COUR INTERNATIONALEDE JUSTICE
REQUÊTE
INTRODUCTIVE D'INSTANCE
enregiauGreffede laCour
le 12mars1991
DÉLIMITATIONMARITIME
ENTRE LA GUINÉE-BISSAU ET LE SÉNÉGAL
INTERNAnONAL COURT OFJUSTICE
APPLICATION
INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS
filed in theRegistryof theCourt
on 12March1991
MARITIME DELIMITATION
BETWEENGUINEA-BISSAUAND SENEGAL
(GUINEA-BISSAU v.SENEGAL) 1991
GeneralList
No.85
1. THE AMBASSADOR OF GUINEA-BISSAU TO THE
KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS TO THE REGISTRAR OF
THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Bmsseis, 12March 1991.
1have the honour, on behalf of the Cioveniment of the Republic of Guinea-
Bissau, and in accordance with Article 40, paragraph 1,of the Statute of the
Court, to transmit to you an Application institutiog proceedings against the
Government of the Re~ublic of Senenal.
niis is a second ~Glication filed-by my Govcrnmenr againsi rhe Goi,ern-
ment ofSenegal,and isdisiinct from the one iiled on 23August 1989, in respect
of which proieedings are in progress.
nie putpose of the filing of this Application is,as willbe clear from itstext, to
initiate, without delay, a process to make possible the settlement, under the
Court's authority, of the specificdispute between the two States relating to the
whole of their maritime territories, which has existed in defined lems since
31 July 1989.
In acwrdance with Article 40 of the Rules of Court, the Government of the
Republic of Guinea-Bissau has appointed as its Agent Mr. FidélisCabral de
Almada, Minister of State attached to the Presidency of the Council of State.
ïhe address for service of the Agent of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau is the
Embassy of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau in Bmssel~,70, Avenue Franklin
Roosevelt, 1050BNSS~~S ,elgium.
(Signed)Fali EMBALO,
. .
Ambassador.
, , II. APPLICATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF GUINEA-BISSAU
1 the undenigned, duly authorized by the Republic of Guinea-Bissau of
which 1amtheAmbassadoraccreditedto the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the
Kingdom of Belgium and the European Economic Community, have the
honour to refer to Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, to Article 38 of
the Rulesof Court. andto the declarationsby which the Republic of Guinea-
Bissauandthe Republic of Senegalha\,erespectively acceptedthejurisdiction
of theCourt and.in conseauence, to submit to il. in accordancewith Article 40
of the StatuteandArticle j8 of the Rulesof ~&rt, an Application instituting
proceedingsbrought by the Republic of Guinea-Bissauagainst the Republic
of Senegaiinthe following case:
1. STATEMEN OF THE FACTS
1. The Republicof Guinea-Bissauhasbrought proceedingsbeforetheCourt
by an Application of 23 August 1989relating to the inexistenceand lack of
validityof thepurported arbitra1,awardmadeon31July 1989betweenGuinea-
Bissauand Senegal.
As atotally separatematter, it is today submitting to the Court another dis-
putearising from thefollowing facts:
From the first yearsaftcritaitained independencein 1973.Guinca-Bissau
was madc aware of maritime issuesby the debatcs in which it participated
within the framework of the Third United Nations Conferenceon the Law of
the Sea.
Its leaders,anxiousto realizeandutilize al1the country'spoten!ial for devel-
orment. wereaware - andaremorethan everaware - that amalor part of the
résources that can beenjoycd by its peoplemay comcfrom thesea&hich bor-
den iü Coast,andthat in view of thegeographyof thecountry. the lengthof iü
coastline.ihe presenceof numerousinhabited islands,theshallow depth of thc
inshore sca-bcd,the variety and importance of both biological and mineral
rcsources,Guinca-Bissaushould make rapid and rational useof iü maritime
wealth.
2. Any Siatewhich dcsircsto procecdto a peacefulexploitation of maritime
resourfcs musl, howcvcr, achievcfint of alla clearly establisheddelimitation
with neiphbourina States,so ihat the exploitation may no1subsequcntlybea
~ ~ ~e o?conflid.
Accordingly, in aspirit of good ncighbourlinessand peaceful relationscon-
duncd on the hasisof the law. Guinea-Bissauproposedto the Iwo adjoining
Statesthat thevshouldenter into.nenotiations.witha viewto reachinaadelimi-
tation agreeméntwith each of them. in accordancewith the requiknents of
international law.
