Counter-Memorial of Malta

COUNTER-MEMORIAL OFMALTA

CONTRE-MEMO DERMALTE VOLUME1

INTRODUCTION

1. This Counter-Memorial is filed pursuant to the Order made by
the President of the Court on 26 April 1983fixing26 October 1983as
the time limitfor the filingof the counter-memorialsin accordance with
ArticleII of the Special Agreementbetween Malta and Libya.
2. This Counter-Memorial is divided into the following Parts:
The Fundamental Ideas Underlying the Libyan Case
Part 1
Pan II The Task of theCourt
Part III Critique of Libya'sSubstantive Case
Part IV Restatement of Malta'sCase in the light ofthe Libyan
Memorial PART 1

THE FUNDAMENTALIDEAS

UNDERLYING
THE LIBYANCASE CHAPTER 1

THE SUBSTANCE OF THE LIBYAN CASE:
MALTA DlSREGARDED

3. Reduced to its essentials, the argument developed in the Libyan
Counter-Memorial may be summarized as follows: there is a fundamen-

ta1 discontinuity between the continental shelf of Malta and the con-
tinental shell of Libya arising out of the presence of a zone which Libya
calls the "Rilt Zone". This discontinuity enables one to identify two
distinct natural prolongations. The result, soLibya argues, is chat the
delimitation must be carried out on the basis of this discontinuity.
4. A glance at the map immediately enables one to identify one of the
most remarkable elements in this claim: it takes no account of the
existence of Maha. Since Malta is presented as being situated on the
natural prolongation of Sicily, and the "Rift Zone" is presented as a
natural lrontier which imposes itself as the appropriate line of de-
limitation, the "Rilt Zone" separates the natural prolongation of Libya
not only from that of Malta but al the same time from that of Italy. The
northern boundary of the Libyan continental shelf as conceived by
ILihya in relation to Malta is thus, in the logic of the Libyan argument,
cxactly rhc rame as the one which Lihya woiild clainr vis-&vis ltaly if

Malta didnot exisi.
5. M;ilrd will demonstrate in the course or this Countcr-Meinorial
that in fact ihe so-callçd "Rift Zone" doçs no1 show the charactçrisiics
of a radical physiçal separation hctwçen the natural prolongations of
the two countrics and that in international law ihis question has in
any evcnt no relevance to the dçlimitation of the continental shelf. It
is important however to idcntify at thç olitset what orle might cal1
the philovophy ol the Libyan case. for m;iny aspects of the Libyan
h4cmr>rinlare more readily understood in the light »fsuch an identifica-
tion.
6. It is in relation to this philosophy, fur example, that the con-
tention so strongly advanced in the Libyan Memorial of "an indefinite
extension of the Libyan claim seawards"' assumes a special impor-
tance. A reading of the Libyan Memorial conveys the impression that
for Libya it is less a rnaiter of delimiting ihe continental shelf of the
neighbouring States of Malta and Libya, than it is one of establishing
how far towards the north Libya'scontinental shelf rights extend. Libya
would really like to see its riglits stretch as far as the limit of Italian
rights wïthout being in any way alfected by the existence of Malta's

Libon hfernorip.52para.4.21;f.pp49-53paras.4.12-4.23.244 CONTINENTAL SHELF 161

rigbts. lt is in the siime perspeçtivç th;it one niay sec the Libyan
obseriration tliat the C(iurt shoiild iiot delimit thç ct)ntiiietital nhçloF
Malid and Libya beyorid the Siçily-Malta Escarpniçnt, i.ç. beyoiid the
meridian of Ras Zarruuq, at about 15"30'E, "where this physical
boundary roughly ends"? Libya's continental shelf rights evidently
continue. so the Libyan Memorial says on a number of occasions.'
funher to the east. This contention, one may observe in passing. is
somewhat surprising; why should the descent into the depths or the
Ionian sea limit the rights of Malta towards the east but not constitute
any obstacle to the extension of the rights of Libya towards the northl
However, it is necessary, so Libya considers, that a delimitation vis-à-

vis Malta should in no way trespass on some future delimitation vis-à-
vis Italy. Moreover, the Libyan Memorial adds:
"... a little island group ... would erase the obvious relationship
that exists across this Sea between the coasts of mainland ltaly
and of ~ib~a".~

At least one may say Libya is not concealing its cards. For it, the true
confrontation in this part of the Mediterranean is between Libya and
"mainland" Italy, and it is only in relation to Italy that Libya is pre-
pared to limit its indefinite claim northwards-a new kind of "manifest
desriny". By contrast, Libya never appears to acknowledge the exis-
tence of a face-to-face relationship with Malta.

