Summaries of Judgments, ANot an official documenters of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
CASECOPiCERNING THECONTINENTAL SHELF
(LIBYA ANRABJAMAHIW:YA,/MALTA)
Judgmentof3June :I985
In its judgment in the care concerning the ContinenthocJim&& de Whaga appendeda joint opinion. Judge
Shelf between theLibyanArabJamahiriyaand ]Malta,the Mbaye andJudge ad hocValticoseach appendedseparate
Court, by14votes to3, statedwhatprinciplesandrulesof opinions.
international law are applicableto the delimitationof thJudgesMosler, Odaand Schwebel appendeddissenting
continental shelfbetweenthe.two States, and the circumopinionsto the Judgment.
stancesandfactorstobetakenintoconsiderationinorderto
achieveanequitabledelimitation. It sthatan equitable
andthe 15"10'meridiansamedianline,ofwhicheverypoint
isequidistantfromtheow-w.atemarkoftherelevantcoasts
of Malta, on the one hand,d of Libya,on the other,and
bythentransposingthis lineorthwardby 1s'soasto inter- IntheseopinionstheJudgesconcernedstateandexplain
sect the15"10'E meridian ;ia latitudeof approximately the positionsthey adoptedin regardto certainpointsdealt
34". 0'N. withintheJudgment.
Thevotingwasas follows: ProceedingsandSubmissionosfthefirties
(paras. 1-13)
IN FAVOUR: PresidentElias; Vice-Presidt ette-Camara;
JudgesLachs, Morozov, NagendraSingh, Ruda, Ago, theproceedingsandsettingout theprovisionsof theSpecial
Bedjaoui;JudgesadhocVdticos,Jim6n6xa&ibAukhaga., Agreement concludedbetweenthe LibyanArabJamahiriya
andMalta for thepurposeofsubmitting tothe Courtthedis-
AGAINST J: dgesMoslerOda andSchwebel. pute between them concerning the delimitationof their
respectivecontinentalshelves.
By Article 1 of the Special Agreement,the Court is
requested todecidethefollowingquestion:
"What principles and rules of internationalarew
The Court was composedfor this case asfollows:si- applicableto the delimitationof the areaof continental
dent Elias; Vice-PresidentSette-Camara;Judges Lachs, shelf whichappertainso the Republicof Malta andthe
Morozov,NagendraSingh, IRuda,Mosler, Oda,Ago, El- areaof continentalshelfwhichappertainsto the Libyan
Khani, Schwebel, Sir Robttrt Jennings, tle k3charribre. ArabRepublic,and how in practicesuchprinciplesand
Mbaye, Bedjaoui;Judgesad hoc ValticosimdJimenbzde rulescan be appliedby the two Ruties in this particular
Whaga. areabyanagreementasprovidedinArticle111."elimitsuch
AccordingtoArticleIII:
"FollowingthefinaldecisionoftheInternationalCourt
ofJusticetheGovernmentoftheRepublicofMaltaandthe
GovttnunentoftheLibyan Arab Republic shalelnterinto
Judge El-Khani appendeadeclarationtotheJudgment. negotiationsfor determining thearea of their respective
Vice-ResidentSette-Camaraappendedasepariiteopinion continental shelvesand for concludingan agreementfor
to the Judgment;JudgesRutlaandBedjaou:i,andJudgead thaturposeinaccordancewiththedecisionoftheCourt."
Continued on next page Havingdescribetd hegeographicaclonteJc(paras .4-17) The applicableprinciplesandrulesofinternation&lw
in which thedelimitationof the continentalshelf, the sub-(pw .26-35)
ject of the proceedings,is to be carried out, the Court
explainsits approach tothetaskwhich it has to discharge Thetwo Partieagreethatthedisputeistobegovernedby
(para 18-23). customaryinternatilonallaw. Maltais apartyto the 1958
GenevaConventionontheContinentalShelf,whileLibyais
The Parties agreeon the task of the Court as regards thnot;bothPartieshavesignedthe 1982United Nations Con-
definitionof the principlesand rules of~~temationallaw vention ontheLawof the Sea,butthat Convention has not
Courtis to indicatethe practical applicof these princi- yetenteredintoforce. However,thePartiesareinaccord in
plesandrules.Malta rakestheviewthat the applicableprin- consideringthatsomeofitsprovisionsconstitutetheexpres-
ciples and~les are to be implementedin practiceby the sionof customary law, whle holdingdifferentviewsas to
drawing of a specific line (in this case, a median line) which provisions have this status. In view of the major
whereas Libyamaintains that the Court'stask does not importanceofthis Convention- whichhasbeenadoptedby
extendtothe actualdrawingofthe delimitationline.Having anoverwhelmingmajorityofStates-it isclearlythedutyof
examinedthe intentionsofthe Partiesto the SpecialAgree- the Courtto considerhowfar any of its provisionsmaybe
ment,fromwhichitsjurisdictionderives,the Court consid- bindinguponthePartiesasaruleofcustomarylaw.
