Reply submitted by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany

REPLYSUiiMITTEDBYTHE GOVERNMENT

OFTHEFEDERAL REPUBLlC OP GERMAN'Y

@&exal Republicof Germanyfnenmrk)

1. This RepIyta die Counter-Mernorialofthe Kingdom of Denmarkand
theCounter-Mcmorialofthe Kingdom of the Netlierlandsissubmirtedto the
Intemalional CourtofJusticeby the Government of the Federal Republiçof
Germany inpursuanu: of theOrdw of lhe Court, dated 26 Apri1968.
2. ThisReplykas takeninto considera~ianihat thc disputesubmitlto the
Court isin its essenaedisputcabout the applicablIaw,the Partieking in
diugrccmcnt rvhalp~ciples andrulesof internationalIawgovem the dclimi-
tationofthecontinentalshelbetwcenthe Partiesinthe KrirthSea.Thcrefore,
the FBderalReptiblicofCermanÿ regards itto Ixthe primary functionofthis
Reply ta claboratcilad clarthecentral legal issuof the dispiite. For this

purpox, it daesnot ern necessaryor appropriale toansweranyargument or
remarkcontaiuedin theCounLer-Mernoria litwiIlbcsufficientltakeup those
facts,arguments,and rcmarkscontain4 inthe Counter-Mernoritawlhjch arc
w1esaat Lwtlreq~titi~11 sub~nittto theCourt. Itshotildhowever, bcmade
clearthat insofar as this Reply doesnot refetocertain factarguments or
rernarkswntained in thc Countçr-Mernoriali,herebythe FederaIRepubIic of
Gerniaiwdues not admitorrecognitz hose bas, arguments nrrernarks.The
Fedml Republiç of Germany reserveits rightrretum taany fact, argument
or remarkcrintainedin theCountcr-Mcmonal in theOral Procecdings.
3. This king premiscd, thc Fcdcrül RepribIiofGerniany wïllnot, in th&
Reply, mmnienr inderailoiithe addirionalfictxridon theway in ti-hichthe
facts and hislury01-Ihecaselinve beenpresentcd inthe Coutiter-Memoiid.
One generaI rcmark, ho\+xvcr, mm nccrssar In:Part 1ofthe Corintcr-

Memuriaw lhichcont;tinç"anexposition ofthcrclcvanfnctand of the histnry
ofthc disputcsupplcmcnt~ snti corrrctin1heexliositiogivtninille M~O-
rialnf rheFederatRepubLicnf Cicrmany" (DünishCourier-Memorkal, pan. 5;
NcrherlaidsCoiiiirer-blemciriapara.31,factasrc uccasional prestntcd in a
way which implics x çcrtuin ltginlerpret~ totonn ii~xordancsith Lhe
facts.For exarnple, the Ijanish Criuntcr-Mcmorialsut- thatrhc Fedcral
&public of Gcmy by itRuclamnrioii of 20Sanuary 1964 concernirigthe
Gcmn Conthenrd ShelPhad "mdnrscii" theContinentalShclf Convmtim
Wbsh Countcr-Mcmorial, para.35,p. 156,suproandborhCounter-~emori-
aIsstatethatintheExnose desmotifsücciom~anvinrtrhe rironosalof Gcmm
GovernrrtcnftortheStatuteon the rnntinenta<~< ir24hly 1964 "...oncc
again thc FcJwdl Govcmmcnt of Gerrnanyacknowledges the Geneva Con-
venti~n asan expression of custornary internationalIaw" Wanjsh Counter-
Mernorial,para. 24.p. 164,sriprtr;NetherIandCount~r-Mernoria lara. 25,
p. 319,supra);both statcmentare notcorrectand misleading.This Keply wiIl
re~n tu thjpointlaterinits lcgalobservatio(seepara.28).

4. Furthmore, one new fact deserveç to be es~cially mentionedIiere:
the Kingdam ofDenmark and thc Kingdvm uf the Ketherlandso, n1 Augus13%) NORTH Si% CONTNESTAL SHELF

1967h,averati6eù the Agreementconcerninthe delimitatioofthecontinental
shdf undcrthc North Sca bctwcen thetwo wunicies, that had been signon
31 March1966 (texandtranslationinthe GermanMernorial, Annexes 14 and
14A, pp. 133-138,arpraThe Government ofthe Fedeml Repu blicofGermany
haddec1are.dthat themangement madeinthis agreementcaanot haveany effect
on thequestionof thedelimitationofthecontinental sheIfbetween the Parties
in the NorthSea (d.German Aide-Mémoire, datd 25 May 1966,reproduced
inAnnexes 15and I5A of theEemn Memorial).

5. As the Counter-Memurial of the Kingdom of Denmark(hereafterab-
breviatd: Dan. C.-M.) and the Countcr-Mcmorial of the Kingdom of the
Netherlands (hereafteabbreviated:Neth. C.-M.) arcidcnticaI in their Part
11conraining the legalarguments,this Repwillrefertoboth ofthem simul-
tanmusly.
6, ConsequentlythepresentReply isdivided intothefollowingpans:
Part1 wfiichcontainsadditiona1Iegalargumentsofth FederalRepubIicof
Germany together with itobservationson the 1cgaIositioncontainedinthe
Counter-Mernorialosf the Kingdom ofDcnmark and oftheKingdomof the
Ncthwlmds;
Part Iiwhicticontains thesubmissionsto theCourt as to what principtes

andmiesof international lawarappIicab1ctothedelimitatioas between the
Parties of thecontinentaishein theNorth &a, supplementingor repIacing
the submissioriscontaincd inthMemorial;
Part Ili whichcontainsa singleAnnex. REPLYOF THE FEDERALREPUBLICOP GERMA=

PART 1. THE LAW

THE PRLiICiPLEOF THIS 3USï' AKD EQUITABLE SHAKE
- GOVERWNG TE!E DELIMITATION OF THE

CONTINENTAL SHELF

3. The Counter-Mernoriai contends that the principIeof the just and
equitable share which,in the vicw of the Fedenl KepubIic of Germany,
govems thc Jclimitation of the continentalshclf, "lacany Iegal content"
and "seernstobe nothing lcssthanarquest to theCourt to Iaydown that...
the delimitation of rhe conrinenial sinithe North Sea shouId & setlied
exaequoerhono"(Dan. C.-M., para.37,p.169,supraN ;eth. C.-M.,para. 3p.
323,supru). TliCourt wiIlbewelIaware that thCounter-Mernoriaiby inter-
pretjngthisprincipleinsuch a misleadingwiry conrounds theapplicationof
generalprinciplcsof law(Ariicle 3(l),lit.(c),ofthe Statuteof the Court)
with adecisionex aeqrioelhom {Artiçl38 (2)ofthe Statute of tCourt).
8. The PermanenC tourtof IntcrnationaIJustice had made clear inthe
Free Zones case(Series A,!Vu.24, p.10)what would constitutea setttemenf
ex aequo ethonooutsidoifscompetem:

". .. even assuming that itwcre not incompatibIc with the Court's
Statutc for the Partiio give theCourt power to prescribe a settIcment
disregardhgrights recognjzcby jtand takin nto accountconsiderations
of pure expediencyonly, suchpowcr, which would be of an absolutely
exceptionalcharacter,could only be derivedfrom a ~IearandcxpIicit
provisionto thaeffectwhich isno1tobe fmnd in theSpccialAgreement".

A decisionof the Courtex aequo et hno invoIvcscompromise, expediency,
conciliation, and evaiuation ofconfiiciing nori-legalinterests;the settIemcnt
may disrega rdisting rights, praeoreven coirtra iegem,aIthough general
considerationof justicmay notbe absent.
H. Lauierparhr, The Dwelopmcnt ofinternationalLaw by the Tnter-
nationalCourt, 1958,p. 13:"Adjudicationex a~yuoet hno iscispeciesof
legislatiactivityIt diifers c1earIyfrom the appIicof rulesofequity
in their widersensc. For inasmuas these areidenticalwilh principles of
good faith,they formpart ofinternational laas,indeed,of any system
oflaw. They doso irrespect ofvtee provisions of the tliird paragraph
of Article 38which authorizestheCourt to apply gentral principles of

Iaw recogni;redby civiIiirStates.On the ather hand, adjudicationex
ilequo etborro ümounts:to an avowed creation ofnew leml relations
betiveentheparties."
Inthe same sens:

Cf. Brownfic,Mnciples cf Public InternationalLaw,1966 p,p. 23-24;
U.Scheziner, Decisionsex aequo ct bon# by InternationaCourts and
ArbitralTribunah,InternationalArhitration,Liberamkorum for Martin
Domke,f 967, pp. 275-788.
Thefunctionof a decisiaex oequoerhno isto providefora nw adjustment substantiveIaw embudiod inthe legai experience of civilid mankind-
the analogy of al1 the branches of municipa1 law and, in particuiar, of

private law-il rriadecertain that lhere aiways would be at hand, if
nece%-ry a,IegüIruleorprinciplefor the legal suIutionoany cuntroversy
involving sovereign States.Secondly, inasmuch as the principIe of the
mmpIctcncss of the legal ordw jsin jlselia generaIprinciple of Iaw, it
becameon that accouitt part of the Iaw henceforth to bc appIiedby the
Court."
11.Today itis generaliy acceptedthatgenera1 principlesof Iawrccagnizd
by al1 nations fom part of intemativnaI law; ihey are theoutcorneof legal
convictions and values acknowledged al1over the world. %me of them may
even impose thernçelves as having an inherent, setfevident, and necessary

validity.
Cf. FirzmaslrireThe Formal Sources nf InicrnationalLaw,Syrnbolac
Vcrijl, 1958, pp.153,174-175.

Itisubrnittedthat theprinciplethateachState may claim ajus1and equitable
share in resources to which two or more States have an equaIly valid tjtlc,
ranksamong thosc gcncral principla uf lawwhich might beregardedas having
such an inherenr ,elf-evjdcntand necessaryvalidity.Its qualiin thisrespect
is evidenced,inre rh, by the fact that the Ckiunter-Mcmorjal,whilc trying
to brush itasidc on proccdural grounds, dues not dare to attack jtslqaI
substance.

12. It is the functioof the principleof the just and quitable share to
supplement the emerging law on the mntinental shelf. WhiIc it had been
graduaIIy recognizeid n the practjceof States that every coastal Statehas
ipso jrire ait excIrisiveritotthe seabedand subsoilof the submarine areas
"adjacent" IO itsmas1 (cf. Articles 1 an2 of theContinental SheIfConven-
tion), gcncrally ücccptcd mlw on thç Jelirnitaiiooofa continentaf shelf
adjacent tomore than oneStatewere, and still arlacking.If had been shown
in Part II, Chaprer 1,of the German Mernorial (cf. paras. 29-38pp. 30-36,
sirpra) that thpracticcof Statcsas wclIas thc authorof the Cbntinenta[Shelf
Conventioit started from the preniiss thatany mIc, method or formuja for
the delimitation ofa contjnental shelf adjacentto the Coastof two or more
Statcs shauld apportion a just and cquitirbirsharr:lo each of these States.

That this rvasthe raisoa d'érrof theformulatiunof Article 6, paragraph 2,
of theContinental SheIfConventioii.had heeniotallyignoredin thc arguments
put forward by Dcnmark and thc Ncthcrlands in favour of the equidistance
line.
13.Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Coniinental Shelf Conveniion was but
onccüutious srcpin tficattcmpttofind CormuPa whichmight Ieadtoanequitable
solution ofthe boundary problein;itisexaggerating to say that Article6 had
aIready"IransIatedthisgeneraI concept into the more ccincrete criteriafothe
delimitation of continental shelf houndaries" (Dan.Ch-hl.,para. 54, p.175,

suprri;Keth. C.-M., para49, p.329,supru},because itofers nocriteriaasto the
circumstances which dlow theapplication of thequidistance Iine,or whi& are
sr,"spccial"as tojustify anothcr boundary linc. Thercfore,iisnot surprising
thattheaithorsof theContinental ShelfConventionby a verywiscdecisionput
theagreemwit betweenthe Syatesconcerncdinthefirstplaca endtherehymddciL
an obligaiionfor theSratesconcerned to seek a settIcmcntprirnnrity bam
ment.What purpose shouldttiisprovisionserve ifoitesidewerealIowed 10start
negotiations from the oursetwirh die preestablished argumcntthat the equi-distaricefine is the onapplicablemle,withoiit considering whethm thequi-
distancelinewouId providean equitahle ~quIt7By proposing the principlcof

thejust and quitable sharoas thc controllingprinciplefothe delimitationof
the continentalshelf,the Federal Republic of Gcrmmy asks the Court to
provide the Partie with a guiding line for the negatiation of aagreement.
If the Cnurtfelt abIeto add somc more prwiçecriteriata guidc theParties in
thespiai case of the North Sea(likethose submittedin Part TI,Chaptcr III,
of theGerman Mernorial;cf.paras.76-87), it wouldcertainIyhelp the Parties
to reachagreementmnrc casily.

14. In a furthcr effort twape from the tesrwhetherdelimitation by the
equidistanceIinewould giveeachof the two Parti- an equitablc shartof the
continentalshelfin the North Sea.the Counter-Mernorialinakes therathw
artificialverbadistinction between the "delimitation" and the "sharingout"
of areasof the wntinentai shelf(Dan. C.-M., paras.40 ct seq.;Ncth. C.-M.,
paras. 35 etseq.), aIthoughit iswident that any delimitafionbetween two
StatesnecessarjlyüIlotsedch of therna certain shareof the shelfso divided.
By aIlegingthat the SpcciaIAgrccmcnt {Compromis) "docs not rquest the
Court to decide what principlesand nila of international law shouldgovern

the sharingout ... of tireaof the continentalsIielCithe North Sea" (Dan.
C.-M.. para.40,p. 169,snpra;h'eth.C.-M.,para.35,p.323,srtpra), theCountcr-
Mcmorialpractidiy attempls to excludethe effecofan quidistance boundary
on thesizeof Germany'sshm from theconsiderationsof theCourt. Such a re-
strictionof thermurt'scampeten# cannot bc rcadintothetermsof rcferenceof
theCompromis; moreovcr,itwouldundulyencroach uponthe judiciaipowerof
the Court todecide the controversy betweenthe Partiesinthe lighof al1rele
vant factors. To show that such an interprctationof theSpecid -ment
(Compromis) is inadmissibIe ,t will be suficient tmil the ongin of the.
controvcrsy:it was cssentially the inquitable share of 'hcontinental shelf
altottedtoCermanybyapplication of the equidistancr:linç thatIedtheGovern-
ment of the Feclerai Republicof Germanyto questiontheappliwbiiity of the
equidista Iiceas a suitablcmothod for deliniitjngthe continental shelin
rhe previousnegotiations betweenthe Parties; itwas upon this controvcrsy
that the Partiesdecidedicsubmitit totheCourt.

15.Even assuming. asthe Counter-Mernorialducs, that iht:rdc cvntajned
in ArticIe6. paragraph 2, ofthe Continental ShelfConventionwould bc
appIimb1e here,how could the question whether"spdal circumstanceç"in
thismw prohibit the application of the equidistancc Iinc, he decidcd without

lookinginto aII the effectof theproposedmethod of dmwing the boundary,
incIudi h esireof thesharemch Statecould expect by the oneor theather
method? CuriousIyenought ,he Counter-Mernorialcnds itsreasoningon this
point with the sfaiement: "If jtis necessaryto look for a general concept
underlyingthe modern law regardhg the delitnirationof the continentalshelf
boundarics, this i... thatin thc case of two States fronting upunthe same
continentalshelf.the areaswhichare to he consideredas appertainingCO one
or theother areto be deljmitedon eqüitabk principles(Dan. C.-M., para. 55,
p. 175,supro; Neth. C.-M., para. 49,pp. 328-329, srrprnitalicadded). This
statementcames lrery closeto the principalthesiputforward the Federal
Republicof Germany;the only remaining differencektwcen the Panies seem
to Ixthatthe Kingdom ofDcnrnarkand thc Kingdom ofthcNctherla~id sesard
the equidistancelinewhich isfrrvourableo them,asancquitablesoiutionof the
boundar question, whjle the FcderalRepublicof Germany, asa look on the REPLYOF ME FEDERAL REPUBLICOF GERMAM 395
map {se Mcmorial, p.27, supra)willeasiIyexplaincannot acoep tucha

houndary lineasa"delimitatioonquitable principles".
15, In view otheargumentsput forward inthepreceding paragraphs7-15
it'is respectfuulbmittedthatthe Governrnent ofthe Federal Republicof
Germany byintroducing the principIe ofthc just and cquitablc sharc as thc
controlIingprinciplforthe delimiution othe wntinental shelisriorasking
for odecisio exaequo etbono Suifor rheappficarioofa princQl oflaw. THE APPLICABILIT YF THE EQUIDISTANCE LlNE IN THE
DEWIMITATIONOF THE CUKTlKEKTAL SHKLF BKi'WEEN TEE
PARTiES

17, The main IegaIissue betweenthe I'artiein thepresentdispute isthe
question whetherthe delimitationof thc contincnlii1shelf between thc Parties
shouid follow thc cquidistanceIineor not. The Countcr-Mernorial advances
variousgrounds, not aIwaysrelevant totheirpurpose and sometimes inconsis-
tent withmh other, why the Federai Rcpuhlicof Germany must acccptthc
equidistanΠlinc as thc boundary liae of thecontinental sheIf ktween the
Parties.Thesegrounds inaybe summarizedunder thefvIkowing heads:

(a)the prcvious attitude OC the Fcderal RepubIicof Gemany towards the
Cnntinental Shelf Convention in general, and thc cquidis~nce liiie in
parlicular;
(bJ the allege general recognitionof theeqiiidistanceIinby States;
(cl the absenceof specialcircumsranceswhichwouldjustify anothcrbundary
linc.
18. Howcvcr, Ixforc turning to thc spmiiic arguments advanced hy the
Counter-Menlorialriiiderthese differenheads, itwouldsmm appropriateto
make somc gcneraIremarks on variousIims of reüsoning folluwed inthe
Counter-Mernorial which, inthe view of the Fderal KepubIicofGenriai~y,
Iead away fronrthecentrallegalissue.

Section1. G~rreraRernarkson the Litleof fleasonirtinthe
C~unter-Memurid

A. Soiirceof TheObligation to Acceptthe EquidistanceLinc
19. Thc Countcr-Mcmorialdm not distinguishcIcar1 enoughbetweenthe

infrir~sicnicrofsthe equidistancemethod on the nne hand and the sourceof
obligclfiufora State to settbitç boutidaryvis-à-vis its neighhoiStattsby
applicationof this rncthod. Thc Cuuntcr-Mernorialgoes to great lengthsto
demonstratethat theequidistrtnceIinehas foundacceptane in theContinental
Shelf Conventionand in Statepracticeasa suitable method for drawing icx
boundarics;the Fkrül Rcpublicof Gemany, in its Mcmvrialtoo, hasalready
r~ogiiizedtlreirierias wellasthesshortcorningosfthe equidistanceline, and
has not disputecl thefact tharin many cases the eqiiidistane fine maybe
regardedas thcrnostequitablcboundary linc(xt:paras. 63-64,pp.62-63,supra).
IIutthereremaiils thequestion underwlratIegaititle the equidistanceIine can
beimposed on the Fderal Republic of Germany; herethe Counter-McmoriaI
Fdikto provc ilscasc.Rcferring to thc unilaterapplication ofthe equidis-
tance Iine by bnmark and the Netherlandsvis-&-visGermanythe Counter-
;Mernoriaclontends that:
". .. Denmark and the NetherIands having delirnited their continental
shelf boundarieson the basisof generally rwognbed principla and rules
ofIaw, the delirnitcitioare prima facienot contraryto international
lawandarevalid with regardto other States,., Iirthe prtsencase it is
not a question of Denmark;ind the Netheriandsseeking to impose a

principlcor ruIcupon thc FedcraiRcgubIic; itisrathcr aqitestionofthe
FederaI RepubIic'sseekingto prcvcntDenmarkand theKetheclandsfrom REPLY OF ME FEDERALHEI'UBUC OFGERXlANY 397
applying in the delirnitatioaf their continental shelf houndaries the
principlmandrules of internationallaw generallymgniml byStates"
(Dan. C.-M., para. 59,p.177,stlpra; 3cth.6-M., para.53, p.331,supra);

and Paterassertsa-
"., .generairecognitionby the internationalcomrnunity of Article6 as
exprassing the rules of internationalIaw goveming conthenta1 sheif
boundarics"(Dan. Ch-M.,para. 100,p. 192,supra; Neth. C.-M., para.93,
p. 346,~ipru}.

But al1thçsc contentionsbegthequestion,bmuse theysstartromthe unproved
assumption that Germany is bound toregard the equidistanw Iineasanoblig-
atory ruIe of internationatIaw.The Iegalsource of rhat ribIigafion,however,
rcrnains an open question.

