Summaries of Judgments, AdvNot an official documents of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
AEGIEAN SEACONTINENTAL SHELFCASE(JURISDICTION OF
THECOURT)
Judgmentof19December1978
In its judgmenton the questionof its jurisdictionin theCourthadsuchjurisdictionlbrkey didnot fileanyCounter-
caseconcerningthe AegeanSeaContinentalShelf(Greece v. Memorialandwas not represented at thehearings.Its atti-
lbrkey), theCourt,by 12votesto2, foundthatit iswithout tude was, however, definedin the above-mentionedletter
jurisdictiontoentertaintheApplicationfiledbythe Govern- and in communications addresseto the Courton 24 April
mentofGreece. and 10October1978.(Paras.1-14.)
TheCourtwascomposedasfollows:President Jim6nezde While regrettingthatWkey didnotappearinordertoput
Adchaga; Vice-PresidentNagendraSingh; Judges Forster, forwardits arguments,theCourtpointsoutthatit neverthe-
Gros, Lachs, Dillard, de Castro, Morozov,Sir Humphrey lesshad to examinepropriomotuthe questionof its own
Waldock, Ruda, Mosler, Elias and Tarazi~;udge ad hoc jurisdiction,adutyreinforcedbytterms d Article53ofits
Stassinopoulos. Statute,accordingtowhichtheCourt,wheneverapartydoes
Of the 12Membersof the Courtwhovotedfor the deci- not appear, must,before findingupon the merits, satisfy
sion, Vice-Resident Nagerldra Singh and Judges Gros, itself that ijurisdiction.(Para.15.)
Lachs,MorozovandTarazihaveappendedseparzlte opinions Aftergivingabriefaccountofthenegotiationswhichhave
ordeclarations. takenplace betweenGreeceand lbrkey since 1973on the
Dissentingopinionshave :beenappendedto theJuPgment questionof delimitingthe continentalshelf, the Court finds,
byJudgede CastroandJude:(a :d hocStassinopoulos. contraryto suggestionsbyWkey, thatthe activepursuitof
negotiationsconcurrently with the pmeedings is not,
Procedure,andSummary oj'Negotiations legally,any obstacleto its exerciseof itsjudicial function,
(PUS. 1-31) andthrua legaldisputeexistsbetween GreeceandWkey in
respectof the continentalshelf in the AegeanSe(Ruas.
InitsJudgment,the Courtrecallsthaton 10August 1976 16-31.)
Greeceinstitutedproceedings againslbrke:yin:respectof a
dispute concerningthe delimitationof the contimentalshelfFirstl3asisof Jurisdiction Relied UpoA:rticl17 of the
appertainingto eachofthetwoStatesinthe AegeanSeaand GeneralActof 1928
their rightsthereover.In aer of 26 August 1976Wey (paras. 32-93)
expressedtheviewthat theC:ourthadnojurisdiction toenter- In its Applicationthe Greek Government specified two
taintheApplication. bases on which it claimedto foundthe jurisdictionof the
GreecerequestedtheCourttoindicate interimmeasuresf Courtinthedispute. ThefirstwasArticle1.7ofthe General
protection,butin anOrder(sf11Septembe~1 r976theCourt Act of1928forthe PacificSettlementof InternationalDis-
foundthat thecircumstanceswere notsuchastorequirethem putes, read withArticle36, paragraph1, and Article37 of
and decided that thewrimenproceedings shollld first be theStatuteofthe Court.
