Summaries of Judgments, Not an official documentders of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
APPLICATIO!F NORRE\rISION ANDINTERPRETATIOO NFTHEJUDGMENT
OF24FEBRUARY 1982INTHECASECONCERNING THECONTINENTAL SHELF
(TUNISLWLIBYA NRABJAMAHIRIYA)
Judgmentof10December1985
Initsjudgmentonthequestionconcerning the applicationJudgesRuda,Oda andSchwebel,andJudgeadhoc Mrs.
for revision andinterpretationsubmitlbnisia against Bastidappendedseparateopinionstothe Judgment.
theLibyanArabJamahiriyainconnectionwiththejudgment
deliveredon24February198%inthecaseoftlneContinental
Shelf ('hnisiaLibyan Arab Jimahiriya), the Court, unani-
mously,
-found inadmissibletherequestforrevisionofthe Judg-
mentof24February 1982; In these opinions the Judges concerned stated and
-found admissiblethe request forinterpretationof theplained the positions they adopted in o certain
Judgmentof 24 February1982as far asitrelatedto the firsttsdealtwithintheJudgment.
sectorof the delimitationcor~tempby that Judgment,
stated the interpretationchshould be made in that
Espect, andstatedthatthesubmission of'hisia relatingto
that sectorcannotbeupheld;
-found that theequestmadeby 'hnisia :forthecorrec-
tionof anerrorwaswithouttgect,andthatit wasnotthere- RELEVANT EXTRA^ OFTHE OPERATIV PART
forecalledpontogiveadecisionthereon; OF THEJUDGMEN OF 24FEBRUAR 1982
-found admissible theequest for interpiretationof thet will behelpfulto recall theoperative the Judg-
Judgmentof24 February1982asfar asitrelatedtothemost ment of24 February 1982,to whichthe Court makesfre-
westerlypointoftheGulf ofGzibesintheseco~~sdectoroftheentreference.
delimitationcontemplabytlhatJudgment,statedthe inter-TheCourtstatestherein theprinciplesandrulesofinterna-
pretationwhichshouldbe mt~dein that respsct, randstationallawapplicabletothe delimitationoftheareasofconti-
thatitcannotupholdthesubmiissionmeyb'Ibnisrelating nental shelf appertaining respeo 'hnisia and to the
tothatsector; Libyan ArabJamahiriyain the disputed region.It lists the
-found that therewasat timeno causeforthe Court relevant circumstanwhich sh~uldbetakenintoaccountin
to orderanexpertsurveyforthepurposeof ascertainingthehievinganequitabledelimitation,andspecifiesthe practi-
preciseco-ordinatesofthemostwesterlypointofthe Gulfoflmethodtobeemployedinthedelimitation.
Gabes. The delimitation derived frommethodstatedby the
Courtisdividedintotwo sectors:
"in the firstsector,namelyinthesectorclosertothecoast
ofthe Parties, thestartingpointforthelineofdelimitation
isthepointwherethe outerlimitoftheritorialseaofthe
Partiesisintersectedbyastraightlinedrawn fromthe land
The International Courtof Justicewasposedas fol- frontierpointofRasjdirthrough thepoint33"55'N 12"
lows:PresidentNagendraSin~g; ice-presiddteLachar- E, whichlinerunsatabearingofapproximately26"eastof
rihre;JudgesLachs,Ruda,Elias, Oda,Ago, Sette-Camara, north, correspondingto the angle followedby the north-
Schwebel, Mbaye,Bedjaoui,1%;JudgesadhocMrs.Bastid westernboundaryof Libyanpetroleumcoilcessionsnum-
andJimenezdeArbchaga. bersNC76, 137,NC41andNC 53, whichwasalignedon
Continued on next page the south-easterboundary ofnnisian pstroleumconces- The factwhich, accordingtoTunisia,wasunknowneitherto
sion "Pemis compldmentaireoffsho~adu Golfe de the Courtor to itselfbeforethe deliveryof the 1982Judg-
GaMs" (21October1966);fromtheinte.rsection pointso ment,wasthetext caftheResolutionoftheLibyanCouncilof
determined,thelineofdelimitationbetweenthetwoconti- Ministersof 28 M,mh 1968, which determinedthe "real
nentalshelvesistorunnorth-eastthroughthepoint33"55' come" of the north-westernboundaryof a petroleum con-
N, 12"E, thus onthat samebearing,tothepointof inter- cession,grantedbyLibya,knownasConcessionNo. 137,to
sectionwiththeparallelpassing throughthemostwesterly whichreferenceis made inthe Judgment, especiallyin the
pointoftheTunisiancoastlinebetween Ras Kaboudia and operativepart(seetibove,page3).