B. The Substance of the AlregcdRule of Law on the Delimitation of the
ContinentaIShelf

20.The Counter-MemoriaIis not very cl= on thesi~bsratioJ îhe Iegalruk
which, inthe viewof the Kingdom of Denmarkand of the Kiogdom cf the
Netherlands,should oblige theFederal RepubIicof Garmanyto accept the
principlof equidistancewith regar rithe boundariesof its contincntalshclf.
Thc ncwuary distinctionixtween the tnetcyi ofdrawing the boutidaryline
accordit nogthe pnnciple of equidistancefrom the ncarest points of each
coast, and the aiirged rule oflaw which prescribesthe applicationof this
rndhod under ccrhin or, as the Counier-Mernoria ilnterprje t,snder nnearly
a11circurnstances s rnissing.Insorne partsthe Countcr-hiemorialasscrtsthat
theequidistancelim is the"generalrule" for thedelimitationof thecontinental
shclf, thcrcby clcvatingthc merhod to a vcritablerrik of /uw (Dan. C.-M.,
paras.SI, 72, ~ip. 178, 183,supra; Neth. C.-M., paras. 55,66, pp. 331, 337,
supra). Inother partsof ilsargumentthe Coiinter-Mernorialtries ta minimize
thc scrious objectionsput fortvardin thc Mcmorialagainutthe generalappli-
cahiIityof theequidistanwline, by poioting outthattheruIesof law to be fol-
Iowed are not rhe equidistancelinepureand simplebutrather the equidistanrx:
Iincin combination withthc spccial circumstanccsciause,the so-called"equi-
distance!spe circunistairoesnile" (Dan. C.-M., paras9 .1, 100, 111, 114,

pp. IW, 192-193,196. 197,suw; Neth. C.-M., paras.R5,94, 105, 108,pp. 343,
346, 349-350 ,50-351, supra), which permit the consideratioiiof factors
justifying another boundary lineOn theonehand theCouriter-Mernoria ries
io imposethe equidistance IjneUe a generaIIyvalidruleof Iawon theFedcrd
RcpublicofGcrmany if the Iattcr cannot "show why Denmarkorthe Nether-
lands shouIdnot he eiititledto applyrhe generaIlyrccognizd principresand
rulesof delimitation", viz. the equidistanceline(Dan. C.-M.para. 59,p. 177,
supra; Ncth. C.-M., para. 53,p. 331,sitprn)while ontheotherhand itseems
to corne rimer to the view ofthe FederaiRepublicof Gemany that each
case has tobetrjed on itsmerjtswhether the equidistanceor anotherboundüry
Iinewould produccthc most cquitablcresult.

C. The Equidistancc Liaeas a "GcncraIRule" for
Maritime Roundaries

21. -CheCaunier-Memarial regards the equidistanccIine as the "general
rute" for ail sorts of maritimeboundaries(Dan. C.-M., paras.61,84-90, 115,
pp. 178, 187-189, 197-198,supra;Ncth. C.-M., paras.55, 78-84, 109, pp332,
340-342, 351, srrpraas ifit had the same legal validityfor alsiiuations,ir-398 NORTH SEA COhTfNENTAL S1IELF
respcctivcof wheiherihe boundaryIine had tobe drawn betweeiadjacetitor

opposite coastswhether theywcre boundaries in straitsinwaters near the
Coastor in the wjderregionsofthe open sa, orwhetherthe delimitatiowas
made for the purposcs of custom and fishery controior fur the division
of submarineresourcs. By treatingthecxisting maritimeboundariesalikethe
specificfactorrelevento theapplicabilityof the equidistancelinefordeIirnitinr:
continentalshclf boundarics mightbc disrc~ardcd.This incontradictionnot
onlyto the practi ceStatesbutah tothewording oftheGenevaConventions
on theLaw of theSra.Itdotsnot seem necessarto repeatalwhat hasben said
inthisrespectintheMernorial ofthe FederalRepublic of Gcrmany; itrnay suf-
fi~ ttask whyArticle6 of theContinentalSheIfConventionput themles on
boundarics betwcen adjacent and opposite toasts in ditferent paragraphs
andwhy the impactof "speciacircumstances"is treateddifferentlyin Arti5le
of the ContinentaIShdfConventionfrom ArticIe 12 ofthe Convention on
the 'Territorilca(secMernorial,para. 54,p.G2,siipra), were it not from the

conviction that special factosad tobe taken into account in eachof thwe
distinct situationIf we examine the report of ihe Corninitteof Experts,
whiclipIayedsüch a grcütroIe in intruducingthe equidistanceline into the
Geneva Conventions (se thetex1reproducedin Annex 12of the Dan. C.-M.,
pp. 249-15 8idpraand inAnncx 7 of the %th.Ch-M.,p. 377,supra)we seehow
differentltheCornmittee treatsthesesituations.WhiIeCorthe delimitatioof
territoriwatersbelween opposite coaststhemedianlinewas adopted asa mat-
ter ofcoursc, for thcdcIimitativnbetwtxn territorial waters of two adjacent
Statestherewas a tharorigh discussion various rnethodsproposed,untiIthe
equidistancelinewas adoptedin theend withthereservatianthat "ia numkr
of caxs thimay not Icüdtoanoquitabicsolutionwhich shouldbe thenarrived
at hynegotiation"(ihid., p. 258, supra and p. 377, supra, resp~tiTtwas.
thought by theexpertsrhattheseproposaismight alsoIieusedfor thedelimita-
tion of the continental shclf,whichquestion. howcvcr, rcrnaind outsithe

termsof reference of theCornmittee.Therefore,thematerialsuhmittedby the
Counter-Memorialinsupportof thequidistance lindem noraIwayscarry the
same wcight, dcpcndingon thc situationwhcrcthc mcdianor cquidistanceline
Ilad beenused.

Sec!:iii. The Rriirr~deofthe FederAlepuhfiofGer-1 ~owards the
EqrridistanLine
22. The Counter-Mernorial pointedIyargues(Dan. C.-M., paras.77-79 99,

pp. 185-186,192,supra;Neth. C.-M., paras71-73,9 pp.,338-339,345,strpra),
that the FederalRepubliof Gerrnany ---
(a) di'dnot motivatcits oppositiotoihc Convention in the 1958Con-
ference:nn rhe Law of the Sea wirhdnubts as10 the rncritsofthe
equidistanceprinciple;
(b) signcd thc ContincntaI Shclf Couvcntionon 30 October 1958 (one

day More the time-limit for signatureexpireand thcreby ". ..
deliberatelychosto associateitselfwittheConvention";
(claccompanied itssignaturewith a resmation to Articl5of theCon-
ventionin regardto freedomof fisheries,but"..made no rescrvation
norany other forrnof dedaration with respecttothe provisions of
Article 6 cancerning the delimitaticinof contincntsleif bound-
aries";
(dj didnot voim "...any objectionor misgivingin regarto Article5of
theConvention in itsContinental SheIf lardamationof20 Januaryruleconcainedin Article6 of theCanvention as bindinginternational taw,the

Countcr-hlcmorialnevcrthclçss attcrnptstu havc this act of the FederalRe-
publicof Gern~anyinterpretedas contributing to the iicccptanci:of that rulc
as cusiomaryinternationallaw. The Counter-Mcmorialdoesnot cxpressly say
so, bcing cantcnwtith thc statcmcnt that thc Fcdcral Republicof Gerrnany by
signing the Convention without any cesemation to Articlc 6 üpparcntly has
faund the provisions or iheConvcntion, inçludine ArticIe5, "acceptable";
but from the context wiihinwhich this actionof the Federal RepubIicaf Ger-
many is mentional, itmustbe inferred that the Countcr-McmoriaIwishes to
cratc the impressionthat the FecIeralRepubIic of Germany itself had. prioi
io thisdispute, rccognizc AdrticIe 6 of the Cottventionas an expressionof
"getieraiinternatioirall.aiv".

25. Such an intcrprctation of the conduct of thc FederaIRepublic of Ger-
many must he stronylyopliosed. It wouldaniountta anassertionthat thc Fcd-
eral RepiibIicof Gerrnanhy ad torake activesrzpsio voice itsopposition tthe
cquidistancclinc duringand irftcthc Confcrcncc in orderto preventtheequi-
distancernethod from becoming a ruleof custotnarylawbindingon thc Fdcral
Republicof Germany ; it w~uid attüchto the signatureof the Convention, or
cvcn ta the mcreparticipation in thedrafting ofthe Convention. a Iegaletfect
equirralenttoratificationWtiethera Staietakingpartin a conferencc codifying
and deveioping international Law,by its passiv attitude towardscertain rulm
adopted ai theconference, crintributesto their irrewgnitionas international
Iaw, depends essenliaIIyon thequaIityof suchrules.Inasmuchas certain rules
adopted at the conference and incorporat iedo a law-making convention,
are meant tn statand dify existiniulesof custrlmaryorgeneral international

Iaw,aquiescencein the incorpuratioriof suçhrulesinto the ct>nvcntionmay bc
interpretedas recognizing theircustomq law character,aiid continuou and
consistent opposition might be necessary to repudiate their ciistomary law
charactereffeçtively.
Cf. International Court of Just iccin th0 Nor uregitzFisheric.7case,
J.C.J. Reports1951, p. 131: ". .. thekn-mile rule has not acquiredthe
aütliorityofa general ruleof internationallaw ... In any cvent the ten-
mile rule woiild appear to lx inapplicabIas against Nom-ay as she has

always opposed any attempi toapply itto the Nowegian coast."
If, howçvcr,wrtain mlcs adoptcd at the confercncc and incorporatedin trthe
convention are purported to deveIopthe existiriIawor to fil1gaps inthe la-,
causedby the emergence of newproblems, a passiveattitudeof a Statepartici-
pating in thc conference towardssuch a development cannotbe interpreted as
an exprassioitofupiriiujurisrecognizingsuchrrilesas alrcady bindingcustorn-
aryIaw. In such casesonly the act ofratificationor any other equivalentact
by which a Stateacceptsthe provisions afthe Conventions as bbîdinngand the
subsequent applicationof theserutesby otlierStatesmay bccomc the basisof

new custom. As hadalreaùy beensuficicntIy demonstratedin the Mernorial of
thc Fedewl Ilepublic of Germany (Faras.46-53 ,p. 50-57,supra) and as the
Counter-Mernorial, toci,had to conccdc: "No doubt, here are clerncntsof
noveIty in the provisioon fsArticle 6 ...The provisions of Article h ~ere
admittcdIy a new element grafted on ta the continental shelf doctrine at
the Ceneva Conference"(Dan. C.-M., para. 90, p. 189, srrpraNcth. C.-M.,
para. 84, pp. 342-343, s~tprn). Itcannot be dcnied that tlie ruleson the
dclimitation of the continental shelf,inparcicularthe quidistance Iine in-
corporated intoArticle 6 of the Convention, wert: ncw rules which hitherto
had neither been applied for the dclimiration of contineiltal sheif bound- KEI'LY OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC I>FCIERVANY 401
ariesnor recognizedas customary international law, iilthnugh the Countcr-

Mernorial {ihid) tries to niinimize their novel charaçier by asserting tht
the prjnciple of equidistanceIiadalready beçn practised inthe dmwing of
other maritime boundariw. Bccause ArticIe 6 was new intcrnationallaw,
thefactthat the FcdcralRepubIicof Germanysigncd ihe Convention without
attaching areservation toArticle 6 couId noi Liejnterpretedas an act of re-
cognizing the rulescontainedin Article 5 king anexpressionof custumary
internationalIaw, or cithenvisecontributing to the cmcrgericeof new custo-
mary law, as Iong as the FederaI Kepublicof Germany had not ratified the
Convention.

26. The atteniptto exploit theaction of ttiFederal Rcpiiblicof Cermany
in 1958for assertinginconsisrcncicsirithe Gerrnan atritudetowards thcCon-
tincntalShelf C'onvcntionaiid, thercby,roweakenihc Gcrman position inthe
prcscntdispute, cannot succeed.Thc Gwman attitude at the Geneva Con-
ference cannot beprtiperlyappreciatedin rctrospect from thcpraent dispute.
At.rhattime thc Fderal Republiçcoiild not possibly know that the Kingdom
of Ilenniarkand the Kingdom of the NcthcrIandswouIdgo so faras to main-
tainthat theacts of unilateraldclimitationofthcircontinentalshclf areasby
the equidistance lin"are primrrjbcienoi contrary tointcrna~ional lawand are

validwith regard tootlierStates"(Dan. C.-M., para.54, p. 177,sttpru;'Jeth.
C.-M., para. 53, p.331. suprna jnd to interpretArticIe5 of the Convention
iirsuch away (see Dan. Ch-M., paras.126 etseq.,pp. 203,siipra,et set{.;Neth.
C.-M., paras.120et scq..pp. 356,srtpra,etseq.)as to reduce iheimportance
of the reservation of "special circumsian~s" practicalry to nothing. AI-
though havins preferrcda rule that wouId have made scttlcment by agree-
ment obIigatory, the delegatiunof the FedemI Repriblic of Germany voted
at ihe Cornmittce shge with ihe mzrjoritywho mvcre in favour ofArticle 5
of the Convention hecausc the German ciclegation regard4 ciheruIe con-
tained rhereinal30 a urorkablesoIntion, provided ihat its intcrpreLation
wuuld pay due regard to irspurposc, nan~ely to rcach an equitablc solu-
tion of the boundary probiem, and provided furtherthdt diflérences in this
respxt wouId be submitted to arbitratinn. In 1958, the delimitation prnb-

Icm had not ben rhcmainGerrnanwncerii; itwaq the poaibIe detrirnçntal
effects of the Conveniion on the freedornof the high seas and on their ex-
pIoitabilityby al1nations on cqiial ferms, especiaIIywith regardto fisheries,
that caused çoncem and induccd the Geiman Government to accompany its
signaturewith a rcscrviitiotto Artide 5 ol the Canvention. Yeedlessto Say,
thisdidnot preclude the FederalRepiihIicof Gcmriny from nlakingadditirinal
reservationsto otherArticlesof thc Convention in caseof ratification,or from
opposing rhe customarylawcharacterof the equidiaancc Iine.

27. ne factthat theFederaI Repu blic orGermanydccided tosign thcCon-
vention in 1958 and even contempIatedratif~ing it in duc course, dom not
thereforewern to be inconsistent with its present positionAt that time the
FcdcraIRepulilic could still expecto corne toan amicabIoagreement with its
iteighboursonthedeIirnitation of thecontinentaIshelfbefrircitcciiison equi-
table Iinesinasniuchas ArticleG oxpreçsIyrefers the Partiesta settlernenthy
agreenientin the firstplace. If the Countcr-hlemorial pointedlaqks why [lie
FBdcraIRepiiblic of Germsny did not procecdwith the ratificat of he Con-
vention(Dan. C.-M., para.26,p. 164,sliprrNetl-iC.-M., para.27,pp. 315320,
sttpra)the answer isquitesimple:thercwas no ctiange ofattitudeon thc partof
the Fcdwal RepiiblicofGcrmany withregardto theconceptof the continental
sheif as exprcsscby the Convention, nor waf thcrca change in theviewr~f thc452 YORW SEA CONTINENTAL SH~LF
GermanGovernment that irlie North Çca continental sheHwertobc divided
up between thc NarrhSeaStatescdch of them shouIdbeentitledtoanquitable
share .hatwas nw, tiowever,was the insistena on the equidistancline

as the only vaIidmle for the ddimitation of the continents1shelfand the
relilianccon Articl5, paragmph 2. of the Convention for this purpvseby
the Kingdom of Dcnmark and theKingdom ofthe Netherlands in the negoti-
ations takenup on the instancc othe FedcratRepubiicofGermany. These
ncw facts causexithe Governmeiit of theFederal RcpubIic to reconsidcrthe
advisabjlitof ratifying the ContinentShelfConvention as longas the inter-
pretationof Article6,pdragraph 2,is uncertain.
28. Whm the Counter-Mernoria lssertthat the Geman Federal Govern-

ment, in itsContinentci lhelf Proclamaiionof 20 Januarq' 19@, and in its
Exposédes Motifs tothe St;ituion the Continental Shelfof 24 JuIy 1964,
"acknowledgcs the Geneva Conventionas an expression of customaryinter-
nationallaw"(Dan. C.-M., para.24,p. 164,supraN;eth. S.-M., par25,p.319,
supra),this isonly partcorrwt. A carefulrmdingoftheseinstruments{repro-
duced asAnnexes IUand Il of theDanishCounter-Mernorial) ouldhave shown
that recognitionofihe custornay lawcharücter ofthc provisionsofthe Con-
tinentalShelfConvention was limitcdtathe tula containedinArticlcsI and 2
ofthe Convention, accordingto ahich every Stafekas ipsojure an exclusive
right to exploit thc naturaresourcesof the continental shelf adjtacto its
coaqt.Not asingle word,howevcr,appeared intheseinstrumentsonthe delimi-
tation of the continentshelfwhich couIdbe interpre tsed recognition of
Article6, paragaph 2,of the Conventionor of therulescontain ehereinas
customaryinteraational law; on the contnry, thc Proclamation expresdy
dcclared that the delimitatiof thc German continenta1 shelfvis-&-visthe
continental shelveof orher Stateswouldrernai tnesubjectof agreements
withthose StatesThis is wholly consistent withclegaIpositiontakenup by
the FederalRe~ublic of Germany infhc presentdispute.

29, ne Counier-Mernorialeven goes so farasto use thetwo treatiescon-
cludedbctweeiitlie FedcralRepublic of Germany and the Kinçdom of Den-
markandthe Kingdom of tIieNethcrlandsrespectiveIywhichfixcdthc bound-
aryIiiieintht: vicinity rheNorth Seacoast and,by anadditional I'rotocol
tothe German-Danish Treaty,also in theBüIticSa, as prwedentsagainstthe
FdcrzaIRepuMic bccause they allegcdiy follaw rhquidislance Iinc. Infact
the Geman-Netherlands partialhoundary foltows,in thegreaterpartof its
course,the equidistan lccc, whitethe terminal of the German-DanishpartiaI
buundriryisan quidistant point(theonlyone on itcourse),Apartfrom this,
how can these trcatiheesused asprccedentsagainst theFedcraIRepublic of
Germany or,as the Countcr-Mernorial Iaterputs itbc regarded as"further
instanceof therecognitionoftherulescontainedinAflicle6 ofthcContincntal
ShclfConvention" when theFederalRepublicofCierrnany, upon signingthse
treaties, made iclearthat it did not recognizthe equidistance method as
determiningthe furthexseawardcourseof the boiindatyline?

Cf. JointMinutes to thc German-NetherlandT srcaty of4 August f964
(rcproduced inAnncx 4of the Mernorial),Protocolto thGerman-Danish
Treaty of9 Junc 1965 (Antiex7 ofthe Mcmorial).

The Joint Minutes drawn up rin the signaturof thc Gcrman-Netherlands
Treaty stated that thaTrcatyconstitutcd "anaseernent in accordance with
the firssentenceof paragraph 2 of Artic6eofthe Geneva Convention.. .",
therehyreferring onltoone rut ofArticle5,namely~cttIcrncnbt yagreement, KEPLY OF r HEFEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY 403
bui deliberately lcavinout thesecond sentence of paragraph2 of miclc 6,
which contain tse eqiiidirtanceline. It therefoSWMS inaJmissihIeto citc
these ireaticasprecedentsor as instancesufrecognitionof Artjcle6 orof the

equidistanceline, and most of whattheCauntcr-Mernoria lays inappreciation
of thesetrcaties(Dan. C.-M., paras. 103, 10510,pp. 193-194,194-195,strpra;
Neth. C.-M., püras.97,YY-1W, pp. 347, 348-349,supm),is irrelevanhere.
30, TheGerman-Netherlands and Germa-Danish Treaties of4 August 1964
and9 June 1965. respectivcly,proipennothimarethan the factchatthe equi-
distance,Iincmay be etnployed forthe delimitation of the continentalshelves
Mween adjacentSratesin the vicinity of thc coast wherethe directionuf a
boundary Iinebased on the equidistancemerhod isnd yetinfluenced by the
spial configuralion of thecoastso much as to muse an jnequitableresult.
ThcFederal KepribliofGermany has neverdcnicd thattheequidistanu:Iinehas
itslegitimatefieof applicatio(sccMemoriaI, paras.6364, p.52,atprn) there-
fore, consentto its partialapplication mp. application in tterminal point

by the abovementiuned treariewaq not inconsistenwith the Icgal position
taken by the Meral RepubIicof Gemiany in thepresentdispute.The trcaties
could not,howcver,constitute precedcn ftrsthe recognitionofan obligation
to acccptthe equidistancelineas theprimary ruIc guierning thedelimitation
of tlie continentalshelf.
31. The Counter-Mernorialbelieves tu have found an easy explanaiion for
the allegedchangein thc attitudof the FederalRepublicof Germanytowards
the applicationofthe principleofequidistancein thesouthcasternpart of the
North Sea:

"Iadeed,it may be pcmissible to wonder whether in 1964 it wascon-
siderationsex aequv eibon0or a mentIy acquird knowledge that this
part of the continental shelrnay hoId grealepr rospectsof ojland gas
that led the Federal Rcpubljc tochallengetho application afthc equi-
distancc 11nc"(Dan. C'.-M.,para. 153,p.212, .sztpraNeth. C.-M., pars
148,p.365, supra).