ersthatit isnotdebarredbythe termsof theSpecialAgree- Inthis contextthePartieshave laid someemphasison a
ment fromindicatingadelimitationline. distinctionbetweenthe law applicabletothebasofentitle-
Turning tothe scopeof the Judgment,tht:Court empha- ment to areasof continentalshelf andthe law applicableto
sizes that the delimitationcontemplatedby the Special thedelimitationof areas of shelf between neighbouring
Agreementrelatesonlyto areasof continentalshelf "which States.Onthesecondpoint,whichisgovernedbyArticle83
appertain" to the Parties,to the exclusionof areas which ofthe1982Convention,theCourtnotesthat theConvention
might "appertain"toathirdState.AlthoughithePartieshave sets a goalto be pursued,namely "toachievean equitable
ineffectinvitedtheCourtnottolimititsJudgmenttothearea solution", but islent as to the methodto be followedto
inwhichtheirs arethesolecompetingclaims,theCourtdoes achieveit, leavingittoShtes themselves,ortothecourts,to
not regarditselfafretodoso,in view oftheinterestshown endowthisstandardwithspecificcontent.It alsopointsout
in the promdings by Italy, which in 1984 submittedan ofthe 1982Convention, the delimitationisto beeffectedin
applicationfor permissionto interveneunderArticle62 of accordancewithequiitableprinciplesand taking accountof
the Statute, an applicationwhich the Court found itself dl relevantcircumstances.
unableto grant.Asthe Courthadpreviously indicatedinits
Judgmentof 21 March1984, the geographicalscopeof the However,on the legal basisof title to continentalshelf
presentdecisionmustbelimited,andmustbeconfinedtothe rightstheviewsof theParti aresirreconcilable. For Libya,
area in which, accordingto informationsuppliedby Italy, the naturalprolongatiionthe landterritoryof a Stateinto
that Statehasnoclaimstocontinentalshelfkights.Thusthe the sea remainsthefundamentalbasisof legaltitle toconti-
CourtensurestoItalytheprotectionwhichitsoughttoobtain longerdefinedinthe lightofphysical criteria;tareacon-
byintervening.In viewofthe geographicallocatioofthese trolledbytheconceptofdistancefromthecoast.
claims the Court limits thearea within which itliveits
decision,on theeast by the 15"10'E mericlian,including Inthe viewof theCourt,the principlesandrulesunderly-
alsothat partofthe meridianwhichissouthofthe34"30'N ingthekgime ofthet!xclusiveeconomiczonecannotbeleft
parallel, and on the west by excludinga p:nhgonalarea outofconsiderationinthe presentcase, whichrelatesto the
bounded ontheeastby the 13"50' E meridian.The Parties delimitationofthecontinentalshelf.Thetwoinstitutionsare
haveno ground fsr complaint since,as the Courtsays,by linked together inmodemlaw, and one of the relevant cir-
expressinga negativeopinion on theItalian.Applicationto cumstancesto be takeninto accountfor thedelimitationof
the geographical scopeof the Judgmentwhich the Courtin extentofthenexclusive economiczone appertainingto that
wouldberequiredtodeliver. same State. Theinstitutionof theexclusiveeconomiczone,
withitsruleonentitlementbyreasonofdistance,isshownby
the practiceof States to have becomea part of customary
law;andalthoughtheinstitutionofthecontinentalshelfand
the exclusive economic zoneare differentand distinct, the
rights which the excl~lsiveeconomic zoneentailsover the
sea-bedof the zoneare definedby referenceto the dgime
The Court observes thatno decisiverole isplayedin the laiddownforthe continentalshelf.Althoughtherecan bea
presentcasebyconsiderationsderivedfrom thehistoryofthe continentalshelf wherethereisnoexclusiveeconomiczone,
dispute,orfromlegislativeandexploratoryaclivitiesinrela- therecannotbean excilusiveconomiczonewithoutacorre-
tionto thecontinentalshel(paras.24and25:).In these the spondingcontinental shelf.It follows that,forjuridical and
CourtfindsneitheracquiescencebyeitherPartytoclaimsby practical reasons, the distance critmust now applyto
the other, nor anyhelpfulindicationof any view of either the continentalshelas well as to the exclusive economic
Pdttyastowhat wouldbeequitabledifferinginanywayfrom zone; andthisquitepartfromtheprovisionastodistancein
theviewadvancedbythatPdttybeforetheCow. Itsdecision Article76of the 1982Convention.Within200milesof the
must accordingly be baseduponthe applicationto the sub- coast,natural prolongatiisinpartdefinedbydistancefrom
missionsmadebefore it of principlesandrules of interna- theshore.Theconceptsofnaturalprolongationanddistance
tionallaw. arenotopposedbutcomplementary;andboth remainessen-
tialelementsinthejuridical conceptofthecontinentalshelf.