addressed tothe questio01 itsjurisdictionto entertainthe Article17oftheGeneralActreadsasfollows:
dispute.Greecesubsequentlyfilea Memorialandpresented "All disputeswith regard towhichthe partiesare in
oralargumentsatpublicsitti:ng,ormally submittingthat the
Continued on next page conflictas to their respectiverights shall, subjectto anyGreecemaintainedthatreservation(b) could notbe con-
reservationswhichmaybe madeunderAdcle 39,besub- sidered as covering thedispute regarding the continental
mittedfordecisiontothePermanentCourtofInternational shelfofthe AegeanSeaandthereforedidnotexcludethenor-
Justice,unlessthepartiesagree,inthemannerhereinafter mal operationofArticle17of theAct.It contendedinpartic-
provided,to haveresorttoanarbitraltribunal. Itis under-ularthat threservationdid notcover alldisputesrelatingto
stoodthatthedisputesreferretoaboveincludeinparticu- theterritorialstatusofGreecebutonlysuchasbothrelatedto
larthose mentionedinArticle36oftheStatuteofthePer- its temtorial statusand at thesametimeconcerned"ques-
manentCourtofInternationalJustice." tionswhichbyinternationallaw aresolelywithin the domes-
ThisArticlethusprovidedfor thereferenceofdisputestothe ticjurisdictionof S~tate.Paras.48and49.)
PermanentCourtofInternationalJustice.Thatbody wasthe This contention dependedon an essentiallygrammatical
predecessorof the presentCourt, which, by the effect of interpretationwhich hingedonthe meaningto beascribedto
Article37ofitsownStatute,is substitutedfbritin anytreaty the expression"and inparticular"("et, notamment,"inthe
or conventioninforcewhichprovidesforreferenceofa mat- originalFrench of the reservation).After consideringthis
tertothePermanentCourt.Hence,iftheGeneralActisto be argument, the Cow finds that the question whether that
considereda convention inforcebetweenGreeceand Tbr- expression has tht: meaning attributed to it by Greece
key,itmay,whenreadwithArticle37and Article36, para- dependsonthecontextinwhichitwasusedinthe instrument
graph 1, of the presentCourt's Statute,sufficeto establishof accessionand isnota matter simplyof thepreponderant
thelatter'sjurisdiction. (Par. 2-34.) linguisticusage.TheCourtpcalls thatitcannotbaseitselfon
Thequestionofthestatusof the GeneralActof 1928asa aprlrelygrammaticalinterpretationofthetextandobserves
conventioninforceforthe purposesofArtic:le37oftheStat- thata numberof sul3stantivconsiderationspoint decisively
utewasraised,though notdecided,inprevious cases before totheconclusionthatreservation(b)containedtwoseparate
the Court. In the present case the Greek Government con- andautonomousreservations. (Paras5.0-56.)
tended thatthe Act mustbe presumedto b: stillin force as One suchconsiderationwasthatinframingitsdeclaration
betweenGreeceand%key; the TbrkishGovernment,onthe accepting the compulsoryjurisdiction of the Permanent
contrary,took the position that theAct was no longer in Court underthe optionallauseofthelatter's Statute-a dec-
force.(Paras.35-38 .) larationmadeon 12September1929,only two years before
TheCourt notes that Greecdrewattentiontothefactthat theGreek accessionto theGeneralAct-Greece includeda
both the Greekand the lhrkish instruments. f accessionto provision which, indisputably, asn autonomousreserva-
the Actwereaccompaniedbyreservations.'Greeceaffirmed tionof "disputesrelatingtothetemtorialstatusofGreece".
that thesewere irrelevantto the case. Turkey,on the other It can hardlybe supposed thatGreece, in its instrument of
hand,took the positionthat, whetherornotthe GeneralAct accessiontotheGeneralAct,shouldhaveintendedtogiveto
was assumedto be in force, Greece's instnumentof acces- itsreservationof "disputes relatingtotheterritorialstatusof
sion,dated14September 1931,wassubjecttoaclause,res- Greece" a scope which differed fundamentally from that
ervation(b), which wouldexclude theCourt'scompetence givento it in that declaration. ThatGreecehad hadsuchan
with respecttothedispute.(%a. 39.) intentionwas not borne out by the contemporaryevidence
Thetextofthisreservation(b)isasfollows: placed before theCourt relatintgothemakingofthedeclara-
tionandthe deuositoftheinstnunentofaccession.