Ras Ajdir,that is to say, the mostesterlypoint on the Tunisiaaffirmsthattherealcome ofthatboundaryisvery
shoreline(low-water mark)oftheGulfofGabes; differentfrom that resulting from thevariousdescriptions
"in the secondsector,namely inthe areawhichextends givenby Libyato theCourt during the proceedingsleading
seawardsbeyondtheparallelofthemost -westerlp yointof up to the 1982Judgment. It also observesthat the delimita-
theGulfofGabes, thelineofdelimitationofthetwoconti- tion line passingthroughpoint 33"55'N 12"E wouldallo-
nentalshelvesistoveer totheeastinsuch1awayastotake catetoLibyaareasofcontinentalshelflyingwithintheTuni-
accountoftheKerkennahIslands;thatistosay,thedelim- sian permit of 1966, contrary to what has been clearly
itation lineis torunparalleltoa linedrawnfromthemost decidedby the Couuz,whoseentire decision,accordingto
westerly pointof the Gulf of Gabes bis'ectingthe angle nnisia, is basedor1the ideaof alignmentbetweenthe per-
fonnedbyalinefromthatpointtoRasKalbudiaandaline mitsand concessionsgrantedby the two Partiesand onthe
drawnfromthat samepoint along theseawardcoastofthe resultant absenceofanyoverlappingofclaimsupto 1974.
KerkennahIslands, the bearingof the delimitation line Withoutdisputingthe geographicfactsasto thepositions
parallelto such bisectorbeing 52"to the meridian;the of the boundariesof the relevant concessionas statedby
extensionof this line northeastwardsis a matter falling Tunisia,Libyaemplhasizesthatit did notpresenta mislead-
outsidethejurisdictionofthe Courtinthepresentcase,as ing pictureof itsconcessions. It refrained frommaking any
it will depend onthe delimitationto be agreed with thirdstatementas to the precise connectionbetweenLibyanCon-
States." cessionNo. 137 antitheTunisian permitof 1966, and con-
Attheendofthissummarythereisa reproductionofMap fineditselfta indicat:theexistenceofaboundary common
No. 3, which wasannexed tothe 1982Judgment, andwhich to boththeseconces;sions,followinga directionof approxi-
was producedforillustrativepurposesonly. mately26"fromRas;Ajdir.
HLowever ,ibyaclisputestheadmissibilityoftheApplica-
tion for revision, forreasonsof factand law. Accordingto
Libya,theApplicationfailsto comply withanyofthecondi-
tionsstatedinArticle61oftheStatute,withtheexceptionof
In theApplicationinstitutingproceedingwhichitfiledon the conditionas toheten-yearlimit laiddowninparagraph
27July 1984,TunisiasubmittedtotheCourtseveralseparate 5. It contends
requests:a requestfor revisionoftheudgm~endteliveredby -that the factnowreliedon was known to Tunisiaat the
theCourton24February1982(hereinafter'.'the1982Judg- timewhenthe 1982Judgment wasdelivered,oratallevents
ment") submittedon thebasisofArticle61'oftheStatuteof earlierthan six months befothe filingoftheApplication,
the Court;a requestfor interpretationof thatJudgmentsub- --that if the factwasunknownto Tunisia, that ignorance
mitted underArticle60of the Statute;anda requestforcor- wasdueto negligenceonitspart, and
rectionofanerror.Tothesewaslateradded ;requestforthe --that Tunisiaha; failedto showthatthefact discovered
Court to order an expert survey.The Courtwill deal with was"of suchanatureastobeadecisivefactor".
these requestsina singleJudgment.
TheCourtrecalls thateverythingknowntotheCourtmustbe
Questionoftheadmissibilityoftheapplicatitmfor revision takento be knownalsoto theparty seekingrevision,and a
(paras11-40) party cannot claimt13havebeenunawareof a fact regularly
broughtbeforeit. -.