The Danish Counter-klemorialaccrimpania its referenceto Germanseisrnic,
gravirnetricand mapnetic explorations withinthe ertsternpartof ~he North
Sea in 1957-1963with the pointed remark:
". ..there islittle douht that thorvugh pictureof potentialities inthe
- Germanas weII as inthe Danish she!fareas had alreadybm obrained"
(Dan, C.-M., para. 21, p. 164supru).

TheFederalRepuhlic of Gcrmanydoesnotwish toenterthiskindof argument;
a fcw commenis wiII sufice:
lu} asthe FederdiRepiiblicof'Gerntany hasncvcrrecognizedthe applicability

of the principleof cquidistan inethe North Sea and this attitudW~S
periwnlyconsistent wirh itspüst and presentattitude towards the Con-
tinental Shelf Convention in gencral, theseremarks in the Chunter-
Mernorial are irrelch-antin trespect;
(b) thc Gerrnanexplorations referredto by the ieunter-McmorioI couid not
possibIyprovide the FederalRepublic of Germany with reliable informa-
lion about the existence ofoand gasdeposits in the disputawea. Only
actuai driIIinas uiidertakenin 1967 under a DanÎsh concession,might
have resultedin such information.

It should beadded rhat whilr:the Gcrman explorationswere stopped on the
rqucst of the Danish Gorre~nmenitn the disputedarea, the Danish Govern-404 NORTH SEA COX7"TIXAL SHtLF
ment granteddrilIingconcessionsin thal ara. 'I'hisattitude isin Iincrith the

unfoundd clairnupheldin theCounrer-Meinorialbythe Kingdom of Denniark
and the Kingdom of theNcthcrlands,that a Statc could dclimit ils continental
shelf boundaries vis-&visother States uniIaterallyby appliwlion of the prin-
cipleof cquidistance.

Srcrion3. Hnvc rfiRulesContuinrdinArticle 6,Puramph 2, of the Cbntinmral
Shey C,'t>iri.unoeconic C:Üslutnur~frrtfrnaiionn,?Lad

32. TheCorinler-Mernoriatlriesto prorr~ihat the ~qujdistanixliinhas rn be
accepwd by Gcrmany kcause of the ". .. general~cugnirion of theequidis-
tance principleas a ruIeof Iiiwby States..." thathas acquiredthe siatusof a
"generalrule of law"(Dan.C.-M., Chap. 111,para. 60,p. 178,supra; Neth. C.-
M., Chap. III, para. 54,p.332,siiprn).It is not wholiy ckar whatthe Countcr-
Mernorial undersiands by the term "generalruIe oflaw" : dws theeqriidistance
principlederive irIegalforce from itscharacteras custornaryinrcrnatirinallaw
or frum itsheing a gencral grinçiplof lawwiiich appliesif therisno trcirtor

customarq.lawavailable?As themainarguments oftheCnunter-Mernoria refer
ta thepracticeofStates,Iiow7eveirl,mustbcassumedthat theCounter-Mernorial
wanis tu assert thatthe ruIe conminedin Article4, parawüph 7,of theCon-
tinentalShetfConvention, uiz. "the equidisranceIineunless ariotherboundary
line isjusfificdhyspecialcircumstanres", ha$ becorne custornary international
law and,thecefore, binding on the FederalRcpublic of Germany.

Cf. alsothe Danish Counter-Mernoria1(para. 35, p. 165,atprn) which
statesthat".. .ail duringthenegotiation~the nanish delegationupheldits
positionthat the Geneva Convention was acvdificalion of internaiiunal
custornarylaw ..."
33. Inorder to provc an obtigatian of theFedecal KepublicofGcrmany to
accept the cquidistance line undecustornary international lawthe argumenta-
tionof the Counter-Memuria1 t&es two dilferentcourscs:

(n) that "theequidistanccprinciple ... was a principle rvhichIiadalready
receivedwide recognition inthe practice ofStatesin connt~tion with
the detirnitationof oiher forrns of hoth maritirne and frmh-ivater
boundaries" (Dan. C.-M., para. 61,p. 178,supra; Neth. C.-M., para.
55, p. 332,supra);
(5) that the provisionsof ArticIe6 of the ContinentalShclfConvention
"which acwpt the equidistanŒprinciplcas a ruIeof Law" (Dan.
C.-M., para. SI, p. 178, sitprnNeth. C.-M., para.55, p. 332, supra)
had found"generalrecogniti byntheinternationaicomrnunity.. .as

cxprcssing the rulesof internationallaw governing coiitinentalshelf
boundaries"bwausc the Convention had becn ratified(or accepted)
and applied by States (Dan. C.-M., para. 100, p. 132, sitprn; Nerh.
C.-M., para 94, p.346, srrpra).
IIereagain, the Counter-Mernoriaflails to disiingttish clarly in ar,~unlenls
betwecnthc nielliniwhjchemploys the prinçiplcsof equidistanŒfor thedciimi-
tationof maritime boundaries, and the ruic ccintainedin Article 6 otheCon-
ventionwhichpraqcribes Ihe applicationof the equidistanccmethad under lhe
cunditio tnatno "spccialcircumslanccs"arc present(see later,para.76,p. 421,

in/ra)The o~~asionaluse ofthe equidistanceniethod in the past. rnostlyithe
formof thernedianline,ducs not prnvetheexistenceof a ritlo/'hn: ihatmari-
time boundaria must be delimiiedawvrding ta theequidislanct:rncthod,nnr have Stütcs,by ratifying and applying the Convention, recognized thüi Lhe
equidistance Iinisthc only validruIc.

A. The EquidistancePrjncipIcin the Practicc ofStatesPrinrto the ConiitieiitaI
ShelfConvenr ion

34. It hadncver been dnubtcd that theadoption of the equidistance niethod
forthe delimitation ofcontineiital shelf boundaricby the International Law
Commission and by the GcnevaConfercncc on the Law of theSa ccinsiitutd
a ncw dwelopnlcnt in internationalIaw, The Counier-Memarial, loo, does not
assert that rhe principlç of equidistanw,when itwas incorporatedinto the
Continental ShclfConvention, couldbequalificd ascustomary internalionatIaw.
Cornrncntingon the view expressed by theGerman Mernoriai (para.46,p.50,
sarpru)that the use of thrncdizn lineforcertain water boundaries in the past
was not sufficicntproof foa general recognitionof the principle ofequidis-
tance forthedelimitation ofrnariti roucnderies,heCounter-Memorialadmits
that "itis hcrenot a questioonf establishing the quidistance principle as a

principie universally bindingin boundary delimitationand, as such. binding
on the Parties tu the prcsentdispute" (Dan. C.-M., para. 86, p. 187, sripra;
Ncth. C,-M., para. 80, p.341, siipru)'The Corinter-MenioriaI claiins, how-
ever, tht the exjsting practicof States IO use thc cquidistaitce rnethod in
the form of the medim linefor certain lakc, rjlreraisea boiindaries "can-
not faiI to reinforce and consolidate" the character of thc rules contained
in Article tiof thc Continental Shelf Convention as "generally recognired
rtrlesof international Iaw" (Dan. C.-M., para. 86, p. 1118,supra; Neth.
C.-M., para. 80, p. 341, strpro).Obviously this mux be undcrstood ro mean
that such use of the equidistana method by States, aithough hithcrtonot
continentalsheifboundaries, neverthelesshad contributedtothe transformation
ofthe nila$contained inArticlc 6 ofthe Conrinenia1 Shelf Convention into
customariy nternationa1 Iaw.The factual and legal basifor such a ciontenrion

is lacking.
35.Before commenting on theweight of Ihe factual cvidericeadducd by
the Counter-Mernorial in support of its contentionit mustfirstbe questionai
whefhcrthe adoption by theContinental ShelfConvention of one nfthc various
metkods that hadhitherto bwn practised byStatesindrawiny river, lakcor sea
boundaries, could be rcgardedas areIevanrFactor in transformingLhatmethad
into a rulcof customary iniernationallaw. ObviousIythe aurhors of the Con-

tinental ShelfConvention wouId nothave framedthe rules on thedelimitation
of cuntinental shcIfboundaries without regard to the experiencc madewith
such methods in Statcpracrice, andwould not have çhosen a mcthod rvhich
they had not consideredthc most suitable for irspurposcA Iaw-creatjnyefTect
in customary Iaw, however,ccruld be attribut4 to the incorporation of thc
equidistance inethodinto the Convention only if that method was chusenand
sanctioncd by the Convention on the ground thatit wasthe unlyoneunifurmly
and consistcntly applied inthepast. Rut, as the Counter-Mernorialconccdes,
therc irms no universal application of the equidistance principle, but only
"a considerable numbcr of cases,in whiçh rhe quidisiance principle,chiefly
in its median linefom, has beeneniployed in the delimitation osea, iake or
rivcr boundaries"(Dm. C.-M., para. 85,p. 187,supra; Nerh. C.-M., para. 79,
p. 340,si~prn)and "IittIcvidencein treaticsor inthe Icgidationof individual
States kfort: 1958of lateral equidistance boundariesinsea areas ..," (Dan.

C.-M., para.88.p. 188,siiprrNcth. C.-.M.,para. 82,p. 341,srcprnj.Invicwof
the divergent practice of States in the mmhodsuwd tcideterrninc maritime406 YORTH SEA CONTiYEhTAI. SHELP
boundaries,itcanatbesl be contcndedthattheauthors ofthe Gntincntal Sheif
Cunvcntion regardedthe equidistancçmcthod as one of themost practicahle

and suiiablc nicthods. Thijs not suficientto createan obligation undcr
custumaryintzriiationaIlawtoacctpt theequidistmcemethod üsthe "general"
orprimaryrule.
36. The weight of the practia on ivhich the Counter-~Memoriar lclics, is
furtber rducod by thefact that thsupposed "widcrecognition" of thequi-
disiancc principlismainly restricteioboundaries inrivers,straits,channels
and coastal watersThesituationin thcsccasesisnotcomparable to asituation
where boundarieshave to be drawn through extensivemaritime areasunder
thehigh sca.However pi:rsistentIythe Caunter-Memarialmay rcfuseto admit
it, thcrcan beno doubtthatthefunction of maritimeboundanes isnota mere
"deIimitation7'of themaritime area eachStalecontrais.but also, inot pri-
rnariIy,an equitable partitionnfthe maritimearea betwan the States con-
ccrned.When Statcsresorted to thc equidist#?ncemethod for thesettlcrneof
boundaries inrivers, straits, channeor territorialwaters betwocnopposite
coasrs,they diJso becauseof the fact that thmediari linc betweeunpposite
banksor coastsnorrnaIIyapportionsan wual stiarof thewatersto ach of the
two Statcs.As prdents cary weiçht only forcomparabIe situations, this

prücticecannot be rcgarded as relevant forother maritimesituationswhere
such an eqiiirableapportionmcnt cannot beexpected frorn the applicatioor
theequidistanceprincipleunderal1 circumstanccs.The German Mernorialhas
an~plydenioristrated that itdependsvcry much on the various coastdl con-
figurati orhethethequidistance methodwiI1effait an equititblcapportion-
ment ofthe continentalshe1fareas betwocnadjacetitStafa. Itdm not therc-
fox sein adrnissiblto regardboundariesin rivers,lakcsstraitschannclsor
territoriawatersbetweenoppositc banks orcoastsas anexpressi ofa prin-
cipIewhichmust necessarily be wlid for al1kindof maritime boundaries.
37. Lnboth Couriter-Mernorial snumber of "Roundary TreatiesDeIimjting
ContinentalShclvcs" are listed as Annexes 13 {Dan.C.-hl.) and 15 (Neth.
C.-M.) respectiv endyerthe hcading "eqiiidistanceprinciple*'.Most of the
boundxics are median lines inriversstmits, channels,and territorialwaters

ùctweenoppositc masa, and somc of them are nut true equidistanmIinesin
rht full sense becauseonly a limited numbwof pointson the boundary have
been dcfinedas being quidistant £rom certain coastal pointsSome of the
cases referreto require furthecomment:
(a)The Bclgian bill, given under No. 12 is noa treaty atal1(seepan. 55
below).
(b) 'I'reatyNo. (NetherIands-Denmark s)auIdnot he quotedasa prdent
of internationallainthiscontext aitsvalidity willentirdependon the
rulingofthis Court.
(c) Treaties Nos.2 and 6 shouId aIso be ruled out as prwcdcnts for the
rmsons given inparagraph29 abovc.
(dl TreatiesNos. 5, 7, 8, contaone or severalpoints oequidisance which
are conncctedby straiglh ites; others providefor boundaricsfoIlowing
mort:or IesspruciseIya gerieralmiddIe lin(Nos. 1, 10,11).Therebyit
might besuggcstedthateqiiidistancland middlclinesare identicalwhiçh
clearlthey arenot.

Observations to theindividual treatieIisredin Annex~ 13and 15 of the
Countcr-Mernorialsaregiven in the Annex trelowThis conipilatioaims ai a
compreherisivcsurvey of al1treatieson thc delimitarionof the continental
sheIvesconcludedsofar, in their historical order. REI'LYOF TIIEFEDERAI.REPCBLIC OF CiERMAhY 407

38. The boundary trealiesdeiimiting rnaritinic arotherthan continental
shelt~sIisledinAnnexa?13and 13 of thcCounter-Mernoria can be invoked
as preedcnls of equidisunce solulionto a very limiterdegreeonly. Besides
thercis a considerabIcnumkr ofcasesin thepracticeof States,where thc
equidistancemethod has iiot been useat al[:

(a)The methodsof delimitingthe relativelynarrowkit oftlie TerriforiafSea
need notbe thesame asinIarge subrnan'neareasfaroffthe coastsSu everi
if theterritoriwatcrsof the rnajoriof Stateswere hounded by equidis-
tancc liiies-quid non-thiswouidnot prove thatthe sime States have
agreed orwouldagree oii the delimitationof 1heicontinentalshelvcsin
thesame way, But,as willbe shown in sectionB of Annex bclow, the 14
treatics listein the Counter-Meinorialdo by no means demonstrate
generalagreement on thelateraldelimitationofterritoriwalersone way
or another.TreatiesNos. 3, 4, 6, 7,8,9 shouIdbe disregardcd for the
reasons given beIowwheras thc rernainingNos. 1,2, 5,rcferto treaties
which are nolonger inforce. Nos. 1&14are bawdon olher mcthodsthan
quidistance; quitea numbermight ticüdded to thcm.

(b) As faras FishingZones areconccrneà it shouldk noied thatthe Fedcral
Republic of Gemany has not ratifiethe European FisheriesConvention
to wliichreferenceismade under(C.)of Annexes 13and 15in theCounter-
Mernoriais.
(cl Riversare even more unsuitable for cornparison. Thalweg boundaries
which are oftenuscd in this çontextcannot lx citedas an argument in
hvoiirof themedian linc.TheThalwegcorresponds to themaincliannelof
navigation which mayor may not !xsituat indthe mjddleof ariver(or
lake respeçtively).
39.in viewof thedivergmr practiceofStatesiseern esaggeratcdto contmd
thatthecquidisbncc rnetiiod had already,prito theceneva Conference 1958,
found "wide recognition"in Statepractice;its application haben rnainly

limitedto the "median line"between opposik coaqts, and ithad not as yet
been employai at al1forthe definitioof continentalshelf boundaries.There
forc,it jsdifiult 10suaain thatArîic[e6, pa~agraph 2, ofthe Continental
ShelfConventionwhich adoptedthe equidistancelineasthe mle tobe lollowed
"unlesmothm boündaryis jusiificd by specialcircumstanrxs",did nothing
more than"consolidate"ancxistingcustornintû a mlc of custornaryiaw.

B. The Inipact of theContinentalShclfConveniion on the
Famation ofCustomaryLaw

40.One of the main arguments put fom~rd by the Counter-Mernorialin
support of the custornarlaw characterof the mles contaiireciin Articleis,
ttiz"the Cact,that37 Stateshave alreadytakcn theforma1steps nccasary to
establishdcfinitivetheiramptancc ofthe Conventioncanuniy be regardeci
as avery solidevidenceof thc generalacccptanceof theGenevaConvention on
the Continental SheIfby lhe internationcommunity" (Dan. C.-M., para.92,
p. IN, sripraNcfh.C.-M., para.96,p.343,supra).The picturehuwever,would
bcincomptete,if the followingfigureswere not addcd:85 Statesattendcd the
CienevaConference, 45of themsigned rheConvention, 21of thesignatoriesraI-
iRedthc Convention;9 Siales thathad atteiidedbiit not signd theConvention
within the prescribedtimc-limitand 7 new Stata accepted the Convention
later;10 years after the Conference the rnajority,arnong them qirite a
numbcr ofimportant Staleswiih a seacoast, have notyct accepta the Con-4m NORTH SEA CO~TINETTAL SI1EI.F
vention as binding. Anlong the signarorics tliere are 7 isIand-Stata and
5 IandlockcdStates; in view of rhesefigure tse acceptance of lhe Convention

does iiotseen1to be so irnprcssiveiisthe above staternentin the Chunter-
Memorial mi& indicatc.
41. Apart from the fact lhat thc pprcsentnumber of ratificatiuns and ac-
ccptances cannot be quatified as a "general accepiance of the Geneva
Conven$ionon thc Continental Shelf by the intcrnationai community", the
more the generitlquestion poxs itself whether,and ifsounder whar circum-
stancaq, a multilareral "law-making" convention may, at the same tirnc,
creritecustomaryIaw. Some briel remarksare ncccssary inthisrapeçt.

42. I'hereis some legaiopjiiionto theeffectthatatl internationalconferen=
for the riodificatiunanddevelopmentof internationa1law, open to al1Statcsor
at leas o al1 Meinkrs of the United Nations and its specializedagencies,
shouid be regardcd assome sorl of a "quasi-legiskürive"body of the intcr-
iiational community. Lt is cont~mdcdthat the niles af law adopted at such
conferences and incorpuratcdinio "law-making" convent ionsarean expression
of the general Iawon the subjectand,thereforc,binding on al1Statcswhether
thcy haveformally subscribed tothein or not.

Wufrfock, Recueil desCours 1%2, II, p. 83,writeswith respecttothe
Continental Shelf Convention:
"lt can alrcady be proph~ied with somc confidence that iilrimatelyit
wiIlbe very diiTicuItor any State,whetheriithas subscribed tothe con-
ventionor nut, to rcsist its forceas an expressofthe ~ireral lawun the
subject."

Such a doctrine ifgcneralizedand jndiscriminately applied, can be rather
dangroiis. It must berejectedkmuse iir tendsto confuse ttieconditions for the
cresltionof treaty and customary law.
Wddock (Inc cii.)too, is very carefulin ïormuIa!ing the conditions
under which a law-makingconvention may dewlop into customary inter-

nationalIaw: "Its text, which will usually heenadopted by wmcthjng
Ijkçtwo-thirdsof the internationa lommunity, jsboth a iveII-considered
and an 'official'expressio on gencral opinion in regardeither to the
existing lawOF the desird Iaw on the subject.A text hüving, apparently,
such a large rneasur oefgetieralsupport isinevitably iiivested wilha
certain persttnsiwoilrhorilyaIthough it may lack the aiithority of a
legaly bindinginstrument. :Much th~ad~pends un !lisubseqttcnlrrteocrion
ofStores. ifa cerrainnurnberdt,fiii!et~io#ifÈstheir rcjectîof the treuty,
il mricorne intnforcerfor thosStates whichacrepl itbiti rievachieve the
sfanis ofgenerd iuw. More frequently,lhowever,Statcsmcrely fail tocam-
mitthenlselvesto thetreaty and kccp their position open ato irsriltimnie
acceptariceby thern.It is then that thepersuasiveauthority of a general
rreatymay graduallywork itsprovisiuns in10 the fabric of customaty

Iaw"(itaiicsadded).
43. If States condude a law-makingconvenlion, thcy create, by ratifying
il,a contraciua1obligation among themselvesto the effect thareach of them
has toapply rhc niLescontaincd.in the convention. They are, howvcr, not
exercisinga mandate to "legislatefur thc whole internationalcommunity f,r \
which they would require express authority. If an obligation to appIy the
suhxtantive rtilcofthewnvcntion is alsa tobe incumbent on Statcsthat have
not yet ratifiedthe conventionor didnot cvcn altend rhcconference. itwould
ned some iegnI basis orher than the convention.Sucha hasis couldlx round410 NORTH SEA CONTIKF.NTALSHELF
rnakesa cIeardistinctionktwcen thcseof its pmvidons,towhich reservations
are permittd, and othcrs, to which rcscrvations arnot permitted; this dis-

tinction must have some lep[ significance,at I~st itis evidencethat thc
authors oftheConvention regarded thetwo catcgora ienothaving the same
quality.
46. niecruciai issuein the prment dixussion is not thequestion whethw
the Articlefowhich rcscrvationsare pcrmitteJ cantainsruIes thwerenlrendy
custoinarylaw(whichhad alreadybwn denied), butratherthequestionwhether
the Article should vente geaerally binding law by the mere fact that tho
Conventi ond been accepkd hya suficient number ofStates.This cannot
bcthe case forthe simple reason thata rule contained in an Article ofthc
Convention towhichreservations arepermittcd and resemtions haveaIready
been made by States parties to the Convention, couInot at the same time
bccamc bindinyon other Statesnut partiesto the Convention which had not
beenin a position to contraoutof such a ruleTlierefore,thetheory thata

rnultiIaterai law-rnakingconventiomay create generaily binding law cannot
lx sustaincd with regard to those provisions of the Convention to which
reserîationsare expresslypermittcd;States thathave not becornepartiesto
the Convention wiIIbebound bythe rulesit contains only if theyhaveaecepted
thcm bycustomq application.