3. Neeotiations with Senenalbeaanin 1977.
Aitcr ;orne initial exPressi& ofÜnwrtainty, Senegal;a fcw wecksafter the
fini meeting, invokcd an exchangcof letters bctwecn France and Portugal
datingfrom 1960,which itclaimedhadscitledthedelimitation. leavingnomore 7
to be said. That text. formallv defective for lack of ratification and oublication
in Portugal. and concluded by third Powers. could not, in the view'of~uinea-
Bissau (Io which itwas therefore not opposahle). permit the parties to dispense
with a detailed neeotiation aimed at ëffectine a modem deiimitation meetine
the rele\,ant requir&ncnts of the law ofthe sr:, both from the standpoint of th;
applicable principles of delimitation and in relation to al1the arcas currcntly
placed under national jurisdiction
4. After eight yeûrs of difficult negotiations. on I? March 1985an Arbitra-
lion Agreement was siened by which the two States submittcd 10a Tribunal of
three members to be s&tup b$ them the following two questions:
"(1) Does the Agreement concluded by an exchange of letters on
26 April 1960,and which relates to the maritime boundary, have the force
of law in the relations between the Republic of Guinea-Bissau and the
Republic of Senegal?
(2) In the event of a negative answer to the first question, what is the
course of the line delimiting the maritime territories appertaining to the
Republic of Guinea-Bissau and the Republic of Senegal respectively?"
5. In accordance with the law of international arhitration, the two parties
had, by that twofold question and by the Tom of words selccted, precisely
defined the extent of the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
There was no confusion as 10the purpose ofthc rcquest,as wasconfirmed by
the pleadings and oral argument of hoth States.
The obiect was the delimitation of the maritime territories ao~ertainine
re~~ectiv~~to the one and 10the other. without excluding from thej;risdictioi
ofthe Trihunal any of the categories of territory over which the contemporary
law of the sea noi ~ermits a coastal Stateto exercise riehts.
The requcst relatédto a lNle - one bnc -. as the twoparties had unambigu-
ously agreed that it was nccessary that the delimitation of their territorial seas.
continental shelves and exclusive economiczonesshould coincide. The text of
the Arbitration Agreement was clear in that respect; the parties' arguments
were no less clear. Neither of thetwo States wanted any overlapping ofjurisdic-
lions; they were in agreement on that point.
6. The outcome of the arbitration, made known on 31 July 1989,was ob-
viously no1 such as to make possible a definitive delimitation of al1 the
maritime areas over which the parties had rights.
The text issued as an award on 31 Julv 1989eave a decision on some frae-
mcntary elements of a solution, but did iot leadïo any result applicable to tKe
concretc situation which it had been the will of the States to have resolved.
Nonetheless Seneeal in the ensuine weeks advanced the view. both in talks
hetween the authorines of the two cointries and in a certain number of public
declarations. that the "anfard"had put an end to thc dispute between the par-
ties. It did not. however. ~rovide anv clear ex~lanation of the a~olicabiliïv of
that text. sometimes the i~pression'that. by confirm.iRg the 1960
exchangc of letiers between France and Portugal, the award had established the
240" azimuth line dcrived from that tcxt as a aeneral delimitation. and bv other
statements (in contradiction with the first) cGnveyingthe notionthat the di\i-
sion of the tcrritorial seas and continental shelves would have to suffice. and
that the division of the exclusive economic zones was not in issue (which was.
however, contrary to the terms of the Arbitration Agreement and toihe trend of
its own arguments). The deficicncies and lacunac in that "ow,ard"wcre such as
to permit those ambiguities and opened the way to further disputes. 7. Faced with this veiy serious difficulty, Guinea-Bissau opted for con-
tinued recourse to legal means, and reference of the dispute concerning the
validitv of the outwme of the arbitration to the International Court of Justice.
Théproceedings are currently in progress, and in them Guinea-Bissau is
claimine that the pumorted "award" of 31 July 1989is inexistent as it did not
obtain the suppoit of a real majority of the aÏbitrators and, subsidiarily, nuIl
and void because of an exc@. sepouvoirarising from an inadequatc rcply. the
absence of a map and a lack of reasoning, and that it is not applicable.
The Court has not however been seised in those proceedings of the actual
delimitation.
Thus when those first proceedings areconcluded, and whatever the outcome,
the delimitation of al1the maritime territories will still not have been effected.
8. In this situation, although Guinea-Bissau is convinced that a sound
delimitation, based upon equitable principles and wnstituting an instmment
for good management of the relations between the parties, may take time, in
view of the various obstacles which have arisen along the way, it is aware
of the resoonsibilitv of the two States to em~lov everv means to reach a raoid.
definitive and sat;sfactory settlement of iheorigiial dispute, namely ihat
relating to the delimitation of al1the maritime territories appertainirespec-
tivelv6 Seneeal and to Guinea-Bissau.