UnderArticle61 of the Statute,proceedi~ngfsor revision 6e CourtexaminesthequestionraisedbyTunisia,onthe
areopenedbyajudgmentoftheCourt declaringtheapplica- basisof the ideathat the fact supposedlyunknownin 1982
tionadmissibleonthe groundscontemplatedb lytheStatute. related solelyto the co-ordinates defining theboundaryof
Rdings on the meritsareonly undertakenif the Court Concession No. 137, since the existence of an overlap
has foundtheapplicationadmissibleA. ccordingly,theCourt betweenthe north-western edgeof Libyan Concession No.
must deal first withthe admissibilityof the applicationfor137andthe south-easternedgeofthe kisian pemit could
revisionof the 1982 Judgmentsubmittedbly'hnisia. The hardly have escaped Wisia. It notes that, accordingto
conditionsof admissibility areset out in Article 6para- Libya,theinformationsuppliedtothe Courtwasaccurateas
graphsl,4 and 5 of whichreadasfollows: faras it went,buttheexact co-ordinatesof Concession No.
"1. Anapplicationforrevisionofajudgmentmaybe 137were notsupp1ic:d to the Courtby eitherPart yo,that
made only whenit is baseduponthe discoveryof some Tunisiawouldnot havebeenabletoascertaintheexact loca-
factof sucha natureastobe a decisivefactor,whichfact tionof the Libyan Concessionfromthepleadingsandother
was,whenthejudgmentwasgiven,unknown totheCourt materialthen beforethe Court. The Court must,however,
and also to the party claiming revision,always providedconsiderwhethertht:circumstanceswere such that means
that suchignorancewasnotduetonegligence. wereavailable to Tunisiato ascertain the exact co-ordinates
6... oftheConcession fromother sources;and indeed whetherit
"4. Theapplicationforrevisionmustbe madeatlat- wasinTunisia'sownintereststodoso.Ifsuchbethecase,it
estwithinsixmonthsofthediscoveryof thienewfact. doesnotappearto the Court thatit isopentokisia to rely
on thoseco-ordinates asa fact unknownto it within the
"5. Noapplicationforrevisionmay be madeafterthe meaningof Article61, paragraph1, of the Statute.Having
lapseoftenyearsfromthedateofthejudgment." considered theoppo~mnitiesavailableto Tunisiato obtain
154 concessionsgrantedbythemalinecorrespondingroughlyto
this information,andarguinghm these that theexactcon- a line drawnfrom Ras Ajdir at 26"to the meridian.Their
andthatit was initsintereststoobtainthem, theCmntcon- choicewasanindicationthat, atthetime,a26"linewascon-
cludesthat oneoftheessentialconditions ofadmissibilityof sideredequitablebybothStates.
arequestforrevision,laiddowninArticle61. pat-dgraph1,
of the Statute-ignorance cllFa new fact not due to FromtheforegoingitfollowsthattheCourt'sreasoningin
negligence- islacking. 1982is whollyunaffectedby the evidencenowproduced as
tothebou~ndarieosfConcessionNo.137.Thisdoesnotmean
TheCourtfinds it useful toconsideralso whetherthefact that if the co-ordinatesof ConcessionNo. 137 had been
relatingtotheConcessionco-ordinateswas"olfsuchanature clearly ir~dicatedto the Court, the 1982 Judgmentwould
as to be a decisivefactor", as]requiredby Article61, para- havebeellidenticallyworded. Someadditionaldetailsmight
graph 1.It points outthat, according toTunisla,the coinci- havebeengiven.Butinorderforanapplicationforrevision
denceoftheboundariesofthe ]Libyanconcessionsandofthe to be foundadmissible,it is not sufficientthatthe newfact
TunisianPermit of 1966is "sm essential element[ofl the reliedon might, haditbeenknown, have madeip tossiblefor
delimitation. ..and,intruthtIn~ratiodecidendioftheJudg- theCourttobemorespecificinitsdecision;itmustalsohave
ment."Theviewoflbnisia astothedecisivech~aracte orfthat beenafact"of sucha nature astobe adecisivefactor".Yet
coincidence derivesfrom its ir~terpretatiof the operative farfromconstitutingsuchafact,thedetailsofthecorrectco-
partof the 1982Judgment (seeabove,page3). That opera- ordinates of Concession No. 137 would have not have
tive clause,however, according totheCourt, fallsintotwo changedthedecisionoftheCourt astothefirstsectorofthe
distinct parts. In the first part, the Court establishes thedelimitation.Accordingly, the Court musctoncludethatthe
starting-pointofthe delimitationline,thatoiintbeing at the applicationbylbnisia forarevisionofthe 1982Judgmentis
intersectionofthelimitoftheterritorialseaoftheRutiesand not admissible accordingto the termsof Article 61 of the
a linewhichit callsthe "deternining line", drawn fromthe Statute.