The Courtisthusunab1.toaccepttheLibyancontentionthat
distancefromthecoastisnotarelevantelementforthedeci-
sionofthe presentcase.
I8TheLibyan "r@zone "argument duetoallrelevant circumstances; the principle that "equity
doesnotrlecessarilyimplyequality"andthat there canbe no
(paras.3-11 questionofdistributivejustice.
The Court goeson toconsiderLibya'sargumentbasedon
the existenceof a "rift zone" inthe regionof theimita-
tion. FromLibya's contentionthat the natural prolongatio~,"~_"~~~umrtames
inthephysicalsense,ofthelandtemtoryintothe isstilla
primary basis of title toconti~xentaslhelf, it wouldfollow ~h, cour hasstilltoassessthe weightto to
that, if thereexistsa fundamemdailscontinuitybetween thethe relevturtcircumstancesforthe purposofthe &limita-
shelfareaadjacenttoOne Partyandthe areaadjacentto tion.Althoughthere isnoclosedlistofconsiderationswhich
the other,the boundaryshoddllie alongthe generidlineof acourtmayinvoke,theCourt emphasizesthatthe onlyones
present case there are two distinctcontinlentid in the whichwillqualifyforinclusionarethosewhicharepertinent
dividedbywhatitcallsthe "rih zone", and itis;"within,andto the institutionof thecontinental asit hasdeveloped
follo>~inthe generaldirectio~lof, the RiftZone" that thewithinth(:law,andtotheapplicationofequitableprinciples
delihitationshouldbecarried out. toitsdelimitation.
Thus il:findsto be unfounded in thepracticeof States,in
The Court takesthe viewth~at,incethe developmentof he jurisprudenceorinthework of the hi^^ UnitedNations
aselawmilesfromitscoast*whateverthe geologicalcharac- conferen octheL~~of thesea theargumentof ~ib~t~hat
teristicsofthecorrespondingsea-berlandsubsoil,here isno th,lanhlass providesthelegaljustificationofentitlementto
reasonto ascribeany to geologicalOrgeophysicalfat- shelfrights,suchthaa stat eitha greateland-
torswithinthat distance. Sinceinthepresentinstancethedis-asswollldhavea moreintensenaturalprolongation.Nor
tancebetweenthecoastsofthe:Partiesislessth~400 miles, does the court consider,contrary to . contentions
that no geophysicalfeaturecan lie morethan 200 miles advancedbyM~U, that adelimitdon shouldbeinfluenced
fromeachcoast, the "rift zone" cannotconstitutea funda- bythe relativeeconomicpositionof the two!statesinques-
mentaldiscontinuityterminatingthsouthwanjextensionof wes,. ~tilcouri totesthatthedelimitationwllichwillresult
theMalteseshelfandthenorthwd extensionoftheLibyan fromthe;applicatioofthepresentJudgmentisnot so nearto
as if it weresomenaturalbou~ridar. oreover,the needto th, of either arty asto thesequestionapart.cu-
interpretthe evidenceadvancedfor and agaitlstthe Libyan 1, consicleratjo.S forthetreatmentofislandsincontinen-
qment the firstod(: adeWmina- talshelfclelimitation,Maltahasdrawnadistinctionbetween
tionuponadisagreementbetwcznscientistsof'distinctionas islandstate snd islands a mainland
tothe more plausibly correct inte~tationof al)parentl~ State.In thisconnectionthe court merelynoes that, ~alta
incompletescientificdata,apositionwhichitcannotaccept. being independent,the relationshiof itscoastswith the
It thereforerejects the so-called "rift zone" argumentofcoastsofitsneighborn isdifferentfrornwhatitwouldbeifit
Libya. werepartof the temtory of one of them.This aspectof the
matteralsoseemsto the Courttobe linkedtothe positionof
Malta'sargumentrespectingtheprimacyofequidistance the Malteseislands in the wider geographicalcontext, to
(paras.42-44) whichitwillreturn.