Sectbti 4.StatePruclice Sincethe1958 Getieva Conference
47. In order toprove that therulescontaincdin Article 6, paragraph 2, of

the Continental ShelCConvention had now hecome crisrornaryIaw,it wouid
havc bccnnEessary tu show that this ruleiiad becn practiscd as law also by
States which had not or no1 yct acceptd the Convention forrnally. The a
Cou nier-Merno aIiegesthat-
"the practiceofStatessince 1958,with the si~le exceptioof the FederaI
Republic'spositionin thepresentcase, gires soIidsupportothe rmgni-
tion ofArticlc 6astheexprwsion of thegeneralru[= ofintcrnationd law
governing continental shelfboundariestodaf' (Dan. C.-M., para. 1W,

p. 193 ,upraN;erh. C.-M., para.94, p.346,siigrn),
andthat "thereis abundane ividencein State priicticc sin1958"(Dan.
C.-M.,para, 111,p. 196,supra; Keth. C.-M.,para 105,p. 350,supra),forthe
generalwogoition of the ruIethat the prjncipIeof equidistanceapplies unkss
another bnundary isjustifiedhyspeciaicircumstances.
I.Ioiwer, looking through the casescited by Cciunter-Mernoriatlo this
efTectit is diifictoiunderstaad tiow thispracticecould becharacterimd as
"abundantcvidcnc~"; on thc contrarv, the practice since 1958 shows that
neitherthe States thathad bmme partiesto theanvention nor the States
that had remained outside the Conventionhave shown much enthusiasm to

ralIybchindthc mnccpt that thc cquidis~cr: lirwaq the primary or general
ruIe.
48. In this context the Counter-hlemoriaIhas taken great painsto point
out thatitis not the equidistanceline pure and simplethat in its vshould
bc rcgarded as "generalinternationallaw", but ratherthe principlcof cqui-
distancequalifiedby the exceptionor speciaIcircumstances justifying another
boundary Iine. Despite this qualificatiwhich has not much importance in
iriewof thc narrow intcrprctation yivcn io the Counfcr-McmoririI 10 tlie
"specialcircumstances" clause(see below para. 68of this Reply), there stiH
rernains,however,the main contention ol the Kingdvmof Denmark and the412 NORTH SEA CONTlKENTAL SHELF

in the BalticSca (whichas a look on thmap willshow,is a boundary ktwm
olipositemas& from jts starin theFlensburger Forde),it is expresslstsitcd
that vnIy "coats which are opposite cach othcr*arc conccrned andcontains
an agreement that in this respect"the boundary shalI bethe median Iine(sm
Geman Mernorial, Anncx 7 A, p. 13,supra);in addition,a spccial rc.wwation
has been expressedin theProtmol [>ykath Parties as to tlieirdivergentlegal
standpointswith respect to rhe deliniiiation of the Continental SheIf of the
North Sca. In cuntrast to thc irnprasion crcatcby the Counter-Mernorial,

theI'rotowl can neitherberegarded asa precede northegenera i ippIicübiIity
of theprinçiplcof cquidistancenor as a recognitionbyGermanyoftheniles
contained in Article 6of the ContinenlaI ShelConvention. The fact that no
uther cüscscoujd bc citcd than onc unilatcrs1dcclnrationandtwo agreements
onrncdjan Iines,foi.th tifls1~positio onthe FederalKepublic ofGermany
that the equidistanceline in the formof the median Iine may beacceptable
as an cquitahlesaluiion of the boundary question, buthat thereis asyet no
exridenceof a gerteraIrecognition of the prinçiple of equidistancein othcr
geographic situationsin particularin situationswherca boundary has to be
drawn rhrough maritimeareas tefore the crizqtof Stateswhich areadjacent
to each otlieor surround an encloscd sea.

52. ln the la5tmort the Counter-Mernorialrelies on the treatiesthathave
been concludcd on thc dclirnitationof thc contincntat sheIf in thc North Sea.
That rhe "partialhoundary teatiesconcludedbetweenthe Federal Kepublic
of Cirmany an the one handandthe Kingdom orDenmarkandthe Kingdom
of the Netherlandson thc other, Eannot bc invokcd as prcccdcnts iigainst
Gernuny insupport of the customaryIawcharacter of the rule containedin
Anicte 6 of the Coiitinentül SheIf Convention, has already ben darified
(seeabvve para.29); dcspititscfforts to intcrpraso thcsctrcüti ws cvidcncc
of ". .thcdetcrminationofcoiitinentalshelfboundariesinthe North &a hyap-
plcatian ofthe principIescontainedin Article6..."(Dan. C.-M., para.I10,p.
196, siipi-dNeth. Ch-M., para. 104, p.349,siiprajthc Countcr-McmofiaIis
unablc to disguisethe fact tliatboth treaties hadbeen concluded on the
understanding thar the Fecierül Republic O€ Germany thereby does not
recognj-x any obligation to apply the principle of equidistancc for thc

further -seaward+ourse of its continental sheIf boundaries in the North
Sea. ThereCore. thesr: trcatiescannot lx rcrdrdcd as preccdentsfor the
customary law character of rhe rulescontained in Article 5, paragraph 2,
nor do tliey "reflect" these rulcs (ibid)Itis not rclcwnt hcm that these
treatiesilsepürtiallrcsp. in the terminalof the houndary the equidistancc
mcthod; the only relevant pointis whetherthis had ben donein recngni~ion
ofan nlligutiunequivaientto ihcobligation in Articlc 6 ofthe Convention,
to apply the equidistanŒmethod. In view of tlrecircumstancesundcr which
thc treaties werconcludd and in view of theexpress reservationasto the
f~~fiercourse of thc boundary (sce Mernorial,paras. 16, 18,60, pp. 21,22,
6U61, supra),thismust certainlbe answeredinthenegative.Ontheother hand,
it was not inconsistentwith the presentpositionof the Federal RepubIic of
Germany to agree with itsncighbours on an cquidistanm boundary where
bofh sida considered it tobe equitable inthe vicinity of thcoast up to a
distanceof some 25-30 nauticaImiIes.

53. The other trcatiw bcîwcen Denmark, Great Britain, the Nctherlands,
and Norway, which apply the principlof eqiiidistana inthe North Sea, do
not pmve anything that muld be usd to support the thesis of the Coiinter-
hleinorial.414 NORTH SEA CO'ITINLNTAL SHELF

boundaricsmust, by gcornctricnecessity,k doser toone coastal pointof that
Statethan Ioany otliercoast.Thus, theccvnceptof "propitiquity"advmted
by the Counter-Mernorial.k no further justifiaiioof thc principIcof qui-
distance;itonly puts the same quesrionin another way: 1s ita rule of inter-
nativnallaw thaithe distanw fmm the coast should be the ooIycriterionfor
the allocationof maritimeareas tooneor the othrtState?

57. Thc Counter-Mernoriai atfemptsto dmwsome support for itsthry on
rhegener relognitionof theconceptof "propinquity"fromthe term"adjaceril"
in Article 1of the ContincntaISheIf Convention. As the fint ArticIcsof the
Convcntion recogniz thateachcoastal Statepossessesan ipsojwe titlto the
submarine aras "'adjacent"to itscoast,the r~unter-Merno rrgaes that
"by cogcnt rcason" it foilowed from thisdefinitio"that areasnearer toone
Smte than to any other State arto be presumcd to falwlithin its boundaries
rathe rhan within those of a more distantStatc" (Dan. C.-M., para. 115,
pp.197-198,sirpra; Ncth.C.-M., para.I(B, p.351,supra) T.ho Countcr-Memo-
rialreIieshea\-ilyothistheory,when at thç end ofitsargumentsit defends the
appiicationof equidistance boundarics againstGcmany by stating ihat "ihç
sovereignrights of a Siatc over sea areas are, inprinciple,Iimjted inspacc
to areas al1 pointof which are nearerto itscoastthan trithat of any rither
State,kause itis theseareas whjch are truly"adjacent to its land" (Dan.

C.-M., para. 173,p.219, supra;Neth. C.-M., para.166,p.373,.wpra).
58.The weaknessof ihis argumentation becrimes apparent whcn onerads
Article6of the Convention:ArticIe 5prescribesrulesfor the deIimitation of a
continentalshelf whichis "adjacentrothe territoriesof two or more States",
therebyassuming tht thcre may be conflictingcIairo nftwo or mure Slata
kause of theiral1 being "adjacent" to thc samc continental shelf.If the
authors of Article 1fiad usodthe term"adjacent", as thc Countcr-Mernorial
contcnds, inthe specificandlimitativsense of restrictingtclaimof a coastal
Çtate tothe areaswhich arenearcrto its coastthan taany other coast, there
wouldhave beenno necd to inventniles for the settlemcntof conflicclaims.
Ifthc principleof eqüidistancwere noihing more than aIogicaIconsequene of

the term "adjacent",Articlc 6 of the Convention worilù have bwn super-
fiuous and theextended debateson the principlesandniles contajned in Article
6 would have heen a wasteof timeand withoutpurpose.ln raliiy, howe\,es,the
concept of aState'stitltothc continental sheadjacent to itcoast-embndied
in thefiaiArticleof the Convention-simply r~ogrti72dthe right ofa Statc to
extenditsjurisdictionoverthecontinentalshelfextendingfromits Coast iiito the
open sea,but did no! irnply anymIe or principlefor dcciding on conflicting
daims of two Statesadjacent tothe same continentalshelf.
59.It isextremeIydoubtfuIwhether"propiiiquity"alonc, especially in the
narrow senscas definedby the Kirigdomof Denmark and the Kingdom of the
Nctherlands could ever form a lcgal basis for a better claim to maritime
areasunderinternationalIaw. ItdependsessenliaIlyon the naturcof therights

claimed by the masta1Stateovermaritimearerisbefore its coastto whatextent
fhc "propinquity" of thesearas tothc coast must be taken intoaccount as a
factor determiningtheallocationto one or the otlierof thStatcsadjacentto
thern. There might bejustification in regardingthe distancefrom thenearest
point of acoast as an ~ssentiaIelement ithe delimitationofterritorialwaters
or ofthe contiguous zone becausethe main functionof thewidthof thcsc zones
isto sccure the protectionof thccoastand the enforcementof the Iau~of the
country. Theri:jsrnuchIessjustification in regardingthe nearcstdistancto a
coastai pointas an essentiaeiemcntin thedclimitation ofthecontinentalshcifbôcause herethe mainfunctîon of therights ovethecontinentalsheIfisnot to
sccurcsom~puwcrof cvntrol fromthe coast butto rescrveits naturirlresourccs
to thecoastalState T.hereisnovalid reason fora theoryby which somepro-
jecting point oa coast should be decisivefor allocatingexrensivecontinental
shelf amasto onc or the other adjacentStates. It has aircstdybccn sufficicntIy
demonstrated in the Cierman Mernorial(paras.42-45, pp.39-49, .~uprawhat
would be the effectsif the distanofa maritime areato one pointof a coast
wcrc thcody ~ritcrionforthcal1-tion of that ma to onc orthc otherof the
adjacentStates.

60. If"propinquity"has anysignificancinthe delimitat anonaIImtion of
continental sheIareas ir must be understood in a much Iarger sense. The
concept ofthecontinental shelf asa generdly recognizcdrightof a Stao thc
natura resourcesof theseabedandsubsoilof the submarineareas adjacentto
its coasis bascdon thc generaLIyampted fact that thecontinentalshcif ia
naturalcontinuationof theSState'territoryintothesea; therefora State has
a legal tittu thr: continental shlf befo~t:COLAS$ay faras thatsheK may
Iegitimatelk reprded as a continuationof itç tenitoryThisconcept of the
continentalsheif requirea solid geographcalcunnectionof thesecontinental
shelfareaswi th thatState'territory,butdoes notnecassarilyrequirethat al1
points witb ttieb ioundariesmustbcclouctc o jtscoast thanio aprojecting
part ofthe cozisor toanislandofa neighbouriSntgate; Thisconcepitmpliw
furtherthat in thcase oftwo or moreStates fronting the same continental
shelf, conficting claims BouIdbe adjudiutd with a view to whetherthe

disputed partsof the continentashelfare tobe regarded as the natrircon-
rinuaiionof theterritorof the one or theother State in10the cornmonwn-
tinental shcK The equidi~tance Iine does not ncccssarily currespond to this
concept,becaus by inakingthe distancefrornone pointof thecoast the onIy
criterionitcompleteiy disregardsthegenera1geographicalsituation.
61. If"propinquity"reallyhad to bc regard& asa suficientjustificatifor
theemployment of theprincipleof equidistance,thiswouIdmcan thsa buund-
ary Iineother than the equidistancl:line couldnever be envisaged&cause
"propinquity" wouldh ,y geometricneccssit reyq,uiredelimitationbyequidis-
tance boundaries.Rut Article6 ofthe Continental Shelf Convention makes
specialallowan~u:for "spccial circumstances"whicexcludethe applicatioof
the principlof equidistanŒ.

52.The Counter-Mernoriat1 rieto shifthe onus ofproof in this respeon
to theFederalRepnblic of Gwmany. AfterDenmarkand the Nethcrlands had
unilaterallydeLimitcdthcir rapcctivccontinental shelf boundariesvis-A-vis

Germany by application of theprincipleofquidistance, they üssertintheir
Counter-Mernorials thai-
"the onus ison ittoshow why the Netherlandsor Denmarkshouldnot be
entitledtoapplythc generalIyrecognized principIaandrulesof delirnita-
tion in delimiting tlieir respectivecontinenshelf bounàarieç" (Dan.
C.-M., para.59,p. 177s,upra; Neth. C.-M., para.53p. 331sztprn).

Thc qucsttan who bears theonusof proof for the existcn~ ocuvtomarytaw,
seernstobe governeciby the foljowing Jictrrof the Court in the AsyIm
case,whcre itwas in doubt whether aregionaISouth Americanconvention
had mated regionalciistomarylaw:416 NOR'I'HSE4 CONTINENTALSIIELI:

"Thc party which reliesona custornof tltis kind must proulhat this
cusiomis establishedin sucha mannertRat itliasbecornebindingon the
other party ...tbat the rule invoked is in accordawith a constantand
uniform usagc practid by theStalesinquestion. .."(tC.1. Reports 1950,
p. 276).

This isin harn~ony with the general principreoflaw rocogr~izcdin al1 Iaw
syslernsthiicthparty relyingon a righthastoprove its existence.If, therefnre,
the custurnaryIawdiaracter oftheruh wctai~ed inArticle5 ofthe Continen-
ta[SlrelfConvention cannot be established beyond doubi, ~heKingdom of
Denmark and the Kingdom of thc Ncthcrlands cannot relyon those ruIes
againstthc FcdcralRepublic ofGermany.

63. In view ofthe argumentsputforwardin paragraphs32-62 thefollowiog
conclusiio snrespectfullysubmitted:

The nilecontaincd in Article6, paragraph7,of theContinentalShelf Con-
vention prescribhg the application of the principle of equidistanceunlas
specialcircumstiincejustifyanotherboundary Iinc, has not becorna ruIeof
"general" internationalIaw binding on the Fcdenl Kepublicof Gern~any.
Therefore ,he submissionof theKingdom ofDenmark andtheKingdom ofthe
NetherIandsthat the delimitation as betwcn the Partiesof the continental
shelf ithe North Sa isgoverned bysuch a ruIemust bc rejecd.418 S{'<)KTiTA CONTINEhTAI. SHELF
(a) that the North &a isa specialcase &use it covera singlecontinental
shelf surroundedby severaIStates;

{b) that icannot bcprcsumcd thattheequidistan lneewill ùethe"equilable"
boundary karise tlie boundary of the continental sheIf betwoen thc
I'artimisnot a questionof deiimitalion betwen oppositecoasts;
(cl that tlie Kingdorn of Denmark and thc Kingdom of the Nethertands
cannot impose the aquidistancebriundaryfor the delirnitation of their
respectiveparts ofthe continenta1shelf on Germany bxause thcy cannot
show fhatsuch a boundary ri;ilcfcctirarc an equitahle apportionmentof'
the North Sm continental sheieifetween the Parties.

The rat issuienthc prcçcnt disputebetween the Partiesis the question
whether under the special geogaphic circurnstances in the Korth Sca thc
application of the principle ofequidismncc wili effectuateas the Counter-
Mernorisil contcnds, an cquitahle apportionment of the continental shelf
between the Parties,or wiiether the Partics will have toagrcc on another
boundarywhich might achievc suchan equitahle rc,sulAs tliere ino pre-
sumption for cithcr of the iwo alternatives,diereis naunüs on the Fedwal
Republic of Germany toprove Lhatthe firstaItcrnativchasto bc answered in
the negative. It wilbc forthe Court to decide whetherthe circurnstanc~ of

thc case permitthe appIicationof the principIeof equidistanceor not.

Section 2.TheRoie of Arricfe6,Parwrapli 2, ~fthe iîcneiyCon\~nrinn Wilhin
the Law ofifrkConrinenfd SheIJ

67. The inferestof the Kingdorn of Denmarkand the Kingdom of the
Netherlandsinhaving thc dispute tahe decided on the hasis of Article6 of
the ContinentalShelfConvention, inspiteofthe factihat theFederalRepublic
of Germany is nota party to the Convention, has becorne apparent by the
interpretationof Article 6, paragraph2, advocatedby the Couriter-Memariai
to the&ect that-

(ci) Article5 cstablishcs thprincipleof equidistanceasthe "general"ruleof
boundüry delimitation, thereby reduriingthe alternat ihae another
boundaryIineisjustified by"speciacircumstanccs" to anarrow exception,
and
(5) ArticIefi shifts tutiw vfpraofas to whctherthert:art:"svial circum-
stances" which jüstifyanothcr boundary line on tothe party alleging

such speciaIcircurnstances.
Although 1he Fedewl Rcpublic of Gel-manyis no: bbond dy the Coiivention
and, thcrcforc,need not go in10the details of rheinlerpreta otiAonticle6,
paragraph 2, it neverthc1r;ssccms appropriait to commcnt on thevicws
expnunded in the Counter-Memarial in this respect,as it might be risefuto
show thatArticle 6paragraph 2,ifinter~retedinharrnonywi thitsrealpurpose,

isin essencenot sofar from theyencralprincipleswhich, inview ofthe Fcderal
Hepublic of Gemany, govent the delimitation of the contiiiental sli(se
above, para. 66).
68. The Counter-Memonül puts grcatcmphasis on thc point thlit tho Intcr-
nationaf Law Commision "adopted the equidistanceprinciple asthe gcn~rai
ritle and introducedthe specia1circumçtanwsclaiiçe by way of an excep.prion"
(Dan. C.-M., para.127, p.204, supra;Neth. C.-M., para.121, p.356,supra); it
attacks the interpretationadvancedin the GerrnnnMemnriaI thatthe "special

circumst'dnccs"cIausemustbeirnder~tooùmore in thesenseof an alternativeof REPLYOF THE FEUERAL KEPUBLIC OF GERMAKY
419
equal rank to thc cquidistanceniethod,i~ireafia, withtheargument, that,if
Artiçk 6"wereso interprcted, thc cffcctwoulbeIargelyto denude itof legai
contentand to dcstroy itsvaluas acriterion foT~oIv~B~ disputes conccrning
shelf boundaries"(Dan. CM., para. 129, pp.2M-205, sugrrr;Neth. C.-M.,

para.123.p.357, stipra).Froni thcIut phraseit isobviousthat the Counler-
Mernorialis tryinto estabIishtheequidistancemcthod asthe onlyruie,rcduc-
ingtheweightof the "specialcirciirns~anceclausc io a virtuallyunimportant
exception.Such anarrow inte~pretationwould beinconsistentwirhthepurpose
orArtjcle5.
69.Thc Counler-Mernoriac lornpIeteIyoverlooksthe factthat thcfirsand
primcrryobligationcontained inAriide 6, paragrsph 2, is the obligatiofthe
States conceflierito seek agreement on an equitahle boundary Iine. This
obligation would lx rduced to an einpty formulajToneof the particscould
star;fronithe preinjsesthat the eqiiidistance boundaryth= "genenl" rule.

