or separa-
tion of shelves in the sense understood by the jurisprudence of this Court. It
may be noted in this context that the Court has not required a particularly fun-
damental discontinuity, as the distinguished counsel for Matta has terrned it.
What is decisive is the finding that the disruption or discontinuity constitutes an
indisputable indication of the existence of two separate continental shelves.
While the geophysical characteristics of the Rift Zone are certainly scientifically
ascertainable facts, their qualification as separating two natural prolongations
rests, essentially, on an appreciation of the distinctive character of these features
in question. The recognition of the Rift Zone as separating the natural prolonga-
tions of Libya and Malta will not rest merely on the contours and depths of the
channels and troughs which follow the course of the Rif! Zone, by simpiy com-
paring them with similar geomorphological features in other parts of the world;
it rather rests on the scientific finding that these channels and troughs. together
with other geological phenomena. which have been put in evidence by Malta,
are the expression of a distinct movement of two separare geological plares to
which the respective geological shelves of both Parties belong.
In the view of Libya. these facts are so indicative of a deep-seated, funda-
mental fracture or separation of two geological plates that it is difficult to deny
the existence of two separate geological shelves. Apart from these geological ARGUMENTOF PROFESSOR JAENICKE 51
findings, a glance at the bathymetric map reveals that the Maltese islands are
nothing more than mere elevations on the Ragusa-Malta Plateau.
Third. as already noted, Libya has not gone so far as to assert that a conti-
nental shelf boundary following the geophysical division between two natural
prolongations of two opposite coasts is necessarily equitable per se. Although a
factor of primary importance, it must be weighed together with al1 other rele-
vant criteria in order to ascertain whether it produces an equitable result under
the circumstances of the particular case. In the preseni case, however, the geo-
graphical relationship between the coasts of both Parties points to a boundary
located within the same area and, thereby, reinforces the equitable character of
a boundary based on the geophysical fact of a recognizable division between
the natural prolongations of the territories of both Parties. It is. therefore. in
accordance with equitable principles to regard the "Rift Zone" as the determi-
nant criterion for drawing the continental shelf boundary between the Parties.
Fourth,Malta has questioned the appropriateness ofthe "Rift Zone" as a work-
able criterion for determining a continental shelf boundary in the present case
because the identification of a rather broad boundary "zone" would not yield a
sufficiently precise "line" so that the Parties could "without difficulty" delimit
their respective continental shelves as required by Article 1of the Special Agree-
ment. Libya will show later in its oral argument that there are several supple-
mentary equitable criteria available for determining the boundaq line within,
and following the general direction of, the "Rift Zone", and I leave it to my
learned friend and colleague Professor Bowett to expand and justify these cri-
teria in more detail. In the present context, 1would merely like to point to a pnn-
ciple that has been pronounced by this Court in the Nonh Seo ContinentalShelf
cases (I.C.J.Reports 1969. pp. 52 and 53, paras. 99. 101 (C) (2)) for determin-
ing a boundary line in areas of overlapping natural prolongations. There the
Court indicated that the Parties should divide the area of overlap in agreed pro-
portions, or,failing agreement, equally between them. It would seem reasonable
that the Parties - per analogiorn - could follow the same approach where
doubts remain with respect to the precise location of the dividing line between
the shelves of the Parties within the "Riftone".
I shall now turn to the geographical aspect of the concept of natural prolon-
gation in order to examine what criteria may be derived therefrom for the deli-
mitation of the continental shelves of the Parties. This examination will rest
solely on the relationship of the coasts of the Parties to the arof delimitation,
leaving out of account, for the purpose of this demonstration, the geological
and geomorphological criteria and their significance for the delimitation in the
present case. Therefore, 1 shall now deal with the question whether the concept
of natural prolongation as reflected in the geographical relationship of the coasts
of the Parties to the area of delimitation can provide equitable cnteria for the
determination of the continental shelf boundary between the Parties.
The Court has said in the TunisialLibyo case that the
"coast of each of the Parties . . .constitutes the starting line from which
one has to set out in order to ascertain how far the submarine areas apper-
taining to each of them extend in a seaward direction. as well as in relation
to neighbouring States situated either in an adjacent or opposite position:'
(I.C.J. Reports 1982, p. 6+para. 74).
For the purpose of delirnjtation in the present case it is therefore necessary
first to identify the respective coasts of the Parties which face the maritime area
between them. In the present context 1do not think it necessary to go into the52 CONTINENTALSHELF
details of identifying and measuring the relevant coas1srefer in this respect to
paragraphs 2.24 to 2.1 and 10.08to 10.11 of Libya's Memorial (1); my learned
fnend and colleague Professor Bowett will go more deeply into this matter later
in Libya's oral argument. For the moment, it will suffice to note Ihe following.
On Malta's side. the only coasts that maybe regarded as facing the maritime
area ktween the Parties lie between the most south-easterly point of the Island
of Malta (Delimara Point) and the most south-westerly point of the Island of
Gozo at Ras il-Wardija where the coast tums to the north. Not al1the coasts in
between really face the area of delimitation. Whatevcrmethod might be used in
identifying and measuring these coasts, in any event, Malta's coastal front
which extends into the area of delimitation cannot be broader than a straight
line between the most south-easterly and the rnost south-westerly points of the
aforementioned coasts.
On the Libyan side, the coast which faces the maritime area between the
Parties starts from Ras Ajdir at the Libyflunisian border and teminates to
the easi ai Ras Zamq where the Libyan coast then tums to the south. The
Libyan coasts east of Ras Zmq do not face Lhemaritime area which is rele-
vant for the delimitation between the Parties.
It follows therefrom that the difference in length of the coasts of the Parties,
expressed in ratios. is higher than 8 to1,the exact figure depending on how
each coast is measured. Now if one would follow Malta's vision of the area of
delimitation as depicted in its trapezium modet, which Libya does not accept as
correct - you find it as Number 5 in Libya's map folder before you - and
would consider Libya's coast to the east up io Ras at-Tin on the Cyrenaican
coast as relevant, then the difference in length between the coastal fronts of
Malta and Libya would increase to an even higher ratio, such as between 1 to
25 and 1 to 30. the exact figure again depending on how each coast is
measured.
Now, theextraordinary difference in length of the coastal fronts of Libya and
Malta which face the area of delimitation, poses the problem- which is pecu-
liar to this cas- of determining an equitable boundary between coastlinesof
extreme difference in length. The problem is no1 peculiar to islands. It also
arises in other geographical contexts, but the problemof unequal coasts will, of
course, occur most probably in geographical situations, as here. where the coast
of a small island faces a much larger coast. In other cases, where larger islands
are involved in the maritime boundary delimitation, and their coastlines corres-
pond in length to the opposite coast, the problem of delimitation between un-
equal coasts will probably not anse. In the present case, however, the derimi-
tation of the maritime boundary between unequal coasts poses itself with
exceptional gravity. Bearing in mind that the coast is the starting line of a
State's continentalshelf extension into the sea, the extreme difference between
the lengths of the coastal fronts of Libya and Malta cannot possiblbe ignored
and considered irrelevant for the determination of the boundary between their
respective continental shelves.
Now. Malta contests the relevance of comparing the coasts of the Parties in
principle, and asserts that between opposite coasts, whatever their dimension
and length, the median tine represents the equitablboundar y.alta insists that
only small-scale adjusiments ofthe equidistance line couldbe made where inci-
dental coastal features would othenvise have a disproportionately distorting
effect on the course of the boundary line. That this far-reaching proposition has
no foundation in the jurisprudence and practice of States has already been
explained in detail in Libya's Counter-Memorial(II, LCM. paras. 4.26-4.28;
para. 5.96) from which is drawn the conclusion on Stale practice. 1 need no1 ARGUMENT OF PROFESSORJAENICKE 53
repeat these observations here. Such a proposition that between opposite coasts
the median line could ixan equitable bundary could only be sustained if the
coastlines of the opposite coasts are themselves approximatety equal in their
relation to thearea of delimitation.
Malta has, however, in its latest written pleading (III, MR. paras. 72-99) now
chosen another line of argument in defence of its untenable proposition that be-
tween opposite coasts, irrespective of their dimensions and lengths. the median
line is the logical and therefore equitable boundary. Malta seeks support for its
median line proposition in the so-called "distance principle" and in the çonse-
quential theory that each State musi have an equal geographical reach of entitle-
ment to the submarine areas lying between them. It isobvious that such a pro-
position amounts in substance to nothing else than again promoiing the
equidistance method between opposite coasts as an obligatory. if not absolute,
rule; in effect, itseeks to justify the equidistance line by the equidistance
method itself as if the latter were equitable per se. And Malta's argument rests
on two wrong premises.
First, Malta misconceives the role of distance in continental shelf delimita-
tion.
And second, Malta wrongiy assumes that between opposite coasts the dis-
tance between thern is a determinant criterion of anequitable boundary, regard-
less of the geognphical relationship and difference in length of both coasts.
1shall deal fint with the role of distance in continental shelf law. As 1have
already demonstrated, the legal basis of the coastal State's nght to the continen-
tal shelf in front of its coast rests upon the concept of natural prolongation
which regards the submarine areas in front of the coast as an extension or con-
tinuation of the land territory into the sea. This remains tme as well in ihose
cases where States with narrow belts of geological shelf claim submarine areas
beyond that shelf. At least up to the seaward limit of the geological shelf the
physical link of the submarine areas with the coast remains the basis of the
coast continental shelf rights. Thus far, distance has no relevance as basis of
title.It should also be noted that the Continental Shelf Convention of 1958,
which first codified the coastal State's continental shelf rights, contained no
reference to any criterion of distance. The distance criterion of 200 miles made
its appearance with the emergence of the institution of fishery zones and later
with the institution of the exclusive economic zone for purposes of defining the
outer limit of a coastal State's jurisdiction vis-à-vis the international waters of
the high seas.
It is now generally recognized that a coastal State may not extend its jurisdic-
tion over adjacent waters beyond 200 nautical miles from its coast, but such a
distance criterion has never been recognized with respect to the continental
shelf. The fact that the distance of 200 nautical miles from the basepoints on
the coast has ken used to determine the outermost seaward limit of a coastal
State's jurisdiction over ~hewaters in front of its coast does not justify the
conclusion that the coastal State's title to such jurisdiction rested on the mere
fact of their lying within a distance of 200 nautical miles; even less does that
justify the conclusion that the better legal title to any part of these areas could
be measured in terms of distance from certain basepoints of the coast. In any
event. such a reasoning could not bevalid for the continental shelf to which the
outer limit of 200 miles does not apply.
The fact that a certain distance has been used to set a seaward lirnit to the
coastal State's extension of ils jurisdictional rights into the sea does not support
the conclusion that distance from the coasts was the reason and justification for
the recognition of the coastai State's title to these maritime areas. In reality,54 CONTINENTAL SHELF
more substantial interests than mere distance from the coast were involved
when jurisdiction of the coastal State over the resources in front of its coast was
recognized by the international community. It was the need for protection of ,
these resources and for an effective control over their orderly management and
exploitation which became the justification for attributing the jurisdiction over
these resources to the coastal State and for recognizing the coastal State's pri-
mary interest in rnanagingand exploiting these resources.
Thus, the prirnary interest of the coastal State in the resources off its coasts
and the responsibility of the coastal State for their exploitation - and not
merely the degree of distance frorn basepoints on the coast - were the concep
tual basis and justification of the coastal State's entitlementto exclusive juris-
diction over the continental shelf and, later, over the fishery resources in the
superjacent waters. Certainly, the factthat these maritime areas were adjacent to
the coast had not beenirrelevant, but the degree of contiguity or adjacency did
not provide the justification for the coastal State's jurisdictional rights over
maritime areas off its coasts. Adjacency in expressing a certain distance from
the coast detennined, rather, the outer limit of those areas where the coastal
State's special interests have been recognized, vis-à-vis those areas of the high
seas where the interests of the international community have prevailed.Even if
geographical contiguity or adjacency would be considered part of the basis of
the coastal State's entitlernentto the continental shelf or the superjacent waters
off its coasts, it would only be one element among othersand, therefo~, not
capable of establishing mere distance from the coast as the determinant criterion
for the appurtenance of these areas to one State or another.
The Court rose ut 1 p.m. EIGHTEENTH PUBLIC SITTING (10 XII 84, 3p.m.)
Presenr: [See sitting of 26 XI84.1
Professor JAENICKE: Mr. President, distinguished Judges, before 1 left off
last Friday,1 had begun to examine the geographical component of the concept
of natural prolongation and to define what criteria could be derived therefrom
for the delimitation of the continental shelf in the present case. 1had stressed
the relevance of the coast as the line of departure of the natural prolongation of
a State's territory into the sea and the consequential relevance of their dif-
ference in length for the identification of the dividing line between their respec-
tive prolongations. 1 was about to deal with Malta's argument that between
opposite coasts the difference in coastal length, how great it might be, has no
relevance, and that the equidistance line is the logical and equitable boundary.
In exposing the fallacies in this lirie of argument, 1had first clarified the limited
role of adjacency and distance as basis of title for the jurisdiction over the rnari-
time areas in front of a State's Coast and the consequential limited role of dis-
tance as a criterion for delimitation.
1 shalI now deal with the secorid fallacy in Malta's argument which consists
of the assumption that at least inthose cases where distance is the basis of title,
distance from the coast is the only relevant criterion for determining the equi-
table boundary allowing only small-scale adjustrnents of the equidistance line to
eliminate the distorting effect of iricidental geographical features.
Now, apart from the fact, in the present case of continental shetf delimitation,
natural prolongation, and not distance from the coast, is the basis of title. dis-
tance as the basis of title would not,by itself. logically lead to equidistancein
delimitation. Even if one were to adopt Malta's thesis of adjacency or distance
being the sole basis of title, it would not follow therefrom that, between States
which both claim jurisdiction over the area of delimitation on that basis, the
boundary line must therefore be equidistant from both coasts. For this would
mean that the crirerion of distance from the coasl - which rnight be a useful
criterion in appropriate circumstances- would have assumed the character of a
superior role. or at least of a primary criterion of delimitation, with priority over
any other cnteria the relevance of which has been recognized by the jurispm-
dence of this Court. Such a reasoning would be tantamount 10 recognizing the
equidistance method as a rule of law - a thesis constantly rejected by this
Court.
Certainly, the concept of adjacency in tems of distance from the coast may
provide criteria for delimitation- among them equidistance as its most simple
expression - for application where justified under the circumstances of the
case. But this hardly justifies applying one of these critena as legally required
so as to exclude al1others. The Court has never done that; it has always judged
the applicability of thecriteria for delimitation on the basis of an appreciation
whether their application would lead to an equitable result under the circum-
stances of the case.
In the TunisialLic boyntinental shelf case, the Court clearly distinguished
between the criteria for entitlement, on the one hand, and the criteria for delirni-
tation in that area where both States can claim continental shelf rights under the56 CONTINENTALSHELF
criteria for entitlement, on the other hand (I.C.J.Reports 1982, pp. 46, 48 and
61, paras. 44,48 and 73). This distinction has again been made very clear in the
Judgment of the Chamber in the Gulfof Maine case (paras. 103-107). Here the
Chamber acknowledged that the concept of adjacency could be considered a
correct expression of the link between the State's sovereignty over its territory
and its sovereign rights over the adjacentmaitirne areas. The Chamber rejected,
however, the Canadian argument that it was possible to deduce from the
concept of adjacency a legal rule - equidistance - for delimitation between
States whose continental shelves or adjacent maritime zones overlap. Thus,
even if one would follow Malta's argument - which Libya does not regard as
being correct - that mere adjacency or distance provides the legal basis and
justification of the coastal State's entitlement to continental shelf rights, it
would not logically follow therefrom by legal implication that distance from the
coast must be the only or primary criterion for determining the appurtenance of
subrnarine areas to one or the olher of the Parties.
MT. President, 1tum now to the question what geographical criteria might be
considered equitable in the geographical setting of this case. As ihe natural pro-
longation of the territories of both Parties intohe area of delimitation emanates
and extends from the coasts of both Parties, the relationship of both coasts to
the area of delimitation must be the starting-point for considering the equitable-
ness of the cnteria for the delimitation of the maritime area between them.
Maltâ contends that the opposite relationship between the two coasts is the only
factor that ought to be considered in this context. Thereby Malta completely
neglects two facts :
1. Malta's coastal front which faces the area of delimitation, as 1 have said
earlier, is rnuch shorter than the Libyan coastal front which faces the same
area; in fact, its coastal front would, if rneasured (among the various possible
ways of measuring relevant coasts) by the length of the two southward-facing
façades of the islands of Malta and Gozo, then be ten tirnes shorter than that of
Libya.
2. Malta's small insular territory provides only a restricted basis of a natural
prolongation into the area of delimitation.
Malta is of the view ihat between opposite coasts, whatever their length,
equidistance from both coasts is the only equitable criterion in delimiting the
area of delimitation between them. Malta misinterprets for this purpose the
well-known statement of the Court in the North Sea Continentul Shelf cases
where the Court had expressed the opinion that in the case of opposite States
where the prolongations of both States meet or overlap, they could only be deli-
mited by means of a median line and that, in the absence or after elimination of
disproportionally distorting effects produced by islets, rocks or minor coastal
projections, such a median line effects an equal division of the particular area
involved (I.C,J.Reports 1969, p. 36, para. 57).
It can be safely assumed that the Court when expressing this opinion had
coasts of comparative length in mind and certainly not the situation of a small
island facing an extensive continental coast. For, in the latter case, an equidis-
tance line between the island and the continental coast is for most of its length
not in fact the true median line nor does it lead ro that equrtl division of the
area between them which was the very basis of the Court's recognition of the
equitableness of the [rue median line between opposite coasts. It must benoted
that the Court emphasized the need to eliminate disproportionally distorting
effects caused in such geographical situations by the presence of islets, rocks
and minor coastal projections. From this it can only be inferred that the Court ARGUMENTOF PROFESSORJAENlCKE 57
would have viewed the disproportionally distorting effect caused by the applica-
tion of the equidistance method between two coastlines of very different lengths
as no less requinng elirnination. In the continental shelf arbitration between
France and the United Kingdom, the Court of Arbitration gave the same reading
to the statement of the Court in the North Sea Continental Sheif cases, quali-
fying it with the following considerations:
"Between opposite States . . . a median line boundary will in normalcir-
cumstances leave broadly equal areas of continental shelf to each State and
constitute a delimitation in accordance with equitable principles. It follows
that where the coastlines of two opposite States are themselves approxi-
mateiy equal in their relation to the continental shelf not only should the
boundary in normal circumstancesbe the median line but the areas of shelf
left to eachParty on either side of the median line should bebroadly equal
or at least broadly comparable." (Judgment, para. 182; emphasis added.)
Itis important to observe that this dictum refers with parficular emphasis to
"normal circumstances" and to cases of "approxirnately equal" opposite coasts.
In cases where there is a continuous unintempted continental shelf area be-
tween coasts of comparable length and configuration it is certainly plausible to
corne to the conclusion that the two prolongations meet and overlap to the sarne
extent and that consequently the inedian line is the rnost equitable method of
delimitation in such cases, absent other compelling circumstances. There are,
however, many cases where the geographical situation is quite different and the
situation between Libya and Maltü is certainly one of thern. The geographical
circurnstances and the reasons which justified the prevalence of the median line
between opposite coasts in the opinion of the judges are not present here. It is
difficult to perceive how the natural prolongations from coasts of such differ-
ence in length could possibly be regarded as meeting and overlapping with
comparable or even equaI extent so that the median line would offer the
obvious and equitable solution.
Thus, I fail to see how Malta could find support in the jurisprudence for its
untenable thesis that between opposite coasts the median or equidistance line is
the equitable boundary even where these coasts are not comparable in length.
In view of the special characteristics of the geographical situation in the
present case, which is totally different from earlier cases, we are confronted
with the problem whether the concept of natural prolongarion - apart from its
geological or geornorphological criteria - may also provide us with equitable
critena derived from the geographical setting of this case, It is in harmony with
the jurisprudence of this Court - and not disputed between the Parties - that
the identification of the natural prolongation of the temrories of both Parties
must start from their respective coasts (TunisialLibya continental shelf case,
I.C.J. Reports 1982, p. 61, para. 74:).
The Parties, however, hold totally different, even divergent, views as to what
constitutes geographically the natural prolongation or extension of the territory
of the Parties in the area of delimitation. Malta claims that the only relevant
factor which determines the outward reach of each Party's natural prolongation
is proximity to the nearest basepoints of both respective coasts. This attitude is
somehow inconsistent with Malta's thesis put forward in the context of the
argument concerning the relevance of economic and security considerations.
There Malta insists that the list of relevant factors should not be restricted and
that no circumstance should be excluded in limine. Why should then the dif-
ference in the lengths of the coasts, which is a particularly smking geographical
feature in the present case, be totally irrelevant?58 CONTINENTAL SHELF
Libya is of the opinion that the dimensions of the coastal front which faces
the area of delimitation cannot be disregarded in determining the geographical
extent of the natural prolongation of the temtory of each Party into the area of
delimitation.
Malta's thesis. although put forward in many variations and in different
contexts. essentially rests on only one argument. It rests on the theoretical and
unsupported assumption that the natural prolongation of the temtory of an
island extends radially with an equal reach into the area of delimitation as far
as any natural prolongation from an opposite continental coast extends into the
same area.
This argument, however. is in substance - I have already said it several
times - nothing other than a claim for an equidistance boundary reasserted
again. It does not explain or prove why the natural prolongation from coasts
of different length must have necessarily the same seaward reach and why
such an assumption is necessarily equitable, either in abstracto or under the
particuiar circumstances of the case. Nor dws it explain why iiis equitable
10 disregard the smallness of Malta and the extraordinary difference in length
between the coastal fronts of Malta and of Libya which face the area of delimi-
tation.
Malta has, in its pleadings, tried to draw support for its thesis from the prin-
ciple of equality of States but, as my dear fnend and colleague, Professor
Briggs, has explained, itmisconceives the legal content of thai pnnciple. Equa-
lity of States means equality before the law - or expressed more clearly -
equal application of the principles and rules of international law to al1 States
whether big or small, whether continental or insular. But this principle does not
guarantee each State an equal share of maritime areas where the equal applica-
tion of the pnnciples of maritime delimitation to the geography of the case does
not accord an equally large share to each of the States concemed. 1need only
refer to the well-known statement of this Court in the North Sea CantinentaI
Shelfcases where the Coun emphasized that there could never be any question
of refashioning nature or of rendering the situation of a State with an extensive
coastline similar to that of a State with a restricted coasttine (I.C.J. Reporis
1969, p. 49, para. 91).
In Malta's oral argument, counsel for Malta had said "the legal value of
equality is represented by the equal seaward reach of equally significant oppo-
site coasts of the States concerned" (III, p.456). The equation "legal equality"
equals "equal significance of coasts" equals "equal seaward reach of opposite
coasts" sounds well, but the legal reason why each coast must have "equal
reach" is still missing. The legal framework of continental shelf delimitation is
based on the rule of applying equitable principles not on equal reach of coasts,
or - what is the same - on a nile of equidistance. Counsel for Maltahas even
gone so far as to assert that "the boundary which accords with equitable prin-
ciples and legal policy always aims. however approximately.at an equal attribution
of shelf areas to continental States" (III, p. 462). That is tantamount to aclaim for
a distribution of the continental shelfby equalshares, divorced from geographical
reality.
1need not take issue here with Malta's theory of the radial projection of the
natural prolongation of the Maltese islands into the surrounding sea because it
is not relevant in the present context. lrrespective of what Malta may under-
stand by the term radial projection, the direction of a coastal State's natural pro-
longation is determined by the geographical relationship between the coastal
fronts of the States concemed towards the area of delimitation. 1 have already
identified the coastal fronts which are .n the present case, relevant for the deli- ARGUMENT OF PROWSSOR JAENICKE 59
mitation of the continental sheIf between the Parties and the area of delimitation
into which they extend.
It is Libya's position that the geographical relationship of the coasts of the
Parties to the area of delimitationprovides geographical cntena for the determi-
nation of how far into the maritime area lying between both coasts the natural
prolongation of the territory of one or the other Party can be considered to
extend. Libya has never denied that Malta as an island has an entitlement to
continental shelf nghts on the basis of its Coastjust as does any other coastal
State. But it does noi follow therefrom that the natural prolongation of an
island's territory- which is the indispensable physical basis of its claims -
must have the same expanse as the natural prolongation of a continental State
having a much more extensive coasiline.
This is not at variance with the principle of equal application of the law but
is, rather, a consequence of the reduced dimension of the territory and the
coasts of a small island. The small size of the Maltese islands and the conse-
quential smallness of Malta's coastal front in comparison to that of Libya dis-
tinguish clearly the geographical situation in this case from other relationships
between opposite coasts. The difference in size and coastal lengths is so
obvious that these facts must find expression in the criteria for the delimitation
between the Parties if the requirement of applying equitable principles is to be
obsewed. Contrary to what Malta tries to deny, differences in the lengths of the
coastal fronts which face the areii of delimitation, as well as the size of islands,
have found recognition in the jiirisprudence of this Court as well as in State
practice as relevant cnteria for an equitableelimitation.
Mr. President, t shall now first deal with the criterion of the lengths of
coasts.In the North Seo ConrinenralShelfcases, the Court considered it arequire-
ment for delimitation under equitable principles thata reasonable degree of pro-
portionality ought to be broughr about between the extent of the continental
shelf areas appertaining to each of the Parties and the lengths of their respective
coasts measured in the general direction of the coastline (I.C.J. Reports 1969,
p. 52, para. 98). In the TunLFioiLibycontinental shelf case, the Court emphasized
the importance of this requirement by considering such proportio~ality as
indeed required by the fundamental principle of ensuri-g an equitable delimita-
tion (1.c.~~e~oris1982, p. 296. para. 103j.
It is true that in both cases the Court had applied proportionality between
coastal frontsof the parties and the submarine areas attributed to each of them
as an object to be achieved in the process of delimitaiion. and not as a method
for dividing up the area of delimitation between the parties. But this application
of the critenon of proportionality does in no way diminish the importance of
the difference in coastal lengths and does not mle out the relevance of this fact
for the method of delimitation. Rather. it underlines the relevance of the lengths
of the respective coastlines of the parties to the process of delimitation. In parti-
cular. if there is a marked difference in the lengths of the coasts abutting the
area of delimitation which would have a grossly disproportionate effectin the
attribution ofareas by the equidistance method. this factor must find correspond-
ing expression in the rnethod, as well as in the result. of the delimitation pro-
cess. Ohenvise, an equitable result could no1 be achieved.
Malta accuses Libya of rnisusing the Court's proportionaliry test by putting
forward a clairn to continental shelf areas on the basis of coastal length. This
accusation is a distortion of Libya's argument: Libya does not use proportiona-
lity asa legal basis for a claim to a proportionate area of shelf - which may
amount to a claim for anequitable share rejected by the Court in 1969. Libya's
proposition is rather to emphasize the relevance of the difference in coastal60 CONTINENTALSHELF
lengths and to have this difference adequately reflected inthe rnethods of deli-
mitation. Under this perspective. the concept of proportionality may dso point
to delimitation criteria which are appropriate under the geographical circum-
stances of the case in order to reach a result which meets the requirement of
proportionality.In the TunisialLibya continental shelf case. the Court empha-
sized that the equitableness of a principle of delimitation must be assessed in the
light of its usefulness for the purpose of reachinan equitable result and that it
may acquire this quality by reference to the equiiableness of the solution (I.C.J.
Reports 1982, p. 59, para. 70). So there is nothing wrong in using a cnterion
which is indicated by theneed to reach a result which has to pass the test of
proportionality and which assists in reaching an equitable result. The concept of
proportionality in its wider sense can at least provide appropriate correctives to
the estabIished geometncai methods of delimitation. Libya has tried to deduce
such criteria or correctives from the concept of proportionality because that
concept is indeed inherent in the equal application of the law to unequal condi-
tions. and I would like to refer in this respect to the proposais advanced by
Libya under this approach. 1 shall come back to this point later when the oral
argument of Libya will deal with the concept of proportionality.
Mr. President, Libya's approach is. in my view, consistent with the approach
taken by this Court to the problems of maritime delimitation. 1 would like to
refer in this respect to the Judgment of the Chamber of this Court in the Gulfof
Mainecase where the Chamber was faced, among others. also with the problem
of coasts having different lengths when ithad io delimit the Gulf of Maine
areas between Canada and the United States. When the Chamber examined the
various cnteria that rnight lead to the appropriate rnethod of delimitation in
view of these and other special characteristics of the area of delimitation, the
Chamber mentioned among the so-called corrective or üuxiliary cnteria in parti-
cular that:
"a fair rneasure of weight should be given to a by no mems negligible dif-
ference within the delimitation area between the lengths of the respective
coastlines of the countries concerned" (I.C.J.Reports 1984, p. 328,
para. 196).
Later in its Judgment the Chamber stated the following:
"the Chamber has recognized in principle the equitable character of the cri-
tenon whereby appropriate consequences may be deduced from any
inequalities in the lengths of the two States' respective coastlines abutting
on the delimitation area. As the Chamber has expressly emphasized, it in
no way intends to make an autonomous cntenon or methmi of delimitation
out of the concept of 'proportionality', even if be Iimited tothe aspect of
lengths of coastline. However [and that is important], this does not pre-
clude the justified use of an auxiliary criterion serving only to rneet the
need to correct appropriately, on the basis of the inequalities noted, the
untoward consequences of applying a different main cnterion." (Ibid.,
p. 335, para. 218.)
As you will know the Chamber applied this critenon in such a way as to shift
the dividing line between the maritime zones of the Parties. which was origi-
nally drawn as a median line between Massachusetts and Nova Scotia, towards
the Nova Scotian Coastto such an extent that the distances fmm both coasts to
the new line reflected the difference in lengths of the coastlines of Canada and
the United States facing the Gulf of Maine (ibid p.,336, para. 222). The geo-
graphy of the Gulf of Moine case is certainly different frorn the geography in ARGUMENTOF PROFESSOR JAENICKE 61
the present case, but the weight which had been given by the Chamber to the
difference in the lengths of the coastlines of both Parties, and the method used
by the Chamber to reflect appropriately this difference, are certainly instructive
and, in principle, applicable beyond the Gulfof Maine case. The approach and
methods proposed by Libya for the determination of the continental shelf boun-
dary between Malta and Libya are not substantially at variance with the
approach and the methods taken by the Chamber in the GuvofMainecase. If a
similar approach were taken in the present case, it would mean that the dividing
line between the continental shelves of Malta and Libya must lie nearer to
Malta to an extent which adequately reflects the difference of the lengths of the
coastal fronts of both Parties.
Mr. President. in its oral argument Malta has tried to defend its thesis of the
irrelevance of differences incoastal lengths by another argument. The distin-
guished Agent for Malta as well as his distinguished counsel have repeatedly
asserted that a difference in coastal lengths need not be taken into account
because the longer coast already by its very length attracts a larger continental
shelf thanthe shorter coast (III, pp. 301, 435 and 476). This argument appears
plausible on its face, but on a closer look it cannot be sustained. It is neither
true in the geographical situation of the present case nor is ittrue under the
principles of geometry. If the relevant coasts are in an opposite relationship, an
equidistance line between them tends to neglect or to take only marginal account
of a difference in length of both coasts.shafl explain that in more detail:
First. we will show later in our oral argument on proportionality that Malta's
equidistance line divides thearea which has been defined by Libya as relevani
for delimitation on a ratio of about one to one and a half; this is hardly an
adequate reflection of the difference in coastal length. If the area of delimitation
between the two States would not narrow towards Malta because the presence
of Tunisia and the ltalian islands limits the area of delimitation to the West.the
amount of area attributed by an equidistance line to both Parties would tum out
as king nearly equal.
Second. Malta seeks to create the wrong impression that an equidistance
boundary would give Libya a rnuch larger share compared to Malta. It does so
by the construction of a highly mificial area of delimitation- the trapezium.
The trapezium is depicted in Figure 5 of Libya's map folder before you. You
will observe that the trapezium. or the area of delimitation, as Malta wants to
have it, reaches tthe east far beyond the region where the natural prolonga-
tions of both Parties could possibly overlap. The trapezium which Mülta puts
forward as the area relevant for delimitation, is not based on the true relation-
ship between the coasts of the Parties. If I may draw the Court's attention to
@ Figure 6 of Malta's illustrations for the oral hear-ng this is also No. in the
Libyan folder- the red circle of 200 nautical miles around Malta makes it
obvious that even on the basis of Malta's claim ta natural prolongation of 200
nautical miles to the east- a claim which Libya does not recognize - the
area of overlap stops at that line so that the area'of delimitation cannot possibly
extend beyond.
Third, if 1 may refer to the map now being placed on the easel (which is
@ No. 7 in your map folder). it can be shown that the location of equidistance
bundary and the attribution of area thereby would not be substantially different
if Libya's coast would be reduced to the same length as that of a small island
like Malta. That is to SayifLibya were itself a small island. This demonstrates
plainly ~hat,contrary to Malta's assertion,the greater length of Libya's coast
does noi materially affect the amount of ma atbibuted to Libya's coast. The 62 CONTINENTALSHELF
@ map illustrates this by superimposing Malta on Libya's coast and constructing
an equidistance boundary between them. The black line represents the equidis-
tance boundary as claimed by Malta, and the red line represents the hypotheti-
cal boundary between the two small islands.
Fourth. if one were to construct a geometrical mode1 which reflected the
situation between Libya and Malta more correctly, it would turn out that the
amount of area attributed to both coasts by an equidistance boundary would not
substantially differ whether or not both coasts were ofual length. Diagram A
@ of the Libyan Counter-Memorial illustrated this situation. This diagram is king
placed on the easel and appears as No. 8 in your folder. It shows the median
line between the two opposite coasts of the same length on both sides of the
area of delimitation. and in comparison thereto it shows the equidistance line
between two coasts where the one coast is reduced to a fifth of its original
length or even to a mere point. The attribution of area by these Iines shows
only marginal difference.
All this illustrates quite clearly that the equidistance method is not capable of
taking adequate account of adifference in coastal lengths and that in particular,
it is notrue that ian opposite relationship the longer coast by the mere fact of
its length attracts substantially more area than the smaller coast.
Once it is recognized that the dividing line between the natural prolongations
or extensions of two coastal fronts rnust reflect the difference in their lengths
and that the natural prolongation of the much shorter coast cannot have the
sarne seaward extent as the natural prolongation of the much longer coast into
the area of delimitation between them. equitable principles will determine the
dividing line between them in geographical terms. It is therefore possibl-
even if there were no such clear geophysical division between the two shelves
as fortunately is the situation in the present ca-e to determine the dividing
line between the respective natural prolongations of the Parties by geographical
criteria. Thecriteria and methods which will have to be applied must be such
as to reflect adequately and equitably the difference in the lengths of the respec-
tive coastal fronts of the Parties whichabut on the area of delimitation. They
must effect a division of the area between the Parties on a ratio which corre-
sponds to the difference in length of the two coastal fronts of the Parties. There
are various methods available to give expression to the difference in coastal
lengths; the Judgment of the Chamber in the Gulf of Maine case has indicated
one of them. The seleciion of the appropriate method largely depends on the
configuration of the area of delimitationand on an evaluation of the effect a
particular method would have on the attribution of area to the one or IO the
other Party.That is not- 1must again emphasize - is nota partition by equi-
table shares. It is not using proportionality as a source of nght, but rather a
selectian of~heappropriate criteria for reaching the required equitable result. In
the TunisialLibya continental shelf case the Court had clearly stated that the
equitable pnnciples for delimitation "have to be selected according to their
appropriateness for reaching an equitable result" (I.C.J.Reports 1982, p. 59,
para. 70). So,itis well in harmony with the Court's jurisprudence to select cri-
teria and methods for delimitation in view of their appropriateness to satisfy the
test of proportionality between coastal lengths and the attribution of areas.
Mr. President, at this stage of Libya's oral argument I do not intend to enter
into a selection of methods and calculations. It mayuffice to say that the extra-
ordinary difference in length of the coasrs of the Parties which abut the area
relevant for delimitation must express itself geographically in a dividing line
between the natural prolongations of the Parties which lies much nearer to ARGUMENTOF PROFESSORJAENICKE 63
Malta on a scale corresponding to that extraordinary difference in coastal
length. A dividing line which would be effected by the various boundary propo-
sals that have been made by Libya accords with the high ratio of difference in
the length of both coastal fronts in an adequate way.
Malta has cornplained thatsuch iidivision of the submarine area between the
Parties would be a massive encroachment on Malta's continental shelf.
Distinguished counsel for Malta, while admitting that the jurisprudence had
made correctives to the median line where appropriate, insists that such "adjust-
rnents" to the equidistance line could only be of a "modest scale" and must
rernain within the limits of the "approxirnate equality" between the areas so
divided (III, pp.457-458).1 do not think that the jurispmdence could be interpre-
ted so narrowly. In particular, the Court in the North Sea Continental Shelf
cases was well aware that its proportionality requirement would necessarily iead
to a major departure from, if noi a total abandonment of, the equidistance
method in that case. In fact, in the negotiations which followed the Court's
Judgment, the area that was accorded to the Federal Republic of Germany
amounted to approxirnately 150 per cent of the area which would otherwise
have been attributed to the Federal Republic by the application of the equidis-
tance method. The selection of the methods of delimitation and the degree of
their modification for the purpose of reaching an equitable result depends rather
on the degree of the disproportionate effect of the geographical factors in-
volved. There is no rule that the necessary corrections to remedy the dispro-
portion must be kept to within a close range to the equidistance boundary .
I shall now tum to the second characteristic element of the geographical situa-
tion in the present case. This is the small size of the insular territory of Malta
which constitutes the basis of the extension of Malta's coastal front into the
area of delimitation. Of course, the small size of Maltese islands necessarily is
reflected in their small coastal front as cornpared with the opposite Libyan coas-
ta1 front. 1 have already noted the relevance of this extraordinary difference in
arriving at an equitable delirnitation which takes into account the disproportio-
nate effect of this difference in coastal length. 1do not want to reiterak this,
but 1 would like to ernphasize again that the small size of the Maltese isfands
and the consequential small length of their coastlines are both basic geographi-
cal facts. These facts rnust in the geographical circurnstances of the present case
find expression in a corresponding reduced outward reach of Maltais natural
prolongation into the area of shelves around the islands. In the special, geogra-
phical situation in which Malta finds itself, the size of its territory, and cor-
respondingly srnall coastal fronts vis-h-vis the surrounding continental coasts,
will necessarily raise the question whether such a small territorial basis cm pro-
duce a natural prolongation into the surrounding sea of the same geographical
reach and extent as the much larger continental coasts. 1do not want to imply
thereby that islands have a more lirnited extent of continental shelf by the very
fact of their insular character, but in the special geagraphicaL situation of this
case the size of Malta's territory will unavoidably raise the question whether
such a small territory basis can produce a natural prolongation to the same
extent as the larger continental territories enclosing this narrow sea.
In cases where a division between the natural prolongations emanating from
two opposite coasts cannot be identified by the physical structure of the sea-bed
- as it can be in the present case - the determination of the dividing line
requires an evaluation of the weight or reach of the two natural prolongations
on the basis of equitable criteria. Malta contends that Malta's natural profonga-
tion, irrespective of Malta's size, must have the same outward reach as any
other of the surrounding continental coasts, using for this purpose the principle64 CONTINENTALSHELF
of equality of States as an argument. This thesis divorces itself completely from
the legalconcept of the continental shelf which is basedon the physical facts of
geology, geomorphology and geography. It overlooks that it is not statehood as
an abstraction, but landmass and coast as physical facts which generate conti-
nental shelf rights. An equal application of the principle and rules of continental
shelf delimitation cannot close its eyes to the facts of geography.
Libya does not deny that an island may have, in principle, continental shelf
rights to the outer limit of the geophysical prolongation of its territory provided
there are no opposite coasts whose natural prolongation limits the reach of that
island's natural prolongation. But where there is an opposite coast, it will have
to bedetermined by the application of equitable critena what part of the area of
delimitation between the island and the opposite coast may, in view of the size
and location of the island. be considered as being the natural prolongation of
the island and of the opposite coast, respectively. Wow far the submarine areas
around an island can equitably be considered its natural prolongation or coastal
front extension cannot be expressed in abstract mathematical fonnulae. That
will depend rather on the special geographical situation in each case. In a nar-
row sea, where the natural prolongations extending from the island as well as
from the surrounding coasts necessarily limit the seaward extension which each
of them would otherwise beentitled io, the size of the island's territory and
the amount of continental shelf area that it attracts as its natural prolongation
will necessarily become a relevant and equitable criterion in determining the
dividing line between the natural prolongations emanating from the island and
the surrounding coasts. respectively.
Without accepting Malta's theory of the radial projection of an island's natu-
ral prolongation from every basepoint of its coast, it follows from geography
that within anenclosed sea an island has coastal fronls vis-à-vis al1the surround-
ing States. If it is very small, it will attraatcontinental shelf area many limes
its size if itis accorded in terms of distance. an extension equal to that accorded
to the surrounding opposite coasts. In fact, on the basis of the data provided by
Malta in its Mernorial(1) (paras.25 and 39), the equidistance boundary claimed by
Malta would atmbute Malta a continental shelf area which would benearly 200
times larger than the area of its territory (in exact figure: 316 :60.000 km2). It
is not the island's size as such which prohibits the recognition of its natural
prolongation up to the median line as equitable, but rather that such a recogni-
tion would, under the special circumstances of the present case, accord the
island an amount of continental shelf area disproportionate to its size compared
to the continental shelf areas left to the surrounding States.
The relevance of the size and location of an island in certain geographical
situations has been recognized by the jurisprudence as well as by State practice
in maritime zone delimitations, mostly under the term of the so-called weight of
islands in the construction of maritime boundaries. The disproportionate effect
of small-size islands on the construction of continental shelf boundaries has
been the decisive element common to ail ihese cases irrespective of how much
the concrete geographical situations may have varied from case to case. Two
groups of cases may bedistinguished :
1. There are those cases where small islands are geographically connected
with the coast of the larger mainland; but because they aresituated at quite a
distance off the coast. they may influence disproportionately the location or
direction of the boundary line vis-à-vis an opposite or adjacent State. In such
cases, jurisprudence and State practice have recognized the disproportionate
effect of such small islands and have accorded them only partial weight, or ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR JAENICKE 65
even no weight in constructing the boundary. The Court is well aware of this
jurisprudence and State practice and 1 need not refer to any particular cases.
What is important is that jurisprudence and State practice have, in principle,
recognized the relevance of such disproportionate effects and the necessity for
their elimination in order to reach an equitable result. This group of cases,
however, is not comparable to the case of Malta because Malta is neither politi-
cally nor geographically connected with any mainland coastal front. 1 have
mentioned this group of cases only as evidence of the recognition of the rele-
vance of the possible distorting effect of small-size islands on the geographical
reach of a coastal State's natural prolongation, if it were determined on the
basis of equidistance.
2. The second group of cases, which are more comparable to Malta's situa-
tion, are those where small-size islands, either geographically unconnectedwith
the coastal front of their home State or politically independent, face a much lar-
ger foreign coast. In such cases, the question has arisen whether such small-size
islands can claim the same extent of their natural prolongation vis-&vis the
opposite coast. The jurisprudence had ta deal with just such a probiem in the
continental shelf arbitration between France and the United Kingdom. In that
case, the Court of Arbitration accorded ta the British Channel Islands, in view
of the narrowness of the area of delimitation, only a 12-mile belt of continental
shelf within the French continental shelf area. The distinguished counsel for
Malta has disputed the relevance of this decision for the present case because
the Channel Islands were dependencies of the United Kingdom, not island
States. He asserts that the Court of Arbitration rnight have decided otherwise if
the Channel Islands had been considered a sovereign State. But this is mere
speculation. The Court of Arbitration in its judgment had to dispose of the
argument of the political status of these islands because the United Kingdom
had argued it as a relevant factor. The Court discarded the United Kingdom's
argument in EiminP by stating thai the Channel Islands lacked sufficient inde-
pendence to claim a continental shelf in their own right. There is, however, no
indication in the Court's reasoning whether its decision on the delimitation
would have been influenced by a different political status of these islands
(Decision, paras. 184-186).
In State practice, continental shelf or maritime-zone boundary agreements can
be found where small-size islands have no or only a small belt of continental
shelf beyond their territorial sea. Libya has referred to such cases in its detailed
review of delimitation agreements in Volume II annexed to ils Counter-
Memorial. My good friend and colleague, Professor Colliard, will deal with this
aspect of State practice later in Libya's oral argument.
Malta seeks to negate the relevance of these precedents with the argument
that the examples concerned only dependent islands. But it is not the political
status of an island, but rather its territory which generates continental shelf
rïghts. In this context, the Maritime Boundary Delimi~ationTreaty between the
Netherlands and Venezuela for the maritime boundary between the self-gov-
erning Netherlands Antilles and Venezuela of 30 March 1978 is significant;
according to my information this Treaty had been negotiated by the Netherlands
Antilles themselves, only the fomd conclusion of the Treaty involved the
Netherlands, which retained thecompetence to act in external rnatters on behalf
of ùie Antilles. The agreed boundary reduced the area attributcd to these islands
by approximately half of the area which the Netherlands Antilles would other-
wise have been attributed under the application of the equidistance method.
Thus, it cannot be denied that the small size of an isiand rnay, in certain geo-66 CONTINENTAL SHELF
graphical situations. become a relevant criterion for putting a limit to the
island's natural prolongation in order to reach an equitable result. In Malta's
case this fact reinforces the validity and equitableness of Libya's identification
of the outer limits of Malta's natural prolongation as lying within the bounda-
ries which have been teferred to as the Rift Zone.
Before concluding this part of my presentation. 1 must deal with Malra's
contention that the boundary proposed by Libya, which is based simultaneously
upon the geological separation of the continental shelves of the Parties within
the Rift Zone and on the geographical fact of the difference in coastal lengths,
is derived from two distinct conceptions that lack a common basis. 1 have
already shown earlier that it would be a misconceution to imuly that there is no
commbn basis between geophysical facts on the one hand &d geographical
facts on the other. Their common basis is the concept of natural prolongation
which is based simulianeously on the geophysical and geographicai conn&tion
between the temtory of the coastal State and the submarine areas adjacent to its
Coast. Geology, geomorphology and geography, al1 relate to the sarne set of
physical facts that make up the natural prolongation of a coastal State's temtory
into the sea.Itwould be fundamentally wrong to treat those different aspects of
scientific findingsas if they were isolated in separate compartments. Therefore.
for the purpose of delimitation, geophysical and geographical facts may both
become relevant if by applying equitable criteria they assist in identifying the
division - the equitable division- between the natural prolongations of the
territory of both Parties. In the delimitation process, al1 the relevant facts and
circumstances must be identified, examined, assessed and weighed in order to
reach an equitable result. It can neither be anticipated nor is it necessary that each
of these factors lead to exactly the same line of demarcation between the natural
prolongation of both Parties. If they do not, the question will arise how much
weight they must be given in relation to each other within the general relation-
ship of the Parties in order to reach an equitable solution. In the present case,
geology, geornorphology and geography al1 provide equitable criteria which
leads to the identification ofa demarcation line between the two prolongations
of both Parties within the range of the boundary proposals made by Libya.
III
1 shall now turn to the third part of my preseiitation which draws some
conclusions from the interpretation and application of the concept of natural
prolongation.
In the first two parts of my presentation, 1 have examined the relevance of
the concept of natural prolongation as basis of continental shelf rights and the
criteria that may bederived therefrom for the delimitation of the continental
shelf between the Parties. The identification and application of the geophysical
and geographical criteria denved from the concept of natural prolongation
should not be understood to mean that these criteria are necessarily exclusive.
The fundamental nom of continental shelf delimitation requires that not only
these but any other supplementary equitable criteria, which have to be consid-
ered relevant in the circumstances of the case, must be examined and weighed
in order to attain an equitable result. The role and application of equitable prin-
ciples, criteria and methods in the present case will be treated in greater depth
Laterin Libya's oral argument. At this stage, it may suffice to state that there
are no other circumstances in the case, which would contradict Libya's identifi-
cation of what constitutes the demarcation line between the natural prolonga-
tions of the Parties on the basis of geology. geornorphology and geography. ARGUMENTOF PROFESSORJAENICKE 67
Thus, the geophysical and geographical criteria as they have been deduced from
the concept of natural prolongation and applied to the facts of the present case
can safely be taken as the determinant criteria for the delimitation of the conti-
nental shelf boundary between the Parties.
The importance of the identification of the natural prolongations of the terri-
tories of both Parties into the area of delimitation has heretofore been under-
lined by this Court in the North Seu Continental Shelf cases, where the Court
considered it as one of the pnmary principles of continental shelf delimitation
that the delimitation is to be effected
"in such a way as to leave as much as possible to each Party al1those parts
of the continental shelf that constitute a natural prolongation ofs land ter-
ritory into and under the sea, without encroachment on the natural prolon-
gation of the land territory of the other" (1.C.J.Reports 1969, p. 53,
para. 101).
In this context, it is necessary to clarify the meaning of the principle of non-
encroachment because Malta, in its pleadings, has interpreted this principle as
anargument for the use of the equidistance method for the identification ofthe
demarcation line between the natural prolongations between opposite coasts.
Malta wants to qualify any boundary which is nearer to Malta than the equidis-
tance line as being an undue encroachment on Malta's entitlement to the conti-
nental shelf off its coast. This proposition in effect does nothing more than to
define the seaward reach of Malta's natural prolongation by the equidistance
line. Such reasoning proves nothing; it just uses another catchword for the
claim to an equidistance boundary without providing any further valid ground
why Malta's natural prolongation has to reach to that line. That is not the prin-
ciple of non-encroachment as it had been understood by the Court in the North
Sea ContinentalSheifcases. There the Court wanted to ensure that the boundary
should follow as closely as possible the geographical limits of each State's
natural prolongation where it could be identified. Thus, the proper application
of the principle of non-encroachment presupposes the prior identification of the
respective naturaI prolongations of the Parties, but provides no criteria for their
identification.Itisonly after the geological and geographical extent of the natu-
ral prolongation of the territories of the Parties and the areas where they meet
and overlap have been identified, that the principle of non-encroachment cornes
into play for determining the bouridary line and for providing a guideline for
dealing with overlaps.
Libya is of the opinion that the concept of natural prolongation, if interpreted
in harmony with the jurisprudence of this Court, is capable, where the circum-
stances of the case so permit, of defining correctly the geophysical and geogra-
phical basis of a coastal State's continental shelf and, thus, to provide criteria
for its delimitation vis-A-vis neighbouring States. Malta has tried not only to
replace the established concept of natural prolongation by the criterion of mere
distance frorn the coast but also to question the role of the concept of natural
prolongation in maritime zone delimitation. It seems that Maltais assumption of
a diminishing role of the concept of natural prolongation rests not only on the
false premise of an absorption of ihe institution of the continental shelf by the
200-mile zone concept, but also on a too narrow understanding of the concept
of natural prolongation as amere geological phenornenon.
Upon these considerations,1 fail to see any reason why the concept of natural
prolongation should be abandoned. It is not inconsistent with the principles and -
rules of maritime zone delimitation and has its proper role to play in continental
shelf delimitation. In any event, in the present case the concept of natural pro-68 CONTINENTALSHELF
longation assists in selecting equitable criteria and methods for detennining the
continental shelf boundary between the Parties.
Mr. President, in concluding, 1would like to present a sumrnary of the main
points 1have tried to develop in my presentation:
1. The concept of natural prolongation is an integral element of the legal
framework governing the delimitation of the continental shelf. It is firmIy
grounded in the jurisprudence of this Court and in State practice. There is no
reason to abandon this concept because of new developments in the law of the
sea.
2. The concept of natural prolongation expresses and defines the geophysical
and geographical link between the territory of the State and the continental shelf
area extending from its coast. As such it is the basis of the coastal State's legal
title to its continental shelf and may provide geophysical and geographical cn-
teria for the delimitation of a State's continental shelf vis-à-vis other States.
3. The criterion of distance from the coast does not constitute the basis of the
continental shelf nghts of the Parties in the present case.Therefore, mere dis-
tance from the coast cannot be considered the sole or primary critenon for
detennining the better right of one or the other Party to continental shelf areas.
4. Libya acts in full harmony with the jurisprudence of this Court when it
puts the geophysical characteristics of the Rif tone in evidence before the
Court as clear proof of the separation of the natural prolongations of Libya and
Malta along this zone.
5. As the coasts are the starting-line for each Party's extension of its conti-
nental shelf into the maritime areas between them. their extraordinary difference
in length is a relevant criterion in detennining an equitable dividing line
between theit respective natural prolongations.
6. Malta's thesis that because of the opposite relationship of the relevant
coasts of the Parties their extraordinary difference in length should not have any
relevance for their delimitation is contrary to the junspmdence of this Court
and State practice; nordoes such a thesis lead to anequitable result in the geo-
graphical circumstances of this case.
7. Finally, Malta's thesis that between opposite coasts each Party is entitled
to an equal reach of its natutal prolongation into the maritime area between
them is merely a restatement of the alleged priori~yof the equjdistance methcd
- a claim constantly rejected by this Court.
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, this concludesy presentation for today.
1 thank you for the patience with which you have followed my arguments. May
1 respectfully ask you, Mr. President, to give the floor to my dear friend and
colleague, Professor Quéneudec.
TheCourt adjourned from 4.30 p.m. to 4.45p.m. PLAIDOIRIEDE M. QUENEUDEC
CONSEIL DU GOUVERNEMENT DE LA JAMAHIRIYAARABE LIBYENNE
M. QU~NEUDEC: Monsieur le F'rksident,Messieurs les juges, se présenter
comme conseil d'un Etat devant la Cour internationale de Justice est assurément
un grand honneur. Je tiens à vous le dire tres simplement, non pas pour satis-
faire au rituel de la courtoisie judiciaire, mais parce que cela correspond effecti-
vement Siun sentiment réellement&prouve.
Monsieur le Président,il m'appartient d'exposer à la Cour l'argumentation de
la Libye en ce qui concerne la place occupée et le r6Ie éventuellement jouépar
le facteur de distance dans le droit international applicable la notion de pla-
teau continental.
C'est dire que mon exposé se situe dans le droit fil de l'intervention prkcC-
dente de M. Jaenicke, dont il constitue en quelque sorte le complément - pour
ne pas dire le «prolongement naturel*.
Dans la discussion généraledes réglesde droit international relatives au pla-
teau continental, nous sommes conduits à examiner l'élément de distance depuis
la côte, dans la mesure où l'autre Partie Sil'instance lui a accordé une impor-
tance qui nous paraît à la fois hors de proportion avec son influence réelle sur
la définition juridique du plateau continental et, en tout état de cause, sans
aucun rapport avec la prksente affaire de délimitation.
11n'est évidemment pasquestiori de répéterici ce que M. Briggs a déjà dit
ce sujet l'autre jour en examinant le principe d'égalité.La perspective dans
laquellej'entends me placer est sensiblement diffëreate.
Dans les différentes pitces &rites comme dans les plaidoiries orales présen-
tées par la RBpublique de Malte, une place non négligeablea étéréservée ce
qui y est présenté tantôt commeun aprincipe de distance*, tantôt comme un
«critère de distance>>.
Quelle que soit l'appellation retenue, Malte a manifestement semblé considé-
rer que l'on se trouvait en présenced'un authentique principe ou d'une véritable
règle du droit international général. Et la Partie adverse s'est efforcée de
démontrer que ce prétendu principe confirmait la validitéde la ligne médiane
qu'elle dCfend comme l'unique solution possible au probleme de delimitation
faisant l'objet de la présente instance.
Le contre-mémoiremaltais est mêmevenu demander expressément à la Cour
de <<reconnaîtrece principe comme l'élément déterminantde la délimitation
dans la présenteaffaire* (II, CMM, p. 76, par. 156).
Les écritures présentées par Malte, commeles plaidoiries de ses conseils,
demontrent Sil'évidenceque nos adversaires souhaiteraient ardemment voir ce
soi-disant «principe de distance» agir sur la Jamahiriya arabe libyenne comme
le chant dessirénessur Ulysse.
Au risque de décevoir nos éminents contradicteurs, nous n'entendons cepen-
dant pas imiter le légendaire roi d'Ithaque. II ne nous paraît pas nécessaire de
nous remplir les oreilles de cire pour échapperaux enchantements qu'ils ont cm
pouvoir décelerdans le chŒurdes sirenes chantant la mélodiede la distance. Le
pouvoir de seduction du refrain de la distance n'existe, en effet, que dans
l'esprit de nos adversaires.
C'est ce que nous nous proposons de dkmontrer en attirant respectueusement70 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
l'attention de la Cour surle caractéreplus que contestable de la position adop
téepar la Partie adverse.
Cette position est contestable, tout d'abord, parce qu'elle repose sur une
interprétation erronée, selonnous. de la notion de plateau continental dans le
droit de la mer.
Cette position nous semble, en outre, indéfendable parce qu'elle ne tient
aucun compte des particularités du présentlitige et de la spécificitéqui caractt-
rise tout probléme de délimitation, lequel doit toujours, selon la Cour, «être
examiné et résolu en lui-mêmeen fonction des circonstances qui lui sont
propres>>(affaire du Plateau continental (TunisielJumahiriya arohe libyenne),
arrêt.C.I.J.Recueil 1982, p. 92, par. 132).
Nous allons donc nous attacher essentiellement à montrer, d'une part, que le
«principe de disiance» n'est pas une règlede droit positif en matière de plateau
continental et, d'autre part, que le recours à un critère de distance n'est pas
appropriépour le reglement de la présente affaire de délimitation.
Ce sont 18 deux propositions que nous souhaitons développer et que nous
allons examiner successivement.
1. ~EMI~RE PROPOSITION : LE ((PRINCIPEDE DISTANCE* N'EST PAS
UNE RÈGLE DE DROIT POSITIF EN MATIBR EE PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
Le nouveau droit international de la mer, tel qu'il résultenon seulement des
travaux de la troisième conférencedes Nations Unies mais aussi de la pratique
que cette conférence a engendrée, est incontestablement caractérisé par un
accroissement notable des compétences des Etats côtiers sur des zones mari-
times de plus en plus étendues.En'particulier. cette conférence et cette pratique
ont entrainél'apparition de ce qu'on ü pu appeler la '<règledes 200 milles*.
Se fondant sur cette donnée nouvelle, la Républiquede Malte s'est efforcée
de développer l'idée selon laquellela notion juridique de plateau continental
était désormais définie en fonctionde la «règle des 200 mil les^,c'est-&-dire
principalement selon un critere de distance.
Elle l'a fait en tentant d'établirun lien étroitentre les concepts de zone kco-
nomique exclusive et de plateau continental, n'hesitant pas réaliserune assi-
milation abusive entre ces deux concepts.
Une telle assimilation estfaite évidemment par la Partie adverse dans le but
unique de faire ressortir et de mettre en valeur un artificiel «principe de dis-
tance~.
Malte considère. en effet, que le critère de distance. qui est mentionnt dans
l'article 76 de la convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer, est desor-
mais le principe essentiel Bpartir duquel et autour duquel s'organise la défini-
tion du plateau continental et que c'est ce principe qui sertaujourd'hui de fon-
dement principal aux droits de 1'Etatcôtier sur cette zone sous-marine.
Cetre façon de voir ne nous paraît cependant pas tout à fait conforme B la
rtalit6 juridique. Tant s'en faut.
L'utilisation d'un critère de distance dans la nouvelle définitiondu plateau
continental n'a ni le sens ni surtout la portée qu'entend lui confkrer la Partie
adverse.
De même.l'existence et la consécration de la notion de zone économique
exclusive dans le droit international contemporain n'exercent pas. sur le concept
mêmede plateau continental, l'influence qu'on a voulu leur prêterde l'autre
côtéde la barre.
Nous allons reprendre chacunde ces deux points. Monsieur le President, envisageons, en premier lieu, le sens et la portéeque
peut avoir l'utilisation d'un critère de distance dans la nouvelle définition du
plateau continental, donnéepar l'article 76 de la convention de 1982 sur le droit
de la mer.
La signification de cet articlen'estnullement celle que Malte a voulu y voir.
Sans doute, cet article marque-t-il l'abandon des éléments sur lesquelsrepo-
sait la définitiondonnéepar la ccinvention de Genève de 1958 sur le plateau
continental. En particulier. il n'est plus faitexpressémentréférence,dans la défi-
nition de 1982, la notion d'adjacence qui étaitun aspect essentiel de la défini-
tion conventionnelle antérieure. Surtout, la définition donnée dansla nouvelle
convention écarteles critéres de profondeur et d'exploitabilitd, qui avaient été
retenus par la convention de 1958.
Cependant, la définition figurant à l'article 76 n'est pas entièrement nova-
trice. Elle repose en effet sur l'idée de prolongement naturel, qui sous-tend
toute la doctrine du plateau continental depuis ses origines.
En définissant le plateau continental d'un Etat côtier comme «les fonds
marins et leur sous-sol au-delà de sa mer territoriale, sur toute l'étenduedu pro-
longement naturel du territoire terrestre de cet Etat*,laconvention des Nations
Unies sur le droit de la mer vient simplement confirmer et consacrer la norme
de droit international général qufiixe en ce domaine l'assise des droits de 1'Etat
côtier et qui a étédégagéepar la Cour dans son arrêtde 1969.
Là où l'article 76 innove absolument par rapport aux réglesantérieures, c'est
en ce qui concerne la fixation de l'étendue desdroits de I'Etat côtier, c'est-
à-dire la définitionde la limite extérieure du plateau continental. Aux anciens
critères de profondeur et d'exploitabilité, le nouveau texte tend à substituer, un
critére tiréde l'extension de la marge continentale et, dans certaines circons-
tances, un critèrede distance.
Ce second critère repose exclusivement sur la distance à partir de la côte; et
la limite extérieure du plateau continental est alors définiede façon forfaitaire
par référence uniquement à la distance de 200 milles, mais uniquement lorsque
le rebord externe de la marge continentale est situé à moins de 200 milles
marins au large.
On ne peut toutefois ne saisir le sens de ce critère des 200 milles que si l'on
tient compte des conditions dans lesquelles il a étéinsérédans la nouvelle défi-
nition.
Historiquement, le crithe de distance a étéavancé, tantau comitédes fonds
marins que dans le cadre de la troisiémeconférencesur le droit de la mer, afin
de combattre les incertitudes ou les excès auxquels pouvait conduire I'applica-
tion du critère d'exploitabilité de la convention de 1958. 11s'agissait de fixer
une limite et d'apporter un coup d'arrêt aux prétentions croissantes des Etats
côtiers qui, par le biais de ce critere d'exploitabilité, pouvaientétendrepresque
indéfiniment leur plateau continentalen se fondant sur les progrès constants des
techniques d'exploitation sous-marine.
Et c'est pourquoi, dans un premier temps, il fut envisagé de définirle plateau
continental par référence uniquement à un critère de distance. Cette position est
d'ailleurs restée longtempscelle des Etats desireux de limiter strictement l'éten-
due des zones maritimes sous juridiction nationale, en particulier les Etats afri-
cains et les Etats membres du groupe arabe, comme en témoigneune proposi-
tion officieuse faite encore en mai 1978 par le groupe arabe, et qui reçut l'appui
de la delégationde Malte (doc.NG.612,11mai 1978).
Pour ces Etats. il s'agissait avant tout d'éviterque le patrimoine commun de72 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
l'humanité ne subissedes amputations du fait d'une trop grande extension des
juridictions nationales. La raison d'êtrede la position adoptee par ces Etats rési-
dait en somme dans leur souci de *maximiser* la zone internationale des fonds
marins.
Remarquons en passant qu'il n'est donc pas tout à fait exact de prétendre,
comme Malte n'a pas hésité21le faire lors du premier tour des plaidoiries, que
le cntkre de distance ainsi proposé visait essentiellement à corriger les inégali-
téset ?Ipromouvoir une stricte tgalité entre les pays riverains de la mer (III,
p. 387 et 412).
Le but poursuivi et clairement affiché transcendait en réalitéla simple
recherche d'une égalisation des conditions et était directement en rapport avec
les finalitésde l'humanité tout entière.
Toutefois, plusieurs autres Etats, estimant que le prolongement naturel sous-
marin de leur territoire s'étendait au-del8de la distance de 200 milles, n'enten-
daient pas renoncer à des droits inhérents qui leur étaient reconnus par le droit
international existant.
Et, dans ces conditions, la notion de prolongement naturel fut introduitedans
la définition du plateau continental, en plus de la rkférence au critère de dis-
tance, pour préserverce qui pouvait êtreconsidérkcomme des droits acquis par
un certain nombre d'Etats côtiers. Mais l'extension du plateau continental au-
delà de 200 milles, qui en résultait inévitablement, était alorsconsidtrke comme
présentantun caractére exceptionnel.
Ainsi, dans le premier projet officieux élaboré en avril 1974 au sein du
«groupe Evensenn - qui allait jouer par la suite un rôle important dans la réa-
lisation des compromis au sein de la conférence -, il était précisé:
«Le plateau continental d'un Etat côtier s'étendau-delà de sa mer terri-
toriale jusqu'à une distance de 200 mitles marins ou, au-del8 de cette dis-
tance, sur toute l'étendue du prolongement natureldu territoire terrestre de
I'Etat côtier.» (Art. 18, par. 2.)
Selon cette approche, le critère de distance devait donc s'appliquer en pre-
mier lieu, la référence à l'étenduedu prolongement naturel n'intervenant qu'a
titre complkmentaire, si le prolongement naturel s'étendait effectivement au-delà
de 200 milles.
Cette approche n'est toutefois pas celle qui a prévalu.En effet, à la même
époque, devait prendre forme l'idée selon laquelleil convenait de mettre en
avant la notion de prolongement naturel pour définir le plateau continental, la
rtference la distance de 200 milles passant au second plan. La justification en
était quela notion de prolongement naturel avait étédégagée et consacrée par la
Cour dans son arrêtde 1969 relatif au Plateaucontinvnrulde la mer du Nord et
étaitune notion admise par le droit international coutumier.
Cette idée fut notamment présentéepar le présidentdu Mexique dans I'allo-
cution qu'il prononça le 26 juillet 1974 devant la Conférence des Nations Unies
sur le droit de la mer:
«L'Etat côtier devrait exercer des droits souverains sur le plateau conti-
nental jusqu'à la limite exterieure de l'émersion continentale, oujusqu'à
une distance de 200 milles à partir de la côte. étant entendu qu'il serait
libre de choisir la formule qui lui convient le mieux.~(Documentsoficiels,
vol. 1,p. 222.)
Reprise aussitôt par plusieurs Etats, cette proposition devait @treexplicitée le
29 juillet 1974 par l'Argentine, qui fit valoir que dans la définition du plateau
continental le recours à un crit&rede distance ne pouvait ni ne devait faire pas-ser au second plan la notion de prolongement naturel; car cette notion &aitàla
base mêmedu concept de plateau continental. Selon la délégation argentine:
*Le critère de distance, ou plus exactement la limite des 200 milles, est com-
plémentairedu critère géologique. *Et elle ajoutait:
«Le critére de distance appliqué A la définition de la limite du plateau
continental devra non seulement être considére comme un critére de
rechange, mais egalement pouvoir se combiner avec d'autres dans les cas
où la limite du plateau continental se trouve h moins de 200 milles.»
(Documents officiels,vol. II. p. 167.)
Et c'est pourquoi, à l'issue de la session de Caracas, la conférence des
Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer se trouvaitprincipalement en présencede
deux formules possibles pour la définitiondu plateau continental.
Selon la premiére formule:
«Le plateau continental d'un Etat s'étend au-delàde sa mer temtoriale,
jusqu'à une distance de 200 milles mesurés à partir des lignes de base
applicables ou, au-delà de cette distance, sur toute l'étendue du prolonge-
ment naturel du tenitoire terrestre de cet Etat.»
Dans cette formule, la distance était le premier critere, tandis que le prolon-
gement naturel apparaissait presque comme accessoire.
Selon une deuxième formule:
*Le plateau continental comprend le fond de la mer et le sous-sol des
zones sous-marines adjacentes aux temtoires de I'Eiat mais situées en
dehors de la zone de la mer tenitonaie, jusqu'au bord inférieurexterne de
la marge continentale qui limite les plaines abyssales et, quand ce bord est
situt à une distance inferieure à 200 milles de Ia côte, jusqu'h cette
distance.» (Doc. A/CONF.62/L.8/Rev.I, annexe II, app. 1,Docurnenrs OB-
ciels, vol. III.p. 136.)
Dans cette deuxiéme formule. l'ordre des critères était inversé etle critère de
distance devenait un critére secondaire.
C'est cette seconde formule qui devait finir par l'emporter h l'occasion de la
troisiémesession de la conférence en 1975.
II convient de souligner en effet qu'en revisant son projet initial le groupe
Evensen renversa l'ordre de présentation des éléments figurant dans la défi-
nition qu'il avait adoptée l'année précédente. Son nouveau projet en date du
6 mai 1975 retenait la définition suivante:
<<Leplateau continental d'un Etat côtier comprend le fond de la mer et le
sous-sol des zones sous-marines qui s'étendent au-delà de sa mer temto-
riale sur toute l'étendue du prolongement naturel du territoire terrestre
dudit Etat jusqu'au rebord externe de la marge continentale, ou jusqu'h une
distance de 200 milles marins des lignes de base h partir desquelles est
mesurée la largeur de la mer territoriale quand la marge continentale ne
s'étend pas jusqu'à cettedistance.»
Et c'est cette définition qui fut reprisepar le présidentde la Deuxième Corn-
mission de la conférence et inséréedans l'article 62 de la deuxième partie du
texte unique de négociation du 7 mai 1975 (A/CONF.62/WP.8/Part II, Docu-
ments oSJiciels,vol. IV, p. 167).
Je dois cependant à la vérité de reconnaître que, quelquesmois plus tard,74 PLATEAUCONTINENTAL
dans le cadre de discussions officieuses au sein du groupe Evensen, certains
proposèrent de revenir sur l'ordre des critères énoncés dans l'articl62 du pre-
mier texte de négociation.
Invoquant la logique, on fit valoir qu'il serait peut-être souhaitable d'indiquer
en premier lieu le critére des 200 milles. Et l'un des arguments qui fut alors
avancé en faveur d'une telle modification consistait h dire que, statistiquement,
c'étaitle critéredes 200 milles qui serait appliquédans le plus grand nombre de
cas.
Or. ce mêmeargument a refleuri le 30 novembre dernier dans la plaidoirie de
Malte, lorsque son éminent conseil est venu déclarer que la limite de200 milles
correspondait à «la situation la plus fréquente(111.p. 412).
Je suis au regret de dire qu'il s'agit là d'une affirmation non démontrée.
Mon collègue EIihu Lauterpacht se souvient très certainement comme moi
des indications qui furent communiquées au groupe Evensen par les services
australiensà la fin de I'annke 1975. indications d'oh il résultait qu'il n'y avait
pas une grande difference entre le nombre des Etats ayant une marge continen-
tale s'étendantà plus de 200 milles et le nombre de ceux n'ayant pas une telle
marge. Selon les calculs effectués à l'tpoque par les services australiens, on
pouvait dtnombrer soixante-sept Etats n'ayant pas de marge continentale au-
delà de 200 milles et cinquante-trois Etats disposant d'une marge plus étendue.
Soixante-sept contre cinquante-trois. laifference n'était effectivementpas aussi
importante qu'on aurait pu le penser.
Quoi qu'il en soit. et sans qu'on puisse véritablement déterminerquel fut
l'impact réelde ces chiffres. il n'en demeure pas moins que le texte initial de
l'article 62 du texte de négociationfut maintenu en l'état.
Ce qui fait que, sous réservede quelques modifications mineures, la structure
de la définition du plateau continental adtée en 1975 est ensuite demeurge
inchangéedans les textes de négociation successifs produits par la conference.
Et c'est cette même structureque l'on retrouve aujourd'hui dans l'article 76,
paragraphe 1,de la convention.
La genkse de l'actuelle définitiondu plateau continental tend ainsià prouver
que le prolongement naturel a été reconnu comme le «critSre principal-, selon
la formule employée par la Cour dans son arrêtdu 24 février 1982 (C.I.J.
Recueil 1982. p. 48, par. 47); tandis que le critérede distance a davantage été
conçu comme un critère de rechange ne jouant que dans certaines circonstances.
c'est-à-dire lorsque le rebord externe de la marge continentale est située à
moins de 200 milles.
La Cour n'a d'ailleurs pasdit autre chose dans son arrêtrelatif ?Il'affaire du
Plateau continental (TunisielJamahiriya arabe libyenrie).
Sans doute a-t-elle ajouté que «dans certaines circonstances la distancà par-
tir de la ligne de base. mesurge 21la surface de la mer, fonde le titre de I'Etat
côtier, (C.I.J.Recueil 1982, p.48, par. 48); mais la Cour précisaitbien qu'il ne
s'agissaitlà que d'une «tendance» en faveur du principe de distance* (ibid.,
p. 49, par48).
Une u tendance,, c'est-à-dire une orientation, et certainement pas une règle ou
un principe juridique fermement établi et faisant l'objet d'une pratique générale.
On ne doit pas oublier, en effet, que la Cour avait étéexpressément invitée
par le compromis tuniso-libyen à tenir compte des «nouvelles tendances accep-
téesà la troisième conférence sur le droitde la mer».
Et la Cour avait elle-même fait valoirque cette invitation ne l'autorisait pas
<à traiter ces tendances comme représentant nécessairementdes principes et
regles de droit international- (C.I.J. Recueil 1982,47, par.46).
Et on doit encore ajouter que la Cour insistait, de surcroît, sur le fait que la disposition de l'article 76, paragraphe 1, ne pourrait jouer que adans certaines
circonstances».
Dèslors, il ne semble pas que l'on puissedéduiredes remarques faites par la
Cour en 1982 la conséquenceque le conseil de Malte a voulu en dégager. «Le
principe de distance, nous a dit M. Weil, figure en conséquence parmiles prin-
cipes etr&glesdu droit international coutumier.» (III, p. 363.)
Mais on aurait souhait6 qu'il expliquât comment on pouvait parvenir à une
pareille conséquence. Iln'y a pas l'ombre d'une démonstration menant à cette
conclusion.
En réalité,la partie adverse s'est contentéeici d'extraire de l'arrêtde la Cour
deux brèves citations, en les isolant de leur contexte: l'une. dans laquelle la
Cour venait dire aue ne devait oas être oerduede vue la définition du~lateau
continental donné: parl'article$6, parag;aphe 1; et l'autre, parlaquellia Cour
considéraitque la zone économique exclusive faisait partiedu droit intematio-
na1coutumier.
En mentionnant ces deux observations de la Cour, le conseil de Malte s'est
abstenu d'indiquer que la premieri: était faitepar la Couà l'occasion de l'exa-
men des relations entre les paragriiphes 1 et 10 de l'article 76, relations su.rles-
quelles nous reviendrons d'ailleurs plus tard. Quant à la deuxieme observation,
relative A la zone economique, le conseil de Malte n'a pas davantage rappelé
qu'elle se trouvait dans la partie de l'arrêou la Cour, examinant les droits et
titres historiques de la Tunisie, constatait simplement que ces droits se ratta-
chaient plutôt à la zone économique, maisque la Tunisie ne s'&ait pas fondée
sur cette notion.
La conséquenceque Malte a cru pouvoir en tirer nous paraît donc hâtive et
hasardeuse.
A nos yeux, la seule conskquence résultantde ces observations ne peut être
que celle-ci: il est pour le moins malaisé de voir dans ce qui n'est encore
qu'une sorte de jus emergens la consécrationd'une règle ou d'un crithe de dis-
tance applicable dans tous les cas.
Qui plus est, Malte n'a pas hésité à affirmer, dans sa réplique.3 propos des
notions de prolongement naturel et de distance de l'article 76, qu'il s'agit là de
«deux régles d'égale valeur», qui reflètent l'ktat actuel du droit international
' coutumier (III, RM, par. 67).
Notons d'ailleurs au passage qu'un certain flottement caractériseles positions
maltaises sur ce point. Dans les plaidoiries orales, en effet, Malte a d'abord
paru considérer que ce qu'elle appelle le «principe de distance» l'emportait
desormais sur la référenceau prolongement naturel. Son conseil n'a-t-il pas
estimé que «le principe selon lequel la terre domine la mer ... (qui) trouvait
naguère son expression ... dans le concept de prolongement naturel ...la trouve
aujourd'hui dans le principe de distance*? (III, p. 401)
Toutefois, un peu plus loin, dans la mêmeplaidoirie, M. Weil s'est ravisé,
semble-t-il, lorsqu'il a déclaré:
«L'article 76 énonceune règle en deux parties, sans etablir de hiérarchie
entre une partie qui serait essentielle et une partiequi serait secondaire.
Ces deux parties sont de valeur egale et sont placéessur le mêmeplan.»
(III+p.412.)
Quelle que soit en ce domaine la position définitive de Malte, selon nous,
non seulement la référence à la distance ne l'emporte pas sur la réferenceau
prolongement naturel. mais elle n'a pas ici la mêmevaleur juridique.
Il paraît difficile de prétendreque les éléments figurantdans l'article 76 sont
tous placés surle mêmeplan et que le contenu de cet article correspond au76 PLATEAUCONTINENTAL
droit coutumier international. La portée de cet article n'est certainement pas
celle que Malte veut lui attribuer.
Seule, semble-t-il, la référenceau prolongement naturel peut être considérée
comme faisant partie du droit international coutumier, conformément d'ailleurs
à la solution dégagée par la Cour dans son arrêt relatifau Plateau continental
de la mer du Nord. Or, de l'avis de la chambre constituée par la Cour pour
connaître de l'affairede la DPIimitation de la frontière maritime dans la région
du gove du Maine, la dkcision rendue en 1969 «représente ..Ia decision judi-
ciaire qui a le plus contribuéà la formation du droit coutumier en la matiérem.
Et la Chambre d'ajouter: «De ce point de vue, ses acquis demeurent incontes-
tés.» (C.I.J.Recueil 1984, arrêtdu 12 octobre 1984, p. 293, par. 91 .)
Il n'en va pas nécessairementde mêmedes autres éléments contenus dans cet
article76 de la convention, notamment de ceux qui sont relatifs à la determina-
tion de la limite extérieure du plateau continental.
Ainsi. dans son discours de clôture prononcéle 10 dkcembre 1982, le président
de la troisikme conférencedesNations Unies sur le droit de la mer estimait :
«En ce qui concerne l'article 76 sur le plateau continental, cet article
contient du droit nouveau en ce qu'il a étendu le concept de plateau conti-
nental de manière à inclure le talus continental et le glacis continental.
Cette concession aux Etats dotés d'une marge étendue a étéfaite en
échangede leur acceptation du partage des revenus tirés du plateau conti-
nental au-delà de 200 milles. En conséquence, selon moi, un Etat qui n'est
pas partieà la convention ne peut pas invoquer le bénéficede l'article 76.n
(Nations Unies, SEA/MB/l4, 10 dicembre 1982.)
De la même manièrele critere de distance mentionné dans cet article peut
difficilement êtreregardécomme conforme actuellement au droit international
général en matiérede plateau continental. II s'agit 121 aussi de droit nouveau.
Pas plus que les règles complexes relatives la déterminationdu rebord externe
de la marge continentale, cette disposition n'est, dans son origine, déclaratoire
d'une regle coutumiere internationale. Et elle ne semble pas avoir entraîné,
depuis son adoption, la formation d'une telle règle.
La deuxikme partie de I'article 76, paragraphe 1, «le cntkre de distance», ne
peut pas être considérée comme énonçau nt e règleétabliede droit international,
parce qu'il n'existe guere de pratique générale faisantdu critkre des 200 milles
la limite extérieure du plateau continental. En effet, rares sont les législations
nationales ou les accords internationaux concernant le plateau continental qui
mettent en Œuvre ce critére.Et faute pour la limite des 200 milles d'être «gt-
néralement adoptéepar la pratique des Etats~, selon la formule de l'arrêt
dans l'affaire des Pêcheriesen 1951 (C.I.J. Recueil 1951, p. 128), le critére de
distance mentionné dans l'article 76 n'est donc ni un principe ni une règle obli-
gatoire du droit international pour ce qui est de la d6finition du plateau conti-
nental.
Dans son dernier ouvrage, The International Law of the Sea, publié à titre
posthume en 1982, le regretté Daniel O'Connel1 écrivait à propos de ce qui
n'était encore que le projet d'article76:
«Exceptfor the technicalities of delineation, and the granting of seobed
rights toStates with continentalsheIfnarrower than 200 nautical miles. the
Draft Caracas Convention provisions may be taken to represent the present
positions in customary international law.>>(Oxford, vol. 1, 1982, p. 497.)
Selon l'éminent auteur, la reconnaissance de droits sur les fonds marins
jusqu'à 200 milles au profit des Etats ayant un plateau continental ne s'étendantpas jusqu'h cette distance ne pouvait pas être considérée comme admisp ear le
droit coutumier.
Le fait que le critère de distance soit aujourd'hui énoncé dansun texte
conventionnel qui a recueilli plus de cent cinquante signatures ne paraît pas de
nature à infirmer cette conclusion. En effet, la limite des 200 milles figuraàt
l'article 76 ne représenteque l'un des cléments de l'équilibre des intérêts qele
texte de la convention de 1982 a cherché à réaliser.En tant que tel, ce critere
de distance ne devrait normalement jouer qu'entre les Etats partieà la conven-
tion, aprésl'entrée en vigueurde celle-ci.
Jusqu'ici, la convention n'a étératifiée que par treize Etats et son entrée en
vigueur est subordonn6e au dépôt de soixante instruments de ratification ou
d'adhksion. Co'mmeelle ne lie pas les deux Parties iil'instance, ce n'est, par
conséquent,que par une sorte de déformationque Malte a cru pouvoir parler du
«principe de distance* en matiére de plateau continental, en faisant comme s'il
s'agissait d'une regle de droit positif.
Ainsi que nous l'avons rappeléil y a un instant, dans son arrêtde 1982, la
Cour n'a regardéle critkre de 200 milles en matiére de plateau continental que
comme une «tendance» révélée parla nouvelle convention sur le droit de la
mer.
Mais, pour importante qu'elle soit, cette nouvelle tendance introduite dans la
définition conventionnelle du plateau continental ne saurait cependant l'empor-
ter sur le principe coutumier bien etabli qui fait du prolongement naturel la
notion de base du plateau continental.
Mais, Monsieur le Président, j'entends déji les conseils de la Républiquede
Malte invoquer l'adage latin: nverba volant, scripta marient», et me rappeler
que si la parole est libre la plume est serve et que je contredis aujourd'hui ce
que j'ai écritnaguère.
Mon excellent collègue, M. Weil, m'a fait beaucoup d'honneur, en effet, en
citantà l'audience du 30 novembre un texte que j'avais écrit l'an dernier etqui,
à l'en croire, apporterait de l'eau au moulin maltais (III, p. 413 et 414). Toute-
fois. l'empressement apporté àrepérer dansun texte écrit uneou deux formules
apparemment favorables aux thtses de Malte l'a conduit % omettre assez fâcheu-
sement de mentionner le titre de la publication en cause.
Que la Cour veuille bien me pardonner de pratiquer ici l'autocitation. Le titre
exact en était: «Les tendances dominantes du système juridique issu de la
convention.>>J'ajoute que l'ouvrage dans Iequel cette publication a étérepro-
duite a lui-même pour titre général«:Perspectives du droit de la mer ù l'issue
de la troisiémeconférencedes Nations Unies. *
Tendances... Perspectives... Je laisse aux membres de la Cour le soin d'appré-
cier s'il peut y avoir un quelconque malentendu sur la nature de la marchandise
que recouvrent de tels pavillons et si les mots «tendances» et «perspectives»
peuvent véritablement apparaître comme un exposéde pur droit positif.
Je puis seulement constater qu'ici aussi l'arbre de la tendance a cachéà nos
adversaires la forêt des règles juridiques.
Pour autant, nous n'entendons pas nier le fait que la conférence sur le droit
de la mer et la pratique concordante de nombreux Etats pendant le déroulement
mêmede cette conférence ont sécrété quelques regles coutumi&resdans un laps
de temps relativement court. Car il est vrai que certaines dispositions de la
convention de 1982 peuvent êtreregardées comme l'expression écritede cou-
tumes internationales. Parmi celles-ci figurent incontestablement aujourd'hui les
&@es relatives à l'institution de la zone economique exclusive.
Ce qui me conduit, Monsieur le Président, h envisager, en second lieu,
l'influence du concept de zone économiquesur la notion de plateau continental.78 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
Peut-on considérer que, par le biais de l'influence exercéepar le concept de
zone economique, le critère de distance serait neanmoins devenu une règle juri-
dique applicable en matiere de plateau continental? TeHe est la question sur
laquelle je voudrais maintenant attirer l'attention de la Cour.
Prenant appui sur une remarque faite par la Cour dans l'affaire du Plateau
conrinenral(TunisielJarnahiriyaarabe libyenne), remarque selon laquelle «on
peut considérer (la zone économique exclusive) comme faisant partie du droit
international moderne* (C.I.J.Recueil 1982, p. 74, par. 100), et estimant que la
proclamation américaine du 10 mars 1983 relativeà la zone économique exclu-
sive des Etats-Unis constituait une éclatante confirmation de la reconnaissance
de cette notion par le droit international, le contre-mémoire de Malteen déduit:
«jusqulA une distance de 200 milles marins au large de ses côtes, chaque
Etat côtierpossede des droits du chef du plateau continental sur les fonds
marins et leur sous-sol et des droits du chef de la zone économique sur la
colonne d'eau surjacente>i(II, CM, par. 81).
Mais, ce faisant, la partie adverse assimile de façon erronée les notions de
plateau continental et de zone économique. L'assimilation est abusive, parce
que, itla différencede la zone économique, le plateau continental constitue un
«quasi-temtoire* sur lequel les droits de 1'Etat côtier existent ah initio et sont
indépendants de toute revendication ou proclamation. Point n'est besoin ici
d'insister sur une théorie juridique que les membres de la Cour connaissent
mieux que personne.
Mais à la difference des droits de I'Etat sur son plateau continental, les droits
d'un Etat côtier dans une zone économique ne sontpas des droits inhérents.Une
telle zone n'apparaît pas comme l'accessoire obligé de la souverainetéterritoriale
de 1'Etatcôtier. Elle n'existe qu'a partir du moment et dans la mesure ou 1'Etat
décidede l'instituer par le biais d'une proclamation ou d'un acte juridique de
son droit interne. Ce que Malte a reconnu d'ailleurs dans sa répliqueet dans ses
plaidoiries orales,en affirmant: <<L'uneou l'autre parrie, ou les deux, peut à
tout moment déclarerune zone économiqueexclusive.» (III, RM. par. 47.)
Alors que l'article 2, paragraphe 3, de la convention de 1958 sur le plateau
continental et l'article 77, paragraphe 3, de la convention de 1982 précisent l'un
et l'autre que les droits de 1'Etatsur le plateau continental sont indtpendants de
toure proclamation expresse, aucune disposition analogue n'a étéintroduite dans
la partie V de la convention de 1982, partie relative à la zone économique
exclusive. La pratique des Etats montre, au contraire, la nécessité d'une action
positive des autorit& pour cr6er une zone economique. On est donc conduit ii
reconnaître qu'il n'y a pas de zone économique exclusive ipso facto.
Et c'est la raison pour laquelle un auteur a pu justement écrire que. si <<le
plateau continental a étédkcouvert, la zone économique a étéinventée* (R.-J.
Dupuy, L'ocPanpartagé,Paris, 1979, p. 105).
Cette différence quantà l'origine des droits que 1'Etatcôtier peut exercer sur
son plateau continental ou dans une zone économique laissedkjà entrevoir que
la notion de plateau continental n'a pas perdu son caracthre spécifique du fait
de l'avtnement du concept de zone économique. Les deux institutions coexis-
tent dans le droit international contemporain, et elles coexistent d'une manière
indépendante l'une de l'autre.
Loin de disparaître et de se fondre dans l'idéede zone économique exclusive,
le plateau continental demeure soumis à un régime juridique propre, non seule-
ment lorsqu'il s'étendau-delà de 200 milles, mais aussi endeçà de cette limite. Aussi lorsque Malte vient, dans sa réplique, parler de «l'évolution de la
notion de plateau continental et son absorption dans la juridiction polyvalente
de la zone économiqueexclusive» (III, RM, par. 46), il s'agit là d'une affirma-
tion qui n'est pas seulement trks discutable, mais qui est proprement erronke.
La convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer maintient, en effet,
une dualitéde régimes pources deux catégories d'espaces maritimes.
L'article 56, paragraphe 1, prévoit certes que, dans la zone économique
exclusive, 1'Etatcôtier a des droits souverains sur l'ensemble des ressources de
la zone et notamment sur les ressources naturelles des fonds marins et de leur
sous-sol.
Toutefois, cette définition très largede l'objet des droits de I'Etat côtier
s'explique essentiellement par le fait que la formulation adoptée pourcet article
est le résultatd'un compromis entre des opinions divergentes apparues au sein
de la conférencesur le droit de la mer.
Alors que certaines délégations souhaitaientune incorporation pure et simple
de la notion de plateau continental dans le concept - jugé plus large - de
zone économique,les Etats côtiers marge continentale étendueentendaient. au
contraire, maintenir un régime juridique distinct pourle plateau continental. Ces
Etats désiraientCvidemment sauvegarder le titre juridique qui dérivaitpour eux
de la conception traditionnelle du plateau continental.
Et c'est pourquoi, l'article 56 de la convention a étérédigéde manière,d'une
part, à reconnaître les droits exclusifs de 1'Etat côtier en ce qui concerne
l'exploitation économique d'une zone maritime jusqu'à 200 milles et, d'autre
part, ilmaintenir sous un régime juridique séparé les droits de 1'Etaten matière
d'exploitation des ressources du plateau continental. Qui plus est, ce régime
séparé est renduuniformément applicable à l'ensemble du plateau continental
aussi bien lorsque ce plateau reste en deçà de 200 milles, que lorsqu'il s'étend
au-delà de 200 milles; car on ne doit pas oublier que le plateau continental
commence hla limite externe de la mer territoriale.
Ainsi s'explique la disposition qui figure h l'article 56, paragraphe 3, de la
convention. Seloncette disposition : «lesdroits relatifs aux fonds marins et h leur
sous-sol énoncésdans le présentariicle s'exercent conformémentBla partie VI »,
c'est-à-dire conformément aux dispositions concernant en propre le plateau
continental. Or le régime juridique duplateau continental, tel qu'il est notam-
ment défini à l'article 77 de la nouvelle convention, demeure celui qui était
décritdans I'article 2 de la convenrion de 1958. Le régime juridique estintégra-
lement maintenu en ce qui concerne le plateau continental.
En outre, reprenant I'essentiel de:la règle qui était énoncée dans l'articl3 de
la convention de Geneve, l'article 78 de la convention de 1982 maintient égale-
ment la dissociation entre le rkgime juridique applicable au plateau continental
en tant que sol et sous-sol et le régime juridique des eaux surjacentes, même
lorsque celles-ci ne sont plus qualifiées expressémentde haute mer, comme
c'est désormaisle cas pour les eaux de la zone économiqueexclusive.
De ce fait, non seulement le plateau continental n'est pas absorbépar la zone
économique exclusive, contrairement Si l'affirmation maltaise. mais c'est au
contraire le maintien du statut spécifiqueet indépendant duplateau continental
qui altère assez sensiblement la notion de zone économique et la réduit prati-
quement à son élément liquide.
Le resultat le plus clair de cette dualite de régimes juridiques estdonc que le
statut international de la zone économiquese trouve en quelque sorte circonscrit
à un régime juridique spécial pourles eaux, qu'il s'agisse de l'exploitation des
ressources de ces eaux, de la recherche scientifique marine dans ces eaux ou de
la protection de ces eaux contre la pollution.80 PLATEAUCONTINENTAL
Précisons en outre que, si ce régime juridique de la zone économique
s'applique en principe B l'exploitation des ressources des eaux, h I'exploitation
des ressources biologiques de la zone, il ne vaut cependant pas pour l'exploita-
tion des ressources vivantes appartenant à la catégoriedes espèces sédentaires.
Pour ces demiéres. c'estle régimedu plateau continental qui prévaut,selon
l'article 77 de la convention qui reprend d'ailleurs sur ce point la régleCnoncée
par l'article 2, paragraphe4, de la convention de Geneve. Et l'article 68 de la
convention de 1982précise formellement que les dispositions relativeshla zone
économique exclusivene s'appliquentpas aux espèces sédentaire sce qui signifie
qu'il n'existe pas d'obligationpour 1'Etat côtier d'autoriser les Etats tiers h
exploiter un éventuel reliquatde ses ressources sedentaires. Il y a là, peut-on
dire, une preuve supplémentaire dela séparation qui existeentre les régimes
respectifs du plateau continental et de la zone économique exclusive.
Si I'on quitte le terrainde la convention de 1982 pour examiner la pratique
des Etats en ce domaine, on s'aperçoit égalementque, pour le moment, les
zones économiques exclusives quiont étéinstituéesse présentent essentielle-
ment comme des zones de pêche, dans lesquelles les Etats côtiers exercent en
outre certaines compétences relativesaux activités de recherche scientifique et
certains pouvoirs concernant la presentation du milieu marin.
La plupart des Etats qui ont adoptéune législation interne relative à la zone
économique ont, eneffet, maintenu les dispositions qu'ils avaient édictées anté-
rieurement en ce qui concerne le plateau continental. Les quelques législations
nationales qui traitent dans un seul et même textede la zone économique et du
plateau continental le font généralemendtans des dispositions séparées.
11en rksulte que les zones économiques existantesne se distinguent guéredes
zones de pêche exclusives.Ce qui est, somme toute, conforme àl'origine même
de la «régie des 200 milles», dont on ne doit pas oublier qu'elle a vu le jour
pour répondreaux nécessitesde I'exploitation et de la conservation des res-
sources biologiques et. plus paniculi8rement, pour tenir compte de la zone de
migration de certaines espèces côtières.La limite des 200 milles est, en effet,
apparue d'abord pour les zonesde pêche et s'estjusqu'à ce jour developpée
dans la pratique des Etats, indépendammentde la notion de plateau continental.
Sans doute, ne peut-on pas exclure une possibilité d'évolution progressivd ee
cette notion, évolution qui tendrait,à plus ou moins long terme, à intégrerle
plateau continental dans la zone économiquejusqu'g la limite extérieure de
celle-ci. Mais ce n'est là qu'une éventualitC,car I'on ne peut mêmepas parler
ici de «tendance». Et I'on ne peut pas.dans l'étatactuel du droit international,
se fonder sur cette simple éventualité pour trancher le présent litige doniltfaut
se rappeler, une fois encore, qu'il ne concerne que le plateau continental.
Comme le faisait remarquer laCour dans son arrêt du27 juillet 1974 relatif à
la Compétenceen mariPt-ede pêcheries (Royaume-Unir. Islande):
«La possibilité d'une modificationdu droit existe toujours mais cela ne
saurait déchargerla Cour de son obligation de statuer sur la base du droit
tel qu'il existe au moment où elle rend sa décision.»(C.I.J.Recueil 1974,
p. 19. par.40.)
Dans ces conditions, on voit mal comment le critéredes 200 milles, qui est
consacré var le droit international contemuorain en rnatiere de zone écono-
mique, ipsofacto s'appliquer au plaieau continental.
Il est mêmewmis de se demander si le droit international attribuedes main-
tenant 1'Etatcôtier des droits exclusifs sur les ressources des fonds marins se
trouvant en deçh de 200 milles mais au-delà de la limite du plateau continental
défini selon le critére traditionnelu prolongement naturel. En d'autres termes,un doute existe quant au point de savoir si l'institution d'une zone économique
jusqu'h la limite de 200 milles entraîne automatiquement l'application du
régime du plateau continental à l'ensemble des fonds marins de cette zone.
lorsque le prolongement naturel de I'Etat côtier s'&end une distance infé-
rieure.
Ce doute se trouve encore accentue par le fait que la limite des 200 milles est
un maximum pour la zone économique. Selon l'article 57 de la convention de
1982, la <<zoneéconomique exclusive ne s'étend pasau-delà de 200 milles
marins».
Et il a étéexpressément entendu, lors de l'adoption de cette régle par la
conférence sur le droit de la mer, que les Etats côtiers n'étaient pas tenus
d'adopter cette limite maximum lorsqu'ils instituaient une zone économique
exclusive, mais qu'ils pouvaient adopter une limite inférieure.
Des lors, si le critére des200 milles utilisé pourdéfinir la limite extérieurede
la zone économiquene présentepas un caractère impératif. ildevient à peu pres
impossible de prktendre que le critère de distance utilisé pourla zone écono-
mique exerce une attraction irrésistible sur la fixation de la limite extérieure du
plateau continental. La consécration de la notion de zone économique par le
droit international contemporain n'a donc pas d'incidence sur la définition du
plateau continental.
Supposons qu'un Etat côtier établisseune zone économique exclusive de 100
milles marins et que le prolongement naturel de son temtoire sous la mer
s'étende jusqu'à 150 milles marins. Serait-il juridiquement fondé à revendiquer
des droits exclusifs sur un plateau continental jusqu'à la limite de 200 milles,
au nom d'un prétenduaprincipe de distance»? Certainement pas.
A fortiori, un Etat peut également déciderde n'avoir aucune zone écono-
mique. En pareil cas, il est évidemmenttotalement impossible pour lui d'invo-
quer l'absorption du concept de plateau continental par celui de zone écono-
mique pour revendiquer à son profit des droits souverains d'exploitation sur les
fonds marins jusqu'à 200 milles.
Telle est d'ailleurs ln situation de Maltà l'heure actuelle, ainsi que celle de
laLibye.
Et c'est pourquoi le crithe de distance allégué parMalte n'apporte aucun 616-
ment permettant de résoudrele problème de délimitationdu plateau continental
entre lesdeux Etats.
L'audience est levéà 17 h 59 DIX-NEUVI~MEAUDIENCEPUBLIQUE(11 XII 84, 10h)
Présenrs:[Voir audience du 26 XI 84.1
M. QUÉNEUDEC: Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, dans la pre-
mière partie de mon exposéje me suis efforcé hier de démontrer quele principe
de distance invoquépar Malte n'était pasune règle de droit positif en matière
de plateau continental.
Je voudrais ce matin exposer à la Cour la seconde proposition énoncéeau
dtbut de ma plaidoirie. Cette deuxième proposition peut se formuler ainsi, le
critérede distance n'est pas approprié pour régler la présente affairede délimi-
tation.
II. DEUXIÈM PROPOSITION: LE CRI~RE DE DISTANCEN'EST PAS APPROPRIB
FQUR RÉGLERLA PR~ENTE AFFAIREDE D~LIMITATION
En mettant en avant le critère de distance, la Republique de Malte n'a tenu
aucun compte semble-t-il des dondes propres à la présente espèce.En partiçu-
lier, tout portàcroire qu'elle s'est refusàetenir compte du simple fait que le
critere des 200 milles est absolument inadapté dans un espace maritime tel que
la Méditerranée.
Inapplicable en l'espèce, en raisonde la géographie de l'affaire, le facteurde
distance est en outre inutile, car on ne peut en dégager une quelconquemethode
de délimitationqui soit en accord avec des principes équitableset avec la juris-
prudence internationale relative aux délimitations maritimes.
Je vais donc m'attacherA l'examen de ces deux aspects,à savoir:
- l'inadaptation du critérede distance en Méditerranée.d'une part,
- l'impossibilité de dégagerdu critèrede distance une méthode de délimita-
tion equitable, d'autre part.
L'inadaptation du critère des 200 milles en Méditerranée n'appellepas une
longue démonstration, tant est apparent son caractere inappropri3 la asombre
mer bleue* chantéepar Byron.
D'ailleurs, la Libye déj8attiré l'attentionde la Cour sur ce point en insis-
tant dans Laphase ecrite sur les caracteres particulidesla zone géographique
dans laquelle la délimitation doit intervenir.
Bornons-nous 21rappeler le caractéreessentiellement océanique de ta fameuse
«règle des 200 milles*. D'ailleurs, c'est, peut-on dire. l'ensemble du nouveau
droit de la mer qui est d'inspiration océanique. La possibilitéde recourià la
limite des 200 milles s'offre surtout auxEtats riverains des larges océans;en
l'absence de côtes étrangéresleur faisant face, ce sont eux qui peuvent reelle-
ment développer leurs zones sous juridiction nationalejusqu'ii cette distance.
11n'en va évidemment pasde mêmes'agissant des Etats qui sont riverains de
mers resserrées,dont l'exiguïtéou l'étroitessefait obstacle la mise en Œuvre
d'un tel critère. Tel est le cas en Méditerranée,où les limitations naturelles entraînent une sorte de conditionnement g6ographique des pretentions des Etats
riverains.
Afin d'illustrer notre propos, nous avons fait dresser une carte de la Méditer-
ranée centrale, carte quia étéremise aux membres de la Cour et qui es1la carte
no9 de l'album libyen. Sur cette carte, sont reportées des limites hypothétiques
de 200 milles marins tracées à partir des côtes des cinq Etats intéressks, à
savoir: la Tunisie, l'Italie, la Grèce, la Libye et Malte.
Les différentes lignesqui en résultentse recoupent largement et montrent de
manière parfaitement claire qu'aucun de ces cinq Etats ne peut valablement
revendiquer des droits sur une zone de 200 milles. Le fameux crithre de dis-
tance ne saurait leur être appliqué.
La raison en est évidente. Nous ne sommes pas ici en présence d'un large
espace océanique.
Avec environ 2,s millions de kilcimetrescarrés,la Méditerranéene représente
que un trente-troisième de la superficie de l'Atlantique et un cent quatre-ving-
tiémede la superficie de l'ensemble des mers et des océans.
Si I'on raisonne, non plus en termes du superficie, mais en termes de dis-
tance, I'impossibilit6 de toute référence aux200 milles est encore plus évidente,
particulièrement dans la régionoù doit intervenir la délimitation entreMalte et
la Libye.
En effet, entre le point le plus occidental de l'île de Gozo et l'extrémitéocci-
dentale de la côte libyenne Ras Ajdir, il n'y a que 214 milles marins. Et si
I'on mesure la distance séparant l'extrémité sud-ouesdte I'île de Malte et Ras
Ajdir, on trouve 210 milles marins.
De même, la distanceentre I'extrémit6orientale de I'île de Malte (Delimara
Point) et le point le plusà l'est de la côte libyenne de Tripolitaine (Ras Zar-
rouk) ne s'élèvequ'A 208 milles marins.
Et la distance entreles côtes maltaises et libyennes les plus proches est infk-
rieure à 200 milles et tombe même à 180 milles marins, approximativement, si
on la mesure entre l'îlot de Filfla et Ras Tadjura.
Ces chiffres,à eux seuls, montrent avecéloquenceque le critèredes 200 milles
est radicalement inadaptédans la régionen cause et est donc totalement inap-
plicable dans la présente affaire.
Quoi qu'elle en ait dit, la Partie adverse n'a d'ailleurs pas toujours manifesté
un attachement sans faille à l'égardde l'application du critère des 200 milles
dans la présente affaire.
Rappelons simplement qu'Al'ouverture de la procédureécriteMalte paraissait
affirmer que ses prétentions pouvaient s'etendre jusqu'aux côtes libyennes de
@ CyremiiiiqueL.a figure A reproduite 2 la page 118 du mémoiremaltais indiquait
en effet que la zone de plateau continental se trouvant au large des côtes
libyennes dans ce secteur constituait également une zone où les prolongements
naturels des deux Etats se chevauchaient: «areas of overlapping natural prolon-
gations», précisaitla légendede cette figureA du mémoire maltais.
Or, la distance mesurée à partir de Delimara Point (h l'extrkmitésud-est de
I'île de Malte) s'élèveà 466 milles marins jusqu'à Ras at-Tin, qui semble être
le point le plus oriental de la côte libyenne retenu par le croquis figurant dans
le mémoirede Malte. 466 milles, c'est plus de deux fois 200 milles, dirait un
enfant d'une école primaire. Malte parlait pourtant d'qoverlap~ jusqu'à cette
distance, en se fondant, il est vrai, sur la notion de prolongement natur-l ce
que la Cour aura certainement remarqué.
En s'adonnant à cet exercice, qui a servià I'elaboration du trapèze qu'elle a
artificiellement construit, Malte ne s'inspirait évidemment pas du critère des
200 milles. Que peut-on en déduire,si ce n'est que Malte n'avait manifestement84 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
pas une croyance indéfectibledans la valeur de ce critèrede distance et dans
son applicabilitéen Méditerranée?
Telle est d'ailleurs l'opinionassez généralemenptartagée parles divers Etats
riverains du bassin mediterranéen.
Lorsque s'ouvrit 2iCaracas la discussion sur le statut de la zone économique
exclusive devant la deuxième commissionde la conférencedes Nations Unies
sur le droit de la mer, la délégationdu Liban s'attacha à souligner que des
zones économiquesde 200 milles marins seraient«un non-sens» en Méditerra-
née(Documents officielsvol. II. p. 248).
De même,le délégué de l'Algérie,fit-il valoir que «la thtse des 200 milles
impiiqu[ait] nécessairement certains aménagementse,n particulier en ce qui
concerne les mers ferméesou semi-fermées-(ibid., p. 249).
Lors de la session de clôture de la conférence,Ie chef de la délégationde
Malte, agent de son gouvernement dans la presente affaire, faisait à son tour
remarquer, dans un discours prononcéle 9 décembre1982:
«In the Mediterranean, ...not one single State can probably utilize the
full extent of 200 miles as the limit of theexclusive economic zone.»
(«Stntement of Dr. Mi2zi.n)
Les positions ainsi adoptées par les Etats méditerranéendsans le cadre de la
conférencesur le droit de ta mer se trouvent corroboréespar les politiquejuri-
diques que ces mêmesEtats ont entendu mettre en Œuvre. II suffit, pour s'en
convaincre, de se réfkreraux dispositions qu'ils ont prises dans leur droit
interne, ou mieux encore aux dispositionsqu'ils se sont abstenus de prendre,
leur abstention étantici hautement significative.
Parmi les dix-huit Etats riverains de la Méditerranée,on peut, semble-t-il,
faire une distinction entre les Etats entièrement méditerranéenest les Etats par-
tiellement méditerranéensL. es premiers sont ceuxdont les côtes bordent exclu-
sivement la mer Méditerranée. tandiq sue les seconds ont au moins une façade
maritime surune autre mer ou sur un océan.
Aucun Etat entitrement méditerranéenn'a, jusqu'à présent. prétendu exercer
sa juridiction sur une zone maritime de 200 milles marins et aucun n'a établi
une zone économiqueexclusive.
Seuls les Etats partiellementméditemanéeno snt créédes zones economiques,
mais sans nkcessairement se référer à la limite des 200 milles et surtout sans
instituer automatiquement de telles zones au large de leurs chtes méditerra-
néennes.Ainsi. sur la base d'une loi du 16 juillet 1976, la France a creé,.cn
fkvtier 1977, une zone économiqueau large de ses côtes métropolitaines. à
l'exception des côtes méditerraneennes.Cet exemple a étésuivi en 1978 par
l'Espagne, qui n'a instituéune zone économiqueque sur sa façade atlantique.
Quant au Maroc, si la foi du 18décembre1980ne distingue pas entre le littoral
atlantique et le littoral méditerranéene,lle n'est pas mise en Œuvreau large des
côtes marocaines de Méditerrade, où elle n'existe qu'8 l'étatde simple virtua-
lité,comme le montrait une carte publiéeau Maroc en juillet 1981 par la direc-
tion de La cartographie qui n'indiquait pas l'existence d'une zone économique
marocaine en deçà du détroitde Gibraltar.
En déposant son instrumentde ratification le 26 aoGt 1983,I'Egypte,premier
Etat méditerranéen à ratifier la convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la
mer, a assorti sa ratificaiion d'une déclaration annonçantla créationd'une zone
economique dans les termes suivants:
«La Rkpublique arabe d'Egypte exerce, compter de ce jour, les droits
qui lui sont conféréspar les dispositions des partiVs et VI de la conven- tion des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer dans la zone économique
exclusive qui se trouve au-delà de sa mer territoriale adjacente aux côtes de
la mer Méditerranée etde la mer Rouge. ... Elle affirme qu'elle s'engageà
fixer les limites extérieures de sa zone économique exclusive selon les
regles, les critères et les modalites prévus par la convention.» (Nations
Unies, C.N.272.1983.Tre -ot10enovembre 1983.)
Mais pour l'instant, la position adoptée par 1'Egyptesemble identiquà celle
du Maroc en ce domaine; sa décliuation d'août 1983 s'apparente plutôtà une
déclaration d'intention etn'a guère été suivie d'effet jusqu'à présenItI.est donc
difficile de dire que c'est la première zone économique créée eMéditerranke.
En outre,à supposer même que les autorités égyptiennes décident d'instituer
effectivement une zone économique au large des côtes égyptiennesde Méditer-
ranée,il convient de souligner qu'ellesse sont bien gardées d'avancer un quel-
conque cntère de distance pour la fixation de l'étenduedela zone en question.
Peut-on, Monsieur le Président, considérer que les attitudes concordantesdes
Etats méditerranéens sontle produit du seul hasard? Je ne m'avancerai sans
doute pas beaucoup en affirmant que cette commune attitude des divers Etats
méditerranéensest intimement liéeaux caractéristiques mêmesde la région et à
la perception qu'en ont les gouvernements de ces différents Etats.
La pratique suivie par les Etats méditerranéens montre donc queni l'idéede
zone économiqueni le crithe de distance symbolisépar les 200 milles ne trou-
vent véritablementplace dans cette mer. La Méditerranée,en raison à la fois de
son étroitesseet de la pauvreté relative de ses eaux, n'ests un lieu se prêJant
à l'application de cette idéeouàla mise en Œuvrede ce critère.
De ce point de vue, il est tout de même assez remarquable que le seulEtat
mkditerraneen 2 avoir institué une zonede pêche réservéaeu-del&de sa mer ter-
ritoriale soit précisément la Républiquede Malte. Mais il est encore plus remar-
quable de noter que la zone de pêche maltaise ne s'étendque jusqu'à une limite
de 25 milles marins au Iarge des lignes de base. Quelle meilleure preuve peut-
on trouver de l'impossibilitk de faire application en Méditerranéede la «regle
des 200 milles»?
Aussi dois-je avouer que je ne comprends pas très bien pourquoi Malte vient
aujourd'hui laisser entendre qu'elle pourrait revendiquer 200 milles de plateau
continental. On vient nous dire, en effet, que si Malte était située en plein
océan, loin de toute autre côte, elle aurait droàt un plateau continental d'au
moins 200 milles marins (III. p. 390). Et l'on suggère en quelque sorte à la
Cour: que ce n'est pas parce que Malte est située Bproximité d'autrescbtes que
ses droits doivent être réduits.
M. Weil reprochait l'autrejour à la Libye de se tromper d'époqueet de prati-
quer le passéisme juridique(ibid.). Mais est-il bien sque Malte ne se trompe
pas de monde et de région et qu'on ne puisse pas lui reprocheà présentdq pra-
tiquer ce qu'on pourrait appeler une extraversion géographique?
II est inutile d'en dire plus. Bornons-nouà souligner que l'attitude de Malte
elle-même, révélée par salegislation de 1978 sur la zone de pêche,vient confir-
mer, s'il en était besoin, le caractère radicalementdapte du critère de la dis-
tance des 200 milles dans la région méditerranéenne.
Ce caractère d'inadaptation du critèrede distance se double, en outre, d'une
inutilité absolue, dans la mesure où ce critère n'apporte strictement aucu616-
ment de nature 2idégager une méthodede délimitation équitable.86 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
C'est ce que je me propose de démontrer pour terminermon exposé, Mon-
sieur lePrksidenr.
Le facteur de distance invoqué constammentpar Malte tout au long de la pro-
cédure écriteet orale ne permet de dégageraucun critèreou aucune méthodede
délimitation équitabledes zones de plateau continental qui reléventrespective-
ment de Malte et de la Libye.
Cette impossibilite est purement et simplement niée par Malte. Selon la
réplique présentée palra Partie adverse:
«Dans l'optique de la délimitation, c'est le lien entre les côtes et les
étendues immergées adjacentesqui revêtun intérêp trimordial; or ce facteur
ne peut s'exprimer que selon un principe de distance.» (III, RM, par. 165.)
Une telle attitude s'explique dans une large mesure par la conception maltaise
selon laquelle le concept de distance est la base juridique du titre de 1'Etat et
justifie par lui-mêmele recours à une ligne diequidistance. La logique de cette
argumentation n'est d'ailleurs pas évidente.
Et, puisque l'on a évoquél'autre jour la «casuistique» de l'autre côtéde la
barre, la Cour nous permettra de relever le caractère pour le moins sophistiqué
de l'argumentation adverse. Le critérede distance, fondement du titre de I'Etat,
nous a-t-on dit. ne gouverne pas la delimitation; mais la delimitation est en
étroite corrélation avecce critère(III, p. 379-3803,
Nous prenons acte de cette reconnaissance: le critèrede distance ne régitpas
la délimitation. Nous enregistrons la reconnaissance ainsi faite par Malte de ce
qui résulte d'ailleurs de la simple lecture de l'article 76 de la convention de
1982. Mais alors, nous ne comprenons plus trés bien pourquoi Malte a parlé,
dans son contre-mémoire, du «principe de distance, dont l'equidistance n'est
qu'une application particuliére» (II, CMM, par. 278). Et nous renvoyons aux
manuels de casuistique. s'il en existe, pour la compréhensiondu raisonnement
développépar la Partie maltaise.
De plus. la Cour n'aura pas manquéde remarquer que, tout en invoquant la
convention de 1982 sur le droit de la mer, Malte cherche à occulter la distinc-
tion établie par la convention entre la détermination de la limite exterieure du
plateau continental d'un Etat et l'opérationde délimitation duplateau continen-
tal entre deux Etats. Malte ne tient pas véritablement compte, en effet, de
l'article76,paragraphe 10. de cette convention, seton lequel:
«Le présent articlene préjuge pas de la question de la délimitationdu
plateau continental entre des Etats dont les côtes sont adjacentes ou se font
face.»
Rappelons pour mémoireque les autres dispositions de l'article 76 sont rela-
tives àla définition généraldee la notion (par.1)et aux modalitésde fixation des
limitesextérieures duplateau continental d'un Etat (par.2-7), ainsi qu'aux obliga-
tions d'information qui pèsenten ce domaine sur les Etats côtiers (par.8 et 9).
Et le paragraphe IO vient en quelque sorte préciserque ces autres dispositions
ne doivent pas Etre regardéescomme étantnécessairement pertinentes pourune
opération de délimitation. Ce qui revient notamment 1 dire que l'élémentde
distance, figurant dans la seconde partie de ta d6finition du paragraphe 1, ne
saurait avoir en lui-mêmeune vertu particuliérepour résoudre un problèmede
délimitation: il ne permet pas de préjuger des principeset des méthodesappli-
cables en matièrede délimitation entreEtats.
Aussi passer sous silence ou minimiser la portéede l'articl76, paragraphe 10,
revient alorsà refuser de tenir compte de la distinction tranchée qui existeentre
la fixation de la limite extérieuredu plateau continental d'un Etat. d'une part, et la détermination d'une limite séparative entre les zones de plateau continental
relevant de deux Etats, d'autre part.
Au demeurant, dans le cadre de la conférencesur le droit de la mer, les deux
questions ont ététraitées séparement et ces deux questions font de surcroit
l'objet de dispositions distinctes dans le texte de la convention qui traite séparé-
ment les limites extérieuresàl'article 76 et de la délimitatiànl'article 83.
D'autre part, les raisons qui ont pousséà l'adoption de ce qu'on appelle la
«règle des 200 milles» n'ont absolument rien à voir avec les règles de délimita-
tion maritime entre Etats.
Sur un plan strictement juridique, ce sont des considérations qui sont totale-
* ment étrangeres les unes par rapport aux autres, ainsi que nous espérons l'avoir
clairement établi en rappelant, hier, les conditions dans lesquelles la r6férenceh
la limite des 200 milles avait étéintroduite dans la convention en ce qui
concerne le plateau continental.
Ce n'est que sur un plan purement factuel que l'on peut percevoir une cer-
taine relation de cause&effet entre l'accroissement du nombre des zones écono-
miques de 200 milles et la multiplication des problémes de délimitation. Mais
cette simple constatation d'évidence n'apporteici aucun élément qui permettrait
de conclure dans le sens indiqué par Malte.
Aussi, en prétendant que le critére de distance justifie le tracé d'une ligne
médianedans la présente affaire, Lathèse maltaise est totalement artificielle et
tourne peut-on dire le dos aux dispositions de la convention sur lesquelles elle
prétend pourtant prendre appui.
En se fondant sur un critère de distance, la Partie adverse cherche unique-
ment àjustifier le recours qu'elle préconisàla méthodede l'équidistance pour
l'établissementde la délimitationde son plateau continental avec la Libye. Pour
reprendre une image évoquée à la barre par M. Weil, Malte s'est efforcée
d'accrocher le wagon de l'équidistance ?ice qu'elle pense êtrela locomotive de
la distance.
Mais, ce faisant, Malte paraît considérer que l'opération de délimitation
consiste purement et simplement A reconnaître les droits de chaque Etat sur la
plus grande distance possible. Etant donné qu'aucun des deux Etats en cause
n'est en mesure de faire valoir ses droits jusqu'à la distance de 200 milles, il
faudrait donc accorder à chacun une 6gale distance. D'où le recours nckessaire,
selon la Partie adverseà la méthode de l'équidistance.
Un tel raisonnement est toutefois entaché d'un vice fondamental. II est moins
juridique que mathématique et aboutit à réduire une opération de délimitation
du plateau continental?iune «division par parts égales..
Peut-êtreest-ce ce à quoi songeait M. Lauterpacht lorsque, à l'audience du
28 novembre, il comparait le lit et le sous-sol de la mer pélagienneà une sorte
de tranche de gâteau-sandwich, drwt Malte revendique aujourd'hui une grande
portion (III, p. 348).
Mais il nous faut alors rappeler que la Cour avait précisément condamné cette
façon de voir dans les affaires dii Plateau continental de lu mer du Nord, en
rejetant la théorie dela part juste et équitable*.
Une délimitation de plateau continental ne peut pas, en effet, êtreassimilée
au partage d'un gâteau familial entre les enfants qui se disputent pour réclamer
l'attribution de parts strictement égalesou des parts justes et équitables.
Ce que la Cour exprimait en termes juridiques dans son arrêtde 1969,
lorsqu'elle soulignait qu'une délimitation
«ne pourrait avoir pour objet d'attribuer une part Bquitable ni même sim-
plement une part, car la conception fondamentale en la matière exclut qu'il88 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
y ait quoi que ce soit d'indivis à partager* (C.I.J. Recueil 1969, p. 22,
par. 20).
Le raisonnement avancé par la Partie maltaise présente, d'autre part, un vice
rédhibitoire au regard des principes équitables qui doivent guider toute opéra-
tion de délimitation. S'il était suivi.ce raisonnement conduirait, en effetà ne
pas tenir compte des différents facteurs caractéristiquesde la zone Bdélimiter,
puisqu'il suffiraitde déleminer les points géométriquesjusqu'où chacun des
deux Etats pourrait bénéficierde droits sur la plus grande étendue possible. Ce
qui signifierait, par conséquent. quela Cour n'aurait pas hprendre en considéra-
tion les diverses circonstances pertinentes de la presente affaire. 1t n'est pas
douteux qu'une telle conséquence serait contraire h toute la jurisprudence inter-
nationale en la matikre.
Que reste-t-il alors de la thèse de Malte sur ce point?
11apparaît, en définitive.que le seul élkmentcommun au soi-disant -principe
de distance» et à la methode de l'équidistance estun élément terminologique.
Dans le terme néquidistances, ily a effectivement le mot «distance». Mais une
telle relation. tenant simplement2 l'existence d'une racine grammaticale unique,
est dépourvuede toute valeur et de toute pertinence du point de vue juridique.
Ce n'est qu'une commoditt de présentation qui permet d'ailleurs d'éluder une
démonstration impossible; et le recoursà une formule dont la seule vertu réside
dans le fait qu'elle est assez commode laisse Bpenser que Malte fait sienne la
formule de l'Amphitryon de Molière: «J'aime mieux un vice commode qu'une
fatigante vertu.
Du reste, une tentative semblable est apparue récemment dans une autre
affaire de délimitation maritime. Dans son arrêtdu 12 octobre 1984, la chambre
constituéepar la Cour dans l'affaire du Golfe du Maines'est bornée observer
à ce sujet:
«il n'y a là finalement qu'un nouvel effort pour faire apparaître l'idéenon
pas de la «distance», mais de l'«équidistance*. comme étant sanctionnée
par le droit international coutumier lui-même, puisque son but est d'affir-
mer que les étenduessituées B une distance d'un Etat inférieureà celle qui
les sépare des côtes d'un autre Etat doivent automatiquement relever du
premier.» (C.I.J.Recueil 1984, p. 297, par. 106.)
Et l'on sait que.dans cet arrêt récent,a étérepoussée une interprétation du
soi-disant «principe de distance» qui tendait Bfaire admettre que la convention
de 1982 aurait indirectement prescrit l'application de la méthode de I'équidis-
tance. Ce qui était d'autant moins admissible que la convention ne fait aucune
allusion à cette méthode.
Comme dans cette précédente affaire, nous nous trouvons ici en prksence
d'une nouvelle tentative pour faire de l'équidistance une véritable règlde droit
international. Ce qu'elle n'est assurémentpas, comme va le montrer dans un
instant M. Colliard.
Monsieur le Président,. de toutes les considérations qui précédent.il me
semble que l'on peut dégager les trois conclusions suivantes:
1. Le prétendu «principe de distance» invoqué par Malte ne fait pas partie
des règles de droit international qui sont actuellement applicables en matière de
plateau continental.
2. A supposer mêmeque l'on puisse d'ores et déjà voirdans la distance un
critère permettant. dans certaines conditions. de definir l'étenduedes droits d'un
Etat sur son plateau continental. un te1 critere est2 coup slir inapplicable en
Méditerranée, et doncdans la présente affaire. PLAIDOIRIE DE M. QUÉNEUDEC 89
3. Si le facteur de distance etait néanmoins pris en compte dans la rkgion où
doit intervenir la présente délimitation, force serait cependant de reconnaître
que cet élément esten lui-même dépourvu de tout lien avec une opération de
delimitation.
Dans ces conditions, le recours2ides principes équitables conduit en !'espèce
à prendre d'abord en considération l'ensembledes facteurs physiques et des cir-
constances géopolitiques propres ?ila région,c'est-A-direà apprécier inconcrero
à la fois 1'6quiiédes principes applicables et l'équité durésultat auquel ils
conduisent. Cru la Cour saitmieux que personne que «ce qui est raisonnable et
équitable dans un cas donné dépend forcément descirconstances» (C.I.J.
Recueil 1982, p. 60. par. 72). PLAIDOIRIE DE M. COLLIARD
CONSEIL DU GOUVERNEMENT DE LA JAMAHlRlYA ARABE LIBYENNE
M. COLLIARD: Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, qu'il me soit
permis tout d'abord de dire que j'éprouve un grand sentiment d'honneur et de
fierté me retrouver une nouvelle fois devant vous.
Dans le cadre généralde la présentation devantla Cour de la théselibyenne,
il m'appartient de traiter des questions qui se rapportent h la formule de I'équi-
distance, en généralà sa valeur,à son rôle,àson utilisation éventueliedans les
accords internationaux de délimitationde plateaux continentaux, de traiter aussi
des principes équitables.
A cet égard, il convient de rappeler la position de la Libye, au demeurant
bien connue.
La th&selibyenne se borne affirmer que toute délimitationde plateau conti-
nental doit être équitable. résultatéquitable c'estce qui compte, pourvu qu'il
soit obtenu par des principes équitableset que cette solution équitable repose
sur le droit applicable.
La conception que la Libye a de la règle fondamentale de droit qui doit être
appliquéeen matitre de délimitation du plateau continental esten accord avec
la jurisprudence de la Cour sur ces problèmes, arrêtde 1969, arrêtde 1982,
arrêtde la Chambre de 1984, et elle est aussi en accord avec la sentence arbi-
trale de 1977. Cette conception est en conformité avec les dispositions de la
convention de 1982 sur le droit de la mer.
Pour ka Libye, il existe une règle fondamentale, c'est que la délimitation doit
être effectuéepar l'application des principesquitables pour obtenir une solu-
tion équitable.II n'y a pas de méthodeprivilégikeet la méthode d'équidistance
n'est pas une méthode privilégiée.
Je voudrais, dans les développementsqui suivent, montrer:
1) que dans l'ensemble juridique complexe que constitue le régime duplateau
continental l'équidistance n'estpas et n'a jamais ét6une règlejuridique ni
une méthode privilégiéee;t
2) que l'analyse objective et scientifique des accords de délimitation conclus
par les Etats ne peut permettre d'affirmer qu'existe une primauté reconnue
de la méthode de l'équidistanceconsidérked'une manière générale.
l'examinerai ces questions dans les deux parties de mon exposé.
1. L'ÉQUIDISTAN C'EST PAS UNE RÈGLE JURIDIQUE
On doit constater et souligner, en ce qui concerne les principes juridiques
régissantles délimitationsdes plateaux continentaux, unetres grande cohérence
maintenue tout au long d'une périoded'une quarantaine d'années.
L'évolution est continue,elle ne comporte aucune rupture depuis la genèse
même de la notion de plateau continental.
Nous examinerons, àce sujet, quatre points. Les trois premiers traiteront suc-
cessivement: d'abord les déclarations unilatérales; ensuitela convention de
Genève et l'interprétationde ce même article6; enfin la troisième conférence PLAIDOIRID EE M. COLLIARD 91
sur le droit de la mer et la convention de 1982. Le point 4 sera une sorte de
rappel général,on l'appellera le sens de l'histoire.
Tout d'abord. premier point:
1. Les déchrutions unilaférules
A l'origine de l'évolutionse trouvent les déclarations unilatérales.Au com-
mencement a étéformulée la double règle fondamentale qui rkgit encore
aujourd'hui le probleme de la dtlimitation entre Etats de leurs plateaux conti-
nentaux.
Le texte initial est bien connu, c'est la proclamation Truman du 28 septembre
1945 qui en matiérede délimitation énonceque la ligne de délimitation serait
«déterminéepar les Etats-Unis et I'Etat intéresséconformément A des principes
équitables».
Dans son arrêtde 1969, la Cour a mis l'accent sur cette solution qui a com-
mandétoute la suite et lui a imprimé sa marque.
On peut ainsi relever le paragriiphe 47 de l'arrêt Recueil 1969, p. 32-
33).
Parmi les déclarations postérieures à la proclamation Truman de 1945, je
voudrais mentionner toiit particuliérementcelles qui ontété formuléespar des
Etats riverains du golfe Arabique, déclarations dont l'importance est grandedans
la mesure où elles émanent d'Etats dotés de ressources pétrolièreset dans la
mesure aussi OUces Etats conclueront ultérieurement - et nous en parlerons
plus loin- des accords de délimitation.
On trouve ainsi la déclarationde l'Arabie saoudite du 28 mai 1949 pdcisant
que la délimitation serait faite en accord avec d'autres Etats .conformément à
des principes équitable+.
La formule se retrouve identiquement dans des déclarations faites par des
Etats arabes alors sous la protection du Royaume-Uni. 11 s'agit de déclarations
émanantde principautésqui devaient êtreen 1971 regroup6es dans I'Etat fédé-
ral ~Emirats arabes unis», ainsi Abu Dhabi, 10 juin 1949; Ajman, 20 juin
1949; Dubaï, 14 juin 1949; Ra1 el Kaihmah, 17 juin 1949; Sharjah. 10 juin
1949; Urnmal Qarwan. 20 juin 1919.
A ces déclarations s'ajoutent les déclarationsde Bahreïn du 5 juin 1949. du
Koweït du 12juin 1949, de Qatar du 8 juin 1949.
Toutes ces déclarations utilisent la formule uequirable principlesu sauf celle
de Bahreïn où la formule est ujusr principlesn.
A ces déclarations il convient d'ajouter un autre acte unilatéralquelque peu
postérieur,la loi iranienne du 12juin 1955 selon laquelle «les différendséven-
tuels ayant traità la délimitation du plateau continental de l'Iran seront réglés
d'après leprinciple de l'équité».
2. Lu convenricincie Genève et I'int~rprétation
dc son article 6
Passons maintenant, Monsieur le Président,au second point, la convention de
Genkve et l'interprétationde son iirticl6.Le texte en est bien connu:
« 1.Dans le cas où un mêmeplateau continental est adjacent aux terri-
toires de deuxou plusieurs Etats dont les côtes se font face, la délimitation
du plateau continental entre ces Etats est déterminée par accord entreces
Etats. A défaut d'accord,età moins que des circonstances sp6ciales ne jus-
tifient une autre délimitation. celle-ci est constituée par la ligne médiane92 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
dont tous les points sont équidistants des points les plus proches des lignes
de base à partir desquelles est mesurée la largeur de la mer temtoriale de
chacun de ces Etats.
2. Dans le cas où un même plateau continentalest adjacent aux tem-
toires de deux Etats limitrophes, la délimitationdu plateau continental est
déterminee par accord entre ces Etats. A défaut d'accord, et?Imoins que
des circonstances spéciales ne justifient une autre délimitation, celle-ci
s'opère par application du principe de l'équidistance des points les plus
proches des lignes de base partir desquelles est mesurée la largeur de la
mer temtoriale de chacun de ces Etats.»
Existe-t-il une évolution,un changement que marquerait ce texte par rapport
aux deux notions fondamentales enoncéesdans la proclamation Truman et donc,
je le répète:délimitationpar voie d'accord - délimitation conforme à des prin-
cipes équitables?
Sur la premiere notion, ou «voie diaccord», on ne peut que constater l'iden-
tité.La premiere phrase du paragraphe 1, comme la premikre phrase du para-
graphe 2, de l'article 6 pose le principe que la délimitation se fait par voie
d'accord. La seconde notion, «délimitation conforme à des principes équi-
tables~, a-t-elle été abandonnée en 1958, dans le cas oùun accord ne pourrait
être obtenu,pour êtreremplacéepar une autre notion que formulerait l'article 6?
Nouvelle notion exprimée dansle paragraphe 1 de cet article :«délimitation ...
constituée par la ligne médiane...». et dans le paragraphe 2: ciapplication du
principe de l'équidistance».
Y aurait-il eu un changement fondamental, ce changement consistant en l'aban-
don du principe «conformité de la delimitation à des principes équitables»
et en son remplacement par un principe nouveau appelé «principe d'équidis-
tance*?
La thèse du changement de notion a pu être soutenue avec des formes di-
verses, parexemple apparition d'une notion de caractere conventionnel jouant
dans les rapports entre ceux des Etats parties la convention de 1958 ou encore
thèse plus audacieuse d'une notion nouvelle s'imposant plus gCnéralement,
c'est-&-dire par-delà mêmela communautédes Etats parties à la convention de
1958, donc une notion appartenant au droit coutumier genéral.Cette discussion
apparaît aujourd'hui bien depasséecar l'article 6 de la convention de 1958 a
fait l'objet d'interprétations de la part d'instances juridictionnelles comme la
Cour dans ses arrêts de1969et de 1982,la Chambre, dans son arrêtde 1984, le
tribunal arbitral institué dans le litige franco-britannique dans sa sentence de
1977.
Je ne pense pas, Monsieur le Président, qu'il existe dans l'histoiredu droit
international d'exempte comparable d'un article d'une convention ayant fait
l'objet d'un examen par autant de hautes instances. Et ce qui doit êtrenotk, car
c'est là un point fondamental, est que la conclusion Zilaquelle sont parvenues
ces instances est la même, à savoir le maintien de la seconde notion apparue en
1945: «la délimitation doit être conformeàdes principes équitables».
Cette solution est connue, mais 19 encore il est nécessaire d'en rappeler
quelques positions essentielles et de faire quelques citations. Je me bornerai&
un trèsbref rappel concernant l'histoire même, sil'on peut dire, de l'article 6 et
les travaux de la Commission du droit international.
La Cour a présenté cet historique dans les paragraphes 47 56 de son arrêt
de 1969 (C.I.J. Recueil 1969, p. 32-36).
La Cour, dans son arrêtde 1969, a formellement rejeté la méthode de
l'équidistanceen tant que principe juridique. PLAIDOIRIEDE M. COLLIARD 93
Elle a accompagnéce rejet d'uri rappel des principes juridiques fondamentaux
dans le paragraphe 85 de son arrêtde 1969, et tout particulièrement dans cet
important passage :
iiI1ressort de l'histoire du développement du régime juridique du plateau
continental, qui a étérappelée ci-dessus, que la raison essentielle pour
laquelle la méthodede l'équidistance ne peut être tenuepour une règle de
droit est que, si elle devait êtreappliquée obligatoirement en toutes situa-
tions, cette méthode ne correspondrait pas à certaines notions juridiques de
base qui, comme on l'a constaté aux paragraphes 48 et 55, reflétentdepuis
l'origineI'opiniojuris en matièrede délimitation; ces principes sont que la
délimitation doit être l'objetd'un accord entre les Etats intéresséset que
cet accord doit se réaliser selondes principes équitables. 11s'agitII, sur la
base de préceptes très générauxde justice et de bonne foi, de véritables
régles de droit en matiére de délimitation des plateaux continentaux limi-
trophes, c'est-à-dire deréglesobligatoires pour les Etats pour toute délirni-
tation: en d'autres termes, il ne s'agit pas d'appliquer l'équité simplement
comme une représentation de la justice abstraite, mais d'appliquer une
règle de droit prescrivant le recours SLdes principes équitables conformé-
ment aux idéesqui ont toujours inspiré le d6velappementdu régimejuri-
dique du plateau continental en la matière...» (C.I.J. Recueil 1969, p. 46-
47.)
La Cour, on le sait, a consacré l'opinion que l'article6 de la convention de
1958, bien que n'y référantpas expressément, n'a jamais abandonne l'idée
d'une délimitation obtenue en conformitéavec des principes équitables.
Le tribunal arbitraa expriméla mêmeopinion.
Au paragraphe 70 de la sentence ila rappeléla primautéde la régledes prin-
cipes équitablesen laquelle il voyait une«norme générale».
Il a soulignéle caractere contingent de l'équidistance:
«Même sous l'angle de l'article 6, ce sont les circonstances géogra-
phiques et autres qui,dans chaque espèce, indiquent et justifient le recours
la méthode de l'équidistance comme étant le moyen de parvenir ii une
solution equitable, plutôt que: la vertu propre de cette mCthode qui ferait
d'elle une règlejuridique de délimitation.»
La sentence, dans d'autres passages, affirme &galement le caractere fonda-
mental que présentela conformité à des principes équitables que doit assurer la
délimitation,et le paragraphe 82 est àcet egard particulièrement significatif.
L'arrêtde 1969 et la sentence de 1977 convergent parfaitemen! dans la portée
qu'ils donnent à l'équidistance, présentéetantôt sous le nom de «principe», il
ne s'agit pas évidemment de priiicipe juridique, tantôt sous le nom de «me-
thode*. Ce n'est pas une réglejuridique.
L'arrêt récemmenrtendu par la chambre constituéeen 1982 par la Cour pour
l'affaire de la Délimitationmaritirne dans la région du golfe du Maine et qui a
poursuivi l'Œuvre de définitionet de formulation des règles régissantla délimi-
tation du plateau continental apporte une utile contribution au problème de
ltinterprCtation de l'article 6, que l'on trouve plus particulitrement dans le para-
graphe 115 de l'arrêtde la Chambre du 12octobre 1984:
<<laprise en considérationde la convention de 1958 sur le plateau continen- 94 PLATEAUCONTINENTAL
ta! et plus précisémentde la deuxième phrase de chacun des paragraphes 1
et 2 de l'article 6 1 .. comme il a DU être constaté. n'énoncv eas comme la
première un principe ou une r2gle de droit international, mais prévoit
notamment l'utilisation d'une certaine méthode ~ratioue vour l'exécution
concrète de l'opération de délimitation. II s9agit,'on l'a v;, de la méthode
qui emploie pour une délimitationde plateau continental une technique qui
est unique, mais qui se traduit par le tracé d'une ligne médiane dans les
zones maritimes comprises entre des côtes qui se font face et d'une ligne
d'équidistance latérale dans le cas où les côtes des deux Etats sont adja-
centes. Cette méthode s'inspire et dÉcoule d'un critère équitabledéterminé:
celui qui tient pour équitable, de prime abord du moins, une division par
parts égales des zones de chevauchement des plateaux continentaux des
deux Etats en litige.» (C.I.J.Recueil 1984, p. 300-301.)
3. La troisième conférencse ur le droit de la mer
er la conventionde 1982
Le problème de la d6limitation du plateau continental s'est posé à nouveau
sur le plan conventionnel, dans le cadre de la troisième conférence. Il est inté-
ressant de constater que les principes équitables qui, comme nous l'avons mon-
tréen rappelant l'opinion de la Cour dans son arrêtde 1969 et celle du tribunal
arbitral dans sa sentence de 1977, n'avaient pas ét6abandonnés comme règle
fondamentale mais n'avaient pas fait l'objet en 1958, dans la convention, d'une
refkrence expresse sont au contraire formellement retenus au cours de la troi-
sii?meconference.
Les dispositions adoptées en matière de regles relatives ?I la délimitation du
plateau continental mettent l'accent sur l'aspect equitable que doit revêtir cette
délimitation.
Les textes successivement adoptés sont tr2s significatifs, comme l'est égale-
ment le texte définitif, c'est-&-direl'article, de la convention du 10 décembre
1982.
Ainsi a éte maintenu et consacré le caractkre équitable que doit comporter
toute délimitation, ainsi a étk affirmée la priorité accordée à cette exigence,
mais on ne saurait omettre le fait que la conférencea étéle cadre d'un trésvif
affrontement entre les partisans de I'équidistance et les partisans, plus nom-
breux, des principes équitables. En d'autres termes, si après l'arrêtde la Cour
de 1969 et la sentence du tribunal arbitral de 1977, on doit considérer qu'il n'y
a pas en réalitéde dilemme ükquidistance/équité»mais un principe supérieur,
celui de la <<délimitationéquitable>,,et si ce principe a été consacré en 1982, il
faut noter que le dilemme «équidistance/equité»a étéà nouveau posé dans le
cadre des négociationsde la conférence.
Il convient de rappeler ici les versions successives de l'article consacré à la
délimitation, les versions antagonistes présentées par deux groupes dlEtats,
enfin le texte final.
Jedis «il convient de rappeler», je dois dire plutôt, je suis contraint de rappe-
ler les versions successives de l'article consacré?ila delimitation.
Pourquoi suis-je ainsi contraint? mais tout simplenient parce que mon savant
collégueet ami. M. Weil, le vendredi 30 novembre, a affirmé: «il ne faut pas
oublier que la méthode de l'équidistance est la seule h avoir bénéficiéd'une
mention expresse dans certains des textes de négociation» (III, p. 429).
Comme le sait toute personne ayant participé aux travaux de la conférence,
, cette affirmation que nous avons tous entendue et que nous lisons dans le
compte rendu préciténe correspond pas à la réalité. Elle me contraint, je m'en excuse devant la Cour, rappeler la véritk,car si
f'équidistanceest citéedans les deux premiers textes c'est en place mineure par
rapport aux principes equitables qui sont cites avec un caractere généralet prio-
ritaire.
Mais rappelons les textes. Je voudrais le faire en trois points. D'abord Les
versions successives entre 1975 et 1981, ensuite le dilemme «équidistance/prin-
cipe équitable* et enfin le texte actuel.
a) Les versions sucressives de 1975 a 1981
Commencés dans le cadre génCralde la conférence,de l'année 1975 2l'année
1981, on peut relever six textes successifs. J'entend six textes caractère géné-
ral: le texte unique de négociatioii du 7 mai 1975 (TUN); le texte de négo-
ciation revis6 du 6 mai 1976 (A/CONF.62/WP.8/Part II, TUNIRev.1); le texte
de négociation composite officieux du 15 juillet 1977 (A/CONF.62/WP.IO);
le texte de négociation composite officieux, revision 1, du 28 avril 1979
(A/CONF.62/WP. 10/Rev. 1); le texte de négociation composite officieux. revi-
sion 2, du 1I avril 1980 (A/CONF.62IWP.10/Rev.2);le texte de négociation
composite officieux, revision 3, du 22 décembre 1980 (A/CONF.62/WP.10/
Rev.3).
S'agissant de l'article consacréà la délimitation du plateau continental on se
trouve heureusement en présence seulementde deux rédactions successives pour
cette période 1975-198 1:
1) La première version se trouve dans le texte de 1975 et se retrouve en
1976, 1977, 1979.
Cette version porte dans le premier texte le numérod'article 70 en 1975, puis
71 en 1976, et enfin dans le texte commun le numkro 83 tant en 1977 qu'en
1979. C'est un texte synthétique. II se lit:
«Délimitationdu plateau continental
entre deux Etats limitrophes ou qui seforrtface
1. La délimitation du plateau continental entre Etats adjacents ou se fai-
sant face est effectuéepar accc~rdentre eux selon des principes équitables,
moyennant l'emploi, le cas échéant,de la ligne médianeou équidistante et
compte tenu de toutes les circonstances pertinentes.»
Telle est la premiere version.
2) Une seconde version se trouve dans les deux textes de l'année 1980, celui
du II avril (A/CONF.62/WP.lO/Rev.2) et celui du 22 décembre (AlCONF.621
WP.lORev.3).
La rédactionest très voisine de la rédactionprécédente.La seule addition est
<<conformémentau droit international>,, formule qui est ajoutée apks le mot
«accord». Pour le reste, les différences de rédaction sont mineures comme on
l'entend à la lecture, que je prie la Cour de me pardonner, de l'article 83 dans
sa version 1980:
Délimizationdu plareau continental
entre Etats dontles ctites sont adjacentes ou sefont face
I. La délimitation du plateau continental entre Etats dont les côtes sont
adjacentes ou se font face est effectuée par voie d'accord [nous connais-
sons le refrain], conformément au droit international [c'est là l'addition].96 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
Un tel accord se fait selon des principes équitables, moyennant l'emploi le
cas échéant,de la ligne médiane ou de la ligne d'équidistance et compte
tenu de tous les aspects de la situation dans la zone concernée.»
Vraiment les principes équitables n'ont pas été oubliée st ils ont été mentionnés
en première et noble place.
b) Deuxièmeproblème: ledilemmeéquidistu~ce/principes équitables
On sait qu'au cours de l'année 1978et de la septieme session des groupes de
négociation furent constitués.
L'un d'eux portant le numéro 7 eut comme thème de travail: «La délimita-
tion des frontières maritimes entre Etats qui se font face ou sont limitrophes et
le règlement des différendsqui s'y rapportent.»
On vit les Etats s'opposer au sujet de ce problème.
- Le groupe dit des *Vingt-deux», réunissant divers Etats, dont la Répu-
blique de Malte, fit une proposition combinant la notion d'accord et la notion
di6quidistance:
ala délimitation du plateau continental entre Etats limitrophes ou qui se
font face se fait par voie d'accord, en utilisant comme principe généralla
ligne médiane ou la ligne d'équidistance compte tenu, quand cela se justi-
fie, de tous les facteurs particuliers».
(C'est le fameux document bien connu, mais que j'ai cruutile tout de mêmede
citer,NG 712.)
- Un autre groupe dit des «Vingt-neuf», réunissant divers Etats, soutenait
un texte tout à fait diffkrent:
«La délimitation ... du plateau continental entre Etats limitrophes et (ou)
se faisant face se fait par voie d'accord, conformément $ des principes
équitables,compte tenu de tous les facteurs pertinents et en utilisant, le cas
échéant,toutes méthodes permettant d'aboutir à une solution équitab1e.n
(NG 7/10.)
On a donc vu apparaître au sein du groupe na 7 une opposition entre deux
thèses. Le groupe dit des «Vingt-deux» faisant de l'kquidistance un principe
général,ce qui était absolument nouveau et allant bien au-delà de la solution de
1958 mêmedans son interprétationla plus audacieuse.
En 1980, et sans que soient calmées les oppositions au sein du groupe, une
nouvelle rédaction, peu différente de la première, est retenue par le collége et
devient l'article 83 du texte de négociation composite officieux revision 2,
maintenu dans le revision 3, donc dans le projet de convention sur le droit de la
mer (texte officieux), nous avons cité ce texte tout à l'heure. Et enfin mainte-
nant je voudrais présenter la solution équitable.
c) La solurion équitable
En effet ce n'est pas ce texte que l'on trouve dans le projet de convention du
28 août 1981 et dans la convention elle-même.II s'agit d'une version nouvelle
que le nouveau présidentde la conférence avait présentkele mêmejour, 28 août
1981, après diverses consultations tant avec les membres du groupe no 7 que
d'une manière plus gknérale. Le nouveau texte conserve l'adjectif équitable,
mais i1le fait porter sur la solution et il supprime toute allusion rl l'équidistance
qui était mentionnéedans les deux premiéres versions en tant que méthode
auxiliaire.l se lit: PLAIDOIRIE DE M. COLLIARD
Délimitationduplateau continental
entre Etats dontlescôtes sont adjacentes ouse fontface
1.La délimitationdu plateau continental entre Etats dont les côtes sont
adjacentes ou se font face est effectude par voie d'accord, conformément
au droit international, tel qu'il est viàél'article 38 du Statut de la Cour
internationale de Justice. afin d'aboutirune solution équitable.»
Ce texte introduit le28 aoDt 1981 et adopté immédiatementpar,le collgge insé-
rait dans le projet de convention (non plus officieux mais le texte officiel)
l'actuel article 83 de la convention du 10 décembre 1982. Et j'aborde mainte-
nant, Monsieur le Président, un quatrième point de cette évolution que j'ai
appeléle sens de l'histoire.
4. Le sens de l'histoire
On doit remarquer qu'entre teadeclaration Trumande 1945 et l'axticle 83 de
la convention de 1982 la solution en matiére de délimitation du plateau conti-
nental est placée sous le signede la continuitk et de la cohérence.
Cette continuité et cette cohérence ontkt6 précisées, affirméesp , ar la juris-
prudence internationale, et tout particulièrement par la Cour internationale de
Justice.
C'est elle, qui dès 1969 a affirmé,comme il convenait, ia primautédes prin-
cipes et regles juridiques sur des méthodes pratiques certes, utiles le cas
échéant, mais qui demeurent étrangères à la règle de droit et mineures par rap
port à elle. La Cour a manifesté clairement en 1969, et le tribunal arbitral a
suivi en 1977, l'attachement au principe que la dklimitation devait s'effectuer
selon des principes équitables (C.I.J.Recueil 1969, p. 36-37, par. 57).
La Cour a souligné
«qu'il ne s'agit pas d'appliquer l'équité commu ene représentation de la
justice abstraite, mais d'appliquer une rggle de droit prescrivant le recours
à des principes équitables»(ibid., par. 85).
En situant l'article 6 de la convention de Geneve de 1958 dans ce cadre juri-
dique général, en dégageant comme il convient la rkgle de droit, la Cour a
maintenu et nettement formulé le principe juridique que la délimitation du pla-
teau continental doit s'opérerselon des principes équitables. Mais cette délimi-
tation, en' tant qu'opération juridique, et cette application de principes équi-
tables, dans le cadre d'une opération juridique, ont évidemmentune finalité.
Cette finalité qui s'articule avec cla règle de droit prescrivant le recours à des
principes équitables» (C.I.J.Recueil 1969, p. 47, par. 85) est elle-même équi-
table. Mais que l'on ne se meprenne pas, il ne s'agit pas d'une solution
d'kquité.Je voudrais ici rappeler, Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges,
les principes que vous avez formulds dans les affaires de la Compétenceen
matiPre de pêcheriesqui opposaient le Royaume-Uni ?Il'Islande et la Répu-
blique fédérale d'Allemagneà l'Islande. La Cour, dans ses arrêtsde 1974, a
confirméla position adoptke dans l'arrêtde 1969 sur le Plateau continental de
la mer du Nord et précisé la manière dont,au service supérieur du droit, elle
pouvait envisager la finalit6 d'une décisionet, dans un certain cadre bien défini,
le recoursà l'équit6.
Dans cette affaire de droits de pêche.la Cour a pose la règle que les Parties
avaient «l'obligation mutuelle d'engager des négociationsde bonne foi ...aEt la98 PLATEAUCONTINENTAL
Cour a rappelé: «Il ne s'agit pas simplement d'arriver à une solution équitable,
mais d'arriver à une solution équitable qui repose sur le droit applicable.»
(C.IJ. Recueil 1974, 33, par. 78.)
«Solution équitable» cette formule de l'arrêt de 1974 correspond, bien
curieusement, à la formule de l'article 83 de la convention de Montego Bay de
1982 que le prksident de la conférencea lancéeet fait adopter le 28 août 1981.
Mon ami, M. Weil, a déclaréque ce texte de l'article 83 était«pauvre».
Je comprends qu'il ne puisse estimer satisfaisant un texte qui ne fait plus
aucune allusion à l'équidistanceet qui consacre ainsi son effacement.
Et il me permettra de penser que ce texte est enréalitéd'une grande richesse.
Il est porteur d'un noble message en mettant l'accent sur le résultatéquitabke,
but suprêmede l'opérationde délimitation conduite évidemmentselon des prin-
cipes équitables.
Solution équitable, qui repose sur le droit applicable, c'est-à-dire sur des prin-
cipes équitables,telest le sens.
LAencore, que l'on ne se méprennepas.
II y a de grandesdifférencesentre un arrêtsurdes droits de pêcheavec le pro-
blème sous-jacent des ressources halieutiques et un arrêtsur la délimitation d'un
plateau continental qui n'est aucunement lié,et mon excellent ami, M. Quéneu-
dec, l'a rappelé toutAl'heure, qui n'est aucunement li)dune répartition.Mais au
plan théorique, les deux types d'arrêts sont proches. La Cour a posé,en 1974,
un principe: elle a dégagé l'impératif théoriqudee la solution équitable, mais
ellen'a pas préciséla mise en Œuvre pratique, qui ne relevait pas de sa mission.
Et, à cet kgard aussi, un rapprochement avec la prisente affaire s'impose. La
Cour, en 1969, notait que toute l'évolution en matière de plateau continental
avait été commandéepar la double exigence d'une délimitation par voie d'ac-
cord et aboutissant à une solution équitable commandée par l'application de la
règle de droit et des principes équitables.
Mais cette kvolution n'a pas étéune rupture, elle est au contraire continuité.
L'audiencee st suspendue de II h 20 à 1I h 35
Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, juste avant l'interruption de
séancej'avais abordéle quatrième point de ma premrèrepartie que j'ai intitulé:
«Le sens de l'histoire». Je me proposais d'exposer dans ce développement la
continuitéd'une évolution,la cohérence d'interprétation.
L'kvolution, disais-je, a consisté plutôt ici en une analyse progressivement
conduite, en des prkcisions successivemènt apportkes, pour mieux définir la
théoried'une norme générale.
Des.pi&ces successives ont pu être apportées parla jurispmdence internatio-
nale en vue de l'édification de la construction d'ensemble. Mais les bases ini-
tiales, les fondations deI'edifice n'ont pas changé. de l'édificejuridique bien
évidemment car les procédés pratiques, parmi lesquelspeut figurer l'équidis-
tance, sont nombreux.
La sentence arbitrale de 1977 évoquait précisément,dans son paragraphe 70,
la anorme générale suivant laquellela limite ..doit être déterminée selon des
principes équitables».
La Cour dans son arrêtde 1969, au paragraphe 65, avait conclu la même
affirmation(C.IJ. Recueil 1969, p. 39-40). Et, dans la continuité de l'applica-
tion de cette formule qu'elle a voulu souligner, la Chambre constituée pour
l'affaire duoife du Maine adonné ladéfinition«de;ce que le droit intematio-
na1généralprescrit dans toute delimitation maritime...», et son analyse se trouve
au paragraphe 112 de l'arrêtde 1984: PLAIDOIRIE DE M. COLLIARD 99
« 1) ..Cette délimitation doit être recherchéeet réaliséeau moyen d'un
accord faisant suiteà une négociationmenke de bonne foi et dans l'inten-
tion réelle d'aboutirà un résultat positif.Au cas où, néanmoins, un tel
accord ne serait pas réalisable,la délimitation doit être effectuen recou-
rantà une instance tierce dotéede la compétencenécessairepour ce faire.
2) Dans le premier cas comme dans le second, la délimitation doit être
rkalisée par l'application de crit2res équitables et par l'utilisation de
méthodes pratiques aptes à assurer, compte tenu de la configuration géo-
graphique de la régionet des autres circonstances pertinentes de l'espéce,
un résultat équitabl».(C.I.J.Recueil 1984, p. 299-300.)
Ainsi se trouve confirméeune hiérarchieentre, d'une part, la regle juridique
générale, la norme fondamentale définie par l'application de criteres ou prin-
cipes équitableset celle du résultat équitable,et, d'autrert, les méthodespra-
tiques parmi lesquelles peut figurer I'équidistance.
Au terme de cette longue analyse la constatation est évidente.Principes equi-
tables, résultats équitables fontpartie de la règlede droit.
L'équidistance n'estqu'une méthode.
Cette place plus modeste, ce caractère non juridique expliquent que l'article 6
de la convention de 1958 soit le seul texte à avoir mentionne I'équidistance.
I'ai rappeléque le texte définitifde la convention de la mer n'y fait point allu-
sion, et les divers textes de négociation antérieursla mentionnaient, leur lecture
nous l'a rappel& comme une méthodeaprès avoir consacrétout d'abord la règle
des «principes équitables».
On ne saurait porterune appréciationgknéralemeilleure surla méthodede l'équi-
distance que celle formulée par la Cour dans l'affaire du Plateau continental
(TunisieiJarnahiriyaarabe libyenne), et qui est expriméeau paragraphe 109 de
l'arrêtde 1982:
«l'historique de l'article 83 du projet de convention sur lc droit de la mer
[amène] à conclure que I'équidistanceest applicable si elle conduit à une
solution équitable; sinon, il a lieu d'avoir recoursà d'autres methodes.»
(C.I.J.Recueil 1982,p. 79, par. 109.)
Ainsi, la Cour subordonne trhs nettement I'équidistance, simple méthode, à
une finalité:«la solution équitable». Elle préciseque l'on peut avoir recoursà
d'autres méthodes afin d'atteindre ce résultat équitableet donc etablit que ta
méthodede I'équidistance n'estpas une méthode privilégiée.
Cette affirmation aétkdeveloppéeau paragraphe 110 de l'arrêtde 1982 pour
préciser les conséquences qu'entraînece caractere non privilégiede la méthode
de l'équidistance.
Ce paragraphe 110 indique, en effet:
<La Cour n'estime pas non plus qu'en l'espèce il lui incombe d'exami-
ner en premier lieu les effets que pourrait avoir une délimitation selonla
méthodede l'hquidistance, et de ne rejeter celle-ci au bénkficed'une autre
méthode que si les résultats d'une ligne d'equidistance lui paraissaient
inéquitables. Pour pouvoir conclure en faveur d'une délimitation reposant
sur une ligne d'équidistance, il lui faudrait partir de considérations tirées
d'une evaluation et d'une pondération de toutes les circonstances perti-
nentes, I'équidistancen'&nt pas à ses yeux un principe juridique obliga-
toire ni une méthodequi serait en quelque sorte privilegiéepar rapport à
d'autres.» (C.I.J. Recueil 1982, p. 79.)
On aurait pu raisonnablement penser, Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les100 PLATEAUCONTINENTAL
juges, qu'après cet arrêtde 1982 et l'affirmation renouveléeque I'équidistance
n'est pas une méthode privilégiéela these que c'est une méthode privilégiée,
devant êtreutilisée en priorité,ne serait plus soutenue.
II n'en est nen.
Voici que cette priorité est affirmée de nouveau par mon excellent ami
M. Weil. A plusieurs reprises il reprend cette affirmation dans sa plaidoirie du
30 novembre.
Selon lui, on utilise d'abord l'équidistance, c'est-à-direon l'utilise d'une
maniere prioritaire.
II cite, cet effet, la communication faite au colloque de Rouen de 1983, de
la Société française pourle droit international, par M. le conseiller d'Etat
Guillaume (III, p. 425).
Mais il s'agit là d'opérations dedelimitation par voie d'accord entre Etats et
les Etats ont une grande liberté,la Cour l'a affirmé en 1974 et M. Weil le sait
bien, pour conduire Ieurs négociations.
C'est d'une maniere toute differente que la Cour, ou un tribunal arbitral, doit
mener l'opération de délimitation lorsque, précis6ment,les parties ne sont pas
parvenues à un accord.
C'est 21ce propos que la Cour affirmait de nouveau, en 1982, le caractère non
privilégié etnon prioritaire de I'équidistance.
Pourtant le conseil de Malte a redit la primauté de I'équidistan(III, p. 426),
redit que la ligne d'equidistance est la ligne de premier pas (p. 4311, que la
ligne d'équidistance est retenue comme première approche (p. 432), qu'on
pourra ultérieurement procéder à l'ajustement de la ligne de départ (p. 435)
avec une «ligne médiane envisagée commepoint de départ* (ihid.).
Quelques lignes sont citées à la page 429 (III), tiréesdu paragraphe 109 de
l'arrêtde la Cour de 1982. Elles sont détachéesdu contexte, car la phrase ter-
minale du paragraphe 109 se lit:
<<La pratique illustréepar les traités,ainsi que l'historique de l'art8le
du projet de convention sur le droit de la mer, amènent à conclure que
I'équidistance est applicable si elle conduit à une solution équitable..»
(C.I.J.Recueil 1982, p. 79.)
Le texte se borne à indiquer que si on peut parvenir avec I'équidistance un
résultat équitable onpeut appliquer cettekthode.
II ne dit pas que I'équidistanceest prioritaire ou qu'elle est une méthodede
référence.
Pourtant, M. Weil veut voir, dans le passage qu'il cite en partie, «l'idée que
l'équidistance constituela méthode de rkference*.
Le conseil de Malte tente ainsi d'inverser le sens des dispositions pertinentes
de l'arrêtde 1982.
De même,il ne se borne pas ?iaffirmer, comme il l'a fait le 30 novembre, le
caractère selon lui premier, prioritaire, de premier pas, de point de départ de
cette méthode.
II chercheà accréditerl'idéeque dans l'affaire du Golfedu Maine la Chambre
a utilisé cette méthodede maniere prioritaire.
Le prksident et les juges qui ont constitué la Chambreont affirmé l'inverse et
c'est bien connu, mais devant des affirmations contrairesje ne crois pas inutile
de me rkférerau paragraphe 163de l'arrêtde la Chambre du 12 octobre 1984 et
d'en citer quelques lignes:
411 n'y a pas non plus de méthode dont on puisse dire absolument
qu'elle doit êtreprise en considérationen priorité,une méthodepar l'appli- PLAIDOIRIE DE M. COLLIARD 101
cation de laquelle toute opration de delimitation devrait pouvoir comrnen-
cer, quitteà en corriger les effets ou même à l'écarter ensuite en faveur
d'une autre si lesdits effets se révélaient carrément insatisfaisants parrap-
port à la situation existant en l'espèce. Dans chaque cas concret, les cir-
constances peuvent au départ faire apparaître une certaine méthode comme
mieux appropriée; mais il faut toujours se réserver la possibilitéd'y renon-
cer en faveur d'une autre méthode si cela se justifiait par la suite. II faut
surtout êtredisposé à adopter une combinaison de méthodes distinctes,
toutes les fois que l'on constaterait que cela serait requis par la diffkrence
des circonstances qui peuvent se revkler pertinentes dans les différentes
phases de I'opkration et par rapport aux diffkrents segments de la ligne.»
(C.I.J. Recueil 1984, p. 315.)
C'était,Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, une entreprise bien diffi-
cile que de chercher un appui à la thèsede la prioritk généralede l'équidistance
dans l'arrêtde la Chambre rendu dans l'affaire du Golfe du Maine.
Mais il est aussi une autre tentative qui a étéfaite et que je voudrais analyser
de plus près.
II s'agissait de trouver pour la thésede la ligne médiane une position de la
doctrine, il s'agissait de solliciter la caution d'un allié prestigieux, d'un auteur
classique faisant autorité.
Et ce fut l'appel iiGilbert Gidel (III, p. 430). Il convient tout d'abord
d'apprecier la difficulth de l'entreprise.
Le passage citéest dans le tome III, au livre IV, intitulé«Le tracé des limites
de la mer territoriale», au chapitre 8 intitule «Délimitation de lamer territoriale
dans les détroits», à la section 2 intitulée <<Casd'un passage maritime où les
zones de mer territoriale des deux rives viennent au contact*.
On voit donc qu'il ne s'agit pas du plateau continental, ce qui est évident
puisque le livre a étt5publiéen 1934. Il s'agit de navigation et de souveraineté
dans les détroitset plusprkcisémentde détroitsoù les zones de mer territoriale
viennent au contact. On ne voit pas le rapport de ce probléme, d'ailleurs inté-
ressant, parfois d'une grande importance car Gidel a traité là du canal de
Beagle, avec la délimitation du plateau continental entre les deux Etats dont les
côtes sont distantes de près de 200 milles nautiques. Dire, Bpropos de ce texte
de Gidel tiré d'un passage relatifaux détroits, comme l'indique le compte rendu
(III, p.430), «détroits peu larges>>et ajouter *nous dirions aujourd'hui: entre
«côtes se faisant face», est une transposition que j'admire fort.