"The followingdisputes areexcludedfrom theproce- That being so, the Court findsthat reservation(b) com-
dues describedintheGeneralAct ... prisestwodistinctandautonomousreservations,oneaffect-
"(b) disputesconcerningquestions byinterns- ing disputesconcenlingquestiops.of domestic jurisdiction
tional lawaresolelywithin the domestic:jurisdictionof and the other reserving "disputes relattogthe territorial
States,andinparticulardisputesrelating,tothetenitorial status0fGmce". (b. 57-68.)
statusofGreece,includingdisputesrelatingtoitsrightsof
sovereigntyoveritsportsandlinesofcommunication." *
TheCourtconsidersthat,if%key's view1 oftheeffectof * *
reservation(b) on the applicabilityof the Act as between
Greece and mkey withrespectto the subject-matterof the
disputeisjustified,afindingonthequestionwhetherthe~ct TheCourtthengoesontoconsiderwhat"disputesrelating
*isor is not in forcewouldceaseto be essentialforthehi- tothetemtorialstatusofGreece" mustbetakentomean.
sionregardingtheCourt'sjurisdiction.(Para40.) Greece maintained thata restrictiveviewof the meaning
Accordingto Greece, the Courtshould leavereservation mustbetaken, by reasonof thehistorical context,and that
(b) out ofaccount becausethe questionof its effecton the thosewordsrelatedtoterritorialquestionsboundupwiththe
applicabilitof theGeneral~ct wasnotraisedregularlyby territorialsettlemenuestablishedby the peacematies after
%key inaccordancewiththeRules ofCourt,sothatmkey thefirstWorldWar.11t2heCourt'sopinion,thehistoricalevi-
couldnotberegarded ashaving"enforced" the=-ation dencereliedonbyGreeceseemsrathertoconfirmthatinres-
as requiredby Article39, pmmph 3,of theGeneral~~t, ervation(b)the expression"tenitorial status" wasusinits
whereby: "If oneofthepartiestoadisputehasmadeareser- ordinary,genericsenseofanymattersproperlytobeconsid-
vation,theother mayenforce theSam,:reservationin eredasbelongingtotheconceptoftemtorialstatusinpublic
regardto that In the view,nukey's invoca- intemationdlaw.Thd:expressionthereforeincludednotonly
tionofreservation(b)inaformalstatement made inresponse thephcular!egal Wmebut theterritorialinte@tl'andthe
to tcommunication fromthe Court must be consideredas boundariesofa 69-76.)
constitutingan "enforcement"of thereservaxionwithin the Greece arguedthat the very idea of the continentalshelf
meaningof Article39, paragraph3, of the Act. The Court waswhollyunknown in1928whenthe GeneralActwascon-
wasthereforeunabletoleaveoutofitsconsiderationareser- cluded,andin 1931whenOreece accededtotheAct.But,in
vationthe invocationof whichhad beenproperlybrought to the Court's view, since the expression"territorial status"
itsnoticeearlierintheproceedings.(Paras41-47 .) wasruedinthe Gree reservationasageneric tenn,thepre-
104sumptionnecessarilyarises?hatitsmeaning,as also thatof Second Basisof JurisdictionRelied Upon: the Brussels
theword"rights" inArticle17ofthe GeneralAct,was to JointCommuniqudo3 f1May 1975
followtheevolutionof the lawandto correspondwith the (paras.94-108)
meaningattachedtoitbythelawinforceat.anygiventime. ThesecondbasisofjurisdictionrelieuponbyGreecewas
The Court thereforefinds that the exprelssion"disputes theBnrsselsJoinCt ommuniqud o3 f1May1975.Thiswasa
pretedin accordance withtherulesof internationallawas- communiqud issueddirectlytothepressbytheRimeMinis-
theyexisttoday andnot astheyexistedin 1931.(Ruas. tersofGreeceandTbrkeyfollowingameetingbetweetnhem
77-80.) on thatdate.It containedthefollowipassage:
"They [the two Rime Ministers]decided that those
accountthe developmenitnsinternationalawregardingtheo problems [betweetnhetwocountries]shouldberesolved
continentalshelf,theexpression"disputeslatirtotheter- peac:efullby meansof negotiationsand as regardsthe
ritorial staofGreece"shouldorshouldnotbeunderstood continentalshelfof theAegeanSeaby theInternational
ascomprisingdisputerselatiintothe geographicalextenotf CourtatTheHague."