frontierpointofRasAjdirthroughthe point33"55'N 12"E.
Inthesecondpart, theCourtaddsthatthe linerunsataspec- Requestforinterpretationinthejrst sectorofthedelimita-
ifiedapproximatebearing,and that that bearincorresponds tion
totheangleformedbythebou~~daro yftheconcessionsmen- (paras.41-50)
tioned.Itthendefinesthe actualdelimitationlineasrunning In the event that the Court doesnot findadmissible its
from that intersectionpointnc~rth-eastnthat same bearing Applicationforrevision,lbnisia has submitteda subsidiary
(approximately 26")ugh thepoint33"55'N12"E. requestfor interpretationas regards thefirst:sector of the
The Courtfindsthat in the operative clauseof rheJudg- delimitationline, based on Article60 of the Statute. The
mentthereis asingleprecisecriterionfor thethawingofthe Courtfirstdealsinthisrespectwithajurisdictional objection
delimitationline, namelythatiitis to be draw:nthroughtwo raisedby Libya. Thelatter claimsthat, if explanationsor
specifically defined point.he otherconsidei:atiorarenot clarificationsarenecessary,thePartiesmustgobacktogether
mentionedas partof the descriptionof thedelimitationline to the Court in accordance withArticle 3 of the Special
itself;theyappearintheoperativeclauseonlyasanexplana- Agreement onthe basisof which theCourt was originally
tion,notadefinition,ofthe"dleterminingline". seised.'Thequestionthereforearisesofthelinkbetweenthe
TheCourtthenconsiders wlletheritwouldhavehved at procedure contemplatedin Article3 of the SpecialAgree-
another decisionif it had knownthepreciseco-ordinatesof ment, and thepossibilityof eitherof the Parties requesting
ConcessionNo. 137.Hereitmakes threeobservations.First, interpretationunilaterallyof ajudgment underArticle60of
the line resultingfrom thegrant of petroleurnconcessions .theStatute.Having examinedthe contentionsofthe Parties,
wasbyno meansthesoleconsitieration takenintoaccountby theCourtconcludesthattheexistence ofArticle3oftheSpe-
theCourt,and themethodindicatedbythe Courtforachiev- cialAgreementdoesnotposean obstacleto the requestfor
ing anequitable delimitationderived infactfrom ;abalance interpretationsubmittedbylbnisia onthebasisofArticle 60
struckbetweenanumberofconsiderations. oftheShtute.
The Court goes on to consider whether the lbnisian
Secondly,the argumentof Tunisiathat the fact that the requestfulfilstheconditionforadmissibilitysuchthatit can
Libyanconcessionsdidnot matchthelbnisian bo~mdary on be met.It considersthata disputeindeedexistsbetweenthe
thewestwouldhave inducedtheCourt,haditbeenawareof Partiesas to the meaningand scopeof the 1082Judgment,
it,to adopt a different approach,proceeds froma narrow since they do not agreeas to whetherthe indicationin the
interpretationof theterm"aliigned"employedinthe opera- 1982 Judgmentthat theline shouldpass throughthe point
tive clauseof the 1982Judgment.It isevidentthatbyusing 33 "55'N 12"Edoesordoesnotconstitutea matter decided
that word, the Courtdid notmeanthatthe boundariesofthe withbindingforce;Libyaarguesthatit does;'hnisia thatit
relevantconcessionsformedaperfectmatchirrthesensethat doesnot. It thereforeconcludesthatthe'hnisianrequestfor
therewasneitheranyoverlapiloranysea-bed arealeftopen interpretationinrelationtothe firstsectorisadmissible.