LogicalIythe application of thc cquidistancemetlioiseithcr coonsider10 be
equitablc:byboth sidesor itwiflbedispiitedbyone side. inthe fircas, there
is noneedto negotiate a boundary; itsdeterminaiionwiIlbe reduced to the
technicalmatter of fixin ghc gcugraphicalCO-ordinateo sf the boundary.In
the secondcstsç,theequidistancemethod will mrtainly favoiir onc sidç, but
not the other;insiichacase it could nobe thcscmc ofArticle 6, paragaph 2,
to allow one partyto insist from thoutsetoiithe cquidistanm Iineand then,
by assertinpthe absence ofagrcerilentto impose the eqiiidistancc Iion the
otherparty asthe "1awTul"boundary.
70. Article5 istobeunderstood asa proceduretocorne tothemost quitable

solution ofthe hundary problem in theconcretc caw. The firststageof the
procedureenvisagedbythe authors of ArticIe6js negotiationswitha view to
achieve agreementon a boundaryIine which would be regarded asequitabre
by boihsides. Not beforc such negotiations fail. Arti6,paragraph 2, prc-
scribestwo alternativeseithertlrereare"special circumstances"jus~ifyinga
special boundary linewhich Article 6was iinableto dcfinein detail,or there
are no such "special circumstances",in which case the equidistanceline ap-
plies.Not oniylogic but alsothelaiigriagofArticle6requiresthat thcexami-
nafion whetherthere are "s~ial circumstances-j'ustifying anoti~erboundary
linemusttake precedence; not beforithad bccn estnbIishedthatthisquestion
cm be answered in thc ncgativt:way, rnaythe partiesapply the principlcof
cquidistance. Article 6,paragraph 2, dm not provide tht, exxceptionaIIy,
States rnaydeviate from Ihe equidistan mcethod if "specic arcumstances"
are invoked by ont: offhcparties;the formulationof Arlicle 6, paragaph 2,
rathcrindicatesthatthe absenceof "spocialcirciirnstanm" is a necessarypre-

condition forthe application of the equidistanceIinc.
71.'Evenifthe Court followodtheIincof argument of theCounter-Mernorial
inthe interpretation Article6, paragraph 2, othe Convenrion,andrcgarded
the "speciaIcircumstances"clatrsejuridicailasan exccptjon to therule,fhis
wouIdnot nmssarily meanthat the fieldof applicationofthis exceptionwould
be as narmw as suggcstcdin the Counter-MernorialI.f the principiof equi-
dislanceapplies under "normal" circumstancesand anothcr boundary has to
bc foutrd under "spxial" circurnstanoes,this distinctibetivetn "normal"
and "spccial" circumstancs does not indicarewhere the borderline belween
a "normal" anda "special" case hasto k drawn.One nad notgo so faras to

considerthe "'exception"more importantthan the"rule", but it isequallyin-
admissibleto hold thrita"exception" to tfmie must ner:essariIyeso narrow
as to k Iimitedto a few exceptionalcases.The debaies in the International420 K(>RT~ISEAC<)N~E~TAL SHELF

Law Commission and in themeetingsof the 1958 Geneva Conferenceda not
indicate that the "spwiacircumstances" clause was ihought to be a narrow
cxwption; on the cuntrary, themmmentary of the Inkrnational Law Com-
missionstressedthe facttiiathe casa where another boundaryline wouldbe
justifiecby thc p~tesencof islands,riavjgablechannels,and cxccptional con-
figurationsof the Coast, "may arjse fairly oftenso that tlie ruladopted js

rairiydasiic".

(Yearbaok of the InfernarioL ~iwaCo~t~rtii.~sin, 56II, p. 300.)

If itisthepurpose ofArticle5,as the Countçr-McmoriaI,too, co,nccdcs(Dan.
C.-M., para.55, p.175, supra; Neth. C.-M., para.49, pp. 328-329,aipm}, tu
franslatcthc concept of deIirnitingtheconrinentashc1 un equitablcprinciples
intoa more concrete formula, the borderIine between the "normal" and the
"special"circiirnstancesmusrk dcfuiedwiih thispurpose in view.Any intcr-
pretationwhichwriuld oprioripresumethat theerluidrstanc cethod guarantees
perse deIiniilalioon cquitableIincs,worildpassoverthecons~derationswhich
ledto [heformulationof Artrçle6.

72. 'I'hGerrnan Mernorial (para. 64pp. 62-63. suprapointai to thcdiffcr-
encein theianguageof ArtiçIe12of the'Ierritorialea C~n~~entioaiiiiArticle6
of thc ContinentalSheIfChnvention ;whle under Article12a deviatiunfromthe
principIeof equidistanw isonly possiblc ispccial circum5tanoes "necesqitate"
it,underArticle 6 theprincipleOF quidistance isalready excludedif specia1
circumstanucs"'iustify" anothcr boundary line. The conclusionùrawn Crorn
thisdiffereiiceis thArticle 12by itsIirnguageatoneindiciitethatthe authors
of these Articles hadthereby recognizeda widei scope of application forihe
quidistancc linc in thterritoriaseathan in thedelimitationof theçontinentü1
sheIf, The Couiiter-Mernoria[triesta explain thatdifference inthe language
of both Articlcas mtrolyaccidentalby pointing out thatLheoriginalproposais
of thc InternationalLaw Com0nis~ion €orboth Articlesh3dtho same wording
but ihat atthe Conference Article 12had heencarnpIetely redraftedfor atiter
reasonsby theConference Cornmitteere~ponsibltf:or thedriiftinof theTerri-

torialSeaConvention, whiIethe proposa[ oftheIriternationaLl awCoinmission
for ArticIc 6 hd only been sIightlchângd. (Dan. C.-M., para. L23, p.202,
supra; Neth.C.-M., para.117, pp.345-355 s,pra). Thcsc facts donot aK~tthc
validity nf the foregoingconcltisiWhatever mayhave been tlierzwon forre-
draftingArticlc12,thc diffcrent Ianguagein bothArticlesreniaifissigniiicant : it
demonstrates that the authorsof theTerritorialSca Convention in rcdrafting
Article 17 have felt ablto Iirnit thscope of "specialcircumstances" much
more ihan inthe ContinentalShclf Conventio annd to rex4uc.hisclatiss in
fact, to a veritablc "exccptionofrhe rule.
-
73. Rclying on thcir rcstrictivcintcrpretationof the "specialcircumstances"
clause,the Kingdomof Denmark and thc Kingdom of the Netherlandsaswrt
{Dan. C.-M.. para. 148, p.210, supra; Neth, C,-M., pua. 142, pp. 353-3&,
supra) that thc Fcdcrd Rcpublicof Germany-

"... is bound to r~pcct thc cq11idistanclineas their muaialboundary
oiitlie continentalsEeIfuntiI tkcFcdcraIRepublic cstablishcs botthirt:
(a)ihereexists a 'specialcircurnstance'within themeaning of Article 6
of the Convention;and
(b) this 'specialcircumstance'juslifiaanorherboundary iine wiihin the
ineaning ofthat Article." REPI,YOF T~IEFEDERALKEPUBLIC OF GEMIANY
421
Thiscontentioncan only mean thatArticle6,paragaph 2, oftheContinentaI
Shclf Conventioncoiitained a presump!iojuris that thcequidistance lineis the
IawfuIboundary as long asthe other party basnot successfutly"esfahlished"
ihe existenceof "spcciticircumstanc?t:~"justiiyjng anoiher boundd;Suchan
interprcpationofArticle6 gow tao far;ifonly by virtuofArticle6, paragraph

2, each Statewereentitled to regard the cquidistanceboundary as the Iawful
boundary vis-&vis its neighbouras long as another houndary had not kn
recognizedhyagrccmcnt or arbitralion,iiwouldbe tantamount toestabiishing
thc principleof equidistancastheoiiIyrule.Suchan intcrpretationof Article6
would be inçunsistentwith the purposeofthat Article.
74. Article 6, paragraph2, of the Continent Shlelf Convention must lx
understood as aformula forsettlingconflickingdaimsbctwccnStates adjacent
to the samc continentaIshelfinan equitabIe inanner,Ifrom negoriationswith
ihe objeztdefined above (paras6.9, 70)no agreement is forthcominglxtween
theStates concerned, Article6,paragraph 2, provides thatin this casetcon-
flictinclairnshave tobe decidedurithe bais of the formula:

"... unless another boundary is justifie3by spccial circumtances the
boundary shalibç determineclby applicatioriof the prjncipleof equi-
distance, . .".
This cannot man that the equidistance boundary is lawfuinany caseas long

as anothcr boundary has not ken valjdlydetermined; it canonly mean lhai
the equidistance boundaryis lawfulin siichcases where under an objective
standard of evaluation therare no such"specialcircumstanca~" whichjuslify
another houndaty. In casc of disputc bctwwn the States coircerned whcther
there are"specialcircumstances" justifyinganothcrboundarylirie,itdoes not
folIow from rhisfomiila ofArricle5.paragraph 2,that thepartywhich denies
the existenm of suchcircumstanws has a krrer rkkr than the uttier.Iatall,
the formula rnightbe jnterpretedas ddfting tIiemrrs ofproof onto the party
assertiiigtheexistenceof such"spwia!~ircumstances".This might bc rclcvant,
if~he dispute is suhrnitted for adjudication,but wuld never giveone party
the righttoirnpoçetheequidistance boundaryon theotherparty aslong asthe
dispute hasnot ken settledby agreemen otjudicialdecision.
75.Evcn 11Lhe secondsentence of Article 6, paragraph 2, wouldbe inter-
preted ascreatinga presurnptionin favour ofthe equitablenessof the tyuidis-

tanceline in the sense that thc onusproof is shiftedontothepaity asserting
that "spccial ~Ïrcumstancesexclude the applicationof the principleofequi-
distance, sucha rule couId not be jnvoked agaitisrthe Federal Rcpubiic of
Germanybecause theFederal RepubIic is not aparty to theConvention and
the rdcs conrainedin Article6 have notyet liecornecustomaryinternational
Iaw bindingon States which are not partiesto the Convention. MrÎthrespect
to the presentdisputc bcforc thc Court, it foIlvrfrom these considerations
thatincase of doubtas towlietherunder thecircumstances ofthe casetheequi-
distancelinewould bean equitablesoIutionof theboiindaryquestion, thereis
no presurnptioninfavour ofthc cquidistancc.

Secrion3. The"Sp~ciuiCi'rcrrinstanffs"
in rhcPresenrCase

76. Th Counter-MemorW indicatesthat the FedcralRcpublic of Germany,
if it wantcd to establithatthe circumstancesof the presentcaseexcludethe
applicationof theprincipleofequidistance ,hould YorrnaIIayndexpressIy"in-
voke theexceptionofthe specia1circumstances"initsplcadin gnd submissions@an. C.-M., para.137, p. 208, supra; Neth. C.-M., para. 1p.,361, supra).
This argument is without foundation.As the !&deraIRepiiblic of Germany
isnot a party to thc ContinentalSheIf Conventioni, t could notpossibIy

relyon or invoke against the 0th Partiesa provisionof the Convention;
moreover, had it done so,the Kingdomof Denmarkand the Kingdom of
the Kctherlands might have regarded such an appraach as recognition of
rhe rulescontainal in ArticIe6, paragraph 2,of the Convention. Even if
the Court wero tu accept th0rmsoningofthe Counter-Mernorial and regard
the rdes crintaineinArticle6, paragaph 2, of theConvenîion as customary
internationaIaw,thereisno nilc inArticIc6paragraph2, whichprcscriks that
theState whichcontwn the applicabiliof theprinciplof equidistanct:onthe
ground that there are specialcircumstancejusfifyinyanothcr boundaryfine
must fomally and exprcsvlyrcfcr to thc"spccialcircumstancm" clause of
Article6, paragraph2. Inany casethe arguments iithe German Mcmorial as
well aqin the present Reply leaveno doiibt with theCou~t that the Fed-
eral Republic of Germany wants to asscrt that the spccial geogaphical
situation in the North Sca excludes a deliniitatiof the coiitincntal shclf
betwocn the Partiesaccordingto the principle of equidistance,irrespectofe
whetherit mzy k qualifiedasa "spocialcircumstanm" withinthc meaning of
Article6 ornot.

77. TlteCounter-;Mernorial attacksthe view of the Federal Republic of
Gemany thatrhere are circumstances which cxclude the applicatioof the
quidistance method in thc dciimitatian ofthecontinentalshelf hetfi'ewthe
Parties,mainlyon the fotowingthree grounds:
(a]TheNorth Sea isno "spial case"wkh couldjustify anotherdelimitation
ofits continentalshdf bctwmn the North Sea States.
(6)The delirnitatiofithe continentalsheIfbetmvwnGermanyand Denmark
on the one handand betweenGmany and the Nctherlands ontha other

handhavelo be viewed as individual prohlems independently fom each
othcr andwithout regard to otherccinlinentalshelf hundaries inthe
Norrh Sea.
(c) Thç bradth ofthc wastal frontag ofeach Partyfacing the North Sea
js no1 a relevantcriterionfor thejudgment on the equitablenwsofthc
quidistance boundary.
AI1 thme conteniionshavetu be rejected.

A. The North Scaasa "Special Case"
78. The federal KepubIicofGermany maintainsthatthe North Seapresents
a "specid" case because it covcrs a single continental shelf su~roundedby
several States,and chat such a geographicalsituationwhich might well be
rcgardwl as a "specialcircumstance"withinihe meaning of Articl6,ails for

specialsolutionsiirorderto arrivçat an cquitableappnrtionmcnt of thecon-
tinenmi shelfbetwecntheNorth ka States(GermanMetnorial, para.41,p.39,
supra). The Counter-Mernorial attacksthisview with the argumentthat the
authorsoftheContinentalSheIf Convention wcrcccrtaidy awmof theexistena
ofgeographicai situatioof thikind (e.g,North Sea,PersianGulf B,altiSa,
andothers),butncvcrthclcsshadmadenoprovision to the ekt thatthesecases
shoiiIdfaIloutsidethescopeof the princip[eof quidistance olxtrcatedas a
"specia lircumstanoe"within the meaning of Articie6 of the Convention
(Dan.C.-M., para. 134pp. 206-207,supN re;h.C.-M., para.128, pp358-359,
supra)This argumentis not very convincing. Itwas not the inientionofthe
authors of the Continentai SheifConventionto proviforormentional1 casesshelf "rvherethe çame continental shclf is adjaccnttothc territririof IWO
adjaccnt Stata" (ibid.; itaIiadded by the Counter-Mernorial)A . sa laterdi
boundary through themaritime areasbefore thecoastsof Stateslyingadjacent
to each other is only conceivabias a boundar ytwen rwo States, whilea
hundary ktivcc~ oppusitc coasts mayinvvlvc"fwo or nzure"States(Article6,
paragraphl), thedifierencein tlilaiiguageof the two parügraphsof ArticIe6
dm not seem to have any legal signilicancforits interpretation.Therefarc,
the formulationof Article 6ofthcContinental Shcif Convention isno support
for the view in thecase of Iaterdboundaries, only circunistaiicessternming
directlyfrom the geoyaphial relationship of the two adjacentStates, couId

be regard4 as "çpecial circiimstances"wifhin thc rncaning of Article 6,
paragraph 2.
82. Apart froin the fact that Article6, paragraph2,of theContinental
Shdf Convention~evm if itwerebinding on the PerleraRepublic of Germany
+uid not furnisha legaI basis forsuch a rcstrictivcintcrpretationitis
evidenttyirnpossjbIeto pass judgrnenton the equitablenessofa continental
shdf boundary wiihout considering the whoIe geographicaldtuaiion and its
effect on theapportionment of khcwntincntül shclf; it is sufiicient that the
propoçed equidistanceboundary under the specialgeography or the case,

wouldcontribute to the disproportionatercduçtionof Germany'ss hareof the
continental shelfin the North Sea.There isevery indication that "speciaI
circumstanmu" which may innuen= thedetermination of boundaries rnustbe
understood in the brwadcst sense:if geographiçai circumstancesbringabout
that an equidistanceboundary wiIIhave the effectio tau% an nunequitable
apportionmcnt of thc continental shclf bctwen the Statesadjaccnt tu that
continental shelfsuch cirnim~tances are"speciai"enoughto justify another
boiindaryIine.
83. A judgrnent on the question whethw the Jclirnitationof the German

ConiinentaI SheIfvis-A-viDenmarkor theNetherlands by applicalionof the
equidistancemethod isequitahlecannotbe passedin isolation without regard
to thecombinerl efkt which bath quidistance hoandarieswould haveon the
sizç ofG~rmiiny'ssharc of thc continentasheifofthe North Sea. Asthe map
shows, itis the alinosrectailgularbeirdin theGermancoiistIine that causes
borh equidistanceIines(isiich[inesweredrawn ascontinentalsheifboundaries
vis-A-ns Dcnmark and the Ncthcrlands) to mwt before ilte Gcrrnancoast,
thereby reduciiigGerrnany's sliarof tliecontinentalshcIf inthe North Sea
to a disproportionatelysrnailpart ifcompared with the sharesof the other
North ka States. This gcugraphicaisituationis certain "lsyccial" cnouyh
to come within the meaning of the "special circumstances"of Articic G,
paragrapli 2, of rhe Continental Shelf Convention, if that provision were
applicablebctwn thc Partics.

84. The &unter-Mernorialtries io rninimizethe importance of thiseffect
by aguing chat the smüllsizcof Germany's shre isa consequencc "stemrning
cxcIusive loym its own coast"{Dan. C.-M., para. 154, p.212, supra; Neth.
C.-M., para.149,pp. 355-36 supm). This argumentis furtheradvanced in the
Countm-McrnoriaI by arguing thatü spccial geographical configuratian could
justifa boiindary other than theeqiiidistancone in casw-

"where a pxîicular coastIine,by rason of some exmptional feature,
gives theStittconocrned anc~tcnt of continentai shelfabnormaIIyIarge
in reiafionto thegeneral configurationofitscoast. Then a correctionis
aIIowedby the cIausein favour of an adjacentState whose continental REPLY OFTHE FEDERALREPCBLIC OF GERMAPIY 425

shelfis comspondingiy rntidcabnormallysrnaIIin relatioto thc gcncral
configuratioof itscoast bythatsameexceptionalfeature ("an. C.-M.,
para. 156p. 214,siiprn; h'eth.C.-Mpara. 151,p.367,sirpra).

This reasoning cannot be accepted kause itis not in harmony with the
purpose of the rules on the delimitation of the continental shelf. It cannot
beregarded as a material difference whether "the exceptioconfiguration"
of the coastIineisto be auribuied io the "Iosing"or the "gaining" State;
what isrelevantis thFictthatsuch a configuratioofthe wastIinr:irrespective
where itis situated,resultsihaundary which must be regarde as inequitable
becausethe sizeof the shartofihe continentalshelo ffthat Smte is dispro-
portionatcIyreduccd thcreby. It is inIinewith the unduryrestrictiveinterpre
cation of the "specialcircumstances" clause hy the Counter-Mernorial that

only an "abnomaIly srnaIl" portionof the continentasheIfshouId be recog-
nized assoinequita ble ojustiafyotherbouiidary.
85.In a frrrlher effotodisguisethe inequitablresultof theeinployment
of the principIeof equidistariin thedeiimita~ionof Germany'scontinentai
shelf, the Danish aswell as the NetherlandsCounter-Mernorial produces a
smalI miip (Dan. C.-M., p. 213,suprc~Neth. C.-M., p. 356,srdprc~, hichis
meant to sliowthat ifthe boundariawere drawn accordin totheequidistance
rnethod.neither the"I3anishshare" nor the "Netherlandsshare"of the North
ka wouId be "abnormal" in rclatiorito iheirrespxlive coaçlline.However,
the tu;^maps are nut identical: the one in the Danish Counter-Mernoria1
deliberately ornits the Cierman-NetherIandsequidistance boundary as claimed

by the Netherlands, tIiorher inthe Neihzrtands Counter-Memurial JeIikr-
atclyornitsthe Gcrman-Danislreqriidistanceboundüryasclaimcdby Denmürk;
neitherof them shows rhesi7.oef Germany'sshare hewuse in the Ilanisrnap
Lheshares of Germany and of the Netherlandsappear as a singleshare,and
in the Kcthertands map theshares of Germany and Dcnmark appear as a
single shareThis creates the impressiothatthe Uanish share as well asthe
Keiherlandsshareof the continental stielf in ihNorth Sea are perfectly
"normül" comparedwith the sharesof the orhcr Narrh Seü States.ItwiI1
sufficto compare ihcsemaps withthe map rcproduccd inthc Gcrman Mcmo-
rial(p. 27srprci)andit willai onse beseenthatthe si7of thesharesof Den-
markand ofthc NctherIands if compareciwithGermany'ssharein relation lo
their respectivecnaqtlinesare naq'"normal"as rheyshould appear.