Greecesrightsoverthecontinentalshelfinthe Aegean Sea. Greece maintainedthatthispassage directlyconferredjuris-
Greececontendedthatthedispu ctencernedtihedelimitation an iniplementingagreement needed pand, in the eventof
ofthecontinentalshelf,aidtobeentirelye:xtrarieouothe re usalbyoneofthem toconcludesuchanagreement,per-
notionofterritorialstatus,ad that the continentaslhelf,nmitted theothertoreferthedisputeunilateralo theCourt.
beingpartof the territory, counotbecolnsideredas con- Tbrkey,foritspart,maintainedthattheonmuniquddidnot
wouldbedifficulttoaccept,theproposition.thatdelimitation"amounttoanagreement undeirnternationallaw",andthat
isentirely extraneoutso the notionofterritorialstatus,andn anyeventitdidnot compriseanyundertaking toresortto
pointsoutthatadisputeregaldingdelimitatiofacontinen- the Court without a special agreement (compromiso )r
talshelf tendsbyitsverynaturetobeonerelatingtoterrito- amount toanagreementbyone State to submittothejuris-
rialstatus,inasmuchasacoa~stSltate'srightsovertheconti- other. (Paras. 94-99.)the unilateral applicationf the
nentalshelfderivefromits sovereignty over the adjoining Inview ofthese divergent interpretations, the Curtn-
land.It followsthat the territorial usthecoastal State siderswhatlightisthrown onthemeaningof the commu-
comprises,ips0jure, therig:htsofexplorationandexploita- niqudbythe contextin whichthemeetingof31May1975
internationallaw.Paran80s.-89.)hichit .isentitledunder tookplaceandthedocumentwasdrawn up.Itfinds nothing
tojustifythe conclusionthatbrkey was prepared toenvis-
Having regardtothose considerationst,he Court isofthe a eanyother referencetotheCourtthanajoint submission
opinionthat the disputsale whichrelatestotheterritorial ofthe dispute.Inthe informatibefore it owhatfollowed
statusof Greecewithinthemeaningof reservation (b) and theBnusselscommuniqud the Court findconfirmationthat
excludingtheidisputefrom theapplicationof Article17ofof thetwoRimeMinistersdidnot undertake an unconditional
the General Act. TheGeneralActis thereforenota valid Court.(Patas.100-106.)ir continentaslhe1 disputeto the
basisforthe Court's jurisdiction.. 90.) Hencethe Brusselscommuniquddid notconstitutean
immediateand unqualified commitment on tphaert of the
RimeMinistersofGreeceandmkey toacceptthesubmis-
sionofthedisputetotheCourtunilaterallyyApplication.It
followsthatitdaesnotfurnishavalidbasisforestablishing
the Court's jurisdiction.Courtaddsthatnothing it has
The Courtalsotakes into considerationsuggestionthat saidmaybe understood asprecludingthe disputfrombeing
the GeneralAct hadnever beenapplicableas between W- brought beforethe Courtif and whenthe conditionsfor
key andGreece,by reasonof the existenceof the Greco- 108.)lishingits jurisdictare satisfied(Paras.107and
Wish 'lteatyof Friendshig,Neutrality,Conciliationand
pensedfromany needn3toentt:rintothequestionofthe effect
of the 1930treatyon theapplicabilityof theGeneral Act,
becauseit hasestablishedthat,bytheeffectofreservation
(b),theActisnotapplicable tothedispute,and'becausethe For these reasonstheCourtfindsthatit is withoujturis-
1930treatywasnot invokedas a basisfor itsjurisdiction. dictiontoentertaitheApplication filedytheGovernment
(Paras.91-93.) ofGreeceon10August 1976. (Para.109.)
Summary of the Judgment of 19 December 1978