between theboundaries.Moreover, from whathad beensaid
during the proceedings,it knew that the Libyanboundary TheCourtgoeson to specifythesignificanceoftheprinci-
boundarya steppedline, creatingeitheropenareasor areasan ple of res judicata in the present case. In particular, it
ofoverlap. Thelbnisian bountiaryfollowedagenemldiic- observesthateventhoughthe Partiesdid notentrustit with
tion of 26"from Ras Ajdir,and according to theC2ourtt.he the task of drawing the delimitation lineitself, they under-
boundaryof the Libyancontsssion was alignedwith that tookto applythe principlesandrulesindicatedbythe Court
generaldirection. --'Artic3oftheSpecialAgnementiswordeasfollows:
"Incasethe agreemmtentioninArticle2 isnot reached withain
Thirdly,what wassignificantforthe Courtin the "align- perioofthremonths,renewabbymutuaal greemenftrth eateof
ment" oftheconcessionboun.daries wasnotmerelythe fact deliveryoftheCourt'sjudgementth.etwo Partiesshall backthegro
thatLibyahad apparently limitedits 1968concessionso as facilithetasofthqewodelegationtsoanivthelineseparatintghe
nottoencroach onlbnisia's 1966permit.Itwas thefactthat twoanasofthecontinentaslhelf,andthetwoMes shall cowith
bothpartieshadchosentouseasboundaryofthepermitsor thejudgementftheCourtandwithitsexplanationasndclarifications."in itsJudgment.Asforthefigures givenby.theCourt,each repeated in the operativepart. Libya, on the other hand,
elementmustbereadinitscontext,to establishwhether the arguesthatsincethe,Courthadalreadymadeitsowncalcula-
Court intendeditasaprecisestatement,ormerelyasanindi- tions,theexactp1on:ingofthepointbytheexpertsinvolveda
cation subjecttovariation. margin "perhaps of seconds" at most. That being so, the
Coiwttakes the view,for the purposesof the conditionsof
requestfor interpretationis "to obtainsomeclarifications,iadmissibilitywhichit has initially to examine,that thereis
notablyas regards the hierarchyto be establishedbetween certainlyadisputebetweenthe Partiesasto whatinthe 1982
thecriteriaadoptedbytheCourt,having regardtotheimpos- Judgmenthasbeentiecidedwithbindingforce.Italsoseems
sibility of simultaneously applyingthese criteria to deter-o it thatthe real purposeof lhnisia's requestoobtaina
mine the starting point of the delimitationli.e.. ". It clarificationbytheCourtof "the meaning andscopeofwhat
arguesthat the boundaryto be taken into considerationfor the Court has decided" on that questionin the 1982Judg-
theestablishmentofadelimitationlinecanonlybethe south- ment. It therefore finds admissible theisian requestfor
easternboundaryofthe lhnisian Permitof 11966. heCourt interpretationinrespectofthesecond sector.
has already explained, in connectionwith the request for lhnisia attachesgreatimportancetothefactthattheparal-
revision,thatthe 1982Judgmentlaysdownfor the purposes lel34"10'30"indicatedbythe Courtmeetsthecoastlinein
of the delimitationa single precisecriterionfor thedrawingthemouthofawadi. Whilerecognizingthatthere isapointin
of the line, namely that it is to be a straight line drawnthelegionofthisparallelwheretidalwatersextendasfarasa
throughtwo specificalldefinedpoints.The 'hnisianrequest morewesterlylongitude thananyoftheotherpoints consid-
for interpretationis thereforefoundedupo3a misreadingof ered, lhisia disregardsthis, and fixes the most westerly
thepurportofthe relevant passageoftheoperativeclauseof pointontheshorelineof theGulfof Gabesat 34"05' 20"N
the 1982Judgment.TheCourt therefore findsthat it cannot (Catthage). Explainingits grounds for rejecting this, the
uphold lhnisia's submissionconcerningthe :interpretaofn Court says thatby "the mostwesterly pointontheshoreline
theJudgmentin this respect,andthat thereis nothingto be (low-watermark)oftheGulfofGabes", it simplymeantthe
added to what it has already said, in itssoningon the pointon the shorelir~whichis furtherto the westthan any
admissibilityof the requestfor revision, as tothe meaning otherpointon thesameshoreline,and hasthe advantageof
andscopeofthe1982Judgment(seeparagraphs32-39ofthe beingopento objectivedefinition.Asfor thepresenceof a
Judgment). wadiat approximatelythelatitudereferredto by theCourt,
theCourtreferred merelytothefamiliarconceptofthe "low-
Requestfor thecorrectionof an error in thejirst sectorof watermark". It did notintendto referto the mostwesterly
thedelimitation pointonthe baselines fromwhichthebreadthof the tenito-
(paras.51and52) rialseawas,ormightbe,measured;andthe ideathatitmight
As regards the lbnisian request for thecorrectionof an havereferredtosuch,baselinesto excludefromitsdefinition
error, submittedas a subsidiary requestto replactheco- ofthe"most westerlypoint"apointlocatedinthemouthofa
ordinates33"55'N 12"Ewithotherco-ordinates,the Court wadimust beregardedasuntenable.