On pourrait dire que s'agissant de détroitsd'une largeurinfbrieureà deux fois
la mer temtoriale, c'est-à-dire, alors, cres généralement6 milles marins (deux
fois trois), et s'agissant de navigation la citation n'a aucune pertinence et que
préconiser la ligne médianedans un détroit d'une largeur de quelques milles
marins n'a rien ?voir avec une méthodede délimitationdu plateau continental.
C'est vrai, mais puisque l'opinion de Gidel, sur ce problème, a été citéeet a
fait l'objet d'un témoignage d'admiration pourle modernisme des vues de
l'auteur, je voudrais,à mon tour, formuler de sincéreslouanges à l'égardd'un
Gidel moderniste, ancêtredu principe de la primauté de l'accord en matièrede
délimitation.IIécriten effet.à la page 758, donc la page suivante de celle qui a
étécitée,qu'il y a une solution supérieureà celle de la ligne médiane:
«la meilleure solution dans les cas envisagés sera assurément toujourscelle
qui rencontrera l'agrément des parties intéressées et cet tgard il est dési-
rable qu'une convention intervienne*.
Priorité de l'accord, la délimitation se fait par voie d'accord. C'est Ià la102 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
vision que nous défendons, A propos du plateau et non pas de adétroits peu
larges*. Et l'affaire du canal de Beagle fait bien apparaître que l'idée de
l'accord est la meilleure, comme le prouve l'accord rkcemment intervenu.
Je voudrais maintenant, Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, en termi-
nant cette premiére partie de mon exposé formuler les propositions principales
qui s'en dégagent.
Mais je voudrais auparavant. avec votre permission, Monsieur le Prtsident,
faire une observation générale.
Mon cher collègue et ami M. Weil a présenté avec beaucoupde véhémence
l'attitude de la Libye envers I'équidistance.
Il a mêmeaffirméque selon la Libye I'équidistance serait toujours inéqui-
table, tout en reconnaissant d'ailleurs que cette affirmation ne pouvait être trou-
véedans les écritures libyennes et tout en reconnaissant qu'au contraire on y
trouvait «que dans certaines circonstances l'équidistance peut se révéler comme
une solution équitable» (III,p.427).
II a parlé de la position libyenne comme d'une croisade contre une équidis-
tance présentée comme lemal absolu (ibid.,p. 429).
Ce sont là des outrances. D'ailleurs M. Weil. et il l'indique lui-même.a
employé les mêmes expressions dans l'affaire du Golfe du Maine à l'égard d'un
autre Etat que la Libye. 11ne me semble pas y avoir de croisade contre I'équi-
distance. En tout cas, la Libye n'y participe pas.
Et, pour ma part, je m'efforce d'appliquer la formule que plaçait, dans son
Discours de lo m&hode, René Descartes, ce grand français qui vivait en Wol-
lande au XVIICsiécle. discours 'qu'il fit publier à Leyde, tout p*s d'ici, en
1637. La formule est bien connue et je m'efforce de l'appliquer: «éviter soi-
gneusement la précipitationet la prévention».
La Libye. je le disais en commençant, adopte. à l'égard de I'équidistance.
exactement la mêmeattitude que la Cour. Et je ne pense pas que la Cour ait
engagéune croisade contre I'équidistanceet je voudrais tenter de rassurer mon
ami M. Weil, ou du moins lui donner l'assurance que les propositions en les-
quelles je voudrais rksumer cette premiére partie de ma plaidoirie sont entière-
ment conformes. et il le sait d'ailleurs parfaitementA des positions affirmées
anterieurement par la Cour, par la Chambre, par le tribunal franco-britannique.
Voici ces propositions:
1. L'equidistance n'est pas un principe ou une réglejuridique générale.
2. L'équidistance n'est pasune méthode pratique obligatoire.
3. La méthode de l'équidistance n'a aucun caractere prioritaire (primadeli-
mifation).
4. Une operation de délimitation ne commence pas nécessairement par le
recours prioritaireà la méthodede l'équidistance.
Cette méthode n'est pas un startingpoinr.
Mais la méthode de I'équidisiance, une fois remise à la place qui est la
sienne, peut parfois êtreutile.
On la trouve employée dans un cenain nombre d'accords de délimitation
conclus par des Etats.
Et apres l'avoir cherchéeau niveau des principes parmi lesquels elle ne figure
pas il convient maintenant de tenter de la trouver dans les accords de délimita- PLAIDOIRIE DE M. COLLIARD 103
tion, du moins dans ceux qui l'emploient car la aussi la généralité absolue fait
défaut.
J'aborde ainsi, Monsieur le Prksident, Messieurs les juges, la seconde partie
de mon exposé.
II. LES ACCORDS INTERNATIONAUX DE DÉLIMITATION NE CONSACRENT PAS
COMME MÉTHODE PRBPOND~RAN LT'EQUIDISTANCE
NI LA LIGNE RADIALE PLURIDIRECTIONNELLE
L'examen des accords internationaux intervenus entre un certain nombre
d'Etats permet d'apporter des éléments intéressants concernant l'utilisationou la
non-utilisation de la méthodede l'équidistanceou d'autres méthodes.
Avant d'aborder le premier poiiit de cette ktude, je voudrais faire, Monsieur
le Président, Messieurs les juges, une remarque préliminaire. Quelque part dans
ses écritures, je croisau paragraphe65 de sa réplique, Maltea cru devoir affir-
mer que la Libye redoute ce que Malte appelle la S!a!epractice.
Je voudrais dire, puisque je suis en charge de ce dossier, que je n'ai peur de
rien, sauf d'une chose: la manière dont Malte présente quelquefois la State
pradice, ou encore, sous une autre forme, de la manière dont Malte substitue
l'imaginaire la réalitédans certains cas.
Mon étude sera conduite en distinguant deux sériesde questions:
A. Examen généraldes accords.
B. Examen plus particulier de divers accords et diverses analyses présentés par
Malte lors des plaidoiries orales.
Examen~énéraldes accords
Je procéderai à l'examen généraldes accords en formulant dans un premier
point des observations de caractere général etdans un second point je ferai une
analyse de la présentation par Malte des divers accords de délimitation en géné-
ral.
1. Ohst~rvolionsgénérales
Avant d'examiner les divers accords intervenus, il me semble nécessaire de
f~rmuler~desobservations générales.
Je voudrais les classer sous trois rubriques: d'abord, les observations de ca-
ractére juridique, ensuite les observations de caractke méthodologique et enfin
des observations portant sur des données numériques.
a) Observations de coractèrejuridique
Nous sommes en présence d'un certain nombre de conventions bilatérales
relativesà des delimitations de plateaux continentaux.
Peut-on déduire de l'ensemble de ces accords des conséquences juridiques?
Peut-on les compter et de ce décompte peut-on dégagerune règle de droit qui
correspondrait àune majorité d'accords et devrait être considérée comme expri-
mant une solution acceptée etretenue par la communaud internationale?
Une réponse à cette question est évidemment négative.
Je n'ai d'ailleurs, Monsieur le Ivesident, Messieurs les juges. aucun mériàe
la donner. C'est la Cour qui a répondu dans l'arrte 1969.104 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
Amenée à examiner la pratique des Etats et en présence alorsd'une quinzaine
d'exemples laCour a affirmé:
«Mêmes'ils représentaientplus qu'une très faible proportiondes cas
possibles de délimitationdans le monde, la Cour n'estimerait pas néces-
saire de les énumérerou de les examiner séparémenc tar plusieurs raisons
leur enlèventA priori la valeur de prkcédentsen llespéce.»(C.I.J. Recueil
1969, p. 43. par. 75.)
La Cour se refere ici2 des exemples classiques. Elle remarque que l'adoption
de telle ou telle méthodeou l'utilisation de telle ligne n'a pas de signification
juridique. Elle affirme ain:i
«on doit simplement constater que dans certains cas peu nombreux des
Etats sont convenus de tracer, ou ont tracé. les limitesqui les concernent
suivant le principe de l'équidistance.Rien ne prouve qu'ils aient agi ainsi
parce qu'ils s'y sentaient juridiquement tenuspar une régleobligatoire de
droit coutumier. sunout si I'on songe que d'autres facteurs ont pu motiver
leur action.» (Ibidp. 44-45. par.78.)
Cette affirmation s'appuie sur l'analyse préalabee la valeur juridique dela
pratique internationale. sur la prise en considérationde l'opinio juris comme
kondiiion préalable, analyseBlaquelle la Cour se livre dans )é 77 de
l'arrêt. Elle repose aussi elta Cour internationalede Justice a rappelé l'opinion
de la Cour permanente Bpropos de la célébre affairedu Lolus. La solution est
bien connue. On peut lire en effet au paragraphe 78 de l'arrêtde1969:
«A cet egard la Cour fait sienne l'opinionde la Cour permanente de Jus-
tice internationale dans l'affaire du Lotus, telle qu'elle est énonceedans le
passage suivant, et dont le principe est applicablepar analogie
à la présente
espèce presque mot pour mot mutatis mutandis (C.P.J.I. série A no IO,
1927,p. 28):
<Mêmesi la raretédes décisions judiciairesque I'on peut trouver ...
etait une preuve suffisante du fait invoqué.il en résulterait simplement
que les Elats se sont absienus, en fait, d'exercer des poursuites pénales.
et non qu'ils se reconnaissent obligésde ce faire; or, c'est seulement si
l'abstention était motivépar la conscience d'un devoir de s'abstenir que
l'on pourrait parler de coutume internationalete fait allégut ne permet
pas de conclure que les Etats aient été conscientsde pareil devoir; par
contre ..il y a d'autres circonstances qui sont de nature h persuader du
contraire» (C.IJ.Recueil 1969, p. 44.par. 78.)
Par-del3 la question de la valeur juridique, en tant que précédent,d'autres
observations de caractkre juridique relativeà la pratique internationale doivent
etre mentionnées.En ce qui concerne par exemple la pratique des Etats-Unis en
matière de délimitation maritime,on peut mentionner l'observation formulée
par un commentateur qualifiéà propos de l'accord Etats-Unis-Venezuela du
28 mars 1978:
«Les accords de délimitationmaritime conclus par les Etats-Unis ne sont
pas dtterminéspar des theones particuli&resde droit international. Ce sont
des accords résultantde négociations,fond& sur l'intérêd tans les circons-
tances particulières.»(M. B. Feldman el D. Colson, «The Maritime Boun-
darieç of the United States». MIL, vol. 75, 1981, p. 742-743.)
On peut mentionner également ZIpropos du traité concluentre les Etats-Unis PLAIDOIRIE DE M. COLLIARD 105
et le Mexique I'ExecuriveReport du Gouvernement des Etats-Unis présente au
Sénat enaoiit 1980. Après avoir indiquéque:
*la limite ne saurait être mieux caractériséeue comme une frontitre négo-
ciée assurant pour chacune des parties au traité la détermination de Ieurs
intérêtpsropres», ,
le rapporr ajoute:
«C'est la position des Etats-Unis que les délimitations maritimes doivent
être établies par voie d'accord en conformité avec des principes équitables.
La méthodede l'équidistancepeut être appliquéeen tant que matière dont
les parties sont convenues, si elle conduit Bun résultat correspondanà des
principes équitables» (US Senate ExecutiveReport, no 96.49, 5 août 1980,
p.24.)
Ajoutons enfin que c'est l'attitude bien connue du Gouvernement français,
qui a affirmé sans cesse son attachement aux principes équitables et qui utilise
l'équidistance lorsque son emploi, dans les circonstances particulières d'un
traitédétermine. correspond à une solution qui est celle dictée par le principe
fondamental, celui des principes équitables.
Après ces premiéresobservations de caractère juridique, je voudrais formuler
quelques observations de caractère méthodologique.
b) Observarions de caracrére méfhodoiogique
L'analyse des diffkrents accords conclus entre les Etats doit êtreconduite, si
l'on veut en tirer quelques enseignements, d'une manière bien précise, afin
d'avoir des positions et des classifications précises.
11convient de distinguer plusieurs probltmes, par exemple l'objet de la déli-
mitaiion, les traitéseux-m@mes,les attitudes des Etats, les zones géographiques
pariiculiéres,la méthodemêmede délimitation employée.
Ces points seront traites successivement.
i) L'objet dela d6limitarion
Tous les accords de délimitation n'ontpas te même objet.
Il faut absolument distinguer les traités relatiàsla délimitation du plateau
continental et ceux qui concernent les délimitations maritimes que la terminolo-
gie anglaise appelle les «maritime boundaries-.
On reléveque. dans les tableaux figurant dans tes écritures maltaises, il n'est
jamais question que de «délimitation of the maritime boundariesw et qu'aucune
précision n'apparaît dans les divers tableaux qui, dans les écritures maltaises,
présentent ces accords.
Ainsi apparaissent des risques d'erreurs fondées sur une imprécision de
départ. Plus du tiers des accords iie concernent pas la délimitation du plateau
continental. Cette imprécision est contraire une bonne méthodologie.
La ligne de délimitation n'est pas nécessairement la même pourle plateau
continental et pour des zones marines, c'est-à-dire aussi des colonnes d'eau.
Cette coïncidence se rencontre parfois, ainsi l'exemple bien connu de l'accord
du 22 octobre 1981 entre l'Islande et la Norvège, pour le plateau continental
entre l'Islande et l'île norvégienne de Jan Mayen. Le préambule préciseque,
suivant en cela les recommandations de la commission de conciliation, la ligne
sera [email protected] PLATEAU CONTlNENTAL
On sait également quepour le golfe du Maine les parties avaient demandé ii
la Cour d'établirune ligne unique pour le plateau et les zones maritimes de
pêche.
Mais précisément dans les documents présentés par le Canada dans l'affaire
du Golfe du Maine, il est indique, et il y a toute une liste d'accords comme
pieces documentaires, lorsque l'accord concernele plateau ou lorsque l'accord
précéde simplemenltes frontières maritimes.
Cette précisionfait défautdans les piécesde la République maltaise.Ainsi
sont présentts des accords, comme par exemple France-Tonga et France-Mau-
rice. qui concernent uniquement les zones économiques, etje me borne à ces
deux exemples mais il y en a beaucoup d'autres.
Si une bonne méthodologie exige la distinction entre les deux domainespr-5-
citésde délimitation. du moinsune fois cette précision apportéeon peut traiter
de l'un ou de l'autre probleme, par contre la mer temtoriale, dans les limites
que lui fixe le droit international. doit êtreexclue du champ de notre analyse
car il s'agit pource dernier domaine de la souverainetéde 1'Etatriverain.
ii) Lesattitudesdes Etats
Deuxiémement, onpeut considérer les attitudesdes Etats.
II est évidemmentd'une bonne méthode avant d'énumérer toutuene série
d'accords selonun ordre chronologique de mentionner pour qu'elles soientpré-
sentes àl'esprit les grandes lignes politiques de la conduitedes Etats.
t'attitude française. que j'évoquaisil ya un instant, qui fait que le Gouver-
nement français n'accepte jamaisque des délimitations équitables.
On peut rappeler l'attitude des Etats-Unis que je signalais tout ii l'heure (US
Senate Executive Report, no96-49, aofit 1980).
On peut signaler l'attitude des Etats du Golfe définiedans des déclarations
uniIatéralesque j'ai mentionnees au débutde cet exposé etauxqueiIes se rétë-
rent des traitésplus récents.
Ces prises de position préalables, sortede politique juridique de doctrine
adoptéepar certains Etats. sont des guides tr2s utiles pour l'interprétationdes
traités et elles permettentd'évitersoit des erreurs soit des affirmations un peu
hâtives.
Par exemple les prises de position des Etats, lors de la troisieme conference,
l'appartenance au «groupe des Vingt-deux, ou au «groupe des Vingt-neuf>,
marquent les attitudes et déterminent dansune grande mesure le type de solu-
tion adoptte par le traité.
II est peu probable. Monsieur le Président,que par exemple si deux Etats
appartenant au «groupe des Vingt-deux» concluent entre eux un traite de déli-
mitation du plateau continental ils n'adoptent pas la méthodede I'kquidistance
dont ils font par prétéritionune méthode privilégiée.
Et lorsqu'on évoque par exemple les accords intervenus en Méditerranéei,ls
ont été conclus entre des Etats qui, à la troisiéme conférence, avaient adopté
une attitude politique en faveurde l'équidistance.
L'attitude peut parfois être enfin déterminépear un traité antérieur. C'est
l'exemple de l'application des réglesde Geneve entre Etats parties h la conven-
tion de 1958. L'accord entre la Finlande et la Suede pour la déterminationdu
plateau continental dans le golfe de Botnie présente.et je reviendrai sur ce
point par la suite, un exemple touta fait parfait. Les deux Etats non seulement
sont partiesà la convention de Genèvede 1958, mais dans le traitéde delimita-
lion ils se référena cette convention. Comment n'appliqueraient-ils pas l'équi-
distance? PLAIDOIRIEDE M. COLLIARD 107
Ces «pré-déterminations» d'ordre juridique ou politique rkduisent de beau-
coup la signification du traité intervenu.
iii)es zones géographiques
II y a aussi lieu de tenir compte des zones géographiques.
C'est d'une manière beaucoup moins nette d'ailleurs que l'on peut utiliser
d'un point de vue méthodologique les diverses zones géographiques.
C'est une solution par exemple que celle de I'équidistancequi est assez large-
ment pratiquéeen mer du Nord, sauf evidemment pour les accords conclus en
1971 à la suite de l'arrêtde 1965, qui porte précisément reméde aux inconvé-
nients que présente la méthodede l'équidistance. On peut citer 1 cet égard, et
nous les retrouverons par la suite (ils figurent d'ailleurs dans les caries),
l'accord entre les Pays-Bas et la République fkdérale d'Allemagne, l'accord
entre le Danemark et la République fédérale d'Allemagned , eux accords conclus
le mêmejour, le 28 janvier 1971.
Les écritures maltaises, qui considèrent ces deux accords comme fondés sur
I'equidistance, commettent ici une erreur grave.
Dans les vastes océansla variétédes situations ne permet pas de dégagerune
tendance régionale différentei,l peut en aller autrement. Pour reprendrel'exemple
de la Méditerranée,il existe quatre accords. Trois mentionnent la méthode de
I'équidistance,I'un conclu entre la Yougoslavie et l'ltaliene la mentionne pas
et utilise des tracésqui s'en écartent.
L'accord Italie-Tunisie indique I'équidistance mais la modifie considérable-
ment avec les limitations de distance autour des îles de 13 milles nautiques pour
Pantelleria, Lampedusa et Linosa et de 12 milles nautiques pour Lampione.
On notera à ce sujet que l'ltalie, après avoir étéun champion de l'équidis-
tance et un membre du agroupe des Vingt-deux», a nuancé sa position.
Ainsi qu'il est rappelé dans la réplique libyenne (p. 40, note 1 - III),
M. ViraIly au cours des plaidoiries orales dans I'affaire de l'intervention de
l'Italie a pu déclarer que pour l'italie l'équidistance n'est pas<<uneméthode
obligatoire pour la délimitationdes zones du plateau continental»(II, p. 557).
Mais précisémenten relevant l'existence ou non dans l'accord d'une réfë-
rence 3 une methode de délimitationon aborde ce problème, si j'ose dire, dou-
blement méthodologique, l'examen méthodiquede la méthode, recherche de la
méthodede délimitationemployee par les accords.
Et c'est ma quatrième observation.
iv) Méthodepropre de délimitation
Un certain nombre de conventions indiquent dans le préambule oudans I'un
des premiers articles la méthodede délimitation utilisée:par exemple, méthode
de l'équidistance oubien principes équitables. ou bien manièrejuste et précise,
etc. II n'existe, lorsqu'une tellebférence se présente, aucune ambiguïté.Mais
plus fréquemment aucune indication n'est fournie.
L'interprétation alorspeut devenir délicate.
Dans les écritures maltaises, dans une étude établie par M. Prescott, et
annexée 21la réplique de Malte, il est traité du probième de la méthode de
délimitationd'une manière tr&ssimple.
On distingue côtes adjacentes et côtes se faisant face, on classe les accords
pour chacune des situations géographiques prkcitéesen deux catégories: «Agree-
ments which have relied on equidistance» et« Agreements which have not relied
on equidistancen.
C'est Ià une classification simple,peut-êtremtme simpliste.108 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
Car, premieremeni, que signifie le mot rely, que signifie le mot equidistance.
Rely, bien sûr, «se fonder sur», mais ce n'est pas une expression juridique. Et
equidistance, est-ce le principe de I'équidistance, la règle de I'équidistance, la
méthodede l'équidistance,la ligne.
Rien n'est précisé.
La Libye, on le sait, n'a pas présentéde classification. Mais parce qu'elle
s'est bornée à fournir une liste d'accords aussi complète qu'elle a pu, redoutant
des choix sélectifs, cette liste comporte quelques omissions.
La Libye a préparécette liste et l'a présentéeen annexe au contre-mémoire et
elle a présentéses accords sans les classer autrement que selon un ordre neutre,
l'ordre chronologique.
Les documents fournis dans l'affaire du Golfe du Maine parle Canada et les
Etats-Unis permettent de mieux apprécier la trop grande simplicité des écritures
maltaises.
En effet, le document canadien (livre 1,annexe à la réplique1)distingue les
délimitations, commeje le disais tout à l'heure, faisant usage d'une distinction
fondamentale entre «maritime boundariesn et plateau continental, ou parfois les
deux. S'agissant de I'équidistance. le document canadien précise qu'il s'agit
d'une méthode et distingue la méthode d'équidistanceet la ligne d'équidistance,
et lestraitéssont classés suivantqu'ils utilisent comme méthode:
- I'équidistancestricte ou simplifiée,
- I'équidistancemodifiee,
- pas 1'équidistance.
Le document amkricain, dans la même affaire, distingue les accords qui
incorporent la methode de I'équidistance pour toutela limite ou seulement pour
une partie, et il distingue bien évidemment les accords qui n'incorporent pas la
méthode de I'équidistance.
Le document américain comporte une seconde présentation qui prend essen-
tiellement en considération les limites en elles-mêmes etnon plus les accords
qui les fixent. II distingue ainsi les frontières qui n'incorporent pas des lignes
d'équidistance,des frontières qui incorporent ces lignes en partie, des frontières
qui incorporent ces lignes en totalitk.
Voil3 des approches dont la valeur méthodologique est certaine. Ce n'est pas
l'opposition entre «équidistance » (ligne ou méthode) et « non-équidistance »
qui place dans l'embarras ou parfois améne h commettre des erreurs lorsque
I'on utilise, sur une certaine longueur, I'équidistance et non sur d'autres lon-
gueurs. Car comment classer? Bien sûr pas comme le font les écritures mal-
taises qui donnent la priorité absolument et pour la totalitéà l'équidistancedans
de tels cas - nous y reviendrons.
N'oublions pas, en effet, que les situations complexes sont fréquentes. II peut
y avoii une délimitation concernant deux côtes différentes d'un même Etat. 11
peut y avoir hpropos d'une mémecôte l'utilisation de plusieurs méthodes.
C'est là une hypothése normale et l'emploi d'une seule méthode n'a jamais
Ctérecommandee par la Cour. Les lignes sont souvent constituées par plusieurs
segments. Et la méthode utilisée pourun segment n'est pas nécessairement la
methode que I'on utilise pour un autre.
On trouve par exemple dans l'accord entre la Colombieet le Panama du 20 no-
vembre 1976 tant dans le Pacifique que dans la mer des Caraïbes deux déli-
t C.I.J. MPmoircs. Délimitation de lafronriere maritime danIn rPgiondu Golfe du
Maine, vol.V. p. 157et suiv.[Note du Gre8e.J PLAIDOIRIE DE M. COLLIARD 109
mitations dont chacune est constituée,au départ,je veux dire Apartir de la terre,
par une ligne d'équidistance, et ensuite par un second segment qui n'est pas
déterminépar l'équidistance.
Donc des distinctions doivent êtreapportées pour un classement exact. Et
cette complexité concernant l'emploi de diverses méthodesa été remarquée par
la Cour qui, dans son arrêtde 1982, a évoquéla combinaison des méthodes
dans des termes fort clairs
«La pratique ultérieuredes Etats, dont témoignent les traitésde délimita-
tion ...atteste que la méthode de l'équidistance a étéemployée dans un
certain nombre de cas; cependant elle montre aussi que les Etats peuvent
l'écarte..Une solution peut consister à combiner une ligne d'kquidistance
dans certaines parties de laone avec une ligne différente dans d'autrespar-
ties, en fonction des circonstances pertinentes ...la convention entre la
France et l'Espagne sur la délimitation des plateaux continentaux des deux
Etats dans le golfe de Gascogne. conclue le 29 janvier 1974, fourni[t] [un
exemple] de cette façon de procéder» (C.1- RIe.ueil1982, p. 79, par. 109.)
Ainsi dit la Cour. Mais pas les écritures maltaises. Que le tracé, dans cet
exemple France-Espagne, soit différent,que le traité expose le contraire, c'est-
à-dire qu'on a recours à l'équidistance, d'une part, et B une autre méthode,
d'autre part, peu importe pour Malte.
Malte ne porte que peu d'attention aux faits et aux textes, elle classe délit&-
rément l'accord parmi ceux «which rely on equidistance*.
La troisiémeséried'observations concerne, Monsieur le Président. Messieurs
les juges, les données numériques.
c) Observations portant sur des donnéesnumériques
Du point de vue méthodologique une place particulière doit être faiteaux
données numériques.
Il est difficile de donner une liste compléte de tous les accords conclus entre
les Etats.
La liste libyenne (II, contre-mkmoire libyen, vol. II, premiére et deuxiéme
parties,26 octobre 1983, «Annex of Delimitation Agreements>>),fournie dans
les écritures, comporte soixante et onze rubriques, mais on doit remarquer que
dans certains cas une rubrique correspond & plusieurs accords successivement
conclus entre les deux memes Etacs, de telle sorte qu'on peut arriveà une liste
de quatre-vingt-un accords. Les écritures canadiennes dans l'affaire dGolfe du
Maine citent quatre-vingt-huit accords, et les écritures amkricaines, dans la
même affaire, évoquent. selondes conventions dans le détail desquelles je
n'entrerai pas, quatre-vingt-quatorze conventions.
Par conséquent,il y a, vous le voyez, moins d'une centaine d'accords.
Les écritures maltaises ne présentent pas de listes d'accords mais font allu-
sion à une séried'accords et notamment dans les tableaux établispar M. Pres-
cott dont je parlais tout h l'heure et dont parlait surtout, lors de sa plaidoirie
orale, M. l'agent de la République de Malte, les 26 et 27 novembre dernier.
Un ensemble d'accords par exemple est indiqué,au point de vue numérique, par
M. Prescott, avec un total de soixante-dix-neuf accords; dans ses tableauxilne
mentionne que soixante-dix-sept d'entre eux.
La différence de deux accords est minime, mais tout de mêmeelle est
fâcheuse dans la mesure oh Malte s'est lancéedans l'aventure d'une analyse
arithmétiquedont elle tire des conséquencesqu'elle voudrait juridiques.
Malte ne pouvant, en effet, que constater l'attitude de la Cour qui depuis110 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
1969 a laissé à l'équidistanceune place seconde, celle d'une méthode,a tenté
de minimiser la solution retenue par la Cour en présentantla pratique des Etats.
La tentative de démonstration consiste à distinguer les accords conclus avant
et après 1969, date de l'arrdêatns l'affaidruePlareau continentalde liamer dir
Nord, et pour chaque période à distinguer ceux qui sont fondés sur I'équidis-
tance, notion trèsvague, et ceux qui ne le sont pas.
On établit ainsi deux séries de rapports numériques, l'un concernant la
période antérieure à 1969 et l'autre la période postérieure.En comparant la
valeur de ces rapports, on en vient & affirmer que le pourcentage des accords
fondéssur l'équidistance par rapportau nombre total des accords conclus est
plus grand dans la périodepostérieure à 1969.
Donc déduction toute naturelle, loin d'êtreen déclin l'équidistanceserait en
progrhs.
Une telle conclusion est inadmissible. Elle constitue une affirmation falla-
cieuse dépourvue detoute portée,ne reposant sur aucune base scientifique.
D'ailleurs, cet exercice d'arithmétique internationale, mês'il étaitscientifi-
quement conduit, serait dépourvude toute portée.
Tout d'abord, une première raison, la Cour a déj8jugéque toute solution doit
être établieen fonction des circonstances propresà chaque arrêt(C.IJ, Recueil
1982, p. 92, par.132).
D'ailleurs mêmes'il y a une majoritéd'accords en faveur de l'équidistance,
et si expriméeen pourcentage cette majorité était postérieurement B 1969 plus
grande qu'avant 1969, cela ne prouverait strictement rien et pour plusieurs rai-
sons.
La première est évidemment qu'une majoritéd'accords en faveur de I'bqui-
distance, alors que cette majorité ne correspond pas à la mise en Œuvre d'une
obligation juridique existante eà une conduite d'Rats estimant, en la circons-
tance, qu'ils doivent obéià une règlede droit, est dépourvuede toute significa-
tion juridique.
La seconde est qu'une pluralité ouune majorité d'opinions sur un point ne
signifie pas l'exactitude scientifique de l'opinion. Or, là, il ne s'agit pas d'un
mêmepoint mais de toute une s6rie d'accords dans des circonstances de faits
différentes.
La troisième raison mérite unemention particulière parce qu'il s'agitdu fon-
dement mêmede l'exercice arithmétiqueet que ce fondement n'existe pas.
Les accords que l'on prend en considération ne sont en effet pas très nom-
breux. Nous l'avons dit, ils sont inf6rie&rla centairie.
Ils ont étéconclus par une soixantaine d'Etats, c'est-à-dire un peu plus du
tiers du nombre des membres de la communautéinternationale.
Ils ont ét6conclus d'une manière non systématique, c'est-&-dire que certains
Etats adjacents ou certains Etats dont les côtes se font face ont conclu des
accords alors que d'autres Etats ne le faisaient pas.
C'est donc d'une rnaniere purement contingente qu'ont kt6 conclus des
accords, et le nombre des accords conclus avant 1969 ou aprks 1969 est pure-
ment fortuit.
On ne peut degager une tendance, on ne peut établir une statistique sur des
bases fragmentaires, partielles purement contingentes.
II en irait peut-être autrementsi le temps avait passé.Si I'on se trouvait en
présencede tous les accords de délimitation,de tous les accords que la commu-
nauté internationale aurait pu conclure et avait conclus. Dans cette hypo-
thése, dont la réalitéapparaît fort lointaine, puisque plusieurs centaines d'ac-
cords restentA conclure, comme l'a indiqué l'agent du Gouvernement libyen, il
est évident que si cette hypothese etait rkalisée I'on pourrait, s'adressant par PLAIDOIRIE DE M. COLLIARD
111
exemple au Secrétaire généraldes Nations Unies, dénombrer tousles accords,
les classer selon qu'ils utilisent ou non telle méthodeet établirdonc un rapport.
Bien entendu ce rapport n'aurait qu'une portée indicative, intellectuellement
intéressante pourune étudede sciences politiques dans le domaine des relations
internationales. II n'en est d'aucune valeur juridique dans la mesure où le com-
portement des Etats n'aurait pas été dominé par le sentiment d'obéir à une obli-
gation juridique. Mais, dans les circonstances ci-dessus indiquées, le rapport
aurait indubitablement une valeur scientifique.
L'exercice arithmétiquetel qu'il apparaît dans les écritures maltaises et tel
qu'il a étéprésentédans les plaidoiries orales de Malte n'a pas de valeur juri-
dique mais il n'a pas non plus de valeur scientifique.
11incorpore des données contingenteset tire des conclusions erronées.
La base, c'est-à-dire le nombre d'accords fond& sur telle ou telle méthode,se
trouve, nous le verrons, mal établieet inexacte, ce qui enlèveà l'exercice toute
crédibilité.Mais si les bases étaient mieux établies, les conclusions n'en
seraient pas moins erronées.
On sait en effet que les Etats lorsqu'ils négocientun accord de délimitation
défendent - ce qui est tout h fait natur-l leurs intérêts. Is'efforcent donc
dans les négociationsde faire triompher leurs points de vue.
On a vu plus haut qu'au cours de la troisième conférencesur le droit de la
mer deux groupes diEtats se sont opposes au sein du groupe de négociationno7
qui, notamment en 1978, avait étéchargédes probl&mes de délimitation.
Voici des données numériques. Les expressions «groupe des Vingt-deux»,
«groupedes Vingt-neuf» sont bien connues.
te nombre effectif des Etats ayant participéBchacun de ces groupes est en
réalité d'ailleursun peu plus élevé.
Ainsi, le «groupe des Vingt-deux» réunissantles partisans de l'équidistancea
comptéjusqu'à vingt-six membres.
Le *groupe des Vingt-neuf» qui réunissait les partisans des principes 6qui-
tables a compte jusqu'à trente-trois membres, dirais-je, sympathisants.
Donc 26, 33, voilà une donnéenumériqueintéressante.Elle montre que les
deux séries d'Etats sont à peu prks à égalité avecune légère avance pour les
partisans des principes équitables.l faut noter aussi que si I'on ajoute 26 et 33,
cela fait 59.
Cinquante-neuf Etats sur un ensemble d'une conférence groupant cent
soixante membres, cela ne fait pas une proportion tout à fait déterminante. On
remarquera, une curiosité, c'est que ce nombre de cinquante-neuf représente
exactement la moitié des Etats ayantun littoral maritime.
Et, sur l'ensemble des accords conclus et que je citais toutà l'heure, c'est
une vingtaine seulement d'accords qui contiennent une disposition précise men-
tionnant que le critère de l'équidistance a été choisi. Dans d'autrescas, plus
nombreux, aucune méthode de référence n'est indiquée.
On remarquera aussi que, sur I'ensemble de ces accords que j'ai cités,ils ont
étéconclus par 65 Etats. On remarquera que 18 Etats sur le «groupe des Vingt-
deux», c'est-à-dire 18 sur 26 si I'on veut, ont conclu 51 accords. Et q12 Etats
seulement sur les 33 favorables aux principes équitables ont concludes accords
de délimitation.
Ces disparités numériques, qu'ilfaut avoir presentes à l'esprit, soulignent
l'absence de base scientifique du calcul présentédans les écritureset dans les
plaidoiries maltaises.
11existe d'ailleurs d'autres erreursque nous auronsà constater par la suite.
Je voudrais maintenant, Monsieur le Président, aborder un autre point, ma
section 2. PLATEAUCONTINENTAL
2. Analyse de loprésentation maltoise
des accords de dc?/imitation
On voit figurer dans les kcritures maltaises (III, réplique, annex4. p.151 et
suiv.), une opinion sur la Staie practice rédigte par M. Prescott, lecteàrl'uni-
versitéde Melbourne.
II présente quatre tableaux. Ces tableaux recensent les accords «which rely
on equidistance* et les accords «which do not rely on equidistancen.
Les uns concernent les accords conclus entre Etats dont les côtes sont
amainly adjacent* et les autres accords conclus entre les Etats dont les cates
sont nmainly opposite*.
Mon analyse, mes paroles seront illustrées par des caries qui sont prksentées
dans l'album qui a étéremis à la Cour. II est d'ailleursà remarquer que les
tableaux qui sont presentés dans la réplique des écritures maltaises ne sont
assortis d'aucune carte. Des cartes certes sont contenues dans l'ensemble des
écritures maltaises mais elles sont relativement peu ~iombreuseset cela signifie
que dans beaucoup de cas des accords mentionnés dans les tableaux ne sont pas
illustrés pardes cartes.
Etrange méthode pour l'auteurde l'opinion qui nous a étéprésenté commeun
géographe. Mais les cartes auraient souvent fait immédiatement apparaître des
erreurs.
Alors on n'a pas fourni de cartes.
C'est parfois tout à fait regrettable. Ainsi 2ila page 171 de la replique mal-
taise (III) figure un tableau destinà accréditer l'affirmation que les accordsde
délimitationne prennent pas en considération des «dépressions significatives».
Des cartes auraient montré le caractere pas nécessairement pertinent des ob-
servations.
Par exemple l'accord entre Haïti et Cuba du 27 octobre 1977 ne tient pas
compte. nous dit-on, de la fosse Cayman. Mais elle est situéefort loin de I'ac-
cord, fort loin de la zone de dklimitation.
De même,il est indiquéque l'accord entre la République dominicaine et la
Colombie du Il janvier 1978 et l'accord entre la République dominicaine et le
Venezuela du 3 mars 1979 ne tiennent pas compte de la acoupure Amba», mais
cette fosse esttr&sau sud de la zone de chacun des accords, de 64 h 90 milles
nautiques, pour le premier, de 57 A95 miiles nautiques pour le second.
Ma présentation oralese bornera, pour ne pas lasser la patience de la Cour,à
citer les accords et les cartes de l'album qui les illustrent, avec des commen-
taires dans les cas les plus importants. J'examinerai successivement les omis-
sions puis les erreurs principales.
a) Les omissions
Les écritures maltaises comportent des omissions. Certes, il est difficile
d'avoir un recensement parfait de la centaine d'accords intervenus en matikre de
dklimitation de plateau continental ou de zone maritime. Mais il faut s'efforcer
d'etre complet.
Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, je pense que la Cour ne sera pas
étonnéede m'entendre me réferer h nouveau au Discours de lu méthode de
René Descartes et à cet impératif scientifique qu'il relevait, faire un recense-
ment si complet «que je fusse assuré de ne rien omettre*. Les omissions sont
regrettables: Elles diminuent la valeur scientifique de I'etude. Elles condamnent
tout calcul de rapport de proportion car, c'est très fâcheux, nous lverrons, les
omissions ne portent que sur des accords qui ne sont pas en faveur de l'équi-
distance. PLAIDOIRIEDE M. COLLIARD 113
Les cartes le montrent et on doit commenter le cas échéant.
Les principales omissions, car je ne prétendspas avoir tout relevé, sontles
suivantes:
- Accord Abu Dhabi-Dubaï dti 18 février 1968 (album carte 10). La carte
parle d'elle-même. Il faut la combiner avec la carte 11.
- Accord Portugal-Espagne du 12 février 1976 (album carte 12). On a uti-
lise au nord un parallèle, ausud un méridien.La carte parle d'elle-même.
- Turquie-URSS du 23 juin 1978 (album carte 13). L'accord, comme
l'indique son préambule, applique les principes équitables. D'ailleurs, l'URSS
avait une attitude qui en 1978, lors de la troisième conférence, étatonforme h
celle du groupe des «Vingt-neuf».
- France-Brksil du 30 février1981 (album carte 14). Au sujet de cet accord,
M. Guillaume, directeur du service juridique au ministère français des relations
extérieures,a déclaré:
«En I'espéce,l'équidistanceaurait étéinéquitabledu fait de I'avancke du
cap Orange vers les côtes guyanaises dans la baie de l'Oyapock. En effet,
cette avancée ne reflète pas la direction génkraledes côtes françaises et
brésiliennes, et,en outre, s'allonge d'année enannéedu fait de dépôtde
matiéressolides en suspension dans les fleuves côtiers. De ce fait, sa prise
en consideration aurait entraînéune deviation excessive de la ligne d'équi-
distance vers le nord-ouest.» (Colloque de la Société française pourle droit
international,Rouen, 1983.)
- Cuba-Haïti du 27 octobre 1977 (album carte 15; II, p. 197). On trouvera
dans le compte rendu une rkférenceaussi au contre-mémoire libyenmais je me
borne oralement à citer l'album qui vous a étéremis, Monsieur le Président,
Messieurs les juges. Cet accord a étéomis.
C'est regrettable car son article premier souligne la relativitédes méthodes,il
indique une solution très flexible: <<ladélimitation est établie surla base de
l'équidistanceou de l'équitécomme les circonstances l'exigent*.
- Accord Etats-Unis-Mexique du 4 mai 1978 (album canes 16 et 17). Cet
accord a fait seulement l'objet d'une note de bas de page dans les écrituresmal-
taises (III, RM, p. 176) et il est indiquéque cet accord est la suite de I'accord
du 20 novembre 1970 qui est recensédans le tableau. II n'est pas exact de pré-
senter l'accord de 1978 comme se bornant àprolonger l'accord de 1970.
L'accord en effet consacre des solutions qui avaient fait l'objet d'un échange
de notes entre les deux gouvernements en date du 24 novembre 1976. Le traité
de 1978 rappelle cet échange de notes dans son préambuleet reconnaît que les
lignes alors adoptées,et qu'il confirme, sont «pratiques et équitables*.
Les services juridiques des Etats-Unis ont indiquk que les traits essentiels de
l'accord étaient qu'une surface maritime substantiellede 18000 milles nautiques
carrks dans l'océan Pacifiquerevenait aux Etats-Unis et une surface moindre
dans les zones de grande profondeur de la partie centrale est du golfe du
Mexique revenait au Mexique.
C'est à propos de la discussion au Sénatqu'a été préciséla e position générale
du Gouvernement des Etats-Unis en matière de traitCsde délimitation maritime
que je rappelais tout à l'heure: «c'est la position des Etats-Unis que les fron-
tikres maritimes doivent êtreétabliespar voie d'.accorden conformité avec les
principes équitables.
Voilà ce que sont les omissions, ou quelques omissions, que j'ai retrouvées.
On peut maintenant passer à l'examen de ce que j'appelle les erreurs, mais je
voudrais auparavant déplorer les omissions citées ci-dessus,car, il convient de114 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
le remarquer au passage. les accords omis ne fournissent pas d'appui àla these
de l'équidistance, ne consacrent pas la thèsede Malte, mais celle de la Libye.
C'est là certainement un hasard, mais il est fâcheux.
b) Les erreurs
II convient de suivre ici la présentation quiexiste dans la répliquede Malte.
On notera d'une manière généraleun defaut de precision car les tableaux ne
distinguent pas les accords qui portent sur la délimitationdu plateau continental
et les accords qui portent sur les frontiéres maritimes. Cette distinctaoétéau
contraire utilisée, je l'ai déjàindiqué, dans les écritures canadienàpropos de
l'affaire duGoIfe du Maine, et pourtant le Canada est un partisan de la thésede
l'équidistance. Cette absencede distinction n'est pasfortuite. Elle estklibérée,
car elle correspond à la tactique employée par Malte qui consiste A utiliser la
notion de zone économique et ce point a été présenténotamment par mon col-
lègue, M. Quéneudec. attitude d'autant plus curieuse que Malte a refusé que la
présenleaffaire concerne autre chose que le plateau continental. On a déjiimen-
tionné cette contradiction.
Je voudrais maintenant examiner les principales erreurs qui me semblent
avoir étécommises dans les deux tableaux présenrésdans les écritures maltaises
au stade de la réplique.
Tableau 1d'abord, tableau 3 ensuite (III. RM, annexe 4, p. 173 et 176).
Tableau 1
S'agissant du tableau 1. je voudrais formuler d'abord quelques observations
portant sur deux séries d'accords. les uns passés par la France, les autres
conclus dans le Golfe.
S'agissant des accords passéspar la France, on ne peut les inclure parmi les
accords i<whichrely on equidistancew, car, comme l'a préciséM. Guillaume au
colloque de Rouen dont on parle décidément beaucoup, ces accords retiennent
comme ligne de délimitation la ligne d'équidistance lorsqu'elle est jugée en
l'espèce conforme à l'équité.
Alors comment les classer? Ils emploient l'équidistance, oui, mais ils
emploient aussi l'équité,et c'est tout de mêmedifférent d'un accord qui
emploie l'équidistanceet qui ne consacre pas l'équité. Alorsv, oici un problème.
Peut-être n'est-ilpas résolu? Mais le problème existe.
Ce sont. donc, les accords passes avec Tonga, album carte 18, avec Maurice,
carte 19, avec Sainte-Lucie, carte 20, avec l'Australie, carte 21. Il s'agit ici
d'une première observation. Et cela concerne cinq accords puisque dans les
tableaux de Malte est ajouté l'accord avec Fidji.
On notera de nouveau que les accords conclus par la France avec Tonga et
Maurice ne concernent que la zone économique exclusive et ne sont pas peni-
tents; que l'accord avec Sainte-Lucie porte sur les espaces maritimes et que
seul l'accord avec l'Australie indique expressément qu'il concerne les zones
6conomiques et le plateau continental.
Deuxième observation générale:s'agissant du Golfe arabique, c'est vraiment
une formule simple que de dire que les dklimitations y sont opéréespar applica-
tion du principe de 1'6quidistance.
Seul un accord indique le recours à la méthode de l'équidistance, celui de
1958entre Bahreïn et l'Arabie saoudite.
L'accord Iran-Arabie saoudite de 1968 indique «in a just and accurate man-
ners.
Les accords Iran-Qatar de 1969, Iran-Bahreïn de 1971, Iran-Oman de 1974 PLAIDOIRIEDE M. COLLIARD 115
font référence à une délimitation conduire «in a just equitable and exact
rnanner ».
On dira que la ligne médianea étésouvent utilisée,mais où est l'équidistance
en tant que principe, où est l'équidistance en tant que méthode, lorsque l'on
voit varier dans le Golfe le traitement des îles d'une manièretrPs grande.
11n'y a pas moins de cinq solutions différentes:
- Les îles sont parfois ignorées pourl'ensemble de la délimitation, ainsi
I'accord Iran-Qatarde 1969.
- Les îles sont parfois ignoréesdans un secteur mais prises en considération
dans un autre, ainsi I'accord Bahreïri-Arabie saoudite qui retient les îles dans la
partie centrale de la zone délimitée.
- Dans l'accord Abu Dhabi-Qatar de 1969, l'île de Daynina appartenant à
Abu Dhabi se voit attribuer un arc de mer territoriale de 3 milles nautiques qui
est int6gre dans la délimitation.
- L'accord Iran-Arabie saoudite de 1968 adopte une formule curieuse. II est
attribué à deux îles, chacune relevant de chacun des Etats, mais situéeplus près
de la côte de l'autre, une mer territoriale de 12 milles nautiques. Une ligne
d'kquidistance est retenue, mais entre les deux îles seulement et la ligne géné-
rale de délimitationest établieen considkration de ces solutions particuliéres.
- Dans un autre accord, celui entre l'Iran et I'Arabie saoudite, un demi-effet
est attribueà une île proche du territoire de l'un des Etats.
Dans le Golfe, on constate qu'il n'y a pas de lim~te à la subtilitéde la négo-
ciation.
La délimitationentre Abu Dhabi et Qatar de 1969 utilise parmiles points du
tracé un point ou se trouve un puits en exploitation et dont l'accord prévoitque
les revenus seront partagéségalemententre les Etats.
Dans l'accord entre Bahreïn et l'Arabie saoudite de 1958, il est prévuque les
deux Etats partageront les revenus provenant de l'exploitation d'une zonepour-
tant placéesous la souveraineté d'un seul Etat et administréepar lui.
Tous les accords conclus dans le Golfe sont ainsi marqués parla subtilité des
solutions, par la prise en considérati<inde telle ou telle circonstance particulière.
On ne peut affirmer qu'il s'agit 18de l'application du principe de I'équidis-
tance. Ce serait là une prise de position de caractère systématique et à priori qui
ne tiendrait pas compte de la realité.
D'aiileurs, il m'est agréablede dire que M. Prescott, dans son etude, men-
tionne fort exactement comme accords ne reposant pas sur l'équidistance
I'accord Dubaï-Iran du 21 août 1974 et I'accord Qatar-Abu Dhabi du 20 mars
1969.
Cette complexité, Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, apparaît mani-
festement avec les cartes. Comme j'ai pour chacun des accords parfois par16 de
plusieurs problémes, c'est maintenant seulement que j'évoque les cartes :album
carte 36A: Iran-Arabie saoudite; carte 36B : Qatar-Abu Dhabi; carte 37: Bah-
reïn-Iran ;carte 42: Barheïn-Arabie saoudite; carte 43: Iran-Qatar; carte 45:
Iran-Oman.
Les erreurs concernent aussi d'autres régions etje voudrais évoquermainte-
nant, en terminant, les Caraïbes:
- L'accord entre les Pays-Bas et le Venezuela du 31 mars 1978 ne repose
pas sur l'équidistance (album carte 22, II. CML, Agreement 57). Le préambule
indique clairement que la délimitation est conduite «in a fair, concise and equi-
table mannerm. Les lignes - la carte l'illustre magnifiquement - s'écartent
consid6rablement des lignes d'équidistance.
- L'accord entre la Républiquedominicaine et le Venezuela signé le3 mars116 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
1979 (album carte 23, II, CML, Agreement 61) ne repose pas sur l'équidistance.
Le préambule indiqueque la délimitation a dté établie«sur la base de principes
6quitables».
S'agissant maintenant des mers d'Asie et d'ocdanie:
- L'accord entre l'Indonésie etla Thailande du 17 ddcembre 1971 (album
carte 24, II, CML, Agreement 28) sur le plateau continental dans la mer
d'Andaman n'est pas fondésur l'équidistance.La carte le montre.
- L'accord entre l'Indonésie et la Thaïlande du 11 décembre 1975 (album
carte 25, II. CML, Agreement 28) n'est pas fond6 sur l'équidistance.La carte le
montre.
- S'agissant de I'lnde et de la Thailande, l'accord du 22 juin 1978 (album
carte 26, Il,CML, Agreement 59) ne repose pas sur l'équidistance.Le commen-
tateur de Lirnitsin ~heSens indique que la ligne est une «ligne négociée qui est
agréableaux parties concernées».
- S'agissant des relations entre l'Inde et le Sri Lanka (album carte 27, II,
CML, Agreement 38), on est en présence de deux accords successifs et diffé-
rents.
Le premier du 28 juin 1974ne peut êtreclasséparmi les accords qui reposent
sur l'équidistance. Le préambule indique que les questions sont réglées«in a
manner which isfair and equitable to both sidesr.
Le préambule indique également que l'ensemblede la question a &té consi-
déré sous tous ses angles.
L'accord ne fait évidemment aucune mention de l'équidistance. On ne peut
compter le premier accord, on ne peut compter le second pour les mêmes rai-
sons puisqu'il mentionne qu'il s'agit là encore d'une délimitation faite d'une
maniere «fair and equitable~.
- Enfin l'accord entre l'Australie et la Papouasie-Nouvelle-Guinde du 18 dé-
cembre 1978 (album carte 28, II, CML, Agreemenr 60) est un ensemble com-
plexe. La frontière maritime dans la mer de Corail n'est pas fondéesur I'kqui-
distance dont elle s'écarte nettement comme 1e prouve une carte extraite
d'ailleurs des écritures canadiennesdans l'affaire du Golfe du Maine.
Monsieur le Président, j'ai ainsi examinéune série d'accords qui figurent
dans tes écritures maltaises à la réplique dansce qui est appeléle tableau 1; il
me reste d'autres délimitations B examiner.
L'audience est levée d 13 heures VINGTIÈME AUDIENCE PUBLIQUE (12 XII 84, 10 h)
Présents: [Voir audience du 26 XI 84.1
M. COLLIARD: Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, lorsque je me
suis arrêtéhier, j'analysais la présentation maltaisede la State practice, présen-
tation de caractère général contenue dans la réplique de Malte. l'avais analysé
les omissions, puis examiné le tableau 1 concernant les accords entre Etats se
faisant face. Je voudrais maintenant aborder l'étude du tableau 3 concernant les
accords entre des Etats dont les côtes sont~rnainlyadjacent*.
Tableau3
Les erreurs du tableau 3 sont nombreuses et plus graves que les précedentes.
1. Examinons tout d'abo~d les deux accords conclus entre la République
fédérale d'Allemagne et le Danemark le 28 janvier 1971 et la République fédé-
rale d'Allemagne et Ies Pays-Bas le 28 janvier 1971. Ce sont les cartes 29 et 30
de l'album qui vous a étéremis. Je présente ces deux accords ensemble car ils
ont étésignésle même jour.Les cartes montrent clairement qu'ils n'appliquent
pas l'équidistance. Mais pourune fois les cartes n'&aient pas nécessaires pour
savoir que l'équidistance ne pouvait êtreutiliske dans ces deux accords conclus
A la suite de l'arrêtde la Cour de 1969.
M. Prescott mentionne en note de bas de page (p. 176) de la répliquede Malte
cette circonstance (III). Mais il classe tout de mêmeles deux accords parmi ceux
qui utilisent 1'6quidistanceet il eut pu consulter un auteur autorisé.M. Prescott
lui-même dans son ouvrage The Political Geography of the Oceans, qui, alors
qu'il n'était pas encore,il est vrai, expert pour Malte, Ccrivait fort exactement
page 203, après avoir évoqué l'arrêt deC laour:
«Comme conséquence du jugement dans cette affaire, la Rbpublique
fédérale d'Allemagne pouvait négocier avec le Danemarket les Pays-Bas
des frontihes qui étaient plus favorables que celles basées sur des lignes
d'équidistance..»
2. Un troisième accord est particulierement intéressant. C'est l'accord de
délimitationentre la France et l'Espagne du 29 janvier 1974 (carte 31,II, CML,
Agreement 34).
Le tableau 3 mentionne, parmi les accords conclus entre Etats dont les côtes
sont principalement adjacentes «and which have reiied on equidistances. un
accord entre la France et l'Espagne.C'estla une erreur manifeste.
Tout d'abord, mais ceci est peu important, on relévera qu'il existe deux
accords entre la France et l'Espagne signésle même jour,le 29 janvier 1974.
L'un est relatif ?ala delimitation des eaux territoriales et zones contiguës, et
l'autre, qui seul relève de notre Ctude, relatif h la délimitation des plateaux
continentaux dans le golfe de Gascogne.
Présenter, commele fait le tableau 3, cet accord comme appliquant I'équidis-
tance n'est pasexact.
La ligne de délimitationest constituée par deux segments. Le premier défini
par les points appelésQ et R et le second par les points R et T.Il8 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
Le segment QR constitue une ligne d'équidistancecomme l'indique l'article 2
de I'accord; il a une longueur de l'ordre de 100 milles nautiques.
Le second segment RT, nettement plus long, de l'ordre de 160 milles nau-
tiques, n'est pas une ligne d'équidistance mais une ligne définie par des coor-
données géodésiques et établip ear application de principes équitables.
Dans son commentaire sur I'accord le géographedu départementd'Etat des
Etats-Unis (Limirs in theSeas, na 83) le prkcise en ces termes:
«Le second segment de la limite du plateau continental entre la France et
l'Espagne a 6ténkgociésur la base de principes equitables en se référant
au rapport existant entre les lignes de côtes artificielles des deux Etats.~
Ce rapport étant de 1 (Espagne) à 1,541 (France). la ligne aboutitàdonner h
l'Espagne un plateau de 13561 milles nautiques carrés et 21la France de 22 101.
Le directeur du service juridique du ministère français des relations exté-
rieures fait remarquer que l'application de I'équidistance n'a pas été retenucear
elle aurait été inéquitablpour la France.
II précise:
irla ligne retenue s'écarteh partir d'un certain point de l'equidistance pour
tenir compte de fa concavitédes côtes françaises et attribuerà chaque Etat
des espaces maritimes qui soient proportionnes B la longueur relativede ses
côtes,.
3. Autres accords utilisant plusieurs méthodes.
Outre l'accord franco-espagnol de 1974, on peut relever plusieurs accords qui
figurent dans le tableau 3 3 tort parce qu'ils utilisent une combinaison de
méthodes et doncpas uniquement le principe de l'équidistance.
- Ainsi l'accord du 20 novembre 1976 entre la Colombie et le Panama
(album cartes 32 et 33, II, CML, Agreement 48) comporte deux skries de déli-
mitations, l'une dans les Caraiôes, l'autre dans le Pacifique.
Pour chacune des séries, l'équidistance est utilisée pour partiep, uis d'autres
critéressont adoptés.
Ainsi,dans lesCaraiôes, le paragraphe 1de l'alinéa1de l'article 1prévoitl'équi-
distance, mais le paragraphe 2 l'abandonne au-delà du point H 12" 30'00" N,
7800'00"ouest.
L'équidistance n'est utiliséeque sur 215 milles nautiques, soit quarante pour
cent des 523 milles nautiques et soixante pour cent de la ligne ne correspondent
pas ?iI'équidistance.
Ilen va de mêmedans le Pacifique où l'équidistance estprévuepar le para-
graphe 1 de l'alinéaB de l'article 1 et est abandorinéepar le paragraphe 2 au
profit d'un parallkle. L'équidistance n'est utilisée que sur90 milles nautiques,
soit la moitié.
- L'accord entre le Kenya et la Tanzanie du lir'décembre 1975 - 9 juillet
1976 parce que c'est un échange de notes (album carte 34, II, CML, Agree-
ment46). 11porte, outre les eaux territoriales, sur d'autres zones de juridiction.
L'équidistancen'est pas employée, sice n'est sur une tr&sfaible distance, et
la délimitation s'en écarterts vite pour adopter un parallèle. La carte illustre la
solution et la ligne d'équidistance figurée comme dans les accords précédents
en rouge le monlre parfaitement.
- L'accord Argentine-Uruguay du 19 novembre 1973 (album carte 35, II,
CML, Agreemen~32) relatifà la délimitation de la frontière maritime est pré-
senté comme fondé sur l'équidistanceL . a lecture de I'accord montre que l'kqui-
distance n'est mentionnéeque dans l'article 70 du traitéet au-delà d'un point
assez éloigné des côtes.Jusqu'h ce point situéau milieu de la ligne idéalejoi-gnant Punta del Este en Uruguay ?IPunta Rasa del Cabo San Antonio en Argen-
tine la ligne n'est pas une ligne d'équidistance.
J'ai ainsi achevt cette première revue des tableaux figurant dans la rkplique
de Malte.
Je voudrais maintenant, Monsieur le Président, Messieursles juges. aborder
l'autre sériede questions de cette seconde partie. J'examinerai ici, dans deux
sections, d'une part des accords, ce sera la premiéresection, et d'autre part une
thkone.
1. Analysedesaccords présentés spécialemen tar Malte
Le dernier jour des plaidoiries orales, Malte a présenteun tableau d'ensemble
d'accords de delimitation et mon éminentcoilkgue, M. Brownlie, a classé ces
accords en plusieurs catégories(III, p. 470-471).
Bien évidemment, il a présentéles accords qu'il considère comme apportant
un appui ?Isa thèse. 11estime également que ces accords correspondent à une
situation géographique analogue àcelle existant dans la présenteaffaire.
Je vais reprendre les exemples mêmes quiont étéprésent&par M. Brownlie,
dont l'analyse me semble presque toujours contestable et parfois contient de
graves erreurs:
1. Le premier groupe présente par M. Brownlie est défini par lui-même
comme concernant la situation d'Etats insulaires se trouvant en face d'Etats
avec une grande longueur de côtes.
Sept accords sont presentés:
1. Bahreïn-Iran du 17 juin 1971 (voir album carte 36, qui présente
l'ensemble du golfe Arabique. et carte 37, le prksent accord). Les deux Etats
sont sépads par 100 milles nautiques. La longueur de la côte de Bahreïn est de
40 kilometres. La longueur correspondante de la côte d'Iran est de 50 kilo-
mètres. Lalongueur de la ligne de délimitationest de 29 milles nautiques.
Donc, situation toute differente. Il convient de remarquer, et c'est une obser-
vation que nous retrouverons tout à l'heure, que la côte de l'Iran correspond en
face une sériede côte d'Etats «opposite» et que donc il ne s'agit pas d'une
côte longue.
2. Cuba-Mexique du 26 juillet 1976 (album carte 38).
La carte montre que l'on ne se trouve pas en présence pourI'Etat non insu-
laire d'une côte longue. Les deux chtes se faisant face, c'est-à-dire la pointe de
Cuba et le rivage est de la péninsule du Yucatan, sont trèscourtes. Aucun rap-
port avec l'intitulé de la classification et avec la situation Malte-Libye. Lon-
gueur de la ligne: 350 milles nautiques.
3. Inde-Maldives du 28 décembre 1976 (album carte 39).
La carte montre que la délimitationconcerne les îles Maldives, un archipel de
730 kilomètres de long, si l'on compte du nord au sud et de la pointe sud-ouest
de l'Inde. La côte du continent est plus courte que la longueur nord-sud de
l'archipel. Cet exemple ne correspond ni à l'intitulé nà la situation Malte-
Libye. Pour la ligne est-ouest de délimitation, l'îlotde Minicoy a joué unrôle.
mais ce n'est pas non plus la même situation.
4. Cuba-Etats-Unis du 16 decenibre 1977 (album carte 40).
La carte fait apparaître la longueur considérable des côtes de I'Etat insulaire.
Les parties de côtes prises en consideration pour la délimitationsont d'une part120 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
la cBte nord de I'extrémitt occidentale de Cuba et les îles Keys et Dry Tortugas
de la côte de Floride. La ligne de délimitation est longue de 315 milles nau-
tiques. Ce n'est pas une ligne d'équidistance, maisune ligne dont chaque rrtur-
ning point» a été négocié commiel est mentionné dans l'US Senate Report
No. 9649. Cet exemple ne correspond ni à l'intituléniAla situation MalteGbye.
5. Colombie-République dominicaine du 13janvier 1978 (album carte 41).
La côte de la Colombie se situe à l'ouest de celle de la République domini-
caine, la partie prise en considération est en gros de la même longueur quela
côte de la République dominicaine, de l'ordre de 500 kilometres. La longueur
de la ligne de délimitation est de 23 milles nautiques. Cet exemple ne corres-
pond pas à l'intitulé (il nrpas de côte longue) ni à la situation Malte-Libye.
6. Colombie-Haïti du 17 février 1977 (album carte 41).
La ligne de délimitation a une faible longueur de 65 milles nautiques. Les
côtes prises en considkration ont approximativement la même longueur. Cet
exemple, tr?s liéau précédent,ne correspond pas 2îl'intitulé nà la situation
Malte-Libye.
7.Bahreïn-Arabie saoudite du 22 février 1958 (albumcarte 42).
La carte fait apparaître la proximitéde Bahreïn et de I'Arabie saoudite sur la
plus grande partie dela délimitation dont la longueurest de l'ordre de 100milles
nautiques. La distance entre ces deux Etats sur une grande partieest de l'ordre de
20 milles. pour diminuer jusqu'à 3 et atteindre à un seul endroit 67. C'est une
situation toute différente de la distance séparant Malte et la Libye. Lac8te de
l'Arabie saoudite prise en considération est de l'ordre de trois fois la longueur
de Bahrein. L'équidistance n'est pas respectéesur tous les points. Cet exemple,
par la proximi~édes Etats et le rapport de la longueur des côtes, ne correspond
guére à l'intituléet aucunement à la situation Malte-Libye.
II. Le deuxitme groupe d'exemples présentépar M. Brownlie concerne des
Etats à côtes longues faisant faceà des Etats péninsulairesiicôtes courtes.
On relevera tout d'abord l'expression «Etats péninsulaires» qui n'existe pas
et qui n'a aucune signification juridique.
On notera égalementque, quels que soient les efforts d'imagination que l'on
fasse pour donner un sens l'expression wEtats péninsulaires,, il est évident
que ce n'est pas un Etat analogue qui se Douve impliqué dans l'affaire
LibyelMalte, qu'il s'agisse de Malte Etat insulaire ou qu'il s'agisse de la Libye.
Le défaut de pertinencedes accords figurant sous cet intituléest total parap
port à la présente affaire.
Malgré ces observations qui détruisent la tentative, je voudrais présenterrapi-
dement les quatre accords cités parM. Brownlie.
1. Iran-Qatar du 20 septembre 1969 (album carte 43).
La ligne de délimitation a une longueur de 130 milles nautiques et comprend
cinq points. La distance entre les deux territoires est de l'ordre de 100 milles
nautiques. La longueur des côtes de chaque Etat est difficileà mesurer exacte-
ment compte tenu de l'existence d'autres délimitations, mais la carte permet de
se rendre compte qu'il n'y a pas de disproportion ni surtout de cBte courfe ou
de crite longue.
On ne peut considérerI'lran comme ayant une côte longue car, nous l'avons
dit, la longueur totale de la côte iranienne dans l'ensembledu Golfe est plus ou
moins de la même longueur que celle correspondant l'addition des longueurs
des cdtes des Etats de l'autre côtédu Golfe. Quant au Qatar, il est difficile de
voirlà une côte courte.
2. Danemark-Norvégedu 8 décembre 1965 (albumcarte 44, 11,CML, Agree-
ment 12). PLAIDORIE DE M. COLLIARD 121
La carte montre tout de suite que si l'on tienà utiliser l'étrange expression,
dépourvuede signification juridique, d'«Etat péninsulaire», on pourrait I'appli-
quer à la Norvège comme au Danemark, la Norvège étant seulement plus tra-
pue. La longueur de la délimitation est de 255 milles nautiques. La ligne
s'étend depuis la délimitation Norvège-Suède iil'est jusqu'au *tripoint» à
l'ouest Norvège-Danemark, Norvkge-Royaume-Uni, Royaume-Uni-Danemark.
Comme le suggère la carte, les longueurs des côtes intéressées sontà peu près
les mêmes.On ne peut parler de «short» ou de «long Coast».
3. Iran-Oman du 25 juillet 1974 (album carte 45,1IC,ML, Agreement 40).
La longueur de la ligne de délimitation est de 125 milles nautiques avec
vingt-deux points. La distance entre les Etats est de 40 millesàchaque extré-
mitédu détroit etde 30 au milieu. En raison de sa concavitd la côte iranienne
est plus longue que celle d'Oman, la mesure précise est difficile car il a de
nombreuses îles mais les différences ne sont pas très considérables.n ne peut
pas parlerlà non plus de «short Coast» pour la côte d'Oman.
4. Australie-Papouasie-Nouvelle-Guinéedu I8 décembre1978(albumcarte 46,
II, CML, Agreernenr60).
Ainsi que le montre la carte, la ligne de délimitation est très longue, avecses
21 points eHe s'étire sur plusde 1200 milles nautiques (1214, exactement) envi-
ron 2250 kilom2tres. A l'ouest du détroitde Torres se trouve l'origine qui coïn-
cide avec le point 3 de la délimitation Australie-Indonésie,apréson entre dans
la mer de Corail.
Les côtes qui dans le détroit sont distantes de 80 milles sont alors beaucoup
plus éloignées mais leur longueur est comparable etl'on ne saurait là non plus
parler de «long Coast» et de «short Coast».
III. Le troisième groupe d'exemples présentépar M. Brownlie concerne des
îles ou groupes d'îles qui sont, dans certains cas, plus ou moins indépendantes
et le continent situéen faceavec de longues côtes.
Six exemples sont ici présentés.
1.Danemark (in respect of the Faroe group)-Noniege, accord du 15 juin
1979 (album carte 47, II, CML, Agreement 62).
11est parfaitement exact qu'existe un accord intitulé accord entre le Dane-
market la Norvkge concernant les Féroé qui délimitele plateau continental
entre les Féroé et la zone économique exclusivede la Norvège. On peut retenir
cet exemple et noter que les Féroé ontune façade maritime nord-sud de l'ordre
de 120 kilomttres, donnant naissance à une ligne de démarcation définie par
deux points et dont la longueur est de 32 milles nautiques, soit 59 kilomhtres,
soit la moitiéde la longueur de l'archipel.
2. Finlande-Suède du 29 septembre 1972 (album carte 48, II, CML, Agree-
ment31).
M. Brownlie a présent6 cette convention B la Cour avec l'expression sui-
vante: *Finland (in respect of the Aaland islands which belong to Finland) and
Sweden as the long-coast State.»
Pour le traitéprécedentconcernant les Féroéj'ai accepté l'expression utilisée
par M. Brownlie, mais ici je ne puis le faire car cette appellation n'est pas
exacte et je voudrais faire quatre observations.
Premièrement. l'accord s'intitule: <<Accordentre la Finlande et la Suède
concernant la délimitation du plateau continental dans le golfe de Bothnie, la
mer d7Aland et la partie septentrionale de la mer Baltique.> Pas question des
îles Aland.
Les îles Aland ne sont pas mentionnees, elles ne sont point individualisées
dans le tit~eou dans un anicle.122 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
Est seulement mentionnéela convention du 20 octobre 1921relative àla non-
fortification e& la neutralisation des îles Aland qui a été,on le sait. l'Œuvrede
la Sociétédes Nations. Dansles articles 3 et 5 de la convention actuelle on uti-
lise des coordonnées employées par ladite convention de 1921.
Deuxitmement. l'article 2 du traité précisele stariing point de la ligne de
dklimitation qui est au nord à 65O31' de latitude, soit 5Oplus au nord que les
îles. La ligne de délimitationa une longueur de 420 milles nautiques. soit pres
de 800 kilométres.
Troisitmement, comme l'indique d'une manière absolument manifeste la
carte, les longueurs des côtes des deux Etats sont approximativement égales
dans la zone de dklimitation. II n'y a pas de «long-coast Stateh,.
Quatrièmement, je voudrais faireune derniere remarque et apporter une nou-
velle précision.
L'accord a été conclupar deux Etats parties la convention de Genévede
1958 sur le plateau continental et l'accord précisequ'il applique l'article 6,
c'est-&-direle couple ({équidistance,circonstancesspéciales».Outre les erreurs
d'interprétation mentionnées e,t en particulier la mention inexacte«in respect of
Aaland islands)),l'accord reposant sur la conventionde 1958 n'est pas pertinent
en droit général.
3. France-Australiedu 4 janvier 1982(albumcarte 39, II,CML,Agreement71).
M. Brownlie a présenté cet exemple devant laCour en disant: -France (in
respect of New Caledonia) and, as the long-coast State opposite, Australia.), Je
suis désolé, Monsieulre Président, mais c'est totalement inexact et celne cor-
respond pas à la réalité.l ya là une erreur.
Car il ne s'agit pas d'une délimitation entre une île françaiseet le vaste conti-
nent australien, (<thelong-coast State oppositew. II s'agit de délimitation entre
des îles relevant les unes de la souveraineté française, les autres dela souverai-
neté australienne, maisle continent n'est pasen cause.
Il suffit, pour s'en rendre compte, de lire les deux .premiers articles dela
convention de délimitation conclue entre laFrance et l'Australie le 4 janvier
1982 à Melbourne:
<<Article1
Au large de la Nouvelle-Calédonie,des îles Chesterfield et des autres
îles françaises, d'une part, des îles australiennes de la mer de Corail. de
l'île Norfolk et des autres îles australiennes, d'autre part,la ligne de déli-
mitation...
Article 2
Au large des îles Kerguelen, d'une part, et des îles Heard et McDonald.
d'autre part, la ligne de délimitation entre la zone économique française et
la zone de pêcheaustralienne..»
Donc ce sont des délimitationsentre territoires insulaires. Aucun rapport avec
la situation. aucune cohérence avec l'intitulé.
4. Norvège-Royaume-Uni du 10 mars 1965 (album carte 50, II, CML,
Agreement8).
M. Brownlie présente cetaccord: «Norway as the long-coast State and the
United Kingdom, in respect of the Shetland Islands.»
En réalité.h la différencede l'accord entre le Danemark et la Norvégequi
portait sur les Féroéaucun accord entre le Royaume-Uni et la Norvége ne
concerne expressément les îles Shetland.
II convient de rappeler que deux accords successifs ont été signés, le premier PLAIDORIEDE M. COLLIARD 123
à Londres le IOmars 1965, le second intitulé protocole supplémentaire, 1 Oslo,
le 22 dkcembre 1978.
Le mot «Shetland» ne figure dans aucun des deux textes. On ne peut donc
dire «in respect of the Shetland Islands».
La carte montre que c'est une délimitationfort longue de plus de 500 milles
nautiques, prèsde 1000 kilomètres.La distance entre les deux Etats est considé-
rable, variant entre 160 et20 milles nautiques. La longueur des côtes se faisant
face est tout à fait comparable. Le point le plus au sud est le «tripoint» Nor-
vège-Danemark, Royaume-Uni-Danemark. Le point le plus au nord rejoint la
limite sud de la courte ligne dedelimitation Féroé-Norvège.
5. Inde-Indonésiedu 8 août 1974 (album carte 51,II, CML, Agreemet~t 41).
M. Brownlie présentela délimitation entreI'lnde et l'Indonésieen indiquant:
«India (in respect of the Nicobar Islands) and Indonesia Agreements 1974 and
1977.>i
Il y a en effet deux accords différentset successifs. Le premier du 8 août
1974 traite de la délimitation duplateau continental «dans la zone située entre
la grande Nicobar (relevant de l'Inde) et Sumatra (relevant de l'Indonésie)».Le
rapport est entre des îles et l'on ne peut parler ici de «long-coast opposite
States». Donc, l'exemple ne peut &trecompris dans le groupe des accords sous
l'intitulé employé.
Les côtes en relation sont trèscourtes, de mêmel'est la ligne de délimitation
avec 48 milles nautiques.
Le second accord du 14 janvier 1977 étend largementla délimitation à l'est
et à l'ouest de la premiére ligne. Comme le précise sontitre, il s'agit cette fois
de délimitation entre les deux Etats dans la mer d'Andaman et dans l'océan
Indien.
La situation n'a pas de rapport avec celle concernant Malte et la Libye.
6. Inde-Thaïlande du 22 juin 1978 (album carte 51, II, CML, Agreemenl59).
Cet accord est présenté par M. Brownlie comme un accord «India (again also
in respect of the Nicobar Islands) and Thailand as the long-coast Staten.
La ligne de délimitationest en réaliteassez courte, avec moins de 100 milles
de long (94 exactement) et la côte de laThailande retenue ne saurait êtreconsi-
déréecomme une «long Coast». On reléveraque la longueur de la ligne de déli-
mitation estfort inférieureà la longueur des îles qui est de I'ordre de 130milles
nautiques. Les côtes de la Thaïlande sont à environ 260 milles nautiques de
Nicobar et un peu moins si l'on tient compte de multiples îles le long de la
côte.
On relèvera par ailleurs que la côte «est une ligne négociéequi est agrkable
aux deux Parties ».
II apparaît ainsi que les accords présentéspar Malte à l'appui de ça thèse
n'ont pas d'une manière générale une grande pertinence avec notre affaire.
Certains d'entre eux sont completement étrangers aux conditionsde l'affaire
Malte-Libye. Les faits sont têtus.a dit un conseil de Malte, on pourrait dire
aussi que les textes sont têtuset les accords ne sont pas favorables& Malte car
ils ne fournissent, dans le cas d'une côte insulaire très courte et d'une côte
continentale très longue, aucun précédentà sa thése.
Ainsi apparaissent les artifices de la présentation.
Le domaine de la théorie est-ilplus favorable, c'est la dernière question que
je voudrais examiner. 124 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
2. La thdoriede la ligne radiale pluridirectionnelle
La Libye a kt6 taxéede «passéisme»juridique, nous avons la faiblesse de
penser que ce n'est pas vrai. Mais ne peut-on dire en toute objectivitéque
Malte utilise le futurisme juridique?
Quelle que soit en effet la plasticitédes solutions retenues dans les accords,
quelle que soitla diversitt des méthodes visant à concilier les facteurs dans
chaque cas d'espèce,aucun exemple ne peut êtretrouvé consacrant latheorie de
Malte sur l'utilisation des côtes pour la détermination des zonesdu plateau
continental et la maniere donà partir d'une côte trks courte on peut établir une
ligne de délimitation deplateau continental.
Cette théoriea été présentée dan less plaidoiries orales de Malte.
J'ai écoutéavec attention et entendu avec beaucoup d'admiration l'exposédu
conseil de Malte présentant unethtse nouvelle concernant la façade maritime.
Alors que la pratique est celle que nous connaissons. voici une présentation
toute différente. C'estla théoriedu pouvoir géntrateur. C'est la thtorie de la
ligne radiale multidirectionnelle.
On connaissait, Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges,des réalitgéo-
graphiques, des côtes concaves et des côtes convexes. et l'arrêtdu Plateau
ëo~in&al de la mer du Nord a utilisé ces notions géographiques. relevé par
exemple les effets divergents des côtes convexes. Et nrécédemmentla Cour a
relevé les conséquencesJe cette potentialitéde divergince et la necessitéd'une
atténuation(C.IJ. Recueil 1969, p. 17-18.par. 8).
Or, quelle est la théoriequi nous est présentée? C'eslt'affirmationd'une côte
géntratriced'une ligne très grandeet d'autant plus grande que l'on se trouve en
face d'une longue côte. Ce n'est pas une côte simplement et artificiellement
convexe. c'est une côte génératrice d'extension,d'tlongation, en un mot une
côte elastique. C'est une côte avec effet amplificateur.
J'avoue, Monsieur le Président, Messieursles juges. ne pas croire au miracle,
au prétendu miraclede la multiplication de la longueur des côtes.Je ne pense
pas que I'on puisse adopter une sorte de côte éventail.
En réalitéon se trouve en présenced'une tentative fortaudacieuse.
ConfrontéeZIla réalité d'une côtede tout au plus 40 kilomètres, comme le
montrera mon ami M. Bowert. Malte se met B rêver et utilise un mythe juri-
dique qu'elle espère mobilisateur1 I'tgard de la Cour.
Voici ce mythe. Cette côte de 40 kilornetreson ne doit pas la considérer dans
sa réalité.II faut la prendre potentiellement. Elun pouvoir génkrateur.Et ce
pouvoir est gigantesque: il est multiplicateur, extendeur, élongateur. Quarante
kilomètres. que non pas, mais une ligne dix fois plus longue, cent fois plus
longue.
Ce n'est point invention de ma part, Monsieur le Président,c'est la thtse
@ maltaise et la figure 1I de l'album présenpar Malte le 26 novembre sous le
titrr<lllustrationsde Malte pour les procéduresorales* le montre avec la plus
grande netteté. Cette figur11 a étéreproduite ici et elle figure dans les trois
cartes qui ont étéremises ce matin, elle figure sousnoe52 dans la nomencla-
ture libyenne. Côte imaginaire.
Mais pourquoi travailler dans l'imaginaire? le juge travaille dans la réalité.
Quelle étrangefigure que cette figure II (album carte 52). Combien révélatrice
cette tendance de Malte à préférer les constructions abstraitiila réalit6des
choses!
@) Un simple regard sur la figure11 Cclairele sens de la tentative de Malte. Si
I'on observe les flèches placées surla figure 11, on voit que la côte de Malte
est présentée commeirradiante en quelque sorte. Les flèches sont divergentesquand il s'agit de Malte, convergentes quand il s'agit de la Libye. La diver-
gence accroit la portéede la côte, la convergence la réduit.La Cour a souligné
de tels effetsiipropos de l'affaire du Plateau conrinenialde la mer du Nord en
1969.
Or. le schéma présenté par Malte est encoreplus divergent que ne le serait
une côte convexe rkelle. La thkorie nouvelle de la ligne radiale pluridirection-
nelle comporte des effets amplificateurs très importants et que l'on peut consi-
dérer comme redoutables. Car l'effet amplificateur ne joue pas uniquement dans
les rapports des Etats engagésdans la procédurede délimitation, il joue aussi à
l'égarddes Etats tiers.
La théorie classique de la façade maritime permet de laisser à tous les Etats
d'une region maritime les delimitations correspondantes. Mais il en va autre-
ment avec la théorie nouvelle, la côte éventail entraîne des effets d'amputation
très graves pour les Etats tiers. Elle aboutià priver par exemple un Etat tiers,
dont les côtes se trouvent situées en amiere de I'Etat invoquant la théorie dela
côte éventail. de zones de plateau continental qui dans la réalité géographique
s'étendent devant ses côtes. Avec la théoriede la côte élastique la longueur de
la côte réelle n'est plus considérée dans sa réalité objectivecar la côte devient
seulement labase de départet d'appui de ces lignes radiales pluridirectionnelles
qui amputent les Etats voisins de leurs zones normales.
Où trouve-t-on dans la pratique internationale un seul précedent d'un si
étrangeprocédé?Evidemment aucun.
Mais précisément certains accords ci-dessus examinés Ztun autre titre fournis-
sent une indication contraire. On n'a point utiliséla ligne radiale pluridirection-
nelle pour les Féroéoù une côte de 120 kilorn&tresse traduit par une délimita-
tion de 32 milles nautiques.On n'a pointutiliséla ligne radiale plundirectionnelle
pour la délimitation entre Haïti et la Colombie, pas plus pour la délimitation
entre la République dominicaine et la Colombie, pas plus entre I'lnde (Nicobar)
et la Thailande.
On pourrait fournir bien d'autres exemples.
Je voudrais, toutefois, simplement ici me borner h une observation générale
tirée de la pratique des Etats et qui démontre le caractère inacceptable de la
thèsede la ligne radiale pluridirectionnelle et de la théoriede la côte éventail.
Les accords très généralement et quelle que soitla situation géographique
précisent en effet non seulement une ligne de délimitation composée de divers
segments mais fixent très souvent aussi des limites communes à plusieiirs déli-
mitations.
C'est la pratique bien connue des «tripoints». Elle a étéutilisée,nous l'avons
dit, en mer du Nord, en Baltique, dans le Golfe et aussi dans la mer d'Andaman
oh I'on a même,et c'est un exemple très particulier et plein d'intérêt.eu
recours à la formule d'un accord tripartite entre l'Inde. l'Indonés eiela ThSi-
lande, du 22 juin 1978, qu'illustre la carte 51 de l'album libyen(II, CLM 58).
Ces «tripointsi> sont les charnières véritables des délimitations. Ils sont non
seulement des elements de méthodesde délimitation dont I'utilitt technique et
pratique est évidente mais ils ont aussi une grande et noble signification juri-
dique. Ils apportent, en effet. ce que'on peut appeler la sécurité juridique.
Définir par voie d'accord ces «tripoints» symbolise et concrétise les droits
des tiers, les droits de chaque Etat.
Le respect des droits des tiers peut apparaître dans certains accords qui lais-
sent en quelque sorte une zone dans laquelle se ferait la délimitation ultérieure
avec I'Etat dont les droits sont ainsi sauvegardés.
Une convention entre I'lndonksie et l'Australie du 9 octobre 1972 contient, h
cet égard.des indications intéressantes. Nous utiliserons, Monsieur le Président,126 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
Messieurs les juges, la carte no53 de l'album libyen (II, CML, Agrcemeni 24).
Il s'agit de la délimitation du plateau entre l'Australie et le Timor (accord de
1972). L'Sle iil'époque était diviséeen deux parties, l'est sous souveraineté
indonesienne, à l'ouest sous souveraineté portugaise. La convention entre
I'tndonésieet l'Australie prévoit une lignede délimitation. Notons au passage
que cette ligne - et la carte l'indique nettement- n'est pas l'équidistance.
Mais ce n'est pas le point que je veux soulever ici, I'accord est inttressant car
la ligne est interrompue entre les points 16 et 17: et cela sur une longueur de
129 milles nautiques. pourquoi cette interruption? pour réserver les droits du
Portugal. nous sommes en effet en 1972et il y a un Timor portugais et ce res-
~ect des droits de 1'Etat tiers se manifeste var la prise en consideration de la
faTademaritime telle que la géographiela fait apparaître.
Les négociations sur l'emplacement des points communs de ces points char-
nieres sont délicates et prendre du temps. Une se trouve
souvent indiquée dans certains accords. 11s'agit d'une mention relative à la
fixation définitived'un point origine ou d'un point terminal ou des deux.
On peut donner plusieurs exemples, ainsi, dans le Golfe à propos du point I
de la délimitation Qatar-Iran (accord du 20 septembre 1969. album carte 43)
dont la position dkpend de la délimitation futureentre le Qatar et Bahreïn et de
I'accord entre Bahreïn etI'lran du 17juin 1971(album carte 37).
Je voudrais aussi me référer à I'accord franco-britannique du 24 juin 1982
(album carte 54), concernant la délimitation du plateau continental entre les
deux Etats 3 l'est du méridien30' est de Greenwich. C'est la suite de l'arbitrage
franco-britannique. 11estindiqué à l'article 2:
«2. It has not been possible for the time being to complete the delimita-
tion of the boundary beyond Point No. 14; itis however agreed between
the Parties that the delimitation from Point 14 tcthe tripoint between the
boundaries of the continental shelf appertairiing to the Parties andto the
Kingdom of Belgium shall be completed at the appropriate time by sppli-
cation of the same methods as have been utilised for the definition of the
boundary line between Points Nos. 1 and 14.p
De telles dispositions sont parfaitement possibles et concevables dans la pra-
tique internationale qui utilise la notion classique de façade maritime mais elles
sont incompatibles avec la théoriede la ligne radiale multidirectionnefle.
On remarque que le souci de sécurité juridique auquel correspondent la
notion et l'usage du «tripoint» ou des points communs se trouve évidemment
parmi les préoccupations de la Cour. C'est le problènie du respect du droit des
Etats tiers. Ce respect concernant les décisions de la Cour est évidemment
assure par l'article 59 du Statut et le principe fondamental de l'effet est relatif.
Mais la Cour, notamment dans son arrêtde 1982, a donnédes précisions à ce
sujet. notamment dans le dispositif de l'arrêtau pointB1 où il est indiqué«les
droits des Etats tiers étant réserv6s», ou encore au point C3 du dispositif du
même arrêt kvoquant «les délimitations à convenir avec les Etats tiers* (C.I.J.
Recueil 1982. p. 93-94. par. 133). Et on peut relever aussi dans l'analyse que
fait la Cour de ce probléme,dans le paragraphe 130 de son arrêt.*la question
de savoir jusqu'où la ligne de démarcationse prolongera vers le nord-est dépen-
dra bien entendu des délimitations futures..» (ibid p. ,1).
Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, on n'a jamais utilisé la ligneplu-
ridirectionnelle et je ne pense pas qu'on le fasse un jour, sauf peut-êtredans des
océansgigantesques.
Mais nous sommes en Mkditerranke, la nature y est la mesure de l'homme, PLAIDORIE DE M. COLLIARD 127
la nature, oui, et onl'a soulignédepuis la plus haute Antiquité,depuis la proto-
histoire de la Grke, mais la ligne radiale multidirectionnelle n'est plus à la
mesure de l'homme, elle n'est pas méditerranéenne.
L'examen des accords conclus entre les Etats me conduit aux propositions
suivantes :
1. La tentative de démonstratioride l'emploi de plus en plus intense depuis
1969 de la méthodede I'équidistancea échoué:
a) des omissions d'accords non fondé;sur l'équidistance sont nombreuses;
h) la lecture des acco~dsfait apparaître les erreurs ou les interprétations subjec-
tives.
2. L'analyse méthodologique fait apparaîtreque:
a) l'indication claire de l'utilisation de l'équidistancene figure que dans moins
d'un quart des conventions conclues, dans un grand nombre de cas I'utilisa-
tion de la méthodede I'équidisianceest souvent subordonnée à la recherche
d'une finalite d'équitéou de justice, à l'adoption fondamentale et premiere
de principes équitables;
b) les accords conclus n'ont jamais utilise des côtes <<élastiquemené t valuées»;
c) la formule du rttrapezium)), c'est-à-dire la théoriede la côte divergente, n'a
jamais 6d utilisée;
d) les accords conclus, presque exclusivement bilateraux, ont tenu compte,
lorsque existaient des Etats tiers, d'une telle situation par l'utilisation de
*tripoints» ou par ta déterminationd'un point limite ou de plusieurs points
limites.
Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges,je suis parvenu au terme de mon
exposé.
Je ne présenteraipas de conclusions plus générales s'ajoutant celles que j'ai
formulées à la suite de chacune des deux parties de mon exposk. Je voudrais
donc tout simplement et trhs sincèrement, Monsieur le Président, Messieursles
juges, vous remercier de l'attention que vous avez bien voulu me prêter.
Fidélepour ma part au discours cartésienque j'invoque encore, j'ai voulu me
rkféreraux textes des accords, aux cartes qui les illustrent. Mais cette entreprise
exigeait beaucoup de temps car j'ai traitéde plus de quarante accords. Qu'il me
soit pardonnéd'avoir étélong mais je ne pouvais Etrebref sans déformerla réa-
lité. PLAIDOIRIE DE M. LUCCHINI
CONSEILDU GOUVERNEMENTDE LA JAMAHIRIYAARABELIBYENNE
M. LUCCHINI: Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, permettez-moi
tout d'abord d'exprimer la profonde émotion que je ressens h plaider au-
jourd'hui devant vous pour la première fois. Permettez-moi Cgalement de dire
combien je suis conscient de l'honneur qui m'est fait et de la responsabilité qui
est la mienne de m'adresser à vous en vue de défendre les thèses juridiques
d'un Etat, 1'Etatlibyen.
II m'appartient d'étudier les diversesconsiderations prtser&es par Malte et
appréciéespar elle comme de nature à justifier une délimitation tquitable fon-
dée sur la méthode d'équidistance. Ma tâche vise plus particulièremeàtréfuter
la pertinence de ces circonstances dans le cas présent.
LES CIRCONSTANCESNON PERTINENTESINTRODUITES PAR MALTE
La Cour a eu l'occasion de souligner avec une grande puissance démonstra-
tive et une constance sans faille l'importance déterminanteque peuvent avoir les
circonstances pertinentes propreà chaque cas. C'est ainsi qu'au paragraphe 23
de son arrêtdu 24 février1982dans l'affaire TunisielLibye,elle a tenu Iirappeler
la phrase fameuse, parce que capitale, du dispositif de l'arrêtde 1969 rendà
l'occasion des affaires du Plateau continentalde mer du Nord:
«le droit international exige que la délimitation s'opère«conformkmentà
des principes équitables et compte tenu de toutes les circonstances perti-
nentes* (C.I.J. Recueil 1982, p. 37).
C'est dans cette optique que la Cour, que la Chambre de la Cour, que liri-
bunal arbitral également, chargéde crancher le diffkrend franco-britannique. ont
pris soin de peser soigneusemen- on pourrait presque dire de passer au trébu-
chet- ces differentes circonstances en vue d'apporrcr une solution équitable et
appropriéeaux litiges relatifs au plateau continental qu'ils ànconnaître.
Pour sa part, la Libye est pleinement persuadée du bien-fondé de cette
d6rnarche juridique tout comme elle est persuadke de la place tminente
qu'occupent les circonstances pertinentes dans toute question de délimitationdu
plateau continental en vue de parvenià un dsultat équitable.
Le désaccord avec Malte qui est le support de mon intervention porte alors
sur le contenu, sur la substance mêmedes circonstances invoquées.
Autrement dit, les circonstances qui sontr6sentks par la Partie adverse-
avec d'ailleurs plus ou moins d'insistance selon les diffkrentes phases de la pro-
cédure - sont ànotre avis dépourvues de tout lien avec le cas que la Coura
pour mission de trancher. Elles sont sans pertinence.
Bien évidemment. la notion mâme de circonstances pertinenteà,retenir dans
une situation donnée,va h l'encontre de la fixation d'une liste exhaustive et ne
varietur de telles circonstances et en même tempsdu poids précàsconférer,de
rnanihe préalableet abstraite,chacune d'elles. «De tels problemesd'&quilibre
entre diverses considérations varient naturellement selon les circonstances de
l'espèce» a pu dire la Courau paragraphe 93 de son arrêdtu 20 février 1969
(C.I.J.Recueil 1969, p50). PLAIDOJRIEDE M. LUCCHINI 129
Néanmoins, la prise en considérationde ces circonstances ne relève pas d'une
appréciation discrétionnaire.La Cour a entendu le rappeler dans son arrêtde
1982 (par. 71). Et aprésavoir affirméque:
«[elle] doit appliquer les principes équitables comme partie intégrante du
droit international et peser soigneusement les diverses considérations
qu'elle juge pertinentes,de manié; à aboutir à un résultat équitable*,
la Cour ajoute cette précision fondamentale:
«Certes, il n'existe pas de règlesrigides quant au poids exact à attribuer
à chaque élémentde l'espéce;on est cependant fort loin de l'exercice d'un
pouvoir discrétionnaireou de la concilia1ion.n (C.I.J.Recueil 1982, p. 60.)
En d'autres termes, la Cour ne s'estime en droit de reconnaître comme perti-
nentes et par conséquentde ne retenir à ce titre que celles de ces circonstances
qui ont un lien direct avec l'institution du plateau continental, la finalite de ce
phénomène juridique,les droits que les Etats y exercent. (C'est 18une sorte de
limite naturelle que la Cour fixeà son appréciation.)
Je n'insisteraipas davantage sur ce point pour l'instant, ktant amené à i'expo-
ser plus longuement tout à l'heure, mais j'aimerais immédiatement présenter
une remarque de caractère terminologique qui a en fait des incidences sur le
fond. Je voudrais plus particuliérementattirer votre attention, Monsieur le Prési-
dent, Messieurs les juges, sur l'application soigneuse mise par Malte à ne pas
utiliser l'expression pourtant consacréede circonstances pertinentes pour quali-
fier les différents élémentsqu'elle invoque, mais à recourir de manikre
constante - et on pourrait presque dire de maniere systématique - aux termes
de «considérationsri ou encore de «facteurs», ce dernier mot dont le juge
Koretsky disait dans son opinion dissidente jointe 21l'arrêtdu 20 fevrier 1969, ?i
la page 167, qu'il désignait«quelque chose de caractere non juridique, qui ne
relévepas «du domaine du droit p.
Cette vertueuse prudence dans la forme n'est-elle alors pas le reflet des
craintes qu'éprouverait Malte concernant le caractère inadaptéau type d'affaires
en question des «considérations » invoquées?
Cette remarque terminologique et préalable étant faite, quels sont alors les
considérations ou facteurs introduits par Malte dans son argumentation?
Ils sont très divers. Disons seulement pour une simple approximation de
clartéet de commoditéque:
- les uns sont plutôt Sconnotation politico-juridique, référencepar exemple
ii la notion d'Etat insulaire ou aux intérêtde sécurité,ou bien encore aux inté-
rêtsde s6curite en liaison avec le statut de neutralité;
- tandis que les autres sont plutôt Zidominante économique, qu'il s'agissc
du partage des ressources, de la situation des pêcheries maltaises, ou encore de
la notion alléguéedi*Island developing country*.
Je l'ai dit, la Libye ne partage absolument pas les vues maltaises sur la perti-
nence de ces facteurs et les résultats que Malte entend leur faire produire.
Cette position libyenne, je tenterai de l'exposer en empruntant un raisonne-
ment dont la ligne ,genéraleest destinée à mettre l'accent sur deux points com-
plémentaires qui forment, bien évidemment, les deux parties - de longueurs
d'ailleurs toutà fait inégale- de mon exposé.
Dans une premitre partie, je m'appliquerai à marquer l'absence de pertinence
juridique des facteurs invoquéspar Malte en la présente affaire.
C'est 18 un point capital - on pourrait dire la charpente - de I'argumenta-130 PLATEAUCONTINENTAL
tion. C'est pourquoi d'ailleurs. je lui consacrerailes développements lesplus
amples. Mais pour aller jusqu'au bout du système maltaisil me faudra ensuite
démontrer, dansune seconde partie. la non-cohérencedes facteurs allégués avec
la prétention de MalteAl'applicationde la méthode d'équidistance.
1. LES FACTEURSINvOQU~S PAR MALT EONT D~NUBS
DE PERTINENCE JURIDIQUE
La premiere partie est donc consacrée àl'absence de pertinence juridique des
facteurs invoques par Malte. Dans cette partie, il convientde dkterminer en pre-
mier lieu le cadre juridique exact dans lequel doit s'inscrire les circonstances
pertinentes à prendre en considération dansune operation de délimitationdu
plateau continental comme c'est le cas en la présente espèce.Ce sera l'objet de
ma première section.
Ma seconde section visera à mettre en lumiere, du moins je I'esflre, l'incom-
patibilité des facteurs invoqués par Malte avelce droit de la délimitation dupla-
teau continental.
Enfin, ma dernière section évoquerale problème pius particulier de la non-
pertinence de la conception maltaisedu partage des ressources.
1.Le cadre juridique
Monsieur le Président, Messieursles juges, il importe de rappeler d'abord
qu'en saisissant la Cour de leur différendla Libye comme Malte ne luiont pas
demandéde trancher celui-ci sur la base d'un réglernent ex aequo et bono régi
par un systèmetrésparticulier, régi parun esprit tr&sspécial qui. écartant éven-
tuellement les règlesdu droit positif, permettraitde faire apàedes considéra-
tions d'ordre divers, dont certaines pourraientdttoutà fait étranghreà I'insti-
tution du plateau continental.
Bien au contraire, en vertu des termes de leur compromis, la Libye et Malte
ont prié la Courde préciser quels étaient les règles et principedsu droit interna-
tional applicablesiila délimitation. C'est dire que, par18,et de maniére claire,
les deux Etats ont entendu confierà votre haute juridiction une mission qui soit
accomplie par l'application du droit existantdu plateau continental.
Cette prémisse, ainsi posée, jesuis conduit à me montrer plus explicite sur
deux points. L'institution duplateau continental apparaît comme une institution
clairement individualisée.En outre, son régime juridique est maintenant bien
établi etpeu sujet controverse.
Tout d'abord, je souhaiterais en quelques mots attirer respectueusement et
tout spécialement l'attentionde la Cour sur l'autonomie de l'institution juri-
dique du plateau.
Pourquoi ce souci, qui peut paraître supefflu, de souligner la spécificitt du
plateau continental au regard notamment d'autres institutions relevantdu droit
de la mer?
Ma préoccupation estdictéepar les tentatives d'abord obliques dans les écri-
tures maltaises, puis devenues parfaitement claires lorsdes plaidoiries orades,
rapprocher - au risque de les confondre - les concepts de plateau continental
et de zone économique exclusive. tentativesde rapprochement dont il a Ctédéjà
fait etat dans les plaidoiries libyennes.
Cette volonté maltaise est récenteE. n effet, lors des négociations entre les
deux pays en vue de porter le litige devant le juge international,la Libye quant
Belle se montrait prête à confier 21la Cour une mission étendue. commeI'at-teste d'ailleurs l'articlepremier du projet de compromis libyen en date du 17jan-
vier 1976, qui est ainsi formulé:
«The Court is requested to decide the following question: What prin-
ciples and niles of international law are applicable to the delimitation of
the areas of the continental shelf and the economic zone which appertain to
the Libyan Arab Republic and that of the Republic of Malta.»
En revanche, Malte, souhaitait soumettre h la Cour la question de la délimita-
tion du seul plateau continental.
Volonté récentedonc, comme je viens de le souligner, mais volonté qui est
désormaisévidenteau regard des exposésoraux des conseils maltais.
On peut s'interroger sur les raisons qui inspirent désormais Maltedans son
souci d'établir une corrélation entre plateau continental et zone économique
exclusive.
L'objectif poursuivi est transparent. Plus exactement il est double:
1. Accréditerde façon plus favorable le soi-disant principe de distance, pré-
tendu principe dont mon collegue et ami M. Quéneudeca montré l'inexistence
juridique et je n'y reviens pas.
2. Permettre d'élargir - A cette occasion - en étendant le champ des fac-
teurs ou des considérationsestiméspertinents.
C'est plus spécialementce second objectif sur lequel - avec votre permis-
sion, Monsieur le Prksident - je voudrais m'expliquer brieverneni.
Le concept de plateau continental est un concept plus circonscrit que celui de
zone économiqueexclusive. Ce dernier correspond à la reconnaissance au profit
de l'Etat riverain d'une grande diversité d'intérêt(sen matière de richesses bio-
logiques, de recherche scientifique, de protection contre ta pollution) et donc à
la possibilité pour cetEtat d'exercer toute une gamme, trks large, d'activités.
En conséquence, les droits conférés à I'Etat sur la zone économique exclusive
sont à la mesure de cet éventail plus ouvert. En d'autres termes, ils sont plus
nombreux et plus diversifiés.
La tentative maltaise de dériveen direction de la zone économiqueexclusive
s'eclaire alors: elle permettrait de prendre en compte, dans le cadre d'une opé-
ration technique et limitéede dklimitation du plateau continental, des considéra-
tions variées,dont certaines d'entre elles pourraient êtreen connection avec le
concept de zone économiqueexclusive, mais, en toute occurrence, extérieures à
l'essence même du plateau.
D'ailleurs, au paragraphe 231 de son mkmoire (I), Malte se fait clairement
entendre sur ce point:
«In view especially of the close link enisting in modem international law
between continental shelves and exclusive economic zones, factors which
are relevant to the exploitation of biological resources must be given
weight as an equitable consideration.»
Je ne reviendrai pas, bien sûr, sur les différences profondesqui séparentpla-
teau continental et zone économique exclusiveet qui en font des institutions
séparées ayant pour chacune d'entreelles leur statut et leur vie juridique.
Ces différences ont fait l'objet d'un exposélumineux par mon ami M. Qué-
neudec.
Au cours des plaidoiries orales, M. Weil a pu affirmer le droit pour Malte
comme pour la Libye de proclamer «à tout moment» une zone économique
exclusive (III, p. 364). Droit de proclamer: sans doute. Mais Malte jugerait-elle132 PLATEAUCONTINENTAL
qu'il est opportun de déterminer effectivement une zone économique exclusive
en Méditerranée?
Peut-être - mais peut-êtrepas. Jusqu'à présent, en effet, les Etatscôtiers de
la Méditerranees'en sont tous prudemment gardés.
Et une certitude existe:àce jour, ni la Libye ni Malte n'ont faitde telles pro-
clamations.
II est vrai, ainsi que l'a fort justement souligné la Chambre de la Cour au
paragraphe 194de l'arrêt récenqtu'elle a rendu dans l'affaire de la Délimitation
maritime dans la régiondu go@ du Maine ,ue-:
«avec l'adoption progressive, par la plupart des Etats maritimes. d'une
zone économique exclusive et, par conséquent, avec la généralisationde la
demande d'une delimitation unique. Cvitant autant qu'il est possible les
inconvénients inhérentsà une pluralitéde délimitationsdistinctes, la préfé-
rence ira désormais, inévitablement, à des critères se pretant mieux, par
leurcaractére plus neutre, à une délimitation polyvalente* (C.I.J.Recueil
1984, p. 327).
Mais, parallèlement d'ailleurs, la Chambre au paragraphe 202 de son arrêt
note les grandes difficultés que I'on peut rencontrer lorsque I'on entend jumeler
des limites qui soient acceptables pour le fond des mers et susceptibles en
mêmetemps de s'appliquer àdes zones maritimes de pêche.
Le cas qui nous occupe actuellement se présente tout à fait différemment.
Nous sommes face B un problème de délimitation du plateau continental -
c'est la volontéqui a étéà I'kvidence exprimée par les deux Parties - et non
pas en face d'une délimitation uniquede plateau continental et de zone &con*
mique exclusive ou de zone exclusive de pêche.Et les circonstances pertinentes
B prendre en considération dans chacun des deux cas de figure ne sont pas
nécessairement les mêmes.
L'audience,suspendue à 1I h 25. estreprise d 1I h40
Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, avant la suspension j'ai tenté de
rappeler le cadre juridique dans lequel slins&rentles circonstances pertinentes et
j'ai notamment soulignédans un premier point le caractéreautonome du plateau
continental.
J'aimerais maintenant. dans un second point, faire état du régime juridiquede
ce plateau.
Je serai plus bref sur ce second aspect bien connu et dont je crains qu'un trop
long exposé le concernant ne lasse la Cour.
Mon désir estde parvenir en quelques mots une analyse correcte des droits
dont I'Etat riverain est titulaire sur le plateau continental.
La question du contenu des droits ainsi soulevée est étroitement liéeavec la
nature de ceux-ci.
A ce sujet. il est devenu banal d'affirmer aujourd'hui que I'Etat n'exerce pas
sa souveraineté surle plateau continental, mais une juridiction, c'est-à-dire qu'il
y possede des droits. Ces droits sont sans aucun doute souverains, mais ils sont
aussi limitésdans leur objet- fonctionnels- ou encore - selon la formule
qui est fréquemment employée, parceque fort juste et révélatricede l'harmonie
existant entre le droit reconnu et le but poursu-vifinalisés.
Sur cette conception s'est faite une sorte d'unanimité.
L'unité est d'ailleurs parfaitement reflétée par le droit conventionnel qui
énonce les droitsde I'Etat sur le plateau. PLAIDOIRIEDE M. LUCCHINI 133
C'est ainsi que la convention de 1958 sur le plateau continental, dans son
article, dispose :
«l'Etat riverain exerce des droits souverains sur le plateau continental aux
fins de l'exploration de celui-ci et de l'exploitation de ses ressources natu-
relles*.
(Je laisse provisoirement de côtk la référence aux ressourcesnatureIles pour y
revenir dans quelques instants.)
La convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer du 10 décembre 1982
diffère-t-elle de celle de 1958relativementà l'énoncéde ces droits?
Alors que les travaux de la troisième conférence des Nations Unies sur le
droit de la mer ont marqué une évolutionde la définitiondu plateau continental,
telle qu'elle avait été donnéeparla convention de Genève de 1958, les droits de
I'Etat sur ce plateau sont restés inchangésh te1 point que l'article77 dans ses
paragraphes 1 et 4 de la nouvelle convention a repris jusqu'à la rédaction des
dispositions correspondantes de la convention de 1958.
Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, je sais bien que la convention de
1958 sur le plateau continental n'est pas applicable en l'esptce. Je sais égale-
ment qu'il convient de ne pas tirer de celle de 1982 des conséquencesde portée
absolue. Elle n'a pas en tant qu'instrument conventionnel, nous le savons tous,
force obligatoire. On ne peut tout de mêmepas totalement ignorer le large assenti-
ment qui semble s'êtredégagé au seinde ce grandiose concert des nations qu'a
et6 la troisDrne confërence relativement aux droits dont jouit I'Etat sur le pla-
teau ainsi que la parfaite continuité réalisée avec le texte de la convention de
1958. Cette continuité dans le temps, cette harmonie dans l'espace portent un
temoignage net en faveur d'un accord qui s'est fait au sein de la communauté
internationale.
La Cour est parfaitement au ctrur de cette symphonie par la qualification
qu'elle a conféréeaux droits de 1'Etat: «droits souverains aux fins de I'explora-
tion du lit de la mer et de l'exploitation de ses ressources naturelles*, selon la
formule utilis6e par elle au paragraphe 19 de son arrêtde 1969 (C.I.J.Recueil
1969, p. 22).
La conclusion 21tirer de cette rapide analyse afin de la remettre en perspec-
tive, c'est-&-direde la situer dans le cadre de notre démonstration, est donc que
les facteursà prendre en considération dans une opération ayant trait à la déli-
mitation du plateau continental doivent avoir pour êtrepertinents un lien juri-
dique de connexitéavec le droit de ce plateau. Plus précisément,ils doivent étre
en rapport avec les catégoriesde droits dont béneficientles Etats.
2. Incompatibilitédes facteurs invoquéspar Malte
avec le droid te la délimitation duplateaucontinental
Au regard du cadre juridique que je viens brièvement de rappeler, nous
sommes tout naturellement amenés maintenant de façon +cise h examiner les
considérations avancées par Malte,afin d'apprécier leur pertinenceou leur non-
pertinence dans la présente affaire.
Et cet égard differents points méritent successivementd'êtreexaminés.
Premier point. Rejet des considéra$ionséconomiquespar lajurisprudence
Malte affirme la pertinence de ces facteurs et elle fait de ceux-ci une condi-
tion nécessairedu caractkre équitablede la solution iiretenir.
A cette fin, elle s'est livrée, au cours des plaidoiries oral&sune analyse de134 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
la jurisprudence. La lecture qu'elle fait de cette demiére ne nous paraît pas
concluante. Et c'est pourquoi j'aimerai- avec la permission de la Cour- y
revenir quelques instants.
En ce qui concerne, tout d'abord. l'arrêtdu 20 février 1969,son examen ne
nous fournit guère,àce sujet, d'clément appréciableou d'élément touatu moins
d'appréciation utilisable.
Sans doute, comme l'a rappelé mon éminent collègueM. Lauterpacht, ta
Cour affirme-t-elle au paragraphe 93 de son arrêtqu'«il n'y a pas de limites
juridiques aux considérationsque les Etats peuvent examiner afin de s'assurer
qu'ils vont appliquer des procédéséquitables»(C.I.J.Recueil 1969,p.50) ,t au
paragraphe 94, évoquant certains facteurs susceptiblesd'êtrepris en considéra-
tion, ellene fait pas mention de ceux d'ordre écoiiomique à part la référence
trésparticulièrA l'«unitéde gisement».
Et si dans son dispositif au paragraphe 101. point C1.elle déclare quela ddli-
mitation doit s'opérerpar voie d'accord conformémenth des principes équi-
tables et compte tenu de toutes les circonstances pertinentes, elle ne fournit pas
de précisions sur lecaractere pertinent des circonstances qui. seules, doivent
@treretenues.
La référenceque fait le même paragraphe du dispositif dans sonpoint D2 à
la prise en considération éventuelldes ressources naturelles des zones de pla-
teau en cause ne vaut que pour les négociationsultérieu~reqsu'aurontà mener
les parties. Elle ne vise pas les principes et règles du droit internationalappli-
cables à la délimitation.
En d'autres termes, l'arrête 1969 constitueà cet égardp ,our parler le lan-
gage des chimistes, un corps neutre.
II en va tout différemment, en revanche,de l'arrêtde 1982 rendu dans
l'affaire dulateau continental(TunisielJamhiriya arabe libyenne).
La Cour a rejeté avec netteté les facteurs économiqueasu paragraphe 107de
son arrêt.Qu'il me soit permis. Monsieur le Président, d'épargnr la Cour une
nouvelle fois la citation du célèbredicrum de ce paragraphe qu'elle connaît
bien, pour me contenter de rappeler que la condanination qu'elle prononce se
fonde essentiellement surla variabilitédans le temps de ces facteurs.
Il ne convient pas, en effet. qu'une délimitation faite pour du,ne délimi-
tation entreprise dans le définitsoit dans son processus affectée parle carac-
térechangeant, éphémèrd ees conditions économiques.
Mon collegue Lauterpacht redoute qu'un tel rejet swould run counter to the
whole philosophy underlying the concept of an equitable solution». Nous ne
partageons pas ses craintes. Nous pensonsau contraire qu'une solution équitable
dans une opérationdonnéen'est pas cellequi prend en compte tous les facteurs
quels qu'ils soient mais seulement ceux d'entre eux qui sont en relation juri-
dique avec l'op5ration Iieffectuer et qui forment des données caractérisantde
façon persistante la situationd'espèce.
Cette position d'exclusion n'est pas remiseen cause par la Chambre de la
Cour dans l'arrêtqu'elle a rendu le 12 octobre 198à propos de l'affaire de la
Délimirarion de lafrontière maritimedans larbgion du golfe du Maine.
En effe~.àcette occasion la Chambre a procédé à l'examen des circonstances
que les Parties avaient présentées comme des donnees fournies par la géogra-
phie humaine et économique.Elle a estiméau paragraphe 232 que ces circons-
tances ne pouvaient pas «entrer en considCrationen tant que critéàeappliquer
à l'opérationde délimitationelle-même».Elle a reconnu, cependant, dans le
mêmeparagraphe, que ces circonstances pouvaient servir«pour juger du carac-
tére équitable de la dklimitation établieà l'origine sur la base de critères
empruntés à la géographie physique et politique*(C.l.J. Recueil 1984.p. 340). PLAIDOIRIEDE M. LUCCH~NI 135
La Chambre n'a finalement pas retenu ces facteurs, alors mêmeque les deux
parties à l'instance lui demandaient de procéder à une délimitation par ligne
unique valable aussi bien pour le plateau continental que pour la zone de pêche
exclusive.
Mon collègue Lauterpacht semble également vouloir tirerdes enseignements
favorables A la thèsemaltaise de l'affaire de la zone du plateau continental entre
l'Islande et Jan Mayen (III, p. 328).11souligne notamment que la commission
de conciliation a, dans l'accomplissement de ses fonctions, tenu compte des
considérationséconomiques.
C'est tout à fait certain et je ne peux qu'être d'accord aveclui sur ce point.
Je voudrais cependant attirer respectueusement votre attention, Monsieur le Pré-
sident, Messieurs les juges, sur les termes de l'articledu compromis conclu le
28 mai 1980 entre l'Islande et la Norvège:
«The Commission shall have as its mandate the submission of recom-
mendations with regard to the dividing line for the shelf area between Ice-
land and Jan Mayen. In prepüring such recommendations the Commission
shall take into account Iceland's strong economic interest in these sea
areas..»
En d'autres termes, l'invitation expresse faite ?Ila commission de tenir
compte en l'espèce des intérêts économiquesdans ce secteur maritime - inté-
rêtspuissants et actuels - dictai!à la commission la prise en compte de ces
facteurs.
La seule leçon correcte que je crois légitimede tirer de cette affaire est -
par un raisonnement a contrario - qu'à défautde référenceexpressis verbis
dans le compromis demandant l'organe intervenant de les prendre en consid6-
ration, de tels intérêts soténuésde pertinence.
Ainsi pour me résumersur ce point, la non-pertinence des considérations éco-
nomiques se justifie par deux sériesde raisons:
- d'une part, comme l'a indiquéla Cour en 1982, à cause de la variabilité
dans le temps desdits facteurs,
- d'autre part, parce que pour certains d'entre eux ils sont sans lien avec I'ins-
titution du plateau continental. C'est notamment le cas de la pêche dontje
voudrais parler maintenant dans un second point pour en marquer rapide-
ment la non-pertinence.
Deuxième poinr.Non-pertinence des intérêtd se pêche
Malte considère comme facteur à retenir, facteur pertinent en l'espèce, les
activités de pêcheexercées par ses pêcheurs nationaux. C'estdu moins ce
qu'indiquaient ses écritures.
Les plaidoiries orales, en effet, n'ont plus fait étatde cet argument. Néan-
moins écritures et plaidoiries oriiles forment un tout indissociable. Et il ne
convient pas, au stade de la procédure orale,de faire abstraction complète des
arguments de la procédure &crite.
Au regard de ce que nous avons dit précédemment,il est clair que la conser-
vation ainsi que I'exploitation des ressources biologiques se trouvant dans les
eaux surplombant le plateau continental forment un éI6mentsans relation avec
le plateau.
Il ne pourrait en être autrementque dans une hypothése: celleoù l'activitéen
question affecterait certaines des ressources naturelles du plateau.
C'est pourquoi il est util?ice stade de rappeler la définitiondes ressources
naturelles, telle qu'elle est donnéeau paragraphe 4 de l'article 2 de la conven-136 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
tion de Genévedu 29 avril 1958 sur le plateau continental, et dispositions qui
sont reproduites en termes similairesà l'article 77, paragraphe 4, de la conven-
tion du 10décembre1982:
«les ressources minérales et autres ressourcesnon vivantes du lit de la mer
et du sous-sol, ainsi que les organismes vivants qui appartiennent aux
especes sédentaires, c'est-à-direles organismes qui, au stade où ils peuvent
être pêchés, sont soit immobiles sluerIit de la mer ou au-dessous dece lit,
soit incapables de se déplacer sice n'est en restant constamment en contact
physique avec le lit de la mer ou le sous-sol».
Cette définition,sur laquelle semble s'être réalisé, là encore, l'accord de
l'ensemble des Etats, nous intéressecar elle incorpore certaines espèces dans les
ressources naturelles du plateau.
Dans les pièces successivesde ses plaidoiries écrites, Maltemet assez lon-
guement l'accent sur lamkthode Kannizzati. Elle fournit à ce propos quelques
prkcisions àla fois d'ordre technique et historique.
Il découle à l'évidencede ces explications que cette technique de pêchene
permet pas d'effectuer une assimilation quelconque avez l'exploitation des
espèces qui sont viséespar les dispositions rappelées des conventions de1958
et de 1982.
Pourtant, au paragraphe 35 de sa réplique(HI), la Partie maltaise procède à
l'affirmation suivante:
«Kannizzati fishing, which involves the anchoring of a cluster of palm
leaves, is an activity of which an essential element is the continuous
contact of the stone anchor with the seabed during the whole fishing season
and is thus directly related to the use of the continental shelf resources.»
11semble, au regard de cette phrase, que Malte commetteune confusion entre
les espèces attachéesau plateau continental (et à ce titre incorporkes aux
richesses dudit plateau) et les moyens de pêche,qui, du seul fait qu'ils sont
fixQ au plateau continental n'entraînent en aucune façon la qualification de res-
sources naturelles aux espkces qui sont capturées grâce & eux. En d'autres
termes, la définitiondes ressources naturelles est dépourvue d'ambiguïté, elle
prend en compte la nature des especes etnon pas le caractgre de l'équipement
utilisé.
Dans un troisiémepoint, je voudrais marquer maintenant la non-pertinence
des intérêtdse sécurité.
Troisiéme point. Non-pertinencedes intérêtd se sécurité
Malte retient, en tant que considération pertinente enllesp&ce,ses intérêtse
sécurité.Elle accorde à ce facteur une grande importancecomme en témoignent
les pièces écrites etles plaidoiries orales.
La relation de ce facteur paraît mal assurke au regard de l'objet du litige.
Je n'entends pas dire par là que les interêtsde sécurité soient toujours dému-
nis de toute pertinence.
La Libye aurait mauvaise grâce à le prétendrede façon absolue puisqu'elle a
elle-même reconnuqu'ils pouvaient êtreéventuellement retenus(1, ML, p. 110,
par. 6.77 et 6.78). Mais elle ajoutait immédiatement queles situations dans les-
quelles ce facteur pouvait intervenir et le r61e qu'il pouvait jouer lui parais-
saient juridiquement limités.
La difficulté en lamatiéretient au fait que la notion de sécurité estpeu juri-
dique et que son contenu est impdcis. Si bien qu'il convient d'appréhender une
telle notion avec prudence. PLAIDOIRIE DE M. LUCCHINI 137
Les écritures de Malte. ses plaidoiries orales n'ont pasgrande vertu clarifica-
trice. Peu d'indications sont fournies sur la nature exacte des intérêtsn cause.
En revanche, Malte expose de manihre plus explicative les raisons pour les-
quelles lesdits intérêts seraient plus intenses que ceux d'autres Etats. Son argu-
mentation - si l'on essaie de procéder à une présentation synthétique - se
développesur un triple plan :
1.En premier lieu - selon Malte - ses intérêts de sécurité nationale forment
une considération d'une importanceparticuliére eu égardau fait que son terri-
toire est constitué par un groupe d'îles. C'est ce que dit le paragraphe 288 de
son contre-mémoire(II) :
«it is clear that control over the seabed has a significant security aspect.
When the entire homeland of a State consists of an island or group of
islands the interest of the coastat State in the maintenance of political
authority for the purposes of such control is enhanced*.
Malte estime donc qu'une île ou un groupe d'îles possèdedes intérêts de sécu-
ritéà protéger plus importantsque ceux d'un Etat continental.
On doit avouer ne pas voir tr&sclairement en quoi le caractère insulaire d'un
pays impliquerait des besoins de skcuritérenforces ...et Malte ne nous fournit
pas, une fois de plus, beaucoup d'explications sur ce point pour éclairer nos
vues.
Afin d'asseoir plus fermement sa position, Malte recourt au paragraphe 260
de son contre-mémoire (II) à un autre argument:
«The Convention on the Law of the Sea confirms the security interests
of groupsof islands in so far as "archipelagic States" areaccorded a spe-
cial régime in respect of the archipelagic waters, as well as their bed and
subsoil: see the elaborate provisions of PartIV of the Convention.ri
Concernant ce curieux argument. je voudrais simplement présenter deux
brévesobservations :
1) La partie IV de la convention de 1982 qui a trait aux Etats archipels et à
laquelle Malte nous invite à nous reporter ne contient pas de disposition tou-
chant à la sécuritéde ces Etats qui soit plus contraignante que celles qui regis-
sent le passage inoffensif dans les eaux territoriales de n'importe quel autre Etat
côtier. Il n'existe pas de réglementationparticulariste.
2) Le statutdes eaux archipétagiques - ainsi visé - n'est applicable qu'aux
eaux maritimes enfermées à l'intérieurdes lignes de base archipélagiques, mais
ce régime demeure tout à fait étranger au plateau continental au-delà des eaux
territoriales de I'Etat archipélagique.
II. En second lieu, dans ses plaidoiries orales. Malte est revenue - en y
insistantà différentes reprises- sur la ntcessite impérieuse de protection et
elle a recoursh l'argument de proximite.
En l'occurrence, l'argumentation maltaise n'entraîne pas sans réserve la
conviction.
II a éténotamment expost par la Pariie adverse qu'une exploitation du pla-
teau continental entreprise par la Libye en face et à proximité des côtes mal-
taises serait de natureàfaire peser de lourdes menaces sur cet Etat.
L'argumentation juridique surprend. Elle ne semblerait, en effet, trouver
application que dans les relations d'Etats se faisant face. Dans le cas de deux
Etats limitrophes, les activités économiques que chacun d'euxmene Zil'intérieur
de sa propre sphère de juridiction voisinent de façon permanente. La sécurité
doit bien alors s'accommoder de cette situation géographiquede voisinage.138 PLATEAUCONT~NENTAL
Est-ce à dire alors que le principe d'égalitédes Etats soit sélectif, modulable.
qu'il soit empreintde plasticite et qu'il ne joue pas dans les mêmes conditions
selon que les Etats sont faceà face ou limitrophes? Est-ce un principe & géomé-
trie variable?
III. Malte estime, en woisième lieu que le facteur de sécurité nationale est
plus pertinent encore eu égard la condition juridique dlEtat neutre que ce pays
a récemment choisie. Ce theme est important dans le raisonnement maltais
puisqu'un chapitre y est consacré dans le mémoire(1,par. 58-61) et qu'il y est
fait référencepar la suite, même si les plaidoiries orales n'y reviennent plus.
Malte semble conférerune signification particuliere 21la décisionde neutralité
qu'elle a adoptée. Faisant notamment valoir sa situation géographique centrale
en Méditerranée, elle considkre que le récent statutqui est le sien constitue un
gage de paix pour elle-même, mais aussi pour toute la région.
Il s'agit là - sans aucun doute - d'une position de portée généreuse et
utile. Et la Libye vient par le traite d'amitié etde coopération du 19 novembre
1984 de garantir cette neutralité.
Au départ, cependant, c'est par une dtcision du 15 mai 1981 que Malte a
opté pour le statut de neutralité. Cette décision estun acte exprimant un libre
choix accompli en toute souveraineté. Les garanties qui sont apportées par les
Etats tiers ne modifient pas la nature de base de la décision maltaise.
Mais alors, de nombreuses questions se posent auxquelles les pièces maltaises
n'apportent pas de réponse:
- Comment expliquer que la condition juridique d'Etat neutre soit de nature
à renforcer les besoins en matiére de sécurité nationale plutôtqu'Ales limiter?
- Comment expliquer que la décision prise puisse conférer3 1'Etat qui en
est l'auteur le droit de prétendre une extension spatiale de ses compétences?
- Comment encore et surtout expliquer que la déclaration maltaise puisse
entraîner des conséquences juridiques favorables à Malte sur le plateau conti-
nental en Méditerranéecentrale?
En vérité. les intérêdtse sécurité nationale peuventêtredifficilement retenus
en tant que circonstances pertinentes, étant donné le caractére tresindirect de
leur lien avec le concept de plateau et son régime juridique. Ce n'est que de
maniére exceptionnelle qu'un tel facteur pourrait être pris en consideration
compte tenu de situations particuliéres.
Le litige relatàla délimitationdu plateau continental entre la République fran-
çaise et le Royaume-Uni faisait apparaître une situation de ce type eu égard aux
îles Anglo-Normandes, dont la prksence était susceptible d'entraînerune division
du plateau continental en deux zones séparées. Exposantau paragraphe 161de sa
sentence le point de vue français, le tribunal arbitral déclarait:
«Ceci aurait pour conséquence que m&mesi l'attribution de la partie du
plateau continental du Royaume-Uni qui viendrait s'insérer entre les deux
zones françaises n'affectait pas, en thtorie, le statut juridique des eaux et
de l'espace aérien surjacents. les intérêtvsitaux de laepublique française
en matière de sécuriréet de dtfense de son territoire ne manqueraient pas
d'erre compromis. »
Dans le présent litige,il est, Al'évidence, impossible d'invoquerune situation
de cet ordre.
Mais d'ailleurs, au paragraphe 188 de la même sentence, le tribunal arbitrai
relativisait le81edes considérations de sécurité en concluant:
«Elles peuvent étayeret renforcer les conclusions déjhdéduitesdes Be- PLAIDOIRI DEE M. LUCCHINI 139
ments gtographiques, politiques et juridiques de la régionque te tribunal a
retenus, mais elles ne sauraient lesnnuler.»
De son côté, la Chambre de la Cour n'a pas non plus retenu les considéra-
tions de défense qui étaient invoquées par les Etats-Unis dans l'affaire de la
Délimitationde la frontiPre maritime dans la région du gove du Moine et. au
paragraphe 237 de son arrêt, ellene leur a pas reconnu en I'esphce valeur de
considérationpertinente.
Aucun élément particulierne nous semble donc autoriser Malie à faire étaten
tant que circonstance pertinente de ses intérêtse sécurité.
Non pertinente également est la considération tirée d'un statut juridique
d'Etat insulaire et c'est là l'objet de mon quatrièmepoint.
Quatrièmepoint.Non-pertinencedu «statutjuridique u d'Etut insulaire
Monsieur le Président, noussommes en présenceici d'une autre considération
que Malte estime êtrede la plus haute importance.
Le chapitre VI de son mémoire avecun intitulésignificatif (((Malta's Entitle-
ment as an Island Statep) y est consacré.Des références fréquente sice facteur
sont faites et la qualification de considération pertinente est expressément
conférée(1,MM, par. 220 et 234 d)).
J'aurais aiméne pas trop m'attarder sur cette question que la Libye a dkjh
examinée dans son mémoire ainsi que dans son contre-mémoire mais les
conseils maltais. au cours des plaidoiries orales, ont mis en relief le fait de
I'Etat insulaire et je me vois contraint de m'y arrêter quelques instants.
Pour synthetiser les débats.on peut dire que les Parties se trouvent réunies
sur un point qui est le suivant: une île possède le mêmetitre juridique qu'un
territoire continental au plateau.
Cette entente n'est d'ailleurs que la rksultante de regles d'une grande clart6
qui sont expriméespar l'article 1de la convention de Genève de 1958 sur te
plateau continental ainsi quepar l'article 121,paragraphe 2, de la convention de
1982. Là encore. ces dispositions conventionnelles semblent «cristalliser des
règles dudroit international coutumier*.
Ce point d'entente étant admis. la Libye ne peut suivre la distinction entre
Etats insulaires et îles rattachéespolitiquementà un Etat continental que la Par-
tie adverse considkre comme fondamentale et comme faisant- à ses yeux -
partie integrante du droit positif.
Les choses ne sont pas si simples et nous ne pouvons pas partager l'assurance
et la certitude maltaiseà ce sujet et ceci pour deux raisons:
- La premiere est de principe: dans les deux cas, il n'y a toujours qu'une
souverainetéqui s'exerce sur le territoire. La souveraineté estindivisible. On ne
voit guère pourquoi une île rattachée à un Etat continental pourrait se trouver
dans une situation plus defavorable qu'un Etat insulaire au regard du principe
de souveraineté.C'est la souverainetéqui est la qualitécommune de tous les
Etats, quelles que soient leur forme. leur taille, leur puissance militaire ou éco-
nomique. C'est la souverainetéqui fait l'égalitédes Etats et voilà. me semble-
t-il. une des significations exactes qu'il convient de donner 3 l'article2. para-
graphe 1,de la Charte des Nations Unies dans la référencequ'il fait à l'aégaiité
souverainen des Etats.
D'ailleurs, la praiique conventionnelle des Etais en matièrede délimitation -
h laquelle Malie a amplement prouvéson intérê t ne semble pas s'inspirer de
cette distinction dégagéepar la Partie adverse.
C'est ainsi que, pour ne citer que deux exemples, le traitéconclu le 4 mars140 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
1981 entre la France (pour le compte de la Martinique) et I'Etat insulaire de
Sainte-Lucie porte sur la délimitationdes espaces maritimes des deux îles de
longeurs de côtes comparableset ce mité n'avantage pas Sainte-Lucie.
La mêmeleçon pourrait êtretiréede la délimitation intervenue à la suite du
traité du2 avril 1980entre la France (mais cette fois-ci pour le compte de la
Réunion)et l'île Maurice, Etat insulaire.
Ainsi I'Etat insulaire souverain ne bénéficiepas d'un traitement plus fav~
rable que l'île rattachéà un Etat continental ni mêmesouverain, dans le cas oh
leurs côtes sont de longueurs comparables.
- La deuxieme raison qui nous paraît essentielle est que la distinction a
rapidement disparudes débatsde la troisitme conférencedes Nations Unies sur
le droit de la mer et que l'on n'en voit nuHetrace dans le texte de la convention
de 1982.
Malte fait preuve surce point d'une mémoire à éclipses.Elle, si soucieuse
dans certains cas de reconnaître l'importance fondamentaledes travaux de la
troisiéme conférence et des ternes de la convention qui en est issue (article 76
de ladite convention), semble oublier ce fait.
La troisième conférencen'a pas consacré laspécificitédu phénomènede
I'Etat insulaire, malgréla présenceà la conférencede trente-huit Etats insulaires
qui - comme le rappelle Malte - représententprèsde vingt-cinq pour cent de
l'ensembledes Etats.
C'est-&-direcomment interpréterce silence sinon qu'un aussi grand rassem-
blement d'Etats n'a pasconsidéré ce fait comme distinctif.
Et dans ces conditions il ne me paraît pas tout à fait exact de pretendre
comme le fait Malte au paragraphe 272 i) de son mémoire(1):
«The normal entitlement of island States to shelf rights and exclusive
economic zones has received the general approbation of the international
community ..»
11 serait plus approprié d'affirmerque les droits au plateau continental
(comme aux autresespaces maritimes d'ailleurs)ont étéreconnus de façon gé-
nérale à toute île en toute indiffërenàeson statut politique.
Malte invoque souvent pour conforter son argumentation la sentence rendue
par le tribunal arbitral chargéde délimiterle plateau continental entre la France
et le Royaume-Uni.
Elle observe nolamment que le tribunal a longuement analyséle statut poli-
tique des îles Anglo-Normandes. Ceciest tout àfait exact, h condition demen-
tionner parallelement que les termes du compromis franco-britannique (et
notamment l'article2) luicommandaient cette attention particulière,à condition
kgalement de ne pas oublier que c'est la solution de l'enclave à laquelle le tri-
bunal s'est finalementarrêté.
ta sentence du tribunal dans le différend franco-britannique me paraît
d'ailleurs tout3 fait éclairante pourla présente affaire, maisdans une perspec-
tive qui a étéun peu négligéepar la Partie maltaise..Ladite sentence illustre
parfaitement. en effet. la distinction capitale entretitre juridique et délimitation.
A cet égardle tribunal aclairement reconnuque les îles possèdent un titrejuri-
dique àun plateau continental. mais dans la mesure où l'objet du litige concer-
nait. en l'espkce. la délimitationdudit plateau, il a seulement affecté aux îles
Anglo-Normandes,pour parvenir à une solutionéquitable,une zone de 12 milles
marins.
En conclusion, l'argumentation maltaise concernantla distinction Etat insu-
laire, île rattachée2iun Etat continental. ne semble pas correspondrà la rkaiité
juridique. PLAlWlRlE DE M. LUCCHINI 141
CinquièmepointI. nadapta~iondu recours par Malte à la notiond'«Island deve-
loping country»
La notion de <<paysinsulaire en développement* est introduite dans ses
pièces écrites et n'a plus été évoquée dans les développements oraud xes
conseils maltais. En dépit dece silence qui a été observéi,l apparaît nécessaire,
pour quelques instants, de souligner sa non-pertinence et son inadaptation en
l'espèce.
Malte confêreen effet beaucoup d'ampleur Bla notion d'«Island developing
country» dans toutes ses écritures (cf. paragraphe 226 à 230 du mémoire(1);
paragraphes 309 B 311 du contre-mémoire (II), paragraphes 37 à 41 de la
réplique (III)). Elle considère que ladite qualification appliquée à son cas
constitue dans la présente affaire, pourtant relative Bla délimitation du plateau
continental, une considération pertinente.
Au paragraphe 41 de sa réplique (III), Malte demande même à la Cour
d'avoir 2 l'esprit que «Malta is an island developing country and Libya is not».
Qui pourrait ne pas reconnaître la justesse de cette lapalissade? Qui également
pourrait oublier parallèlement que la Libye qui- à I'kvidence- n'est pas une
île, est tout de même aussiun pays en développement?
Malte se rétèredonc longuement iicette notion et elle note avec soin l'intérêt
que les Nations Unies ont pu prendre aux pays insulaires en développement. 11
est vrai que l'organisation des Nations Unies, les institutions des Nations
Unies, y ont consacré une certaine attention. Il est non moins vrai que ces
mêmes institutions se sont beaucoup plus penché sur le sort - ô combien dou-
loureux - des pays les moins avancks, et ont organisk à Paris, en 1981, la
tenue d'une conférence internationale propre à ce sujet. Parmi ces pays on
compte d'ailleurs plusieurs petits Etats insulaires comme les Maldives, Samoa,
etc., mais, heureusement pour elle, Malte n'y figure pas.
Je voudrais iice propos, au sujet de cette allégation faite par Malte, demander
à la Cour la permission de souligner en quelques minutes l'utilisation erronée
que fait Malte de ce concept, en relevant d'ailleurs - chemin faisant - cer-
taines contradictions querecele le raisonnement maltais.
Malte, nous l'avons dit, che~che àti~er avantage de cette notion. Mais c'est
une notion juridiquement incertaine et je voudrais faire apparaître cette incerti-
tude par deux remarques :
1. En premier lieu, le droit de la mer semble superbement ignorer cette
notion. Malte A voulu montrer l'intérêt manifesté palres Nations Unies au phé-
nomène. Il n'empêche, cependant,que la conférence internationale la plus
importante (par son sujet), la plus ample (par le nombre d'Etats participants), la
plus longue (par le nombre de ses sessions et des années passées)n'a pas fait le
moindre échotout au long de ses travaux Zice probl&me,qui aurait dû pourtant
figurer parmi ses préoccupations.
2. En second lieu, le concept ne renvoie pas à un statut de droit positif,
acceptéen tant que tel par l'ensemble de la communauté internationale. Je vais
essayer de m'en expliquer.
La notion de pays insulaires en développement a étévisée dans différents tra-
vaux effectués par certaines institutions des Nations Unies. II ne semble pas que
la spkcificitéde cette notion soit nettement dkgagee. C'est ainsi que, dans un
cadre autre que celui des Nations Unies, les pays d'Afrique, des Caraibeset du
Pacifique, parties aux conventions de Loméet qui forment le groupe des Etats
dits ACP, ont identifié une catégorieau contenu quelque peu différent, puisque
sont concernés ales pays les moins avancés, enclavés ouinsulairesu.
Surtout l'analyse des documents élaborésdans le cadre des Nations Unies, et 142 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
dont Malte nous fournit quelques extraits à t'annexe 68 de son mémoire(1).
amène à dégager deux enseignements étroitemenctomplkmentaires.
a) Si on les ttudie sous l'angle de leur formejuridique, ces différentsdocu-
ments peuvent être classés en documents d'etudes ou en résolutions adoptées
soir parla CNUCED, soit par l'Assembléegénérale des Nations Unies.
, Il est difficile d'y voir des texte3 portée contraignante, à valeur juridique
obligatoire, creant des obligations positives pour certains Etats.
h) Le second enseignement dérive directementdu premier, le rejoint et le
prolonge.
II s trait au contenu des documents cités. Certains d'entre eux exprimen t
comme cela est souvent le cas Dour des résolutions adootéesen matitre de
développement économique - u& philosophie du souhaitaile dans les relations
économiauesinternationales du futur. une invitation à un certain comwortement.
mais non'point des normes de droit. ~a rédactiondesdites résolutionse 'mprunte
d'ailleurs et de façon caractéristique lemode conditionnel (c'est ce que fait
notamment la déclaration concernant l'instaurationdu nouvel ordre économique
international. rksolution 3201 du lCrmai 1974). En toute occurrence, on cher-
cherait en vain dans tous ces documents la reconnaissanced'un véritable droit
au profit des Etats insulairesen développement.
J'en viens maintenant àaborder dans ma troisièmeet dernière sectionde cette
partie le thèmenon juridique du partage des ressources.
,
3. Le théme non juridique duparrage des ressources
II est en effet un thème qui traversede façon certes plus ou moins souter-
raine. mais de façon aussi évidente, les écritures maltaises et dansne moindre
mesure les plaidoiries orales: celuidu partage des ressources.
Ce thkme apparaît en filigrane'dès les premières pagesdu mémoire maltais,
qui situe d'emblte la présente espèce soumiseh la Cour sous te signe de l'accés
aux richesses. comme l'a déjhsignaléM. l'agent du Gouvernement libyen.
Appliquant une technique rép6titive.Malte souligne à l'envi l'absence surson
territoire terrestre de ressources énergétiques.
Le caractkre de leitmotiv que prend cette affirmation est encore accuse par
l'opposition qui est pauvre en puissance juridique, niais riche en images, que
souligne Malte entre cette absence de ressources énergétiques dont elle souffre
et l'abondancedes mêmes ressources dontbénéficiela Libye.
Qu'il me soit permis de rappeler à la Cour. à titre illustratif, deux phrases
significatives (et je n'ai que l'embarrasdu choix) extraites des pieces écrites
maltaises:
«This permanent lack of land-based energy resources, especiallybearing
in mind the abundance of Libya's petroleum and gas resources, is, without
doubt. an equitable consideration or factor relevant to the delimitation of
the shelf areas dividing thtwo Parties.» (1, MM, p. 110,par. 225.)
Et surtout cette phrase surprenante difficilement supportable etde toute façon
toialement inappropriéefigurantau paragraphe 25 de la replique maltaise (III):
*The issue is not "are both rich or poor?" but "what is the comparative wealth
of one as against the other?"»
Cette référence constante faitepar Malte h l'absence de ressources sur son
territoire detourne de la réglejuridique selon laquelle les droits de 1'Etatsur le
plateau existent ipsfacto et ab inirio, comme l'a dit la Cour au paragraphe 19
de son arrêtde 1969. Elle commande et sous-entend non pas 130#ration juri- PLAIDOIRIEDE M. LUCCHINI 143
dique de délimitation du plateau continental mais plutôt un partage des res-
sources de celui-ci.
Une telle conception est condamnée parla Cour qui s'est fermement refusée
à tout recoursà la justice distributive.
Dans l'arrêt du 20 février 1969, auquel je viens de faire référence,la Cour a
en effet estiméque cette tfiche aconcerne essentiellement la délimitationet non
point la r6partitionn (C.I.Recueil 1969,p. 22, par. 18).
II apparaît également utile de faire un rappel qui semblera, je vous prie de
m'en excuser, Monsieur le Président,une évidence.La notion d'«inégalité com-
pensatrice» dont mon ami M. Weil a fait étatdans son intervention orale est
une formule qui est présentée parfoispour illustrer un des principes généraux
dégagéspar la premiére CNUCED et destiné à servir de concept opératoireen
faveur des pays en développement dans leurs relations économiques avec les
pays développks.
Or, à ce propos, M. Weil procède àcette affirmation:
«La Cour n'acceptera pas ,..qu'en matiere de délimitationdu plateau
continental la protection que le principe de l'égalité souverainedes Etats
assure aux «petits» soit balayée pardes privilèges juridiques exorbitants
accordésaux «grands»; faute de quoi l'inégalité compensatriceferait place
une inkgalite aggravatrice.>>(III, 408.)
11s'agit là d'une formule brillante -t à coup sûr - elle porte.
On voit mal cependant comment l'inégalité compensatricetrouverait à
s'appliquer ici. Le présentdifférend ne met pas aux prises, que je sache, un
pays en développement - Malte en l'occurrence - 5 la puissance hautement
industrialiséeque seraitla Libye.
Cette évocation est malgré tout assez symbolique de tout un ktat d'esprit qui
caractériseles theses maltaises car elle débouche naturellementsur le theme riche/
pauvre, qui courtde façon diffuse au travers de toutes les écritures maltaises.
Je n'en parlerai pasA ce stade de la procédure orale puisque,dans leurs expe
sés,les conseils maltais sont assez peu revenus sur ce type d'argument.
Restons donc sur le temainjuridique.
Je me contenterai simplement d'indiquer que l'opposition (à traits forcés)
entre le Gulliver libyen et le Lilliput maltais est non seulement dénuéede perti-
nence juridique mais elle fausse le débatet entraîne une vision déformée,et par
conséquent déformante,de la réalité.
Et c'est pourquoi la Libye se rtserve la possibilitk de revenir ultérieurement
sur cet aspect de la question pour montrer que cettedisparity between the eco-
nomic positions of the Parties* que se plaisaià souligner mon colfégueLauter-
pacht (III, p. 329) relève plus du mythe que d'une observation objective des
situations économiquesdes deux Etats.
La seconde partie que j'aborde maintenant - et qui me retiendra beaucoup
moins longuement - a pour objet de montrer que les considérations alléguées
par Malte ne commandent pas une délimitation effectuéesur la base de I'équi-
distance.
II. LESCONSIDÉRATIONS ALL~GUB PEAR MALTE NE COMMANDENTPAS
UNE DÉLIMITATIONEFFECTUÉESUR LA BASE DE L'~?QUIDISTANCE
Dans mes précédents proposj,'ai cherché à démontrerqu'au titre des circons-
tances propres à conduire h une délimitation équitable Maltea invoqué des
considérations qui souffraient d'une absence de pertinence juridique au regard
de l'objet du litige.144 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
Il s'agit là d'un point fondamental, suffisant en lui-même pour ruinerl'argu-
mentation maltaise.
Néanmoins, pour quelques instants seulement, laissons nous entraîner dans
cette fausse perspective. A supposer que I'on puisse retenir des considérations
étrangères à l'institution du plateau continental. encore convient-il de savoir si
de telles considérations conduisent nécessairement, inéluctablement,àI'applica-
tion de la méthode d'équidistance.
Avant de répondre cette question qui implique l'existence d'un lien de
logique juridique entre considération pertinenteet méthode d'équidistance, il est
utile en quelques mots de s'interroger de maniere plus prbcise sur le rôAerern-
plir par les circonstances pertinentes.
C'est l'objet de ma prcmiéreet tr&scourte section.
1. Fonction des circonstuncespertinentes
Mon intention n'est pas de m'attarder longuement sur ce problème puisque
mon collégue, M. Bowett, en parlera beaucoup plus savamment que je ne sau-
rais le faire.
Je voudrais plutôt étudier d'un point de vue abstrait et général les typesde
fonctions que I'on peut assigner aux circonstances pertinentes, étant entendu
comme postulat de base que ces circonstances ont pour objet d'individualiser,
d'adapter la dgle de droit au cas d'espèceà résoudre.En somme de personnali-
ser la règle de droit.
A l'analyse, deux schémasthkoriques sont concevables.
Le premier implique un rapport d'ensemble, un équilibre ggnéralentre les
considérations invoquées etle résultat obtenu.
En d'autres termes. c'est la balance entre tous les facteurs pertinents qui doit
amener h la délimitation équitable. Cette conception estcelle que semble retenir
la Cour et qu'elle a notamment explicité au paragraphe 93 de son arrêtdans
l'affaire duPlareau continentalde la mer du Nord. Ce premier schéma se carac-
térise par sa finalité.Les circonstances pertinentes produisent ou du moins
contribuent 21produire de maniére positive une délimitation équitable.
C'est bien Ih ce qu'a affirme la Cour en 1982 au paragraphe 132 de son
arrêt: chaque litige relatif au plateau continental doit &treexaminéet rksolu en
lui-même en fonctiondes circonstances qui lui sont propres» (Ci.J.Recueil
1982, p.92).
Il en va diffkremment du second schéma.Là, le rôle dévolu aux circonstances
pertinentes perd son importance primordiale.
Ces circonstances vont alors, soit servir de teàtposteriori, afin de s'assurer
que le résultat auquel on est parvenu pard'autres voies est bien équitable. soit
intervenir dans un second stade aprés qu'aura d'abord kt6 appliquée une
méthode privilégiée.
Cette derniéreconception s'apparente de trésprès à celle qui est défenduepar
Malte. On en trouve une expression symbolique dans un intitulé du contre-
memoire maltais (II): ~Checking the equitable and reasonable character of the
resul: relevant circumstancesn (p.81)et dans des explications qui sont fournies
au paragraphe 172 de ladite piéce.
Ces différences d'approches sont importantes. Elles semblent correspondre
aux points de vue respectifs de la Libye et de Malte.
Peu importe d'ailleurs pour la démonstration immédiate.Ce que l'on peut
retenir, c'est le fait que ces schernas ont en commun de répondre tous deux à
l'exigence logique d'une correspondance étroite entre les considérations allé-
gudes et la délimitation proposée ou la méthodehemployer pour y parvenir. PLAIDOIRIE DE M. LUCCHINI 145
Or. sur ce point essentiel, on est bien obligéde prendre acte de la déficience
du système maltais. Et c'est précisément ceque j'aimerais maintenant voir dans
la seconde section qui traite de l'absence de lien logique.
2. Absence de lien logique
Récapitulant dans son contre-memoire (II) les différents facteurs qu'elle
invoque, Malte conclut:
«These equitable considerations or relevant circumstances confirm and
reinforce the appropriateness of Malta's equidistance line as the equitable
solution in the present case.» (Par. 320, p. 152.)
Ce type d'affirmation (péremptoire autant que non argumentke) qui revient
différentes reprises surprend l'esprit rationnel. vertu de quelle curieuse rela-
tion de cause à effet peut-on faire découler des considérations évoquéespar
Malte comme pertinentes le caractere appropriéde la méthoded'6quidistance?
En quoi, par exemple, le fait que Malte fasse étatde sa qualid d'<(Islanddeve-
loping country. puisse conduire, par une impérieuse nécessitélogique, à
l'application de l'équidistance?
Contrairement aux prétentions maltaises, on peut affirmer avec plus de sûreté
qu'aucune des considérations auxquelles il est fait référencen'appelle l'équidis-
tance. Cette remarque àcaractère générarlequiert cependant quelques précisions
supplémentaires concernantplus spéciaIementdeux des facteurs auxquels Malte
accorde un poids pnvilkgié dans son argumentation: le facteur pêcheet le fac-
teur intérêtsde sécurité quenous ilvons déjà rencontrés,mais que j'examine ici
dans une autre perspective.
a) Pêche
Après avoir longuement fait étatde la question des pêcheset y avoir consacre
certaines annexes, Malte en vient, dans sa réplique,à tempérerl'importance ini-
tialement conférke à ce facteur, pour finalement, comme nous l'avons déjànoté,
n'en plus parler dans les plaidoiries orales.
Dans son mémoire(I), Malte insiste sur l'importance et la pertinence, dans le
cas présent,de la méthodeque j'ai déjà évoquéel,a méthode Kannizzati.Elle y
dit notamment :
«The relevance of the existence of this method of fishing is that indivi-
dual senes of kannizzati may stretch over an extended distance and many
of them have for some years stretched as far as the equidistance line be-
tween Malta and Libya, and even beyond.(~ Par. 44, p. 19.)
La carte no 3 qui est annexéeau mémoire(vol. III) se révele fortpeu expli-
cite et ne fournit aucune indication sur l'extension géographique de cette
méthode.
Au paragraphe 46 du mêmememoire, Malte indique également que.bien que
le secret des lieux de pêche soit jalousement gardé par les pêcheurs,certaines
activitéss'exercent au-delà du Medina Bank. Effectivement, la carte nu 5 du
volume III intitulee «Ares covered by certain Maltese fishing activities (long-
line fishing and trawling)~ confirme l'assertion dans fa mesure où elle montre
que certaines de ces activités semblent trouver place au sud de la ligne des
34 degrésde latitude, donc sensiblement au sud de la ligne d'équidistance.
Je ne voudrais pas abuser du temps de la Cour. la Libye ayant déjhconsacré
de substantiels développements en réponse h ces arguments (notamment les146 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
paragraphes 3.12 à 3.24 de son cantre-mkmoire (H). Aussi me bornerai-je &
quelques brèves remarques directement axées sur la prétendue liaisondes ques-
tions de pêche etde la ligne d'équidistance:
1. II semblerait, d'abord, que l'étendue considérabledes zones où sont cen-
sées se dérouler ces activitésde pêchesoit peu à la mesure des capacités de la
flotte maltaise. Si pêcheAlongue distance il y a, elle ne peut êtreque I'excep
tion plutôt que la kgle.
2. La prétention de Malte iiune delimitation établie sur la thèsede l'équidis-
tance paraît démuniede fondement au regard même des assertions maltaises.En
effet, selon les explications fournies, les activités allégukes se prolongeraient
donc même au-delà de la Ligne d'équidistance. Dans ces conditions, quelle
signification pourrait-on accordeà une telle ligne?
3. Mais surtout, et pour quitter le domaine des hypothèses et s'en tenir hdes
certitudes, Malte, par t'acteno 24 en date du 21 juillet 1978, a procédé à la
fixationà 25 milles marins de sa zone de pêche exclusive.
Ce texte a fait l'objet d'une communication officielle au Secrétaire géneral
des Nations Unies. afin que - comme l'indique. expressément,la lettre en ques-
tion - la décision maltaise soit portéà la connaissance des Etats membres des
Nations Unies et des observateurs.
En fixant par cet acte juridique libre, souverain, les limi~esde la zone de pêche
exclusive, en entendant expressement les rendre opposables aux tiers, Malte a,
par là même, clairement reconnu les bornesde ses droits en matière de pêche.
Depuis lors, cette réglementation et ces limites sont demeurées inchangées.
C'est seulement dans le cadre étroitement circonscrit dudiffërend concernant le
plateau continental que Malte affiche maintenant des prétentions au-delà des
25 milles marins.
b) Intérêt dse sécurité
En effet, la même coïncidence heureusedes intérêts de défense etde la ligne
d'équidistance se trouve également exposée dans les écritures maltaises. Elle est
affirmke en ces termes dans le contre-mémoire maltais (II):
«In the circumstances of the present case, the equitable consideration of
secunty anddefence interests confirms the method of equidistance, which
gives each Party a comparable lateral control from its coasts.~ (P. 150.
par. 314.)
Une idée voisineest égalementexprimte au paragraphe 149 du mémoire (1):
<<Theequidistance method thus gives effects to the logic that Malta's need for
security is no less than that of Libya.~ Nous nous permettons encore une fois
de rappeler que ce n'est pas en ces termes que te problème se pose dans le cas
d'espkce et que la question adressée à la Cour n'est pas de savoir si Malte a ou
non les mêmesbesoins que la Libye en matière de sécurite.Sur le fond, j'aime-
rais tout d'abord observer que la bonne protection des intérêtsde sécurité,ou
les nécessitésde «légitimedéfense» pour reprendre l'expression à laquelle a eu
recours M. Brownlie, s'apprecie certainement moins que par le passt par réfé-
rence à un critére de distance. A l'époque actuelle,les armements modernes
sont susceptibles de faire surgir le risque qui menace tout Eta- neutre ou non
- &des milliers de kilomètres.
En outre, la logique de protection des intérêtsde sécurité s'accommoderait
beaucoup plus facilement pour un Etat insulaire de la déterminationd'une zone
circulaire. d'une circonférence d'une certaine largeur tout autour de l'ile ou du
groupe d'îles plutô~que d'une ligne d'equidistance. PLAIDOIRID EEM. LUCCHINI 147
Je voudrais enfin ajouterque certains Etats ont pu parfois estimer que les exi-
gences de leur sécurité, entendueau sens large, leur dictaient la fixation de
zones dans lesquelles ils se reconnaissaient des compétences spéciales adaptées
Ii ces fins. C'est ainsi par exemple que la France, par un décret du 17 mars
1956.avait portéh 27 milles marins les limites de la zone de contrôle douanier
le long des cbtes d'Af~iquedu Nord pour les bateaux de 100 tonneaux de jauge
et plus. 11en a étéde m&mepour l'Italie, au dtbut du siScleen 1912,qui avait
fixé en temps de paix les limites d'une zonede sécurité plus largeque les
limites de sa mer temtoriale.
Or. Malte n'a jamais agide la sorte. Sans doute a-t-elle amendé parl'acte 28
du 24 juillet 1980 sa législationde 1971 relative à ses eaux territoriales et sa
zone contiguë afin de préciserles prérogativesqu'elle entend donner à I'inte-
rieur des limites de cette zone. Mais, jusqu'à la présente affaire,elle n'avait
jamais fait correspondre les intkrêtsde la sécurité nationale avec la ligne
d'equidistance.
Non-pertinence des considérations invoquéesau regard de l'objet du litige,
non-cohérence avecla ligne d'équidistance, tels sontles traits qui semblent se
degager de la position maltaise. Et en véritéla construction maltaise en ce
domaine apparaît pleinement artificielle. La coïncidence fortuite des facteurs
invoquésavec la ligne d'équidistance constitueen fait les justificationsposte-
riori de la nécessité poséepriori de la méthode d'équidistance.
Parvenu ainsi au terme de mon intervention, il me reste, Monsieur le Rési-
dent, Messieurs les juges,b formuler les conclusions qui se dégagentde celle-ci
et qui sont au nombre de quatre:
1.La délimitationpar voiejudiciaire du plateau continental entre deux Etats
obéit iiun corps de règles internationales spécifiques, précisées en particulier
paf la Cour dans les différentes affairesqu'elle aeà connaître.
2. L'autonomie d'une telle op6ration juridique ne s'accommode pas de la
présentation d'uncenain nombre de considérations dépourvues de tout lien de
connexitéau regard de l'objet du litige soumisàl'appréciationde la Cour.
3. Aucune des considérations exposéespar Malte ne présenteles caracteres
mentionnCs àla conclusion précédente.
4. Aucune des considerations soi-disant pertinentes présentbespar Maite ne
peut fournir le moindre appui en faveur de la méthode d'équidistance.
Monsieur le Président, Messieursles juges. je vous remercie de votre atten-
tion. J'en ai fini avec ma présentation.Demain matin, si vous le voulez bien,
Monsieur le Prksident, la présentationde la these libyenne continuera.
L'audience est levéed 12h 55 TWENTY-FIRSTPUBLIC SITTING(13 XI1 84, 10 a.m.)
Present: [See Sittingof 26 XI84.1
ARGUMENT OF MR. HIGHET
COUNSELFOR THE GOVERNMENTOF THE LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHlRlYA
Mr. HIGHET: Mr. President. Members of the Court. may 1FirstSay that it is
a Fat honour and a distinct personal pleasure to appear before you again.
What 1am to speak about today is the use of certain diagrams and abstrac-
tions by Malta. My friend Sir Francis Vallat pointed out last week that the use
of theoretical and abstract diagrams is a subject whichpears to have acquired
an increasingly important role in Malta's case (p. 29, supra). We have noted
that this tendency towards abstractions and geometry has even increased in the
oral proceedings.
Geometry must, therefore, be dealt with - however reluctantly- and this
subject follows directly upon the conclusion yesterday of my friend Professor
Lucchini's statement on the subject of irrelevant factors or considerations in-
duced by Malta. These Maltese abstractions and diagrams are also not relevant.
They are of a different order,however, from circumstances such as fishing,
neutrality and economics. Those - even if not relevant - were factual in
nature. The diagrams introduced by Malta, however, are intellectualized abstrac-
tions. They should thus be dealt with separately.
1 muçt stress that my staternent is in rebuttal of Malta's suggestions and
should not be perceived as forrning part of Libya's positive case.
1 shall limit myself to two examples: the trapezium andthe diagram more
recently used by Professor Brownlie and contained in Figure 27A in Malta's
dossier of maps and diagrams presented to the Court and 1will turn to that in a
moment.
First, I have had a Iarge map of the trapezium placed on the easel behind me.
The Court will also find it depicted on Number 4 of the Libyandossier.
As the Court can see from the diagram the trapezium casts its shadowa11the
way from the Tunisian border, at Ras Ajdir, to a point approaching theEgyp
tian border, at Ras-at-Tin. The projection reaches out more than 460 nautical
miles to the east. It is the quickest possible illustoftwhy equidistance can-
not achieve equity in this particular situation: one only has to look at it. It
shows, in dramatically stark relief, how an equidistmce line for a small island
automatically cuts off the coasts of the opposite mainland States frorn their
continental shelves. It encroaches drasticakly upon the natural prolongation of
the land territory of those States.
Figure 7 was identified in Malta's "IHustrations for the Oral Proceedings" as
king "The trapezium in the context of the Maltese and Libyan coastlines". No
indication was given as to how those particular lengths of Coast were in fact
selected.It does not Say "in the context of therelevant Maltese and Libyan ARGUMENT OF MR. HIGHET 149
coastlines", for by no means can al1 these lengths of coast be relevant to
this delimitation or even,1 submit. to a test of proportionality. A1 have just
observed, the line imposed by the trapezium between Malta and Ras-at-Tin,
almost al1the way to Egypt, is more than 460 nautical miles long.
What is more, the trapezium as seen here spreads its wings across nine-tenths
of the entire Libyan coastal front on the Mediterranean. The equidistance line,
which has been advanced by Malta in conjunction with the trapezium, presents
a text-book case of "cut-off'. Libya is cut off across its coastal front by the
equidistance line contained in the trapezium and is likewise encroached upon by
the approach of that equidistance line to its coastal front.
The trapezium serves no real purpose, Mr. President, except that of an artifi-
cial framework for Malta's equidistance lineThat is its sole and unique object.
It has not been suggested by Malta that it has ever been used by any other
State or in connection with any other method of delimitation. Thus one must
refer to the trapezium as if it contained a proposed or implied equidistance line,
for that is what it does.
It is the highly artificial framework within which Malta seeks to justifyon
fallacious grounds of "relative proportionality", the equidistance line which cuts
right across Libya's coast from one side of that artificial framework to the
other.
Why was the trapezium introduced in the first place? It may well onginally
have come about as a result of a desire on Maltais part to make an exaggerated
assertion about "overlapping natural prolongations", as was the case in the ori-
@ ginal Figure A in Malta's Memorial at page 118. It was also doubtless stimu-
lated by the goal of enlarging the "area" for the Court to look at, to the greatest
extent possible.
As we have also said. the trapezium canbe viewed as arecognition by Malta
that thetest of proportionality is, after all, applicab-e even in the case of
opposite States.Deep down. Malta cannot avoid subconsciously acknowledging
the value of proportionality.
The only problem is that the area presupposed by ~aha bears no relationship
whatever to the proper area for delimitation. As we said in Libya's Counter-
Memorial, the area of the trapezium appears to have been selected solely to
accommodate Malta's actual claims. (II, LCM, Ann., pp. 5-6, para. (ii"A.cri-
tique of the trapezium exercise".)
And thus the distinguished Agent of Malta said that Malta's purpose was
"exactly that of showing how a longer coast naturally produces alarger area of
shelf' (III, p. 305). Yet he also sought to qualify that purpose. He said that
what he meant was "a relatively larger area and not a proportionately larger
area" (III, p. 306).
What does this really mean? It is obvious that if one increases the long coast
of StateB at the bottom of the trapezium, State B may then be entitled to more
shelf, inabsolute quantity, than it had before. This does not reflect, of course,
the plain fact thathese areas here (pointing at the Gulf of Sirt and east of Ben-
ghazi) really have nothing to do with Malta- or with State A at the topofthe
trapezium. State A, Malta- the Siate with the short coast at the top the dia-
gram - will also acquire more shelf, if you enlarge the geometnc figure, and if
one increases the long coast of State B.
But Malta has, in effect, conceded that any amount of additional shelf
accruing to State B - the long-coast State- will be less than proportionate.
This means that State A - Malta, the short-coast Stat- must acquire a dis-
proportionately larger area. It must receive the shelf area which Libya or State
B - the long-coast State- is not to receive, since the share of the long-coast 150 CONTINENTAL SHELF
State has already been defined as being less than proportionate.The shelf of the
short-coast State, and any increasein that shelf, is therefore always dispropor-
tionate, disproportionately largecompared to the length of its short coasts.
Malta's Agent also explained that to reject the results of equidistance derived
from the trapeziumwould "give to a State an even larger share than that allw
cated to it by nature and would amount to a refashioning of nature - a
refashioning of geography" (III,p. 305).
Should he not in fact have said "allocated to it by equidistance", or "allocated
to it by the trapezium", insteadof "allocated toitby nature"? For "nature" has
nothing to do with the matter. It is the abstraction of the trapezium whichis
controlling.
Moreover, the system depicted by the trapezium, Mr. President - simply as
a matter of geometry - will ensure that its results are never proportionate vis-
&-visthe long-coast State, and always disproportionatelyin favour of the short-
coast State.
The irapezium illustrates that this disproportion will increase. the longer the
assumed coastal front at the bottom becomes, or the shorter the little coastal
front at the top becomes. Howcm this be?
It was the Agent of Malta who first admitted this inevitable disproportion,
which hasloomed like a submerged rock just below the surface of Malta's case.
The Agent said the following :
"An island, because it is surrounded by water and therefore its natural
prolongation extends in al1directions, must, in normal circumstances, also
generate rights over the surrounding sea areas. which may also not be pro-
portionate to its size." (III, p. 306.)
Leaving aside the question of'what are "normal circumstances", how severe
is this conceded lack of proportion? A simple illustration will give the answer.
Let us suppose that the trapezium has become a simple triangle, with the small
island at the apex anddthe long mainland ai the base. This result was foreseen
@ by Figure A of Malta'ç Mernorial, at page 118. In the case of a near-triangle.
there is no way that the use of amedian line can pioduce any result other than
granting to the island at the top one-quarter of the total shelf area, and the
mainland at the bottom, three-quarters.
This disproportion alwaysruns in favour of the island.to the detriment of the
mainland. Its inequityincreases as the island coast gets relatively smaller and
smaller, or as the mainland coast gets relatively longer and longer; as this
happens, the ratio of shelf to shelf approaches, but can never exceed, the ratio
of only three to one, even ithe ratio of the coasts is a thousand to one.