Neither,however,istheCourtabletoacceptMalta'sargu- The Court rejects anotherargument of Malta, derived
mentthatthenewimportance dthe ideaofdis~tancferom the fromthesovereignequalityofStates,wherebythemaritime
coasthasconferredaprimacyonthemethodofquidistance extensions generatedby the sovereigntyof each Statemust
for the purposesof delimitationof the continentalshelf, atofequaljuridicalvalue.whateverthelengthofthe coasts.
any ratebetween opposite states, as is the with the The Court considersthatifcoastalStateshave anequalenti-
coastsofMaltaandLibya.Ma1.bconsidersthatthedistance tlement,ips0jureandabinitio,totheircontirlentalshelves,
principle requiresthas,astatstingpointofthedelimitation thisdoesnotimplyanequdi intheextentoftheseshelves,
process,considerationmustbegiventoanequidismce line, andthusreferencetothelengX ofcoastsasamlevantconsid-
subject to verificationof the:equitablenessof the resulterationcannotbeexcludedapriori.
achievedbythis initialdelimitation.The Court isunableto
acceptthat, evenasa prelimir~asteptowardsthe:drawing Pro~~omliv
must necessarilybe used. It is neitherthe onlyappropriateparas.55-59)
methodof delimitation,nor the only permissiblepoint of The Court then considersthe role to be assignedin the
departu Mrereover, theCoulrconsidersthatthepracticeof presentcase to proportionality,Libyavingamched con-
Statesinthisfieldfallsshortof]provtheexistenceofarule siderable importanceothis factor. It recallsthat, according
prescribingtheuseofequidistzunceo,r indeedfnymethod, tothejurisprudence,roportionalityisonepossiblyrelevant
asobligatory. factoramongseveralotherstobetakenintoaccount,without
ever being mentionedamong "the principlesand rules of
Equitableprinciples internationallaw applicable tothe delimitation" or as "a
(paras.45-47) general principleprovidingan independentsourceof rights
to areasof continentalshelf". Libya's argument,however,
The Parties agree thatthdblimitationof the continentalgoes further.Once thesubmissionrelating tothe rift-zone
shelfmustbeeffectedbytheapplicationofequitableprinci- has beendismissed, thereis nootherelementinthe Libyan
ples in allthe relevant circumstancesin orderto achieveasubmissions,apartfrom thereferencetothelengthsofcoast-
equitableresult.TheCourtlistssomeoftheseprinciples:the line, which is able to affordan independentprincipleand
principle that thereistobeno questionofrefashioninggeog-methodfor drawingtheboundary. The Courtconsiders that
raphy; theprincipleof non-e~tcroachmenty one Partyon touse theratioofcoastal lengthsasself-determinativeofthe
areas appertaining tothe other;the principleof the respeseawardreach andareaofcontinentalshelf propertoeach,is
149togofarbeyondthe useofproportionalityasatestofequity, boundary:namelythat this line isollintentsandpurposes
intt Lenseemployedinthecaseconcerning theContinental controlledoneachside,initsentirety,byahandfulofsalient
supporitnthe practicofStatesortheirpublicstatements,or apartforMalta;severalpointsconcentratedmediately1easts
inthejurisprudence. ofRasTadjourafor.Libya).
linebeadjustedsoastolieclosertothecoastsofMalta.Theation
coastsof the hrtieis beingopposite toeach other. and the
equidistance line lyigroadlywest toeast,this adjustment
canbesatisfactoriland simply achievedytransposingitin
The &limitationoperationandthedrawingofaprovisional anexactlynorthwarddirection.
equidistance line The Courtthene:stablisheswhatshould be theextnzme
(P-. -1 limitof sucha tranr;positionI.t reasonsasfollows:wereit
Inordertoapply theequitableprinciples hichwereelic- supjmsedthattheMialtese islandswerepartofItaliantem-
itedby taking accountof the relevantcin:umstances,the tory,andthat therewasaquestionofthedelimitationofthe
Courtproceedsbystages;it beginsbymakingaprovisional continentalshelf &,tweenLibya andItaly, the boundary
delimitation,whichit thencompareswiththerequirements wouldbedrawninthe lightofthecoastsofLibyatothesouth
ofthisinitialresult.teriawhichmaycall foranadjustment andofSicily tothenorth.However, accounw t ouldhaveto
be takenof the islandsof Malta,so that this delimitation
basedonthecriterionofdistanceinrelationtothecoast(the SicilyandLibya.SinceMaltais notpartofItaly,butis an
principleof adjacencymeasuredby distance),and noting independenSt tate,itcannotbethecasethat, asregardsconti-
thattheequitablenessftheequidistancemethodisparticu- nental shefights, itwillbeinaworsepositionbecauseofits
larlymarkedincaseswherethedelimitationconcernS states independence.It is ,thereforereasonableossumethatan
withoppositecoasts heCourtconsi&rsthattheWing ofa equitableboundarytetweenLibyaandMaltamustbetothe
medianlinebetween the coastsofMaltaand.Libya,byway southof a notionalmedianlinebetween Libya and Sicily.