considersthatitisbasedupontheviewexpressedbylbnisia As to the significanceto be attachedto the Court's refer-
that the choiceof thispointby the Court resultedfromthe enceinthe 1982Judgmentto the latitude34"10'30" N, the
applicationof a criterionwherebythedelimitationlinewas Courtexplainsthat ittookthat latitude asa practical defini-
nottoencroachuponthe lhnisian Permitof 1966.However, tionofthepointin relationtowhichthebearingofthedelim-
thisisnotthe case;hepointinquestionwaschosenasacon- itation linewas to cliiange.The definitionwas not binding
venient concretemeans of defining the26" line fr~mRas upontheParties,analit is significantin that respectthatthe
Ajdir.Accordingly,lhnisia's requestin thisregard appears word "approximate~,y"was used to describethe latitude,
to be basedon a misreading,and has thus becomewithout alsothattheoperativepartoftheJudgmentmadeno mention
object. Thusnodecision thereoniscalledfor.. of it. Moreover, the task of determiningthe precise co-
ordinates of the "niost westerly point" was left to the
Requestfor interpretationin thesecondsectorofthedelimi- experts. It followsthat the Court cannotupholdlbnisia's
tation submissionthat themostwesterlypointissituatedat34"05'
(paras.53-63) 20" N (Carthage).It expressly decidedin 1982thatthepre-
TheCourtnowturnstothe requestmadebylbnisia foran wouldnot be consistentwiththat decisionfor the Court to ,
interpretationofthe 1982Judgmentasitconcernsthesecond statethataspecificco-ordinateconstituted themostwesterly
sectorof the delimitation.Accordingto that Judgment, the pointoftheGulfofGabes.
delimitationline in the first sectorwas to bedrawn "to the
point of intersectionwith the parallelpassing throughthe That being so, the Court gives some indicationsforthe
most westerlypoint of the lbnisian coastline betweeRas experts, saying thattheyare to identifthe most westerly
Kaboudiaand Ras Ajdu, that is to say, the most westerly point on the low-watermark by using the availablemaps,
point on the shoreline (low-water mark)c~fthe Gulf of sarytoasurveyinloca,whetherornotthispointissituatedins-
Gabes". Beyondthat parallel, thedelimitationlimewas to achannelorinthemouthofawadi, andwhetherornotit can
reflect the radical changedirectionof the'hnisian coast- beconsideredas marlunga changeindirectionof thecoast-
line markedby the Gulf of Gabes. No co-adinates, even line.