7. To give some semblance of justification to this attempt to trans-
lorm the delimitation between Malta and Libya into the establishment
of a northern boundary of continental shelf rights between Libya and
ltaly,as if Malta did not exist, the Lihynn Memorial dnes not hesitatc
ro çrnhiirk iipoii tlic mosl siirprisiiig dçsçriptions. The purpuse is
obi-ious: if Malia could be regardçd ;is ;i~iegligiblçquaiitity - as swms
LO Lx the tliriist of Lihya's Meinorial- thçrç miglit alter al1hç norhing
juridicall!: scaridalousil'Mnlta werc disregiirded.
8. First of ;III:says ihç Liby;lii Merriorial, Malta is riot rç;illy ;in
islaiid opening (in Io the oceari. Ihc populatiori ~iîthc two islarids of
the M:ilrcse arcliipelago, s(i I.iby;i describçs il, lias always bççn cssen-
tially ;igriciiltural. and the capital ciliçs of the Iwo islands "were in the
ceiitre orçaçh isliiiid". Bettcr siill:

"The inland location of alrnost nlltowris and vill;igesis a striking
charücteristic of Malla eveii today. IIIshort, Malta is ai present. as
ithas been in the past, an 'itiland'communirp4 Malta is in e'ffect
lanrl-cenrereil4and not, as might have been expected, a nursery of
sdilors and fishermen dependent on the sea, comparable to Greece

or parts of Spain and ltaly"'
In the same vein the suggestion is made that Maltese "fishing activity is

Jblb p.34. para. 3.24.
' Ibid p.34,para.3.24;p. 133para.8.16; p. 149 par9.49.
' Libyan Mernorial,p.149,para. 9.49.
: Ernphasissupplied.~
- Ibid.pp.2LL2.1para.2.40.m COUNTER-MEMOR OIAMLALTA 245

on a small scale".' Then thç Libyiin Memoriül adds that, evcn if Malta
were an island pusscssiiig coasts opening ont0 the sea, these face niil
ihe south but only the north
". . .on the lslands of Gozo and Malta the longest stretches of

coast or coastal front face nortb or, more often,north-east ... Very
little of the Maltese coast actually faces due south ..."'
Moreover, ihe southern coast, to the extent that it exists, has no
economic interest:

-.. . the major economic coastal activity is restricted largely to the
northeast and east coa~ts"~,

and the "inland community" which constitutes Malta has
". ..just one large window to the sea -a window facing northward.
Especiallj' notable is the complete absence ol any permanent
settlernent along the whole of the south and west-facimgcoastline

ofthe Island of Malta".4
In a word. Malta is not really an island; or, if it is, il has one side only.
It is an island with a northern facing facade, without a back - a kind of
unilateral island.
9. For those who know the close links between Malta and the sea
and the significant rôle which Malta bas played as an island situated at

the cross-roads or the north-south and east-west passages of the
Mediterranean, suçh descriptions bardly merit refutation. However, out
of respect for the Court, Malta has set out in an AnnexS a number of
historic and rronnmic facts and other milterial which may assis1 the
Court in ;rsswsing ai thcir true value the Libyan allcgations whicli have
as their monifesr purpose thc crcatioii of the impression thiit Malta is
"inland and 1;ind-centercd" rather than being ;itrue island.
10. To the çxtznt that Malta posscsscs coasts. Lihya contitiiies,
these co;ists are in any casc insigiiitic;-nso insignificant that "they arc
practically iinpussible to gaugc" on 3 map of the scüle <ifMap 1of the
Libyan Memonal. "From Map l", it is ÿsked, "in what direction çolild
the coasis or Malta be said to tac^?". ^ hc Libynn Mernorial never
wearics of insiating upon the short length (ifthe Maltese coiisls and of

comparing ihem with thç great length of ihc Lihyan coasts. From this
difierence the Mçrnorial draws legril çoncliisions which the present
Counter-Mernorial will examine presently. For the moment it is suf-
ficient simply io counter the impression which the Libyan Mernorial
attempts to create. viz. that the coasts of Malta are so ridiculously short,
compared with the% of Libya, that they are not even worth taking into

' Ibidp. 14. para. 2.15.
' Ibid.p. 2ü. para 2.37.
' ibd.p. X).para.2.39.
Anne; 1.1..Dara 2.49.
' Ibd.p. 17. para127.246 CONllNENTALSHELF rs1

consideration. To reinforce this impression, the Libyan Memorial dws
not Iimit itseif to comparing the shortness of the Maltesc çoast with the
lengths or thç Libyan çoast. It also brings into play the comparison of

the small insular territorial area of Malla with the enormous con-
tinental mass of Libya. This idea crops up as a theme throughout the
Libyan Memonal:
"...in contrast to Malta, small islands with very limited coastlines
however measured, Libya is a very large continental State with an
extensive coastline'";

"... in the circumstances of the very small island group of Malra
and the large continental State of Libya with its extended coastline
...1.,
"... the long extended Coast of a continental landmass opposite
srnail i~lands"~;

"... the obvious point that Malta and Libya are, in terms or size,
just not ~omparable"~;

11. Malta, Libya says, is an island "small indeed" even in the
Mediterranean.5 Its dimensions "are not on the same scale as those or
other States that abut the Central Mediter~anean",~ and even less are
they on the same scale as the "continental landmass" of Libya. This for
the Libyan Government is one of the most important elements in the
situation:

"... it is apparent that the most significantrelevant circumstance of
a geographic character is the difference between the size of Libya
and the fwt that Malta ...is a smullgroupojsmull islundswkilc
Libyais u uusi continental State".'