86. Thc Counter-\lcmoBal makes a grwt point of rhe argument that the
Federal RepubIic ofGermany, hy asking foran entargernentofitsshare of the
continetitalQielin theNorth Ses! requiresDenmarkand the Netherlands to
"transfcr" to the Fcderal Republic part of the continental sbctfwhich is
"adjacent" and "naturaliyappertaining" to them (Dan. C.-M., para. 153,
p. 212, srrprKcth. C.-M., para.148,p.365, srrpm).Thc cntirc argurncntatjon
of ChapterV of the Counter-Mcmoriia(lthespociaIcircumstanceexceptionand
the Federal Kepublic'ssectoral ctaim) tries fgivethe impression that the
FederalRepublic of Germaiiy isseeking to gain soniething"at the expense"
(Dan. C.-M., para.152,p.212.sripra; Neth. C.-M., para147,p.365,srpm) of
Denmark or of the Netherlands.To prcvcnt such a wrring irnprc~sionfrorn

gnininggound, ilseems necessary and appropriate to stateonce more the 426 NORTH SEA CONTINEXTALSHÉLF
German positionasto the sizeof thcshrc cach Norfh Seastate mayrightfuily
clairnforitself.

87. IfthoKingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of theNeiherlandsclaim
that the maritime areas which they have wrilazerffIIydelùnitcd vis-&-visthc
Federal Republic of Germany as "thcir" continental sherf, are "naturaap-
pmtaiiiing"to them,such a cIaim must berejecied.The claimthat thwe parts
of the continentalshelrof the NorthSeaare"appertaining" to them under the

"principlesof generalint~rnational IHW" is nothirtg hut a reiteratioof the
-cqually untmablc daim, already rejwed (seeabove, paras. 56-61), that al1
parts of acontinental shelf whichan: nwer to somcpoiiit ofthe coast of a
Statc than to any othcr ccoast, "apprtain"to ihai State.This isas goud as
saying thattha principieof equidistanceis the only ruie determiningthe ap-
portionnient of acontinental sheIfbetweçn adjacentStates, whichrvouldbe
in cImr contradictionwith gencral international laiiand in particular also
with ArticleGof the Continental Shelf Convention. Evm undcr .41ticl5 it
depends on the pcesence or absenceof "spccqalcircumstances"ivhetherthc
principleof çyuidistanm appticsor nor.This heing so,a higherstandardthan
the principleofequidistancemustbe the basisforthcjudpmcntivhctherin the
concrete case the equidistance boundary jsquitable or whether there arc
"spwial circurnsta~ccs"which cxclude its application.The principleof equi-
distance couIdnot possibly be the standard for the quitablcnms of its own
application.

88. Inits Mernorial the FcdcralRepublicof Germanyhas iried to dcvctap
criterfior the judgment what constitutes an equitable apportionmcnt under
tliecircumstancesof thecase.Stariingfrum thcgcnerz1lyrecogni7edconception
that the rightof a Statcover thecontinental shelfbefore itscoasthave their
IegaIbasisin the continuationof the State'sterritoryinto thsea,the Fcderal

RepubIic of Germany isof the opinion that it is nthedisunce from a singlc
point of the coast, but the mnnectioirwith thecoasai largemasurd by the
hreadik of ~he"lrnas~alfrontaga"of the State, thar woiiIdbe an appropriate
criterion for determiningwhat parts ofthc continental shelf before thcoast
must be regardedas the continuationof the State'sterritory inthem. The
cnnfiguratinn ofthe caast should be irrelevantin this respecthe breadthof
ttiecoastalfrontshouIdbe minisurcd on thc basis ofthegeneral directionof
thecoast,therebyeliminatingtheeffect of indentur asesella of promoriturics.
Jfsuchconfigurations wouldhavettheeKect toapportionpartsof thecontinental
shelf wliicli app toan unbiased observer astrcontinuationof one State's
territor,o another Staresuch aneffccthas toberegarded a a circumstance---
ora '"spccica itcumstance" in the meaning of Article 6, paragraph2, of the
ContinentalSheIfConveirtioo if itwere appIicabI+which cxcludcs thc ap-
plicaiion othe equidista ncehod for the defermination of the boundary
between thcsc Statcs as incquitahle.

89. The following diagms, Ligures1-3 wjIIilliistrateeffectsof this kind:428 NORTH SEA CONTIKENTALSHEII

con? inen fal sfie/f before fhe cosst

'- equidisfance lines

Figure3

These diagrams show the sirnplest case of a coast with a confincntal shclf
cxtcnding into theopen sea. Obviuusly, no serious objectioncould he raised

against theclah of each of thescStates thatits continentalshelfshould extend
into the opensea ina breadtch orresponding to ifcoastal Frontagc,no regard
king paid to thcprojecti pnartsofthe neighlxiurState.Orwould the King-
dom of Dcnmark and the Kingdom of the Netherlünds wiçh to say that in
figure7 StateA and C, andinfigurc 3 State B, should pay for a gwgraphical
situation "sfemmingexc1usiveIy fron~its own coast" (Daii. C.-M., para. 154,
p.212, supra; Neth. CM., pwd. 149, p.365, s~dpru)?
90. While in the casesilIustratcd by thcse diapms (figs.1-3 above,
para.89,pp.427428) it is quiteobvious which partof thecontinentalshelf be-

fore thecoast couldbc rcgardcd as analura colntinuation ofaSlale'sterritory
into these.,thisis notsoobvious incases whtrr:thecoasts of severa1adjacent
Stares embrace a continentalshelf in a hent or almost circularIinc. Insuch
cases,as inthc case afthc North Sa, thecontinent;tshelves ofrhe adjacent
States,as the continuatioiof theirrespectiveterritnriecoizvcrgc to~vardthe
middle oi'the areasurrnundedby these States. In order to find a criterion for
the cquitablc:delimitatiunorconvergins contiiientashelves, itwould again
secm appropriatc to srartfrom the simplesi and jdeacasewherethe coastIines
of the adjacentStates wouId ernbracc a continentalshelFin a pcrfcctcircuirir
line.

91.Insucha case whcrc thc coastlines ofal1Statessurrounding the saine
continental sheIfcoiistitutan exact circuIarlinc, apportionment by seclors
among thenirroundingStates appears tobc thc most equitahle soltrtion. It is
not;csçaryto point out that in sucaigeoinetricalty idcacasethe principleof
quidistane wouldeffectuateexactlythc same apportionment. The fdlowing
diagram, figure4, illustratessuca case: REPLY OFTIIE FEDERAL REPIIBLIC OF CiW.MANY 429

STATEB

1
1 --..
Figur4e

'Th ceasonwhy apportionmcnt by sectorappearsto be oquitablcin thicase
isapparentjynot tobe found inthegeometrical constructiooftheequidistance
Iincs constitutinythç sectors but rathcrin the fact ihasizeof lht:sectors
correspondsto the brcadth ofthe baseIines,or,as isthesamc in rhis cüsco
the breadthof thecoastal frontof ach State. Astheprinciplof equidistance,
tuo, rcquire spportiunnicntbyscctors insuch a case,the Counter-Mernorial
seems to be hürdl yair indenouncingapportionment by sectorsas being an
"opportunistic,arrificiai,andarbjtratheory" (Dan. C.-M., para.161, p215,
supra; Ncth. C.-M., para.156, p369, supra).
92. In rcalittyhc configuration ofthecoasts of thc Stittcs cmbracing the
same contineiitashelfis more cornplex. Of coursthecoastlincdo not follow
the circle or any othersiniple çeometriiine.The Federal Kepuhlic has not

attempted to regard~heKorth Sca as acasc wherz ihe deIirnitariofthe con-
tinental shelf betwcenthe adjacent Statcouid be cffectedby applicationof
the sectriradivisionpure and simple; ithas considered the construction of
sectorsas a "siandard uf evaluation" by which tu judge whether a certain
hundary delimitation,in particularby the principle of equidistance,cIXld
rcgardcd as equitableunderthe circumstanms ofthe case(secGcrmiin Mcmo-
riaIpara.85, pp. 83-84,srrprThc rcason whyscctor alvisionisanappropri-
atc srdndard by wliiclto appreciatethe equitablenessof acertaindeIimi1a-
tion nfthe continenralsbelf ktween the adjacentStates wil1k demonstratcd
by ihefollowingdiagram,figure 5which prcscnta sirnplificaseof conv-erging
continentalshelve isan encIoscd sm:430 NORTH SEA WNTISEN-I-ALSHELF

Figure 5

Here again itshould be asked whcthcr it is nrimorc natural tciregardthe
storal partsas the continuation ofeach State's territorinto the seü,and
trthcfheritwould not somehow Lievery "artificialto regard onIy that part
which is hatchedinthc diagram as "naturalIyappcr~aining" toState B. If tlie
principleof quidistance were appliedhere, cwoprojecting parts ofthe coasts
of Smte A and C (1and II inthe diagram) wouId have the eflectthat thcrcst
of State ri'ssectorworild be transfcrrcdtriStatc A and C respectiveiy.The
FcderalRepublic ofGerrnanyis of the opinion thathere, too,no1some pro-

jecting partsof the Coast,but rather the consralfront ofa State is the basis
frrimwhich its ccintinental shclf cxtcnds into thc scaaa continuatioiiof its
tcrritory.
93. TheCauntcr-Mcmurial attempts toshow that the "sector "oncept does
iiotcorrespond to the geographical situationof the North Sea becausc tthc
circledrawninfigure 21 of the German hTemoria1dms not touçh (he Germari
coasl, but connects only ûie end-poiiitof theIiiteralboundariesbetween the
Parties.The circIeline in figure21 may indeed have been a IittIcrnisleading,
as if its positiwere a determiningfactor for the constructionof tliesectom.

In kt, it wasonly meant to show that rhe continentalsheIfwhichhad tohe
apportionedamong the North Sea Sfatcsin that part ofthe North SM, was
roughly circular. The circlmight havc ken drarm with a different radiusor
omitted altogether. The Federal Kepublic of Gerrnany wanted to show by
figure21the breadth ofthe front wilh whichtheterritoryof eachof theParties
continues ta extend under the wattr into the North Sei; thisfront wouid be KEPLY OF TIIE FEDF.RAL RF.PUilIOF GERMAST 431

the same if the German mstline did nol rewde in the middle, but folloived
morecloseIy thedircct Iincbctwccnthe cnd-points of the German land frnntiers
(Borkum-SyItline).

94. Thc Counter-Mernoria1 alleges thatthe t.ederalKepubIic of Cierrnany,
by raking the direct line betwen the end-points of the German land fronticrs
vis-&vis Denmarkand the Nethcriands (in short thc Burkum-Sylt line) as
expressingthebreadth of itscoastalfrontfacing the North Sea wa atteiiipting
to escape from the unhvoiimble "conçequences of itown geography" (Dan,
C.-M., para. 167, p.218, supra; Neth. C.-M., para. 152p. 371,supra) and was
completely neglecting the traditionawastd baselinesas poini ofdeparlure for
the delimitation of maritime boundaries. It shoribemade cIear that this "arti-
ficial"linethe FcJeraIRcpublic ofGcrmany takcsas a critcrion for an equitahle
apportionmentof the coiitinentat sheIfof the North Sea, was riutchosen foc
thepurpose of gettinga bais which is ncarerto the middIe of the North Sea

than the actual coastline. 'I'hedistancfrom the Coast is,in theview or the
Federal Republic of tiermany, not the onIy relevant factor in Jeterminingthc
apportionment of a continental shclf amongthe adjacent States.The Borkrim-
Sylt fine had been chosen as the basis for the masurement of the coastaI
frontage of Germany on iht:very gromd that it wouId havc ixcn unfair tci
take the actuaIcoastlinewithits deep indentures forthispurpose,
95. Anolher objection advanceci by the Counter-Mernorial against rhc
"sectar" concept is the fact thatthe centre of the North Sea is more distant
from Germany's coast than from the cvasts of the olher North SeaStates.

Apart from the fact that the ùifference in distaisrather srnaIl(&I4nautical
miles), compared with the area of the continental shelf (abou13fiüû sq.km.)
which would be transfrmd lothc Kingdumof Dcnrnarkand thc Kingdom of
the Kctherlands fi.ornthe Gcrman sectorby application of the equidistance
meihod, itshould again he emphasized in this context that distance from the
Coast, in partjculadistanccfrom somc sin& point of thc coast isnot an cqui-
table criterion for the apportionment of exteiisive maritimeareas.Ilere the
Counter-Memo~I returns once more to its favouritetheory thatareas of the
contincntal shclf which arc ncarcfo sorncpoint of the mast ofone State than
to any othercoast should be regardedas "naturallyapprtaining" tothat State.
This appears veryc1earIyfronithe argument thatkause the Fedeml Republic's
coast isa little more distant frthc ccntrcof the North Sca "it is ncithcr sur-
prisingnor inequitahlenor unjristhat the Fedenl Republic's continental shelf
should not reach out to he pIacewhere jtspeaksof as the centre of the North

Sca"(Dan. C.-M.. para. 171, p. 219.supra;%th. C.-M., para. la, pp.372-313,
szrprn)Tthad already been demonstrated that suclan argument is iiorhingbuta
reiteration of the principle oequidistan ande,neveran argument for rhe
equjtablcness of its application thc concrctccasc.
96. The Couiiter-Metnorial makesa ver), bitter atuck on the criierjaput
forwarà by the Gmman Mernoriaiasa standard of esaIuati onr theeclui-
ttiblcna~ ofacontinental shcrfbriundary,andteproaches the FederaI RepubIic
oftiermanywithneglecting "the esiabIishedprincipleand rulesof internation-
a1lawgoverningthe delimitation of maritime bounàarics"@an. C.-M., para.
173, p.219, supra; Xeth. C.-M., para. 166,p.373, srtpra). For ipart itadvo-

cates thecoastal baselinesaspoints ofdeparture and relerencefor the delimita-
tion of the boundaritsofa Statc'scontinental shclf @an.C.-M., para. 159,p.
215,suprn;Neth. CL-M.,para. 154,p. 368,sirprn)Ttshouldke home inmind that
the juridictionof a State overthe continentai shelf More its coast is anew
deveIopmentin international Iaw.The rulegsoverning thecontentsandIimits of432 KOKTHSEA C<)ZITINEN-ïSKfLi-'

thisjurisdictiomust develop in harmony -5th rhe uunderlying ideas that havc
farrnedihc bais of thisjurisdiction.Theold ruIofmaritirnetawwiIl apiilas
faras theyniây beapplied inharmony withthis newconmpt O€law.The Coati-
ncntaI ShelfConvention, ton,hasmade lisof the traditionconcepts of mari-
time Iaw, in particularbyiinroducingthe equidistancc:Iimeasured from the

baseIinesofthe coastas oneof the methds of deterntiningthebuundaria of a
State'scontinental shelf. At tsame timc, however,the Convention ha? iveII
realizedthai the employmcnt of such concepts has itsiimits, and recognixd
that the delimitationcould not follow the baseline-equidis coanceepif
"spcciüicircumstances"requiredanothcrsolulion iinderthe termsof equity.

97.Sudgingby liieprincipalobjectionto the"sectorconcept" raid by the
Counter-hleinorial,it isapparentlyassumed that thiswnccpt was mmnt to
be a ruleorinternationallawdetermining thebobotindaorfthecontincntül shelf.
This wouIdbc a misinterpretationof thefunctianof the"seciorconcept". 'The
Federal Kepublic of Germany wkhes to emphasizc once more thar in the
specialcaseda continentasheIfsurroundcd by severalStatesiiis undcrsfovd
to Ix an objectivsianrlardofevalunrionby whichto judgc wwhcthcar proposed
boundziry line, in particulathe equidistan lnee,would be equitable, Le.,
wouIdapportion a justandequitable share toeaçh Staie. The phennomenon in
such a specialcase is thc facthat thecontinentalshclvc~of thc surrorrnding
Statcs arc convergent which ~iiustnccwarily lead to an apportionine b yt
4'sectors",though theymüy not bcseciors inthe trucgeometrical sense.It is
therefore imtiossibletavriid the qustion wliaare the relevantfactors detcr-
rnining thcsizeof ~he"sector"eaciStatcsdjaccnt tothesame continent sacllf

may riglitfulclaimas anequitabieshare.The Federa Rcpublim caintain tsat
motlhe distancefrom some single point on thccoastbut raihethe brcüdth of
thc coastsl frontuftach State isthc only appropriate standard by wliic o
determinetheequitnhlencss of the apportionment effcctedby the proposed
boundary. If itwere the distancefrom some singlp eoinron the coast,asthc
Courtter-Mernorial cantcnds, such a standard would rnakc the principie of
equidisfniiceits owit standarforthe equitablenes ofits application.

98. 'Thestandard fortheequitabIenessof thecriniinenta1shclbuundaries in
thc North Sca bascdonthebreadth of the coastal fronofeach North Sea State
should,in theview of the Fedcral RepubIicofGermany, lx appiied indiscrim-
inateiyto al1continentalshelfhoundaries in thNorth Sea. Any suggwliuriby
the Counier-Mernoriatlhatthe FederalRcpublic appliesdiferen sttandards in
that it recognizcsthe cquidistançc houndariesof the United Kingdam and
Norway as equitablewhjle disputing the equitableness of thc cquidistance
boundarics of Denrnark and the NetherIands vis-&-vistierniany iswholly
unfounded. Ith~ Mn explained in the GerinanMernorial (se paras.86-87,
p. 84,stipurthat theshareswhich theUnited Kingdom and 3orway have actu-
aIIyrtxxivcdbyapplicationofthe equidistünccmeihod arenot outofproportion
to their respectcoastaifronts,and itcaneasiltyrccmonstrarcdthat "sectors"
con~vuedon thebasisof theirfronts facingthe NorÇea do not diKersomuch
from thc actuaI sharcs of both States resultingfrom theapplimtion of the

equidistancemethod. 'Jhestandardappliedbythe Federal Republicof Germany
is not"tailored"to suititsown purpose; ratheris it foundcd onthe generally
rmgnized conccpt of thc continmta1shelf a.a continuationof aStatcoster-
iitoryinro thesea.

Cf. I~iiernntionalLuw Coinmission, Comrnentary to Artic1cT68of its
1956 draftArticlcson thcLsw of the Sea,Ycurbao 1956,II, p.298. XEPLYOF Ti1F FEDERAL REPUBIJC OF:GLKMASY

99. In view of thc arguments put foxwardin paragraph 64-98 of this
Reply, thcfollowing conc1usionsare respectfullysubmilted:

(a) As tothe delimitationof thecontinentalshelf betweenthc Parties in the
North ka, theapplicationof the equidjstancemcthod doesnot apportion
a justand equitableshare toeach of thcParties.
(bj As the Federal Kepublic ofGmany is not aparty to the ContineniaI
ShelfConvention Article6, iiaragraph2, tnay not bcinvokeagains te

Fderal Republic. Even if the rule contained inhrticte6, paragraph2,
prescribingthe application of lhe eqriidistanw method unIcss special
circurnstancaqjustify sinothhundary Iinewere applicablebetween the
Parties, there exist "special circurnsrances"within the meaninof that
provisionwhjchcxcludethe application ofthe equiùistancernethod.
{cj Conwluenrly, the dclirnilationof the continentalsheIf in the NortSea
between the Partiesisamatter whichhas to besettIedby agrmment. This
agrmrrieiit sliouId apportioa just and quitable share to each of the
Parîies.
(dl The breadth d thecoastal frontofeach Statefacing the NartlSea isan
appropriate objectivestandard of evaiuatic with respect tothe equita-
blenessof a proposed houndüry.438 NORTH SEA CO~T~NENTAL SIIELI:

regardthesirnilx Icgïtimaierightsof oiheStateson abasisof reciprncit..."
(b) Peru: PrcsidcntiaIlecreeNo. 781 (1) dated I Augui 1941: "3' ... cI
Estado ...ejerceri dicho controI y protemionsobre cl rnaradyaccnte a !as
costasde1 territorioperuano enuna zonacomprcndida entre esascostasy una
Iinea imaginaria paralelra ellasy trazadasobre el rnar a una distauciade

doscientas(200) millas marinas, medida siguiendo la linea de [os paralelos
geograficos."
Vnaficial franshfioir"... theState. ..will exercisthe rame controI and
protectionon the seasadjacent tothe Pcruvian coad over the are,coveretl
beween the coast andan imaginüry paralle1lineto ar a distanceoftwo hun-
dred (200) nauiical milcsmeasured following the line of the geographial
padleis."
{c) Chile-Eruador-Peru:klaraiion an the MaritimeZone,dated18August
1952: '?Y). .. Siunaisla o gupo de islas pcrtenecienfesalino de lospaises
dalarantcs estuviere a menus de 200 niillas marinas dc la zona maritirna
gcncraIque corrapondc a otro de ellos, la zona maritideaesta islO grupo
de isIasquedari limiradapor eI paralcl doelpunto en quelIega al mar Ia
fronteraterrestrde los Estados respectives."

Unoffzcialirt~nslation:"Tmaritime zonc of an islandor group of islands
belongingta one declarant countr and situateclas than 200 nauticalnriles
from thegeneralmaritime zone of anotherdeclarantcountr yhd1 k bo~mded
by the paralle1of latitude drawnfrom the point at which the land fronticr
betwen the two courttriereaches tlisa?."
(d) Chife-Ecuudor-Pm: Agrement ReIatingto a Special Maritime Frontier
Zone, ilaicd 4 December 1954: "Primera:. Establéceseuna Zona EspeciaI, a
partiràc las12millasmarinasde la costade IOmillasmarinas deancho a cada
IadodelparaleIo que cmstitiiyeellimite maritirno entre los dos mises."