The trapezium demonstrates, therefore,that - where one of two States in a
delimitation has a small island coast, and the other has a long mainland coast
- equidistance will always produce a result whose inequity will increase in
proportion to any increase in disparity between the coastal lengths.
Finaliy, 1would remind Members of the Court of that quite remarkable map
in Libya's Counter-Memorial - it is Map B to the Annex, the last map in the
book - where three separate trapezia are constructed. One for Malta and
Libva. another for Malta and Greece. and the third forMalta and Ital,. the, are
su&rimposed one upon another in a grotesque and giant fan in a peremptory
demonstration of why the trapezium concept gets one nowhere in matters of
delimitation - and particulady so when siveral mainland States are brought
into the picture ai once.
We can now arrive at three conclusionson the trapezium. ARGUMENT OF MR. HlGHET 151
First, when several trapezia are visualized, together, it becomes quite clear
how artificial the basic concept.
Second, when an overall delimitation with seveial mainland States contem-
plated it is easy to see how a delimitation between the island and any single one
of those mainland States would be unjustifiable by reference ta the trapezium
but must be determined otherwise un equitable principles.
Third, equity requires different treatment for mainland coasts in these situa-
tions, which takes into account the inherent and severe distortions caused by the
disparity in coastal lengths.
The situation where these distortions exist, therefore, is predictable, inexor-
able, and extreme.There will ioevitably be discrimination against the State with
the longerCoastunless some other method of delimitation is used.
MALTA'D SIAGRA MF THE "PROPORTIONAL LITEY
OF LIBYA'T SYPE"
Mr. President, the Court has perhaps heard enough by now of geometry,
triangles and trapezia; but there was another geometrical construct used by
Professor Brownlie which cannot remain unchallenged. It was the diagram iden-
tified as Figur27A in Malta's dossier of maps and diagrams provided to the
@ Court. It was also presented in the form of Figures A and B at page 96 of
Malta's Reply. (For convenience, Mernbers of the Couri can refer to it by
turning to No. 55 of the Libyan dossier, and this is Figure 27A reproduced and
put up on the easel behind me.)
The Court will recall that Professor Brownli- and the diagram - purpor-
ted thereby to represent the role of proportionality in what was called Libya's
theory of the case. Based upon what Malta considers Libya's theory of the case
tobe, there would be, it was said, an equally "intense" projectbynState 1(at
thebottom) in the general direction of StatIIn(the little States in the north of
the diagram). There was thus drawn, above the median line between the two
landmasses, a dotted line entitled "Proportionality line of Libyan type". The
point made by Malta was that this is the line which would be required by the
so-called "Libyan theory of proportionality", which Malta equates with a
method of delimitation. When itislogically applied to a series of little adjacent
States, says Malta,the result is obviously wrong.
Therefore, says Malta, the so-ciilled Libyan method or theory of proportion-
ality is also wrong.
The difficulty with this proposition is that no delimitation suggested by Libya
would ever have reached the result portrayed in this figure. There would have
been two possible results, neither of which approaches this caricature.
The first js that one would initially have to recognize a series of adjacent
relationships of opposite relevarit coortsect!ons of coastsA coastal front of
X kilometres for each one of the 17 little States IIn would be precisely matched
by a segment, or partial coastal frontage of Sta1(at the bottom), likewise of
X kilometres. If one had 17 such relationships between sections of relevant
opposite coasts, one right after the other, sweeping across Figure 27A like a
series of vertical planks, one can easily see that the "Proportionality lthe of
Libyan type" indicated here is a total misrepresentation of Libya's position.
The second solution.It might also be imagined that the entire coastline at the
top ofihe diagram could be - in the apt phrase of the Court in the NorSea
Continental SheIfcases (I.C.J.Reports 1969, p. 32, para. 46- "considered as
an entity" and would thus present a composite coastline precisely eqinlover-
al1 length to the single coastline io the south. What would the logical solution152 CONTINENTAL SHELF
be, between the composite coast at the top and the unitary coast ai the bottom?
One would presume, the median line; And it would beup to the Iittle adjacent
neighbouring States, at the top of the diagram, to sort rnatters out arnongst
themselves, in 16 srnaller delimitations of adjacent States. The result of each of
those delimitations could well be expected to be practically uniform: 16 perpen-
diculars to the general direction of the Coast,assuming of course no other rele-
vant circumstances to betaken into account.
In either case the same result would be reached. In neither case would the
result be reached which has been suggested by Malta. This error of method is,
with respect, so elementary that it might well nothave been needed to elaborate
this point for the Court, but- as1 said earlier- we could not let this serious
mistake in reasoning go unanswered.
Moreover, the point made by Professor Brownlie was not a minor point. It
supponed his statement on 3 December that "the Libyan position . . .stands
quite sirnpty for the dominance of the shelf areas of a semi-enclosed sea or gulf
by a long-coast State" (III. p. 473). In addition, in the Maltese Agent's conclud-
ing remarks on that day. the sarne point was there used to support Malta's
closing proposition 8: "The Libyan position . . .",said-the Agent, "would be
wholly inequitable, not only in the present case but generally in the situation of
long-coast States CO-existingwith short-coast States in semi-enclosed seas" (III,
p. 475). This characterization of the Libyan position then became referred to by
Malta's Agent as "[tlhe Libyan argument for special advantage" (ibid.).
One has the feeling that this is al1 being done with mirrors. The images are
reversed, and upside-down. In fact, it is not Libya which is contending for a
"special advantage"; it is Malta which has claimed application of a method
which, in the specific circumstances of this case, will inevitably give a special
advantage to Malta because of the inherent distortion in the situation. This is
true even using Malta's own construction of the trapezium to demonstrate the
point.
Professor Weil also argued, on 30 Novernber, that Libya's coasts should not
be given more weight or intensity than those of Malta, as "[bloth coasts are of
equal legal value" (III, p. 434). But what does equidistance. as illustrated by
the trapezium, actually do? It gives each kilometre of those long Libyan coasts
far less "weight". and less"intensity", than that given to each kilometre of
Malta's coasts. The weight and the intensity accorded ro Malta's coasts are
exaggerated to a striking degree. Although it is Malta which has frequently
made use of anargument of "non-discrimination", it is Libya that would be dis-
criminated against.
Finally, one can readily see how the basic position expressed in this abstract
diagram destroys any remaining logic or persuasiveness possessedby the earlier
diagram of the trapezium. For here onemust visualize 17 trapezia, side by side,
each with its two sides leading down to the western and the eastern edges of the
long coast of State 1at the bottom and each with its separate small apex in the
north. It is the last word in overlap. If the trapezium can make no sense in
Malta's own illustration, how can it make any better sense when applied to the
facts of the present case?
My staternent ha. 1 hope. illustrated how Malta's figure asnd diagrams do
not prove what Malta has said that they prove. They tell us quite the opposite,
It must now be clear beyond doubt that the trapezium is devoid of justifica-
tion in reality; it is divorced from the actual facts and circumstmces; and it in
no way establishes that the use of equidistance would produce an equitable
result in the present case.
It is therefore now time to tum away from these artificial figures and dia- ARGUMENTOF MR. HIGHET 153
gramsand to turnto a considerationof the relevantcircumstancesof this case
which Malta'strapeziumso thoroughlyignores.
1 thank you, Mr. Presidentand distinguishedJudges of the Court, for your
attentiveearingof my argument. 1would be much obliged, Mr. President.if
you wouid now kindlycal1uponmy friendandcolleague, ProfessorBowett. ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR BOWETT
COUNSEL FOR THEGOVERNMENTOF THELIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA
ProfessorBOWETT: Mr. President, Members of the Court, may 1Say what a
d privilege it is to address this Court once again as counsel for Libya.
THE RELEVANF TACTSAND CIRCUMSTAN CFESHE CASE
My task is to assist the Court by outlining the facts and circumstances rele-
vant to this case and then showing how these may be reflected in an equitable
result. My aim is clarification. Whether 1 achieve it wbelfor the Court to
decide, but1 do assure the Court that 1 shall try to simplify rather than to ob-
scure.1 can equally assure the Court that we have taken great care to heed the
views of the Court in its 1982 Judgment and 1shall not berepeating arguments
rejected by the Court i1982.In particular, I shall not again vex the Court with
an extensive discussion of the theoryplate tectonics.
But 1 must emphasize that the area for delimitation in this case is not the
same as it was in the 1982 case. and the relevant circumstances are quite dif-
ferent. In particul1rwould stress the fact that the Rift Zone was not an issue
in the1982 case and did not form any part of the essential arguments of Libya in
that case, simply because it had no relevance to a delimitation between Libya
and Tunisia. The Court will recall that the Court twk the view in that case that
the relevant area ended at the parallel with Ras Kaboudia and thee of longi-
tude from Ras Tajoura. Perhaps 1may be permitted to recall for the Court the
relevant area in the 1982 case and if 1 may 1will draw it on this map.was
this area. It can be seen that the Rift Zone lies right outside the relevant area in
the 1982case.
I should Say at the outset that, like my distinguished colleague, Mr. Lauter-
pacht,1sensed the Court's reluctance to become involved in the scientific evi-
dence relating to the Rift Zone. But it is the Court's jurisprudence, not 1. that
has emphasized the importance of a significant discontinuity. And here, in this
case, we have one. So it is impossible, in deference to the Court andta the
interests of Libya. to ignore this evidence.
13ut at least 1 can assure the Court that my argument will not be limited
simply to that one issue. So let me begin with broader issues.
The principle that a delimitation in accordance with equitable principles must
takeaccount of al1relevant circumstances is beyond dispute. My learned friend,
Professor Jaenicke, has commented upon its significance in this case, and so 1
Sayno more about its legal validity.
But the relevance of this principle for the Court's task is important a1d
would respectfully submit that it imposes on the Court a the-stage task.
Assuming that the Court has established the legal principles and that must
then tum 10the facts. the task would seem to be the following.
The Court's Task
First, theCourt will need to identify al1the relevant facts and circumstances
and 1 need scarcely add that it musc at the same time identify and discard the
irrelevant. ARGUMENT OF PROFESSORBOWETT 155
Second, the Court will need to weigh or balance those that are relevant. Some
facts may be more important than others. The criterion or test of importance is
the degree to which a parficular fact will influence the equitabie result and,
more specifically, the actual course of the boundary to be agreed between the
Parties in application of the Court's judgment. And, of course, irrespective of
their relative weight or importance, the Court may have to detennine their
consistency with a particular result. For some factors rnay tend one way and
some another way.
The Court will have noted Malta's accusation thatthere is no logical connec-
tion for consistency between the various factors relied on by Libya.
Specifically, Malta says there is no logical connection between the facts of
geography and the facts of geology and geomorphology. But, of course,
Mr. President, why should there be? There may well be cases where different
factors pull in different directions, and the Court will have the difficult task of
deciding which have the more weight. In this case, the Court faces no such prob-
lem since the relevant factors lead to the same general result and the Court's
task is made easier. However, logical connection between thern, as demanded
by Malta, is not required and can~iotbe required: the facts are the facts, and the
Court rnust deal wirh thern as they are.
The third stage is for the Court to specify to the Parties how the relevant
facts or circumstances must be raken into account by the Parties when they
corne to apply the principles and mles laid down in the Court's judgment.
Now if 1am right in that analysis of the Court's task in relation to the facts
of the case, it would be equally right to expect the Parties to follow the sarne,
three-stage progression or development of the facts, in order to give the maxi-
mum assistance to the Court. And in a sense they have done so. But the
approaches of the two Parties are very different, and the difference is so impor-
tant that it needs both emphasis and comment.
Differences inApproach ofthe Parties
Let me take Malta's approach first. Malta's identification of the relevant facts
is - to use a kindly word - selective. We find on the one hand a somewhat
cavalier dismissal of al1 the physical facts of geology and geomorphology as
irrelevant:and, on the other hand, a surprising emphasis on many factors which
are totally irrelevant, as rny colleague Professor Lucchini has shown.
It is me that Malta does recognize the geographical relationships of the
coasts of the two Parties to be relevant, and that is right. Indeed they are highly
relevant.
But when one examines what, for Malta, constitutes this relationship it
becomes clear that it is not the actual coasts of the Parties at all, but rithan
abstraction represented by this trripezium construct, and that is the matter with
which Mr. Highet has just dealt.
However, the most striking anomaly of the Maltese approach - which needs
to be in our minds at the outset - is that Malta does not see the relevant fac-
tors and circumstances as producing an equitable result. Maltaputs it the other
way round. For Malta the equitable result is presumed to be equidistance: that
is Malta's whole premise. And you only look at the relevant factors and circum-
stances as a check, to verify whether equidistance is equitable. Of course, for
Malta, it is. In my submission, that approach is fundamentally mistaken. As 1
read the Court's jurisprudence, we cannot start off from the Maltese premise
that unless the relevant facts show otherwise, equidistance is presumed to be
equitable. The correct approach is to examine the relevant facts, objectively,156 CONTINENTALSHELF
and see what result emerges as an equitable result. Iimay be an equidistance
line, or it may bea line produced by some quite different mehod or methods
which combine to give an equitable result. But the result flows from the facts
and circumstances: the facts are its fons et origo. They are not a mere test of
the equitableness of equidistance.
The Libyan approach is different from Malta's, and in my subrnission more
consistent with the Court's jurisprudence. We have tried to keep in mind the
Court's previous indications of which factors are relevant, and which are not.
We have tried to look at the actual facts, and not theoretical constructs, and we
have rnoved frornthe facts towards an equitable result, rather than the other
way round. Certainly we have had no preconceived view that any particular
method isper se equitable.
Mr. Resident, let me now tum to the various categones of relevant fact. 1
believe there are two main categones, and 1 propose to deal with them in the
following order. First, there is the category of physical facts. This includes the
geographical facts and also the physica1 facts of geoiogy and geomorphology.
Second, there is a category of non-physical factors embracing the conduct of
the Parties and delimitations with third States.
Geography
I start with geography.
1 want to emphasize the importance of geography in the Libyan case. The
configurations of the two relevant coasts, the great discrepancy in their lengths,
the difference in the size of the two States, the location of Malta in relation to
the surrounding States - theseare al1factors vital to the Libyan arguments. It
is certainly true that, applying these factors, one ends up with a delimitation
within and following the Rift Zone. And that is why Libya's Submission 9
refers to the physical facts in quite general terms: for we intend, by that phrase,
to comprehend al1the geographical factors. Mr. Lauterpacht is wrong to assume
that the Libyan Rift Zone argument is exclusively a geological and geomorph*
logical argument. It simpiy is not the case that. if the Coun rejects these geolo-
gicai andgeomorphological arguments, the whole of Submission 9 falls to the
ground. As Professor Weil recognized in his staternenr, and Professor Brownlie
in his, the Libyan argument stands quite independently as a geographical argu-
ment.
1think it may be useful to look first at the Mediterranean as a whole. If we
can look at this map (No. 57 in the Libyan folder) then you will see that the
Mediterranean is a crowded sea. But the areaof greatest congestion is, without
doubt, the Central Mediterranean, here. For there are some four States which
must share ;Lis restricted shelf area: the four States King Italy, Tunisia, Malta
and Libya.
Given the geography, Libya can only look north. Its long. north-facing Coast
compels that for, unlike the other large European States like Italy, Greece or
Spain on the northern shores of the Mediterranean, which have extensions to
the east and West. as well as to the south, Libya generally faces in only one
direction.
The other striking feature in the Central Mediterranean is its uniqueness.
Nowhere else in the Mediterranean do you find a single. small island enclosed
by three surrounding States.
Now let us focus on the central area. 1 have a rnap which is already in the
Court's folder as Map No. 4 and this is the map which enlarges behind me
now. and this shows the central area. ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR BOWEJT 157
TheLibyan cous$
Now the Libyan coast extends for sorne 1,700 kilornetres from Ras Ajdir on
the Tunisian border to the border with Egypt which is off themap. That coast is,
by any cornmon-sense standard, opposite Crete, Greece, Itaiy and Malta. The
question is,how rnuchof it faces Malta? Or to put the question in more technical
terms, how much of the Libyan coast is relevant to this delimitation with Malta.
In Libya's view the answer is that only the stretch from Ras Ajdir to Ras
Zmq is relevant: and we take that view for the following reasons.
First, if we accept Malta's analysis of the situation as one of opposite coasts,
then oppositeness must imply soine degree of direct facing: that the two coasts
are enface. And thus there must corne a point at which a line joining the two
coasts strikes the coasts at such a tangent that realistically one would have to
Saythat they were no longer opposite in any true sense.
Ras Zmq already lies some 65 kilometres east of the line of longitude on
which Malta lies and a line joins the two- Ras Zarruq and Malta - tangen-
tially aan angle of 67 degrees (rather than the 90 degrees of directly opposite
coasts). Thus we would say that any Libyan coast further to the east than Ras
Zamq is not opposite to Malta in any real 3ense. And it is no part of Malta's
case that there is a relationship of quasi-adjacency.
Malta takes a very different view of the relevant Libyacoast. As the Court
@ will see from Malta's Figure A in its Memonal, Malta asserts that the Libyan
coast 1sopposite to Malta nearly as far as the Libyan border with Egypt: and
that assertion was repeated by Professor Weil (III, p. 418). That assertion not
only offends common sense but it invites the Court to accord to Malta areas of
shelf which are appropriate only to a delimitation between Libya on the one
hand and Italy and Greece on the other. The result would be to ignore totally
the interests of third States. Moreover, it is apparent that the extent of the rele-
vant Libyan coast - as seen by Malta - is dictated solely by the need to
encompass the Maltese equidistance line within the trapezium figure. The rele-
vant coast does not dictate the result: for Malta the preconceived resuIt dictates
the selection of the relevant coast.
Second, Malta and Libya do not exist in splendid isolation and whether two
coasts are opposite each other must depend on whether there are other coasts,
other States, with a more direct relationship. The situation in relation to Italy
has to beconsidered and Libya is very firmly of the view that al1of its coast
east of Ras Zamiq can only be opposite to Italy and then Greece and therefore
relevant to future delimitations with Italy and Greece. It is significant that
Professor Weil made no mention of Italy's interests: the Maltese approach to
oppositeness remains wholly abstract. It ignores both ltaly and the escarpments
which teminate any sheif area over which Malta might have a clairn in the
east. Thus, by stopping at Ras Zanuq we rninimize the nsk of encroachment
and cut-off, in this delirnitation, on areas which are not strictly the concern of
Malta at al1 and we respect the evidence of the SiciIy-Malta and the Medina
Escarpments. We therefore avoid the error made by Malta in selecting the
Libyan coast as far east as Ras-at-Tin, which isjust west of Tobnik.
So, taking the Libyan relevant coast as that between Ras Ajdir and Ras
Zmq, 1 can describe that coast quite simply. It is sorne 403 kilometres long.
following the sinuosities of the coast. If you represent the coast by a single
coastai fron- namely a line from Ras Ajdir to Ras Zarniq - then the line
gives a slightly lesser total of 350 kilornetres, 1 need only addthat the Gulf of
Sirt is entirely irreIevant to Libya's viewof its relevant coast in this case. We
would stop at RasZmq even if the Gulf of Sirt did not exist. 158 CONTINENTALSHELF
1 now tum to the coast of Malta. Members of the Court have a map of the
Maltese coast and there is Map Number 58 in the folder. It is the same map of
which the enlarged version is now on the board and the map also shows Malra's
baselines. It must beapparent that the north-facing coasts are irrelevant to any
delimitation with Libya. They are relevant to Italy but not to Libya.
As to the south-facing coasts, the Court can see that there is a problem in that
these are not parallel to Libya. Malta tilts, quite mrirkedly on a north-west-
south-east alignment. As a consequence, it can be fairly said that much of the
coast of Malta faces West rather than south. It does not face south towards
Libya.
If we take the Maltese baselines as a true representation of Malta's coast,
then one could say that only these lines from Filfa to Delimara Point - a mere
14.14 kilometres - are really facing Libya and can therefore be treated as
opposite coasts. But let usbe a liitle more charitable. Ignoring the baselines one
could Say that these two coastal façades - Delimara Point to Ras il-Qaws and
.Ras il-Qala to Ras il-Wardija - face south towards Libya and they would give
a total leneth of 34.8 kilometres. The rest face Westand would be more relevant
to a delirnGationin relationro the islands of Linosa and Lampedusa.
But if we were to be even more charitable, we might take the Maltese coast
from its extreme westerly tip at Ras il-Wardija and take a straight line to
Delimara Point and that would give a total distance of 40.6 kilometres. On that
basis, which is the most favourable to Malta, the ratio of relevant coastal
lengths is 8.6:1 in favour of Libya: and that is an important point. This large
discrepancy in size is quite inescapable. There is really no way in which one
can get beyond this 8: 1 ratio as the most favourable to Malta.
Malta'sproposirions
Malta is fully aware of this fact, and of its implications. Understandably,
therefore,Malta has avoided any detailed description of its coast, or any defini-
tion of which part of its coast it considers to be opposite to Libya. In lieu of
this,Malta makes the extraordinary allegation that it is Libya's treatment of
coasts fhat is abstract. And Malta then goes on to offer a number of propositions
relating to the geography that need tobe examined.
Coasts count equally
First, Malta says that, "apart from unusual geographical elements, any coastal
feature counts equally . .."(1, MM, para. 122).
This notion that. distorting features apart, al1coasts are equal is absurd on its
face, for it ignores completely configuration and dispmities of length. And this
Court has repeatedly enjoined parties not to refashion nature, and to take the
geographical facts as they are.Moreover the authonties on which Malta relies
simply do not support the proposition. For example, the Anglo-French arbitra-
tion,on which Malta relies, says no such thing. So far as the English Channel
was concerned, the two mainland coasts of the United Kingdom and France
were treated equally because they were, broadly speaking. equal in length. No
legal doctrine required them to be treated as such. irrespective of their actual
length. But. as 1 understood my friend Professor Brownlie's comments on the
Anglo-French arbitration (III, p. 451), he attached greatest importance to the
analogy offered by the Atlantic sector. But even in that sector. the Court of ARGUMENT OF PROFESSORBOWETT 159
Arbitration was dealing with comparable coasts. It found the two coasts of
Finistére and Cornwall broadly comparable. It was basically the Scilly Islands
which upset the balance, because of their greater distance from the mainland
compared to Ushant and their projection towards the south-west. And this is
why the Court of Arbitration could start from equidistance, and modify that
result by the half-effect technique applied to the Scilly Isles. But there is reaIly
no analogy to the present case. Certainly this Court has never disregarded the
differences in coastal lengths. It did not do so in the 1969 Judgment, and it did
not do so in the 1982 Judgment. The Court will recall that in its 1982 dispositif
it referred expressly to this as a relevant circumstance. More recently, in its
Judgrnent of 12 October 1984, the Court's Chamber in the Gulf of Mainecase
took great care to assess the respective coastal lengths of the Parties. Indeed, it
was the difference in the lengths of the two relevant coasts which caused the
Charnber to rnodify the median line in the Gulf.
Stare practice also shows that, in delimitation agreements, differences in
coastal lengths are often a highly relevant factor in determining an equitable
result. That point emerged very clearly from Dean Colliard's examination of
this practice two days ago.
Nor is it simply a question of length. The coast is the front, or façade, of a
landmass. Behind Libya's coast is an enormous landmass, and the shelf offshore
is a projection of that great landmass. In comparison, the area of Malta is
minute. It cannot be right 10treat coasts fronting minute landmasses as of equi-
valent weight to coasts fronting great landmasses. To give the Court some idea
of the true cornparison, each kilometre of Libyan coast represents an interior
landmass of 1,028 square kilometres, whereas each kilometre of Malta's coast
represents 1.66 square kilometres. In short, Libya's coast, kilometre for kilo-
rnetre, represents a landrnass nearly 1,000 times greater than Malta's. Professor
Brownlie suggested that there is no judicial support for the idea that the magni-
tude of territory- as distinct from coastal lengths- has Iegal relevance. 1am
not so sure. Was not the size, the magnitude of the Channel Islands relevant in
the 1977 award? Or the magnitude of the Kerkennah Islands relevant in the
1982 Judgment of this Court? And was not the smallness of size of islands
relevant in various detirnitation agreements? In anyevent, Mr. President, we are
in a world of comparatively Young, developing jurisprudence, so that if good
sense comrnends temtorial magnitude as a relevant factor, there is no reason to
preclude this Court from adopting it.
BasepointsgeneratesheIf
So much for coastal lengths, and the landmasses they represent. Let me turn
to Malta's next point. Malta says that it is basepoint rather than coasts which
generate a shelf area (II, MCM, para. 270).
This argument was developed by Professor Weil in his oral argument, and 1
pay tribute to his ingenuity. The Court will recall the sequence of his argument
(III, pp. 408-410). He conceded that coastal lengths were one of the elements
of coastal geography: that was a sensible concession, though 1could wish that
he would put a figure on Malta's relevant coastal length. Then his argument
developed via a series of propositions.
First, that basepoints - or baselines - are the basis for establishing the
outer limit of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone and, in some
cases, the continental shelf. That is certainly true. But let us registea question
before proceeding to his second proposition. The question is, what has that to
do with delirnitationof boundanes between opposite States?160 CONTlNENTALSHELF
The second proposition was that international law allows a coastal State to
represent its coast by such basepoints. That also is true. But let us again register
the caveat that this is only for the same purpose of determining outer limits.
The third proposition is that, since Malta has disclosed its baselines, it had
necessarily disclosed its basepoints. That is hardly true, for. as Maita weH
knew. the question posed by Libya was what basepoints had ken used to deter-
mine Malta's equidistance line - and that question is scarcely answered by a
depiction of the entirety of Malta's baselines.
But the purpose of argument is tolerably clear. It is to avoid specifying the
coastal lengths on which you rely at al1 costs. Despite the very clear junspm-
dence, emphasizing the importance of coastal lengths, the trick is to focus on
basepoints rather than coasts: and if you don't have much of a coast I suppose
that is quite a good tactic.
But, Mr. President, it is not much of a legal argument. Because the relevance
of basepoints is confined to two purposes: either to dehine outer limits
(which does not concern us here); or to determine an equidistance boundary
(which begs the question). The whole argument is therefo~e misconceived. It
does not in the least dernonstrate that basepoints generate shelf entitlement. It is
coasts that generate shelf entitlement. and basepoints have no function except to
represent the actual coast.
TheCourt adjournedfrom11.15 am. IO11.30 am.
Mr. President, before the break 1dealt with two of the poinis made by Malta
in relation to geography. 1turn now to the third of Malta's points.
Situation"normal"or "simple"
Malta says the geogtaphical situation in this case is normal or simple. Now
presumably Malta's hope isthat if the Court will accept that proposition it will
then more readily accept that equidistance is the appropnate method of delimita-
tion between normal, opposite coasts.
Yet for Malta the situation is normal only because there are no intervening
islands or promontories. That apparently is the test of normality.
There aremany, many gcographical relationships; so perhaps normality has
no real meaning. There may be convex coasts, concave coasts, coasts of dif-
ferent lengths, peninsulas, archipelagos, gulfs or bays. Why dws Malta suppose
that everything is normal and equidistance the correct method in al1cases except
where there are intervening islands or promontones? State practice demon-
strates the absurdity of such a conclusion. And it is significant that Malta is
unable to produce a single situation elsewhere in the world reaIly comparable to
that between Malta and Libya. That in itself is sufficient to demonstrate that in
this case we have a situation which is quite specific- 1 will not use the word
abnormal - and which requires a specific solution. The principal feature of this
specific situation is that a very short coast lies opposite a very long coast. It is
that principal feature which Malta is so anxious that the Court should overlook.
Locationand distance count
Then there isa fourth point, Maltaemphasizes the importance of its Location
and its distance from Libya. 1 confess 1 have never understd from Maita's
written pleadings what significance Malta attached to its location and Maita's
oral arguments have so farfailed to reveal what this significance is. ARGUMENTOF PROFESSOR BOWTï 161
One would have thought that. if there is a point to be made about Malta's
location it is simply this. Malta is a small island group surrounded by a number
of much larger coastal States and that would have a threefold consequence.
First,Mafta's shelf is inevitably enclaved by the shelves of its surrounding
neighbours. However, it would also mean that as an island Malta benefits from
having the shelf projected al1round its coasts: its shelf radiatesthrough 360".
On the other hand, since Malta faces larger coastal States al1 around, the dis-
tance to which Malta's shelf may extend is necessarily Ilmited.
But what of this second factor of distance which Malta finds so important?
Malta evidently sees the considerable distance between it and the Libyan coast
- some 180 nautical miles at its closest poin- as a factor in Malta's favour.
But, Mr. President, surely the opposite is true? Let us take Maltais own Figure
@ B, which is given on page 96 of the Reply, 1believe it is No. 59 in the Libyan
folder and the one we now have on the board. Here you see, diagrammatically,
the effect of a small island opposite a long,nland coast. Small island State II,
the long, rnainland coast State 1. You could Say that only tfiis narrow corridor
in the middle is opposite to a part of State 1's coast. In fact, as you will see,
the median line creates a fan-shaped area spreading laterally into these dotted
areas to the side. And let us remember also that because of the radial projection
State II will also lay claim to these areas to the side.
But the essential pointisthat the greater the distance between State1 and II,
the wider the fan becomes and the more shelf State II gets. The short island
coast generates more and more sheIf using the median line as the distance
between State II and State 1 increases. So whereas a median line may be reason-
able or equitable where the distance between opposite coasts is relatively small
- say between Malta and Sicily - it becomes demonstrably unreasonable and
inequitable over a large distance such as that between Malta and Libya.
If 1may summarize, out differentes with Malta over geography are the fol-
lowing :
1. Malta sees this as a normal situation. It is not. It is a quite specific and
very unusual situation.
2, Malta has selected as relevant a large stretch of Libyan coast which is
totally irrelevant to this delimitation. And Malta has fai1ed to indicate which
part of its own coast is relevant or even which actual basepoints it uses.
3. Malta ignores both the great disparity in the lengths of the two coasts and
in thesize of the landmasses they represent.
4. Malta ignores the proximity of Italy and seeks a delimitation which will
inevitably trespass intoareas of shelf to be delimited between Italy and Libya
and indeed even between Greece and Libya.
So much for.geography, Mr. President.
Geology and Geomorphology
1 tum now to the second cakgory of relevant factors, namely, the geological
and geornorphological features of the areas.
As 1 said earlier, in the preparation for this case the Libyan team has con-
sidered very carefully what the Court said in its 1982 Judgment. And 1hope
that what 1 have to Say is fully consistent with what the Court has said about
the relevance of geological andgeomorphological factors.162 CONTINENTALSHELF
Thus, I shall be concemed with these physical circumstances as they exist
today. 1 shall not detail to the Court their historical evolution, except for the
quite specific purpose of explaining their present significance, and 1 trust that
that will cornply with paragraph 61 of the 1982 Judgrnent. Furthemore, the
essential question 1 shall be examining is this: are these features sucha marked
disruption or discontinuity of the sea-bed between MaIta and Libya as to consti-
tute an indisputable indication of the limits of two separate continental shelves,
or two natural prolongations? As the Court will realize, 1 use practically verba-
tirn the words of the Court, in paragraph 66 of its 1982 Judgment, to describe
the test to be applied.
In Libya's submission, that test is met in the present case. Here, for the first
tirne, the Court is faced with geomorphological and geological factors of major
proportions - so major, in fact, that if these features are not regarded as rele-
vant to the present delimitation it is difficult to imagine how the topography of
the sea-bed and the structure of the subsoil can ever be factors relevant to deli-
mitations of the continental shelf.
Maita's case invites this concIusion. Paragraph 43 of the Maltese Counter-
Memorial (II) States : "Whether the Rift Zone and the Escarpments-Fault Zone
correspond or not to the description in the Libyan Mernorial, is entirely without
legal interest." So what Malta is saying, and Mr. Lauterpacht confirmed this, is
that even if Libya is correct in its description of these facts, this is legally irre-
levant. Now that view, mistaken as it is, determines the stmcture of my argu-
ment. First, it is necessary for me to show how wrong Malta is as to the legal
relevance of these factors in the present case. In so doing, 1shall rely primatily
on the jurisprudence as established by this Court. And second, in order to show
the Court that we are in fact dealing with one quite fundamental discontinuity,
separating two shelves, namely the Rift Zone, and a second geomorphological
feature separating these two shelves from the area to the east, narnely, the
escarpments, 1 shall outline the scientific evidence; although it is rny view that
the Court is entitled to hear the scientific facts from scientists, rather than risk
being misled by a lawyer. As the Court is aware, 1 had originally intended at
this stage to assist the Court by putting questions to three scientists of distinc-
tion and with expert knowledge of this area of the Mediterranean. But, in
conformity with the Court's order, the independent, scientific evidence to sup-
port rny pleading will have to corne later. And third, 1 shall have to rnake a
brief analysis of the State practice which Malta has pointed to to support its
assertion as to the irrelevance of the sea-bed and the subsoil.
So, Mr. President, 1 begin with the legal relevance of geomorphological and
geological features in the present case.
The geology of shelves and its configurational features were first mentioned
as possible relevant factors in the Norrh Sea Continental Shelf cases (p. 51,
para. 95) where the doctrine of natural prolongation as the basis of a State's
title was propounded by the Court. It was there recognized that the institution
of the continental shelf had arisen out of the recognition of a physical fact and
that. although the continental shelf was and remains essentially a legal concept,
it could not be divorced from this physical fact (1969 Judgment, paras. 94-95).
After all, the continental shelf then, as today, is comprised of the sea-bed and
subsoil. The Court was quite specific in indicating that, although there was na
legal lirnit to the factors which States could take account of in applying equi-
table pnnciples, it would be appropriate for geological factors to be included in
the considerations to be balanced up in reading an equitable resuft. It was the
Court's view, even in 1969, that geology must be considered because certain
configurational features, to use the Court's words, "point-up the whole notion ARGUMENT OF PROFESSORBOWETT 163
of the appurtenance of the continental shelf to the State whose territory it does
in fact prolong" (1969 Judgment, para. 95).
Now the area of the North Sea concemed in the delimitations in question was
shallow. flat and generally featureless. The Court did, however, mention the
Nonvegian Trough in its 1969 Judgment (see p. 32, para. 45) in connecrion
with its rejection of the notion of proximity in favour of the natural prolonga-
tion of theiand territory as the basis of title. The Nonvegian Trough was not. of
course, a feature Iocated so as to affect any of the delimitations before the
Court. However, "[wlithout attempiing to pronounce on the status of that fea-
ture", the Court appeared to acknowledge that such a feature might have some
relevance in regard to a delimitation of the natural prolongation of the land ter-
ritories of the States concemed.
In the 1977 Anglo-French award, a feature known as the Hurd Deep was
considered at some length by the Court of Arbitration. Although this feature
was recognized to exist. lying to the north of the Channel Islands, the Court of
Arbitration rejected it as capable of exercising a material influence on the conti-
nental shelf boundary between England and France, since it did not disrupt the
essential unity of the shelf in either the Channel or in the Atlantic sector. The
Court of Arbitration noted, in any event, that both Parties, both the United
Kingdom and France, had recognized the essential geological continuity af the
continental shelf throughout the arbitration area (Award, para. 107).Aside from
the Hurd Deep, the English Channel is, like the North Sea, virtually featureless,
flat and shallow.
At the beginning of the second round, 1shall ask Libya's scientific experts to
compare both the Norwegian Trough and the Hurd Deep with the Rift Zone as
well as with ihe Malta-Medina Escarpments, which arethe major geomorphoto-
gical and geological features of relevance to the present case. But, meanwhile, 1
cm only apologize for this gap in our evidence, and 1 refer the Court to the dis-
cussion of these other sea-bed features in paragraphs 6.45 to 6.51 and 8.06 to
8.09 of the Libyan Memorial (1).
In its 1982 Judgment. the Court did not accept the arguments of Tunisia
based on bathymetry nor the geological thesis of Libya. However, the Court did
deal with the possible relevance of geomorphology and geology in paragraphs
66,68 and 80 of its Judgment.
Inparagraph 66 of that Judgment, in the context of considering geomorpholo-
gical features "from the view point of their relevance to determine the division
between the natural prolongation" of Libya and of Tunisia, the Court pointed to
the fact that Libya had emphasjzed the unity of the Pelagian Block. The Court,
therefore, failed to hnd in Libya's geological case a "means of identifying dis-
tinct natural prolongations". And in relation to the sea-bed features advanced by
Tunisia as an indication of a boundary, these were not found by the Court to
involve
"such a rnarked disruption or discontinuance of the sea-bed as to constitute
an indisputable indication of the limits of two separate continental shelves,
or two separate natural prolongations".
In paragraph 80 of its 1982Judgment the Court again took up the subject of
the geomorphological configuration of the sea-bed and this time in the context
of whether it mighi be taken into account as ''a circumstance relevant for an
equitable delimitation". The Court gave particular consideration to one feature
- the Tripolitaniari Furrow. In rejecting the relevance of that feature, in the
area of shelf relevant to the delimitation, the Courtagain indicated the various
criteria that might have made it rele.vmt. For example, the Court mentioned thal 164 CONTINENTALSHELF
it was not such a "significant feature that it intempts the continuity of the
Pelagian Block". The Court also mentioned its position - comparatively near
and parallei to the Libyan Coast - and found that
"unless it were such as to dismptthe essential unity of the continental shelf
so as to justify a delimitation on the basis of its identification as the divi-
sion between areas of natural prolongation"
then it would not be an appropriate element for inclusion among the factors to
be balanced up with a view to an equitable delimitation.
Mr. President, 1 have quoted faMy extensively from the paragraphs of the
Court's Judgrnent because 1 hope to demonstrate that the Rift Zone in the
present case fits with exactness the criteria set out by the Court.
In addition, as paraprauh 68 of the 1982 Judament rnakes clear. even if a
geomorphological Configuration of the sea-bed fa& to cause an interruption in
the continental shelf or to amount to an interruption of the natural prolongation
of one party with regard to the other, it may s'tillconstitute a releiant cGcum-
stance characterizing the area.
As I have mentioned earlier, the specific feature singled out by the Court for
consideration in its 1982 Judgment - the Tripolitanian Furrow - wiIl be
taken up before the start of the second phase in February during the examina-
tion of Libya's experts. However, it is appropriate to note here a point respect-
ing this feature which is of relevance to the present case - its location. Quite
, aside from any detail about the size, shape and depth of this feature, this feature
lies far outside any area of shelf claimed by Malta. In this respect its relevance
is entirely different frorn that of the Rift Zone, which runs right tfirough the
area in dispute.
The Chamber of this Court in the recent Gulf ofMoine case also examined
geological andgeomorphological aspects of the shelf area in question. The par-
ties in that case were in general agreement that, geologically, the shelf area in
question is essentially continuous and that geological factors were not signifi-
cant in that case (para. 44). Similarly, at the geomorphological level the
Chamber found the parties to have submitted studies showing the "unity and
uniformity of the whole sea-bed" (para. 45). The Chamber stated that neither
party disputed that there is nothing in this
"single sea-bed, lacking any marked elevations or depressions, to distin-
guish one part that might beconsidered .. .the natural prolongation of the
coasts [of one party] from another part which could be regarded as the
natural prolongation of the coasts [of the other partyj".
The geomorphological feature most discussed in that case - theNortheast
Channel - was found not to have the "characterisiics of n real trough marking
the dividing-line between two geomorphologically distinct units" (para. 46,
emphasis added). Those were the Chamber's actual words. The Chamber
concluded that the
"situation [in that case] as regards the sea-bed of the delimitation . . . is
therefore different from the situation that may prevail in areas where a
natural separafion d~es exist from the factual viewpoint between the res-
pective continental platforms of the Parties in dispute" (I.C.J.Reports 1984.
p. 275, para. 47).
As in the case of the 1982 Judgment, the geomo~phological and geological
features in the GuZfofMaine case were found to be so insignificant as to afford
no assistance in leading to an equitable delimitation. But the Charnber, follow- ARGUMENT OF PROFESSORBOWE~ 165
ing the Court, did adopt the same criterion of a marked disruption in continuity
and the sea-bed features and subsoil characteristics of the present case meet
these critena.
For we have here, lying between Malta and Libya, not merely a trough but a
series of troughs and channels forming part of an important Rift Zone. We have
a new plate boundary along this Rift Zone. Given the Court's own jurispru-
dence, emphasizing the importance for delimitation of a "significant disconti-
nuity", how could a discontinuity which is not merely signifîcant but fundamen-
ta1be legally irrelevant, as Malta suggests? Indeed, if a new plate boundary is
irrelevant for purposes of delimitation, what features could ever fit the Court's
own description of a "marked disruption or discontinuance of the sea-bed"?
Malta is realiy accusing Libya of taking the Court'sdicta seriousty. 1do not in
the least mind that accusation.
So much for the case law. What of State practice? Contrary to what our
Maltese colleagues appear to argue, geological and geomorphological features
have played a role in influencing the course of the boundary line in a number of
delimitation agreements between States as well. The 1972 Agreement between
Australia and lndonesia involving the Timor Trough is, of course, well known.
1do not wish torepeat the observations which my frknd, Dean Colliard,made
with respect to that agreement but 1would suggest that the geographical, geolo-
gical and geomorphological characteristics of this example are perhaps more
closely similar to the present situation between Malta and Libya than virtually
al1of the other examples of State practice introduced by our opponents.
1have had a map of this delimitation placed on the easel behind me - and
the Court has small versions of the same map in their folders (No. 53). The
boundary line is very striking. In this area to the east you will see that the sea-
bed is virtually featureless and relatively shallow. The boundary line here fol-
lows the equidistance line, but when we move over towards the Westthe bathy-
metry changes dramatically. Not only is the Timor Trough in evidence, but also
it may be seen we are no Ionger dealing with a long, extended coast to the
north. Instead we have a series of islands - the Tanimbar Islands, over here,
which are quite srnaII, and Timor here. So the situation in this sector is really
one of delimitation between islands (although components of a large island
State), on the one side, and a long, continental coast on the other. Lying in be-
tween are some marked geological and geomorphological features, the Timor
Trough. And the resulting delimitation in this area is not anequidistance line as
can be seen on this map. The resulting delimitation is certainly not an
equidistance line but it is certainly a line influenced to a large extent by the
Timor Trough. The Couri will also note that, like the Rift Zone, the Timor
Trough is a large,irregular area: it is not itsalIine. Yet the parties were able
to agree a line within this area.
This example need not stand in isolation. Although it is not always easy to
determine what factors States may have considered in establishing particular
delimitations, there is some evidence to suggest that geomorphological or geolo-
gical features have played a role in a number of agreements. This evidence is
set out in the Libyan Counter-Memonal (II) at paragraphs 5.89 to 5.93.
For exarnple, there is the agreement between Japan and Korea - an illustra-
tion of which is now on the easel behind me. The Members of the Court may
also wish to refer to No. 60 in their map foldersAs the Court will observe. the
southern portion of that agreement establisheda joint development zone, which
is outlined in black on the map. Also appearing on the map is a dotted red line
which corresponds to what would be an equidistance or median line delimita-
tion had that method been employed. It may be seen that in the northem partof166 CONTINENTAL SHELF
this delirnitation, the agreed boundary follows almost precisely the equidistance
line. In the south, however, the picture is quite different. For virtually al1of the
joint development zone quite cleariy lies on what wouldbe the Japanese side of
the hypothetical equidistance line and,thus. much closer to the Japanese coast
than to the Korean. As the map shows, there is a large trough lying just off the
south-west coast of Japan. The sea-bed here in fact descends to depths between
500 and 1.000 metres. Further towards Korea, in contrast. the sea-bed remains
relatively shallow.As Libya noted in its written pleüdings (II. LCM.para. 5.89)
prior to the establishment of the joint development zone. Japan had apparently
relied on a claim based on a median line as a potential boundary while Korea
had invoked the concept of natural prolongation (JcipanQuarrerly,Vol. XXIV,
No. 4, 1977, p. 394; Choon-Ho Park, "Maritime Claims in the China Seas:
Current State Practice", San Diego Law Review, Vol. 18 (1981). pp. 447-448).
The result, evidently, was a compromise formula. But the point 1wish to note is
that the result was almost certainly influenced by this geomorphological feature.
1might also mention bnefly the 1974 delimitatioii agreement between France
and Spain. A rnap of this agreement, which my colleague Dean Colliard has
also referred to, may be found as No. 31 in the Libyan folder of rnaps. If 1
could invite the Court to tum to that map for a moment. 1 believe the point 1
am about to make will be very clear. It can be seen that in the seaward sector
of the delimitation- between points R and T - where the boundary begins to
deviate from an equidistance line, it falls instead roughly half-way between the
bathymetric contours lying to the north and south. As my learned friend
Professor Brownlie noted (III, p. 472), there is evidence in the literature to
show that the topography of the sea-bed infiuenced this boundary. in addition to
the difference in coastal lengths. The literature whic1 refer 10 is cited in the
Libyan Counter-Memorial, footnote to page 184.
Finally,1 would like to cal1 attention to the delimitation between ltaly and
Tunisia to which a number of references have already been made during these
hearings. The only point 1 wish to make is to recall a comment which was
made by my learned friend, Mr. Lauterpacht, on the occasion of the oral heu-
ings on Maltais Application for permission to intervene in the TunisialLibya
case. In discussing the negotiations that took place between Malta and Italy
concerning delimitation between Malta and the Pelagian Islands, Mr. Lauter-
pacht stated that Italy's reason for agreeing to an enclave of the islands in the
Italy-Tunisia delimitation was because they rested on "the extension seawards
of the Tunisian land mass". Those were Mr. Lauterpacht's very words (I.C.J.
Pleadings, ConfinenfalSheif(TunisialLibyanArab Jamahiriya). Vol. III. p. 309).
This suggests, to me at least, that geological or geomorphological features may
not have been wholly irrelevant to that agreement.
Mr. President, 1should point out that 1 am not suggesting that the physical
factors of geology and geomorphology must always be taken into account in the
delimitation of the continental shelf.hat would be contrary to what the Court
itself has indicated. But 1 do suggest that such feaiures must be taken into
account when they constitute so fundamental a discontinuity in the sea-bed and
subsoil of the area relevant to the delimitation thai we are in fact faced with
two shelves.
Description of thefacts
If 1 may leave the question of the legal relevance of these facts or circum-
stances, 1 would like now to tum to the facts thernselves. Let us begin by
examining the general setting. ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR BOWETT 167
Thegeneral setting
@ As the Court will see on the map now behind me (LM, Map 6; Map 56 in
the Court's folder), this area of the Mediterranean is characterized by two great
plateaux, divided by a Rift Zone.
In the north there is this great plateau comprising Adventure Bank, the Gela
Basin and the Ragusa-Malta Plateau, on which Malta itself sits. As we shall see,
there is an essential unity in this whole area, evidenced not simply hy the
bathymetry but by the geological structures and the fault trends.
In the south we have the vast Pelagian Block, stretching from the Lampedusa
Plateau in the Westfrom the North African coast, and then over to the Medina
Bank and the Rift Zone in the north. The southern plateau foms one great pla-
teau, sloping away from the North African coast, and tilted eastwards into the
Ionian Sea. As the Court has recognized in its 1982 Judgment, this area is
marked by its essential unity and uriiformity. The Tripolitanian Furrow is, in this
area, of minimal topographicalsigriificance.So, too, are theslight depressions,
. here, and here (pointing to the map),rising up to the Melitand Medina Banks.
But between these two plateaux lies this remarkable area - the Rift Zone.
Beginning here in the west, between Adventure Bank and the Tunisian Shelf, it
stretches through the Pantelleria Trough, broadens into an area of two deep
parallel troughs - the Linosa Trough in the south, the Malta Trough in the
north - and then sweeps round to ihe south of Malta through the Malta Channel
and then the Medina Channel. The Channels are of course bathymetrically less
impressive, but structurally they are part of the same Rift Zone. The Zone cuts
through these escarpments to the east, so that we have two sections: the Sicily-
Malta Escarpment in the north, and the Medina Escarpment in the south. And
the plate boundary runs through the Rift Zone and cuts out through the escarp-
ment out to this feature, the Medina Ridge.
In the east we have ihese two escarpments. Like the Rift Zone the escarp-
ments are striking features. Geomorphologically, they are huge feütures,
although their geological significance is lessan that of the Rift Zone, for they
do not form a plate boundary.
So, that is the general setting. Two enormous plateaux - in Libya's submis-
sion two separate shelves - separated by a Rift Zone, and teminating in the
east along this line of escarpments.
1will deal with the Rift Zone first. There are really only two basic questions:
is it there, and, if it is,t such a discontinuity that it fits the test, the language
used by this Court?
It is certainly there. But it is not located where Mr. Lauterpacht drew it. Even
allowing for artistic licence1 must reject his drawing. The limits of the zone
are iliustrated in both the Libyan and the Maltese written pleadings and they do
not conform to Mr. Lauterpacht's drawing. Could 1ask the Court to look at
No. 61 in the folder? This will enable the court to compare the Rift Zone as de-
@ picted on Map 9 of the Libyan Reply - that is the area shaded in gre- with
the central trough and ridge system described by the Maltese expert, Professor
Vanney, in his technical note attaçhed to the Maltese Counter-Memorial. The
map shows Professor Vanney's zone outlined in red, and shows that the two
zones essentially coincide. The terminology isunimportant. Whether we call it
the Rift Zone or the central trough and ridge system really doesnot matter.
Professor Vanney was quite clear what was happening here. To cite his own
words, it is"themost remarkable expression of the distensive force acting since
Miocene times" (II, MCM. Vol. II, p. 30). What Professor Vanney calls a
"remarkable expression of the distensive forces" is what Libya would call the168 CONTINENTALSHELF
site of rifting or, if you like, the Rift Zone. The difference is simply one of ter-
minology.
There is a further point of considerable importance. The plate boundary mn-
ning through this zone does not stop at the escarpments. It continues out along
the Medina Ridge: this is a mountain range, more than 2.000 metres high, mn-
ning for 150 miles to the east of the escarpment. It is a feature which was
totally omitted frorn the maps placed before you by Malfa during the oral hear-
ings. And for good reason. It is, as we shall see, one of the most important
pieces of evidence which totally destroys the Maltese argument that the rift
system is no different from the Jarrafa Trough, or the Tripolitanian Furrow to
the south. It is additional evidence of the continuity of the Rift Zone from the
deeper troughs through the channels and out along this ridge.
So, the Rift Zone is certainly there. But is it a sufficient discontinuity to
divide two shelves? That is the question. tibya says it is not only sufficient,
but that it is a quite fundamental discontinuity. Malta criticizes Libya for not
having defined that term. But the temi "fundamental discontinuity" has not been
defined in the Libyan pleadings for good reason. The Court has not used the
tem, but has spoken merely of "significant features" or a "marked dismption".
The Court will know also that ithas always identified features that are not such
a discontinuity, and never features that are. Therefore we do not yet have a
legal definition. What we do have from the Court is a sufficient indication of
the kind of features which may constitute such a discontinuity.
But let us suppose it is a legal concept, albeit undefined, as Malta says. It'
cannot be identified with the edge of the continental margin as Mr. Lauterpacht
siiggests. It cannotbe said that siich a discontinuity exists only where, beyond,
there is oceanic cmst, as contrasted with continental crust. For if that were so,
we would have no need of any such legal concept: for we already have one, the
continental margin. If one looks carefully at the actual contexts in which the
Court has used this concept - the North Sea, the Pelagian Sea, the Gulf of
Maine or, in the Anglo-French award (made by the Court of Arbitration), the
English Channel - those Courts could not have contemplated a continental
margin. The relevant area in each case was nowhere near any continental mar-
gin. Those Courts clearly contemplated a fundamental discontinuity within a
shelf area. So the Maltese thesis is wrong in law.
The Maltese thesis is also wrong in fact. Libya's view is that we are dealing
with a factual cather than a legal concept. In short whether or what is or is noa
sufficient, significant, or fundamental discontinuity is better deterrnined on the
facts. It isa matter of objective evaluation of scientifically reliable facts. And
we would share Mr. Lauterpacht's view that where you find a separation of
plates, a plate boundary, that would most certainly be a fundamental disconti-
nuity. And that is precisely what we have here, in this case, a plate boundary.
But even on the facts, it is quite wrong to assume that you can only have a
plate boiindary where, beyond, there is oceaniccmst.
Mr. President, if you will permit me just a few words on some very elemen-
tary plate tectonics, 1can describe what plates do. Plates do only one of three
different things. First, they separate or pull apart and that is the "extensional"
boundary, and when this process of separation, pull-apart, goes far enough, in
distance, then an ocean forms and part of the area of separation becomes
oceanic cmst. Secondly, plates can collide: that is the "compressional" bound-
ary. And then, subduction happens, with one plate sliding under the other -
but there is no oceanic cmst. And, third, they can slip or shear past each other:
thatis the "shear" or "transform" boundary, and again you will not get oceanic
cmst. You will only get oceanic cmst with the extensional boundary. But al1 ARGUMENT OF PROFESSORBOWE~T 169
three processes occur along plate boundaries, so the existence or non-existence
of oceanic cmst is not the test of whether a plate boundary exists. Indeed in
some cases - in the case of the Rift Zone - al1 three processes may occur
along the same plate boundary.
Equally misconceived is Mr. Lauterpacht's view that there can be oniy one
plate boundary. The Court wili recall the suggestion made by Malta that
because Libya had, in the 1982 case, identified the northern boundary to the
African Plate as ruming through Sicily, there could be no other plate boundary
running through the Rift Zone. That is sirnply wrong. Fractures at the edge of
plates are not uniform, or even single, and sections of plate do break away,
forming microplates, with new plate boundaries. Indeed, in 1973, Dewey and
a distinguished group of collaborators including Pitrnan, Ryan and Bonnin iden-
tified a series of separate plate- or micro-plates - along the northem nm of
the Afncan Plate, including the one we have here. They said:
"There probably never was a single plate boundary between Africa and
Europe; but, rather, there was at al1 times a network of compressional,
extensional, andtransform boundaries." (LM, Ann. 12,1, p.230.)
Now these scientists, in describing the Rift Zone as a plate boundary, or as a
division between two separate shelves, were not the first. In 1967 Burollet had
depicted two separate shelves divided by a similar zone: the Pelagian shelf to
the south, and the Ragusa shelf to the north (LM, Ann. 11, 1,p. 229). Malta's
own scientist, Professor Mascle, on page 47 of his report, States clearly that
"Africa and the Ibleo-Maltese Complex, that is the Malta-Ragusa Plateau,
ceased to form one solid block and that the latter has rotated with respect
to Afnca .. . Such a rotation imposes the formation of troughs between the
two domains."
Again, Blanpied and Bellaiche, in their 1981 paper furnishedto the Court by
Malta, as document A during these oral proceedings, expressly distinguish two
separate units. which they identify as "the Sicilian shelf on the north and the
Tunisian platforrn on the south". And, for them, the separation or division is
dong the Rift Zone - not the Jarrafa Trough, and not the Tripolitanian
Furrow. 1commend this scientific literature to my friends on the Maltese side.
It may cause them to re-assess their view that this idea is a fiction of the
Libyan imagination, unsupported by scientists.
So, let us set aside these red herrings about lack of definition andoceanic
cmst, and unique plate boundaries, and instead look at the facts.
The evidence that the Rift Zone constitutes a plate bpundary has four essen-
tial components.
First, the faulting is deep. The fractures in theearth's cmst go nght through
to the basement, at least 20 kilometres below the sea-bed, and it is through
these fractures fhat the rnolten rock, or the magma rises, and itisthis important
volcanic material which can then be identified amongst the strata forming the
sea-bed and subsoil.
Second, because of this, this magma is found in great sheets, from 10 to 100
mefres thick, coming nght through the strata. And this is what we mean by the
presence of volcanics. And these are what we cal1 "young" volcanics, so they
tell us the conternporary picture, what is happening now and not just what hap-
pened in ancient geological history. These volcanics tell us that we have here,
right now, very deep, fundamental fractures.
'ïhird, there is the process of plate movement, and this deformation of the 170 CONTINENTAL SHELF
strata is currently active. We know this because, if this were not so, the troughs
or valleys would have been filled up with sedirnentation long ago.
And fourth. we know that the northern plate is rotating anticlockwise. Malta
says this, too. and the Court wiil recall Mr. Lauterpacht's description of that
rotation(III, pp.356-357 ).ow if the northern plate - what Mr. Lauterpacht
referred to as the Iblean Block- which 1refer to as this plateau, the whole of
rhis- if the northern plate is rotating in relation to the main African Plate,
there must be a plate boundary. For, if there were not two separate plates. how
could the one move and rotate against the other? 1 urge the Court to consider
this point very carefully, for its significance is really crucial. In fact the only
question is where - along what line - is this rotation occurring? The only
possible place is along this Rift Zone. 1do not frankly understand what Malta
says. Ifthe whole area is a unity, you really could not get this separate move-
ment, this rotation of the one section against the other. So there is a fundamen-
ta1contradiction in the Maltese argument. 1 suppose Malta might Say. as a kind
of fall-back position. that the plate separation occurs further south, along the
Jarrafa Trough, or the Tripolitanian Furrow, but really their reliance on these
features is quite unsound. for reasons which1 will now explain.
These two features, the Jarrafa Trough and the Tripolitanian Furrow, are vir-
tually inactive. Do not be misled by the earthquake mentioned by Mr.
Lauterpacht. Such a tremor can have a variety of causes. It might well have
been caused by the intrusion of salt domes. That such salt dornes exist is cer-
tainly the view of Blanpied and Bellaiche, on whom Malta relies. But what is
quite clear is chat it was not caused by volcanics. For there is no evidence of
volcanics in the Jarrafa Trough and the faulting there is quite shallow. It is not
fundamental in the sense that the faulting cuts nght through to the basement,
allowing the magma to force its way up through the cleavages. As for the
Tripolitanian Furrow, further south, although here there is evidence of volca-
nics, the volcanics are oldand deeply buried. The nfting ended long, long ago
and never developed into a plate boundary: as a geological feature, in a sense,
it is dead.
It is of course true that Malta has produced Professor Mascle's map to sug-
gest that these two southerly features arejust as important as the Rift Zone.
'May 1 invite the Mernbers of the Court to examine that map carefully at their
leisure? It was Figure 3 in the Malta Map Atlas and it was reproduced as No. 62
in the Court's folder now known as Professor Mascle's map. The Court will see
that it atternpts to depict faults and nfting on the basis of a bathymetric map,
the IBCM Map. You can see the legend quite clearly on the bottom - faults
and rifting in thePelagian Basin as deduced from IBCM Map. Itneeds no great
intellect tosee that Professor Mascle was atternpting a rough sketch only, for
you simply cannot identify accurately the location of faults and rifting simply
by deductions based on bathyrnetry and tltere is no evidence of independent
verification by seismic techniques, measurernents of magnetic and gravity ano-
malies, or drilling data most of which is readily available. Interestingly enough,
in 1984 Professor Mascle published an article jointly with Besse, Pozzi and
Feinberg (Earih and Planetary Science Letter, Vol. 67, 1984, pp. 377-390) and
that joint article includes a tectonic sketch of the same area. And on that sketch
not only are these two southerly features differently aligned from Malta's
Figure 3, but the authors Say the troughs "widen from east to west". Just think
of the implications ofthai for Mr. Lauterpacht's fan. If the wide openings are in
the West and not the east then the handle of the fan rnust be somewhere out
here in the Sirt Rise and no1 up in the area of the Pantelleria Trough which is
where Mr. Lauterpacht had the handle of his fan. ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR BOWEïT 171
Small wonder then that Mr. Lauterpacht was tempted into his picturesque, but
quite erroneous, analogy of the fan. The Court will remember Mr. Lauterpacht's
home-made fan, the purpose of which was essentially to demonstrate that these
two southerly features - the Jarrafa Trough and the Tripolitmian Furrow -
were just as good as the Rift Zone, and were caused by the same process.
Mr. President, these two southerly features and the Rift Zone were created at
very different times. Certainly Mr. Lauterpacht conceded that, but in fact the
difference is so great- some 40 to 90 million years difference - that we could
not betalking of the same fan, or the same process. The fact is these two south-
erly fault zones simply never developed and now they are virtually dormant. In
contrast, the Rift Zone has developed into a plate boundary and it is still active.
And what is more you can see this plate boundary continuing out, nght through
to the Medina Ridge. You will find no counterpm to this Medina Ridge in the
south as a continuation of either the Jarrafa Trough or the Tripolitanian Furrow.
And let me Say that, far from concealing these two southerly features, Libya
has in its pleadings provided far more information about them than has Malta.
We have no fear of these features if they are to beput asrivals to the Rift Zone.
So if the attempt to deny to the Rift Zone its character as a plate boundary
fai1s.both on the law and on the facts and if the attempt to equate the Rift Zone
with these two southerly features also fails, what are we left with?
We are left with only two remaining arguments by Malta. The first is a sort
of estoppel argument made by the Agent for Malta and it lies in the suggestion
that in the TunisialLibyacase in 1982 Libya had argued that the Pelagian Block
was a single unity extending right into Sicily.
In fact, the distinguished Libyan Agent is quite mistaken in suggesting that
the Libyan pleadings in the 1982 case, or the expert evidence of Professor
Fabricius, have suggested that the Pelagian Block is a single shelf going al1the
way up to Sicily.
Let me repeat that in the 1982 case we were not really concerned with this
area and 1believe it would be unfortunate if the Court were to be diverted from
the main question by terminological confusions between blocks, basins, shelves
and plates.What is clear is that the Libyan pleadings did identify the shelf areain
the 1982 case as ending at the Rift Zone. 1do not want to weary the Court with
a long, detailed analysis. So let me give just a few citations to make the point,
Annex II to the Libyan Memorial. the so-called Missallati Report, defined the
Pelagian Block (I.C.J. Pleadings, ContinentalSheif(Tunisia/LibyanArab Jana-
hiriya), Vol.1,p. 559) in these ternis:
"lt [the Pelagian Block] consists of an area, roughly a parallelograrn in
shape. with a northem boundary running along the Pantelleria Trough."
Annex Il, the Technical Report to the Counter-Memorial, prepared by
Professor Fabricius (I.C.J. Pleadings, Continental Sheif (TunisialLibyunAmb
Jamahiriya), Vol. III, at p. 194):
"To the Westof the Malta-Misurata Escarpment the area is conspicuously
less deep, forming the so-called Pelagian Block. It extends to Sicily in the
north. The only feature of importance is the Pantelleria-Malta Trench sys-
tem dissecting the Pelagiun Block infotwosheif areas."
And, again, ibid., at page 198:
"the area under consideration covered by the Pelagian Sea is one single
shelf area which reaches .. . to the northeast to the depressions formed by
the rift system".172 CONTINENTAL SHELF
Although it is true that Professor Fabricius, in contrast to Professor Mis-
sallati, took the Block as far as Sicily, he was speaking entirely in geomorpho-
logical terms and he was in no doubt that there were two shelves and that the
Pelagian shelf ended at the Rift Zone.
And certainly counsel for Libya was clear on the point: "Now the Pelagian
Block can be seen on this map here . . . it is an area bounded . ..in the north
along the Pantelleria Trough" (I.C.J. Pleadings, Continental Shey (Tunisial
LibyanArab Jarnahiriyu), Vol. V, p. 149).
So thereis really no substance to that first argument.
1turn to the second and last Maltese argument. This is essentially that while
the troughs are deep to the West,to the south of Malts - and when you come
to the area lying between Malta and Libya - the area of the Malta and the
Medina Channels becomes shallower. And so the argument mns: we no longer
have a real discontinuity even if there iç one in the troughs themselves.
The first thing to note about this argument is that a good deal of the Malta
Trough does in fact lie between Malta and the Libyan Coast. Second, and per-
haps unwittingly, the Maltese argument has shifted from geology to simple
bathymetry. lt no longer asks the question "What kind of structures do we find
here?" but rather the very simple and rather superficial question "How deep are
the sea-bed depressions?"
Certainly there is a bathymetric difference. The Malta Trough for example is
1,714 metres deep and would be very much deeper if you removed the sedi-
ments. The Channels are less impressive but by no means insignificant: the
Medina Channel has depths of up to 650 rnetres and if the sediments were
removed there the depth would beover 1,000 metres.
Mr. President, depth is not reailthe issue. We aredealing with a plate bound-
aryand not only is this demonstrated by the evidence of volcanics but there is a
large volcanic structure in the middlef this bathymetrically shallower area. Echo-
sounding, magnetic measurements and gravity measurements reveal that. So we
know that this is part of the same plate boundary irrespective of its shallowness.
These differences in depth along the plate boundary can be easily explained.
If you take a Iine of fractures along a plate, a plate boundary, the line of frac-
ture tends to be irregular and as you rotate one section against the other, you
will appreciate that because the Iine of fracture is irregular, in some places the
gaps open up and in others they close up. Where the gaps open up, the bottom
drops - as Mr. Lauterpacht quite correctly demonstrated - and deep troughs
are formed. But when the gaps close up, you get compression and no deep
troughs are formed. On the contrary, the area remains relatively shallow in
bathymetric terms. But these differences are trivial. The importance lies in the
demonstration that the plate boundary goes right along the zone, regardless of
variationsin depth. It is the same process and it is a discontinuity, which is just
as fundamental in the east as it is in thewesr. Indeed, as 1said before, the plate
boundary does not end there but continues out along the Medina Rise. It is for
this reason that I emphasized the importance of this ridge - the feature elimi-
nated from Malta's maps.
I must emphasize that 1am not taIking about geoIogica1history. 1 am describ-
ing a process which is going on now. 1 am descnbing what is to be found on
the sea-bed at this moment of time.
Indeed, it is Malta's thesis which is the historical, out-dated thesis. The whole
area may once have been a unity, a continuity. But that phase ended long, long
ago - between five and ten million years ago when Malta was fomied, in fact
- and the current position is one of disunity, of the creation of two shelves,
divided by the plate boundary along the Rift Zone. ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR BOWETT 173
1would now like to turn my attention to the escarpments in the east.
The significance of these features is morphologica1 rather than geological.
They are not a plate boundary, like the Rift Zone, but they are a quite major
feature on the sea-bed. There are, in fact, two escarpments divided at this point:
the Heron Valley, with the Sicily-Malta escarpment to the north and the Medina
escarpment to the south.
The escarprnent in thenorth, the Sicily-Malta Escarpment, is the more promi-
nent. Indeed, it is one of the steepest and most distinctive features on the entire
Mediterranean sea-bed. Professor Vanney, the Maltese expert, at page 36 of his
annex, describes it as a scarp which is "the most remarkable in the Medi-
terranean". It is 120 miles long. it marks a &op in the sea-bed of 3,600 metres
and the angle of declivity ranges from 20 degrees to 60 degrees.
1 would like to show the Court the illustration of this escarpment, which has
been prepared by the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory of Columbia
University. It is Number 63 in the folders and it was Annex 9-b to the Libyan
Reply. The section shown in that illustration cuts across the escarpments and
then the Medina Ridge, and it cuts across along the line used by Malta as the
easterly armof its trapezium. So it runs along this line.
The illustration is, of course, exaggerated: there is a 1 to 50 vertical exag-
geration, as is normal for this type of diagrammatic illustration. But it will serve
to give the Court some idea of the relative size of these features and really why
Libya says with confidence that, geomorphologically, this is a significant fea-
ture, a marked disruption in the continuity of the sea-bed.
The Medina Escarpment to the south is less impressive but still quite a fea-
ture. ltis some 87 miles in length, with a drop in the sea-bed level of between
1,000 and 1,200 metres and with a slope of1 in 10.
Perhaps the best way to give the Court an impression of both escarpments
and their relation to the two shelves to the west, is to ask the Court to look at
the photograph of the mode1of the area prepared by the same Lamont-Doherty
Institute of Columbia University. The photograph is in the Court's folder as
Number 64.
If 1 could invite you to lookat that photograph, Number 64, the photograph
has a 25-times exaggeration, but you will see on the photograph the Libyan
coast on the left-hand side of the photograph, Sicily on the right-hand side
and Malta appears as a small brown dot between; and then you will see the
Rift Zone, of course represented soIely in bathymetric terms, mnning through
from the troughs and then out to the Heron Valley before dropping down this
trough.
So these are the escarpments. Like Malta, we do not Say that they are the
edge of a continental margin, nor do we Say that the area to the east ceases to
be continental shelf in legal terms. The two Parties agree on that. Where we
disagree is over Libya's view that the features are sa major, so marked, that
they must be taken as the eastern boundary to any shelf area over which Malta
might conceivably have a claim.
There is a final point relating to these escarpments to which Malta attaches
significance. Malta says, in effect, if the escarpments put an end to the exten-
sion of Maltais shelf to the east, why is Libya in any different position? In
short, how can Libya claim any shelf ta the east?
I have to assume that this is a serious question, so 1 shall give it a serious,
but short, answer. Libya has extensive coasts lying to the east of these escarp-
ments. And this extensive coast, east of Ras Zmq has its prolongation into the
Ionian Basin. It is by reference to that coast that Libya has a shelf claim east of
the escarpments. We do not rely on this coast, Ras Ajdir to Ras Zarruq, which174 CONTINENTAL SHELF
is relevant to delimitation with Malta. In contrast, Malta has no Coast,east of
the escarpment. 1hope we shall agree, at least. on that.
Mr. President, 1have now dealt with the relevantgeographical facts,and then
the relevant geological and geornorphological facts. In placing the greatest
stress on those first two categories of physical fa1thope I have faithfully fol-
towed the emphasis preferred by the Court in itown decisions in earlier cases.
However, there are two remaining categoriesof relevant circumçtances1need
to mention, that is the conduct of the Parties and delimitations with thStates.
The Court rose a! 1 p.m. TWENTY-SECOND PUBLIC SI'ITING (14 XII 84, 10 a.m.1
Present: [See Sitting of 26 XI84.1
Professor BOWETï: Mr. President, yesterday 1 had outlined for the Court
the categories of relevant physical factors or circurnstances, that is to Say those
of geography and then geology and geomorphology.
But there remain two further categories of relevant circumstances which 1
need to mention.
Conduct of theParties
The third category is the conduct of the Parties. Happily, Sir Francis Vallat
has already given the Court the facts, and has commented on their legal rele-
vance. So 1need make only one or two comments by way of emphasis.
It isclear that we have no patteIn of conduct which establishes a form of de
facto boundary of the kind which the Court found to exist in relation to the 26O
line in the TunisialLibya case. The Maltese statusquo argument is based upon a
myth: it is sheer wishful thinking. What we do find is conduct which identifies
the area really in dispute as lying well to the nonh of any median line. This
emerges from the record of conduct over the grants of concessions, which Sir
Francis has reviewed. It emerges also, very clearly, from the no-drilling under-
standing of 1976. For this agreement not to drill covered an area north of the
median line proposed by Malta and south of Libya's 1973 proposal line. Indeed,
apart from the unfortunate Texaco-Saipem incident in August 1980, caused by
Malta in breach of the no-dnlling understanding, no drilling has been authorized
by Malta south of the Rift Zone.
Actual and Prospective Delimitations with Third States
The fourth, and last, category of'relevant circumstances concems actual and
potential delimitations with third States. Malta would have the Court ignore
these as relevant circurnstances for thereason that,as Mr. Lauterpacht has said,
they will complicate the Court's task. That may well be, but 1 venture to sug-
gest that the Court cannot disregard relevant circumstances simply because they
complicate matters. And to Say that third States are not bound by the Court's
judgment is really no answer. For, whether that is tme, the Court cannot delimit
between States A and B an area which is only relevant to a delimitation be-
tween States B and c. And what is the relevant area in each case must be
objectively determined. It is not something for A and B to decide by their own
agreement. In the present case there are at least five separate factorsbeo borne
in mind. These can best be illustrated by the map now behind me (Map No. 2
in the Libyan folder will also serve). The first is the need to respect the
TunisialLibya delimitation which will have to follow the 52' line in accordance
with the Court's 1982 Judgment. A second is the need to consider the 1971
delimitation line between Italy and Tunisia. 1do not say that Malta or Libya are
technically bound by that line: but they would need to show good legal cause
to disregard it.A third factor flows from the second, and this is the element of176 CONTINENTAL SHELF
consistency. By that I mean that Malta's equidistance claim involves the rejec-
tion of large sections of the 1971 TunisiardItalian line. We do not know
whether Malta has hitherto formally protested that line, but we do understand
that Malta must now do so if its equidistance arguments against Libya are to
have anycredibility: for othenvise the inconsistency between past conduct -
that is, Malta's non-opposition to the 1971 line - and its present conduct - by
that 1mean its insistence on equidistance - must be a feature of Malta's con-
duct which the Court cannot ignore.
Another crucial factor is the prospective Italian/Libyan delimitation. Italy
made clearits areas of interest in the courseof the Court's hearings on Italy's
request to intervene. Libya entirely shares Italy's concem to prevent encroach-
ment by Malta, in the sense that, beyond the escarpment at least, there can be
no question of a Maltese shelf. The area is one to be delimited between Italy
and Libya. It is important, in Libya's view, for the Malteseequidistance claim
to be seen for what it is. It cuts off the entitlements of both Italy and Libya to
the east in a totally unacceptable way.
And, finally, the situation of Libya vis-à-vis Greece cann*otbe ignored. The
Maltese trapezium and its equidistance proposal is so extreme that it even
jeopardizes the prospective agreement between Greece and Libya in areas far
to the east.
1 believe that is al1 1 need to say about actual or prospective delimitations
with third States. But apparently there is now a new category of hypothetical
delimitations with third States which the Court is king invited to consider. The
Court will recall Professor Weil's depiction on a map of a hypothetical boun-
dary between Italy and Libya, based upon the premise that Malta did not exist
at all. That isan extreme premise which we would not have dared to advance.
But, in any event, Professor Weil's argument was to suggest that an Italiad
Libyan boundary, south of a non-existent Malta, would be - inevitably - a
median line. And so the argument was that Libya could not reasonably claim
against Malta a boundary more favourable to Libya than Libya could claim
against Italy.
Mr. President, we have here one unfounded premise upon another, and 1think
it is necessary, in reply, to note only these points.
First, we cannot deal with problems of delimitation by supposing that a part
of the problem, Maita, does not exist. We have to deal with the facts of geo-
graphy as they are. We must not refashion geography. We must deal with the real
situation rather than hypothetical ones. Second, so far as I am aware, Italy has
made no claims to the area south of Malta but has merely indicated that it
considers Italy's interests to be involved to the West and east. Third, even if
Italy did have such claims, the Libyan argument that the Rift Zone is a plate
boundary and therefore a clear division between the two shelves is as valid
against Italy as against Malta. And, fourth, on geographical grounds there is no
warrant for the assumption that an Italian/Libyan boundary would be a median
line. If one takes that part of the Sicilian Coast facing Libya, plus that part of
theItalian mainland also facing Libya, you get a coastal ratio of two to one in
favour of Libya.
Moreover, 1do not believe that the points 1have just made are any different
from the views of ltaly itself. Let me cite from the speech of counsel for Italy,
before this Court on 25 January 1984:
"Itis the belief of Italy, on the contrary, that equidistance is not a mle,
farless an absolute nile. According to the relevant rules of the Inter-
national Law of the Sea - the law of yesterday as weU as today - equi- ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR BOWEïT 177
distance is only one of the critena of shelf delimitation. Other criteria
come into play with equal weight, such as the geography, geology and
rnorphologyof the areas, the comparative lengths of coasrs and the compa-
rativdeimensionsof the landmass."(II,p. 495, emphasis added.)
Exactly, Mr. President, that staternent could nbe bettered. So perhaps coun-
sel for Malta should have a word with the Italian Foreign Office before they
advance fictitious claims, on behalf of Italy, which Italy itself may have no
intention ofmaking.
If I can return to the task in hand and leave aside these hypothetical exer-
cises, 1would like now to corne to the final part of my presentation. The ques-
tion 1pose - and attempt to answer - is how can we refiect al1these relevant
facts and circumstances in an equitable result?
Mr. President, although you and Members of the Court have borne patiently
this long exposé of the relevant facts and circurnstances, the task does not
end there, for thereremains the essential task of applying them to produce an
equitable result. How can this be done? 1invite the Court to consider the two
approaches.
First, Malta's approach. It cannot be done by applying equidistance.
Equidistance would ignore al1the relevant geography. It would ignore the great
disparity in coastal lengths andsize of the landmass; it would treat Malta as
having a coast many times the length of its actual coast. Malta freely admits
that its equidistance claim would be little different if it had a much longer
@ coast. The point ernerges very clearly from diagram A to the Libyan Counter-
Mernorial, which Malta reproduced as a diagram on page 94 of its Reply. It is
Number 8 in the Libyan folder: the same illustration as Professor Jaenicke used
a few days ago. The Maltese comment on this diagram is curious. It is that "the
diagram simply shows the way geography works" (Ili, MR, p. 95). The dia-
gramshows no such thing. It shows the way equidistance works and it shows
that it works in a most inequitable way so as to virtually ignore, in a situation
such as this, these major differences in coastal length.
The other defectof the equidistance method in relation to the geogtaphical
facts is that it would ignore the proxirnity and interests of Italy. Encroachment
into areas of shelf relevant to Italy's delimitation with Libya is inevitable. Equi-
distance would also ignore al1 the relevant geological and geomorphological
factors. It would treat the whole area as one of essential unity and continuity,
ignonng the evidence that points unmistakably to the existence oftwo separate
shelves, divided by the Rift Zone. And it would equally ignore the limits in the
east to any area of shelf claimable byalta, the lirnit constituted by the Sicily-
Malta and Medina Escarpments. Equidistance would ignore the conduct of the
Parties in that any area of dispute has clearly lain to the north of a median line.
And, finally, equidistance would disregard the actual and prospective delimita-
tions with third States.
Let me tum to the Libyan approach: the Court is entitled to ask "would the
Libyan approach fit the relevant facts any better?" In my submission, Mr.
President, it would. Lete demonstrate this by taking the categories of relevant
facts or circurnstances, each in tu1nask you to accept, for the purposes of this 178 CONTINENTAL SHELF
demonstration, the Libyan thesis that an equitable result would be achieved by a
delimitation within and following the general direction of the Rift Zone.
There is first the category of physical facts, comprising geography, geology
and geomorphology. Let me start with geography.
Geography
The Libyan approach would fit the geography because a line following the
Rift Zone would accord to Malta an area which, when compared to the area
accorded to Libya, would be roughly proportionate to their relevant coastal
lengths. So, even if thRiftZone were not there and the whole area was as flat
as a pancake, we Say that geography would dictate a result roughly within the
Rift Zone, even though the Rift Zone as such is irrelevant to an approach based
on the geography of the coasts. Let me recall to the attention of the Court
Libya's 1973 proposal. It is shown on Map Number 65 in the Libyan folder. It
@ can also be seen on Map Number 13 from the Libyan Reply and it is the stag-
gered black line. The proposa1 was an approach that reflected the difference in
the coastal lengths of the Parties and attempted to resmct any line to the area
lying properiy between Malta and Libya. The details of how the proposa1 was
worked out are given in the Libyan Reply,Chapter 6, section C.
The method adopted was to join the two coasts by a series of connecting
lines, and then divide those lines at a point where the division would reflect the
saine ratio as the coastal lengths. That method wasa genuine attempt to grasp
and tackle thesalient geographical fact of the difference in coastal lengths and,
moreover, by coincidence it does in fact lie broadly within the Rift Zo-e the
Court will see the Rift Zone area shaded in grey on thep. There may well be
other ways of reflecting this major discrepancy in coastal lengths, b1submit
Libya's 1973 proposa1 was a perfectly valid approach. In essentials, it was not
farremoved from the method used by the Court's Chamber in the Guif of
MaineJudgment. The Court may recall that, in the second sector, between
points B and C, rhe Chamber shifted the median line between the twoopposite
coasts laterally. The shift was along a line separating those coasts, and the point
at which the median line was relocated was determined by the ratio of coastal
lengths of the two Parties. In essence, that was what Libya proposed in 1973.
The other virtue of a Iine within and following the Rift Zone would be that
each Party would have the area adjacent to its Coast, and the result would res-
pect the Court's proposition that the coasts are the basis of title. Even the limits
of such a line Westand east would fit with the geography. For in the West the
line would meet with the 52" line, and so accord with a reasonable view of
where the Libyan coasts, and the shelf areas of the coasts, were relevant to
Tunisia ratherthan Malta. And in the east, because of the break caused by the
escarpments, the line would not continue into areas which were,not off Malta,
or which lay between Libya and Italy.
Geologyand Geomorphology
Demonstrably, the line would fit with the geological and geomorphoIogical
features even if, as we have seen, it also accords with the geographical features.
The line would have a natural termination in the east where it meets the Malta-
Medina Escarpment. 1have described for the Court how that escarpment consti-
tutes a geomorphological feature of extraordinary significance. It stands, like a
great rampart, forming a clear break in the continuity of the shelf and at the ARGUMENTOF PROFESSORBOWE~T 179
same time marking the natural end to any areas of shelf over which Malta
might have a claim.
Producing a line
It has been said in the Maltese Counter-Mernorial, by way of criticism of the
Libyan thesis, that a zone is not a line, and cannot provide a line.
The argument was put in rather different form by Professor Weil (III,
p. 383). He appears to assume that the Libyan Rift Zone argument means that
Malta's shelf ends at the northem end of the Rift Zone, and Libya's shelf ends
at thesouthern end of the Rift Zone, so that the Zone itself becomes a sort of
no-man's land - what Professor Weil called a hiatus.
1 am afraid that the problem is entirely of his own making. No one suggests
that the Rift Zone is oceanic crust. No one suggests that it is not shelf. So,
obviously, if you have a shelf area along a plate boundary, with the two shelves
coming together along thatboundary, you have what may be, geologically and
geomorphologically, quite a complex area.The problem is to decide which parts
of this complex area belong to the one shelf, and which to the other. Legally,
one can regard this complex area as an area of overlapping claims. There is no
hiatus. There is the quite familiar problem of dividing an areaof overlapping
claims. And that is what the methods proposed by Libya seek to do.
Our Maltesefriendshave anallied concern in that they are anxious that the
delimitation should be agreed without difficulty. It is Libya's view that if the
Court saw fit to indicate that the principles and rules of international law pre-
scribed a line of delimitation along the Rift Zone, there wouldbe a sufficient
basis, even in that finding, for the Parties to proceed to a delimitation by agree-
ment.
Certainly that would be a more precise guidance than the parties received in
theNorth Sea ContinentaEShelfcases.
However, in this case the Court is empowered by the terms of the compromis
to decide how in practice such principles and niles can be applied without diffi-
culty. So the Court has the power to decide how, in relation to a zone of irregu-
larshape, a precise line of delimitation might be agreed.
The aria1ridge line
In Libya's view various methods are possible. In the choice of a suitable
method there are various components of a method which suggest themselves.
They do so rather obviously. because they denve from the relevant factors of
the case. One component which derives from the geology and geomorphology
and has a rational scientific basis to support it, is the axial ndge line. This is
@ portrayed on the rnap behind me now as the red line (LR, Map 13). That line
representsthe point at which, throughout the length of the Rift Zone, theconti-
nental crust has been stretched to the maximum. It is the thinnest point in the
crust, and has been investigated and identified by Professor Finetti of the Uni-
versity of Trieste in research embodied in a paper reprinted as Annex 7 to the
Libyan Reply. The research technique is to plot what is called a residual gravity
map.
The Court has heard a far-reaching attack on Professor Finetti's work from
Mr. Lauterpacht, and Professor Finetti is not here sa that he might defend his
work.
1would like to emphasize to the Court that scientists like Professor Finetti, or
ProfessorsVan Hinte and Jongsma are scientists of international repute. And the180 CONTlNENTALSHELF
work which Libya has used in its pleadings is not work simply commissioned
for this case. but work which these scientists have either published or sub-
mitted for publication in well-known scientific joumals. They have al1put for-
ward their views for scrutiny, not just by this Court, but by their colleagues in
the scientific world. So 1 believe their work is entitled to respec- though 1
would not deny that itis entirely for this Court to decide upon its legal rele-
vance.
Hence 1 must reject the suggestion by Malta that there is an "arbitrary man-
ner and preconceived character" to the line: those were the words used at
page 350 (III). 1think this illustrates the risk of having such matters debated by
counsel, rather than taken as testimony of witnesses, and subject to cross-
examination. 1 hop itmay prove possible for Professor Finetti tu make his
own defence in good time. But lest the attack on his axial ndge line should have
made any impression on the Court, let me note a few brief comments now.
Certainly the gravity readings have to be corrected ta aliow for the depth of
water overlying the sea-bed. But to suggest this is al1undisclosed guesswork is
nonsense. Professor Finetti's rnap explicitty discloses its use of the Bouguer
Map, so other scientists know irnmediatelythat he is using a standard, accepted
technique for this purpose. The same is [rue of hiç selection of the appropriate
"filier length".
As to Mr. Lauterpacht's own attempt to drawaltemative lines, well, 1 can
only Say 1 admire his courage. But amateurism is dangerous. and I am toid by
our scientific advisers that Mr. Lauterpacht's lines are scientifically indefen-
sible.
So we maintain the validity of the axial ridge line. 1t remains a perfectly
valid component of a method whereby a precise line in the Rift Zone can be
ultimately detennined.
TheThalweg
Another component denves from the bathymetry. We would need to identify
a line of greatest depth along the zone - a sort of thalweg - so that if one
imagined water flowing through the zone (as indeed it does), the greatest
volume of water would follow this line. The bathymetry enables us to identify
two such lines. If 1can invite the Court to look at No. 66 in the Libyan folder,
or at the large map behind me, you will see here the Libyan 1973 proposal in
black, based on geography; you will see also the axial ridge line in red based
on geology and geomorphology. And if you followed the bathymetry, then that
would give you two lines. One line would run through the Pantellena Trough
and the Linosa Trough and then eastwards through the Medina Channel. The
other line would run from the Pantelleria Trough through the MaltaTrough and
through the Malta Channel. The phenomenon of two main thalwegs, or chan-
nels, is quite common in large rivers and we have the same sort of phenomenon
here. The existence of two thalwegs does no1prevent a boundary being located
in a river, and nor need it here. Indeed. international practicehas already found
a solution to this kind of problem. If 1 can cite the Agreement of 1928 con-
ceming the territorial waters between Johore and the Straits Settlement, that
Agreement not only adopted the thalweg asa territorial waters boundary, but it
expressly provided for the situation where two thalwegsexisted, and the solu-
tion adopted was to adopt a median line between the two thalwegs (UN
LegislutiveSeries, Laws and ReguIarionson the RPgimeof the TerritorialSeo,
ST/LEG/SER.B/6, 1957,52-53).
Another component of an appropriate method could be derived from the ARGUMENTOF PROFESSOR BOWETT 181
notion of an equal division of areas of convergence or overlap, which one findç
reflected in the Court's jurisprudence.As 1 indicated earlier, one can treat the
Rift Zone as an area of overlapping claims. It is a zone of discontinuity, geolo-
gically a rather cornplex zone, lying between the two geological shelves, but
still, legally, a shelf area. Thus it could be equally divided by a line generally
mid-way between the boundaries to the zone to the north and to the south,
taking the boundaries as the 500-mehe bathyrnetricline.
Nor need we neglect geography. Maltais coast faces, not south, but south-
West. Thus, this may suggest that a line following the Rift Zone should have
two sectors. In the first sector the line could be parallel to the direction of the
Maltese coast, like this, and then when you reach the point of longitude at
which there is no Maltese coast anylonger opposite to the coast of Libya, the
line could then be extended eastwards along that line of latitude. As the Court
will realize1am trying to dernonstrate a method rather thana precise line. This
particular line could in fact be adjusted by moving it up or down this meridian,
and so as to conform to any test of proportionality which the Court might
appty. On the new map which is now behind me, the same type of method has
been used to show lines which would cover a range of coastal ratios. The bot-
tom line would be 1 to 8 and the top line would be 1 to 10, but, of course, the
method has flexibility and you can see by this representation you could move
that line either up or down within the relevaarea.
So the Libyan approach would fit the geography, the geology, the geornor-
phology, and even the bathymetry. And it is no answer for Malta to Say that
these factors cannot, in this case, producea line.
Condiict ofthe Parties
Would the Libyan approach be consistent with the conduct of the Parties?
That is the third category of relevant circumstances. The answer is that it
would. The conduct of the Parties has clearly revealed that the area in dispute
lies north of any equidistance line, in roughly the sarne area as the Rift Zone.
There is no de facto boundary to oppose such a solution, and there are nopro-
ducing wells in the area. So there wouldbe no problem over a boundary in the
Rift Zone interfering with established ïights of any concessionaire, operating
such wells under a concession from the one Party and then finding themselves
operating on the shelf of the other.
Delimitations with Third States
And what are the delimitations with third States, actual or prospective? Let
us look at the present position with the assistance of Map 2 in your folder.
The Court will note that the 1971Italyflunisian line broadIy follows the Rift
Zone, except for this bulge around the island of Lampedusa. The 1971 line ends
at this point here, point 32. So we can reasonably assume that Tunisia has no
cIairns east of that point. So let us theredraw a line of longitude represent-
ing the limits to the area to be delimited between Malta and Libya. A Libya/
Malta line starting at the western limit of the relevant area. as defined in the
Libyan Mernorial, and running eastwards along the Rift Zone would involve no
alteration to this 1971 line: and let me remind the Court that the Maltese equi-
distance line must be incompatible with this 1971 line. Nor would this kind of
MaltaLibya iine interfere or impinge upon Tunisian interests; as we have seen,
Tunisia appears to'have no claims to the east of that line.
If theCourt's 1982 line- the 52" line - in the second sector of the Tuni-182 CONTINENTALSHELF
sian/Libyan delimitation were extended, it could meet up with this Iine of longi-
tude representing the presumptive limit to any Tunisian claims and therefore the
limit to the area for delimitation betweenMalta and Libya. From that point the
Court's 1982 line, as extended, could be joined to the beginning point of the
Maltaibya line. Anything to the Westof that line would bea matter for nego-
tiation between Malta and Italy, or indeed Tunisia if it did have claims there.
In the east, a Maltrinibya Rift Zone line could be extended to these escarp-
ments, but no further. It would be understood that, if Italy had claims to the
west of this escarpment, Italy could pursue those claims either against Malta or
against Libya, or, indeed, against both. Inother words. the continuation of the
line asfar as the escarpment would be without prejudice to the claims of Italy.
And at least beyond the escarpment, the area would be left free for a future
ItalyLibya delimitation.
The line agreed between ltaly and Greece would be unaffected. And the
Libyan coast would be left as a coast opposite to Greece, with this area to the
north to be delimited by agreement between Libya and Greece. We should
avoid the error, which Malta's equidistance proposai contains. of treating this
long Libyan coast as relevant to a delimitation with Malta, as being opposite to
Malta. Let me make clear, Mr. President, that we are not proposing a line join-
ing point 32 on the Italiaflunisian delimitation with point 16, the terminal
point of the Greek-Italian delimitation. We are not proposing such a line as
Professor Weil seemed to assume (III, pp. 384-385). We do not propose any
line to the east of the escarprnents. But in fact, even on Professor Weil's
assumption, it can be seen that a line joining these two points would indeed run
through the Rift Zone.
So it is Libya's contention that a boundary following the Rift Zone would
faithfully reflect the facts and the relevant circumstances of this case, giving to
each itsproper weight, and leading to an equitable result.
There is, of course, a final question, narnely, does such a boundary satisfy the
test of proportionality? In fact it does, but 1 must leave the demonstration of
that fact to my good friend and colleague, Professor Jaenicke.
Mr. President, that brings me to the end of my presentation. 1 am most grate-
ful for the attention and the courtesy shown to me during this long statement by
Members of the Court. ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR JAENICKE
COUNSEL FORTHE GOVERNMENT OF THELIBYAN ARAB JAMAHlRlYA
Professor JAENICKE :
PROPORTIONALITY
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, my presentation of today will deal with
the concept of proportionality as ameans of verifying the equitableness of a pro-
posed continental shelf boundary. 1shall demonstrate that the various methods of
delimitation suggested by Libya for the determination of the continental shelf
boundary between Malta and Libya will result in a delimitation which would
satisfy the proportionality test, whileMalta's proposed equidistance boundary
does not.
My presentation will consist of two parts. The first part will deal with the
role of the concept of proportionality in continental shelf delimitation; the
second part will deal with the application of the proportionality test, as it has
been developed by the jurispnidence of this Court, to the respective solutions
proposed by the Parties.
The first part of my presentation will address the role and applicability of the
concept of proportionality in the light of the jurisprudence of this Court. It is
Libya's position that the verification of whether a reasonable degree of propor-
tionality exists between the lengths of the coastlines of the Parties which face
the area of delimitation (which 1 shall hereafter cal1 the "relevant area" in the
present context), and the extent of continental shelf area appertaining to them,
is an essential, if not indispensable, requirement inthe process of determining
an equitable continental shelf boundary. Malta, on the other hand, while admit-
ting the usefulness of some form of proportionality for eliminating the distort-
ing effects of incidental geographical features by small-scale adjustments to the
equidistance line. has otherwise coiistantly taken the position thataproportion-
ality test based on respective lengths of coastlines is not applicable between
opposite coasts (III, MR, para. 212), and, consequently. not applicable in the
geographical situation of the present case (ibid., para. 201). In view of the
divergent positions of the Parties in this respect, it is necessary to examine
more closely the scope of the concept of proportionality and of the applicability
of the proportionality test of the kindemployed by this Court in previous cases.
However, before proceeding further it is necessary to clarify that the junspni-
dence has referred to and utilized the concept of proportionality in different
ways, depending upon the particular context in which it has arisen in cases
conceming maritime zone delimitation. The attack by Malta on Libya's position
somehow confuses the different ways in which the concept of proportionality
has been employed, by mixing up arguments from the different ways in which
proportionality has been used. In fact, we have to distinguish three ways in
which the concept of proportionality has been applied. Theseare the following :
First, proportionality as an indication of whether a certain individual geogra-
phical feature used as a basepoint in constmcting the equidistance or other geo-184 CONTINENTAL SHELF
metncal boundary would have a disproportionate or distorting effect on the
location or direction of the boundary (North Sea Continental Shey cases. I.C.J.
Reports 1969, para. 57; France-United Kingdom continental shelf arbitration,
Decision, paras. 100-10 1. 199-202).
Second, proportionality used as a corrective factor where the inequalities in
the lengths of the two States' respective coastlines abutting on the area of deli-
mitation cal1for a proportionate shifting of the boundary lineconstructed on the
basis of equidistance or some other geometrical method. That is the way used
by the Chamber in the Guij of Maine case Judgment, paragraphs 157. 184-185.
218-222).
The third way is proportionality based on a cornparison of coastal tengths and
maritime areas attributed to them as a fina1test for verifying the equitableness
of the solution reached in the delimitation process (NorthSea ContinentalShey
case, Judgment, paras. 9%and 101 and TunisialLibyo Confinenial Shelf case,
Judgment, paras. 103. 130-131).
The concept of proportionality in maritime-zone delimitation is not a mere
incidental or secondary criterion or factor. It has not such a "low normative
status" as the distinguished counsel for Malta would give il (III, p. 465). The
Court has rather characterized it in the TunisialLibya Continental SheIf case,
(I.C.J.Reports 1982, p. 75, para. 103) as a requirement of the "fundamental
principle of ensuring an equitable delimitation between the States concemed"
and as an "aspect of equity"(ibid., p.91, para.131).
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, this is so because the concept of propor-
tionality in the application of the law is intertwined with the principle of equa-
lity before the law, both emanating from the dictates of equity. Equity requires
the application of proportionate treatment in those cases where the same legal
rule or criterion has to be. applied to facts of the same order, but of unequal
dimension, thus ensuring real equality before the law. Proportionaie treatment is
particularly required in maritime-zone delimitation where one has to start from
complex coasral configurations and, in particular - as in the present case -
€rom coasts of different length extending into the area of delimitation. The
application of equitable principles requires taking cognizance of a difference in
thelengths of the coasts which abut the area of delimitation. This dues not aim
at a repartition of the area of delimitation by equi~ableshares; itdoes however
caH for methods of delimitation which measure the relationship of each of these
coasts to the area of delimitation by one and the same yardstick - by the
length of their coastal fronts which form the basisof the natural prolongation of
the abutting tenitories into the area of delimitation. In fact, if one does not give
coasts of unequal length proportionate treatment, then one necessarily treats
unequal coasts as if they were equal. If one mats a State with anextensive
coast as if it had a much smaller coast, that is to Bout the pnnciple of equality
of States and not to support it. It is therefore not surprising that the concept of
proportionality has found so much recognition on various levels of the process
of maritime-zone delimitation.
The concept of proportionality in the law of continental shelf delimitation is
certainly- as the Court of Arbitration in theFrance-United Kingdom continen-
tal çhelf case remarked, Decision. paragraph 99 :
"a broader one. not linked to any specific geographical feature. It is rather
a factor to be taken into account in appreciating the effects of geographical
features on riteequitable or inequitable character of a delimitation, andin
particular ofa delimitation by application of the equidistance method." Q
ARGUMENT OF PROFESSORJAENlCKE
Later in its judgment the Court of Arbitration continued that
"the fact of proportionality may appear in the form of the ratio between the
areas of continental shelf to the lengths of the respective coastlines, as in
the North Sea Continental Shelf cases. But it may also appear and more
usuallv does. as a factor determining thereasonable or unreasonable - the
equitable or' inequitable - effects-of particular geographical features or
configurations upon the course of an equidistance line boundary."
It is worth noting that the Court of Arbitration viewed proportionality not only
as a mere "hindsight" test to verify the equitableness of the result but as a fac-
tor which requires and somehow already implies a method to remedy the other-
wise inequitable result.
In the present case, we are confronted with a coastal configuration where
there is an extraordinary difference in the lengths of the coasts of the Parties
which extend into the area of delimitation. In the North Sea Continental Shelf
cases as well as in the TunisialLibyaContinenralShelf case, in both cases the
Court applied the concept of proportionality to a comparison of the length of
relevant coasts to the continental shelf areas appertaining to them. The exact
wording in the relevant paragraph of the Judgrnent in the North Sea Continental
Shey cases was as follows :
"A final factor to be taken account of is the element of a reasonable
degree of proporrionaliiy which a delimitation effected according to equi-
table principles ought to hring about between the extent of the continental
shelf appertaining to the States concerned and the lengths of their respec-
tive coastlines." (I.C.J.Reporrs 1969, Judgment, p. 52, para. 98, emphasis
added.)
It may be worth noting that the Court did not visualize proportionality merely
as an ex posr facto operation in order to venfy whether a boundary line deter-
mined without any prior regard to proportionality in the end meets the propor-
tionality test.
The Court certainly also bore in mind that the Parties would have to select a
method of delimitation which would be capable of paying regard to the required
proportionaliîy. That this was in the mind of the Court when it stated the require-
ment of proportionality on the basis of the lengths of coasts follows clearly
from the sentences following the passage which I have just cited. For, the Court
continued in the same paragraph that "the choice and application of the appro-
priate technical methods would lx a matter for the parties" and, in addition, the
Court indicated one of the possible methods how a reasonable degree of propor-
tionality could be reached in the particular coastal configuration of the North
Sea (ibid., para. 98). It is also worth noting that in the TunisialLibya Conti-
nental Shelfcase, the Court, in the dispositq of its Judgrnent, qualified the ele-
ment of proportionality as a "relevant circumstance" to be taken into account
for achieving an equitable delimitation (1.CJ. Reports 1982, p. 92, para. 133).
The distinguished counsel for Malta questions the value of the precedent of
the Norfh Sea ContinentalShelfcases. He asserts that in those cases it was not
the difference in length of the coast of the Parties the effect of which had to be
remedied, but it was rather the purpose of the proportionality concept to restore
equality between the Parties, in particular, to ensure that the coaçt of the Fed-
eral Republic of Germany, king comparable in length to the neighbounng
coast, should not - by the effect of its concavity on the construction of the
equidistance line - be attributed a much smalIer area of continental shelf. O
CONTINENTALSHELF
1 do not dispute this analysis of the geographical situation in the North Sea
Continental Shelfcases, but 1am unable to share the legal conclusion which the
distinguished counsel for Malta has drawn therefrom. Neither in the formulation
of the criterion of proportionality nor in the reasons given by the Court for this
criterion has it ever appeared that it had been the Court's intention to guarantee
the Federal Republic of Germany an equal seaward reach of its natural prolon-
gation; the reason was rather to give broadly equal coasts a broadly equal area
of continental shelf. Inrhe present case, the geographical situation requires the
opposite remedy. namely, to prevent the inequitable result that would occur if
the much smaller coast were to get only a slightly smaller area of continental
shelf asthe much longer coast which extends into the same area of delimitation.
The critenon of proportionality between coastal length and, continental shelf
area as a requirement to ensure an equitable delimitation works both ways: it
ensures on the one hand, that the chosen method of delimitation attributes
broadly equal areas to coasts of comparable length, and it likewise ensures on
the other hand that the chosen method of delimitation does not attribute to
coasts of different lengthareas of equal amount, but rather areas which broadly
correspond to the difference in coastal length. A reasonable proportionality
between coastal length and continental shelf area, not equal seaward reach of
natural prolongation or equal distribution of area, is the object and function
of the concept of proportionaliiy.
The Court adjourned from II.10 a.m. to 11.30am.
Before 1 left off, I dealt with the general role of proportionality as an impor-
tant and indispensable requirement of continental shelf delimitation. Now 1shall
deal with Matta's argument with which it contests the applicability of the
concept of proportionality in the present case in both respects as a relevant fac-
tor for selecting the appropriate method of delimitation as well as a final tesof
the equitableness of the result. Malta does so on essentially two arguments (III,
p. 458):
1. On the argument that between oppasite coasts the median line is per se
"compatible" with theconcept of proportionality.
2. On the argument that between oppoçite coasts the concept of proportiona-
lity based on the difference of coastal length, has no application.
The argument that the median line is per se compatible with the concept of
proportionality, need not detain us long. It is based on Malta's reliance on the
alleged rule of equal reach of each State's continental shelf which is, in effect.
postulating the inherent equitableness of the equidistance method between
coasts with an opposite relationship, irrespective of any difference of coastal
length. 1 have dealt with that proposition earlier in Libya's oral argument and
shall not repeat myself in the present context.
It is certainly plausible to regard a rnedian line as compatible with the
concept of proportionality where it divides the area between coasts of com-
parable length by equal parts; but how a boundary line which divides ihe area
between coasts of so much difference in length in a ratio of one to one-and-a-
half could be qualified as compatible with the concept of proportionality as
understood by the Court, is difficult io perceive and still unexplained by the
distinguished counsel for Malta.
As to the argument that between opposite coasts the concept of proportiona-
lity has no application. it is necessary toal in more detail wiih this argument ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR JAENICKE 187
because Malta asserts that it is supported by the jurisprudence. However, a
closer look at the jurisprudence shows that it does in no way support Malta's
proposition. Neither the Judgment of the Court in the ArorthSea Conriilenla1
Shelf cases nor its Judgment in the TunisialLibya Continental SheEfcase
contains an indication that the applicability of the proportionality test was in
any way dependent on whether the coasts of the parties were in an adjacent or in
an opposite relationship to each other. In fact, in the TunisialLibyaContinental
Shelf case, the Court specifically noted (I.C.J.Reports 1982, p. 88, para. 126)
that the relationship of Libya and Tunisia was gradually transfomed from that
of adjacent States to that of opposite States, particularly as regards the area of
delimitation lying further to seaward.
Mr. President, Malta relies heavily on the Decision of the Court of Arbi-
tration in the continental shelf arbitration between France andthe United King-
dom of 30 June 1977. There, the Court of Arbitration stated that the criterion of
a reasonable degree of proponionality between the areas of continental shelf
and the lengths of the coastlines was not necessarily a critenon to be applied in
al1cases, and that it was the particular geographical situation in the North Sea
Continental SheIf cases which gave relevance to that criterion in that case
(Judgment, para. 99). It is true that the Court of Arbitration did not apply the
concept of proportionality in the same way as it had been applied by this Court
in 1969; it used proportionality or rather the evidence of a disproportionate
effect of individual coastal features (the Scilly Islands) on the division of area
by the equidistance line as a corrective factor in the construction of the bound-
ary line. The reason, however, why the Court of Arbitration felt it difficult in
that case to apply the criterion of proportionality between the lengths of coast-
lines and areas of continental shelf to the area of delimitation in the so-called
"Atlantic region" where France had argued for the application of proportionality
on the basis of the length of coastlines (Decision, para. 22) had nothing to do
with the opposite or adjacent relationship of the relevant coasts of the parties.
In fact, precisely with respect to the so-called "Atlantic region", the Court- in
commenting on the divergent views of the parties on the opposite or adjacent
character of their Atlantic-facing coasts- noted that:
"in the Atlantic region the situation geographically isone of two laterally re-
Iated coasts, abutting on the same continental shelf whichextends from them
a great distance seawards into the Atlantic Ocean" (Decision, para. 241).
The real reason why the Court of Arbiwation had difficulties in applying the
proportionality test in the "Atlantic region" can only be found in the open-
endedness of the area of delimitation in its lateral extent, both to the north and
south of the delimitation line. It was this which did not allow the relevant
coasts and the limits of the area of delimitation to be identified with the same
degree of precision as it had been possible in the enclosed areas of delimitation
in the North Sea and between Tunisia and Libya. Therefore, the Court of
Arbitration applied the concept of proprtionality under these geographical cir-
cumstances only in a limited way - as a disproportionality test- by examin-
ing whether and to what extent the islands lying off the Atlantic-facing coasts
of each party (Ushant and Scilly Islands) exercised a disproportionate influence
on the direction of the equidistance line into the Atlantic.
In theGuifof Maine case, the Chamber of this Court similarly did not apply
the proportionality concept based on the lengths of coastlines to the area of
delimitation for verifying the equitableness of the boundary line prescribed by
the Chamber.
However, the Chamber did apply this concept to a particular part of the area188 CONTINENTAL SHELF
only, and precisely to that segment of the boundary line where the coasts of the
Parties abutting the Gulf of Maine proper changed into an opposite relationship.
The Parties in that case had extensively debated whether and to what extent a
proportionality text could be applied to the Gulf of Maine area as a whole.
nere is good reason to assume that the Chamber felt itself to be in the same
situation as the Court of Arbitration because here again the area of delimitation
outside the closing line of the Gulf had been left undefined by the Parties and
neither the relevant coasts, nor the eventual seaward extent of the maritime
zones of the Parties in the Atlantic, in particular the lateral limits of these
zones, could be determined with the necessary precision.
The analysis of the jurisprudence leads. therefore, to the conclusion that, con-
trary to the opinion of Malta, the proportionality concept which the Court
applied in the Norrh Seo ContinentaI Shelf and the TunisiafLibyaContinental
Shelf cases. is, in principle. applicable irrespective of whether the delimitation
concerns opposite or adjacent coasts. Its applicability depends, however, on the
possibility of defining the relevant coasts and the relevant area into which the
natural prolongation of these coasts extends, wiih such precision that the neces-
sary calculations can be made as to the ratio between the lengths of coastiines
and the areas of continental shelf which will be attributed to each of these
coasts by the proposed delimitation method. Libya has shown that the relevant
coasts and the relevant area for the application of the proportionaiity test in the
present case can clearly be identified in the geographical situation between
Libya and Malta.
Mr. President, Malta's main attack on the applicability of the proportionality
test based on the lengths of the coasts of the Parties rests, howevei, on quite
another ground. This is the unfounded premise that opposite States are pre-
sumed to have, as Malta has phrased it, an "equality ofseaward reach of jurisdic-
tion" from the basepoints of their coasts irrespective of length of their coastal
fronts which face the area of delimitation (III, MR, paras. 21 1, 231; III,
pp. 440, 444 and 458). Basing itself on this premise. on equality of seaward
reach, Malta argues that any shift of the boundary line to the north of the
median line towards Malta by reason of the application of the proportionality
concept would constitute an encroachment on Maltais natural prolongation and
would make proportionality "anindependent source of continental shelf rights"
(III, MR, para. 208; III. pp. 462-463). If this premise and this line of argu-
ment were correct, the proportionality test based on the length of the coasts
abutting on the area of delirnitation would indeed becorne irrelevant not only
between opposite, but also between adjacent coasts - a consequence which
could not possibly be maintained in view of the jurisprudence of this Court.1
already had occasion at an earlier stage of Libya's presentation to obseme that
Malta's premise as well as its line of argument are nothing more than a restate-
ment of the contention that there exists an alleged priority in favour of equidis-
tance as the only legal method of delimitation between opposite coasts.
Although Malta phrases its reliance on the equidistance merhod not as a per-
emptory nom but as a legal presumption, Malta cannot explain why a marked
difference in the lengths of the relevant coasts which face the relevant area
must be totally disregarded under al1 geographical circumstances and could
never be capable of rebutting the presumption of the median line. And finally,
Malta dws not explain why it is equitable for an island with a small coastal
front neceçsarily to have a continental shelf area up toa rnedian line vis-à-vis
surrounding continental coasts which are much larger with the result that the
small isiand receives an area of continental shelf which. proportionalty. many
times larger than the surrounding continental coasts could ever obtain. The pro- ARGUMENT OF PROFESSORJAENICKE 189
portionality test, which has ken developed by the jurispmdence with good
reason, shows conclusively that Malta's claim for a median line delimitation
between coasts of such different lengths obviouslyleads to an inequitable result.
1now tum to the second part of my presentation which deals with the appli-
cation of the concept of proportionality, as it has been used by this Court in
previous cases, as a final test of the equitableness of the delimitation methods
proposeci by both Parties in the presenr case. Forthe purpose of comparing
coasts and continental shelf areas appertaining to hem, it is first necessary to
identify the coasts and the sea area which are relevantfor canying out the pro-
portionality calculation.
1shall begin with the relevant coasts: the relevant coasts are the geographical
basis from which the natural prolongationor submarine extension of each of the
Parties into the area of delimitation originates, or, expressed in other terms,
which generates the extension of each State's continental shelf jurisdiction into
the area of delimitation. As the Court has said in the TunisialLibyaContinental
Shelfcase (I.C.J.Reports 1982, p. 61, para. 75):
"for the purpose of shelf delimitation between the Parties, it is not the
whole of the coast of each Party which can be taken into account; the sub-
marine extension of any part of the coast of one Party which, because of its
geographic situation, cannot overlap with the extension of the coast of the
other, is to be excluded from lurther consideration".
Therefore, it is only those partsof the coasts of Libya and Malta whose natural
prolongations or submarine extensions could possibly meet or overlap in the
maritime area to be delimited between the Parties which can reasonably be
taken into account as the maritirne area to be delirnited between the Parties. It
has already become apparent at this stage that the coasts which are relevant for
the proportionality calculation must be defined in view of the area wherein a
delimitation is sought by the Parties, and that onIy those coasts which really
face the area of delimitation become relevant in this respect. On the basis of
fiese considerations, 1shall first identify the relevant coasts of the Parties in the
present case.
On the Libyan side, the coast which may reasonably be regarded as relevant
is that part of the coast which runs from Ras Ajdir at the Tunisiaibyan bor-
der eastward to Ras Zamq. This is so because it is only that part of Libya's
coast which faces the maritime area between the Parties. Beyond RasZamq
the Libyan coast faces areas wfiich may be relevant for delimitation vis-à-vis
other States, but not vis-A-visMalta; 1shall come back to this point later when
1 shall define the relevant area. According to the practice of this Court, the
length of the relevant coasts of the Parties which enter into the proportionality
calculation should be measured according to their general direction in order to
reduce hegular coastlines to truer proportions, in order to compare like with
like. The length of the Libyan coast between Ras Ajdir and Ras Zarniq, if
measured in two straight lines from Ras Ajdir to Ras Tajoura and from Ras
Tajoura to Ras Zamq, amounts to about 350 kilometres (in exact figures:
174.1 plus 178.9 = 353 km). If it Is measured in one straight line it would only
be two kiiometres less, but inany case above 350 kilometres.
Now we come to the Maltese coasts. There it is more difficult to identify
those coasts which clearly face the maritime area which is to be delimited be-
tween the Parties. 1would referin this respect to the LibyanMemorial (I), para-190 CONTINENTAL SHELF
graphs 2.24 to 2.45 and 10.10 to 10.1 1,and to what my colleegue Professor
Bowett explained yesterday. 1 do not regard it as necessary to go further into
the details of how the Maltese coast should be measured for the different pur-
poses of Libya's argument. Professor Bowett pointed to the different ways how
one could view the geographical situation and measure the lengths of the rele-
vant coasts of the Maltese islands in comparison to those of Libya, the results
ranging from 14.4 to 40.6 kilometres. Among them he mentioned the two south-
ward-facing facades of the islands of Malta and Gozo with a combined leneth
of 34.8 kil;>me;res.For the purpose of the proportionality calculations we h&e
to be more swcific and to take a mode of measurement com~arable to that
applied to the'coast of Libya in order to compare like with liké - that is, to
measure the coastal front which faces the area for delimitation. Applying this
method, the two southward-facing coastal façades of Malta and Gozo represent,
in my view most appropriately. the coastal front of Malta which clearly faces
southward into the area of delimitation. The Court will see that the western
end-point of Malta's southward-facing coast at Ras il-Qala lies approximately
on the same meridian as the eastem end-point of Gozo's southward-facing coast
at Ras il-Qala, so that their combined iength could be considered as Malta's
frontage on to the maritime area that has to bedelimited between the Parties
because this (pointing to the south on the map) is the direction in which the
coastal fronts of Malta, or the coastal frontage of Malta taken as a whole,
extend into the area of delimitation.
In the result, among the various methods of measurement a ratio of around
one to ten seems to describe the ratio of coastal lengths for the purpose of the
proportionality calculations most appropriately.
Any method of delimitation, whatever may be its construction, should attri-
bute to each of the Parties areas of continental shelf which, within a reasonable
degree, reflect that difference in Iength of their coastal fronts in order to satisfy
the test of proportionality.
After having defined the relevant coasts of the Parties and the ratio of their
lengths, it is then necessary to identify the relevant area which enters into the
calculation for the proportionality test. While the identification of the relevant
area depends inconcretoon the particular geographical and other circumstances
of the case. the jurisprudence of this Court has developed three criteria for the
detemination of the relevant area which are of general application. These are:
first, that the relevant area is bounded by the relevant coasts of both Parties;
second, that the area should include those maritime areas that may objectively
be claimed by each of the Parties as the natural prolongation or extension of
their respective territories emanating from the coasts which face the area of
delimitation; and third, that account be taken of the effects, actual or prospec-
tive. of any other continental shelf delimitations between third States in the
same region. On the basis of these criteria it is now possible to define with
some precision the area which is relevant for the proportionality test.
The coastal fronts of both Parties which bound the relevant area between the
Parties in the north and the south have already been defined and the eastem and
western end-points of these coastal fronts will constitute the starting-points for
the lateral limits of the relevant area both to the east and to the wesi.
For the purpose of establishing the western limit of the relevant area, account
must first be taken of the Tunisian-Libyan continental shelf boundar as indi-
cated by the Court in its Judgment of 1982. As Libya cannot claim any prolon-
gation or extension from its coastal front to the Westof this boundary, it is legally
required to take this boundary line as the first segment of the lateral limit of the
area of delimitation vis-à-vis Malta as far as the course of the boundary has ARGUMENTOF PROFESSOR JAENlCKE 191
been indicated by the Court, that is up to the point of the arrow on the map
which accompanied the Judgment of the Court (1.C.J.Reports 1982, p. 90). It
seems appropriate to complete the western limit of the relevant area by drawing
a straight line from that point to the western end-point of Malta's coastal front
at Ras il-Wardija. This line shall, 1 must emphasize, in no way prejudge the
delimitation in this area because tkiatis a complex problem as several States are
involved, and my colleague, Professor Bowett, has pointed to this problem
today. But it seems appropriate to assume that the areas Westof this line may
not be considered as areas for delimitation between Mnlta and Libya.
The eastern limit of the relevant area is more difficult to identify because it
depends on the determination of the areas than can reasonably be considered
areas where the natural prolongation from the relevant coasts of both Parties
which face the maritime area meet or overlap. It is obvious that a straight line
between Ras Zarruq and Delimara Point - the easternmost point of the Island of
Malta - cannot possibly constitute the eastern limit of the area which has to be
delimited between the Parties. For this would have the effect of leaving out areas
of sea-bed where the natural prolongations extending from the relevant coastal
fronts of both Parties clearly meet or overlap. Under the criteria which 1have just
mentioned. the relevant area could be considered bounded to the east as follows :
1. In the northern part of this area, east and south-east of Malta, the Sicily-
Malta Escarpment - where the shelf area of the Sicily-Malta Plateau slopes
down very steeply into the depths of the Ionian Sea - forms a natural break in
the shelf beyond which Maltais limited natural prolongation cannot possibly
extend if equitable criteria are applied. Moreover, Malta's coastal front facing
to the east is sa small (5.4 km) that it would lx difficult to maintain that its
extension reaches as far as beyond the escarpments into an area into which the
seaward projections of much larger coastal fronts of other States extend.
2. In the southem part, the maritime area east of a line which runs along the
Medina Escarpment towards the eastem end-point of Libya's coastal front at
Ras Zmq, cannot be considered any more a natural prolongation orextension
of Libya's coastal front between Ras Ajdir and Ras Zamq because it is the
Libyan Coasteast of Zarruq which extends into that area. As a result, this area
to the east cannot form part of the relevant area under the criteria I rnentioned
before. Upon these considerations, the eastem lateral limit of the maritime area
which has to be considered as relevant for the purpose of applying the propor-
tionality test canbe appropriately defined by a line consisting of the following
the segments - for this purpose 1 would like to invite the Court to look again
at the map: (1) a line drawn €rom the eastem end-point of Malta's coastal front
at Delimara Point in a due easterly direction until it intersects with the Malta-
Sicily Escarpment because only the area south of this line can be attributed,
even under Malta's own radial projection theory, to Malta's coastal front which
faces the area of delimitation; (2) a line from there- where this line intersects
with the Sicily-Malta Escarpment - following as closely as possible that
escarpment southward to a point where the escarpment, now named Medina
Escarpment, reaches its most easterly point; and (3) a line drawn from there to
the eastem end-point of Libya's relevant coastal front at Ras Zarruq.
The area so defined comprises approximately 108,700square kilometres. This
figure forms the basis for the calculation of what proportion of this area will be
attnbured to the one or the other Party by the various methods of delimitation
proposed by the Parties. 1 should recall that this proportion should correspond
in a reasonable degree to the proportion between the lengths of the coastal
fronts of the Parties, thats to a ratio of about around one to ten.192 CONTINENTALSHELF
We have now to examine the methods of delimitation proposed by the Parties
in order to venfy how far they meet the test of proportionality, or, more pre-
cisely, how far the ratio of the continental shelf areas attributed to each of
the Parties by these proposais correspond, within a reasonable degree. to the
difference in length of their respective coastai fronts.
It is readily apparent that the equidistance boundary proposed by Malta attn-
butes an amount of continental shelf area to Malta which is far out af propor-
tion to the ratio between the lengths of the coastal fronts of both Parties. Of the
area of delimitation just defined. comprising approximately 108.700 square kile
metres, the equidistance boundary would attribute to Malta about 44,000 square
kilomeires and to Libya 64,700 square kilornetres. That represents a ratio of
approximately one to one-and-a-half (in exact figures: 44,059 km2, Libya
64,658 km2,an exact ratio of 1 : 1.47). This is a striking result and one that
qualifies Malta's boundary proposal as totally inequitable.
In contrast to Maita's proposal. the various methods of delimitation proposed
by Libya will lead to boundaries which correspond with much more fidelity to
the requirernent of proportionality. Earlierin its written and oral pfesentations,
Libya has dernonstrated various solutions for determining the delimitation on
the basis of equitable criteria. They are partly based on geoIogy - as reflected
in the axial ridge line within the Rift Zone- or based on geomorphology - as
reflected in the lines based on bathymetry - or also on geographical criteria,
based on the different weight accorded to the unetlual coastal fronts of the
Parties. Al1 these various solutions suggested by Libya range within the
contours of the shaded area shown on the map behind me on the easel, which is
also Map No. 66 in Libya's map folder. They al1 satisfy within a reasonable
degree the requirement of proportionality. If one would. just for example, put
the so-called axial ridge line to the proportionality test, would divide the rele-
vant area between the Parties on a ratio of about 1 to 10.5, which is within a
reasonable degree of concordance to the difference of the coastal lengths of the
Parties which ranges around a ratio of 1 to 10. Today my colleague, Professor
Bowett, has shown how a geographical method might be applied so as to arrive
at a result which divides the relevant area on a ratio between 1:8 to 1 : 10.
It should berecalled in this context that the jurisprudence of this Court does
not require an exact correspondence of the ratios between the coastal lengths
and the areas attributed to them. but only a reasonable degree of such corres-
pondence. In the TunisialLibyu Continental Shelf case, the Court regarded a dis-
crepancy of around 20 per cent between the ratio of the coastal lengths and the
ratio of the areas attributed to them as being within the required degree of pro-
portionality. As the proportionality test is a means for verifying the equitable-
ness of a result and not a mathematical formula for dividing up continental
shelf areas into proportionate shares, no exactly corresponding ratios are
required; a reasonable degree of correspondence will be sufficient.The methods
of delimitation proposed by Libya range within the required degree of propor-
tionality and cm. therefore, be considered equitable.
The question remains whether the limits of the area which 1 have identified
for the purpose of the proportionality test and the calculations made in the
implementation of this test. are affected by Italy's claim for continental shelf
areas within the relevant area. Libya is of the opinion that theseltalian claims,
whether or not well founded. do not change the limits of the area which is to be
considered relevant for delimitation between Malta and Libya and consequently
also relevant for the proportionality test. 1would like to recall that the Court in
the TunisialLibya Continental SheIfcase was faced with the sarne problem when
it had to define the area of delimitation for purposes of applying the proporti* ARGUMENTOF PROFESSORJAENICKE 193
naiity test in view of the well-known claims of Malta ro parts of that area as
defined by the Court in that case. The Court considered the circumstance of the
existence of such claims as having no influence on its definition of the relevant
area;the Court stated in paragraph 130 of the Judgment:
"How far the delimitation line will extend north-eastwards will. of
course, depend on the delimitations ultimately agreed with third States on
the other side of the Pelagian Sea. The Court has not been called upon to
examine that question. Nevertheiess. it is open to the Court to make use,
within the area relevant to the delimitation, of the critenon of proportiona-
lity.. . Itis legitimate to work on the hypothesis of the whole of that ma
being divided by the delimitation line between Tunisia and Libya; because
although the rights which other States may claim in the north-eastern por-
tion of thatarea must not be prejudged by the decision in the present case,
the Court is not dealing here with absolute areas, but with proportions.
Indeed if it were not possible to base calculations of proportionality upon
hypotheses of this kind, it is difficult to see how any two States could
agree on a bilateral delimitation as being equitable until al1the other deli-
mitations in the area had been effected."
This is clear language to the effect that third States' claims to certain parts of
the relevant area between Libya and Malta do not and should not affect the cai-
culations under the proportionaiity test. When the Court decides on the cnteria
to be applied in determining the continental shelf delimitation between Libya
and Malta, the Court will decide which of both Parties has the better right to
any part of the area of delimitation between the Parties without, however. pre-
judging any rightsthird States might have to areas which the Court has deter-
mined to appertain to the one or other Party It.is obvious that as long aspotentid
rights or claims of third States to certain parts of the relevant area have not
been established with legal effect against one or both of the Parties, this Court
is not prevented from deciding which of the Parties in the present case has a
better right to those parts of that area. And in order to verify the equitableness
of this decision, the Court will appropriately subject the whole of the relevant
area to the proponionality test.
Mr. President, in its written pleadings Malta has neither commentml on the
delineation of the relevant area as identified by Libya nor disputed Libya's pro-
portionality calculations. Malta has, of course, disputed the applicability of the
proportionality test and has for that reason not put forward, on its side, propor-
rionality calculations. Malta had, however, in its wnaen pleadings put forward
the "trapeziurn" in order to convey the impression that the division of the conti-
nental shelf between Malta and Libya by the median or equidistance line should
be regarded as equitable because of the larger area attributed to Libya thereby.
Maitadid not expressly qualify the area covered by the trapezium as the rele-
vant area of delimitation in its written pleadings but has done so now in iis oral
argument. Libya has aleady, earlier in its written pleadings and oral argument,
demonstrated that tiiis proposition is as legally unfounded as it is artificial, in
particular because ihe trapezium comprises - as has been said many times
already in Libya's oral argument - areas to the east where the natural prolon-
gations of both Parties cannot possibly met or overlap and where Malta's
claim trespasses into areas relevant for delimitation between Libya and rhird
States. Even if one would, for the sake of argument, accept Malta's area of deli-
mitation as the relevant area for the proportionality test, the median or equidis-
tance line boundary requested by Malta would not pass this test of equity. This
emerges cleariy from the following calculations: the Libyan Coast which would194 CONTINENTAL SHELF
then be relevant on the basis of Malta's area of delimitation would run from
Ras Ajdir in the West to Ras-at-Tin in the east, as you can see on üte map
reproducing Malta's trapezium. which is Map No. 5 in Libya's map folder.
This Coast would. when measured in straight lines, amount to approximately
1.390 kilometres or, if measured in a single straight line, to 1,100 kilometres.
Thus, the ratio between the length of Maltais coastal front with 35 kilometres,
if measured by straight lines along the southward-facing façades of the Islands
of Malta and Gozo, and Libya's coastal front with 1,390 kilometres or 1,100
kilometres if measured either in several straight lines or ansingle straight line
would then range between 1:31 and 1:39. The areü appertaining to Malta by
the equidistance line within Malta's area of delimitation would amount to
53,800 square kilometres - in exact figures 53.833 square kilometres - while
Libya's part of thema would amount to 237,000 square kilometres - in exact
figures 236,995 square kilometres; that would amount to a ratio of about 1 :4.4,
compared with a coastal ratio of 1:31 or 1:39. This shows that even under the
hypothesis of Malta's area of delimitation, Maltais clairn for an equidistance
boundary falis far outside the reasonable limits of proportionality.
But let us leave behind the artificial constmct of the trapezium and retum to
the realities of geography and the mie geographical relationship between the
coasts of the Parties. The area which Libya considers relevant for delimitation
and consequently for the proportionality test, and which 1have defined more
precisely before, corresponds to the opposite relationship of the relevant coasts
of the Parties; it comprises those maritime areas intciwhich - from a realistic
perspective - the natural prolongations of the relevant coasts of the Parties
extend.
It the positions advanced by each Party relating to the delimitation of that
area are put to the test under the concept of proportionality. the following con-
clusions emerge :
1. The claim for an equidistance boundary put fonvard by Malta is indefen-
sible under the concept of proportionality as developed by the jurisprvdence of
this Court and, therefore, is inequitable.
2. The methods of delimitation suggested by Libya which tAe account of the
particular geographical and geophysical factsof this case sarisfy the test of pro-
portionality as understood by this Court and are therefore in accordance with
the dictates of equity.
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, this concludes my statement of today
and 1thank you for the patience and attention with which you have listened to
my argument. I would respectfully request you, Mr. President, to give the floor
now to the Agent for Libya. STATEMENT BY MR, EL-MURTADI SULEIMAN
AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTOF 'THELIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA
Mr. EL-MURTADI SULEIMAN: With the examination of the question of
proportionality by Professor Jaenicke, we have corne to the end of the first
round of the oral presentation on behalf of Libya. As Agent for Libya, 1should
like to say how grateful we are for the courteous and attentive hearing which
we have been given by you andthe distinguished Members of this Court.
In their statements, counsel havetried to provide clear summary statementsof
Libya's argument.Therefore, 1do not think that it wouid be appropriate or use-
ful at this stage to add a summary of Libya's case. Since there will be a second
round of oral argument, Libya's final submission willbe read at the conclusion
of Ourlast statement in that round in accordance with Article 60 of the Rules of
Court.
Mr. President, Members of the Court, with your permission 1again thank the
Court as well as Our fnendly and leamed opponents for the courtesy and
patience shown to us, and 1 extend to you, Mr. President, the Members of the
Court, the Agent for Malta and to al1counsel and advisers on both sides, best
wishes for the holiday period.
Mr. President, perhaps you will permit me to give this final message in
French as well.
Monsieur le Président. Messieurs les membresde la Cour, je voudrais remer-
cier la Cour ainsi que nos distingues contradicteurs de leur courtoisie et de
l'attention qu'ils ont bien voulu nous porter. Je voudrais également, Monsieur
le President,Messieurs les membres de la Cour, vous transmettre ainsi qu'Si
l'agent de Malte et aux conseils des deux délégations, mes meilleurs vŒux
pour l'année quiva s'ouvrir.
The PRESIDENT: The session is closed, unless the Agent for Malta would
iike to speak?
Mr. MIZZI: Mr. President, there is just one small question 1would liketo put
to the Agent for Libya. We have been shown a number of maps this moming,
and also yesterday, of which we do not have a copy. 1s it the intention of the
Agent for Libya to give us a copy of the maps that have been used for the pur-
pose of their argument?
The PRESIDENT: Mr. El-Murtadi Suleiman?
Mr. EL-MURTADI SULEIMAN: All the maps arein the folder, there is no
problem about this.
The PRESIDENT: The Court observes that one or two new maps were used
this moming, for instance,andwe wouldlike to havecopiesof them.The Registrar
has been asked to contact you to let us have copies of those maps which have
been used.
Mr. EL-MURTADI SULEIMAN: Yes, weshallbe ready to do so, Mr. Pres-
ident.
The PRESIDENT: The Registrar will undertake to let Malta have copies of
whatever you give us.196 CONTINENTALSHELF
Mr. MIZZI:Thankyou, Mr. President.
Mr.EL-MURTADISULEIMAN:Thank you,Mr.President.
ThePRESIDENT :he sessionis adjourneduntilFebmary.
TheCourt rosear 12.25p.m. TWENTY-THIRD PUBLIC SITTING (4 II85, 10 am.)
Presenr: [See sitting of 26 XI84,Judge Morozov absent.]
RESUMPTIONOF THE ORAL PROCEEDINGS
The PRESIDENT: The Court sits today for the purpose of resuming the oral
proceedings in the case concerning the Continental Shelf between the Libyan
Arab Jarnahiriya and Malta. 1 regret to say that Judge Morozov is indisposed
and unable to be present with us today.
In Novernber and December of last year the Parties each presented oral argu-
ment in support of their case, and each will in due course reply to the argu-
ments of the other.
The first two days of the present session will however be devoted to the exa-
mination andcross-examination of the experts called by the respective Parties, a
procedure, governed by Article 57 of the Rules of Court, which has been
invoked by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya with a view to clarification of the
scientific evidence produced initspleadings.
This rnorning's sitting will therefore be devoted to the exarnination by coun-
sel for Libya of the experts called by that Party, and the Court will sit again
this aftemoon to enable counsel for Malta to crossexamine those experts.
Malta having also expressed the intention to cal1 experts for the purpose of
testifying on the same points, a sirnilar pattern will be followed tornorrow,with
the examination of Malta's experts begiming at 10 o'clock, and their cross-
exarnination at 4 p.m.
The points to which the evidence of the Libyan experts will be directed were
enumerated in a letter from the Agent of the Libyan Arab Jarnahiriya to the
Registrar dated 13 Decernber 1984. and in accordance with a letter from the
Agent of Malta to the Registrar dated 14 January 1985 the evidence of the Mal-
tese experts will be addressed to those same points. 1shall not read out the list
of points, but 1 request counsel to keep them in rnind as defining the scope of
this part of the proceedings.
It has been agreed that the hearing of argument will subsequentlybe resumed
on the rnorning of Friday,8 Februiuy, at 10 o'clock, when Malta will begin its
oral reply.
Before any expert makes a statement before tbe Court, he has to make a
solemn declaration the terrns of which are prescribed in Articl64 of the Rules
of Court. 1 shall therefore require each expert to make this declaration after he
has been presented by the Agent of the Party calling him, andwould request al1
present to rise when such declarations aremade.
1now cal1upon the Agent of Libya to begin.
Mr. EL-MURTADI SULEIMAN: As you have just mentioned Mr. President.
this session isdevoted specially to the testimony of the scientifjc experts of
bothParties.
The Court will recall Libya had initially planned on examining the scientific
experts within the frarnework of Professor Bowett's presentationof 13 Decem-
ber 1st. It was decided, however, to defer the presentation of the scientific evi-198 CONTINENTALSHELF
dence to the present time, prior to beginning the second round of the oral
hearings.
Accordingly. 1would respectfullyrequestthat you now cal1 upon Professor
Bowettto conductthe examinationof Libya'sscientificexperts. EVIDENCE OF EXPERTSCALLED BY
THE GOVERNMENTOF THE LIBYANARABJAMAHIRIYA
Professor BOWETT: Mr. President, Mernbers of the Court, it falls to me to
introduce the scientific evidence offered by Libya in this case by expert testi-
mony. As 1indicated when 1last addressed the Court, in Libya's view you are
entitled to hear about scientific facts from scientists. 1 should now like to cal1
three of the scientific experts on whom Libya has relied. 1 shall put to them a
number of questions designed to clarify the facts of significance in the present
case regarding geomorphology and geology - that is, the configuration of the
seâ-bed and the characteristics of the subsoil. I shall also ask them to give the
Court sorne assistance in defining or explaining what might be meant by the
term "discontinuity" in relation toi~continental shelf area. The Court will recall
that one of the grounds of criticism. addressed by counsel for Malta to Libya's
written pleadings, was that we had offered no scientific evidence on this point.
Mr. President, introducing these distinguished scientists in the order in which
they will speak, there is first Professor Dr. Jan van Hinte of the the Free Uni-
versity of Amsterdam. He is of Dutch nationality. In addition to his teaching
and research responsibilities in the University of Amsterdam, he has lectured in
many different countries. Professor van Hinte has also sewed as Senior
Research Specialist on Mediterranean oil exploration problems for a major oil
Company. In addition to the Mediterranean, he has supervised or conducted
research on West and North Africa; the Red Sea; the North Atlantic; the coasts
of the United States and Canada; south-west France; Indonesia; Jamaica; Gua-
temala; the North Sea; and the Norwegian Sea and southem Spain. Professor
van Hinte has been chief scientist for the Deep Sea Drilling Project and is at
present CO-ordinator for an Indonesian-Dutch scientific expedition. He has
published over 40 scientific papers and is a member, or serves on the boards, of
a nurnber of technicalorganizations and institutes.
His colleague, Dr. Derk Songsma, was born in Holland. and is also an Aus-
tralian nationaï, having studied there as well as at Cambridge University. At
present he is Associate Professor at the FreeUniversity in Amsterdam. His
fields of expertise include planetary geology, earth physics, plate tectonics,
marine geology, deep sea sedimentation and seismic stratigraphy. His research
activities have taken him into al1 the oceans of the world, with particular
emphasis on the western Pacific and the Mediterranean. He has, in fact, just
retumed from a research survey of the Java Trench and will be conducting
another survey in the Timor Trench next month.
The last scientist to speak will be Professor Finetti. Professor Finettis Pro-
fessor of Applied Geophysics at the University of Trieste, Faculty of Sciences.
He is also Professor of Seismic Exploration at the School of Geophysics for
Doctoral Studies at the University of Trieste for intemational postgraduate stu-
dents. Professor Finetti has had several national and international scientific res-
ponsibilities in earth sciences. He has 29 years of worldwide experience in geo-
physical expjoration for scientific and practical purposes, especially
hydrocarbon exploration. He has served as geophysicist - with contracting
groups or as consultant - for several major international American and Euro-
pean oil companies. He is the author of more than 50 papers, mostly on the
Mediterranean.200 CONTINENTALSHELF
1 should add, that at our request, al! three scientists have read the writien
pleadings of both Parties and the oral arguments in the first phase.
Withiyour permission, Mr. President. 1 shall now cal1 upon Professor van
iiinte.
May 1invite you to cakethe oath?
Professor VAN HINTE: 1solemnly declare upon rny honour and conscience,
that 1 will speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. and that
my staternent will be in accordance with my sincere belief.
Quesrion; Professor van Hinte. from the brief resuméI have just given regard-
ing the scientific background and activities of you and Dr. Jongsma, it is evi-
dent that, between the two of you, you have conducted investigations in a large
number of different parts of the world.
However, 1understand that the Mediterranean - and in particular that part of
the Meditemanean of relevance to the present case - has been an area of parti-
cular interest and study for bothyou and Dr. Jongsma. 1sthat so?
Answet: Yes, Professor Bowett, we have had a particular interest in the
Mediterranean.
Prior to working together, Dr. Jongsma undertook geophysical investigations
of the Mediterranean as a Ph.D. student at Cambridge University, and one of
my main assignments as a Senior Research Specialist for a major oil Company
concerned the Pelagian Sea area of the Central Mediterranean where the com-
pany was drilling offshore wells at the time. Dr. Jongsma joined the University
department about five years ago, and we have been involved in research pro-
jects around and in the Mediterranean ever since then.
The reason for our particular interest in the Mediterranean - and we are by
no means alone in this - is the faci that important geological events are cur-
rently occurring there. It is an area where plate separation, shoving and shearing
al1are going on at the same time. What we see today in the Mediterranean tells
us a great deal about the formative processes of the earth's rnountain chains. Of
course. these processes also explain what the sea-bed looks like today in the
Central Mediterranean.
Question: Professor van Hinte, our primary focus rnust be on the relevant
geographical and geomorphological features as they exist today. This is what
the Court has indicated is of primary interest in shelf disputes. Perhaps you
could give the Court a brief description of the present-day sea-bed in the area
underlying the Peiagian Sea - this area here. However, it woiildbe helpful, as
well, to add as much about the evolutionary history of the area - that is its
geology - as is needed to explain what isthere today, and its significance. If
at any time you refer to features within thisarea outlined in black, would you
make a point of stressing that? The reason 1request you do that is that this is
that area which the Court has already dealt with in the TunisialLibya case.
Anmer: The map on the easel shows the physiography of the Pelagian Sea.
or in your terms, the sea-bed area underlying the Pelagian Sea - this area here.
It also shows the sea-bed which underlies the lonian Sea a11the way out to the
Ionian Abyssal Plain and on to Greece. To the north a piece of the Italian boot
can be seen and to the south is the long, concave coastline of Libya ninning
along the SirtBasin or the Gulf of Sin, and at about 20"E longitude it turns
sharply north to the convex area from Benghazi to the east, from where itmns
eastward to Egypt. This is the sea-floor between Libya and Greece.
This is the large picture. What can be so plainly seen on the map is how the
landscape under the Pelagian Sea between Sicily, Malta and Tunisia and Libya EVIDENCEOF EXPERTS 201
differs from the sea-bed Iying eaçt of the Pelagian Sea boundary formed by
these two escarpments.
But now back to the area which you have asked me to describe, Professor
Bowett, the area shown on the second rnap just put on the easel. This is a
larger-scale map of the shelf areas under the Pelagian Sea showing and identi-
fying the features of major prominence. The most stnking sea-floor features are
perhaps dong this line - deep linear steep-sided troughs and shallower banks
which become channels to the south-east of Malta and continue out here in the
Heron Valley. This is what has been called in the proceedings the "Rift Zone".
At the Heron Valley - here - the Zone breaks through and divides the
escarpments and its extension can be traced eastward along the Medina (Malta)
Ridge - often called the Medina Mounts.
QuestionP :rofessor van Hinte, let me just stop you there for a moment.
What of the shelf areas under the Pelagian Sea further to the west? Would you
Say that the Rift Zone breaks the continuity of those areas? And when you
answer that question, 1 want you to deal with it as a scientist, applying your
scientifïc knowledge and your common sense to the word "continuity". 1do not
want you to wony about what the lawyers may mean when they talk about
"continuity" or even '6discontinuity".
Anmer: Well, also as scientists, we do use the words "continuity" and "dis-
continuity", and I would indeed Say that the Zone literally breaks the original
continuity of the area between Sicilyhlalta andTunisiaibya. It is my view
that the Rift Zone is what we cal1 a plate boundary. Plate boundaries are the
fundamental boundaries of outer earth and in terms of shelf areas, therefore, the
Rift Zone is a most important break or discontinuity. In fact, I do not see how
one cm talk about one shelf area when you have a feature that is no significant,
both geologically and geomorphologically as this Rift Zone, cutting right
through the area. There are, in iny view, two shelves, one the shelf of the
Ragusa-Malta Plateau and Adventure Bank, which is part of Sicily and Malta,
and two the continental shelf of the Pelagian Block, which is part of Africa.
You cannot have one so-called continuous shelf across such a feature that has
al1the characterisitics of a plate boundary. Would you like me to go into more
detail on the nature of the boundary?
Question: Well. in a moment, but could you first of al1 clarify the size and
the extent of this Rift Zone?
Answer: The technicai note of Professor Vanney, the Maltese expert, annexed
to Malta's Counter-Memorial. called the Zone the "Central Trough and Ridge
System". 1have personally tended to use terms such as "Active Fault Zone" or
"Wrench Zone". But any of these terms will do for the purpose; they are al1
descriptive of what we observe of today's sea-bed in this area and of its dyna-
mics. The rnap which has just been put on the easel compares the areas de-
scnbed by Libya and by Malta as encompassing this feature. This map is No. 61
in the Judges' folder. It shows the "Rift Zone" as sketched in on Libya's maps
with Professor Vanney's "Central Trough and Ridge System" superimposed. Of
course, as you can see, the areas substantially coincide, simply because the
Zone is there. Not only geologically, but also geomorphologically, theZone is a
very important feature - or, if you will- a line-up of different features.
The Rift Zone mns roughly here from the Egadi Valley al1the way out to the
Heron Valley and beyond, a distance of approximately 300 nautical miles (or
555 km), more than the distance from Amsterdam to Paris. If its observable
extension out dong the Medina Mounts is included, the total length of this zone
exceeds 450 nautical miles- more than 810 km. It is wide in some places and202 CONTlNENTAL SHELF
narrower in others, the width varying between some 60 to 25 nautical miles. 1
understand that you will ask Dr. Jongsma to give the Court more detail as to
the particular features in the Rift Zone. But 1should like to emphasize that al1
data confirrn Ourobservation that the Rift Zone does cut this area into two dis-
tinct platforms or shelves that move as separate entities. This is why 1regard
the Rift Zone as a real discontinuity.
The northern shelf area (the Ragusa-Malta and the Adventure Plateau)
consists of promontories extending southward from Sicily. The Maltese islands
are elevations on the Ragusa-Malta Plateau. The relief on this northem shelf
area is gentIe except in its southem portion where the Maltese islands, and to a
lesser extent the Hurd Bank (lying to the east of the islands), rise from the sea-
bed. The area is interesting for an oil geologist. The Vega field, on the ltalian
side of the Ragusa Basin, is particularly interesting. A report two months ago
by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG, Explorer for
December 1984, p. 18) described it as "the largesr single oil fieid in the Medi-
terranean Sea". The report closes with the sentence "Potential for discovery of
other fields similar to Vega in the Ragusa Basin appears to be excellent". And
in fact a recent activity report mentions that a Maltese offshore well, Alexia 2.
located here. is being tested, whichnonnally means that it is a discovery.
The southem shelf - lying to the south of the Rift Zone - is known as the
Pelagian Block. It is broader than the northem shelf, and slopes gentiy eastward
towards the Medina Escarpment. This shelf is continuous with the African conti-
nent and is shared by Tunisia and Libya. The only place where appreciable sea-
bed relief is found in this southern area is where it descends into the Rift Zone
and along the eastern boundary of the Pelagian Block. the Medina Escarpment.
Herewith we corne to the other major group of features which should be
noted on the map: two distinct escarpments. one forming the eastern boundary
of the Ragusa-Malta Plateau; and the other forming the eastern boundary of the
Pelagian Block. The escarpment on the north. the Sicily-Malta Escarpment, is
the more pronounced of the two. It forms the eastem boundary of the northern
shelf and is one of the steepest and most distinctive geomorphological features
in the entire Mediterranean. The Rift Zone cuts through here, south of that
Escarpment, separating it from the southern Escarpment, the Medina Escarp-
ment, which is a major feature as welI, forming the eastern boundary of the
Pelagian Block.
Question :You keep referring to two separate shelves. Now you have rend the
Libyan written pleadings. 1sthis consistent with those pleadings?
Anwer: Sure. There are references to there being two shelves - and,
indeed, a plate boundary - throughout those pleadings. Perhaps 1 should Say,
though, that our ideas have evolved since Libya asked first for our assistance
three years ago. Our opinion on this point is more definite now, after having
studied more data.
Question :Professor van Hinte, would you summarize for the Court the signi-
ficance of the Rift Zone as you see it?
Answer: I have just mentioned that the two shelves are separated by acentral
trough and channel system which, as you see on the map. obviously has geo-
morphological significance. Now in order to answer your question, the Zone
must be considered geologically and geophysically as well; one has to know
more about the subsurface to understand why there are deep troughs here and
less deep channels here and that it is the Rift Zone in its entirety that is the
significant, dynamic feature of today. The geological and geophysical observa-
tions show that the remarkable geomorphology of the Zone came into existence EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS 203
and is king maintained because it marks a crack where two pieces of the crust
of the earth move relative to each other. In places the two pieces have been
pulled apart, while they elsewhere shear and in some places even may get
squeezed. Yet, it is one and the same large-scale lateral movement. Such what
we cal1strike-slip or wrench movements can have these effects because the crack
is not a straight line. 1can perhaps illustrate this with the board as a general
model. If this is an unbroken area it cracks in an irregular shape and when the
two pieces move relative to each other we get compression here. They hit and
they get compression. You get extension and an opening here, while elsewhere
with the same movement two pieces slide simply along each other and you get
very little violence. So this ian irregular crack and when the two pieces move
you get compression here, they hit each other, whereas here with the same
movement there is an extension and with the same movement in another area
they just sirnply slide past each other. Al1with one geological activity, there are
very different effects in differentreas.
Out here along the Medina (Malta) Ridge, often called the Medina Mounts,
the topography is the result of squeezing (squeezing or compression) - so in-
stead of troughs or channels there are mounts rising from the sea floor. Along
here, where the Medina and Malta Channels are to be found, the physiography
is the result of a simple sliding past or shearing effect of the plate movernent.
Here to the West, the deep troughs result frorn extensional pull-apart or rifting
effects.The Maltese islands in this system were created as part of an uplifted
block associated with the general movements, are similarly so was, for instance,
the island of Lampedusa on the other side of the system.
So the significance of the Rift Zone is that it constitutes the separation of two
plates or. more precisely, the fracture system where a microplate (referred to as
the Messina Plate in the literature) broke off and now moves with respect to the
African Plate on its own. In other words, a plate boundary cuts through the area
between Sicily-MaIta and North Africa. We see it in the geomorphology as the
Rift Zone and it continues on out here into the east along the Medina Mounts
and beyond.
Fractures in the subsurface, marking this separation of plates, slice down to
the depth to where the rnolten rock (called "magma") lies under the cmst of the
earth. As a result, the magma has risen and extruded out to the sea-bed in the
form of volcanoes. These volcanws can be found al1 along the Rift Zone -
here, here, and numerous volcanoes also up in the north. The evidence indicates
that the fractures along which this separation is occumng are to a depth of
more than 20 kilometres, the total thickness of the crust in that area.
The geological processes that 1 have just described expiain the particular
form of the surface features in various parts of the Rift Zone. The geomorpho-
logy underscores the importance of the rupture dividing two platforrns both at
the sea-floor and in the subsurface below.
Whythis is happening along the Rift Zone will get us into the rather complex
subject of plate tectonics. You will recall that Malta's expert, Professor Mascle,
referred inhis study in the Maltese Counter-Memorial to the rotation of what he
called the "Ibleo-Maltese Block" cornprising the Ragusa area of Sicily and the
Ragusa-Malta PIateau. Our own studies confim this. It is the rather complex
interaction of the direction of the plate boundary with the rotation that has
given this zone its particular features: deep troughs in some places trending
north-west/south-east; shallower channels trending eastlwest in other places;
and out here, seamounts. If one platform is rotating dong an irregular boun-
dary, you get very uneven distribution of pressure as has been demonstrated. It
causes rifting in one place, causing deep troughs; compression in others,204 CONTINENTALSHELF
causing seamounts; and lesser features where the two platforms are sliding past
each other.
Perhaps 1may be permitted to dwell for only a minute or two on why this is
happening to show you its significance. Our planet, fortunateIy, is hot and wet.
Otherwise, the presence of life would not be possible. But of the totaI distance
to the earth's centre of 6,400 kilometres only the outer 5 to 40 kilometres has
cooled down significantly to form a brittle cmst. In scale, this crust is thinner
than an egg shell.
So it is nowonder that the cmst has broken and continues to break as a result
of the forces created by the convection of the hot inner material beneath the
thin crust. The crustal fragments are referred to by the scientists as plates.
Today's earth has 11 major plates. Like ice floes on a river, the major plates
separate, shove and collide, or shear past each other, creating or cnishing small
plates, so-called microplates, atheir edges, or sealing boundaries, or incorporat-
ing small plates at one place while cracking new ones at another. The resulting
anomalies and boundary conditions are to us of greal interest.
Such a boundary now is occurring along the entire length of the Rift Zone.
The hot material from below the crust of the earth has appeared al1 along the
length of the Rift Zone - and this is a young event; something that is going on
today. Professor Bowett, 1believe this explains the essential significance of the
Rift Zone.
Professor BOWETT: Thank you, Professor van Hinte. 1think you have given
the Court enough of the geological picture to point up the significance of this
sea-bed feature, the Rift Zone. Now 1should like to cal1upon Dr. Jongsma.
Could 1invite you to make the solemn declaration?
Dr. JONGSMA: 1 solemnfy declare upon my honour and conscience, that I
will speak the truth, the whole tmth and nothing but the tnith, and that my
statement will be in accordance with my sincere belief.
Professor BOWETT: Dr. Jongsma. 1hope you will help us over this question
of definition. Counsel forMalta have charged us with failing to state what ismeant
to a geologist or a geomorphologist by this concept of a fundamental discontinuity
(Lauterpacht, III, p. 337). Now just concentrate on the word "discontinuity", don't
bother with that adjective "fundamental", and tell us what would constitute a
marked or significant discontinuity in a shelf area, from a scientist's point of
view.
Dr. JONGSMA: "Discontinuity" as used in geological science has at least
three meanings - a seismic meaning, a stratigraphie one and a structural one. It
is the latter structural discontinuity, known as fault, that is relevant here. For
a plate boundary is a structural discontinuity and is characterized by a large
nurnber of faults due to the movement along it. It is therefora discontinuityon
a large scale. There are other features also formed by faulting such as the
escarpments which rnight also be regarded aç a significant discontinuity even
though they may not constitute an active plate boundary. But certainly active
plate boundaries must be so regarded.
Questio : But how would you identify a plate boundary?
Answer: There are various kinds of evidence such as seismicity, large
amounts of faulting, radical variation in elevations along the boundary consist-
ing of troughs and upthrown blocks, high heat flow, crustal thickness varia-
tions and indications of relative rotations. In short, deformatioof the edges of
the plates. A key piece of evidence is the presence of active or young volcanics
which in the evolution of a divergent plate boundary eventually result in EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS 205
oceanic cnist. Similarly in a transfonn plate boundary the fractures in the earth's
cnist go deep, penetrating right through the basement, and they allow hot, mol-
ten rock that we cal1"magma" to rise up through the fractures under pressure.
Now if there is a consistent line of such fractures, which are deep as evidenced
by the volcanic rocks, then you may well have a plate boundary.
Question: You say "may well". Do you mean not "necessarily so"?
Answer:In some cases you get evidence of volcanics but they are old and the
rifting process has simply stopped. Take the Rhine Valley, for example. That
began with deep rifting, and there is evidence of vo1canics but then the process
stopped, and what was an incipient plate boundary just never developed. Now
you have the same thing here, in this area: there is evidence of volcanics in the
Tnpolitanian Furrow, here. But, it ceased millions of years ago and though the
faults are there, it is not nowa plate boundary.
In any event, one does not rely solely on volcanics and there are a number of
techniques which are usted to study the sea-bed and subsoil. For the sea-bed
itself,accurate bathymetry is now based on the technique of echo-sounding and
precise positioning.
But to tell us about the subsoil, we have relied on five available techniques.
And although these techniques Vary in their power of resolution and penetra-
tion, they al1 record the presence and the active nature of the Rift Zone along
itsentire observable length - from here to here.
I shall mention these techniques very briefly. First,there isseismic reflection
profiling using sound waves of which the echoes show the sedimentary layers
and the structure in the subsurface. 1 shall shortly display several axamples of
this technique which, incidentally, is used extensively in the exploration for
hydrocarbons. Second, there is seismic refraction which allows sound wave
penetration down to the base of the earth's cmst - some 30 kilometres below
the surface of the sea-bed. The echoes show up variations in crustal thicknesses.
Third, there is the use of magnetic measurements which permits the location of
iron rich material such as volcanics in the subsoil. Fourth, gravity measure-
ments show variations or anomalies in weight, that is the density of layers in
the earth. By this means we cm tell how the thickness of the earth's crust
varies from point to point. Obviously, the crust will vary along a plate boun-
dary, where there is stretching or oveniding. Fifth, heat flow measurements
show the variations in temperatures within the subsoil of the earth which are
caused by deep-seated heat sources. Now the important thing to note is that the
widely different forms of data derived from these quite different and indepen-
dent techniques provide checks and controls between them. In the area of the
Pelagian Sea these techniques invariably record the presence of a major discon-
tinuity along the Rift Zone. And there can be no doubt as to its existence.
Question :Dr. Jongsma, you did not mention the presence of oceanic crust, as
opposed to continental cmst. Why is this not evidence of a plate boundary?
Answer: It can be. But the fact is that you often have a plate boundary even
where there is no oceanic crust, for instance the San Andreas Fault in Cali-
fornia.
You see, plate boundaries are basically of three kinds. Some plate boundaries
are formed by rifting, which is really separation - or a "pull-apart" - of
plates: this is oftenreferred to as "divergent" or "extensional" plate boundary.
Along this type of plate boundary, oceanic crust is added to both plates, result-
ing near the continents in an ocean-continent boundary. Such a boundaty can
beregarded as a discontinuity even though it lies within the plate. The distance
between the actual plate boundary and the continent will increase with time.206 CONTINENTALSHELF
Most of the sea-bed of the Atlantic is oceanic cmst, and the plate boundary lies
midway between the continents along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Some scientists
would say that the area of the Ionian Abyssal Plain is oceanic cmst, though the
evidence is inconclusive.
But a quite different plate motion occurs when two plates converge and "sub-
duction" occurs. Here, one plate literally decends beneath the other - like so.
This is what happened, for instance, in the Timor Trench, and it also happened
here, beneath Northern Sicily and ltaly and further along beneath the Aegean
Sea. If there is a continent on the descending plate then it may reach the sub-
duction zone and collision will occur. In such a situation al1 the oceanic cmsl
may have disappeared below the overriding plate.
Thirdly, plates can shear, or slide past each other. This type of plate boun-
dary is a transform or strike/slip fault.These transfom faults are just as signifi-
cant a discontinuity as are the other two types because they cut down to below
the cmst. This is why the absence, or the presence, of oceanic cmst is not a
determining factor. and itis no1 key evidence of a plate bundary. as is
demonstrated by the San Andreas Fault which is a transfom plate boundary. In
any case the Rift Zone has volcanics which in the first type of plate boundary,
the extensional, are precursors to oceanic crust.
Questio :nBut are these movements - extension, compression, and shearing
- mutually exclusive ?
Answer: No. The plate interaction is often complex. Particularly along a
transform plate boundary, you can find al1 three processes occurring as is ob-
served, for instance. along the SanAndreas Fault, the Dean Sea Fault and the
Alpine Fault in New Zealand. This is why plate boundaries vary, stmcturally
and geomo~phologically, along their course. Deep areas of pull-apart, or
troughs, if you like. are round joined to narrow shear zones. which in tum are
jained ta areas of topographie highs in regions of compression where the cnist
is forced upwards - exactly as we find along the Rift Zone and eastwards out
to the Medina Mountains. But the boundary is continuous.
Question: In this area of the Mediterranean, how many plates are there?
Answer: People tend to think of the two major plates, the African Plate and
the European Plate. But that is too simple. To use Professor van Hinte's ana-
logy, egg shells do not break quite so neatly. You find. in facl. that small
blocks break away at the edges of the main plates, so you get micro-plates. and
several plate boundaries. This has happened here. The older plate boundary. the
northern rim of the African Plate runs through Sicily, but this large block has
broken away, with a newer plate boundary dong the Rift Zone. and this is rotat-
ing with respect to the main African Plate. The 1973 study by Dewey, Pitman,
Ryan and Bonnin identified these various plates andmicro-plates. This type of
behaviour is characteristic of the Afncan-Eurasian Plate collision.
Question: But what about continental shelves and continental margins? How
do they fit intothese plates and micro-plates?
Answer: 1 know that lawyers have rather special definitions of continental
shelves and margins, and 1don't want to get into that.
But it is evident thatdifferen~continental shelves may lie on the same plate
- for example, Greenland and Labrador have separate shelves on the same
North American Plate. A continuous shelf may exist over a long period. but the
formation of a plate boundary across it really breaks or disrupts the shelf. Of
course you may find evidence of similar geological structures on the two opp
site sides of the plate boundary, for the area was once the same shelf. But if EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS 207
you look at the situation now, you cannot realistically describe it as a con-
tinuous shelf.
On the two sides of the Red Sea there are the same strata because they were
once joined. But today they are clearly split and displaced by a very fundamen-
ta1 break; and this is why Mr. Lauterpacht's anology of the layer-cake is mis-
leading.
Question :Let me ask you one fiirther, definitional question. Apartfrom plate
boundaries, can you envisage other foms of disruption or discontinuity in a
shelf area?
Answer: Well, yes. The pIate boundary is essentially a geological pheno-
menon. It will often be reflected in the bathymetry or geomorphology of the
sea-bed - because of the rifting and movement - but the formation of a plate
boundary is primarily a geological event.
Nevertheless, I can envisage that a very substantial geomorphological feature
- such as the escarpments which we have here - may not bea plate boun-
dary, but could nevertheless be described perfectly well as a major break in the
continuity of the sea-bed or shelf or crust. Indeed, these troughs in the Rift
Zone - the Pantelleria, the Linosa and the Malta Trough - are very consider-
able geornorphological features, quite apart from the geological significance as
part of the Rift Zone.
Professor BOWETT: Dr. Jongsma, let me now leave these questions of defi-
nition and ask you to pick up where Professor van Hinte has left off and give
us a more detailed description of these features.
Dr. JONGSMA: Before Iooking at the cornponent parts, 1 should like to
emphasize what Professor van Hinte has just said. The significant feature is the
Rift Zone as a whole rather than its components. For whatever the particular
manifestation of the sea-bed rnay be in any particular section of it, the Rift
Zone is a continuous zone where this plate separation is occurring with its rifting
or pull-apart, its shearing or sliding past and its squeezing effects.
Turning now to the particular components of the Rift Zone, the most impres-
sive features on the sea-bed are tlie major troughs. To give some idea of the
major proportions of rhese troughs - the Pantelleria Trough is approximately
52 nautical miles long, 15 miles wide, and it descends to a depth of 1,315
metres. The Linosa Trough, named after the volcanic island of Linosa situated
on its south-western scarp, descends to depths of 1,615 metres. It is 41 nautical
miles long and 8 nautical miles wide. The Malta Trough, which cuts across al1
of the coasts of the Maltese islands facing south-west and a substantial portion
of Malta's southward-facing Coast, is the longest and the deepest of these
troughs; 87 nautical miles long and1,714 metres deep. It is II nautical miles
wide and it does lie squarely between Malta and Libya. This area experiences
one of the highest levels of sediment accumulation in the Mediterranean due to
the important oceanographic function performed by the Rift Zone. If the sedi-
ments were removed from the Malta Trough, its depth would exceed 2,000
metres. If they were removed frorn the Linosa Trough, the depths would be
approximately 3,615 metres. But, of course, ir is not the mere depth of these
troughs that matters. It is the fact that they are grabens caused by fractures
slicing al1 the way through the cntst of the earth of which the molten rock
or magma rises.Hence, they are major cleavages in the sea-bed and the subsoil
separating one shelf from another. They are the surface indication of an active
plate boundary.
One way of showing the geomorphological effect of the Rift Zone is to exa-
mine a profile of the sea-bed along the western line of Malta's trapezium figure208 CONTINENTAL SHELF
- that is, between Ras Ajdir and the western tip of Gozo - and you have to
imagine what the map looked like along this line here. This Figure, which
appeared in Annex 9-b of the Libyan Reply, prepared by the Lamont-Doherty
Geological Observatory of Columbia University, is such a profile. It is No. 71
in the Judges' folders. The Malta Trough shows up clearly on this figure as
well as the steep gradient between Gozo and the bottorn of rhis trough.
Professor BOWETT: May 1 intempt for a moment, Dr. Jongsma? So far,
you have emphasized the deep troughs of the Rift Zone which, with the excep
tion of Malta Trough's eastem end, lie rather more between the Maltese islands
and Tunisia or the ltalian Pelagian Islands than Libya. Now, you may recall that
in paragraph 58 of the Maltese Counter-Memonal it was said: "If there is. in
this whole area, an insignificant feature it is that part of the so-called Rifî Zone
which lies between Libya and Malta." Perhaps you would help us by describing
this areaquite specifically, that is to Say tarealying squarely between Malta
and the Ragusa-Malta Plateau, on the north, and the bankto the south of the
Rift Zone, comprising in part the Medina Bank - that ma, here. That is the
area 1want you to describe.