of a provisionalstepin a processtobe continuedbyother That line intersectse 15"10'E meridianat a latitudeof
operations, themostjudiciousmannerofproceedingwith approximately34"36'.Themedianlinebetween Malta and
a viewto theeventualachievementof an equitable result. Libya (drawnto excludetheisletofFilfla)intersectsthe15"
anditmustbedemonstratedthaittinfact leads toanequita- transposition northwardsf 24' of latitudeof the Malta-
bleresult-this canbeascertainedyexaminingtheresultto Libya median linewouldthereforebethe extreme limiotf
whichitleadsinthecontextofapplyingotherequitableprin- suchanadjustment.
ciplestothe,relevantircumstances. tthissitage,theCourt Havingweighedupthe variouscircumstances inthecase
explainsthatit finditsequitablenotttakeaccountof the aspreviouslyindicated,theCourt concludes thaat shiftof
uninhabited MaltesislandofFilflainthecon~stmctiofthe abouttwo-thirdsof .thedistancebetweenthe Malta-L-ibya
provisionamedianlinebetweenMalta andLibya,inorderto medianlineand theline located24'furthernorthgivesan
eliminatethedisproportionateffectwhichit,might havon equitableresult,andthat the delimitation lsniebepro-
thecourseofthisline. ducedbytransposingthemedianlinenorthwardtshrough18'
Adjustment of the equidistance line, tczkingaccount oflatitude.Itwillintersectthe15"1E'meridianatapproxi-
especiallyof the lengthsf the respective coastsof the mately34"30' N. Itwillbeforthehrties andtheirexperto
tbrties determinetheexactposition.
(paras.65-73)
Thetestofpropom'ot~ulity
The Courtexamines whetheri,n assessing;thequitable- (paras.74-75)
such weight asto justify theirbeing takeninto account, Whileconsideringthat therisnoreasonofprinciplewhy
requiringanadjustmentofthemedianlinewlhich hasprovi- a test of proportionality,basedon the ratio betweenthe
sionallybeendrawn. lengtlhsftherelevantcoastsandtheareasofshelfattributed,
OnepointarguedbeforetheCourthas bwn theconsider- shouldnotbeemployedtoverifytheequityoftheresult,the
&ledisparityinthelengthsoftherelevantcoastsof theh- COWstatesthatthe~emaybe certainpractical difficulties
ties. Here, tCourtcomparesMalta'scoastswiththecoasts whichrenderthistest inappropriate.Theyareparticularly
ofLibyabetweenRasAjdir(theboundarywinhnnisia) and evidentin the presentCase,interafiabecause theZmalto
Ras h~ (15"10')andnotesthatthereisalmked dispar- whichtheJudgmentwillapplyis limitedby reasonof the
ity between thelengths of thescoasts,sincxthe Maltese existenceofclaimsofthirdStates,andtoapplythepropor-
coastis24 mileslongandtheLibyancoast192mileslong. unrealistic.However,itseemstotheCourtthatitCanmakeae
Thisisarelevantcircumstancewhich anadjustment broadassessmentoftheequityoftheresultwithoutattempt-
Libya.However,it remainsrtoudeterminetheextentof this ingto expressitinfigures.Itconcludesthatthereiscertainly
adjustment. nomanifestdisproportionbetweenareasofshelfattributto
A furthergeographicafleam must be intoconsid- eachof theParties,suchthatit mightbe claimedthat the
erationasarelevantcircumstancet;hisisthesouthemlma- requirementsof the test of proportionalityas an aspectof
tionofthecoastsofthe Maltese islands,within thegeneral quity arenotsatisfied.
geographical contexitn which the delimitationis to be The Cow presentsa summaryof its conclusions(paras.
effected.TheCourtpoints toafurtherreasonfornotaccept- 76-78)andits decisian,thefulltextofwhichfollows(para. .
ing the medianline, withoutadjustment,asan equitable 79).
150 ~~ PROVISION OSI7THCEOURT' JUDGMENT SeparateOpinionbyKce-President
Sette-Camara
RIECOURT,
fortheJudgment,fileda separateOpinionforthe followingg
byfourteenvotes tothree,
findsthat, withreferencetcltareasof continentalshelf -nS:
betwan thecoastsofthePartiieswithinthelimitstiefinedin 1. The natural prolongationdoctrine as establishedin
thepresentJudgment,namelythemeridian13'50'Eandthe the 1969NorthSea ContinentalShelfJudgmentis still the
meridian 15'10'E: mainpillaroftheconceptofcontinentalshelf.Althoughthe
A. Theprinciplesandrulesofinternationallawapplica- original concept of the "s~eies of ~latfom" has ken
bleforthedelimitation,tobeeilrectedbyagreementinimple- replacedbyagraduallymorejuridicaldefinitionofthe conti-
mentationofthepresentJudplent, oftheare;=ofcontinen- ofthedefinitionofcontinentalshelf. Art76,paragraph1,nt
tal shelfappertainingto the Stxialist People'sLibyanAraofthe1982MontegoBayC0n~enti0nitselfConfirms the~li-
JamahiriyaandtotheRepubljicof Maltarespectivelyareas
follows: ance onnaturalprolongation.