11;sin thatipirit that it has decided by the present Application to bring the
dispute relating io ihe maritime delimitation betwecn the two Staies before the
court, withouifurther delay.
11.THE JURISDICTIO ONF THECOURT
.s 9. If. in accordance with Guinca-Bissau's firm conviction, the "award" of
31Julv 1989wereto hc round bv the Court to be inexistent or nuIl and void. the
delimitation disoute that -~in~a-~issau is submittinn bv the oresent Aoolica-
tionwould, in &ery respect, be the one that was the\u6ject of an ~rbciation
Agreement on 12March 1985.In that case. because ofthe reservations made by
Scncgal, its declaration of acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court. dated
2 Decembcr 1985,would not apply. This Application would in that evcnt bc
submitted to the Court on the basis of Article 38. paragraph S.of the Rules of
Court, and Scncgal would be faccd with its responsibility of having to accept
the jurisdiction ofthe Court. It would thus show whclher or not it istmly deter-
rnincd to settle ils dclimitation dispute with Guinea-Bissauon a lcgal basis.
10. In the unlikely event that the "award" of 31 July 1989were to be in any
way confirmed, the delimitation dispute would then be an entirely new dispute,
and the question of the Court's jurisdiction would appear in a different iightl
The two States concerned by this Application have both accepted the com-
pulsory jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with Article 36,paragraph 2,of
the Statute.
The declaration of Guinea-Bissau was made on 7August 1989,and iswithout
reservations.
The declaration of Senegal is dated 2 December 1985.It includes a certain
nurnber of reservations, which cannoi, in the viewofGuinea.Bissau. bcso inter-
preted asto ~reclude the Court from exercisinn it- iurisdiction to deal with the
present case; on the hypothesis here envisagedT 111.THEDISPUTE AND THE LEGAL MEANS OF ITS RESOLUTION
II. The Court is currently seised of an initial Application by Guinea-Bissau
relating to the "award" of 31 July 1989which, instead of settling the maritime
delimitation between the two States, of itself constitutes an additional impedi-
ment to that settlement.
No~ ~ ~~~he~r~~~ible outc~~-~~~~~~at first case can lead to a real and defini-
tive settlemeni of the delimitation conflici.
The ex~ressed wish of the iwo parties to arrive ai a delimitation of the whole
of their maritime territories will in any event remain unsatisfied. New means of
settling that new dispute will then have to be resorted to.
12. Neeotiation would seem to be the best of tbose means. Elforts have been
made to tiat end, but have so far remained fruitless. The legal vacuum is thus
heing-.erp-tuated with respect to a question of international law - one which
is however decisive in the relations between States,
Guinea-Bissau accordingly considers ihat 10 achieve an effectivesettlement
theonly rernaining possible course is 10 hringthe matter bcfore iheCourt bythe
oresent ~onlication.
The ~&;t has already been entrusted with the resolution of the distinct case
of the Arbitration of 31July 1989.and willaccordingly be fully informcd of the
elements of that fint case
13. As for ihe issueof maritime delimitation uhich arises o\,erand abo\e the
question OCthe vul~d~ryofrhe"an.ard': its settlement accordingly depends upon
Ïhe aonlication of nenerai international law and. in ~articular, the current
trend; 81the new la; of the sea as expressed in the unitid Nations Convention
on the Law ofthe Sca of IODecember 1982.not yet in force. but which has been
si-ned and ratified bv the two States Parties to the Dresent case.
It is on the basis oithat law ihat Guinca-Bissau i;asking the court to deline
the delimitation between Guincd-Rissau and Sencgal ofall their msritimeterri-
tories
IV. DECISION REQuESTE DF THE COURT
14. On the bais of the above statement of facts and considerations of law,
the Govemment of Guinea-Bissau. reserving the riaht to supplement and
amend the present suhmissions dur.ing the sibbequeG proceedings, asks the
Court to adjudge and declare:
What should be, on the basis of the international lawof thesea and of al1
the relevantelements ofthe case. includine the future decision ofthe Court
in the case conccrniny,the arbitial '.award..of 31July 1989,the Iine (10be
drdwn on a map) delimiting al1 the mariiime tenitories appenaini~~
respectively to Guinea-~issaüand Senegal.
Bmsseis, 12March 1991.
(Signed) Fali EMBALO,
Ambassador.
Application instituting proceedings