Dr.JONGSMA: In this area, the Rift Zone narrows and it forms the Malta
and the Medina Channels. They trend eastlwest because of the relative plate
motions mentioned by Professor van Hinte earlier. Between these Channels -
right here - is an interesting feature. It is an elongated slice or block which
has recently been pushed updue to the shearing motion in the subsoil. Note that
it lies in the area where the Rift Zone is narrowest. We know that only some
two kilometres below this block there is a large volcanic body. How is this
known? Because two of the techniques which 1 referred to earlier - seismic
profiles and magnetic rneasurements - reveal an intense momaly here. This
indicates the presences ihere of volcanics- further evidence of the deep and
fundamental nature of the Rift Zone and of its continuity along this shallower
portion of the Rift Zone.
These two Channels show less depth han the troughs to the no&-west
because, based on scientific evidence, the effects in the subsoil of the division
between the plates involves the sliding past or shearing motions which 1 de-
scribed earlier, rather than the pull-apan or rifting motions caused by thsame
division of plates here in the north-west resulting in fhese troughs. However, the
fractures in the subsoil are just as deep here in the Medinahannel as they are
here in the troughs.
Question: Let me intempt just once more. That seems an important point.
You are saying that although, in bathymetric tenns, the Channels are shallower,
in geological terms the faulting is just as deep as in the troughs?
Answer: Yes. It is important no1to confuse geornorphology - or bathymetry
- with geology. In bathymetry the channels may not look as significant as the
troughs, which isprobably due to sedimentation. But when you look at the sub-
soi1 the faulting is just as deep, active and significant. The plate boundary in
this region is more shearing than extensive because it parallels the direction of
relative movement.
Anyway. the Channels, even considered only geomorphological\y, are impor-
tant sea-bed features. The Medina Channel. which is bathvmetricallv seen as an
extension to the east of the LinosaTrough,has depths d up to a~proximately
650 metres. If the sediments were removed, its depth wouid exceed 1,000me&s.
The flanks of al1 these troughs are steeply inclined. They are like deep
ravines on the land.There are places in the troughs which exceed a gradient of EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS 209
1:1.8 - this is a drop of 1,275 metres over a distance of 2,300 metres - and
it isa gradient that appears like this. This may be compared with the gradient
of the continental slope which is like this:".
As to the Channels of the Rift Zone. there is a definite break in slope near
their flanks. Some parts of the Channels are filled with young sediments; in
other places scarps 180 metres high may be found with gradients of less than
1:5. In the Medina Channel. the upfaulted volcanic block referred to earlier has
a gradient of 1:2.5 on its southem side.
What this cornes down to is that the part of the Rift Zone lying here dong
the Medina and the Malta Channels is just as significant as the area up here to
the north-west where,there are deep troughs in the sea-bed. The plate separation
is occurring across the entire area. The subsoil effects in one part of the Rift
Zone merely differ from those in another part for reasons already explained.
This causes differences in what the sea-bed looks like. But the whole area is
part of this significant feature. the Rift Zone.
Question: Let me be clear. Are you describing the historical evolution of the
Rift Zone, or the current status of ihat Zone?
Answer: The Rift Zone is not simply a matter of historical interest. It is a
dynamic feature. To give one example, as mentioned earlier, the Rift Zone is
one of the areas of highest sedi~nentation in the Mediterranean, and this is
largely due to the important oceanographic function performed by the Rift Zone.
Thus, one would expect the troughs and the channels of the Rift Zone to fill up
rapidly and disappear. But this is iiot happening, because the pull-apart and the
shearing motions that are still going on are of such a magnitude that even the
high rate of sedimentation is unable to swamp or disguise the active features
and steep slopes within the Rift Zone. In fact, the seismic profiles appearingin
Libya's Mernorial and Reply reveal that the uppermost sedimentary layers at
the sea-floor are broken and sheared by this activity in spite of this high sedi-
mentation rate.
In contrast, the southern area of the Tripolitanjan Furrow is quiescent. The
sedimentation there has smoothed out the subsurface features. The contours of
the sea-bed are, therefore, gentle and shaped by erosional and fluvial factors
that have acted on the sediments which have obliterated the sea-bed reflection
of ancient rifting. Any nfting which took place in the remote past in the subsoil
of the southem shelf is now of histoncal interest only.
1 should like to illustrate what1have jus[ said with several figures. These are
seismic profiles obtained along the lines indicated in red on the location rnap
which is No. 72 in the Judges' folder. 1shall only be showing three profiles -
there are 1 think five red lines on your map, but 1 will indicate on this map
which three they are.
Next the location map. If the Court would tum to Nos. 73 and 74 in the fol-
ders. 1will show the profile here across the Medina-Malta Channel. one across
the MaltaTrough and one in the Tripolitanian Furrow.
It will be easier to follow my explanation with the first figure which is an
interpretive sketch of a seismic reflection profile of the Medina-Malta Channel
or Graben (that is No. 73 in the Judges' folders). Such a profile appeared as
Annex 5 to the Libyan Reply. A profile such as thiçis difficult for the layrnan
to read, so 1 have placed an interpretive sketch below the original profile to
bring out what is shows, and this can be seen on No. 74 in the folder. Now, the
zero line on this figureis sea level. On the next line below it is the sea-bed sur-
face. Note how this surface is broken by faults and they slice into the subsoil.
A reflector below it, which 1 have drawn in, is also displaced by this fault. The210 CONTINENTAL SHELF
sea-bed is directly affected by this faulting in spite of the very high sedimenta-
tion rate experienced along the Medina-Malta Channel.
This figure brings oui the importance of the Medina and Malta Channels both
geornorphologically and geologically. And it is of additional interest because it
shows this mount. to which 1 have referred earlier, lying between the Medina
and Malta Channels. Underneath it are volcanics. There is nothing like this in
the quiescent valleys of the southern shelf.
Now the next figure, and it is No. 75 in the Judges' folder. is located across
the Malta Trough. It appears as Figure 113 in our paper fumished to the Court
with the Libyan Reply. Note the sarnedirect effect or1the sea-bed surface of the
faults along this Trough or Graben. Although in both figures the rifts are not
depicted as descending deeper than several kilometres, they in fact slice al1the
way down to the mantle of the earth, at least 20 kilometres below the surface of
the sea-bed.
Contrast this with the third Figure,and it is No. 76 in the Judges' folder. It is
located in the Tripolitanian Furrow. This shows the ancient faulting in the Tri-
politanian Basin, south of the Rift Zone. There is virtually no effect on the sea-
bed surface caused by this ancient, quiescent faulting. This is because the rift-
ing has stopped and the sedimentation has gradually levelled off the sea-bed,
and what faulting there is now is primarily a subsiding reaction to the normal
weight of sediments.
Now the Rift Zone is different. It consists of rifts which have pulled apart or
sheared the crust of the earth al1 the way to the surface. These deep rifts are
there today and they are still very active. Their effects can be seen on the
present-day sea-bed, because, despite the sedimentation. the rifting is still
deepening the troughs.
Professor BOWETT: Mr. President, that concludes that answer.
The Court adjournedfrom 11.20 am. ro 11.35am.
Professor BOWETT: Dr. Jongsma, The description you gave jus1 before the
break of the size of the Rift Zone raises a point of some importance. Map 9 of
the Libyan Reply. which is now on the easel. shows the Rift Zone in grey. It
also shows, outlined in red, the Central Trough and Ridge Systern described by
Professor Vanney, the Maltese expert, in his technical note to the Maltese
Counter-Memorial. This is the same rnap briefly referred to earlier by Professor
van Hinte and is No. 61 in the Judges' folder.
My question is, frorn a scientific point of view do these descriptions of the
Rift Zone show its boundaries with reasonable accuracy?
Dr. JONGSMA: Yes, they do. You may recall that in the Libyan Mernorial
there appeared an interpretive diagram of the Rift Zone prepared by Professor
van Hinte, Dr. Woodside and rnyself. It shows the Rift Zone in sketch form
along with the Escarpments, the Heron Valley and the Medina (Malta) Ridge.
(It isNo. 77 in the Judges' folder.) The boundaries which we showed on this
diagram are virtually the same.
Another way used by scientisrs to define the Rift Zone geornorphologically is
to take the 50-metre isobath. Winnock and Bea as well as Professor Vanney
- Malta's Technical Adviser - have referred to this method of defining this
feature.
Still another way of showing the boundaries of the Rift Zone is to examine
the faulting in thesubsoil. Figure 7 in Part II to the Technical Annexes to the EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS 211
Libyan Memorial portrayed the area of concentrated faulting along the Rift
Zone. The illustrative figure on the easel shows the sarne thing. (It is No. 78 in
the Judges' folder.) This is Figure 16 in the paper referred to in Annex 6 io the
Libyan Reply, a copy of which waç fumished to the Court. Drawing a line
along the northern and southem portions of this zone of faulting (as 1 am
doing) you end up with a Rift Zone which has roughly the same boundaries as
those shown on the other two figures which 1have just been examining.
Question: You have mentioned the presence of volcanics along the Rift
Zone. Could you elaborate on why this is a significant fact and what evidence
you have of this?
Answer: It is not just volcanics which are present here but young volcanics.
This establishes that the movements that arepulling apart and shearing the sub-
soi1are active today. The lavas are basaltic in character. Their strontium isotope
ratios indicate that they originate from magma- which is hot molten rock -
that forms below the eartb's crust. The lava has travelled upward at least
20 kilornetreshugh fissures which are caused by the same faulting and shearing
that is responsible for the presence of the troughs and channels on the sea-bed
of the Rift Zone. Volcanics of this type are found al1along the Rift Zone.
Heat flow rneasurements across thisma - another of the techniques1men-
tioned earlie- recently published by Russian scientists substantiate these find-
ings. Seismic refraction data reveal that the earth's crust along the Rift Zone is
only 20 kilometres thick, that is thinner by 15kilometres than the normal conti-
nental thickness of 35 kilometres. These proven volcanics, together with the
evidence of volcanics below the seamount in the Medina Channel, which 1have
just shown the Court, and the presence of magnetic anomalies over the Medina
Mounts. show that this whole Zone is injected by volcanic intrusions of sub-
crustal ongin.
Thus, in the subsoil, what is oçcurring along the entire extent of the Rift
Zone is of comparable significancc. It al1 attests to the presence an active
plate boundary along the Zone. Thc surface features Varyaccording to the kind
of effects praduced: whether pull-apart. shearing or even squeezing. But the
plate boundary has formed there and is still developing along this ZonThat is
why we can regard the areas to the north and south of the Rift Zone as separate
shelves.
Quesrion: Dr. Jongsma, 1 have totell you that Malta has described the sea-
bed and subsoil lying between Libya and Malta as a "geological continuum".
How do you respond to that?
Answer: I could not accept that description because thereisa discontinuity.
Any area of shelf which is cut across by a zone such as 1 have just described
can hardly be regarded as a "continuum". This term cannot be applied to the
sea-bed or io the subsoil lying beiween Libya and Malta. As 1 have said, the
area is properly tobe regarded as twi, shelves divided by a rift zone. and not as
a "continuum".
Question: Would you describe the shelf area south of the Rift Zone (that is,
this area) as a "continuum"?
Answer: mat would not necessarily be my choice of words, yet, south of the
Rift Zone the relatively gentle banks and valleys, including the Tripolitanian
Valley, might make such a description reasonable. As already pointed out and
illustrated by the figures which the Court hasust seen, in the subsoil, the rift-
ing is ancient andquiescent; it has no present effect on the sea-bed, unlike the
Rift Zone. The sea-bed lacks marked features such as exist in the Rift Zone.212 CONTINENTALSHELF
and there are no great troughs there. There are no young volcanics here. So it is
a very different area in this sense ttian the area comprising the Rift Zone.
Of course. if the calendar were tumed back in geological time to before the
existence of the Rift Zone then perhaps the entire area between Libya and
Sicily could be considered a "continuum" just as, once, Gabon and Brazil were
joined together in the same geological block. However, we are dealing with
today and not the fardistant past.
Question: Perhaps we can return to a point made at the outset of this scienti-
fic discussion- that is that the Rift Zone is a plate boundary. 1sthere support
in the work of other scientists for your own views?
Answer: Support for this conclusion has ken increasing with our increased
knowledge and understanding of the geology of this region. And there is in the
scientificliterature reference to the separation of this region into individual
blocks, the creation ofa microplate, and the separate movement of the Sicilian
block with respect to Africa. In 1972 Akal concluded from an examination of
the geophysical and geological data that the formation "of a rift in the Strait of
Sicily Zone" constitutes the "breaking of a continent" in plate tectonic terms
("The GeneraI Geophysics and Geology of the Strait of Sicily", in Oceano-
graphy of the Strait oJSicily, 1972, p.182, T. Akal, edited by T. D. Allan and
R. Molcard. Saclant ASW Research Center, La Spezia,Conf. Roc. Vol. 7, pp. 177-
192). We have referred already to the important 1973 study by Dewey, Pitman,
Ryan and Bonnin in which they provided a namefor the microplate: the Mes-
sina Plate (Dewey et al., 1973, "Plate Tectonics and Evolution of the Alpine
System", Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., Vol. 84, pp. 3137-3180). Anather paper is that
of Colombi and others in 1973.
The work that 1have done with Professor van Hinte and Dr. Woodside in the
past few years supports the conclusion of these earlier papers and provides a
stronger formulation on which to base them.
The data on which this conclusion rests are derived from the five techniques1
have already described.
Such a plate boundary is essential to allow the rotation of Sicily with respect
to Africa as documented in the Maltese Counter-Mernoriai by Professor Mascle.
These results using the paleomagnetic technique were published last year by
Besse, Pozzi, Mascle and Feinberg in Earth and Planetary Science Letters,
The scientific significance of the Rift Zone as a plate boundary, and its
extension along the Weron Valley and the Medina Mountains is that it provides
the possibility for the area to the north to move with respect to the African
Plate to the south. In other words, the northem block is now decoupled from
the southem plate.
Now in plate tectonic terms movement on a globe can be described by rota-
tion around a point called a pole. A purely geometrical argument. The scientific
expert of Malta has tried to show that our interpretation of the Rift Zoneasa
transform boundary is wrong by using various poles to the north and north-west
of Sicily to rotate the southern part of Sicily. (This is Figure 17 on page 48 of
the Maltese Counter-Memonal.) His selection of po1es resulted in extension
across the Medina-Malta Channels, rather than the shearing and squeezing
which we have observed. If one locates the pole by one of the correct prw
cedures, that is to say drawing perpendiculars to the pure transform parts of the
Rift Zone and using their intersection to locate the pole, then this rotation pole
is located in the arch of Italy's Boot. When this pole is used to rotate the
southern partof Sicily, then the Pantelleria, Linosa and Malta Troughs are seen
to be extensional pull-apart basins typical for this type of plate boundary. Also EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS 213
the Medina Malta Channel area will be an area where sliding past occurs. The
mode1atso predicts squeezing along the Medina Mounts.
There is another important piece of evidence, and that is that plate boundaries
have to link with other plate boundaries: they cannot end in thin air, as it were.
Now the Rift Zone does link up with plate boundaries in the West and in the
east. But the Jarrafa Trough and the Tripolitanian Furrow could not be a plate
boundary, because they lead nowhere. Any extension, east or west, is miles
away from linking up with other plate boundaries.
Question: Let me ask you to concentrate on Malta for a moment. What, if
any, connection is there between the Maltese islands and the forces that created
the Rift Zone?
Answer: There is a direct connection.In fact, Professor van Hinte has already
touched on this point. The same forces that created the Troughs of the Rift
Zone - and in particular the Malta Trough - forced up a section of the sub-
soi1 - an uplifted block - thus creating the Maltese islands. In technical
terms, the Malta Trough is a graben and the Maltese islands comprise horsts
directly related to that graben.
This, no doubt, has resulted in the fact that the general direction of this part
of the Rift Zone is matched by the general direction of the Maltese islands and
of their south-western-facing Coast. You see, when plate movements occur, the
forces at work are enormous. And it is these forces that create, and shape. the
physical geography. You cannot really separate the physical geography from the
geological forces that formed the present landmasses.
Question: So without the Rift Zone Malta would not be there?
Answer: Yes, that is right.
Question: Would you now turn to the Escarpments which have been de-
scribed as fonning the eastern boundaries of the Ragusa-Malta Plateau and of
the Pelagian Block. that is, of the northem and sourhern shelves on each side of
the Rift Zone? How would you describe those Escarpments?
Answer: The Sicily-Malta Escarpment on the north - which foms the boun-
dary between the northern siielf, the Ragusa-Malta Plateau, here, and the Ionian
Sea, here, - is one of the major geomorphological scarps of the Meditena-
nean. Its length is some 120 nautical miles, and the sea-bed plunges to depths
of 3,600 rnetres along the Escarpment and this occurs in steps. Angles of 25
degrees to 30 degrees are common with an average of 20 degrees in the upper
slope. The lower dope is steeper, with angles of6û degrees. Going up and
down this Escarpment woutd involve real "mountain climbing".
South of the Sicily-Malta Escarpment is the steep, deep, and complex Heron
Valley where the Rift Zone divides this Escarpment from the Medina Escarp-
ment to the south. As has been mentioned earlier, from the Heron Valley the
plate interaction continues eastward from the Rift Zone out aiong the Medina
Mounts.As can be seen on the map, there is a major change in topography east
of the Pelagian Sea.
The area of shelf south of the Rift Zone is bounded on the east by the
Medina Escarpment which extends southward to approximately here, that is
approximately 33O30N ' latitude. It forms another major shelf break, where the
sea-bed drops to a depth of 1,000 to 1,200 rnetres with a slope of 1in 10. This
feature has a length of approximately 87 nautical miles. It is recognized as the
eastem boundaryof that portion of the shelf underlying the Pelagian Sea south
of the Rift Zone known as the Pelagian Block.
The rather dramatic effect of these Escarpments is seen from another bathy-214 CONTINENTAL SHELF
metric profile prepared by the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory, which
also appeared at Annex 9-b of the Libyan Reply. This profile. which is No. 63
in the Judges' folder. follows the eastem edge of Malta's trapezium figure, out
to its intersection withalta's proposed equidistance line.
Question: Dr. Jongsma. 1 should now like to focus attention on certain fea-
tures that have been discussed in the jurisprudence and which it may help the
Court to have compared with the Rift Zone and the Escarpments. 1refer to the
Norwegian Trough, the Hurd Deep, the Tripolitanian Furrow, and the North-east
Channel in the Gulf of Maine. 1 am sure the Court is growing weary of statis-
tics, so could you compare, in a general way. those features with the Rift Zone
and the Escarpments ?
Answer: Dealing first with the geomorphological characteristics of these fea-
tures, none can be compared in terms of depth or gradient with the troughs of
the Rift Zone or with the escarpments - the former are al1 rather gentle sea-
bedfeatures.
The Tripolitanian Trough or Valley, when it reaches a point north of Ras Zar-
mq - and in fact this whole area of the sourhern shelf- does deepen as it
extends to the east. There are, however, no sieep gradients or drarnatic sea-bed
declines. After it passes a line between RaZmq and the Medina Escarpment.
the sea-bed of this southern area of shelf continues to deepen gradually to
depths of 800 and 1,000 metres. But at this point the sea-bed area no longer
underlies the PeIagian Sea; it is quite a different region. It has become the Sirt
Rise-lonian Sea. This area of sea-bed was described in detail in Part1 of the
Technical Annexes to the Libyan Memonal prepared by Professor Fabricius.
The other features you mention are quite similarly minor in a geomorphologi-
cal sense in comparison to the major features of the Rift Zone- the top show
profiles across the Rift Zone, these are across the various features. The differ-
ence between them is even more apparent when their origin is contemplated.
The Court wiIl find a comparison of these various features in No. 80 in the
Judges' folders. And the Court will also find location maps for the profiles on
this figure in their folders; and it willnoted that these figures show the loca-
tion and longitude of the maximum gradient (Figs. 81-85). The Norwegian
Trough is considered to be of glacial, erosional origin. The Hurd Deep, simi-
larly. is regarded to have been forrned by erosionby glacio-fluvial action. The
North-east Channel was similarly formed. None of these features resemble at al1
the Rift Zone in terms of origin and fundamental nature; and the figure to
which 1just referred on the easel compares these features in terms of geomor-
phology with the Medina Channel. Of course. aside from the geomorphological
comparison portrayed here, only the Medina Channel lies in the middle of an
extensive active Rift Zone, the geological processes of which have created the
Medina Channel itself.
The Tripolitanian Valley overlies an area of ancient rifting which is now
quiescent.
In contrast,the channels in the Rift Zone are very much part of this active
zone. Young volcanics arepresent; the sea-bed configuration is the direct result
of the deep faults that exist in the subsoil. The Medina Channel contains sev-
eral areas of steep gradients.
Question: Dr. Jongsma, 1 have one final question. Where else in the ocean
areas of the world can you find, in your view, afeature such as the Rift Zone
positioned as it is right in the area relevant to a delimitation between two
States?
Answer: 1 am glad. Professor Bowett, that you have Iimited your question EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS 215
because, of course, there are rnang plate boundaries around the world. and not
many are so located as to likely effect a delimitation. But there is one oceanic
area in particular that coulbe said to resemble the Rift Zone in thaitinvotves
a continental shelf which has collided and now has a piece broken off; and this
is theshelf area between Ausualia and Indonesia. The map on the easel shows
this area, which includes the Timor Trough, and this other feature, the Ani
Trough, which even more than the Timor Trough could be said to geologically
resemble the Rift Zone. The only thing is that, unlike the Timor Trough, this
other feature could presumably play no role in a delimitation because of its
location. As an Australian 1 am particularly aware that the Timor Trough did.
however. affect the delimitation line agreed upon.
Other than this area, 1cannot think of any comparable situations other than,
in a more general sense, the Red'Sea, which was discussed in the paper of Pro-
fessor Finetti annexed to the Libyan Reply.
Professor BOWETT: Thank you Dr. Jongsma. Mr. President, 1 should now
like tocal1 upon Professor Finetti. Professor Finetti, can 1ask you to make the
solemn declararion.
Professor FINETTI: 1 solemnly declare upon my honour and conscience that
1 will speak the truth, the whole tmth and nothing but the 1111tha .nd that rny
statemen! will be in accordance with my sincere belief.
Professor BOWEïT: Thank you.
Question: Professor Finetti1 think it would be of interest to the Court if you
could expand a little on your activities at the OGS in Trieste. that is the Natio-
nal Organization for Geophysical Exploration, and also at the Institute of Geo-
desy and Geophysics at the University of Trieste. 1 believe you conducted
extensive geophysical studies in this part of the Mediterranean over many years.
Could you elaborate on that?
Anmer: 1have been engaged in the geophysical study of the Sicily to Libya
area since the beginning of my career, 29 years ago. 1 began by studying
the area of Ragusa, in Sicily, where the first oilfield was discovered, when 1
worked at the time for the oil industry, before my activity at the University and
OGS. Later. 1 conducted with OGS of Trieste important regional geophysical
explorations of the whole Mediterranean including the Pelagian Sea.
In regard to my OGS activities. to avoid a long and detailed description, 1
should like to referto the 1973 paper by Finetti-Morelli entitled "Geophysical
Exploration of the Mediremanean Sea", where the relevant OGS research acti-
vity is sumrnarized. It also contains a location map of the OGS geophysical
exploration activity between 1966 and 1972, which involved a whole series of
cmises during those years. Paragraph 2 of my 1982 paper and paragraph 3 of
rny 1984 paper also refer to the geophysica1 data produced by the OGS of
Trieste.
1 think 1can Say that the work ofour group in Trieste over the pas120 years
has provided most of the basic data used by scientists al1 over the world in
writing about the Mediterranean. Recently 1performed, for the concession hol-
der, on the Ragusa-Malta Plateau north of Malta, the seismic interpretation for
the location of the Vega 1 discovery well. This led to the discovery of this
major oilfield of the Mediterranean. Professor van Hinte has already referred to it.
Question: 1should like you to direct your attention to Map 10 of the Libyan
Reply, an enlarged version of which is now being placed on the easel. This is
Map 86 in the Judges' map folders. It has the Rift Zone lightly shaded in. In
red, there appears what is called the "Axial Ridge Line". 1 refer also to your216 CONTINENTAL ÇHELF
recent study entitled "Geophysical Study of the Sicily Channel Rift Zone",
published earlier this year, exiracts from which appear in Annex 7 to the Libyan
Reply and a copy of the study was furnished to the Court.
My questions are - how did you derive this "axial ridge line" and what is its
significance?
Anm~er: 1shall try to make my answer as simple as possible. The data on
which 1 based my findings were data that have existed for over ten years
(Finetti-Morelli, 1973). They are what is known in scientific terms as "Bouguer
gravity anomalies". From these 1973 data, by the use of a simple mathematical
procedure, the "Residual Gravity Anomalies" plotted in Figure 13 of my 1984
paper were obtained.
These gravity data, together with the seismic data, are objective evidence that
along the Rift Zone runs a remarkable, continuous geological feature character-
ized by positive gravity anomalies, tectonic fragmentation and crustal thinning.
These data, among other things. tell a scientist where the crust of the earth has
been stretched to its thinnest zone. The "axialridge line" has been traced along
the top of the positive, continuous gravity axis, which corresponds to the points
of greatest crustal thinness.
As Professor van Hinte and Dr. Jongsma have already explained, the Rift
Zone is an area where a separation of plates is occumng. Where such a separa-
tion is occuning, it is evidenced by a thinning of the earth's crust. In this entire
area of the Rift Zone - from the major trough - here - to the north as well
as along the Medina Channel - here - the cmst is markedly thinner than
elsewhere in the Pelagian Sea shelf area. We firid an average crustal thickness
of 20 kilornetres in this area and even less than 20 kilornetres, as opposed to a
normal continental cmstal thickness of 30 to 35 kilometres. It is along here that
the separation in the platesis occurring.
What is interesting to note is that this ldoes not necessarily coincide every-
where with the deepest areas, geomorphologically. It runs down the approxi-
mate middle of the Pantelleria and Linosa Troughs ; then from 14Oto 16Olongi-
tude, it runs along thenorthern half of the Rift Zone. For example, hem, it runs
down the rniddle of the Medina Graben. where a remarkable tilting due to
crustal stretching and thinning occurred.
Question: Professor Finetti, 1have to tell you that counsel for Malta referred
to the axial ridge line shown in your recent study as "arbitrary" and "precon-
ceived". 1suppose the word "arbitrary" implies it is unscientific. and "precon-
ceived" implies thatit was produced with an eye to furthering Libya'sarguments
in this case. How do you react to those tems?
Anwer: Any scientist wauld deeply resent such an accusation. and 1 am no
exception. But the point today. 1take it, is to explain to the Court in ctear and
simple terms how the axial ridge line was amived at.
The starting point, as rnentioned, was the Bouguer gravity data published in
1973 (Finetti-Morelli, 1973 paper). Figure 2 of my 1984 paper sets forth this
data. At that tirne, 1973. we were interested in the broad gravity picture of the
Meditemanean and, therefore. we did not calculate the residual or local anorna-
lies. But, even on this rnap the axial ndge in the Rift Zone can be recognized,
though less precisely. An enlarged version of this rnap has been placed on the
easel. A ridge line evidently runs along the line 1am now drawing. It is a long
positive gravity anornaly ais, which has thjs trend from here to here. Then
when arriving here, this track rnay be correlated with this positive anomaly.
And if we look at this rnap in more detail, remember that here we have a
contour interval of 10 rnilligals, which is enornous. If we lwk at the rnap with EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS 217
contour intervals smaller than IO milligals you have continujty, even in Bou-
guer, of this axis through the Medina Channel. Not only in my data of 1984 but
also on those of 1973 we have this axial ndge evident. However, a more loca-
lized and precise rnap was required in order to arrive more exactly at such a
ndge. Therefore, using the data already published, a residual gravity rnap was
calculated mathematically with a filter length of 31.6 km. This appeared as
Figure 13 in my 1984 paper on which both the Rift Zone and the axial ridge
line also appear. An enlarged version of this rnap has been placed on the easel.
However, neither the Rift Zone nor the axial ridge line are shown.
Quesrion N:ow, Professor Finetti, you will recall that counsel for Malta said
that this rnap "is not a direct or immediate reflection of objectively verifiable
elements", and he drew this conclusion from what he said were two stages of
modification of the data, each involving a supposed exercise of your discretion.
The first stage was said to be correct for the body of water lying above the sea-
bed. The second involved the selection of "filter length". What do you Say to
this?
Answer: These staternents are incorrect. The rnap which you see here was
calculated on the basis of a strictly objective process using the data published
since 1973. In fact, the water layer adjustment had already been made in accord-
ance with standard procedures in the Bouguer anomaIy rnap published by
Finetti-Morelli (1973). There was nothing arbitrary or discretionary about this
step.
As to the selection of filter length, one selects a particular filter length accord-
ing to the Rze - that is the width and depth - of the feature you want to
examine. The thicker the cmst, the longer the fiiter length you need to examine
right through the crust. So, in my study, it was selected on the basis of the
thickness of the cmst throughout the entire Pelagian Sea area so that the data
would reflect anomalies al1 the way to the top of the mantle throughout this
area. The earth's cmst is thinner in the area of the Rift Zone - only about
20 kilometres. Butto the north and south of the Rift Zone the depth of the cmst
is more normal for an area of continental shelves, descending to depths of up to
30 kilometres. Wad the true purpose of this study been petroleum exploration,
for example, a filter length of about 10 kilometres would have been adequate.
However, since the object of the study was to discriminate anomalies between
the sea-floor and the mantle, a filter length of 31.6 kilometres was appropriate.
Such a choice was in accordance with standard procedures, but greater or
smaller filter lengths would have shown the same result. In fact, after reading
counsel for Malta's accusations on the subject, I redid the study using a filter
length of 22.4 kilometres. The result was substantially the same because the
deformation process affects the entire cmst and the upper part of the mantle.
1 have a copy of this rnap which the Maltese delegation is invited to examine.
Question :Now how did you know where to draw this axial ridge line?
Answer: This was the easiest part. The gravity anomaly data were used in
conjunction with other data and not in a vacuum. The sea-bed geomorphology
combined with seismic data were considered together with the gravity anomaly
data. What one looks for is whether there is a pattern, or coherent sequence of
anomalies, revealed by the map. The geomorphology revealed a system of
troughs, ndges and channels mnning from the Egadi Valley - the Egadi Val-
ley is just in this area- the Egadi Valley between Sicily and Tunisia to the
Heron Valley which is not shown exactly in this rnap but is around here. Here 1
continue with the observation 1 am telling you. The seismic data showed a
major fault system paralle1 to the gravity anomalies with prominent thinning of218 CONTINENTAL SHELF
the cmst and uplifting of the mantle cornbined with young volcanics along the
same zone, al1 evidence of a rifting process. The residual gravity map con-
firmed that along this zone, identified by these other data, an axial ridge
could clearly be identified but the rise of the rnantle reached its peak and the
cmst is thinnest.
1can show you now essentially what happens on an area like this. 1am sketch-
ing now what is a rift process. This is not my persona1 figure, it is a scheme
reported widely in literature. So, we start frorn an element of crust, not faulted.
Then we apply to this element of crust a stretching force. If this stretching force
is sufficient toroduce the formation of fractures, you obtain a first creeping, in
correspondence with the axial ridge, like here, and a slight rnantle uplifting.
When the rifting process is sufficiently progressed, a cornpletecrust separation
or cmstal fragmentation are obstained in the figure like this. The rnantle at this
stage is considerably uplifted. This is cnist, this is rnantle. And, if you want,
you rnayhave water - water layer covering the rift. In this scheme, Malta is
on a position like this. here there is the Malta Trough. And the axial ridge 1am
talking about is in this central position where you have the thinnest cnist, the
rnantle uplifting. Fragmentation al1 across this line with opposite polarity of
faults and gravity anomaly, positive gravity anomaly, represent the deformation
produced. When you have fragmentation for exarnple with collapsing of blocks
without a nfting process, gravity anomaly is indicating negative anomaly. When
you have this figure of fractures and this positive gravity anornalyeverywhere
in the world, this indicates a nfting process; active fault cuts also sea-bottom
surface with actual sediments.
My line is a line which is intended to represent this zone of the axial ridge.
This is typical of a rift zone and this is not my figure. In literature therare
figures like this in every plate tectonic book. The same pattern can be seen
along the ridge Red Sea-Gulf of Aden, for example. This is illustrated in the
September 1983 Italian edition of the ScientificArnerican Journal. A photo-
graph of the Gulf of Aden in this article shows exactly what 1 have been de-
scribing. I offer my copy to the Maltese delegation for their inspection. The
structura1conditions of the Medina Graben shown in Figure 7 of my 1984 paper
are sirnilar to those revenled by this photograph.
1 shall show this by putting up on the easel a blown-up photograph of the
axial ndge of the Gulf of Aden later. taken frorn the Scientific American
article,
and a seisrnic profile of the Medina Graben, also blown up. (Those illustrations
are Nos. 91 and 92 in the folder.) I shall put up the Medina Graben profile first.
This is an objective figure obtained geophysically from seismic reflection
profile just passing across the Medina Graben area as indicated. You have faults
as interpretation, but no one cm question about this very clear and evident
interpretation. If you look at what is shown here, we have a rifting process here,
with faults in opposite polarity and volcanic activity. This figure donot show
the entire Medina Graben, it is just only the central part where the axial ri,dge
of the Medina Graben passes. It is here that 1 drew it in rny Figure 13 of
the 1984 paper. We see a rifting that is associated with a rernarkable mantle
uplifting, and with stretching, even if in this area are prevailing strike-slip
rnovements. This photograph is typical of an area of axial ridge and is self-
explanatory. It shows a typical fragmentation, associated with an axial ridge of
a rifting process.
We simply see a figure, there is no interpretation at all. It is just a phot*
graph published in the ScientiA fiecrican of the Gulf of Aden, that, together
with the Red Sea, is the best-known rifting systern in the world.
It is perhaps better if we say something about where this figure is located. It EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS 219
is possible to see where it is exactly on the Scientij7cAmerican referred paper.
You have the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden. and you arehere at the axial ridge of
the rifting systern.near the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. This ridge is enter-
ing here and the figure is taken looking to the Gulf of Aden and is taken in an
area where the system is outcropping, because we know that we have a lot of
ridge systems, but it is impossible to photograph it when submerged. The
author made the most of the opportunity of this position in order to photograph
exactly what is an axial Rdge. The axial ridge is just perpendicular to the photo-
graph in this direction. What you see here is exactly a mantle uplifting, frag-
mentation, and in the middle also volcanoes. It is just a photograph. It is not
my interpretation, this explanation is in the paper. So, according to this photo-
graph when you see a figure like that of the Medina Graben there is no ques-
tion that thatis corresponding to a position that rneans rifiing process and this
is the part corresponding to the axial ridge.
Do we find features bearing such basic characteristics in the area of the case?
Yes, we do, and not only across the Trough of Pantelleria and Linosa but also
across the Medina Graben area as clearly shown in the figure previously com-
mented on.
Returning now to the residual gravity rnap which has been put back on the
easel, 1shall now draw what 1have called the "axial ridge line" passing along
the existing, unique continuous positive gravity axis. According to the seismics
and morphological data, this Iine corresponds to the axis of the rifting process
where the cnist is at its minimum tttickness. (The Court cm find a copy of this
rnap with the line drawn on it as No. 87 in the Judges' folder.) It is a conti-
nuous coherent line, just as you Pindalong the Red Sea rift. This line stretches
for 300 miles.
Question: Professor Finetti. itwas suggested by counsel for Malta that a
variety of lines were equally feasible. In fact, Mr. Lauterpacht drew a number
of lines on the map. Now, 1am going to have placed on the easel a reproduc-
tion of this rnap with thelines in red which Mr. Lauterpacht drew. What do you
say about these red lines?
Answer: They are absurd because they obviously were based on the assump-
tion that merely finding plus signs on the map and connecting them up was
what is involved - a sort of child's game. But what isof interest is whether or
not there is a pattern or coherence to the anomalies. For example, counsel for
Malta drew this line along the southern area here. His line crosses areas of
negative anomalies indiscnminately in order to connect up positive anomalies.
The previous axis of these lines is ail along positive anomalies. These attempted
correlation lines connect gravity anomalies having different geological histories,
different structural andstratigraphic explanations and different structural trends.
The whole exercise by Malta's counsel makes no scientific sense at ail.
Question: We heard a lot today about the "Rift Zone" and. of course. it is
extensively treated in Libya's written pleadings. In your judgment, Professor
Finetti.is there any doubt of the existence of such a zone with its various pull-
apart and shearing effects mentioned earlier?
Answer: There is no doubt, whatsoever. The seisrnic data, the gravity ano-
maly data, the sea-bed itself, al1make the existence of the Rift Zone a fact. It is
a tmly remarkable feature. 1 completely subscribe to the view, scientifically
speaking, that this Rift Zone is a profound rupture in the earth's suface and
cmst along which a microplate boundary has been formed.
Question: Now in your 1984 study, Professor Finetti, you compared the Rift EVIDENCEOF EXPERTS 22 1
with Professor Vanney's paper annexed to the Maltese Counter-Memonal that
contained seismic reflection profilesaken from earlier papers of Finetti-Morelli
(1973) revealing intense faulting across the Rift Zone which he described in the
following way: "All this complex morphology is the most remarkable expres-
sion of the distensive forces active since Miocene times (10 million years
ago)."
Question: The second point raised by Malta is that in earlier papers you have
talked of the continuity between Afnca al1the way north to Sicily. 1sthis so?
Answer: Yes. it is. But you must realise that, as the context clearly reveal1,
was talking in stratigraphic terms and not in terms of tectonics. Until the tec-
tonic events that created the Rift Zone occurreas well as Malta itself, aspart of
this dynamic process, the crustal layers were stratigraphically and tectonically
continuous across the Rift Zone. But since late Miocene the northem and
southem areas have been broken apart by the rift process, resulting in a clear
discontinuity.even though the stratigraphic layers of pre-nfting age on each side,
quite naturally, are similar. As a matter of fact, the same is true on either side
of the Red Sea rift, which is one of the world's clearest exarnples of a disconti-
nuity. The strata are the same on both sides of the plate boundary.
Professor BOWETT: Thank yc~uProfessor Finetti. Mr. President, Members
of the Court, perhaps 1may poini out that the Sudan-Saudi Arabia delimitation
agreement, which concerned the Red Sea, is one of the examples where the
geomorphology of the sea-bed was explicitly taken into account by the two
States, Thisis discussed in Annex 37 of the Annex of Delimitation Agreements
to the Libyan Counter-Memorial. You will note that the "Common Zone" nego-
tiated between the Sudan and Saudi Arabian Govemments is bounded on each
side by the 1,000-metre isobath. and this directly reflects this remarkable rift
zone in the Red Sea.
Mr, President, that concludes the presentation of this evidepce.
The PRESIDENT: 1s that the end of your scientific evidence this morning?
Professor BOWETT: Itis indeed, Sir.
The Cour1 roseut 12.55 p.m. TWENTY-FOURTH PUBLIC SIïTING (4 II 85. 4 p.m.)
Present: [See sitting of 26 XI 84, Judge Morozov absent.]
The PRESIDENT: 1now call on Mr. Lauterpacht, for cross-examination.
EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS CALLED BY THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA (cont.)
Mr. LAUTERPACHT: 1 would like to call Professor van Hinte for cross-
examination.
Mr. President, to set the mind of the Court at ease 1 can assure i1am not
going to enter into an extended scientific discussion with Professor van Hinte.
Professor van Hinte, may 1 begin by recalling a statement which you made
early in your evidence.Of course, 1have only a rough note of what you said,
but there, in response to a question about the existence of plates and shelves,
you spoke of the significance of the Rift Zone as separati'ngtwo plates; and
you also mentioned that there is a microplate referred tothe Messina Plate in
the literature.
Professor van Hinte. you have taken a firmposition, a1 understand it,on the
existence throughout the Rift Zone of an actual plate boundary. 1sthat correct?
Professor VAN HINTE: That is correct.
Question: Now. you spoke of the reference in the literature to the Messina
Plate?
Answer: That is correct.
Question: Am 1nght in believing that the reference which you have in mind
in the literature to the existence of the Messina Plate asmicroplate is to be
found in the articlby Dewey of 1973?
Answer: That is one of the references, yes. and that is the one to the Messina
Plate, tomy knowledge it is the first one.
Question: Are there any other references to the Messina Plate in the
literatur?
Answer: There are many and 1 think Jongsma gave you a nurnber and, just
recently. Professor Roeder presented a paper at the AAPG Conference in
Geneva, of which an abstract is published entitled "Tectonic Evolution of the
Appenines" and he distinguishes the same microplate.
Question: When you Sayjust recently, of what date?
Answer: 1984.
Question: 1see. But apart from bis professor, whose name 1didnotcatch ...
Answer :Roeder.
Question: Professor Roeder. 1sthere anyother reference to the Messina Plate
in the Dewey article?
Answer: In the Dewey article? EVIDENCEOF EXPERTS 223
Question: Yes, the question 1 am asking is, between Dewey in 1973 and
Roeder in 1984, were there any other references to the Messina Plate?
Answer: Yes, there were. There were references to the Rift Zone as a key
tectonic zone and there were references to the plate, and those were given by
Jongsma. 1 am sorry, 1 do not know them by heart but you cari find them in the
paper.
Quesrion: When you SayJongsma, you mean the'article .. .?
Answer: This rnorning in his . . .
Question: In the course of his elfidence?
Answer: Yes.
Qrrestion:1 see. Weil, we have not had anopportunity to follow those up.
Now, just to pause for a moment on Dewey - 1 hand you adocument which is
called Figure 1. Mr. President, copies of this document have been handed to the
Registrar for distribution to the Court. and no doubt it will eventually find its
way to you. 1will explain what the document is so that there is nothing sur-
prising about it,it is merely a piece of paper on which we have put together
two maps. One is the figure from Dewey and others of 1973, where there first
appears a reference to the Messina Plate. And we have put below it on the same
sheet Figure 1 - in the article by Professors Jongsma, van Hinte and Dr.
Woodside - so that one may conveniently see the two maps together.
Now, looking at the Dewey map, have 1 the right to believe that although
Dewey mentions the Messina Plate in this map he never actually discusses the
Messina Plate in the course of his article.sthat correct?
Answer: 1don't remember, quite frankly.
Question: You don't remember. So you probably would not remember that
none of the sources, which Mr. Dewey cites below the figure as indicating
where the material for the figure came from, mention the Messina Plate? He
mentions: based mainly on Bogdanoff, Choubert, Stocklin, McKenzie, Ryan
and others. You wouldn't remember?
Answer: 1 wouldn't remember that. The usefulness of Dewey's paper is that
itindicates that he needs a plate boundary there to complete the picture, and he
gave it a name, so for convenience's sake, we refer to the Messina Plate as the
name of the microplate that we distinguish now with rnany new data - that are
available now - cornpared to 1973.
Question: But you are attributing that meaning to Dewey? He never actually
says that in words, does he?
Answer: 1 don't recall that, but we don't need Dewey to see that there is a
boundary going through - that there is a plate boundar- and Dewey gives it
a name.
Question : Well, we will come to that question of the plate boundary in due
course. but for the moment 1am only concemed to establish with you, first, that
Dewey was the first person to mention the Messina Plate, second, that Dewey
never discussed the existence of the Messina Plate in the text of his article, and
thirdly that none of the sources from which the figure on which there appears a
reference to the Messina Plate discusses the existence of such a plate?
Answer; 1 can agree on the first point. For the second and third points 1
would have to have the paper in front of me.
Question: Well, 1 think that we are obviouçly not going to take the time of224 CONTINENTAL SHELF
the Court for you to examine the paper now, but 1am sure that when you do,
Sir, you willfind that what 1 have said is correct.
There is another detail which 1would like you to observe on the Dewey map.
and confirm if 1 understand it correctly: and that is that the line which separates
the Messina Plate. so-called, from the rest of the African Plate to the south is
not a solid line, but a pecked line. a line consisting of a series of dashes. Do
you confirm that?
Answer: Yes, it also confirms what 1 said earlier, he needed that area to
make a consistent picture of the place. At that time the evidence didn't exist to
make it a solid line. It exists today.
Question: Well, you have very helpfully answered my next question, when
you Say that at that time the evidence did not exist to make it a solid line, In
other words, my next question is going to be, am 1right to understand that the
use of a pecked line indicates an uncertainty - that it is a speculation or an
inference ?
Answer: Yes, it was at the time, certainly.
Question: Now, you say he needed that line to make his theory hold together.
Could you look more closely at that figure and tell me whether my eyes are
correct in seeing that pecked line picking a course from the north-east corner of
Tunisia approximately. between Tunisia andSicily, in a south-easterly direction
and then turning sharply south-south-east towards the Libyan Coast, and then
resuming a south-easterly course towards the eastem side of the Gulf of Sin?
Do you see such a pecked linethere?
Answer: 1 see two pecked lines from the point where you state - one that
goes in the direction that you Say and the other one goes to the north-east, and
the north-eastem one is a continuation from the Rift Zone. He tied that up with
the deformation front that we now cal1 the deformation front of the subduction
zone of the Hellenic Arch.
Question: So you confimi that there are not one but two lines, of which one
line is certainly a line following the direction tha1 statedin the question 1 put
to you a moment ago?
Answer : Yes.
Question: And then you add, understandably, that there is another pecked
line turning towards the northeast. The Court 1 hope will have this Figure 1, as
we cal1it, in front of it now. 1 would like to invite you to look at Figure 1 of
Jongsma, van Hinte and Woodside. andthere you have picked up the notion of
the Messina Piate - correct? And am 1 right in saying that you have repro-
duced one of those pecked lines. 1sthat correct?
Anmer: Correct - as reproduced. it is more or less the sarne, yes.
Question: It is more or less. but not exactly. 1sthar right?
Answer: Well, on the scale that we are talking about on this picture, this
drawing, which is a sketch map, 1think it is the same line.
Question: In so doing, is it correct to observe that you dropped the second
Dewey line, the one that moved towards the south-east and cuts Libya off from
the continental shelf to the northof it?
Answer: Yes, we do not have that on our Figure 1, for the reasons 1
explained to you before.
Question: Would you care to repeat those reasons? EVIDENCEOF EXPERTS 225
Answer: Because that line is following the so-called Mediterranean ridge. the
southern edge of it, which is the deformational front of the subduction process
that happens a little to the north, and we do not equate that with the plate boun-
dw-
Question: 1 see. Now, you say that there are other people besides you who
have picked up the Dewey map. 1sthat correct, Professor van Hinte?
Answer: Yes, that is correct.
Question : And we will find the references for that in the statement of Profes-
sor Jongsma of this morning ?
Answer: Whether they picked up the Dewey map exactly, 1do not know, but
that they have the concept of the plate boundq going through that area, yes,
that is correct.
Question: You are not refemng to the references which Professor Jongsma
made to the papers by Mr. Akal and Mr. Colombi?
Answer: 1 know that list of papers, yes.
Quesrion: Well, 1 was going to ask you for your help about that, but 1can
cake it straight away. In fact. according to my note, Professor Jongsma referred
to Akal in 1972 on the formation of a rift in the Straits of Sicily. Professor
Jongsma referred also to Professor Dewey and he referred alsoto the paperof
1973 by Colombi, Giese and others. Now, in the interval, Mr. President, since
lunch it has not been possible for us to pursue those authorities. We do happen
to have a copy of Akal, but in Akal we can find no reference to the Messina
Plate. So 1 wonder if perhaps, in due course, you could assist us with refer-
ences. And there are really two references that we would appreciate frorn you.
One is that 1cannot find any reference in the Libyan wntten pleadings to either
of these two authorities which are cited as being users, or adopters, of the Mes-
sina Plate concept. Are you sufficiently well acquainted with the pleadingsto
be able to assist me?
Answer: Well, 1have a vague remembrance of them if you can cite the page.
Mr. LAUTERPACHT: No, 1cannot cite the page. My difficulty is that on my
examination of the Libyan written pleadings I cannot find any reference to Akal
or Colombi. 1 was merely seeking from you assistance, either that you should
confimi that there are no references in the Libyan pleadings or help me with
identifying references in the Libyan pleadings.
Professor VAN HINTE: Are Akal and Colombi mentioned in the Libyan
pleadings?
Dr. JONGSMA: Not in the pleadings. They are in the paper ..
Mr. LAUTERPACHT: Well. we will leave the question aside for now
because, as 1 Say, 1 cannot find it and you cannot help me with it. Now, apart
from Akal and Colombi, do you know of any use in the literature since 1973 of
the expression the "Messina Suait"?
Answer: Quite frankly, 1do not think 1do, no, except for that Roeder paper 1
mentioned which has been presented at the AAPG meeting in Geneva.
Question: Wefl. that is 1984, and none of us had had an opportunity to see
that apart from yourself. Now, apart frorn the reference to Akal and Colombi,
am 1right in thinking that there is no express statement anywhere in the litera-
ture in the period from 1973 until now to a microplate called the Messina PIate,
or having any name other than in the article by Professor Finetti in 1984 and
the article which you and Professor Jongsma and Dr. Woodside have prepared?226 CONTINENTAL SHELF
Answer: Will you allow me to ask Professor Jongsma to . . .?
Mr. LAUTERPACHT: Professor van Hinte, 1 ani asking you the question.
You know the subject. You are here as an expert.
Professor VAN HINTE:Yes, 1 know the subject, but 1do not know the his-
tory of the subject. You are asking for references and literature but we are not
constituting anyjurispmdence, or how you would cal1that. When we find a cer-
tain situation and in this case we find this very interesting for us, a veryer-
esting area (cutting tfirough the area of discussion) which we refer to as the rift
zone, and 1 would refer to rather as a wrench zone. We will find that situation
once we have one reference in literature that refers to it then we can cal1 it the
Messina Plate. 1mean we are not looking al1the way through the literature until
we find confirmation of those facts.
Question: Good. Would you disagree with what Professor Jongsma said this
morning that support for the notion that the Rift Zone is a plate boundary has
been growing ?
Answer : Yes.
Question: You would disagree?
Answer: No, no, 1would not disagree, 1would agree with him.
Question: You would agree?
Answer: Yes.
Question: So, since the evidence he gives is that of Akal, Dewey and
Colombi, 1 am asking you do you know any other of its support?
Answer: Actually we talk with many of our colieagues in conferences and
many places, and . .. 1 don't think you will see in the future many papers that
will not have a plate boundary there. The notion is clearly growing.
Mr. LAUTERPACHT: You say that 1 may not see in the future many refer-
ences, but the data as 1understand it on which it is claimed thaa plate bound-
aryexists has been known for a number of years.
Professor VAN HINTE: No, not that widely and the data is increasing every
day. Part of the data is Ourown, part of the data is the fact that now we have
the new bathymetric map, everybody is becoming familiar with ...
Question: You see, what 1have done, Professor van Hinte, in order to pre-
pare myself to meet you, is 1 have looked at the references,1 have gathered up
the references which appear in the Libyan written pleadings on the subject of
the character of the Pelagian Block in order to ascertain the nature of the sup
port that there rnay exist for the concept of a plate boundary. And 1 have col-
lected quite a lot of articles, as you may see. 1 cannot find in any of them,
except the articles of 1984 by Professor Finetti, and the article by you aPro-
fessor Jongsma of 1984, any reference to a plate boundary in this area. Are you
saying that that silence is consistent with a growing support for the existence of
a plate boundary in this area?
Answer: No, 1 am not saying that silence is a growing support. There is a
growing support, 1 mean there isn't a growing support, there is a growing
notion as you said before.
Mr. LAUTERPACHT: 1 rnay say, 1 have not said it is a growing notion, you
have said it. The long andthe short of it is, 1 think, that so far as the literature
is concemed, you are not asserting that there is in the literature growing support
for the notion. EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS 227
Professor VAN HINTE: 1 think there is. There is now since 1973 three
papers that refer to it, the papers of Jongsma and us, Finetti, Roeder.
Quwtion: Three papers out of how many, do you think, have been written
about the character of this area? Would you like to hazard a guess?
Answer: Well, maybe, 15 or 20.
Mr. LAUTERPACHT: Well, just to take Professor Finetti's of 1984, is 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 910, 11, 12, 13, 14,15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,
26, 27, 28, 29, 30. Thirty on that paper alone and that'sa short bibIiography by
reference, by cornparison with many of the other articles. And I'm saying, in
this enormous literature you cannot point to a single specific article which
develops the notion of a Messina Plate or a microplate boundary as such by
those words in this area.
Professor VAN HINTE: Apart from Dewey.
Question: And 1 thought that we had dealt with Dewey a few minutes ago
and 1thought that you had not disagreed with me when 1said that Dewey says
nothing about a Messina Plate, does not discuss it and the sources cited by
Dewey do not support it. It's a pure speculation of which the evidence exists
exclusively in the Figure 1 of Dewey ;1thought we had established that some
minutes ago.
I think you said at an early stage in your evidence that your ideas have
evolved, or opinions are more definite now, or words to that effect. 1s that
correct?
Answer :That is correct.
Question: Now is this primarily on the basis of new material or on the inter-
pretation or reinterpretation of old material?
AnswerrBoth.
Question :On what kind of new niaterial do yourely ?
Answer: The new material is, for instance, a paper on, let me find it for you,
a paper on the Medina Mount where a French team has been diving. It is a deep
dive, and it's the group Escarmed - it's a 1982 paper, "Données nouvellessur
les marges du bassin Ionien profond" published in the Revuede I'Itzs~irufran-
çais du pétrole, Volume 37, and they observed on the Medina Mount about
2,000 metres relief with thick sedinientary series and they have observed from
the diving bascule and to cite their page726 "les escarpments sont contrôles par
une tectonique de failtes normales". And on page 725 they Say, "Confirmer la
présence d'une sériesédimentaire épaisse, lithologiquementdiversifiée". And,
this is one of the things that we would have predicted which is not a signal
from an apparatus but is a direct observation.
Question: So we are taiking there about one item of matenal evidence rele-
vant to one section only of the so-called Rift Zone and that section is the
extrerne eastern section, the Medina Mount. 1sthat correct?
Answer :Correct, yes.
Mr.LAU'IERPACHT:Now my original question was whether your viewshave
hardened onthe basisof newmaterial or reinterpretation.You have saidbath. Isaid
what new material, and you mentioned the activities ofthe Escarmed expedition.
Professor VAN HINTE: Correct.
Question: What other new material would you ... without needing to go into
great detail of its content?228 CONTINENTALSHELF
Answer: Another partof the new material is the seismic that we could see,
seismic lines, we had available.
Question: And those seismic lines dated from whar period?
Answer :From the sixties and the seventies, 1think.
Quesrion: From the sixties and the seventies. Am I right to think that those
seismics were fully publicized in the article by Professor Morelli and Professor
Finetti in1973?
Anm~er:Part of itwas, part of it was not.
Question: And you used the part that had not been publicized previously at
al1?
Answer: 1have to turn to that.1think so. yes.
Quesrion: Good. In which line was that?
Answer: Yes, with Jongsma because that was the part he has been mainly
working on.
Question: Now. 1think we'll leave it there and corne back to it ifnecessaq.
So you've got additional material you say on the extreme eastern end of the
Rift Zone, the Medina Mount. You have additional material on seismics, but
you don't know what that material is? Was there any other material on the
basis of which new material, on the basis of which your opinion hardened?
Answer: Yes, there are new surveys in the area, there are new papers; you
mentioned that there are about 21 papers published between 1973 and 1984 and
part of it came out in the last few years. Really, the interpretation aspect is that
I have been working in the south and Jongsma has been mainly working in the
north, and coming together and plotting al1the data available from literature on
a map. that bnngs you to new conclusions. We had a new map available for the
topography and just working on the data, you know. you change your views. 1
mean . . . It's not I mean, a study in a hurry, you're not static. you know. We
don't end up with the same ideas that we start out with, because in the course
of the study, in the course of theproject, we learneda lot.
Question: So 1 wouldn't be putting it unfairly if 1 said this: that the hard-
ening of your views is dependent in part on some riew material of which you
have given us some details, and in part on a reinterpretation of the whole situa-
tion in the light of al1the material available. Thatasfair way of putting it?
Answer: Yes. it Fallsin line, at a certain moment, al1the data you...
Question: So there is in this a conclusion that we have an actual nft, an
actual plate boundary in the Rift Zone per substantial degree of personal inter-
pretation?
Answer : No, it's putting the right data together. And there is personal insight.
Quesrion: There is personal insight, and ultimately a personal judgment is
fon-ned ?
Answer: No, the data force you to a particulal conclusion.
Question: But you would recognize that the data available to other writers,
and there have been many of them in the area. have not forced them to that
conclusion ?
Answer: No. and they rnay not have lined them al1up. We were working as a
team, and so there is the seismic evidence, there is stratigraphic evidence, there
is the structural evidence. the volcanics, the isotopes. the bathymetry, thegeo- EVIDENCEOF EXPERTS 229
morphology and if you are working alone you cannot draw a conclusion or you
don't have that insight. If you work as a team, you support each other, and then
it falls al1 in place. Once that has happened, you really grow in certainty on
your conclusion.
Question: Whether you act on your own or as a team, it is a matter of inter-
pretation as well as of material?
Answer: It is a matter of understanding the observations. It's not really an
interpretation in the sense that the facts are not there. It is a matter of under-
standing how this present situation with its volcanics, with its grabens, with its
topography, could have come about. That is, what is of course, always a rnatter
of interpretation.
Question: Well, let us go on then and have a look for a moment at the article
which contains the statement on your latest views, the views of yourself and
Professor Jongsma and Dr. Woodside.
Now am I right in saying that this is the article that you wrote, would ibe in
1983 or 1984 on, 1 will give you the title, "The Geologic Structure and Neo-
tectonics of the North African Continental Margin South of Sicily, 1983/84".
When did you actually finish the writing of it?
Answer: 1think the last version rnust have been sometime this last summer.
Question; And that has been siibmitted for publication to a journal called
Marine and Petroleum Geology? 1s that right? And you are an editor of that
journal?
Answer: 1am on the board of the editors.
Question :You are one of the members on the board of the editors. And if we
were to look at page 15 of that you would see that you have a conclusion there,
expressed a bit more cautiously perhaps than this morning, "this movement of
what might be considered a micro plate between the African and the European
plates is similar to that of the Aegean micro plate". 1sthat correct? It is in the
last sentence but one of the conclusion on page 15.
Answer: Let me see. Yes.
Question: That is the latest written expression of your views. 1suppose since
it is a joint paper, it reflects jointly the views of yourself, Professor Jongsma
and Dr. Woodside ?
Answer: That is correct.
Question: And had that paper been accepted for publication?
Answer: It has been accepted.
Question :And when will it bepubtished?
Answer: In the Spring issue of the Journal.
Question: Now a copy of this pilper was referred to in the Libyan pleadings
and was submitted to the Court by a letter to the Registr~ from the Agent for
Libya dated 12 July 1984, and that is probably not a matter of your knowledge,
is it?
Anmer: No. 1know that the Shelf Committee got a copy of it, so that was to
my knowledge.
Question: 1 still did not get quite what you ... You know that who got a
copy of it?
Answer : The Shelf Committee on which we are assisting.230 CONTINENTAL SHELF
Question : The Shelf Committee. What is the Shelf Committee?
Answer :The Shelf Committee of the Libyan Party.
Question: I see there is a Shelf Cornmittee of the Libyan Party which you
and Professor Jongsma are assisting, and they got a copy of it?
Answer :Correct.
Question: 1 see. Now 1have got in rny hand here a copy of the article as it
was submitted to the Court. 1am going to hand it to you and does that look like
the article that you wrote?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Well now will you tum to the page from which 1 read a moment
ago, page 15? Do you have page 15 there and you are looking at the copy
which 1 handed to you which is a copy takenfrom the copy presenred to the
Court?
Answer: 1have got it.
Question: Now, would you read the last sentence on that page?
Answer: "Brirtle fracture of the Afncan margin through the central Pelagian
Sea is a response to post-collision uplift and the shear stresses posed on this
region by differential horizontal plate consumption."
Question: Now is there anything more on that page?
Answer: You asked me to read the last sentence.
Question :So thereis nothing more on the page?
Answer: Not on this one, no.
Question :1sthere a row of typewritten dots at the bottom of the page?
Answer: Sure.
Question :So that is the end of the article?
Anmer: No, then follow the references..
Quesrion: 1 see. What is the number of the page from which you have just
been reading ?
Answer : Fifteen.
Qldestion:And what is the number of the next page?
Anmer : Seventeen.
Question: So is page 16 missing?
Answer: Or it is a typing error.
Question It is a typing error?
Answer: Compared to the other article it is missing.
Question: Would you take the document which has the rnap of Dewey and
Woodside on one side. Have you got that? Now will you turn it over please.
Now on the reverse of that document you have a xerox copy of pages 15 and
16 of the article as it was originally submitted for publication. Now would you
like to tell the Court what appears after the last sentence of the conclusions
which you read a moment ago? Would you like to read the acknowledgements
please?
Answer: The whole of the acknowIedgements?
Mr. LAUTERPACHT: Yes, the whole of the acknowledgements or if you
like foucan go straight to the fast sentence on page 16. EVIDENCEOF EXPERTS 231
Professor VAN HINTE: Correct. Yes, you have a sentence underlined on this
COPY.
Question Y:es, that's right. And what does it say, please?
Answer: "This study was made possible through a grant to the Free Univer-
sity by the international lawrmCurtis, Mallet-PrévostColt& Mosle, who aiso
arranged for permission to use some of the unpublished information."
Question: So the reference to the assistancor grant made to the Free Uni-
versity by Curtis, Mallet, the international firm Curtis, Mallet-Prévost,Colt &
Mosle is missing from the copies submitted to thCourt 1sthat correct?
Answer: 1do not know whether the . ..
Question: 1 have just told you that that copy in your hand is a copy of a copy
submitted to the Court and vou have iust identified that at the bottom of oaae
15 a series of typewritten dits replacethe paragraph headed acknowledgeke&
and vou have identified wane 16 with the conclusion of the acknowledrrements
is rnissing. Now areyou'inYaposition to tell me this? Are Messrs. ~urt&, Mal-
let-PrévostColt the firm of lawyers who fora long time have been associated
with the preparation of theibyan case?
Answer: Yes they are.
Mr. LAUTERPACHT: Well Professor van Hinte 1have no more questions to
put to you.1 wonder Mr. President whether the Court would be good enough to
indulge us. Mr. President 1 have no further questions to put to Professor van
Hinte. so he is available to my learned fnend if he wishes to re-examine him.
The PRESIDENT: No that will not be necessary.
Mr. LAUTERPACHT: In that case Mr.,President 1wonder whether the Court
would be good enough to allow a short adjournment for ten minutes so as to
permit the Agent for Malta and counsel to consider whether we could perhaps
dispense with the cross-examination of Professor Jongsma and Professor Finetti;
if we might have an adjournment for ten minutes to consider that matter.
TheCourt adjourncdfrom 4.45 p.m. to 4.55 p.m.
Mr. MIZZI: 1 have consulted my colleagues and we have decided to dispense
with the cross-examination of the other witnesses. We shall be prepared to pro-
duce our own tomorrow rnorning.
The Court rose at 5 p.m. TWENTY-FIFTHPUBLIC SI'TTING (5 II 85, 10 a.m.)
Present: [See sittinof 26 XI 84, Judge Morozov absent.]
EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS CALLED
BY THE GOVERNMENT OF MALTA
Mr. LAUTERPACHT: Mr. President and Members of the Court, Malta will,
with your permission, cal1 two expert witnesses. The first will be Professor
Georges Mascle who is a professor at the University of Grenoble, and the
second will be Professor Car10Morelli who is a professor at the University of
Trieste. It may be more convenient if 1 read the qualifications of each witness
separately before beginning his examination. With your leave, may1 invite Pro-
fessor Mascle to take his place at the witness stand. Professor Mascle willyou
rnake the declaration.
M. MASCLE: Je déclare solennellement, en tout honneuret en toute
conscience, que je dirai la vérité, toutela vkritket rien que la vénd et que mon
exposé correspondraàma conviction sincère.
Mr. LAUTERPACHT: Mr. President, Professor Mascle is of French nationa-
lity. He qualified in geology at the Universitof Pans in 1961 and becme a
Doctor of Science iri1973. Id 1980 he became aprofessor atthe University of
Grenoble. Since 1966 he has made studies of the Alpine belt in the Mediterra-
nean Basin from Morocco to Cypnis, prîncipally in the regions of Sicily and
Calabria. Then he studied the Himalayan and the Californian chains. He has
also served as an expert in structural geology with various working groups,
such as the Escarpment Project in the Ionian Sea. He has written more than 100
scientific papers and is a rnember of a number of leamed bodies such as the
Geological Societies of Amenca, lndia and Nepal. He was Vice-Chairman of
the Geological Society of France. He was a former Deputy-Editor of the
Society's Journal and iscurrently a Member of its Council. At the present time
he is Director of the Research Laboratory of the National Centre of Scientific
Research in Alpine Geology in Grenoble.
Professor Mascle, 1understand that you have actually made dives in the area
in which we are now interested and have seen some of the features of which we
are speaking, from depths as great as 3,000 metres. 1sthat correct?
Réponse:Oui. Avant de vous répondre cependant je voudrais dire que jesuis
la fois tres honoréet très émude parler devant la Cour. Donc effectivement,
j'ai plongé dansun petit sous-marin au fond de la mer Ionienne sur l'escarpe-
ment de Malte et la mission à laquelle j'appartenais a également effectué une
plongéesur les monts de Medina.
Question: Professor Mascle, let us begin the substantive discussionby a refer-
ence to the Pelagian Block. Would you first describe for the Court the charac-
teristics, or the boundaries of the Pelagian Block? The boundaries first.
Réponse: Eh bien, le bloc pélagien est situé à la bordure septentrionale de
l'Afrique, donc dans cette région.Il est limitàl'ouest par la Tunisie, au sud EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS 233
par la Libye, à l'est par les escarpements de Malte et de Syracuse, ici, puis de
Medina, ici. et au nord par la zone de plissement de Sicile qui coupe la Sicile
dans cette direction. C'est la zone plissée sicilienne.En fait c'est un domaine de
mer épicontinentale qui se prolonge à terre un peu dans le Sahel tunisien, le
long de la plainecbtière de Libye et dans le plateau de Raguse ou dans le pla-
teau ibléen. Ces deux termes signifient la même chose,ici, en Sicile méridio-
nale. Du point de vue de la structure régionale, il représente une partie de ce
que I'on appelle l'avant-pays africain des chaînes maghrébo-siciliennes. Les
chaînes maghrébo-siciliennes courent de Gibraltarà la Sicile et leur avant-pays
est l'Afrique et le bloc pélagien fait partie de cet avant-pays. Du point de vue
de la tectonique globale, il esttu6 immédiatementau sud de la zone d'affron-
tement entre la plaque européenne qui a sa limiteà peu près ici et qui traverse
la Sicile et la plaque africaine qui est au sud.
Question: Professor Mascle, would you like to say something about the geo-
logical characteristics of the Pelagian Block?
Réponse: Pour résumer très simplement, d'assez nombreux profils de sis-
mique réflexion continue faits dans le bloc pélagien et des forages pétroliers
permettent de reconstituer les séries sédimentaires. La série sédimentaire
depasse 4 kilom&tresd'épaisseur. Les terrains sont essentiellement des terrains
carbonatés, c'est-&-dire essentiellement calcaires, et détritiques, c'est-à-dire des
terrains gréseux et argileux. Ils montrent une tendanàediminuer d'épaisseur à
partir du sud vers le nord, ce qui traduit ce que I'on appelle une progradation,
un gain si vous voulez, d'une plate-forme en direction du nord, et ils presentent
quelques intercalations volcaniques assez nombreuses, surtout au crétacé.Lieter-
tiaire, c'est-à-dire les séries relativement récentes,y est peu et marqué par
de frequentes lacunes. Enfin ce bloc a ktéfracturé plusieurs fois depuis deux
cents millions d'années.
Question Before this case have you been aware of any attempt to limit the
area of the Pelagian Block to the region south of the so-called Rift Zone?
Réponse: La seule mention que je connaisse d'une limite possible est celle
qui a étéévoquée parDewey et coauteurs en 1973. Ils ont dessiné un schéma;
sur ce schéma une ligne en «tiret&.» a ététracée correspondant à une limite
meridionale dans le domaine dénommé«Messina plate» sans qu'aucune expli-
cation ou discussion justificative ne soit jointece document. En géologie il
faut noter que, lorsqu'on dessine quelque chose en atiretésm,cela signifie que
c'est une hypothése de travail. Dansle cas particulier c'était une ligne hypothé-
tique. La carte tectonique de Méditerranée qui est présentédeans vos dossiers
avec le numéro de figure 3 est un document très récent. Ellea étéprésentéeau
Congrès géologique international en 1984BMoscou. Elle a étéréalide par une
équipe de tectoniciens franco-soviétiques, à laquelle je n'appartiens pas
d'ailleurs. Cette carte tectonique est le plus récent document de synthese
concernant ce domaine méditerraneenet mêmeplus large, comme vous pouvez
voir, puisqu'il va jusqu'en Iran. Cette carte presente une limite de plaque, une
limite tectonique majeure qui traverse la Sicile, soulignée en rouge sur vos
documents, En conclusion, à part Dewey et ses coauteurs, personne à ma
connaissance n'a placéde limite nord du blocp6lagien ailleurs qu'en Sicile.
Question: So, in conclusion on this matter, Professor Mascle, may the Court
take it that your own view is the same as the view which appears in Figure 3,
narnely that the Pelagian Block is a geological unit?
Réponse: Oui, bien sQr,c'est d'ailleurs évident depuisplus de 200 millions
d'années. La série sédimentaire est la mêmea,ux variations de detail près par-234 CONTINENTAL SHELF
tout, l'évolution structurelle est la même, c'estun domaine qui a kt6 distendu,
étiréà diffkrentes époques,on peut dire que cela s'est produit par exemple vers
100 millions d'années,vers20 millions d'annkes, vers 7 à 8 millions d'années,
à nouveau vers 1 à 1,5 million d'années, il a aussi subi de brèves périodesde
compression: ceci vers 40 millions d'années, ceci vers 10 millions d'années,
vers 3,5 millions d'annees et ces petites phases de compression sont connues
partout enSicile,à Malte, en Tunisie et dans le sud de la mer Pelagieme.
Question: But, despite these vanous developments or changes it still remains
a unity?
Réponse:Mais oui, bien sûr. Imaginez, prenons un exemple, le pain: un pain
est une unité, il présente une croûtequi est fendillée et fendue dessus; lorsque
vous le placez dans un congélateur pourle conserver il se recroqueville un peu
et ses fentes se referment un peu, c'est une compression si vous voulez, mais ça
reste un pain. Quand vous le sortez du congelateur pour le consommer et que
vous le réchauffez ses fentes s'ouvrent hnouveau, c'est encore un pain.
Question: 1hope, Mr. President, that the Court will not think that the Maltese
team is entirely consumed by considerations of a gastronomie character- refer-
ences to a local bread and, on my part, to a layer cake. Professor Mascle, you
are aware of the area which tibya calls the Rift Zone. Could you tell the Court
whether that area is known by the name Rift Zone to geologists?
Réponse:J'ai entendu parler de grabens et de fossés, au pluriel d'ailleurs,
c'est, je peux citer,urollet en 1962; j'ai entendu parler de zones des grabens,
Burollet et ses coauteurs en 1978; d'ailleurs cette expression de zone des gra-
bens de Burollet a kt6 appliquee à toutce qui est situ6 entre la côte Iibyenne et
la Sicile, c'est-&-diretout cet espace-18,L tout cet espace qui serait limité par
Lampedusa et la côte libyenne et Ras Ajdir, si vous voulez, et la Sicile. Rifts
(au pluriel) apparaît dans un texte diAkal en 1972; il apparaît aussi sur une
figure d'Anketel1 en 1980, qui considkre que tout ce qui est situéau nord du
fosst de Jarrafa constitue la «Malta-Medina platform (with young? rifts)».
«With young? rifts» est écrit entre parenthéses et young est suivi d'un point
d'interrogation.
Question: So what it boils do& to is that although many authors have writ-
ten about the presence of rifts in this zone, no one has actually called it the Rift
Zone ?
Réponse :Non.
Question: Well now do the characteristics of this so-called Rift Zone suggest
that it is a single zone, distinguishable as such from the rest of the Pelagian
Block?
Réponse:Je pense qu'il faut distinguer ce qui se passe à l'ouest de Malte et
ce qui se passe au sud et au sud-est. Loinàl'ouest de Malte il ya un fossé, une
fosse, la fosse de Pantelleria, elle est assez profonde et assez large; plus àrés,
l'ouest de Malte toujours, il y a deux fosses, celles de Malte et de Linosa qui
sont kgalement assez profondes et larges; au sud de Malte, en cette région,18,il
y a une dkpression qui est assez peu profonde et qui est assez large et qui ne
mérite pas le nom de fosse. Elle n'a jamais &téappelée ainsi. Enfin au sud-est
de Malte il y a ce couloir qui est étroitet très peu profond qui correspond aux
chenaux de Medina et de Malte.
Question: Pausing there for a moment. Professor Mascle, can you just assist
the Court by telling them what proportion of the Malta Trough actually lies
south of Malta? EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS 235
Réponse: A peu près. Si l'on choisit l'isobathe 1000 c'est à peu près à un
dixiéme.
Question: To go on with your description of the system of trenches in this
area: would you like to continue with that?
R6ponse:Bien, le systeme de fosses dont nous avons parlé correspond struc-
turalement à une sériede fossés tectoniques ou de grabens qui décalent I'hori-
zon repère crétacéde près de 2,5 kilorn&tres.Le decalage des horizons récents
montre que le mouvement de subsidence s'est ralenti récemment, sinon arrêté
parfois.
Question: May 1 just intempt you there to ask how do you show that this
element of subsidence has recently slowed down and perhaps stopped?
Réponse: Lorsque l'on analyse le remplissage sedimentaire des fossés de
Malte, on observe qu'il y a un remplissage qui est d'abord relativement épais
puis plus mince. Ce systhme de fossés tectoniques a un correspondant au sud
des bandes de Medina et de Malte. 11s'agit des fossésde Jarrafa et tripolitain;
fossés deJarrafa-Misurata et fossé tripolitain. Les principales caractéristiques de
tous les fossés sont d'ailleurs donnéesdans le tableau qui est légendé sous le
nom de figure 4 où l'on a choisi de préciser pour chacundes fossés la longueur,
la direction et le déplacement vertical d'un horizon, le toit du crétacé. On
constate que les caractéristiques des fosses tripolitain et de Jarrafa sont du
même ordrede grandeur que celles des fossésde Malte, de Linosa et de Pantel-
leria. Ils présentent le même typede structure, ce sont des grabens aussi, ils
décalent des niveaux récents comme cela a étémontré par les publications de
Blanpied et Bellaiche et également d'ailleurs sur les profils schématiques que
nous a montréM. Jongsma, qui sont annexés dans son document; ils decalent
l'horizon de référencedu crétac6sup6rieur du mêmeordre de grandeur (entre 1
et 3 km) et mêmel'un de ces fossés,Ie fossé tripolitain, est actif sisrniquement
comme cela a étémontré récemment dansun article de M. Ambraseys en 1984.
Par contraste, le décalage des horizons crétacés dans les chenauxde Malte et
de Medina n'atteint pas 500 mhties.
Si je veux conclure, je dirai que la région dénommée Rift Zone parla Libye
n'est pas une zone homogène, on ne peut pas la dissocier du reste du bloc péla-
gien.
Question Looking at the Pelagian Block as a whole would you explain to the
Court the nature of the rifting that occurs thePelagian Block?
Réponse:Ceci nécessite de réaliserce qu'on appellera une synthèse géodyna-
mique ou géotectonique du bloc pélagien. Réaliser une telle synthèse implique
de prendre en compte toutes, je souligne toutes, les donnkes géophysiques et
géologiques disponibles et d'effectuer une analyse de ces données qui soit si
complète que, pour reprendre une expression de Descartes qui a déjhété rappe-
lée en ces lieux,«je fusseassure de ne rien omettre».
Mr. LAUTERPACHT: lust pausing there, you have referred to considerations
or factors ofa geophysical and geological character, so perhaps you might take
each in tum and deal first with the geophysical considerations.
M. MASCLE: Je vais résumerces points:
Premiérement, donc, la séisrnjcité:elle est très faible dans tout le domaine,
sauf dans le sillon tnpolitain.
En second lieu, la gravimétrie: l'anomalie de Bouguer suggere que la croGte
est amincie.236 CONTINENTALSHELF
En troisième lieu,le profil unique de sismique réfractionentre Pantelleria et
Palermo montre que la croilte continentale est sans doute amincie sous le fossé
de Pantelleria.
En quatrième point, la carte du magnétisme:elle a étépubliée par MM. Fi-
nettiet MorelIi en 1973; elle montre des anomalies ponctuelles qui indiquent
la présence d'un corps volcaniqueun peu partout dans le bloc pélagien, plus
nombreux dans les fossésde Pantelleria et de Linosa. Ceci est illustrésur la
figure 8C qui est tiréede M. Finetti. 8C donc sur les figures qui vous ont été
distribuées.
Cinquième point: les profils de sismique réflexion continue publiCs par
Finetti et Morelli (1973) d'une part, par Winnock (1979), Bellaiche et Blanpied
(1979), Jongsma également, montrentla présencede failles récentesdans tous
les fossés et ces failles sont en extension.
Sixiémepoint, la carte bathymétrique: cette carte montrela prédominance de
deux directions majeures B toutes les échelles. Ces deux directions majeures
sont celles-ci: la direction 120, peu près. si vous voulez, et la direction
N60-70. Accessoirement, deux autres directions peuvent êtrenotées: celle de
I'escrvpernentde Malte. ici, qui est N1SO peu près, et puis celle qui est
presque est-ouest, qui correspondau chenal de Medina.
Question W:ell. now having dealt with some of these geophysical considera-
tions, would you like to discuss the geological considerations?
Réponse: Les considérations géologiques, elles sont ausstires nombreuses.
En premier, je reprends l'analyse des profils de sismique réflexion qui nous
montrent les remplissages sédimentaires et l'ampleurdes décalages verticauxet
qui nous permettent de différencier les mouvements successifs le londes frac-
tures. La corrélation entre ces profils permetde vérifier etde preciser les direc-
tions que je viens de définirprécédemment.
En second lieu. l'observation h terre des fractuàeMalte. en Sicile, en Tuni-
sie permet de caractériser lejeu en extension des fractures. Elle permet d'obser-
ver aussi queces fractures n'ont pas jouéune seule fois mais plusieurs.qu'il y a
des jeux successifs,parfoiscontrairesde ces fractures; que certainesfractures peu-
vent êtrereprises en compression.Le modélede ceci est figurésur la figure 5E
qui vous a étt distribuke. Sur cette figure SE, vous pouvez voir un bloc qui
est initialement non fracturé. puis qui est fracturé en extension, donnanutn petit
fossé et,si ce fosséest repris en compression, localement, il peut, suivant la
façon dont est orientéela contrainte de compression, soit jouer comme indiqué
Adroite sur le dessin en inversant lesens des failles, soit jouer en coulissement.
comme c'est indiqué à gauche. sur le dessin de gauche donc, et dans ce cas-là
on s'explique d'avoir parfoisdes images de coulissement dans le bloc maltais.
D'autant plus qu'on saitqu'une compression à peu p*s est-ouest a existédans .
ce domaine.
En troisième point, j'évoquele volcanisme. Le volcanisme est un volcanisme
alcalin.
En quatriéme point. j'evoque le paléomagnétismedes dries sédimentaires.
Les données dece paléomagnétisme montrentque l'ensemble ibléo-maltaisa
pivoté en direction anti-horaire par rapportà tout ce qui est situé au sud du
sillon tripolitain. Les limites sont le sillon tripolitain et le domaine ibléo-mal-
tais. Les donnkes proviennent du bloc ibléo-maltais etde l'Afrique. Cette rota-
tion en sens anti-horaire dure depuis environ huit millions d'années.
Cinquième point, il faut evoquer une appréciationde l'extension de l'étire-
ment, si vous voulez, du bloc. qui montre que l'on a un fosse assez profond,
puis deux, ici. Donc un étirement qui croît en directionde l'est. Et si l'on arrive EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS 237
ici. on aun étirement très faible danscette région-là. Donc,on a une contradic-
tion apparente. Si I'on fait intervenirles autres fossés, la contradictionest levée.
Ceci apparaît, est illustré,si vous voulez, dans la figure 5B qui vous a été dis-
tribuée et qui avaitdéjàetéprésentée à la Cour dans le contre-mémoire maltais,
où I'on voit que plusieurs petits fossés peuvent donnerun étirement plus grand
qu'un seul grand.
Qccesrion:Having set out this series of geophysical and geological factors,
how do you interpret them?
Réporise:II s'agit donc de venirà un modele. Différents modèles ont été pré-
sentés pourcette région. Mescollegues Finetti et Jongsma nous en ont présenté.
Les modèles de MM. Finetti (1982) et Jongsma (1984) sont à peu pres iden-
tiques. Ils considèrentqu'il y a un coulissement, un décalage,si vous voulez, de
la partie nord du bloc en direction de l'est, par rapporà la partie sud. Dans ce
cas, les fossks ici apparaissent comme ce qu'on appelle des «pull apartbasins~
- le terme est passéen français.
J'ai partagéce point de vue jusqu'en 1981 sans toutefois allerjusqu'h placer,
à admettre, l'existence d'une limitede plaque à cet endroit-là. Je considérais
qu'il ne s'agissait qued'une extension en croûte continentale. Mais, et c'est
d'ailleurs parce que je considéraisque ce domaine n'avait pas changé d'orienta-
tion, que, avec mes coll&guesBesse et Pozzi, alors que nous avions besoin.
pour ktudier l'arc calabrais, d'une rgférencestable, fixe, qui n'ait pas bougé,
nous avons choisi de commencer l'étudedu paléomagnétismedans le domaine
ibléen.Et les résultats nous ont apporté une surprise.11 y avait une rotation du
bloc ibléen quele coulissement de ce bloc en direction de I'est n'expliquaitpas.
C'est pourquoi nous avons changk, nous avons interprété,j'ai changé mon
interprétation,et nous avons interprété ceci suivanutn modele diffkrent. Je vou-
drais d'ailleurs, au moyen de la figure 6 qui vous a ét6distribuée, vous montrer
en quoi la rotation n'est pas compatibleavec les modèlesde mes coll&gues.
Donc, sur cette figure 6, la figure 6A est tirbe de M. Finetti et est le modele
proposé - c'est écritd'ailleurs- «Proposed Rift Mode1 - M. Finettin.
Alors, partant de l'état qui est marqué «Early Pliocene», donc il y a quelques
millions d'années,et en ouvrant pour tenir compte de la rotation de 15'. on a la
figure donc 6B qui nous montre que l'on doit avoir un étirement important8 ce
niveau-là.
On peut faire la démarche inverse. Partird'un état actuel donné parM. Fi-
netti sous l'expression «present tirne» et refermer. refermer en effectuant une
rotation de 15" dans l'autre sens. Et, à ce moment-là, on a un recouvrement
important: à ce niveau-18les deux plateaux, les deux morceauxde plateaux, se
recouvrent. J'ai fait le même dessin avecle madi?lede mon colltgue Jongsman
et on voit aussi que I'on a un recouvrement à ce niveau-là.
Donc. si vous voulez, pour tenir compte de toutes les données,il faur arriver
à un modèlede croûte continentale qui s'&tiredavantage à I'est qu'à l'ouest. Ce
modéleest schématisésur la figure 7B. En bas de cette figure 78, vous avez
une sorte d'éventail - c'est l'éventail que vous aveéz voqué - et cet éven-
tail nous montre des parties hachurées, en hachures serrées. Ces parties en
hachures serrées sont cellesqui ont été&tiréesfortement par les failles; suppri-
mez l'étirement provoqué par cefsailles et on obtient ce qui est juste au-dessus.
Donc l'éventailferméavec la rotation de 15"soulignéepar les fltches. Et vous
voyez que, sur un modele de ce type, on est contraint donc d'étirer tout le bloc,
de façon homogéneBgrande échelle,disons.
Question: Please would you tell the Court whether 1have put the handle of
the fan in the right place? 238 CONT~NENTALSHELF
Réponse:Oui, pour déterminer l'emplacement approximatifdu centre de rota-
tion de l'éventail, il faut tenir compte de l'augmentation de l'extension vers
l'est et aussi de la direction des fractures qui décalent les fossés; il y en a une
qui est très nette ici, sur cette carte, etn a une foule d'autres qui sont mar-
quées àpetite échellesurLa figure 7A qui a déjkétéprésentée à la Cour et qui
est undktail de la bathymétrie du fosséde Linosa où I'on voit aussi toutes ces
petites directions qui décalent le front du fossédeosa. Ces petites fractures,
qui sont orientéeiipeu prés AN60, nous donnent la direction de l'ouverture,
elles nous donnent la direction du mouvement et elles imposent donc le61ede
rotation, soit quelque part dans cette direction (entre Sicile, Sardaigne et Tuni-
sie) (fig.B), puisque l'extension est plus grande ici et que la direction du
mouvement est produite par ces lignes.
Question: Now, Professor Mascle, you remember that before Christmas
Professor Bowett made certain criticisms of your maps and your views, as
expressed in your rnernorandurn in the Maltese Counter-Mernorial and also in
the article written by you and Professors Besand Pozzi and Feinberg. Would
you like to comment on those observations of Professor Bowett?
Réponse: La critique portait sur deux points majeurs je pense:
- l'utilisation d'une carte bathyrnétriquepour définir les zonesde fracture; et
- l'observation que la légende qu'une figure publiée par Besse, Pozzi, Fein-
berg et moi-même parlaitde fossés s'élargissant vers l'ouest.
Sur le premier pointe réponds:
Les exemples de carte bathymktrique à toutes échelles montrant les fractures
sont innombrables, j'en ai ici au moins trois exemples venant de l'Atlantique ou
du Pacifique. Les fractures sont toujours marquées par des variations nettes
la bathymétrie.Et si nous désirons prendreun exemple, nous pouvons reprendre
@ i'exemple de la figure 7A du fosse de Linosa qui a déjà étéproduite et qui
nous montre que la bathymétrie du fossé est gouvernéepar la fracture.a carte
IBCM n'&happe pas à la règle. II est au moins aussi légitime de definir les
directions de fractureàpartir de cette carte que d'interpoler des profils de sis-
mique réflexion continue et de dessiner des fractures entiretés» comme cela
apparaît sur les documents présentés hier parmon ami Jongsma. En geologie
l'usage est de figurer en «tiretes» des structures hypothktiques, c'est-&-dire non
verifiees.
Sur le deuxième point l'article qui a étépublBeEarth and plane ta^ Science
Letters porte en légende de la figur3 que les fossés s'élargissent vers l'ouest.
C'est kvidemment une erreur d'impression qui a échappé à l'imprimeur. En
effet. d'une part la figure montre le contraire, d'autre part il suffisait de lire le
texte sous la figure page386, dernière ligne de la colonne de gauche et cinq
premitres lignes de la colonne de droite:
«This result is consistent with contemporaneous extensional tectonics in
the Pelagian Sea as shown by the alkaline Plio. Quatemary volcanism,
steep normal faults and "en relais" graben widening from West to east
(fig. 8).»
Au demeurant ce qui est important ce n'est pas tant la largeur d'un fossé que
l'extension qu'il représenteet celle-ci, l'extension, est fonction ducement
vertical le long des failles. Un fosse large et peu profond est moins étiréqu'un
fossé plus étroit et plus profond, jeai figuréschtmatiquement pour expliquer
cela àla Cour sur la figure 6D oh I'on voit un m&mebloc, représenté à la fois
sous forme de deux coupes et sous forme d'un bloc diagramme, un même bloc EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS 239
qui a étéétirépar un fossé profondet par le même fossé moins profonedt plus
large. ,
Question: Having dealt with those cnticisms that were made of you, can 1
pass on to another point. You are aware that Libya has advanced the proposition
that the Rift Zone constitutes a fundamental discontinuitybetween what Libya
considers as Malta's shelf, and the rest of the Pelagian Block to the south of the
Rift Zone. Do you agree with that proposition?
Réponse: L'expression de discontinuité fondamentale n'appartient pas h la
terminologie géologique,et le concept lui-même n'apparaîn tulle part.
J'ai expliqd tout à l'heure que de part et d'autre des fossésla série sédimen-
taire est la même à des détailsprèset que la structure y est trèssimple, c'est un
plateau faillé,ce qu'on appelle en tectonique une structure tabulaire. Elle est la
mêmede tous les côtés,on est en prksenced'une continuité telle qu'ilest illégi-
time d'invoquer une discontinuité fondamentale.
Question: We really have here a situation of a single Pelagian BIock and
nothing that you would understand or recognize as a fundamental discontinuity
- that is clear. Now, you arealso aware that Libya considersthat a plate boun-
daryexists within the Rift Zone.Would you iike to comment on that suggestion
- the existence of a plate boundary?
Réponse:Qu'est-ce qu'une limite de plaque? Une définitionen est fournie
dans cet ouvrage de Le Pichon, Francheteauet Bonnin: Plate Tecfonics 1973.
éditépar Elsevier dansla serieDevvloprnentsin Geoiectonics, no6. Au chapitre 2,
page 3. définition,on lit:
«The plate tectonics hypothesisexplains the tectonics and seismic acti-
vity now occumng within the upper layer of the earth as resulting from the
interaction oa small number of large rigid plates whose boundaries arethe
seismic belts of the wor1d.n
Et plus loin: *This is the fundamental premise of plate tectonics: the seismic
belts are zones where differential movements between rigid plates occurn; et
encore un peu plus loin: *One can then proceed to define simply the bounda-
ries of the plates using seismicit...»
Question: Now that you have referred to seismicity, perhaps you wouldtell
the Court something about the nature of seismicity in this region?
Réponse:Quelle est la séismicitédans la région? Lesséismes sont fréquents
dans l'arc calabro-sicilien. en Calabre et en Sicile en liaison avec la subduction
tyrrhénienne.Tlssont très rares dans le systèmePantelieria-Linosa-Malte (voir
par exemple la figure 4 de mes amis Jongsma et van Hinte presentte hier) et,
dans deux cas connus, ils sont liés à des éruptions volcaniques (en 1831 et en
1891).Ils sont un peu plus fréquentsdans le sillon tripolitain eàterre en Libye
comme cela était souligne dans un article récentde N. N. Ambraseys (1984,
parudans The O.G.S. Silver Anniversary Volume, 1958-1983. Contributions to
Modern Geophysics and Oceanology: Bollerinodi Geofiica Teorericaed Appli-
catu. vol. 26, no 103, p. 143-153).
Donc la sbismicitédans le bassin Pélagienn'aneinr pas l'intensité caractéris-
tique d'une frontièrede plaque. Si cette carte est assez lumineuse de loin. on
voit que les ceintures séismiquessont soulignées pardes points rouges qui cor-
respondent aux épicentres(il s'agit d'une carte de la séismicité mondiale
publiéeen 1974 (US Geological Survey, 1974), par des points rouges et des
points verts aussi dans certaines zones. On voit que les ceintures séismiques
existent dans les dorsales intra-ockaniques, celle-ci, dorsale spécifique,celle-ci,240 CONTiNENTAL SHELF
la dorsale médio-Atlantique, qu'il y en a énormémentdans l'arc égéen en Italie.
dans I'arc de Calabre en Sicile, qu'il y en a aussi en d'autres points tout autour
du Pacifique et que le bassinpelagien est pratiquement indemne de séismicité.
Donc la séismicitédans le bassin pélagien n'a aucun rapport avec la seismi-
citéd'une frontièrede plaque.
pueslion: We have heard quite a lot about the televance of volcanism to
boundaries. Perhaps you would like to speakabout that subject?
Réponse: Le volcanisme n'est pas une caracteristique des seules frontières de
plaque. Il existe un très abondant volcanisme intra-plaque (inside the plate):
deux exemples suffisent. Celui du volcanisme du système de fossésdu Massif
central et du fossé rhénan qui sont représentés pour voussur les figures 8A et
8B. Ceci pour choisir un exemple en croûte continentale. Et en croûte océanique
il y a aussi les volcans importants intra-plaque. Vous voyez tout cet immense
espace. c'est la plaque pacifique. Ici au centre il y a le plus gros volcan du
monde. le volcan de Hawaii. et on a toute une chaîne volcanique ici, la chaine
Hawaii, qui se poursuit d'ailleurs par des volcans éteints, des Empereurs. On a
d'autres chaînes volcaniques dans le Pacifique. Le plus gros volcan du monde
n'est pas sur une frontière de plaque. II existe en Méditerranéeun volcanisme
caractéristique de limite de plaque. C'est celui de limitesde convergence, celui
de I'arc éolien (tyrrhknien) et celui de l'arc égéen,le volcan de Santorin par
exemple.
Question: Yesterday you heard the development by Professor longsma of
certain criteria relevant to the definition of the plate block. Wouid youcare to
comment on what Professor Jongsma said?
Réponse: Mon ami Jongsma hier aexaminé une sériede critéresqui pour lui
peuvent êtreconsidérés comme témoignand te frontière de plaque. II ne nous a
pas précisé sices critères devaient être pris tous ensembleou séparément. TIa
citéla séismicité, la présence de failles, les variations d'altitude, les indications
de rotation, le flux de chaleur et l'activité volcanique.Si on prend ces critères
tous ensemble il faut tenir compte de la séismicité.Je viens de parler de la séis-
micité,il n'y a donc pas de limite de plaque ou de microplaque au sens entendu
par Jongsma hier. Si on les prend un par un, ce n'est pas une frontiére de
microplaque qu'il y a dans le bloc pélagien, c'est plusieurs. en particulier, au
sud des bancs de Medina et de Malte, puisque Jongsma, van Hinte et Woodside
écrivent. page 14 de leur texte: ((Crusta1blocks such as Medina Bank appear to
have been rotated during the early phase of wrenching.r Ainsi h leur sens, au
sens que proposait Jongsma hier, on est conduit à placer des limites de plaque
dans le fosse tripolitain, dans le fosséde Jarrafa,dans celui de Malte et dans
celui de Linosa, il y aurait au moins quatre microplaques.
Question: So how do you like to compare. ..?
Réponse: Je préfère m'en tenir à la définition originelle de Le Pichon. Il n'y
a pas de frontiérede plaque ou microplaque dans la «Rift Zone».
Question: You have been speaking about the question of the existence of a
plate boundary. Would you like to talk for a moment about the possibility of
plate boundary in formation - the idea of an incipient plate boundary which
we have heard? What evidence is there in support of. or contrary to, this hypo-
thesis?
Réponse: Dans le monde il existe des limites de plaque qui sont récentes.
Pour s'en tenir aux limites en extension, en étirement, deux exemples existent:
la mer Rouge, qui a et6 évoquéehier par M. Finetti. et le golfe de Californie. EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS 241
Tous les deux sont caractériséspar une séismiciteassez importante et aussi par
l'apparition decroQteoceanique.
Quesrion:How long does it take for a pIate boundary to develop? Could we
have a plate boundary developing between 1982 and 1984?
Réponse: Le temps demandépar une marge pour atteindre son étatde marge,
c'est-&-dire' le temps pour que s'effectue l'effondrement complet, ce qu'on
appelle la subsidence initiale, varie entre cinq et vingt millions d'annees. II
dépendde l'intensitéet surtout de la continuitéde l'étirement. Lorsque se pro-
duit un étirement brutal de la croûte continentale il s'ensuit un effondrement,
donc la créationd'un ou plusieurs fossés.La subsidence peut durer entre cinq et
vingt millions d'années etle remplissage sédimentaire atteindre trois à quatre
kilometreç; quelques volcans alcalins peuvent se manifester. Si l'étirementne se
renouvelle pas, le phenomhe cesse, si le fosse est proche de sources de sédi-
ments il se remph, il se comble, sinon il reste une dépression. En particulier,
s'il est émergCil a peu de chance de se combler parce qu'il sert souvent de
zone de transit pour les cours d'eau. par exemple toujours le fossérhénanqui
étaitprésenté à la figure 8B tout& l'heure. Ce fossérhénans'est produit il y a
environ quarante millions d'années. Il a kt6 rempli d'environ 2 kilomètres de
sédiments et il a présentéquelques volcans alcalins encore très récents.II s'y
manifeste encore d'ailleurs unetrès faible activite sismique et ce n'est pas une
frontière de plaque. La même chose s'est produite il y a beaucoup plus long-
temps. il y a cent cinquante millions d'années, dans ce qui est maintenant la
mer de Norvtge (Northern North Sea) et cet effondrement, à cette époque18,a
produit les bassins de More et de Viking Trough qui sont montrésen coupe sur
la figure 7C. De ces bassins il y a eu un étiremententre la partie Shetland et la
partie continentale norvégienne - un étirement qui n'estpas négligeable: il a
atteint 70 kilomètres. c'est-à-dire que deux points qui étaien?il'origineà une
certaine distance se sont trouves plus éloignesde 70 kilometres, et ceci c'est un
bassin qui a évoluéen croûte continentale étir6eet qui n'est jamais devenu une
frontièrede plaque.
Mr. LAUTERPACHT: Well, Professor Mascle, that concludes the questions 1
would like to ask you. Thank you very much indeed. Mr. President, if it is
agreeable to you, may 1now cal1Professor Morelli? Before 1 describe Professor
Morelli's qualifications perhaps it would be convenient if he were to make the
declaration.
Professor MORELLI: 1 solemnly declare upon my honour and conscience
that 1 will speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and that
my statement will be in accordance with my sincere belief.
Mr. LAUTERPACHT: Mr. President, Professor Morelli is the professor of
applied geophysics at the University of Trieste and has been such for over 20
years. He founded the Osse~atorio Geofisico Spenmentale in Trieste and was
Director of it from 1951 to 1962 and its President from 1963 to 1975. In 1975
he was awarded the Gold Medal for Culture and Arts by the Minister of Public
Instruction ofItaly. He has been President of many learned bodies specializing
in his area. For example, President of the European Association of Exploration
Geophysicists, and President of the European Geophysical Society. Indeed his
fame goes wider than that; he has been President of the international Gravity
Commission of the International Association of Geodesy, as well as Vice-Presi-
dent of the Intergovernrnentar Oceanographic Commission of Unesco.
At the present time he is chairman of a number of groups: the Sub-Commis-
sion for Deep Seismic Sounding of the European Seismological Commission;242 CONTINENTALSHELF
chairman of the Committee for Geology and Geophysics of the International
Commission for the Scientific Study of the Mediterranean Sea; chairman of the
editorial board for the Overlay Sheets to the IBCM, which has so often been
referred to at this Court; andhairman of the National Group for Physics of the
Solid Earth of the CNR.
He is a member of the Scientific Review Board of the [OC, of the NATO
Scientific Committee, and of the Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere e Arti.
More than tl-tat.he is the author of 255 scientific publications including a major
book on gravimetry running to 800pages. He has been a specialist in the geo-
physics of the Mediterranean sea-bed since 1953, when he beganto carry out a
gravity survey of the Adriatic Sea. Subsequently that survey was extended to
the whole of the Mediterranean.
The Court is aware that in 1973 Professor Morelli wrote with Professor
Finetti a major study on the geophysical exploration of the Mediterranean Sea,
of which part related to the Strait of Sicily and the Pelagian Sea.
In 1975 he wrote with Dr. Gantar and Dr. Pisani a study entitled "Bathy-
metry, Gravity and Magnetism in the Strait of Sicily and in the Ionian Sea". In
1981 he published "Gravity Anomalies and Coastal Structures Connected with
the Mediterranean Margins". And since then he has maintained a specialist
interest in the Strait of Sicily and the Pelagian Sea by taking a leading part in a
research group active in the preparation of the International Bathymetric Chart
of the Mediterranean. Eighty per cent of the data used in the preparation of
those maps was surveyed by the Trieste group, the Ossematore Geofisico Speri-
mentale under his leadership.
1should add that the association of Professor Morelli with Malta's case goes
no further back than Decernber of this past year, that is to say the end of the
hearings of the first stage of the present case.
Well now, Mr. President, 1will be putting a numtier of questions to Professor
Morelli which are similar to those which have been put to Professor Mascle, but
I wiil not expect Professor MoreIli to answer in identical tems but rather by
reference to a different range of materials and ta his own personal experience.
Question: Professor MoreIli, may 1begin with the first question which relates
to the concept of the Pelagian Block, Would you describe to the Court its boun-
daries and its geological characteristics?
Answer: 1thank you, and will you permit me to Sayhow honoured 1 am to be
appearing here in front of the Court, and 1thank you for this honour.
The boundanes of the Pelagian Block have already been described at least
three times here in this room yesterday and today so it is really simple just to
recall them. To the south - Libya, to the West - Tunisia and exactly the
north-south high Jine in the centre of this aiea. To the north - Sicily. The
boundary of the Block is the boundary of Afnca in that area. Africa is in
contact with Europe below the mountains in northem Sicily. This is demon-
strated in many geophysical manners.
I will not enter into discussion of the boundaries there, the unique plate boun-
dary that we have in the area. To the east the boundary is the Malta-Medina
Escarpments. This is the outline of the boundaries.
Quesrion: Would you care to go on and Say something about the observation
of the relevant geophysical data on the basis of which one can speak about the
Pelagian Sea?
Answer : This has also been recalled in this room. The Osservatorio Geofisico
Sperimentale of Trieste has done a large amount of survey in al1the Mediterra- EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS 243
nean, and in particular in the Pelagian Sea area. We were also told yesterday
that almostal1 the surveys in the area are based on this original material. This
material consists of 212,000 kilometres of gravimetric, magnetic and bathy-
memc lines and 30,000, until 62 and subsequentlyother ones, lines of seismic pro-
files. The material permitted to gain immediately new information on the geolo-
gical and geophysical situation in the Mediterranean. But we are now at least
12 years from the first publication andvery moment new ideas are coming and
new studies are coming,
Quesrion: On the basis of the data that have been published are you in a
position todescribe the terminology which has been used in connection with the
Pelagian Block, and in particular whether the name "the Sicily Channel Rifting
Area" has been used, and so on?
Answer: That area was described initially by Professor Burollet, who is a
great expert in geology. He has passed al1his life- 40 years of it- in Tuni-
sia and the Pelagian Sea area and he has named this area Pelagian Sea and
Pelagian Block. Later on, from the studies that we had then, and especially
from the seismic studies, it became very clear that this area was a single area,
al1 between the boundaries descnbed, and this was very clearly a sedimentary
area; and the sedimentary strata can be followed very nicely from the seismical
data. And so in a subsequent paper Professor Finetti gave it a name which is
also indicative of what he was thinking at the time of this area and on which
obviously 1 agree perfectly; he said "Sicilian Afncan Platform" in describing
the essence of this area. Now the Pelagian Block is named in this publication
that you have as Figure 15 in the folder. This is the Sicilian African Platform
- called "platform" because geologically it ia platfom, and 1 have mentioned
and specified already the results.
In Dur paper Finetti, Morelli, 1973,the summaryof the area was presented
for the first time. In the Strait of Sicily there is an absolute continuity of the
continental Afncan Plate from Tunisia-Libya to the Ragusa Massif with Ter-
tiary and Mesozoic sediments that in the central part of the Strait seemed to be
predominantly a platform and intersected by a rifting geodynamics which was
still active.
This came out by the, 1 would Say, famous profile MS-19 that you have also
seen yesterday which we will examine also very bnefly in a short time because
from this profile came out the first evidence of fractures. We have fracture here,
fracture here, fracture everywhere. In the same paper - this was in the sum-
mary - in concluding the part devoted to the Pelagian Block (p. 304) it was
said that al1the above-mentioned elements lead to the conclusion that the area
of the Strait of Sicily constitutes a zone of continuity of the African plate from
the emergent continent of the Ragusa Massif.
Moreover, it is evident that in the central part of the Pelagian Sea there exists
a rifting process probably of an early age and still active. So it was clear from
the beginning that we have the continuation of the African Plate till Sicily and
that we have this rifting phenomenon going on and this is the main argument in
Ourdiscussion of this morning.
Question P:ofessor Morelli, before Professor Finetti used the expression the
"Sicily Channel Rift Zone" in his paper of 1984, are you aware of the use of
that expression in the literature?
Amwer: No, in reality he has used another term in a previous paper, This
was the "Sicily Channel Rifting Area", and this was published in 1982. All the
references are in this folder and the referencare published as Figure 21 in the244 CONTINENTAL SHELF
folder, so you can see al1 the references. In this paper of 1982 he said "This
Sicily Channel Rifting Area is continuous al1 along the Pelagian Sea from the
Tunisian extremity to the Ionian Sea." Now, this is the new concept. He is
introducing the concept of the continuity of the rifting from the n~rih-western
part to the south-eastern part. Later on in the paper of 1984, also mentioned
here, this narne was converted into "Sicily Channel Rift Zone", and obviously
this willbe the main object of the foilowing discussion.
Question: Before this case, had you been aware of any attempt to limit the
concept of the Pelagian Block to the area south of the so-called Rift Zone?
Answer: To rny knowledge, no.
Question: 1sit your view that the Pelagian Block is geophysically a unit?
Answer: 1 agree completely on this point and 1 would like to bring some
explanations just to show how this opinion is based. The geophysical unity of
the Pelagian Block iesults from al1 the avaiIable geophysical data. The refiec-
tion seismic profiles permit us to follow the reflections throughout the entire
region, and to construct on the maps al1the main stratigraphic horizons - this
is what Professor Finetti said yesterday - "stratigraphic continuity". For
example, see the rnap of the top of the Miocene and of the top the Mesozoic
presented as Figures 18 and 19 by Finetti in 1984. These horizons can be fol-
lowed al1over the area, in depth, obviously.
Very clear statements on the geological continuity have already been men-
tioned, so let us now pass on to gravity data. Thegrrtvitydata are almost uniform
al1over the area and demonstrate the continuity of the continental cmst. This is
shown in Figure 14 in the folder. 1 would like you to lookjust for a moment
with me at Figure 14, which isrelevant to the case because we have to make
some deductions from the figures. The area of the Meditemanean isshown in a
very reduced, or condensed, form. This is a very condensed or reduced form of
the area that is normally in the Mediterranean. After the coffee break1wiIl pre-
sent the originals on a larger scale on the blackboard. But you can see that the
gravity anomalies which describe the situation are practically absolutely uni-
form in al1the parts of the Pelagian Block with the exception of the centre of
Sicily in which a very thick sedimentary basin is present and with very strong
negative anomalies - but this has nothing to do with Our case - and in the
north-western area practically in what is called the sector of the nfting area.
that is the area of the three main grabens. All the rest is absolutely unifoand,
moreover, we can see that the gravities are normally negative but they are com-
prised between zero and 50 mGals - the equidistance is 50 rnGals. So practi-
cally the area is very flat. What does this mean? This means that in the area we
do not have any mass variation in depth capable of influencing the gravity field
itself. We do not have any big magmatic body, that is the mantle, corning near
the surface. We do not have any big variation in the ihickness of the crust. This
is also another very important argument that we will consider.
If you permit, 1would like just to indicate what is thegeneral situation of the
crust, because yesterday it was ais0 discussed at this point. Wecan consider the
normal cmst - by normal 1 mean absolutely flat, without mountains and
without depressions - a plateau like this. The cmst has a thickness of approxi-
mately 30 kilometres and here at the bottom of the cmst there is a discontinuity
normally called moho. 1 am sony to repeat this because 1 know it has ken
mentioned many times in this room - 30 kilometres is the thickness.The mean
density of the cmst is 2.67, and that of the mantle 3.3. so we have a difference
of 0.6 in density, which is the difference supporting the cmst. EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS 245
Now, let us suppose that the weight is increased by a mountain. Obviously
this weight requires an increase in the force of Archimedes to maintain the cmst
in equilibrium. So, the mountain is increasing the weight, the root is also
increasing the weight,and the manile must go down. The root, as it is called, this
is the root of the mountain, is approximately4.5 times the height. If you have a
mountain 2 kilometres high, like the Dolomites or a similar mountain, the root
will bedeeper than 30 kilornetres. Thus the root of the Alps is 39 kilometres
generally speaking. In the Himalaya the root is 80 kilometres, and so on. In this
case - and 1cal1 your attention now to this conclusion - we have sifted the
crusral rnaterial which is lighr below, that is into, the rnantle. If wemake a gra-
vity profile we will notice that we have a negative Bouguer anomaly. And this
has corne in because that crust is thicker. Let us look at the opposite case. Let
us go to an ocean. This is the sea surface, this is the sea bott-m 1exaggerate
too much. Here we have the water 1.0 density. Obviously in this case the
mantle is coming nearer to the surface, and this antiroot is of the order of 2.8
times the depth of the water. So if we have an ocean of Say 3 kilometres depth,
we will have approximately 9 kilometres of antiroot. Of course this means that
the crust will not be30 kilometres but 21 kilometres.
1mentior?this because in the central area where we have the big grabens, as
has already been said many times, thickness of the cmst is dirninishing. But if
the thickness of the crust is diminishing this is automatically bringing the
mantle nearer to the surface and this immediately causes a positive Bouguer
anomaly. This is the general rule. The profiles indicate that it is fractuüted in
certain points: we have grabens, manygrabens. This situation,as has already been
said, denves from the fact that thearea has been subjected to powerful forces in
the past, subjected to compressions, subjected to distensions. The actual phase
of the formation of this graben came from this distension. If you have disten-
sion. you have a separation of this block and this block can tilt and go down.
So practically you can have - 1 make now another scheme - you can have a
certain block like this, which has gone down, let us Say, 2 kilometres as we
have said. The fault is, 1 do not say lubricated, it has not the resistance of the
rest of the rock, so it is able to make vertical movements because it is broken.
Then if this is the mantle, if here we have 2 kilometres of water. the mantle
will come up by 2.8 x 2 kilometres, the distance is 6 kilometres and we will
have a mantle not at 30 but at 24 kilometres. If you remember the table that
Professor Mascle has presented, we have in some grabens a vertical shift
downwards of 3 kilometres andthis brings the mantle at 20 kilometres. The
crust is reduced to 20 kilometres, which indicates (not proves because we do
not have a seismic profile) a seismic reflection profile passing exactly in this
area. But the indications coming from the profile of Gargano and Pantelleria are
in this direction. Gravity confirms this. So, the mountain is coming nearer to
the surface and the anomaly will be positive; and this isan argument that must
be recalled later on.
QuestionT :hat explanation, Professoi Morelli, was in relation to the rele-
vance of the gravity data and their contribution to demonstrating the continuity
of the continental crust?
Answer: Exactly.
TheCourt adjournedfmrn 11.20am. ta 11.35o.m.
Mr. LAUTERPACHT:Professor Morelli, before the coffee break you were
speaking about the geophysical unity of the Pelagian Block resulting from the246 CONTINENTAL SHELF
available geophysical data. You had spoken of the reflection siesrnic profiles
and you have been dealing with the gravity data and 1 believe that you would
now go on to consider the question of the rnagnetic field.
Professor MORELLI: Yes, exacdy, and 1 apologize for having entered into
such details, but it was important to see that bathymetry is correlated with crus-
ta1thickness and is also correlated with gravity anomalies, so when we speak of
the three'arguments they will always be connected. they are not independent.
Another thing that came out is that if we consider the bottom of the Pelagian
Sea we can imagine what is the bottom of the crust. Then if we connect gravity
this is another argument and so this can follow nicely. Coming back to Figure
14, which we examined before, we see that in the Pelagian Sea there is no sign
in gravity of a relevant fundamental discontinuity nor of any relevant cmstal
variations apart from what has already been said. Let us now go to the magnetic
field. The magnetic field is, as you can see in Figure 15, fairty regular, but
much more regular in the area West of the Malta-Medina Escarprnent than in
the area of the Gulf of Sirt, and what are al1 these anomalies along the Malta
Escarpment? These magnetic anomalies are in correspondence with magma
coming near the surface. and maybe sometimes also volcanos, along the faults
of this very big system of faults which we cal1the Malta-Medina Escarpment.
In the south-eastern part onefinds spread and diffused magnetic anomalies.
This is of no interest to us. In the Pelagian Block we have obviously a
concentration of magnetic anomalies in the area to the north-west where there
are volcanos; they areal1young so they are al1connected with magnetic anoma-
lies. This is well known. They appear also in the south-eastern part and this is
like the earthquakes- they are spread al1over the Pelagian Block.
Question: Having spoken of the magnetic field do you think it would be
helpful to go on to consider the question of bathyrnetry?
Answer: Yes, bathymetry itself is a physical fact which sometimes does not
receive proper attention, because from bathymetry. as you well know, many
things can be deduced. In bathymetry, as has already been indicated, the three
big grabens al1lie to the area Westand south-west of Malta. They are al1closed
and are separated iopographic features, and they are also limited in lengtPr&
fessor Mascle has presented a table this morning. with al1the pertinent data.
The eastern sector of the Pelagian Block, between Sicily and the Gabes-
Tripoli-Misurata Basin, is a quite different thing because it is a single plateau
which 1have been calling the Malta Platform, Medina Rise and Melita Plateau,
and which is very clearly to be seen from IBCM. Incidentally, 1 have presented
on the wall the pertinent sheet of IBCM, Number 8, and the original sheets on a
750.00 scale, which were published in 1975.This is the original publication of
thegeophysical data - gravity, magnetic and bathymetry. You can see very
clearly that there is no discontinuation, which is very nice; then you have here
this Medina Bank and then you have here the Melita Bank. The colours are not
as strong as yesterday. but between the banks we have. we know,two channels
to the east, the Medina Channel which continues with the Heron Channel and
the Malta Channel which continues to the north-east; they are of limited depth
(600 metres) permitting the transfer of the deep water from the eastern to the
western Meditemean, eroding the surface of the Pelagian Block which is a
continental bridge separating the two parts of the Meditemanean. To the south
of the Medina Bank we have another channel IO which 1 draw your attention
because we have to come back to it again. The same thing can also be seen
here with more detail - the three grabens and then the banks and so on as 1
have described. EVIDEVCEOF EXPERTS 247
Question A: moment ago you said something about the flow of water in the
area. Were you referring to the lower currents or the upper currents'?
Answer: 1 was referring to the lower currents because they are of interest at
the bottom. The situation is this; in the Sicily Channel area the Atlantic waters
enter, passing to the north of Africa, and going to the Eastern Mediterranean as
surface water. It seems not true because they are nonnally colder. but the
Levantine waters are hotter but denser - that is they have more salinity - so
coming back they cross the Pelagian Blockas bottom water.
Question: So the situation is that there are in facr currents in two directions;
currents from the south-eastto the nurth-west which represent the lowercurrents;
currents from thenorth-west to the sourh-eastwhich represent the uppercumnts?
Answer: Yes.
Question: And is itright that the:currents that come frorn the north-west ro
the south-east are not limited in theirdirection simply to this but in fact spread
out?
Answer: They make currents, they turn around; they in fact distribute them-
selves in al1the eastem Mediterranean.
Quesrion: Well, 1think you might want to say something about bathymetric
profiles?
Answer: 1have made a bathymetric profile along the15O meridian from north
to south. This is to see the difference, a comparison with the two bathymetric
profiles thatOur Libyan colleagues have presented in the written parts. If you
make a profile from the north to the south, you see the results with the same
data, with the same vertical exaggeration presented in Figure 16. So stürting
from the north. that is from the left side looking at the figure, from Sicily you
go through the Malta Platfonn which isobviously very flat. then you enter the
Malta Channel and the Medina Channel in which you have this exceptionally
studied and discussed volcano, becüuse it is an isolated volcano and it is very
nicely represented in thefigure.Then you continue along the Medina Rise enter-
ing the Tripolitanian Furrow, coming to the Libyan Coast. So practically it suf-
fices here only to indicate that there is no major topographic accident in this
area. We do not have the big grabens, we do not have the things that have been
discussed in the western area. The geologists Saythar this is high, looking at the
structures and the profiles so often cited here,s an area which is comparatively
high, in many senses. also in depth- relative to the rest of the area.
Quesrion: Well. would you like to Say something about the activity in the
area as revealed by seisrnic profiles?
Annver: So,this is a new argument. and again, I must apologize if we will
lose a few minutes to examine this. because this is. I would Say,of fundamental
importance in the further discussion. If 1can cal1your attention to Figure 17 in
the folder: this isthe planernetry of the profiles in the area. The same plane-
metry is in the transfer sheet that they have taken away, but it can be brought
back.
And so, 1 have reviewed the profiles which areinteresting in the present case.
Firs~of al], 1would Sayclassical MS-19. the profile which mns from the north-
Westof Malta. Let us look at the symbols. which are on the bottom. There are
faults which don't reach the recent sediments and which are therefore older, and
there are faults thatcutal1the sediments including the most recent ones, there-
fore ihey are very Young.They are indicated with this sign. old and active. Here
are grabens. and also the grabens cm be old or new; that is they are either not248 CONTINENTAL SHELF
touching the bottom, or they are active also now; thai is they cross the bottom,
and the recent sediments are displaced by the formation of the graben, or the
movements of the graben.
So. starting from the north-east, we have the Caltanisetta basin, which is a
very wide sedimentary basin, which has nothing to do with the present case.
Then we come to the Malta horst, it's written "The Malta Horst" which is the
continuation of Maltu and Gozo - the high. Incidentally, it has also been
explained that al1 the area of the Pelagian Block has been submitted to very
intense vertical rnovements, and so for most of the time itsettled down, but at a
certain moment it came up, or we have differential movement, vertical move-
ment. So a relalive high is a horst, a relative low is a graben. From the Malta
horst we enter the Malta Graben, that we cross in section, and we cross also
with a profile MS-14. You see, the Malta Graben is practically active in al1the
parts,because the older faults came in through the surface of the bottom. Then
we have a high again, then later on another graben, the continuation of the
Linosa Graben, which is very clearly demonstrated by very active faults again.
Then we have a small high which is called on the map "Boribank" and then we
enter the Tunisiari Plateau. The Plateau isan absolutely flat, 100-kilometre-long
platform without any accident.
Now, let us see what happens on the parallel profile which is called MS-20.
And let's start again from the north-east. Starting from the north-east there is
first the platform- which platform? - the Malta Platform; and then there is
the Malta Channel. The Malta Channel is not active because. as you can see,
faults are not coming to the surface; it's a small graben. in any case. Then,
continuing to the south-west, there is the Medina Graben and the Medina Bank.
Between Malta and the Medina Bank, there is again a horst high. In reality the
Medina Graben is a sedimentary basin, because it's very regular and no faults
are crossing the surface. Continuing, we have the Medina Bank, again a plateau,
no faults crossing it. And we find, this is some surprise, before arriving at the
Melita Bank, we find the Melita Graben again. The Melita Graben is below the
surface. The Melita Bank continues to the south-west, and then we come to the
Jarrafa Trough. The Jarrafa Trough, as you can see, is very fraclured and active
because faults are coming in most parts through the bottom; so the Jarrafa
Trough. which has been declared dead, is r~otdead in any sense, it's working,
active likeal1the other grabens of the Pelagian Sea.
Let's continue. We reach the Tripolitanian Graben, and we find the same
thing. The Tripolitanian Furrow, the big topographie accident in the southem-
most part of the Pelagian Sea, is again active. And this is one of the main dis-
coveries coming from the seismic data. We knew th;it the graben were, in many
parts. still active. Professor Finetti has declared yesterday, and 1repeat it today.
this activity is diminishing. There is this faulting, this very important argument
which we are considering, and which has been so important in the last few mil-
lion years, especially in the last two million years, which is decreasing. Whether
it will stop or not, this is another thing. But it is dirninishing. This is a general
feature of al1the Pelagian Block, not only of the so-called graben ma.
And cm 1say something of the nfting?
Mr. LAUTERPACHT: Yes, indeed.
Professor MORELLI: What you see now is the relief on the bottom. that is
the bathymetry. This, as 1 said, is the result of a very long tectonic activity.
And any textbook of geology will tell you that this is the consequence of the
strong actionsbetween the African Plate to the south, and the European to the
north. These collide and since the material is ngid and brittle it is fractured. 1 EV~DENCE OF EXPERTS 249
present here the research of quite recent studies which were published in 1984,
which has nothing to do with the present case, because they are completely out-
side of the problem. Figure 22, please, in your folder. And you see that the
main faults in the area under discussion have the following direction. First of
all, we have in a north-east/south-easr direction the faults which bound the big
grabens - the faults that have been discussed by Professor Mascle this morn-
ing - and they are in an anticlockwise direction. Then we have the north-
eastlsouth-west faults affecting the Medina and Melita Banks. also anticlock-
wise. And in Italy we cal1 them Appennine trend and anti-Appennine trend,
north-west/south-east, north-eastlsouth-west. Then there are the eastlwest faults
which are interesting, especially the central-most part, in particular the Sahel-
Medina area, and indeed they are also dextral. And finally we have the
northlsouth faults which are specially valid and active in the southemmost Pela-
gian Sea, but also in the northwestem parts and you can see the continuation in
the Tyrrhenian Sea. So, practically everywhere there are faults. Now, because
we have north-westlnorth-easdnorth-soua tndleccord-inwgo the differ-
ent tectonic origins of the forces, one or the other force was active, and of
course the result is drifting, because that is the meaning of active. The fault is
drifting, breaking, rifting. So this is again a general picture of the area, showing
that riftings a general phenomenon in the Pelagian Blockarea.
Question Professor Morelli, just before you put away Figure 22, the structu-
ral map of the Central Mediterranean taken from the article by Bocaletti, could
you perhaps just tell the Court whether you see on that map any indication of a
fundamental discontinuity in the Rift Zone?
Answer: No, but 1 have already said before that 1don't see any fundamental
discontinuity in the Pelagian Block, so. . .
Mr. LAUTERPACHT:I'rrn eally asking you in relationto this veryrecent map.
Professor MORELLI: No. The reply is always the same. And since you
called again attention to this map, 1 would like to call the attention of the Court
to what is happening to the north of the Medina Bank. You see, from the rnap,
ail the area going from Sicily tiithe Medina Bank is completely quiet. No
major interruption of any type, apart from the small channels which, as we have
seen, are minor topographie features.
Question: So what conclusion do you draw from that complete quietness in
the area? Does that affect the continuity of the Rift Zone?
Answer: No. It does not affect the continuity of this Malta Platform and the
Medina Platfom. This is what 1am saying. You don't have any faults here.
Question: In other words, it establishes the continuity on the north/south
plain?
Answer: Exactly, what 1said before.
Question: Establishes the discontinuity of the Rift Zone in west-east direc-
tion?
Answer: That js correct. What has been called the Rift Zone. The Rift Zone
has been intended as the area of interruption of the Pelagian Block that we dis-
cussed here many times. This Rift Zone, 1would say, has different provinces.
The province of the big grabens, the province of the small channels to the
north-west, the province of the small channels to the south-east and finally the
province, which 1 do not know how to call, of the Medina mountain down into
the Ionian plain, and this in my opinion mus1be very carefully discussed by the250 CONTINENTALSHELF
geologists because everything here is down. everything is settling, everything is
considered as graben. But these are mountains, these are not al1channels, these
aremountains, these are old sedimentary mounts which arerelics of regions
existing here before the big collapse of the Ionian sea. And they have been dis-
covered to be absolutely flat.
Question: Arising directly, 1 think, from what you have just been saying is
the question of the existence of plate boundary within the Rift Zone. You know
chat Libya considers that such a plate boundary exists. 1think that the direction
of your own views on that subject is beginning to be apparent. and perhaps you
would like to comment some more on the subject of a plate boundary withinthe
Rift Zone?
Answer: As Professor Mascle has already said, al1 the geophysical data are
not in favour of a plate boundary. Al1 of them. The seismicity is cenainly not
that of plate boundary. This is surely not a plate boundary. The epicentres are .
not aligned in the ndge crust, in the so-called axial ndge line. Also the earth-
quakes' foci distribution here is not indicative of the typical movement at plate
boundaries in formation along strike-slip faults. Strike-slip faults are normally
to be recognized because you have in the fust sectors compressions, tensions,
compressions and tensions. This design just means that this is distributed in the
four quadrants. So siudying this you can understand if it isa transfer fault in
movement, but nothing really is coming out. Magnetism. should we have a
plate boundary. we should have something very clearly stated or a line of the
oceanic cmst forming or the lineamenls - magnetic lineaments al1around. So,
surely,1 Say surely this time not probably, no plate boundary exists in the Pela-
gian Block and on Figure 18 you see the plate boundary between Africa and
Europe going from the Azores through Gibraltar to Cape Bon to Sicily and
around Italy to Crete, and so on. This is the area shown by al1 geophysical
means and which are becoming less in the Pelagian Block.
Question: Now Professor Morelli you have just reached the conclusion that
there is no plate bundary in existence in the Pelagian Block.May 1 put to you
the sarne questionas I put earlier to Professor Mascle: what possibility do you see
of the existence of a plate boundaryin formation,an incipient plate boundary?
Answer: Like for instance as Professor Finetti suggested yesterday for the
northern part of the Red Sea where the southern part is open and the northem
part is opening. But if the sarne thing were happening in this area, we would
have what one would normally have in such a case, and we would also have a
strong heat flow from the bottom because if the crust is breaking, the magma is
coming up and is obviously hot and we would have very strong heat flow anom-
alies. Now we do not have very many data in the area, but taking together al1
the data of Figure 19one can assess the situation. In the easternmost part of the
Sicily Channel the measurements are approximately 25 measurements and they
have been done by Our Russian colleagues and published by Zolosterev and
Soshishnikov in 1979, and these measurements you see today to the east are
normal. The heat flow scale is indicated on the top. Since the normal valve
ratio isapproximateIy 42 millewatt per square metre, the measured valves are
al1less than 50, so they are al1normal for the area indicated. And tothe west-
ern part we are covering the area of the big grabens and they must be higher
and indeed khey are higher, they are more than lm, but not so high as they
would be if they were in a Rift Zone like in the Tyrrhenian Sea. Here in the Tyr-
rhenian Sea. in its south-easternmost parwe have 200 mw per square rnetre, so
we have tïve times the normal value, and this is one of the ways for finding a
break between plates. So also this is no indication of an incipient plate boundary. EVlDENCE OF EXPERTS 251
Question There is no indication for the incipient boundary. Now just suppos-
ing that such a boundary could be said to be in the process of formation. what
time scale is involved?
Ansn>er: This is a geological phenomenon, and in geology we speak always
of millions of years. And just to clanfy a little bit quantitatively, I have brought
the figure that Professor Finetti has published in his book in 1984 to illustrate
the situation of the Red Sea. Starting from the top, there are different geologic
epochs: the firstisOIigocene. 40 million years ago. 40 millions when the pro-
cess staned. Second is early Mimene (25 my) with crustai stretching, moho
upheaval and rifting in the upper crust: corresponding to the present situation in
the Pelagian Block. The break in the crust beginning at 16 my, with the astheno-
sphere reaching the moho. very high heat ffow. etc. For the Pelagian Block,
if the phenomenon would continue (and in reality it is going to stop) we woutd
have to wait, therefore. some other 9 my. Here 1have to clarify a point that has
been misunderstood many times, also yesterday, and it refers to the cmst. In
reality the crust is thic- 30 kilometres - and is the upper part of the litho-
sphere. Lithosphere means rigid; itis the outer part of the earth which is rigid,
normally 100 kilometres thick. It follows the asthenosphere. And this is going
down up io 200 to 150 kilometres below the continents. This is to Say that in
the continents, the cmst is 30 kilometres. Below the oceans, the oceanic cmst is
only 5-10 kilometres.
Summarizing again thi5 is the base of the crust or moho. This is the litho-
sphere and below the astknosphere. The asthenosphere is the area which is vis-
cous. The material can have convection currents and so hem you have convec-
tion currents that transfer their actions to the lithosphere. So the lithospheric
plates are transported by this asthenospheric current. If a break should happen
lhis is a break that could cause a plate boundary. Therefore to speak of riplate
boundary we cannot consider only the crust as has been said until now here.
We must consider al1the lithosphere. Whenwe say "plates" theyare lithospheric
plates not crustal plates. Excuse me, but this is an essential point, becauseyou
see, in the first and second stage of Figure 23 you have some small fractures,
some small rifting in the outer pan of the cmst. What dws this mean for Our
purpose? Nothing. Rifting in the crust is not enough. After 15 million years the
cmst begins to be more broken, more rifted. the moho is coming up and the
asthenosphere is corning up. But the moho and the asthenosphere are separated
so the asthenosphere is reduced in thickness and the cmst is reduced in thick-
ness. In the Pelagian Block weare Faraway because, continuing, you must arrive
at 16 million years in the story of the Red Sea and then you see some faults
breaking the crua and the asthenosphere coming in contact with the lithosphere.
But to reach the present situatiori of the Red Sea another 15 million years are
needed - so we have time.
Mr. LAUTERPACHT: Thank you Professor Morelli. Now let us move on
from the plate boundary to the question of the so-called "axial ridge". You may
remember from your reading of the records of the hearings in the Court before
Christmas that 1 got into some trouble because of the axial ridge lines which 1
was so bold as to draw on the map, and yesterday 1was further criticized.So 1
think it may be helpful to the Court if you were to explain what you understand
by an axial ridge, and perhaps you could also tell the Court whether it is appro-
priate to use the concept of an axial ridge in checontext of any part of the Pela-
gian Block?
Ansirver:1 used to ask my English colleagues: "What is a ridge?" A ndge is a
crest in English. Very simply, a ridge is a crest. What is a ridge in English? It252 CONTINENTAL SHELF
is a crest. In plate tectonics a ridge is an opening from the ocean bottom where
the lithospheric plates are broken and the magma ascends like the volcanos; and
this is the ridge. The magma is coming continuously up. The two lithospheric
plates have separated. a new lithosphere is formed on the borders and this linea-
ment, these fractures are very long, so you have a very long chain of moun-
tains. This chain of mountains crosses al1 the earth. In Figure 9 you see the
scheme of ihis region. This is the region.
If you permit me, 1 will start from the northem Atlantic through Iceland,
down to the mid-Atlantic and around Africa, entering the Gulf of Aden (Profes-
sor Finetti has made this nice photograph of the Gulf of Aden) and then past
the Red Sea to the right and the great lakes of the African area. So itreaches an
area which has topographical and gravimetrical well-defined characters. Posi-
tive, the first ones. and here we have negative ones and panicularly different
are the gravity anomalies. For instance, if you tum the page to Figure 20 here is
the situation of the gravity anomaly of the mid-Atlantic ridge,and you see that
the Bouguer anomalies are negative, and this is completely different from our
case in the Pelagian Block, where they are positive. They are negative because
the magma coming from the bottom is transfomed and it has a reduced density
and so on.
Question: Just to intermpt you for a moment, Professor Morelli. When we
talk about an axial ridge you are saying that that ridge is in effect an extended
line of mountain crests under the water, representing'the magma that has been
thrown up and there has been a break in the lithosphere?
Answer: Formed by . . .
Question: Fotmed by the magma which has been thrown upby a break in the
lithosphere?
Answer: This region that I mention is long - 40,000 kilometres. It is the
biggest mountain system in the world. Butwe do not see it because itis below
the sea level. But we see the crest of some mountains coming up (like St.
Helena) or we see the island of Iceland. Of course there are always problems
with the magma covering the crests.
Question: Do you see any sign of that in the area in which Professor Finetti
has drawn his axial ridge line?
Anmer: First of al1 1 would like to specify that Professor Finetti has done a
geophysical work. He has taken the gravity anomalies and he has elaborated
them to see what he could deduce from this, and this work is perfectly correct,
but has nothing to do with the conclusion taken from his paper. As he stated
yesterday - and 1 am very glad that he hears what 1am saying - he has done
a sort of filtering of the original Bouguer data. These are the daia on which
everyone is working. They are the only work from which one can deduce the
Bouguer anomalies in the area of the Pelagian Sea. He has first of al1 chosen
the theme that he would have liked to solve and individuate in the lower crust,
20-30 kilometres deep. Then he filtered - chat is, took away - the small ano-
malies which are caused by density variations near the surface. They do not
interest us. For this purpose he has taken a big circle on which he computed the
mean observed Bouguer anomalies. The radius must be sufficiently big to be
free from the local gravity effect at its centre. The difference with the Bouguer
anomaly in the centre of the circle is what we cal1residual anomaly. You have
a map as Figure 17. It was presented yesterday but it was published before,
obviously, and it is here that the rnap is objective. The map presents the resi-
dual anomalies after you take away the deeper effect. The second step that Pr- EVIDENCEOF EXPERTS 253
fessor Finetti has done is to try to correlate the positive or semi-positive highs.
Now this is the second problem which you have to be careful of when extrapo-
lating, and, just for clarity, when you arein an area of the Pantefleria Graben,
the Malta Graben or the Linosa Graben, which corresponds here to very clear
positive residual anomalies, perfectly close, perfectly correlated and so on, it is
no problem, the correlation is there, you can go just a little to the north or the
south but, incidentally, it is a thing that you can do also without making any
fiftering,because you see also here in the Bouguer rnap al1that is there in gen-
eral. Theoriginal map is the Bouguer map. All the elaborations are mathematical
procedures for trying to help the observer to an interpretation. Butnothing can
corne out through mathematical procedures which are not yet here. So let us
look at the-same time at this (filtered) and this (Bouguer). 1 am speaking here
of the original filtered anomalies but 1 could speak in the sarne rnanner here
(Bouguer anomalies). The axis here is very clear, and the axis here is very
clear, no problem . . .
Question: Professor Morelli, would you bear in mind that what you say has
to be written down, so if you could just specify when you Say "here" exactly
where you actually are?
Answer: The axis is in the centre of the Graben area, the axial axis passes
near Pantelleria and near Linosa. The Malta Graben has been left out because of
the three it is the one which is anomalous. giving rise to negative anomalies.
And later on you can continue, here to the south-east of Malta you have these
lines, .and now, following the map of Professor Finetti, the kine tums to the
south-east and on to the Medina Channel and down to the lonian Sea.
Question: You aredescribingwhat? You aredescribing Professor Finetti'slines?
Answer: Yes, 1am describing Professor Finetti's lines. To do this, obviously
sorne sort of extrapolation may be done, because if you have the map before
you - which is Map 87 in the folder - you can see that as soon as you leave
the big grabens you have an extension of the positive gravity anomaly, a very
weak extension, and then you have to cross a negative area and then to continue
you have to go to the unique volcano which is of some help, because this is the
only positive anomaly in the area. The volcano is there, and fortunately it is
possible to use it and from this to continue,otherwise this extrapolation would
not be possible.
Question: So, just again to rnake precise where that positive feature is you
are talking about, the volcano - about half way down on the right-hand side
and about an inch and a half in from the right-hand margin?
Answer: It is at the lowest latitude of the axis of the so-called axial ridge
line. But looking at this map (residual) and also looking at this map (Bouguer),
I would like to show you, according to what 1 presented before, that other solu-
tions are possible and with the same degree of uncertainty or, if you wish, with
the same degree of certainty. A look at the bathyrnetric map shows that Bou-
guer anomalies'and depth of the cmst are connected. So, bathymetry - you
have crossed the Linosa Basin and then you have here a very nice alignment
following without anyinterruption and passing between the Medina and Melita
Bank - a straight line.
Mr. LAUTERPACHT: Now Professor Morelli, this is really quite important
and I take it that what you are saying is quite importan1.am surethe ather side
as well as the Court would like to know exactly where this alternative line is,so
perhaps you could describe it a little bit more precisely, the starting point and the
various points on iand its termind point.254 CONT~NENTALSHELF
Professor MORELLI: 1 make reference to Professor Finetti's rnap, Figure 87
of your folder. The north-west-south-east line drawn by Professor Finetti just
tums to the south, and then at a certain moment it leaves the grabens area,
tuming to the east/south-east, practically towards the above-rnentioned volcano
- 1can make here a sketch.
Question: Perhaps you could describe it in terms of that rnap?
Answer: Which map?
Question: In terms of Map 87. Do 1follow you correctly when 1 think you
are talking about that part of Professor Finetti's line whichlies south of the
nurnber 13" at the top of the rnap and approximately east of 36" south of the
map?
Answer: Just a little south of 36" latitude. Ye1am speaking of this line and
the line, as you see, has a very nice positive anomaly there. Then it turns
towards the east and it is extrapolated across the positive anomalies before
reaching the volcano and then extrapolated again without any positive sign to
reach down to the Ionian Sea, the Heron Valley. But if you take the
continuation of the straight tine going from the point that you have mentioned,
13" E and 36' N approximately, and you continue to the south-east, straight
across al1 the positive anomalies, also very big ones without negative ones in
between, and you reach thetend of this area which is shown here, very clearly
the continuation of the bathymetric profile, and then you go down in the Ionian
Sea. The same is true if you are going to consider the Bouguer gravity anoma-
lies - here you have the negative-negative-positive in between the positive,
then you go down. .
Mr. LAUTERPACHT: Professor Morelli, "here and here and here" are
where? You see the difficulty - you must assist the Court. My learned friend
on the other side will no doubt wish to refer to this this aftemoon. I am sure
that you will be able to draw that line on the map and provide it to the Court.
Professor MORELLI: May 1 suggest that we make copies of this and distn-
bute them to everyone?
Question: Copies of what?
Answer: Of this line that 1have drawn here.
Mr. LAUTERPACHT: You have drawn a line? Good. Well, certainly, 1think
what we should do is to immediately make a copy and offer it to our friends
and then provide the Court with a copy. But to look at this rnap which Profes-
sor Morelli has just handed me, what is really happening is that Professor
Morelli has drawn on it a line which runs virtually in a diagonal from the top
left-hand corner of the rnap to the bottorn right-hand corner of the map. Of
course it does not stretch as far as that at each end, but the general direction of
the line which he has constructed is a good deal further to the south than is the
eastern extension of Professor Finetti's map. We will let our friends have that
and provide a copy to the Court.
Professor MORELLI: Yes, the Court couid have the copy .now if sorneone
would copy this, please. In the meantime 1 would like to explain that this is not
only derived from bathymetry and gravity but also from seisrnic information.
I presented to you this morning Figure 17 - can we go back just a second
now - yes, it was Figure 17. When 1 referred to horsts and grabens shown in
the Pelagian Block - this line which 1 hope you will see in a few minutes -
is the continuation of the Linosa Graben straight down, crossing what is, on the EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS 255
map, indicated as the Melita Grabe.n,just down there you see, shown practically
within another - 1 don't Say confirmation, because these are only nice exer-
cises that we are doing for interpreting what we have available - but this is
another confirmation that really this graben could continue, this graben could be
an important feature in the area. I repeat, Professor Finetti's and my line are
exactly the same in the north-western part. They diverge where Professor
Finetti's line goes to the east and mine continues straight down, following the
graben of Linosa to the graben of Melita and down into the Ionian Sea.
Queslion: Professor Morelli, then is it nght to conclude from what you are
saying that you regard the justification for Professor Finetti's eastward exten-
sion of the line effectively from the end of the Malta Trough, approximately, as
having no more justification than the projection which you have made?
Answer: 1just follow the same procedure.
Question: You follow the sarne procedure?
Answer: The same procedure. Yes, 1don't Say that this is not the nght pro-
cedure, 1am just saying this procediirecan be followed also ina different manner.
Question: And produce the line that you have drawn?
Annvpr: The probability, apart from the graben, apart from the north-west
area, is the same. You have only to choose the highs that you have; 1 have
chosen the highs from the Bouguer and residual gravity anomalies, the lows
from bathymetry, and the grabens fiom the seismic profiles.
Question: So, really, 1 suppose there are at least two conclusions that one
could draw from the line which you have constructed. One is that Professor
Finetti's axial ridge line does not serve to justify the allegation of continuity of
the Rift Zone eastwards - south-eastwards and eastwards - and the second, 1
suppose, is that ifthere is any relevance in the axial ndge line as a determinant
of a continental shelf boundary, the axial ridge line that could be used would
run much more to the south-south-east than does Professor Finetti's line and
would move straight down in the direction of the Jarrafa Trough and the Tripo-
litanian Furrow. 1s that correct?
Answer: Yes, but 1 would like to be sure that 1 have been correctly under-
stood, because: first of all, we don't have any ridge; second, we don't have any
plate separation; third, we therefore don't have any discontinuity. This has been
demonstrated al1 of this moming. And, finally, 1 said this is a nice exercise.
because it is a qualitative use of the gravity anomalies, but, only to the extent
of what gravity canoffer.
Question: 1 very much appreciate your help. You are really saying to me,
don't talk about an axial ndge line, we are just talking about a line of gravity
anomalies?
Answer: A line of positive - of maxima. of positive - gravity anomalies.
In the case of my line, also, of relative maxima depths of water and of align-
ment of the grabens.
Mr. LAUTERPACHT: Well, thank you very much Professor Morelli. ,
Professor MORELLI: 1 would like to present to the Court al1 the figures
which 1have in these folders, just to complete the presentation.
Mr. LAUTERPACHT: Certainly, if it is going to clarify matters 1 am sure
the Court would like to have them.256 CONTINENTAL SHELF
Professor MORELLI: The first one is called Figure 17, that is Figure 17from
Jongsma and other papers, and this Figure 17 shows the depth ln two-way tra-
vef time to the base of the Pliocene. The shaded area is the area in which no
M reflector exists. But 1 am not interested in this, 1 am interested in showing
that also from this map you can see the continuity from north to south, from the
Malta Plateau and to the Medina and Melita Banks, because they are connected
you see, and there are only very minor channels in between.
The second map that 1 would like to present to you is the subsequerit one
called Figure 10 and this is the section of the Rhine Graben. The Rhine Graben
is a graben that has been illustrated,1wouId say, in one of the best manners in
the world, because French and Gennan colleagues are doing al1 the possible
geological and geophysical studies to understand this graben. It started 40 mil-
lion years ago, in effect; there was then a certain subsidence of the ground -
of a few kilometres - there was a fracturing, a rifting, perhaps even volcanos,
which are also recenx,and produced some earthqiiakes. And then ilstopped and
nothing happened; you see the crust is absolutely regular - and let us hope
that it will not re-occur. But in any case, also, if it does re-occwe,have some
35 million years to wait until the effects are of importance to us.
Question S:o really, your point about the Rhine Graben is that this is a case
where there might have been a plate boundary but it never developed in full?
Answer: Yes, it aborted.
Question: Professor Morelli, you referred to Figure 17 a moment ago, and 1
fear there may be same confusion here?
Answer: Figure 17 in the Jongsma paper. The last figure in the Jongsma
paper.
Question: But what figure is it in the document before the Court?
Answer: 1introduced a copy of this figure in the folder.
Question; As what number?
Answer: It is written as Figure 17 - it is the last one, but it is written as
Figure 17 from Jongsma. It is this one, as you can see.
Mr. LAUTERPACHT: WeIl, let us have a verbal description of it. For the
sake of the record, the figure which Professor Morelli has been describing as
Figure 17 is not the Figure 17 which is in the folder which Malta has presented
to the Court. That Figure 17 is the figure that has on it the seismic lines. The
Figure 17 which Professor Morelli has just been speaking of, is the figure
which bears that number in the article by Professor Jongsma, van Hinte and
Dr. Woodside, which was submitted to the Court - which was the subject of
discussion yesterday, and for the moment 1 don't see it in Malta's folder, but
we shall take steps to see that it is put there.
Professor Morelli, 1 have concluded the questions that 1 want to put to you,
and you have now concluded what you want to say?
Professor MORELLI: Yes, 1thank you very much. To conclude this, 1would
Likethen to Say that what we have seen is that the Petagian Block is a conti-
nuum. The Pelagian Block is submitted to - has been and is submitted to
strong tectonic forces. The forces broke the upper part of the crust, so we have
rifting fissures everywhere, and we have grabens formed in certain of the weak-
est points. These grabens are yet active. These grabens have also different align-
ments; the main alignment of these grabens is north-west-south-east and also
the southernmost grabens, like the larrafa Trough and the Tripolitanian Trough EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS 257
are yet as active as ali the others. Seismicity is the sarne everywhere, al1 the
features in factrethe sarne everywhere, sowe don't see any reason for saying
that the cmst is 'divided, thaitis a fundamental discontinuity, and that the
plates are neither existing nor forming.
Mr. LAUTERPACHT: Thank you very much Professor Morelli. Mr. Presi-
dent. we have no other witnesses.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you.Libya will start cross-examination in the after-
noon at 4 o'clock.
TheCourt rose at 12.35 p.m. TWENTY-SIXTH PUBLIC S17TING (5 II 85,4 p.m.)
Present: [See sitting of 26 XI 84, Judge Morozov absent.]
Professor BOWETT:Mr. Preside nfP,rofessor Mascle coiild take the stand.
Professor Mascle in order than we understand each other it will help if we
speak slowly. 1shall do my best and hope you will reciprocate. Could we begin
by discussing your scientific paper which was reproduced in part two of Annex 2
to the Maltese Counter-Memorial, That raises a number of interesting points
and I would like to discuss them. 1am now assuming that it is designed as a
scientific reply to the scientific arguments of Libya in the Libyanmonal. 1
repeat the question. Am 1right in assuming that this was designed as a reply to
the scientific arguments of Libya in the Libyan Memorial? 1 think we have
some difficulty,1am not getting through...
And you stand by that as a scientist? You stiH believe as a scientist in what
you have wntten? Well you must forgive my next question: it is one 1 would
not normally ask and it is something of an impertinence, but 1have to ask it
because of the questioning yesterday. Wereyou paid for that work?
M. MASCLE: Certes.
Question: Now in the srudy, at paragraph48. you Saythis:
"after the beginning of the pliocene. Afnca and the lbleo Maltese complex
ceased to form one solid block and the latter has rotated with respect to
Africa. This rotation, although quite small, is over 10 degrees and is anti-
clockwise. Such a rotation imposes the formation of troughs between the
two domains."
ln paragraph 50, you Saythe "two domains. separated by an anticlockwise rota-
tion of the northern block through an angle of the order of IO0."Let me ask
you. Professor Mascle, which are the two domains and along what line dws the
break between thetwo parts that are moving separately occur. Would you show
us on the map?
Rhponse: Je crois avoir déjàrépondu à cette question ce matin. Donc, il y a.
je l'ai dicematin, un bloc qui tourne au nord, qui comporte la plate-forme...
Question: 1wonder if you would mind taking the pointer and just illustrating
that more precisely?
Réponse: Il y a un bloqui est situéau nord de ce domaine et un bloc qui est
situéau sud de ce domaine. Les mesures paléomagnétiques sont effectuéed sans
le bloc ibléo-maltaisd'une part, c'est-à-dire dans certains points de mesures qui
sont essentiellementsors d'ailleurs en pays ibléen. Ettoutes les autres mesures
sont prises dans l'Afrique stable.
Question: Let me explain my difficulty. If this block is rotating in dation to
this block, and the rotation of the block in thenh is anti-clockwise through
10° to 15O, there must be somewhere a line where the one block is moving
against the other. What 1am asking you to identify is the line where that move-
ment occurs.
Réponse: Pourquoi voulez-vous qu'il y ait une ligne? Il n'y a pas de ligne. EVIDENCEOF EXPERTS 259
Vous avez tout un domaine qui se distend, qui s'étireet, entre cette partie-là qui
est peut-êtrefixe ou qui tourne dans ce sens-là, puisqu'il s'agit d'un mouve-
ment relatif, et cette partie-là qui est peut-êtrefixe ou qui tourne dans ce sens-
là, puisqu'il s'agit d'un mouvement relatif, on étirele domaine entre les deux.
C'est simple. Il n'y apas de ligne.
Question: 1 see.So as 1 understand you, you have got sornething like a fan
and a handle up here, and what is happening is that it is opening out that way?
Réponse: En gros. C'est schématique maisce n'est pas faux.
Question: But at the edges of the fan. Where it is opening out?
Réponse:11 y a des mouvements de transformation, je l'ai dit. C'est dessiné
sur mon schémale long de ces fractures, le long de ces fractures, le long de
cette fracture.
Quesiion: 1 do not quite understand how the edges of the fan are no1 in a
continuous line. How can the edges of the fan be there, there and there? 1
would have expected your fan to have an edge sornewhere out here.
Réponse: Vous avez bien regard6 le dessin que je vous ai montréce matin,
Monsieur. Il y a plusieurs Lventails imbriquésl'un dans l'autre, en fait. L'image
de l'éventailest certes une image simple. simpliste dirai-je, qui exprime bien,
qui permet de bien comprendre les choses. Le mouvement est un peu plus com-
plexe. Ces fractures, jel'ai expliquéces fractures, qui ont cette direction, pour
moi, sont des fractures de transformation. C'est une notion classique en tecto-
nique des plaques. C'est une fracture le long de laquelle le mouvement se trans-
forme.
Professor BOWETT: 1 understand your model. What 1am trying to do is apply
itto this area and see how you can discem in the structure of that area the edges
of your fan.1 cannot detect the edges of your fan, that is my difficulty.
M. MASCLE: Je vous les ai montrées. Une ici, d'autres de transformation
quelque part par ici, en tout cas une certaine ici, ilen a probablement ici, à
chaque fois qu'il y a un changement de direction...
Question: Let us assume that you have the edge of a fan here. Would there
then be evidence of substantial rifting or fracturing along there?
Réponse: Il y a subsidence de ce domaine. Quand il y a subsidence d'un do-
maine, il y a étirement.
Professor BOWETT: Subsidence is quite another matter. That can occur
simply through the weight of sediments.
M. MASCLE: Non pas seulement.
Question: Not alone. 1sthere extensive fracturing dong there? Are there sub-
stantial faults along there?
Réponse: Mais c'est une fracture. On n'a pas besoin d'un grand nombre de
failles. Une suffit. C'est une zone de fractures, cet escarpement. Tous les profils
sismiques publiés par MM. Finetti et Morelli le montrent.
Question: Let's turn to this notion of a discontinuity, or a marked disconti-
nuity, a notion which has been used a number of times in this case, in relation
to a continental shelfrea. 1 understand your position to be that there is no dis-
continuity in the whole of that arca. Could you help me by describing what
would be, in your view, a discontinuity? What would be a discontinuity? What
kind of feature would be a discontinuity?
Réponse: Une discontinuité, pour moi, peut être une zone. En géologie,
disons, c'est une zone qui séparecleux domaines qui ont des structures et des260 CONTINENTALSHELF
histoires fondamentalement différentes. Prenons la ligne insubrienne - je ne
sais pas sila Cour connaît la ligne insubrienne - c'est une ligne qui se trouve
dans la chaîne des Alpes, qui séparele sud de la chaîne des Alpes du bord de la
chaîne des Alpes. Au nord de la chaîne des Alpes on a une structure, une his-
toire qui sont fondamentalement différentes de ce qu'il y a au sud; donc la
ligne insubrienne au sens géologique estune discontinuité.
Question: Take this feature, the Sicily-Malta Escarpment. Would that consti-
tute a discontinuity between the Pelagian Block and the lonian Sea?
Réponse: Votre question est quel sens? Au point de vue gkologique, au
point de vue juridique?
Question: Not juridique, no. 1am not asking about law: 1 am asking you as a
scientist. Would you regard that feature as a discontinuity between this area and
this area?
Réponse: En tant que scientifiques, nous avons ici un domaine qui est un
domaine de croûte contineniale avec une série sédimentaireet nous avons ici un
domaine qui est un domaine de croûte océanique; c'est donc un domaine qui a
une autre structure, donc on ü une discontinuité.
Question: So, let us get this clear. There are two different domains here and
that isa discontinuity?
Réponse: Oui.
Question: But there is no discontinuity on this side of the escarpment?
Réponse:Nous avons un seul domaine gkologique.
Question: Would you describe the Rhine valley as a discontinuity on land?
M. MASCLE: A quelle époque?
Professor BOWETT: Now.
M. MASCLE: Non.
Quesiion; Tell me. what is the scieotific reputation of people like Dewey and
Ryan. Pitman and Bonach?
Réponsc : Excellente.
Question: You must know that in 1973 they identified what we cal1 Rift
Zone as a microplate boundary and they showed a microplate which they called
the Messina Plate, lying between the boundary of the main African Plate and
the Pelagian Bfock. Why did you not refer to that view in your study?
Réponse:Le papier de Dewey ne parle pas de microplute boundary dans la
régionque vous citez. II y a pour caracteriser ce domaine une figure - une
figure, je l'ai dit ce mati- dans laquelle la frontiere en question est traitCeen
«tiretés», ce qui signifie que c'est une frontiére hypothétique. L'hypothèse
n'ayant pas étéconfirmée, il ne m'est pas apparu nécessairede l'utiliser et de la
citer. Nous n'avons pas confirmation de cette existence.
Question: It was a hypothesis quite different from your own?
Réponse:C'étaitune hypothèse différentede la mienne, certes.
Questiun: And even if there was no discussion it did show the boundary of a
microplate through that Rift Zone; the boundary of the Messina Plate ran
ihrough the Rift Zone. 1sthat not right?
Réponse:Une minute hypothétique.
Question: On the illustration used the boundary ran through the Rift Zone?
Say yes or no, itdid or it did not? t EVIDENCEOF EXPERTS 261
Réponse:Certes, autant qu'on puisse en juger à voir le dessin. Le dessin est
trèspetit et le tratrès gros.
Qmstion: What about the workof Boccaletti and Guazzone in 1975? The
work 1 refer to is their piece on plate tectonics in the Mediterranean region and
it is published in the book on the Geology ofItaly published by Squires. Now
they also showed a plate which they called the Messina Plate, with a hundary
in exactly the same place in the Rift Zone. Did you know that work? Were you
aware of that study?
Réponse : Oui.
Quesrion: Why did you not refer to that? 1can understand you not agreeing
to it but what1 cannot understand is why in a scientific study.. .?
RPponse: Non pas avec moi, avec eux. Il y a peut-Etre eu une erreur de tra-
duction.
Question: Well let me repeat the question. 1 can understand you not agree-
ing.. .?
Réponse :On ne peutpas citer tout le monde, Monsieur.
Question: 1 see. Let us set aside this term plate boundaries. Let us concen-
trate an a rather simpler question as to whether a division exists in this area and
if so where it is. Now, you are familiar with the 1983 study by Blanpied and
Bellaiche, that you cited in your study. Now they distinguished between the
Sicilian Shelf and the Tunisian Platforrn did they not? The Sicilian Shelf.. .
Rkponse: Ils ont donné ces noms, oui.
Question: Do you agree with that distinction?
Réponse:Tout dépendce que l'on entend par plate-forme. Si c'est un plateau
haut - nous avons un plateau haut dans cette région-là - voyez, d'ailleurs, la
ligne bathymetrique le montre; nous avons un autre plateau haut. ici.
Question: Let us not quibble over terms. They made a distinction and they .
described a dividing Iine. Do you remember how they described the dividing
line between these two domains? Do you remernber?
Réponse: Je n'ai pas présent à l'esprit les ternes, mais je peux retrouver cela
dans mes papiers, ici.
Question: 1 will help you. What they Say is this. They say that the Sicilian
Shelf and the Tunisian platform "are separated by several northwest-southeast
onented grabens. Among these Pantelleria, Malta and Linosa are the most
important." Now where would you draw that Iine which they indicate? The
northwest-southeast onented grabens - Pantellena, Malta and Linosa. Show us
on the map.
Réponse:Vous m'excuserez. je souhaite vérifier le texte. Non..Mais if y a
quelque chose de plus dans la phrase. J'ai le souvenir que Bellaiche et Blanpied
parlent de fosséde Linosa, de Malte, mais parmi d'autres. Ily a cette partie de
la phrase qui est importante: pmi d'autres. Si vous voulez que je vous montre
oh sont les fossés de Pantelleria, de Malte et de Linosa, je vous les montre,
mais je peux vous montrer les autres aussi. Les autres, ce sont ceux-ci, ce sont
ceux-ci.
Question: 1 am just asking you to identify the features referred to by Blan-
pied and Bellaiche. What about the work of Burollet, Mugniot and Sweeney in
1978, their work on the geolagy of the Pelagian Block? You cited that work.
Now they Say that the Pelagian Platform is divided into three: the Tunisian262 CONTINENTALSHELF
Platfonn, the Medina Bank and the Sicilian Platform and Malta Horst and the
division which they identify is "the large northwest-southeast Pantelleria and
Malta Graben". Where are they? Could you please point to them? This is what
we cal1the Rift Zone.
Réponse: Je pense que c'est ceci: PanteHeria,Malt...Oui.
Question: Do you agree with the division made by Burollet. Mugniot and
Sweeney ?
Réponse: Quelle division? Celle que vous appelez «Rift Zone»? Ou ..C'est-
à-dire l'existence de trois plateaux, de trois zones hautes? Oui, certes, bien sûr.
Medina Bank, Melita Bank, Lampedusa Plateau et Ragusa Malta Plateau. C'est
écrit sur cette carte.
Question: If 1 were to cal1 them platforms would you be quite happy about
accepting the division?
Réponse: Plate-forme. C'est tout.
Question: Do you know the work by Akal in 1972 on The General Geo-
physicsand Geotogy(ifrhe Srrnirr.fSicily? He says that'the Strait of Sicily, and
that is the same as the Sicily Channel or the Rift Zone as we cal1 it, "separates
Sicily from Africa and divides the Mediterranean into two basins". Do you
agree with that?
Réponse: Oui.
Quesrion: Do you know the work published in 1982 by Beccaluva. Rossi and
Serri on volcanism? Do you know that they describe the Sicily Channel as
"stmcturally a continental rift"?
Réponse :Oui.
Quesiion: Now, Professor Mascle, 1 have given you citations from some 15
reputable scientists, and that is excluding those presently advising Libya, and
they have al1recognized that this feature, the Rift Zone or Sicily Channel. is a
marked division. Clearly some of them describe itas a plate boundary. others as
a division between two platforms, or two shelves, but they al1treat that zone as
a marked division. Now does itnot appearto you that this view, supported by
al1these scientists, is scientifically respectable?
Réponse: Mais c'est une question d'échelle, Monsieur.C'est une division à
petite échelleà l'échelle dubassin marin pour les pêcheursqui vont à la pêche,
il est évident qu'ilsne vont pas tremper leur ligne dans le fosséde Mal..mais
à l'échellede la croûte de la plaque africaine, ce n'est pasune division.
Question: Professor Mascle. let us not play games, these are geologists, we
are not talking about fishermen.Why would the difference in scale affect your
answer?
Réponse: Tout dépend deI'6chelle à laquelle on travaille. Lorsqu'on travaille
dans un petit espace, on cherche des divisions qui sont à petite échelle pour
subdiviser ce petit espace. Lorsqu'on traite d'un grand espace, on n'utilise pas
les mêmes subdivisions!
Question: 1 do not understand your answer. They are al1 dealing with the
whole of that area, so for them the scale is the scale. Why does the scale make
any difference? Where does scale enter into it?
Réponse: C'est une subdivision hcertains niveaux.
Question: Perhaps we could just ium to a different question, and that is on
the availability of new data to report the existence of an incipient plate bound- EVIDENCEOF EXPERTS 263
ary. Do you recall the seismic profileof the Medina-Malta Channel that appeared
in Annex 5 to the Libyan Reply? Perhaps 1 could help you by giving you this
copy? Do you ever recall seeing that profile before?
Réponse: Non. Enfin, auparavant je l'ai vu, lorsque la délégationde Malte
m'a fourni la copie de ce document.
Quesrion: So to the best of your knowledge it was a profile that has never
.before been published?
Réponse:Que je n'ai pas vu publié? Oui.
Question:So it can be said to be new data?
Réponse : Certes.
Question: Perhaps 1 could also refer you to the 1984 paper which you co-
authored in the Earfhand Planetary ScienceLetters; do you recall in that paper
including data relating to the rotation ofily?
Réponse: Oui. Le papier dont je suis cosignataire? C'est cela?
Question: Had that data been published before?
Réponse: Quelles données? Je voudrais une precision. Est-ce le papier de
Besse, Pozzi et Feinberg dontje suis cosignataire?
Question: Yes, the latter. Did you use data which had not before been pub-
lished?
Réponse: Oui. Sur ce papier-là, les données ont étémesuréespar mon col-
legue Besse qui a soutenu une these en 1981, à Pans, et ensuite, nous en avons
tiré deux articles: l'un qui a étépublié en 1983. & la Sociétégeologique de
France, et un autre qui a 6tépublié en 1984, &Earfh and Planerary Science
Letiers.
Question: 1 understand that, and that is exactly as 1 would expect. So you
have no hesitation in developing a new view or a new theory in an article in
relying on new data?
Réponse : Certes.
Question: I asked the question simply because there was a suggestion that
Dr. Jongsma and Professor van Hirite had developed their theories relying
on unpublished data. You would not find that strange in a scientist to rely on
unpublished data?
Réponse: Lorsque les donnéesrésultentde votre propre travail, non. Certes.
Question: Let me just turn to the question of the faulting. Now in your scien-
tific study you included a map which was Figure 19 and it showed the main
fracture network of thePelagian Block, and it says on the map that this taken
from the bathymetric chart. the IBCM. Do you recall that map?
Réponse: Oui.
Quesrion:1s it usual to depict faulting on the basis of bathymetry alone?
Réponse: Je crois avoir réponduce matin, déjh,h cette question. Toutes les
cartes bathymétriques traitent bien des réseauxde failles. II n'est donc pasa
gitime d'utiliser les cartes bathymétriques,et pas seulement les cartes bathymé-
triques, pour définir lesréseauxde failles.
Question: But would you not, as a scientist, find it desirable to use additional
evidence derived from seismic soundings or drilling data or measurements of
magnetic or gravity anomalies? 264 CONTINENTAL SHELF
Réponse: Que je ne sache pas que les données de sondage montrent des
failles? Vous savez, un sondage c'est quelque chose d'extrêmement petit,une
zone de failles, c'est, en général, quelque chosede très large, et il y a peu de
chances pour qu'un sondage fournisse des donnéesde failles. Des profils sis-
miques, certes.