approximate, were indicated in the operatiqvpart of the
Judgmentto identifywhatintheCourt'sviewwasthe most
westerly pointofthe Gulfof Gabes.According totheJudg- Requestfor anexpertsurvey
ment. "the mise co-ordinatesof thismint willbe for the (paras.64-68)
ex& to&mine, butitappearstothiCOWthatitwillbe Duringthe oral pnX:eedings,bisia ma& a subsid*ry
approximately34"10'30"north". submissionfortheorderingof anexpertsurveyfor thepur-
lbnisia maintainsthat the co-ordine4"10'30"Ngiven poseofascertainingtie exactco-ordinatesofthemost west-
in theJudgmentis not binding onthe Parties, sinceit is noterly pointoftheGulfofGabes. TheCourtcommentsinthisnspect thatit wuld onlyaccedeto the requestof bisiaif determinethepreciseco-ordinatesofthatpoint; that thelati-
the determinationof the co-ordinatesof this point were tude of 34" 10'30" wasthereforenot intendedto be itself
requiredtoenableittogivejudgmentonthenlatms submit- binding onthe Partiesbut wasemployedfor the purposeof
tedto it. However,the Courtis seisedof a requestfor inter-larifyingwhatwasdecided withbindingforceinparagraph
pretationof a previousjudgm~c:nt,nd in 1982it stipulated 133C(3)ofthatJudgment;
that it did not purportto dete:rminetheseco-ordinateswith (b) thatthereferenceinparagraph133C(2)ofthatJudg-
accuracy,thistask beingleft fortheexpertsoftheParties.At mentto "the most westerly pointof the lhnisian coastline
that time,itrefrainedfromappointinganexprt itself,what between Ras Kaboudia andRasAjdir,thatisto say,themost
wasatissuebeinganecessaryelementinitsdecisionastothe westerly point onthe shoreline(low-watermark)oftheGulf
practicalmethods tobe used. Its decisionin this respectisofGabes", and thesimilarreferenceinparagraph133C (3)
coveredbytheforceof resjuiicata. However,thisdoesnot areto be understoodas meaningthe pointon that shoreline
preventthe Partiesfromreturning tothe Court topresenta whichisfurthesttothewestonthelow-water mark; and
joint request thatit shouldorderan expertsuwey,but they (c) that it willbe for the expertsof the Parties,making
wouldhaveto do so by means; oa fn agreement. TheCourt use of all available cartographicdocumentsand, if neces-
concludes thatthereis nocauseat presentoirit to orderan sary,carryingoutanad hocsurveyinloco,todeterminethe
expert surveyfor the purpose:ofascertaining the exactco- precise co-ordinatesof that point, whether or not it lies
ordinatesofthemostwesterlypointoftheGulfofGabes. withina channelor the mouth ofa wadi, andregardlessof
Forthe futuretheCourtrecidlsthatthePartieareobliged whetherornot suchpointmightberegardedbytheexpertsas
toconcludeatreatyforthepullposeofthedelimitation.They mawkingachangeindirectionofthecoastline;
mustensure thatthe 1982 Judlgmentis impleimentesothat (3) Findsthatthe submissionoftheRepublicofTunisia,
thedisputeis finally disposedof, andstconsequentlyact "that themostwesterly pointoftheGulfofGabesliesonlat-
insuchawaythattheirexpertsengageinasincereexerciseto itude34"05'20"N(Carthage)", cannotbeupheld;
determinethe co-ordinateofthemostwesterlypoint,inthe E. IJnanimously,
lightoftheindicationsurnisht:dintheJudgment.
Findsthat,withrespecttothesubmissionofthe Republic
OPERATIVE PROVISION S1THE COURT'JS UDGMENT causefor the Courttoorderanexpertsurveyforthepurposee no
ofascertainingthe preciseco-ordinatesofthemostwesterly
pointoftheGulfofGabes.
A. Unanimously, SUMMARY OF THEOPINION ASPPENDED TO
Findsinadmissiblethe requestsubmittedbytheRepublic THEJUDGMEN O FTHECOURT
oflhnisia forrevision,underArticle 61oftheStatuteofthe
Court, of the Judgmentgivenby theCourt on 24 February
1982; SeparateOpinionofJudge Ruda
B . Unanimously, Judge Ruda's SeparateOpinionrefersto the relationship
(1) Finds admissible the request submitted by the betweenArticle60of the Statuteof theCourt, whichdeals
Republicoflhnisia forinterpretation,underAxticle60ofthe withthe internretationof ~reviousJudgmentsand.Article3
StatuteoftheCourt,oftheJudgmentof24February 1982as of thespecial ~~reemeni,empowenig the ~gies to ask
farasitrelatesto thefirstsectorofthedelimitationcontem- fromtheCourt"explanationsorclarifications".
platedbythatJudgment; JudgeRudathinks that, althoughLibyadevelopedin the
argumentajurisdictional objection,basedor1Article3, she
of24February1982,that themeaning andioscopeofthat part later waivedsuchobjection. Judge Ruda, unlikethe Court,
alsoconsidersthatthatarticleestablishedaspecialedure
oftheJudgmentwhichrelates thefirstsectorofhedelimi- tobe observed before comintothe Court;"The purposeof
ofthe presenJudgment;toodaccordingto paragraphs32to 39 Article3 is to oblige theParties to makean effortto settle
between themselves which are the points of difference,
(3) Findsthat thesubmis!sionoftheRepublic d 'hnisia before coming to tCourt;ifsuchaneffortfails,theParties
of 14June1985relatingtothefirstsectorofthedelimitation, thencouldaskunilaterallyforaninterpretationunderArticle
cannotbeupheld; 60oftheStatute".