Unofficciarlrnrzslation:"A SpeZone is hereliyestablished,aadistance of
12 nautical milefrom thecoast,extending to a brcadthof 10 nautical itiiles
on eithersideof thc paralle1whichconstitutethe maritimeboundary betwecn
the two çountries."
(SaurŒ: Cnnvenios y otros documentos (1952-19661, Secretaria General,
Lima, Enero de 1967,pp. 12, 14, 16,39.)
3. 22 Fcbmary 1958

SaudiA rubia-Bafirait~
(Text reproduced onp. 259 ,uprao,ftheDan.C.-M., and p. 388,supra,of the
Neth. C.-M.)
~l'oteAlthough "middle lines"and "mid-points" arernentionedin this
treaty ihc bounday does not followa lineof equidistance. Cf. Pudw,
Internntioiiaand Comparative J.aw QiiarterIy,Vol. 9, 1960, p.630:
"Neiiher treaty utilithe priricipl:f quidistance..."

4. 15 knuary 1961
Kuwait-Ku waiiShdi
Oil Concession Agreementbetweenthe RuIerof Kuwaii and KuwaitShell
PetroleumDeveIopment Co. Ltd.
"Article 1. {i... ne approxiinare buunthrieof the seabed tuwhich
Kizwaiiisenrirledore straight iijuMing îhefolfowinpoints:

(i) Theseaward end ofthe boundary bctweenKuwaitandIraq in the Khor
Abdullah; RFPLY OFTHE F'EDERALKEPUBLlCOF GERhiAKY 439

(iiA point28"43'17"N and 48"31°3E 0"
(iii) A point 29"35'#N and 48'31'00"E
(iv) A point 29°32'2N"and 48'47'24'E
IV A) point29"1i15N 4"and 4Y13'18" E
(vi)A point 28'58'36N"and4Y29'48" E
(viiA point29"01'36 N"and 4S052'12"E
(viii) A point B049'42N and 48"2Z13û"E

(1x1A point2850'42" N and 48"13'06"E
(x)ïïieseawardend of the boundary betweenKuwait and Kuwair,!Saiidi-
Arabian Neutra1Zone."
(Source:Notc VcrbaIefromthe PermanentMicxion of Kuwait totheUnitcd
Nations tothe U.N. Secrctq General,datcd 6March1968.)
:Vote:The dividinIinefolIowsthe generaldirectiofthe bandfrontier
and does not rckt the principIofequidistancc.While this is nuan
intcmatiom1 agreementin ihe strsense of the word,it mabegive~rhe
samevaluc under internationallaas wasgivcn toLord Asquith'sawad
in thecase oftheSkeikofdhu LliinbiPerroleurnDevehpmeni Lrd.

5. 1 DeŒmbcr 1964
Federa& fpublicof Cier~nany-NetlierIunds

(Texrreproducd on p. 101,sirprofthe Ger= Memorial.)
~Vore:For objccticins agaiost the useof treatyasa precedentsee
parügraph29 above.

6.IO March 1965
tr~ritedKi~~gdoin-~Vorivuy
(Text reproduwd onp. 105,siipraoftheCieman Memorial.)

Abte: This treatyas weas thetwo other treaticbetween theLnited
Kingdumand North Sca cuastalStatesprovide fora boundary which,
although bcing constnicted on the basis ofthc princofIthe median
lincdoes notexactlyfollow the Iinc quidistance.

7.20 May 1955
LTS..T. .-Finland
flext reproduccon p.264,supra,oftheDan. C.-M. andp.338,supra,ofthe
Ncth. C.-M.)

Nore: The latemlbonndaryin the Gdf of FinIanddoesnot foIIowthe
equidistanceIine.
8. 9 Jun1965

Fc~iera!KepirbiicofGer~t~~~~~y-Dttri~rnrk
{a) Non11 Sea
(Tcxt rcprod~cedon p. 11,supro.of thGerman Mernoriai.)

NOIE: Only thetermiml point(S) is equidistalrom the two toasts.
See afsopararaph 79 abovc fcir furthobjectionsagainsr the trcain
this list.
(b) BalticSea
Uexf ofProtocoIonp. 112,srtpra, ufthe GermanMemorkal.)

Nute: JntheBalticSeathe Mundary constitritesa dividing between
oppositecoaçts.440 NOKTlISEA CON'I~INENTATMELP

United Kiwd~~n-NetherlumtS

(Text reproducedon p.117,supra, OCthe German Memorial.)
>VuleSe note totrcütyNo. 6 above.

(Tcxi reproducedon p. 125,supra, oftheGermari Mernorial.)

Note: Seenoteto tmty No. 6 which appliesnr~#rntmzrrandk.

11. 3 March 1966
United Kingduni-Detltmiark

(Text reproducedon p. 128,supra, of thGerma11Memorial.)
flore:Seenote tu treatyNo. 6ahove.

12. 31 March 1966

(Textreproducedon p.138, supr~ ,fthe German Mcmorial.)
il'uieThistrcatyconcluded by two Particstothe prasentprdings
wIy rciteratestheirviews on the principltobe applied.In thiscontext,

thcrcfore,it cannot be regarded a5 a precedent or evidenceof State
practice.
13. 5May 1957

U.S.S.R.-Fida~rd

(Text rcproducedon p. 259,nqra, ofthe Dan. C.-M. and p. 388,supra,fthe
Neth. C.-M.)

The Cunrinuw~~clifoudirsrrulia

Aiote:This isan exarnpIeof internationalIaw nsapplied between the
individuaSirifeof a federation. Whether theAusiraliancontincnia1shelf
issubjectedro the jurisdictioofthe individualStatesorthe federation
appars to be a controvcrsiaI issuc. The briundaIinesin the following
Acrhasedonagreements ktween theStatescvnccrncd diger Iargel ram
equidistanw, particularlyasIhe fronticrbctween Victoriaand South
Austraiia iconcerncd.

Pctrolcum {SubrnergedLands) Act,1968(enteredinto furce on 1.April1968).

SECOND SCHEDUI ,E

AREAS AIXACEXT TD STATES AND TERRl'rORIES

The adjacent areain rcspectofa SmteorTerritory is iheara thc boundary
ofwhich isdescribcdin thisSchcduie inrelationtothat Stateor Territoryto
theextcntonly thatthatarea includes- KtPLY OF 'ME FEDERAI.REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

(a)arcas of territorialwaterand
(b)areasof superjacent watersofthe contincntalshelf.

KEA ADJACEN TO TIIESTKIE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Theara the boundary ofwhich commences ata gnintthatistheintersection
ofthecoastlineatmean low waterby thc gcodçsic between thtrigonometrical
statio known as Point Dringcr nnearPoint Danger and a pointof Latitudc
27"58' South,Longitude 154"East and runs thencenorthesteriy aloiig that
geodesicto the last-mention4 point, thcnct:north-caslerlyalong the geodesic
toü point of 1aritude 27'48' South, Longitudei54"22'East,thence eastcrly
along thcgcodesic toa point of Latitude27"30'35' 'outh, Longitude IW

East, thencesoutherlyalong rhe meridianof Langitudc 160' Eastto itsinter-
sectionby Lheparallei of Latitudr:39"19'South, thenccsouth-westerly along
the geudcsiçtori pointof Lrrtitude40"40' Souih, Longitude 15g353' East,
thence north-xliestcdong the geodesic to a point of Latitudc37"35' South,
Longitude 150' 10' East, thcncc norlh-westerlydong the geodesic to the
intersection of thc cuastlineat inelow water by the houndary betwen the
Stales of New South Waks and Victoria, thencc along tlie coastlineof Ihe
State ofNew South Wales at mcan low watcrto the point ofcommeneen~cnt.

AREA ADJACEN TTTHG STAT EFVICTORIA
The arcüthe boundaryofwhichcommences ata point thaistheintcrscction
af the coastlincüt man low water by the boundary betwccn ihe States of
New South Wales andVictoriaand runsthencesouthaterly alonpthe geodesic

toa point of Laiittide 37"35'South, Longitude 150'11)East,thence south-
easterlÿalong the geodcsicto a point of Latitude40040' South, Longitude
158"53' East, therice south-westerlyaiung the geodesis pointof Latitude
41"30' South, Longitude 158' 13' East, thcncç north-westerly along the
geodesic to a point of Latitude 39' 12' South, Longitude150"East, thence
westerIy alonp the paraIIof Latitude39" 12'Soiirhro itsintersectioby the
meridian of Longitude142"30'East, thencesouth-wcsterly aIony the geodesic
Toa point of Latitude39"50' South, Longitude 142" Usr, thenw south-
westerly along thc gwdesic to a pint of Latittide 4.4South, 1.oiigitude
136" 29'ht, thence northcasterIyalong the geodcsicto a point of Latitude
38" 40' 48" South,1.ongicurie140"40' 44" East, theilcriorrh-eaqteralonp
the geodesic ta apointofLaLitude38"35' 30" South, Longitude 14û044'37"

East, thçnce north-easterldong the geodesicroa point of Latitude38"26'
South, Longitude 140' 53'East, thenccnorth-eauterlyalongthegeodesic to a
point ofLatitude38"15'South, Longitude 140"57'East, thcncc northaterly
aIong the geodasc to a point ofLatitude 38" 15'South, Longitude 140' 57'
East,thentx northaqterly alnngthe gcodcsiçto a pointhat isthe intcrsct~ion
of the paralielof Latitudc 38"IO'SoutIibythe mcridianpassing through the
intersectionof trie coastlineat man Iowwaterby the boundary bctwe~m the
Statesof South AiistraIiaand Victoria,rhcncc northerly althatmeridianto
its intersectiby ihc cosisrliritmean low water,thence dong lhe caasrline
of the Siatof Victoriaatmcan Iow wafer IOrhepoint of commencement.

hl<u ADJACEY TT ME STAT~ OFQUEENSLAKD
Theam theboundary of which commences at apdnt that ithc intersection
of the coastIineatmean low water by thc boundarybetween the Northcrn

-Terrifr>ofAusiralis and the Stsitof Queensland and runs lhence north-
eastafy aIong the geodesicto a point of Latitude15"55' South, Longitude
138"30' East,thcnoenortherIy along themeridian ofLongitude138"30' East 442 NORTH SEA CO~TNENTAL SHELF
to iu:intersection by the parallel of Latitud14"30' South, thence easterly

along thatparaIIelto jtsintersectionbythe meridian ofLongitude 139"15'
' East,thcnccnrirtherlyaIong thal rneridiato its interseciiby the paralkIof
Latitude Ilo South, thencc north-waterly alongthe gcudesic to a point of
Iatitude 1ff'51' South, Longitude 139" 12' 30" East, thence north-easterIy
abng the geodesic 10 a point of latitude 10"11'15" South, Longitude
140°W'45" East, thcnce north-easterlyalong the geadesic to a point of
Latitude IO0South, Longitudr: 140' 21'5" East, thence north-eiisterlyaIong
thegeodesic to a point of Latitude9' '2'30" South, Longitude 140" 30'30"
East, thcnce northeasterly dong the geodesic io a point al Iatitude 9" 38'
South, Longitude 141"East, thcnce north-easlerly along the geodcsic to
a point of Latitudc 9"30' South, tvnpifudc 141° 35' 30" East, thence north-
castcrIyalong the geodesicto a pointof Laiitude9' 10'45" South, Longitude
142" OU' 15" East,thencc castcrly along theparalleIof Latitude IO'45"
Souih to its intersectioby the meridian of Longitude 142' 04' 45" Hast,

thcncc wuth-easterly alongthe geodesic to a point of Latitude 9" 11'45
South, Longitude 142" #' East, thence north-casrerlyaIong the gcodesic
to a pointof Latitude9" 10'30"South, Longitude 142' 16' Eastthence muth-
castcrI dong rhe geodesicto a pointof Iatitude 9"11' 45" South, Lcingitudc
142" 18' 30" East, thcnce southesterly along the gcodesic to a point of
Latitude 9" 14'45" South, Lungiiude 142" 21'30" East, thencesouth-easterly
alung the geodesic to a point of Latitude9"21' 30"South, Longitude 142"
33' 15" East, thcncc north-easierlyalong the geodcsicIO a pointof Latitude
9" 08' 15" South, Longitude 143"52' 15" East, thencesouth-easterlyalong
the geodesic toa point of Latitude 9 24' 30" South, Lon~tudc 144" 13' 45"
East, thtncc norfh-easterlyaIongrhe geodesic to apointof Latitude9" Souih,
Longitudc 144" 45' Fast, thence easterly along rhe panllel of I.atitiid9'
South to its intersectiby the meridian ofLongitudc 145' 13' East, thence
south-castcrlyalonç rIiegeeodesiçroa point of Latitude 9" 15'South, Lon-

gitude 145"20' East, fhcnce south-tasterly atong the gcodcsjc to a point
of Laiitude 10' 45' South, Loiigitude 145" 40'East, thence south-easterly
along thc geodesic to a point of htitude 12" 10' South, Longitude146" 25'
East, thence stiuthcasterly alrinthegeodesic to a point of Latitude 12"5û'
South, Longitude147"40' 'East,thcnce southerlyalong therneridianof Longi-
tude 147"40' Eastto itsintersectionby thcparallclof Latitu14'South, thence
westerly along that paralleto its intersectionby thenieridianof Longitude
146" 55' East, thence southcrly along that meridiantoitsinlersectioaby the
paraIIelof Latitude 17"05' South. thcncc earterly alongthat paraIIcl to its
interxction'by the mwidian of Longitude 147"45' East, thence southerly
alortg that meridian fo its intersectioby the ~arüllelOF Latitude 18' 30'
South, thence casterly dong that panIlel to ifsintersection hy the meridian
of Longitude 150" 50'East. rhence southerIyalong that meridian to itsinter-
section by the paralidofLatitude20"South, thcncecasterly aIongthat paraltel
tr,its intersectionbthemeridianof Longitude 151a30' East, thence southerly

dong thnt meridian to jtsintersection by the paralle1of 1,atitude 20"25'
South, thence easterly dong that pardllcl to its interscctionbthe meridian
of Longitude 15P OS' East,thence southerly alang that meridianto its intcr-
section by the paraIIel of Latitud22" 50'Soulh, thencc easterlyaiong that
parallteoi itsintersectionby the meridiünof Longitude153"4#' East, thence
snutlierlyalong that meridian io its intersectiohy the parallel of Latitude
23"15' South, thence easterly along that parailetl its intersixlioby the
meridianof Longitude 154"Eart, thence mutherly aIongthat mcridian to its
intersection by the paraIleof Latitude 23"50' South, thence easterly along REPLY OFTHE FEDERAL REPUULIC OF GBRMANY 443
that paraIIelto its interseciiby the meridianof Longilude 155' 15' East,
thcnce southerfy alongthat meridian to itsintersection bythe paralle1of
Latitude25" South,thenceeasterIyaltrngthatparalleitoirs intersectionbthe

meridian ofLongitudc 158335'East, thencc south+astcrIyaIong the &sic
toa point of Latitude27"30'35" Sourh, Longitude 1600 Eastt,hencewestwly
along the geodesiçIO a point of Latitudc27'48' South L,ongitude 154"22'
Easr,thence south-wcstcrlyaIong thegdesic toa pointof Latitude 27"58'
South, Longitude 154'East, thence south-westerlalongthe geodesichtwen
the last-mentioncd point and the trigonometrical station known as Point
Dangr near Poinr Danger to its intersection by the coaqtlineamean Iow
waler,rhence along thescostIinof theStattof QuccnsIandat mean low water
tothe pointof commmcemenr.

The arcathe boundary ofwhichcommences at a pointthatisthe intersection
ofthe coastlineat mean low watcr by the boundary Mmen thc States of
South Australia and Victoriaand runs thencesoutherIyalung the meridian
through thatpointto its intersectiby theparailelof htit~ide 38"IO'South,

theticesouth-westerlyalong the geodcsic aopoint ofLatirude38" 15' Soutti,
Longitude 140"57' East,thcnce south-westerlyalortgthe gcudesicto a point
of 1-atitude 38"26' South, hiigitude 140"53' Eaui, thence south-wesrerly
dong thegeodesic to a pointof Latitude 38"35'30" South, Longitudc 140"
44'37" East, thence southwcst~rlyaIoiig thgeociesito a point of Latitude
38" 40'48" South, Longitude 140'40'44" East,thericesoritli-westerIyabng
the gcodesicto a pointof Latitude44"South, Longitude 130"29' Fast, thcnce
westerly dong the paralle1of Latitudc 44"South toits interscctioby the
meridianof Longitudc 129" FASE t,enccnortherIyalong that ineridiünto its
infersectionby the paraIleof Latitude 31"45' Soriththence northerly aIong
the geudesic to the intersection othe coastlincüt mean liw watcr by the
boundary betweenthe StatcsufSouthAusirdia and \Vestcrn Australiathcncc
ahng thc caastlineofthe Stak of South Australiaat mean Iow water to the
point ofcommencement.

The areathe boundaryof which commences a:a point thatis the intersection
of the coastlineat mcan low water by the boundaty bctween the States of
South Australia and Western Australktand runsthence southerIy aiong the
godesic to a point of Latitude 31°45'South, Longitude 1129"East,thence
southerly aIong the rncridianoLongitude 129"Eaqt toitsintersectioby the
para114of LaLatitiid4" South,thencewesterlyalong thatparaIIeltoits inter-
sectionby the meridianof Longitude 110" East, thence northerly alongthat
meridian to irsinterscction by ihe paraIfeof Iatitudc 1T' South, thence
tiorth-eastcrIydong themesic to a point ofLatitude 12"24'South, I+ongi-
tude 121"24' East,thence south-easterIydong the geodesic io a point of
Latitude 12"56' South, Longitude 127"06' Eaqt, thenccsouth-easterlyalong
the gcodesic tun point of Latitude 13'20' Souih, Idngitude 122"41' Enst,
ihence easterlyatong the gdesic to a point ofLatitude 13" 19'30" South,
Longitude 123" 16'45" Emt, thcnce eastery along the paraIIelof Laritude
13"19'30"Suuth tojts intersectionbythc meridiaof 1,ongirude124"27' 45"
East,thencenorth-casterlyaiongthe geodesictoa point of Latitude13'13'15"

South, Longitude 174" 36'15" East, then= nurih-easterlyafong thegeodesic
to a point of Latitude 1Z346'15"South, Longitudc 124"55' 30" East,thence
nofih-tasierly alongthe geodaicto a point ofLatitude11"51'South, Longi- REPLYOF THE FEDERALREPUBLICOF GERMAKY 445

South, Longitudc 128O42' 15" East,ihenccnorth-wcstorlyalvng the geodesic
toa point of Latitude13"49'45" South, Longitude 128"33' 15" East, thcncc
nurth-westerlyalong the gsodesic toa point ofLatitude 13"39'45" South,
hngitudc 28330' 45" East, thencenorth-ivestcrlydong ihe geodesic toa
pointof Latitude13"15'30" South, Longitude 128"28' East,thcncenorthcrly
ahng the meridianof I,ongtude 128"28' East to its intersecbyothe parailcl
ofLatitudc 17'55'30"South, thence north-wcsterIydong the geodeçic toa

point of Latitude 12"3245" South L,ongitude 178"24" East, thcnct: north-
westzriy along thegeodesitca pointnf Latitude12 25'30"Soutli, Lnngitude
128" 72'East, thence norih-westerIyalcrngthe gdesictoa pointof Latitude
11"48' South, Longitude 127" 53'45" East,thence north-wcstcrlyalong the
geodeçic roa point of Latitude P 13'15" South, Longitude 127"32' East,
thence north-ivafcrlülong thc gwdevic toa pointof Laritude10"05' South,
Longitude 126"47' 30" East, thence north-easterIyaiortg thegmdesic to
a point or Latitude 9" 5345''South, Longitude 117"18' 30'' East,thence
north-easterIy dong thc gwdcsic to a point of Latitude Y 25' South,
Longitude 128" East, thence easterly aIong the paraIlel of Latitude
F25' South to itç interscçtion bythe meridian of Longitude 129"38'
Easi, thence north-easterlyalongthegwdesic io a pointof Latitude8" 53'
South, Longi~udç 133"21' East, thencc nortlt-casterlalung the geodesic
to a poiitof Latitude8" 52'15" South, tongitude 133"24' 15" East, thence

southeasterIy along the ~odesic to a pointof Latitude9" 23' 15" South,
Longitude 134"47' 30" Fast, thcncc casterly along thgeodesi tc a poinr
of Latitude Y" 20'30" Soutli, Longitude 135"06' 45" Eaqt, thencc north-
easterly alonthe geodesic ta point of Latitude 9"08'15" South, Lringitudo
t35"28' 45" Eastthonccsuuth-easta eolyrhcgcodesicto a pointof1,atitude
9"50'30" South, Longitude 137" 34' Fasr, thence south-eastcrly along the
gwdesic to apointof Latitude IO"01' South,Longitude 138"03' East, thenw
sauth-eastcrlydong thc gcodçsic to a pointof Latitudo 10'16'45" South,
Longitude 138"31'30" East, thencc soudi-eascerlyalongthe goodwic tu a
point of Latitude 10' 44' 45"South, Longitude 139= 09' 15" East, thence
south-caslerlaIoi~gtligeodesito apointofLatitu de"SI'South,Longitude
139: 12'30" East, thencc south+isterly along the gmdcac to a point of
Latitude 1Io Snuth, Longitude 139"15' &si, !lience southerly along the
mcridian of Longitude 139"15' East to its intersection by thparaIlclof
Latitude 14O30'South, thencweesterlalang that paraIlclto intersectioby
the meridian of Longitudc138"30' East, tlience southerlydongthameridian

to its intersectioit by the paraofelLatitude15"55' South, thencc south-
wcsterlyaIong the godsic IO the intersccticinof tcoastlineat mean low
water by thc boundary htwccn the Northern Taritory of Austraiiaand the
Strctof Queeiisland,thencealoiig thecoastlinof the Nnrthern Territoryof
AustraIiaat mean low water tothe point of commencement.