Question: In 1984 you published the article we have already referred to, the
article inarth and Plane[ary Science Letters. That was the article jointly with
Besse, Pozzi and Feinberg. Let me just refresh your memory with a copy of the
map showing the tectonic sketch of the same area. Do you consider that the Jar-
rafa Trough and the Tripolitanian Furrow depicted on that map are in the same
@ position as the position in which they were depicted on your Figure 19? Would
you just compare the two? Are they in the same position?
Réponse:A quel point de vue?
Question: Do they point in exactly the same direction?
Réponse:En ce qui concerne le fosséde Jerrafa grosso modo ou en ce qui
concerne la prolongation vers l'est, peut-êtrepas, mais je ne me souviens pas de
la nature du système de projection que nous avons utilisé pour faire cette carte-
18. Vous savez qu'un géologue terrestre travaille sur des cartes qui ne conser-
vent pas forcémenlt es directions parce qu'il se préoccupede conserver les sur-
faces.
Question: WeIl, let me put itto you that you are the author or one of the
authors of this paper - l'un des auteurs certes- there are obviously others,
but no doubt you assume your share of responsibility. Those troughs are simply
not in the same position, are they? They are not 'in the same position. Weil,
look again.
Réponse:Je pense que peut-être nous n'avonspas dessiné la fossetripolitaine
sur ce schéma-là.Je ne vois pas la différence autreque le manque de dessin de
la fosse tripolitaine.
Question: 1sthere a difference between the faulting in the Rift Zone area and
the faulting further to the south in the Jarrafa Trough and the Tripolitanian Fur-
row? 1sthere a difference?
Réponse:A quel point de vue? L'orientation est la même et les décalages à
peu près, enfin B 10 degrés prh, les décalages des couches crétac6es supé-
rieures sontà peu près les mêmes,ce sont des failles normales, c'est-à-dire des
failles qui ont jouéen extension.
Questiun: Let ustake currenf activity. 1s there a difference in the current acti-
vity of the two sets of faults, north and south? And, to be more precise, are the
southem faults still active?
Répotise:Certes, peut-êtrepas toutes mais il y ena d'actives.
Question: So you commit yourself to the view that the southern faults are
still active?
Réponse: J'estime que certaines failles dans le sud sont toujours actives.
Question: Weil now, 1 am talking specifically about the Jarrafa Trough and
the Tripolitanian Furrow. 1sthe faulting in those two troughs still active?
Réportse:Les deux failles majeures de la fosse de Jerrafa sont actives et il y
a des failles dans le sillon tripolitain qui sont actives.
Questionr What about the time at which this rifting occurred, these fractures.
Did the fractures or rifting in the Jarrafa Trough and Tripolitanian Furrow occur
at the same time as the nfting up in the north, in the Rift Zone? EVIDENCEOF EXPERTS 265
Réponse: Elles ont vraisemblablement commence avant et elles ont fonc-
tionné unpeu en mêmetemps.
Question: You see, Professor Vanney. who is one of the other Maltese
experts. tells us that there is quite a difference in age. He describes the Jarrafa
Trough and the Tripolitanian Furrow and also the Misratah Valley as very old
fractures, something between 70 and 65 million years old. And he also tells us,
and Professor Morelli tells us, that the Rift Zone is very new. It is only about
7 to 10 million years old. 1sthat wrong?
Réponse: Voudriez-vous répéter. parce que j'ai perdu le fil.
Question: Professor Vanney, who is one of your experts, describes the
troughs in the south as very old. He says 70 to 65 million yews old.In contras1
Professor Morelli and many other authors state categorically that the rifting in
the Rift Zone to the north is very young - it is between 7 to IO million years
old. Now, is that nght?
Réponse: C'est partiellement juste; lrifringa débuteplutôt au sud.
Question: So your expert Mr. Vanney is only partially right?
Réponse: II faudra que je revoie ce qu'a écrit exactementM. Vanney, mais si
c'est exactement ce que vous dites, oui.
ProfessorBOWETT:You see, the reason why 1ask is that if you have this
fan notion with the fan opening out. my problem is to understand how rifting
which is mitlions of years apart in time can bepart of the sarne fan, part of the
same model or complex. That's my difficulty.
M. MASCLE: IIest très rare que des fractures naissent comme cela spontané-
ment. Cela peut arriver mais il est très rare qu'elles naissent spontanCment.
Quand un champ de contraintes en extension s'installe dans un domaine et qu'il
y a dans ce domaine des zones qui ont déjhétédistendues il les réemploie, c'est
ce qui se passe ence quiconcernele sillon tripolitain àtpropos du sillon de Jer-
rafa. Ce sont des fractures anciennes qui sont réemployéesdans les montagnes.
Question: Just a word about the location of the pole or. if you like. the
handle to your fan. As 1 understood you this morning you located the pole at
Pantellena?
Réponse: Quelque part par ici.
Question: 1 see. How do you locate a pole in that way? What is the process
by which you deduce that the pole is there?
Réponse: C'est quelque chose qui est classique en tectonique des plaques.
Lorsque l'on fait une analyse en tectonique des plaques on recherche quelles
sont les directions des fractures transfomantes car le pôle est le centre des
grands cercles (je m'excuse de faire de la géométrie sérique ici). mais le pôle
est définicomme étantle centre des grands cercles sur lequel sont installées les
fractures transfomantes. Les fractures transformantes. comme je vous l'ai dit.
ce sont ces fractures-là; donc, le pôle, il est perpendiculaire, il est dans une
direction perpendiculaireà ces fractures. en gros; et pourquoi dans cette direc-
tion plutôt que dans celle-ci? Parce que j'estirne que l'extension est plus grande
ici, qu'ici, et qu'elle est plus grande dans tous cet ensemble qu'elle n'est ici.
Question: 1 see. so you locate the angle or the direction of the transfonn
faults, the sideslip faults, and if they are like that then you have got to find your
pole at right angles, which leads you up there?
Réponse: Particulierement àcette direction mais il n'y a pas que celle-là; il y
a celle-ci qui est très remarquable, et puis sur les carteskcheiles différentes.266 CONT~NENTALSHELF
qui ont tté faites avec l'appareil Sibim, dontune qui a etéreproduite dans le
contre-mémoire maltais, on en voit toutun tr&sgrand nombre qui sont situées
dans la bordure du fosséde Linosa.
Question: Supposing that the slip-smke fractures, the transfomi faults, were
pointing in that direction, then your perpendicular would bemnning up towards
the bootof Italy?
Rkponse: Si l'on supposait, oui.
Question: Would you be surprised to know that Our own scientists - who
have gone through the same processes as you have to locate this pole - found
thispole in the boot of Italy?
Réponse:Certes non, je ne suis pas surpris, c'est une question de discussion
scientifique. mais je ne suispas d'accord avec ces arguments.
Question: But you would not be surprised?
Réponse:Je ne serais pas étonné, c'est-à-dir ...
Question: Are there transform faults pointing in this direction. That is north-
Westto south-east?
Réponse:Dans le domaine @lagien?
Question: Let us talk about the location of your Jarrafa Trough. In your study
at Figure 24 you show the Jarrafa Trough located on the seismic line MS-19.
Do you not?
Réponse :Fossétripolitain, non?
ProfessorBOWETT:Let me help you. It is this one.
M. MASCLE: Oui, alors ou bien il y a eu une erreur de traduction, ou bien
vous avez fait une erreur comme moi.
Question: 1 will try again Professor Mascle. In your Figure 24. and also 23,
you show the feature called the Jarrafa Trough located in the south-west section
on seismic line MS-19, do you not?
Réponse:Oui. Je puis corriger une erreur ici,comme vous venez d'en faire
une d'ailleurs en vous trompant denom pour nommer ce fossé, j'ai parerreur
nommé le fossé deJerrafa, le fossé de Lampedusa. Cette erreur a tté corrigée
par la suite par M. Finetti, je l'ai vu dans la répliquede la Libye, et je confesse
cette erreur.
Question: So thistrough which you have labelled larrafa Trough you say is
actually the LampedusaTrough?
Réponse:C'est Lampedusaqui est ici, oui; le petit fosséde Lampedusa.
Professor BOWETT: That again raises a slight problem for me because our
view is thatseismic line goes nowhere near the Jarrafa Trough.
M. MASCLE: Non, c'est vrai,je vous l'accorde.
Question: But that Figure, and the deductions you drew from it about the Jar-
rafa Trough, form the core of your argument: that this is the important feature?
Réponse:Absolument pas.
Question: So it is not this that is the important feature,it is this?
Rbponse : Oui.
Question: This is not as important? Nor that?
Réponse:Cet accident là n'est pas ...J'aimerais si vous voulez. parcequ'il ya
eu un problkmede traduction, que l'on reprenne l'argumentation. EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS 267
Professor BOWETT: My point is that if it was this trough you were really
talking about. the Lampedusa Trough, and not the Jarrafa Trough, and not the
Tripolitanian Furrow, then the core of your argument - the argument you
finish up with in your study. which is designed to show, on the basis of that
profile, the importance of these trough- is wrong.
M. MASCLE: Mais non. Absolument pas. Absolument pas. Puis-je répondre?
Pourquoi? Parce que j'ai vu des profils du fosséde Jerrafa. Je sais que ce fossé
est un fossé actif. J'ai vu des profils, il y en a d'ailleurs figurés parmon ami
Jongsma, de la faille tripolitaine dans la région desfossés tripolitainset je sais
qu'il y a des failles actives, donc il y a des failles actives dans ces fossés-là.
Donc cela ne change rien quant au jeu de ces fossés-th. Alors. ceque j'avais
voulu illustrer dans ce schéma, c'était qu'il avait, lorsque I'on prenait le fossé
de Malte, ici, comme axe, il y avait une extension majeure au sud qu'au nord.
Prenons ce fossé-là pour le fosséde Jerrafa. et évidemment s'il n'est pas le
fosséde Jerrafa ily a encore plus d'extension au sud, puisque l'extension par
rapport à l'axe de la fosse de Malte, l'extension donc de cette partie-là, est plus
grande que celle-ci. SiI'on ajoute l'extension de ces fossés-18on a encore plus
d'extension.
Question: However that may be. these troughs - Jarrafa, Tripolitani- are
not as dominant. They are not as significant as Lampedusa or the troughs to the
north?
M. MASCLE: A quel point de vue?
Professor BOWETT: From the point of view of their structural significance.
Réponse: Si, ils sont exactement aussi importants. Je crois avoir donné dans
l'ouvrage que vous citez et reproduit ce matin A l'usage de la Cour une figure
dans laquelle j'ai expliquéqu'une extension par de nombreux fosséspeu pro-
fonds peul êtreplus forte qu'une extension par un seul fosséprofond.
Quesfion: Do you recall the chapter you wrote together with Professor
Grandjaquet in 1978, published in the book on the ocean basins, Volume IVB
of the Ocean Basins?
Réponse: Je ne sais pas si j'en ai la mémoire extrêmement précise mais si
vous me la rafraîchissez...
Question: As we do not have time to search for this document let me just
read you what you said. 1do have a copy, 1 shall give it to you afterwards. You
are discussing the Pelagian Basin; you said:
"the Western limit with the Pelagian Basin is marked by a series of escarps
extending up to the Coast of Sicily. The Pelagian Basin is shallow and
characterized by narrow grabens trending northwest. southeast (Linosa,
Pantelleria and Malta Grabens). The grabens appear at the centre of the
channel separating Sicily and the islands to the south and West from
Tunisia."
So describing this area you yourself in that publication refer expressly to the
Linosa, Pantelleria and Malta Grabens. There is not a word about the Jarrafa
Trough or the Tripolitanian Furrow is there? Would you like me to give you
the copy? 1sthere any mention of ihe Jarrafa Trough?
Réponse: Volontiers. Effectivement, je ne les ai pas mentionnés à cette
époque.
Quesfion: If they arejus!as important why did you not mention thern? Now268 CONTINENTAL SHELF
in the same study you published a rnap and this map shows the Pantelleria,
Linosa and Malta Troughs. it does not show the Jarrafa Trough or the Tripolita-
nian Furrow, does it?
Réponse: J'aimerais voir la Iegende de ce fossé, mais effectivementj'ai tiré
cette figure d'une carte qui à l'époquene figurait pas les fossésde Jerrafa et
tripolitain.
Professor BOWETT: Well, Professor Mascle, wherever you got it, if you
reproduced it in your article, you adopted it as a correct statement.
M. MASCLE: Pardon?
Professor BOWETT: If you use the map in your article, you adopt it as a
correct staternent.
M. MASCLE: Oui. mais, monsieur, la science est quelque chose qui évolue
les cartes aussi. J'ai utiliséune carte alors que la carteBCM n'existait pas ?i
cette époque-18et que les fossésde Jerrafa et tripolitain n'étaientpas aussi bien
figurésqu'ils le sont maintenant.
Qitesrion: Well, you Say science evolves and clearly views change. Did 1
understand you correctly this morning to say that your views of the models, the
fan-like evolution of this area had been arrived at in 1980? Did 1understand
you correctiy?
Réponse: Eighty-one.
Question: Before that, what were your views?
Réponse:Je vous l'ai dit ce matin. Je pensais comme MM. Finetti et Jongsma
que la structure s'expliquait assez bien par un coulissement de la partie nord par
rapport A la partie sud, mais j'ai ajouté ce matin que je ne pensais pas que cela
justifiât l'existence d'une limite de plaque, car pour moi une croûte continentale
peut tr&sbien s'étirer sansqu'il y ait formation d'une limite de plaque,
Question: Could you tell us of any other authors or writers who share your
view. your new view of this model?
Réponse:Ce modéleici?
Professor BOWETT: Yes.
M. MASCLE: Pour l'instant, les données que nous avons publiées sonttrop
fraîches pour que cesrnodélesaient éterepris.
Professor BOWETT: Well. 1can see it's recent,but not...
M. MASCLE: Il n'y a pas de document publié, l'auteur acceptant notre
modèle,je puis vous dire que certains de mes collkgues 8 l'Institut de physique
du globe de Paris sont d'accord avec ce modèle-là. Mais ils nel'ont pas publié.
Quelle valeur cela a-t-il?
Question: So there is no other publication that you can refer me to to support
your model?
Réponse: Pour l'instant, non.
Question: You published or formed these views in 1981. May 1 ask another
impertinent question. When were you first advising Malta? In whar year?
Réponse: Depuis 1983.
Question: Not until 1983?
Réponse : Oui. EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS
Professor BOWETT: 1think that's al1 1need ask . . .
M. MASCLE: Je pense en avril 1983 ou mai 1983.
Aofessor BOWE'IT:Thank you, 1 am rnuch obliged. I think, Mr. President. 1
might put some questions to Professor Morelli.
The PRESIDENT: Verywell. 1cal1on Professor\Morelli.
Mr. LAUTERPACHT: Mr. President, as 1said earlier, I would prefer to re-
examine Professor Mascle immediately after the conclusion of his cross-exami-
nation.
Professor Mascle, I just want to re-examine you on a number of small points
ansing out of Professor Bowett's cross-examination,just so that there shouldbe
no misunderstandings arising out of what you said. The first question relaies to
the nature of the escarpment. You were asked about fundamental discontinuity.
M. MASCLE: Non, j'ai parléde discontinuité,je n'ai pas prononcéle terme
fondamental; M. l'avocat a prononcCle terme fondamental, c'est sa responsabi-
litéet pas Ia mienne.
Question: Thank you for clarifying that. Perhaps it's my mistake. Perhaps he
did not speak of fundamental discontinuity. perhaps 1spoke of it. But the ques-
tion I want to ask you is this: you answered the question put by Professor
Bowett regarding discontinuity by saying, yes, there was a discontinuity there
because above the escarpment one had continental cmst and below the escarp-
ment in the lonian Sea one had oceanal crust. Well. the question 1 just wanted
to check with you is what is the discontinuity, the change from one crust to the
other, or the presence of the escarpment?
Réponse:L'escarpement est h l'endroit du changement de passage.
Question: So in your view, the feature which constitutes a discontinuity is the
change from one crust to the other?
Réponse:Oui. c'est la marge. Nous avons là une marge continentale habi-
tuelle, un passage de croDte continentale B une croûte océanique. le dis habi-
tuelle, c'est peut-êtreun terme abusif parce qu'elle est trèsétroite.
Question: Thank you. Then a question was put to you regarding Mr. Dewey's
paper and the presence in the Dewey article 1973 of Figure 1 which is said
to contain a line showing a mini-plate boundary in the Rift Zone. and you
explained that this was a hypothetical boundary on the part of Mr. Dewey.
Would you like to remind the Court as to the nature of the depiction of the line
by Mr. Dewey? Was it a solid line? Or was it a hatched line. or pecked line?
Réponse:Non, c'est une ligne en «tiretks». C'est uneligne en « tireté))c'est
visible sur les publications.
Question: It was a solid line?
Réponse : Non.
Question: It was a pecked line. discontinuous line. And that you have told
the Court is a line which shows that it is hypothetical?
Réponse : Correct.
Question: Some questions were put to you which involved references to dif-
ferences between certain platforms. Would you tell the Court whether a plat-
fom is the sarne thing as a plate?
Réponse:Absolument pas.
MT. LAUTERPACHT: Thank you.That's al11 have to ask.270 CON~NENTALSHELF
Professor BOWEïT: It is a pleasure to see you again Professor Morelli. May
we begin by talking about the escarpments? 1recall that when you gave evi-
dence in the TunisialLibyacase you described them as "doubtless one of the
most important topographical featuresin the MediterraneanSea". In fact in your
conclusions you said "the Pelagian Shelf is gently sloping eastwards toward its
continental slope, represented by the Malta-Misurata Escarpment". In1980 you
gave a paper on gravity anomalies of Mediterranean marginsto a conference
held in Urbino. You said there, refemng to the Sicily Channel and the Pelagian
Plateau that it was "limited to the east by the Malta Escarpment". Do you main-
tain those views?
Professor MORELLI : The plateau is lirnited to the east by the Malta and
Medina Escarpments. At the time this was called the Sicily-Malta Escarpment;
later on iwas modified to Sicily-Malta andMedina.
Question:Let us no1worry about the terms. That is the limit therefore to the
shelf?
Answer: You are right.
Question:And beyond thereyou arein a different domain?
Anwer: Absolutely.
Question:So you would treatthese escarpments as a discontinuity?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Would you find oceanic cmst immediately beyond the escarp-
ments? .
Anwer: This is a very difficult point because you have heard in this room
Professor Jongsma Say yesterday thatwe are not sure what is there. There is a
group of experts that say there is oceanic cmst present, and they support this
with many arguments. and there are others thatSay no, this is an ancient conti-
nental cmst which has been eroded from the bottom and reduced in thickness.
So it is,1would Say,not possible to reply up to now. We need very gooà, deep
refraction measurementsthat we do not have.
Question: 1 understand there is a controversy, but am 1 not right in saying
that the controversy is about this area here, the Abyssal Plain?
Answer: No. On this area here this is the minimum of the thickness but al1
around - if it is oceanic cmst - you have al1 around oceanic cmst with
increasing thickness of sediments coming from the different shelve- from the
north, from theWest,from the east.
Question: 1sthere any evidence of oceanic cmst irnmediately,immediately,to
the east of the escarpment?
Answer: 1cannot reply. 1have no data and 1doubt that asimilarpaper exists.
because. as 1told you, we do not have good, deep refraction measurements.
Question: But then if there is no data one could not treat those escarpments
as a discontinuity on the basis that beyond them there is oceanic crust -
because we have no data?
Answer: No. The# aresome data. I have not said that we have no data. 1
have said that we do not have good data. So. on al1this data there are different
opinions, and one is seeing one version and another in another manner. but the
definition is not yet conclusive. I cannot conciude in the sense that you would
like to hear.
Question:Canwe pick up this mode1which Professor Mascle has developed
about rotation. 1 believe I iunright in suggesting that there are other authors EVIDENCEOF EXPERTS 27 1
who support the rotation theory - people like Besse, Pozzi and Feinberg in
1984 and Letouzey and Temolikres in 1980. They, too, talk about the rotation
of the block to the nonh. 1sthat correct?
Answer: Yes. It is correct.
Question: Do they in their writings identify the pole of that rotation in the
place where Professor Mascle has put it?
Answer: I cannot reply to this point.
Question: Let us suppose there is rotation. Would you expect the line of
break in the symbol we have been using, the edge of the fan, to coincide with
the major fracture zones, the majorrifting, or not?
Answer: If you permit me, 1 wifl give you the reply in a different manner to
what you expect. Here we are not speaking of breaking. We arespeaking of
stretching of the crust, no matter if ii is corning from rotation or not. You have
al1the people in the room, and also outside if you could hear them. speaking of
stretching. Now this is the way in which wesee ihis action of the tensions. In
the figures (there were some figures indicating - 1cannot rnake a sketch but
- indicating what happens when the cmst (the continental cnist) is stretched);
in Figure 7 at the bottom of the page you have an example that is a conse-
quence of the tensions. You have breaks, thinning and increasing in length, and
this can be 2 to 1, 3 to 1 and so on. Finally. when you arrive at the bre& -
but here we do not yet have breaks. Here we have only thinning.
Question: But if that process is going on you would at least get fractures.
would you not?
Answer: Fractures are already here.
Question: Where are the major fractures in this area?
Anmer: The major fractures - apart from the escarpment - are around the
three main grabens.
Question: So the main fracturesare here?
Annver: Yes, where we can see thern. Yes. Then there are others that we
cannot see.
Question: If there was tobe some movement between two parts, some rota-
tion. would you expect the movement to be here along these fractures?
Answer: 1 do not see any reason for having the movement there. or in any
other place. We do not know which are the dangers within the crust. The dan-
gers can act according to physical Isws. of which we know nothing because we
do not know where the dangers are, what is the resistance below, or anything.
So anything can happen. The main important point, 1 repeat, and you will agree
with me, is that we are in a distension area at the present time. There have ken
many compressions obviously.
Question: Yes, I see that. ktUSjust concentrate on theRift Zone. In your tes-
tirnony in the TunisialLibya case you described the Sicily Channel in some
detail. You gave the depths of the three main troughs or grabens and then you
said that the collapse of the gra-
commented on their "very steep flanks". You
ben area was very recent and in parts still active as shown by volcanic activity.
You said that the Tunisia Plateau descended continuously "northward steeply to
the grabens area of the Sicily Channel". Could you just point out to us where
you think the limit of the Plateau?
Answer: Here we have indicated the Lampedusa Plateau. what has been
called the Tunisia Plateau because this is an extension of the Tunisia shelf very272 CONTINENTAL SHELF
far away from the Tunisian coast. Here the depths are very, very small and we
start from 10-20 rnetres and we rnust go to 150 kilometres frorn the coast to
reach the 200 metres.
Professor BOWETT: It is very important that you answer my question.
Professor MORELLI: 1 will reply to your question. You must permit me to
reply. So here we have an area which is at the srnallest depth - 0-200 metres.
Going to the north we arrive very rapidly to an area in which we find 1,000
metres, and then entering into the grabens 1,500-1,300 metres deep. So
obviously you descend rüpidly.
Question: So the Tunisia Plateau ends in that graben area?
Anmter: Yes.
Qitesfion: In fact you also said, and 1quote from the record: "The main dif-
ference between the northern and the southern parts of the Pelagian Sea is the
extensive fracturation 10 the north." The main difference between the northem
and southern parts is the extensive fracturation to the north. Would you just
point to where you rneant?
Answer: Yes. 1 repeated it also this morning. This area is rnuch more frac-
tured than the rest frorn the point of view of bathymetry,
Question: You are familiar with the paper which Professor Vanney submitted
as an Annex to the Maltese Counter-Mernorial?
Answer: No.
Question: Well, that is a pity but 1think I can help you. In that paper Profes-
sor Vanney described the troughs of the main Malta-Pantelleria-Linosa Troughs
and he included the smaller. or shallower, Malta and Medina Channels, which
he defined as "well-defined" by the 500-metre isobath. and he produced a map
showing the central trough and ridge system which, if you will just look at it,
goes right through to the lonian Sea, does it not?
Professor MORELLI: You can have a very clear image of what is in this
figure. Can 1reply? Or rnust 1await your question?
Professor BOWETT: Weli, 1 think it is better to wait for the question before
you reply, on the whole.
In 1975 you wrote a paper with Professon Gantar and Pisani and you referred
to the Heron Valley as the eastwards continuation of the valley between the
Malta Platform and the Medina Bank. Could you just point to the Heron
Valley? That, you say, is the continuation of the valley between the Malta Plat-
form and the Medina Bank. Do you then agree with Professor Vanney when he
describes the whole of that area, right out to thescqment, as a system,a cen-
tral trough and ridge systern?
Answer: It is clear that the valle-s and he is speaking in terms of geornor-
phology - so, if you are speaking in terms of geomorphology, you do not need
to go to Professor Vanney to have such a reply, you need to look only to bathy-
metry and you see that if the 600 metres at the north-western corner, the 600
metres of these very small channels, called the Pantelleria Channel and Melita
Channel - and with this 500 metres here - and approximately the same level
here- 700, 800 and then the trough, but this is not important. You have a low
area, so, you can practically imagine that until 500 metres you have no obstmc-
tion, so you can take a nuclear submarine and pass at 400 rnetres without any
obstruction.This is the rneaningof morphologyyou know. But now, your question
- is it necessary to say sornethingelse, because you have spoken of a ndge? EVlDENCE OF EXPERTS 273
Professor BOWETT: 1had not mentioned ridge.
Professor MORELLI: Ridge, you said ridge - you called it ndge systern.
Professor BOWETT: Ridge system.
Professor MORELLI: Yes, ndge system means ridge. No ridge - absolutely
because we have clarified this thiî moming and yesterday. No ridgeexists here
in the area. Ridge has a completely different meaning.
Quesrion: 1have difficulties wirh this because you will see that if this system
of Professor Vanney's cuts right through here, even morphologically, 1 have
difficulty in understanding you when you Say that there is continuity from the
north to the south. Wow can there be continuity with a defined system cutting
right through the two halves?
Ansnarr 1 can give you an example. The first one that cornes to mind; 1am
saying that morphologically, in the Alps there is a continuity from the east to
the West. 1 can cross al1 the Alps, obviously 1have to go up and down - up
and down - up and down. but 1always rernain in the Alps. So, the small chan-
nels are insignificant in the 30 kilometres of the crust and they are also insigni-
ficant from the point of view of bathymetry, if you wish.
Question: You use a word "insignificant". Let me just remind you what Pro-
fessor Vanney said when he was refemng to his trough and ndge system. He
described it no! as insignificant but as "the most rernarkable expression of dis-
tensive forces acting since Miocene limes". Now, why is it rernarkable for him
but insignificant to you?
Anmer: Because we see this from different points of view. 1 am seeing it
from the geophysical point of view, that is, globally, and he is seeing it from
the morphological point of view, that is, superficially.
Quesiion: What about the faulting in that ridge system?
Answer: 1 have already replieci. It was the first question that was posed to
me. How are the faults in the area? Steep, deep, and so on. This is what you
wished to know. no?
Question: And what evidence do you personally rely on to tell you about the
nature of these faults?
Ansnler: 1 have never been below, 1 have not seen the faults, 1 can see the
faults only from the bathyrnetryand from the seismic profiles.
Ques~iun: So you wouldn't use just bathymetry, you would also use seismic
profiles?
Answer: Obviously. If you wishto see below, you must use seismic profiles.
Question; Do you accept that the cmst in that area, which Professor Vanney
identifies as the trough and ridge system,s thinner?
Answer: 1 do not accept that the crust is there in al1 the areas. That 1 ex-
plained this morning. It can be thinner only if we have the physical condition
for it, and we don't have the required physical conditions,because the physical
conditions for having a thinner cmst were clearly expiained this morning in the
grabens area. You see, as Professor Finetti wrote, we suspect that it is truc from
the refraction profiles- in the area of the three grabens probably the crust is
between 20 - or 19 to 20 - kilornetres and not 30. So it isa thinner crust.
But we don't have any reason for this area - which is as 1 told you, very
superficial- that is. where the troughs are very near- and the channels here
also. So, in this area here, it is to beexpected that the stretching has been minor
and that thecnist is of a thickness very near to the normal.274 CONTINENTALSHELF
Question: But, if there are thinner areas then they lie within that cent.?l . .
Answer: If there are thimer areas they probably lie only here - probably.
But we cannot be certain.
Question: So they wouldn't lie in the Jarrafa Trough? Or the Tripolitanian
Furrow ?
Answer: This is another point. You would like to know what happens in
these two areas?
Question: No, I am just asking you if the cnist is thinner chere?
Anmer: A rnistake has been made .. . The situation in this area is that here
we have a wtinderful valley, the Triplitanian Trough, which has been filled in
recent times by the sedirnents- so - this is a very large valley. avery deep
valley and with faults which are yet active, as has been said and dernonstrated.
Now. the sediments filling the valley are not water. If the sediments, in old
times. wouldhave been water, we would have here - three kilometres here,
two kilometres here, one kilometre here, in any case, here three kilometres of
water - and 3x23 to make nine kilometres less of thickness of the cnist. The
crust would also be thinner here, but now we have sediments - the sediments
filled everything- the density is approximately two. and so. probably, the
crust is not so thin any more.
Queslion: So the crust is not so thin?
Answer: Not any more here. But this is al1guesswork. becausc we have no
data so 1followed only the theoreticai reasoning.
Question: Do you remember in 1975 .. .?
Professor MORELLI:Excuse me, youasked also about the other - the Jar-
rafa Trough, no? You asked me about the two troughs?
ProfessorBOWETT: Yes,both the TripolitanianFurrowand the Jarrafa Trough.
ProfessorMORELLI: CanI reply also for the other?
Professor BOWETT: Yes?
Professor MORELLI:The same. Thank you.
Question: Veryeasy.
In 1975 you published a paper on bathymetry. gravity and magnitism in the
Strait of Sicily?
Answer: This is the paper from which themaps that 1presented this moming
are taken, and this is the paper here.
Question: Yes, I have a copy too. Do you remember reproducingthe sketch
by Burollet?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Presumably if you used that sketch you approved ofit?
Anmer: This is one of the oldest sketches of Burollet, but obviously apart
from such an authority it was the best possible at that tirne.
Question: But you approvedof it?
Answer: 1 approved of it, yes. Othenvise1 would not have made the refer-
ence to this sketch.
Quesrion: Now, isn't it clear thaton this sketch he identifies two separate
shelves? He identifies the Pelagian shelf - here - and what the calls the
Ragusa shelf - up here. Isn't thatso? EVlDENCE OF EXPERTS 275
Answer: Maybe . . .1don't agree now. 1said maybe when you had spoken,
but now that 1see. 1 don't agree, bccause you see the Pelagian shelf is written
in very large block letters, and reference ismade to al1the area which is exten-
ded up hem, so to al1 the area practically of the Pelagian Block. Ragusa is on
land and an extension iothe Meliia-Caltanissetta Basin here which is an exten-
sion to the sea. So 1don't agree.The Pelagian shelf is unit I in this sketch.
Question: So you published a map you didn't agreewith?
Answer: No, 1 don't agree with you. not with the map. There is a big dif-
ference. 1 am sorry, 1 am not an English-speaking gentleman. but when 1 Say
something normally it is clear- nomally.
Question: Do you agree that on tlie map these Iwo areas - the Ragusa shelf
and the Pelagian shelf - are identified?
Answer: Yes. Certainly, because if you look ai the map you see that the Pela-
gian shelFis written in block letters in the centre. and this refers io al1 this
white area here. On the contrary, in this big Pelagian Block and Pelagian shelf,
you have also the Ragusa shelf and obviously you also have some other shelf
here in Tunisia, to thesouth in Libya, and so on.
Quesrion: So you can have different shelves on the same block?
Answer: The block is one thing, tlie shelf is another.
Question: Now. if we accept that there are two shelves separated by that
zone, whatever we cal1 it, you remember that in 1973 there was a report pub-
lished by Mr. Colombi .. .?
Professor MORELLI: And Morelli . . .
Professor BOWETT: . . . and Morelli - 1 felt sure you'd be familiar with it.
Professor MORELLI: Would you read the names please, they are there?
Professor BOWETT:'The one narne isthe only one which you need remem-
ber, Morelli.
Professor MORELLI :No.
Quesrion: Now, let me read you what was said.
"The continental cmst between the southem coasi of Sicily and Pantel-
leria can be seen as pari of Africjus1 hecorning splifrom this hlock-as it
is suggested by the trough between Pantelleria and Linosa. Furtheracrustal
the thickness of 20 kilometres seems anomalously thin: a value of about
30 kilometres should be normal. This feaiure may be interpreied as an indi-
cationchat the cmst here has recently been getting thinner by a process of
upward-moving oceanization."
Now, as 1 read that. doesn'i that say that along ihe troughs that block is split-
ting?
Answer: Oceanization - this was an idea that was discussed, but it ia pos-
sible cause of modification of the cmst from below. If you imagine like in the
Tyrrhenian Sea the mantle coming near the surface and by absorbing slowly the
lower cmst there finally remains only the upper cmst and, in the case of the
Tyrrhenian, the upper cmst has been shifted away and you remain with the
oceanization of this oceanic crust. It is true that 1would no longer support this
idea, because after 1973 the stretching model was introduced in science, and
nowadays it has been demonstrated that what we were thinking was a type of
evolution that is vertical evolution is substituted by the stretching of the crust.
That is the model that you have in your set, 7 and so on. So todüy ii would not
apply any more.276 CONTINENTAL SHELF
Question: But what about the split occumng in this block? You identify the
split as occurring down that trough or ridge system. You Say you do not now
agree that there is a split?
Professor MORELLI: What do you intend by "split", please?
Professor BOWETT: Well, it's your word, not mine.
Professor MORELLI: No, 1 am not an English-speaking person.
Professor BOWETT: Well, 1can only repeat what you wrote. "just becoming
split". Split was the word you used.
Professor MORELLI: Split is in this case "open" - this is what 1 intended
- and in reality we don't have an opening here, but also stretching is an
opening in reality.The stretching, also the grabens and the systems similar to
the grabens are in tension, open. settled andmilar things. So it the same.
Question: You see, if you've got a split in the block right along there, how
can you talk about the whole being a continuity?
Anmter: Because, as we have already spoken many limes, the whole of the
crust is existing. It's only reduced in thickness. Twenty kilometres of crust is
very much.
Question: What would you require to be a discontinuity?
Answer: The absence of a layer, for instance.
Question: The absence of a layer- what does that mean?
Ansnler: It means, for instance, that the upper crust would disappear and the
lower cmst remain. For example coal, or something else, some radical rnodifi-
cation of the geological conditions below one of the sites. B1tam not a geolo-
gist, so 1cannot imagine anything like this1am a geophysicist.
Question 1:see. But as a geophysicist you do subscribe to the plate theory
now ?
Ansuler: Yes, obviously.
Question: And also to the theoryof microplates?
Anmjer: No, the theory of microplates has been abused in the fashion it was
introduced, but 1only Say this. It is tme when you have data to support it. It is
not a different theory: the theory of plates and the theory of microplates are
exactly the same.
Question: Well, you've posed a difficulty for me, Professor Morelli, because
1 have here a copy of a paper you wrote on physiography, gravity and mag-
netism in the Tyrrhenian Sea. and there you Say:
"We have to consider also the possibility that the boundanes of conti-
nental plates often may tiecomplicated by the existence of srnallrapidly-
movingplates whose motion is not simply related to the motion of any of
the major plates involved."
Now, I have understood that in the sense that you are refemng to microplates
fonning at the edges of the major plates?
Anmoer: No.
Question: What were these small rapidly rnoving plates that you were talking
about?
Answer: A few examples are Sardinia, Corsica. These are microplates which
separated from the south of France and the south of Spain and rotated by 45'
and are now in the position in which they are. This is a microplate. EVIDENCEOF EXPERTS 277
Question: 1 thought you just said you did not believe in microplates?
Answer: No. You have again misunderstood me. I am very sorry. 1said that
plates and microplates are the sarne thing. At the beginning the microplate term
was abused. 1 am refemng for instance to the Messina Plate.
Professor BOWETT: 1 am glad that we both believe in microplates. When
you produced this moming a copy of plates with this chart showing plates . . .
Professor MORELLI: This is the generai scheme ail around.
Question: This is Figure 9 whichshows the major plate houndaries, is it not?
Answer: Let me see. This is practically the sketch of the main subdivisions of
the world into plates. So itepresents not only the major ones but you have also
a small plate in the Caribbean, and then you have also a small plate to the
West of South America, and then you have another one to the West of Central
America.
Professor BOWETT: Let us stick to the Mediterranean.
Professor MORELLI: In the Mediterranean you will not see anything here. It
is so smali.
Question: So you do not show anymicroplates?
Answer: This is .the general scheme that is used to describe the big division
in plates al1 over the world and there are seven or eight according to the dif-
ferent authors. So obviously if you are travelling to the Meditenanean, you will
corne back to Dewey and their presentation of the Aegean Plate, the Adriatic
Plate and so on.
Question:1s there a microplate to the south of the main African Plate boun-
dary ni~ing through Sicily?
Answer: No. 1reply immediately no. The Messina Plate is not in existence.
Question: Now I want just to ask you to turn to a cornparison of the riftinin
this area. It is a matter which I was discussing with Professor Mascle. Now his
suggestion in his report, the Technical Annex to theMaltese Counter-Memorial.
is that "the total rifting is more iniportant to the southwest than to the north-
east". So as 1 understand it, he is saying the total rifting is more important in
this area to the south-west. .?
Anmer: This is not south-west.
Question:It is here is it?
Anmer: Yes.
Question:Where does he mean then? Where is the rifting more important?
Answer: This is surely not south-west. It depends in relation to the North
Pole and nothing else.
Question:Where would you understand him to be refemng to? The total rift-
ing is more important to the south-west than to the north-east.
Answer: Of what?
Professor BOWETT: Weil he is refemng to the area under study. This was
the study done for the Maltese Counter-Memorial.
Professor MORELLI: You cannot read the phrase like this. We must how
what this refers to because south-west and north-east are relative. If you are
here you are south-west of Malta but you are to the north-east of the Jarrafa278 CONTINENTAL SHELF
Trough and so on. You must indicate to which area you are referring. The ques-
tion has no sense in such a manner.
Question: You would understand the description in relation to that area?
Answer: No. Impossible. It is not a description, it is a misunderstanding.
Professor BOWE'IT: Well 1can help you because the statement appears in para-
graph 59 of hisreport and he is talking about the faults lyingalong the line MS-19.
Professor MORELLI: Finally you declare where. Along line MS-19, so you
have the north-east of the line, and the south-west of the line. So you areeak-
ing of the south-west of the line MS-19. Thank you.
Professor BOWE'IT: Now you are familiar with the line. Locate the two
areas that he is contrasting. Just point to them on the map.
Professor MORELLI: Just a moment because 1 have IO see the planemetry
and then indiciite what we wish.
Professor BOWETT: Or perhaps we ch hetp you by putting up a map with
the line on.
Professor MORELLI: No it is not necessary. So MS-19 is going ...
Professor BOWETT: It may help the Court if you put it on exactly.
Professor MORELLI: If you wish. This is line MS-19.
Professor BOWETT: So that is MS-19. He says that the total rifting is more
important to the south-west than.to the north-east.
Professor MORELLI: Who says?
Professor BOWEïT: This is Professor Mascle.
Professor MORELLI: Thank you. Now looking to the map that 1presented
this moming, 1 can check what you Say and 1agree on what he says because to
this we have first of al1 the Caltanisetta Basin indicated here, which is a very
gentle and regular sedimentary basin, and then you pass the Malta horst, which
is here, which is high and then you begin with al1 the region of the rifting,
which in this case is the Malta Graben and the continuation of the Linosa Gra-
ben, which is not clearly indicated. Here, it is just at the end that you can see
an indication of the Linosa Graben. The area is very fractured here, it is tme.
Question: What about this area here, the Jarrafa Trough and the ...?
Ansirver:MS-19 cannot tell you anything.
Quesrion: That 1 realize. I am asking you irrespective of the information
derived from MS-19, what is the rifting there?
Answer: If you permit, 1am looking again to my Figure 17 of this morning.
And so 1see that the Jamfa Trough is a graben area because itis rifting here
and continuing. 1see that MS-20 passes also through the Tripolitanian Graben
and also the Tripolitanian Graben is a graben area because it is rifting also here.
It is covered with sediments, so we do not see anything from the surface, but
below something can be seen.
Question: Just comparing the rifting in the Rift Zone and the rifting around
those troughs- Jarrafa and Tripolitania. Which is the more important rifting?
Answer: Both. They are al1nfting. Here you have practically a concentration
of faults in althis area but if you wish the length, the length crossed by the
lines MS-19 and MS-20 in the grabens is - that for the Malta Graben and for
the Linosa Graben and for the Tripolitanian Graben approximately the same;
and on the contrary for the Jarrafa Graben approximately half of the others. So EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS 279
this is a minor one. These are bigger and the Jarrafa, and the area crossed by
MS-20 is minor in the sense of width.
Question : Width?
Answer: In width, yes.
Question: Take a broader view. As a matter of judgment which are the more
significant riftings? These here or the ones up here?
Answer: If you look at the table which has been presented, in which al1this
data is summarized, you will have the answer. 1 forgot to mention this. In
Figure 4 presented this morning we have the Pantelleria Graben which is some-
thing like 100 kilometres in length, and 2 kilometres vertical displacement at
the top of the cretaceous. The Malta Graben is 190 kilometres in Iength, which
is very, very long, and 2.5 kilometres vertical displacement at the top of the
cretaceous. Linosa is only 50 kilometres and 3 kilometres of vertical displace-
ment. Inthe Malta Channel (these are the two small channels which 1 consider
only channels) we have a Iength of the channel of 90 kilometres and a vertical
displacement of only 100 metres. In the Medina Channel, which is long also
(LOOkm) we have a vertical displacement less than 500 metres. In the Jarrafa
Trough, and now we come to your question, the length is 100kilometres again,
vertical displacement is 2 kilometres. The Tripolitanian Trough is 200 kilo-
metres, and vertical displacement 2.5 kilometres. So the figures areof the same
order of magnitude for al1 of the major grabens wirh the exception of the two
smallest ones, which are here, which in reality are channels and not grabens. So
it is clear from this table that you have seen.
Professor BOWE'IT: Yes, indeed. 1 had seen it previously. i was merely
asking for your judgment.
Professor MORELLI: They are of the sarne order of magnitude of vertical
displacement and in length the smallest one is Linosa and the longest one is the
Tripolitanian. '
Question: Could 1just ask you to tum to Figure 17, which you were using
this moming? Now, if you look along the line MS-20 up in the top right-
hand corner you show the Malta Channel, and the little profile that you
sketched in . . .
Answer: Yes, this is just an indication. It has no reference to the forming of
the channel. It is only for indicating where the graben stops.
Question: But why did you give that, as it were, more signifïcance? Why did
you give it adeeper profile than, for example, the one you give to the Tripolita-
nian Graben in the bottorn left corner?
Answer: This is only a sketch. I was writing it by hand.It has no reference to
the depth. The data pertinent to the grabens is on the table. This is only an
illustration which is on such a small scale that you cannot do anything with it.
Question: 1 thought it was intended to signiS something?
Anmer: No, 1am sorry.
Question: 1see. On your drawingthis moming was a kind of alternative axial
ridge line on the residual gravity map. Your axial ridge line took a sharp tum to
the south-east as compared with Professor Finetti's line which went virtually
due east to the escarpment. 1note that your line does not follow the bathymetry.
1sthat of any significance?
Answer: No. This line that you see here follows the graben.
Question: It does not follow the bathymetry. 1sthat right?280 CONTINENTALSHELF
Answer: No. In reality the bathymetry is here. You can see the bathymetry
very nicely. This is a wonderful map. The bathymetry continues from the
Linosa Trough to this area here.
Question: But keep going. How do you get across that high?
Answer: This is not a high. This is only reduced bathymetry. This is not a high.
It is, you know, according to the choice of the observers here. If you were to
arrive at 400 metres you would not see anything but you would continue straight
up. Probably you were in the roorn this moming when 1discussed this point?
Question: Yes, indeed, I was.
Answer: So you heard that 1 tried to explain the meaning of these anomalies.
1 said that the view of these anomalies was correct, that the computations were
correct, and also thatal1 types of alignment can be found. For instance 1 said
that this can be proposed with the same degree of accuracy or inaccuracy,
exactly starting from this observation. because this bathyrnetry is in the direc-
tion north-west-south-east and from the seismic profiles whichareshowing it is
a continuation ofthe Linosa Graben south-eastwards. -
Question: We have not very much time now. May 1just proceed with the
questions? Does not your line cut across the axes of positive and negatiano-
malies ?
Answer: Yes. Obviously. But the area covered by positive anomalies along
the axis is 90 per cent and you have obviously some smalt portions in which
you do not have . . .
Professor BOWETï: But this is exactly what 1am informed you cannot do to
make your lines scientifically defensible. You cannot cut across the axes of
positive and negative anomalies.
Professor MORELLI:
1 would like to see with you which are the axes of
negative anomalies. Let us start from the point in which1 diverge from the so-
called axial ridge axis. You have the map there?
Professor BOWETT: 1do.
Professor MORELLI: So let us continue to the south-east. This is al1positive,
positive, positive, positive, positive, positive, and then what you do is to cross
into an anomaly, zero, it is called. and you find the negative anomaly on the
other side. And what is this anomaly when you reach the maximum value,
approximately 100 kilometres away: less than 10 mgals (and the mean error of
the sea gravity survey is f 5 mgals).
Let us continue. You enter a positive anomaly and you continue along the
positive anomaly, and then again you are in the same situation in passing from
one to the other positive anomaly, the distance is very small, and the anomaly
is very small . .
Professor BOWETT: 1must put it to you . . .
Professor MORELLI: This is only an example.
Professor BOWETï: It is an exarnple which 1 am informed is scientifically
indefensible.1have to put that to you. Now, you remember the Gulf of Aden?
Professor MORELLI: What did you say? Excuse me.
Professor BOWETT: You remember the Gulf of Aden?
Professor MORELLI: No. I would like to hear what you have said. Because 1
have not understood the last words that you said. EVIDENCEOF EXPERTS 281
Professor BOWETT:The last words 1 said was that on my information, as 1
am instructed, the line you have drawn was scientifically indefensible.
Professor MORELLI: Exactly. 1 have understood correctly. Justas indefen-
sible as the other example. Because 1am doing exactly the same thing. But 1do
not wish to enter in...
Professor BOWETT: Let us tum to the photograph that Professor Finetti pro-
duced of the Gulf of Aden.
Professor MORELLI: I don't have it.
Question: You remember where he showed you this photograph .. .?
Answer: Yes.
Questio n.:.and suggested that what you could see there visuaIly was an
axial ridge line? Did you agree with that?
Answer: 1imagine. 1do not know . . . 1 agree with what he says obviously. 1
cannot imagine that it is nothue. 1agree. It is an ridge line. This is what you
wished me to Say.Yes, it is.
Question: Well, Professor Finetti's point was that that demonstrated visually
exactly the same as the illustration which he had also shown of the Medina
Channel or Graben. His whole point was that you would see photographically
and diagrammatically exactly the same phenomenon. Are they the same ph en^
menon?
Answer: No, Here on the Medina Graben you have a graben in which the
borders are ekvated and in which vertical displacement is relatively small, but
you don't have an opening, and so far as1 have been told this is really a ridge
- here. That is the continuation of the mid-Atlantic ridge. What does this
mean? It rneans really an opening in al1the lithosphere mountain of the magma
and so on. So this is completely different. But obviously they are proportion-
ately the same. You can have the mountains high here, the mountains high here,
and the same here. But it is completely different as to meaning.
Question: But this feature here - right in the middle of the channel. That
one. 1sthat different from what you see there in the middle of the photograph?
Anwer: Absolutely. This small mountain here is there by accident, and we
are trying to give it animportance that it does not have. This small volcan0 had
found at a certain moment a very weak fracture in the crust through which
magma could ascend. But there are volcanos al1 around in the area and we
don't attribute this importance to them. Absolutely not.'
Question 1:s it a rather large accid-nt the feature we've just been discuss-
ing?
Answer: Oh, not the volcano. This is a channel you see, it's very nice, and
the volcan0 is dividing it into two parts. On the older maps it was written only
Malta Channel andnow it's written Malta and Medina Channel. It's nice. If you
will, cal1it an accident, but it's not an accident.
Question: Whilst you are at the rnap, perhaps you could show us the
1,000-metre isobath and its extreme easterly limit. Where dws the 1,000-metre
isobath below Malta reach?
Answer: The 1,000-metre is the blue - it should be this one.
Professor BOWETT: No, immediately below Malta.
Professor MORELLI: Here. This blue is the sarne.282 CONTLNENTAL SHELF
Professor BOWETï: Just point out to the Court the most extreme easterly
point.
Professor MORELLI :This 1,000-metre.
Question: And 600 metres?
Answer: 600 metres - you would have to go two colours more - here. .
Question: And 400 metres?
Answer: 400 metres is here.
Question W:ould you say therefore that at least for the 400-metre line, that
lies betweenMalta and the Libyan coast?
Answer: The 400 metre? The 400 metre where - here or another?
Professor BOWETT: That point- that most easterly point.
Rofessor MORELLI: Yes, obviously if you wish. It lies so because 1 could
go thisway and past just the tangent and don't touch il. It's just at thelimit, but
if you wish io have this affirmative line, it's just at the limit here, exactiy here.
Professor BOWETT: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
The PRESIDENT: Thankyou. 1sthis the end of the first part of the evidence
from your side?
Professor BOWE'IT:Yes, Sir, it is.
The PRESIDENT: And your side?
Mr. MIZZI: Mr. President, this is the end of our presentation of the evidence.
The Court rose at 6 p.m. TWENTY-SEVENTH PUBLIC SITTING (8 II85, 10 a.m.)
Present: [See sitting of 26 XI 84, Judge Morozov absent.]
STATEMENT BY MR. MIZZI
AGENT FORTHEGOVERNMENT OF MALTA
Mr. MIZZI: Mt. President, Members of the Court, having concluded the pres-
entation of the expert evidence on the scientific issues raised by Libya, Par-
ties may now proceed to the second, and it is hoped the final, round of the oral
presentation of their case. It is again my privilege and honour to open these
proceedings and 1shall do so by outlining verybriefly the order in which coun-
sel for Malta will speak and the main subject-matters they will deal with.
Professor Brownlie will, this moming, present Malta's position on the geo-
graphical aspects of the case, with particular reference to proportionality, the
significance of lengths of coasts and the position of third States with respect to
the delimitation in the present case.e will examine the relevance and weight
of State practice and answer Libyan criticism in this regard; and he will also
deal with the Libyan argument based upon territorial magnitude.
Next week, Mr. Lauterpacht will review the expert evidence produced by the
Parties and will deal with the scientific aspects of the Libyan argument based
on geology. geophysics and geomorphology. He will also reply to Libyan criti-
cism of Malta's position conceming certain relevant factors.
Professor Weil will then focus upon the main legal issues which divide the
Parties, inparticular the problems concerning the title to continental shelf rights
and the concrete manner in which, in the presence of conflicting entitlements,
an equitable delimitation is to be drawn.
1 shall then, with such resewations as may be appropnate in the circum-
stances, conclude Malta's presentatian and make the final submissions on behalf
of Malta.
1 thank you, Mr. President, and I ask you to cal1on Professor Brownlie. REPLY OF PROFESSOR BROWNLlE
COUNSELFOR THE GOVERNMENT OF MALTA
Rofessor BROWNLIE: Mr. President, Members of the Court, may it please
the Court.
In beginning the presentation of Malta's argument in the second round rny
task is to focus upon those issues which still divide the Parties. The issues
which divide the Parties certainly include the problems conceming proportiona-
liryand the significance of lengths of coasts, andmy speech wibe concerned
with these questions, together with the relevance andweight of State practice,
the position of third States in relation to the delimitation betweenta and
Libya, and the Libyan argument based upon territorial magnitude.
11. LENGTH OFSCOASTS OWRTIONALITY AND RELEVAN AREA
The major part of my presentation will bedevoted to the problems concem-
ing lengths of coasts and proportionality. and it may be helpful to the Court if I
siart by restating Malta's position in clear terms.
Libya has told the Court ad nauseam that Malta is a small island State and
that Libya is a large State with long coasts. Malta has never sought to deny
these evident facts. Of course, it is not the geographical facts as such which
divide the Parties but the legal implications of those facts. However, the Parties
do disagree both about the geological and geomorphological facts and about the
legal consequences attaching tothose facts, and rny friend, Mr. Lauterpacht,
will bedealing with those matters in his speech.
Malta considers that. as in the case of Tunisia and Libya, the relevant ma
consisis of a natural prolongation which is in legal terms common to both the
temtories of Malta andLibya. As a result the primary task of the Court is to
consider the legal implications of the coastal configurations of the Parties in
their relations withch other.
ln this context Malta has at no time stated thathelength of coasts has no
relevance. and in this respect the difference between the Parties concerns the
legal significance of coasral lengths for purposes of delimitation.
Malta contends that length is but one aspect of coastal configurations and
relationships. Libya insists thatgth is a paramount element and, further. that
the delimitation must satisfy the formula based upon a ratio of coastal lengths.
Malta contends that the geographical facts must be placedwithin a certain legal
order related to the concept of approximate equality, whilst Libya insists upon a
certain version of proportionality. the formula of the raofocoastai lengths.
which would virtually destroy Malta's entitlernent as a coastal State to adjacent
areas of continental shelf.
Mr. F'resident,the Libyan position is based apfundamental misunderstand-
ing of the legal order within which maritime delimitation takes place aasa
consequence. substitutes a concept of spatial distribution of of sea-bed for
the proper mediation of areas of convergence as between coasts, coasts which REPLYOF PROFESSOR BROWNLIE 285
are presumed to have an equal seaward reach of jurisdiction, this being a corol-
lary of the equal entitlement of coastal States to continental shelf.
Malta is not, of course, asking for half of the relevant area or indeed for any
particular proportion of the relevant area. Malta's position is based upon the
logical link between the actual geography, expressed in terms of relevant coasts,
and the concept of approxirnate equality, which may also be expressed as the
equitable critenon of equal division.
But, if it may be stated once more for the sake of clarity, Malta isnot seek-
ing a mechanical half-share of the relevant area. The principle of equaI division
is to be applied within the geographical and legal frarnework and the trapezium
gives a simple graphical indication of the proper application of that principle in
the circurnstances of the present case.
Malta has already stressed the radical and exceptional nature of the position
adopted by Libya in the present case. When the speeches of Libyan counsel are
studied, the impression is further confirmed that proportionality for Libya is a
predominant principle and a direct source of rights. Since the geological factors
invoked by Libya have no logical connection with the configuration of Libya's
coasts, the coincidence between Libya's geological boundary and the proportio-
nality line resulting from the ratio of the difference of coastal lengths involves
no mutual confirmation. Thus the proportionality argument necessady stands
on its own, and not as a test of the equity of a delimitation based upon other
criteria, including the actual geography of the relevant coasts. The ratio of the
difference of coastal lengths, in this abstract and detached form, involves a pr*
cess of spatial apportionment and a complete divorce from coastal geography.
The Libyan position lacks roots in the available legal principles. As I shall
demonstrate in due course, the jurispmdence gives no support to the Libyan
approach to delimitation, which relies upon the ratio of lengths of coasts as a
primary source of rights. In the arguments relating to proportionality, counsel
for Libya have consistently ignored two major factors. The first such factor is
that of comparability: that is to Say, the principle that any adjustment by refer-
ence to lengths of coasts must depend upon a process of comparing like with
like, and must be appropriate for the overall geographical framework.
The second factor is that of physical context. In the North Sen Continental '
Shelfcases the Court did not show much interest in the actual length of German
coasts, beyond accepting that the coastlines of al1three States were "comparable
in length". The whole point of the exercise was the fact that the configuration
of the German Coast would produce an inequitable outcome if the equidistance
method was used. The focus was not upon length, but upon the location or confi-
guration of German coasts in relation to other coasts. Thus the Gerrnan coasts
were "markedly concave", whilst those of the other States were "roughly convex
in form" (I.C.J.Reports 1969. p. 50, para. 91; and see also ibid., p. 17, par8).
The fact is, Mr. President, that the purpose of the Court in the North Sea
Continental Shelf cases, and also in the TunisidLibya case, was to avoid an
occlusion of the coastal front of any one of the States concerned. The qualifica-
tion of the equidistance method as producing a distortion in certain situations
was based upon a notion of substantial equality between coasts and the appurte-
nance of sea-bed areas in front of those coasts. The enemy the Court identified
was the cutting off of areas of sea-bed from the coastal front of a State to
which they were appurtenant,
The modus operandi adopted by Libya in the present case is calculated to
produce an extreme exarnple of the very situation the principles laid down by
the jurisprudence of the Court were intended to avoid.
In areas where the claims of several States rneet and converge, the legal286 CONTINENTALSHELF
approach is to reflect that convergence and to reject a method of delirnitation
which leads to an occlusion of coastal fronts. It is tobe recalled that, in the
aftermath of the Judgment in the North Sen ConrinenralShelf cases, the United
Kingdom and the German Federal Republic concluded a shelf delimitation
agreement which brought the Federal Republic into the central area of conver-
gence in the North Sea (see Limits in the Seas, No. 10 (Revised). p. 23). The
picture can be seen on Figure 20 of Malta's first dossier. The three boundary
turning points were an average distance of 178 nautical miles from British tem-
tory. No doubt the coastal relations of the States in the present case are very
different, but, mutatis mutandis. MaIta is maintaining a position essentially simi-
lar to that accorded to the German Federal Republic by the Court in the Norrh
Sea ContinentalSheif cases.
And 1 would emphasize that the Court in the North Sea Continental Shelf
cases did not concern itself with space, but with the relationship of shelf areas
to coastal fronts.
The Libyan case is based upon a complete misunderstanding of the nature of
continental shelf delimitation. and this fact is highlighted once again when the
question of the relevant area is exarnined. For the presenthall confine rnyself
to the indication of certain eccentncities purely by way of sarnple.
In the first place, geological criteria are used for defining the relevant area,
which is thus said to beconfined to the areas West of the Medina Escarprnent.
No justification and no authoritycan be found for the use of geological criteria
for this purpose. And how is it possible to apply a cntenon of proportionality
based upon coastal lengths to'a delimitation within a relevant area substantially
based upon geological criteria?
The second sample of eccentricity is provided by the strange concept of what
may be called the "exclusive oppositeness" of coasts. Thus counsel for Libya
has asserted that the Libyan coasts of Ras Zarruqare not part of the relevant
area but "cm only beopposite to Italy and then Greece" (p. 157, supra). This
interpretation of the concept of oppositeness in evaluating coastal relationships
can oniy be described as bizarre. No doubt part of Libya's coasts faces certain
coasts of Italy, and of course Italy has a role in what is clearly an area of
convergence. But to Say that Libyan coasts east of Ras Zmq are opposite to
Italy and also to Greece, butare no: opposite to, or facing, the coasts of Malta,
is to defy common sense (pp. 176 and 182, supra). In the context of the Libyan
argument, oppositeness. like other coastal relationships, has become subordi-
nated to geological premises. and the result is the curious notion that coasts
can only beopposite to one State and then only on the basis of what counsel
for Libya described as "some degree of direct facing" (p. 157,supra).
In this connection the position adopted by the Court in the proceedings
between Tunisia and Libya may be noted. In that case the Court had no doubt
whatsoever that the Libyan coast as far east asRas Tajoura was relevant to the
delirnitation with Tunisia (I.C.J.Reports 1982, pp. 61-62, para. 75). The Libyan
Counter-Memorial presented in that case accepted that the area of concern
included a considerable proportion of this section of coastline (pp. 190-197.
paras. 474-490). Consequently it has already been well recognized by Libya
that thesame sector of coast may be relevant to more than one delimitation.
MakingLegal Sense of the Geography
However, il will not do to devote too much time to indicating the eccentrici-
ties of the Libyan arguments.and it will be more helpful to the Coun if1 pre
ceed to a constnictive examination of the precise elements of a principled REPLY OF PROFESSORBROWNLIE 287
approach to delimitation in the present case with particular reference to the rele-
vant coasts and the element of proportionality.
As the Chamber pointed out in the Judgment in the Gu(f of Mainecase, the
choice of equitable criteria for delimitation is primarily derived from geo-
graphy, and especially the geography of coasts, and the geography of coasts has
a political, as well as a physical, aspect (I.C.J.Reports 1984, p. 327, para. 195).
The task in conthenta1 shelf delimitation is essentially and always that of
making political and legal sense of the geography, and the Charnber in its Judg-
ment "emphasized thal a delimitation, whether of a maritime boundary or of a
land boundary, is a legal-political,.." (ibid., p. 277, para. 56).
Given that geology does not produce a legally justifiabIe delimitation in the
present case, the task must be that of making sense of coastal relationships. In
my submission, making legal sense ofthe geography of coasts and coastal rela-
tionships involves three principal elements.
The first element is that of entitlement, and this must bear rationally upon
delimitation. Entitlement of its very nature connotes a presumed equality of
entitlement and an equality of the seaward reach of jurisdiction. Entitlement and
delimitation should have a complementary relationship and certainly should not
be in opposition.
In the jurisprudence, commencing with the North Sea Coniinental Shelfcases,
the relationship between entitlement and delimitation has always been recog-
nized, and this relation provides the roots of the concepts of non-encroachment,
and of distortion caused by certain features, in relation to geometrical methods
of delimitation.
In addition, the principles of attribution recognized in the Truman Proclama-
tion and generally in the doctrine, ünd particularly the principles of securiand
self-protection, militate in favour of an approximate equality of entitlement, and
consequently the observance of the principle of equal division in the delimita-
tion process.
The second element is a corollary of the concept of entitlement, and consists
of the principle of equality, and thus of the equality of seaward reach of juris-
diction and, in the case of islands, of radial projectioMy friend and colleague,
Professor Weil, will reaffirm the significance of these pnnciples in his presenta-
tion in the course of the second round.
The third element in making sense of the geography for purposes of delimita-
tion is the inevitable relevance of the principle of approximate equality or of
equal division in the delimitation process, always bearing in mind that the prin-
civle of eaual division does not connote a spatial distribution of sea-bed areas
based upin lengths of coasts. In appropriie geographical circumstances the
equidistance line. with or without rnodification, is simply the practical outcome
oi the concepts of the entitlements of coastal States to ihilf areas,of the equality
of seaward reach of jurisdiction, and of the principle of equal division of areas
where the maritime projections of the States in dispute converge and overlap.
Any method of delimitation, or criterion, which produces extreme results, and
which diverges substantially from the principle of equal division, is prima facie
invalid. The use of the criterion of the ratio of coastal lengths as a primary
basis for delimitation produces exueme results and subverts the principle of
equal entitlernent. The line proposed by Libya in 1973, to be seen in Malta's
first dossier, Figure 1, is extreme enough, since it leaves Malta with little entitle-
ment beyond her territorial sea, but the implications of the Libyan modus oper-
andi need to be stated in al1 their inexorability. That modusoperandi should
apply. if it be applicable at all. to ihe full length of the Libyan coastal frontage
facing Malta.288 CONTINENTAL SHELF
Mr. President. the implications of the Libyan approach are strikingly apparent,
since the ratio of coastal lengths wouid then produce the result that Malta
would be deprived of virtually anyappurtenant areas of sea-bed. The overall
Libyan frontage, based upon thefacing coasts of Tnpolitania and Cyrenaica, in
relation to Matta, and taken as a straight line, totals about 1,600 kilornetres in
length. If the Maltese frontage be taken as approximately 40 kilornetres in
length - this was the figure offered as "the most favourable to Malta" by
counsel for Libya in the first round speeches (p. 158, supra) - the resulting
ratio is 39: 1. The distance between Malta and Libya is approximately
180 miles and thus the ratio required to give Malta a temtorial sea of 12 miles
wide would be of the order of 14: 1, since 180 miles is a factor of 12 by 15.
Thus the ratio of the lengths of facing coasts, that is now 39: 1. would fall far
short of recognizing even the sea-bed of Malta's territorial sea as part of her
continental shelf entitlement.
It thus becomes apparent why the Libyan argument has been built around an
artificially restricted sector of relevant coast on the Libyan side with a terminus
at Ras Zmq. If this is not done, if that restricted sector is not taken, the absurd-
ity of t,k so-called proportionality test becomes too obvious forwords.
And. of course, the same logical difficulty would apply if Malta were much
closer to Libya, since even on the Libyan view of the relevant coast ending at
Ras Zmq, there would be a very high ratio. and the same absurd result,
namely, that the Libyan claim would encroach even upon the temtorial sea
entitlement of Malta. It may be that this consequence is the reason why counsel
for Libya (pp. 120 and 161, supra) have on several occasions accepted that,
if Malta were close to the Libyan coast, equidistance would beapplicable. And
yet this is a strange and inconsistent concession, since if the criterion of the
ratio of coastal lengths is required by equity when Malta is distant, it should
also be required in the situation of greater proximity.
i have been speaking about the procedure for rnaking political and legal sense
of the geography, and itis now convenient to move on to an examination of
what the geography consists of for present purposes.
Counsel for Libya has asserted that Libya has moved from the actual facts
towards an equitable result,whereas Malta has, so it is said, neglected the facts
(pp. 155-156, supra). But the reality is very different. Malta has not neglected
the facts and the difference between the Parties is one concerning the legal
implications of the facts of geography and geology.
Moreover, the Libyan suggestion that the facts are somehow self-explanatory
is, it mustbe stated frankly, somewhat naive. If the facts in cases such as this
were so helpful and self-explanatory, the settlement of disputes would be a
simple process indeed. The dispute leading to the Gulf of Maine case is but
the latest example of the controversies which arise from the need to evaluate
coastal geography within a legal framework.
Certainly,it is the facts conceming coasts and coastal relationships which
must determine the framework within which delimitation takes place. The fi-ame-
work consists naturally of the position of Maltese and Libyan coasts in their
mutual relations ascoastal States. The question then kcomes: what arethe
relevant coasts and what is the relevant area?
For Malta the answer to this question can be expressed graphically by means
of the trapezium figure which is now on the easel behind me.
But before 1come to the significance of the trapezium 1would like to look at
the concept of relevant coasts. The term "relevant" is question-begging, of
course, and there is the ever-present danger of circularity in the process of
defining terms. REPLY OF PROFESSORBROWNLIE 289
In the first place, it is important to appreciate that the question of identifying
the relevant coasts. and hence the area relevant to delimitation, is essential to a
rational approach to delimitation and is not simply an aspect of the question of
proponionality.
In the second place, the question of identifying relevant coasts is analogous
to, but not identical with, the determination of the area in dispute. ln the case of
a territorial dispute, if the area in dispute is not already defined in a compromis
it will be established on the basis of the history of the dispute and the claims as
fomulated prior to the critical date or dates. The situation in the case of a dis-
pute concerning title to shelf areas isin some respects comparable, and the Par-
ties may have fomulated claims at least in the form of espousing either particu-
lar methods of delimitation or specified afignments.
However, in the case of continental shelf delimitation there are certain differ-
ences. The lines claimed will be justifiedby the Parties primarily, and perhaps
exclusively, upon the principles or criteria of equitable delimitation, and there-
fore by reference to the geographical framework and coastal geography. Thus
the clairns relate back to the contentions of the Parties as to what are the rele-
vant geographical elements. As a result there may be a certain circularity and
the concept of relevance may be determined a priori by the nature of the deli-
mitation contended for by the respective Parties. From al1this it follows that in
the case of shelf delimitation, as opposed to territorial disputes, the concepts of
relevant coasts and relevant areas must depend much more upon the apprecia-
tion of the Court based upon objective criteria and much less upon the way in
which the Panies formulate their claims. It follows further that the relevant
coasts will not usually form the limit of an area al1of which is actually in dis-
pute, but will have a purely functional role in providing the framework for the
process of delimitation in accordance with equitable principles.
The criteria for determining relevant coasts must be thernselves legal. Since it
is the Coast, as land territory, which is the basis of entitfement. and since the
issue of entitlement is io be related to the dispute between the Panies, the rele-
vant areas are those which can be considered in a legal sense to be lying off the
coasts of either one Party or the other. These areas taken together form the area
which is relevant to the decision of the dispute.
This rnutual relationship is commonly described in terms of the areas be-
tween coasts "which face each other", or in terms of "areas where the maritime
projections of the coasts of the States between which delimitation is to be effec-
ted converge and overlap" (Judgment in Gulf of Mainecase, 1.C.J.Reports
1984, para. 195). Another form of words used refers to "the coasts of the Par-
ties actually abutting upon the continental shelf' of the region (Anglo-French
Arbitration, Decision of 1977, para. 248). And in its Judgment in the Gulf
of Maine case the Chamber also referred to "the geographical area directly
concemed in" the delimitation (1.C.J.Reports 1984. p. 268, para. 28, and see
paras. 28 to 41 passim).
This account of the criteria of relevance may becompleted wilh some general
points. First ofall, and of great importance, is the assurnption that it is coastal
geography and not geological, and still less, economic or social, considerations
which provides the basis for determining the relevant coasts and the relevant
area. The second point is that the jurisprudence employs the concept of conver-
gence or overlapping of coastal extensions under the sea on the basis that coasts
are presumed to have a legal equality in the generation of entitlernent to shelf
areas.
In other words, reference to coasts is a prefiguring of the application of the
principle of equal division, but this is not a circularity since the princip!e of290 CONTINENTALSHELF
equal division is the logical means by which the law gives credit to the actual
coastal relationships in the region. In other words the convergence or over-
lapping (in a legal sense) of maritime projections is on a basis of legal or
approximate equality of coasts and coastal extensions.
Maltu's Views concerningthe RelevantArea
In the light of these considerations 1can now explain the basis for Malta's
view of the relevant area, that is, the area in which the maritime projections of
the two Parties rneet and overlap. Malta's view of the relevant area has ken
indicated graphically by means of the trapezium. The trapezium indicates the
coastal relationships of Maltaand Libya in rems of the criteria of facing coasts
and the concept of the convergence or overlapping of maritime projections. The
two parallel sides of the trapezium reflect the coastal fronts of Maland Libya
in so far as they face each other. The western side of the figute represents the
lirnits of mutual convergence or overlapping in that part of the region, as
between Malta and Libya, and the eastern side of the figure has a similar role.
The figure as a whole represents the concept of the relevant area as ktween
facing coasts. For ease of reference the figure has been temed the trapezium,
since in sketch form the figure is similar to the geometrical figure of the same
name.
The figure is not a geornetrical construct and it is perfectly normal to give
names to areas in issue, and so, for example. the area in issue in the Beagle
Channel Arbitration was commonlyreferred to by the parties as "the Hammer"
in view. of course, of its shape, not inview of its logical provenance (seeInter-
nationalLaw Reports, ed. E. Lauterpacht, Vol. 52, p. 93 at p. 121).
Mr. President, 1fear that al1this must be obvious to the Court but my distin-
guished opponents on the other side made the mostextraordinary fuss about the
trapezium. and 1hop that my explmation will give them ease of mind.
The trapezium is an indication of coastal relationships and no more. The area
of convergence is set by the geography and the relevant geography does not
cease east of Ras Zmq or east of the Medina Escarpment. As 1pointed outin
the fïrst round of the oral hearings, the Libyan proposal of 1973, which is in
Malta's first dossier, Figure 1,produced aline which clearly assumed that there
were areas to be divided on an axis between the south-eastern aspects of Malta
andthe Benghazi sector of the Libyan coast (III, pp. 448-449).
Moreover, Malta's view of relevant coasts and the relevant area is based
firmly upon legal principle and is not self-seming. After all, if the ratio of the
difference of coastal lengths were to be the legal basis of delimitation, it would
be in Malta's interest to seek to reduce the lengthof relevant Libyan coast.
Libya's readiness toconfine the relevant coasts to sectors Westof Ras Zamq
is in part the consequence of the extraordinary view that geological criteria
confine the relevant area to sea-bed areas Westof the Medina Escarpment, and,
as 1pointed out earlier, in part due to the need to obscure the absurd results of
applying the proportionality argument based on coastal lengths.
The Libyan argument refuses to recognize the Benghazi or Cyrenaica sector
of the Libyan coast as a part of the relevant coastinspite of the fact that inter-
national law would undoubtedly classify the sea-bed areas between those coasts
and the facing coasts of Malta as part of the continental shelf of the region.It
may be remarked that the deiimitation between Italy and Greece in the area of
the TonianSea involves areas of greater depth (and thismey be seen on the map
which is Basic Map B in Malta's first dossier, and which is the basemap
behind me at the moment). Moreover. the distance between Cyrenaica and REPLY OF PROFESSORBROWNLIE 291
Malta is no way affects the relationship of the coasts for purposes of delimita-
tion.Provided that the intewening sea-bed areas constitute continental shelf in
legal terrns, very extensive areas between the facing coasts will be subject to
delimitation between the pertinent coastal States.
The distance between Cyrenaica and Malta is approximately 350 nautical
miles. This distance may be compared with the distance between the coasts of
Greece and Italy in the southem sector of the delimitation effected in 1977
(Limits in the Seas, No. 96). The southern terminus of the boundary lies 168.9
nautical miIes frorn the coast of Siciand 163.4 nautical miles from the Greek
island of Starnfana,total of 332.3 nautical miles. In the Franco-Spanishdelimita-
tion in the Bay of Biscay the westem terminus of the continental shelf boundary
is a combined distance of approximately 288 nautical miles from the French
and Spanish coasts (Limirsin theSeas, No. 83, p. 15). In the North Sea the deli-
mitation between the United Kingdom and Gennany involved a distance of
approximately 366 nautical miles between the coasts concerned (Limits in the
Seas, No. 10 (Revised), p. 24);the delimitation between Denmark, in respect of
the Faroes, and Norway, involves distances between the relevant coasts of no1
less than500 nautical miles (Malta Mernorial, Annexes, No. 29; Gulfof Maine
case. Annexes to the Reply submitted by Canada, Vol. 1,p. 603).
If 1can sum up this part of my argument: in order to make sense of the geo-
graphy it is necessq to decide which are the relevant coasts and, having done
that. the framework of the delimitation can be established. In the light of the
criteria for identifying the relevani coasts, the relevant area is that indicated
graphically by means of the trapezium figure: and this appears applied to the
@ region in the fom of Figure 7 of Malta's first dossier. If that figure is studied
two points cal1 for attention. In the first place, for practical purposes it is not
important whether the Libyan coast is regarded impressionistically as a coastal
front represented by a straight line forming the base of the trapezium. or as
the actual coastline of which only the Tripolitanianand Cyrenaican frontages
flanking the Gulf of Sirt actually abut upon the continental shelf of the region.
The second point to be noticed is that the trapezium quite naturally takes
account of the fact thaan area of convergence is involved which affects States
other than Malta and Libya. The inclination and location of the westem and
eastern sides of the trapezium prefigure the existence of other coastal relation-
ships and relevant areas.
Having established the relevant area as the frarnework of the delimitation, the
delimitation can then be.effectein accordance with the concept of equality and
the equitable criterion of the equal division of the relevant ar1have already
examined these matters in my speech in the first round and my colleague
Prosper Weil has affirmed the use of equidistance as the appropriate method of
delimitation.
1 have more or less concluded my discussion of the questions concerning
relevant coasts and the relevant area. However, befor1tum to the issue of pre
portionality it is, in my submission, helpful to consider the relevance of the
lengths of coasts with particular reference to the process of detemining the
relevantarea.
Mr. President, it is a stnking fact that, in the process of establishing which
are relevant coasts. the length of particulartors of coast is of no significance.
No doubt the length of Maltese coastal fronts facing Libyan coasts totals
x miles and the length of Libyan coasts facing Malta totals y miles or y miles
minus the coasts of the Gulf of Sirt.
But it is perfectly possible to decide which are the relevant coasts without
knowing the values of x or y. 292 CONTINENTAL SHELF
Libya excludes the sectors of coast to the east of Ras Zamq on a number of
grounds none of which involves reference to the length either of the sectors
included or the sector excluded. The criteria of relevance refer to the location
and shape of coasts and their relationship to each other. One may study those
passages in the speeches of Professors Bowett and Jaenicke whichdeal with the
issues of relevant coasts and relevant area without finding a single reference to
' the pertinence of length.
The irrelevance of the factor of length to the issues of relevant coasts and
relevant wa is of high significance. since the determination of these issues
conditions the process of delimitation on the basis of equitable criteria. Why is
length as such irrelevant to the establishment of the relevance of coasts?
There are at least three teasons. al1of which are related, as might be expec-
ted, to the rationale of the delimitation process.
The first such reason is that length by itself is very different from geography
and the realities of coastal configuration. In theNorth Sea Continental Shelf
cases it was the recessing nature. the location, of the German coast which
created a need to avoid encroachment and occlusion. Lengthof coasts had no
relevance except in the very general sense that the coasts of the three States
involved were considered to be sufficiently "comparable" (refer to Malta's first
dossier, Fig. 20).
In the second place, the lengthsof coasts as such could onlybe relevant if al1
the space within the relevant area were available for allocation.Such allocation
would then bemade on some criteria of distribution which wouid in manycases
produce an outcome incompatible with the pattern of convergence indicated by
the actual coastal relationships in the region.
I now come to the third reason for the irrelevance of coastal lengths as an
abstract value. lt is generally recognized that the choice of delimitation method
must be dependent upon the need to produce an equitable result. That result, in
order to be equitable. must reflect the critenon of equal division and the
concept of approximate equality. But reliance upon the ratio of the lengths of
the coasts of the Parties, when there is no general comparability in geographical
terms, produces an imbalance and results in a virtual monopoly of the relevant
area by one Party.
The conclusion must bethat the process of delimitation is intended to recon-
cile the convergence of coastal extensions; it is not intended to award shelf
areas according to abstract criteria of distribution based upon differences of
coastal length.
Logical Inconsisiencies inLibya' Position
concerningLengths of Coasrs
Mr. President, moving through the logical sequence of issues,1 have con-
sidered the relevant coasts and identified the relevant area. and1have indicated
that the delimitation shouldthebe effected on the basisof the equitable criterion
of the equal division of the relevant area. which, within the geographical and
Iegal framework of the present case, would involve the method of equidistance.
The Testor Criterion of Proportionality
The next phase in the procedure is the application of the testor criterion of
proportionality to the delimitati-n or, in the present case, to the principlon
which delimitation would proceed - already established in accordance with
equitable criteria. REPLY OFPROFESSORBROWNLIE 293
The Libyan case gives great prominence to proportionality in the particular
form of the ratio of the lengths of the relevant coasts of the Parties, as these
are conceived by Libya, and,by way of preface to my critique of the issue of
proportionality, it mbe of assistance to the Court if certain major inconsisten-
cies in Libyan thinking are pointed out. since these inconsistencies help us to
identify some sources of confusion.
The first source of confusion arises from the admission by counsel for Libya
that, when an island State is only 20 nauticül miles from the long coast State.
this relative proximity makes a key difference (p. 120, supra). 1 refer here
to the remarks of Dean Colliard in respect of the delimitation between Bahrain
and Saudi Arabia. In his speech he states that the proximity of the States is a
feature distinguishing that situation from the present case. Professor Bowett has
also accepted that "a median line may be reasonable or equitable where the dis-
tance between opposite coastsis relütively srnüll" (p. 161,supra). But, Mr. Presi-
dent, why should the greater proximity rnake a difference to the application or
noi of the test based upon the ratio of coastal lengths? There is no element in
the principle advanced by Libya which indicates or justifies such a qualification
in its application. Indeed. in so far as proximity mightonsidered relevant,
one might expect that proximity would be to the disadvantage of the short-coast
State at least within the Libyan philosophy of maritime delimitation in relation
to long coasts and short coasts.
In this same connection there is a further point requiring attention. Professor
Bowett has made the claim that the greater the distance between an island State
and a long-coast State, the moreelf the island State receives if a median line
is used. With respect, this assertion is based upon error. The point has already
been made in Malta's Counter-Memorial (pp. 108-110,II), where it was dernon-
strated, by means of diagrams and rnathematics, that, whether the short-coast
State advances or recedes, "the ratio of the aofathe two sectors of the tra-
pezium, divided by the equidistance line. remains constant, whatever the valueof
h, [h being] the distance between the two coasts". That is a reference to para-
@ graph 245 (p. 108) of Malta's Counter-Mernorial (II), which refers to Figure 5
at page 109 of that document. and the diagrams concerned are reproduced as
@ Figure 25 in Malta's second dossier.
In other words, distance makes no difference and consequently the admission
by counsel for Libya that an equidistance line is equitable in conditions of rela-
tive proximity constitutes acceptance of a principle which appiies equally in
the situation oflta and Libya.
1now move on to a second source of confusion. In my speech during the first
round 1presented the case of a long-coast Stste opposite a series of short-coast
@ States, and I invoked FiguAe of Malta's Reply, which also appears in Malta's
@ first dossier as Fig27A. This was the very simple figure showing a series of
short-coast States opposite a single long-coast State. In rny argumentted
out that. according to the landmass argument of Libya, the proportionality line
would apply to each and every one of the short-coast States opposite the long-
coast State.
The Libyan response to this. expressed by my friend Mr. Highet (pp. 151-
152.supra), was to state that the correct result wbela rnedian line and not
a proportionality line based upon the ratio of the lengths of the coasts of the
individual short-coast States and the length of the entire coast of the long-coast
State. This response by Libyaoes not. in my submission, begin to destroy my
point that the logic of territorial magnitude. such as it is, should apply to the
disadvantage of the short-coast States. and this wobedespecialiy so if they
had modest hinterlands. Mr. Highet's statement does not relate to this aspect of 294 CONTINENTAL SHELF
my argument. and 1 do not intend to pursue that aspect of the rnatter at this
point in my speech.
My present purpose is to consider the implications of Mr. Highet's statement
in thegeneral context of the Libyan argument based upon the difference in the
length of coasts.
The first point to be noticed is that Malta's position is related to that of other
States in theegion, and indeed the Libyan argument has given emphasis to the
relevance of third States. Of course. Malta is not exactly in a line of adjacent
@ short-coast States, as in Figu27A, opposite Libya, but that is not the point.
Mr:Highetis statement involves the important and logical concession that, for
the purpose of applying a proportionality criterion in the form advanced by
Libya, itis only the actually corresponding sector of coast which counts. The
same point is made by Dean Colliard in his analysis of individual delimitations
between long-const and short-coast States.
It js clear from FigurA of Malta's Reply - that is Figure 27A of our first
@
dossier- .that this creates a serious dilemma for the Libyan case, for if the
concession conceming the correspondence of sectors is not made, it is impos-
sible to answer the argument that the Libyan position involves the dominance of
long-coast States in semi-enclosed seas, which point was put in my first-round
speech (III, p. 473). For, if correspondence of sectors is not allowed for, the
preponderance, the greater strength, as is alleged, of the natural prolongation
of the long-coast State must affect each one of the opposite short-coast States
and al1of them collectively. But Mr. Highet has of necessity accepted that the
appropriate outcome is a rnedian line between the short-coast States, on the one
hand. and the long-coast State.on the other hand.
@ The situation envisaged in Figure A of Malta's Reply can be varied to
include a series of short-coast States, or a mixture of short- and long-coast
States, surrounding an island State.
Mr. President, it is evident that the principle of the correspondence of coastal
sectors mus1 apply then also, but with the radial division indicated by the tra-
pezium rather than a simple perpendicularity.
If Mr. Highet's logical concession were not to apply to the case of an island
Statesurrounded by short-coast States, or a mixture of short- and long-coast
neighbours, the outcome of the Libyan thesis on proportionality would be a
massive multiple occlusion of the coastal projections of the island State to its
very great disadvantage. But he accepts that the median line is the solution in
respect of theegrneni of the long coast which corresponds to the relevant coast
ofthe island State.
Such are the confusions and eccentricities which characterize the Libyan
argument based upon lengths of coasts. And its perfectly natural for these prob-
lems to pervade Libyan thinking concerning proportionality since, a1ernpha-
sized during rnyfirst-round speech (III, pp. 437-438 and454-455. supra),the
Libyan position on proportionality is basedsentially upon a dogmatic reliance
upon coastal lengths and the related concepts of territorial magnitude.
It is the case that the proportionality argument in the Libyan case consists of
a substantive and primary reliance upon the difference in the lengths of the
coasts, thatis to Say, of the relevant coasts as theare conceived by Libya.
The contents of the speeches of Professor Jaenicke and Mr. Highet reveal the
extent to which the Libyan argument regards proportionality in terms of simple
spatial apportionment. Moreover. Professor Bowett in his speech. 178,supra)
specifically drew the Court's attention to t1973 proposa1 of Libya (see Map
No. 65 of Libya's dossier and Malta's first dossier, Fig. 1). and this proposa1
was based exclusively upon the difference in the coastal lengths of the Parties. REPLY OF PROFESSORBROWNLIE 295
The outcome is in effect that proportionality is employed as a primary source
of rights over sea-bed areas in accordance with a dogrnatic formula - the ratio
of the difference in lengths - which is not based upon the realities of coastal
relationships in theregion.
If proportionality is not to be used as an actual method of delimitation, in
effect as a basis both of entitlement and of delimitation, it can only appear as a
test or criterion by which the equitable nature of a delimitation established on
the basis of other criteria can be evaluated. No doubt this does not render the
significance of proportionality negligible, but the procedure does not involve, so
to speak, starting again.
Yet counsel for Libya clearly regard proportionality as a primary element in
the process of delimitation. Indeed, in the speeches of counsel for Libya the
ratio of the difference in length of the two coastal fronts of the Parties is un-
equivocally posited as a basis of delimitation, and this independently of the cri-
terion of proportionality. 1 refer to Professor Jaenicke's speech (p. 62, supra).
In the words of counsel for Libya: "It is therefore possible ... to determine the
dividing line between the respective natural prolongations of the Parties by
geographical criteria" (ibid.). It is true that Professor Jaenicke then goes on to
Say that this approach satisfies "the test of proportionality" (ibid.),but this will
not do, because it is impossible to verify the criterion based on the difference of
coastal lengths by the very same criterion reformulated as "the test of proportio-
. . .iI- . .
Moreover, in spite of protestations that the Libyan approach to proportiona-
litv "does nor aim at a reuartition of the area of delimitation bv eauitable
shares" (p. 184, supra), counsel for Libya always insist on giving &e élernent
of proportionality a high normative status and in applying it in such a way as to
lead directly to a delimitation. This is apparent throughout the second speech of
Professor Jaenicke in the first round, but it receives particular emphasis when
he explains how the ratio of coastal lengths applies in practice within the
relevant area as perceived by Libya (p. 192, supra). It is striking that both
Professor Bowett (pp. 180-181, supra) and Professor Jaenicke (p. 192, supra)
relate the choice of a line directly to the fact that it would produce a spatial
ratiocorresponding to the ratio of coastal lengths.
It is true that Professo~ Jaenicke (p. 192, supra), stated that "a reasonable
degree of correspondence" would be sufficient; and yet the fact remains that
the modus operundi of the Libyan argument does not involve the evaluation of
a line produced on the basis of other criteria, but the use of a formula to pro-
duce an independent delimitation, exactly as happened when Libya produced
the original 1973 proposal.
This approach destroys any concept of the convergence of coastal extensions
and in the present case it would produce exactly the type of occlusion and cut-
off which the Judgment in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases was intended
to guard against.
A further persistent and serious error in the Libyan argument relating to pro-
portionaIity takes the form of neglecting the important condition, set by the
Court in the North Sen Continental Shelf cases, that the abatement of an equi-
distance line can take place only in conditions of comparabiiity or, in other
words, "a geographical situation of quasi-equality" (I.C.J.Reports 1969, pp. 49-
50, para. 91).
The fact is that distinguished counsel for Libya tend to play down the require-
ment of comparability and, in this sarne connection, to misinterpret the juris-
prudence.
The reasons for this misunderstanding of the cases are suggestive and, with296 CONTINENTALSHELF
your permission, Mr. President, 1 shalt draw the attention of the Court to some
of them.
First, 1shall consider the views of the decision in the North Sea Continental
Shelf cases expressed by my friend and colleague, Professor Jaenicke, who
placed considerable reliance upon that decision. As one might expect, Profes-
sor Jaenicke places emphasis upon paragraph 98 of the Judgment in the North
Sea Continental Sheîf cases. which refers to proportionality as "a final factor
to be taken account of'. But paragraph 98 is only two paragraphs from the
end of a long decision, and the modest status of the "factor of proportionality"
is evident frorn the structure of thedispositif(1.C.J.Reports1969, pp. 53-54,
para. 101).
Mr. President, with al1 the respect due to my distinguished colleague on the
other side, no one reading the Judgment as a piece would receive the impres-
sion that the case was about proportionality, and still less that it was about the
use of the ratio of coastal lengths. The reasoning of the Judgment is concerned
with the problems of applying equidistance in certain geographical situations,
and the need to avoid the cutting off of a coastal State from areas of shelf
which would result from the use of the equidistance method in the case of lat-
erally adjacent States. when the middle of three adjacent States has a concave
and recessing Coast, and the two neighbours have convex coasts. In particular.
one may note the text of paragraph 8 of the Judgment, and the recurrence and
developrnent of the argument in paragraphs 44, 48, 54-55, 57-59, 83-85. and
89-96. The Court wilt no doubt be aware that, in al1 the key passages in the
Judgment which expound the reasons for not applying the equidistance prin-
ciple, there is no reference to the issue of proportionality. Moreover, the Court
insisted that the process of abatement depended upon "a geographical situation
of quasi-equality" as between the States concemed (1.C.J.Reports 1969, p. 50,
para. 91); and that there should be a general comparability between the length
of the coastlines concemed.
The object of the Court was to promote substantial equality and to do so by
making allowance for the recessing configuration of the German coasts. Thus it
was location and configuration which were the source of the abatement, and not
length. In fact, the Court pointed out that the three coasts were "comparable in
length" (I.C.J.Reports 1969.p. 50, para. 91).
There is no evidence that the Court envisaged the use of some system of spa-
tial apportionment as a solution to the problem of encroachment and cut-off. lt
is of great interest to note that the results of the subsequent delimitations with
the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom did not constitute a substan-
tial departure from equidistance but a modification of equidistance in order to
maintain the principle of approximate equality. Moreover, the results of the
agreements concluded subsequent to the Judgment were such that Germany was
brought into the central area of convergence and consequently achieved a deli-
mitation with the United Kingdom. The delimitation with the United Kingdom
involved boundary tuming points an average distance of 178 nautical miles
from German territory and 158 nautical miles from British territory (Limits in
the Seos, No. 10 (Revised), pp. 23-24). The delimitations represent an approxi-
mate equality between Germany and the other three States concerned. They are
not based on equidistance in a simple way. but at the same time they are not
based upon calculations based upon coastal lengths. No mention of a proportio-
nality calculation appears in the relevant issues ofLimits of rhe Seas published
by the United States Department of State, and it is remarkable that no reference
to such a calculation appears in the relevant sections of the Annex of Delimita-
tion Agreements mexed to the Libyan Counter-Memorial (II). 1 referto the REPLY OF PROFESSORBROWNLIE 297
commentaries relating to Agreements in that Annex (Agreements Nos. 7, 10 and
27), al1relating to the North Sea.
Mr. President, that concludes my considerations of the significant features of
the Judgment in the North Sea Conlinencal Shelf cases; and my next task will
be to draw the attention of the Court to the errors in the treatment by Libyan
counsel of the Decision in the Anglo-French Arbitration.
First of all1 would refer to the remarks of my friend and colleague, Profes-
sor Bowett (pp. 158-159, supra), who stated that in the Atlantic sector the Court
of Arbitration was dealing with comparable coasts, and that "it found the two
coasts of Finistère and Cornwall broadly comparable".
And, of course, Professor Bowett is correct, the Finistère and Comwall-
Scillies coasts were treated as broadly comparable,and that is precisely the point.
For purposes of delimitation, the very attenuated features of the western termi-
nus of Cornwall and the Scilly Isles, Iying some 21 miles beyond, were treated
as mainland comparable for delimitation purposes with the great mass of Finis-
tère. As Professor Bowett points out, it was the position of the Scillies in rela-
tion to the Comish peninsula which created the need for modification of the
equidistance line. Thus it was location, and not size or length of coasts, which
determined the relevance of the coasts of Cornwall and the Scillies both to the
establishment of an equidistance boundary and to the modification of that boun-
dary (see Malta's first dossier, Fig. 25).
Next, 1move on to the speech of my friend and colleague, Professor Jüenicke
(p. 187, supra), in which he explains that it was the open-endedness of the
area of delimitation in the Atlantic region in its lateral extent which explains
why, in his words, "the Court of Arbitration applied the concept of proportiona-
lity only ina limited way". This assessment can only be said to beg the ques-
tion. The Court of Arbitration clearly did not find it appropriate to seek toden-
tify relevant coasts because it did not consider that comparabiiity or relevance
depended upon assessing lengths of coasts. Moreover, the major and inescap-
able fact is that the Court of Arbitration did not give even a passing thought to
the varying strength or relativelegal significance of the natural prolongations of
western Cornwall and western Finistère. It was their location, their character as
abutting coasts, which was significant, and the coasts themselves were regarded
as comparable.
1conclude my response to Lihyan evaluations of the jurisprudence in the
first-round speeches by emphasizing certain significant facts which rnay be in
danger of becoming obscured by the exchange of quotations and observations
on particularities.
First, the principle of proportictnality in terms of the difference of coastal
lengths was not given prominence in the process of reasoning in the North Sea
Continental Shelfcases and was certainly not applied in the delimitations which
occurred subsequently to the decision in the North Seo Continental SheIfcases.
Second, the same pnnciple of proportionality was not applied in any phase of
the Decision of the Court of Arbitration in the continental shelf case between
France and the United Kingdom. The Court expressly stated that resort to the
ratio of the difference of coastal lengths was exceptional- 1 refer to paragraph
100 of that Decision. Moreover, this Decision provides some striking examples
of the importance of location and attitude of coasts as opposed to lengths
of coasts. Thus the reduction of the shelf area around the Channel islands
depended to a great extent on their location close to the shores of, and within
the arms of, a large gulf on the French coast well away from the United King-
dom mainland (see the Decision, paras. 189-199). Similarly, the adjustment
involved in reducing the weight of the Scilly Islands was due to the fact that298 CONTINENTAL SHELF
they involved "a considerable projection on to the Atlantic continental shelf of
a somewhat attenuated portion of the coast of the United Kingdom" (see the
ûecision. para. 249).
The Court of Arbitration was always at pains to emphasize that the element
of proportionality in delimitation of the shelf does not relate to the total parti-
tion of thearea of shelf among the coastal States concerned; and this statement
of principle appears in three different places in the Decision- 1refer to para-
graphs 78. 101 and 250. These statements clearly involve a general principle of
legal policy.
Third, the Judgment in the TunisialLibyacase contains no evidence that pro-
portionality played a dominant role in the delimitation process. Moreover, the
Court expressly stated that proportionality was a means of evaluating the attri-
bution of shelf areas "following the method indicated by the Court" (I.C.J.
Reports 1982, p. 91, para. 131). The general approüch of the Court certainly
involved treating the two coastlines in the second sector of the delimitation as
generally comparable, and thus there was a situation of equality within the same
order. It is clear from the words of the Judgrnent that proportionality was
employed as a test of the equity of an alignment already constructed in accor-
dance with criteria other than proportionality (see I.C.J. Reports 1982, pp. 82-
91, paras. 114-131); and it is also clear that the avoidance of encroachment
was a major concem of the Court, which gave close attention to changes in
coastal configuration and the effect of the Kerkennah Islands (ibid., pp. 86-89,
paras. 122-129,and the dispositif, p. 93, B).
Fourth, in the GuIfof Maine case the Chamber did not apply the proportiona-
lity test based uponthe length of coastlines within the area of delimitation; and
this was recognized by Professor Jaenicke in his speech (p. 187, supra).
Fifth. in the Decisions in the Anglo-French Arbitration, the TuniFialLibyo
case;and the Gulf of Maine case the element of proportionality was expressly
ernployed as a criterion to test the equity of a line already established in accor-
dance with equitable criteria. It is unfortunate that counsel for Libya tend to
ignore this aspect of the junspmdence. In the Gulf of Maine case, which is
invoked in the Libyan argument, the Chamber firstly established a median-line
delirnitation and then subjected the median line to a process described as that of
"correction" (I.C.J. Reporrs 1984, pp. 322-323, paras. 184-185; pp. 94-97,
paras. 217-223). Itis to be noted that the Chamber described the correction as
"limited" (ibid.. pp. 334-335, para. 218), and the key passage in the Judgrnent
contains the following clear statement. In the words of the Chamber:
"As the Chamber has expressly emphasized, it in no way intends to
make an autonomous criterion or method of delimitation out ofthe concept
of 'proportionality', even ifit be limited to the aspect of lengths of coast-
line. However, this does not preclude the justified use of an auxiliary cri-
terion serving only to meet the need to correct appropriately, on the basis of
the inequalities noted, the untoward consequences of applying a different
main criterion." (I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 335, para. 218.)
These significant facls cannot be obscured by the attempts by counsel for
Libya to play up the role of coastal Iengths. At the end of the day, there is no
single decision in which the method of the ratio of coastal lengths has been
applied, and the relevant decisions expressly reject this approach as an auto-
nomous criterion or rnethod of delimitation. The Libyan approach is precisely to
use coastal lengths as a pnmary method of delirnitation and as an autonomous
criterion. For this, and for other reasons, which I set forth in my speech in the
first round, the Libyan position is entirely contrary to legal principle. REPLYOF PROFESSOR BROWNLIE 299
Encroachment: Its Relarinn IO Disrorrion and Proportionality
Mr. President, in my submission, the jurisprudence substantially contradicts
the elements on which the Libyan proportionality argument is based, and, as 1
shall reaffirm later in rny presentation, the practice of States confirms the equi-
table nature of the solution which Malta has espoused.
Before 1 reach the conclusion of my treatment of the issues concerning
lengths of coasts and proportionality. there are two matters which remain on
this part of the agenda. The firsr is the consideration of the causes of Libyan
misconceptions of proportionality; and the second is to point out the implica-
@@ tions of the Libyan graphics (Libyan dossier. Figs. 68 and 69), which indicate
the relevant area as conceived by 1-ibya.
First,1 turn to the root causes of Libyan misconceptions of the role of pro-
portionality. The first reference to the question of proportionality appears in the
Judgment in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases but, as 1have already indi-
cated, the major concem of the Court in those cases was the problerns which
would be created by the use of equidistance where the coastal configuration of
one State would cause the equidistance line to swing out laterally across ünother
State's coastal front. cutting it off from areas situated directly before that front
(see, in particular. 1.C.J.Reports 1969, paras. 8, 44 and 85). It is the probleof
encroachment which troubled the Court au fond, and thus it is the principle of
non-encroachment which is given the conspicuous place of honour in the dispo-
sitif of the Judgrnent, where it appears at the first of the "principles and rules"
formulated in paragraph C of the dispositif. Proportionality appears at the end
of the dispositif, aa factor "to be taken into account" in the course of negotia-
tions, and it appears in paragraph D.
At the centre of the problem lies the fairly straightforward idea of distortion
or displacement caused by the use of a method of delimitation inappropriate to
the geographical circumstances. It is the idea of the approximate equality of
appurtenant areas of shelf which lies behind both the need to rnodify the equi-
distance line in certain situations and the need to avoid using proportionality as
the basis of a spatialapponionmeiit of shares. At the very heart of the concept
of proportionality, as developed by judicial experience, is the idea of distortion
and displacement of shelf areas in relation to abutting coasts. When there is no
cornparability of the attitude or posture of coasts (and length is but an aspect of
attitude), the use of equidistance (or any other geometrical method) causes dis-
placement and lateral cut-off of the coastal front of one of the States concemed.
In short. it is location and dislocation. ratherthan space and apportionment,
of shelf areas which is at stake.
#en there are coasts in the relation of Malta and Libya, there is no source
of lateral displacement; and thus the median line represents the neutral equili-
briurn between the two States, and constitutes the status quo of appurtenance
based upon the natural equality of the seaward reach of coasts.
In the circumstances of the present case, the introduction of a sort of spatial
equality based upon the ratio of coastal lengths would result in a massive trans-
verse displacement of sea-bed areas relating more to Maltese coasts than to
Libyan coasts. and the destruction of the balance of interests represented by the
area of convergence or overlapping of coastal extensions. Whilst the physical
fact of adjacency cannot autornatically create title to shelf areas, the concept of
adjacency very adequately expresses the linkbetween a State's sovereignty and
its sovereign rights to adjacent sea-bedareas.
The Libyan position actively promotes distortion because it depends upon a
formula and not upon the actual geographical relations. The difference in 300 CONTINENTAL SHELF
coastal lengths of itself cannot betaken to be,or translated into, the kind of
anornaly which calls for correction of the normal principle of equal division.
since that difference is not an index of distortion or displacement.
The Libyan position focuses upon a preconceived view of equity and neglects
the real geographical setting and the legal framework.
The solecism inherent in the Libyan position is highlighted by the fact that,
as counsel for Libya have recognized, ifMalta were near the Libyan coast, an
equidistance boundary would be equitable, just as it would be if Malta were
within the arms of a Libyan gulf, like the situation of the Channel Islands in
relation to the French coast.It would be strange indeed if the fact that Malta
stands at a distance of 180 nautical miles and more from Libyan coasts should
result ina legal disadvantage.
The Courrodjourned from 10.25 to 11.40 am.
Libya's Gruphics Indicadng the RelevantArea
Mr. President, Libya's eccentric approach to, the process of delimitation is
more apparent than ever before when one coniemplates the graphics displayed
in Court towards the end of round one of these oral hearings, and 1 refer to
@@ Figures in the Libyan dossier Nos. 68 and 69.The essentials of Figure 68 of
Libya's first round are now reproduced on the easel behind me. Those Figures,
@@ Nos. 68 and 69, show a set of lines which, in the Libyan view, constitute the
relevant area (see pp.189-192, supra). The figure which the lines enclose has
the distinction ofking completety novel and of failing to reflect either the
jurispnidence or the practice of States. It may be convenient if the figure is
given a name and, in view of its startling and unprecedented eastern inclination,
perhaps icould be called the Prolapsed Prolongation.
The western aspect of the relevant area as seen by Libya is orthodox and
more or less coincides with the western aspect of Malta's trapezium (see Pro-
fessor Jaenicke, pp. 190-191,supra).
However, the eastern aspect of the Prolapsed Prolongation provokes comment.
Itconsistsof these two straight lines, that is theeastem pointof the Medina Escarp-
ment, but of course the Medina Escarpment itself does not always coincide
with this straight line constructed on the eastemmost point of the Medina Escarp-
ment to RasZamq. This eastern aspect of the prolongation is completely depen-
dent upon geologicalcritena. Itconsists of the two escarpments (indicates on map).
the Malta-Sicily Escarpment to the north and the Medina Escarpment to the south
(see Professor Jaenicke, p. 191, supra). It is true that the southern sector is a
straight line joining the most easterly point of the Medina Escarpment to Ras Zar-
mq, but, as Professor Bowett explained in his speech (p. 173,supra), the escarp-
rnents ihemsetvesare the eastem limit of the relevant area because, in Libya's
view, they constitute features so marked "that they must taken as the eastem
boundary to any shelf area over whichMalta might conceivably have a claim".
The southern aspect of Libya's relevant area is, of course, the coast from Ras
Ajdir at the Tunisian border to Ras h q (see Professor Jaenicke, p. 189,
supra).As 1pointed out earlier on. this selection of a relevant coast is based
upon somewhat unusual views of what are facing coasts, but it is evident from
the speeches of Libyan counsel that the Ras Zamq terminus is also based on
the geological premise thathere is no relevant area east of the escarpments (see
Professor Jaenicke, p. 191,supra).
This leaves the northern aspect of the Prolapsed Prolongation, and thiis a
rnasterful invention, it's ajuridical trouvaille of the tirst-ordthis straight REPLY OF PROFESSORBROWNLIE 301
line here, together with the coasts of Malta. The line includes the coasts of
Malta, but then leaps into space as a straight çector on a latitude joining Malta
with the Malta-Sicily Escarpment. It joins the actual Coast of Malta to the
Malta-Sicily Escarpment, and is sirnply this latitudinal line - there. Counsel
for Libya quite simply failed to explain this line (p. 191. supra), but we may
presume it was necessary to insert a line in order to link the coasts of Malta -
which were at least not ignored - and the eastern limits of the Prolapsed Pro-
longation, which is based of course upon geological criteria. Thus the northern
limit has the strange task of linking a line based on geography, that is Malta's
coasts, and a line based on geology, that is the Malta-Sicily Escarpment.This is
the line based upon Malta's coasts and this is the line based upon the Malta-
Sicily Escarprnent, and this is the linking line. And the linking line is quite
simply based on nothing - there is no explanation of that line - and if it's
based upon anything at all, well we can only say it's based on optirnism.
Mr. President, both the outline and the justifications advanced for the Pro-
lapsed Prolongation indicate the mixture of confused thinking and sheer oppor-
tunism on which it is actually based. Its dimensions depend in critical respects
upon geological criteria, and thus we are presented with a relevant area which
rejects geographical relationships. The resultant selection of relevant coasts is
very strange indeed. The relevant area leaves out areas which clearly lie between
Malta and Libya, sirnply because they lie east of the escarpments. 1refer to these
areas - here. Other areas are included - and they lie more or less east of
Malta - although they cannot be said in any view at al1to lie between Malta
and Libya. 1refer to these areas - here - more or less to the east of Malta.
There is simply no legal justification for using geologicaI criteria in order to
determine the relevant area. Moreover, the Libyan argument results in the use
of coasts thernselves sirnply as geological data frorn which geological forma-
tions are supposed to extend. Yet the Libyan case introduces proportionality in
the form of the ratio of coastal lengths, and it is not easy to understand how the
equirable nature of an exercise based upon geology can be tested by a formula
based, at least in principle, upon a purely geographical criterion. Moreover, the
Libyan version of the relevant area includes sea-bed areas to the east of Malta
which lie well outside areas in which there is any possible convergence which
includes Libyan coastal extensions.
Reafirmarion of Malta's Positiun on the Signifcunce of Lengths of Cousfs
and Proportionaliîy
Mr. President, 1 have now concluded my general examination of the issues
dividing the Parties in so far as these relate to the significance of lengths of
coasts and proportionality, and in doing so 1 would reaffirm the conclusions on
these questions which 1 presented at the close of my speech in the first round
(III, pp. 474-476). The key point remains. The purpose of the jurispmdence and
the policy of the law has been to avoid encroachment and cut-off and to pro-
mote equality within a legal framework. The Libyan approach to delimitation
involves maxirnizing encroachrnent and cut-off and rejecting equality in favour
of extrerne solutions.
Proportionaliv in Relation to ThirdStates
The subject to which 1 now turn is the relevance of the interests of third
States in the process of delimitation. Counsel for Libya have made reference to
the position of third States in relation to proportionality (pp. 192-193, supra), 302 CONTINENTAL SHELF
but they have also raised the question in the form of a category of relevant cir-
cumstances (pp. 175-177 and 181,supra). as a part of reference to geography in
general (pp. 156 and 177-178, supra), and in connection with the detemination
of relevant coasts and relevant area (pp. 157 and 182,supra).
In short, the position of third States has been given some degree of promi-
nence kath in the oral argument and in the Libyan written pleadings (1, LM,
6.74-76; II, LCM, 2.18-28. 6.06. 6.30. 8.07). Indeed, the object of Libyan coun-
sel has been to proclaim a virtuous regard for the interests of third States and to
suggest thatMalta chooses to ignore the interests of other States in the region.
Mr. President. Malta has no policy of ignoring the interests of third States.
However, those interests cannot be protected simply by proclamations of virtue
and the problem, as it so often is, is to discover how to promote virtue by prac-
tical action.
At the formal level there is, strictly speaking. no problem, since the decision
of the Cou. on thedelimitation as between Malta and Libya clearly cannot pre-
clude the rights of third States. This condition of shelf delimitation has been
recognized by the Decision in the Anglo-French Arbitration (paras. 27, 28,
2501,and by this Court in its Judgment in the TunisialLibyacase (I.C.J. Reports
1982, p. 91. para. 130). and in its Judgrnent in the Italian Intervention case
(I.C.J.Reports 1984, pp. 26-27, para. 43).
Moreover. it is not possible to employ a test of proportionality based upon
calculations of areas, because to take third States into account would then
necessitate their voluntary participation in a many-sided judicial proceeding
(TunisialLibyacase, l.C,J,Reports 1982, p. 91. para. 130).
Thus in several senses it canbe said that there is no problem. Indeed, this is
recognized in the text of the Libyan Reply (para. 7.13), which Statesthat
"the fact thatThird States rnay claim certain parts of this [that is. the rele-
vant area] cannot serve to alter the basis foretermining this area as rele-
vant to a determination between Malta and Libya, even though the extent
of the area tobe delimited definitively between the Parties may be thereby
affected. Itis also apparent that in any part of the area in which Third
States have claims the delimitation rnust remain non-prejudicial until such
time as these claims are resolved."
And counsel for Libya made the same point in the first round (pp. 192-193,
supra).
In the result the Libyan position is more than a little equivocal in respect of
the interests of third States. It is particularly odd that Professor Bowett should
insist on the connection between the identification of relevant coasts and the
interests of third States (p. 157,supra), whereas Professor Jaenicke should point
out that the claims of third States to parts of the relevant area cannot inhibit the
decision of the Court on the rights of Malta and Libya (p. 193,supra).
Malta's position on al1 this is clear. The relevant area is that which lies be-
tween the facing coasts of the Parties presently before the Court and the rele-
@ vant area is indicated by the trapeziurn figure (Malta's first dossier, Fig. 7). The
coastal relationships naturally point up the area of convergence. Malta's defini-
tion of the relevant area minimizes overlap between the relevant area and the
claims of third States. In contrast, the Libyan version, the Prolapsedrolonga-
lion. would considerably increase the overlap with areas relevant to other bilat-
eral delimitations. and this is the case especially to the east of Malta.1ican
ask the Court to compare the inclination and position of the eastem aspects of
Malta's trapezium with the inclination and position of Libya's Prolapsed Pro-
longation, especially in respect toose areas to the east of Malta. REPLY OF PROFESSORBROWNLIE 303
At the end of the day, perhaps al1 that can be said about the connection
between the relevant area and the claims of third States is that a relevant
area defined in accordance with legal principle will minimize overlap with
such clairns, but that in any event such claims will not be precluded as a result
of the delimitation which will result.
However, Professor Bowett in his argument also refers to the elernent of
actual and prospective delimitation with third States as a category of relevant
circumstances (pp. 175-177. supra), and thus the point is separated from the
issue of relevantarea. Malta is ready to accept that delimitationswith third States
may constitute relevant circumstances, but this only in certain conditions.ore-
over, the mode of relevance must be appropriate to the process of bilateral deli-
mitation and the type of relevance invokedby Professor Bowett is unacceptable.
Professor Bowett makes reference to certain actual or prospective delimita-
tions which, he insists, the Court cannot disregard(pp. 175-176,supra). But, of
course, to Say this is to contradict the positions taken elsewhere in the Libyan
pleadings to the effect that the basis for determining the area which is relevant
to the delimitation cannot be affected by the claims of third States.It is in this
context that counsel for Libya refers to the delimitation effected between Italy
and Tunisia in 1971. As a rnatter of fact Malta has reserved her position in rela-
tion to this delimitation both vis-à-visltaly and vis-à-vis Tunisia,.and such a
reservation of rights is evidently justified as a matter of pnnciple.
At the same time, Malta recognizes that the actual and prospective delimita-
tions with third States have a relevance as a criterion of the equitable nature in
general tems of a particular method of delimitation. Thus the geographical cir-
cumstances of the region as a whole are significant; they provide the frame-
work of the delimitation. It is evident that other States, with the exception of
Libya and Greece, are very close to Malta, and as a result there is very little
room for Malta to be compensated, so to speak, if the delimitation vis-&vis
Libya leaves Malta with a limited access to shelf areas to the south. Indeed,
counsel for Libya has described the Central Mediterranean as "the area of great-
est congestion" within the Mediterranean (p. 156, supra). At the sarne tirne
Professor Bowett included Libya as one of the States which, in his words,
"must share this restricted area"(iliid.)the others being Malta, Italy and Tuni-
sia. This appreciation of the position of Libya is evidently unrealistic, as any
map shows. The sea areas to the cast and south of Sicily and Malta are rela-
tively uncluttered and the congestion occurs to the north, West, and south-west
of Malta. Libya herself lies well to the south of the area of congestion.
Whilst the topographical details are obviously different, there is a clear ana-
logy with the position of Germany in the North Sea Continental Sheifcases. In
view of her recessing coasts, and the convexity of neighbouring coasts, Ger-
rnany would have been unreasonably rnarginated as a result of anequidistance
delimitation. and this solution the Court rejected as being inequitable (I.C.J.
Reports 1969, pp. 17 and 49-50. paras. 8, 89 and 91). In the present case the
solution sought by Libya would create a situation in which Malta was effec-
tively marginated, as a result of a conjunction of Tunisian, Italian and Libyan
claims. In other words, Malta would be unreasonably isolated from the central
area of convergent coastakprojections which appears within the framework of a
semi-enclosed sea.
This intended result is spelled out very clearly in the speeches of Professor
Bowett (pp. 18 1-182, supra) and Professor Jaenicke (pp. 190-192, supra)P .arti-
cularly striking are the graphics placed on the easel during the speeches of the
@@ L i,yan counsel concerned - 1refer again to Maps 68, 69 and 70 of the Libyan
dossier. 304 CONTINENTAL SHELF
The Maltese portion of the relevant area, as designed by Libya. is an ideal-
ized version of the delimitation Libya would like to see. 1can point out respect-
fully to the Court ihat this is not only a drawing of a relevant area as conceived
by Libya. butit includes a proposed delimitation between Malta and Libya. And
it is, in fact, a graphic illustrating the proportions as between Malta and Libya
within the relevant area; and so we here have another Libyan proposal for a
@ delimitation. The set of lines from Libyan Map 68 as seen on the easel reveal
this tendency to idealize the delimitation Libya would like to see in tems of the
graphic which we see on the easel which appeared in No. 68. 1shall not offer
further comments except to say that the 1984 Libyan proportionality proposa1
@ - as it appears on Map No. 68 and on the easel behind me - bears no resem-
blance to the 1973 proportionality line, and this indicates the vagaries of Libyan
conceptions of proportionality. Both claims. of 1984 and 1973, are contradicted
by the treatment accorded by the Court to Germany in the North Sea Continen-
tal Shelfcases. And, as1 have pointed out already, in the aftermath of the deci-
sion in the North Seo Continenfal Shelf cases, Germany concluded a series of
delimitation agreements which brought the Federal Republic into the central
area of convergence in the North Sea.
The Relevanceof Territorial Magnitude
Mr. President, 1 have now disposed of the issues relating to proportionality,
and 1can advance to a subject which, as 1pointed out in my first-round speech,
is closely related to the Libyan argument based upon the difference in the
lengths of coasts, namely, the argument that the comparative territorial magni-
tude of Libya confers a privileged status upon the natural prolongation of Libya
as opposed to that ofMalta (III, pp.444-446).
I do not propose to add very much to my statement on this subject in the first
round, for the reason that Libyancounsel have to a great extent avoided answer-
ing the very specific points which were pu! during Malta's argument in the
first round. Counsel for Libya have been content to reiterate the basic argument
relating to landmass or territorial magnitude. Thus, for example, Professor
Bowett (pp. 159-160. supra) restated the thesis in unqualified tems. In his
words :
"Behind Libya's Coastis an enormous landmass, and the shelf offshore is
a projection of that great landmass. In comparison. the area of Malta is
minute. It cannotbe right to treat coasts fronting minute landmasses as of
equivalent weight to coasts fronting great landmasses." (P. 159, supra.)
With few exceptions, counsel for Libya have failcd to answer specific criti-
cisms of the landmass argument. In dealing with Figure 27A in Malta's first
dossier - that is the graphic showing a series of short-coast States opposite a
long-coast State - Mr. Highet completely avoided reference to Malta's argu-
ment that in connection with Figure 27A the landmass argument would apply to
each of the short-coast States, not simply because of their having short coasts,
but alsobecause they would not - at least in the Meditenanean settin- have
hinterlands comparable to that of Libya. The record will contain the references
to my original speech (III, p. 473) andto Mr. Highet's speech (pp. 151-152,
supra) on the same subject. Similarly, there has been no attempt by Libya
to reply to my argument based upon the practice of hinterland States. which
practice lends no support to the Libyan contention.
The pattern of assertion of the basic landmass argument by counsel for Libya
does, however. contain two minor deveiopments. ln the first place, Professor REPLY OF PROFESSOR BROWNLIE 305
Bowett suggests that there is judicial support for the relevance of territorial
magnitude (p. 159, supra), but he is very tentative and fails to refer to any
example involving an island State., In any case, he then rather engagingly
admits that the jurisprudence is, in his words, "comparatively young", and
invites the Court to "adopt" what he clearly regards as a noveltyas yet unadop-
ted by anytribunal (ibid.).
The second development appears in the first speech of Professor Jaenicke,
who makes a point of the fact that a small island "will attract a continental
shelf area many times its size" if an equidistance boundary is adopted (p. 000,
supra); and this point is repeated by Professor Bowett (pp. 000-000, supra). In
essence this is another form of the landmass argument and should stand or fa11
with that argument. However, the Libyan point also relates to concepts of dis-
tance and radial projection, and my friend Rofessor Weil will deal with these
issues in his presentation.
1 shall conclude my rernarks on the question of temtonal magnitude by re-
affirming the points made on this subject in my speech of the first round
(III, pp.444-446), and by recalling that Libya had made no serious attempt to
deaI with Malta's argument on that subject.
Mr. President, the last of the issues on my agenda this moming is the signifi-
cance of State practice, a subject to which Libyan counsel have devoted much
attention in their speeches.
Malta'sPurpose inInvokingSrarePractice
It may be helpful if 1 restate Malta's purpose in referring to State practice.
That purpose is to assist the Court by seeking to make practical use of existing
expenence. The existing experience is substantial and it is well known that
most Governments negotiating maritime delirnitations consult legal advisers.
Legal considerations are never far away when delimitation agreements are
concluded. Moreover, the available State practice includes a considerable quan-
tity of material relating to delimitations in semi-enclosed seas and involving
islind States or insular dependencies.
In spite of the rnarked reluctance of Libya to take State practice seriously, in
the first-round speeches it became clear that at least on some occasions the
comparability of other cases was recognized and accepted. Thus Professor
Bowett employed State practice in hiç argument on the relevance of geological
and geomorphological features (pp. 165-166, supra).
Malta affirms her view that State practice is relevant is that it provides
reliable evidence of the general standard of what is equitable in various com-
parable political and geographical settings.It must follow that State practice is
relevant to the question whether equidistance is the equitable result in certain
situations, to the propriety of the Libyan thesis based upon proportionality, and
to the question of the significancef geological and geomorphological features.
GeneralCommenton LibyaiiArgument concerning StarePractice
In contrast to Malta's use of State practice as a positive part of its case,
Libya's position is almost exdusively negative, and no atternpt is made to
establish, or even to suggest, that State practice supports Libyan arguments on
lengths of coasts and proportionaiity. Counsel for Libya have walked around the
structure of Malta's presentation on State practice rnaking comments like queru-
lous building inspectors, but they have offered no architecturoftheir own.
In spite of al1 the commentary on the evidence of State practice offered by306 CONTINENTALSHELF
counsel for Libya, two major conclusions remain inescapablewhen the material
available is reviewed in iu entirety.
The first major conclusion is that none of the materials reveal that the States
concemed have established a delimitation based upon the ratio of the difference
of the length of the respective coasts orany particular sectors of those coasts. In
his detailed consideration of episodes of State practice. not once does Dean
Colliard claim that the process of delimitation was based uponthe ratio of the
difference of the lengths of coasts (pp. 103-123supra).
The second major conclusion is that whatever the precise method, or combi-
nation of methods. employed in the various delimitations involving island
States, or groups of islands, or peninsulas, opposite long-coast States. the deli-
mitation which emerges represents the concept of approximate equality. As 1
shall demonstwte, the examples atacked by Professor Colliard go to prove the
relative insignificance of length as such and, indeed, the reasons adduced by
the distinguished counsel for Libya to indicate the relevance of the practice
adduced in rny first-round speech in fact indicate the relative insignificanceof
coastal lengths, since counsel for Libya insiststhat it is only the sectors directly
opposite each other which count and this affirms the irrelevance of the
difference in coastai lengths.
In general, the Libyan argumentation blandly ignores the general pattern, the
overall effect of State practice, in favour of obfuscation and captious objections
based upon considerations which are for the most part either irrelevant or
actually inimical to Libya's major argumentsbased upon the significance of
coastal length.
The general character of Libya's presentation concerning State practicemay
be exemplified by two features.
The first such notable characteristic is the tendency not to see thewood for
the trees. As a result, Dean Colliard has avoided presenting Malta's examples of
State practice in the general legal and geographical context. Let us take the
delimitation between Bahrain and Iran,which can be seen in Malta's first dos-
sier at Figure 22. Dean Colliard has stated that "the coast of Bahrain is 40 kilo-
metres long" and that "the corresponding length of the Iranian coasts is 50 kilo-
metres" (p. 119,supra). On the basis of these data he concluded that the situation
is "quite different"- his words - from the present, and that Iran is, in his
words,"not a long coast", because it faces a series of coasts of opposite States.
However, this view of the matter rests, quite simply, on erroneous assump
tions. First, the delimitation, which consists of a median line, is not, so far as
technique and method go, based upon lengths of coasts at all. In fact, a single
basepoint on each coast was used for the construction of the line. Secondly. the
question of which are the facing or opposite coasts is not as simple as counsel
for Libya considers it to be. The coastal front of Bahrain rnay be said to mea-
sure some 24 miles; but the relevant coastal front of Iran is evidently very
much longer. The difficulty is that it is question-begging to identify exact
coastal fronts,becausethat assumesthe applicationof the Libyan modusoperandi.
The fact is that the lengths of relevant coasts was not a factor which determined
the location of the boundary, and it is certain that Iran,as a long-coast State
with an extensive hinterland, received no advantage.
The second erroneous assumptiori lies in the view that coasts relevant to a
delimitation as between State A and State B (as opposite States) cannot be rele-
vant as between State A and State C, another opposite State. This has already
been pointed out as a fundamental weakness in Libyan thinking about relevant
coasts. Moreover, Libya's Tripolitanian has already been used. so to speak, ai
least in part, in tTunisialLibya case. REPLY OF PROFESSORBROWNLIE 307
At the end of the day, the fact remains that Bahrain is an island State with a
modest frontage vis-&vis Iran, and Iran is a long-coast State. These are the
facts which constitute a major aspect of the geographical framework of that
delimitation. And in the event that delimitation did not depend, either in whole
or in part, on the discrepancy - however that be determined - in the lengths
of relevant coasts. The legal provenance of the delimitation is plain to see. A
median-line delimitation was effected between an island State and a long-coast
State. Moreover, the presence of other States on the southern side of the Gulf to
some extent mirrors the fact that Malta also has other States in her vicinity, in
what counsel for Libya has described as a congested part of the Mediterranean.
For the moment 1shall only present one other example of the Libyan failure
to see the wood for the trees. Dean Colliard was very critical of Malta's ref-
erence to the delimitation between France, in respect of New Caledonia, and
Australia (p. 122, supra) - this appears as Figure 33 in Malta's first dossier. In
particular, counsel for Libya stated that "no mainland is involved". Now, it is
true that the sectors of the delimitation and the turning points are al1based upon
small islands and arenot related to basepoints, eitheron New Caledonia or on the
Australian coast. But this is a reference to the method of constructing the line.
The whole point is that the extensive Australian coast was not involved: it
was not taken into account in the delimitation. Any appreciation of that example
in terms of legal principle must involve reference to the geographical and political
context, and the striking fact is that Australia's landmass andlong coasts evidently
produced no advantage for Australia in the delimitation vis-à-vis New Caledonia.
Mr. President, with your permission, 1 would like to make one last general
observation on the nature of Dean Colliard's approach to the evidence of State
practice, and thisespecially in relation to delimitations based upon equidistance.
It is Malra's position, as ithas been throughout, that in appropriate circum-
stances equidistance is a rnethod which leads to a result which satisfies the
equitable criteria, 'including the pnnciple of equal division. In Maltais view
equitable principles and the equidistance method are perfectly compatible. 1 Say
this because Dean Colliard has based his assessrnent of particular episodes of
State practice upon the erroneous premise that a delimitation agreement must
refer expressis verbis to equidistance; and thus an agreement which refers to
the application of equitable principles cannot be reievant for this purpose,
even although the delimitation established is actually based upon equidistance
(pp. 107-108 and 111, supra). With respect to my distinguished colleague on
the other side, this is not good sense and, a1 have shown, the premise does not
reflectMalta's position relating to the legal basis of the equidistance method.
The State Practice Relatingto the EquidistanceMethod as Evaluased
by Dean Colliard
1 have now completed my general comments upon the Libyan reasoning
concerning State practice, and 1 can move on to a consideration of more parti-
cular matters. First1 shall tum to Dean Colliard's commentary upon the State
practice adduced by Malta to support the position that the equidistance method,
with or without some modification, was commonly employed in delimitation of
continental shelf areas (pp. I03ff., supra).
There is a considerable quantity of material before the Court and it would not
help very much if 1were to offer a commentary on every assertion contained in
Dean Colliard's presentation. In my subrnission his criticisms do not add up to
a successful attack on either the relevance or the weight of the State practice
adduced by Malta and are much concemed with marginal points.308 CONTINENTALSHELF
Malta finds it sufficient to take some examples of Dean Coiliard's criticisms
and indicate that they lack efficacy overall.
In the first place, his method of assessment is unconvincing. For example. it
is one thing to point out that certain agreements concemed delimitation between
economic zones, but itis another to assume that this factor renders the delirnita-
tion concerned irrelevant to the issue of shelf delimitation (pp. 105-106,supra).
Again, the opinion. that the practice of States which did not favour equidis-
tance at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. cannot be
said to support equidistance, even when in fact the practice used that method. is
eccentric (pp. 106-107, supra). Indeed, the point could be put the other way:
the practice of such States goes to show the compatibility of the equidistance
method and equitable principles.
Dean Colliard makes a prolonged attack upon the matenal .set forth in Dr.
Prescott's opinion annexed to Malta's Reply (pp. 107-119, supra). An example
of his criticism of the methodology adopted by Dr. Prescott is as follows. Dean
Colliard States that only 20 agreements make express reference to the choice of
the critenon of equidistance (p. 11 1, supro). But it is difficult to ignore the
agreements which are clearly based upon equidistance but contain no explicil
reference to equidistance in the text. It is evident that the Geographer of the
United States Department of State has experienced no difficulty in charac-
terizing. as based on equidistance or not, the many deiimitations which contain
no express reference to a choice of method: see, for example. the delimitation
between India and lndonesia in Lirnifsin the Seas, No. 62, page 3. Many of the
points offered by counsel for Libya involve non sequiturs of this kind.
Dean Colliard identifies six so-called omissions in Malta's pleadings (pp112-
113, supra), and these are described as "the main omissions", and are deplored
by counsel for Libya because, in his words, "it should be observed in passing
that the agreements omitted do not tend to support the case for equidistance;
they do not endorse Malta's contention, but the position of Libya" (p. 113,
supra). They are Dean Colliard's words.
Mr. President. these are harsh words, but they do represent the appropriate
standard, which is whether the particular episode of State practice supports
Malta's view on delimitation or Libya's view on delimitation.
1 shall now apply this standard to the six so-called omissions indicated by
Dean Colliard.
The first is the delimitation agreed ktween Abu Dhabi and Dubai in 1968
(one may refer to Libya's dossier, at Fig. 10). It is not included in the general
survey of continental shelf boundaries in the Gulf published by the United
States Department of Siate Geographer in 1981 - 1 refer to Limits in thSeus,
No. 94. Certainly. by 1981 the delimitation was no longer international, since
both Parties had become units within the United Arab Emirates. In any event,
the delimitation involves no substantial variation from equidistance, as the illus-
tration to the Annex to Canada's Reply in the Gulf of Maine case helpfully
shows (p. 151 of that Annex). Moreover, the Libyan Annex of Delimitation
Agreements (II) in the present case (at No. 15) observes that "the boundary
appears to run roughly perpendicular to the general direction of the coast".
What is one to make of this omission? The delimitation is very close to an
equidistance line and certainly it satisfies the criterion of approximate equality.
Equally certainly, it gives no support whatsoever to the Libyan approach to
delimitation.
The second omission referred to by Dean Colliard is the delimitation between
Portugal and Spain of 1976, which is recorded in the Canadian Annex at page
391, and it appears in Libya's dossier at Figure 12. Again, the alignment REPLY OF PROFESSOR BROWNLIE 309
involves only a minor deviation from equidistance, and this appears from the
Canadian illustration. The outcome is entirely compatible with Malta's position
and clearly cannot support Libya's approach IOdelimitation.
The next alleged omission consists of the shelf delimitation between Turkey
and the USSR established in 1978 (see the Canadian Annex, p. 523). This deli-
mitation had in fact been given prominent reference by counsel for Malta in the
first round(III, p. 470) and it appears in Malta's first dossier at Figure 24. The
delimitation is conspicuously based upon equidistance. Thus this example is not
omitted from Malta's pleadings and cannot be said to support the position of
Libya. ..
The fourth delimitation listed as an omission consists of the agreement be-
tween France and Brazil of 1981. which appears in the Canadian Annex (p. 669)
but not in the Libyan Annex of c el imitatioAngreements (see Libya's dossier,
Fig. 14). As the illustration in the Canadian Annex shows with great clariiy, the
line adopted is very close to an eqriidistance line and certainly satisfies the cri-
tenon of equal division. It cannot be said to support Libya's position in any
way.
The fifth omission listed by Dean Colliard is, quite simply, not an omission
from Malta's pleadings. since it feütures, with a graphic, in Malta's Mernorial
(pp. 86, 88), and it may beseen in Malta's first dossier (Fig. 23). This delimitü-
tion between Cuba and Haiti, adopted in 1977, is based substantially on equidis-
tance. It gives no support to Libya's views (see the Canadian Annex. p. 455).
The sixth case referred to by counsel for Libya consists of the delimita-
tions between the United States anciMexico of 1978 (see the Canadian Annex,
p. 507) (and see Malta's first dossier, Fig. 23). The two alignments involved are
based upon equidistance. Indeed, in the text of his expert opinion Dr. Prescott
reports the view of Dr. Robert Srnith (who is cited as an expert source by
Libya) that "equidistance was anappropriate method of delimitation in each of
the boundary regions" (III, MR, p. 160). It is difficult to see why these delimita-
tions are counted as omissions, because the first of the relevant agreements is
inciuded in Table 3 of Dr. Prescott's opinion (ibid., p. 176).and the agreement
signed in 1978, but unratified, is referred to by Dr. Prescott in a footnote.
If a balance sheet be made of these six so-called omissions, it will be seen
that at least two of the items have appeared prominently in Malta's pleadings,
and that the other four delimitationsare either based upon equidistance - the
case of France and Brazil. the United States and Mexico - or otherwise are
very close to equidistance and certainly compatible with the criterion of
approximate equality - the cases of Abu Dhabi and Dubai, and Portugal and
Spain.
MT. President, these are the six so-called omissions which counsel for Libya
deplored and which he deplored on the ground that they do not support Malta's
contention, but the position of Libya (p. 113, supra).It is also worth recalling
that Dr. Prescott's study lists a total of 77 agreements in his tables.
As 1have already indicate, 1do not intend to respond to each and every point
made by Libyan counsel in respect of Dr. Prescott's opinion and Malta's use of
State practice.
However, the Libyan views of the six so-called omissions have been exam-
ined fairly fully in order that the Court may appreciate the relativities of the
standard of accuracy on which the Libyan critique is based. And in this connec-
tion the Court may be sure that a considerable degree of exaggeration attends
the assertion by counsel for Libya that various agreements, such as those
between Bahrain and Iran, and between lndia and Thailand, do not rely upon
equidistance (pp. 114-119, supra).3 10 CONTINENTAL SHELF
Srate Practice Relaring ro Proportionaliry and the Significance of the Lengths of
Coasîs as Evaluated by Dean Colliard
This section of my speech has been concerned with Dean Colliard's criti-
cisms of the evidence of State practice presented by Malta in connection with
the role of the equidistance method in the application of equitable principles.
This subject is now concluded, and 1can turn to the unit of Dean Colliard's
speech (pp. 119-123,supro) devoted to an attack upon the State practice which
1invoked in the course of my presentation during the first round (III, pp. 468-
473).
By way of preface 1 rnust point out that Dean Colliard's speech refers gen-
erally to, and is introduced as referring to, the State practice in connection with
the role of equidistance in shelf delimitation: and this appears from the intro-
ductory passage to Part II of his presentation (p. 103.supra). His cnticism of the
State practice invoked inmy speech is thus lumped in with the general subject
of equidistance and this is very strange indeed, since the State practice con-
cerned was expressly related to the issue of proportionality and lengths of coasts,
and the rubricin the verbatim record makes this absolutely clear (III, p. 468,
supra). This fact should be noted when Dean Colliard's commenrs are studied.
My purpose is to assist the Court by offering a closer examination of the
State practice which is the subject of Dean Colliard's commentary, precisely
because this practice sheds light on the issue of long coasts and short coasts.
Initially,1shall look at the delimitations seriatim and afterwards 1shall point
out the general implications of the materials.
I. Long-caasr Sraresand island States in an opposite relationship
The first group of delimitations concems long-coast States and island States
in an opposite relationship. Seven examples were produced by Malta, of which
the first concems Bahrain and Iran - this is in Malta's first dossier, Fig22.
Counsel for Libya contends that lran is "not a long-coast State" because it
faces a series of coasts of opposite States yd therefore, "the situation is quite
different" (p. 119. supra). As 1 have already had occasion to point out, the
method of establishing the boundary was no1 based upon the Iengths of coasts
but upon a single basepoint on each coast. No doubt if the Libyan thesis were
to be applied, it would be necessary to determine which were the relevant
coasts. But this was not done. Even if it is accepied that onla certain sector of
the Iranian coast. so to speak, matches each short-coast State opposite, this does
not heip Libya, since there is no evidence that the acceptance of equidistance
depended upon such a consideration. And there is a further point. Malta, like
Bahrain. has other States lying close to its other coasts, and therefore the
Bahrain example has particular pertinence.
The next example criticized by rny colleague is that of Cuba and Mexico.
This may beseen on the Figure 23 in Malta's first dossier. With regard to this
delimitation Dean Colliard states very shortly that "the non-island State- that
is, Mexico - "does not have a long coast" (p. 119, supra). With respect, the
facing coast of Mexico is very extensive andit is artificial to state that the
Mexican coast is comparable in length to that of Cuba. At the least, the ge*
graphy of this example indicates the difficulties in using lengths of coasts asa
basis for delimitation.
India and the Maldives is the next case and this appears ai Figure 28 of
Malta's first dossier. In this example Dean Colliard chooses to compare the
entire length of the archipelago wiih what he refers tas "the south-westemmost REPLY OF PROFESSOR BROWNLIE 311
point of India" (p. 119. supra). In fact, the relevant coastal front of india is
extensive, of the order of some 280 miles, and it is evident that the long-coast
continental State of India has had no advantage in the delimitation. The
example is, of course, inimical to the argument based upon territorial magni-
tude. As the text of the United States Department of State publication Limits in
the Seos, No. 78, page 7.notes "the boundary closely approximates an equidis-
tance line".
The delimitation between Cuba and the United States, which appears also on
Figure 23 of Malta's first dossier, is also clearly based upon equidistance. On
no clear reasoning Dean Colliard declares this episode to be irrelevant (pp. 119-
120, supra). Yet it must be relevant, since Cuba is an island State and the
United States is evidently a long-coast State. Coastal lengths were not used as
the basis of the delimitation. In this connection the Libyan Annex of Delimita-
tion Agreements. No. 53, reports that the United States Deputy Legal Adviser,
who signed the Agreement on behalf of ihe United States, has stated that
"the line established by the treaty- although close to an equidistance line
giving full effect to islands- is in fact a boundary every tuming point of
which has been established by negotiation" (U.S. Senate Report No. 96-
49).
But of course, an equidistance iine has to be articulated in the form of tuming
points and these have to be negotiated and are not made in heaven. The out-
come in this case was substantially based upon equidistance.
The next exampie attackedby counsel for Libya (p. 120, supra) is the delimi-
talion between Colombia and the Dorninican Republic - again, this appears on
Figure 23 of Maltais first dossier - and counsel for Libya States that neither
State has a long coast.
Mr. President, the factrernains that this is a rnedian-line delimitation between
an island State and a State with a considerable coast backed by an extensive
landmass. The significant point is rhat the lengthsof coastlines were not taken
into account in effecting the delimitation.
The same considerations apply to the delimitation between Colombia and
Haiti (See Malta's first dossier, Fig. 23), also rejected by Dean Colliard on the
ground of irrelevance (p. 120.suprci).
The last delimitation in this group is that between Bahrain and Saudi Arabia
- to be seen on Malta's first dossier, Figure 22. Once again Dean Colliard
denies that there is comparability with the present case (p. 120, supra). One can
only admire the boldness of that denial. The disparity in the lengths of the
relevant coasts is self-evident and the delimitation is substantially based upon
the equidistance principle. In the United States Department of State publication
Limits in the Seas, NO. 12 (p. 3), it is stated that the delimitation "employs a
variation of the equidistance principle". Moreover, Dean Colliard places empha-
sis upon the proximity of Bahrain to the coast of Saudi Arabia as a special
point of distinction between that situation and the one presently before the
Court. Mr. President, this is a significant admission. On what principle should
Malta be disadvantaged as a result of king relatively distant from Libya? If the
ratio of the lengthsof coasts is a criterion which is applicable at al1why should
it not apply when the coasts are relatively close? On the Libyan logic of the
strength of the natural prolongation of the larger State. the critenon should be
applicable also in cases of proxirnity.
So much for the category of delimitations involving long-coast States and
island States in an opposite relationship. The next class of evidence offered by
Malta consists of delimitations between:312 CONTINENTALSHELF
2. Long-coasiStates and short-coast peninsuiar States opposite
The delimitation between Iran and Qatar is the first example - again on
Figure 22 of Malta's first dossier. Dean Colliard denies that there is any com-
parability with the present case (p. 120, supra). With respect, the com-
parability is very clear. The fact is that part of the Iranian coast facing the
delimitation area is much longer than that of Qatar facing the delimitation area.
Indeed, the broad sweep of the coast of Iran and the shorter and sharply convex
coast of Qatar, set at a distance. are similar to the coastal relationships of
Malta and Libya.
The delimitation between Denmark and Norway is the next in this class (see
Malta's first dossier, Fig. 20). Although Dean Colliard States that the lengths of
the relevant coasts are approximately the same (pp. 120-121, supra), the fact
remains that Denmark presents a relatively attenuated and markedly convex
frontage which has been given equal weight with the massive and more gently
curving frontage of Norway.
The Iran-Oman delimitation (Malta's first dossier, Fig. 22) is criticized by
Dean Colliard on the ground that Oman is not a short-coast State (p. 121.
supra). But the comparability is only too evident. The formation of the northem
aspect of Oman is very similar in attitude to the coast of an island and the fact,
the evident fact, is that a short coast of approximately 90 miles faces a very
much longer coast of some 250 miles. The delimitation effected by Iran and
Oman takes no account of disparities of coastal lengths and is based upon the
equidistance method (see Limits in the Seas, No. 67, p. 5; and No. 94, pp. 4-6).
Next comes the delimitation between Australia and Papua New Guinea (see
Malta's first dossier, Fig. 31). Again it is asserted by counsel for Libya that the
coastal lengths are comparable (p. 121, supra) but the fact remains that in this
delimitation attenuated features. and especially the Yorke Peninsula, are given
equal weight along mainland coasts.
3. Grnups of islands (in some cases more or iess autonornous)and opposiie-
related long-coast States
The third class of evidence invoked by Malta in the first round consisted of
delimitations involving groups of islands, in some cases more or less autono-
mous, and opposite-related long-coast States. The first delimitation invoked was
that between Denmark (in respect of the Faroes) and Norway (see Malta's first
dossier, Fig. 20). Of this counsel for Libya did not have rnuch to Say beyond
his statement that the Faroes have a north-south coastal front some 120 kile
metres long (p. 121, supra). Now in reality this coastal front does not generate
the boundary, since the Norway-Shetlands alignment also lies in the area. The
delimitation is not in fact related;O lengths of coasts and this is the significant
point. It is the location and attitude of the Faroes coasts which in conjunction
with the principle of equality gives rise to the delimitation. It is obvious that
Norway has a long facing coast but no advantage has ken obtained as a result.
And. Mr. President, it may be observed in passing that Iceland, the United
Kingdom andNorway have not made arrangements which either indicate or
prefigure in any way the enclaving of the Faroes, as a result of delimitations
which discriminate against them.
The second delimitation of this group is that involving Finland (in respect of
the Aland Islands) and Sweden (see Malta's first dossier, Fig. 32). Dean Col-
liard stresses the dose relation between the relevant sector of the alignment and
the Aland Islands Convention of 1921 (pp. 121-122, supra), As a matter of fact,
he has exaggerated the nature of the relationship since the lines are not exactly REPLYOF PROFESSORBROWNLIE 313
coincident and this is pointed out in the relevant Limirs in the Seas, No. 71
(PP. 7-81.
The third example from this group is the delimitation between France (in res-
pect of New Caiedonia) and Australia (see Malta's tïrst dossier, Fig. 33). Dean
Colliard has stated that the delimitation does not involve a mainland but is
entirely between islands (p. 122, supra). As 1 have already had occasion
to point out, that fact has its own importance. The result of the relevant agree-
ment is a delimitation between Australia and New Caledonia. and the overall
geographical context should not be confused with the particular means by which
the boundary was'technically constructed. Australia, a long-coast State with a
vast hinterland, received no advantage in the delimitation.
The next example is the delimitation between Norway and the United King-
dom (in respect of the Shetlands) (see Malta's first dossier, Fig. 20), and,
conceming this, counsel for Libya claims that the lengths of the opposiie coast-
lines are comparable and the implication is that this episode of State practice is
therefore irrelevant (pp. 122-123. .~upra).Mr. President, it really is not sarisfac-
tory to make assertions which are so obviously inaccurate. The selection of
relevant coasts is not easy but the significant fact is that the Shetlands were
treated asmainland for the purposcs of the delimitation and were thus given full
weight. The Norwegian coast used for establishing the delimitation was 184
miles in length and the length of the Shetlands coast used was only 61 miles.
The Norwegian coast facing the area of the delimitation measures 220 miles
approximately (that is, from Stavanger in the south to latitude 62' 20' North
where the coast starts to tum to ihe north-east). On the Libyan view a differ-
ence in the lengths of the relevant coasts in such a case should be reflected in
the delimitation. But it is not reflected. Instead,as the Libyan Annex ofDelimi-
tation Agreements. No. 8, notes, the boundary "employs the equidistance
method with minor divergencies for convenience", and this statement is itself
derived from Article 1 of the Agreement of 1965 (Limirs in rhe Seas, No. 10
(Revised), p. 2).
The next item of Staie practice consists of the delimitation between lndia (in
respect of the Nicobar Islands) and Indonesia resulting from the Agreements of
1974 and 1977 (see Malta's first dossier, Fig. 35). Counsel for Libya dismisses
the boundary as irrelevant on the ground that the relationship only involved
islands (p. 123, supra). This perfunctory type of commentary cannot be
pemitted to obscure the geographical realities of that case. The relatively small
islands of the Nicobar group are given equal weight to the large island of
Sumatra. The fact that certain islands lying off Sumatra were used as basepoints
cannot be said to contradict the principal features of the delimitation. The extra
landmass and more extensive coastline of Sumatra facing the delimitation area
are not reflected in the delimitation, which is descnbed by the United States
Department of State geographer as "a modified equidistant line" (Limirs in rhe
Seos, No. 62, p. 3).
The final example of practice from this group is the delimitation between
India (in respect of the Nicobar Islands) and Ttiailand (see Malta's first dossier,
Fig. 36). This is dismissed by DeanColliard on the ground that the coast of
Thailand is not a long coast (p. 123, supra). The alignment is substantially
based upon equidistance, in spite of the somewhat vague characterization in the
relevant issue of the United States Department of State publication, Limits in
the Seas, No. 93. The dominant characteristics of the delimitation are: tïrst, that
it is compatible with the principle of equal division and, secondly, that the
small and disparate Nicobar group has been treated as a coastal frontage equal
in weight to the continuous and more extended coastline of Thailand.314 CONTINENTALSHELF
Geneml Conclusionson the Staie Practice
RelatingIO Proporrionoli~.and the Significanceof Lengrhsof Coasts
Mr. President. 1have concluded my riposte to the Libyan assault on the State
practice I adduced in support of Malta's case in the first round. When the
material is examined, it is imrnediately and strikingly apparent that, out of 17
delimitations which are in sorne rneasure geographically and IegaHycomparable
to the present case, not a single one is based upon, or has ken adjusted by
reference to, the difference in the lengths of sectors of coasts selected as being
relevant for the purpose. The marginalia produced by counsel for Libya cannot
distract the observer from this central truth. Moreover. the State practice
impressively contradicts the thesis relating to the significance of territorial
magnitude.
In any case, the methods of criticisrn employed by Dean Colliard are deeply
flawed as a result of misconceptions concerning the nature of the delimitation
process.
Thus the Libyan concept of relevant coast, which is highly artificial and self-
serving, is imposed upon delimitations which evidently had no connection with
a rnethod of delimitation based upon such a concept of relevance. Moreover,
DeanColliard, in his critique of particular episodes of State practice, applies a
test which would restrict relevant coasts tohose directly opposite the particular
island State. And in this respect there is a lurking paradox, since this narrow
view of relevance seems to contradict the idea that the lengths of coasts abut-
ting upon the delimitation are highly significant. On a number of occasions
Dean Colliard appenrs to change his criterion of relevance and to speak of the
sector of coast actually used in the delimitation in terms of basepoints. But, of
course, this is a rnatter of hydrographic technique in constructing and defining a
line and has no necessary connection with the general legal principles upon
which the delimitation is bnsed.
Mr. President, at this juncture I can reaffim my submission that the State
practice effectively dernonstrates that a delimitation in accordance with the
Libyan thesis on proportionality would be wholly incompatible with the interna-
tional standard as to what is equitable and what accords with the concept of
approximate equality.
State Practice and the Sign~@canceof Trenches
und Troughs
1 have now completed the parts of rnyspeech dealing with State practice,
except for the question of the significance of trenches and lroughsfor the pur-
poses of delimitation. This question has been considered extensively by my col-
leagues in the first-round speeches (see, in particular, the speech of the Agent
of Malta, III. pp. 297-3001,and thus my remarks on the subject will be brief.
The evidence of State practice overwhelmingly establishes that geologicaland
geomorphological factors are only taken into account in very rare circum-
stances. In his speech the Agent of Malta referred to a number of delimitations
which had ignored very significant features of the sea-bed, and counsel for
Libya have nor ken able to discredit this evidence as some exarnples will
show.
Thus the delimitation between Cuba and Haiti, which is expressly stated tobe
based upon equidistance, ignores the Cayman Trough, which is 2.900 rnetres
deep. and represents the northern limit of the Caribbean Plate, which passes
through the Windward Channel andthen eastward parallel to the northern shore REPLY OF PROFESSOR BROWNLIE 315
of Hispaniola (see Malta's second dossier, Fig. 26). The Cayman Trough is one
of the major tectonic units of the Caribbean. It is 1.700 kilometres long. and
100 kilometres wide; and it is generally recognized as a plate boundary in the
scientific literature. Dean Colliard attempted to dismiss this evidebyesuggest-
ing that the Cayman Trough is far from the area of delimitation (p. 112,supra)
but, with respect. this is not the case. It is similarly inaccurate to suggest (ibid.)
that the Aruba Gap, a structure 4,600 metres deep, was ignored because il lies
some distance south of the areas of delimitation between Colombia and the
Dominican Republic, and between the Dominican Republic and Venezuela. The
fact remains that no accouni was taken of the major feature of the Aruba Gap
(references, III, MR, p. 172).
In the first round my friend Professor Bowett broke the Libyan rule in these
proceedings, according to which State practice is irrelevant, and adduced four
instances of delimitation agreements in which, he contended, geological and
geomorphological features have played a role (pp. 165-166, supra). The first
example adduced was the 1972 Agreement between Australia and lndonesia
involving the Timor Trough. The exceptional features of this delimitation have
been indicated already by the Agent of Malta in the first round (III, pp. 298-
300).
The Timor Trough, with an average breadth of 40 miles and a depth of
10,000 feet, is an exceptional case by any standards. Are there any other
examples? Professor Bowett argued that there are, but his offerings were few in
number - three in al- and their authenticity and relevance are questionable
indeed.
The 1974 Agreement between France and Spain has ken examined in detail
in my first-round speech (III, pp. 472-473), and the conclusion reached that the
delimitation has "tittle or no relevünce for present purposes".
Professor Bowett invoked two other examples. involving delimitations
between Japan and Korea (pp. 165-166, supra) and ktween Italy and Tunisia
(p. 166, supra), but he produced very little in the way of evidence to support
these two proposais. The commentary attached to the delimitation between
Japan and Koreain the Libyan Annex of Delimitation Agreements (II) (No. 33,
contains the language of mere suggestion when it Statesthat "the geomorpholo-
gical characreristics of this area may account for this displacement of the Zone
towards Japanese territory". The same Annex contains no suggestion that the
delimitation process between ltaly and Tunisia took geological or geomorpholo-
gical factors into account (No.26 of the Libyan Annex). It is also worth noting
that the commentaries in the pertinent numbersof the United States Department
of State publication.Lintifs in the Seas, contain no reference to the influence of
either geological or geomorphological factors in the two delimitations: for
Japan-Korea delimitation, see No. 75. pages 5-11; and for the delimitation
between ltaly and Tunisia. see No. 89. pages 7-9. Moreover, in his book on The
Legal Régimeof Islands in Inrerna~iorial Law, published in 1979, Professor
Bowett has made a number of ccimments upon both delimitations, but no ref-
erence was made to geological or geomorphological factors (see pp. 175, 274,
301-303 (Japan-Korea); pp. 176. 177, 207, 229, 273, 274 (Italy-Tunisia)).
If 1 may sum up, the evidence clearly indicates that geological and geomor-
phological features are very rarely taken into account and, further, that it is
generally the case that even a plate boundary. such as the Cayman Trough, and
other major features, like the Aniba Gap, may be ignored. The evidence pro-
duced by counsel for Libya is poor bath in quantity and quality and the over-
whelming preponderance of evidence indicates that the principle of equal divi-
sion is almostuniversally applied in the light of coastal geography.316 CONTINENTALSHELF
III.ÇUMMARY
Mr. President. 1have now completed my observations on the significance of
State practice in various respects and thus 1 have corne to the end of my
agenda. It may be helpful if I present to the Court a summary of my principal
conclusions.
1. In the circumstances of the present case, it is coastal configurations and
relationships between coasts which constitute the geographical framework
within which the process of delimitation must take place.
2. The airn of delimitation is to avoid the problem of cut-off, which is the
displacement of sea-bed areas from the appropriate coastal front: thus delimita-
tion is not concerned with the allocation of areas in spatial lems but with the
avoidance of the displacement of appurtenant shelf areas which results if a
rnethod of delimitation inappropriate to the geographicalcircumst~ces is used.
3. Giving appropriate legal recognitionto coastal geography must involve the
application of the concept of approximate equality and the equitable criterion of
the equal division of areas in which coastal projections converge.
4. The concept of the approximate equality of appurtenant areas of shelf lies
behind both the need to modify the equidistance line in certain situations and
the need to avoid using proportionality as the basis of a spatial apportionment
of shares.
5. When there are coasts in the relation of Malta md Libya. there is no cause
of lateral displacement and the mediariline represents the statusquo of appurte-
nance based uponthe equality of the seaward reach of coasts, and the equitable
criterion of equal division.
6. In the circumstances of the present case, the introduction of a type of spa-
tial equaiity, based upon the ratio of coastal lengths. would result in a massive
transverse displacernent of sea-bed areas relating more to Maltese than to
Libyan coasts. and the destruction of the baiance of interests represented by the
idea of the convergence of coastal extensions and the critenon of equal divi-
sion.
7. The Libyan position actively promotes displacement, because it depends
upon a formula and not upon the aciual geographical relations.
8. The difference in coastal lengths cannot be takento represent the kind of
anomaly which calls for correction of the equitable cnterion of equal division,
since that difference is not an index of distortion or displacement calling for
adjustment in the absence of a situation of equality within the same order.
9. There is no judicial support for the modusoperandi contended for by
Libya, and Libyan counsel have misinterpreted the jurisprudence. In particular,
the Judgment in the North Seo Continental Shelf cases evidences the signifi-
cance of the location and inclination of coasts rather than differences in the
lengths of coasts.
10. The States practice establishes that delimitation between islandStates and
long-coast States. and other comparable types of delimitation, are not based
upon reference to the ratio of the difference of lengths of coasls, and equally do
not reflect differences in territorial magnitudes.
11. Malta's view of the relevant area, represented by the trapezium, is com-
patible with existing legal pnnciples and concepts in the matter of shelf delimi-
tation.
12. Malta's approach to the process of delimitation, and the relevant area, is
consonant with the interests of third States.
13. The Libyan approach to delimitation is incompatible with the interests of
third States, because it involves the construction of a relevant area which REPLY OF PROFESSOR BROWNLIE 317
includes areas which cannot be said to lie between Malta and Libya. and also
because a geological boundary, if it be justified at all, by its very nature cannot
take the interests of third States into account.
14. The criterion of the ratio of lengths of coasts, as propounded by Libya in
these proceedings. involves resort to proportionality as an original and direct
fom of delimitation, and the outcome is necessarily the apportionment of
shares on the basis of an abstract formula which cannot reflect the actual geo-
graphy of the region. It is hardly surprising ihat the Libyan approach finds no
reflectlon in existing patterns of maritime delimitation in semi-enclosed seas.
1 have completed my summary of principal conclusions, and these have
focused upon the various objections to the Libyan approach to shelf delimita-
tion. These objections necessarily involve the particular elements of legal think-
ing about delimitation, and 1would like to end my speech with a consideration
of a more general character.
The perspective within which this case will be decided is that of boundary-
making. The fact that the Special Agreement does not cal1for the drawing of a
line does not alter the overall purpose of the exercise, which is to enable the
Parties to delimit "without difficulty" the areas of shelf which appertain to each
of them. It must follow that the approach of the Parties, that is to Say, the
methodology they offer to the Court. is to be evaluated in terrns of its utility. its
efficacy, in the task ofoundary-making.
The Libyan case rests upon two criteria of delimitation, of which one is the
geological criterion, and my friend Mr. Lauterpacht will demonstrate the diffi-
culties which that criterion engenders. The second criterion is the formula based
quite simply upon the differences in the lengths of the coasts of the Parties, and
this is proposed, in part at least, as a proportionality argument by the Libyan
side. On previous occasions 1have said that this formula of the ratio of coastal
lengths is a principle of apportionment or distribution, and not a principle of
delimitation.In other words, it is contrary to the established principles of shelf
delimitation. But, Mr. President, the objection is not only one of pnnciple. The
formula relied upon by Libya creates a major practical problem, which is that it
does not produce a line at all. Since the ratio of coastal lengths involves space
and apportionment of space, there are many lines which could produce the
desired spatial ratio. In other words, the formula based upon coastal lengths has
no sense of place. no relation to real coasts, no geographical affiniries. It lacks
an anchor. And lhis is why the Libyan formulacan be used promiscuouslyto sup-
port the proposa1of 1973, the so-called axial ridge line, the line which appears
within Libya's Prolapsed Prolongation of 1984, and no doubt any number of
other lines, provided the proportions satisfy the formula. What the formula can-
not be used to do is to discriminate between one line and another. that is. to
establish a line which is related to the geographical facts and which has a
geographical and legal rationale. It must follow that spatial proportions and
cornparisons of territorial magnitude are not values orcriteria which can assist
in boundary-making either on land or in the sea-bed.
The Court rose ai1.10 p.m. TWENTY-EIGHTH PUBLIC SITTING (1I 11 85, 10 a.m.)
Present: [See sitting of 26 XI 84, Judge Morozov absent.]
REPLY OF MR. LAUTERPACHT
COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF MALTA
Mr. LAUTERPACHT:Mr. President, Members of the Court: in this reply 1
shall limit myself to three main points. Two of them relate to the content of
relevant circumstances; ofthese the first is that of the relevance and effect of
economic considerations.
1 begin then, Mr. President, with the question of the relevance of economic
considerations. Professor Lucchini summarized his contentions on behalf of
Libya by saying:
1. that the Court had in 1982 excluded economic arguments "because of the
variability of such factors in the course of time" and
2. that certain economic factors have absolutely no link with the institution
of the continental shelfp.135, supra).
1 shall deal first with the reference to, as Professor Lucchini put it, "the
changing. epherneral character of economic conditions" (p. 134. supra).
As 1said in my opening speech, it is hard to believe that the Court in assert-
ing the need for an equitable solution in continental shelf boundary cases
would have wished arbitrarily and ab initioto exclude a whole category of
considerations which on their face must affect the equity of the outcome
broadly viewed. What the Court could understandably have intended, and what
1 submit that its words must be read as having said. is that where factors are
changing or ephemeral the weight to be attached to them as affecting a solution
of long-term duration must be correspondingly limited, where the factors are
changing or ephemeral. Where, however, the established and relatively un-
changing character of the factors is clear, then there is no more reason to
exclude economic considerations than there is to exclude any other category of
factor which may have a bearing on the justice or reasonableness of the outcome.
In the present case the economic considerations which Malta invokes cannot
in any way be described as changing or ephemeral. And the interesting thing is
thatthose who spoke on behalf of Libya never sought to suggest that they were.
For one set of facts is clear and has never been denied by Libya, namely, those
which appear in Chapter 1of the Maltese Memorial (1) dealing with the econo-
mic position of the two Parties. No one can for a moment pretend that Libya is
not vastly wealthier than Malta- absolutely and ona per capirabasis. Nor can
anyone ever pretend that this fundamental economic disparity between the two
countries is ephemeral. Even Libya's own figures do not foresee a significant
downtum in the benefit that that country will derive from oil until well into the
next century. Even if Malta were to benefit significantly from discoveries of oil REPLY01: MR. LAUTERPACHT 319
in the Mediterranean it would be exposed to the same prospect of eventual
exhaustion of reserves as Libya now invokes to support the prospect of poverty
which it foresees for itself in the twenty-first century. And these observations
take no account of the past - of the established and therefore unchanging fact
that Libya has been producing oil in massive quantities for over 20 years and
has, on that basis, been able to generate vast capital resources, some large part
of which is already reflected in Libya's economic and social infrastructure.
No matter how closely one may peruse Libya's arguments one will find no
denial of this fact, because it is simply undeniable.
And, Mr. President, if 1 speak so much of oil, it is because when al1 the
talking is over, access to oil iswhat this case is about. The identification in
this way of the real subject-matter of a case is entirely proper. As the Court
will recall. theChamber in the Gu/fof Mainecase, when dealing with the third
segment of the line, prefaced its discussion by these words:
"For present purposes, it must be borne in mind that this final segment
of the line is the one of greatest interest to the Parties, on account of the
presence of Georges Bank. This Bank is the real subject of the dispute
between the United States and Canada in the present case, the principal
stake in the proceedings, from the viewpoint of the potential resources of
the subsoil andalso, in particular. that of fisheries that are of major econo-
rnic importance." (I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 340, para. 232.)
In obvious contrast with the Gulfof Maine case, the present case is not about
rights in the superjacent water colurnn. Accordingly, the reference by the Cham-
ber to the economic importance of fish is not pertinent here. But there is scope
for an exact parallelism of approach regarding the relevance of, and the weight
to be attached to, the "potenrial resources of the subsoil".
Once the Court recognizes that there may be oil in the disputed area, it can-
not disregard that circumstance. And even if no regard were paid to the evi-
dence which the Court may just have heard, one fact shines out: Libya regards
the disputed area as sufficiently valuable to have carried the protection of its
claim to the extent of the use of a gunboat and the threat of use of force.
Professor Lucchini's contention that a factor of this kind has "absolutely
no link with the institution of the continental shelf' rernains, Mr. President,
entirely unblemished by good sense.
Lastly, on this point, it is necessary to say a word about the distinction which
the Chamber itself drew between, on the one hand, the ineligibility of economic
factors for consideration ascriteriaro be applied in the delimitation process itself
and, on the other hand, the acknowledgment that economic circumstances could
be used in the assessrnent of the equitable character of a delimitationfirst estab-
Iished on the basis of criteria borrowed from physical and political geography
(I.C.J. Reports1984,p. 340, and Professor Lucchini's speech, pp.134-135,supra).
It is to be remarked, in passing, that although in the passage just cited, the
Chamber used the words "may be relevant", a different and more mandatory
phrase was used in the Chamber's first reference to this same distinction in
paragraph 59 of its Judgment: "it may and should . . .bring in other cntena
which may also be taken into account in order to be sure of reaching an equi-
table result" (emphasis supplied). "May and should", and amongst those equi-
table criteria in testing the equitableness of the conclusion reached at by other
means, the Chamber was preparedto recognize the relevance of economiccriteria.