C. Unanimously,
Finds that therequestoftl~eRepublicof 'Ibnieiafor the SeparateOpinionofJudgeOh
correctionof anerror iswithoutobjectandhatthe Courtis
thereforenot calledupontogiveadecisionthereon; JudgeOda, as a dissentingjudge in the originalcase in
D. Unanimously, 1982,statedthatiftheCourthad beenmorecautiousin 1982
inits re:ferenceto the former'hnisian and ]Libyanconces-
(1) Finds admissible the request subinimi by the sions as far astheywereto constituteanportantfactorin
Republicoflbisia forinterplstation,underArticle60ofthe theCourt'sdeterminationofthedelimitationline,thepresent
StatuteoftheCourt,ofthe Judgmentof24February1982as case wouldprobably not havebeenpresented..This seemsto
far as it relatesthe "most westerly pointof the Gulfof him anessentialpoint whichtheCourtin the present Judg-
Gabes"; ment should have morecandidlyrecognized.
(2) Declares, by way ofinterpretatiod theJudgment Withregardto the'hnisian applicationforrevisionofthe
of24February1982, delimitationlinein its firstsector, Judges of theview
(a) that thereferenceinpmgraph 124 ofthat Judgment that theCourt'sintentionwasfor astraightlineto bedrawn
to"approximately34"10'30"north" is ageneralindication linkingRas Ajdir andthemid-ocean point33"55'Nand 12'
ofthelatitudeofthepointwhichappearedtothe Clourtto be E, andthat thiswasnotof a natureto be so affectedby any
themost westerly point nthe:shoreline(low-,war ark)of newlydiscoveredfactsastocausetheCourttoreconsiderit.
theGulfofGabes,itbeing lefi:totheexpertsofthePartiesto Howeverforcefully that1982 Judgmentmaybe criticized, of the questionwhetherMembersof the Court in 1982had
the cause and motive underlyingthat Judgment, which is appreciated thatthere was, in 1974,a measureof overlap
sionunderArticle61oftheStatute.tmattenssubjectto revi- ping between the petroleuconcessionsofthePartieswithin
50 milesofthecoast.Inhis view,the 1982Judgmentwould
wth regardtothelbnisian requestsforinterpretationcon- havebeenwordeddifferentlyhadthat factbeenreallyunder-
cerningboththe firsantdthesecondsectors;ofthe delimita- stocxi.He is howeversatisfied thatsuch knowledgewould
tion line, JudgeOda is of the opinion that these requests not have changed the Court'sdecisionon the firstsectof
should have been declared inadmissible,since theywere the delimitationline:,andremainslargelyinaccordwiththe
simplydisguised requestsforrevision. The first sector was,presentJudgment.
asindicatedabove,anunequivocalline conrrectingtwoclear
points, andthe veering-pointof the delimitation linefor its SeparateOpi,nion ofMrs.Bastid,Judgeadhoc
secondsectorwasdeterminedbytheCourtonthesamelati-
tude as a smallnick on the lbnisian coast -whichthe Court In herSeparate Opinion,Mrs. SuzanneBastid,theJudge
happenedto pick asa turning-pointon the coastline.How- ad bc chosenbylbnisia, dismissestherequestfoa r revision
ever questionable these determinatioby itheCourt might on the groundthatno newfacthademerged. Sheconsiders
havebeen,theyweresoclearas to leaveno roomfor inter- therequestsforinterpretationadmissible. or thefirstsector,
pretation. shecriticizesthelirikestablishedbetween theargumentson
revisionand thoseclninterpretation.For the seconsector,
Separate OpinioonfJudgeSchwebel sheconsidersit necessaryto recalthe meaningof the term
"shoreline" (low-watermark)used in the operativepartof
JudgeSchwebelexpressesreservationsastothetreatment the 1982Judgment.
Summary of the Judgment of 10 December 1985