(1) the&limitationis to be effectedin a(:cordancewith 2. Vice-PresidentSette-Camaraseesnol~eedtoresortto
equitableprinciplesand takirbgaccountof all relevantcir-he "distance principle"as definedin the finalpartof para-
cumstances,soastoarriveatim equitableresult; graph76 of the 1982MontegoBay Conventionas a legal
(2) theareaofcontinend shelftobefou,adtoappertain foundationfortheJudgment.ThecoastsofMaltaand
toeitherPare not extendingmore than200milesfromthe are~IY 180milesapartandthespecificgeographicalsitu-
cosstofthePaay no fordelimitatioof ationdealtwithbythat proviso doesnotexistin the present
shelfareascanbe derivedfrom theprinciplofnad pro- case. Even if weconsider the said proviso as contaiaing
longationinthephysicalensc:. rule of customary internationallaw-discarding conven-
B. The circumstances and factors to be Wen into tional law becausetheConventionis notinforce-it has no
accountinachievinganequitabledelimitatiointhepresent withthecircumstancesofthiscase.
casearethefollowing: 3. Since neitherof the Partieshasclaimedan exclusive
thePer' ofthe of'le economic zone the opinion finds unnecessaryand out
theiroppositeness,andtherelationshiptoeachotherwithin of place the considerationsof theJudgmenton this specific
thegeneralgeographicalcontext; subjcn.
(2) the dis~.ritin theleirgths the relevm of 4. Althoughconcurringwiththemethod ofestablishing
thePartiesandthedistancebetweenthem; a m& line benmen he Malteseand Libyan coas& and
thencorrectingits coursebytransposingitnorthwardsby8
(3) the needtoavoidin lthedelimitationany excessive minutes,the opinionfailsto subscribeto the waythe~udg-
areasappertainingto the coastalStateandthe lengththeelfmeritrexhed a line on the extremenorthemparameterfor
relevantpartofitscoast,measuredinthegeneraldirectionof that operation. imaginary exercise of drawing a
thecoastlines. median line between thecoastsofsicily and
Maltais rejectedas an artificial refashioningof geography.
C. Inconsequence,anequitableresultmaybearrivedat Vice-hsident Sette-Camarabelievesthatitwouldbe much
by drawing,asafirststageintheprocess,amedianlineevery simplertoattributepartial effecttothecoastsofMalta,tobe
pointofwhichisequidistantijrornthelow-watemark ofthe balm& upwithsimilarpartialeffecttobegivento the fla-
low-watermarkoftherelevanl:oastofLibya,,thatinitiallinegrantdisproportionalityinthelengthsoftherelevantcoasts,
beingthen subjectto adjustmentin the lightof the above-soastoreachanequitableresult.
mentionedcircumstancesandfactors.
SeparateOpinionofJudges Ruda ,edjaoui
D. Theadjustmentofthe medianlinereferredltoinsub- andJudgeadhocJidnez deAr4chuga
northwards through eighteeninutesof latitud(sothat itne TheauthorsofthejointseparateOpinionagreewith many
15010' E at approximatelylatitude ofthecourt's findings aCO~C~US~O~S butobservethat the
340t30'N)hsuchtransposedlirlehen constitutingthedelimi-Judgmentdoesnot pronounce on Malta'strapeziumclaim,
tationlinebetweentheareasclPcontinentaslht21fappertainingich they findexcessiveand contraryto the practiceof
tothe Socialist People'sLibyanArabJamahiriyaandto the Statesin Or seas.
RepublicofMaltarespectivel[y. Theyalsobelieve thatit wouldhavebeenmoreequitable
toWmt the medianline northwardsby 28'. thus giving
Judges Lachs, Morozov, :NagenQraSingh, Rub,-Cago,a; Maltaa 314effect, achievinga proportionalityratioof 1to
El-Khani, Sir Robert Jenilings,rdeLach~Irri, baye, 3.54anddividingequallytheareaindispute. I
Bedjaoui;JudgesadhocVt~lticosJ,imbne~:eMhaga.
SeparateOpinionbyJudgeMbaye
AGAINST J:dgesMosler,Odka and Schwebe.l
Judge Mbaye votedin favourof the Judgmentsince he
SUMIUAR OFTHEDEC~~TION AND (DPINliONS endorses the conclusionswhichthe Courtllas reached and
APPENDED TOTHE JUDGMEN OTFTHECOURT accepts,on the whole, thereasonsforthem.