The real point that needs to be made - and Professor Lucchini tacitly
acknowledged this - is that the Chamber&idrecognizethe relevanceof econe
mic factors for the purpose of assessing the equitable character of a delimita-320 CONTINENTALSHELF
tion established without prior reference to economic factors "in order to be sure
of reaching an equitable resuli".
That, 1 must submit, is a sufficient recognition for Malta's purposes of the
role of economic considerations. One must ask: what is the significance of the
statement by the Chamber that other critena, including economic ones, should
be brought in "in order to be sure of reaching anequitable result"? The signifi-
cance of the statement, as 1respectfully see it,is that if, when economic factors
are brought in, they lead to the view that the result reached by other methods is
not equitable, then that result cannot stand. It must be rnodified in order to
make it conform to the impact of the economic considerations. Suppose - to
take an example most favourable to Libya, even though in Malta's submission
it would be wrong - suppose the Court were, by reference to factors not includ-
ing economic ones, to identify the area of the Rift Zone as the place for a
boundary line. The Court would then have to consider whether il had reached
an equitable result. For this purpose, if it were to follow the same approaas the
Chamber, it would have to look at the economic situation. It would find that it
had effectively cut Malta off from that part of the disputed area in which Malta
might reasonably expect to find oil and had instead awarded that area to Libya.
Would that be an "equitable result"? The answer is plainly no - and the result
could not therefore stand. The Court would have to re-examine the original
result, bearing in mind the inequityby which it was found to have been flawed.
So. Mr. President, it will be seen that the distinction between recourse to econ-
omic considerations in drawing the line and similar recourse in testing the
equity of the result is largeiy formal. Once persuaded, as the Court must be,
that the party which secures control of the Medina and Malta Banks is econo-
mically advantaged, and the party which does not is economically disadvan-
taged, the Court cannot equitably disregard the relative impact on the Parties of
that economic consequence.
That is really enough about economic considerations, but 1must just conclude
on this point by referring to the manner in which Professor Lucchini sought to
dispose of the recommendations of the Conciliation Commission in the Jan
Mayen case. The Court may recall that 1 cited this case as one illustrating the
relevance of "economic interests" to continental shelf delimitation. Professor
Lucchini sought to answer this by observing that the reference to the economic
interest of Iceland had been specifically inserted in the agreement and that. by
reasoning a contrario, the absence from an agreement of such a provision
would mean that equitable interests are, as he put it "devoid of relevance"
(p. 135, supra).
There are two answers to this.
The first is that at the very lea-t and without reference to what theConci-
liation Commission actually said - the agreement would itself still stand as
evidence that the twu parties. Norwayand Iceland,both regarded the economic
interest of the island State partyas so pertinent to the delimitation that it war-
ranted express mention.
My second answer to Professor Lucchini's submission involves a reference to
what the Commission actually said. When the Report (in 62 ILR,p. 108) is per-
used as a whole it will be seen that, where expressly adverting to the require-
ments of the agreement, the Commission equated its express mandate with the
requirement that it reach an "acceptable and equitable solution of the problems
involved" (see especially 62 ILR,pp. 124-125). It made no observation to the
effect that itwas being asked to consider factors which would not otherwise
have been relevant. This, 1 submit, is precisely the task which the Court has
identified for itself in relation to the determination of continental shelf bound- REPLY OF MR. LAUTERPACHT 321
aries. The equation is almost mathematical. If the Jan Mayen Commission was
correct in treating a direction to take into account economic interest as falling
within the scope of a search for an acceptable and equitable solution, so it
would follow that other courts could properly treat the case as a precedent for
the view that a search for an equitable solution embraces the need to take into
account economic interests.
1now tum to the element of security as a relevant circumstance. This is the
second of the two relevant circumstances that 1am going to discuss.
The Court will recall that Professor Lucchini devoted a section of his speech
to what he called "the irrelevance of security interests". So much of this portion
of Professor Lucchini's speech was evidently pre-prepared, dealing as it did
with matters raised inMalta's Counter-Memonal and even in its Memorial, that
in a section of some six pages, barely half a page was devoted to Malta's oral
arguments on the question of security.
Now, 1 don't suppose that 1 shciuld cornplain if rny learned opponent fails
properly to grapple with my arguments. But 1am entitled to point out the inade-
quacy of his response and the significance of his omissions.
1 venture to recall that the burden of my remarks about the effect of Libya's
claims upon Malta's national security was that the identification of a boundary
line in the area of the Rift Zone would entitle Libya to place massive oil rigs
equipped with helicopter puds within a few minutes' flying time of Mafta.
Malta would beconfronted by the prospect of constant foreign ship and aircraft
movements close to its shores but not subject to its regulation, supervision or
control (see III, pp. 335-336). Such a situation, 1argued, would be unacceptable
anywhere else, except in areas so geographically constricted that geography
created homogeneity and led to CO-operationbetween neighbouring States.
The fact that I did not elaborate the point at great length does not1 submit,
weaken it. Indeed, it remains as a consideration which 1 respectfully submit
calls for the Court'serious and specific consideration.
But what was my learned friend's answer to it? It was stated in a few lines
(p. 137,supra). He said the argument was "surprising, since it will only seem to
be applicable in the case of States with opposite coasts". The activities of adja-
cent States. hesaid, are permanently destined to be carried on cheek by jowl.
Arguments of this kind, Mr. President, should not detain the Court for long.
1 shall deal first with the last part of Professor Lucchini's argument. This, it
may be observed, was precisely the point anticipated in my original submission.
1 openly acknowledged that there could be areas so geographically constricted
that geography would create homogeneity and lead to CO-operationbetween
neighbouring States. My learned friend simply ignored this point in his anxiety
to establish an apparent inconsisteiicy between my treatment of opposite and
adjacent States. In tmth my point was applicable to both. My answer is as
applicable to opposite States in geographically constricted situations - to
which my friend appears to have given no consideration - as it is to adjacent
States in that situation.
However, it is Professor Lucchini's first point that really calls for comment.
He said that my argument "will only seem to be applicable in the case of States
with opposite coasts". But this is precisely a case of States wirh opposite coasts.
And the fact that Professor Lucchini may see my arguments as being applicable
only to such States only serves to support my contention that security consid-
erations of the kind which 1mentioned are relevant in this case.322 CONTINENTAL SHELF
1 venture to invite the Court to consider what my learned opponent could
have said, but did not Say. He could have said that the whole idea of oil ngs on
the Libyan continental shelf close to Malta was absurd; he could have said that
the rigs would not have helicopter pads; he could have said that helicopters
using those pads could not threaten the peace or security of Malta; he could
have said that the movement of ships under Libyan control in waters so close to
Malta could pose no problem for Malta. But he did not say any of those things.
And, it is entirely to his credit that he did not Say so, because to have said so
would have ken contrary to the truth and we would have al1 known it. The
truth, the undeniable truth, is that oil operatioby Libya in the northem part of
a Libyan continental shelf delimited as Libya now seeks would pose a genuine
threat to Malta's security. It is not necessary for me to dilute the significance of
this point by reverting to the other and earlier arguments by Malta based upon
its island character and upon its neutral status upon which Professor Lucchini
concentrated most of his criticism. What really matters is the inherent threat -
may 1cal1 it the inactive menace - flowing from the proximity of a large and
militarily capable State to a small non-military State. Libya is fully sensitive to
considerations of this kind, as is evident from the claim which it has itself
asserted to treat the waters of the Gulf of Sirt as interna1waters. If the occasio-
na1and transient presence of foreign ships or aircraft in or over even that body
of water - which isnot commensurate with the whole of the Libyan Coast -
is seen by Libya as a threat to its security. is it not understandable that Malta
would see the constant presence of rigs, helicopter pads and Libyan flag and
nationally controlled vessels within 25 miles of its shores as an even greater
threat?
Professor Lucchini concluded his arguments against the role of security
considerations by suggesting that, even if these considerations are valid, there is
no logical link between them and Malta's claim to an equidistance line. This
contention is unsound.
The link is. in fact, direct and obvious. If the presence of rigs and the activity
associated with them on the shelf of one State threaten of the security of oppo-
site or adjacent States, it is reasonable that matters should be so regulated that
the risk. or potential for risk, to each shoulbear upon each equally. The risk is
a function of distance or proximity. It follows therefore that a line which is
equidistant from the two States either equaliy reduces or equally generates the
risk for each, depending upon how you look at it.
But there is a second point which arises from Professor Lucchini's contention
that there is no logical connection between security considerations and an equi-
distance line. It is that the argument fails to appreciate that Malta refers to secu-
rity considerations for two reasons. One is in support of its own claim to an
equidistance line - and of that 1have spoken sufficiently. The other reason is
that security considerations are highly relevant as an objection to Libya's claim
to a boundary in the Rift Zone area. And how does my leamed friend deal with
that? If the Court cares to look at page 146, suprai, t will see not a word to the
effect that proximity is not a threat. Instead, we are lightly told that "the exi-
gencies of 'legitimate self-defence' . ..are certainly to be weighed up less than
in the past by reference to a distance cnterion". Now what that argument
amounts to is this: Even now we, Libya, can threaten you from a distance. even
by weapons of mass destruction. So, don't be frightened if we creep closer to
you with conventional weapons. Mr. President, that is the kind of assurance
about which Little Red Riding Hood, for al1 her gullibility, might have had
some doubts.
If 1end this section in a light-hearted vein, it is not because the matter is a REPLY OF MR. LAUTERPACHT 323
subject for levity, but only because the argument which the other side has per-
mitted itself to develop is one that cannot be taken seriously.
And so 1 leave behind me the second further relevant considerations which 1
wish to examine, and 1turn now to the third and, 1regret, longest part of my
speech in which 1 deal with the questions of geology and geomorphology. As a
convenient shorthand, 1 shall frorn time to time cal1 them "the scientific
aspects" of the case. 1have already apologized in my opening speech for having
to deal with these matters at some length. But the situation is not one of
Malta's making - except in so far as it has found itself obliged to meet scienti-
fic arguments advanced by Libya. In revisiting the matter, I shall attempt to
present my case as succinctly as possible in a series of numbered points.
GEOLOGY AND GEOMORPHOLOGY
1. Seen in Perspective, the ScienrificAspects Are Largely Irrelevant
Point 1. First, it is important to see the scientific aspects of the case in
proper perspective. Malta's basic contention is that the scientific aspects are
irrelevant. The parts of the Pelagiari Block which lie betweenMalta and Libya
forrn a geological continuum constituting a single continenta1 shelf. There is no
geological or geornorphological discontinuity in this area which can play any
rnaterial role in assisting the Court in its task.
Libya evidently thinks otherwise and, from its point of view. with good
reason. Unless Libya can establish by reference to scientific considerations
the existence of a so-called Rift Zone within which the boundary line must be
drawn, it lacks any positive alternative to Malta's conclusion that the equitable
result of the application of equitable principles is an equidistance line. There is
quite simply no line north of the equidistance line which Libya can put fonvard
as its own if its scientific identification of the existence and relevance of the
Rift Zone is destroyed. And the vigour with which Libya has approached the
defence of this zone is evidence of its acknowledgement of the. difficulty in
which it finds itself.
My leamed friend spent enough of his speech on the role of the scientific
aspects of this case to warrant my probing this matter a little further.
He sought first to respond to the passage in my opening speech in which 1
identified the Libyan technical arguments on these matters as absolutely central
to Libya's case. If Libya coukdnot establish the existence of a fundamentai dis-
continuity within and along the whole of the Rift Zone so as to identify itas the
area within which the boundary has to be drawn, my submission was that Libya
has no other positive basis on whicli to rest its argument. 1 emphasize the word
"positive" because it is, I believe, now common ground between the rwo sides
that the process of delimitation involves two stages: in the first, the Court has
to identify, by reference to the appropriate relevant circumstances, the boundary
which it believes to reflect an equitable result of the application of equitabje
principles; in the second stage, the Court has to test the equitableness of the
boundary by reference to certain critena which are reserved for use only as
what we might cal1"second stage tests". For example, without conceding in any
way that the test of proportionality is relevant in the conditions of the present
case, itis as a second stage consideration that "proportionality"has been used in
the past, So 1 use the word "positive" to describe the factors that operate at the
first stage- they are the criteria which positively lead the Court to a decision.
Professor Bowett was understandably quick to respond to this for, clearly, if
it is nght to identify geology and geomorphology as the sole positive props of324 CONïINENïAL SHUF
Libya's case, the collapse of those considerations leaves Libya with no case at
all. So Professor Bowett argued that the Libyancase relied upon "various cat-
egories of relevant fact", of which one category consistedof "physical facts", the
other of "non-physical facts" (p. 156,supra).Of the latter (the conducl of third
parties and the delimitations with third States) my colleagues have spoken and
will speak. But of the physical facts, 1shall speak now. Not that 1am pnmarily
concerned with the geographical facts - since they arematters of which
Professor Brownlie has in part already spoken and of which my colleague. Pro-
fessor Weil, will have more to say later.
But 1do have an interest in geography in so far as Professor Bowett referred
to it in his attempt to show that Libya's positivecase in a Rift Zone boundary
is not exclusively geological and geomorphological.
At this point 1 must invite the Court to look closely at the paragraph with
which Professor Bowett opened the section of his argument entitled "Ge*
graphy" (p. 156, supra).He began thus: "1 want to emphasize the importance
of geography in the Libyan case." He then mentioned four factors which he
asserted were al1"vital to Libya's arguments". Andhe immediately concluded:
"lt iscertainly tme that, applying these factors, one ends up with a delimita-
tion within and following the Rift Zone."
To appreciate the inadequacy of lhis reasoning, it is necessary to recall the
four geographical factors which Professor Bowen mentioned. They were:
1. "the configuration of the relevant coast;"
2. "the greatdiscrepancy of their lengths";
3. "the difference in size of the two States";
4. "the location of Mafta in relation to the surrounding States".
Now, one is bound to ask. how could these four factors lead positively to a
line in the area of the Rift Zone? The Rift Zone is a geological and geomor-
phological feature. And there is absolutely no reason why any, or indeed all, of
the four factors enumerated by Professor Bowett should have results which
either individually fall within the Rift Zone area. or are al1 coincident there.
Taken by themselves, these geographical factors do not lead to a line in one
place, any more than they lead to a line in any other place. And this becomes
even plainer when, towards the close of his speech. Professor Bowett embarks
on the task of, as he calls it. applying "the relevant facts and circumstanc.. .
for", as he says, "the essential task of applying hem to produce an equitable
result" (p. 177, supra). Let us leave aside for the moment his treatment of
Malta's approach and concentrate instead on his treatment of the Libyan
approach (which begins at p. 177,supra).
He proposed to demonstrate that the Libyan approach fitted the relevant facts
better and said that he would take "the categories of relevant faclsor circum-
stances each in rurn". Now. pausing at this point for amoment. may 1respect-
fully suggest that the Court should ask itself: "What dowe expecl counsel for
Libya to do next?" And the answer is perfectly plain - his task is to show the
Court positively how his geographical factorsIead to a Rift Zone.
But what did he actually do? In his very next sentence, and 1respectfully ask
the Court to listen particularly carefully to this, he asked the Court
"to accept, for thepurposes of this demonstration, the Libyan thesis that an
equitable result would beachieved by a delimitation within and following
the general direction of the Rift Zone".
Whether tendered in full consciousness of its implications or not. this invita-
tion to the Court representan extraordinary volre-face in the Libyan argument. REPLY OF MR. LAUTERPACHT 325
Instead of using the geographical factors to show positively that the boundary
should be drawn in and following the general direction of the Rift Zone. Pro-
fesor Bowett asks the Court to accept. that is, to assume, for the purposes of this
demonstration that it would be equitable for the boundary to be drawn there.
And then he goes on to test the equitableness of his assumptions by recourse to
the geographical facts. He is not using his geographical facts positively as fïrst
stage factors, he isasking the Court to assume that somehow or other it is past
the first stage. Then he goes on to use his "geographical factors" as second
stage considerations to test the equitableness of what he invites the Coun to
assume. Moreover, when itcomes to actually proceeding with this test in a spe-
cific way, the "geographical factors" are reduced from four to two - proportio-
nality and adjacency (p. 178, supra). Gone, 1 may Say in passing, are those
other so-called "geographical facts" such as the configuration of the coasts, the
difference in the size of the two States, the location of Malta. And rightly gone.
Why? Because they are inherently incapable of performing the function of
guiding the Court specifically to a Rift Zone line or indeed to any line. In short,
they are not "line-creative". They are facts without any specific immediate
function.
This, it may berecalled, is precisely the view which the Court of Arbitration
in the Anglo-French case took of the use which one of the parties sought to
make of the presence of the Hurd Deep and Hurd Deep Fault Zone. The Court
said the following in paragraph 108 :
"The axis of the Hurd Deep-Hurt Deep Fault Zone is placed where it is
simply as a fact of nature, and there isno intrinsic reason why a boundary
along that axis should be the boundary which is justified by the special cir-
cumstance under Article 6 [that is Article 6 of the 1958 Convention] or
which, under customary law. is needed to remedy the particular inequity."
So my friend's approach to persuasion may be paraphrased thus:
"The task of the Court is to identify a particular line. This task falls into
two stages. The first is positive i.e.. to fina line by reference to objec-
tively compelling factors. The second is negative or probative or confirma-
tory: to test the validity of the product of the first stage by reference to a
number of approved factors. Now, let me (that is Professor Bowett), do this
for the present case. 1 shall discharge the burden of proving my positive
case by asking you to assume that 1 have done so (i.e., that my thesis
achieves an equitable result). Now. having made that assumption, lei me
hurry along to the second stage and test that assumed result by reference to
factors which are excluded from the role of positive factors in establishing
a result."
That is the essence of my learned friend's argument.
Now my purpose in showing thai Professor Bowett has not even attempted to
demonstrate that geographical factors necessarily lead to the Rift Zone (because,
of course. such a demonstration is as a matter of logic, intrinsically impossible),
is that, asa result, the whole burden of Libya's positive position must rest upon
the geological and geomorphological arguments. No doubt. Professor Bowett
and his colleagues would like to advance the test of proportionality (or its
variant,coastal lengths) from a second to a first stage factor - but that would
run'contrary to the jurisprudence of the Court. as my own colleagues demon-
strate. So if such arguments are lirnited to their proper role. my submission is
that my learned friend cannot demonstrate that Libya's positive case stands on326 CONTINENTALSHELF
two legs - one geographical, the other geological and geomorphological.
Libya's case can rest, in positive terms, only upon the second of these two legs
- geology and geomorphology and it is with that second leg that 1 am now
concerned.
If my learned fnend wants to get his case back on a "two-legged" basis, then
he rnust Say why there is a necessary and exclusive connection between his
geographical factors and the construction of a boundary in the Rift Zone. So
long as he rnerely invites the Court to rnake that assumption, Libya's casemust
be seen to rest on geology and geomorphology alone.
And that, Mr. President, is why there has been so much talk about scientific
technicality. And because Libya has put "science" to the forefront of its presen-
tation. Malta has been obliged to reply tit. am not saying that it is not legiti-
mate for Libya to rely on "science". 1 am saying only that Malta did not cast
the first scientific stone and should not beblamed because, when replying to
science with science, the case enters, as the geologists would put it, upon a
remarkable extensional phase.
The identification of the issue between the Partiesin this connection has, as a
result of Professor Bowett's speech,been clarified in its most essential respect.
Before Professor Bowett spoke, the Libyan wntten pleadings were in a condi-
tion which led me to cnticize them on the ground that, despite their emphasis
on the existence of analleged "fundamental discontinuity", they had maderio
attempt to relate the claimed discontinuityto any concept of continental shelf
currently operative in international law (III. pp. 337-339). In other words. the
invocation of geological and geomorphological fact was "floating". It had no
legal relevance. 1 suggested in my opening speech that it was necessary for
Libya to attempt to connect the facts to some definition of the continental sheIf
and to show that the claimed discontinuities were such that in physical terms
they marked the ends of the respective legal continental shelves of the two
countries.
To establish such a physical ending of the respective continental shelves of
the Parties it was necessary to do more than talk about profound, significant or
fundamental discontinuities.
My learned friend responded that this Court and other international tnbunals
had, in effect, recognized that disruptions in the sea-bed must have some role
because in every significant case there had been a rejection of an argument
based upon an alleged discontinuity in the sea-bed; a rejection of an argument
based upon the existence of an alleged discontinuity in the sea-bed. In the
Norrh Sea Continent ahlelcases, so rny friend contended, the Court, in refer-
ring to the Norwegian Trough :
"appeared to acknowledge that such a feature might have some relevance
in regard to a delimitation of the natural prolongationof the land temtones
of the States concemed (p. 163,supra).
In the Anglo-French case, the Arbitral Tribunalheld that the Hurd Deep did not
disrupt the essential unity of the shelf (ibid.)In the TunisialLib cyse the
Court held that the Tripolitanian Furrow was not such a "significant feature that
it internipts the continuity of the Pelagian Block" (ibid-) though it may be
noted in passing, Mr. President, that my friend's quotation from paragraph 80
of the Coun's Judgment did not extend to the passage in which the Court
limited its observations to the relevant area and distinguished "the greater part
(of the Furrow) and the most significant frorn a geomorphological aspect"
which lies beyond that is, east of Ras Tajoura and inside the relevant area in the
present case. REPLYOF MR. LAUTERPACHT 327
Lastly, from the Gulf of Mainecase Professor Bowett quoted verbatim the
finding of the Chamber that the Northeast Channel did not have the "character-
istics of a real trough rnarking the dividing-line between two geornorphologi-
cally distinct units" (p. 164.supra). And does it follow, one may ask, that if the
Chamber had found that the Northeast Channel was such a trough, the boundary
would necessarily have to follow it'?
Frorn these four cases, Mr. Presiclent,in which depressions or troughs had, in
a manner quite incidental to the niain lines of the decision. been held not to
affect the situation, Professor Bowett sought, to use his words, to extract the
"criterion of a marked disruption of continuity". There is an evident difficulty
here: even if his analysis were correct (and1 shall not pause at ihis moment to
dispute this aspect of the matter). and that difficulty is that it is not possible to
identify any positive statement by any court regarding the nature of the discon-
iinuity which mighi be deemed controlling or even relevant. To meet this diffi-
culty my learned friend was obliged to state his conclusion as a question, and
he said: "How could a discontinuity which is not merely significant but funda-
mental be legatly imlevant. as Malta suggests?" (P. 165, supra.) But that does
mot meet the difficulty. It is not for Libya to statfact and ask Malta to estab-
lish its imelevancy. It is for Libya to show why the facts which it introduces are
relevant in the case and show the manner in which they operate.
In fairness. 1must admit that Professor Bowett recognized that his answer in
the form of a question is not much of an answer. And so, after first incidentaily
preparing a fall-back position forhimself, he went on to a full-blooded assertion
that the relevance of the discontinuity is that the Rift Zoneivides the sea-bed
so as to accord Libya and Malta two separate shelves. It does this because it is
no mere discontinuity but is an actual plate boundary - a physiciil division
which inexorably separates two continental shelves.
1shall return later to Professor Bowett's fall-back position, which consists of
an invocation of geornorphology by itself as a "relevant circumstance". What 1
propose to do first is to grapple with my friends' espousal of the concept of the
plate boundary.
2. Focus on theArea hetnleenMaira and Libya
And so 1 corne to point 2. Much though Libya wishes this case to be
about the so-called Rift Zone, it is in fact a case about the area of continental
shelf which lies beiween Malta and Libya: to the east and south-east of the so-
called straight line which 1 drew on a map during my opening speech, and
which the Court will find, for al1 practical purposes, effectively reproduced in
Figure 5 of the Libyan folder.
There the Court will see a consiruction of the trapeziurn and the notth-west
line. the western line of which coincides with the lin1 drew from Ras Tajoura
to the north-west corner of the Island of Gozo. Indeed, the very expression "the
Rift Zone" is itself a Libyan invention. As the Court has heard from both
Malta's experts, Professor Mascle and Professor Morelli, the expression is a
new one, developed by Libya for its needs in the case, and appearing only in
the scientific papers writteby Libya's own experts.
The Court will, 1 am sure, appreciate that Libya's concentration on the Rift
Zone has a dual objective. One is to prornote the idea that there is an undivided
stretch of çea-bed close io Malta and far away from Libya wirhin which the
boundary line must be drawn. The other objective is to generate support from
outside the area which lies between the Parties for the claim that the area
between the Parties is marked by a fundamental discontinuity.328 CONTINENTAL SHELF
It is important. therefore. thatthe Court seek in Libya's arguments proof not
ihat ihere is a Rift Zone but that there is between Malta and Libya a relevant
fundamental discontinuity. now equated by Libya with a plate boundary, which
physically divides the continental shelofMalta fromthat of Libya.
3. The Distinction betuleen Geoniorphology and Geology
Now, Mr. President, point 3.It is important constantly to have in mind the
distinction between geomorphology and geology. It hardly needs saying ai
this stage of the argument that geomorphology is concerned with the shape and
depth of the surface of the sea-bed. If geomorphology is to provide a guide,
then the geomorphological features upon which Libya places reliance must lie
between Malta and Libya. If the geomorphology of areas which do not lie
between Malta and Libya is to beinvoked, then this can be only for the purpose
of supporting a geological argument based on features outside the area.
By the same token, the geological elements are concerned with the structure
of the underlying sea-bed. They must also lie between Malta and Libya unless
they are to be used as external indicators of the preçence of other geological
factors which lie within the area.
Malta süys, of course. that thereareno features, whether geological or geo-
morphological, between it and Libya which serve to identify either a plate
boundary or a continental shelf boundary. Malta says, moreover, that if it
should be wrong and if the Court should identify in the features of the part of
the Rift Zone which lies between Malta and Libya factors which amount to a
discontinuity, the Court will thereby have set a standard for the recognition of
such features which would be equally applicable to the identification in the
southem valleys of the Jan-afaTmugh and the Tripolitanian Furrow ascomparable
discontinuities.
4. Geological TimeIs Very Long
Point 4. A plate boundary iakes millions of years to develop, but the fact
that the period of development is extended does not mean that there is no dif-
ference between past, preseniand future. The Coufi is invired by Libya to find
the existence of a plate boundary now. The fact that a plate boundary may be
developing, that is, speculation, or that it is developing, that is, certainty about
something in the Future, is no substitute for the conclusion that the plate boun-
dary has emerged and isa boundary now. That isto Say,certainty about some-
thing that has already corne into existenceAs Professor Morelli said: "But to
reach the present situation in the Red Sea another 15 million years are needed,
so we have time" (p. 251, supra). For al1 the lightness of Professor MoreIli's
touch, there can beno doubt about the rightness of his words.
5. DeveloprnentsCun Stop
Point 5. It is acknowledged by Libya's experts that development cm stop.
As Dr. Jongsma said in his evidence, the Rhine graben area looked at one lime
as if it was going to develop into a plate boundary, but it did noThe same is
true, he said. of the Tripolitanian Furrow (pp. 204-205, supra).
So unless the Court is satisfied that there is already a plate boundary over the
whole of the length of the Rift Zone, the Court must recognize that whatever
may be there evolving, there can be no certainty that it will ever become a plate
boundary. REPLY OF MR. LAUTERPACHT 329
6. TheDistinction betweenData and lnterpretation
And so 1 come to point 6. In considering the respective positions of the
Parties, the Court must distinguish clearly between data, that is to Say objec-
tively verifiable facts on the one handand interpretation, the drawing of perso-
na1conclusions. on the other.
7. LimircidQuantityof Data
Point 7. The arnount of objectively verifiable data is limited and much of
it has been in existence for a decade or more. When reference is made to seis-
mic evidence of the existence of faults, it should be remembered that in the area
between Malta and Libya the only seismic run on a line even approximately
along the line between the two countries is MS-20, which mns from the north-
east to the south-west. The only west-east trending lines are those of MS-14,
15, 16 and 17. Even the last two are quite short. The famous line MS-19, to
which so much reference is made, initially in the Libyan written pleadings, lies
to the north-west of Malta and never enters any part of the area between Malta
and Libya. In order to get a picture of the sea-bed that is in any way reliable,
one needs to have seismic measurements taken along lines which are much
closer together, of a kind comparable to the pattern of soundings fonned West
of Malta and Westof the State line by such lines as MS-118A and B, 119 and
two other north-west- south-east trending lines which cut those in the same region.
Inthis connection one may also mention the concept of seismic refraction. It
was spoken of by Dr. Jongsma as a form of relevant data. But no specific data
of this kind has been pduced on behalf of Libya in support of its case.
If the consideration'that data is limited leads one to be cautious about attach-
ing too much significance to it, the consideration that the data may be old has
a different role toplay. It is that if information is some years old, it is reason-
able to expect it to have been absorbed into the conciousness of scientists and
thus to have been cornmented uponin theliterature.
In other words, 1am not saying that because information is old it is bad, 1am
just saying that if information has been in existence for some years, one would
expect the scientists to have picked it up, absorbed it and made some use of it.
When Professor van Hinte was cross-examined he identified most of the seismic
lines as dating "from the Sixties and Seventies" (p. 228, supra). The only new
material that he was able specifically to identify was the work of the Escarmed
Group in 1982 and that was limited to deep diving in the region of the Medina
Mount (p. 227. supra), and he also spoke of some unspecified unpublished
material.
Professor van Hinte'sremarks also served to confirm Professor Finetti's state-
ment that the rneasurernents of the Bouguer gravity anomalies on which he
based the conclusions in his 1984 paper had existed for ten years, since 1973.
The rnaterial that is most relevant to the establishment of a State boundary
concept has, therefore, been available for sufficientime for it to have been the
subject of comment, but no one has used it in a manner which is favourable to
Libya's position.
8. The Disagreements benvecn the Parties Are ThereforePrimarily
about Interpretationof Data
Point 8. On reviewing the evidence it appears that the differences be-
lween the Parties are primarily about the interpretationof data. Both sides may330 CONTINENTALSHELF
agree about the existence of the Malta and Medina Channels. There may even
be accord about the existence of faulting in the Channels. But there will not be
accord on the depth or extent of the faulting. which are matters of interpreting
the data. Take, for example, Figures 73 and 74 in Libya's loose-leaf book.
These purport to show faulting in the Medina-Malta Channel as revealed by
seismic profiles. The Court will note that beyond, on average, the depth of one
kilometre, the solid lines indicative of faulting give way to pecked lines. The
Court has already been told by witnesses that a pecked line isan indication that
the line is inferred or speculative. Yet, on the basis of these lines, Dr. Jongsma
was prepared to Say "although . .. the rifts are not depicted as descending
deeper thanseveral kilometres, they in fact slice all the way down to the mantle
of the earth, at least 20 kilometres below the surface of the çea-bed" (p. 210,
supra.) The extrapolation is pure interpretation. if not speculation, because there
is no basis in the data for the assertion that the faults penetrate 19 kilometres
further than the seismic profiles show. Further on this point, the Court will
remember that in the course of cross-examining Professor van Hinte 1made the
point to him thus:
"So 1 wouldn't be putting it unfairly if1said this: that the hardening of
your views is dependent in part on some new material of which you have
given us some details, and in part on a reinterpretation of the whole situa-
lion in the light of al1 the material available. That's a fair way of putiing
it?"
Rofessor van Hinte answered "Yes, it falls in line aia certain moment." ln his
next answer, after saying thatit is a matter of putting the right data together, he
concluded: "And there is personal insight." (P. 228, supra.)
9. if the Court Enfersinto fheScientific Coniroversy. IrEventuallyHus
to Choose between lnterpre~afiom
Point 9. On the basis of the concurrence of Professor van Hinte and Dr.
Jongsma it is possible to Say that the Partieare agreed that to a teal degree, if
not to a large degree,the determination of scientific questions ia matter of the
interpretation of scientific data. So. if the Courtcides to enter into a consid-
eration of those questions it will have to perfom in relation to the data relevant
to this case the same kind of funcrion as would the scientists, such as those who
have appeared as expert witnesses, when preparing a scientific paper. The inter-
pretations between which the Court will have to choose will be found in at least
three places: the written pleadings in the case, togeiher with their annexes; the
expert evideoce and the scientific literature on the subject.
IO. ScientificInrerpretationsCan and Do Change.Shouldthe Court Rely on
Themin DeterminingBoundaries ?
Point 10. Quite apart from any hesitation which the Court may feel at
entering into a scientific assessrnent or interpretation, whether with or without
the aid of a Court-appointed expert, thete is a more fundamental question io
be asked. If stems from the facf that scientific opinioncan and do change. For
example, Professor van Hinte observed in his examination in chief by Professor
Bowett the following :
"Perhaps 1should Say .. .that our ideashave evolved since Libya asked
first for our assistance three years ago. Our opinion on this point is more
definite now. after having studied more data." REPLY OF MR. LAUTERPACHT 331
Though one might well argue about the direction in which Professor van
Hinte's ideas have evolved. one cannot dissent from the inherent reasonableness
of the acknowledgment that ideas do evolve. And, they probably evolve in
science more rapidly than in any other field. So the question is. is it appro-
priate, is it prudent to determine anything so permanent as a boundary by ref-
erence to evolving and changeable scientific interpretation? The Coun has
already turned its back on transient influences on boundary determination when
it declined in the TunisialLibya case to take account of economic considerations
because they are "variable" - here today and gone tomorrow (I.C.J. Reports
1982, p. 77). 1 have already given reasons why, in relation to economic con-
siderations, there is room for questioning whether the Court's expressed view
on the changeability of economic factors is applicable in the circumstances of
this case. But one thing must be beyond doubt. If the Court regards econornic
factors as variable, and therefore as not toe relied upon, surely evolving scienti-
fic interpretations rnust. by definition, fall into that category and for that reason
must be excluded from consideration by the Court.
II. lmplicarions of Procedure Followed in fhis Case
Point Il. The considerations which rnilitate against attributing weight toevolv-
ing scientific interpretations are given extra force in this case if one recalls the
unusual order in which the present oral proceedings have unfoided. Only four
days before the opening of the oral proceedings in this case did Libya give
notice that is wished to cal1expert witnesses. The case which until that moment
Malta had prepared in the belief that it would be fought on the basis of the evi-
dence in the written pleadings ihen took on a quite different aspect. Malta
objected to the last-minute way in which Libya sought to introduce expen wit-
nesses and claimed that if Libya introduced witnesses Malta should also be able
to. The Court agreed, but in the form known to you: that the evidence should
be heard after the first round of speeches and before the second round. What is
the consequence of this sequence of developments? It is that Malta will only
hear the arguments that Libya wants to develop specifically on the büsis of
Libya's oral evidence after Malta has spoken for the last time. Accordingly. the
case for treating Libya's scientific evidence - particularly the oral scientific
evidence - with the greatest caution becomes especially compelling.
12. The IssuesAflected by Science
Point 12. And now, Mr. President 1 can turn to point 12. We can move on
and look more closely at the substantive issues regarding which the scientific
evidence has been introduced. Malta has taken a simple view of the situation
and has adhered to it consistently: the Pelagian Block is a geological and geo-
rnorphological unit. It never occurred to Malta at the time of preparing its
Mernorial that Libya would contend that any physical features so divided the
area that there could be two separate continental shelves on it. Malta had read
and understood paragraphs 32, 33 and 66 of the Court's Judgment in the
LibyalTunisia case as referring to a Pelagian Block which extended as far north
as Sicily. And 1 must Say that, notwithstanding Professor Bowett's insistence
that the Libyan pleadings in the 1982 cases do not suggest that the Pelagian
Block is a single shelf going al1 the way up to Sicily, 1read the oral evidence
of Professor Fabricius in the record for 1981 (I.C.J. Pleadings. Continental
Shey (TunisialLibyan Arah Jarnahiriyu), Vol. V, pp. 183-186) somewhat differ-
ently, as 1did also the words of the Libyan Agent in the record for 1981 (ihid.,332 CONTINENTAL SHELF
pp. 9 and 31). However, that maners little. Maita is not so much saying that
Libya is estopped from king inconsistent as it is that Libya simply appeared in
the 1982proceedings to be saying something different from what it says now.
And what is Libya saying now? It is certainly saying something different
from what it said at the begiming of the written pleadings in this case. In its
Memorial. at paragraph 8.17, we find the Rift Zone described as "an indispu-
table indication" of the lirnits of the natural prolongation of Libya and Malta. It
is "in the front rank of Mediterranean geomorphologicai-geological features".
Nothing, nothing, was said there about a full-blown plate boundary theory, or a
fall-back position in which the features of the Rift Zone might constitute "rele-
vant circumstances".
13. TheEvolutionof Libya's Plate BoundaryArgument
Point 13. The evolution of an argument in the course of a litigant's pleadings
is not in itself normally a feature of much interesIn the present case,however.
the change is so dramatic that 1have asked myself: why haven't I noticed the
plate boundary argument before? Have 1 slipped up in some way and missed
Libya's point? So 1 have re-examined the Libyan written pleadings in an
atternpt to clarify the position. There is, I believe, value in doing this. If an idea
is so basic, so well-establishedand so relevant, as the plate boundary is said by
Libya to be in this case, one would expect it to fom part of a Party'scase from
the beginning and to be clearly and fully developed in its written pleadings.
Conversely. if an idea is ill-described, merely hinted at, tentatively expressed
and generally obscurely presented one may legitimately ask oneself whal is the
importance of that theory, a theory to which so little prominence is given.
The story begins, of course, in the Libyan Mernoriai (1).
There, in the Libyan Memorial, in paragraph 3.07, where Libya is describing
the geomorphological and geological setting as part of the factual background,
it quotes the Court's description of the Pelagian Block in tlie TunisialLibya
case. and then states: "ln this Memorial, Libya refers to the area, thus described
by the Court, as the Pelagian Block .. .".And to this sentence it adds the fol-
lowing footnote :
"Attention is drawn to the comrnents in the papers in Parts 1 and II of
the Technical Annex as to the definition of the 'Pelagian Block' and to the
question whether the rifi zone along these Troughs and on to the east
divides the shelf area into separate geomorphological and geological areas
of continental sheif or even constifutesan incipient micro-plate boundaryin
formation .. ." (Emphasis supplied.)
When one looks at the Technical Annex, which is subtiiled "The Geomorpho-
logical and Geological Seîting (Scientific Facts)", one looks in vain for any
express use of such expressions as "microplate boundary" or "geologically dis-
tinct" or "fundamentally discontinuous" "plaies". What we do find are phrases
ofmuch greater restraint.
"The Rift Zone . .. is technically a major Rift Zone. The Troughs and
Channels arestructural grabens; the heights, shoals and banks within the
Zone are either structural horsts or volcanoes." (1.Technical Annex, p. 1-5.)
Six pages later the Annex states
"These structural features are due to a general pull-apart of the two main
Units of the sea-bed area of the Pelagian Sea. Le., the Southem Unit and REPLYOF MR. LAUTERPACHT 333
the Northern Unit, separated by the Rift Zone. The tectonic forces causing
the rifting (pull-apart)re moving in a direction more or less perpendicular
to the extension of the rifting zone .." (P.1-11.)
And the Annex then goes on:
"These Northern and Southern Units are not separated by a single fault
or sheer plane, but by a series of many such faults. .. Of course, there are
also faultswithin the NorthernUnit and the Southern Unit. But their occur-
rence is more sinnular, or, in any case, less frequent, and not closelv
grouped as within-the Rift ~one.-~ein~ Iess important in a geologicai-
structural sense, these faults are revealed ~eomorpholonically-as far less
prominent sea-bed features than the Rift zone." (P.i-12.)
Obsewe, Mr. President: here, at a point at which if anywhere, one would
have expected Libya's experts to speak expressly of a plate or microplate
boundary, these words arenot used. Moreover, even the idea of a rnicroplate
boundary is not stated. Instead the statement refers to "separation by many
faults". The nearest expression to the concept of two plates is to be found in the
mention of "a general pull-apart of the two main Units" - and the concept of
"Units" - the very word "Units" - is, of course, Libya's own terminology,
not that established by scientists.
Note also, that even the footnote which draws the attention of the Court to
this technical material speaks only of "the question of an incipient micro-plate
boundary in formation".
Mr. President, what 1 have just been saying al1hangs on the very firstrefer-
ence in the Libyan Mernonal to "an incipient micro-plate". That reference is in
a footnote; it is not even in the text.
1s there anything else in the Mernorial which develops the microplate boun-
dary theory? No. Indeed, one thing is clear beyond doubt: the authors of the
relevant part of the Libyan Memorial were certainly not aware of the nature of
the argument that Professor Bowett was going to develop in the oral proceed-
ings. Within two pages of the footnote which 1have already cited, after distin-
guishing between what they describe as the geomorphological entity of the
Pelagian Block and the geological entity of the African Plate, they conclude
with the following sentence: "However, Malta like Libya is a part of the geolo-
gical entity known as the African Plate" (1, LM, p. 29, para. 3.1 1). Now, how
could Malta be that unless the African Plate is a continuum, an undivided plate,
stretching right up to Sicil?
Nor does Libya withdraw from this position in the next section specifically
subheaded: "The Rift Zone" (1, LM, p. 29). In introducing the section Libya
goes, it is tme, so far as to speak of
"the features. ..which separate in the physical sense the natural prolonga-
tion of the Libyan Iandrnass northward frorn the natural prolongation of
Malta southward".
The Libya n emorial (1)says that the Rift Zone is "a feature of major importance
to this case" (para. 3.12). Buitdoes not speak of a microplate or of a boundary
between two plates in the Rift Zone.
Indeed, it is at best only incidentally and indirectly that we get any ieference
to the elements of plate boundaries in the relevant area. In paragraph 6.16.
Libya states that "the Rift Zone represents a currently active. fundarnentai frac-
ture of the earth's crust".
The zenith of Libya's attachment to a microplate is reached in the concIusion
of the chapter on "The Geologicd and Geomorphological Setting". There, in334 CONTINENTALSHELF
paragraph 3.51, Libya says: "Some scientists believe that a plate boundary is
developing across the Rift Zone." The attached footnoie refers to two sources.
The first, a paper by Dewey, Pitman and others in 1973, is said to contain a
figure "that suggests that a micro-plate, called 'The Messina Plate', on which
Malta and the Ragusa-Malta Plateau are located, is in the process of formation".
The second source is stated thus:
"The view that a micro-plate boundary may be developing along the Rift
Zone is reinforced by the conclusions of Professor Finetti, set forth in his
summary technical note in Part III of the Technical Annex."
But examination of Professor Finetti's note shows that he does not refer to a
"micro-plate" boundary - even in the most pertinent passages at page 111-4.So
much for the Libyan Memorial.
The Libyan Counter-Memonal (II) scarcely takeç matters further. Even here,
it states the ~osition in words which do not corresoond with the evidence
adduced to s;pport the staternent and certainly not i; the language of actual
micro~late boundaries. And 1 auote the followine from the Counter-Memonal
(II) in'paragraph 2.60: "
". . . If by referring to a 'simple' or 'thesame' shelf. al1 the Maltese
Memorial means to Say is that this whole area is,part of the same African
Plate which is generally acknowledged to include the southem part of
Sicily,then the point should have been made in these specific terms. Libya
does not question such a conclusion as to the extent of the African Plate.
But the Afncan Plate is not synonymous with the continental shelf. In fact,
there are several distinct shelves to be found on the African Plate. As was
pointed out in the Libyan Memonal, the Rift Zone is of such significance
that it is regarded by rnany geologists as creating a division in this Plate
between two separaie shelves. This division is actively occurring today and
continues to affect the sea-bed, creating deep troughs and connecting chan-
nels that constitute a fundamental discontinuity in the sea-floor."
There are three points in this statement which mus1 be. marked with a ques-
tion mark:
- First, where is the evidence of several distinct "shelves"? None of the evi-
dence speaks of this.
- Second, who are the "many" geologists who regard the Rift Zone as
creating a division in the African Plate? At the time of the Mernorial, were
there others additional to Professor Dewey and his associates - other than
Professor Finetti, who was by then working for the Libyans? And how do
these numbers compare with those of other geologists who have written
about the area without accepting that an alleged division exists?
- Third, why does the Counter-Memorial not speak in plain terms of a plate
boundary which now figures so prominently in Libya's oral arguments?
But to answer this last question, at any rate in anticipation of the reply of my
learned friend. let me quote again - this time from a footnote attached to the
statement in paragraph 2.76 - that the Rift Zone, as he puts it, "clearly ranks
among the major and relatively rare rift zones of the world". The attached foot-
note states:
"In somewhat more technical terms, the Rift Zone is an incipient boun-
dary where continental cmst has thinned owing to the pull-apart effect of
the deep-seated grabens noted above. However, the extension of the earth's
crust has not evolved to the point at which oceanic cmst has been created. REPLY OF MR. LAUTERPACHT 335
It rnay be described as the beginning of a continental break-up. At the
stage at which the Rift Zone now is,it is characterized by diffuse features."
Mr. President, as you can see, when, in the cool light of scientific fact the
other side does speak of plate boundaries, it is in terrns of "incipient bounda-
ries" and "the beginning of a continental break-up" - the initiation of a pro-
cess which, if it is ever completed, will not even approach completion for, as
Professor Morelli reminded us, another 15 millionyears (p. 250, supra).
Are things different in the Libyan Reply(III)? Not really. In an early section
on "The Legal Significance of the Physical Facts and Circumstances", where
reference is made to the legal relevance of sea-bed and subsoil features. how
does Libya describe this now so important feature - the plate boundary? In
paragraph 3.31 we read: "But where. as here, truly remarkable sea-bed and
subsoil features do exist, cutting across the relevant area . . . such features
deserve major weight." But not amention of a plate boundary.
Where else can we look in the Reply ? Chapter 5 is headed "Issues Regarding
the Physical Factorsand Circumstancesof the Present Case" and contains a sec-
tion on the "Sea-Bed and Subsoil Featuresand Charactenstics". 1have already
dealt in detail with the subsection in my opening speechand 1 shall not repeat
rnyself here. But the odd feature of that Reply is that it is only at the very end
of this Chapter - in a subsection headed "The Escarpments-Fault Zone" rather
than in the subsection headed"The Rift Zone" - where one might have expec-
ted the material- we corne to paragraph 5.43 which says:
"The significance of the Rift Zone is underscored by the fact thattwo of
the mosr recent technical papers dealing with this geornorphological and
geological phenomenon havereached the same conclusion: that a 'micro-
plate' rnaybe in formation along the Rift Zone."
Two papers are quoted: one by Professor Jongsma and others; the other by
Professor Finetti. Both are dated 1984. 1 shall have more to Say about them
later. Here, in this narrative of the evolution of the Libyanpositio1,shall only
stress, first, the incidental character of the allusion to the microplate boundary
and, second, even here the hesitant use of the word "rnay": "a microplate may
be in formation alongthe Rift Zone".
TheCourt adjournedfm 11.30ro 11.45o.m.
From the very limited mention of the plate boundary in the Libyan written
pleadings, we rnay move on to the very different picture which Professor
Bowett seeks to draw in his opening speech. Suddenly.the concept of plate
boundary takes off. In his speech, my learned fnend referred to the existence of
a plate boundary, using those very words, in the Rift Zone, no less than 26
times. And that is not to count the number of times he spoke of "two shelves"
or usedequivalent language.
Of course, it isnot the number of times that Professor Bowett spoke of a
plate boundary that matters. but the language in which he did so. Now there
was nothing restrained about my leamed friend's reference tothe notion. Not
for hirn the caution of his scientists; not for him the notion of mere possibility;
not for him the use of the word "rnay"; no1for him anyfom of temporal limi-
tations such as "incipient" or "beginning"; not for him any restriction of the
plate boundary to any particular section of the Rift Zone. No, nothing likethat.
Instead no less than five of the references involve a specific cornmitment and
dependence upon the proposition that anactual plate boundary exists now and336 CONTINENTAL SHELF
over the whole length of the Rift Zone. At page 168, supra, my leamed friend
said: "and that is precisely what we have here, in this case, a plate boundary".
And again, at page 169, he said: "The evidence that the Rift Zone constitutes a
plate boundary has four essential components." At page 171, when denyingthe
significance of the southern features, the Jarrafa Trough and the Tripolitanian
Furrow. he said:
"In contrast, the Rift Zone has developed into a plate boundary and it is
still active. And what is more you can see this plate boundary continuing
out. right through to the Medina Ridge."
And this crescendo of commitment to the Rift Zone as an actual plate boundary
reaches its highest point at page 172. supra, where the words "plate boundary"
are used six tirnes. There my friend said:
"The importance lies in the demonstration that the plate boundary goes
right along ihe zone, regardless of variations in depth. It is the same pro-
cess and it is a discontinuity, which is just as fundamental in the east as it
is in the west."
And again he said:
"1 must emphasize that 1am not talking about geological history. 1 am
describing a process which is going on now. I am describing what is to be
found on the sea-bed at this moment of time."
And he concludes :
"The whole area may once have been a unity, a continuity. But that
phase ended long. long ago - between five and ten million years ago
when Malta was formed. in fact - and the current position is one of dis-
unity, of the creation of two shelves. divided by the plate boundary along
the Rift Zone."
Mr. President, some years ago when my older children were growing up, one
of the most popular television shows for young people was "Dr. Who". Profes-
sor Bowett will remember him, 1 am sure. "Dr. Who" possessed a time and
space machine in the shape of an old telephone kiosk which he called a Tardis.
When he stepped into it he could go backwards and fonvards in time and space
in the most wonderful way, encountering adventures which had us al1riveted to
Our seats. And Dr. Who is what my learned friend is seeking to becorne. Sud-
denly, he is accelerating geological tirne on a scale, and assurning a certainty
and continuity of direction, which only enclosure in the Tardis could justify.
What his technical advisers in 1983.were prepared to speakof only in ternis of
possibility. as an"incipient" plate boundary, one which might be beginning, has
suddenly becorne transformed by my friend into an actual, real. live. present-
day plate boundary, of such irnrnediacy. continuity andextent that it is (no, not
may be,it is) a plate boundary which physically divides two shelves and isthus
the controlling deteminant of the continental shelf boundary between Libya and
Malta. Inthe space of less than two years since the Libyan Memorial was filed,
the Libyan argument has moved forward 20 million years in geological time.
Moreover, the Libyan case has assumed the cenainty of what is today merely a
speculative conclusion. narnely, that the processes which sorne scientists have
identified, and in which a few find sorne indication of plate formation, necessa-
rily continue to the point at which two separate plates are truly established.
Nor is adoption of a full-blown plate boundary theory by my learned friend a
merely marginal or unimportant aspect of his case. It lies at the heart of his
argument. His speech is preoccupied with it. The 26 references to a plate bound- REPLY OF MR. LAUTERPACHT 337
ary in the present indicative tense are spread over the whole of his speech, from
page 164 to page 179,supra.
Whatever may be the reason for this sudden explosion of Libya's interest in
the existence of a plate boundary. the narrative of the evolution of Libya's posi-
tion shows that the plate .boundary is a last-minute constmct. Furthemore, its
validity rests largely upon the correctness of the interpretations put by its pro-
moters upon a quantity of data, some of which is controversial.
14. TheRelevantFacts
And so we corne to point 14, What are the facts or the data upon which the
positions of the Parties respectively rest?
Libya's position has been expressed in a variety of ways. Counsel for Libya
on 13 December identified, as he put it, "four essential components" making up
"the evidence that the Rift Zone constitutes a plate boundary" (p. 169,supra):
1. deep faulting, with the fractures going nght through to the basement, at
least 20 kilometres below the sea-bed;
2. the presence of young volcanics, that is, sheets of magma 10 to 100
metres thick, corning right through the structure;
3. the process of plate movement, evidenced by the fact that the troughs have
not filled up with sedimentation;
4. the anti-clockwise rotation of the so-calied northem plate in relation to the
main African Plate (pp. 169-170,supra).
But Professor Bowett did not show that these characteristics were to be found
throughout the length of the Rift Zone with such a degree of continujty as to
establish that there was an unending break between the so-called Messina Plate
and its neighbour to the south. As Professor Morelli said, to have a plate boun-
dary you have to have a fault which goes nght through the earth's crust. Orher-
wise you merely have a fault, no1 a fault which reflects a break between two
plates.
The present argument between Libya andMalta is not about intermittent
breaks in the earth's crusr. It is ahout an allegation by Libya couched in terms
of a continuous plate boundary, that is, a continuous breach of the plate, from
end to end in the Rift Zone, from Pantelleria in the north-west to the Medina
Mount in the south-east. The fact that here and there there may be a break -
even if proved - does not mean that there is a break al1the way.
Dr. Jongsma in his evidence spoke of young volcanics, but did not assert
their continuity across the whole of the Rift Zone. The sarne is true of the way
in which he referred to heat flow measurernents. Again, there was no specific
assertion that the crustal filling which they are said to evidence spread the
whole length of the Rift Zone and only over that area. Dr. Jongsma also intro-
duceda new concept into the discussion - that of seismic refraction. But it had
not been rnentioned previously and the area in which the tests were located was
not precisely specifïed and no details were given (p. 211,supra).
Nor did Professor Finetti produce information that was any more supportive
of the Libyan case. True, he spoke of crustal thinning, evidenced by gravity
data and seismic data (p. 216, supra). but he did not go so far as to say that the
cmst had broken. At page 216, supra, he says:
"In this entire area of the Rift Zone - from the major trough - here -
to the north as well as along the Medina Channel - here - the crust is
markedly thinner than elsewhere in the Pelagian Sea shelf area . . .It is
along here that the separation in the plates is occurring."338 CONTINENTALSHELF
"1s occumng" - not "has occurred. And if it has not occurred yet then we do
not have a plate boundary now. Now is what matters. Mr. President, - not a
dozen or scare of million years hence.
True. Professor Finetti later on changed his tense. The future becomes the
present and the past. At page 219, supra:
"1 completely subscribe to the view, scientifically speaking, that this Rift
Zone is a profound rupture in the earth's surface and crust along which a
microplate boundary has been fomed."
But in the preceding pages of his evidence there is nothing which supports this
change from an ongoing process to one which has reached its conclusion. Even
if one could accept Professor Finetti's use of gravity anomalies, the defence of
which fills those ien pages, it proves no more ihan that a series of points of
crustal thinning can be identified running intermittently eastwards in the area of
the Malta and Medina Channels, onward to the Medina Ridge. But a thinning of
the crust is not a breaking of the cnist. Without a breaking of thcrustwe have
no plate boundary. Moreover, as Professor Morelli demonstrated, even if my
own amateur gravity anomaly lines were somewhat imperfect (and he never
said they were totally imperfect), he could anddid draw, with al1his authority,
quite a different line of gravity anomalies from that of Professor Finetti - a
line which depaned sharply from the west-east trend of the Rift Zone. This
shows that there is nothing uniquely cornpelling about Professor Finetti's
gravity anomaly line.
And now 1pass, Mr. President, from the evidence adduced on behalf of Libya
- which tries clearly to support a plate boundary in the Rift Zone - to the
evidence adduced on behalf of Malta - which confirms that there is no plate
boundary in the Rift Zone. On the character of the Pelagian Block. both Profes-
sor Mascle and Profesor Morelli confirm its geological continuity up to and into
Sicily. Professor Mascle even presented a map, Figure 3,in the Maltese additio-
na1 matenals. prepared by a group of French and Soviet tectonic experts as
recently as 1984 which showed no sign of a microplate boundary in the Rift
Zone (pp. 233-234, supra). Professor Morelli confirmed in geophysical terms
what Professor Mascle had said (pp. 243-244, supra).
Both Professor Mascle and Professor Morelli agreed that the Rift Zone was
not a name in established scientific use and each denied that the Rift Zone was
a homogeneous area that could be described as a plate boundary (p.235. supra).
Then each of thern passed in review the data to which the Libyan experts had
pointed in claimed support of the existence of a plate boundary in the Rift
Zone. The Court will find Professor Mascle's summary at pages 235-236,
supra. Professor MoreHidealt with the matter at greater length at pages 244 and
following.
1do not think that the Court will thank me for reviewing in further detail evi-
dence which il can readily study for itself. What stands out beyond any doubt is
that Professor Mascle and Professor Morelli do not disagree with some of the
basic data referred lo on behalf of Libya. They disagree diametncally and ratio-
nally with the interpretation which the experts for Libya put upon the relevant
data.
Moreover. the cross-examination which Professor Bowett conducted in no
way weakened the force of their evidence in itself. There is, 1 venture to sub-
mit, no way in which the Court can disregard the conclusions of Professor
Mascle and Professor Morelli which are founded upon a detailed statement of
the considerations underlying them.
1tum to point 15. REPLY OF MR. LAUTERPACHT 339
15. The Signrjïcance of fheScientific Literatureand of the Evidence
Point 15. Quite apart, however, from the absence of any sufficient degree of
persuasiveness in the evidence tendered on behalf of Libya, there is the compel-
ling impact of the literature. Libya's thesis stands condemned by the silence of
the scientific world. It is indeed nothing short of astonishing, if the existence of
a plate boundary in the Rift Zone is so obvious a conclusion to draw from the
data, that virtually no one has drewn it. The Court will remember that it has
been assured by Libya's expert witnesses that most of the necessary data has
been known for some years - effectively for at least a decade. The seismic
measurements, for example, upon which so much reliance has been placed as
evidence of deep faulting in the Rift Zone, were made public in the basic article
by Professor Finetti and Professor Morelli in 1973. So it is not a matter of
scientists not knowing of the data. Nor is it a rnatterof scientists not being
interested in the area or not writirig about the subject. In fact, the literature is
enonnous. The 30 articles which 1 counted up in the bibiliography of Professor
Finetti's 1984 article, during my cross-examination of Professor van Hinte, are
but a fraction of the literature.The article by Professor van Hinte, Dr. Jongsma
and Dr. Woodside itemized 65 papers in its list of references. Professor Finetti's
major article of 1982 on the "Structure, Stratigraphy and Evolution of Central
Mediterranean" concludes with a bibliography of some 317 titles. One would
therefore expect that if the data compelled, or even no more than suggested, the
existence of a plate boundary in the Rift Zone, scientists would have noted and
discussed it. After all, we are not talking about some obscure aspect of the sea-
bed. We are talking about something which, if it exists, is the most important
feature of an area which, if we are to believe what we are told, is deemed to be
of key importance in the Mediterranean sea-bed geology.
So, Mr. President, what have we in fact got? Professor Bowett appeared to
be presenting to the Court the whole of the literary material in support of his
case, such as it is, in his speech on 13 December. 1 say "appeared to be present-
ing" because nothing that he said suggested that he was making any deliberate
effort of selection inthe face of an overwhelming mass of material. He referred
first to a paper published in 1973 by Dewey, Ryan and Bonin. (1shall, in the
style of the scientific articles, henceforth refer to this article as "Dewey et al.
1973".) 1 must quote the relevant passage in my friend's speech so as to able to
demonstrate to the Court with the requisite exactness that the degree of precise
support which Professor Bowett claims to find in the article is just not there.
Professor Bowett said (p. 169,supra):
"in 1973, Dewey ... identified a series of separate plates- or microplates
- along the northern rim of the African Plate, including the one we have
here. They said :
'There probably never was [only] a single plate boundary between
Africa and Europe; but, rather, there was at al1tirnes a network of com-
pressional, extensional, and transform boundanes.' (LM, Ann. 12, 1,
p. 230.)
Now these scientists. in describing the Rift Zone as a plate boundary, or as
a division between two separate shelves, were not the first."
To support his quotation Professor Bowett referred to the Annexes to the
Libyan Memorial (1).The relevant Annex, No. 12,consists of a singlepage extract
from Dewey etal. 1973. Now it is quite true that the passage quoted by Profes-
sor Bowett appears on that page. But that is by no means the end of the matter.340 CONTINENTALSHELF
That page contains - as the Court can see on reading it- no reference
whatsoever in the printed text to a senes of plates.dong the northern rim of the
African Plate "including the one we have here". The only appearance on that
page of any reference to the Rift Zone as a plate boundary is something much
less direct anda good deal more sketchy. That reference is to be found in an
illustratio- Figure 1. It is a small figure entitled "Neotectonics of the African
System". There, if one laoks with a magnifying glass, one can just succeed in
identifying an area tied by an arrow to the words "Messina Plate", and the
southern boundary of that plate may roughly be associated with the Rift Zone.
But the figure gives no explanation of the ongin of this plate. Moreover, the
lines used to markthe rnicropfate boundaries are pecked lines, not solid ones;
and such lines, as was accepted by Professor van Hinte and Professor Mascle,
indicate thatthe lines are hypothetical or inferred, not verifieby reference to
established data.
When one looks back into the text to find sorne explanation of the figure, one
finds the following statement on the sarne page:
"there are at present a number of rnicroplates between Africa and Europe,
each in motion with respect to al1 adjacent plates (McKenzie, 1970). The
present motion between these plates is complex (Fig. l)."
And this is the only reference in the texl IO the figure.In particular. there is
no elahration of the basis on which the figure was constructed or of how the
features marked on it were formed.
1have. Mr. President, gone through the whole of Dewey et al. 1973and 1cm
find no further mention of the Messina Plate as such anywhere in it - not even
where one might have expected to find sorne discussion on if, namely, in the
section on the African System.
In these circumstances 1 turn naturally to the source which is mentioned in
the Dewey text for the authority that there are at present a nurnber of micro-
plates between Africa and Europe, each in motion with respect to adjacent
plates. This source was, as 1 read, McKenzie 1970, an article on "Plate Tecto-
nics of the Mediterranean Region" (published in Nature, Vol. 226. 18 Apnl
1970). This article was not referred to in, nor annexed to the pleadings of
Libya. Scrutiny of this article reveals no mention whatsoever of a microplate
with a boundary in the Rift Zone. There is no mention of a Messina Plate, nor
of a microplate by any name within the same area. The text merely States at
page 240 that "it is clear from the seismicity that many srnall plates occur in the
Mediterranean". Nonetheless the Figures 1 and 2 which are referred to in this
sentence in McKenzie, bearno indications of the data regarding the Rift Zone.
Indeed, instead, thereisone figure. Figure 4, described as "Approxirnate posi-
tions of plate boundanes at present active, with arrows marking the directions
of motion relative to the Eurasian plate", which nios quite counter to Libya's
position.There is no boundary in the Rift Zone. The nearest plate boundary is
one which runs from the north-eastern corner of Tunisia north-east through
Sicily and on into northern Greece.
It was evident frorn the text of McKenzie 1970 that he had done much work
on the subject. He stated (at pp. 240 and 241, and again at p. 243) that he
would be publishing "a more complete account conrainingabout 100 fault plane
solutions on which this study is based".
This study was in due course published in 1972 (Geophysical Journal of the
Royal AstronomicalSuciefy(1972) 30, 109-185). It was a substantialwork of 75
pages, clearly demonstrating the range and depth of McKenzie's knowledge in
the field. This paper entitled "Active Tectonics of the Mediterranean Region" REPLY OF MR. LAUTERPACHT 341
again contains no reference at al1to any plate or microplate with a boundary in
the Rift Zone. It is obvious that McKenzie did not contemplate the existence of
a plate boundary in that area. At page 113, when discussing the relationship
between the African and the Eurasian plates, he said:
". . . Africa is moving towards Eurasia from Gibraltar eastward. This
movement is taken up on the plate boundary which crosses North Afnca
and continues through or south of Sicily. The boundary probably continues
around the Adriatic through Italy and Yugoslavia rather than crossing the
entrance to the Adnatic directly to Greece."
At page 135 he sets out, in Figure 13. a sketch of the possible motion of the
Adriatic showing the plate boundary running through Sicily and into Italy
through its toe. He added: "this region is probably much more complicated than
is shown by the available observations, and has a relatively low level of seismic
activity". But the scientific experts consulted by Malta have not been able to
find in this publicationany additional evidence which would have justified the
conclusions in Dewey et al. 1973.
So what is the conclusion of this close scnitiny of the first of my learned
fnend, Professor Bowett's, references? Contrary to what he says, Dewey et a/.
never described the Rift Zone as a plate boundary, nor as a division between
two shelves. Moreover, McKenzie 1970, the only article referred to in the body
of Dewey's article, never did so either. Every reference mentioned in the legend
to Dewey's figure has been checked. None refers to a Messina or other micro-
plate in the area. When 1 asked Professor van Hinte about Dewey's article, the
most that he could find to Say for it was that "the usefulness of Dewey's paper
is that it indicates that he needs a plate boundary there to complete the picture"
(p. 223, supra). He needs a plate boundary there to complete the picture, no!
that he found a plate boundary there. That was speculation. Professor van Hinte
concedes that Dewey did not Say so, even Say that he needed a plate boundary.
in so rnanywords. But then Professor van Hinte's recollection of the principal
independent source for his own 1984 article was, to put it mildly, rather defec-
tive.
The analysis does not end there. Professor Bowett then went on to say:
"Now these scientists [Dewey el al.], in describing the Rift Zone as a
plate boundary, or as a division between two separate shelves, were not the
first [I mean not the first to talk about it king a plate boundary]. In 1967,
Burollet had depicted two separate shelves divided by a similar zone: the
Pelagian shelf to thesouth. and the Ragusa shelf to the north."
The reference given for Burollet was Libyan Memonal, Annex 11,page 52 [I.
p. 2291 (p. 169, supra). But when we tum to this reference what do we find?
Not Burollet 1967 but only one page, page 52 of an article by Morelli and
others on "Bathymetry, Gravity and Magnetism in the Strait of Sicily and in the
Ionian Sea". This page of Morelli et al. contains a sketch. Figure 3, described
thus: "Tectonic Sketch of the Strait of Sicily (from Burollet, 1967)." Does it
show a plate boundary in the Rift Zone? Not at al1 - and that is not surpnsing.
When Burollet published his map in 1967 the theory of plate tectonics had not
yet been publicly elaborated. In any case, the only relevant marking on the
sketch that can be thought of as representing the Pantelleria, Linosa and Malta
Troughs is some hatching denominated "PanteHeria Trough". There is, it istrue,
an indication of the "Pelagian Shelf' as well as of the "Ragusa Shelf" but
nothing to suggest that there is a plate or other boundary between those shelves
in the vicinity of the Rift Zone. Moreover. nothing stretches out to cross the342 CONTINENTALSHELF
escarpment and constitute the Medina Ridge - a feature to which Libya has
now corne to attach such importance to as an element in the so-called plaie
boundary.
The rnost that counsel for Libya could get out of Professor Morelli on the
subject of the map was the admission that Burollet appears to have distin-
guished between the Pelagian Block and the Pelagian Shelf (pp. 274-275, supra).
But it is to be remarked, Mr. President, that Professor Bowett did not pause to
encourage Professor Morelli to recall the fact that he, Professor Morelli. had
expressed disagreement with Dewey on the very page following the one in
which he printed Dewey's map.
On page 53 of Professor MoreIli's 1975 article there is an express statement
by Professor Morelli of disagreement with the appearance in the sketch of the
peri-atlasic basins. Professor Morelliaid:
"Our Bathyrnetry rnap (Plate 1) does not confirm this arc: on the
contrary, from Pantelleria it would bend northward, towards the Tyrrhenian
Abyssal Plain."
As to what Burollet actually had to Say about the subject- well there were
only four sentences (at p. 581, and none of them suppon the Libyan position. 1
invite you, Mr. President. to note. incidentally, how his references to the Pela-
gian Block indicate the view that the Blockstretches well to the north of the
area now claimed for itby Libya. 1 quote from Burollet:
"Eastern Tunisia is, in fact, the visible part of the Pelagian Block, a large
craton extending to the Kerkennah Islands, Lampedusa and Linosa. The
Pelagian Block extends far to the north and bathymetric rnap shows that
structural trends bend around its northem margin. The Pantelleria Furrow is
considered to be a northern counterpart to the peri-atlasic negative Zone.
The positive northwest-southeast areas between the Pelagian Block and the
deep Sicilian basins is equivalent to the North-South axis of Tunisia."
At this point Professor Bowett moved on from the authonties cited by Libya
to those cited by Malta. Bui 1 cannot invite the Court to make the same move
so rapidly. It is a faci thai in the whole of the enormous literature devoted to
this areain the period 1973-1984 there are only two papers which refer to the
so-called microplate boundary in the Rift Zone area. Mr. President, 1don't pre-
tend to be intimately acquainted with the whole of this enormous literature, but
these two binders coniain quite a substantial chunk of it, and1 have looked at it
rnyself. 1don't pretend that 1 have understood every word thai 1 have read. but
what 1 have seen confirms the observations which 1 am putting to the Court.
One is by Professor Finetti. Itwas completed in November 1983 and was pub
lished in 1984 at a date well afier the beginnin ofghis relationship with Libya.
The Libyan Mernorial in the present case listed him as a Scientific Adviser and
was filed on 26 April 1983. Even so, notwithstanding his connection with
Libya, his conclusion then (which, it may be added, was not linked by any rele-
vant discussion to the exposition of the data which preceded if) was in more
cautious terrns than his conclusion of last week. The two sentences rnay be
compared: 1982 (at p. 27): "It is possible to delineate the tectonic separation of
a Sicilian micro-plate which includes the Adventure Plateau and the Ragusa-
Maita Plateau. from the African rnegaplate." But no reference to a plate boun-
dary,as such. 1985 (p.219. supra): "1completely subscribe to the view. scien-
tifically speaking, that this Rift Zone is a prolonged rupture in the earth's
surface and crust along which a microplate boundary has been formed."
Professor Finetti has offered no explanation of why his view hardened so REPLY OP MR. LAUTERPACHT 343
firmly between 1982 and 1985 - or, indeed. between the earlier and the later
part of his 1985 evidence; and 1 rnust respectfully invite the Court to treitt Pro-
fessor Finetti's latest expression of opinion with the caution which one would
attach to any view developed in the context of litigation by an expert recruited
to assist a party.
The same caution must be urged with more vigour in respect of the only
other article cited by Libya in the course of its written pleadings: the paper by
Professor van Hinte. Dr. Jongsrna and Dr. Woodside. In its conclusion, this
paper speaks of "what might be considered a microplate between the African
and European Plates". 1was at pains in my cross-examination of Professor van
Hinte to seek clarification from him of the degree to which the paper contained
objective statements of fact and the extent to which it involved subjective or
persona1coriclusions. In concluding his last answer on the matter Professor van
Hinte said (p. 229,supru) :
"It is a matter of understanding how this present situation with its volca-
nics, with its grabens. with its topography, could have corne about. That is,
what is of course, always ü rnatter of interpretation."
Well now, Mr. President, no one quarrels with the right of a scientist to put
forward an interpretation in a scientific paper. Where one draws the Iine is at
the supposed objectivity or validity of such an interpretation when the presurn-
' ably impartial paper in which it was expressed turns out to have been written in
circurnstances which are likely to compromise its independence.
Two developments have shattered the ostensible independence and objectivity
of the paper by Professor van Hinte, Dr.Jongsma and Dr. Woodside.
The first is the manner in which the connection between the authors and the
firm of American lawyers assisting Libya appears deliberately to have been
concealed from the Coun. The Court will recall that in the course of his cross-
examination Professor van Hinte admitted that the article as originally sub-
rnitted for publication contained an acknowledgrnent in these terms: "This study
was made possible through a grant to the Free University by the international
law firrnCunis, Mallet-Prevost. Colt and Mosle. who also arranged for per-
mission to use some of the unpublished information." This acknowledgment,
together with al1the others, was omitted from the copy of the articleas submitted
to the Court. The omission was not accidental. Contraryto Professor van Hinte's
surmise that the omission of page 16 on which this acknowledgment appeared
was a typing error, it is a fact, as shown in Figure 2 of the Maltese additional
matenals which contained the relevant pages, that not only was there a page 16
which contained the acknowledgment and which had been left out, but also that
the acknowledgments began under the heading "Acknowledgrnents" onpage 15.
It appeared therefore that somewhere along the line, not only had the bottom of
page 15 been deleted, but also a row of dots had been typed in to help fil1the
resultant space on the page. Now this unmentioned omission frorn pages 15and
16 of the original document meant that the requirements of Article 50, para-
graph 2, of the Rules of Court, which states that "A copy of the whole docu-
ment shall be deposited in the Registry" had not been honoured. But serious
though that is, it is only incidental to the matter. The question rernains - why
should the acknowledgment have been omitted unless sorneone had taken the
view that the presence of the acknowledgment would be detrimental to the
Libyan position? And why should it be detrimental to the Libyan position
unless itcould give rise to the view that the expression of opinion in the article
had been paid for by a firm of lawyers acting on behalf of Libya and was,
therefore, not to be regarded as objectively valid.344 CONTINENTALSHELF
Nor is that the end of the rnatter. When cross-examining Professor Mascle,
counsel for Libya addressed the following to Professor Mascle as his Rrst ques-
tion. Afterasking Professor Mascle whether his scientific paper in the Annex to
Matta's Counter-Mernorialhad been designed as a scientific reply to the scienti-
fic arguments of Libya, counsel continued: ". . . You still believe as a scientist
in what youhave written? Well you must forgive rny next question: it is one
which 1 would not normally ask and it is something of an impertinence. but 1
have to ask it because of the questioning yesterday" (that is referring to my
questioning of Rofessor van Hinte). "Were you paid for that work?" Professor
Mascle replied briefly and straightforwardl: "Certes" (certainly).
Now 1 make no cornplaint about the question, Mr. President. 1 am not even
sure that everyone would regard it as impertinent. That kind of question has
been put to me when 1 have acted as an expert witness - and, more embar-
rassing still. 1have been asked how rnuch 1was paid. But the real point is this:
in asking the question, and relating it as he expressly did to "the questioning
yesterday", counsel for Libya was equating Professor Mascle's contribution with
the article of Professor van Hinte and Dr. Jongsma. And that's just the point
that isopen to cnticism: Professor Mascle's paper wasan openly acknowledged
expert contribution to Malta's case, just as the technical contributions by Pro-
fessor van Winte and Dr. Jongsma to the Libyan Memorial were openly
acknowledged contributions to Libya's case. Payrnents for such contributions
are perfectly in order. But it is quite a different thing to commissionan article
supportive of a pany's position when the fact of such cornrnissioning is deliber-
ately conceated. The question put to Professor Mascle was an admission of the
partisan character of the article because in effect, counsel equated that article
with a document properly and openly pt-eparedby an expert for the use of a Party.
ALIthis needs to be spelled out because the episode relates to a central aspct
of the case. It is crucial to Libya's position that the Rift Zonlx established as
a plate boundary. Yet the only articles which support this view, apart frorn
Dewey's figure,are those written by Professor Finetti in 1983/1984 and by Pro-
fessor van Hinte, Dr. Jongsma and Dr. Woodside a little while latet. If, as 1
subrnit. Professor Finetti's conclusions rnust be treated with reserve and those
of Professor van Hinte and Dr. Jongsrna must be put aside entirely, the Libyan
case is without support frorn the scientific profession - with the possible
exception of a paper by a Professor Roeder - referred to by Professor van
Hinte - of which a copy has never been seen by this side or offered to the
Court by the other.
Now, although this concludes what 1 have to Say about the scientific writing
adduced in suppon of the Libyan position, it does not conclude what needs to
be said about the authorities that nin counter to the Libyan position.
It is a fac- as 1 have already stated - that the nurnber of papers dealing
with the geoiogy, geophysics and geornorphology of the Pelagian sea-bed is
enornous. It isan inescapable featureof thosepapers that though rnany of them
refer to the various specific features of the iuea which Libya calls the Rift
Zone, none of them go so far as to assert the existence of a plate boundary in
that area or even, indeed, to give thenarne "Rift Zone" to itI do not think that
the Court would wish me to embark on attempting to prove a negative conclu-
sion by producing before it article after article which does not assen the exist-
ence of a plate boundary. It is enough that Libya has not come fonvard wiih
articles that do so assert.
So I turn next to consider how counsel for Libya dealt with the authorities
invoked by Malta. In doing this, Professor Bowett focused on what Professor
Mascle had to Say. Bath in his December speech (p. 76. supra) and in his REPLYOF MR. LAUTERPACHT 345
cross-examination of Professor Mascle, my leamed friend was preoccupied
with Professor Mascle's interpretation of the data relating to the Pelagian Block.
And my friend's preoccupation was to the point, for if Professor Mascle is
right, his interpretation does two things. First, it explains what is happening in
the Rift Zone in a manner which excludes the formation of a plate boundary.
Second, it links what is happening in the Rift Zone to what is happening in the
Jarrafa Trough and the Tripolitanian Furrow - and it does so in such a way
that the classification of Rift Zone developments as amounting to a fundamental
discontinuity must necessarily entail that the Jarrafa Trough and the Tripolita-
nian Furrow amount to discontinuities of equal weight to those nearer to Malta.
This, evidently, does not suit Libya at all.
Further, what did Professor Mascle say? Both in the Technical Annex to
Malta's Counter-Memorial and in his evidence, Professor Mascle explained
what is happening in the Rift Zone as being part of the rotation of a block. The
block is in the shape of a fan. The pole of rotation or hinge is somewhere to the
north-west of Pantelleria. The movement is anticlockwise.
What did my learned friend seek to make of that evidence? Well, he said, if
there is rotation ofa block, then there must be a break - a plate boundary at
the edge of the block - andthat would correspond with the evidence of exten-
sion in the Rift Zone. Second, relying upon the legend under a figure in an
article of which Professor Mascle was a joint author, an article by Messrs.
Besse, Pozzi, Mascle and Feinbeg, 1984, my friend contended that Professor
Mascle'stheory that the grabens were opening from west toeast did not corres-
pond with the facts. Thirdly, for good measure, my friend criticized Professor
Mascle for using bathymetry as a guide to the existence of grabens.
Professor Mascle has refuted each of these cnticisms clearly and convin-
cingly. He has explained that rotation of a block or a fan does not necessarily
give rise to a break of the underlying crust. The transverse movement of the fan
in the present case has led to a stretching of the earth's surface, to the formation
of grabens and in places to a thinning of the cmst. The faults are distributed
over the whole of the area between Malta and Libya. But the grabens consti-
tuted by the Pantelleria, Linosa and Malta Troughs lie to the north-west and are
not between Malta and Libya. The markedly visible indicators upon which
Libya relies in the area actually between Malta and Libya are not bunched up
exclusively in the area of the Rift Zone. Similarly the other types of data such
as volcanic and gravity anomalies are to be found al1over the area between the
two countries. Professor Mascle also denied that the movement of the block or
the fan has to be perceived in the form of an edge rotating against the edge of
another block or plate. Further, by virtue of the movement which has taken
place in the southem regions, it can be seen that the motion is taking place rela-
tive to the area south of the Jerrafa Trough and the Tripolitanian Furrow - and
not, as my friend would prefer it, to the south of the Rift Zone. Indeed, as one
of the authorities cited by Malta shows, the evidence of that southem movement
isto be found even in developments in mainland Libya.
As to the second criticism, relative to the direction in which the grabens
open, it is a pity that neither my learned friend nor his advisers took the trouble
actually to study the text of the article to which the criticism relates. If they
had, they would have observed a discrepancy between the legend attached to
the tectonic sketch, Figure 8, and ihe words used in the text on the same page
as the figure. The relevant text said (at p. 386):
"This result [that is the cou~iter-clockwisemovement of the whole block
including the area south of the Rift Zone] is consistent with contempor- REPLY OF MR. LAUTERPACHT 347
a geological description. However, more important to note is the point that this
description was only one of five phrases which Professor Vanney used to de-
scribe the five sectors into which he divided the Pelagian Block. The Court will
recall that only one sector was marked on the Libyan map as coinciding with
the Rift Zone and the so-called axial ridge line. But Professor Vanney's map
had five sectors in it, covering the whole of the Pelagian Block. The representa-
tives of Libya seem not to have absorbed the elementary point that if Professor
Vanney's description of the central area of the Pelagian Block is so good, then
his description of the southem section as "The Southern Valleys" is equally
good and no less powerful as a zone of division. As a matter of the comrnon-
sense use of language, and nothing in the expertise that we have heard in this
Hall of Justice suggests that comnion sense should be excluded, "valleys" are
more important than troughs.
The significance of these southern features is brought out in the following
sentence from page 32 of Professor Vanney's report in Volume II of Malta's
Counter-Memorial (II, p. 397) :
"The topography is more complex and more uneven than the IBCM chart
makes one believe. The general appearance of the depression is that of a
deep and vast basin (300 km by 150 km), cut by a network of sub-parallel
valleys, al1oriented from northwest to southeast like the African Coast."
And there Professor Vanney is speaking of the southem features, the Tripolita-
nian Furrow and the jarrafa Trough.
17. The Escarpments and the Ionian Sea
This bnngs me to point 17. The references to geomorphology brîng one to
the place of the Escarpments and of the lonian Sea in the present case.
Counsel for Libya had little to say about the Escarpments, beyond recalling
their existence and physical details. He conceded that they do not represent the
edge of the continental margin and that the area to the east of them does not
cease to be continental shelf in legal terms (see p. 173, supra). Their signifi-
cance, he said, "is morphological rather than geological". Nonerheless. he said,
their "features are so major, so marked, that they must be taken as the eastern
boundary to any shelf area over which Malta might conceivably have a claim"
{ibid,).
"Why so?", one is bound to ask. The proposition is put forward as if it were
self-euident and self-supporting. But it is not. If Libya acknowledges - as it
does - that the Escarpments are nnt the edge of the continental margin, and do
not bring the continental shelf of the Pelagian Block to an end in legal terms,
why then should the Court take noiice of the Escarpments? Even if the Escarp-
ments do represent, so to speak, a step downwards as one moves eastward from
the Pelagian Block, it is still only a step down in the sarne continental shelf.
There is no rational basis on which Libya can claim, as it seems to do, that it
enjoys an exclusive right to the whole of the shelf area stretching eastwards
from the Escarpments and nortfiwards from its coasts. Indeed the practice of the
very States with which Libya claims it will in due course have to seale its
continental shelf limits in the north, namely ltaly and Greece, clearly runs
counter to any suggestion that a profound morphological change autornatically
limits continental shelf rights. Nor should we forget the line in the map of
Dewey etal. to which Libya attaches so much importance. 1meannot the line
which is said to mark the limit of the Messina plate, which I have already dis-
cussed, but the line omitted by Professor van Hinte and Dr. Jongsma from their348 CONTINENTAL SHELF
reproduction of Dewey's figure - the line which cuts right across the area
which Libya claims to the east of the Escarpments.
18. Conclusion
Mr. President. it is with some relief that1 come to my last point, point 18. 1
think that I have gone on long enough. The nature of my speech is not such that
if lends itself to condensation in a summary of points. If you should wish to
find your way rapidly through what 1 have said, 1hope that the transcript of the
hearings will contain the various headingsby which it isdivided.
If 1end with the word of apology which 1 withheld when 1began, it is only
because 1 rnay appear to have enjoyed dealing with a part of the case which
some might regard as just "bonng old geology". Well, this part of the case has
proved to be something other than that - even though Malta would not have
raised these matters if Libya had not. But it is the very fact that Libya has
found it necessary to do so - and in the manner that it has - that gives the
geology such interest. The Court does not have to go into scientific detail to
appreciate the point that1 am about to make. But why has Libya given science
such prominence? It is not because of an academic searching after truth. It is
simply because without geology Libya has no positive case at all. Witfiout geo-
logy where does Libya's positive linerun? Nowhere.
Without geology there is no line which commends itself as being favourable
to Libya. Criticizing Malta's conclusion that equitable principles leading to an
equitable result cal1 for an equidistant line does not construct a positive line in
Libya's favour. What is her case without geology? Nothing. And it is because
geology is everything to Libya that it has constructed the novel idea of a Rift
Zone and of a plate boundary therein.
But what an extraordinary proposition the Rift Zone has tumed out to be.
When the question was put in my opening speech as to what sort of "a funda-
mental discontinuity" it was that could be said to have divided the area between
the Parties into two absolutely separate shelves, Libya suddenly faced the Court
with the proposiiion that the Rift Zone is a plate boundary. Dealing with this
newly found idea of a plate boundary for me, ai any rate, has not been a bore.
It has been like a detective story. following each ofthe Libyan references to its
source, learning that nom supported the propositions said to test on them,and
identifying thetibyan case &-ultimately kl$ing exclusively on the writings -
subsequent to their involvement in the present proceedings - - of the very
expert; whom Libya brought in to assist it,-
So what has made this study of geology and geomorphology fascinating for
me, Mr. President, has been not so much the science itself. intellectually
exciting though that is in many ways, but the use to which the other side has
sought to put science. And in asking you, Mr. President and Memkrs of the
Court. to reject the Libyan case on scientific grounds1 am in effect asking you
to dismiss the whole basis of Libya's positive claim to any specific boundary,
or to any plate boundary. inthe hitherto unknown so-called "Rift Zone".
The Court roseai12 54 p.m. VINGT-NEUVIÈME AUDIENCE PUBLIQUE (12 II 85. 10 h)
Présents:[Voir audience du 26 XI 84. MM. Morozovet Schwebel absents.]
RÉPLIQUE DE M. WEIL
CONSEILDU GOUVERNEMENT DE MALTE
M. WEIL: Monsieur le Président. Messieurs les juges,le premier tour des
plaidoiries orales a permis de constater qu'en dépitde l'étenduedes desaccords
les Parties se rejoignent surdeux points fondamentaux.
Nous sommes d'accord, en premier lieu,des deux côtésde la barre. sur la
finalitéde ia délimitation, savoirla nécessite d'aboutàrun résultat équitable.
Mêmesi, comme je l'ai relevé dans la première intervention, l'article83 de la
convention sur le droit de la mer ne fournit aucune indication sur la voie A
suivre pour atteindre cet objectifet ne saurait donc constitàelui seul le cor-
pus juris du droit applicable à la présente delimitation (III,p. 366), cette
disposition n'en constituepas moins une directive de premiéreimportance qui
se situe dans le droit fil de l'évolutiondu droit antérieur, tant coutumier que
conventionnel. Pas plus pour Malte que pour la Libyeil n'est question, contrai-
rement à ce qui a ktéavancé parla Partie adverse, de chercher à minimiser
(rdowngrade». «sterilize», ~neutralizen) l'artic83 (ci-dessus p. 15et 31).
Les Parties se rejoignent égalementsur le fondement juridique du titreau pla-
teau continental. Cette constatatiopeut paraître surprenante si l'on songe aux
controverses qui les ont opposéessur ce problème depuisle d6but de la procé-
dure: Malte ne place-t-elle pas la base juridique du titre dans la distance, tandis
que la Libye la situe dans le prolongement naturelau sens physique du terme?
A y regarder de plus près, il apparaît pourtant que ce n'est pas au niveau du
fondement juridique du titre que se place la véritable lignede fracture entre les
Parties.
Je m'explique. Pour les deuxPaies le fondement juridique ultimedu titre au
plateau continental- la Urnorm du droit au plateau continental en quelque
sorte- se trouve dans le principe que la terre domine la mer et que le droit de
I'Etat côtier repose sur la souveraineté territoriale et s'exerce en de cette
souveraineté, dont il constitueune extension sous la mer. Enoncée à plusieurs
reprises dans l'arrêtrelatif au Pbteau continental de la mer du Nord (C.I.J.
Recueil 1969, p. 22. par. 19; p. 29, par. 39; p. 51, par. 96), cette conception a
étéconfirmke par la Cour dans l'affaire duPlateau continentalde la mer Egée
en des termes qui mtritent de retenir l'attention:
«ce n'est qu'en raisonde la souverainetéde 1'Etatriverain sur la terre que
des droits d'exploration et d'exploitation surle plateau continental peuvent
s'attacheà celui-ci ipsojure en vertu du droit international. Bref les droits
sur le plateau continental sont. du point de vue juridique, h la fois une
émanationde la souverainetétemtoriale de 1'Etatriverain et un accessoire
automatique de celle-ci.» (C.I.J.Recue1978, p. 36, par. 86.)
La Cour a reproduit ce passage dans l'affaire TunisielLibye(C.I.J.Recueil 1982.
p. 61.par. 73)+ et l'arrêt relaaufGolfe du Maine vient, à son tour, de mettre350 PLATEAUCONTINENTAL
l'accent sur «le lien existant entre la souverainetéde 1'Etatet les droits souve-
rains qui sont les siens sur les terres submergées adjacentes* (C.I.J.Recrreil
1984. p. 296, par. 103).
II apparaît ainsi que, de l'accord des deux Parties, les droits de 1'Etat côtier
sur le plateau continental ne sont pas des droits primaires et autonomes, mais
des droits dérivés:ces droits n'ont pas de caractère volontariste, ils découlent
de la souveraineté, c'est-à-dire de la qualité d'entité étatiqued,ont ils consti-
tuent une «émanationrret un «accessoire». Ce caractère, le plateau continental
le partage d'ailleurs avec les autres juridictions maritimes. Lorsque toutes les
délimitations maritimes qui restent à effectuer seront achevées et que l'on
pourra dresser la carte des frontiéres maritimes du monde, on constatera que
cette carte sera un reflet du découpage politique entre Etats, lui-mêmefruit de
l'histoire. On rejoint ainsi, pour ce qui concerne plus particulièrement le plateau
continental, la philosophie du <<droitinhérent» et de l'uah initio~ énoncéepar
la Cour dés1969 (C.I.J.Recueil 1969, p. 22. par. 19).
C'est cette philosophie qui explique que les côtes jouent un rôle central dans
la générationdes droits de plateau continental:
«Le lien géographiqueentre la côte et les zones immergées quise trou-
vent devant elle est le fondement du titre juridique de cet Etat ...c'est
Lac6te du territoire de I'Etat qui est déterminante pour créer le tirre sur
les étendues sous-marines bordant ces côtes» (C.I.J. Recueil 1982, p. 61,
par. 73; les italiques sont de moi),
voila comment la Cour - et, apRs elle. les Parties - conçoit le principe
fondamental selon lequel les droits de plateau continental dériventde la souve-
rainetéterritoriale.
Ainsi se trouve mise en lumière l'importance, pour le fondement du titre au
plateau continental, du concept .d'adjacente - qu'on ne saurait évidemment
confondre, ainsi que la Cour l'a retevé.avec celui de proximité(C.I.J. Recueil
1969, p. 30, par. 41). La Chambre a précisé.dans son arrêtrelatif au Golfe du
Maine, que ce n'est pas le fait physique de I'adjacence qui crée le titre
juridique :
«le <<titrejuridique» sur certaines étendues maritimes ou sous-marines
est toujours et uniquement l'effet d'une opération juridique. II en va de
même pourla limite jusqu'g laquelle ce titre s'étend.C'est d'une règle de
droit que cette limite découle. et non d'une quelconque vertu intrinsèque
que posséderait le fait purement physique.» (C.I.J. Recueil 1984, p. 296,
par. 103.)
La Cour avait déjà notédans l'affaire du Ploieou conrinentalde Io mer Egée,
nous venons de le voir, que c'est «du point de vue juridique* que les droits de
plateau continental sont une émanation et un accessoire de la souverainetéterri-
toriale. En d'autres termes, le seul fait naturel de l'adjacence n'entraîne paspar
lui-mêmedes conséquences juridiques; ces conséquences,il ne les entraîne que
parce qu'il existe une règle de droit qui établitun lien - un lien juridique -
entre la souverainetéetatique et les droits de I'Etat sur certains espaces immer-
gésadjacents à ces côtes. En cette matiere, comme en toute autre, les faits ne
créentpas directement le droit.
Sur cette conception du titre juridique au plateau continental les deux Parties,
me semble-[-il. sont d'accord, et si elles ont opposéle prolongement naturel et
la distance en tant que base juridique du titre. c'est par un simple raccourci de
langage. Ni le prolongement naturel ni la distance ne constituent à proprement
parler le fondement du titre juridique de I'Etat côtier; ils sont l'un et l'autre uneexpression de ce fondement, un nioyen de le mettre en Œuvre concrètement.
C'est à ce niveau-]&que les Parties divergent: pour la Libye ce sont les données
physiques du prolongement naturel qui permettent de mettre en Œuvre le prin-
cipe que la terre domine la mer; pour Malte c'est dans une certaine distance de
la côte que ce principe se matérialise. LaCour me pardonnera de reprendre ce
que je disais dans ma première intervention:
«Le principe selon lequel la terre domine la mer, et selon lequel les
droits et juridictions de 1'Etat côtier sur les espaces maritimes adjacànts
ses côtes sont l'extension et l'accessoire de la souverainetéterritoriale, trou-
vait naguère son expression, en ce qui concerne le plateau continental, dans
le concept de prolongement naturel. 11la trouve aujourd'hui dans le prin-
cipe de distance, qui lui confhre un contenu concret et aisémentdétermi-
nable.
Le principe de distance constitue dès lors la traduction moderne de l'idée
fondamentale d'adjacence..» (III, p401.)
Monsieur le Président,la Cour a définila délimitationdu plateau continental
comme une opérationqui «consiste essentiellement à tracer une ligne de démar-
cation entre des zones relevant déji& l'un ou de l'autre des Etats intéressés))
(C.I.J.Recueil 1969, p. 22, par. 20). Au terme du premier tour des plaidoiries,
les vues des Parties paraissent converger sur les deux bouts de la chaîne: ZI
l'une des extrémitésde l'opération de délimitation, c'est la qualité d'Etats
côtiers de Malte et de la Libye qui fonde leur titre juridique sur les fonds ma-
rins adjacents à leurs côtes respectives;A l'autre extrémité del'opération de
délimitation, c'est une solution équitableque doit conduire le tracéde la ligne
de démarcation.Entre ces deux pôles, c'est le désaccordqui règne.
Dans quelles directions le pouvoir générateurde plateau continental que le
droit international reconnaît aux côtes s'exerce-t-il? Voilà une première ques-
tionà laquelle les Parties apportent des réponses radicalement divergentes:dans
toutes les directions, estime Malte; dans une seule, soutientibye.
Comment le pouvoir générateurde plateau continental que le droit internatio-
nal reconnaît aux côtes s'exprime-t-il concrètement et jusqu'où s'étend-il? A
cette seconde question également les Parties apportent des réponses diamétrale-
ment opposées. C'est ainsique s'explique la controverse entre le prolongement
naturel et la distance qui sous-tend notre affaire.
Comment, enfin, tracer une ligne de délimitation équitableentre les zones de
plateau continental relevant respectivement de Malte et de la Libye? Sur cette
troisieme question comme sur les deux précédentes les vuesdes Parties sont
totalement divergentes: pour la Libye c'est en collant aux données géologiques
et géomorphologiquesde la prétendue «Rift Zone* et de la zone des escarpe-
ments que la Cour pourra remplir sa mission; pour Malte c'est au moyen d'une
ligne médiane reflétant les données de la géographie côtièreque cet objectif
pourra êtreatteint.
Je souhaiterais me placer touà tour àchacun de ces troisniveaux.
1. DANS QUELLES DIRECTIONS S'EXERCE LE POUVOIR G~NÉRATEUR DE PLATEAU
CONTINENTAL DES COTES DE MALTE ET DE LA LIBYE? PROJECTIONRADIALE ET
PROJECI'IONFRONTALE
Et d'abord, Monsieur Ie Rksident, le débat capitalqui oppose les Parties sur
les directionsdans lesquelles s'exerce le pouvoir générateurde plateau conti-
nental des côtes de Malte et dea Libye.352 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
Dans ma precédenteintervention. j'avais rappelé cette vkritéd'évidenceque
les côtes - aussi bien celles de Malte que celles de la Libye - créentdes pro-
jections maritimes dans toutes les directions. C'est ce que nous avons crupou-
voir appeler du terme commode de projection radiale ou pluridirectionnelle (LII,
p. 415 et suiv.). J'avais en particulier attiré l'attention de la Cour sur le carac-
tère inacceptable de la conception libyenne qui pretend, sous le couvert d'une
projection purement frontale, c'est-à-dire perpendiculaire à la direction générale
de la côte, enfermer la délimitationdans les étroites limitesde la projection des
rares segments des côtes des deux pays qui sont rigoureusement parallèles.
Au terme du premier tour de la procédure orale, il apparaît plus que jamais
que la négationde la projection radiale constitue une piece maîtresse de la thèse
libyenne. tout comme son affirmation constitue une piècemaîtresse de la these
maltaise.
Il faut remarquer tout de suite que ce problème est indépendantde la contro-
verse qui oppose les Parties au sujet du prolongement naturel et de la distance.
11lui est logiquement antérieur. Peu importe en effet que le principe selon
lequel le plateau continental constitue I'extension de la souveraineté territoriale
sous la mer s'exprime sous la forme d'un prolongement naturel physique ou
sous la forme d'une certaine distance Apartir des côtes. ou sous quelque autre
forme que ce soit; dans toutes les hypothèses il est primordial de determiner si
cette extension s'effectue dans toutes les directions ou dans une seule, qui serait
ainsi privilégiéepar rapport à d'autres.
Cela étant précisél.'offensive menéepar la Partie adverse contre la projection
radiale pendant la procédure oralea revêtu deux formes différentes.
La projection multidirectionnelle a étécritiquée d'abord comme permettant à
Malte de prendre appui sur des côtes courtes'pour réclamer de vastes superficies
de plateau continental. A en croire la Partie adverse, Malte aurait utilisé lapro-
jection radiale au service d'une espece d'impérialisme maritimeau détriment de
ses voisins, et plus particulièrement de la Libye.
Mais la négation de la projection radiale aégalement éti5utilisée, plus nette-
ment encore que dans la procédure écrite, pour justifier une restriction abusive
des côtes pertinentes et de l'aire de délimitation; ceci. bien sûr, dans le but
avouéde bloquer l'extension du plateau continental de Malte, en particulier vers
l'est.
J'examinerai successivement ces deux aspects du probléme.
Le conceptde projection radiale
Dans un premier volet de son argumentation, la Libye a tenté de discréditer
l'idke mêmequ'une côte engendrerait des extensions maritimes dans toutes les
directions. Le doyen Colliard a vu là une «thèse nouvelle», une «tentative
audacieusen, un *mythe juridique)). En s'appuyant sur la theorie de la projec-
tion radiale, Malte souhaiterait,à en croire nos adversaires, faire admettre par
la Cour le «miracle de la multiplication de la longueur des côtes» (ci-dessus
p. 124 et suiv.). Sous cette forme imagée, ia critique de la projection radiale
entend venir au secours de la théserécurrentequi voudrait que, puisque Malte
n'est qu'une petite Île dotke de petites côtes, face à une Libye continentale
dotéede longues côtes, Malte ne peut avoir droit qu'h une superficie insigni-
fiante de plateauconlinental.
Tout ceci, Monsieur le F'résidentn, e résistepas à l'examen.
La projection multidirectionnelle n'a rien de révolutionnaire en droit intema-
tional. Le mot est peut-être nouveau, maisI'idee remonte à la nuit des temps du
droit de la mer. Par sa nature même, le critere de la portée du canon - lafameuse cannon shof rule - était déjàde caracttre radial, car le canon n'a
jamais tiré, àce que je sache. dans l'unique direction perpendiculaire à Iücôte.
Mieux encore: la projection radiale est inhkrente au caractèredCrivédes juridic-
tions maritimes. La terre domine la mer: elle la domine dans toutes les direc-
tions. Cela est vrai pour la mer territoriale, cela est vrai pour la zone écono-
mique exclusive, celaest vrai pour le plateau continental.
Dans certains cas, les projections de la côte pourront s'épanouirjusqu'h
l'extrême limite permise par le drciit international pour chaque type de juridic-
tion maritime en cause - mer temtonale, zone économique exclusiveou plateau
continental. Dans d'autres cas, ces projectionsne pourront atteindre la plénitude
du entiflemenret devront subir une amputation: tel sera le cas lorsqu'elles entre-
ront en concurrence avec les projections des côtes d'autres Etats et qu'ily aura
donc lieu à délimitation.
Iln'y a des lors rien de surprenant, rien de scandaleux h ce qu'une côte
courte ou un temtoire exigu créent des superficies de droits maritimes, et
notamment de droits de plateau continental. relativement étendues.Il n'y a pas
de rapport constant entre la superficie de droits maritimes engendrée par une
cSte et la longueur de cette côte, pas plus qu'il n'y a de rapport constant entre
la superficie de droits maritimes engendrée parune côte et la superficie du hin-
terland terrestre qui se trouvederri&recette côte.
L'indépendance de ces trois données - superficie territoriale. longueur
côtièx, superficie des droits maritimes - peut facilement se démontrer à l'aide
de quelques exemples numériques. Pour plusde simplicité,je prendrai l'hypo-
thèse d'unemer territoriale de 12 milles de large, mais le phénomène estévi-
demment le meme, quoique amplifik,pour toutes les juridictions maritimes.
Prenons d'abord deux îles circulaires, de diametre différent.
L'îleA, qui a un diamétrede 1 milte, aura:
- une superficie de 0,78 mille carré;
- une longueurcôtitre de 3,14 milles;
- une mer territoriale de 490 milles carrés.
L'île B, qui a un diamétrede 20 milles. aura:
- une superficie de 314milles carrés;
- une longueur côtiérede 63 milles;
- une mer temtonale de 1206milles carrés.
On constate qu'avec un temtoire terrestre 402 fois plus grand que I'île A.
l'île 3 n'engendrera qu'une mer territoriale 2,5 fois plus étendue que I'îlA.
Dans le cas de l'îleA. une façade côtiérede 3,14 milles créeune mer territo-
riale de 490 milles carrés.Dans le cas de l'île B, une façade côtièrede 63 milles
crée une mertemtoriale de 1206milles carrés.Avec une façade côtiére20 fois
plus longue que I'île A, l'île B n'engendrera qu'une mer territoriale 2,5 fois
plus étendueque I'île A.
Second exemple, tout aussi éloquent. Nous venonsde voir qu'une petite île
de 1 mille de diamttre. ayant une longueur côtiere de 3,14 milles. engendre une
mer temtoriale de 490 milles carrds. Pour engendrer une mer temitoria!e de la
mêmesupeficie, un temtoire continental devrait disposer d'une façadecôtitre
de 41 milles. autrementdit, d'une côte 13 fois plus longueque la petite Île.
Troisième et dernier exemple. Une île circulaire disposant d'une longueur
côtière de 1 mille (ce qui suppose qu'elle a un diamètre réduit à 0.32 mille)
engendre une mer territoriale de 4@ milles carrés.Un territoire continental dis-
posant de la même longueurcôtikre de 1 mille n'engendrera qu'unemer temtw
riale de 12 milles carrés, soitpres de 40 fois moins.354 PLATEAUCONTINENTAL
Ces quelques exemples suffisent à montrer que la superficie de juridiction
maritime engendrée par une côte n'est proportionnelle ni à la surface du ter-
ritoire terrestre nià la longueur de la façade cbtiere. Selon la configuration
côtière, la superficie de juridiction maritime sera plus ou moins grande par rap
port à la surface du territoire terrestre, et plus ou moins grande par rapporà la
longueur de la façade cbtiere.
Ces données sont indiscutables et, à moins d'erreur de calcul de ma part, je
ne pense pas qu'elles soient discutées par la Partie adverse. Elles ne sont pas
autre chose que l'expression de la projection radiale, en d'autres termes:
l'expression de la philosophie des juridictions maritimes telle que l'a élaborée
le droit international.
Je voudrais alors poser une question: l'absence - incontestable, je le ré@te
- de tout lien direct et automatique entre la supertïcie de juridiction maritime,
d'une part, la magnitude territoriale et la longueur côtiére, d'autre part, sur le
plan des limite extérieures.qui est celui où se situe l'exemple que j'ai donné.
ne réduit-ellepas à néant la thèse adverse selon laquellela proportion entre la
magnitude territoriale et la longueur côtihe, d'un côté, ta superficie de juridic-
tion maritime, de l'autre, constitueraitun élément décisif dansla délimitation?
Pourquoi une absence de proportion regardée comme tout iî fait normale et
conforme au droit lorsqu'il s'agit de déterminer les limites de la juridiction
maritime d'un Etat vers le large deviendrait-elle soudain génératrice d'inéquité
et contraire au droit lorsqu'il s'agit de délimitation? Il est bien sîlr nécessaireen
pareil cas d'amputer chacune des deux projections: en l'espèce la projection
radiale de Malte ne peut pas pretendre davantage à son plein épanouissement
que celle de la Libye. Mais il n'y a aucune raison pour que l'amputation de la
projection radiale de Malte prenne une ampleur déraisonnable, et que cette pro-
jection soit en quelque sorte sacrifiée dans le seul but d'établir artificiellement
une proportion entre les superficies de plateau continental attribuées à chacun
des deux pays, d'une part. la longueur de leur façade côtière et leur surface ter-
restre, d'autre part.
Un auteur a remarqué qu'en créant une zone économiquede 200 milles la
France «s'étaitdotéede l'instrument juridique lui permettant de devenir la troi-
sième puissance du monde par l'étendue des surfaces maritimes soumises iisa
juridiction» (G. de Lachan-iére,«La zone économique française de 200 milles>r,
Annuairefrançais de droi~inrernarional. 1976, p. 647). La France n'est pourtant
pas le troisitme pays du monde par sa superficie terrestre ou par la longueur de
ses côtes. Quelle meilleure preuve que, du fait de la projection radiale, I'éten-
due des juridictions maritimes n'est en proportion directe ni avec la magnitude
temtoriale ni avec la longueur des côtes?
Lorsque les Etats-Unis ont proclamé en 1983 leur zone économique exclu-
sive, ils ont publié une carte qui en montrait approximativement les contours.
Cette carte est reproduite dans notre second dossier sous le numtro 27; elle
illustreà merveille la projection radiale.
«Où trouve-t-on dans la pratique internationale un seul précédent d'un si
étrange procédé?, ademandé le doyen Colliard. «Evidemment aucun*, a-t-il
répondu (ci-dessus p. 125).
Je viens d'en fournir sur le plan des limites extérieures. En voici ?iprésent
quelques-uns sur le plan de la délimitation.
Si la Cour veut bien se reporter iî la carte 28 de notre second dossier, elle
constatera que dans la délimitationde la zone économiqueentre la France (pour
l'île de la Réunion) et Maurice - delimitation qui englobe bien entendu celle
du plateau continental - les Parties sont convenues d'une ligne de délimitation
dont la longueur atteste qu'à leurs yeux leurs courtes côtes respectives ne se projettent pas seulement l'une vers l'autre dans une aire de dklimitation res-
treinte, mais bien radialement dans toutes les directions.en Colliard serait
fondé 11reprendre ici son expression de scôte éventailn(ci-dessus p. 125).
Tout aussi frappante, et appelant les mêmes observations. estlalimitation
entre la France (pour la Martinique) et Sainte-Lucie. La Cour trouvera cette
délimitationsur la figure 29 de notre second dossier. La Cour notera au passage
combien le segment de la côte de Sainte-Lucie qui fait face directement h la
côte de la Martinique est court.
Autres illustrations de la projection radiale dans la pratique des Etats: les
délimitationsdes zones kconomiques et de plateau continental entre le Mexique
et Cuba et entre la France (pour les îles Kerguelen) et l'Australie (pour les iles
McDonald et Heard). Ces délimitations sont reproduitesaux figures 30 et 31 de
notre second dossier. Si la Cour veubien s'y reporter, elle constatera que les
courtes côtes qui se font face ont manifestement rayonnédans toutes les direc-
tions.
J'arrêtera18 les exemples tirés de la pratique conventionnelle. bien qu'il
m'eût étéfacile de les multiplier. 11suffàrla Cour, pour en trouver d'autres,
de feuilleter les deux volumes de l'annexe libyennede la pratique des Etats.
Si la pratique conventionnelle n'était pas suffisante pour démentir la Partie
adverse, la pratique judiciaire achévera peut-êtrela démonstration. Comment
expliquer la ligne de délimitationtracéear le tribunal arbitral entre la France
et le Royaume-Uni dans la région atlantiquesi ce n'est par lfaitque les îles
Sorlingues etl'île d'Ouessant se sont projetées non pas seulement frontalement
l'une vers l'autre mais radialement dans de multiples directions? La Cour
pourra le constater si elle veut bien se repoàtla figure25 de notre dossier
rouge. celui du premier tour de nos plaidoiries. Comment négliger, d'autrepart.
que la frontiére maritime tracée par la Chambre dans l'affaire du GoIfe du
Maineconstitue un rejet implicite de la these de la projection frontale défendue
par les Etats-Unis au profitde celle de la projecrion radiale?
Monsieur le Président, ces quelques exemples suffiront ?i faire justice de
l'argument libyen selon lequel Malte aurait construit de toutes pièces la théorie
de la projection radiale afin deiifler artificiellement la longueur de ses côtes
et d'obtenir grâce h ce stratagémedes zones de plateau continental qui ne lui
appartiendraient pas en droit.
Le doyen Colliard a déclaréque la figure 11 de notre premier dossier
@
«éclairele sens de laentative de Malte»:
«les fieches sont divergentes quand il s'agit de Malte, convergentes quand
ils'agit de la Libye: la divergence accroît la portéede la côte, la conver-
gence la rédui» (ci-dessus p. 124-125).
Voilà ce qu'adkclaréle doyen Colliard. Je crains, Monsieur le Président, qu'il
@ y ait eu un malentendu h propos de cette figure 11: cette carte indique les.
points de base utiliséssur les côtes maltaises et libyennes pour construire la
ligne médiane, et il est naturel que les douze fleches maltaises et les douze
flèches libyennes se dirigent vers les douze points d'infléchissement de cette
ligne. Nous avons produit cette figure en réacàiL'assertiondes écrits libyens
selon laquelle la Libye ignorait les points de base utiliséspar Malte (III,
@ p. 409-410); cette figure Il n'a ri-n absolument rien - à voir avec la pro-
@ ~ection radiale. C'est la figure 12, la suivante, de ce même dossier rouge,que
jai utiliséedans mon exposépour illustrer la projection radiale et le concept de
@ la zone de chevauchement. Les arcs de cercle tracés sur cette figure 12 11partir
des deux côtes montrent effectivement que la côte libyenne irradie dans toutes
les directions tout autant que la côte maltaise. Contrairementque le doyen 356 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
Colliard a cru comprendre, Malte ne réservepas à ses seules côtes le bénéfice
des prétendus <effets amplificateurs» de la projection radiale. Si les arcs de
@ cercle de la figure12 ont ététracés àpartir de points choisis panni ceux qui
contrôlent la ligne médiane, c'était simplement. je l'ai préciséici mCme,à
titre d'«6chantillonnage destinà éclairer mon raisonnement* (III, p. 416).
Mais il est bien évident que la projection radiale de chacune des câtes, la
libyenne comme la maltaise, ne s'effectue pas seulement partir des points qui
contrôlent la ligne médiane, mais partir de chacun des points de chacune des
deux côtes - dans notre optique, jusqu'à «l'enveloppe de tous les arcs de
cercle tracéssur le modèle de ceux qui figurent sur cettete», comme je I'ai
dit en toutes lettres (ibid.).
Monsieur le Prksident, Messieurs les juges. la projection radiale, je le tepète.
n'a rien de révolutionnaire. Elle n'a pas étééchafaudée parMalte pour les
besoins de sa cause. Elle est inhérenteau principe même que la terre dominela
mer et que les droits de plateau continental sont dérivéçde la souveraineté terri-
,
toriale et crkéspar les côtes. Contrairement aux assertions de la Partie adverse,
la projection radiale vaut en Méditerranée aussibien que dans les «océans
gigantesques». Ellea 6téappliquéepar I'ltalie et l'Espagne pour la délimitation
de leur plateau continental entre les Baléares et la Sardaigne. Si la Cour veut
bien jeter un coup d'Œilsur la figure 32 de notre second dossier, elle constatera
que la petite côte de Minorque a bénéficié, même facAela longue côte de la
Sardaigne, d'une projection dansouies les directions. La projection radiale
étéappliquée également parl'Italie et la Tunisie au sujet des îles de Pantelleria,
@ Linosa et Lampedusa. ainsi que le montre ta figu4ede notre premier dossier.
Mieux encore: toutes les propositions libyennes de délimitation, depuis celle de
1973 jusqu'à celles formulées ici mCme il y a quelques semaines par les
conseils de la Libye, incorporent elles-mêmes une certaine dose de projection
radiale, ainsi que nous le verrons toàtl'heure. Prétendreque la projection
radiale serait océanique et que la Méditerranéey serait en quelque sorte aller-
gique n'est pas conforme à l'exactitude juridique. Que dans une mer resserrée
comme la Méditerrade les projections de chacune des deux côtes se heurtent
plus fréquemment et plus rapidement que dans un vaste océanaux projections
d'autres côtes, rendant ainsi nécessaires des délimitations, est un fait certain.
Mais le phénomènedu heurt des projections se retrouve dans les océans. etl'on
ne voit pas en vertu de queHe considération prééminente seules les projections
mkditerranéennes seraient unidirectionnelles. Les délimitations déjà convenues
en Méditerranée prouventle contraire, nous venons de le voir.
La tentative libyenne de rkduire les projections maltaàl'insignifiance en
jetant le doute sur ce qui constitue pourtant le droit commun des juridictions
maritimes- à savoir que les côtes engendrent des droits maritimes dans toutes
les directio-s se solde ainsi par un Cchectotal.
Côresperrinenres etairede délimitation
Là ne s'arrête pourtant pas, comme jeI'ai déjà expliqué, la méconnaissance
par la Libye de la projection multidirectionnelle.
tes conseils de la Libye ont en effet repris la conception restrictive des côtes
pertinentes quej'avais longuement critiquée (III, p. 417suiv.),et ils y ont
ajoute une description détailléede ce que la Libye considère comme l'aire de
@ délimitation; ils ont illustré cette dernière sur la carte 68 de l'album libyen.
dont les lignes sont reproduites sur la carte posée sur le chevalet derriére moi,
@ ainsi que sur la figure 42 de notre premier dossier. La conception libyenne des
côtes et de l'aire pertinentes repose sur le rejet de la projection radiale au profit REPLIQUE DE M. WEIL 357
d'une projection frontale perpendiculaire a la direction de la côte. Les efforts
déployés ence sens par nos adversaires ont pour objectif de convaincre la Cour
d'arrêterla délimitation la hauteur du 16' degréde longitude, c'est-&-dire à
peu prés à la hauteur de Ras Zarrouq. Cet objectif présente apparemment une
importance considérable pour la Partie adverse, puisque. pour l'atteindre. elle
utilise tout un eventail de tactiques: le refus aux côtes maltaises de toute projec-
tion vers l'est. bien entendu, mais aussi les caractéristiques physiques de
l'escarpement (ci-dessus p. 157, 173 et 178-179) et la suggestion de mettre en
réserve des zones pour la délimitation entre la Libye et l'Italie (ci-dessus p. 9,
157, 176 et 182). La Partie adverse a manifestement estimé qu'un effort majeur
méritait d'êtrefait pour stopper 3 tout prix tout droit de plateau continental de
Malte en direction de I'est.
Pour tenter de justifier la conception restrictive des côtes pertinentes, mon
ami le professeur Bowett a repris l'argument selon lequel seuls sont pertinents
les segments de la côte maltaise et les segments de la côtes libyenne qui sont
rigoureusement paralléleset se font directement face: «oppositeness mus1imply
some degree of direct facing: tliat the two coasts are en face»(ci-dessus
p. 157). a-t-il déclaré.A quoi ila ajouté une note mathématique, en prkcisant
que:
«Thus there must corne a point at which a line joining the two coasts
strikes the coasts at such a tangent that realistically one would have to Say
that they were no longer opposite in any true sense.» (Ibid.)
Du côté libyen, a donc confirmé le professeur Bowett, la côte pertinente ne
saurait en conséquence aller au-delà de Ras Zarrouq, puisque Ras Zarrouq est
déjàsitué à 65 kilomètres à I'est du méridien deMalte et qu'une ligne joignant
Malte Ras Zarrouq ne formerait pas un angle de 90" - il n'a pas précisépar
rapport B quoi, mais on peut supposer que c'est par rapport à n'importe quel
parallèle- mais un angle 'de 67": «a line joins the two - Ras Zarrouq and
Malta - tangentially aan angle of 67'(rather than the 90' of directly opposite
coasts)» (ibid.).
Du côté maltais, le professeur Bowett a déclaré comme pertinents, comme
précédemment, les seuls segments côtiersparalltles à la Libye, segments très
courts en raison du prétendu «tilt:.>de Malte qui fait, a-t-il répété, quela plus
grande partie des côtes maltaises Iàit faceà l'ouest plutôt qu'au sud (ci-dessus
p. 158).
Le professeur Bowett a confirméen consCquence que seul est pertinent. sur
les lignes de base droites de Malte, le petit segment deilfla?iDelimara Point.
mais il a ajoutéque la Libye veut bien se montrer -charitable» - c'est le mot
qu'il a employé - et élargir quelque peu les côtes maltaises reconnues comme
pertinentes(ibid.).
Monsieur le Président,je ne reprendrai pas ici la critique que j'ai faite dans
ma premiére intervention de la synonymie arbitrairement établie par la Partie
adverse entre les concepts de côtes se faisant face ou de côtes paralléles,d'une
part, et la notion de côtes pertinentes, c'est-à-dire de côtes qui bordent effecti-
vement le plateau continental, d'autre part (III, p. 417 et suiv.). Les développe-
ments du professeur Bowett ne font que mettre davantage en lumiere les fai-
blesses de cette thése. Ni la question de savoir si deux côtes se font face, ni
celle de savoir si deux côtes sont pertinentes pour une délimitation n'ont le
moindre rapport avec leur relation nord-sud le long d'un méridien. Le qua-
drillage par méridiens et paralléles n'est pas une donnée de la nature; il ne
represente rien d'autre qu'une convention cartographique. La côte maltaise
autour de Delimara Point fait autant faceà la côte libyenne autour de Benghazi 358 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
que la ligne de base droite maltaise de Delimara Point 2iFilfla fait iila côte
libyenne de Ras Zarrouq: il y a un face à face ici autant qu'un faceà face 18.
Les côtes n'ont pas de visage, et leur facà face peut s'effectuer selon tous les
azimuths sans suivre forcément I'azimuth nord-sud d'un méridien.Le fait que
Ras Zarrouq est situé à65 kilomètres ii I'est du meridien de Malt- à l'est de
la longitude de Malte - et le fait qu'une ligne joignant Maltà Ras Zarrouq
est onentee 67'par rapport au méridien sontl'un et l'autre totalement dépour-
vus d'intérêt edte pertinence pour notre débat.
La vérité est tout autre,et elle est trés simple. Les côtes pertinentes sont
celles dont les projections se chevauchent et se rencontrent, appelant par ih
mêmeune délimitation,ei cette caractéristique n'estréservkeni aux brefs seg-
ments de la côte maltaise entre Filfla et Delimara Point. ni au segment de la
côte libyenne entre Ras Ajdir et Ras Zarrouq.
La tentative libyenne de n'envisager la projection maritime que dans le seul
sens de la perpendiculaire 21la direction généraledes deux segments rigoureuse-
ment parallélesdes côtes maltaises et libyennes a trouvé également son expres-
sion dans les développements que la Partie adverse a consacrésà l'aire de déli-
mitation.
Le professeur Jaenicke, mon distingué collègue et ami,a déclaré,ta Cour s'en
souviendra, qu'une ligne droite reliant Delimara PoinàRas Zarrouq ne pourrait
manifestement pas constituer la limite orientale de I'aire deelimitation parce
que - a-t-il di- on laisserait ainsi en dehors de cette aire des espaces sous-
marins dans lesquels les prolongements naturels des façades côtières des deux
pays se chevaucheraient (ci-dessus p. 191). Le professeur Jaenicke a ainsi pris,
pour définir l'airede délimitation,le contre-pied de ce qui avait éd avancépar
le professeur Bowett pour la définition du segment pertinent de la côte
libyenne, puisque la ligne des67' joignant Delimara Point à Ras Zarrouq avait
paru acceptable au professeur Bowen lorsqu'il s'était agide fixer l'extrémité
orientale de la côte libyenne pertinente. Ayant ainsi rejet6 comme limite de
I'aire de délimitation la ligne de Delimara Pointà Ras Zarrouq, le professeur
Jaenicke a proposéla definition de l'aire de délimitation qui se trouve illustrée
@ sur la carte 68 de l'album libyenA ceteffet, le conseil libyen a tracéune ligne
qui va droit vers l'est 2ipartir de Delirnara Point jusqu'à sa rencontre avec
l'escarpement. et se dirige ensuite versle sud-ouest avant de repartir vers le
sud-est en direction de Ras Zarrouq.
Monsieur le Président,qu'il s'agisse de l'identification des côtes pertinentes
ou de celle de l'aire de délimitation, nous nageons. que la partie adverse me
permettede le dire, dans l'artifice et dans l'arbitraire.
Si la partie adverse avait voulu être cohérente avec elle-même danssa néga-
tion de la projection radiale et dans sase de la projection frontale, elle aurait
dû limiter le segment pertinent de la côte libyenneà l'étroit segmentde cette
côte qui est enserréentre les deux mtridiens qui marquent les deux extrémités
du segment de la côte maltaise reconnu comme pertinent par la Libye; ce qui
aurait conduià une côte libyenne pertinente longue de 14. 34 ou 40 kilometres,
selon que la Libye se serait montrée plus ou moins «charitable». Ces deux
méridiens auraient alorstfini l'aire de délimitation d'une façon conformeà la
logique libyenne; on aurait étéen présence tant du côté maltais que du côté
libyen de côtes rigoureusement paralleles, situéaen facew I'une de l'autre et
engendrant des projections frontales I'une en direction de l'autre; et la ligne de
délimitation du plaleau continental entre Maltet la Libye, que la Cour aurait
étéappelée iitracerse serait bornéeà une ligne très courte allant de l'un de ces
méridiens iil'autre. Voilà, Monsieur le Président. ce qui aurait étédans la
logique du systeme libyen. Les exemples tirés de la pratique, tant conventionnelle que judiciaire. aux-
quels je me suis précédemment référm éontrent que pareil système n'a jamais
61.5retenu par les gouvernemenis intéressts ou par les tribunaux. Jamais n'ont
étéregardés comme pertinents, pour une délimitation, les seuls segments de
côte enserrés dansle rigoureux face à face d'un parallélismeimaginaire à I'inté-
rieur de deux méridiens. '
Mais la Libye elle-mêmen'a d'ailleurs pas suivi sa propre logique, el ses
propositions concrètes démententles conceptions théoriques qu'elle voudrait
imposer A la Cour. On comprend aisement pourquoi. En traduisant dans ses
revendications concrètes le système qu'elle professe, elle aurait apportéce que
les mathématiciensappellent la preuve par l'absurde que sa conception des pro-
jections unidirectionnelles ne résiste pas Ii l'examen. C'est pourquoi. tout en
poursuivant sa tentative de jeter le discrédit surla projection radiale.la Partie
adverse s'est vue contrainte d'injecter elle-mêmedans sa revendication une cer-
taine dose de radialité,en espérantsans doute que cela ne se verrait pas trop.
DéjBla proposition libyenne de 1973. dont le professeur Bowett a vantéla
qualité (ci-dessus p. 178). débordait à l'ouest comme 3 I'est les longitudes
extrêmesde Malte. La Cour le constatera aisémenten se reportant à la figure I
de notre premier dossier.
Par ailleurs, de l'aveu même dela Libye, Ras Zarrouq est dans une situation
radiale *tangentielle» vis-à-vis de Malte, puisque Ras Zarrouq est à 65 kilo-
rnetresà I'est du méridienle plus oriental de Malte.
Er Ras Ajdir,Monsieur le Président,dont tous les schémaslibyens font le ter-
minus occidental de la c6te libyenne pertinente et de l'aire de délimitation,
n'est-il pas situéà l'ouest du dernier point de la côte libyenne qui fait, selon la
propre optique de la Libye. directement face 21Malte; n'est-ce pas de la projec-
tion radiale?
Bien mieux: n'est-il pas éclatantque la ligne droite tracéepar le professeur
Jaenicke à partir de Delirnara Point en direction de I'est jusqu'à l'escarpement
constitue une admission indirecte de la projection radiale? Cette ligne droite est
decidement, comme l'a relevéil y a quelques jours mon ami Ian Brownlie, une
«trouvaille juridique de premier ordre>,!
Et comment ne pas rester confondu devant la contradiction logique qui mine
la ligne proposée B la Cour par la Partie adverse le dernier jour des plaidoiries
de décembredernier? Dans le premier secteur. a explique le professeur Bowett,
la ligne serait parallèle 21la direction de la côte maltaise. ainsi qu'il apparaît sur
la carte68 de l'album libyen. Et alors, a-t-il ajouté,«when you reach the point
of longitude at which there is no Maltese coast any longer opposite to the coast
of Libyaw, la ligne pourrait êtreprolongée versI'est ainsi qu'il apparaît égale-
ment sur la cane 68 (ci-dessus p. 181). Monsieur le Président,pourquoi ce pro-
longement vers I'est, au-delà de la longitude la plus orientale de Malte, si ce
n'est parce que la côte de Malte irradie vers le sud-est et vers I'est et pas seule-
ment vers le sud?
Nous ne pourrions certes, du côte maltais, que nous feliciter de cet hommage
involontairement rendu à la vdritéjuridique si l'on n'était conduit chaquefois B
poser la question: pourquoi, pour quelle raison, en vertu de quel critère, s'arrê-
ter à tel endroit et pas plus loin? Pourquoi le méridiende 16" formerait-il une
barriere au-delà de laquelle s'tiendrait une zone interdite dans laquelle les pro-
jections maltaises n'auraient plus droit de cité?
Mais il y a mieux encore! Le professeur Bowett a expressémentadmis que,
puisque Malte est une île. son plateau continental «irradie* à 360" autour de
ses côtes: «as an island Malta benefits from having the shelf projected al1
around its coasts: its shelf radiates through 360"~(ci-dessus p. 161). La Cour a 360 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
bien entendu: «radiates». Ce n'est pasnous qui le disons. c'est le conseil de la
Libye.
Devant tant d'incohçrence on se défendmal de l'impression que la projection
pluridirectionnelle n'est en définitive pas récusée la Libye sur ses mtrites
propres, mais parce qu'elle conduiraià admettre qu'au cas où les projections
de Malte et de la Libye se chevaucheraient ileraii nécessairede leur accorder
une égale valeur. C'est I'egalité entre les projections concurrentes des deux
' pays qui gênela Libye, et dont elle essaie de se dkbarrasser au prix de ces
constructions complexes et arbitraires, beaucoup plus que l'idée - qu'elle
semble admettre - qu'il n'existe pas de direction prédéterminéou privilégite
dans la création de droits sous-marins. La Libye accepterait une projection
radiale autour de Malte. y compris en direction del'est,acondition que cette
projection soit bloquée suffisammentprèsde Malte pour ne pas se mesurer avec
les projections libyennes.
Mon ami le professeur Lucchini n'a-t-il pas suggéréque les intérêtde sécu-
rité de Malte s'accommoderaient «d'une zone circulaire, d'une circonférence
d'une certaine largeur* autour de l'archipel, plutôt que d'une ligne d'équidis-
tance (ci-dessus p. 147)? Une projection radiale qui serait stoppéesuffisamment
prés des côtes de Malte pour aboutir à une enclave rapprochée: du coup les
objections libyennesà la projection irradiante et pluridirectionnelle s'évanoui-
raient comme par enchantement !
Monsieur le Prksident, la projection muldirectionneife des côtes sous la mer
n'est autre que la résultantede la souverainetéétatique et desdonntes de la
geographie. L'égalitédes Etats et la gkographie côtihre sont les élémentsindis-
sociables de la projection radiale, elle-même donnéeinhérenteàla nature déri-
véedes droits de plateau continental.
J'en ai ainsi terminé, Monsieur Le Président, Messieurs lesjuges, de cette
controverse autour de la projection radiale. Ainsi quel'ai indiqué,cette ques-
tion devait être réglée avadt'aborder le débat centralqui oppose les Parties au
sujet du prolongement naturel et de la distance. Que le cawctére dérivéet
accessoire des droits de plateau continental s'exprime et se concrétise par les
donnees physiques du sol et du sous-sol marins ou par les donnéesnumériques
de la distance, la question de la direction dans laquelle s'exerce le pouvoir
générateurdes côtes devait êtrerésolupréalablement.
J'en arrive ainsi à la seconde des questions que j'ai kvoquées en com-
mençant: une fois déterminées les directionsdans lesquelles s'exerce le pouvoir
générateurde plateau continental des côtes de Malte et de la Libye. quel est le
critère par lequel ce pouvoir générateuva pouvoir s'exprimer concretement et
qui déterminerason point d'arrêt?
11.COMMENT LE POUVOIR G~N~RATEUR DE PLATEAU CONTINENTAL DES CBTES
DE MALTE ET DE LA LIBYE S'EXPRIME-T-IL CONCR~TEMENT ET JUSQU'O~
S'~TEND-IL? PROLONGEME NNTUREL ET DISTANCE
A cette question, Monsieur le Président,qui fera t'objet de la seconde partie
de mon exposé.le concept d'adjacence ne permet pas, A lui seul. de fournir la
solution,car I'adjacence est une notion relative et son contenu est indéterminé;
la Cour en avait fait l'observation dés 19(C.I.J. Recuei1969, p. 30. par41).
Aussi faut-il aller plus loin. C'àscette préoccupationque répondentla these
libyenne du prolongement naturel et la thésemaltaise de la distance. De l'avis
de ta Libye, c'est par le prolongement naturel au sens physique du terme que le
fondement du titre juridique du titre au plateau continental s'exprime, et à'est la fin du prolongement naturel que le droit au plateau continental s'arrête. Selon
Malte, c'est par un critkre spatial caractérisépar une certaine distance par rap-
port aux côtes que le titre au plateau continental s'exprime, et c'est une cer-
taine distance par rapport aux côtes que le droit au plateau continental s'arrête.
Comme je l'ai indiquk, les Parties se sont référau prolongement naturel et
au principe de distanceen les présentantcomme le fondement du titre juridique
au plateau continental, mais c'était là une commodité de langage à laquelle
nous avons eu recours les uns comme les autres. Sir Francis Vallat, par
exemple, a déclaré:
«litle to continental shelf areas is founded on the extension of the territory
of a State into and under the sea; in other words. on natural prolongation))
(ci-dessus p.30).
Nous avons nous-mêmes parlé du principede distance comme fondement juri-
dique du titre au plateau continental. Sir Francis etM. Briggs ont accompagné
ce terme d'un «so-calledn quelque peu ironique (ci-dessus p. 31 et 43), qui, à
travers nous, qui étionsdirectement visés, atteignait en réalité laCou?Ilaquelle
nous avions emprunte l'expression (C.I.J.Recueil 1982. p. 49, par. 48).
Il est.clair que ces deux thèses ne sont opposdes que dans la mesure où le
terme «prolongement naturel- est pris dans son sens physique, c'est-à-dire essen-
tiellement géologique et géomorphologique. C'est en ce sens que l'emploie la
Libye; c'est en ce sens que nous y faisons objection. Dans la mesure toutefois
où le prolongement naturel serait conçu sous une forme purement juridique et
désignerait l'étenduede plateau continental déterminéepar le critère approprié,
nous ne verrions. bien sûr, aucune objection à ce que l'on continue, comme par
le passé,Bdire que le plateau continental constitue le prolongement naturel du
territoire étatique. Cette précision terminologique n'était peut-êtrepas inutile
pour clarifier le débat.
L'audience, suspendui eIII h 15,esr repriseÙ Il h 30
Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, dans ma précedente intervention
j'ai montrk que, dans l'état actueldu droit international. les données physiques
du prolongement naturel sont incapables aussi bien d'identifier la limite exté-
rieure du plateau continental (à l'exception du cas de certains Etats B marge
continentale large) que de commander le tracéd'une ligne de délimitation. Je ne
puis mieux faire que de reprendre mot pour mot ce qu'a écrit h ce sujet un
membre de la Cour:
«La géométrieet la géologie, n'&nt pas retenues comme critères de
l'existence et de la reconnaissance du droit de prospecter et d'exploiter les
zones sous-marines adjacentes. ne peuvent constituer en elles-mêmesdes
motifs valables ou des critéres applicables aux fins de la délimitation du
plateau continental.Il y aurait contradictioà reconnaître des droits sur le
plateau continental au Chili. au Pérouou Bla Norvkge, comme on l'a fait
en 1958, malgré I'existence de dépressions profondes et indépendamment
de la nature géologiquedes couches rocheuses, et à refuser en même temps
des droits identiquesBun Etat A ou B en fixant une limite ses droits sur
le plateau continental sans autre raison que la prbsence d'une faille ou
d'une dépression, ou que la forme des contours des fonds marins, ou
qu'une modification quelconque de la composition géologique du sous-
sol.» (C.I.J. Recueil 1982, opinion individuelle de M. Jiménez de Aré-
chaga. p.1 13. par. 49.) 362 PLATEAUCONTINENTAL
C'est dans cette perspective que j'ai 6voqu6, dans ma premitre plaidoirie, le
lent et irrésistible décdu critere du prolongement naturel physique. depuisles
premiers travaux de la Commission du droit international dans les années cin-
quante jusqu'h ceux de la troisieme conférenceet à la convention de 1982 qui
en est issue.
J'ai illustrécette evolution en me référanà la jurispnidenceà la doctrine et
&la pratique des Etats. J'ai tentéde montrer que le souci de ne pas pCnaliserles
Etats dotés d'un prolongement naturel étroito.u dont le prolongement naturel
est coupé parune fosse ou une dépression prochede la côte. a joué un r61e
important dans la substitutiondu critére égalisant et uniformisate la distance
au critére physique qui soumettait les droitsde plateau continental aux hasards
de la géologie et dela géomorphologiedes fonds marins. J'ai insistésur le rejet
par le droit international de tout concept s'apparentaàtla notion de frontière
naturelle sous-marine. J'ai relevé quele principe du non-empiétement, expres-
sion du principe de l'égalitdes Etats, a contribué puissammentau recul du cri-
tère physique au profit du crit2re spatial, auquel il s'apparente par sa nature
même.J'ai observéque, si le crith physique est impuissant à rendre compte
de la géographiecôtitre, alors pourtant que ce sont les côtes qui engendrent des
droits de plateau continental, le critére spatialest intimemenà la géographie
côtiére,à laquelle il est en quelque sorte consubstantielet qu'il reflkte fidèle-
ment. J'ai cru pouvoir constater, en un mot. que le principe selon lequel les
droits de I'Etat côtier sur les espaces maritimes adjacents à ses côtes sont
l'extension et l'accessoirede sa souveraineté trouve aujourd'hui son expression
dans le critèrede distance.
Il n'est pas question de reprendre ici ces developpements, auxquels je me
permets respectueusement de renvoyer la Cour (III, p. 385-400 et p. 401 et
suiv.).
, Monsieur le Président.je n'aurais pas envisagé d'évoquerces problemes du
prolongement naturel et de la distance dans ce second tour des plaidoiries orales
si la Partie adverse n'avait modifiésa position à l'égardde la distance 9 un
double point de vue.
En premier lieu, ta distinction entre titre juridique et dklimitatAolaquelle
les écritures libyennes avaient accordeune place capitale et sur laquelle je
m'dtais expliqué dansma première intervention(III. p. 377-381), ne paraît plus
guéreavoir retenu l'attentiondes conseils de la Libye. Le professeur Quéneudec
a certes encore parléBce propos d'une *distinction tranchée* (ci-dessusp. 87),
mais sir Francis a déclaré que«Libya . . . does agree with Malta that basis of
title has some relevance to delimitation» (ci-dessus p. 30), et le professeur
Jaenicke a affirméque: «Both Parties are in agreement that the entitlement and
delimitation are interconnectedw (ci-dessus p. 49). Nous ne pouvons que nous
féliciterde la disparition de cet important point de dksaccord.
En conséquence, c'estsur la portéedu principe de distance, tel qu'il a trouvé
expression dans l'article 76 dlaconvention sur le droit de la mer, que la Partie
adverse a fait porter son effort principal pendant les plaidoiries orales, mais 19
encore la position libyenne a subi une certaine évolution.Les conseils de la
Libye ne se sont pas contentés, en effet.de proposer ànouveau une interprkta-
tion de l'article 76 accordant le moins de place possible au critèrede distance.
comme ils l'avaient faitdans leurs écritures: sur cet aspect j'ai déàu I'occa-
sion de m'expliquer (III, p. 379-380 et 411-414). Ils sont allésjusqu'à mettre
en doute le caractere de droit positif de ce critére.
Je me bornerai en conséquence àréfuterles arguments nouveaux qui ont été
avancéspar les conseils de la Partie adverseàce sujet au cours du premier tour
de la procédure orale. Valeur coutumièreet portée de I'arricl76,paragraphe f
La Cour se souviendra peut-être que, dans ma précédente plaidoirie, j'avais
relevéun certain flottement dans la position libyenne au sujet du caractere cou-
tumier de la règle incorporée dans l'article76. paragraphe 1, et, plus particuliè-
rement, du concept de distance mentionne par cette disposition. «Peut-être,
avais-je ajoute, la Partie adverse nous éclairera-t-elle là-dessus au cours de la
procédure orale» (III. p. 363-364). Les conseils libyens nous ont effectivement
apporté les précisions que nous attendions, et c'est là-dessus que je voudrais
donc faire porter l'essentiel de mes observations.
Sur un plan général, les conseils adversesont rappelé que la convention des
Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer n'est pas en vigueur. qu'elle ne peut pas
êtreregardée comme une convention de codification et que son adoption par
consensus ne suffit pas en faire un instrument nomatif dont les clauses
s'imposeraient à tous les Etats, y comprisà ceux qui ne I'ont pas signée ou qui
I'ont signée mais non ratifiée.Sir Francis Vallat et le professeurriggs ont fait
B ce sujet des déclarations (ci-dessus p. 14-15 et 36) auxquelles nous n'avons
rien à redire. Si la Cour me le permet, je me placerai un instant sur un plan per-
sonnel. J'ai eu l'occasion d'exprimer quelque réserve vis-à-vis de certaines ten-
dances récentes à admettre la naissance d'une espèce de coutume quasi instanta-
nke du simple fait de l'adoption d'une convention par un consensus plus ou
moins majoritaire et à faire produire, au nom du droit international genéral,à
une convention non entree en vigueur des effets similairesà ceux d'une conven-
tion entréeen vigueur (P. Weil, «Vers une nomaiivité relative en droit interna-
tional public?» Revue générale de droit internationalpublic, 1982,p.5 er suiv.,
notamment p. 136 et suiv. et p. 42 et suiv.; «Towards Relative Normativity in
International Law?» American Journal of internafionalLaw. vol. 77, 1983,
p. 435 et suiv., et p. 439 et suiv.). Je ne puis donc, pour ma part, que me félici-
ter de l'accord des Parties sur ceroblkme en ce qui concerne la convention sur
le droit de la mer.
D'autre part, la Libye ne conteste pas que certaines dispositions de la conven-
tion peuvent être regardées comme exprimant des règles de droit coutumier, soit
parce qu'elles sont déclaratoiresde rtgles déj8consacrées antérieurement, soit
parce qu'elles ont fait l'objet d'une acceptation universelle, confirmée par une
pratique générale.
La convention de 1982 ne leur parait en conséquence pas étrangère en bloc à
notre affaire. C'est ce qui résultedes déclarations concordantes de l'agent et des
conseils de la Libye (ci-dessus p.7. 14, 43, 77 et 139). La encore les positions
de la Libye coïncident avec le point de vue que j'ai expriméau nom de Malte
(III, p. 362-363).
La Libye reconnaît ainsi valeur coutumi2re aux dispositions relativesà I'insti-
tution d'une zone économique exclusive (ci-dessus p. 78) et à l'article 121 rela-
tif aux îles (ci-dessus p.39), ainsi sans doute qu'h l'artic83 relatiiila déli-
mitation du plateau continental (ci-dessus p. 94 et 98). C'est au sujet de la
valeur coutumiere de l'article 76 qu'elle émetdes doutes.
Si je l'ai bien comprise, la position libyenne au sujet de la valeur juridique
des dispositions de l'article 76, telle qu'elle at exposée par mon ami le pro-
fesseur Quéneudec (ci-dessus p. 76-77), est la suivante. L'article76 comporte,
dit-il. trois éléments distincts,avoir: 1)'la mention du prolongement naturel;
2) la fixation de la limite exterieudu plateau continental au rebord externe de
la marge continentale; 3) la fixation de cette limiteune distance de 200 milles
des lignes de base lorsque le rebord externe de la marge continentale se trouve
2iune distance inférieure. A en croire le conseil de la Libye, «seule, semble-t-il,364 PLATEAUCONTINENTAL
la référenceau prolongement naturel peut êtreconsidérée comme faisant partie
du droit international coutumier». Par contre ni les dispositions relativesà la
fixation de la limite extérieure duplateau continental ni le critèrede distance ne
peuvent êtreregardés comme énonçand t es réglesde droit international général
ou coutumier. En conséquence. conclut notre distingué contradicteurl,e critere
de distance énoncéau paragraphe 1 de l'article 76 «ne devrait normalement
jouer qu'entre les Etats parties à la convention, aprés l'entrée en vigueurde
celle-ci» (ci-dessus p. 77).
Pour compléter cette argumentation,mon ami le professeur Quéneudec a
repris la thèse déjà exprimée danlses écrits libyens, selon laquelle l'article76
ferait de la limite des 200 milles un critére secondaire,le critere principal
demeurant le prolongement naturel. II a parlé h cet égard d'un «critère de
rechange» (ci-dessus p. 74).
Pour justifier cette théorie selon laquellele critèrede distance'seraatla fois
de caractère purement conventionnel et non pas coutumieret de caractere
secondaire et subsidiaire. le professeur Quéneudeca cru pouvoir s'appuyer sur
la genese de l'article 76 (ci-dessus p. 71 et suiv.). A l'en croire, l'objectifde
la troisième conférence auraiét té double: d'unepart, confirmer le principe cou-
tumier déjà établidu prolongement naturel; d'autre part, substitueraux anciens
critères de profondeur et d'exploitabilitéun critere nouveau fondé surI'exten-
sion du plateau continental jusqu'au rebordexterne de la marge continentale;
cette extension aurait toutefoisététempérée. mais seulement dans certaines cir-
constances, par une limitation des droits de plateau continental 21une distance
de 200 milles marins des cbtes. En conséquence, la mentiondu prolongement
naturel serait, selon notre contradicteur,décIaratoired'une réglede droit coutu-
mier préexistante, tandisque les dispositions étendant le plateau continental
jusqu'au rebord externe de la marge continentale et instituant le [[critèrede
rechange* de la distance seraient nouvelles et ne pourraient être regardées
comme l'expression écritede coutumes internationales: ces dispositions ne sau-
raient donc s'appliquerdans la présente affaire.
J'espèrene pas avoir trahi, en l'exposant ainsi, la thèse adverse.
La version ainsi présentéeà la Cour de la genèseet de l'économie générale
de l'article 76 est, je regrette de devoir le dire, inexacte h bien des égards.
La conuoverse qui a agité la troisiéme conférencaeu sujet des limites du pla-
teau continental est connue, et j'en rappellerai simplement quelqueséIéments
centraux.
En présencede la volonté manifestée par certains Etats d'étendrd e,e manière
parfois considérable. leurs droits exclusifs sur les fonds marins, et envue de
remédier àl'inégalité duaeu fait que certains Etats sont dotés par la natured'un
plateau continental large et d'autres d'un plateau continental &oit, une majorité
d'Etatstenta dansun premier tempsd'atteindrece double objectifen fixant unifor-
mément la limite extérieure du plateau continentalà une distance de 200 milles.
Dans cette conception. le crit&rede distance aurait remplacé celuide profondeur
et d'exploitabilité énoncé palar convention de 1958, et la distance d200 milles
aurait constitué1 la fois un minimum et un maximum. L'@alitéentre les Etats
côtiers indépendammentdes caractéristiques physiquesdes fonds marins aurait
étéatteinte, en même temps qu'auraitétémis un cran d'met à des revendica-
tions de plus grande ampleur susceptiblesde réduirede plus en plus les espaces
sous-marins disponibles pour lacommunautk internationale.
C'est dans ces perspectives que se situait, entre autres. l'action du groupe
d'Etats dont faisait partie la Libye. àlaquelle Malte s'est associée.
Si cette conception avait prévalu,le concept de plateau continental aurait
perdu toute autonomie et aurait purement et simplement étéabsorbépar ceiui de zone économique exclusive: jusqu'à 200 milles, les fonds marins auraient fait
partie de la zone économiqueexclusive; au-del&de 200 milles, ils auraient été
incorporés& la zone internationale. patrimoine commun de l'humanité.
Mais cette conception n'a pas prkvalu. Bien que majoritaire, elle s'est heurtée
Aune aminoritéremuante et décidée» - l'expression est du professeur Caflisch
(Annuaire suisse de droit internari<mal.vol. XXXIV, 1983, p. 84). Au nom de
droits prétendument acquis sous l'empire des conceptions anterieures et de cri-
tères qui se voulaient scientifiques. certains Etats entendaient non seulement
bénéficierde droits exclusifs sur l'integralité de leur «prolongement naturel»,
fût-ce au-del8 de 200 milles de leurs côtes, mais donner en outre 2 ce prolonge-
ment naturel une nouvelle définition, une définitionélargie,grâce à la substitu-
tion. au concept classique de aplateau continental», de la notion de «marge
continentale» englobant, outre le plateau srricio sensu, le talus et le glacis.
C'est en présence de ces revendications minoritaires, mais émanées d'Etats
influents dont le concours était indispensable à tout consensus, que la conf6-
rence se mit à la recherche d'un compromis.
Jusqu'h 200 milles des côtes la question était réglée:tout Etat côtier bénéfi-
cierait dorénavant de droits de plateau continentalusqu'h cette distance de ces
côtes, quelle que fat la configuration physique de ses fonds marins. Les
200 milles comme minimum étaient acquis, et on n'y revintplus.
C'est sur les droits de plateau au-delà de00 milles qu'allait se concentrer la
discussion. Les membres de la Cour connaissent infiniment mieux que moi les
péripétiesde cette controverse destinée àdonner aux Etats à large marge conti-
nentale suffisamment de satisfaction pour qu'ils acceptent le package deul, tout
en assignant une limite h l'extension indéfiniede leurs droits. De nombreuses
suggestions furent émises pour résoudrece qui pouvait apparaître comme la
quadrature du cercle: certaines&aient fondées surtoutsur la géologie;d'autres,
telles celles formultes par l'Union soviétique, tendaientà inmoduire un critkre
de distance également au-delà de 200 milles. C'est dans ces conditions que fut
finalement retenu le compromis complexe qui a trouve son expression dans les
divers paragraphes de l'article 76, complétéspar la créationd'une commission
des limites du plateau continental et d'un assujettissement à des contributions
au titre de !'exploitation du plateau continental au-delà de 200 milles marins
(article 82 de la convention). Maintenu comme un minimum, le critère de
200 milles cessait dèslors d'êtreun maximum.
Le concept de plateau continental se trouvait en définitive conservé, distinct
de celui de zone économique exclusive, tout au moins au-del8 de 200 milles
marins.
Comme il était inconcevable de soumettre les fonds marins à un régime juri-
dique différent en deçà et au-del&de cette distance, il apparut nécessaire de
conserver un régime unique, celui de la partie VI, pour l'ensemble des fonds
marins, depuis les lignes de base jusqu'à la limite extérieure; ce qui explique la
disposition de l'article 56, paragraphe 3, de la convention, aux termes de
laquelle «les droits relatifs aux fonds marins eà leur sous-sol énoncésdans le
présent article s'exercent conformément à la partieVI». Et comme il était diffi-
cile de justifier les droits élargisde plateau continental en assignant un fonde-
ment différent 21ces droitsen deça et au-delà de 200 milles, il apparut néces-
saire de justifierarle prolongement naturel l'ensemble de ces droits sur toute
leur étendue. en deçh comme au-delà de 200 milles.
Voilb, Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, dans quelles conditions
bien connues fut adopte l'article 76 et hquelles prt5occupationsil répond.
II n'est pas exact, on le constate, de présenterles choses comme si un accord
distinct et préalable s'était réalisé au sdu prolongement naturel et comme si366 PLATEAUCONTINENTAL
la rédaction du paragraphe 1 de l'article 76 avait été adoptéedans le but de
conférer au prolongement naturel une place prépondérante.Non, ce n'est pas
ainsi que les choses se sont passées.Le concept de prolongement naturel a été
introduit dans le texte en union indissociable avec l'extension des droits de pla-
teau continental au-delà de200 milles, et pour justifier cette extension, contraire
aux souhaits de la majorité des Etats de s'en tenir iila limite uniforme de
200 milles.
II n'est pas exact de dire, comme le fait la Partie adverse, que le concept de
prolongement naturel, tel qu'il avait étéantérieurement dégagé parle droit
international,a reçu une confirmation solennelle dans le texte de la convention
de 1982. Le prolongement naturel de 1982 n'est plus celui auquel se référaitla
Cour en 1969: du plateau continental stricto sensu on est passé, en 1982,à ce
qu'on a appelé la «conception élargiedu plateau continental)), qui englobe,
outre le plateau proprement dit, le talus et le glacis ajusqu'au rebord externe de
la marge continentale». Pour justifier cette extension. comme l'a relevé le pro-
fesseur Mahiou:
«un petit nombre de délégations influentesont réussi ...à situer le dkbat
sur un plan géologique, avec la nature et la structure des sédiments marins,
pour obtenir une extension du plateau continental au-delà des limites de
la zone économique exclusive)) (A. Mahiou, «La participation des Etats
h l'élaboration du nouveau droit de la mer». Droit et libertés d la fin du
XXc siècie, Etudes offertesù Claude-Albert Colliurd. Paris, Pedone, 1984,
p. 318).
Il n'est pas exact de dire, comme l'a fait la Partie adverse, que la reconnais-
sance des droits de plateau continental sur toute l'étendue du prolongement
naturel du territoire terrestre jusqu'au rebord externe de la marge continentale
constitue le crittre primaire et principal, tandis que la reconnaissance de ces
droits jusqu'à une distance de 200 milles constitue un critère de rechange. de
caractéresubsidiaire et secondaire. Une telle lecture est implicitement démentie
par le rapport présenté au coursde la septiéme session de la conférence. en
1978, par M. Aguilar. qui présidait à la fois la deuxième commission et le
groupe de négociation 6 chargé de la dkfinition des limites extérieures du pla-
teau continental. Ce rapport fait état des difficultés rencontréespar le groupe
pour établir la limite extérieure du plateau continental au-delàde 200 milles; de
difficultés au sujet de la limite minimale de200 milles. M. Aguilar ne fait pas
la moindre mention (Documentsofficiels, vol. IX, p.24; vol. X. p. 95 et suiv.).
Une telle présentation serait difficilement compréhensible s'il avait été acquis
depuis 1975, c'est-à-dire depuis trois ans. comme le prétend la Libye, que la
limite des200 milles ne constituerait qu'un critère secondaire et de rechange.
L'analyse que M. Aguilar donne dans ce mêmerapport de la proposition sovié-
tique relativeIla limite extérieure du plateau continentane donne pas non plus
l'impression qu'il auraitétéacquis depuis trois ans que la limite des 200 milles
n'interviendrait qu'à titre d'exception (Documentsofficiels, vol. X. p. 96).
La lecture du paragraphe 1 de l'article 76, Monsieur le Président, est bien
celleque nous avons donnée:tout Etat côtier a des droitsde plateau continental
jusqu'à une distance de 200 milles marins de ses cbtes. quelle que soi; la confi-
guration physique de ses fonds marins; il peut toutefois exercer de tels droits
jusqu'au rebord externe de la marge continentale si celui-ci se situe au-delà de
200 miiies, et même alorsdans certaines limites seulement. Tous les auteurs
sont d'accord avec nous Ih-dessus. nous le verrons dans un instant.
Des observations qui précèdent, il ressort que la ligne de clivage entre les
élements de l'article76 qui ont vaieur coutumiere et ceux qui ne l'ont pas nepasse pas, comme voudrait le faire croire la Partie adverse, entre la mention du
prolongement naturel, d'un côté, la fixation du rebord externe de la marge
continentale et le critere des 200 niilles, de l'autre: la ligne de clivage entre les
élémentsde l'article 76 qui ont valeur coutumihre et ceux qui ne l'ont pas passe
entre l'élargissementdes droits de plateau continental au-del&de 200 milles et
la fixation de la limite extérieure minimalede 200 milles. S'il peut y avoir un
doute quant à la valeur coutumière de certains élémentsde l'article 76, c'est
uniquement au sujet de l'élargissement des droits de plateau continental
jusqu'au rebord externe de la marge continentale et au sujet des dispositions
complexes assignant des limites à cette extension et prévoyanti'assujettissement
A des contributions. Là, oui, le doute est permis, et l'on peut se demander si ces
r&glespeuvent être invoquées par les Etats non partiesà la convention ou oppo-
sées à des Etats non parties & la convention. C'est 12ile sens de l'observation
faite par le présidentde la conférence,M. Koh, dans son discours de clôture du
10 décembre 1982, qui a étécitépar le professeur Quéneudec(ci-dessus p. 76)
et dontje me dois de redonner lecture:
«En ce qui concerne l'article 76 sur le plateau continental [déclare
M. Kohl, cet article contient du droit nouveau en ce qu'il a étendu le concept
de plateau continental de maniere h inclure le talus continental et le glacis
continental. Cette concession aux Etats dotés d'unemarge étendue a été
faite en échangede leur acceptation du partage des revenus tirésdu pla-
teau continental au-delà de 200 milles. En consdquence. selon moi, un Etat
qui n'est pas partie la convention ne peut pas invoquer le bénéficede l'ar-
ticle 76.~ (Nations Unies, SEA/MB/14, 10décembre 1982.)~
J'ajoute. pour être complet,que même surce point la question reste discutéeen
doctrine (cf. L. Caflisch, Annuaire suisse de di-oifinternuiional, vol. XXXIX,
1983, p. 89-100).
II est certain en tout ca- et c'est cela qui importe dans notre affai-e que
l'existence de droits de plateau continental jusqu'à 200 milles au moins a acquis
valeur coutumitre. II ne s'agit pas là d'une coutume quasi instantanée qui serait
issue d'un consensus sans grande portée juridique. Non, on est en prtsence
d'une véritableopinio juris, la formation de laquelle non seulement la Libye
n'a pas fait objection, mais à laquelle elle a positivement contribué, ainsi que
l'atteste sa participation, aux côtés deMalteiila proposition tendantà faire des
200 milles non seulement un minimum mais aussi un maximum pour le plateau
continental. Je faisgférenceici au document NG612du 1I mai 1978cit6 par le
professeur Quéneudec(ci-dessus p. 72).
Le conseil de la Libye a émis l'opinion qu'un Etat dont le prolonge-
ment naturel - plateau ou marge? il ne l'a pas précis- s'arrêteraiàmoins de
200 milles de ses côtes ne serait pas en droit de revendiquer des droits exclusifs
sur le fond marin jusqu'A une distance de 200 milles s'il n'a pas proclaméde
zone économiqueexclusive ou s'il en a proclaméune de moins de 200 milles
(ci-dessusp. 80).
Y a-t-il un seul Etat au monde qui serait disposé aujourd'hui à souscrire Ii
une telle vue? «II serait impensable [a écritun membre de la Cour] qu'un Etat
veuille exploiter les zones sous-marinesA moins de 200 milles marins de la côte
d'un autre Etat, en prétextantque ladite zone est située au-delàdu rebord de la
marge continentale.» (C.I.J. Recueil 1982, opinion individuelle de M. Jiménez
de Arkchaga, p. 115, par. 53.)
En résumé, l'article76 ne comporte pas trois éléments, mais deux seulement
- la Cour a parlé elle-mêmede <<deuxparties* (C.I.J. Recueil 1982, p. 48,
par. 47): l'extension des droits de plateau continental jusqu'au rebord externe368 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
de la marge continentale, d'une part, la limite minimale de 200milles. d'autre
part. Quelles que soient les hésitations que l'on peut avoir au sujet de la valeur
de droit coutumier des dispositions qui étendent les droits de plateau continental
jusqu'au rebord externe de la marge continentale, la valeur de droit coutumier
de la règle établissantla limite extérieure du plateau continenta3 la distance
minimale de 200 milles n'est, quant ?Ielle, pas controversée.Si l'on voulait
parler de critère principal. c'est celui de la limite minimale des 200 milles qui
mkriterait ce qualificatif.
Monsieur le Prksident, Messieurs les juges, je n'ai pas eu le privilège de par-
ticiper aux travaux de la troisième conférence.Avant de m'aventurer dans la
relation que je viens de donner de la genèse de l'article6 et d'en proposer la
lecture que j'ai suggtrée, je me suis entouré de cenaines garanties. de manière
à ne pas trop me tromper. La Cour me pqdonnera si je cite quelques témoins &
l'appui de mon analyse.
J'ai dkjàeu l'occasion de faireétatde deux étudesde M. Caflisch, l'une dans
le volume consacréau Nouveau droit internationalde la mer, l'autre,dans l'An-
nuaire suisse de droit international de 1983. Si la Cour veut bien se reporter
aux pages 81 ii 92 de la première et aux pages 83 à 90 de la seconde, elle
constatera que je n'ai ni récrit l'histoire dearticle 76 pour les besoins de la
cause, ni proposé de l'article6 une lecture injustifiee.
Autre témoin de cette interprétation de l'article 76. Rendant compte, dans
l'un des articles annuels de I'AmericanJournal of International Law consacrés
aux travaux de la troisieme conférence, de la rédaction retenuepar le texte de
négociation composite officieux, M. Oxman décrit la formule adoptée de la
maniéresuivante :
«(1) the continental shelf extends up to a distance of 200 nautical miles
from the coast .. .,even if the outer edge of the continental margin is at a
lesser distance from the coast; and
(2) the fixed points defining the outer limit of the continental shelf may
not exceed 350 nautical miles from the coast .. .or 10 nautical miles from
the 2500-meter isobath. whichever is further seaward~ (American Journal
of InternarionalLow. vol. 74, 1980, p. 20).
Où sont, dans cette analyse, Monsieur le Président, le prétenducritère principal
du prolongement naturel et le prétenducritere de rechange de la distance?
Autre témoignage encore, tout particulitrement autorisé.Evoquant les propo-
sitions qui ont été l'origine de la réformedu plateau continental au cours de
la troisième conférence, la personnalité quia dirigé la délégation française
relate comment cette réformeest partie du souhait d'étendre le régimedu pla-
teau
«ii une étendue de fonds marins qui ne constitueraient pas forcément du
«plateau continentaln ni au sens gtologique de l'expression ni sur la base
des critèrestnoncés par la convention de 1958b;
2 ces crittres. indique l'auteur, userait substituéun seul et simple crittre: la dis-
tance par rapport aux lignes de base. soit00 milles nautiques*. Et c'est& titre
d'«exception» (le mot est employé) qu'a été suggért?par certains pays d'élargir
le plateau continental au-delà des 200 milles jusqu'au rebord externe de la
marge continentale, et cela. précise l'auteur, «bien que peu de pays se trouvent
dans cette situation* (G. de Lacharriere, *Politiques nationales ill'égard du
droit de la mer», Droit de la mer. Cours et travaux de l'Institut des hautes
études internationales,aris P.done, 1977. p. 36-37 et 39). Le même auteura
fait observer. dans d'autres écrits, qu'en conférant valeurutumiére à la zone RÉPLIQUE DE M. WEIL 369
exclusive de 200 milles, le droit international avait du mêmecoup permis aux
Etats côtiers d'exercer des droits exclusifs sur les fonds marinsjuqu'g cette dis-
tance (G. de Lacharrière. «La zone économique française de 200 milles*.
Annuoirefrançoiî de droit interna~ional,1976, p. 646 ei 647; cf, *La kforme
du droit de la mer et le rôle de la Conférence des Nations Unies». Le nouveau
droit inrernarionalde la mer, Paris. Pedone, 1983,p. 29).
Mais ce n'est pas seulement la doctrine la plus qualifiée qui confirme nos
vues et infirme celles de la Libye au sujet du sens et de la portéede I'article6,
ce sont aussi les opinions judiciaires.
En 1981. à propos de la requgte de Malte à fin d'intervention dans l'affaire
du plateau continental entre la Tunisie et la Libye, un juge a observédans son
opinion que:
(<ladéfinition récente duplateau continental provisoirement adoptée h I'ar-
ticle 76 du projet de convention sur le droit de la mer prévoit, comme éten-
due minimum du plateau continental de tout Etat riverain, une largeur de
200 milles)) (C.I.J. Recueil 1981, opinion individuelle de M. Schwebel.
p. 37).
Dans son opinion en l'affaire TuiiisielLibyeun autre membre de la Cour a con-
sacré à la définitiondu plateau continental 6noncCe & l'article 76, paragraphe 1,
des dkveloppements qui font définitivement justice de la description que le
conseil de la Libye a proposéede la genèse, de la signification et de la valeur
juridique de cette disposition (C.I.J. Recueil 1982, opinion individuelle de
M. limenez de Aréchaga, p. 113-115, par. 50-53). Evoquant le critère de
200 milles. l'auteur de l'opinion écrit:
«Ce nouveau mode de definition du plateau continental. consistant à spé-
cifier une certaine distance mesurée à partir des lignes de bases. rompt
definitivement le lien, quel qu'il fût, qui aurput exister entre le plateau et
les données géologiq&s ou géomo~hologiques. Le plareau continental
s'étend, indépendammentde l'existence des fosses. dépressions et autres
accidents. et quelle que soit sa structure géologique,usiu7h 200 milles des
lignes de base. sauf si le rebord externe de la marge continentale se situe
au-delà.» (Ihid.,p. 114.par. 51.)