AREA ADJACEN TT THF TBRRIMR YF ASHMOR AED CARTIE IRLANDS
The areathe boundary of which commences at a point orLatitude 12' 24'
South,Longitudc 121°24' East and runs thence north-easterly alongthe
geodesicto a point of Latitud11"33'Suuth, Lon~itude 123' 14'East, thence
north-easterlyalong the geodestoa point ofLatitudc11"17'South, Longitude
123"24' 15"East, thcncc south-cüstcrly along tltgeodesicto a point of
Latitude 11"25' 18" South, Longitude 123"40' East, thence north-easteriy
aIong thegeodesicto apoint ofLatitude11"21' South L,ongitude124"08'30"
Eastthcnccnorthasterl y dong thcgcodesicto apointof Latitude10" 55'45"
South, Longitude 124' 27' Eastthen* north-easterlatongthe geodesicto a446 NOR- 1 SM CO~NE~TAL SIELI:

point of Latitude 10"37'15" South, Longitude 125'41'30" East, thence
nnrtheasterIy alnng the geodesicto a point of Latitude IO021'30" South,
Eongi tude126"10'30"East,fhencc south-westerlyalmg thc geodesicto apoint
of Latitude 11"44'3û" South, Longitude 125"31'30" East, thçnci: south-
westerly alongthe goodesic to a point of Latitud e1"SI' Soutlr, Longitude

125"27'45" East, fhmce souih-westerly dong the gcodcsic to a pojnr of
Latitude12" 46'15"South, Longitude 124" 55' 30"East, thencc suuth-westerly
along the gendesicto a point of Latitude13' 13' 15" Soiilh, Longitude 124"
36' 15" East,lhence muth-westerly aIongthe geodesicto a point of Latitude
13"19'3û" South, Longitude 124O 27'45" East, thence ~vcstcrlyülong thc
paralle1nf Latitude 13"19'30 South to its intersectiby the meridian of
Longitude12y 16'45" East, thence westerlyalong thc gcodesicto a point of
Latitiide13"20' SotitliLongitude 122"41 'East,thence north-westeriyaiong
the geodesicto a point of Latitude 12"56'South, Longitude 122'06 'ast,
thence north-westerIyalang the gmdcsicto thepoint ofcommencement.

AREAADJACEW TO 7-HETEKKI'TO ORYPAYUA

Theara theboundary ofwhichwmrncnccs ata pointthatisthe intersection
uf the coastline at mean low water bythe bouiidarybetween IheTerritoryof
New Guinea andthe Territory of Papuaand runsthencenortli-easterldong
the gevdtsic toa pciintof Latitude7' 5Yf20"South, 1-ongitiide148' 01' 30"
Eastt,hence north+asiwIy along ihe geodesictca pointof Latitudc7" M' 45"
South, Longitude 148"04'15" East, thence noi-th-casterlyaIorigthe geodesic
ta a point of Latitud7'22' Solith, Longitude148'15'45" East,thence north-
easterly dong the gcodesic to itpoint ofLatitudi: 7" 16'South, Longitude
148"55' East, thefie south-easterlyalong the geodestoa point of Latitude
T' 31' South, Longitude 14915' Easi, rhencenorth-easterlalongthe geodesic
tO a mint of Latitudc:7"22' South, Longitudc 149'42' Eaqt, tliencc iiorth-

easterlyalong thegeodes ioca pointof Latitude7"18'South,Longitude 150"
10'East, thencccasterlyaIong the godesic toapoint of Latitude7"19'South,
Longitude150"25' East, thcncr:eastcrlyaIt>ngthi:gwdesito a pointof Lati-
tude7" 13'Soiith, Longitude15Io05' East, thenm easterlydong the gadesic
to a point of Latitude 7"10' South, Longitude 152"40' East, rhencn eorrIi-
easterly aIoitg the geodcsicto a point of Latitude 7" 05' South, Longi-
tude 153" 10' East,thenc southasterly along the gcodcsic to a pointof
hhtudc 7" 18' South,Longitude 153"30' East, thence southesterly along
the geodesic to a point of Latitudc 7"35' South, Longitude 153O48' East,
thencesouth-easterlyalong the geodesic toa point of Latilude8" 50'South,
Longitude 155"08' East, fhence south-easterly alongthe geodesic to a
point of Latitude 9' 18' South, Longitude 155"18' ksi, thcncc soulh-
westerly dong the gwdesic fo a poinf of LatitudeIO" 9' South, Longitude

154" 41' East,thence south-eastertalong the geodesi tca point of 1-atifude
10' 45'South,Longitude154"55'East,thencessouth-easterla ylongthegdesic
to a point of Latitude14"07' South, Longitude 156" 35'East, thenc outh-
westeriy along the gcodesic taa point ofLatitude 14"28' South, Longitudc
155"03' East, thenlu:soutli-westerlyalmthe geodesicto a pointof Latitude
14"45'South. hngitudc 154'15' East, thencenorth-wcsterlyalong the geo-
desic to a point of Latitude14"15' South, Longirude 152 15' East, thence
norfh-westc alongthegwdesic toa pointofLati~ude13"50'South, Longitude
151"29'East, rhence north-westerIyalongthegeodesicto apoint of Latitude
13" 17' South, Longitude 1490MY Fast, thence north-vi'esterlyalang the
geudtsicto a point ofLatitude13"05' Sou th,Longitude148"35' East, thence
north-westerlyaIongthegeodcsic 10apoint ofLatitude12"50' South Longitude RWLY OF THE FEDERALREPUBLICOF GERMANY 447

147"-10'East, thence north-westerlyabng thc gcgcodcuc a point of iatitude
12" IO' South, Longitude 146'25' Eat, thence north-westerlyalongthe
geodeçic toa point of Latitude10" 45'Suuth.Longitude 145" 40' East, thence
north-westerlyaIongthe geodesicta apdnt of Latitudc 9"15'Suuth,Longitude
145"20' East,thcncc north-wcstcrIyalong thegeodesic toa point of Lititude

9"South ,ongitude 145"13'East,thenceweçterlyalong the paraIIelof Iatitude
9" South IO jts intersectiby the meridian of Longitudc144' 45' East,thcncc
south-wa9terly dong thc gdcsic to a point of Latitude9" 24'3û" South,
Longitude 144" 13'45" E~3t, thence north-westerIyalong the gmdesic tria
point of Lalitild9' 08'15" SoiithLongitude143"52'15" East,tiiencesoutli-
westerly along thc gcodcsito a pointof Latitude9' 21'30" South,Longitude
141" 33' 15" Fast, thence north-westerly dong the geodesic to a point of
Latitude 9O14' 45" South, Longitude 142"21' 30" East,thence north-weukrly
along the geodcsic toa point of Latitud9" II'45" South, longitude 142"18'
30" East, thence nortli-u,esterIalong the geodesic to a point of Latitude
9" 10'30" South, Lungitude 142" 16' East, thcncc south-wtsterIy along the
goodesicto a point of Latitude 9" 11'45''South, Longitude 142"09' East,
thence ncirih-weskrly alongthe gaodesic to a poinl of Latitude9" 10'45'
South, Longitude 142'04'45" East, thence westerly aIong thc parallco If
Latitude 9"10'45" South to its intersection by the irieridiof Longitude

142" 00' 15" East, hmce south-westerlyalong the geQdeSjc to a point of
Latitude 9" 30' South, Longitude 141" 35'30" East, thencc south-wcstcrly
dong the gecidesicto apoint of Latitude 9"38' South, Longitude14 1"Fast,
thcn~r: south-westerlydong the gixidcdc 10 a puint of Lalitiide9"52' 30
South, Longitude 140"30' 3û" East, thence north-easteraIong thcgcodcsic
to the intersectiof thecoastli at ean lowwaterby theboundary between
thi:Territory of Papua and West Irian, thencealong the coastline of the
Territoryof Papua at nlcanlowwarer to the point of cornrncnccment.

The areathe boiindaryof which comrncnccs at apoint tha~istheintersection
of thc ccostlinc at mcan Iuw water bytheboundary bctwoen the Territoryuf
New Guineaand West Irianand runs thencenorth-westerlyalong thegendesic
to a point of Latitiide 2"30' South,Longitudc 140"56' East,thence norih-
wcstcrly alang thc gcodcsicto a point of LatitudeS025'South, Longitude

14IP 55'East, thencenorthqsterly along~hegeodesic to a pointof Latitude
1'South, Longitude 141"22' East, thcncc north-westerlyaloiig the geodesic
to a point of Latitudc 0'47' North, Longitude 14û049' East,thmce north-
westeriy atoiig thegeodesic10 a point of Latitude 2'41' North, Longitude
140"46' Est, thence easterIyalong thc gcodcsito a pointof Lntitude2"40'
North, Longitudc 142'05' East, thcnc-eeasterlyaIong thegwdesic ro apoint
of Latitude2" 44'North, Loiigitude 143"05'East, thence north-castcrly along
the godesic to a point of Latitude z047' North, Longitude 143"26' Fat,
thencc northesierly alongthc gmdçsicto a point of Latitude3"19'North,
hiigitude 145"IO'East, theilce north-easterlydong the geodcsic to a point
of Latittide3"23' North, Longitude 145"43'East, thencesoutheasterly dong
the geodtsic tu a point of Latitudc 3"17' North, Longitiide 146-38' Eut,
thcnccsouth-cmtcrlyalong the geodesic toa point r~fLatitudr:3'17'North,
Longinide 147"01' East, thence south-eastcrlyalong thseodesic to a point
of Latiiude 2"41' North, Longitude 147'58' East,thence eaçterly aIong the

geodasicto a point of Latitude2"46' North, Longitude 150"22' East, thmcc
south-easterlyalongtliegmdeçic taa pointof Latitude2"22'North, Longitude
151"02' East,thenc south-castcrlydong the geadesic toa point of Tntitude448 NORTH SEACOhTNENTAL SIIELF
0"19'South, Longitude 152"45' East,thencesvuth-easterlalong the geodesic

to a pointof Latitude1' Suiith,Longitudc153 5"8'East,thencezasterlyalong
rhegeociesicroa pointofLatitude 1"05'South, Longitude IO5 7 bst, thence
northaterly dong thegeodesic toa pointufLatitude 1"01' South. Longiiude
157'SI' East, thence northastcrly alongthe gecidesitoa point of Latitudc
0" 53'North, LongitudelmG04' East, thencesouth-casterlydong thegeodesic
to a point of Latitude 0" 15' North, Longitude1hl"46' Eaqt, thence south
eâsterlyalnng the gcodaic tu a point of Latitude 3:55' South, Longitude
163"58' East, thcncsouth-westerlyalang the geodesiçtuü point of Latitude
4" 53'South, Longitude1W 08' East,thencenorth-westerlyafonç the _~eodesic
to a point of Latitude 4"4G' South, Longitude 158"58' Easi, thcncc north-
westerly alurigthc gcodcsic ta apoint of Latitude 4'35' South ,ongitude
158"12' East,theiicsouth-westerIyalong thegeodesic toa pointof Latitude
5"52' South, Longitude 157"53' East, thmw wcsterlyalong Ihegeodesic tu a

point of LatitudeSz51' South,Longitude 157' 23' Eist, thcncenorth-westerly
dong thegeodesicto apoirit of Latitud5"38' South,Longitude 15bU32'East,
thence south-westerly along the geodcsito a point ufLatitudç6" 23' South,
1-ongitude 156"15' East, thcnce snuth-westtrly alonthtgcvdesicto n point
which Iim93 adrniraltnauticalmilesnorth23" mst truefromCapeFriendship.
thencesoutherlyalong thc godesic to apoint whichlics 4 adrniraltynautical
miles soulh 84" easttrue CroiiiCap Friendship,theircesoritli-westerly dong
the gcodesic toa point whjch fia 23 adniiraitynauticaImiles soüth 36' east
true fram Caw Fricndship,thence south-westerly along thc gcodcsicio a
pointwhich lics2admiraltynauticalmilessouth38' at trucfrointhesouthern-
most pointof the wninsula which bounds thc harbourof TonulcZon the east,
thencesoutlierlyalong tlrgeodesic toa point ivhich Iics39 admiralty nantical

miles south 19"east true[rom1he southernmostpointof that petiinsulattience
south-westerly along thc goodesicta a pointwhich Iies4 adnliralty nauticül
niiIesoiith Lruefrorthe southertiitiostpoiof that pcninsulithence north-
westwly dong the geodesicIOa point which Iies 3t admiraltynauticalmiles
south45" wat true frorn tht:southcrnmost point of that peninsul h,ence
south-westerlyirlongthegeodesic to a point which lics 6 admiralty nauticnl
milessvuth 40" uuesftrue from the southernmtist pointof that peninsuIa,
thence westerly alorlg tIiegwdesio a point whichlies 4$adrnjraltnauticril
milcg north 85' cast truefrom MoiIa Point,thence south-wesitrly alongthe
geodesic to a point which lies 4 admiraIty nriutimiles south 66"cast true
from MuilaPoint, thence south-watcrly dong the geodmic to apoint which
lics 59admiralty nauticaimilessouth 53" West tme frvm MviIaPoint, thence
north-ivaterlyaIong the geodesito a point which Iies89 admiraltynaiiticaI

milessouth 78"west tnie froniMoila Point, ~hencesouth-westerlyalong the
gcodcsicto a point of LatitudeT3Il' Soutli. Longitude 15527'East, lhence
south-waterlyaIongthe gendesicto a poinof Latitude7"14'South L,ongitude
155"04' Easr, thence soutI~-wesleaIong ihc geridmicrna point of Latitude
7"27'South, Longitude 154"06' East,thencesouth-westerlyatong thegeodesic
toa point of Latitude 7'35' South, Longitude 153"48' East, thmce north-
westerly along the odes si o a pointof Latitude 7' 18' South, Lnngitude
153"30' East, thence north-westerlyalong the geodesicta pointof Laiitudi:
7"05'South, Longitude 153"IO'hst, thencesouth-westerly dong thegeodesic
to apoint ofLat itudc 7"10' South, Longitude152"40' East.thenc e esterly
dong the gdesic to a point of Latitude 7"13' South, Longitudc 151"05'
East, ttiencewesterly alnng the geodesto a pointof Latitude 7"19'South,
Longitude 150'25' East, thcncc mstcrly dong the geodesic ta a point of

Latitude7'18' South, Longitude 150"Io'East ihcncscouth-wcstcrly donsih~ REPLY OF THE FEDERALREPUR1.IC OF GERMANY 449

geodesic to a pointof Latitude 7' 72'South, Longitude 149' 42'East, thence
south-wcstcrly along thegeodesicto a pointof Latitude7'31' South, Longi-
tude 149"15' East, thence north-weslerly along the gendesiç to a point of
Latitiide 7'16'South, Longitude 148'55' East,thmm south-westcrly dong
thc gcvdcsic io a point of 1,atitude 7"22' South, Longitude 148" 15'45"
East, thence south-westerly dong the geodesic to a point of Latitude
7' 50'45" South, Longitude 14R' Ilh' 15" East,thcncc south-westerly along

the gcodcsic tu ü puint of Latiiude 7"59' 20" South, Longirude 148"01'30'
East. theilcsouth-wcstcrlyalong thcgmdesic to theintersection ofthç coastlinc
ar meanIowwater hy the houndarybctwccn thcTerriiory of New Guinca and
thc Tcrritory of Papua, thence aloiigthe coastlineof the Territory of New
Guinea at mean Iow water to the point of commencement.
{Source:Commonwealtliof AustraIia Gazette,No. II8of 1967,pp. 97et seq.)

Agreementis reporte td have heen reachd as to the delimitation of the
continental shelfinthe AdriaticSea. Itseems that the boundary considerahly
dcviatesfrom the equidistanceIine. Itmay bepossible to submit the textof
thistreaty during the Oral I'romedings.

In bnth Coiinter-Mernorials refcrcncc is madc tu a Belgian Bi11on the
contineritaI (she.Cf.-M.,pp.280,supraetsrq.,Ncth. C.-M.,pp. 388,suprael
scq.;SM para. 61above). This unilateralegislativemeasurc ise\,enlisteasa
treaty concludod with thc Unitcd Kingdom, Frariceand theKetherlands
(Dan. C.-M .,p. 263,supru,Neth. C.-M., p. 388.srrpra;)ifactitisamcrcdraft
which, evenafrerapproval by theBeIgianParIiamentand suhsequetit entry into
force, cannotbc intcrprctcdas a bindinginstrurncn:ntunderintermtiod I~w.It
should alsokenoted that the Billprovidc fsrotherthan equidistanccsvlutions
(Art. 2: ". . . Thidelimitationmay be adjiisted hy specialagreement with
the I'ower concernai"). One might aswcI1 quote from other unilateralacts
such as Article3 of ttieIranianAct on theContinentalShelf, datcd 19 June
1955,an unoficial translationOC which readsas follows:

"If thç continental shcIf rncntiunin the previous Articleextends to
thecoasts of anothei country, or ifit jcornmon with that of a neigh-
bouring country,and if differenceof opinioa nrise ovcr the limiof the
Iranian continental shelthcsc diffcrcncesshalIbe solved in confomity
with the ruks oufryiiityand the CiovernmcntshaII cake thc ncmsaw
measiires for the solution of possibIe differences throrigh diplornatic
channcls" {itaiicsadded).

H, TEKRITOKIAL WATERS
Observationsun thç trcaticsIistd unJer R in Annex 13 of the Danish
Countcr-Mernorial and in Annex 15 of the Nctherlands&unter-Mernorial.

This provision (Article 4) is no Ionger applimble since theFr= Stateof
Tricstcccascdto cxist. Furthermore,the boundary at its begimingin theGulf
of Panzano did not fuIIowtheequidistanm line.450 NORTH SEA CDNTIKENTALSHELF

2. Yugoslavia-Trieste
This provision (Articl22) is no Longe rpplicablesincethe Free Statc of
Triesteceasedtoexist.

This Iinecontainsanlya fewpoints of equidistancemrrectedby straightlines.

Cf. Padwa, InternationaandComparativeLaw Quarterly,Vol. 9, 1960,
op. cii.p.633 :
"... the lineconnecting a seriw of suchmidpointsdoes not necessarily
coincidewith a borindary hsed onthe principlof cquidistanco.Thiswas
the caqewith respectto the boundary agreed upon hy ltaly andTrirkey

dividing thewaters betwccn the islantiof Castdlorizoand the coastof
Anatolia."
4. Mexico-Bdite

Here aninstructionof interna[Mexic;rnaritlioritonsthe prxlicabiIjtof
Article12 of theCrenevaConvention on the TerritoriaSea has beenquoted.
This canriotconsiiiuta precedent for intcr-Stipractice.

5. Norway-Fidand
This treaty-which again is no langeinforce--shouldrathcrbc uoderstood
as anagreementbetweenoppositeStates.The courseof tIieboundary is mainly
inffuenced by headlandsand peninsukasinthe Varangerfjord {cfi~wis :M.
Alexander, Offshore Gwgrap h y of Morthwesicrn Europc, Chicago, 1965.
pp. 78 etscq.,witha chart).

As stated on previous occasions it appearsto be qucstionabIewhether a
boundary cnding in a termina1 pointof equidista onle, merits being Listed
underthe heading EQLIDISTANCE PRINCIPLE.(This traty isaIso dealt

with by Alexander,op. cirp. 79.)
7. Tunruniu-Kenya

Here againa uniIateraldelimitatioof coastal waterhas been reproduced
insicadofa trcaty bctwccn thestrvoStates. FurthermoretheTanzanian Iine,
dueto thepositionoftheislandof Pcrnh, dividesthe watersbelween opposita
ratherthanadjacentStates.

8ard 9. U.S.A.-Cariada
Jn &th treariesthe boundary rus along the miàdIe of thechanne[ which
separatcsthctwo Statw. It may be suggestd thatinthe ca.e of a channelthe
rniddleIioeistakenas thecentreofnavigation couts oc,inotherwordq asthe
Thalwegline.Again itshouldbe notedthatowing to thcparticriIr hap ef the
coaststhc djviding lincs ruktween oppnsiiectiuntries.

To the four cxample givm here manyotherscould be added which have
Iikewisebeen deterrninedwithoutrcflwtingtheprincipleofequidistancc.