His Opiniondealswith two points: whaitrehascalled the
Declarationby JudgeEl-Khafiri "two meaningsof the conceptofnatural prolongation"and
Judge~l-~hanivotedinfilvouroftheJudgment,butis of the circumstanceof the "considerabledistaeetweenthe
theviewthata linelocatedfimherto thenorth thanthepro- CoastsOfthetwoStates".
posedlinewouldhavebeenmoreinaccordancewithpropor- As far as the first pointis concerned, although Judge
tionalitywhilesatisfyingonerequirementofequity. MbayestatesthathedoesnotdisagreewiththeCourt,espec-
151idly as regardsthe finding thtaturalprolongationin the itsimpossibilitTheadjustmeno t transpositiofthe Libya1
physicalsensecannot,inthepresentcase,h,aveanyeffecton Malta medianlineso as to shiftit 18 minutesnorthwards
thedelimitatiooftheareasofcontinentalshelfappertaining on each meridianappearsto JudgeOdato be groundless.
respectiveltoeachParty,heexpresses regretthattheCourt, Despitethe Judgment's professintghave takenthe Libya/
whichhefinds hasmadeahighlyperceptiveanalysio sfthe thefinal line suggesteas a consequenceofthe 18-minuteion,
continentalshelfby drawinga distinctionbetween natural shiftisdevoidofallthe propertieinherentinthe conceptof
prolongationasa "legalprinciple" annaturalprolongation equidistance,so thatthis resultant line canptroperlybe
in the '"hysical sense", has not takenthe opportunityto regardedasanadjustedmedian. Ineffect,thetechniqueof
bringoutthisfundamentaildea,which marka sturningpoint the Judgment hasinvolvedviewing thentireterritoryofone
inthe developmenotfthis areaofthelawasitemergesfrom Pdt.tasaspecialckumstanceaffecting adelimitatio(Sicily1
theUnited Nations ConventiontohneLaw ofthe Seaof 10 Libya)whichthe Courthad no call to make and which
December 1982. excludesthaPt arty.nthatcontext,thepartialeffectthatmay
Asforthesecondpoint,JudgeMbayeqcrestionw s hether completelydifferentto that featuredin the 1977 Anglo-
the "considerable"distancebetweenthe coastsof thetwo FrenchArbitration.InJudge Oda's viewt,he"half-effect"
Statescanbedescribedasa "relevant circu.nnstances,uch ofan islandhadalsobeenmisinterpretedbytheCourt's1982
medianlineinitialydrawnbytheCourt.According tosoJudge Judgmentinthe TuniiialLiby aaseandthe 1984Judgmen otf
Mbaye,thedecisivereasonforsuchatransposition isthedif- aChamberofthe Courtinthe GulfofMaine case.Toclarify
ferenceinthelengthsofthecoasts,andalsothegeneralcon- his criticisms,he analyses the relevant sectioosf those
figuratioofthesecoastsand the geographoyftheregion. Judgmentsaswellarthe"proportionality"test as originally
mentionedinthe NorthSeaContinentaS lhelfcases.
SeparateOpinionbyJudge adhoc \lalticos Judge Oda remainsof the view that theequidistancel
Whileconcurringwith the Judgmen atsawhole,Judge ad special-circumstancersleindicatedinthe1958Continental
hocValticosemphasizes that,byconfiningtlieareatowhich ShelfConventionis stillpartof internationallawand,fur-
its decisionapplietsoalimitedzone,inordertoleave unaf- thermore,thattheroleofspecialcircunnstanceisnottojus-
fectedtheinterestsofItaly,theCourtpoint!outthatMalta basesofthat linetot~rectified wiaviewtothe avoidance
andLibyaremainfreeto examine togetherwithItalythe ofanydistortingeffect.Inthepresentcase,JudgeOda sug-
questionof thedelimitation, asbetweenthese threecoun- geststhatthe islandfFilfla shoulbeignoredinplottingan
tries,of areas outsidethis limitedzone.He stateshis full equidistance linebetweenLibyaandMalta.The resultant
agreement astothelackofrelevanceofthegeologicaland linewould then ihicrviewhaveconstitutedacorrectdelimi-
the lineof delimitationshouldhave been themedianlinehat tation.Drawingitwouldnot,in thecircumstancesh ,avehad
between Malta anL dibyaforvariousreasons, includingthe anylegalimpact ontheclaimofanythirdState,but would
positionofoppositecountries,theew mndsininternational claimagainstthe otheirnanyareabeyondit.sentitledto any
law,thepracticeofStatesand thetaskoftheCourt,whichis
todefinethe appropriaterulofinternational law. etakes
theviewthatthefactorofthedifferenceinlengthsbetween Dissenting OpiniobnyJudge Schwebel
thecoastsshould nothavbeeentakenintocorrsiderationa,nd Judge Schwebel dissents from the Judgmentin two
didnotwarrana tny"correction"ofthe medianline.Healso respects.Inhis view, the linofdelimitationwhichit lays
nomicfactorsinvolved anddulGcurityneeds,,circumstances downhas beenundulytruncatedto deferto the claimsof
whichconstitute additionalstificationforthe medianline Italy;andthe lineisnotamedianlinebetweenthe opposite
solution. coastsof LibyaandMaltabut a "corrected" median line
which,asrendered,isincorrect.