La Libye avait déjà fait valoir devant la Cour en 1982 - comme elle le fait à
nouveau dans notre affaire - que, si la première partie de l'article 76. para-
graphe 1, représente le droit coutumier existant, la deuxième partie de la défini-
tion. c'est-à-dire le critèree distance, n'est pas du droit coutumier. Or, cette
interprétation a étérejetée en 1982 par l'auteur de l'opinion que je viens de
citer, en destermes catégoriques:
UA mon sens. s'il faut faire une distinction entre les deux critéres rete-
nus & I'article 76, paragraphe 1, du point de vue de leur valeur juridique,
c'est le résultat inverse qu'on obtient. Etendre le plateau jusqu'au rebord
externe de la marge continentale suscite encore une certaine opposition..On
est ..fondé à dire qu'aujourd'hui le critèrede distance (les 200 miltes) ...
doit êtreconsidéré comme cristallisant d'ores etdéjhune règledu droit inter-
national coutumier.» (Ihid..p. 114,par. 52.)
Des développements préciset détaillés sur la genésede l'article 76 se trouvent
également dans une autre opinion accompagnant l'arrêtde 1982 (C.I.J. Recueil
1982, opinion dissidente de M. Oda, p. 211 et suiv., par. 89 et suiv.; p. 214,
par. 94; p. 215, par. 96; p. 217 et suiv., par. 99 et suiv.; p. 221 et suiv.,
par. 106et suiv.;p. 222 et suiv.. par. 108et suivp.231 et suiv.. par. 126et suiv.).370 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
Si l'auteur de cette opinion kmet lui aussi des doutes quant à la valeur de
droit coutumier des dispositions arrêtées parla conférence au sujet des limites
extérieures duplateau continental elargi (C.I.J. Recueil 1982, p. 233, par. 129),
il n'en exprime, lui non plus, aucun quant à la valeur de droit coutumier du cri-
tèrede distance. Voici ce qu'il écrit:
«bien que la limite extérieure duplateau n'ait pas encore été établie... on
peut dire en tout cas que le critère de la distance de 200 milles est large-
ment accepté ...la limite des 200 milles est fermement établie*(ibid.).
Et un peu plus loiri, cette opinion reléve:
ula grande importance du changement apporté àla notion de plateau conti-
nental par l'acceptation universelIede la distance des 200 milles» (ibid.,
p. 248, par. 146; les italiques sont de moi).
Monsieur le Président, M. Briggs a parlédu «persistent misreading which
Malta gives to Article 76. paragraph 1, of the Law of the Sea Convention>>(ci-
dessus p. 35). Si nous avons mal lu l'article 76, si nous avons mal compris
l'évolution du droitde la mer et les travaux de la conférence, noussommes en
excellente compagnie: plusieurs membres de la Cour, aussi bien que des auteurs
compétents et impartiaux, lisent l'article 76 exactement comme nous. Je n'ai
rien de plus àen dire.
Plateau continen~alet zone éconnrniqlieexclusive
Monsieur le Prksident, je pourrais arrêter121 ces développements relatifs au
concept de distance si. inspirésapparemment par une crainte quasi panique de
ce concept, la Libye n'avait pas jugB utilede déployer des efforts considérables
pour établir que le plateau continental a conservé sa«spécificité»vis-à-vis de
la zone économique exclusiveet qu'il n'a donc pas étécontaminépar la regle
des 200 milles qui caractérise cette dernière. Tour à tour l'agent et plusieurs
conseils de la Libye ont juge opportun de se livrer à cette démonstration (ci-
dessus p. 1l, 37, 42,46, 70, 78 et 131).
La partie adverse, qu'elle me permette de le dire, s'est lancée1à l'assaut de
moulins à vent.
II est évident- et nul ne songe à le nier - qu'à partir du moment où
l'extension du plateau continental jusqu'au rebord externe de lamargecontinen-
tale, au-delà de200 milles. a étéacceptée,le plateau continental devait conser-
ver son autonomie, à la fois comme concept et dans son régime juridique.
L'article 56 et la partie VI de la convention ne laissent aucun doute sur ce
point.
Mais il est évidentégalement - et je comprends mal que la Libye songe ii
contester cette evidence admise par tous - que la genèsede la zone écono-
mique exclusive et la fixation à 200 milles de la limite extérieure minimale du
plateau continental sont alléespari passu. La coïncidence de cette limite avec
celle de la zone tconomique n'est pas le fruit du hasard, et ilest clair que la
zone économique exclusive de 200 milles inclut les droits sur les fonds marins
et le sous-sol; l'article6 est toutà fait explicite là-dessus. Dans son commen-
taire de la loi française relaàila créationd'une zone économiquede 200 milles,
un auteur a notéque:
<<Enconséquenceles droits souverains sont exercésdans la zone en ce
qui concerne les ressources naturelles du fond de la mer et de son sous-sol
aussi bien que celles des eaux surjacentes.» (G. de Lacharrière, «La zone R~PLIQCIE DE M. WEIL 37 1
économique française de 200 milles», Annuaire francais de droir inrcrna-
rioional,976, p. 647.)
Dans ma précédente plaidoirie, j'aiconsacré deux brefs passages à cette
«corrélation)>- c'est le mot que j'avais employe - entre le plateau continen-
tal et la zone économiqueexclusive, et j'ai souligne que «corrélation» ne signi-
fie pas «coïncidence ou identité totales* (III, p. 365). J'ai tenu à préciser
que la présente affaireporte sur Iridélimitation du plateau continental, et non
pas sur celle de la zone économique exclusive,que ni Malte ni la Libye n'ont
proclamé jusqu'iciune zone économiqueexclusive et que Malte a proclaméune
zone de pêchede 25 milles. J'ai relevéque la question de savoir si la délimita-
tion de la zone économiqueexclusive et la délimitation du plateau continental
doivent ou non coïncider n'a pas Q être tranchéedans notre affaire. J'ai simple-
ment ajouté qu'en raison des rapports qui existent entre les deux institutions
la question de la zone économiqueexclusive doit - ce sont les mots que j'ai
employés - «demeurer presente à I'espril~ (III, p. 364-365 et 414-415). Rien
de plus.
En se lançant dans de longs développements destinés à combattre ce qu'elle
n'a pas hésité à qualifier d'«assimilation abusive des deux concepts» et de
«tentative de dériveen direction de la zone économiqueexclusive» (ci-dessus
p. 70 et 131), la Libye a soulev6 des difficultésqui n'existent pas. Les membres
de la Cour l'auront noté:ce n'est pas nous,c'est la Partie adverse qui a tenté
d'obscurcir le débat par des discussions académiques surles rapports entre le
plateau continentalet la zone économiqueexclusive.
Cette tentative de diversion ne s'est cependant pas arrêtée18. Le souhait
libyen d'isoler le plateau continental du concept de distance est tellement fort
qu'il a pousséla Partie adverse, non seulement, comme nous venons de le voir,
ficontester route corrélation entre le plateau continental et la zone 6conomique
exclusive, mais aussi à jeter le doute sur le concept de zone économiqueexclu-
sive lui-même.Mon ami le professeur Quéneudeca fait l'impossible pour mini-
miser «ce qu'on a pu appeler la icr2gledes 200 milles», «la fameuse i<régledes
200 milles» - ce sont les expressions qu'il a employées; et dans le compte
rendu les mots «règle des 200 milles* ont étémis, de maniere significative,
entre guillemets (ci-dessus,p. 70, 82, 83 et 85). Cette «fameuse règle». a-t-il
soutenu, a un ecaraciére essentiellement océanique»; elle est *radicalement
inadaptéeen Méditerranée»où aucun Etat n'a proclaméde zone économique
exclusive; bref, en évoquantla zone économiquede 200 milles dans le contexte
méditerranéen, Maltese serait trompéede monde et de régionet se serait ren-
due coupable d'<<extraversiongéographique»(ci-dessus p. 82-85).
Faut-il que la Partie adverse ait peur du critère de distance pour en arriveà
de telles extrémitésdans l'argumentation?
La Libye met manifestement beaucoup d'espoir dans la conception d'un droit
de la mer qui serait spkcial illa Méditerranée.La projection radiale n'étaitdéjà
pas méditerranéenne;voici maintenant que la zone économique exclusive ne
l'es; pas non plus! Pourquoi? Tout simplement, nous a-t-on exposé,parce que
la Méditerranée n'estpas assez grande pour permettre à l'un de ses riverains
d'exercer des droits exclusifs jusqu'à200 milles de ses côtes.
Devant un tel argument on reste confondu. Faudrait-il donc admettre que
chaque fois qu'il n'y a pas assez d'espace dans une mer pour que chacun des
riverains puisse jouir de la totalitéde ses droits, l'existence mêmede ces droits
en devient problématique? Cela signifierait que la necessité d'une délimita-
tion ferait disparaître letre juridique lui-même.Le fait qu'entre les rives oppo-
sées d'undétroitil n'y a pas24 milles marins ne met pas en cause la «regle des372 PLATEAUCONTINENTAL
12 milles»: il provoque simplement la nécessitéd'une délimitation. Pourquoi le
fait que dans la Méditerranée- mais aussidans la mer des Caraites ou dans la
mer du Nord - il n'y apas assez d'espace pour laisseà chaque Etat riverain la
totalité de la zone économique rendrait-il inapplicabl«règledes 200 milles»?
Singulière logique, que l'ona quelque mal à comprendre!
Mais ce n'est pas tout. Malte, on le sait, a proclaméune zone de pêchede
25 milles marins. Commentaire du professeur Quéneudec:<<Quellemeilleure
preuve peut-on trouver de l'impossibilitéde faire application en Méditerranée
de la arègle des 200 milles» (entre guillemets. bien sOr) (ci-dessus p. 85).
Commentaire du professeur Lucchini: «Malte a. par là même, clairement
reconnu les bornes de ses droits en matiérede pêche*(ci-dessus p. 146). Je
pose une question toute simple: est-ce parce qu'un Etat n'a pas proclamt au-
jourd'hui une mer territoriale h 12 milles ou une zone économique à 200 milles
qu'il aurait reconnu l'impossibilité d'appliquer les règle dse droit coutumier
fixant la largeur de ces deux juridictions maritimes,ou qu'il aurait renoncéà
[out jamais, par une espèce d'estoppel, à appliquer ces règles? Le droit pour
le Royaume-Uni d'étendredans l'avenir à 12 milles la largeur de sa mer territo-
riale, qui était alorsde 3 milles. n'a pas étécontesté parle tribunal arbitral
franco-britannique (sentence arbitrale, par. 187). Dans l'affaire du Golfe du
Maine, le Canada a expressément réservé son drod ite proclamer un jour une
zone économique exclusive,et aucune objection n'a étésoulevée à cet égard
par les Etats-Unis. 11est évident quesi Malte n'a proclamé iice jour qu'une
zone de pêchede 25 milles, rien ne lui interdit de proclamer dans l'avenir une
zone de pêche pluslarge ou une zone économique exclusive.Et la Libye a bien
sûr le même droit.Si les deux zones se chevauchent, il y aura lieu à délimita-
tion, et c'est tout.
La Partie adverse ne s'est-elle rendu compte qu'en recourantàune argumen-
tation d'une teile fragilité ellemàtnu la faiblesse intrinseque de l'ensemble de
sa thése?
Et que dire enfin de l'assertion. longuement développée pam r on collégue
Qutneudec, qu'aucun Etat méditerranéen n'a jusquiici proclaméde zone écon~
mique exclusive, ce qui demontrerait. selon notre contradicteur, que ani l'idCe
de zone économiqueni le critkre de distance symboliséparles 200 milles ne
trouvent véritablement place danscette mer» (ci-dessus p. 84-85).
Pour faire justice de ce surprenant argument, je ne m'appuierai pas sur
l'exemple de I'Egypte,cité par M. Quéneudec, et quime paraît pourtant demen-
tir sa thèse. Jene m'étendrai pasnon plus sur le cas de la France, dont la poli-
tique a étédéfinie parl'un de ses responsables de la maniere suivante: «Nos
côtes méditerranéennes resterontsans zone économique tantque personne ne
orendra I'iniiiative d'une telle mesure en Méditerranéeoccidentalem (G. de
Lachaniére,op. cil.,Annuaire français de droitinternational,1976. p. 649); de
I'inapplicabilitk de principe de cette institution en Méditerranée la France ne
parait apparemment pas persuadée.Je me concentrerai sur une seule et unique
considération, suffisante pour réduire à néant l'argumentationadverse sur ce
point. Selon les écritures libyennes(1, ML. p. 67-68, par. 4.63; II, CML.
p. 62. note 1,et p. 71. note 2). confirmées parle professeur Lucchini (ci-dessus
p. 130-131), la Libye avait proposéBMalte en 1976 de soumettre Bla Cour la
question de la délimitation du plateau continentaet de la zone économiquedes
deux pays. Le texte de la proposition libyenne a été luici même la Cour par
M. Lucchini et il se trouve reproduit dans le compte rendu (lm. cil.). En 1976
encore. de toute évidence,le Gouvernement libyen n'était pas conscientde la
prétendue inapplicabilitde la zone économique en Méditerranée!
Cela clSi mes observations sur le principe de distance. Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, j'espère avoir établidans les deux
premières parties de mon exposé:premièrement, que les côtes de Malte et de la
Libye engendrent des droits de plateau continental dans toutes les directions;
deuxièmement, que cette générationde droits de plateau continental ne se réa-
lise pas selon les donnéesde la géologie et de la géomorphologie mais selonun
concept spatial. Ce qui signifie en clair que pour déterminer jusqu'où ce pou-
voir générateur s'exerce, aussibien vers le large que vis-à-vis de l'autre Etat, il
n'y a pas lieu de se référeraux données physiques des profondeurs sous-
marines mais aux donnCesde la gkographie côtière et de la distanceà partir des
côtes.
Ces indications me permettent d'aborder à présent le troisième et demier
point de mon exposé:comment tracer une ligne de délimitation équitableentre
les zones de plateau continental relevant respectivement de Malte et de la
Libye?
111.COMMEN TRACER UNE LIGNE DE DÉLIMITAT~ON ÉQUITABLE
ENTRE LES ZONES DE PLATEAU CONTINENTAL RELEVANT RESPECTIVEMENT
DE MALTE ET DE LALIBYE?
Pour appréhender dans sasubstance la plus élémentaire le problème ultime
auquel la Cour se trouve confrontée, j'adopterai une démarche très simple:
j'examinerai tour à tour la réponse que la Libye et Malte apportentà ce pro-
bléme.
Le cas libyen
Commençons donc par ce que j'appellerai d'un terme commode le cas libyen.
Zone ou lignes?
Le premier tour des plaidoiries orales a apporté quelques prt5cisionssur une
question que nous avions posée 21plusieurs reprises: que demande exactement
la Libye? La revendication d'une limite ~within, and fotlowing the general
direction of, the Rift Zone» nous semblait imprécise, puisque des dizaines de
lignes étaient concevables à l'intérieur d'une zone aussi largement décrite.
J'avais en outre attirk l'attention de la Cour sur le fait que la théorie de deux
plateaux continentaux physiquement séparés par une zone large de plusieurs
dizaines de kilomPtres est incompatible avec le concept mêmede délimitation:
en l'absence de rencontre et de chevauchement, il n'y aurait tout simplement
pas matiere àdélimitation(III, p. 382-384).
II est vrai que dans son demier écrit laLibye avait ébauché quelques lignes
possiblesà l'intérieurde la Rift Zone, mais elle n'avait pas dépasse le stadede
l'esquisse: dans les conclusions finales du troisikme écrit libyen comme dans
celles des deux premiers, c'ktait toujours la conception d'unezone séparative
qui prévalait sur celled'unelignede délimitation.La Libye, ai-je dit dans mon
premier exposé, n'avaitpas eu le courage de passerà l'acte, et le concept d'une
ligne de délimitation était demeurél'étatde velléité(III, p. 385).
La Partie adverse a-t-elle étépiquéeau vif par cette remarque? Toujours est-
il que c'est un veritable festival de lignes qu'elle a proposé dansses plaidoiries
orales, laissant ainsi 2ila Cour, si j'ose dire, l'emdurchoix.
Nous avons d'abord entendu reparler de l'«Axial Ridge Linen. c'est-&-direde
la ligne présentéepar la Libye comme celle du plus grand amincissement de la
croate terrestre, comme possible «composante» d'une ligne de délimitation (ci- 374 PLATEAUCONTINENTAL
dessus p. 179-180). Mon ami Elihu Lauterpacht et les experts de Malte ont dit
ce que l'on pouvait en penser.
Nous avons également entendu reparler. comme autrercomposante» d'une
possible ligne de delimitation, de ce que le professeur Bowetl a appelé la ligne
médiane entre deux thalwegs (ci-dessusp. 180-181). Cette ligne, qui étaitmen-
tionnée rapidement dansle dernier écrit libyen(III, RL. p. 83 et 84. par. 6.21 et
6.22), est revenue sur le devant delascène mais entouréecette fois-ci des plus
grandes attentions. La bathymétrie dela région, a expliqué le conseil de la
Libye. révèle l'existence de deux zones de plus grande profondeur: au sud,
l'alignement des fosses de Pantelleria et de Linosa et du chenal de Medina; au
nord, l'alignement de la fosede Pantelleria et de la fosse etdu chenal de Malte.
Aussi a-t-il suggéréde retenir comme ligne de délimitation la ligne médiane
entre ces deux thalwegs.
Singulière suggestion, Monsieur le Président,ui, sous le couvert de la théo-
rie du thalweg. imaginée pour les délimitations fluvialsu lacustres, aboutiii
préconiser comme lignede démarcationnon pas du tout le thalweg lui-même,
c'est-à-dire la ligne de plus grande profondeur, mais tout au contraire la ligne
de moinsgrande profondeur ..C'est plus exactement l'anti-thalweg qui a été
propos6 par la Libye. Dans une telle perspective,je m'empressede le noter. une
delimitation axéesur les bancs de Medina et de Melita seraità coup sûr infini-
ment plus appropriée.
Singulikre suggestion également,qui contredit complktement celle de l'Axial
Ridge Line, puisque ceHe-ci, comme je l'ai déjà relevé et comme la Cour
@ pourra le constater sula figure 13 de notre premier dossier, ne passe paentre
les deux thalwegs, mais en plein milieu dans les fosses de Pantelleria et de
Linosa.
Singulière suggestionenfin, qui déclare ouvertement s'appuyer surla bathé-
métne, alors pourtant que les conseils de la Libye n'ont pas cesse de ré@ter
que ce n'est pasla profondeur qui compte mais la structure géologique.et que
ce n'est pas par la géomorphologieque la Rift Zone se définit maispar sa
nature géologiquede «frontièrede plaques» (ci-dessus p. 50, 74 et 79). «Depth
is not really the issue», a proclamé avec forcel'un des conseils de la Partie
adverse (ci-dessus p. 172).
La chasse aux lignes de délimitationàlaquelle nous avons assisté pendant les
derniers jours des plaidoiries libyennes ne s'est toutefoispas boriices deux
lignes. Axial Ridge Line et ligne médiane entreles deux thalwegs, déj8esquis-
séesdans le dernier écrit libyen.Des «composantes» toutes nouvelles ont été
dCcouvertespar nos adversaires.
Le professeur Bowett a évoqué ainsi une ligne situé itmi-chemin entre les
lisieres nord et sud de la Rift Zone. Pour justifune telle solution, le conseil
de la Libye a expliquéque la Rift Zone peut êtreregardée comme constituant
dans son ensemble une zone de convergence ou de chevauchement et qu'en
pareil cas il serait conformeà la jurisprudence de la Cour de procéder à une
division égalede cette zone; cela conduirait dans le cas présent,a précisé mon
ami et collègue,h une ligne de délimitationle long de l'isobathe de 500mktres
(ci-dessus p. 181). «An equal division of areas of convergence or overlap,
which one tïnds reflected in the Court's jurisprudence» (ibid. (the quite
farniliar problem of dividinanarea of overlapping claims» (ci-dessus p. 179);
ce n'est pas le conseil de Malte, c'est celui de la Libye qui a vanté en ces
termes les méritesde cette méthode. Qu'ill'ait appliquée.non pas aux zones de
chevauchement définies par les projections côtières. maià une Rift Zone défi-
nie hors de toute géographie côtière. 'enleve rien hcet hommage inattenduIila
méthodede l'tquidistance. REPLIOUE DE M. WElL 375
Poursuivant sa quêtede possibles lignes de délimitation,le professeur Bowett
a également suggéréà la Cour une ligne en deux secteurs, d'abord paralàlae
direction de la côte maltaise (donc de direction nord-ouest-sud-est), et ensuite,
au-delà de la longitude la plus orientale de Malte, de direction ouest-est. Cette
méthode,a-t-il précisé, bénéficd'une certaine «flexibilité», puisque la ligne
peut-être glissplus ou moins vers le nord ou vers le sud le long du méridien
(ci-dessus p. 181). La carte 68 de l'album libyen nous donne deux variantes de
cette ligne, mais d'autres sont apparemment possibles.
Si la Cour veut bien examiner un instant cette ligne mobile, elle constatera
qu'elle n'a rien de commun ni avec l'Axial Ridge Line ni avec la ligne médiane
entre les deux thalwegs.
,L'Axial Ridge Line,qui est représentée surla figure 13 de notre premier dos-
@ sier, le dossier rouge, change de directionhauteur de Linosa, donc beaucoup
@ plusà L'ouestque la ligne proposée par le professeur Bowett sur la carte 68.
Quant à la prétendue ligne médianeentre les deux thalwegs, elle est dominée
parles fosses de Pantelleria, de Linosa et de Malte qui, toutes trois, sà situent
@ l'ouest du point de départde la ligne tracéesur la 68.te
La Partie adverse a également exhumé la proposition faite par la Libye en
1973, qu'un conseil libyen n'a pas hésité à qualifier de eperfectly valid
approach* (ci-dessus p. 178). Un coup d'Œil sur cette ligne de 1973, illustrée
sur la figure 1 de notre premier dossier. montre qu'il est difficile d'y voir le
@ moindre rapport avec la ligne en deux secteurs dlacarte68 ou avec aucune
autre des multiples lignes dont la Cour a entendu vanter les mérites au cours
des plaidoiries libyennes.
Au débutnous n'avions aucune ligne libyenne. Nous voici en présenced'un
florilege de lignes. Un peu de «flexibilité», soit; mais trop c'est trop!
La Libye nousobjectera sans doute que toutes ces lignes se situànl'inté-
rieur de la Rift Zone, dont elles suivent la direction générale, qu'elles s'arrêtent
toutesàla hauteur de l'escarpement, et qu'elles correspondent toutes au concept
fondamental de prolongement naturel qui constitue le fil directeur de la thèse
libyenne.
Bref, je devine l'objection, Malte se trompe en dénonçant l'incohérenced'une
revendication qui est au contraire parfaitement logique et cohérente.
Leprolongement naturel
Admettons donc un instant que la multiplicitédes lignes propost?esne porte
pas atteintà I'unitt?de fond de la revendication libyenne et tournons-nous en
conséquence vers ce prétendu fildirecteur du cas libyen qu'est le prolonge-
ment naturel. Supposons également un instant, contrairemen& la véritéjun-
dique, que les donnéesphysiques des fonds marins permettent, en droit, d'arrê-
ter une délimitation. Supposons enfin un instant, contrairementà la vérit6
scientifique, que la description factuelle des fonds marins, telle que la Libye l'a
proposée,soit exacte. Essayons alcirs, dans la perspective de cette triple hypo-
these qui sous-tend la thése libyenne, de voir comment la Partie adverse se
représente exactement la Rift Zone et la zone des escarpements. Pour cela, et
pour nepas nous tromper, penchons-nous sur les explications et descriptions qui
ont été donnéepsar les conseils et experts de la Libye eux-mêmes.
Prenons d'abord le cas de la Rift Zone.
On nous a expliquéque nous avons affaire à une «zone qui ...séparedeux
plaques gt5ologiquesm(ci-dessus p. 43 et 201). On a dit aussi que cenousavons
une nouvellefrontiere de plaques le long de cette Rift Zone» (alothisRift
%ne) (ci-dessus p. 165). On nous a dit encore que «la frontière de plaques376 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
court Atravers la Rift Zone. (runs through the Rqi Zone) (ci-dessus p. 167; de
mêmep. t68).On nous a dit aussi que la Rift Zone avait acquis par elle-même
le caractèred'une frontièrede plaques (ci-dessus p. 171).
On nous a préciséque la Rift Zone n'est pas forméede croûte océanique,
qu'elle constitue en conséquenceune zone de plateau et fait donc partie du pla-
teau continental: elle se présente,nous a-t-on dit, comme une rupture à l'inté-
rieur d'une zone de plateau (afundamenraldiscontinui~within a shelfarea) (ci-
dessus p. 168 et 178-179). Pas davantage, nous a-t-on exposé,la Rift Zone ne
marque-t-elle le rebord externe de la marge continentale: l'ensemble de la
région,a-t-il étéindiqué, fait partiede la même marge continentaleau sens de
l'article6 (ci-dessus p. 45).
Mais on nous a décrit égalementla Rift Zone comme «séparant deux pla-
teaux» (ci-dessus p. 162): on est en présence,a-t-il étéprécise,de «deux pla-
teaux distincts, séparéspar une Rift Zone» (ci-dessus p. 167, 169, 202 et 211).
La Rift Zone, a-t-on exposé.«&pare clairement le prolongement naturel de la
Libye et de Malte*. elle constitue«une indication indiscutable de l'existence de
deux plateaux continentaux distincts-, une «division reconnaissable entre les
prolongements naturels des territoires des deuxParties» (ci-dessus p. 50-51).
Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, on aimerait comprendre la pensée
de nos adversaires.
La frontière de plaques passe-t-elleà l'intérieurde la Rift Zone ou bien est-
elle constituéepur la Rift Zone elle-même? Les plaques s'arrêtent-elles aux
bords nord et sud de la Rift Zone, ou bien se recouvrent-elles, dans la Rift
Zone?
La Rift Zone est-elle une régionqui sépare deuxplateaux continentaux physi-
quement distincts? La Rift Zone fait-elle elle-mêmepartie du plateau continen-
tal, et alors de quel plateau? Sommes-nous en pdsence, entre les côtes de Malte
et les côtes de la Libye, d'un seul plateau qui serait interrompu par laRift Zone
ou par une ligne à l'intérieurde cette zone? Ou bien sommes-nous en prksence
de deux plateaux distincts- un plateau maltais au nord et un plateau libyen au
sud - entre lesquels se trouverait un troisième plateau. celui de la Rift Zone?
Y a-t-il en definitive un, deux ou trois plateaux? Les plateaux maltais er libyen
sont-ils séparés parla Rift Zone, comme on n'a cesséde le répéter millefois
depuis le début de la procédure écrite, oubien se touchent-ils le long d'une
frontièrede plaques, ou bien se chevauchent-ils l'un l'autre?
On connaissait les concepts juridiques de «plateau continental» (continental
shelf) et de «marge continentales (continentalmurgin). Mais, sauf erreur de ma
part, la notion de plaques ou de frontière de plaques n'avait pas été érigée
jusquiici en concept juridique susceptible de dicter la limite extérieurdes droits
d'un Etat sur les fonds marins ou la limite de ces droits vis-&-visd'un Etat voi-
sin. Voici maintenant que l'on nous parle d'une «frontiSre de plaques», qui
n'arrêteraitni le «plateau» ni la «marge» - cela a étédit clairement - tout
en constituant une «rupture significative», une «discontinuité fondamentale*?
Rupture de quoi? Discontinuitéde quoi? ne peut-on s'empêcher dedemander.
Pas celle du plateau, a-t-on dit, pas celle de la marge, a-t-on dit: de quoi alors?
Et de l'autre côtéde cette prétendue«rupture» et «discontinuité».est-ce lemême
«plateau» et est-ce la même«marge* qui continuent, ou un autre «plateau» et
une autre «margea?
11y a quelques jours, le professeur Sowett a demandé au V Jongsma: «What
about continental shelves and continental margins? Wow do they fit into these
plates and micro-plates?» Et l'expert scientifique de la Libye a répondu: a1
know that lawyers have rather special definitions of continental shelves and
margins, and 1 don't want to get into that» (ci-dessus p. 206). On n'aurait pas pu reconnaître avec plus de clart6 que les concepts de plateau continental et de
marge continentale auxquels fait appel le droit ne s'identifient pas avec la
notion géologiquede plaques, laquelle n'a aucun contenu ni incidence juridique
spécifiques.
Comment. Monsieur le Président,s'y retrouver dans cet imbroglio? Aprés
tant de pages d'écritureset tant d'heures de plaidoiries, le concept mêmede
prolongement naturel, tel que fa Libye veut l'incarner dans la Rift Zone.
demeure noyt dans le plus kpais brouillard.
Voilà pour la Rift Zone. La zone des escarpements, autre pilier du prolonge-
ment naturel dans lathese libyenne, est-elle conceptuellementplus cohérente?II
n'en est rien.
Cette fois-ci, nous a-t-on dit. on n'est pas en présence d'une frontiérdee
plaques, ni mêmed'une rupture géologique: la significationdes escarpements,
a-t-il étéprécisé. est d'ordre géomorphologique (ci-dessus p. 167, 173, 204 et
207).
Pas plus que la Rift Zone, nous explique-t-on, les escarpements ne marquent
le rebord de la marge continentale, ni celui du plateau continental (ci-dessus
p. 173).
Mais, Monsieur te Président, comment concilier l'affirmation quela zone des
escarpements rompt la continuitd du plateau (ci-dessus p. 178-179) avec cette
autre affirmation que ni le plateau continental ni la marge continentale ne
s'arrêtentaux escarpements?
Et pourquoi le prolongement naturel se définirait-il par la géologie dans le
cas de la Rift Zone. par la géomorphologie etia bathymétriedans celui des
escarpements ?
Pour me rksumer: il est explicitement admisprtr 1aPartie adverse que la pré-
tendue Rift Zone et la zone des escarpements ne marquent la fin ni du plateau
continental ou de la marge continentale de Malte. ni du plateau continental ou
de la marge continentale de la Libye.En conséquence,mêmesi le droit intema-
tional permettait de retenir le prolongement naturel au sens physique du terme
comme l'élément déterminan dte la fixation des limites extérieures des droits
de I'Etat côtier sur les fonds marins et de leur délimitation par rapportaux
Etars voisins. même alors,ces accidents seraient inaptes à fixer la limite entre
les deux pays. puisque, je le répkte,ils n'arrêtentni le plateau ni la marge d'au-
cun des deux. En d'autres termes. mêmesi le prolongement naturel occupait
dans le droit du plateau continental la placeque voudrait lui accorder la Libye.
nous serions. dans le cas concret de noire affaire. en présence d'une situation
oh, pour reprendre les formules employkes par la Cour dans l'affaire Tunisiel
Libye :
<la définitiondes étenduesde plateau relevant de chacun des deux Etats
doit êtrerkgie par d'autres critéresde droit international que ceux qu'on
pourrait tirer des caractéristiques physiques ...de sorte qu'en l'espèce
aucun crithe de délimitationdes zones de plateau continental ne saurait
êtretiré du principe du prolongement naturel en tant que tel» (C.1.J
Recueil 1982, p. 58, par. 67, et p. 92, par. 133).
Mais - j'aià peine besoin de le rappeler - tout cela n'est qu'hypothése:ce
n'est pas le prolongement naturel au sens physique du terme qui permet
aujourd'hui de déterminerjusqu'oii fes espaces sous-marins de 1'Etat côtier
s'étendent versle large ainsi que par rapport aux Etats qui lui sont limitrophes
ou lui font face, mais une distance par rapportaux cbtes. Et cela suffih lui seul
?Isceller le sort de la théselibyenne d'une ligne de délimitation dictée par la
Rift Zone et la zone des escarpements.378 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
Les coïncidences miraculeuses
Monsieur le President,la constatation que je viens de faire pern-tetde mettre le
doigt sur la déficience majeuredu systèmelibyen, à savoir l'absence de toute char-
pentejuridique dans l'opérationde délimitationtelle que la préconise la Libye.
Dans ma précédente intervention, j'avais relevé une différenced'approche sur
ce problémeentre le mémoire etla réplique libyens(III, p. 367 et 369 et suiv.).
Les plaidoiries orales ont confirméqu'à présent,aux yeux de la Libye, I'opéra-
tion de délimitation se déroule entièrement surle plan des faits et est entiére-
ment détachée du droit.La mission de la Cour, a expliquéle professeur Boweit
(ci-dessus p. 159 et suiv.), est: a) d'identifier les faits pertinents; h) de peser et
mettre en balance ces faits; c) d'indiquer aux Parties comment ces faits doivent
êtrepris en considération pour le tracé d'une délimitationC. e développement en
trois étapes- ethree-sioge progression or development of ~hefucrs~ - selon
l'expression de mon ami Bowett. se déroule du début à la fin dans le monde
des faits:
- «The correct approach [a précis6mon contradicteur] is io examine the
relevant facts, objectively, and see what result emerges as an equitable
result . . . the result flows from the facts and circumstances: the facts are
itsons et origo» (Ibid.. p. 155-156.)
Oii est. Monsieur le Prksident, la place du droit dans ce schkma? Quelle dif-
férencey a-t-il entre ce schéma et celui qui serait appliqué dansune affaire où
les parties auraient demandé à la Cour une décisionex aequo ethono? Mes cri-
tiques précédentes d'une approche A cent pour cent factuelle du processus de
delimitation (III. p. 373 et suiv.) demeurent valables; je crois inutile de les
rbpéterici.
Les conseils de la Libye ont ajouté que, s'il arrivait queles faits émettentdes
signaux contradictoires. il appartiendrait 21la Cour de decider quels sont ceux
d'entre eux qui doivent se voir reconnaître le plus de poids (ci-dessus p. 155).
Selon la Partie adverse. c'est aux faits qualifiés de ugéophysiques», c'est-
&-dire,dans le sens où ils prennent ce mot, aux faits géologiques etgéornorpho-
logiques, que la Cour devait attribuer le upoids dkcisifn (ci-dessus p. 48-49 et
51). Dans la prdsente affaire, nos adversaires se sont empressés d'ajouter,
aucune difficulté de cet ordre ne se présente heureusement pour la Cour: tous
les faits, quels qu'ils soient. pointent dans la mêmedirection.
Monsieur le Président, je ne répéterai pasici ce que j'ai déjàeu l'honneur
d'exposer 21la Cour au sujet du prétendu «poids décisif» des données de la
géologie et de la géomorphologie. Pour délimiterle plateau continental de
Malte et de la Libye. il n'est ni nécessaireni mêmeutile, selon le droit interna-
tional, de charger des hommes de science d'examiner la topographie des fonds
marins et de sonder les structures de la croOte sous-marine. Quelles que soient
les caractéristiques géologiques et géomorphologiquesde la Rift Zone et de la
zone des escarpements, ce ne sont pas elles qui décideront jusqu'où s'exerce, en
droit. le pouvoir g6nérateurde droits de plateau continental des côtes de Malte
et de la Libye.
Cela dit, jeme dois de dénoncerla présentationqui a été faitepar nos adver-
saires de cette prétendue convergence fortuite de tous les faits. On ne peut
s'empêcherde penser l'harmonie préétablie exposée par certains philosophes
optimistes: n'a-t-on pas dit que l'orange a été découpée en tranchep sar la
nature pour en faciliter la consommation? Dans notre affaire. si l'on en croit la
Partie adverse, la nature a organisé les convergences de manière véritablement
miraculeuse. La ligne de plus grand amincissement de la croilte terrestre, nousa-t-on dit, coïncide plus ou moins avec la ligne médiane entre les deux thal-
wegs, laquelle n'est elle-même pas très différente de la ligne médianeentre les
bords nord et sud de la Rift Zone, laquelle correspond au test nécessaire depro-
portionnalité. Bien mieux: à en croire nos adversaires, c'est l'ensemble de la
Rift Zone et de la zone des escarpements qui a étéplacé par la nature exacte-
ment là où il convient pour qu'il puisse êtretenu compte de tous les autres fac-
teurs, et notamment de la différence entre les longues côtes de l'énorme et
continentale Libye et les courtes côtes de la minuscule et insulaire Malte: voilà
à quoi se ramene, en substance, la conception libyenne de la convergence des
faits dans l'opération dedtlimitation.
Cette approche optimiste permet à la Partie adverse, on le constate, d'injecter
dans le débat le theme omniprésent de la grande côte continentale de la Libye
face à la petite côte insulaire de Malte, ainsi que celui de l'énorme masse conti-
nentale de la Libye face à l'insignifiante masse territoriale de Malte. Apparem-
ment ce th&meest introduit comme une musique d'accompagnement, la melodie
principale étant supposée forméepar le prolongement naturel: les données géo-
graphiques sont en effet présentées comme corroborant celles, dominantes, de la
geologie et de la géomorphologie. La véritéest à l'inverse: le theme du prolon-
gement naturel constitue un paravent destiné à couvrir ce qui constitue I'essen-
tiel de la revendication libyenne, je veux dire: la petite Malte insulaire ne peut
prétendre se mesurer à égalitkavec la grande Libye continentale. Une fois le
paravent renversé, le theme principal apparaît dans toute sa nudité. En fin de
compte, et une fois que tout a été dit,la délimitation demandée par la Libyene
repose sur rien d'autre que la proportionnalité des longueurs de côtes et des
superficies territoriales, accompagnée d'une théorie discriminatoire entre les
Etats insulaires et les Etats continentaux. C'est cela le cŒur de l'affaire; c'est
18-dessusque la Cour est, au bout du chemin, appelée à se prononcer.
Monsieur le Prksident, je ne reviendrai pas de nouveau sur la critique que j'ai
faitede ces conceptions dans ma précédente intervention(III, p. 402-4101, ni
sur les explicationsdonnkes par mon ami le professeur Brownlie.
Comme nous l'avons vu, l'idke d'une corrélation nécessaireentre les superfi-
cies de plateau continental relevant de chacun des Etats intéressés,d'une part,
leur caractkre insulaire ou continental, leur magnitude territoriale et la longueur
comparéede leurs côtes, d'autre part, est condamnéepar le principe de la projec-
tion radiale, lui-même inhérenatu caractère dérivé des droits deplateau continen-
tal, définis commeun accessoireet une émanationde lasouverainete de 1'Etat.
Je rejoins ainsi, par une autre voie, les observations faites par mes collégues.
Comme t'anoté hier mon ami Lauterpacht, une fois disparu l'écrande papier
de la gkologie, il ne reste plus rien pour soutenir le cas libyen que la propor-
tionnalité.Or celle-ci est juridiquement tellement incapable de servir de justifi-
cation à la revendication libyenne, tellement inapteàrendre compte de la confi-
guration des côtes, tellement impuissante, comme l'a montré le professeur
Brownlie, à identifier une ligne de délimitation plutôt qu'une autre, que la
Libye elle-même n'a pasosés'appuyer sur la proportionnalitéen tant que telle.
Du cas libyen il ne reste finalement rien.
Je voudrais simplement ajouter à ces remarques deux observations qui ne me
paraissent pas dkpouwues d'intérêt.
Je voudrais d'abord attirer l'attention de la Cour sur le caractère artificiel de
la trilogie établie par la Libye entre la magnitude territoriale. la longueur de la
façade côtiere et le caractkre insulaire ou continental d'un Etat. Trilogie facile,
bien sûr, puisque Malte est un Etat la fois petit, insulaire et dotéde côtes
courtes, et que la Libye est, h l'inverse, un Etat Bla fois vaste, continental et
doté d'une façade côtiére longue. Commentne pas voir pourtant qu'aucune cor-380 PLATEAUCO~INENTAL
relation n'existe entre ces trois aspects, unis arbitrairement par la Libye en une
seule et mêmetriade? La ratio de la longueur côtière par rapportà la superficie
du temtoire varie dans des proportions considérables d'un cas à l'autre, ainsi
que le met en évidence le tableau publié dans un ouvrage documenté (L. Luc-
chini et M. Voelckel, Les Etats et lamer, Paris, La documentation française,
1978, p. 57). Pour parler plus clairement. un Etat vaste peut avoir des côtes
courtes, un Etat petit, des côtes longues; un Etat continental peut être petit,un
Etat insulaire peut être grand, et ainside suite.
Mais ce que je voudrais surtout dénoncer, c'est l'erreur fondamentale qui
vicie la conception libyenne. Le plateau continental n'est pas I'extension d'un
territoire physiqueou d'une côte physique. Il est I'extension de la «souveraineté
territorialen, c'est-&-direune kmanation de la qualitéd'Etat, un attribut étatique.
La proposition avancée par la Partie adverse, selon laquelle le plateau continen-
tal est la projection en mer de la *masse territoriale* (ci-dessus p. 159), est
contraire au droit international, et provoquerait. si elle était admisepar la Cour.
un bouleversement complet du droit de la mer. Il en va de mêmede l'assertion,
également formulée par la Partie adverse, que le statut politique d'une île est
indifférent en matièrede dklimitation et qu'il n'y a pas lieu, dès lors, de distin-
guer selon que le territoire insulaire en cause a. ou n'a pas, la qualité d'unai
souverain (ci-dessus p. 65-66, 139et 140).
Ce n'est pas physiquement, mais juridiquement, que la terre domine la mer.
Ce n'est pas physiquement, mais juridiquement, que le plateau continental pre
longe la souverainetéde 1'Etat côtier sous la mer. Ce n'est pas physiquement,
mais juridiquement, que I'adjacence des fonds marins au temtoire terrestre
constitue la base du titre de 1'Etatcôtier sur ces fonds. C'est de sa qualité éta-
tique que 1'Etat côtier tient la faculté de se projeter en mer, et non pas de
l'existence physique d'une masse territoriale.
Comment, dans ces conditions, admettre que le statut politique d'une île soit
indifférent? Comment, dans ces conditions, admettre que le plateau continental
d'un Etat insulaire doive necessairement Etre délimitéde la mêmemanière que
celui d'une île dépendante? Rien n'interdit certes de reconnaître a une île
dépendante, dans une opération de délimitation, le même effetplein qu'à une
île-Etat; de cela Ies exemples ne manquent pas, comme la Partie adverse le
reconnaît (ci-dessus p. 139). Ce que le droit international interdit, c'est de refu-
ser une île-Etat la plénitude de ses droits en matière de délimitation sous le
prétexte que les îles dépendantes ne se voient parfois reconnaître qu'un effet
partiel. ou même aucuneffet, du fait de leur petite dimension, de leur faible
population ou de leur situation géographique: si ces considérations peuvent
limiter les droits, dans certains cas, les droits d'une île dépendante, elles sont,
dans tous les cas, dépourvuesde pertinence et d'effet lorsqu'il s'agit d'un Etat
insulaire. C'est ce que j'avais essaye de montrer dans ma précbdenteinterven-
tion (III.p.404 et suiv.).
De manière révélatrice. lestermes d'Island Srate. île-Etat. Etat insulaire, ont
étéquasiment absents du vocabulaire de nos contradicteurs. Cette négation de
l'égalitçsouveraine des Etats ne peut manquer de retenir l'attention alors que,
comme l'a rappelé le professeur Lucchini, les Etats insulaires représentent
actuellement vingt-cinq pour cent de l'ensemble des Etats: un Etat sur quatre
est un Etat insulaire. ne l'oublions pas (ci-dessus p.40).
L'inéquité du résultat
Ilreste enfin, Monsieur le Prksident. pour achever cet examen du cas libyen,
Ii s'interroger sur le caractère équitable et raisonnablede la délimitation propo-
sée par la Libye. REPLIQUE DE M. WEIL
38 1
Point n'est besoin de longues explications. Que la Cour veuille bien jeter un
coup d'Œil, une fois encore, sur les lignes proposées par nos adversaires sur
@ leur carte 68, qui se trouvent reproduites sur la grande carte derrière moi et sur
la figure2 de notre dossier rouge. Est-ce là une solution raisonnable? Est-ce là
@ une solution équitable?
Si un résultat de ce genre était produit par l'application de la méthode de
l'équidistance- en raison, par exemple, d'une configuration spécialede l'une
des côtes - on crieraità coup sûr à l'empiétement età l'amputation, et on
aurait raison.
S'il n'y a pas là un exemple caractéristique d'amputation et d'empiétement,
dans quel cas pourra-t-on encore parler dans l'avenir d'amputation et d'empiéte-
ment?
Quant au fait que la délimitation proposée s'arrêàela hauteur des escarpe-
ments, c'est-à-dire peu près au 16' degréde longitude, cette mutilation de la
projection des côtes maltaises a été essentiellement expliquée par la Partie
adverse, nous l'avons vu, par la présenced'un accident géomorphologique dont
elle a dit qu'il ne marque la fin ni du plateau continental proprement dit ni de la
marge continentale de Malte. Mais cette mutilation a égalementétéjustifiée au
nom de considérations d'équité ayant traàla nécessité de garder en réserveles
zones plusà l'est pour la future délimitationentre la Libye et des Etats tiers, et
plus particulièrement'Italie (ci-dessus p. 157, 161, 176, 177et 182).
l'aurai l'occasion ultérieurement de m'exprimer au sujetde cette idée de
mettreen réserve la zonesituee àI'est de 16"en vue d'une délimitation future
avec l'Italie. Je me borneraiàifaire remarquer que les lignes proposées par la
Libye ne respectent elles-mêmespas cette préoccupation prétendument inspirée
par l'équitk.
La Cour se souviendra qu'en réponse àune question de M. de Lacharrière au
cours de la procédure d'interventiode l'Italie au sujet des ((zones de plateau
continental sur lesquelles l'Italie croit avoir des droits*, l'agent du Gouveme-
ment italien a indiquk que:
«La premièrezone sur laquellel'Italie considère avoir des droits est la zone
géographique dklimitéeà l'ouest par le méridien 15O10'(qui passe par l'on-
gine de la ligne de base de Capo Passero); au sud par leralèle 34O30'N,
etc.»l
Il apparaît ainsi clairement que l'Italie estime avoir des droits dans une partie
de la zone que la Libye elle-même demande à la Cour de délimiterentre elle et
Malte. Tant et si bien que, mêmesi elle acceptait la ligne proposée la carte
@ libyenne68, la Cour ne mettrait quand même pasen reserve l'intégralité des
zones revendiquées par I'Italie puisque, selorepense italienne, une partie de
cettezone se trouve ?Il'ouest de la limite extrêmeproposée par la ligne ita-
lienne, c'est-à-diàI'est du méridiende Capo Passero.
Ceci est d'ailleurs reconnu par la Partie adverse, puisque le professeur Bowett
a pris soin de préciser que sitalie a une revendicatiànformuler Al'ouest de
l'escarpement il lui appartiendra de la faire valoir, selon le cas, contre Malte ou
contre la Libye; c'est seulement l'espàcl'ouest de l'escarpement que la ligne
proposée par la Libye réserverait pour une future délimitationItaliebibye (ci-
dessus p. 182).
Le caractère déraisonnable etinequitable des lignes revendiquéespar la Libye
apparaît également si l'on se souvient que ces lignes se situent plus au nord
qu'une ligne médiane entre l'Italie et la Libye qui ne tiendrait pas compte de
'Voir ci-après,correspondance,no68. 382 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
l'existence de Malte. J'ai évoquécette inéquitCdans ma précédente intervention
@ (III. .p. 398-399) et elle apparaît en pleine lumiere sur la figure 41 de notre
premier dossier.A quoi le professeur Boweti a objecté que rien ne permet de
supposer que la délimitation italo-libyenne se ferait forcement selon une ligne
médiane (ci-dessus p. 176). La Libye. a-t-il dit, pourrait invoquer la Rift Zone
contre l'ltaiie également. L'Italie, a précisémon ami et contradicteur. a
d'ailleurs d'ores etejà fait connaître. lors de son intervention en janvier 1984.
qu'elle est hostile au caractère obligatoire et absolu de l'équidistance. Quelle
que puisse être la positionde I'ItalàeI'Çgard de l'équidistance en général, ou
de I'Çquidistance dans le cas particulier de sa delimitation future avec Malte ou
avec la Libye, je remarquerai simplement que le passage de la plaidoirie ita-
lienne citépar le professeurBowett ne se rapportaitpas à une éventuelle déli-
mitation entre l'ltalie et la Libye, mais concernait, sauf erreur de ma part, la
ligne d'équidistanceréclamée parMalte entre I'ltalie et Malte. La Cour notera
tgalement que la limite méridionale de la revendication italienne, telle qu'elle a
étédéfiniedans la réponse M. de Lacharrikre iilaquelle je viens de me réf6-
rer, se situe au pallele 34'30', lequel correspond, comme la Cour pourra le
@ constater en se reportant A la figure 41 de notre premier dossier,à peu de
choses près ii la ligne médianeentre l'Italie et la Libye ne tenant pas compte de
l'existence de Malte.
Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, que reste3-il en fin de compte de
la revendication libyenne?
La Rift Zone, qui ne marque ni la limite du plateau continental ni le rebord
externe de la marge continentale d'aucun des deux pays, se ramène en défini-
tive?iune reprbsentation cartographique qui sert de couverture ou d'alibi, ose-
rais-je direà une ligne de proportionnalité que la Libye n'a pas le courage
d'avouer, parce qu'elle la sait juridiquement indéfendable.
Quant à la zone des escarpements, elle ne marque pas davantage la limite du
plateau continental ou le rebord de la marge continentale; elle ne suffit m&me
pas h rkserver les droits de l'Italie. Elle se àéune belle et profonde cou-
leur bleue sur les cartes libyennes, destinéeser l'impressionque la natura
dressé elle-mêmeun barrage infranchissable à toute extension des projections
de Malte en direction de l'est.
Faut-il rappeler par ailleurs, une fois encore, que la revendication libyenne ne
peut s'appuyer sur aucun précédent de la pratique des Etats? Manifestement
aucun gouvernement n'a jamais regardé le genre de solution préconiséepar la
Libye comme suffisamment équitable pour accepter d'y souscrire!
Les diverses lignes de délimitation proposeespar la Libye ne s'expliquent
finalement pas autrement que par la volontéde réduirele plateau continental de
Malte à la portion congrue. Le plateau de Malte «nécessairement enclavé».
ainévitablement enclavé» (ci-dessus p. 42-43 et 161): le theme de l'enclave,
que j'avais dénoncé précédemment (III, p. 397-398), a refait surface, et il est
révélateur.Ce n'est pas touà fait «Malta disregarded~. j'en conviens, mais on
n'en est pas=ès éloigné.
Je n'en dirai pas davantage au sujet du caractère déraisonnable et inéquitable
de la solution proposéà la Cour par la Libye, et je me propose de me tourner
demain matin avec votre permission. Monsieur le Président, versle cas maltais.
La skance estlevéed 13h 08 TRENTIÈME AUDIENCE PUBLIQUE (13 1185, 10 h)
Présents:[Voir audience du 26 XI 84, M. Morozov absent.]
M. WEIL: Monsieur le Présideiit, Messieurs les juges, dans le cadre de la
troisieme partie de mon exposé,consacrke a la question de savoir comment tra-
cer une ligne de délimitation kquitable entre les zones de plateau continental
relevant respectivement de Malte et de la Libye, j'ai procédé hierB l'examen
critique du cas libyen. La revendication libyenne, j'espkre êtreparvenu à en
convaincre la Cour, n'a pas d'assise juridique et conduirait, si elle étaitüccep-
tée,1 une solution déraisonnable et inéquitable.
Je me tourne à présent versle cas maltais.
Le cas maltais
Ludénaturationdes thèses maltaise.^
Lorsque je fais mention du cas maltais, je pense évidemment au cas maltais
tel qu'il est, et non pas aus maltais tel que la Partie adverse a cm pouvoir le
décrireau cours du premier tour des plaidoiries.
II serait fastidieux de dresser l'inventaire de tous les points sur lesquels les
plaidoiries libyennes ont présenté denos thèses une vision déformée.II est
cependant de mon devoir de dénoncer les deux dénaturations lesplus flagrantes
dont nos thèses ont étél'objet.
La premiere concerne la prise en considération des faits. A en croire nos
adversaires, la position de Malte impliquerait que *la Cour n'aurait pas B
prendre en considdration les diverses circonstances pertinentes de la présente
affaire» (ci-dessus p. 88), et l'un des conseils de la Libye n'a pas héàiévo-
quer «l'application soigneuse mise par Malte à ne pas utiliser l'expression
consacrée de circonstances pertinentes. (ci-dessus p. 129). 11faut croire que
nos adversaires n'ont pas lu ce que nous avons écrit, ni entendu ce que nous
avons dit, au sujet du rôle capital des circonstances pertinentes dans l'opération
de délimitation (CMM, p. 58, par. 108; p. 60, par. 112 et 114; 111,p. 373 et
376); sinon ils n'auraient pas pu se trompeàce point sur la position de Malte.
La seconde dénaturation queje me dois de dénoncer a trait A l'équidistance.
La Partie adverse n'a cessé,par la bouche de ses conseils successifs, de nous
accuser du crime majeur de préméditation d'équidistance. Selon elle,Malte
serait coupable de vouloir «acculer la Courà la decision inexorable de donner
sa bénédiction àla méthodede l'équidistance» (toforce the Court tothe inexo-
rable decision tobless the equidistïince method) (ci-dessus p32). Malte cher-
cherait A imposer tout prix)) (a[ al1 costs) (ci-dessus p. 31) «sa propre
mkthode à priori et même sa propreligne présklectionw5e,> (its own a priori
rnethodof delimitationand even its nwnpreselected line) (ci-dessusp.30). Pour
réaliserce noir dessein, a-t-on expliqué la Cour, Malte ne recule devant rien;
tous les moyens Iui sont bons (ibid. P).rquoi Malte fait-elle étatdu principe
de distance? Pour faire passer sous ce pavillon la rkgle juridique de l'équidis-
tance (ci-dessus p. 35, 44, 46, 5587, 88 et 88-89, etc.). Pourquoi Malte men-
tionne-t-elle le principe du non-empiétement? Parce qu'elle voit 18un ucatch- 384 PLATEAUCONTINENTAL
nlordu pour l'équidistance (ci-dessusp. 67). Les références faites par Malteau
principe de l'égalitédes Etats sont elles-mêmes entachéesde suspicion et pré-
sentees comme mises au service d'une delimitation obligatoirement équidistante
(ci-dessusp. 29, 34, 35 ei 37-38).
Bref, selon nos adversaires, toute l'argumentation maltaise ne tendrait que
vers un seul et unique but: justifier le caractére juridiquement obligatoire, en
toutes circonstances, delaméthodede l'kquidistance, dont le caractére équitable
serait présumésans qu'il y ait besoin de prendre en consideration les circons-
tances pertinentes propresà la présente affaire (ci-dessusp. 88 et 155).
Rappel des thPsesmalt~ises
Monsieur le Président. la Cour sait que tout cela n'est qu'une description
caricaturale de nos positions. Afin de ne laisser subsister aucun malentendu et
de rétablir la vérité, jeme dois de rappeler en quelques mots l'essentiel de nos
theses, telles que nous les avons expostes tout au long de cette affaire.
Le principe de droit international selon lequel les droits de plateau continental
sont dérivésde la souveraineté territoriale, dont ils forment unemanation* et
un «accessoire automatique», conduit, comme j'ai essaye de le montrer hier.à
une irradiation de chacun des points de chacune des côtes de chacun des Etats
côtiers dans toutes les directions jusqu'h une distance minimale de 200 milles
marins des lignes de base.
Dans le cas ou la projection émanant de la côte d'un autre Etat vient faire
obstacleà l'épanouissement pleinet entier de la projection de 1'Etaten cause, il
y aura lieuà délimitation. L'essence de l'exercice de délimitation consisterà
amputer la projection de chacun des deux Etats de maniere aboutir à une divi-
sion équitabledes zones de chevauchement.
C'est cela. et rien d'autre, que Malte propose de faire entre ses côtes et celles
de la Libye.
Malte constate d'abord que les projections de sa côte se chevauchent avec
celles de lac6te libyenne depuis la frontiére tunisienne jusque bien au-delà de
@ Ras Zarrouk. C'est ce que montre la figure 12 de notre premier dossier. le dos-
sier rouge.
~'a~@~antsur le double paramètre de la géographie côtière etde la distance.
conformément au droit international. Malte or6conise ensuite de traceà titre
provisoire, comme premier pas, comme point'de départde l'exercice de délimi-
tation. une ligne médiane entre les côtes opposées des deux pays intéressés.
Pourquoi la méthode de l'équidistance plutôt que n'importequ'elle autre? Parce
qu'une méthode qui partage & peu près également les zones de chevauchement
- je dis bien: les zones de chevauchement, et non pas: leplateau continental
- permet prima facie, et sous réserve du contrôle ultérieur des circonstances
propres à l'affaire, de respecter le droit égalde Malte et de la Libàeune cer-
taine distance de droits de plateau continental; parce que cette méthode permet
primafacie - je répète:prima facie - d'éviter un empiétement de l'un des
Etats sur l'autre; parce que cette méthode est d'un emploi commode; et enfin.
et peut-être surtout, parce que cettemethode est de toutes les méthodescelle
qui prend le plus directement et le plus étroitement appui sur la géographie
côtière.
Mais IZLne s'arrêtepas, de l'avis de Malte, l'exercice de délimitation: sinon,
il suffirait d'un géomètre pour régler toutes les délimitationsde plateau conti-
nental encore en suspens de par le monde. Malte estime, il faut y insister encore
et encore, que la ligne obtenue grâce à la méthode de l'équidistance n'est
qu'une ligne d'attente. Le droit international ne permet d'en faire la ligne de délimitationdefinitive qu'après vérificationde son caractère équitable et raison-
nable. Et cette vérification doit se faire sous deux formes: négativement,il faut
contrôler qu'elle n'est pas inéquitable et déraisonnable; positivement, il faut
s'assurer qu'elle est effectivement raisonnable et équitable. Malte estime que.
dans les circonstances concr5tes de la présente espèce, la ligne médiane subit
avec succés cette double vérification, et c'est pourquoielle la préconise comme
ligne de délimitationappropriCedans la présente affaire.
Voilà, Monsieur le Président, l'essentieldes thésesque nous avons dévelop-
pées et qui, laCour nous le concédera.ne se retrouvent pas dans la description
qu'en donne la Partie adverse.
Avant de faire la démonstration du caractère équitablede la ligne médiane
dans les circonstances concretes de la présente affaire,je voudrais encore for-
muler deux observations, rendues nécessaires par les plaidoiries adverses.
J'ai eu I'occasion dans mon premier exposé de m'élever contre les excèsde
la campagne menée par les écrits libyens contre la méthodede I'équidisianceen
soi, accabléede tous les maux de la création et présentée contre I'antithésd ee
l'équité(III, p. 421 et suiv.). Non seulement aucune sourdine n'a étémise 21
cette campagne pendant le premier tour des plaidoiries orales, mais un nouvel
argument a étémis en avant, que nous nous devons de dénoncerenergiquement.
L'agent de la Libye a en effet soutenu que I'équidistance est la solution évi-
dente et facile dans les cas simples, mais que les cas soumis aux juges ne sont
par définitionpas simples et que, Bl'instar des trois affaires précédemment sou-
mises à la Cour. I'équidistance n'est donc pas la solution appropriée dans la
présente affaire (ci-dessusp. 11-12).
Faut-il comprendre par là que l'équidistance seraiten quelque sorte réservée
aux délimitations conventionnelles. mais que des lors qu'une affaire est suffi-
samment complexe pour appeler une solution judiciaire ou arbitrale I'équidis-
tance cesseraitipso facto d'êtreappropriée - ce qui reviendraitiiprétendre que
le juge ou l'arbitre ne pourraient jamais recourià une solution d'équidistance?
La Cour acceptera-t-elle de regarder I'équidistance comme tabou. comme
interdite de séjour dans l'arène judiciaire ou arbitrale? Tel est l'enjeu que la
these libyenne, par son caractére extrêmec ,onfèreAla présente affaire.
Enjeu confirme au demeurant par une autre observation de l'agent de la
Libye, immédiatement ZIla suite de la précédente: si lathésede Malte en faveur
de IiCquidistanceétait admise dansla présentees@ce, a-t-il déclare,on voit mal
comment I'équidistance ne devrait pas B fortiori êtreappliquCe dans toutes les
délimitations futuresde plateau continental («it is hard to see how equidistance
will not a foriioribe applied in virtually every future case of continental shelf
that can beimagined*). La Libye met en quelque sorte la Cour en garde: si la
Cour retient ici la ligne médiane,elle se condamne à devoir la retenir toujours.
La Cour appréciera.
Ma seconde remarque se rappone au principe d'égalitédes Etats. Manifeste-
ment gênée parce principe. dont sa these tout entiére constitue la négation, et
que l'on rencontre a tous les carrefours de notre affaire, la Libye a renforcé
l'offensive qu'elle avait esquissée contre ce principe dans ses écritures et sur
laquelle j'ai déjàeu l'occasion de m'expliquer (111,p.403-404 ei 407-408).
Malgré l'amical respect que jeporte au professeur Briggs. je me dois de dire
qu'il me para11s'êtreméprissur la panéedu principe d'égalitétel que nous le
concevons dans la présente affaire. Notre distingué contradicteur allègue que.
sous le couvert du principe d'égalité,Malte réclame un «equal entitlementn et
revendique en conséquence une superficie de plateau continental égale B celle
de la Libye, c'est-à-dire une division du plateau continental par parts égales(ci-
dessus p. 34, 36, 37 et 38). L'égalitedes Etats, ont cru nécessaire d'observer les386 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
conseils de la Libye, ne signifie pas égalitéde temtoire, de ressources natu-
relles. de superficies de plateau continental (ci-dessus p. 29, 33 et 58) -
comme si nous avions jamais soutenuune théorie aussi extravagante! Maisil y
a mieux. Malte n'a pas seulement kt6 accuséede réclamer,au nom de l'égalité
des Etats, autant de plateau continental que la Libye, elle a étéaccuséede
s'appuyer sur ce principe pour «s'enrichir, (ci-dessus p. 34, 35. 38 et 39).«A
claim of enrichment . . . clothed in the language of equalityn: voila comment
est comprise de l'autre c6téde la barre la position de Malte (ci-dessus p. 34 et
39). La thèse maltaise,a dit la Libye, représenteune «misconceived theory of
the equality of States», «a contrived effort to equalize that which is not equal-
(ci-dessus p. 40 et 41).
Monsieur le Président, nous avonsdu mal ZLretrouver nos idées dansle
tableau qu'en ont dessinénos adversaires.
Où avons-nous dit que le principe de I'kgalitédes Etats doit pemettre h
Malte de compenser les inconvénients inhérents à sa petite taille. h son insula-
rité, que sais-jeencore?
C'est le contraire que nous avons dit. Nous avons relevé nous-mêmes la dif-
férencede taille entre les deux pays.Nous avons soulignéje ne sais combien de
fois que la longueur de ses côtes confere à la Libye une superficie de plateau
continental de loin supérieureà celle de Malte - et nous n'avons rien trouvé à
y objecter.
Ce que nous avons dit. c'est que Malte est un Etat insulaire. d'accord; petit,
j'en conviens, maisun Eiat -, et qu'en vertu de sa qualitéd'Etat il a droit,
comme tout autre Etat, à la projection de ses côtes sous la mer dans toutes les
directions sur un pied d'kgalitéavec les autres Etats. Ce qui ne veut pas dire
que Malte aurait droit à la mêmesuperficie de plateau continental que les Etats
voisins, mais que le &roulement de l'opkration de délimitation doit s'effectuer
dans des conditions normales et sans discrimination.
II n'y a pas deux catégoriesd'Etats: ceux qui méritent leurs droits maritimes,
et ceux qui ne les meritent pas. La qualité d'entité étatique confère tous les
Etats le mêmetraitement au regard du droit.
Les souverainetés dont les projections maritimes constituent, selon l'expres-
sion de la Cour. l'«émanation>> et l'«accessoire automatique>>sont juridique-
ment d'égale valeur, puisque tousles Etats sont égaux et souverains, et égale-
ment souverains. Les irradiations maritimes que ces souverainetés engendrent
ne peuvent donc, elles aussi. qu'être juridiquement d'égale valeur. L'une n'est
pas plus «intense» que l'autre; l'une n'a pas plus de poids que l'autre. La ques-
tion n'est pasde savoir si l'un des Etats est insulaire et l'autre continental.Elle
n'est pas de savoir si l'une des côtes est plus longue que l'autre. Les projections
de Malte existent, ou n'existent pas, exactement comme celles de la Libye;
elles se chevauchent avec celles dela Libye ou ne se chevauchent pas. Maisdès
lors qu'elles existent, etdès lors qu'un chevauchement se produit,le problème
doit se résoudresur ses mérites propres, etnon pas selon des critéres discrimi-
natoires tires du carac&re insulaire ou continental des Etats en presence, de leur
supeficie terrestre ou de l'étenduede leurs faqades côtiéres.
Ce qui irrite apparemment la Libye, c'est que cette petite île, avec ses courtes
côtes, puisse engendrer, grlce à la ligne médiane,une telle superficie de plateau
continental. Mais si c'est là le jeu normal des principes de droit international
relatifs aux projectionsdes souverainetésterritoriales sous la mer, pourquois'en
indigner?
Les faits sont les faits, s'est tcrié le professeur Bowett (ci-desp. 155), et
il a raison. Les faits sont les faits. Nul ne peut s'affranchir des faits géogra-
phiques, sous peine de refaire la nature - et à cela le droit international RBPLIQU DE M. WEIL 387
s'oppose. Selon sa situation géographique,un Rat peut êtreavantagéou désavan-
tage, avantagé hcertains égardset désavantagéà d'autres. Chacun doit vivre avec
la geographique qu'il a.
Malte doit accepter- et accepte - les inconvénients de sa géographie. Son
territoire est exigu, et ses richesses limitées.
Mais si Malte doit accepter les inconvénients de sa géographie, pourquoi ne
bénbficierait-elle pas en contrepartie des avantages de sa géographie et des
conséquences inhérentes son insularité? Son caractére insulaire lui confene
effet des projections tout autour de son territoire et lui assure une ceinture de
juridictions maritimes, limitée certes par les projections d'égale valeurde ses
voisins.
Pourquoi, et au nom de quoi, Malte devrait-elle pâtir des inconvénients et être
privée des avantages de sa situaticin géographique? C'est h cela, exactement,
que voudrait aboutir la Libye.
Ce qui est vrai de Malte l'est tout autant de la Libye. Etat continental, la
Libye ne peut aspirer à une ceinture circulaire de juridictions maritimes. Mais
son territoire est immense, ses richesses importantes, et ses côtes d'une grande
longueur lui assurent un plateau continental particuliérementétendu vis-à-visde
tous ses voisins.La Libye, tout comme Malte, doit accepter les inconvénients
en même temps queles avantages de sa géographie.
C'est dans cette approche équilibréedes réalitésde la géographieque sesitue
la conception correcte du principe de l'égalité des Etats, etnon pas dans le
tableau déforméqu'en ont donné les plaidoiries adverses.
Ces remarques faites, il ne me reste plus qu'à m'interroger sur l'équitéde la
ligne médiane. C'est par 18que s'achèvera mon tour d'horizon.
L'équité durésultat
En quoi la ligne médiane prkconisbe par Malte serait-elle inéquitable ou
déraisonnable? Il est remarquable que les plaidoiries de la Partie adverse n'aient
pas même tentéde fournir la moindre réponse à cette question. Sans doute
M. Highet a-t-il affirmé qu'une ligne d'kquidistance par rapporB une petite île
ampute automatiquement les côtes des Etats continentaux qui lui font face et
empiète automatiquement sur le prolongement naturel du territoire terrestre de
ces Etats (ci-dessus p. 148): la ligne médiane demandée par Malte, a-t-ilpro-
clamé, reprbsente «un exemple typique d'amputation» (atext-book case of "cui-
off") (ci-dessus p. 149). Affirmer riesignifie pas démontrer: moins de poser
comme postulat de base que la Libye a droit à la plus grande partie du plateau
continentalB délimiteret que, par conséquent, toute ligne qui ne lui accorderait
pas la part du lion «amputerait» ipso facto son droit, on ne comprend pas en
quoi la ligne médiane peut être regardée comme amputant les droitsde la
Libye: I'effet d'«occlusion* dont parlait mon collégue Brownlie n'existe pas
ici.
J'ai montre, dans ma précédente plaidoirie, à quel point la situation géogra-
phique dans la presente affaire est simple et banale: des côtes qui se font face,
dépourvues de toute configuration mineure génératrice d'inéquité,sans la
moindre île entre elles (III, p. 434 et suiv.). La partie adverse s'est insurgée
contre cette constatation:notmality has no real meaning*, a déclarele profes-
seur Bowett (ci-dessus p. 160). Ce ii'est pas exacLe concept de normalitéjoue
un rôle important en matikre de délimitation du plateau continental. C'est lui
qui sous-tend la notion conventionnelle de «circonstances spéciales*. C'est lui
aussi qui est l'origine des notions de droit coutumier de «caractéristiques spé-
ciales ou inhabituelles», <rparticularitésnon essentielles», «résultats anor-388 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
maux», sur lesquelles je me suis expliqué dansma précédente intervention(III,
p. 431 et suiv.). Quoi qu'en dise mon ami et coliégue,la notion de normalitéest
juridiquement pertinente, et la question de savoir si la géographiec6tiet-e pré-
sente ou non des particularités anormalesest décisive.
Le mutisme quasi complet gardé par les conseils de la Libye sur le rapport de
«côtes se faisant face» des côtes de Malte et de la Libye et sur la simplicitéde
la configuration géographique en présence constitue, de la part de la Partie
adverse, un aveu de faiblesse significatif, Que les côtes libyennes et maltaises
se trouvent dans un rapport d'opposition frontale indiscutable est important. Et
if ne suffit pas de garder le silenàece sujet et d'affirmer péremptoirement que
la ligne médiane est inéquitablepour la condamner sans autre forme de procés.
Sans doute la Libye reproche-t-elle à la ligne médiane proposéepar Malte de
ne pas diviser les superficies de plateau continental dans la même proportion
que les longueurs côtières des deux pays. Mais cela suppose acquis et préétabli
que toute délimitation du plateau continental doit obligatoirement s'effectuer
selon une ratio identique & celle dans laquelle se trouvent les longueurs
côtiéres, autrement dit que la proportionnalit6 constitue une source directe de
droits et une methode primaire de dklimitation. La Partie adverse elle-meme ne
se risque pas &de telles extrémites,condamnées parune jurisprudence unanime.
te seul grief d'inkquitéformulé contrela ligne mCdianedans notre affaire est
en fin de compte de ne pas sauvegarder les interêtsde l'Italie et d'empiéter sur
des zones qui relèveraient d'une delimitation entre la Libye et l'Italie (ci-dessus
p. 176 et 177).
Pour faire justice de cette objection <<vertueuse»,pour rappeler l'expression
de mon ami Ian Brownlie, il me suffira de rappeler que dans l'affaire franco-
britannique le tribunal arbitral s'était interrogé sur son pouvoirde tracer une
ligne de délimitation entre la France et le Royaume-Uni eau cas où cette ligne
paraîtrait devoir toucher aux intérêts ou revendicationsd'un Etat tiers* (sen-
tence arbitrale, par.5). 11n'étaien effet pas impossible que la ligne de délimi-
tation entre la France et le Royaume-Uni rencontre la ligne de délimitationentre
le Royaume-Uni et I'lrlande. Aprés avoir entendu les vues des parties sur ce
problème, le tribunal a décidéde procéder àla délimitation entre la France et le
Royaume-Uni sans tenir compte de «conjectures» quant au tracéd'une future et
éventuelle lignede délimiiationentre le Royaume-Uni et l'Irlande. La décision
à prendre sur la délimitation franco-britannique, a-t-il précisé,ne sera pas obli-
gatoire pour I'lrlande,à l'égard de laquelle ellesera res inter alios acm, et elle
ne préjugera en rien une future delimitation anglo-irlandaise. Le tribunal a
ajoutéce qui suit et qui mérited'êtrerappelé:
<<Dansl'éventualité oùles deux délimitations successives des zones de
plateau continental dans cetteregion, où les trois Etats sont limitrophes sur
le même plateau continental, pourraient aboutirà un chevauchement des
différentes zones, le Tribunal est manifestement incompétent pour régler
d'avance et de façon hypothétique le problème juridique qui pourrait alors
se poser. Ce problème trouverait normalement sa solution appropriée par
des négociations directesentre les trois Etats intéressés.))(Ibid., par. 28.)
Il convient surtout de rappeler que, dans son arrêtdu 21 mars 1984 relatif
la requête del'Italieà fin d'intervention dans la présente affaire, la Cour a dé-
claré expressémentque les droits de l'Italie seraient sauvegardés par l'article 59
du Statut de la Cour et que la délimitation qui sera décidée entrela Libye et
Malte sera «sans prkjudice des droits et titres d'Etats tiers» (C.I.J.Recueil
1984, p. 26 et 27, par. 42 et 43). L'agent de Malte s'est clairement exprimé&ce
sujet (III, p. 284). Pour réserver intégralement les intérêts italis,e n'est d'ailleurs pas, je l'ai
indiqué hier.?Ila longitude de 16" qu'il faudrait arrêter la délimitation,màis
celle de 15°10', limite extrêmevers l'ouest de la revendication italienne. La
Libye elle-même n'a pasosépousser aussi loin sa demande de mise en réserve
des zones revendiquées par l'Italie!
Une demiére remarque encore sur ce probleme des intérEtsde l'Italie. Le
doyen Colliard s'est référéala pratique des «tripoints»à laquelle il a attribué
«une grande et noble signification juridique» puisqu'ils symbolisent et concréti-
sent les droits des Etats tiers (ci-dessus p. 125). Je voudrais simplement faire
observer que le point le plus oriental de la ligne médiane prkconiséepar Malte,
le point 12, est précisémentun «tripoint» à égale distance non seulement de
Malte et de la Libye, mais aussi de l'Italie. La Cour pourra le vérifier en se
@ reportantà la figure II de notre premier dossier.
VoilA, Monsieur le Président, pour le volet négatif de la vérification de
l'équité:aucune considération sérieuse,u même plausible, n'apu etre avancée
pour établir que la ligne médiane dans cette affaire ne serait pas équitable.
La démonstration positivene souleve pas davantage de difficultés.
La ligne mediane reflète fidèlement la configuration géographiquedes côtes
qui se font face de Malte et de la Libye. Elle assure h chacun des deux Etats la
projection maritime engendrée par Ieurs côtes respectives, au maximum de la
distance compatible avec tes droits de l'autre Etat. Elle ampute certes les pro-
jections de l'un comme de l'autre des Etats, mais elle réalise cette amputation
de maniere equilibrée et raisonnable. II ne faut pas oublier non plus que les
droits de Malte sontparticuli&rementréduits par la géographie en direction du
nord et de !'ouest: autant dire qu'il est important pour Malte que ses drones
soient pas mutilésde mani2re injustifiéeendirection de l'est et du sud-est. La
sentence franco-britannique, on le sait, n'a pas regardé comme négligeablece
genre de considérations (cf. par. 201). Faut-il rappeler également que la ligne
médiane préconisée par Malte se trouveà peine plus au sud que ne le serait une
ligne médiane tracée entrel'Italie et la Libye en faisant abstraction de Malte,
@ ainsi qu'il apparaît sur la figure 41 de notre premier dossier?
La ligne de délimitation proposée par Malte est en outre conforme,il faut le
soulignerune fois de plus,2 la pratique bien établiedes Etatà un triple point
de vue: recours à une ligne médiane entre côtes se faisant face; absence de
prise en considération de la configuration physique des fonds marins; traitement
des Etats insulaires sur un pied d'kgalitéavec les autres Etats alors mênieque
leur côte aurait une longueur moindre. Malte n'ignore pas que les délimitations
conventionnelles ne sont pas forcément inspirées parun sentiment d'obligation
juridique et qu'en conséquence les précédents tirés de la pratique ne peuvent
pas êtreregardes comme l'expression d'une opinio juriscréatrice d'une rhgle
coutumi2re. Malte ne méconnaît pas davantage qu'aucune situation concr&tene
ressemble tout 3 faità aucune autre et que chaque cas constitue 2 certains
égardsun unicum. II n'endemeure pas moins que la pratique des Etats reflète,
par son caractère massif et impressionnant, l'appréciation que les gouveme-
ments intéressésont portée sur l'équitde la solution qu'ils retenaient. Si tant
d'accords de délimitation ont adopté la rnélhode de l'équidistance dans des
situations plus ou moins analogues à celle qui se présentedans notre affaire,
c'est certainement parce que cette méthodea paru aux Etats en cause apporter
une solution raisonnable et kquitable. En ce domaine, où l'appréciation de
l'équité risque facilementde dériver vers le subjectivisme, la pratique des Etats
constitue un indice objectif dont l'importance ne saurait être sous-estimée.
Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, le problème soumisà la Cour se
ramène en dtfinitiveà des donnéesd'une grande simplicité. La délimitation du390 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
plateau continental entre Malte et la Libye constitue, pour emprunter son
expression à M. Highet, un atextbook case» pour l'application de la ligne
médiane.Une telle ligne est dictee par les réalités géographiquesE.lle est dictée
par l'application normale des principes juridiques qui gouvernent le caractére
dérivédes droits des Etats côtiers sur les fonds marins et la projection des côtes
sous la mer dans toutes les directions jusqu'à la distance permisepar le droit
international et les données géographiques. Elle est dictée enfipnar toutes les
considérations d'équité développé pers mes collègueset par moi-même.
Ecarter la ligne médiane dansles conditions concrétesde la présente affaire
reviendrait à mettre entre parentheses le lien établi par le droit international
entre les droits de plateau continental et la souveraineté territo-iaautrement
dit: la qualité étatiq-e qui leur sert de support.
Ecmer la ligne médiane dansles conditions concrètesde la présente affaire
imptiquerait une discrimination juridique entre Etats souverains selon leur
dimension ou selon leur caractére insulaireou continental.
Monsieur le Président, Messieursles juges, depuis la nuit des temps, lejus
intergentes a pour fonction essentielle d'assurerla coexistence entre des collec-
tivités différentes par leur dimension, leur puissancel,eur niveau de développe-
ment, teur richesse. Cette fonction primordiale est devenue celledu droit inter-
national avec l'apparition de 1'Etat moderne il y a quelques siécles. Cette
fonction est plus importante que jamais dans le monde actuel forméde plus de
cent cinquante entités étatiquesqui réclament commeun dû le droità la diffé-
rente. L'égalitesouveraine des Etats constitue plus que jamais la pierre angu-
laire de la communauté internationale pluraliste ethétérogenede cette fin du
XXCsikcle.
Vattel écrivaitil a plus de deux siècles:*Un nain est aussi bien un homme
qu'un géant.Une petite république n'est pas moinsun Etat souverain que le
plus puissantroyaume. »
C'est là que réside,une fois que tout aura étédit et que tout aura étépesé,
l'enjeu ultime de la présente affaire.
Ici s'achève, Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, a contribution h la
présentationde la thésede Malte.
Au moment où je m'apprête à prendre une certaine .distance» par rapport à
cette affaire, je voudrais exprimer ma gratitude au Gouvernement de Malte et,
plus particuliérernenth son agent. mon ami M. Mizzi, pour la confiance qu'ils
m'ont manifestéeen me chargeant de la défense d'intérêts aussi importants pour
leur pays. Ils m'ont faitlà un grand honneur et procuréun grand plaisir.
Je voudrais également remercierla Partie adverse pour la courtoisie avec
laquelle elle m'aécout6.
Je voudrais enfin, Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, exprimer & la
Cour ma reconnaissance pour l'attention qu'ellea prêtée à mes longs dévelop
pements. Je mesure à sa pleine valeur le privilège d'avoirpu prendre part. fat-
ce dans le rôle modeste qui a étéle mien, à cette élaborationdu droit des déli-
mitations maritimes qui restera, nul ne saurait en douter, l'un des apports
majeurs de la Cour au développement du droit internationalde ces vingt der-
nières années. REPLY OF MR. MIZZI
AGENT FOR THll GOVERNMENT OF MALTA
Mr. MIZZI: Mr. President. Menibers of the Court, 1stand once more before
this distinguished Court io conclude the oral presentation ofMalta. 1do so, as
always, with a sense of a personal privilege and of a great honour; but on this
occasion also with more emotion than 1 usually feel whenever I have to address
the Court. Now more than ever 1ask myself whether we. who have represented
Malta, have argued Malta's case with the persuasiveness which its importance
for Malta's future demands; and 1 am sure the Court will understand my feel-
ings when 1 address itfor what is likely to be the last time to plead for my
country.
It is now more than 12 years that Malta has been seeking to establish with
certainty theextent of its sovereigri rights over the sea-bed and subsoil adjacent
to its coasts.
For over 12 years Malta has had to curtail the exercise of its basic sovereign
rights, foremost among which is the search for sources of energy so essential
for its economic and social development. For over 12 years Malta has had to
seek outside assistance for development projects which could well have ken
funded from its own resources if the exercise of its legitimate nghts had not
been contested.
We are now nearing the end of the uncertainty whichhas been the cause of a
senous handicap to Ourdevelopment. and it is only natural that as we approach
the day on which Malta will know more clearly and more definitively which
parts of the sea-bed it can regard as its own, 1should ask myself whether al1
that was hurnanly and reasonably possible has been done to ensure that Malta
will have a fair deal. Having been involved in this so vital an issue for Malta
from the very beginning, and having been given greater and heavier responsibi-
lities as time passed, al11cm do now is hope that 1have not failed in my duty
towards my country, To the extent that 1have, Malta must now place its trust in
the Court and 1 am confident that that trust will not be misplaced.Jura novit
curia is an old Roman saying and it is some consolation IO think that my short-
comings can be remedied and supplemenied by the Court's knowledge of the
law and by its wisdom.
Of course, 1am not thereby relieved of any of my duties. It still rernains my
main duty that 1should assist the Court to the maximum of my capacity. It is
for this reason that 1 shall again tryin my final submissions to show to the
Court, as briefiy as 1can. the reasonableness of the way in which we believe
the delimitation should be effected and to state, also summarily, why we submit
that the Court should reject the Libyan arguments.
At the end of more than ten full sessions in which my colleagues and 1 have
attempted to present Malta's case, the Court will obviously expect me not only
not to be lengthy but also that1should not repeat what has already been said. 1
assure the Court that 1shall make every effort to oblige. For this reason 1shall
take most of the facts and assertions presented or made by my colleagues as
having ken demonstrated and require no further confirmation. When 1 do that
the Court will understand why and will not think 1have avoided the issues
involved. On the other hand, a certain amount of repetition is, quite frankly,
inevitable; and the Court willbearwith me if I do say things that have already REPLY OF MR. ME1 393
The assertion that the Pelagian Basin is essentially one, both geologically and
geomorphologically, applies to the whole of the Basin, from the shores of Tuni-
sia and Libya right up to the Coast of Sicily. But that assertion is even more
apparent when it is applied 10 the part of the Basin which, as Libya itself
accepts, is the only part of the Basin relevant to a delimitation between Malta
and Libya. That part is the area south-east of the straight line joining Ras il-
Wardija (in Gozo) to Ras Ajdir on the Tunisian-Libyan border. 1 shall have
occasion to comment on the Libyan position concerning the relevant area later
in my statement. For the moment 1need simply state that, even for Libya, the
relevant area within the so-called Rift Zone which is relevant to a delimitation
is the area south-east of the line joining the two points in Malta and Libya 1
have just described.
But even a simple glance at the map of the Central Mediterranean will show
how different this area is from the rest of the Rift Zone. And 1 need hardly
recall the evidence of our experts to show the significant difference between the
two parts of what Libya considers to be one zone. From Malta al1 the way
down at least to the median line with Libya, the area is one of gentle slopes,
charactenzed only by shallow channels or valleys and wide plateaux, al1 of
them very much less significant than the troughs to the north-west or the Jarrafa
Trough and the Tnpolitanian Furrow to the south.
Not that this difference matters very much, since as has been shown by the
evidence none of the features in the Pelagian Basin - neither the grabens nor
the shallower channels - is such as to cause a real break in the geology or the
geomorphology of the region; bu1the difference that exists between the two
more distinct parts of the so-called Rift Zone serves to show more clearly how
unfounded, in fact, is the Libyan interpretation of the geological and geomor-
phological evidence before the Court.
As to the legal significance of these physical features my colleagues have
already shown that even if these features were much more significant than they
really arein a scientific sense. they would still be legally irrelevant. Libya
accepts that they would be irrelevant to a State's entitlement, and 1 need not
therefore stress that point. What 1 wish to add is that if they cannot affect the
extent of a State's entitlement when there is no question of delimitation. they
cannot be regarded as terminating a State's continental shelf whenever that
shelf overlaps the shelf of another State.
To state otherwise is to maintain that what is irrelevant to a State's entitle-
ment to a continental shelf under international law acquires importance -
indeed becomes a determining factor - in a delimitation of common shelves on
no other ground but that it happens to be physically there. What is in effect a
chance location of a natural pheriomenon which would otherwise be totally
immaterial to a State's entitlement suddenly acquires relevance - conclusive
relevance according to Libya - simply because it happens to be in an area
which is contended for by two States. It is even more illogical to maintain that
this is so when the physical feature coincideswith a line supposedlyjustifiable on
the basis of proportionality, but may note so when there is no such coincitience.
It is Malta's submission that the law could not be called jusi or equitable if it
were what Libya says it is: the law would on the contrary countenance inequity
if the chance location of a physical feature were to have anypari whatsoever in
the delimitation of the maritime rights of States.
But this is not so.Under contemporary international law il is distance and not
the morphology or the geology of the sea-bed that is the basis of a State's title
to a continental shelf up to 200 nautical miles from its coasts; and it is only
beyond that distance that geology and geomorphology have any relevance,394 CONTINENTALSHELF
To conclude on this point, Mr. President and Members of the Court, it is
Malta's submission that the area for delimitation in the present case is unaffec-
ted, both physically and legally, by any physical feature which could influence
the delimitation of the part of the shelf appertaining toalta and that appertain-
ing to Libya.
This conclusion has the support of both the jurisprudence and State practice.
In fact, although in three out of the four cases submitted for adjudication the
presence of depressions in the sea-bed and other physical considerations were
- with varying emphasis - presented by the Parties as being relevant factors,
in no case did the Court, or its Chamber, or the Court of Arbitration in the
Anglo-French case, give any role whatsoever to the physical nature of the sea-
bed or its subsoil. The decisions al1rested on entirely different considerations.
In State practice we Findthat out of some 80 delimitation agreements between
States there is only one instance in which physical features appear to have
played a role in determining the line of delimitation; and, as1 have already had
the opportunity to submit to the Court, not only is there a significant difference
between the Timor Trench (which is indeed a plate boundary) and the so-called
Rift Zone, which exists only in Libya's fertile imagination. but, as 1 have also
pointed out, the legal position which had been accepted by Portugal at the time
of the agreement with respect to what then was its dependent territory is now
contested by Indonesia. But what is even more important than these considera-
tions is that in no other case can it be shown that the geology of the sea-bed
had any effect on the drawing of the dividing line. The agreements speak of
equity or equitable considerations. and many specifically mention the pnnciple
or method of equidistance as being the basis of the delimitation. In none of
them are physical considerations ever mentioned at all; and this is because
these considerations have no legal significance whatsoever.
The second relevant fact in the present case is the simplicity of the geographi-
cal setting in which lies the area for delimitation.
Two States - one large, one small - face one another at a distance of some
180 nautical miles. Their coasts are quite regular, without any special feature
which could disturb that regularity. There are no islands between the two
States: only the sea. with the sea-bed and subsoil below. To the north of Malta
and to the Westand to the north-west there is Italy and its dependent islands, but
neither this State nor the other States in the region - Tunisia and Greece -
could have any effect on the delimitation of the shelf lying between Malta and
Libya. ltalyand Tunisia, though not Greece, have shelf areas to be delimited
with Malta and to some extent with Libya; but in no way do these encroach on,
or even affect, the larger part of the area to be delimited between Malta and
Libya. It is true that points between three and possibly four States rnay in the
future have to be established; but al1these questions and issues will have to be
derennined in accordance with the ~JOC~~UJ~S applicable ro them, and are, in
any case, unaffected by the present proceedings. 1shall return to the question of
third States in the region later in my state.ment. For the moment it suffices
to Say that they cause no disturbance to thegeographical setting 1 have just
described as very simple and very regular.
There is - Libya righily points out - a marked difference between the
length of the Maltese Coast and the length of the Libyan coastline. This is an
undeniable faci. What Malta says is that the very difference in length itself pro-
duces a natural and iogical difference in the shelf area each coastline produces.
Rofessor Brownlie's clear and compelling exposition of this simple fact makes
it unnecessary for me to insist on it. It has further been shown that this fact has
also been proved by Libya's own calculations and 1respectfully refer the Court REPLYOF MR. MIZZI 395
to rny earlier staternents on the matter (III, p. 306). It has even more recently
been accepted in a study, Libyan Studies 15 (1984), and written by G. H. Blake
of the University of Durham. In this study, which is entitled "The 1982 United
Nations Convention on the Law 01'the Sea: Some Implications for Libya". it is
said that "Libya will have one of the rnost extensive EEZ in the Mediterranean
with approximately 320,500 km2". The study adds that "another estimate gives
Libya's EEZ as 338,000 km2 (Couper 1983, 227) equivalent to about 19 per
cent of the land area of the country. Thus the 1982 Convention has increased
Libya's legal domain by about one-fifth."
It will,1 am sure, be retorted that also Malta's domain has been extended by
the concepts of the continental shelf and the exclusive econornic zone.
These areas are indeed several tirnes the size of Malta's land domain. But I
must remind the Court that ten tirnes one is only ten while one-tenth of a thou-
Sand is still one hundred. in fact Malta's exclusive economic zone is given as
61,190 km2 in the study just quoted: less than one-fifth of the area assigned to
Libya.
When we make these cornparisons we do not thereby - as Libya has sugges-
ted - accept in any way the Libyan version of proportionality. What we mean
to show is the fact that a longer coast rnust of rnathernatical necessit- unless
special circurnstances prevent it - generate a larger area of shelf. We do so
also because we know that sorne may be inclined to assume that there must be
some relationship between the length of the coast and the area of shelf which
must be acknowledged as appertairiing toa State. But this is far from accepting
the Libyan thesis that there rnust be an exact proportion between the lengths of
the coasts and the areas of shelf which a State may clairn. Why this proposition
is legally unacceptable has already been shown, in my view. very convincingly
by my colleagues; and 1shall not dwell any longer on this question.
1 will, however, revett to the earlier staternent that, given normal circum-
stances, States are entitled to the area of shelf which their coasts and the pres-
ence of third States allow. This as a rule gives quite reasonable and fair results.
Thus from the study above quoted it would result that Italy, which has the
longest coastline in the Mediterranean, would receive the largest share of shelf
(approximately 532,550 km2) and Greece would come next with an area of
460,500 km2.
Exceptionally, however, due in rnany cases to the nearness or location of the
territory of another State, the shelf areas generated by a State's coasts are cut
off and the rule that a coastline generates an area of shelf relative to its length
ceases to be true. Such for example was the case of the Channel Islands with
respect to France or the Pelagian Islands with respect to Tunisia. In such cases
sorne rernedy rnay be required to restore as far as is practicable the balance
which the geographical circumstances have disturbed. But even in these cases,
what the remedy seeks is to restore the natural relationship between the coasts
and the shelf they generate and not to refashion geography by for example
sharing out the shelf in proportion to the length of the coasts.
In the case of Malta and Libya, just as in the case of Italy or Greece, no such
rernedy needs to be sought. Each of these States rnay reasonably claim and
retain the area of shelf generated by their respective coastline up to the point
where that shelf meets the areas of shelf generated by the coastlines of other
States. No imbalance is produced which needs to be put right. On the contrary.
to go beyond that is to upset that balance and to refashion geography and would
give to one State - unduly - what lawfully belongs to the other.
The Court adjournedfrom 11.15am. tu 11.30 am. 396 CONTINENTALSHELF
Mr. President, Members of the Court, before the break I had dealt with the
two main facts which 1 consider to have emerged from these proceedings. At
this point, one naturally asks the question I had put earlier as the third proposi-
tion that flows from the facts 1 have just referred to, and I shall put it in the
form of a question: in the geophysical and geographical circumstances which 1
have just briefly described, and given that the law required that a delimitation
should be equitable, taking al1relevant circumstances into account, what line of
delimitation would adequately satisfy that principle in the present case?
1shall, Mr. President. with your permission, start by saying what in Malta's
view could not possibly be the line of delimitation; and that is the line sugges-
ted by Libya and shown on a rnap produced first on the easel and then hurriedly
hidden away until both the Court and Malta insisted on having a copy of it,
almost as if Libya dared only give a glimpse of it to the Court and then quickly
@ hide it away from view. This is now Figure 68 of the Libyan dossier and the lines
drawn by Libya have also ken reproduced on the rnap on the easel behind me.
A copy of the rnap on the easel - as well as of another rnap which will be
placed on the easel late- have ken distributed to the Court and to the Agent
@@ pf Libya as Figures 42 and 43, and these, 1respectfullyask the Court, to insert
in Matta's red dossier.
I can appreciate the reasons for Libya's reluctance to subject that rnap to
scrutiny, for that map contains sorne of the best evidence of the extremes to
which one rnust go - not to justify, for Libya could never do that- but to
give some semblance of acceptabiiity to a proposition that a line within and fol-
lowing the general direction of the Rift Zone is equitable. Libya has, of course,
a difficult task because such a line has no logical or legal basis to support it and
would simply follow the chance location of a feature the nature of which is, to
say the very least, questionable.
It is also Libya's objective to give a geometrical expression its version of
proportionality and the manner in which such proportionality could be applied
in the present case. It is precisely in this attthat Libya shows most convin-
cingly the absurdities to which one is led by this Libyan theory.
The first striking featurof this Libyan composition is its shape. My friend
Professor Brownlie. who has a knack for giving names, has called it the Pro-
lapsed Prolongation. It does indeed very much look like one. but it is not jus1
the shape that raises questions as to the logic or rationale of the lines which
enclose the area considered by Libya as the relevanarea.
Thus, for example. while these lines do start from and end at points which
Libya had previously indicated as encompassing the relevant area (Ras il-War-
dija and Ras Ajdir and Detimara Point and Ras Zarruq),the courses they take
not only do no1coincide with the previous Libyan positions but contradict them
in several important respects. Apart from these inconsistencies, there is no logic
in several parts of the lines drawn by Libya and the only motive one can chari-
tably give to the Libyan drawing is that once a proposition has been advanced it
has somehow to be shown to rnake some sense.
Where does Libya contradict itself? The Court will have noticed that the line
on the Westtakes a direction which only slightly deviates from a direct line join-
ing Ras il-Wardija to Ras Ajdir. This line makes good sense. It is. in fact, very
nearly the line which my friend Mr. Lauterpacht had drawn for the benefit of
the Court in the first round of these proceedings to show how the grabens in the
so-cailed Rift Zone were practically al1to the north-west of that line and were
therefore in an area outside the relevant area. However, in that context Libya
had rejected that line even, to use the words of Professor Bowett, "allowing for
artistic licence" (p. 167. supra). REPLY OF MR. MI221 397
That line was rejected because it showed very clearly that, independently of
the fact that even the grabens north-west of that line did not disturb the conti-
nuity of the Pelagian Block, within the relevant area ail we find are the gentle
valleys or channels called the Mdta and Medina Channels. But, Libya needs
also to justify proponionality as a basis for delimitation and must choose a line
which does that. ai least in appearance; so in dealing with this issue it cannot
criticize Mr. Lauterpacht andis compelled to adopt a line which only very
slightly varies from the line he had drawn.
The lines which Libya shows on the east of Malta do not even make sense;
moreover they too contradict previous Libyan positions.
Thus, to take the tïrst line, what logic could have compelled Libya to draw
the line from Delimara Point to the Escarpment directly east of Malta. Libya
has throughout maintained that there is only one part of the coasts of Malta
which could be relevant. Indeed, Libya Stans from the view that no part of
Malta faces Libya and has great difficulty finding a.stretch of Maltese coast
which can be adrnitted to face Libya. According to Libya that coast lies on the
south of Malta or rather, because of Malta's tilt, to the south-west of Malta.
That is Libya's justification for limiting its own relevant coast to that be-
tween Ras Ajdir and Ras Zarruq. Suddenly, however, Malta has a coast on the
east and on the south-east. If it had not, how could there be an area in that
direction which could berelevant to a delimitation? So, for that purpose, but
for that purpose only, Libya accepts that Malta's coasts project to the east and
south-east as well.
But, if that is so, then Malta has coasts also in the direction of the Gulf of
Sir- and Cyrenaica, that is the coast east of Ras Zarruq, and consequently that
part of the Libyan coast must also have relevance - at least some relevance -
in the context of a delimitation. No, says Libya. in another context of course,
that part of the Libyan coast faces ltaly and Grecce. but not Malta.
It takes this position in the context of Malta's claims beyond the Escarp-
ments. Butif one were to accept this Libyan logicand Iimit the relevantarea to the
part of the shelf where the southern coast of Malta faces the Libyan coasts West
of Ras Zarmq. the relevant area must necessarily be to the Westof a line joining
Delimara Point to Ras Zarruq - the pecked red line on the map behind me
shows that. Anything to the east of that line should be irrelevant. In accordance
with this Libyan reasoning the Prolapsed Prolongation should take the form
of a triangle with Malta as the apex and the coastline of Libya from Ras Ajdir to
Ras Zamq as the base. But sucli a geometrical figure would not withstand
the proportionality test set by Libya. and correspondingly had to be abandoned.
I wish to emphasize here that even idependently of the Libyan logic (or non-
logic) a good part of the area east, and to some extent south-east, of Malta -
the area 1am showing on the map - is not appropriate for inclusion in the area
relevant to a delimitation with Libya. It is an area more appropriately to be
included in that relevant to a delimitation with Italy. And 1 stress this point
because, whatever one rnay think of the Libyan graphies, it is important thatit
should be borne in mind that under no circumstances could the whole area
included by Libya within the Prolapsed Prolongation be regarded as relevant in
the present case. Even if one were to follow the Libyan logic concerning the
Escarpments, the line that could wasonably be drawn from Delimara Point -
andthat is a good point to start from - would run, at most, in the direction of
the point where the Sicily-Malta Escarpment meets the Medina Escarpment.
That is why we have drawn a pecked red line from Delimara Point to that point
on the Escarpment; the area north-east of that line is irrelevant, absolutely, in
relation to Libya.398 CONTINENTAL SHELF
Why, therefore, does Libya draw this line in a straight easterly direction and
then turn round almost 90 degrees to the south, to veer again towards Ras Zar-
ruq in a south-westerly direction? There are, 1 suggest, two main reasons for
this crooked line. The first is an attempt to justify a line which is not only
within and following the general direction of the Rift Zone but is also in accord-
ance with Libya's theory of proportionality. The second reason is that, accord-
ing to Libya. Malta's continental shelf ends at the Escarpment and the line rnust
therefore follow that natural fearure.
Mt. President. 1have tried very hard to find a reason for the first two of the
lines drawn by Libya to the east of Malta, but the only answer 1could find is
logical only in the sense that Libya must have drawn the lines which best fit
its calculations. Libya had to find a line of delimitation which was within the
Rift Zone and which at the same time divided the areas to be assigned to Malta
and Libya in proportion to the lengths of what Libya considers the relevant
coasts.
As Libya itself admits, there is no logical connection between a line within
and following the direction of the Rift Zone and a line based on proportionality.
So much so that. as Professor Bowett expressed himself (p. 155, supra)"logical
connection ... is no! required and cannot be required". And once there is no
logical connection between the two pillars on which the whole Libya case rests
- and the two sides agree on this - Libya is compelled not only to find a
rational basis for each of them but also to make the two lines coincide. Libya
says that they just happen to coincide.The truth is, Mr. President and Members
of the Court, quite the opposite: both of them are of Libyan making; even the
coincidence has somehow to be made to appear to occur.
So what does Libya do? It invents a geological basis for a line as near as
possible to Malta and presents us with the novelty first of a fundamental dis-
continuity,then of an incipient plate boundary and in less lime than is the nor-
mal period for human gestation, it now presents us wiih a fully fledged plate
boundary. Libya must, however, still show that the line drawn along that
boundary is also one which, according to its version of proportionality, leaves
the two States with areas proportionate to the lengths of their coasts. In trying
to do this Libya rneets with two major obstacles: the marked difference in the
lengths of the two coasts and its own insistence that nothing east of Ras Zarruq
is of any relevance in the present case.
The difference in the lengths of the two coasts is such that Libya must some-
how lengthen Malta's coasts and shorten its own. Strange as it may seem, the
difference in lengths of the coasts is embarrassing to Libya. Libya must of
course draw the maxinium advantage from this undeniable fact; but Libya also
knows that if it were to pursue the logic of its own proposition this would lead
to the ridiculous results already indicated by Professor Brownlie. So Libya is
compelled to resort to stratagems in order to avoid them. In other words,
as 1have just remarked, Libya is cornpelled to lengthen Malta's coasts andto
shorten its own.
Professor Bowett (p. 158,supra) calls this being "charitable". Let us examine
bnefly what he is forced into by the Libyan theones, and let us start with
"charity".
If one considers the history of the present case and what has been, through-
out, Libya's auitude, it will be difficult to find a clearer example of charity
begi~ing, and remaining. at home. So when Professor Bowett says "let us be a
linle more charitable" and again further down the following paragraph: "But if
we were to beeven more charitable", he is not speaking of charity at all. What
he is trying to do is to find a way in which he can rnake the conclusions to REPLYOF MR. MIZZl 399
which the Libyan theory of proportionality necessarily leads appear a little less
absurd than would otherwise be the case.
In fact he has first to contend with the, Libyan position that Malta has no
coast facing Libya. To follow that argument to its logical conclusion, and
applying at the same time the Libyan version of proportionality, would have
meant that Malta was not entitled to any continental shelf as against Libya. But
that conclusion even Libya accepis to be absurd and therefore impossible to
advance.
So Libya is "charitable". Libya aflots to Malta a coast 14.14 kilometres long,
the distance between Filfla and Delimara Point. That too, however, is too short
a coast and it is still too short even though Libya has, in the meantime, short-
ened its coast not only by reducinitto the distance between Ras Ajdir and Ras
Zarruq, but also by saying that even the length of that coastline can be short-
ened further to 350 kilometres by taking a straight li-e from 403 kilometres
long Libya reduces that line to 350 kilometres. But, as I have just pointed out,
that too is notnough. So we witness yet another act of charity and the Maltese
coast is extended to 40.6 kilornetres made up of a straight line from Rasil-War-
dija to Delirnara Point.
But is that the end of the story? It is not. As the Court may observe, in
@ Figure 68 of the Libyan dossier (6ie main elernents of which are- as 1 have
already indicated- reproduced on the map on the easel and which are also
@ reproduced on Figure 43 which I have distributed to the Court) Libya has
drawn a line directly to the east of Malta, and this line for certain practical pur-
poses has the same effect as if the coasts of Malta were longer by about LOO
kilometres. That is approximately the length of that line. This is the line 1have
indicated on the easeljoining Malta to the Escarpments in a straight easterly
direction. This line, in fact, has, for the purposes of the extent of the relevant
area, exactlythesameeffect - for Libyan purposes - as ifit were a Maltese
coast, and this is why 1Say that, for the purposes of justifying its calculations,
Libya was forced into the stratagem of extending the coasts of Malta by another
100 kilometres.
1 have already pointed out to the Court that, even according to the Libyan
position concerning the relevant coasts and the termination of Malta's shelf at
the Escarpments, the only line that logically could be drawn from Delimara
Point is a line joining this point to the point where the Sicily-Malta Escarpment
meets the Medina Escarpment (the pecked red line on the rnap, both on the
easel and before the Court). But Libya cannot do this without upsetting its
applecart irretrievably. If Libya were to accept that the relevant area is to
bounded by the line 1 have just described, and eliminate the north-eastem part,
the relevant area between Malta and a line within the Rift Zone (such as the
double line on the map) would be too small. It would in fact be much less than
must be allotted to Malta on the basis of the ratio of the length of coastlines.
Consequently the double line south of Malta which Libya has indicated as
being the equitable line would have to be pushed substantially to the south and
would have to end up outside the Rift Zone. Clearly that is not the place where
Libya would wish to see the line drawn; and in order to avoid this it has no
alternative but tobe "charitable" and somehow enlarge the area it allots to
Malta. It can only do this by including areas which are not relevant with respect
to Libya but only relevant in a delimitation with Italy.
Libya must also, in the process, contradict itself and consider areas which are
relevant only if the Libyan coastline east of Rasmq is, as Malta contends,
part of the Libyan coastline. Libya evidently hoped that this contradiction
would go unnoticed. These contradictions, however, are not only too apparent 400 CONTINENTAL SHELF
to be disguised or explained away; they are also the best evidence that even
under the worst of hypotheses, narnely, that the delimitation shbelbased on
proportionality- which of course Malta contests - the line of delimitation
must be outside and to the south of the Rift Zone. This conclusion means that
any connection - illogical as it mabe - between a line within the Rift Zone
and a line dictated by proportionality is completely destroyed. Thus the two
Libyan theories. the Rift Zone and a particular version of proportionalitso
painstakingly constructed by Libya with one object, namely, that of producing
two lines which would coincide, completely fail in that purpose. Al1we are left
with is aRift Zone in which, apart from other considerations, even the grabens
are outside the contested area and a proportionality line which falls outside that
zone even as it isnderstood by Libya.
The absence of any logic or of any cogent argument in the Libyan position
that the line shoulbe drawn within and following the general direction of the
"Rift Zone" is tobe found also in Libya's position that Malta's continental
shelf ends at the Escarpment. Here Libya's reasoning is much more simple, but
it is not for that reason any more acceptable. lndeed it is so simplistic as to
arrogant. It also contradicts a legal position taken to justify the extent of the
relevant area in the vicinity ofta.
As 1had occasion to point outa short while ago, Libya indicates as relevant
to a delimitation between Malta and Libyaa substantial area east and south-east
of Malta and which, for reasons 1 have already given, is more appropriately
relevant to a delimitation withtaly. This is the area north-east of a line joining
Delimara Point and the most easterly limit of the Escarpments shown on the
map as a pecked red line.1 have also already given my reasons why 1 believe
Libya needed todo this; and 1shall not repeat them.
But by so doing Libya cannot escape the acknowledgment that the Maltese
coasts do in fact face Libya in the direction north-west/south-east. In this direc-
tion the Libyan coast is far beyond Ras Zamq and tkes us instead to the Ben-
@ ghazi,area which is not shown on the Libyan map No. 68 but which the Court
can find on any of the maps of the Central Mediterranean includedin Malta's
@ dossier. as well as on the map on the easel and on Figure 43 of our red dossier.
This is, of course, whatMalta has contended al1 along: the whole of the
Libyan coast is relevant up to a point approximately north-east of Benghazi. And
ifI may here beallowed a diversion, 1wish to ernphasize that it is at this point,
no1 far from Ras Amir. that Malta considers the relevant coast to end, and not
at the frontier with Egypt, as Libya has accused us of saying. The trapezium as
@ shown in Figure 7 is merely a projection on the rnap of an imaginary trapezium
and was never intended to indicate exactly the extent of the relevant Libyan
coastline.t was meant to show the coastal relationship between Malta and the
coasts of Cyrenaica but not to indicate the exact point on the Libyan coast
where that relationship ended1 may even add here that if the line of the tra-
pezium joining Malta to Cyrenaica, whichwas drawn approximately in that direc-
tion, were tobe shifted westwards and brought nearer to Say basepoint 12 on
@ the Libyan coast (the last basepoint in Figure 11of Malta's first dossier)asuch
shift wouId be to Maita's advantage. The Court wiIi recaii that according to
Libya's own calculations (see III. p. 306) the "trapezium construct" allocates to
Libya an areafive times larger than that which the geometrical figure allocates
to Malta. If the line of the trapezium joined Malta to basepoint 12 on the
Libyan coastline the ratio wouldecorne nearer 611in favour of Libya.
Libya's objection, however, coversevery single part of the coastline east of
Ras Zamq: an clearly one of the main reasons for such an objection is the
belief that by denying any relationship between the coast of Malta and that of REP1.YOF MR. MIZZl 40 1
Libya east of Ras Zmq Libya can justify the assertion that only the long
Italian coast and the long Libyan coast face the area of the shelf east of
the Escarpments.
But that, of course, is not correct. Souch so that Libya itself has included
in the relevant areaan area of shelf which can only have relevance in so far as
it lies between the south-eastern coast of Malta and the coast of Cyrenaica.
According to this Libyan reasoniiig Malta has a coast facing the Escarpments
just asmuch as Libya or Italy.
It is not, of course, quite as long; but if that co-st that is. the short Mal-
tese coast - is sufficient to generate relevant areas in the direction of the area
beyond the Escarpments there is no legal - or even physical - reason why its
entitlernent to a continental shelf should stop at the Escarprnents.
Libya agrees that the entire area east of the Escarprnents isa continental
shelf, both physically and legally; but, it adds, this is an area reserved for deli-
mitation exclusively between the larger countries that border it: Libya, Italy and
Greece. Smaller States must cunail their appetite and let their bigger brothers
monopolize the area and share it out among themselves. This attitude hardly
deserves comment.
Nor can1accepl as serious Professor Bowett's answer to the question "Why
should Maltais continental shelf end at the Escarpments when the Libyan and
Italian shelves do not?" His answer to that question is to be found at page 174,
supra, and it reads as follows: "Matta has no coast, east of the Escarpments." i
cannot take that answer seriously because not just Libya, but he himself, had
just argued that part of the shelf relevant to a delimitation with tibya lies to the
east and south-east of Malta which, as 1 believe 1 have shown concliisively,
would not be possible unless Malta had a coast facing the Escarpmerits and
therefore necessarily also facing the area beyond those natural features. Odoes
not need to have coasts east of the Escarpments to generate rights over the area
beyond them: aH one needs is a coast facing that area; and both Libya and
Malta agree that Malta has such a coast.
This far, Mr. President and Mernbers of the Court, rny answer to the question
as to which line is appropriate to a delimitation in the present case has been
rather in the negative. In other words, 1 have so far tried to show why the
Libyan propositions in answer to this question are unacceptable and should be
rejected by the Court. Our positive answer to that question is, of course, well
known to the Court: in Malta's submission the line which satisfies the legal
requirements in the circumstances of the present case is the equidistance line.
But before 1 recall briefly the reasons why we believe this to be the correct
view, 1 shall, with your permission, comment on two reasons which Libya gives
in support of its objections to Malta's position. These are: first that Malta's
claim is excessive, considering its short coasts and the very smallness of its ter-
ntory; and secondly, thar a median line ignores the presence of third States and
is also incompatible with the Italy-Tunisia and Italy-Greece delimitations.
1 shall start with the second Libyan proposition which is also the sirnpler of
the two to deal with. My first remark is that the Italy-Greece Agreementappears
to be irrelevant to Malta's claims whether these refer to Libya or to Italy. As
regards Greece, Malta has not claimed that its shelf extends to any area which
would necessitate a delimitation with Greece; but that is not what really mat-
ters. What does matter is that if the ltaly-Greece Agreement. which is based
entirely on equidistance, were to be extended on the same basis, such an exten-
sion would not encroach over Malta's claims with respect to Libya. And even if
some rnethod other than equidistünce were to be adopted to reach a tripartite
point with Libya, it is rather difficult to imagine how such a point could fall402 CONTINENTALSHELF
within the area claimed by Malta: in Malta's view it is more likely to faH out-
side it. Consequently. Greece may be ignored for the purposes of the present
case.
As for the Italy-Tunisia Agreement, 1wish first of al1to state that, contraryto
what has been asserted by Libya, Malta did protest to Tunisia against a Tuni-
sian concession in an area which Malta considered to fa11on its side of an equi-
distance line with Tunisia. It did so even though it was unaware that Itaiy had
- in a still unratified and unpublished agreement - agreed to consider this
area as appertaining to Tunisia. Malta did not pursue the matter further because
Tunisia had replied in a very conciliatory tone, stating that the concession was
only a provisional one. With respect to Italy, Malta has always made its posi-
tion very clear in the negotiationsand did not need to make formal written pro-
tests.
Having made that point. what rernains to be said about the Italy-Tunisia
Agreement is that, allhough ii is true that the tine south of Linosa and east of
Lampedusa encroaches partly on what Malta considers to appertain io it, that in
no way means that Malta ignores that Agreement or fails to take it into account.
Malta regards that Agreement as a res intea rlios acta and consequently as not
affecting its rights. The question here idot one of incornpatibility in the sense,
as Libya seerns to suggest, that Malta's claim would be untenable simply
because there is. as between two neighbouring States, an agreed delimitation
which is in conflict with Malta's claims. There is conflict, and consequently
incompatibility, whenever two or more States clairn the same area. But clearly
one cannot speak of inadmissibility with respect to any of those claims simply
because it is in conflict with that of another State.
The question is in reality one of conflicting claims which wiH have to be
settled as between Malta. Italy and Tunisia. and it is not one that affects the
determination of the present case. Conversely anything occasioned by the
present case will be totally irrelevant to a delimitation of the issues between
Malta and Italy and Malta and Tunisia, except, of course, to the extent that those
countries will know whether to deal with Malta or with Libya with respect to
particularareas.
Mr. President, as to the second point, farfrom ignoring the presence of third
States in the area. Malta believes that the geographical setting cannot be fully
appreciated, and the reasonableness of the delimitations of the respective shelf
areas cannot be properly established, unless one takes into account the presence
of third States. It is equally Malta's view that a particular delimitation may
even appear to beequitable when seen in isolation but ceases to be so when it
is viewed in the context of other States and their presence in the region. This
applies in particularto the effects the presence of those States hason the limits
of the continental shelf to which the other States would othenvise have been
entitled.
In the present case the geographical setting is such that. except for the pres-
ence of Malta. Iialy faces Libya throughout most of its southem shores, and
these coasts are not only comparable in length to those of Libya but are even
longer. It may therefore be said, without fear of king contradicted, that Libya
could not reasonably oppose proportionality to Italy, or if it did so, it could
only do so to ils disadvantage. Moreover, Libya's assertion that the Rift Zone
would be opposable to italy even if Malta were not there. cmnot be taken
seriously. As to the Escarpments, Libya clearly accepts Italy's nghts in that
area. In these circumstances it is difficult to conceivea line of delimitationbe-
tween Italy and Libya which would be more favourable to Libya than an equi-
distant line. And this line is shown on the map on the easel as the pecked red REPLYOF MR. MIZZI 403
@ line on the top there and is also shown on Figure 43 on the map subrnitted to
the Court this moming.
One may therefore Say that if Malta did not exist Libya could not reasonably
claim a continental shelf extending beyond a line equidistant between ifs coasts
and those of Italy. It is the line which, in Malta's submission, marks the maxi-
mum area Libya would lawfully be entitled to claim against ltaly. The same
line, a1 have just said, has been drawn on the map behind me on the easel; it
@ is also shown on Figure 43 distributed this morning.
Now my question, Mr. President, is this: should the presence of Malta oper-
are in such a way as to give Libya the advantage of pushing its claim very sub-
stantially to the north of that line? The Court can see on the easel the Libyan
claim and how far north it is from the equidistant line wiih Italy. And, if 1may
add a second question. could Libya justify such a claim sirnply on the ground
that Malta is small and ils coasis are sho1leave that question tbe answered
by the Court.
The second proposition in the context of Italy's presence in the area is that if
Malta were an island off the Coastof Sicily but as paof the Republic of Italy,
one could reasonably assume thatit would be given at least the weight thai was
given to Kerkennah in the TunisialLibyacase. As a dependent island lying off
opposite coasts where a delimitation on the basis of equidistance is, as the court
held in that case, much more apposite, Malta would have been given al least
half weight. In such a case the line of delimitation between ltaly and Libya
would have been drawn practically at equal distance between the Italy-Libya
and the Malta-Libya equidistance lines, and this line is also shown on the map
between those two lines as a pecked red line; and the Court will notice how
near it is to the line Malta claims to be the appropriate line for delimitation
between Malta and Libya.
It is tme that all this does not represent the legal situationCourt has to
resolve,because Malta is not only there but is also a State in the fullesr sense
of the word, and as such entitled tn the same treatrnent accorded to other States,
large orsrnall, and whether with long or short coasts. Aa State. a Member of
the United Nations, and accepted as such by the community of nations, it can-
notbe treated as if it were a dependency or, worse still, as itdid not exist.
But if the Libyan propositions were to be accepted the result would be that
Libya would be awarded an area of shelf it could not have claimed if Malta
were not there or if Malta were merely a dependency of Italy.
1s this fair, Mr.President and Mernbers of the Court? Can one cal1 this
equity? Conversely, can Malta's demands be labelled excessive wiih respect to
Libya when, as far as Libyan entitlement is concerned, al1that the claim does is
to allow to Malta an area only rnarginallyalarger than Malta would have been
entitled to if it were the Kerkennah of Italy?
When al1 has been said snd done and the vanous arguments by both States,
whether relevant or less relevant, have been considered and given their due
weight, the question which inevitably witl have to beanswered is this: which of
the two clairnsis the more reasonable?
The two States accuse one another of advancing excessive claims: Libya says
Malia's claim is out of proportion to its size; Malta says Libya is after the
lion's share and its clairns by far exceed itslegal entitlement even after due
allowance is made for its long coasts; so much so that it claims areas to which
it could not reasonably lay a claim in a direct confrontation with Italy, thus
taking advantage of Malta's presence to increase disproportionately its already
large share of the shelf in the centralitemanean.
Libyan will argue that Malta is taking advantage of Italy's presence to clairn404 CONTINENTALSHELF
more than it would otherwise be entitled to. It is respectfully submitted that this
is not so. Matta's claims are independent of the presence of ltaly and they rest
on the geographical circumstances in which the delimitation is to be effected.
But having been accused of making excessive demands, we felt the Court should
be shown which of the two demands was the one that was indeed excessive,
unreasonable and therefore inequitable.
The excess of the Libyan demand is clear enough when it is viewed in a geo-
graphical setting in which there were only Malta one end and Libya on the
other, but the Libyan claim must be considered also in the context of the actual
geographical setting, which of course includes ltaly and the restrictions which
the presence of that country imposes on the shelf claims of neighbouring States,
particularly those of Malta and Libya. In this context the excess and unreason-
ableness of the Libyan claim becomes even more transparent. .
To conclude this part of my presentation 1may Say. very simply. that the line
indicated by the geographical circumstances of the area, taking al1relevant fac-
tors into account. notleast of which the presence of third States in the region, is
the equidistant line.
Mr. President, such a line is also the line which, in Malta's submission, res-
pects the fundamental principle governing State relations, namely, that all States
are equal in the eyes of the law. As my colleague Professor Weil has shown at
some length, the principle of equality among States is also a legal principle of
very signifïcant importance in questions of delimitation of sovereign rights and
1need not dwell any further on the weight which in our view must be given to
this principle.
Al1 1wish to stress in this connekm is that by the principk of the equality
of States we do not mean - as Libya says we do - that States must be equal
in six, in population, in wealth. or in any other similar matrer. Much less do
we mean that Malta's shelf should be equal to that of Libya. So much so that
we have pointed out that by the method of equidistance Libya wouid still retain
a shelf several times larger than that which Malta would keep.
What we do mean - and here tao 1shall be very brief - is, in a positive
sense, that every State is entitled to be treated as equal to any other State no
matter how much stronger, richer, larger or more powerfui and influential such
other State rnay be and, in a negative sense, that its smaltness in size, its stage
of developrnent, its limited influence on world events, can in no way be ad-
duced to limit. restrict or curtail its rights under international Iaw. It means that
a State cannot lawfully Say ta another State as Libya is, in effect, saying to
Malta: you are small. you are surrounded by larger States and therefore you
must be content with a smaller share of the continental shelf available for deli-
mitation.
The principle of equality of Statesmeans thal the law isequal for all, and the
pnnciples applicable to a larger State are applicable to a smaller State in the
same manner and not in proportion to its size or the length of its coastline. If
coasts generate shelf rights with respect to a larger State, they generate the
same rights with respect to a smaller State and noi in proportion to their length.
There can be no diminurio eupifis or other legal disadvantage by reason of
smallness or of a restricted coastline and, conversely, a State has no greater
rights, no privilege, which derive from the mere fact of its size or of itsex-
tended coastline..
1did not wish to dwell on this matter even as much as I have because it has
been amply discussed by my colleagues, but in view of the Libyan distortion of
our argument on this issue, 1felt it would not be amiss if 1added my voice to
thatof my friends Professor Brownlie and Professor Weil. REP1.YOF MR. MiZZl 405
Mr. President, a line equidistant between Malta and Libya would also be jus-
tified by the two most important relevant considerations which 1 have not yet
touched upon: these are the economic and security considerations. In this
connection 1respectfully ask the Court to refer to the submissions already made
for Malta by Mr. Lauterpacht, and to recall the points he made about the rele-
vance of both economic and security considerations. As he put it "when al1the
talking is over, access to oil is what this case is about", Andit is indeed strange
that Libya should consider such an important factor as having "absolutely no
link with the institution of the continental shelf'. In this connecti1nwish to
reply to the references made by the other side to the possibility of oil having
been struck in the latest well drilled by Malta in the area between Malta and
Sicily. I cari state fomally. as Agent ofthe Republic of Malta that, while it is
tme that late last year certain indications had led to some testing of the well,
the results of those tests have regrettably, of course, been negative and the well
rnay now for al1practical purposes beregarded as another dry hole.
To resume the point 1 was making conceming economic considerations, it
was the mineral potential of the sea-bed and subsoil of the shelf that first drew
the attention of Govemments to those maritime areas; and second only to the
need to protect those resources came the need to extend beyond the territorial
waters the maritime rights of States for security purposes. Both these vital inter-
ests were in fact present even asfar back as the Truman Proclamation and have
been confirmed and even expanded by the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention.
With respect to both these interests we submit that our interests and those of
Libya are - to Say the least- equal; and they can only be so protected if the
outward mach of their respective coasts is allowed to extend from both States
up to the point where those natural extensions meet. Any other line would
affect seriously, and not without grave apprehension, both the economic and
the security interests of the State the shelf of which such other line would
amputate.
1 need not add much to what has already been said about Malta's assertion
that according to the jurisprudence of this Court, as well as the arbitraldeci-
sion in the Anglo-French case, an equidistant line is normally the line most
appropriate for a delimitation of maritime areas, particularly with respect to
opposite coasts. And it is only in the unusual or exceptional cases where the
geographical configuration of the coastline or some distorting geographical fea-
ture make that line inequitable that the need has been felt to depart somewhat
from it or to adjust it. wish only to add a sample fact: even in such exceptio-
na1 circumstances as those of the German concave coasts in the Norrh Sea
Continental Shelf cases, the departure from the equidistance lines meant a
reduction of a mere 8 per cent from the area originally claimed by the Nether-
lands and a mere 12 per cent from the area originally claimed by Denmark.
In this connection, and to avoid repetition, I respectfully refer the Court to
the examination by Professor Browlie of the proper way in which the jurispru-
dence on this issue is tobe read.
Last but not least we corne to State practice.1 think it is no exaggeration to
Say that nothing could provide better evidence of what is .an equitable delimita-
tion than State practice. I cannot think of anything which cm show the reason-
ableness andequitableness of a line of delimitation more convincingly than a
line which States have accepted and agreed to use to delimit their maritime
areas with other States. Quite frankly, 1 cannot see how one can consider as
reasonabIe or equitabIe a line which departs substantially from the pattern
which State practice has clearly developed over the years.
As 1 have already had the opportunity to point out - and as has recently406 CONTINENTAL SHELF
been confirmed by the Charnber of this Court in the Gulfof Maine case - it is
very difficult, if not impossible, to set out principles and rules which would in
al1cases lead to an equitable delimitation. And in any case quite different and
even oppsite conclusions may bedrawn fromany such iules or principles. It
is precisely because of these circumstances that State practice acquires even
greater relevance in the delimitation of maritime areas than it may have with
respect to other issues.This is why Malta attributes a signifiant importance to
a careful examination of what other States have done; because there can be no
better demonstration of what is equitable than the way in which States have
agreed to delimit their areas of maritime jurisdiction.
Moreover, when a method is so generally used by so many States in such a
variety of circumstances, surely there must be more to it than mere convenience
or even versatility and adaptability; though these loo are very real attributes of
the method of equidistance. Surely it must mean that States regard the results
achieved by that method. or on the basis of that method, as king equitable.
That this is so is evidencedby the fact that in several agreements we find States
expressly declaring the delimitation to have been based on equity or equitable
principles and then either expressly or at least clearly applying the method of
equidistance. Most agreements in the ArabfPersian Gulf and several agreements
entered into by France do that very thing. And these are by no means the only
cases; they are merely examples of what is clearly a trend - a pattern of be-
haviour - al1 leading inescapably to the conclusion so often stated, but which
can stand another repetition. that equidistance is in effect the equitable method
of delimitation unless some unusual or exceptional circumstance requires that
method to beadjusted or. in extreme cases. abandoned in favour of some other
method or methods.
1should like to say no more about State practice because the matter has been
sufficiently and very ably dealt with by my colleagues. 1 simply wish to leave
the Court with the thought that whiie it is tme that no two cases are identical,
there is a pattern of State practice which isclear and unmistakable with respect
to the two main issues in the present case - the relevance of physical features
and the role of proportionality. This is why, in Our view, State practice has an
even greater role in the present case in assisting the Court to îïnd the line which
will equitably divide the continental shelf of Malta from that of Libya. On the
two main issues of the present case it is clear that States do not regard the
physical features of the sea-bed as affecting the extent of their shelves with res-
pect to other States; nor do States give to the difference in the lengths of coast-
lines any greater role than that which flows naturally from such a geographical
fact.
The delimitation agreements quoted by the Parties cover a large variety of
circumstances; and that is the reason why no two of them are identical. But
they al1point io the conclusions 1have just recalled for the benefit of the Court.
Indeed. and 1 leave the Court with this last consideration. the argument which
Malta draws from State practice acquires greater strength from the very fact that
State practice relates to a variety of cases and a variety of circumstances. In
fact, if the method of equidistance is the appropriate method in such a variety
of cases and such a variety of circumstances it must have some inherent quality
to make it so.The method is not of course a mandatory rule of customary inter-
national law. Nor couid it be,because it is, in exceptional cases, not equitable.
But when the circumstances are not exceptional or abnormal the method of
equidistance isthe one that must be applied in order that equitymay result.
Such, Mr. President and Members of the Court, is, in Our submission, the
present case. REPLY OF MR. MlZZt 407
Mr. President, Members of the Court. 1 have reached the end of my submis-
sions and this may, therefore,be the lasi occasion 1shall address the Court as
Agent of the Republic of Malta in the preseni case. am not more positive [han
1 should like to be in case matters are raised or refemd to next week which
might cal1 for further submissions on our part. It is my earnest hope that no
such need will anse; and in the expectation that this will in fact provebeothe
conclusion of the last statement byMalta in these proceedings, 1shall now, as
Agent of Malta and as required by Article 60 of the Rules of Court, proceed to
read the final submissions of Malta in the Contitienta1 Shelf case between the
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Matta. These are:
May if pieuseihe Court,
Having regard to the considerations set out in the Mernorial, Counter-Memo-
rial and Reply submiited by the Republic of Malta and in the oral presentation
.by Malta's counsel,
And rejecting al1claims and subrnissions to the contrary;
To declare and adjudge that:
(i) the principles and rules of international law applicable to the delimitation of
the areas of the continental shelf which appertain to Malta and Libya are
that the delimitation shall be effected on the basis of internationalw in
order to achieve an equitable result;
(ii) in practice the above principles and rules are applied by means of a median
line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the base-
lines of Mafta, and the low-water markof the Coastof Libya.
A signed copy of these submissions will be communicated to the Court and
transrnitted to the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya as required by
Article 60 of the Rules.
Before I leave the Bar, Mr. President, 1wish to express my gratitude to the
small but dedicated and very competent delegation that has represented Malta in
this case: counsel. experts. advisers, and supporting staff.thank them all on
behalf of the Govemment and people of Malta.
To my friend the Agent of Libya,and to his delegation, 1 wish to say how
appreciative1am of the spirit of friendship and cordiality which has character-
ized the conduct of these proceedings.
My thanks go also to the Registry and other staff of the Court for their
always impartial but nonetheless invaluablehelp and advice.
Finally, Mr. President, 1 thank you and the Members of the Court for the
patience and attention with which you have listened to our arguments for so
many weeks.
The case is now in your competent and impartial hands, and in those hands
Malta and its people place their trust.
Once more 1thank al1those who have participated or helped in these proceed-
ings.
The PRESIDENT: Malta having thus completed the second round of oral
argument, it remains for the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to do the same. In accor-
dance with the procedural calendar agreed with the Agents of the Parties the
Court will rneet to hear the Agent and counsel of Libya on Wednesday.
20 February 1985, at 3 p.m., and the present hearings thus stand adjourned to
that date.
The Courr rose ar 12.30p.m. THIRTY-FIRST PUBLIC SITTING (20 il 85, 3 p.m.1
Presenr: [See sitting of 26 XI 84, Judge Morozov absent.]
REJOINDER OF MR. EL-MURTADI SULEIMAN
AGENTFORTHE GOVERNMENT OF THE LlBYAN ARAB JAMAHlRlYA
Mr. EL-MURTADI SULEIMAN: Mr. President, Members of the Court. it is
a high honour to stand before you once again on behalf of my country. I am
deeply conscious of both the privilege of appenring before the Court and the '
responsibility 1 bear in presenting Libya's position on what constitutes an
equitabfe delimitation in the present case.
In opening this final round of argument we have come to.the Iast stage of the
proceedings. I am aware that the Court has before it a wealth of factual and
legal arguments furnished in the course of three rounds of written pleadings and
during these oral hearings. There is little need to canvass much of this material
which has been so extensively treated. With this in mind, we believe it would
be of greater assistance to the Court during this round if we avoid merely
repeating points already put before the Court and, in accordance with Article60,
paragraph 1. of the Rules of Court, concentrate instead on the principal
issues which continue to divide the Parties, without venturing unnecessarily into
every debating point Our distinguished opponents have introduced. It is clear,
however, that if Libya does not feel itnecessary to address certain points raised
by ihe other side during this round, it is simply because Libya believes them to
have been adequately covered already. In this sense, Libya fully maintains the
arguments ithas previously put before the Court.
This being seid. the purpose of my remarks will be to focus on certain quite
specific points which have been raised by Ouropponents during their final pre-
sentation and to outline the essential elements of Libya's case.
Itwas, of course. by virtue of the Special Agreement between the Parties that
the case was submitted IO the Court. This was in keeping with the spirit of co-
operation that has long existed between our two countries. Perhaps 1am wrong,
Mr. President, but 1have sensed from the remarks from the other side of the Bar
that Maita somehow feeIs that it is Libya's fauIt that a difference over delimita-
tion arose between us. It was the distinguished Agent for Malta who implied
that Malta's "legitimate rights"- those were his words - had been contested
(p. 391. supra). By "legitimate rights", 1 suppose he was refemng to Malta's
claim for an equidistance boundary.
1find this line of argument unusual. Libya and Malta have placed their trust
in the ability of this Court, in its wisdom and knowledge. to reach an equitable
result precisely because they could no: reach agreement themselves. This pro-
cedure demonstrates the genuine desire of both sides to settle their differences
amicably, impartially and within the framework of international law.
Whether Malta's claim for an equidistance boundary is a "legitimate nght" or
not is for the Court to decide, just as it is for the Court to decide on Libya's
position as to what constitutes an equitable resultnder the relevant facts of this
case. Moreover. we do not think that it is at al1 "illegitimate" to seek an equi-
table solution by having recourse to the decision of this Court. RUOINDER OF MR. EL-MURTADI SULEIMAN 409
It is natural in the course of contentious proceedingsfor the Parties to dispute
each other's interpretations of parîicular facts or circumstances. It serves no
useful purpose. however. when accusations and criticisms are levelled which are
simply devoid of foundation. In this context, we continue to be surprised and
disappointed by certain comments counsel for Malta have repeated during the
second round. Libyahas been portrayed, to usejust a few of counsel's terms. as
an "inherent threat", an "inactive menace"and a "large and militarily capable
State" (p.322, supra).
But what point was learned counsel trying to make with these words? Are
they really appropriate for a case of continental shelf delimitationbrought with
the initiative of both States? Contrary to the impression given by counsel's
remarks, the continentalshelf is in anyevent not a zone over which States exer-
cise sovereignty in the manner suggested. nor a zone in which security interests
have the sarne weight in international law as that of territorial waters. More-
over, Malta has still been unable to give any convincing argument why the
security interests of States with opposite coasts seem to be more importantthan
those of States which are adjacent to each other. Mr. Lauterpacht assumes thar
States that are adjacent will naturally be led to CO-operation.Butwhat a strange
proposition! Geographical proximityis as much a source of conflict as it is of
CO-operation.
We believe it would have been more appropriate for counsel to recall that
Malta and Libya have in fact signed a Treaty of Friendship and Co-operation as
recently as last November and that, amongstmany other examples of co-opera-
tion and assistance that characterize the relations between our two countries.
Libya has been fully supportiveof Malta's quest for neutrality. 1am sure that it
was in this context that rny friend Dr. Mizzi described relations between Libya
and Malta as "exemplary" and "brotherly" (III, p. 276). What is sure, Mr.
President, is that the Parties have come before this Court in a spirit worthy of
the excellent relations that prevail between them. While both sides have vig~
rously put fonvard their cases. Libya is confident this in no way will weaken
the goodwill that exists between Libyaand Malta.
With the TunisialLic base and Malta's and Italy's applications to intervene.
1have now had the honour to participate, as Agent or counsel for my country.
in four cases before this eminent Court.
The personal privilege 1feel in this respect is the direct result of thefact that.
happily, my country has placed itself in rhe forefront of countnes who have
come before this Court. Libya has pursued this course precisely because in such
matters it considers the need to achieve an equitable resolution to be of great
importance. As 1 have had occasion to Say before, Lihya firmly believes that,
when two States are unable to agree among themselves, recourse tothe decision
of the Courtis the proper way to proceed with the orderly, step-by-stepprocess
of delimitation in the Centra1 Mediterranean, an area which is subject to the
potential claims of a number of States.
In retrospeci, however, 1do feel that it was unfortunate thatever since 1972
Malta never once moved from its categoric insistence on delimitation based on
equidistance and nothing but equidistance. This has made-any fniitful discus-
sions with our neighbours on this question very difficult. On the other hand, the
Court will recall that Libya's 1973 proposal, which represented a genuine
attempt to reflect the peculiar, even unique, facts of the Libya-Malta geographi-
cal setting, was rejected at the highest levelsof the Maltese Government on the
very day it was made. As 1noted, under those circumstances negotiationsbe-
tween the Parties proved futile. Nonetheless, Libya has continued to beguided
by the belief that the determination of an equitable result may only be achieved410 CONTINENTAL SHELF
by considering al1 the relevant factors upon which such a result should be
based. This has been Libya's position throughout.
Even at this late stage in the proceedings 1feel 1must once again underline
the fact - which should be perfectly obvious to al1 - that Libya and Malta
have brought a case before this honourable Court that concerns the deiimitation
of the continental shelf. The reason 1 emphasize this is because we believe that
our opponents have lost sight of this basic premise. and have aimed their argu-
ments at points which are not concemed primarily with the fundamental ques-
tion of delimitation.
We have heard, for example, extensive discussions of matters that are largely
theoretical and that relate to the outer limits of a State's continental shelf rights
or to factorssuch as economics and security. These fa11wide of the mark when
it cornes to examining the applicable principles and rules of delimitation and
how these principles and mles may be applied in the circumstances of the case
in order toachieve an equitable result.
As counsel will presently explain, Maltais case essentially boils down to
reliance on basepoints and distance. These are used as a back door for claiming
equidistance, which is ihen said to be confirmed by reference to a faulty analy-
sis of the principle of equality of States. State practice, radial projection, econ-
omics and security. There is a reason for this approach which 1feel must be very
apparent. It is thatMalta is genuinely troubled by, and reluctant to deal with,
the relevant facts of this case, 1mean the coasts of the Parties, their lengths and
configurations, the sea-bed and subsoil which in law comprise the continental
shelf, the conduct of the Parties andthe existence or actual or prospective third,
State delimitation in the area. This is why we hear constant references to dis-
tance, economics and security. It is striking that Mr. Lauterpacht focused
conçiderable attention on economic and security factors right at the beginning
of his speech. At the same time he avoided speaking of fishing, neutrality and
the concept of the island developing country; factors that had fïgured so promi-
nently in Malta's previous pleadings. Moreover, itwas not until the end of his
speech that he came to the subject of the topography of the sea-fioor which he
treated very bnefly indeed. Yet in speaking of the bathymetry, our opponents
studiously avoided even discussing Professor Fabricius's detailed description of
the sea-bed which was annexed to the Libyan pleadings. From the topographical
point of view alone, Professor Fabricius was able clearly to identify two geo-
morphological units which are divided by the Rift Zone. We would Saythat this
approach of Malta only serves to deflect attention from the types of circum-
stances that this Court has indicated to be relevant in previous cases.
Mr. President and Members of the Court, throughout this case Libya has
directed its efforts at assisting the Court by fully documenting the facts andir-
cumstances that have relevance to delimitation. The extensive documentation
furnished with Libya's written pleadings was submitted so as to give the Court
as complete a picture as possible of the issues that might have a bearing on the
case. By the same token. tibya has gone to great lengths to supply accurate
maps and studies of the area and even, in response to Malta's rather selective
examples, to give a full and impartial analysis of State practice.
Against this background, Malta has been content to accuse Libya of an obses-
sion with coastal lengths. Counsel for Malta has also persisted in asserting that
Libya places total reliance on geology for its positive case. Libya's geographi-
cal case is discarded simply by equating it with "proportionality". And what
about Malta's attitude towards geography? In its Reply Malta did not include a
single map of the area between Libya and Malta. Even during these oral hear-
ings Malta has been unwilling to give a detailed description of the coasts of REJOINDER OF hIR. EL-MURTADISULEIMAN 411
both States which it considers to be relevant. Can this be said to represent a
serious treatment of the facts?
As we have said so many times, it is Libya's view that an equitable result
through the application of equitable principles may onlybe achieved by the prm
per balancing of al1the relevant facts and circumstances. In this respect Libya's
case has remained unchanged. It is not based on an attempt to find a solution
on the basis of what other States have done in other different geographical and
political settings. Still less is it an attempt to refashion nature or engage in a
sharing out ex aequo et bono. Rather, it is aimed at dealing with nature as it is.
To describe the relationship between Libya and Malta, and their relationships
with other neighbouring States, as "normal". is tmly bewildering. 1 wonder
what Malta would classify as "abnormal". In truth. the setting between Libya
and Malta is neither "normal" nor "abnormal". It is unique, since it is charac-
terized by its own particular facts.
Malta apparently finds support for an equidistance solution from its use in a
number of other cases involving what counsel for Malta described as a large
variety of circumstances. Unless I am mistaken, this seems to me to be a speci-
fic recognition that cases strictly ct~mparableto the present one cannot be found
in delimitation agreements between other States. It also seems inconsistent with
Malta's emphasis, in the same breath, on the "normality" of the presentcase. 1
need only recall two points: first, that the Libya-Malta situation is unique pre-
cisely because there is no similar situation elsewhere; and second, that some 300
potential maritime delimitations exist in the world. The vast majority remain to
be agreed. This suggests that there are rnany instances where ready agreement
has been impossible if only because equidistance can evidentiy not provide an
equitable result satisfactory to bothdes.
Malta also persists in asserting that this case is about access to oil. This is
simply another resort to economics and, as such, is not correct. This case is
about delimitation according to the applicable pnnciples of law. 1 cannot help
but note, however, that despite its constant recourse to the theme of access to
oil, our opponents have not offered one shred of evidence to demonstrate why
equidistance must necessarily be the result. This is quite different from the
situation in the TunisialLihyacase where the dispute arose out of the grant of
concessions, and where both Parties had spent substantial sums in developing
producing fields.
At the same time. 1wonder if counsel for Malta fully appreciates the logical
implication of his plea that the Court must take potential access to petroleum
into account in a case such as the present one. Under such a thesis, the Court
would not properly be able to rulc on a dispute until it absolutely knew what
resources existed in each part of the area to be delimited. Only then could the
Court share out these resources. But what about existing delimitations- should
they be modified every time sornething of value is found on one side or the
other of the boundary line?
Delimitation is not a "partage" nor an apportionment. And, in any event, life
is not so certain. Who knows where good fortune will shine? Until the Agent
for Malta informed the Court last week that the recent well drilled by Malta -
presumably the Alexia 2 well located on the Ragusa-Malta Plateau north of
Malta - was. as he described it. "for al1 practical purposes . . .another dry
hole", the published information indicated that Malta's Prime Minister hirnself
had reported to the Maltese Parliament just last22 December that gas and oil
had been stmck for the first time by Malta. What will ultimately be developed
in this region of course remains to be seen. Happily, however, the prospects
lookgood since recent ltalian finds not far away on the same shelf ma have412 COtWiNENTAL SHELF
been described as amongst the largest in the Mediterranean. This only serves to
highlight the temporal or transitory nature of such factors, and points up why
they are inappropriate to be taken into account as relevant circumstances in a
case of continental shelf delimitation.
1must Say,Mr. President, that when it comes to a discussion of economics, 1
have a sense of "déjd vu". We believed that the extensive discussions of econ-
omics in the TunisialLibyacase, as well as the Court's treatment of those factors
as irrelevant in its 1982 Judgment, has served the purpose of dealing with such
issues once and for all. But since we continue to hear economic arguments in
these hearings, 1can only respectfully refer the Court back to Libya's Counter-
Mernorial (II) where further documentation on these matters has already been
given so as not IO repeat what has aiready been said.
1 believe we have shown the Maltese approach to be what it is; that is, an
unabashed aitempt to establish as an a priori nile a method which the law, in
the more than 30 years it has been developing in this field. has not done. In
short, Malta seeks io elevate equidistance toa privileged status as a method that
is said to be prima facie equitable, to demote the relevant circumstances to a
mere secondary role used only to test equidistance, and to abolish the element
of proportionality altogether. This cannot be right either in this case or as a
matter of general principle. Moreover, it would have very serious consequences
and implications for future delimitations throughout the world if it were to be
accepted.
Mr. President. Mernbers of the Court: there have been some deveIopments
dunng Malta's second round of speeches to suggest that on certain issues the
position of the Parties may not be so far apart as appeared previously. 1 am
thinking about the related subjects of the presence of third States and the rele-
vant area. It is perhaps appropriate for me to pause for a few minutes on these
points.
As for the presenceof third States and existing or potential third State delimi-
tations, Libya has always considered that these elements constitute ielevant cir-
cumstances in a question of delimitation. This was Libya's position in theTuni-
siallibya case. It was re-emphasized even during the proceedings relating to
Italy's application to intervene, an application which Libya objected to pri-
marily on jurisdictional grounds. In contrast, Malta's position, it appears, has
undergone a good deal of change. In its written pleadings and even during the
first round of speeches, Malta was at pains to ptay down the importance of third
States.
This was somehow peculiar in the light of the fact that Malta had tried to
intervene in the TunisialLibyacase. The second round has witnessed a marked
shift in Malta's position, so much so that at times we had the feeling on our
side that we had now dispensed with the question of delimitation with Malta
and were, instead, involved in some future as yet unformulated delimitation
with Italy.
In principle. Libya welcomes the fact that Malta now recognizes that third
States and third State delimitations may have relevance. particularly given the
relatively consiricted geographic setting of the present case. As Libya has said.
the interests of third States must of course be safeguardedby the Court in reach-
ing its decision in this case. This is why Libya has drawn, and continues to
draw, attention to point 32 of the ltaly-Tunisia delimitation and point 16 of the
Italy-Greece boundary. At the same time, it is also a fact tha: there exist areas
between Malta and Libya where there are no claims of third States and thus are
for delimitation between Libya and Malta alone. These must be the areas pn-
marily in focus for the present proceedings. RWOINDER OF MR. EL-MURTADI SULEIMAN
413
This brings me to the question of the relevant area. While Professors Jaenicke
and Bowett will address this key issue in greater detail, I would like to note a
few brief points at this stage. First, in contrast to what the distinguished Agent
ofMalta implied last Wednesday (pp. 396-397, supra), there has been no incon-
sistency or change in Libya's position on the relevant area. The area described
in the Libyan Mernorial (1) (para10.6 and 10.17) is what has been outlined on
@ Map 68 in the Libyan folders. So nothing has changed. What is strange is that
until thefinal round of Malta's speeches, indeed until the very last speech by
the Agent, Malta had failed to address seriously the relevant area as it had been
advanced in Libya's Memorial. One can only wonder why it took Malta so long
toreact. One possibility is that Malta's views on the relevant area may have
moved closer to our own. 1 could not help being stmck by what my learned
fnend, the Maltese Agent, said the other day. He spoke of "the Pelagian Block,
which comprises the area relevant for delimitation in the present case" 392,
supra). And, as the experts of both Parties agree, the Pelagian Block and Pela-
gian Sea terminate on the east athe line of escarpments. So perhaps Malta is
coming around to Ourview as to the eastern lirniofthe relevant area.
The points 1have touched on will be the subject of further comments by my
colleagues. To give the Court an idea of Libya's presentation in this second
round,1should now like to indicate bnefly the order of Libya's speakers.
Sir Francis Vallat will follow with some observations on where the case
stands as we come to its final days. Tomorrow, Professors Jaenicke and Que-
neudec will address the principal legal issues which divide the Parties. They
will be followed on Fridayby Professor Bowett, who will address the facts and
relevant circumstances and will show how, in Libya's view, they lead to an
equitable result. We will then have some brief concluding remarks after wh1ch
shall, in accordance with Article 60, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, read
Libya's final submissions. REJOINDER OF SIR FRANCIS VALLAT
COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA
Sir Francis VALLAT: Mr. President. 1cannot address this distinguished and
honourable Court without saying how honoured and happy 1 am to have the
opportunity to do so again.
The case for Malta has undoubtedly been presented withconsiderable ability.
Happily, the decisions of this honourable Court are based, not on the skill and
ingenuity of counsel, but on the law and the facts. For out part, we have done
our best to put before the Court, as fully and accurately as possible. both the
facts and the law.
We are concemed not with the merits or the dernerits of counsel. The charge
that Libya's advisers and counsel simply do not understand the delimitation
process will not have escaped the notice of the Court. But 1have every confi-
dence that the Court's great experience and knowledge in these matters will
adequately compensate for any lack of experience, learning or understanding on
the part of the representatives of Libya. Armed with this confidence. we shall
try to direct our arguments to the substance of the dispute and to the legal and
factual considerations.
This dws not mean that it is out of order to comment on certain debating
positions taken by speakers on the other side. For example, 1have to start by
commenting on the position taken by the Agent for Malta in his closing speech.
Quite reasonably and properly. he refrained from speaking about matters on
which he had nothing to add. These largely related to the background to the dis-
pute. Of course, he is fully entitled to rely on the recoras it now rests before
the Court.
What concems me is his suggestion that he rnay ask for yet another opportu-
nity to speak if Libya should say anything new in the course of this second
round. What does this mean? Does this mean that Malta is content to rest on
the record but will try to retum to the fray if speakers on the Libyan side revert
to issues which have already ken discussed but on which the Agent for Malta
has made no comment in his closing speech? Surely, we cannot go on like that
for ever? .
1have in mind at the moment two matters in parîicular. These are the no-
drilling understanding and Malta's status quo/acquiescence argument. These two
matters are interrelated, but each has its own significance for the case.
As regards the no-drilling understanding, 1would like to follow in the foot-
steps of the Agent for Malta. 1 am not, you will be glad to learn, going to
review again al1 the documentary evidence which shows beyond doubt that,
however made, there was a no-drilling understanding to the effect that drilling
would not take place in the disputed area until the Court had made its decision
and a delimitation had been agreed accordingly. 1 am glad to note that Dr.
Mizzi has not reverted to the allegation made in his opening speech in the first
round, that a no-drilling understanding did not exist.
Now let me make a brief mention of Malta's status quo/acquiescence conten-
tion.It is hard to know why Malta thought it necessary to bolster its claim to an
equidistance line by appeal to such a contention as this. To borrow a phrase
from our learned opponents. this would seem to show nervousness, may 1 Say RWOINDER OF SIR FRANCIS VALLAT 415
lack of confidence, by Malta in the legal soundness of its case. In any event, 1
am delighted that Malta has accepted my invitation to say no more on this
aspect of the case. As to this contention ihere can be no doubt that Libya is
right and Malta wrong.
Mr. President, while fully maintaining Libya's position on the background to
the dispute as stated in the written and oral pleadings, 1 now turn to the real
substance of this dispute. Examination of the issues falls naturally into three
parts - the law, the facts and the application of the law to the facts.
The legal aspects of this case on theMaltese side were dealt with in the main
by Professor Brownlie and Professor Weil, and most of the reply on these
aspects will be made by Professor Jaenicke and Professor Quéneudec. It is not
for me to go into the detailed arguments but. by way of introduction, 1 should
like to offer a few general observations.
One outstanding aspect of this dispute isthat both Parties starting from a
common principle follow such divergent paths with such different conse-
quences.
The common ground is. of course, that a continental shelf delimitation has to
achieve an equitable result. Itseems to me that the achievement of an equitable
result must irnply the application of principles that are equitable. Yet, even at
this elementary point in the development of our thinking, we find a subtle
divergence. Libya on the one hand seeks an equitable result through the appli-
cation of equitable principles, while Malta seeks a similar result through the
application of an a priori method which it tries to justify by indirect arguments
said to be consistent with equity.
In the view of Libya, whatever doubt Professor Weil may have had during
the first round about the irnport of Article 83 of the 1982 United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (III, p. 380), it is absolutely clear from the
jurispmdence that the application of equitable principles for the purposes of
continental shelf delimitation is well establishedin custornary international law.
This is now clearly accepted by Malta.
Equitable principles do not mean the application of an a priori method. Equi-
table principles mean the taking into account of al1relevant circumstances: that
is toSay, to put it briefly, circumstances relevant to the delimitation in the parti-
cular case. 1s it really proper to suggest that in taking these views Libya is
stupid or ignorant about the law relating to the continental shelf and its delimi-
tation, as has been suggested by Our opponents? Let me, for example, recall
some of Professor Brownlie's assertions. He said:
"the Libyan position is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the
legal order within which maritime delimitation takes place . . ."
(p. 284, supra).
"The Libyan position lacks roots in the available legal principles."
(P. 285, supra.)
"The Libyan case is based upon a complete misunderstanding of the
nature of continental shelf deliniitatio..." (P. 286, supra.)
Allegations of this kind, which regrettably typify Malta's pleadings, are really
naïve and do not assist the Court to arrive at proper conclusions based on a
proper presentation of the law and the facts.
The Agent for Malta has complimented Professor Brownlie on his ability to
invent phrases. Alas. this power of invention does not help the Court either. In
this connection, by way of an introduction to Libya's further observations on
the law, may 1 recall the ingrown circle of languages which he uses. 1 will 416 CONTINENTAL SHELF
confine myself for the moment tohis statement of the Mattese contentions. We
are told:
"Malta contends that the geographical facts musi be placed within a
certain legal order related to the concept of approximate equality . . ."
(P. 284. supra.)
One can only ask: what legal order and what is meant by "the concept of
approximate equality"? When welook for enlightenment on the meaning of the
legal order, we are told that Libya:
"substitutes aconcept of spatial distribution of areas of sea-bed for the
proper mediation of areas of convergence as between coasts. coasts which
are presumed to have an equal seaward reach of jurisdiction, this being a
corollary of the equal entitlement of coastal States to continental shelf'
(pp. 284-285.supra).
1 will come back to the characterization of the Libyan position..For the
moment, without examining these assertions in deiail. it is apparent that the
series of statements is no more than a total assumption of equality, which in the
form in which itis presented couldonly mean equality of shares. It is a case of
equality of everything.
Yet we are told on the very same page of the record (p. 285, supra) that
Malta is not asking for half of the relevant area. or any particular proportion of
the relevant area, but bases its case on: "the concept of approximate equality,
which may also be expressed as the equitable criterion of equal division".1 am
sony, Mr. President, this is the language of Malta, not our language. This pro-
gress of equality again provokes the questions: approximate equality of what?
And, as regard the so-called "equitable criterion of equal division", equal divi-
sion of what?
Professor Brownlie is obviously aware of the fact that the theory proves too
much. because he goes on 10say: "Malta is not seeking a mechanical half-share
of the relevantarea." And better is to follow. He continues: "The principle of
equal division is to be applied within the geographical and legal framework."
He then caps the climax by saying: "the trapezium gives a simple graphical
indication of the proper applicationof that principle in the circumstances of the
present case" (p. 285, supra).
It is impossible to understandhow the trapezium can give an indication of the
proper application of the principle. Indeed, as has been conclusively shown, the
trapezium isa broken reed.
Now the trapezium is used by Malta to show the area of overlap and it has
now become a trapezium to show the area relevant to the delimitation. Indee1,
am not sure where the relevant area, as determined by the trapezium, is said to
lie, because we do not have a copy of the map put up on the easel by Professor
Brownlie when he was speaking about the relevant area (pp. 288-289, supra).
The matter is further confused by Dr. Mizzi's reference to the Pelagian Block
as comprising the relevant area and by his reference to basepoint 12 on the
Libyan Coastnear Benghazi (pp. 391 and 400-401, supra). But, if one goes back
Maltese Figure B (Figure 26 in "Illustrations by Malta for the Oral Proceed-
@ ings" dated 26 November 1984) what itis in effect is a beautiful triangle on a
blank sheet of paper. But if one goes back to this representation of the tra-
pezium it can be seen from the note that zone 1 and zone 2 areareas of over-
lapping natural prolongationsas between State A and State B. So what this figure
is apparently supposed to illustrate is that the trapezium represents "areas of
overlapping natural prolongations". Well, not even Malta contends for equal RWOINDEROF SIR FRANCIS VALLAT 417
division of the area covered by the trapezium. So we are left with no answer to
the question: "equal division of what?"
So we go round and round and the only place where we come out is, not in
the theory of equal division of areas. but the equal division of distance as pre-
sented by Professor Weil. Malta is still caught by the net of its equidistance
method and does nothing by al1 this elaborate argument to establish that equi-
distance has any pnority in international law as a method of delimitation or
that, in the circumstances of the present case, a delimitation based on equidis-
tance is equitable.
Now let me come back to what Malta says about the reliance by Malta and
Libya on coastal lengths. There is no doubt that we have here a real difference
between the Parties. Although MaIta has given the impression that it attributes
no significance to coastal length. this is now denied by Malta. Indeed, the tmh
of the matter seems to be that, while Malta is prepared to use lengths of coast
for the purpose of determination of the relevant area, it is not prepared to give
coastal length a role in the actual delimitation itself, According to Malta, deli-
mitation is to be effected by the equal division of lines joining certain control
points on or off the coasts of Malta and Libya.
Malta contends that length is but one aspect of coastal configurations and
relalionships. This proposition is not disputed, but Malta seeks to minimize the
significance of lengths of coasts in the process of delimitation to vanishing
point. It is said, on the other hand, that Libya insists that length is a paramount
element. Since the continental shelf is an extension of the land territory of a
State into and under the sea. not from selected points but from its coasts, it is
obvious that the coast is an element of pnmary importance in determining the
areas within which a State has a title as good or better than the title claimed by
another State.
It is not for me to examine the cases on this point: as the Court is well
aware, this is the basic truth behind the decision of the Court in the North Sea
Continent01Shelfcases (I.C.J.Reports 1969, p. 3).
1 have referred to Malta's concept of "approximate equality". This is contras-
ted with what is said to be Libya's insistence upon "a certain version of propor-
tionality, the formula of the ration of coastal lengths.." (p. 284. supra). There
are two differences to be noted here. First, one has to distinguish between the
method of delimitation on the one hand and the test of the equitable result on
the other. That is the key distinction. Secondly, one has to examine the ele-
rnents that are to be taken into account in choosing the method of delimitation.
Libya has consistently taken the:view that the results of a method should be
tested by the application of a proportionality test, for example, as applied by the
Coun in the TunisialLibyacase. which compares the respective ratios of coastal
lengths to areas attributed to each of the two States. This is quite different from
the method suggested by Libya, which seems to be admirably suited to the cir-
cumstances of the present case: that is to say, to take into account not distance
alone, as Maha would do, but coastal configuration and length as well as dis-
tance. In the circumstances of the present case, where there is such a great dis-
crepancy in coastal lengths, which is the better approach - to use distance
alone or to use bothdistance and the lengths of the relevant coasts? This is pre-
sented as a valid approach to the problem of delimitation in the present case.
Libya rejects the theory calling for equal division, which does not properly
identify what is tobe divided and, even so far as an area is to bedivided, does
not after al1seek equal division, but something quite different.
Mr. President, in the context of Maltais theory of "approximate equaliiy" and
"equal division", it is regrettably necessary to make a few further comments on418 CONTINENTALSHELF
the principle of the legal equality of States. This principle, relied upon so much
by Malta throughout the written and oral pleadings, received further attention
by Professor Brownlie. Professor Weil and the Agent for Malta in the second
round.
1 would have thought that this matter had been dealt with definitively and
finally by Professor Briggs in his short but cogent speech in the first round. It is
astonishing now to find the Agent for Malta, in the passages to which 1am now
referring (pp.403-404, supra), once more speaking of "Libyan distortion" of
Malta's argument on this issue. One may wonder where the distortion lies.
From the statement of Dr. Mizzi to which 1have just referred, it now appears
thatMaltadoes accept the view expressed by Professor Briggs that theprinciple
of legal equality of States means "that al1 States are equal in the eyes of the
law". But it is counsel for Malta who seem to have persisted in misapplying the
principle asjustifying "equality of entitlement" of continental shelf and "equal
division in the delimitation process", and 1 would refer to certain examples
from Professor Brownlie's statement (pp. 284, 285 and 287, supra). Leaving on
one side the rhetoric which could readily be adapted to apply to Libya's claims
as well as to Maita's. 1agree that the principles applicable ta larger State are
applicable to a smaller State. But 1 cannot agree with the assertion: "lf coasts
generate shelf rights with respect to a larger State they generate theme rights
with respect to a smaller State andno1 in proportion 10 their length." The first
part of this sentence rnaybe acceptable, but the interpretation which appears in
the second is not. Where the sentence goes wrong is the confusion of the equal
application of the law with actual or substantive equality resulting from the
application of the law.
Put in a different way. generation of shelf rights. that is, sovereign rights to
explore and exploit the resources of the continental shelf. does not mean that
the areas of shelf over which those rights are to be exercised must be of the
same extent no matter what the length of a State's coastAs was made so clear
in the North Seo CoritinenralSheif cases, the position of a State with a short
coast cannot be made the same as that of a State with a long coast. The true
principle in terms of continental shelf law, 1 suggest, is that each kilometre of
coast should, as a general nile. generate the same area of continental shelf. This
principle foilows from the very nature of the continental shelf itself as the
extension of the land territory of a State from its coast into and under the sea.
Accordingly. the principle of equality of States in the eyes of the law as
States has nothing to do with the question of the areas of shelf which may be
generated by their coasts. These must, in the nature of things and in the eyes of
the law, be generated in equal measure in proportion broadly speaking to the
lengths of their coasts. This is one legal reason why the test of proportionality
is valid and useful.
Mr. President, while Professor Brownlie has appeared to concentrate on areas
and their equal division, the main legal argument of Malta, as expressed
through the mouths of counsel, has becorne more and more one focused on
distances and their equal division. To be more specific this means a delimitation
based on the equal division of lines joining 12 selected points on the coast of
Libya and three points on or off the coast of Malta. This isin effect the main
burden of the argument of Professor Weil. Indeed to reflect the comments of
Professor Weil, we might characterize the case as king a contest between the
Maltese reliance on the theory of distance and the Libyan reliance on the facts.
To Say. however, that this Libyan reliance on the facts involves the application
of the facts to the law rather than the law to the facts is completely rnisguided.
The setection of relevant circumstances in a particular case and the assess- RWOINDER OF SIR FRANCISVALLAT 419
ment of the legal effect of those found to berelevant is a process with which
the Court is now familiar. This is the process which Libya advocates. It is a
process which in no way involves the automatic application in a delimitation of
a pnnciple of distance. which is interpreted by Malta to mean equidistance.
In the same spirit, Professor Brownlie has accused Libya of logical inconsis-
tencies in its position conceming the lengths of coasts. But where 1ask is the
real inconsistency?
Addressing you. Mr. President, Professor Brownlie said (p.292, supra):
"moving through the logicsl sequence of issues, 1have considered the rele-
vant coasts and identified the relevant area, and 1 have indicated that the
delimitation should then be effected on the basis of the equitable critenon
of the equal division of the relevant area, which, within the geographical
and legal framework of the present case. would involve the method of
equidistance".
If one were to take the relevant area as identified by Professor Brownlie al that
rime this would, according to his thesis, correspond to a trapeziurn reaching
along the Libyan coast as far east as Benghazi and beyond. 1do not of course
accept that this is the proper relevant area for the present case. Whatever the
relevant area, the result would be the same. Equal division of the relevant area
would require a line nowhere near the line produced by the method of equidis-
tance. In the area selected by Malta, the equidistance line would not produce an
equal division - that is to say, not a ratio of one to one in the areas attributed
to Matta and Libya. but it issaid a ratio of something like 1 to 6. This would
depend of course on the length of Libyan coast involved and would become
less favourable to Libya as the length of coast selected became longer.
This is the kind of logic, or 1should say pseudo-logic, to which Malta has
recourse in seeking to find support for its equidistance method aa matter of law
in the application of a principle of distance. Yet, on this basis, we are accused
of having no knowledge of or misunderstanding the process of delimitation.
On the contrary, as the Court is well aware, delimitation is concerned with
the facts: it is the facts which are of pnrnary importance. Indeeditis only by a
proper assessrnent of the facts that the Parties can hope to arrive at anequitable
result. The role of the law is to select the relevant circumstanceand to decide,
as a maner of law, what pan rhey çhould play in the delimitation in the particu-
lar case and to test whether the result would be equitable. This is why Libya
has placed so much emphasis on the facts in this particular case.
The Court adjournt,dfrom 4.20 p.m. to 4.40p.m.
The remarks that 1was making before the break bring me to some observa-
tions on the facts. It is not for me ai this moment to deal with the relevant cir-
cumstances and their role in the delimitation: this will corne later. Bu1 would
stress again that we are, and have ken, concemed to put before the Court as
fully and accurately as possible what seem to us to be al1the relevant facis.
These facts are mainly, indeed in this case almost exclusively, the physical
characteristics of the area of delimitation. Libya, as is well known, does not
entertain any apriori concept of the superiority of one set of facts over another.
From the beginning of this case. in its Memonal, Libya has presented a full pic-
ture of the geographical, geomorphological and geological facts. Libya dms not
rely on any one of these aspects of the physical facts to the exclusion of the
others. It is not true to say that Lihya's case is wholly geological: it is, and has
throughout taken account of and been based on al1the relevant facts.420 CONTINENTAL SHELF
Indeed, Libya fully accepts that, if no weight were to be attached to the geo-
rnorphological and geological facts, a solution could be found on rhe basis of
geography alone. It would be impossible to take a different view because
although equidistance has not been by any means universally applied. even in
the delirnitations so farachieved, most of them have been based mainlyor exclu-
sively on geographical considerations. And this is for the reason that the areas
of shelf involved have been areas of uniformity and continuity. lacking the
quite exceptional sea-bed features that one has in the present case.
The view of Libya is that, whether one takes the facts individually or in com-
bination, they al1point to the selection of a method of delimitation which will
result in a line falling within and following the direction of the area of the Rift
Zone, as defined on the maps in the Libyan written pleadings.
Geography will be examined by Professor Bowett later in the context of the
relevant circumstances. 1would only stress here that there is a real and import-
ant issue between the Parties asto the role to be played by coasts and their rela-
[ive lengths in the delimitation. As Malta's case was developed once more in
the second round of oral argument, as 1 have said, it became more and more
clear that her main objective was to drown the effect of the disparity in the
lengths of the coasts of Malta and Libya in an artificial application of the
concept of distance.
Incidentally, it is not distance which Libya rejects as a relevant facl: it is the
use made of that fact by Malta which, inthe view of Libya, has no legrilfounda-
tion. We shall also have more to say about this point in due course.
Tuming to the aspects of geomorphology and geology, we have had the spec-
tacle of Matta trying to elevate the geological case to the status of the sole sup
port for the Libyan case. 1do not think that the so-called nervousness of States
or their advisers and counsel has much to do with the merits of a dispute.
Nevertheless, the passionate anxiety of Malta in the later stages to try to destroy
the scientific evidence of Libya concerning the Rift hrte has been tnily rernark-
able. It does suggest that Malta is more conscious of the strength of the Libyan
case in this respect than her words disclose.
I am going to leave this aspect of the matter to my colleagues, but perhaps 1
may be permitted to make two observations. One relates to the Rift Zone itself,
and the other relates to thehandling of the evidence.
As to the Rift Zone, merely from the angle of bathymetry or topography of
the sea-bed, one cannot Say that the Rift Zone is simply a myth or a figment of
the imagination. 1iis tme, as one can see from the map which now stands on
the easel behind me, that the zone is made up of a series of features, mainly
troughs or channels of varying depth. But no arnount of sleight of hand cm dis-
guise the fact that this series of features. collectively referred to as the Rift
Zone, is continuous from the Egadi Valley in thenorth-west through the system
of troughs and channels, in particular the Malta Trough and the Malta Channel,
and through the Linosa Trough and the Medina Channel to the south and south-
east of Malta, and then through to the Escarpments and the Heron Valley and
reaching the ionian Sea. The colouring rnay not be very good on this chart, but
the continuity of these features al1the way through is quite remarkable and can
be seen quite readily if one examines the chart more closely than one can in a
room of this kind.
The area of this zone lies between, or if you like separates, the Ragusa-Malta
Plateau, up here. And here is Malta which. according to the Mernorial of Malta.
rests on the Ragusa-Malta Plateau. It divides it from the area of the Plateau
down here - which on this chart is called the Lampedusa Plateau, or might be
called the Tunisian Shelf or whatever name one likes to attribute to it. The area RUOINDER OF SIR FRANCIS VALLAT 421
of the Pelagian Block, from the south side of the zone runs smoothly southward
towards the Libyan Coast.1suggest that nobody can ignore these very important
facts.
As long ago as 1967, Professor Burollet depicted this fact on a figure. This
figure, which has been placed on the easel and is now No. 93 in the Judges's
folder. was also used in Professor MoreIli's 1975 paper, as was brought out in
Professor Bowett's cross-examination of Professor Morelli (pp. 274-275, supra).
The figure shows clearfy separation of the areas of the sea-bed of the Pelagian
Sea, and two separate shelves marked Ragusa Shelf here, and here is Malta and
here is the Pelagian Shelf as marked on this map down below. So there is a
map which shows quite clearly two areas of shelf. These, of course. 1am not
putting forward as areas of continental shelf in the legal sense. but these are
areas of shelf in the physical sense as viewed through the eyes of scientists. The
significance of the shelves from the legal point of view is something for my
legal colleagues to deal with.
The Libyan case is that the series of features constituting the Rift Zone is
pointed up by the geology which discloses a discontinuity between the shelf to
the north and the shelf to the south. Malta, on the other hand, contends that the
whole area isa "continuum". As 1 have indicated, these aspects of the case will
be dealt with by Professor Bowett in due course.
As to my second point, rnay 1recall that the evidence was presented to this
Court in a very peculiar way. This is, of course. nota criticism of the order of
events, as arranged by the Court after consultation with the Agents of the
Parties. But 1 had understood that one of the objects of having the evidence
presented orally was IOassist the Court in getting to the bottom of the matter,
and with this in view the experts were to be cross-examined.
The practice of cross-examination has been most highly developed in the
Common Law courts. There it is generally understood that, if one party fails to
put its case to the witnesses of the otherarty, the evidence of the latter is pre-
sumably accepted.
This, of course, is not a rule of law, but it is a practice against the back-
ground of which one rnay assess the methods of MaIta as compared with the
methods of Libya. On the Maltese side there was no cross-examination on the
substantive merits of the issues. Two of the witnesses presented by Libya were
not cross-examined at al1 and none of thern was given an opportunity to deal
with the substance of the evidence or views to be given subsequently by the
witnesses of Malta.
It will also not have escaped notice that Professor Vanney was not called at
all. Was this because. as would appear from the written pleadings, his views
were not altogether in line with those of the other experts for Malta? For he
had identified the Trough and Ridge System, more or less identical to Libya's
Rift Zone. One cannot help wondering how he would have dealt with cross-
examination on the merits such as that to which Professor Mascle and Professor
MoreIli were subjected.
Mr. President, diverting for a moment, 1would, with your permission. in this
context like to mention briefly the incident which occurred at the end of the
cross-examination of Professor van Hinte. Much play was made by my good
and learned friend, Mr. Lauterpacht, with the omission of the acknowledgments
from the articlby Professorvan Hinte and others in the copy submitted to the
Court. The paper referred to in the written pleedings, and in the letter ' of
12 July 1984 transrnitting the copy of the article to the Court, in accordance
'See Correspondence,No. 82, infra.422 CONTINENTALSHELF
with Article 50. paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, was indeed a true copy of
the article as submitted for publication, with the exception of the omission of
the acknowledgments. The suggestion has been made that tl-tisomission was
deliberately made so as to mislead the Court.
That this is not true is obvious on the face of the copy submitted because the
omissions were clearty indicated by the row of asterisks and the fact that the
page numbering runs from page 15 to page 17 clearly omitting page 16. Had
the Agent for Malta been really concerned about this omission, he could easily '
have addressed an enquiry to the lawyers concemed, perhaps, or more properly
have raised the matter through the Registrar.
The mth of the matter is that sofar from there king any intention to mislead
the Court or the other Party, the intention was to avoid rnisleading them. Why?
Because the reference to the lawyers made in the acknowledgments was factually
wrong. Quite simply. there was no grant made to the Free University ofAmster-
dam - still less was there a grant madeby the lawyers to the Free University.
It is astonishing that in their diligent search of the footnotes in Libya's writ-
ten pleadings. counsel for Malta did not corne across footnote 1 on page 63 of
Libya's Reply (III). which explained the position as regards the papers written
by Libya's scientific advisers.
After referring to Professor Finetti's paper, the footnote continues with refer-
ence to the Jongsma et al. paper (1984). Again with your permission, Mr. Presi-
dent. 1 should like to quote from the footnote so as to put the record straight.
The pertinent passage reads:
"See also Jongsma. D., van Winte,J. E., and Woodside, J. M.. 'Geologic
Stmcture and Neotectonics of the North African Continental Margin South
of Sicily', a paper submitted for publication on 18 June 1984 to Marine
and Petroleum Geology. A,draft of this paper has been furnished to the
Registry and references in this Reply are to this draft of the paper. The
authors of this paper have also served as scientific advisers to Libya in
connection with the present case and their paper contains some data stem-
ming from this work."
Everybody knows that scientific advisers in these cases are normally paid for
their services by the States which engage them. The present case is no excep-
tion. But to Saythat they are paid is one thing, and to Saythat they are prepared
to put their reptation at stake by publishing the results of their work is some-
thing quite different.
So. when al1is said and done, the brilliant cross-examination of Professor van
Hinte was no excuse for failure to cross-examine hirn and the other Libyan
experts on the merits.
1should like now to retum to the substance of the case. As so often happens,
it is helpful to examine the rnaps and illustrations submined by a partyin sup-
port of its case. For thiseason. 1should like the Members of the Court, if you
please, to look quickly at the collection of illustrations submitted by Malta for
the oral pleadings which is dated 26 November 1984. 1 have it in this form.
At the beginning, ws have basic rnaps A and B. B only differs in that the
bathymetry has been added to map B. On the scale that is used it is, of course,
impossible to be precise about the accuracy of details, but the maps do indicate
the general coastal relation between Malta and Libya. South of the island of
Malta - and here 1 am using it in the geographical sense - there is a small,
almost invisible, black dot: this is presumably the rock of Filfla which is given
such a prominent role in the later Maltese illustrations1 do not know whether
Members of the Court will be able to find that black dot. 1can just see it. RElOINDER [IFSIRFRANCIS VALLAT 423
Secondly, on basic map B, subinitted by Malta and not by Libya, even as a
matter of bathymetry the continuity of the Rift Zone, al1the way through from
Pantelleria to the Malta Escarpment, is visible for al1to see.
Figure 2 is worth a quick glance because it shows the Maltese concessions,
even those granted up to 1981, as stopping in the region of the Maltmedina
Escarpments Faults Zone.
Figure3. which is again Maltese and not Libyan shows only one continuous
line of faults following, broadly speaking, the continuous line of the bathymetry
to which1 have just called attention. This is really al1the way from where Pan-
telleria lies righi down to the Heron Valley. This surely shows that the Rift
Zone is no merefigment of the imagination.
Turning to Figure4, 1would remark that this shows the Italy/Tunisia and
@ ItalyJGreece delimitations, but it is manifestly incomplete because it does not
identify the terminal points of those two delimitations. Nor does it complete the
picture by showing the Tunisiaibyaline indicateby the Court in its 1982
Judgment.
@ Figure 5 (again this is Maltese not Libyan) shows the Escarpment very, very
clearlv.
Fibre 7, do 1dare. Mr. President. is the famous or infamous, trapezium. It
@ may be compared with Figure A on page 118 of the Maltese Memorial1 am
not asking Members of the Court to turn to FigAron page 118 of the Mal-
tese Memorial. but that FiguAe shows the two sloping sides of a triangular
shape running from the top of Gozo to Ras Ajdir in the Westand Ras at-Tin in
the east.t also purports to present as areas of overlapping natural prolongation
the whole of the area contained between these two lines and the Coastof Libya.
A tmly remarkable figure, MT.President.
If one now [ums - and I would be grateful if the Members of the Court
@ would kindly do thi- to Figure 26. we find that this is marked Figure B for
illustrative purposes only, but it appears to be contended by Malta that the
whole of the area of the trapezium as shinthat figure equals the "areas of
overlapping natural prolongations as between Stated State B". And that
legendis found in the note underneath the bottom side of the trapezium which
says "Note:zone 1 and zone 2 equals areas of overlapping natural prolonga-
@ tions as between StaAe and State B". Well now translated back to Fig7,e
the shape of this trapezium would appear to coincide with the shape of the tra-
pezium on Figure 7. So this gives us a different picture of the alleged overlap
ping of natural prolongations.
@ In Figure7,however, the trapezium is incomplete in the south-west corner
and trespasseon the territory of Malta and Libya. It now seems to cut across
Malta and it cuts across the area of Libya above Benghazi. It also has a line
from what is presumably the eastcrnmost point ofta to Ras al-Tin- not
actually named on the figure but that is the poinRastat-Tin- which is
east of Ras Amir and many miles to the east of Benghazi. Of course, the scale
is again very small. B1have placed my ruler along the l1njust mentioned
and, if prolonged. would seem to reach and touch the point of Libyan terri-
tory which is Westof the Egyptian border below Crete. That point is, 1am told.
called Ras Azzaz. Even Malta seems to have realized the extreme absurdity of
any illustrative fi-uran absurdity which is underlined by the fact that it is
suggested thai the uapezium shows the areas of overlapping natural prolonga-
tions between StaAe and State B. when obviously by inference it is intended
to indicatealta and Libya. We shall revert to this point later when counçel
corne to develop our reply to the hlaltese arguments more fully.
@ Now if we may turn to Figure 8 for a moment. This figure is interesting 424 CONTINENTAL SHELF
because itshows that Libya's 1973 line overlaps very little with Malta'25-
mile fishing zone and could easily be adjusted to follow the line of the fishery
limits. It also shows that the line claimed by Libya was not quite so near to
Malta as Mr. Lauterpacht's remarks on security might lead one to believe. It is
difficult to imagine howan oil engineer on the deck of a driliing-rig could at
that distance see into the windows oflta, even with binoculars.
@ Figure 9 is in itself darnaging lo Malta's caItshows very explicitly how
Libya with its very long coast would seem to lose more to short-coastedlta
than to any other State in the area depicted: the topward line not quite complete
to the left.
1have not carried out a detailed calculation to substantiate this point, but 1do
suggest thatthedisproportionate effect of Malta by the use of an equidistance
line is really apparent on the face of the figure.
Now we come to Figures 11and 12.
@@ Figure 1I shows the three points which Malta uses as the basis for its claim
@ which is founded, cssentiïlly and fundamentally. on radial projection from these
three points, and the equal division of the distance between those points and
what are saidto be the 12 control poinls on thCoastof Libya. The pictureis
unreal. It might be compared with a small boat firing three mediaeval cannon
mounted in the bow against a broadside frorn Libya. This is the image as pre-
seniedby Malta, not by us. In the diagram the broadside from Libya is neces-
sarily concentrated on a very short Maltese coast, while the Maltese cannon are
dissipatine their shot and spreading it along the length of the Libyan c-ast
that is to say as far as Benghazi. It shouldbefnoted that Ras at-Tin and Ras
Amir have disappeared from the scene and we only have two control points
near Benghazi tothe east of Ras Zamq.
The Court may wish to ask itself how the trapezium could be adjusted to fit
this diagram and how, in the light of this diagram apart from any other consi-
deration, the trapezium could show the area of overlapping natural prolonga-
tions.
The same questions may be asked about Figure 12. But the further question
@ rnay be raised as to why ihe radius of lhe circles on Figure 12 is 2W miles and
not beyond. If one were IOwork on the basis of the Maltese thesis, surely the
radial projection oMalta from these three points would, in accordance with
Anicle 76 of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. extend beyond 200
miles in the direction of Libya? But then one would find that anarc from either
Filfla or Delimars Point might come within a few miles of the Benghazi coast,
and the extension from the Libyan points designated by Malta would engulf
Malta and even reach as faas Sicily.
But the real point is that. if Malta's theory of radial projection were correct,
virtually the whole of the area. which according to Malta is said to lie within
the area for delimitationn the presencase, would be an area of overlap sub-
ject, according to Professor Brownlie, to the principle of equal division.
Obviously Malta has not carried its argument so fat because of the manifest
absurdity and injustice of any such conclusion. Moreover. equal division of the
area would not bnng one anywhere near the equidistance lineand therefore the
theory provides no support for equidistance, which in that context becomes
mere wishfui thinking.
Finally, may 1just mention Figures 14, 15 and 16, reproduced from the plead-
ings in the Gulf of Mainecase, because they show so clearlythe contrast
between the representation of prolongation claimed by Malta through its three
control points and therue principle of law which is that the continental shelf of
a State consists of the natural prolongation of its land territory into and under RE~OINDER OF SIRFRANCIS VALLAT 425
the sea - in other words, the projection of its coasts seaward and not indivi-
dual points firing seaward like ancient cannon.
Mr. President, 1 have taken a little time io review the Maltese maps and
figuresbecause this will Saverny colleagues some time when they corne to deal
with various aspects of the case in a more orderly and logical manner. This
brings to an end my prelirninary observations on the law and the facts. Our
observations on the crucial question of how the delimitation is to be effected
will naturally follow at the end.
At this stage, the main burden falls on my co1leagues and it is our intention
that Professor Jaenicke should continue, if you please, tomorrow moming. We
should then be in s position to finish quite cornfonably by lunchtime on Friday
and it will preventbreaking the speeches unnecessarily.
TheCourt rose ar 5.10 p.m. THIRTY-SECOND PUBLIC SITTING (21 11 85, 10 a.m.)
Present: [See Sittingof 26 XI 84, Judge Morozov absent.]
REJOINDER OF MR. JAENICKE
COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THELlBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA
Mr. JAENICKE: Mr. President and distinguished Judges: the exchange of
oral argument between the Parties has served to direct the attention to some key
issues in the legal frarnework goveming the present case on which the Parties
are still deeply divided. In addressing these issues, 1 shall not repeat al1 of
Libya's legal case, but 1intend to show t-atdespite the arguments advanced
by our opponents - Libya's position on these issues is well founded in the
general legal principles of continental shelf delimitation and in the junspni-
dence of this Court.
1. THE APPL~CATIO ON EQUITAB LR~NCIPLESIN THE PROCESS
OF CONTINENT SA LLFDELIMITATION
It is common ground that the delimitation of the continental shelf between the
Parties must be effected in accordance with equitable principles. The Parties,
however, take widely divergent views as to what are these "equitable prin-
ciples" and which of them are applicable to the present case. The Court has
developed and applied some pnnciples which, in the view of Libya, are of
general application, such as the pnncipie that a delimitation should leave as
much as possible to each party al1 those parts of the shelf that constitute the
natural prolongation of its temtory into the sea. But there are, of course, other
principles and critena whicare more specific and the application of which is
dependeni on or is indeed required by the factual circumstances of the concrete
case.
In the TunisialLibya continental shelf case the Court stated that the term
"equitable principles" cannot be interpreted in the abstract, that the equitable-
ness of a principle mustbe assessed in the light of its usefulness for the pur-
pose of aniving atan equitable result and that the applicable pnnciples have to
be selected according to their appropriateness for thatpose (I.C.J.Reports
1982, p. 59, para. 70). At first sight these definitions do not seem to offermuch
guidance for the concrete case, but they indicate quite correctly where we have
to look for the eIements which combine to give an equitable result.
It is evident that the result of the delimitation process will qualify as king
equitable only if al1relevant facts and circumstances of the concrete case have
been adequately taken into consideration. By "relevant" is meant al1those facts
and circumstances which beara relationship to the subject-matter of the delimi-
cation process, that is to the continental shelf in al1 iis geophysical, geographi-
cal, legal and other related respects. It is inadmissible to exclude-inasimine
Malta attempts do to- such facts and circumstances as the physical structure
of the sea-bed andsubsoil or the marked difference in the lenofhthe coasts RUOINDEROF MR. JAENICKE 427
which abut on the area delimitation. This is inadmissible because these facts
and circurnstances have a direct bearing on the factual basis andextent of the
continental shelf and their exclusion wouldbe inconsistent with the established
jurisprudence of this Court. The Court has recognized, in principle, the geology
of the shelf and in particular a geomorphological discontinuity in the physical
shelf as pertinent facts for the delimitation of the continental shelf in its legal
sense; the Court has done so in the North Seo Continental Sheif cases, in the
TunisialLibya continental shelf case, and in the Gulf of Maine case. Itwas
because of the absence of such facts, not because of their legal irrelevance, that
the Judgment in these cases had no reason to rely on them. In the same cases,
the Court considered the length of the coasts of the parties as pertinent facts for
judging the equitableness of the attribution of shelf area to each of the parties
by the chosen method of delimitation or, in the Guifof Maine case. for correct-
ing the chosen delimitation method on the basis of the ratio of the respective
coastal lengths.
The identification of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case is the
clue to the correct selection of the rules, criteria and methods, the application of
which is required for reaching an equitable result. Ttfollows therefrom that the
delimitation process rnustallow for those rules. cntena and methods which are
capable of taking into account al1 relevant facts and circumstances of the
concrete case and of giving each of them its appropriate weight. There can be
no justification for the arbilrary exclusion of any of the categones of relevant
facts and circumstances. There can be no justification for attempting to down-
grade cnteria which have ken specifically established for taking accounl of
certain relevant facts, such as the concept of proportionality with respect to the
length of coasts. To downgrade these criteria to a lower or secondary status is
not admissible. They al1 require their proper weight in view of the particular
situation in each case.
The difference in the lengths of the coasts of both Parties is so obvious and
so pronounced that such a circumstance cannot be ignored.
The trapeziurn which Malta has considered the area for delimitation between
the Parties shows the coastal front ratio of aboutto 30, or, to be more precise,
1 to 31.4 if you take the coastal front lenaths as 35 to1.100 kilometres. This
trapeziurn is-by itself the best evidence oi the singularity of the geographical
relationship between the coasts of the Parties. Therefore. critena and methods
must beapplied which are capable of taking account of such a relevant fact;
Libya has shown and will demonstrate again that the equidistance method, by
its very construction, is not capable of laking adequate account of a discrepancy
in the lengths of opposite coasts.
11. THE APPLICATIO OF THE NATURAP LROLONGATC IONNCEPT
Mr. President, among the equitable principles, the Court has given the
concept of natural prolongation a prominent place in continental shelf delimita-
tion. The Court regarded it as a principle and rule of international law that the
delimitation must be effected
"in such a way as to leave as much as possible to each Party al1those parts
of the continental shelf that çonstitute a natural prolongation of its land
temtory into and under the sea without encroachment on the natural pro-
longation of the land territory of the other" (I.C.J.Reports 1969. p. 53,
para. 101 (C) (1)).
However, the Parties remain deeply divided: (1) on the role of the concept of428 CONTINENTALSHELF
natural prolongation in the delimitation process, (2) on the factual and legal
meaning of that concept, and (3) on the application of that concept to the facts
of the present case. I shall deal with these three controversial points in tum.
I. TheRole of the Concept of Natural Prolongation in theDelimitation Process
It is Libya's position that the geological, geomorphological, and geographical
elements of the prolongation of a State's territory into the submarine areas in
front of its coast constitute the basis of that State's title to continental shelf
rights over these areas, and that, consequently, by the application of equitable
principles. the geological structure of the subsoil, the topographyof the sea-bed,
and the geographical extent of a State's natural prolongation. al1 these criteria
are particularly relevant for delimitation. Malta, however. seeks to reduce the
role of the concept of natural prolongation in various ways. Malta argues that
geological or geomorphological facts have lost their relevance for continental
sheif delimitation under present international law; Malta tries to change the
meaning of natural prolongation into a mere "spatial" concept based on distance
from the coast. In fact, Malta replaces the concept of natural prolongation, as it
had been established and interpreted by this Court, by the novel theory that
each coastal State may, in principle, daim a continental shelf of equal reach
with that of any other State abutting on the same area of delimitation. That is,
in effect, nothing else than a disguised claim for equidistance vis-à-vis al1States
which surround Malta. 1shall deal with Malta'snovel theory in more detail later.
Libya has shown in its previous pleadings that the established concept of
natural prolongation with its geophysical and geographicalcomponents remains
the basis of the coastal State's title to its continental shelf, and that rhere is no
reason to abandon this concept in view of the new developments in the law of
the sea. On the contrary, the Law of the Sea Conference has confirmed the pri-
mary role of that concept by expressly including it in the definition of the conti-
nental shelf in Article 76, paragraph (1).of the Law of the Sea Convention.
At this juncture, 1should add some words of clarification with respect to the
use of the term "natural prolongation". In the TunisialLibya continental shelf
case the Court used the term "submarine extension" insteadof "natural prolon-
gation". but despite this difference in terminology. the Court referred in essence
to the same legal concept, narnely, the extension of the coastal State's junsdic-
tion over the sea-bed and subsoil in frontof its coast, based on the geophysical
as well as on the geographical connectionof these areas with the coastal State's
tenitory. The Court avoided the term "natural prolongation" and employed a
more neutral terni apparently because the term "natural prolongation" is some-
times understood in the narrow sense of referring only to the geophysical basis
of the continental shelf concept andin the TunisialLibyadelimitation geophysi-
cal facts did not operate to deteimine what was the natural prolongation of each
of the two States. To avoid any misunderstanding in presenting Libya's argu-
ment, 1would like to clarify that Libya uses the term "natural prolongation" as
equivalent to the term "submarine extension", covering the geophysicalas well
as the geographical basisof the coastal State's legal title to its continental shelf.
2. The Criteria Drawn from the Concept of Natural Prolongation
for theDelimifationof the ContinentalSheif
In the present case, geophysical as well as geographical cntena allow an
identification of the limits of the respective natural prolongationsof the Parties.
1shall deal first briefly withthe legal principles which govem the identification REIOINDEROF MR. JAENICKE 429
of a physical separation between the natural prolongations of the Parties before
1 retum to the more complex problem of what legal principles govem the divi-
sion between the natural prolongations of the Parties on the basis of the geo-
graphical relationship between their respective coasts. Geophysical and geograph-
ical criteria both stand on their own ground. There is no legal connection
between them to the effect that if geophysical criteria yieId no convincing
result, the application of geographical critena will be excluded thereby. The
weight of each of the applicable cnteria will determine the limits - or, more
precisely, the front line of the natural prolongation of each of the Parties vis-à-
vis that of the other.
(a) Thephysical separarion between the naturalprolongarions of the Parties
The relevance of the physical structure of the sea-bed and subsoil for the
identification of theextent andreach of the natural prolongations of the Parties
and for the delimitation of the continental shelves of the Parties vis-l-vis each
other is still disputed by Malta (pp. 392 and 394, supra).
The objections maintained by Malta against the relevance of geological and
geomorphological features of the sea-bed and subsoil run counter to the juns-
prudence of this Court. In the TunisialLibyacontinental shelf case the Court has
unequivocally affirmed the relevance of a finding of "such a marked dismption
or discontinuance of the sea-bed as to constitute an indisputable indication of
the limits of two separate continental shelves, or two separate natural prolonga-
tions" (I.C.J.Reports 1982, p. 57, para. 66); the Court added that even where
the geophysical structure of the sea-bed and subsoil would not amount to such
an interruption of the natural prolongation of one Party with regard to that of
the other, this fact may nevertheIess be taken into account as a relevant circum-
stance for arriving at an equitable delimitation between the natural prolonga-
tions of the Parties (ibid., p. 58, para. 68).
Malta's argument is that if the Court is not convinced of a geological discon-
tinuity between the shelves of the Parties, Libya can no longer base its case on
the Rift Zone (pp. 325-326 and 393, supra). This argument misconceives the
dicta of the Court I have just cited. Even in the absence of a geological discon-
tinuity it is stillcessary to consider whether the topography of the sea-bed in
the Rift Zone indicates a separation between the shelves of the Parties or
whether the geological and geornorphological features of the Rift Zone as a
whole represent relevant circumstances that support a continental shelf bound-
ary within that zone under the application of equitable principles.
Libya maintains that the geological and geomorphological features of the Rift
Zone reveal such a "marked disruption and discontinuity of the sea-bed and
subsoil as to constitute an indisputable indication of the limits of two separate
natural prolongations" on both sides of the Rift Zone. My friend and colleague
Professor Bowett will, later in the second round of this argument, in continua-
tion of his presentation in the first round comment further on the evidence put
forward by Libya in this respect; he will show that Libya's subrnission relating
to the existence of two separate natural prolongations is well founded in the
light of the legal pnncipfes1 have just stated.
(b) The identification of the division beîween the natural prolongations of the
Parties on the basis of the geographical re[ationship of the coasts of the
Parties
Apart from the geophysical structure of the sea-bed and subsoil which
already sufflciently evidences a division between the natural prolongations of430 CONTINENTALSHELF
the Parties within and along the direction of the Rift Zone, the geographical
situation between the coasts of the Parties points to an equitable dividing line
between the natural prolongations of the Parties within the same geographical
zone. Even if the Rift Zone did not exist, the extraordinary difference in the
length of the coasrs and the length of the coastal basis from which the respec-
tive natural prolongations of the territories of the Parties extend into the area of
delimitation, this extraordinary difference would under the application of equi-
table principles exclude the median line method as providing a "natural" or
equitable dividing line between them.
Malta still argues that between opposite coasts where the natural prolonga-
tions of the territories of both Parties confront each other in the area of delimi-
tation. the dividing line must always be equidistant from both coasts irrespec-
rive of the lengths of the respective coastal fronts. Libya has already in its
earlier oral argument demonstrated that such a nile has no foundation in the
jurisprudence or in the general principles of maritime zone delimitation. In par-
ticular, such a rule mns counter to the principle that al1 relevant geographical
circumstances, among [hem those which are peculiar or even unique to the geo-
graphical setting of the case, have to be taken into account in order to reach an
equitable result. There can be no question that the marked difference in the
tengths of the coasts of the Parties is such a relevant geographical circumstance
because it is the coast which forms the basis of the natural prolongations of the
respective territories of the Parties into the area of delimitation. If equitable
considerations are applied, such a marked difference in the length of the basis
of the respective natural prolongations must find expression in a corresponding
difference in their extent in relation to each other. And by "extent" 1 mean not
simply "area", but also the seaward reach of the natural prolongation of one
Party vis-à-vis the other.
If the natural prolongationsO; - if you prefer the more neutral expression -
the submarine extensions from opposite coasts confront each other in the mari-
time area between them, a substantial difference in the length of their respective
coastal basis cannot express itself merely by the relatively larger breadth of the
submarîne extension from the longer coast into that maritime area but must
express itself also by its more extensive reach in relation to the submarine
extension emanating from the much smaller coast. Whether you cal1that a dif-
ference in "weight" or a difference in "effect" between the two natural prolon-
gations or submarine extensions, it is materially the same. It is the expression of
the equitable consideration that in cases where a restncted maritime area has to
be delimited between coasts of substantially different length, whether they be
adjacent or opposite, the respective areas attracted by those coasts should cor-
respond in reach as well as size to the difference in length by which they abut
on the area of delimitation.
The distinguished counsel for Malta went so far as io admit that the lengths
of coasts could be relevant if al1the space within the relevant area were avail-
able for allocation and that such allocation would then bemade on some cntena
of distribution(p. 292, supra); he added, of course, the proviso that the result
must not be incompatible with his "equa1reach" theory.
The necessity of taking account of a substantial difference in the lengths of
the coasts which abut on the area for delimitation rests on the same reasons of
equity as does the practice of States to accord less weight to small istands or
projecting stretches of the coastline under the application of the equidistance
method. In al1these situations the equidistance method allocates to small coastal
unitsa disproportionately larger shelf area to one of the parties at the expense
of the other. Counsel for Malta has admitted that "the idea of distortion and dis- RUOINDER OF MR. JAENICKE 431
placement of shelf areas to abutting coasts" is at the very heart of the concept
of proportionality (p. 299, supra). He confines this perception to cases where
cut-offs or displacements are causcd by the "attitude and posture" of coasrs lat-
erally adjacent to each other. There is no reason to take such 3 limited view of
the matter and regard only so-called "lateril displacements" as being relevant.
The effect caused by the equidistance method in attributing to a small island
large shelf areas which otherwise woufd constitute the natural prolongation
extending from the continental coast, is no less a disproportionate displacement
and should likewise be remedied.
The distinguished counsel for Mnlta disputes. however, the relevance of a dif-
ference of coasta! lengths with the argument that jurisprudence and delimitation
agreements had so far not relied on the ratio of coastal lengths as a method for
delimitation (pp. 298 and 314, supra). This sweeping statement must be cor-
rected in several respects:
1. Malta's argument confuses the application of specific methods with the
recognition of relevant facts. Libya has shown and 1 have referred to ii earlier
that in the North Sea Continental Sheif cases and the Gulf of Maine case the
Court has recognized the relevance of coastal lengths for the selection of the
appropriate method for delimitation although the decisions in these cases did
not use ihe ratio of coastal lengths as the primary basis for a delimitation
method. In the cases which have so far been adjudicated. the coasts were of
comparable length - as was expressly noted in the decisions. so that the Court
had no reason to select a delimitation method which had to take the difference
in coastal lengths as a delimitation criierion. However, never before was there a
geographical situation where the coastal fronts of the parties which abut on the
area for delimitation differed in lengths touch a degree as in the present case.
2. The practice of States in delimitation agreements concerned mostly situa-
tions where there was no substantial difference between the coasts which bor-
dered the area for delimitation. In fact, compared with the situation in the
present case. there is no delimitation agreement which had to cope with such an
extraordinary discrepancy in the lengths of the coasts which were relevant for
delimitation. Counsel for Malta has, however, not referred to the Delimitation
Agreement between France and Spain in the Bay of Biscay or to the Delimita-
tion Agreement between the Netherlands Antilles and Venezuela, both of which
accorded larger shelf areas to the State with the longer coasi. a larger shelf area
than ihat State would have been attributed by the equidistance method. As
counsel for Malta himself remarked, a delimitaiion agreement need not
expressly mention al1the considerations which have led the parties to choose a
particular line of delimitation; what counts is the fact that these agreements
reflected the difference in coastal lengths.
In the first round of our oral argument I have demonstrated that a median or
equidistance line constructed between opposite coasts does not take adequate
account of a difference in length between those coasts. By the illustrations
No. 7 and No. 8 in Libya's Map Folder I have shown - perhaps 1should wait
until youhave had anopportunity to look again at these maps - that the amount
of area aitributed to each of the opposing coasts changes only marginally what-
ever be the difference in the lengths of the caasts which abut an the area of
delimitation. As counsel for Malia have neither referred to nor commented on
this demonstration, it seems that they do not want to dispute the correctness of
this demonstration. They do, however, seek to weaken the force of that argu-
ment by alleging an inconsistency in Libya's position with respect to the equi-
tableness of the median line between opposite coasts: the distinguished counsel432 CONTINENTAL SHELF
for Malta has made much of the so-called "admission" by Libya that in cases
where an island is situated at a short distance from a foreign continental coast,
the median line between the island and the continental coast produces normally
an equitable boundary within the maritime area between [hem (pp. 288 and 293,
supm). Counsel for Malta argued that Libya, having admitted as much. acted
inconsistently therewirh in maintaining that the median line could becorne
inequitable if the island, as in the case of Malta, is farther away from the conti-
nental coast.A simple diagram will show the fundamental difference of the two
geographical situations and will explain the logic of why different conclusions
have to be drawn in each of the two situations. If you would look at illustration
No. 94 in your map folder, and the same illustration is being put on the easel
behind me.
You will see on the rightside of this diagram that if the island is situated at a
short distance from the continental coast, the relevant area which has to bede-
limited between the coasts which face each other is bounded on both sides by
coasts of comparable length, as indicated by the shaded area in the diagram. In
this sector the median line- and only in this sector- will normally constitute
an equitable boundary. The delimitation in the maritime areas on the seaward
sides of the island, however, will have to be effected in different relevant areas
for which other coasts and other factors may kcome relevant. In these sectors
there is no presumption of the equitableness of the equidistance method.
The case of the Netherlands Antilles. which I mentioned before. is an illumi-
nating example of this situation. It is No. 95 in your map folder and now being
put on the easel here. In this case a median line boundary runs through the area
between the Antilles and the directly facing parts of the Venezuelan coast. But
outside this narrow area the islands are partially enclaved by a boundary which
attributes considerably more shelf to the Venezuelan toast than Venezuela
would have got by the equidistance boundary. In such cases, as shown in the
diagram, we have to distinguish more than one relevant area with different rele-
vant coasts; the inequitable result is not produced in the relevant area between
the directly facing coasts but in theoutside area.
In the present case between Libya and Malta there is only one relevant area
bordered on each side by coasts of different lengths. Herethe essential charac-
teristic of the area is the extraordinary difference of the Iengths of the coasts of
the Parties which abut on the area of delimitation and it is within this area that
an inequitable result would be produced by an equidistance boundary. Thus,
there is no inconsistency in Libya's argument with respect to these different
geographical situations.
All this leads inevitably to the conclusion that in geographical situations
where coasts of different lengths abut on the area of delimitation the equidis-
tance or median line method is not capable of taking adequate account of the
difference in the attribution of area to respective coasts. This standsn contrast
to geographical situations where a lateral delimitation between adjacent coasts
is in issue; there a difference in the Iengths of the laterally adjacent coasts
normally exercises its full effect on the attribution of proportionally smaller or
larger area to theshorter or longer coasts, provided that no coastal irregularities
distort the attribution of area. But between opposite coasts of different lengths
the equidistance method cannot, by its very construction, reflect that difference
in coastal lengths geometrically in the same way as it does between adjacent
coasts. This defect of the equidistance method excludes the presumption that a
median line is the equitable method for determining the dividing line between
natural prolongations extending from opposite coasts in cases where these
coasts differ greatly in length. In order to take adequate account oa substantial REJOINDER OF MR. JAENICKE 433
difference in coastal length, another rnethod must be sought to determine the
dividing line between the natural prolongations in such cases.
Libya takes the position that in such a case the concept of proportionality
which has been appiied by the jurispmdence in various forms according to the
circumstances of the geographical situation, provides the test by which one can
decide whether any particular method is an appropriate approach for attaining
the required equitableresult. In cases where the natural prolongationsof the par-
ties converged in the area of delimitation. as in the case of the North Sea, the
Court has applied the principle that the natural prolongation should be delimited
vis-&-viseach other in such a way as to leave to each party a maritime area pro-
portionate to the lengths of their respective coastlines (I.C.J.Reports 1969,
p. 52, para. 98; I.C.J. Reports I982, p. 75, para. 103). It would be a logical
consequence of this jurisprudence to apply the same principle in cases where
the natural prolongations of opposite coasts approach each other frontally in the
area of delimitation.
This would enable us to select a method for identifying the dividing line be-
tween the natural prolongations of opposite coasts in a way which accords with
equitable principles taking account of the difference in coastal length where
necessary. If the opposing coasts are of equal or comparable length. the applica-
tion of the proportionality concept justifies the median line rnethod because it
attributes equal or atleast comparable areas to each of bath coasts, provided the
distorting influence of any coastal irregularities is removed; this had been the
underlying premise of the dictum of the Court in the Norrh Seo Continenral
Shelfcases (I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 36, para. 57) when it referred to the equitable-
ness of the median line between opposite coasts. If, however, the opposing
coasts differ considerably in length, the proportionality concept requires a
method for finding a dividing line between the natural prolongations which
assures a reasonable degree of proportionality between the lengths of the coastal
fronts which face the area of delimitation, and the amount of area attributed to
each of the coastal fronts. Any objection raised by Malta against the application
of the concept of proportionality on the ground of the principle of equality is
misconceived. The concept of proportionality is designed to assure equal treat-
ment of coasts by attributing equal areas to coasts of equal lengths and propor-
tionate areas to coasts of different lengths.
The question remains by what method a dividing line betweenthe natural pro-
longations can be identified which corresponds to the requirernents of the pro-
portionality concept. Such a method must be based on the degree of difference
between the lengths of the relevant coasts. In simple situations, it rnight suffice
to have the dividing line between the natural prolongations located where the
ratio of the respective distances of the line from the coasts corresponds to the
ratio of the lengths of the coasts because that would atuibute areas of shelf to
each of the coasts which would nomally satisfy the proportionality test. How-
ever, some geographical situations are not as simple as that. in particular those
cases where the area which has to be delimited beiween the Parties is imegu-
larly shaped or otherwise difficult to define. In such cases. it willbe necessary
to calculate the effect ofthe prospective dividing line under the chosen method
on the attribution of shelf area to each of the abutting coasts. The line would
then have to be adjusted and located so as to attribute areas to each of the Par-
ties which would in the result confonn with the requirement of proportionality
as ithad been contemplated by the Court. Libya has selected methods for deter-
mining the continental shelf boundary between the Parties which do in fact
satisfy the requirement of proportionality.
At this point of my reasoning, I should make it clear that Libya's approach434 CONTINENTAL SHELF
involves a two-stage operation. At the first stage, one starts from a line which
reflects the different weight and reach of the natural prolongations generated by
coasts of different length; at the second stage, one adjusts and corrects that line,
if and in so far as necessary, until it conforms to the requirement of proportio-
nality as established by this Court.
My friend and colleague Professot Bowett will in continuation of his presen-
tation in the first round of this oral hearing pursue the discussion of how this
legal framework will be applied to the geographical facts of the present case.
Malta has denounced Libya's approach as inadmissible in continental shelf
delimitation on the ground that it would confer continental shelf rights on the
basis of mere proportionality and thus amount to an apportionment of the area
of delimitation by equitable shares - a method which the Court had found at
variance with the legal concept of the continental shelf in 1969 (I.CJ. Reports
1969,pp. 21-23, paras. 18-20). Malta's argument misconceives the legel charac-
ter and purpose of Libya's approach in determining the extent or reach of each
Party's natural prolongation in accordance with equitable principles. The
essence of Libya's approach is to select methods for finding the equitable div-
iding line between the two natural prolongations which confront each other be-
tween the coasts of the Parties and these methods are based specifically on
those coasts, for they are the basis of title. Such an approach must be clearly
distinguished from a mere apportionment of the area of delimitation between
the Parties by shares of area of undefined location and arbitrariiy delermined.
The approach followed by Libya does not divorce itself from the constituent
elements of the continental shelf concept; it rather keeps within the legal frame-
work of that concept. In order to clarify this point, I would like to cal1 the
attention of the Court to the following characteristics of Libya's approach:
1. It rests on the natural prolongations of the Parties and takes the respective
coastal fronts of the Parties from which their natural prolongations extend as a
starting line for determining their respective seaward reach.
2. It uses the difference in coastal lengthas a corrective criterion for determin-
ing the different seaward extent of each Party's natural prolongation from these
coasts of different length.
3. It restricts the allocation of shelf to each of the Parties to that part of
the maritime area which is encompassed by the natural prolongations of both
Parties which have to be delimited in relation to each other.
Thus, Libya's approachis based on a full recognition of the three elements of
the geographical relationship of the coasts of the Parties to each other as well as
to the area of delimitation: it takes account of the distance between the iwo
coasts, the configuration of each coast, and the length of each coast. Libya's
approach is not a daim for rights based on proportionality pure and simple, but
a selection of the relevant criteria for defining the limits of each Party's natural
prolongation in accordance with the dictates of equity.
In support of its claim foran equidistance boundary, Malta has put forward a
novel theory which culminates in the thesis that each State, irrespective of the
geophysical or geographical circumslances of the case, has a right to a seaward
reach of its continental shelf equal to that of any other Staie which abuts on the
same area of delimitation. The distinguished counsel for Malta has used various REJOINDER OF MR. JAENICKE 435
formulations for expressing that thesis which differ to some extent from each
other, but in essence amount to the same thing. If 1 might cite two of these
formulations, they read as follows:
"The purpose of the law conceming continental shelf delimitation is to
maintain an equality of seaward reach of jurisdiction .. ." (III, p474);
"The median line represents the equitable result in this case, precisely
because that line gives legal expression to the equality of seaward reach of
the coasts abutting upon the relevant area."(Ibid.,p. 476)
Counsel for Malta has maintained this theory in the second round of oral
argument (pp. 284-285, 287 and 292, supra) and has used his novel theory in
various places of his arguments; nearly al1his arguments depend in one way or
another on this unproven premise, and they stand or fall with it.
It is necessary to deal with this theory because its object and purpose go
beyond a mere claim for an equidistance boundary in the present case. This
novel theory seeks to establish a legal basis for arguing the irrelevance of geo-
physical features like the Rift Zone and - more importantly - the irrelevance
of differences of coastal length in continental shelf delimitation; it really postu-
lates the ptinciple that continental shelf delimitation aims at producing an
"approximate equality" between the States that abut on the same area of delimi-
tation, foremost by leaving to each State an equal seaward reach of its continen-
tal shelf and, as far as possible, even an equal share of the area which has to be
delimited between the States concemed (p. 287, supra). Counsel for Malta
believed they found support for that postulate in the principle of equality of
States, in the jurisprudence of international courts, and in State practice. 1am
unable to share this view for the following reasons:
1. The principle of equality of States does not guarantee each State equal
shares of continental shelf or anequal reach of its continental shelf vis-à-vis its
neighbours, irrespective of the geophysical, geographical or other relevant cir-
cumstances of the case. Rather, equality of States guarantees equal treatrnent to
al1States in the application of the criteria which are relevant for the purpose of
delimitation. The pnnciple of equality of States does not decide what criteria
have to be considered relevant; it does not decide whether or not the different
lengths of the coasts of the parties is a relevant fact. But if coastal length is a
relevant fact as tibya has shown. equal treatment of States will require that
coasts of different length will have to be treated differently in accordance with
the requirement of proportionality as esrablished in the jurisprudence of this
Court.
2. The jurisprudence in maritime zone delimitation has never referred to a
principle or rule which would guarantee each State an "equal seaward reach",
nor is it possible to deduce such a postulate from the reasoning of the decisions.
1 shall briefly review these decisions:
(a) In the NorrhSea ContinentalShelfcases, the Court applied consideration
of equality in the sense that the three adjacent States had coastlines of compar-
able length and that therefore they should have approximately equal shelves; it
was for this purpose that the Court required a reasonable degree of proportion-
ality between the extent of their continental shelves and the lengths of their
respective coastlines (I.CJ. Reporis 1969, pp. 51, 52, paras. 91, 98). But there
was no indication in the Judgment that the Court had been concerned with the
question whether the Federal Republic of Germany should have a seaward reach
of its continental shelf equal to its neighbours in terms of distance from the436 CONTINENTAL SHELF
coast. Counsel for Malta believed he found support for his "equal reach" theory
in that part of the dispositifof the Judgrnent which prescribed that those areas
where the natural prolongations of both parties overlapped. should be divided
equally between them. However. by this principle the Court neither prescribed
nor implied an equal reach of the natural prolongations involved. This is
obvious from the following considerations:
(i) The principle of an equal division of overlaps has to be understood in the
context of the geographical situation of the North Sea Continenlal Shelfcases; it
had been put forward in a case of converging, not confronting natural prolonga-
tions. emanating from coasts of comparable length.
(ii) The principle of an equal division of overlaps does not presuppose that
the area of overlap will necessarily be located midway between'the coasts of
the parties; that may be the case between opposite coasts ofequal or ai least
comparable length, but itmay well be otherwise between coasts of different
length.
(iii) The principle of an equal division of overlaps prescribes an equal divi-
sion of the area of ovcrlap. not an equal reach into the entire relevant area from
coast to coast. It is only within those marginal areas, where doubts remain as to
the precise dividing line between the natural prolongations or where it will be
difficult to establish the better right of one or the other party, that equity
requires the equal division of rhat area between both parties in that area where
both parties can assert a natural prolongation of equal weight.
(h) In the France-United Kingdom continental shelf arbitration. the Court
considered that the coastlines of the parties in the Channel as "approximately
equal in their relation to the continental shelf' and therefore the areas of shelf
left by the median line to each party on either side were "broadly equal or at
least comparable" (Award, para. 182). Here again the attribution of equal
areas to coasts of equal lengths, and not so much the reach to the middle of the
Channel, was the rationale for approving the median line method in that case.
In the Atlantic region, the Court of Arbitralion noted again that the coastal
fronts of the partiesfacing the area for delimitation were broadly comparable in
length (Award, para. 234). The Court eliminated, however, the distorting
influence of the projecting position of the Scilly lsles on the course of the equi-
distance line extending into the Atlantic. Here again the effect of the Scillies on
the division of shelf area between the parties was apparently a more important
consideration than the equal reach of continental shelf jurisdiction from the
coasts of each party. In fact. the seaward reach was not an issue in the Atlantic
region because the natural prolongations of both parties projected almost par-
allel to each other into the open Atlantic.
{c) In the TunisialLibyucontinentalshelf case,thepostulateofequal reach ofcon-
tinental shelfjurisdiction was neither put forward by the Parties nor considered by
the Court: neither of the Parties relied on equidistance for its boundarylaim. The
continental shelf boundary indicated by the Court was based primarily on the
prior conduct of the Parties and the general direction of the coasts of the Parties;
the boundary produced by the Court's method would not be equidistant to the
coasts of the Parties and would not conform to the "equal reach" theory. The
Court was, however, concerned to show that the division of shelf area by the
boundary line conforrned to the concept of proportionality between the length of
the respective coastlines and the area of shelf attributed to each coast (I.C.J.
Reports 1982,p. 91. para. 131).
(d) In the Gulf of Maine case the Court rejected anyobligatory force or other
priority of the equidistance method: that implied also a rejection of the "equal REJOINDER OF MR. JAENICKE 437
reach" theory and of the distance principle. None of the three segments of the
single maritime boundary prescribed by the Court is equidistant from the respec-
tive coastal segments of the Parries or conforms to the "equal reach" theory.
Where the construction of the boundary line started from an equidistance or
median line, it deviated from it considerably in order to elirninate a cut-off effect
and to take account of the difference in lengths of the coasts of the Parties.
On this analysis I fail to see how one could find support for the "equal reach"
theory in the jurisprudence. The jurisprudence rather confirms the relevance of
the lengths of coasts in continental shelf delimitation.
3. Finally, State practice, including treaty practice, does not support the
"equal reach" theory either. Liby;i has shown that the delimitation agreements
which have so far been concluded between States partly apply the equidistance
method. partly deviate from the equidistance method to a greater or lesser
extent, or apply other methods depending on what the parties to these agree-
ments thought equitable in view of the geographical and other circumstances of
the case. This has been so in cases of both adjacent and opposite coasrs. Any
numerical comparison between those existing agreements which followed the
equidistance method and those which did not, is misleading. It is quite obvious
that in cases where both parties have chosen equidistance as a method for deli-
mitation, agreements between the parties were more easily and more quickly
arrived at than in the numerous cases where the parties disagreed and still dis-
agree about the method of delimitation. That explains quite naturally why in the
existing agreements the equidistance method may appear more frequently.
The attitude of States and their legal convictions cannot be judged on the
basis of the number of agreements concluded; there are nurnerous unresolved
maritime boundary issues where at least one of the States involved regards
equidistance as inequitable under the circumstances of the case. None of the
cases which have so far been litigated before international courts, endedp in a
confirmation of the equidistance method. So the evidence is rather that, in
controversal cases, equidistance is not the answer. Nothing indicates that the
motives of State practice in maritime boundary delimitation centred around the
politicaldesirability, let alone a legal obligation, of ensuring for each State
involved a delimitation of an equal reach in tems of distance from their coasts
in continental shelf delimitation.It seems that States were more interested in
the amount of area attributed to each of rhem by the boundary fine, and in
the prospects of available resources therein.
4. Counsel for Malta has sought to justify Malta's "equal reach" theory by
linking it with the outer limit of coastal State's maritime zones which shoutbe
equal for al1 States (III,pp. 440 ff.). However. the rule that each State may
claim certain jurisdictions vis-à-vis the internationalarea of the sea up to a
fixed limit of nautical miles does not by any material reason entail the conse-
quences that the boundary between the jurisdictional zones of two States must
be equidistant from their respective coasts.
The considerations which have led - although not everywhere successfully
- to a fixed and intemationally uniform outward limit of the maritime zones of
a coastal State vis-&-vis the international area, are quite different from the
considerations which are relevant for the delimitation between the maritime
zones of two neighbouring States vis-à-vis each other. It is precisely for this
reason that Article 76 of the new Convention of the Law of the Sea contains its
paragraph 10. Comment on this paragraph is conspicuously absent in the argu-
ment of the other side. In territorial sea and contiguous zone delimitation con-
siderations of state security may be a highly relevant factor for demanding an438 CONTINENTAL SHELF
equal distance from both coasts. It is for that reason, among others, that Article
15 of the new Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to territorial sea deli-
mitation indeed prescribes equidistance as a primary method for delimitation
unless other considerations - for example, overriding navigational require-
ments such as the access to a port- necessitate another method for delimita-
tion. In continental shelf, fishery zone or exclusive economic zone delimitation,
however, the effect of the boundary on the attribution of area and on the
attribution of resources willnormally be of more concem ro States than the
equal distance of the boundary to their respective coasts; thatexplains why
Articles 74 and 83 of the new Convention on the Law of the Sea, in contrast to
Article 15 relating to the territorial sea, do not mention equidistance as a pre-
ferred method in continental shelf or exclusive economic zone delimitation.
The Court adjournedfrom11.30am. to11.45 am.
Mr. President. distinguished Judges. the last part of my presentation will deal
with the question of the relevant area.
IV. THE AREAWHICH ISRELEVAN TOR DELIMITATION IN THE
PRESEN CTASE
1. The Definition of the "RelevantArea"
The exchange of arguments between the Parties has made it quite obvious
that the boundaries of the maritime area which is relevant for delimita-ioor
in short the "relevant area" is of critical importance. This area is relevant for
the selection of the appropriate method for delimitation and for the assessment
of the equitableness of the result under the proportionality concept. But the Par-
ties hold divergent views as to proper limits of the relevant area and. therefore,
it is necessary to respond to the critiqueur opponents of Libya's position in
this matter.
Both Parties agree in substance on the western lirnit of the relevant area
(pp.396-397, supra) so that 1 need not deal with that any more. Both Parties
also start from the correct position that only those of their respective coasts that
"face" each other should constitute the geographicsl basis of the relevant area
(pp.289, 290 and 392, supra), but they disagree which coastsare relevant in this
respect. Libya maintains that only its coasts unti! Ras Zamq can be considered
relevant.hile Malta maintains that the Libyan coast up to Benghazi shouldbe
so considered. The Parties disagree completely about the eastern limit of the
relevant area: Libya maintains that the Escarprnents constitute the eastern lirnits
of the relevant area. whi1e Matta wants to extend the relevant area to Libya's
coast at Benghazi. In view of this wide divergence between the Parties it will
be necessary to define the cnteria which make it possible to determine objec-
tively the limits of the relevant area. and thus to examine whether the relevant
area as defined by bothides conforms to these critena.
If we look for appropriate criteria for determining the limofsthe relevant
area, the function,bject and purpose of defining a relevant area should forrn
the starting point for Our orientation. In Libya's view the operation of defining
the relevant area in a delimitation case has the function to provide the
geographical frarne within which the appropriate methods for delimiting this
area berween the coasts of the Parties will have to be sought; the relevant area
willhave to encompass those maritime areas which will have to be attnbuied to
the one or the otherof the Parties because it is only by assessing the result of RWOINDER OF MR. JAENlCKE 439
this attribution that the equitableness of the delimitation can be objectively
judged. If the distinguished counselfor Malta meant the same when he character-
ized the relevant area as having the "functional role in providing the framework
for the process of delimitation in accordance with equitable principles" (p. 289,
supra), 1 find myself in agreement with him. 1 am, however, unable to accept
his criticism of Libya's definition, nor do 1 find a convincing argument for
Malta's relevant area in his presentation. It is Libya's position that the "relevant
area" as defined by Libya is consistent with the functional role of such an area
and conforms to the views of the Court in this respect.
In theNorrh Sea Conrinenral Slielf cases, the area which had to be delimited
between the Parties was clearly defined and not disputed. Thus the Court had
no reason to go into that problem. In the TunisialLibya case, the Court felt it
necessary to define the relevant area, not only for determining the geographical
frame for selecting an appropriate delimitation method but also for testing the
selected method by the concept of proportionality (I.C.J.Reports 1982, pp. 61-
62, 75-76, 91, paras. 74-75. 103-104, 130-131). The Court included in this area
al1 maritime areas which were covered by the "submarine extensions" (as the
natural prolongations were then called by the Court) from those coasts of the
Parties which the Court considered relevant for the delimitation; the Court
excluded expressly the coasts of the Parties as irrelevant whose submarine
extensions could not possibly overlap with each other. The exclusion of those
coasts was perfectly justified becüuse the natural prolongations extending from
them had no contact with each other and projected into other maritime areas;
the delimitation had no effect on the attribution of continental shelf area to
these coasts of the Parties.
The criterion of potential overlap which the Court employed in this context
for defining the relevant area needs some interpretation in the ligof itsspecial
purpose. It should not be confused with the area of overlapping claims -
sometirnes called the "area in dispute" - becauseit is the whole maritime area
between the coasts of the Parties which constitutes the relevant area. The identi-
fication of areas of a potential overlap of the natural prolongations extending
from the coasts of the Parties does not imply any judgment on how far the natu- .
ral prolongations projecting from the coast of one Party rightfully extends in
relation to that projecting from the coast of the other Party; nor does the identi-
fication of such potential overlaps determine where the dividing line between
[hem will have to be drawn. The fact that the respective natural prolongations
may meet or overlap somewhere between the coasts of the Parties, merely estab-
lishes the geographical frame of the relevant area, because it is only within that
area that the delimitation will have the effect ofttributing shelf area to the one
or the other Party.
2. The Identificationof the RelevantArea in rhePresent Case
In view of the said function of the relevant area the proper identification of
the "relevant coasts" is a key issue in determining the limits of the relevant area
because these coasts generate the natural prolongations into the maritime area
which has to be delimited and it will be the natural prolongation extending from
these relevant coasts which will be affected in its extent and reach by the de-
limitation. The proper identification of the relevant area must, therefore, start
with the identification of the coasts which have relevance in this respect; the
Court will be aware that it followed the same modus operandi in the
TunisialLibyacontinental shelf case.
In that case, as I have already mentioned. the Court concluded that for the440 CONTINENTAL SHELF
purpose of continental shelf delimitation those parts of a State's coast, whose
naturaI prolongation could noi possibly overlapwith the natural prolongation of
the other, were notrelevant for the delimitation (1.C.J.Reports 1982, pp. 61-62,
para. 75). Thus, the identification of the relevant coasts requires the prior
assessment of which parts of the coast of each Party generate a natural prolon-
gation which might possibly overlapwith a natural prolongation from the coast
of the other Party. For this purpose it is necessary to identify the direction into
which a natural prolongation projects into the relevant area because this decides
which parts of the coast of each Party are capable of generating overlapping
prolongations. In the North Seo ContinentalShelfcases. the Court had indicated
that those maritime areas should be considered the natural prolongation of a
certain coasr which are the "most natural" prolongation of that coast (I.C.J.
Reports 1969, p.3 1.para. 43). The Court did not indicate that the direction into
which the "most natural" prolongation projects, will necessarily be perpendicu-
lar to the coastline; nor has Libya maintained - as the distinguished counsel
for Malta has suggested (p.351-352, supra) - that the natural prolongation of
Libya's temtory extends into the sea in a strictly perpendicutar orientation to its
coastal front. Cenainly, if two opposite coasts are parallel to each other, a
"rnost natural" view may be justified to assume that in such a case the naturaI
prolongations extend from the coasts in a direction perpendicular to the respec-
tive coastal front. If. however, the geographical situation is more cornplex. and
in particutar if the coasts of the States concerned are neither strictly opposite
nor parallel to each other, thereis no cogent reason to assume a perpendicular
projection of their submarine extensions into the maritime areas which have to
be delimited belween thern. In such situations the geographical relationship of
the coasts of the Parties to the maritime area which has iohe delimited benveen
[hem will more appropriarely determine the most "natural" direction in which
rheir respecrive suhmarine extensions project into the relevant area. However,
even in those cases the most natural projection is that whichcomes closest to a
perpendicular to the respective coastal front. Libya cannot accept the radial pr*
jection theory in the extreme form in which it has been put farwzd by Malta,
in asserting thai there is a radial extension of natural prolongations from any
point of the coast with equal seaward reach in every direction. Certainly if a
coastal front changes its direction, the geographical directionof the projection
of its natutal prolongation into thesea will also change. but it will change toa
direction by which it "faces" another maritime area. At firsl sight, it might
appear as a circular reasoning that the relevant coasts which constitute the geo-
graphical frarne of the relevant area, will in tumbe defined by their quality of
generating overlapping natural prolongationsin the relevant area. A closer look,
however. reveals that it is not so. In reality, the identification of the relevant
coasts are inseparable partsof one and the same conceptual operation: it starts
with the identification of possible areas of overlap of natural prolongation
within the maritime area where the Parties seek delimitation,and then examines
from which paris of the coasn on both sides these overlapping prolongations
emanate and which parts of the sea are encompassed by these overlapping pro-
longations. This is the only method which will ensure that the relevant area
encornpasses the "most natural" prolongations of the territories of both Parties
into that area.
The main controversy between the Parties relates to the question whether
maritime areas east of the Sicily-Malta and Medina Escarpments and conse-
quently also parts of the Libyan coast which face that area must beincluded
into the relevant area.
Itis Libya's position that theescarpments constitute the eastem limit of the RElOINDEROF MR. JAENICKE 441
relevant area because in the maritime area east of the escarpments the natural
prolongations of the Parties cannot possibly overlap with each other. This is so
for the following reason.
A glance on the bathymetric map reveals that along the escarpments the sea-
bed slopes down steeply with a high gradient to oceanic depths, forming the
edge of the shelf on the Sicily-Malta Plateau. Scientists on bothsides agree that
the Escarpments constitute the eastem limit of the edge of the shelf on the
Sicily-Malta Plateau. These geomorphological facts represent a discontinuity
which sets a limit to the physical basis of natural prolongations emanating from
the eastern coast of Malta or, correspondingly, extending from Libya's coastal
front from Ras Ajdir to Ras Zarruq.Speaking of the physical basis of the
respective natural prolongationsof the Parties,1can leave aside the controversial
question whether the legal definition of the continental shelf in Article 76 of the
new Convention of the Law of the Sea which allows a State to claim continen-
tal shelf jurisdiction beyond the edge of the physical shelf throughout the dope
and rise down to oceanic depths, has already crystallized into general inter-
national law.
2. Malta contends that Libya's coast up to Benghazi should be considered
relevant for the delimitation between the Parties in the maritime area east of
Malta. A glance at the map reveals that the area between Malta and the Escarp-
ments is covered by the natural prolongation emanating from Libya's coastal
front between Ras Ajdir and Ras Zamq, and a possible overlap with Malta's
natural prolongation to the east and south-east is caused by that natural prolon-
gation from Libya's coast. Apartfrom the fact that Malta's as well as Libya's
natural prolongations are both physically based on shelves of the Pelagian
Block, the maritime areas east and south-east of Malta are on the whole about
100 nautical miles nearer to the Libyan coast between Ras Ajdir and Ras
Zmq than to Libya's coast at Benghazi. Thus, if any overlapping occurs in the
area between Malta and the Escarpments with Malta's natural prolongations
from its coast, it is only the natural prolongation emanating from Libya's coast
between Ras Ajdir and Ras Zamq which would cover that area. This reveals
that for thedelimitation between the Parties in that area, there is no geographi-
cal relationship between Malta and Libya's Benghazi coast. That would even be
true for the maritime areas immediately east of the Malta-Sicily Escarpment if
one were to admit. which Libya denies, that the natural prolongations of the
Parties would surmount that physical banier.
3. Malta cnticizes Libya's identification of the relevantarea as bounded east
by a line drawn due east from Malta's coast to the Sicily-Malta Escarpment.
and attacks that line as lackingany legal basis. May 1remind our opponents of
their radial projection theory whereby thatpartof the relevant area is, according
to Malta's own theory, attracted by Delimara Point which forms the end-point
of Malta's south and south-eastward facing coast. Accordingly, that area must
also be credited to Malta as an area which is attributed to Malta's coast by the
delimitation between the Parties. Apart from Malta's radial projection theory, it
is a maritime area which is within the possible reach of the natural prolonga-
tions emanating from the coasts of both Parties which are relevant for delimita-
tion here.
4. It içtrue that the limits of the relevant area will have tbe defined solely
on considerations relating to the bilateral geographical relationship between the
coasts of the Parties, without taking any position to claims of third States to
parts of thatarea. But, as Malta has attacked Libya's definition of the relevant
area on the ground that its eastem limits would increase the overlap with areas
relevant to other delimitations, while Malta's definition would minimize it442 CONTINENTALSHELF
(p. 302, supra), it must be put on record that rather the reverse is tme: Malta's
trapezium encroaches much more on areas claimed by third States, while
Libya's restricted area pays much more regard to claims already advanced by
third States.
On the basis of these considerarions ifail to understand the attack on the
eastem limits of the relevant area as defined by Libya by calling it artificial or
without legal basis. The shape of this area is dictated by the geophysical struc-
ture of the sea-bed and the geographical relationship of the coasts of the Parties
to the area which has to be delimited between them. It is indicative in this
respect that the distinguished Agent for Malta expressly pointed to the Pelagian
Block. as compnsing the area relevant for delimitation in the present case
(p. 397. supra). Malta, on its side, has failed to justify its relevant area by any
meaningful criteria. Malta has not shown under what criteria the Libyan coast
up to Benghazi is relevant toLhe delimitation andwhere the natural prolongations
extending from these coasts could possibly overlap with that of Malta.
Libya maintains that the relevant area as defined by Libya responds to the
geographical and geophysical situation of the case. Libya has already shown in
the first round of its oral presentation that on the basis of that area Malta's
claim for an equidistance boundary falls far ourside a reasonable degree of pro-
portionality, while Libya's boundary proposals keep well within that range. 1
need not repeat these calcuLationstoday.
That concludes my presentation on behalf of Libya's case. Mr. President.
distinguished Judges 1thank you for the patience and attention with which you
have listened to my arguments. DUPLIQUE DE M. QUÉNEUDEC
CONSEIL DU GOUVERNEMENT DE LA JAMAHlRlYA ARABE LIBYENNE
M. QUENEUDEC: Monsieur le Président, Messieursles juges, lors du pre-
mier tour de plaidoiries, j'avais eu l'occasion de critiquer la these de la distance
sur laquelle repose en grande partie l'argumentation présentée à la Cour par la
Républiquede Malte.
Il me revient aujourd'hui de démontrer le caractère artificiel et inadaptéde
l'utilisation, faite par la Partie adverse, de la notion de pouvoir générateurdes
côtes dans le cadre d'un processus de délimitation duplateau continental.
Cette notion de pouvoir genérateurdes côtes a, en effet, étéprésentéedans les
plaidoiries maltaises comme étanten étroite relation avecle concept de distance.
II n'estvidemment pas question de reprendre ici ce que nous avons dejà dit
Bce sujet, aucun argument vriirnent nouveau ou décisif n'ayantétéavancéen
ce domaine de l'autre c6téde la barre.
Qu'il me suffise simplement de rassurer tout de suite nos éminents contradic-
teurs sur un point. Accuséspar eux d'éprouver«une crainte quasi panique. du
concept de distance (ci-dessus p. 370) et d'avoir «peur du critère de distance»
(ci-dessus p. 371), nous ne ressentons nul besoin de recourirà une quelconque
méthode psycho-prophylactique pour nous prémunir contreles frayeurs qu'en-
gendrerait chez nous te «principe de distance*.
Et puisque l'on a également soutenuque nous avions joue les Don Quichotte
en nous lançant à l'assaut de moulins à vent (ci-dessus p. 370) et que nous
avions tenté d'obscurcir le débat par des .idiscussions académiques» sur les
rapports entre plateau continental et zone économique exclusive (ci-dessus
p. 371), faut-il rappeler que c'est Malte qui avait cm pouvoir tirer argument de
la notion de zone économique pour conforter le concept de distance (III,
réplique, p. 26-28, par. 45-47: 111, p. 364-365 et 414-416)? Ce qui était
d'autant plus étonnantque Malte s'étaitopposée, lorsde l'élaborationdu com-
promis, à ce que l'affaire de délimitation soumisA la Cour portât sur le plateau
continental et sur une éventuellezone économiqueexclusive.
Nous ne sommes pas davantage saisis de panique devant la thèse de Malte
relativeà la projection radiale ou multidirectionnelle des côtes. Et il n'y aurait
pas grand-chose à ajouterà ce qu'en a dit le doyen Colliard dans sa plaidoirie
du 12 décembredernier. si nos adversaires - sentant sans doute ce que cette
thèse pouvait avoirde fragile- n'avaient cherchéà l'étayeren y consacrant de
longs developpements Bl'occasion de leur second tour de plaidoiries.
Fragile, cette thèse I'est en effetlusieurs titres.
Elle I'est. en premier lieu. parce qu'il s'agitd'undélethéoriqueet fictif qui
n'a absolumentrien hvoir avec le problèmede délimitationsoumis àla Cour.
Elle est fragile également parce que son application pratique aux circons-
tances de la présente affaire entraînerait manifestement des conséquences ab-
surdes et conduiraità un résultatdéraisonnable.
Sa fragilité réside, enfin,dans l'objectif qui lui est assigné. Cettethèse apour
unique objet de justifier le recoursà l'équidistance puisquela Partie adverse
prétend qu'en l'espèceune ligne médianeest dictéepar la projection radiale.
Je voudrais reprendre successivement chacun de ces trois points.
Examinons tout d'abord le premier point.444 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
1. LE MOD~LE THBORIQUE ET FICïIF DELA PROIEOION RADIALE
A l'audience du 12 février dernier, le professeur Weil nous a exposé, avec
une force de conviction à laquelle il convient de rendre hommage. que la pro-
jection multidirectionnelie des côtes sous la mer rksultaià la fois de la souve-
raineté de I'Etat etdes donnéesde la géographie. Il s'agit, nous a-t-il expliqué,
d'une donne inhérenteau principe selon lequel les droits de I'Etat sur le plateau
continental dérivent de la souveraineté territorialeet sont crééspar les côtes (ci-
dessus p. 356). Et le conseil de Malte d'ajouter:
«L'égalitédes Etats et la géographie côtiere sont les éléments indisso-
ciables de la projection radiale, elle-même donnéeinherente la nature
dérivéedes droits de plateau continental.» (Ci-dessus p.360.)
Remarquons, en passant. ce qu'une telle affirmation pourrait avoir de surpre-
nant si elle était priseh la lettrcar,sans jouer sur les mots, elle laisserait en-
tendre que les droits de I'Etat sur le plateau continental sont desits dérivés»,
alors qu'ils ont toujours kt6qualifies de droits inhkrents (Placontinental de la
mer duNord, C.1J.Recueil 1969,p. 22, par. 19).Mais là n'est pas l'essentiel.
L'essentiel réside dans le souci de Malte de faire reconnaître ce qu'elle
appelle «la projection des côtes sous la mer dans toutes les directions jusqu'à la
distance permise par le droit international et les données géographiques* (ci-
dessus p. 390).
Ce faisant, la Partie adverse s'efforce d'entretenir une confusion délibérée
entre la fixation de la limite extérieuredu plateau continental et !'établissement
d'une ligne de délimitation entre Etats. comme l'a rappelé tout à l'heure le pro-
fesseur Jaenicke.
Toute l'argumentation maltaise avancée à l'appui de sa théoriede la projec-
tion radiale ou pluridirectionnelle concerne essentiellement la fixation des
limites exterieures du plateau continental, en assimilant d'ailleurs cette question
à celle de la fixation des limites des autres zones maritimes (mer territoriale ou
zone kconomique), comme si aucun problème de délimitationn'ttait en cause.
De ce point de vue. il est symptomatiquede releverqu'en dkveloppantcette argu-
mentation mon amile professeur Weil s'est longuement attardésurI'micle 76 de la
convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de mer (ci-dessus p. 363-370), sans se
référer une seule foisau paragraphe 10 de cet article, qui réserve expressément la
question des délimitationsentre Etats, et sans prendre en compte l'article 83 de
cette convention, qui concerne en propre la délimitation du plateau continental
entre des Etats voisins.
Cette discrétion à l'égard des deux dispositions en cause surprend d'autant
plus que les participantsà la confkrence sur le droit de la mer ont toujours fait
la distinction entre le problème de la fixation des limites extérieures du plateau
continental d'un Etat et le problème de la dblimitation du plateau continental
entre Etats.
Une telle attitude de la part de nos adversaires s'explique par le fait que toute
la construction théorique de la projection radiale élaboréepar Malte repose sur
un postulat, dont la véracité resteiétablir. Le postulat de base consiste h pré-
senter la distance comme l'unique expression du titre juridique de 1'Etat côtier
sur son plateau continental.
Sur la base de ce postulat, Malte kchafaude alors le raisonnement suivant.
Etant donné quela distance est le moyen d'assurer la mise en Œuvre concrhte
du titre juridique de I'Etat côtier et étantdonné que ce titre dérive de I'exis-
tence des côtes, la determination des zones sur lesquelles s'exerce le titre de
1'Etat ne peut êtrefaite qu'en projetant ces côtes dans toutes les directions. II DUPLIQUE DE M. QUÉNEUDEC 445
suffit, par conséquent,de construireà partir des côtes des arcs de cercle dont le
rayon est égal à la distance exprimant concretement le titre juridique de I'Etat
côtier. On obtient ainsi la zone sur laquelle 1'Etat côtier peut faire valoir son
titre au plateau continental.
Le raisonnement est apparemment d'une logique implacable. Il n'est cepen-
dant pas sans défaut.
Son premier défaut estde faire comme si le «principe de distance>>exprimait
déjhet en toute circonstance le titre juridique de I'Etat en matière de plateau
continental. Or, il n'en est rien, comme je pense l'avoir montrédans ma pre-
miéreplaidoirie, en réponse aux arguments avancés par Malte dans son contre-
mémoire (p. 65-67, par. 126-131; p. 154, par. 327 - II), dans sa réplique
(p. 37-38, par. 66-68; p. 46-47, par. 84-86 - III) et dans les exposés de son
conseil (III, p. 385-389 et 410-415). Est-il besoin de rappeler d'ailleurs que,
dans l'affaire duGolfe du Maine, la Chambre de la Cour a rejetéle principe ou
critère de distance invoqué par leCanada?
Sans doute, au cours du second tour de la procédure orale, le professeur Weil
s'est-il attache réfuterla demonstration que j'avais présentéde l'absence de ca-
ractèrede droit positif ducrithe de distance en ce qui concerne le plateau conti-
nental. Et il n'a pas hésàtreconnaîtreà ce critère unevaleurcoutumière.IIa dit:
«II ne s'agit pas là d'une coutume quasi instantanée qui serait issued'un
consensus sans grande portee juridique. Non, on est en présence d'une
véritableopiniojuris à,la formation de laquelle non seulement la Libye n'a
pas fait d'objection, mais à laquelle elle a positivement contribué.» (Ci-
dessus p. 367.)
Admettons un instant qu'une opiniojuris ait étérévélée par lc aonfkrence sur
le droit de la mer à ce sujet. Pour étayer cette hypoth&se,il ne semble pas que
I'on puisse se contenter de citer uniquement «la doctrine des publicisres les plus
qualifiés», pour reprendre l'expression de l'article 38 du Statut de la Cour.
C'est pourtant le seul moyen de preuve avancé par la Partie adverse à L'appui
de ses affirmations.A supposer mêmeque ce moyen auxiliaire de détermination
des règles de droit apporte ici un élkmenide conviction, est-ce toutefois suffi-
sant pour prétendreque l'existence d'une opinio jurie sntraîne automatiquement
l'apparition d'une règle coutumiére?Où est en ce domaine la pratique générale
qui serait reconnue comme étantle droit?
On chercherait en vain des accords entre Etats relatifs à la délimitation du
plateau continental qui feraient référence la notion de distance.
A la vérité. onne rencontre guère de mention du critere de distance que dans
quelques législations internes; mais il est difficile d'induire une pratique géné-
rale de ces quelques précédents qui concernent uniquement, répétons-le, la fixa-
tion de la limite extérieure du plateau continental.
Quelques Etats seulement ont, dans leur législation nationale, adoptéle critère
de distance pour définir leur plateau continental. Si I'on peut parler de pratique
en cette matière, elle est surtout régionale et se rencontre chez certains Etats
latino-américains riverains de l'océan Pacifique (Chili, Equateur, Pérou, Salva-
dor et, dans une certaine mesure, Panama).
D'autres Etats, iI est vrai, ont incorporé dans leur droit interne la formule
alternative de l'article 76 de la convention de1982 et font référence A la fois,
pour définir leur plateau continental. au rebord externe de laarge continentale
et au critere des 200 milles. Mais, exception faite du cas de l'Islande, il s'agit là
aussi d'une pratique que l'on peut qualifier de régionale,car elle émane princi-
palement d'Etats riverains de l'océan Indien (Bangladesh, Birmanie, Inde,
Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Seychelles, Yémendkmocratique).446 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
En l'absence de pratique généraleo ,u de pratique émanantd'une communauté
suffisamment large et représentative,il devient à peu près impossible d'attribuer
au critère de distanceun caractère coutumier.Ce cntkre ne correspond pas au
comportement effectif des Etats.
Comme on le voit, la théorie maltaisede fa projection multidirectionnetle ne
rksiste pas l'examen. Le postulat de départ est faux.Non seulement la dis-
tance n'est pas l'unique expressiondu titre juridique de I'Etat côtier sur le pla-
teau continental, mais elle n'est même pasle moyen principal.reconnu par le
droit international général pour mettreen Œuvrece titre juridique.
Dèslors, c'est tout l'échafaudage de la construction théoriqu de la projection
multidirectionnelle qui s'effondre commeun château de cartes.
Le raisonnement dkveloppépar la Partie adverse presente, d'autre part, un
second défaut majeur, que j'ai évoquié l y a un instant, et sur lequel je souhai-
teraisà prksent insister. II s'agit de son caractère artificiel et fictif.de l'absence
de tout lien entre ce qui est un exercice largement abstrait et le problème
concret que représente une délimitation des plateaux continentaux dedeux
Etats.
Même si l'on admettailta validité du postulat sur lequel repose cet exercice
théorique - ce qui n'est pas le cas, comme nous venonsde le voir - il n'en
resterait pas moins que l'extraordinaire abstraction decette thèse conduirait à
l'écarter, parcequ'elle est sans rapport avec la réalitéd'une opérationde dkli-
rnitation entre Etats.
Le conseil de Malte a ironisé sur l'«épais brouillard» qui, à l'en croire,
recouvrirait le concept de prolongement naturelsur lequel se fonde la Libye (ci-
dessus p. 377). Qu'il nous soit permisde faire remarquer que la these de la pro-
jection radiale multidirectionnelleest tellement éblouissantequ'elle aveugle la
Partie adverse au point qu'elle ne distingue plus des operations qui sont pour-
tant différentes lesunes des autres.
L'idée de projection radiale. que nousne contestons d'ailleurs pas en tant que
telle, ne vaut que parce qu'elle a pour objet d'établirla limite extérieure d'une
zone maritime et parce qu'elle traduitla technique de construction sur une carte
de la ligne représentativede cette limite extérieure.
Elle vaut incontestablement pour l'établissement dela ceinture de protection
que constitue la mer territoriale, car c'est alors la souveraineté elle-même qui se
projette sur la mer, dans les limites des12 milles.
11est certain que cette idée de projection radiale s'applique, par exempled,ès
lors qu'il s'agit de déterminerla limite extérieurede la mer territoriale d'une
île.
Il en est ainsi en raison dela définitionmêmede l'île:entourée d'eau de toutes
parts, son pouvoir générateur de droits se fait sentir su360 degres. C'est, peut-
on dire un avantage géographique spécifiqua eux îles. Irtoutes les îles.
Cet avantage géographique n'estpas propre aux Etats insulaires. 11vaut kga-
lement pour les îles dépendant d'un Etat continental, en raison du principe
d'indivisibilité dela souveraineté,car le fondement des droits sur les espaces
maritimes adjacents reside toutjours dans la souveraineté qu'unEtat exerce sur
une île, que cette île constitue son unique assise territoriale ou qu'elle soit un
élémentdélachéde son temtoire principal. Telle est d'ailleurs la solution que
consacre et confirme l'article 121 de la convention de 1982 sur le droit de la
mer. Et, à ce titre, I'île de Gozo n'est pas moins importanteque I'île de Malte
et la souverainete exercéepar la Tunisie sur les îles Kerkennah ou par l'Italie
sur la petite île de Linosa ou sur la grande Sicile n'est pas différentede celle
exercéepar 1'Etat maltais sur son temtoire entièrement insulaire.
Mais en vertu du même principed'unitéjuridique de la souveraineté.l'idée de projection pluridirectionneile doit également s'appliquer aux côtes continen-
tales. l'angle de projection variant évidemment en fonction de la configuration
côtière.
Mais alors, qui ne voit que, si l'on fait une application généralede I'idée de
projection radiale pour la définition des zones de plateau continental, et non
plus pour la fixation destes plus restreintes de la mer temtoriale, on aboutit
inévitablement, dans les circonstances particulières de la présente affaire, 3 des
conséquencesabsurdes?
Cela me conduit, Monsieur le Présidenàenvisagerà présent le deuxieme
point de mon exposé,c'est-l-dire l'application pratique de la projection radiale
et ses conséquences absurdesdans la présente affaire.
11.L'APPLICATIO PRATIQUEDE LA PROJECTION RADIALE
ET SESCONS~QUENCESABSURDES DANS LA PRBSENT AFFAIRE
Si l'on se rkfàrla théoriedu <<Yin#et du «Yang», fondement de la philo-
sophie chinoisilfaut dans chaque chose considerer le côtépositif et le côté
négatif.
Or, en appliquant I'idéede la projection radiale aux données de la présente
affaire, Malte n'a manifestement voulu voir que l'aspectluiparaissait le
plus positif pour sa thèse. Elleligéd'en envisager le côté négatif.
Partant d'une projection radiale de principe, selon laquelle les côtes de Malte
irradieraient dans toutes les directions autour de son territoire, la thèse maltaise
a trouvé égalementsa traduction en l'espèce sous la forme d'une projection
triangulaire ou trapézoïdale. C'est, bien entendu le fameux trapèze représenté
@ la figure A du mémoirede Malte et qui a étérepris sous une autre forme et
@ dans une autre perspective dans la figure 7 du dossier maltais du premier tour
de la procédure orale.
A l'audience du 8 février,le professeur Brownlie a rappelé quecette figure
géométriqueavait pour fonction d'illustrer *la zone de convergence» des pro-
jectionscôtieres des deux Etats en cause (ci-dessus p. 290).
Quatre jours plus tard, se fondant sur la figure 12 du dossier maltais, le pro-
@ fesseur Weila toutefois réaffinnéce qu'il avait dit dans sa première plaidoirie
(III, p. 416-417à,savoir que les arcs de cercle d'un rayon de 200 milles indi-
@ qués sur cette figure 12 permettaient d'illustrer ale concept de la zone de che-
vauchement* (ci-dessus p355).
@@ Mais la simple comparaison de ces figures 7 et 12montre cependant qa'il n'y
pas de coïncidence totale entre ces zones de convergence ou de chevauchement.
Dans un cas. le chevauchement des projections côtières est liparéune
ligne droite joignant Delimara Pàil'extrémité sud-et e l'île de Malte et la
côte libyenneàI'est de Benghazi. Dans l'autre cas. la zone de convergence des
projections radiales déborde cette ligne au nord et. Nous sommes en pré-
sence d'une projection radiàgéométrie variable.
Mon collègue et ami le professeur Bowett aura l'occasion de reprendre ce
point en analysant le traitement des données géographiquesdans les plaidoiries
maltaises. Je ne m'attarderai donc pas outre mesure sur les incertitudes ou
contradictions auxquelles conduit, semble-t-il, la mise en Œuvre de la théoriede
la projection radiale pluridirectionnelle avancée par Malte.
Je voudrais seulement attirer respectueusement l'attention de la Cour sur la
critique essentielle qui me parait devoir être adràsl'utilisation faite par
Malte de l'idéede projection radiale dans la présente affairede délimitation.
Elle s'apparente,neffet,&un tour de prestidigitation qui a pour résultatde448 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
faire disparaître les côtes réelles. Comme les lignes de base de la mer territ*
riale ne sont juridiquement que l'expression simplifiéedes côtes, sous le double
aspect de leur direction et de leur dimension, il suffit, nous dit-on, de retenir
ces lignes de base, et la projection de la côte peut alors se traduiàepartir de
certains points choisis sur ces lignes de base. Mais cette équation, selon
laquelle: côte=ligne de base=poirits de base, qui est couramment utiliséepour
la fixation des limites extérieures de la mer territoriale. ne saurait toutefois être
appliquée en matièrede délimitationdu plateau continental; car elle a pour effet
de substituer la géométrie à la géographie. Elle ne permet pas de prendre en
considération les données réellesde la situation géographique, les façades
côtières disparaissant derrikre des points de base considérés commereprksenta-
tifs des côtes.
Or, dans toute affaire de délimitation du plateau continental, les principes
équitables commandent de partir de la situation géographique concrète. dont les
côtes sont précisémentun élément essentiel et mêmu en élément primordial.
Ce n'est cependant pas uniquement du point de vue de la microgéographie
côtière que le recours 21la thésede la projection radiale est ici critiquable. Il
l'est également d'un pointde vue macrogéographique.
«La projection radiale vaut en Méditerranée aussibien que dans les uocéans
gigantesquesr, a affirmé l'autre jourle professeur Weil (ci-dessus p. 356).
Mais si le phénomènede la projection pluridirectionnelle ttait à la base de
toutes les opérationsde délimitation qui restenà établiren Méditerranée.il fau-
drait admettre que toutes les côtes bordant cette mer irradient dans toutes les
directions possibles. Cela signifierait que les projections côtières des divers
Etats riverainsde la même zone entreraient en conflit lesunes avec les autres.
Et, si I'on suivait la logique de l'argumentation maltaise, l'ensemble de la
Méditerranée centrale seraitune zone de chevauchement des projections côtiéres
de chaque Etat riverain, et il deviendrait alors impossible d'envisager isolément
une opérationde délimitation entredeux Etats.
Le recours ZIl'idéede projection multidirectionnelle en matière de délimita-
tion du plateau continental conduit ainsi à un non-sens et condamne donc
l'application de cette théseen cette matiére.
A moins de considérer que laseule solution possible consiste iirecourir, pour
chaque opération de delimitation,à la méthodede l'équidistance.C'est précisé-
ment la voie empruntée par Malte: sous couvert de choisir une méthode appro-
priée. la Partie adverse ne propose, en effet. rien d'autre que de procéderiune
amputation égale des projections côtiéres respectives des deux Etats. La ligne
d'équidistance, selon Malte,est en quelque sorte dictéepar le phénoménede la
projection pluridirectionnelle.
La théorie de la projection radiale appliquée aux probltmes de délimitation
apparaît ainsi comme un moyen déguiséde réclamerle recours 2ila méthodede
l'équidistanceA l'égardde tous les Elats situCsautour de Malte en Méditerranée
centrale. Ce n'est, en somme, qu'une nouvelle étiquette colléesur la vieille
bouteille de I'équidistance.
III. LA LIGNE MÉDIANE PRÉTENDUMENT DI~~E
PAR LA PROJECTlON RADIALE
A en croire la Partie adverse, l'équidistance serait l'unique moyen équitable
d'arrêterl'épanouissement des proiections côtiéres des deux Etats. Il en irait
ainsi parceque. nous dit-on, ce; sont juridiquement de valeur @ale
et que I'onne saurait, dans une opération de dklimitation. abouti3 une discri-mination juridique entre Etats souverains (ci-dessus p. 390). 11conviendrait
donc de diviser de manière kgale le chevauchement de ces projections.
Le principe d'égalitédes Etais, qui sous-tend ainsi la théoriede la projection
radiale des côtes. est doncutilise en renfort de la thésede l'équidistance. Selon
Malte, seule l'application de la méthodede l'équidistance satisferaitle principe
d'égalitédes Etats.
Je dois avouer que l'on saisit nia1le rapport logique que Malte prétendainsi
établir entre l'égalité, comme principe, et f'équidistance, comme méthode. En
particulier, on ne voit pas alors quelle peut êtreeffectivement la portée du prin-
cipe d'égalité.
En effet. de deux choses l'une.
Ou bien le principe d'égalité signifie que tous les Etats côtierspossedent un
mêmetitre juridique au plateau continental, comme I'a rappelé le professeur
Briggs dans sa plaidoirie du premier tour. Mais, dans cette hypothése, force est
de reconnaître que le principe d'égalité n'arien voir avec un probléme de
délimitation.
Ou bien on entend confërer au principe d'égalité des Etatsune portéeplus
étendue et il signifierait alors une égalité matérielle deplateau continental,
même s'il s'agit de ce que la Partie adverse a qualifié d'«égalitéapproxi-
mative~. C'est, semble-t-il, dans cette perspective que se plaçait le professeur
Brownlie, le 8 février dernier.
Sir Francis Vallat a dejàsouligne hier le caractère critiquable de l'idke déve-
loppéepar le conseil de Malte. Je ne m'y attarderai donc pas.
Je ferai simplement observer que la démarche. adoptée par Malte se trouve
tout entière résumée dans l'affirmation suivante du professeur Brownlie:
«Malta contends that the geographical facts must be placed within a cer-
tainlegal order related to the concept of approximate equality.» (Ci-dessus
p.284.)
Prktendre que les faits de la géographie doivent être placés dantse cadre d'un
certain ordre juridique liéau concept d'<<égalitépproximative» revient Amettre
la charme devant les bmufs.
Cette démarche consiste, en effet. à prétendre que les faits, les données de
fait doivent, dans une opération de délimitation, être assujettisà un acertain
ordre juridique» selon lequel les côtes des deux Etats en cause sont présumées
engendrer un égal domaine de juridiction maritime: «toasts which are pte-
sumed to have an equal seaward reach of jurisdiction)) (ci-dessus p. 284-285).
Ce qui aboutit la conséquence suivante: ce n'est pas le droit qu'il convient
d'appliquer aux faits de l'espéce,mais ce sont les faits qui doivent s'inscrire
dans un ordre juridique préétabli.
Quelqu'un a autrefois tenté des opérations de ce genre. C'était dans I'Anti-
quitéméditerranéenne,il se nommait Procuste.
Selon les conseils de Malte. cette <<égalitéapproximative* serait respectée
des lorsque, par application de la méthode de I'équidistance, le rapport des
zones de plateau continental revenant respectivement 3 Malte et 3 la Libye
serait de 1à 5. Mais on comprend mal pourquoi le principe d'égalitédes Etats
serait respecté avec un rapport de 1 à 5 et ne le serait pas avec un rapport de
1 à 8, par exemple. Où est en pareil cas la rationalité del'argument?
En réalité, la démonsirationque Malte prétend faire n'en estpas une, car elle
part du présupposéde la ligne médiane. Ainsi, nous a-t-on dit, le rejet de la
ligne médiane «impliquerait une discrimination juridique entre Etats souve-
rains» (ci-dessus p.390). Ce qui signifie, a contrario, que l'égalité souveraine
des Etats implique l'adoption de la ligne médiane.450 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
En plaçant le principe de l'égalité souverainedes Erats au premier rang des
principes des Nations Unies énoncés dans l'article 2 de la Charte, les partici-
pants à la conférencede San Francisco n'avaient sans doute pas imaginéque
cela devrait conduire nécessairement A l'application de la méthode d'équidis-
tance pour la délimitationdu plateau continental.
Comment peut-on en arriver là? La Partie adverse parvient à cette conclusion
par une voie étrange.en adoptant comme prémissece qu'elle prétenddCmon-
trer.
En tant qu'Etat insulaire, Malte est juridiquement l'égalde I'Etat continental
qu'est la Libye. 11ne faut donc pas s'étonner,en deduit le professeur Weil,
«que cette petite île, avec ses courtes côtes, puisse engendrer, grâàela ligne
mediane, une telte superficie de plateau continental* (ci-dessus p. 387). 'On a
bien entendu: «grâce à la ligne médiane,. Car celle-ci est, dans l'esprit de la
Partie adverse,à la fois le point de départet le point d'aboutissement de toute
l'opérationde délimitation.
La démarchesuivie en ce domaine par la Partie maltaise n'est cependant pas
exempte de contradictions, Btel point que l'on kprouve parfois beaucoup de dif-
ficultesà comprendre quelle est exactement la place de l'équidistancedans la
présentationde la thèse adverse.
Ainsi, soucieux de respecter sur ce point une jurispnidence constante et non
équivoquequi refuse toute priorité &la méthodede l'équidistance,le professeur
Weil a pris grand soin d'expliquer Ala Cour que l'établissement d'une ligne
médiane entreles côtes des deux Etats étaitune étapepréparatoireet provisoire.
C'est, a-t-il dit. un apremier pas», un «point de départde l'exercice de délimi-
tation» (ci-dessus p.384). Il s'agirait d'une «ligne diattente» qui ne pourrait
devenir une «ligne de delimitation définitivequ'après vérificatiode son carac-
tère équitableet raisonnable» (ci-dessus p.85).
L'agent de la République de Malte, quant 3. lui, a étémoins circonspect,
lorsqu'il aclairement affirméque la ligne d'équidistance était normalementla
ligne la plus appropribe pour une délimitationet qu'elle ne pouvait êtreéven-
tuellement modifiée ou abandonnéeque dans des cas extrêmes,ain extreme
cases». Selon lui, ce n'est qu'en pésencede situations inhabituelles ou excep-
tionnelles («unusual or exceptional») que le besoin pourrait se faire sentir de
procéder à un ajustement de la ligne d'équidistance (ci-dessusp. 405 et 406).
La méthodede délimitation par l'équidistance ainsi entendue aboutit & une
vbritable standardisation du processus de délimitation lui-mêmeO. n aurait ainsi
un modèle quasi uniqueet abstrait, detachédes particularités propresde chaque
affaire, et qui seraitu en accord avec l'idéeque chaque cas constitue un uni-
cum.
Il est vrai que les conseils de Malte, brandissant le risque du subjectivisme
dans l'application du droit international de la délimitation, prétendent trouverun
garde-fou objectif en se référantconstamment aux accords de délimitation
conclus jusqu'à ce jour. «Tant d'accords de délimitation ontadopté la méthode
de l'équidistancedans des situations plus ou moins analogues Acelle qui se pré-
sente dans notre affaire», a déclaréle professeur Weil (ci-dessus p.9).
Mais où retrouve-t-on une situation «plus ou moins analogue* à celle de la
présenteaffaire? Existe-t-il des accords de délimitation qui aientadoptéla ligne
médianedans une situation analogue ou similaire, c'est-A-direen présenced'une
telle disparitéentre les longueurs des côtes des Etats concernés?
Sans doute, les conseils de Malte ont-ils affirméà de multiples reprises que
la longueur des côtes respectives ne saurait jouer un rôle dans la délimitation.
Ne craignant pas de contredire cette affirmation, ils ont tenté néanmoins de
trouver dans la pratique des Etats des accords de délimitation qu'ils préten- DUPLIQUE DE M. QUENEUDEC 451
daient fondés sur l'équidistanceet qui seraient intervenus entre un Etat ?icôte
courte et un Etat côte longue.
Leur quêtea cependant étévaine. comme l'ont montré les cartesutilisées
pour illustrer la plaidoirie du doyen Colliard.
Et il convient de remarquer que la Partie adverse n'a pas fourni pour le
second tour des cartes démentant celles présentéespar la Libye. Celles que
Malte a utiliséesau second tour figuraient déjii,pour la plupart, dans le dossier
libyen du premier tour, notamment les cartes relatives aux délimitations France-
Maurice et France-Sainte-Lucie intervenues entre des côtes insulaires de dimen-
sions comparables.
La raison en est simple. Les exemples de «State practicen cités ?il'appui des
assertions maltaises sont dépourvus de pertinence. Et la pratique des Etats ne
fournit aucun exemple d'une délimitation intervenue dans une situation sem-
blable, ou même simplement comparable, ii celle qui existe dans la présente
affaire. Cette affaire est sans analogie dans la pratique.
Les conseils de Malte n'ont cessé derépéter à satiétéque la situation géogra-
phique est ici d'une grande simplicitéet qu'il convient donc d'appliquer pure-
ment et simplement la méthodede l'équidistance,parce que cette méthodepré-
sente elle-même l'avantagede la simplicité.
Si nous récusons cette façonde voir, c'est parce que le fait de soumettre la
présente affaireh la Cour ne peut avoir d'autre signification que de vouloir par-
venir à une solution fondee sur le droit et non sur la géométrie.
Et le droit international applicable ?i la délimitation du plateau continental
entre Etats, tel qu'il est aujourd'hui formule?Il'article 83 de la convention sur
le droit de la mer, énonceune obligation de résultat équitable,laissant aux Etats
intéressés,ou au juge, le choix des facteurs pertinents en fonction des circons-
tances.
En édictant l'obligationde parvenir Bune solution équitable, sansconférer de
prioritéà aucune méthodeparticulière, l'article 83 montre-clairement que cha-
que affaire de d6limitation ne peut être régléqeu'en fonction des facteurs et cir-
constances qui lui sont propres.
Aussi, aux fins de la présentedClimitation, ilimporte d'examiner l'ensemble
des facteurs etcirconstances de l'espèce.C'est ce ?iquoi va s'attacher demain le
professeur Boweti.
Monsieur le Président, Messieursles juges, en vous remerciant de votre bien-
veillante attention, je tien21vous dire de nouveau combien j'ai ressenti l'hon-
neur de m'adresser à vous au nom de I'Etat libyen.
L'audienceest lerde à 13 heures THIRTY-TWIRD PUBLIC SITTING (22 11 85. 10am.)
Presenr: [See sitting o26 XI 84, Judge Morozov absent.]
REJOINDER OF PROFESSOR BOWETT
COUNSEL FOR THE COVERNMENTOF THE LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHlRlYA
Professor BOWETT: Mr. President. Mernbers of the Court, as in the first
round, it falls to me to examine the relevant circumstances of the present case
and to consider how these rnay affect the selection of the appropriate methods
of delimitation, in accordance with legal principle.
1again begin with geography, just as I did in the first round. becaus1want
to re-emphasize the importance of the geographical e!ements in Libya's case.
The geographical circumstances are not only relevant to Libya's case, they are
vital. and there should be no doubt in the Court's mind that Libya's Submis-
sion 9 was designed and drafted quite specifically so as to embrace these geo-
graphical factors. They are,an essential part of the "physical factors" relevant in
thiscase. No equitable result could ignore thern.
The Court, quite rightly, is not concerned with physical factors- be they
geographical or other - except in relation to the legal principles relevanta
shelf delimitation.
The Legal Principles
It is important, therefore, to start with the legal principles which provide the
framework within which our consideration of the geography must take place.
There are, in my view. four such principles:
First, the identification of each State's "natural prolongation" is a process
which requires recognition of the actual geographical circumstances of each
case (North Sea Continental Shelf cases, I.C.J. Reports 1969. pp. 49. 54.
paras. 91, 101 (D); TunisiolLibyacase, I.C.J.Reports 1982, p. 46, para. 44).
Second, it isthegeographic correlation between the coast and the submerged
areas off that coast that form the basis of each State's title (TunisialLibyacase.
I.C.J.Reports 1982, p. 61, para.73).
Third, equity does not require equality but rather requires that account be
taken of the actual differences in coastal lengths (North Sea Continental SheIf
cases, I.C.J. Reports 1969. p. 49, para. 91; AngloFrench Arbitration, 1977,
para.249; TunisialLibya case, I.C.J. Reports 1982, p. 91. para. 13 1; Gulf of
Maine case, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 334, para. 218).
Fourth, the geographical configuration of the coast of each Party must be
examined, for this will assist in identifying which sea-bed areas are in fact
extensions of those coasts (North Sea Conrinental Shelf cases. I.C.J. Reports
1969, pp. 51, 54, paras. 96, 101 (D) (1); TunisialLibya case, I.CJ. Reports
1982, pp. 82, 86. 93, paras. 114. 122, 133, B (2)). RWOINDER OF PROFESSORBOWETï 453
It is in the light of these principles that 1 would now wish to review, very
bnefly, the actual facts of this case. My friend Professor Weil made some criti-
cism of rny earlier oral ptesentation on the ground that 1 was obsessed by the
facts and ignored the law (p. 378, supra). Mr. President, I do not speak in
isolation. My colleagues, Professor Jaenicke and Professor Quéneudec, have
addressed the law, and 1have no wish to waste the Court's time with repetition.
Mine is the more mundane task of outlining the relevant circumstances.
Obviously, that is a largely factual exercise. But the importance of that exercise
has been made clear by the Court in its 1982 Judgment. when it stated that it is
the relevant circumstances that control what result is equitable. So 1 turn,
without apoIogy, to the facts.
The Facrs
The geographical facts really centre around two questions. These are: what
are the relevant coasts and what is the relevantrea?
Relevant coasts
As to the relevant coasts, we are in virtually the same position as we were
when 1outlined Libya's views in the first round. The crucial and inescapable
fact is the glaring discrepancy in the coastal lengths of the two Parties.
The identification and measurement of the Maltese coast is not an easy mat-
ter, in part because the islands are tilted away from Libya, facing south-west
towards Tunisia rather than facing directly south towards Libya. Moreover,
there are the two separate islands - Gozo and Malta - and a good deal of
irregularity.1 previously suggested that a straight line 'from Ras il-Wardija to
Delimara Point, a distance of 40.6 kilometres was a generous view of Malta's
coast. But even that left us wita ratio of 8.6: 1 in Libya's favour.
Malta has not offered any alternative method of measuring its coast, so one is
rather at a loss to suggest what might be the most favourable view of the Mal-
tese coast. Frankly,1 find a good deal of inconsistency in the Maltese oral argu-
ments on the question of Malta's relevant coast. Professor Brownlie took Our
figure of 40.6 kilometres, at least for purposes of argument (p. 288, supra).Pro-
fessor Weil was adamant that Malta's east-facing coast - 1 assume he meant
this stretch between Delimara Point and Point Zongor - could not be ignored
(p. 359, supro). It is, of course.a rather short stretch of coast, only 5.4 kilo-
metres. Yet MI. Mizzi was equally adamant that this same easteriy-facing coast
was relevant only to a delimitation with Italy. 1 have the clear impression that
Malta has never been prepared to identify - either graphically or even concep
tually- what the relevant coasts really are.
My submission is that, however you approach the matter, an 8: 1 ratio is
about as realistic an assessment of the respective coastal lengths as you can get.
Libya's coast is an easier matter. We have heard not one convincing argu-
ment for taking the relevant Libyan coast beyond Ras Zarruq. Indeed, al1 the
arguments go the other way. The moment one goes further east than Ras Zar-
mq, the coast cannot realistically be said to lie opposite to Malta. but rather to
Italy. Thus the areas off that coast must be left for delimitation with Italy. And.
as the Coun has heard from Malta's own expert witnesses, you are in a differ-
ent domain, a different shelf in fact. Of course, Malta's trapezium takes no
notice of any of the physical features. It is a pure abstraction. designed to
accommodate within it the maximum reach of Malta's equidistance claim to the
east. 454 CONTINENTAL SHELF
No doubt the Court has asked itself the question1have asked rnyself. Why is
it thatMalta's radial projection is used only against Libya? Why should not
Crete, or the Greek mainland. or, indeed, even Albania benefit from Malta's
radiance? If 1cm invite the Court to examine this rnap, now behind me (map
@ No. 96 in the Court's folder) you see sketched on there not only the eastern arm
of Malta's trapezium in relation to Libya but also similar radial projections to
Crete, Greece, and Albania, projections over lesser distances to those coasts. So
by Malta's reasoning, these coasts are opposite to Malta in exactly the same
way as the Libyan coast. But if that is true, why is Malta not seeking a delimi-
tation with Crete and Greece and Albania? Why is Libya singled out for the
unique benefit of Malta's radiance?
The obvious answer would be that the idea is absurd, because this wou1d
involve a Maltese claim in areas only appropriate for a delimitation between
Italy and Greece. But, of course. theame absurdity affects the trapezium figure
with Libya, for this involves a claim by Malta in areas only appropriate for
delimitation between ltaly and Libya. Mr. Mizzi has said that Malta has no deli-
mitation with Greece (p. 394, supra), but the question is, why not? Why is
there no overlap of radial projections with the Greek coast. if there is such an
overlap with the Libyan coast east of Benghazi? It is the logic of this difference
which is missing.
This illustrationconfirms Libya's view that the relevant Libyan coast must
stop at Ras Zamq. So 1can see no reason for altering our previous estimate of
the relevant Libyan coast. It is the coast from Ras Ajdir to Ras Zamq, a dis-
tance of 350 kilometres.
The upshot of this is that we have to take account ofa very large difference
in coastal lengths. Its a difference far greater than any the Court has encoun-
tered in its previous cases. Taken simply as a difference in length, you can
express that difference as being. approximately in the order of 8: 1; in fact it
could be anywhere between 6: 1and12: 1 depending on the way in which you
measure the Maltese coast. Of course, that is the ratio of coastal lengths and
nothing else. If, as Libya contends is right, you also take account of the land-
mass lying behind those coasts, then this would tend to justify the higher ratio,
12:1, as more likely to lead to an equitable result. Nevertheless, Libya accepts
that the Court is not engaged in an exercise of precise mathematics. What is an
equitabie result is the product of many factors: but the end result, the equi-
table result. must, in Libya's view and consistently with the legal principles
expounded in the Court's own jurisprudence, bear a reasonably close relation-
ship to the difference in the coastal lengths of the two Parties.
Relevantarea
The second question is to determine the relevant area. 1 believe the Court's
task in relation to this question has not sirnplified. For the one thing which
emerged with absolute clarity from the examination of the scientists of both
Parties, and1 return to this point later, is that the shelf ends at the Escarpments
in the east. The one point on which thece was absolute agreement was that the
Escarpments were a real discontinuity, a very clear dividing line between two
quite different domains. And, of course, this purely scientific view of the limits
of the area, terminating along this agreed line of discontinuity, serves another
purpose. Itprevents the delimitation in this case from extending too far inthe
area which is known to be the subject of claims by Italy. My good friend. Pro-
fessor Weil, has rightly pointed out that Italy appears to have claims Westof the
Escarpments. That is hue, and as I said in the first round, Italy will have to RElOlNDER OP PROFESSOR BOWm 455
decide whether to proceed againsi Malta in the area to the north of the Medina
Channel. or against Libya in the area south of the Medina Channel in due
course. But we do not have IO define the relevant area, for our purpose. so to
exclude totally al1areas which mriybe subject to third State claims. The Coun
recognized that principle in defining the relevant area in the 1982 case. What
we do have to do is to exercise reasonable judgment and avoid including in Our
relevant area a shelf area which is beyond what Malta can reasonably claim,
and conversely well within an area which, on al1 the facts, is patently more
appropriate for a delimitation between Italy and Libya. The line of Escarpments
achieves thai purpose. There remains the problem of linking this eastem limit
to the area with Malta itself. The simplest solution seems to be to make that
link by a line of latitude, drawn from Delimara Point to the line of the Sicily-
Malta Escarpment. For the identification of a relevant area is not an exact,
cartographical exercise. One has only to recall the Court's own use. in 1982,
of two straight fines- the latitude from Ras Kaboudia and the longitude from
Ras Tajoura - to perceive what is required. We need sirnply a general,
approximate area which can reasonably be said to encompass the shelf areas
projecting from the two relevant coasts, and therefore the area relevant to deli-
mitation between those two coasts.That area will then provide the confines for
any line of delimitation, so as toexclude the risk of encroachment into areas
relevant only to a delimitation with third States. And, additionally, the relevant
area will allow the Court to use ihe test of proportionality. Mr. Mizzi objected
to this line of latitude closing the relevant area in the north, and he appeatod
be offering as an alternative a line joining Delimara Point to the top of the
@ Medina Escarpmeni, as shown on Malta's map No. 42. The apparent reason for
thiswas that the area east of Malta is nothing to do with Libya: it is only rele-
vant to delimitation between Malta and ltaly (p. 397. supra).
I am bound to say that 1 find this reasoning extraordinary. Malta's own tra-
pezium figure includes large areas of shelf east and south-east of Malt- well
outside this new closing line offered by the Agent for Malta.
And. if Malta claims to have an overlapping, natural prolongation with Libya
stretching 'as far as Ras at-Tin,hy what process of reasoning could Libya be
denied a natural prolongation stretching into this area? The reasoning is not
only contradictory with Malta's own case, it is manifestly the adoption of
double standards.
So much for the eastern limits to the area. What about the western Iimits?
As suggested last time, we believe it is imperativeIOrespect the Court's own
indicationof an appropnate line between Libya and Tunisia, as expressed in the
Court's 1982Judgment. So that takes us to approximately this point. From hem,
the exercise is obviously more subjective. You could simply join this point with
the extreme western tip of Gozo. The objection to that might be that such an
area overlaps with a small section of the Italianflunisian delimitation of 1971
- for Point 32 of that delimitation lies here. If that were thought to be a
serious obstacle, then the western limit could be made by a linof two sections,
one to Point 32, the other frorn Point 32 to Gozo, like this. The difference to
the relevant area would notbe great. The important thing to bear in mind would
be that Tunisia would not seem to have claims east of Point 32: for othenvise
Tunisia would not have agreed to that Point. My impression is that the western
limits are more or less agreed between the Parties. As the Agent for Malta
rightly pointed out (p. 397, supra). the western limits proposed by Libya do not
depan substantially from the line suggested by Mr. Lauterpacht.
If,therefore, the geographical facts give us the relevant coasts and the rele-
vant area - taking account of the interests of third States as pan of thgeo- 456 CONTINENTALSHELF
graphical pattern- the essential geometrical problem becomes clear. It lies
simply in this. We have a short coast facing a long coast. That iç the crux of
the problem. If we had two equal coasts the situation might be described as
normal and there would be no problem: but we do not have equal coasts in
the situationbefore us, and that is why itis not a normal situation and we do
have a problem.
@ The consequences can be seen from ihis simple diagram. No. 97 in the folder,
which 1sdesigned to show how inequitable the equidistance principle is in this
situation. If a short coast faces another coast eighttimes its length, and you
depict the relevant area as a triangle or trapezium, asalta does, then neces-
sarily the area closes, or narrows towards the short coast. In the diagram, the nar-
rowing is regular, producing almost a triangle. It is true that in the relevant area
as defined by Libya you also get some narrowing. But that shape has been
adjusted in the light of the actual geography, to give the short coast more
breathing-space, more area. at the sides because of its radial projection. But the
narrowing is inescapable even there.
However, the Maftese trapezium accentuates the problem. for in such an area,
inescapably, there is an overlap of projections. For, notionaily. you can view the
long coast as eight little short coasts, side by side, each equal to the opposite
short coast. Any one section, raken in isolation, would have its own projection
towards the opposite short coast producing a sort of "band". But,ecause of the
narrowing, each separate "band" encroaches on that of its neighbour. On this
diagram you can see the areas encroached - or "cut off' if you will - are
substantial in the lower half of the figure. but almost complete in the upper
half. So you have to move the line upwards towards the apex. reducing the sea-
ward reach of the short coast, if you are to preserve equality between the two
coasts. For this short coast cannot claim both equal reachnd"radial spread".
Ifyou do no1do this. this means that each section of the long coast is denied
ils full share of the band to which it would be entitled if in isolation. mat is
because of the encroachment of the prolongation of the adjoining section of
coast. Nor can one ignore this fact by saying, "oh, but al1the coast belongs to
one State, so you cannot split it up into sections!" We would face exactly the
same problem if each section belonged to a different State. And, as I understand
the Court's jurisprudence, the question of what shelf attaches to a particular
coast does not depend upon the accident of political affiliation. of political
separateness or identity.
The implication can be expressed in another way. Looked at from the short
coast, that coast isrepresenting itself as equal to al1 of the opposite sections
combined. But the effect of the triangle or trapezium is to force the projection
of each section of the long coast inwards, towards thapex of the triangle. Now
why should the short coast be entitled to a radial projection. but the section of
the long coasr be denied any radial projection? One can make the point drama-
@ tically, or diagramrnaticafly as shown on Figure 98 in your folder. If each sec-
tion of the long coast, equal in length to the short section of opposite coast,
is to be granted an equal radial projection. then you cannot confine those radial
projections within the triangle. If your relevanma is a triangle, and you do
confine it, then you cm only preserve equality between the long and the short
coasts by reducing theseaward reach of the short coast.
Whichever way you put it, it is clear that the result of equidistance within a
triangle or trapeziumis not to treat equal coast equaily. You simply cannot treat
each equivalent stretch of coast, kilometre for kilometre, in an equal manner.
On the contrary. the resuit is ro favour the short coast. or penalize the long
coast - certainly if equidistance is used. RWOINDER OF PROFESSOR BOWlTi 45 7
And it is no answer to Say that equidistance gives to the short coast only one-
quarter of the area, not half. For that is a deception, as can be seen by this next
@ figure, which is Figure 99 in your folder.
This figure demonstrates that the 1 to 3 ratio - the quarter share - is
broadly true within the triangle. But this totally misrepresents the true entitle-
ment of the short island coast. Because. obviously, this short coast generates
additional areas of entitlernent. here and here, and that is a necessary conse-
quence of the island's radial projection.Let therbe no misunderstanding about
Libya's view on radial projection. Of course we accept thatan island's coast is
ptojected. radially, through 360 degrees. It is precisely because of this that an
equidistance line is so inequitable: it attracts so large an area of shelf to the
island.
And it is important to dwell on this point. Let me take a hypothetical
@ example as shown on Figure 100 in your folder. Here we have a sea-area sur-
rounded on four sides with coastal StatesA, B, C and D: each with a 500-kilo-
metre coast. Let us place a small island in the middle of this area, Sayan island
with one kilometre of coast facing each of the four surrounding States. If we
adopt a triangle- or more accurately a trapezium - in relation to each of the
four surrounding States,then the small island gets only one-quarter of each tri-
angle, for the equidistance line divides the trapezium in the ratio of 1:3. So in
relation to a single triangle, the quarter share of the island mayrhaps stnke
you as not outrageous. But then compare the end result, in which, because of its
radial projection, the island clairns the same entitlernent against each one of the
four surrounding States. The endresult is that this smaH island obtains a pater
share of the entire area than any of the surrounding States. Each State, despite
its 500-kilometre coast. gets less of the total area than does this small island.
Expressed as a fraction, the one-kilometre square island gets roughly four-
sixteenths of the area (a quarter): each coastal State gets only three-sixteenths.
1s it really possible to regard the larger part of this sea area as more naturally
the prolongation of thissmafl island than of the four long-coasi States? Surely
not, Mr. President.
Obviously, the actual facts of the present case are not so extreme, or so
simple. But even they will demonstrate the glaring inequity of Maltais equidis-
tance principle. Let us postulate an area using the 38' line of latitude, and the
16"line of longitude: you see the area outlined in black on this map (Fig. 5).
You will see sketched in the same map the 1971 Italy-Tunisia delimitation line
sketched in red and Malta's equidistance claim-line in yellow, as well as the
Court's 1982 line for Tunisia-Libya, but, of course, projected on to meet
Malta's equidistance claim. A fair estimate of the coastal lengths of the four
States isMalta 102 kilometres (that is, of course, alt round the Maltese coast).
Libya 492 kilometres. Tunisia 579 kilometres, and Italy 421 kilometres. Very
roughly, the ratios are Malta 1, Libya 5, Italy 4. Tunisia betwee5 and 6. Yet
Malta would get 23.7 per cent of the area (58.845 km2). Libya 30 per cent
(74,379 km2). Italy 20.7 per cent (51,210 km2), and Tunisia 25.6 per cent
(63,301 km2).The cornparison with Tunisia is the most striking. With 5.7 times
the total length of Malta. Tunisia gets virtually the same shelf area.If you com-
pare shelf area to landmass. Malta enjoys a ratio of 187 to 1, compared with
Libya at 0.04 to 1,Tunisia at 0.39 to 1, and Italy, that is Sicily only, at 1.99 to
1. So each square kilometre of Malta gets a thousand times the area of shelf as
each square kilometre of Libya.Those results are so offensive to common sense
that it seems obvious that, in this type of situation, equidistance cannot be the
equitablernethod.
The point can be illustrated in yet another way. May 1 invite the Court to458 CONTINESTAL SHELF
look at No. 102 in your folder. In that we show two exercises. Now the upper
section shows Malta as it is. but replaces the long Libyan coast with a small
island - you will see it in black: as the Court can see. the red equidistance
boundary between the two Maltas remains almost the same as the original equi-
distance boundary in black. Now the lower section reverses the exercise: it
shows a long Libyan coast replacing the island of Malta - you see it there in
this broad red band - and, of course, reversed so as to face south towards the
aciual Libyan coast: again'.the red boundary between the two Libyas rernains
almost the same. Now there must be something wrong to produce those results.
It is inconceivable that you can substitute short coasts for long coasts. and long
coasts for short coasts.and yet have it make not a scrap of difference. It does
not make any kind of sense. What is wyng is the method as applied in this
situation. As we have said repeatedly, je equidistance method sirnply is not
appropriate for reflectina large discrepancy in coastal lengths.
Mr. President, I will retum to this problem in due course, and try to offer the
Court some alternative ideas, or methods. which in Libya's view have far
greater ment than equidistance. At this stage my purpose was the more limited
one of describing the geographical realities of the situation and demonstrating
that equidistance cannot be the mswer to the problems posed in ihis case.
Before doing thai. however, 1think 1 ought to deal with the other categories
of relevant facts: those derived from geomorphology and geology.
Geomorphology and geology
There are two preliminary points of importance. The first isthat it is not
necessary, or even correct. to regardthese facts of geomorphology and geology
as a quite distinct, separate category from the facts of geography. They are al1
concerned with the physical facts. Moreover, the area under study is the result
of a complex. but interrelared process of evolution in which geology, geomor-
phology and geography cannot be divorced. The geography is the direci result
of the geology: were it not for the creation of the Rift Zone. there wouldbe no
Malta. And the difference between the geomorphotogy and the geography is
simply sea level: one area is covered by water. and the other not.
1recall the point being put so well by Professor Morelli in the TunisiulLihyo
case. He said:
"Geography .. .is not an accident, but the result of physical causes. It is
the consequence of the tectonic evolution of an area and of the geological
structures below it." (I.C.J.Pleudings. ContinentalShelf (Tirnisiullib~un
Arub Jumahiriya), Vol. 1V.p. 518.
Thus, this is a case in which it is possible to view the relevant physical facts
comprehensively, allowing geography, geomorphology and geology to fom an
integral pattern. The true relevance of al1 these facts is better seen when they
are viewed as a whole, and not by isolating geography into a quite separate
category.
My secondary preliminary point concerns the role of these physical factors.
As pointed out in the Libyan Mernorial (1) (paras. 6.52-6.54). the Court in the
TunisialLibyo case ernphasized that the physical evidence of geology and geo-
morphology may make possible the identification of a clear division between
two distinct natural prolongations, otwo shelves. Indeed the arguments of both
Parties have ken pnncipally directed to this aspect of the facis: naturally
enough. because it is Libya's case that they do. But even if they do nor, then
the Court has identified another possible role for such physical facts. They may RElOlNDER OF PROFESSOR BOWE'IT 459
yet play an imponant role as "relevant circumstances". supplementing the other
facts of geography, of conduct. OFdelimitations with third States which. in their
totality,will determine what result is equitable.
Let me tum now quite specifically to the geomorphology and geology.
Thephysiral far.tors - ,qeoninrpholo).q.vtid .veolr~.y.v
In approaching what rnightbe termed the "scientific evidence". 1 must resist
the temptation to cross swords with my friend, Mr. Lauterpacht. However much
he and 1 might enjoy the exercise. 1 believe 1 can assist the Court at this late
stage far better if1attempt to summarize the state of the evidence.
00th Parties must prove their case. Malta rather assumes that itis for Libya
to prove that the Rift Zone is ü discontinuity, and, if we fail. Malta wins. But to
support Malta's own claitn is just as much Malta's obligation to prove that
there is a continuity, a single unified shelf. both between Malta and Libya in
the Pelagian Seü andbetween Malta and the area east of the Escarpments stretch-
ing far out into the loniün Sea. Thüt burden of proof Malta has scarcely
attempted. We have heard some attempts by Malta to assert that the Pelagian
Block is a unity, stretching al1the way from the African Coast IO Sicily, despite
the accumuliition of evidence to the contrary. But Malta has made virtually no
attempt ta demonstrate ÿ.unity across the Sicily-Malta Escarpment. A glance at
the mode1 beside me is sufficieni to explain why Malta has not attempted the
impossible. The barrier of the Esclirpment is really insurmountable.
In the weighing of evidence the Court also faces a rather unusual difficulty.
The fact is that counsel for Malta declined to cross-examine two of the three
experts produced by Libya. And as Sir Francis Vallat has pointed out, in legal
systems which use this technique of exümining evidence - certainly in al1
common-law systems - the consequence of such a failure is that a party is
deemed IOhave accepted such evidence. Frankly, 1do not see it possible to jus-
tify this refusal10 cross-examine by whüt my friend, Mr. Lauterpacht. regürded
as the "revelation" of themissing page. Now. the Court has heard the true facts
from Sir Francis Vallat. and the whole so-called "revelation" is shown IO be
simply grasping ai straws. But even if my friend. Mr. Lauterpacht. did believe
ai the time thai he had made a dramaiic discovery. why should that eliminate
the need IO cross-examine Dr. Jongsma and Professor Finetti? Why should it
excuse the failure to do so? In rnysubmission, Mr. President. given this failure,
the Court is entitled to ireai the evidence of rhese two experts as unchallenged
by Malta. Indeed. the position is the reverse of what my friend, Mt. Lauter-
pacht. assumes. He commented that Professor Finetti had offered no explanation
of why his views hardened between 1982 and 1985 (p. 342. supro), and then
invited the Court to treat Professor Finetti's views with caution. But why was
that question not put directly to Professor Finetti by Mr. Lauterpacht? The fact
that itwas not put entitles the Court to reüch the opposite conclusion to that
suggested by Mr. Lauterpacht.
And now to the essential question. What are we looking for? What is the
relevance of al1this evidence'?
The answer to that question lies in the Court's jurisprudence, supplernented
by some State practice. If we are looking for a division between two natural
prolongations. or two shelves. then we are looking for a "significant disconti-
nuity", a "marked disruption or discontinuance of the sea-bed" - 1 use the
Courr's own terrns. We do not have IO find the edge of a margin, or a plate
boundary, or even a microplate boundary. Obviousiy, if there is such a bound-
ary. inphysical tems the discontinuity is irrefutable: it is an oforrioc ra;se.460 CONT~NENTALSHELF
But nothing in the Court's jurisprudence suggests that a discontinuity is lirni-
ted to a plate boundary, or the edge of a margin. In fact. as 1observed in the
first round, in the situations in which the courts have used the concept of a
"discontinuity" - the North Sea, the Tunisia-Libya area of concem, the Gulf of
Maine, the English Channel - it is inconceivable that they were thinking of a
plate boundary or an edge of a margin. So, patenily, we have to accept that the
Court has in mind a feature of fat lesser significance, geologically and geomor-
phologically, than ü plate boundary or a margin edge. In Libya's submission, it
will suffice if we can show. on the evidence, either two separate shelves, or a
marked disruption in the shelf. or two "natural prolongations".
With this in mind,let us look separately ai the two features in issue in this
case: rhe Escarpmenis and the Rift Zone. 1 will deal first with the Escarpments.
The Esr.arpnietirs
The Parties are in fact agreed on the nature of these features, so I do not
believe that they pose a problern for the Court.
The Coun will recall the question 1 put IO Professor Mascle on whether the
Sicily-Malta Escarpment was a discontinuity between the Pelagian Sea and rhe
lonian Sea. His replywas that theywere two different domains: doncon aune dis-
r~ontiritrir1.pressed the point. because of its importance.1 said: "Let us get this
clear.There are two different domains here and that isa discontinuity?" The answer
was "Otri" (p. 260, strprcr). In re-examination, he said that the escarpments
marked the passage from a zone of continentalcmst to oceanic crust (p.269,supra).
Interestingly enough. Professor Morelli declined to support Professor
Mascle's view about the lonian Sea being oceanic crust: he said the evidence
did nor make it possible to reply affirmativelyon thar (p.270. supra)B .ut he
was absolutely categorical about the Escarpment being a discontinuity. 1asked:
"That is the limit therefore to the shelf?" His answer was "you are right"
(ihid.1. And again I asked: "So you would treat these escsrpments as a disconti-
nuity?". and he answered "yes" (ihid.). 1 asked hirn if there was a different
domain beyond the Escarpmenis and he answered "absolutely" (ihid.).
So the experts of both Parties are agreed that the Escarpment is a disconti-
nuity and a limit to the shelf. This really disposeof Malta's contention thar the
entire area of the trnpezium. the relevani area as perceived by Malta, is a
"continuum". That agreement between the experts simplifies the Court's task
enormously. for ithas three important consequences.
First, if the shelf ends there, at the Escarpment- and itis clear we are talk-
ing about Malta's shelf - then here we have a marked discontinuity of such an
order that Mülia's natural prolongation must end there. That is the clear position
on the physicot facts.
Of course, legally, itcan still be maintained that the sea-bed under the Ionian
Sea is part of the continental margin within the meüning of Article 76 of the
1982 Convenrion. But that area falls for delimitation as between Italy, Greece
and Libya and by reference to different coasts. It is Libya's coast in the Gulf of
Sirt rhat is prolonged northwards into this area - not the coast berween Ras
Ajdir and Ras Zarruq: and Italy's coast along the hot of Iialy. But physically,
in relation toMalta. Maltais shelf ends at the Escarpment.
Second. if that is so. it necessarily follows ihar the area east of the Escarp
ment cannot be part of the relevant area for the purposes of this delimitation
between Malta and Libya: for Malta has no shelf to be delimited.
And ihirdly, ii follows. inescapably, that the trapeziurn cannot be accepted as
a proper representütion of the relevant area. RWOINDER OF PROFESSOR BOWETT 461
The RiftZone
I turn now to the Rift Zone, and 1want first to discuss it as a geological phe-
nomenon. What we cal1 itdaesn'trnatter: Rift Zone, trough and ndge system,
the Sicily Channel, the terminology is unimportant. What matters is its nature.
As a plate boundary
The first question is whether it is a plate. or microplate boundary as Libya
contends: for if it is,lta concedes that it would be the boundary between the
Maltese and Libyan shelves.
Certainly the evidence is difficult to assess. Nor is this surprising, because
not only is plate tectonics a rather new scientific theory, but its application to
the Mediterranean began only in the 1970s with the first "think-pieces" by
McKenzie, and by Dewey and his colleagues. Nevertheless, despite its novelty,
plate tectonics is accepted by the scientific community as the best explanation
of the changes in the earih's crusi.
But how should the Court weigh evidence of the two Parties?
The Libyan evidence really depends on four elements.
First, the faulting in the Rift Zone is deep and active, penetrating right
through to the basement, and that is so right through the Malta and Medina
Channels, and no evidence to the contrary has been presented by Malta. If the
Court will look at the map behind me (Map No. 78 in your folder. showing the
faulting) it shows the intensity of the faulting in the area of the Rift Zone. It is
no good Professor Morelli saying there are faults everywhere. The fact is that
the really intensive and currently active faulting which has displaced the sea-
bed is here in the Rift Zone. You will recall that Professor Morelli located the
main fractures in the area of the three troughs (p. 271, supra). And it is quite
apparent that any faulting in the area to the south, in the Jarrafa Trough or the
Tripolitanian Valley, is not tmly comparable. The southem faults are less
intense, and virtually inactive, so that they now lie deeply buned under the
sediments and they have fittleeffect on the actual surface of the sea-bed.
Now, it does not really meet the Libyan argument for Mr. Lauterpacht to Say
that there is no breaking of the cmst, but only a thinning. This is simply a
reversion to the thesis that you cannot have a plate boundary until the cmst has
broken completely, to allow oceanic cmst to develop between the separated
continental cmst. But that is only true of a nfting or "pull-apart" boundary of
long standing.
It is not true of the compressional plate boundary, or the transform plate
boundary, and, as 1 explained in the first phase, it is predominantly these latter
two motions that are occurring here.
Second, the volcanics present along this Rift are still active and Young.They
lie near the surface, unlike the volcanics further south.
Third. the boundary goes right through the area, through the Malta and
Medina Channels, and out to the Medina Mounts. The significance of what F're
fessor Morelli called a "small volcano" (p. 281, supra), lies in the fact that it is
additional evidence of the continuity of the rift. Professor Finetti's axial ridge
line was designed to show the same continuity. Another important indication
that the Rift Zone is continuous and cuts directly across the south of Malta was
mentioned in paragraph 3-44 of the Libyan Mernorial (1).This is the presence
along the south Coast of Malta of a major topographical feature with a relative
vertical displacement of at least 240 metres - the Malak Fault. It is one of the
most prominent features on the Island of Malta. It parallels the major troughs of
the Rift Zone and is directly associated with them being, to quote the German 462 CONTINENTAL SHELF
geologist Illies in his 1981 paper, the "outermost master fault of the rift
system".
Fourth. the rotation of the Ibleo-Maltese complex, the area shown here, in
relation to the main African Plate isreally only explained if you postulate aplate
boundary along the Rift Zone. That such a rotation has occurred is accepted on
both sides - and is supported by other scientists- although Professor Mascle
deveIoped a quite new and unique theory in 1981 to explain this rotation in a
different way.
Malta's rejection of this Libyan thesis depends on this new mode], devised by
Professor Mascle in 1981. and representing a change of mind on his part:
moreover a model which has never appeared in any published literature in
contrat to Libyan scientific studies. It involves giving equal imponance to
these more southerly features - the Jarrafa Trough and the Tripolitanian Fur-
row. despite the difference in age and activity. It involves locating the main
transfonn faults in a roughly north-south direction, so as to produce a pole at
right-angles, in the area of Pantelleria.
The Court, ctearly, will have to weigh this opposing evidence. But at least
the Court can look at a fault map such as the one behind me and ask itself two
rather elementary questions. Do these southerly features really look as signifi-
cant as the Rift Zone? And, if rotation is occurring, is the "fan" model reaily
convincing to explain how the Ibleo-Maltese complex, and that includes part of
Sicily, has rotated? Or is the idea of a movement along the Rift Zone more
convincing?
As a divisionhetweefl Iwo shelves
If we set aside the discussion of plate boundaries. we have not concluded the
question. asMalta seems to thinli: for there remains an equally important ques-
tion.Does the geomorphology and the bathymetry suggest a break, a disconti-
nuity, between two shelves?
The Court will recall that good deal of scientific support exists for character-
izing the Rift Zone in this way. without relying at al1on the formation of the
plate boundary. When 1cross-examined Professor Mascle 1cited Blanpied. Bel-
laiche; Burollet. Mugniot and Sweeney ; Akal ; Beccaluva, Rossi and Sem;
Vanney; and of course, 1 questioned Professor Morelli himself. For him the
Tunisian Plateau ends in the graben area, the rift area (p. 272. supra). And in
the Report he CO-authoredwith Colombi in 1973 he said:
"The continental crust between the southem Coast of Sicily and Pantel-
leria can be seen as part of Afnca just becorning split from this block as it
is suggested by the Trough between Pantelleria and Linosa."
So what is this split, if it is not a discontinuity?
But quite apari from the scientific writings, the facts are really quite compel-
lingT .he threeprincipal troughs, orgrabens, are formidablefeatures. In depth
Pantelleria is 1,315 metres deep; Linosa is 1,615 metres; and the Malta Trough
1,714 metres. In length they are Pantelleria52 miles, Linosa 41 miles, and
Malta 87 miles; and in breadth they are Pantelleria 15 miles. Linosa 8 miles
and Malta i 1 miles.
Malta suggests that these troughs are irrelevant. because they lie outside the
@ relevant area. On the bathymetric map behind me now, No. 103 in the Court's
folder, you will see a red line, representing a direct line from Gozo to Ras
Ajdir. The Court will see that the Malta Trough extends considerably to the east
of that line. The 1,000-metre isobath comes this far, the 800-metre isobath REJOINDEROF PROFESSORBOWETT 463
comes this far, the 600-metre isobath this far and you have to go as far east as
this point before you reach the 400-isnbath. So we have to accept that the Malta
Trough does lie between the two coaçtsand, in Libya's view, simply in bathy-
metric terms, it is a very rnarked discontinuity. Perhaps1 may interject a word
of caution about bathymetric maps. The basic, barhyrnetric map used by Malta
is, in Libya's view, deceptive and should not be relied on. The bathyrnetric
contours minimize the depths of the troughs. The 18CM map, on which Libya
has based its own maps, is a more accurate map.
There has to be some consistency in the view one takes of what constitutes a
"discontinuity". If theEscarpments are a discontinuity, how can it be said that
the Malta Trough is not? Admittedly. the Sicily-Malta Escarpment plunges to
depths of 3,000 to 3.600 rnetres: but the Medina Escarpment reaches depths of
1,000 to 1,200 metres, that is to say lesser depthsthan the 1,714 metres of the
Malta Trough.
As one moves east, through the Medina Channel, the bathymetry is less
impressive. But it still reaches depths of 650 metres- three times the original
shelf depths of 200 metres - and just as deep as the Straits of Gibraltar. And
the uplifted volcanic block in the middle of the Channel - Professor MoreIli's
"volcano" - has a gradient of 1:2.5. Nor should we forget the important
oceanographic function of this Channel. It is the main passage westwards of
the saline waters of the Eastern Mediterranean: a great under-water river, quite
different from the surface rnovement of waters caused by winds and tide.
So there is every reason to suggest that, viewed as a geomorphological fea-
ture - and without any reference to aplate or microplate boundary - the Rift
Zone is a very marked discontinuity. The degree of discontinuity between Malta
and Libya is perhaps better appreciated in the light of the link between Malta
and Sicity. The depth of the sill - the submarine ridge - connecting Malta
and Sicily is only a little more thün 100 metres. If you add to this the geologi-
cal uniformity between Malta and Sicily you quickly understand the reasonwhy
the Ragusa-Malta Plateau is regarded as a unity, and why some of the scientific
literature identifies this area,th of the Rift Zone, as a separate shelf.
So much for the physical facts, the relevant circumstances of geography, geo-
logy, and geomorphology. At present there remain two further categories of
relevant circumstances: the conduct of the Parties. and delimitations with third
States.
The Court adjournad from 11.15 fn 11.35.a.m
1 wish to deal with the two last categories of relevant circurnstances and 1
take first the conduct of the Parties.
THECONDUC TF THE PARTIES
As far as conduct is concerned, we can set aside the original argument of an
estoppel or acquiescence by Libyü in Malta's median line. The evidence never
could support that assertion, and it has virtually disappeared from Malta's oral
arguments.
The truth is that we get rather little help from conduct as a relevant circum-
stance. All one can Say is that the no-drilling understanding seems to have
focused on the area between the Libyan 1973 proposal and Malta's claimed
median line. But neither Party has really drilled in the area. Perhaps the one
point of real significance is that the Maltese concessions end at the Escarp-464 CONTINENTAL SHELF
ments. That is additional support for the view that the relevant area terminates
at the Escnrpments.
But ihe Iast category of relevant circumstances, delimitarion with third Stares,
has very real significünce. and I now turn to this.
DELIMITATIO N TH THIRDSTATES
The Court's 1969 Judgment really made the point thai States cünnot delimit
in a vacuum. ignoring the üctuül or prospective delimitations with. or between,
third States. This eminently sensible admonition is fully reflected in State prac-
tice. If one looks at the delimitations in the North Sea, or in the Arabian-
Persian Gulf. or in the Caribbean, the striking feature is that they form a pattern.
Ii is clear. beyond any doubt, that States have to look to neighbouring States
snd their delirnitations. and they have to agree on their own delimitation lines
so as to make a cohercnt pattern. If that is not done, the result is inevitably to
provoke further disputes with ihese oiher, third States.
The Court is fully aware of the problem, and has already given a rather clear
indication of its approach. In its Judgment of 21 March 1984. on the Italian
request for intervention. the Court ernphasized that the fact of the existence of
third States. with clüims in the region, could not be ignored (para. 43). Indeed.
some guidance was given on the approaches the Court might take in the sepa-
raie opinions. Depending on the area, it might declare itself incompetent
entirely: or it rnight rely on the purely relative effect of its Judgment under
Article 59 so as to determine the rights of the Parties inter se, but not erga
omnes; or it might decide which of the two Parties would, in the particular
area. have the betier title in the sense thaitwould fall to that Party to negotiate
with Itüly in that area.
So what is important is to identify ihe areas of poteniial third State claims
and. in relationio each area, decide upon the appropriate course to iake.
In the present case, if we siart in the Westwe are faced with the fact of the
1971 Tunisian/ltalian delimitation line. But Point 32. the terminal point of the
1971 Italyflunisia delimitation, is not sacrosanct. It dws not bind either Libya
or Malta. Nevertheless, it represents a siatement by Tunisia and Italy of the
areas within which they clairn shelf rights, so it cannot be simply ignored, as
the Maltese equidistance clairn would have us do. It is important to recall ihat
Malta's equidistance claim works hüvoc with this 1971 Italianflunisian line:
that point emerged quite clearly from the rnap shown 10 the Court when Malta
tried to intervene in the TunisialLihya case. For the Agent of Malta to Say.
blandly, that it is res interalios acta is scarcely to address the problem. The
problem cannot bedismissed so lightly by the Court. In Libya's view the 1971
delimitation is a part of the relevant facts. We do not Say that it cannoi besub-
ject to some adjustment, but only that it cannot be overtumed or ignored, as
Malta suggests. Obviously, some adjustment is legally possible. just as the
United Kingdom's median line boundary with the Netherlands and with Denmark
had to be adjusted following the 1969 Judgment and the ensuing agreements.
But to adjust the line is very different from ignoring it.
Sirnilarly, the continuation of the Court's 52' line- the second sector of the
1982 TunisialLibyaJudgment - cannot be ignored. And what is of interest is thai
the two are located in quite close proximity, in this area here. So this
area is significant forIWO reasons. Ii broadly represents the limit of Tunisian
interests. vis-à-vis both Italy and Libya. Secondly. we must assume that Italy
claims shelf to thenorth-east of this sectoofthe line. Otherwiseltaly would no1 be
concerned IO have a line of delimitation with Tunisia reaching as far as Point 32. REIOINDEROF PROFESSOR BOW~ 465
The other point of reference is Point 16,the southerly terminal point of the
Italy/Greece delimitation. That, too, is not sacrosancrbut, so far as 1am aware,
it has not been protested and any "pattern" of delimitation lines will have to
take it into account. MY.Mizzi suggests that it is irrelevant, because the Maltese
equidistance linedoes not reach Point 16.At present, that is me. But whatis to
stop Malta from anempting to construct a trapezium against the Greek coast, if
she succeeds with it against Libya? The ItalyIGreecedelirnitation wouldtben
subject to challenge by Malta. Of course, if we confine this delimitation to its
proper. relevant area. stopping at the Escarprnent.there belno problem. For
a line following the Rift Zone cm perfectly well be continued, whether as a
straight line or as a more complex line, out to meet Point 16pursuant to a sub-
sequently negotiated agreement betweenltaly and Libya.
1think, Mr. President, that at this point I can rnove directly to the question of
rnethod. What method, or methods, will fully reflect al1these relevant circum-
stances. and produce an equitable result?
1need Say no more about Malta's equidistance rnethod. 1hope that, by now,
the Court is satisfied that this cannot produce an equitable result.
But within the very last half-hour of Malta's oral presentationwe were pro-
vided with a quite novel ideaby the Agentof Malta. As representedon the Mal-
@ tese Map 43, the idea was that one might envisage a half-effect line, rnidway
between a Malta-Libya median line and an Italy-Libya rnedian line. Doubtless
Malta's counsel, who have soundly criticized Libyafor not disclosing its case
in the written pleadings. wereas surprised as we were.
But 1make no cornplaint of the tardiness of the development of this idea. My
@ concern is with its quite extraordinary irrationality. Malta's Map 43 postutates a
median line between Italy and Libya. That is the whole basis of the proposal:
without that. the proposa1lacks any basis. Buhow can such a median line be
postulated? Let us examine the components of this extraordinary idea.
First. we areto assume Malta is not there. But. Mr. President, the Court
enjoins us to take the facts as they are, and not to attempt to re-fashion geo-
graphy in the name of equity.
Second, we are to assume ltaly is making a median line clairn south of Malta.
In other words, in the one area, directly south of Malta. in which ltaly has
expressly stated that it has no'claims, we are now asked to assume a median
line claim.
Any why should we suppose Italy might rnake such a claim? Mr. Mizzi, the
Agent for Malta. appearsto suggest two reasons. The îïrst is that treating Libya
and ltaly as opposite coasts, and, in Mr. Mizzi's words. assurning Italy has
coasts "not only comparable in length to those of Libya but even longer"
(p.402, supra), the median line would be the correct ltalian/Libyan bound1ry.
have two observations on that reason1 find it quite extraordinary that a Party
which has throughout these hearings protested that coastal lengths areimlevant
should now, at the very last minute, advance a fictitious rnedian line clah on
behaïf of Italy based on the parity or the equality of coastal lengths. anat
extraordinary admission! My secoridobservation is that Mr. Mizzi's geography
is wrong. Let me ask the Court tcitake a long hard look at Italy's coasts. Of
course ltaly has long coasts. But how rnuch of the Italian coast actually abuts
on the ma of concern? The answer is only a relatively short length of coast in
the southerly-facing part of Sicily. For rnost of the Sicilian coast faces west466 CONTINENTALSHELF
towards Tunisia. and has already had its shelf delimited in 1971.And the Italian
mainland, the boot of Italy, is in no sense adjacent to this particular area south
of Malta.
So this Court could scarcely assume that the correct irnaginary boundary be-
tween Italy and Libya would be any preconceived line.1 would again refer the
Coun to the views ofcounsel for Italy that 1quoted during the first round, and
1 must disagree with my friendProfessor Weil. Those views purported to be a
staternent of thegeneral law, and were not confined to the specific case of an
Italian/Malta delimitation (p. 382, supra). Italy does not slavishly adhere to
equidistance, but takes account of al1relevant factors, including differencesin
coastal lengths and geology and geomorphology. MoreoverItaly has not made
any such claim.
Mr. Mizzi's second reason, as 1understand it, is that if Malta were an island
dependency of Italy, likethe Kerkennahs, Malta would be entitled to half-effect.
It is curious that Mr. Mizzi seeks an analogy with the Kerkennahs. One would
have thought that if Malta were an isiand dependency of Italy, it would be
treated like Linosa or Lampedusa, andthus semi-enclaved with a shelf of no
more than 12 or 13 miles radius. But why this fiction of a dependent Malta? I
had hitherto assurned thatMalta's sovereign independent statehood wasthe core
of its argument, but apparently not. In any event, the half-effect technique pre-
supposes that, initially, you start with the rnedian line. But, as 1 have just
shown, there is no possible basis for assuming thata median line would be the
correct, albeit fictitious. Italiadibyboundary. So, this reason fails also.
Perhaps 1can now leave this strange world of make-believe and return to the
actual situation we are faced with. How should we approachthe selection of a
method?
In the first round1 suggested several cornponents of a rnethod, and, as the
Court will recall. thiswas in response to Malta's challenge that a zone could
not produce a line. These were the axial ridge line, the idea of an equal division
of the Rift Zone. regardingthe zone as an area of overlapping claims, andthe
use of the lines of greatest depth throughout the zone. by analogy with the thal-
weg concept. 1 wiil not repeat the explanations already on the record: they
remain as perfectly valid components of a method. whetherone accepts the Rift
Zone as a division between two shelves or natural prolongations,or simply as a
relevant circumstance which should influencethe course of the boundary.
I also showed a possible method which dependednot on the Rift Zone but on
geography. This, as the Court will recall, involved a line of two sections. The
first paralleled the Maltese coast, but at the line of longitude at which there was
no more Maltese coast to parallel, the line went due east. The location of this
two-sector line could be moved either nearer to Malta, or further away from
Malta, to respect the proportionality test and any other relevant circumstances.
Malta found the fact that such a line coincided with the Rift Zone to be
worthy of comment. Mr. President, the exercisedoes not require the Rift Zone.
It may be helpful to the Court to go through this exercise rather carefully. on a
map which does not show the Rift &ne. so as to make this point. 1also wish to
demonstrate that the Court's judgment must probably distinguish betweendif-
ferent sectionsof the line, because of third-State interests or claims.
Let us begin in the Weston the map behind'me.
In this area we have a rather cornplex situation, for Point 32 and the con-
tinuation of the Court's 52" TunisiaLibya line do not converge; they do not
converge exactly. Still, we are entiiled io assume that Tunisia has no claims
east of Point 32. And if we sketch in a rnedianline between Malta and Linosa,
like that, we have a reasonable idea of the kind of claims Italy has made and REJOINDER OF PROFESSORBOWETT 467
which Malta, with its jnsistence on the virtues of equidistance between islands.
may have to concede. But, clearly, that is speculation. If, however, we confine
the Malta-Libya line within the relevant area. then such a line will scarcely
impede or impinge upon that future ItalyNalta delimitation. However, given
that the final adjustment of the terminal points ofthese three delimitations-
TunisiaLibya. Italy/Malta and Maltaibya - wiIl certainly require negotiation,
it may well be that the method or line to be indicated by the Court in this area
has to be of a provisional character. By that 1mean that, in the area, say, West
of 14' longitude, the Court may wish to indicate the direction, but not the ter-
minal point, and may have to invoke Article 59 specifically so as to reassure
third States that, in that extreme westerly sector. the Court's judgment is
without prejudice to their claims or rights.
However, between the area Westof 14" longitude and 15" 10' longitude, the
lirnit of the ltalian claims, there is no problem. Italy has made no claims, Tuni-
sia can have no claims. and the Court can confidently give indications to the
two Parties with binding and final effect.
Between 15O 10' longitude and the edge of the Sicily-Malta Escarpment there
are. again. Italian claims. So the provisional, or non-prejudicial, effect of the
Court's judgment would have to be stressed. Again, therefore, we would have a
pecked line rather than a solid line. The advantage of a line, however provi-
sional. would be that Italy would then know against which Party, Malta or
Libya, it should pursue its claims. and in relation to which area. We should
avoid the complexities of tripartitegotiations or adjudication.
East of the Escarpments is an entirely different matter. In Libya's view this
area is simply not the relevant area- for reasons 1 have already fully devel-
oped. The consequence is that beyond the Escarpments. in Libya's submission,
the Court may have to consider whether it has competence to adjudicate under a
compromis between Malta and Lihya. It would not be sufficient to rely on the
safeguards of Article 59: the bar goes to competence rather than prejudice to
ltalian claims.
Thus. in Libya's view, we have a basis for identifying the methodology of
producing a line. And we have made the necessary distinctions as to the effect
of the Court's judgment on the differen~secrions of the line.
What remains, ultimately, is to determine its exact shape and location. 1sit to
be nearer, or further, from Malta? Do we move it further north. or further
south?
THECRITERIA FOR THE LOCATIO NF ANYLINE
It would be unrealistic to expect the location of the line tbe govemed by
one single factor. The situation is one of some cornplexity, and a number of
factorsappear entitled to some weight.
But perhaps the correct starting point is the coasts of the Parties. The two
coasts stand in a ratio to each other of between6: 1 and 12: 1. If you were to
represent the different weight of each coast by a difference in their seaward
reach, then you might envisage an area of overlapping claims between a 6:1
line and a 12:1 line. ln fact the area so produced would be largely within the
area of overlapping claims, between the Libyan 1973 proposal and Malta's
equidistance claim. But an 8: 1 ratio js more realistic as a truer approximation
to the actual ratio of coasts. And we are entitled to deal in approximations,
because Our aim is not mathematical precision but rather an equitable result.
The 8: 1 ratio would also divide the area of overlapping prolongations.
So, using an 8: 1 ratio, we could take the line of shortest distance between RUOINDER OF PROFESSORBOW~ 469
between Malta's equidistance claim and Libya's 1973 proposal. so a line of
delimitation may be expected to reflect that.
Fifth. and last, consistently with Libyan Submissions 5. 6 and 9, any line
should meet the broad test of proportionality.1 repeat the word "test". Libya
does not use proportionality asaprimarycriterion or method of delimitation as
Malta alleges. Indeed, it is onlritthis very last stage, when we come to test
the equity of the result, that1 mention the ratio of areas of shelf to coastal
lengths. But now is the time to look at the areas of shelf which any given line
would allocate to each Party within the relevant areaIf we maintain a tine of
thai shape and direction. then its placement would have to be where it is now
shown on the map behind me, by the red line. slightly to the south of the first
@ line- you have both lines show at No. 104 in your folders- and the red
line would give an 8: 1ratio of areas. The actual areal figures woulbe Libya
96,637 square kilometres, Malta 12,080 square kilometres.
1 would emphasize that 1do not propose either line, on behalf of Libya.The
terms of the compromis do not require the Parties to propose a specific line.
The exercise 1have just gone through is designed to illustrate a possible method
which. in Libya's view, would he likely to produce an equitable result. But
Libya does maintain its Submission 9. Whatever the shape or location of the
line, in Libya's subrnission the line rnust lie within, and follow, the Rift Zone.
Mr. President. that brings me to the end of my statement. 1 am fully
conscious of the extent to which 1have taxed the patience of the Court. For that
reason. my expression of gratitude to the Court for its courtesy and patienis
al1the more sincere. REJOINDER OF SIR FRANCIS VALLAT
COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHlRlYA
Sir Francis VALLAT: Mr. President, distinguished Judges: May 1assure you
that 1 only intend to take very few minutes of the precious time of the Court.
All I have to do is now to tie the ribbon on the top of the puzzle. or with this
kautiful mode1in front of me to put the icing on the cake.
We have come to the end of a long but most unusual and fascinating case,
one that is sure to be a milestone- or perhaps 1should say a guiding light -
in the evolution of the law of continental shelf delimitation. 1 shall not now
attempt to make a summary of Libya's case - that would be tiresome and
superfluous. 1merely wish to touch on some of the salient points.
With the demonstration by Professor Bowett of the inequity of theapplication
of the equidistance method in this case, beyond a shadow of doubt, and the clari-
fication of Libya's position which is both strong and flexible, he has brought
the presentation of Libya's case to a climax and a conclusion.
The vital flaw in Malta's case. as has been shown for example by Professor
Quéneudec. is reliance on distance and equal radial projection as a governing
factor in delimitation.hat position of Malta is based on Article 76 of the 1982
Convention. In the light of what Professor Weil has said in this second round, it
seems to be unnecessary to explore further the question of the effect of the
1982 Convention on customary international law. Even if one were to adopt the
Maltese view on this point, it would not transform the Article 76 definition of
the outer limits of the continental shelf into a governing criterion for the delimi-
tation of continental shelf areas between States with opposite or adjacent coasts.
This is so clear that there is no need to repeat arguments based on para-
graph 10 of Article 76 and the terms of Article 83. which do concern delimita-
tion. It is axiomatic that customary international law govems in this case, and 1
believe that it is common ground between the Parties that the jurisprudence of
this Court is the best guide for the purpose of identifying the relevant principles
and rules of international law. This position is maintained by Article 83 of the
1982Convention.
Mr. President. in his final speech on 13 Febniary, the Agent for Malta sum-
marized in three short paragraphs what he regarded as the main facts and the
propositions flowing from them (pp. 392, supra).
In the first of these paragraphs, he reaffimed the Maltese position that there
is no physical discontinuity in the region which could affect the delimitation,
and maintained "thephysical features of the sea-bed are irrelevant both to entitle-
ment and delimitations". Libya strongly contests the proposition that there is
no physical discontinuity. With the evidence presented and the explanations of
Professor Bowett so freshly in mind, 1need add nothing on that aspect of the
case. But, as a matter of law. Libya cannot accept the proposition that the fea-
tures of the sea-bed are irrelevant both to entitlement and to delimitation.
The second proposition on which Malta rests is the alleged "perfect noma-
lity" of the geographical setting. Surely. no more needs tbe said to reveal how
wide of the mark such a description is in the particular circumstances of the
present case. The distinctive features presenthere are not reproduced in any of
the examples of State practice to which Malta has referred.
State practice. however, gives us no more help in a case of this kind than it RUOINDER OF SIR FRANCIS VALLAT 471
dit in 1969. Al1 the elaborate examination of agreements cannot, and does not,
establish that equidistance as a method has any priority or is prima facie equi-
table.
As is well established in the jurisprudence, each case has to be decided on
the basis of its own particular facts. Why? Because facts differ. Here, the facts
are quite unique.
The particular circumstances of this case to be taken into account are not
merely the fact of "some distance". that is,about 180 nautical miles between
Malta and Libya, but also the frict that Malta is a small island with very short
coasts, combined with the fact that being an island only a small part of the
short coast faces Libya directly. It does not require a complicated situation for
equidistance to lead to an inequitable result. For example. in the North Seo
Continental Sheij"cases, the concavity of the coast, coupled with the fact of
approximately equal coastal lengths. resulted in an equidistance line producing
an inequitable result. Here the factors that 1 have indicated. as has been so
clearly shown by counsel who have preceded me, would lead to an inequitable
result were an equidistance solution to prevail. Thus. Libya cannot agree with
Dr. Mizzi's third summary paragraph.
This is not surprising. A case which is essentially based on distance from a
few control points cannot possibly iake proper account of the important factor
of the difference in the coastline of the Parties. This weakness of the Maltese
case is hidden in the rhetorical questions, in the third paragraph of Dr. Mizzi's
summary, which like a refrain concludes with the answer "inevitably a median
line" (p. 392 supra).
The most significant question in Dr. Mizzi's third paragraph is the second
one which, with your permission, Mr. President, 1will read:
"What line gives due weight to al1 the relevant circumstances, to the
geographical setting. including the differences in length of the two coast-
lines, to the conduct of the Parties, to economic considerations and security
requirements?" (Ibid.)
Thereare two remarkable features about this question. It does not indicate. as is
so clear from the whole of the Maltese case, that Malta relies not on coastal
lengths but on basepoints and distance. The second remarkable feature is that
"economic considerations and security requirements" are lumped together with
the other considcrations as if they stood on the same footing as relevant circum-
stances, which it is absolutely clear, in accordance with international law on
continental shelf delimitation, is not correct. The statement of the Agent of
Libya in this regard and of Professor Lucchini in the first round, together with
Libya's extensive treatment of thissubject in its Counter-Memorial, relieves me
of the need to dwell further on the subject.
Similarly, the Agent of Libya and the written and oral pleadings have
adequatety deali with the matter of security, which has no bearing in the present
delimitation.
Mr. President and Members of the Court, in concfusion 1would like to Say a
few words about the submissions of Malta.
Malta has only two submissions. The first submission pays lip-service to the
need "to achieve an equitable solution", but does no1 even mention equitable
principles.It is circular, in that it asks the Court to declare simply that the
principles and rules of international law require that the delimitation shall be
effected on the basis of international law.
The second submission is a plain request for the Court to approve Maltais
equidistance line.472 CONTINENTAL SH~F
The submissions of Libya requireno comment from me. As the Agent of
Libya readsthem, 1thinkyou will find thatthey areold friends,easily indenti-
fiableandjustified in Libya'swrittenandoral pleadings.
Thank you, Mr. President,1 am most grateful forthis final opportuntoy
addressthe Courtby way of puttingthebow on the parcel. STATEMENT BY MR. EL-MURTADI SULEIMAN
AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE LIBYAN ARAB lAMAHlRlYA
Mr. EL-MURTADI SULEIMAN: Mr. President and Members of the Court:
Having reached the end of Ourstatement in the second round. and as prescribed
by Article 60, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court,1 now tum to the reading of
Libya's final submissions.
1shall dispense with the preambular paragraphs and proceed directly to the
submissions :
May it please the Court, rejecting al1 contrary claims and submissions, to
adjudge and declare as follows:
1. The delimitation is to be effected by agreement in accordance with equi-
table principles and taking account of al1 relevant circumstances in order to
achieve an equitable result.
2. The natural prolongation of the respective land territones of the Parties
into and under the sea is the basis of title to the areas of continental shelf which
appertain to each of them.
3. The delimitation should be accomplished in such a way as to ieave as
much as possible to each Part ayl1 areas of continental shelf that constitute the
natural prolongation of ils land temtory into and under the sea, without
encroachment on the natural prolongation of the other.
4. A criterion for delimitation of continental shelf areas in the present case
cm be derived from the principle of natural prolongation because there exists a
fundamental discontinuity in the sea-bed and subsoil which divides the areas of
continental shelf into two distinct natural prolongations extending from the land
territories of the respective Parties.
5. Equitable principles do not require that a State possessing a restricted
coastline be treated as if it possessed an extensive coastline.
6. In the particular geographical situation of this case, the application of
equitable principlesrequires that the delimitation should take account of the
significant difference in lengths of the respective coastlines which face the area
in which the delimitation is tbe effected.
7. The delimitation in this case should reflect the element of a reasonable
degree of proportionality which a defimitation carried out in accordance with
equitable principles ought to bnng about between the extent of the continental
shelf areas appertaining to the respective States and the lengths of the relevant
parts of their coasis, account being taken of any other delimitation between
States in the same region.
8, Application of the equidistance method is not obligatory, and its applica-
tion in theparticular circumstances of this case would not lead to anequitable
result.
9. The principles and rules of international law can in practice be applied by
the Parties so asto achieve an equitable result, taking account of the physical
factors and al1the other relevant circumstances of this case, by agreement on a
delimitation within, and following the general direction of. the Rift Zone as
defined in the Libyan Memorial.
Mr. President. 1should point out that the submissions of Libya, which1 have474 CONTINENTALSHELF
just read,remain unchanged from those initidly set forth in the Libyan Merno-
rial. In accordance with Article 60, paragraph2, of the Rules of Court, a signed
copy of the written text of these submissions has been communicated to the
Court together with a copy for transmission to the Agent of Malta.
May 1 now take this opportunity to thank you. Mr. President, and Members
of this honoutable Court for the patience and courteous attention which you
have shown in listening to Libya's case. 1should like also to thank the Registry
for its assistance in ail the difficult rna-teboth large and small - that aise
in the'course of a case such as this. To the Agent of Malta and his counsel and
staff, 1 should like to Say that we have appreciated the cordiality that has
rnarked our personal relationships during these many weeks. Finally, 1 should
like to thank my own counsel and staff for their hard work and able assistance
in putting Libya's case beforethe Court.
Mr. President, Members of theCourt: we leave here today confident that the
Court will poinl the way to an equitable result. CLOSING OF THE ORAL PROCEEDINGS
The PRESIDENT:1 thankthe Agents and counsel for both Partiesfor the
assistance theyhave given the Courtand 1requestthe Agents to remainat the
disposa1of the Court for any further information itmay require.With that
reservation,1 declare closed the oralproceedings in the case concerningthe
Continental Sheif (Libyan Arah JamahiriyalMalta). The date on which the
Court'Jsudgment willbe deliveredwill be communicatedin due course.
TheCourt rose a!12.30p.m. THIRTY-FOURTHPUBLICSITTlNC (3 VI 85, IOa.m.1
Present: [See sitting of 22 II85,Judges Mbaye and Bedjaoui and Judge ad
hoc Jiménezde Aréchaga absent.]
READINGOF THE JUDGMENT
The PRESIDENT: The sitting is open.
The Court meets today in order to read in open Court, in accordance with
Article 58 of the Statute of the Court, its Judgment in the case concerning the
Continental Shelf,between the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and
the Republic of Malta. The Court accordingly sits in its composition for that
case, withoutthe participation of Judges Ni and Evensen, whoseterms of office
began on 6 February last, aftethe oral proceedings in the case had begun. On
the other hand, two Members of the Court (Judges MosIer and El-Khani) whose
terms of office expired under Article 13, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the
Court on 5 Febniary 1985 have continued to participate in the present proceed-
ings in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 13. On 14 February 1985, the
Court elected Judge Nagendra Singh as President of the Court and Judge de
Lacharriere as Vice-President of the Court; in accordance with Article 32, para-
graph 2. of the Rules of Court, the Court as composed for the present proceed-
ings has continued to sit under my presidency.
Judges Mbaye and Bedjaoui and Judge ad hoc Jiménez de Aréchaga are
unable to be present at today's sitting, but participated fully in the Court's work
and in the voting on the Judgment.
As is customary, 1 shall not read the opening paragraphs of the Judgrnent.
giving the procedural history of the case. Therefollows a general description of
the geographical context of the dispute before the Court, which 1 shall also
omit. The Judgment then continues as follows:
[The President reads paragraphs 18 to 79 of the Judgment'.]
1shallnowask theRegistrartoreadtheoperativeclauseof the Judgmentin French.
[Le Greffierlitle dispositif en franqais2.]
Judge El-Khani appends a declaration to the Judgment. Vice-President Sette-
Camara appends a separate opinion, Judges Ruda and Bedjaoui and Judge ad
hoc Jiménezde Adchaga a joint separate opinion. and Judge Mbaye and Judge
ad hoc Valticos separate opinions. to the Judgment. Judges Mosler, Oda and
Schwebel append dissenting opinions to the Judgment.
(Signed) T. O. ELIAS.
President.
(Signed) Santiago TORRES BERN~DEZ,
Registrar.
I.C.J. Reports 1985.pp. 22-58.
C.I.JRecueil1985.p. 56-58.
Oral Arguments (concluded) - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 6 to 14 December 1984, from 4 to 22 February 1985 and on 3 June 1985, President Elias presiding