DissentingOpinionbyJudgeMosler JudgeSchwebelmaintaints hat,whilearequestbyItalyto
intervenein the case betweenLibyaand Maltahad been
Judge Mosler is of th!: opinion thatthe medianline deniedbytheCourt,today's ~udg&t grantstoItalyall that
the circumstancesofbythencase. He criticizesthe global implausibleconclusicmby holding that the SpeciaAlgree-
removalofthe medianlineby18minutes northward and the ment between Libya and Mal gave the Court jurisdiction
methodusedbytheCourtin arrivingatthatmsult. onlyto decidequestionosfthedelimitatioofthecontinental
shelf "whichappertains"toMaltaorLibya,and nottoany
DissentingOpinionby JudgeOG!~ thirdState.Butthe SpeciaAgreement did not speaokfareas
whichexclusivelyappertaitno aparty.Moreover,inbound-
InJudgeOddsview,theCourh tasnotfullygrappledwith arycases, as previoujsudgmentsof the Court indicate, the
recentdevelopmentisnthelaw oftheseaand isindangerof Courtneednotdecideinthe absolute. ThutsheCourtcould,
senseofwhatisequitable inaparticularcase.Hefindsthat as wellas Maltaor :Libyalay claim,whilereservingany
thearea towhichthe Courthas confined thoeperationof its rightsofItaly.ThatthisinterpretatioftheSpecialAgree-
Judgmentis misconstructed through overcancentrationon mentisthebetterinteipretatioisshownbythefactthatboth
thirdatate interestswhichhave notbeenjudicially estab- Partiestoit, Malta andLibya,maintainedit. ButtheCourt,
lished. Furthermoret,he Judgment's employme ofta pro- contraryto the rulesof treatyinterpretation,hastaken no
portionalitytest to verthe equityofthe suggestedelimi- accountof the interp~statiwhichthePartiesplacedupon
tationis paradoxical,in that the necessityof defining thetheir agreementJ.udgeSchwebeldoubtstheproprietyofthe
relevantarea and coastlinesfor that purposeis first pro- Court'sJudgmentdeferringso absolutelyto Italy'sclaims
poundedandthetn hisexercisisabandoned onthegroundof forthesereasonsa,ndbecause iatppearstoplaceinthe handsofathirdpartythedeterminationoftheextentofthejurisdic- land State. The general geographical context-which the
tion whichtwo other Bartiesto a case conferredupon the Court in any event sharplynarrowed to defer to Italy's
court. claims-worked againstMalta's position no more than Lib-
Asto the locationof the lineofdelimitation,whileJudge ya's. Asfor the fact thatLibya'scoastsarelonger, sinceit
Schwebelagreesthat, in a caseof purelyoppositeStates, a hasalwaysbeenacceptedthat thebase ofatriangleislonger
medianline is the correct startingpoint, he doesnot agree thanthe apex,it naturally follows that thereis a larger area
withtheCourt's decisiontotransposethelinesubstantiallyto lying off the base (Libya)than the apex (Malta). But the
the northand thereby toacco~dLibyaa muchlarger conti- CourtgaesbeyondthatfacttoallotLibyaabonus becauseits
nentalshelf thana medianlint:would.The Court hasrelied coastsarelonger.TheCourtdeniesthatitdoessoforreasons
essentiallyon the fact thatLibya'scoastsare:muchlonger ItratherseemstobaseitsJudgmenton someintuitiveinstincttion.
than Malta'sand that, in thegeneralgeographical context, to giveLibyaa bonusbecauseits coasts are so muchlonger
the Maltese islandsarea smal.featurewhichlie southof a thanMalta's.Moreover,the Court offersnoobjective,veri-
continentalmedianline.ButtheCourthasfailedtoshowthat fiablelink betweenthe circumstancesit regardsasrelevant
these circumstancesare probativeor even melevant.They andthedeterminationoftheprecise lineitregardsasequita-
providenoreasonfordiscountingthewholeofthe islandsof ble. It fails to show that those circumstances dictate the
Malta-whicli together constitute that independenState- adjustmenttotheextentofthat adjustment.
as if they werethe anomalousdependentisla~ldsof a main-
Summary of the Judgment of 3 June 1985