12. 11 is cvidçnt that the respective sizes of the two States interested
in a delimitation does not have the slightest legal rçlçvançe; the rinly
tbing which matters is the coasts, as will bc sççn Iater, but not the
hinterland which lies behind them. There is no support çithçr in Statc
praciice or in arbitral rir judiçial dccisions for the suggestion that a
Stüte with a large area has greater maritime rights than a Statç ni~h a
smoll onc or that a çrintinçnlal St;ite kas more rights than an insular
one.
13. Thc Libyan Mçmorial appcars to hav? overlooked entirely thefact
that Malta is not only a State but also a coastal State. The Libyan
Memonal also forgets that, by virtue of the principle of the sovereign
equality of States, Malta has the same rights as al1coastal Statesto the

' lbrd. 22, para.2.46.
' lbid. p. 135,para.9.03.
' lbidp. 142, para.9.21.
' Ibidp. 141,para.9.20.
lbid. p148, para.9.45.
'lbY p. 137, para.9.11: Emphasissupplied. cnjoyment ol maritime jufi.diction. This almosl çrmplete disregard of
the coastal State quality of Malta has, as will be seen, led Libya Io
misunderstand both the fundamental principlcof the sovereignequality
of Srates and the no less fundamental principle of the right of every

coastal State to the possession of maritime jurisdiction as acknowled-
ged by international law.
14. The Libyan Memorial does no1 hesitate to push this concept of
the inequality of States to the extreme. The Mediterranean Sea, so
Libya explains, is small and the areas of continental shelfavailable for
division are relatively limited. Small States and, even more so, small
islands must understand that they cannot have claimscomparable with
those of large States. The extraordinary language of the Libyan
Memonal warrants quotation:
'The Mediterranean Sea is bordered by many continental States
and dotted wiih many islands. When the claimant is a very small
island, itmust be fully prepared to consider the rights and claims

ol its much larger neighboiirs";'
"...a srnall group of islands such as Malta mus1.. ... according to
equitable principles, necessarily expect a relatively small area of
coatioental shelf".'
In these surprising passages one findssimultaneously expressedboth
' the idea of unequal maritime rights for States of unequal size and the

idea ol the inequality of continental and insular States.
15. Refereocehas already been made to the suggestion inthe Libyan
Memonal that the only relevant coastline,if any, of Malta is the one
which laces norih. This is only one aspect rrfthe syçtematic attcmpt in
the Libyan Memorial 10 persuade the Court that Maltü possesses no
sipoificant Coast8 oricnted towards the south, capable of gcncrating
areas ol maritime jurisdiction betweenits çoasts and thnse of Lihya.
The Libyan Mçmorial makes a greüt efîort not only to distort the
coasis of Malta towards the north but also to attach Malta entirely to
the north. that is tri say, to Sicily and to deny 10 ilany maritime
"window" towards the suuth. These cfîortr take a nunibcr of diverse
and unçxl>ectcdforms :
- Originally, so Libya says, Malta and Sicily wcre but one:
"there seems liltlc doubt that the Maltese islands were connected
by land to Sicilyduring prehistoric time~",~"with Malta emerging

less than 10 million years ago";"
- Emphasis is based upon "the close geological ties between
Malta and Si~il~";~
- The Memorial further notes "Malta's relative proximity to 248 CONTINENT AHELF [Io]

Sicily",' ancl the parallel characier ol the dircttiiin of their coa~ts;~
- More significantly, thc Libyan Memorial stresses, on scveral
occaîions, "Malta's close physiçal conneçtion with it (Sicily)'*,"
"the present-day morphological link between hlalta and Sicil>"'
and that Malta "physically projects" from Sicily;'
- This attachment is demonstrated by the fact, stated re-

peatedly, that Malta is situated on the Malta-Ragusa Plateau,
which is itself an extension of Sicily: the Maltese Islands "are
situaied on the geomorphological extension of the Sicilian land-
mass";' it is on the "submarine extension of the Island of Sicily...
the Ragusa-Malta Plateau, that the Maltese Islands are situated";'
they are "poised ... on the southwest edge of the Ragusa-Malta
Platea~";~ "it is on the southwestern edge of the Ragusa-Malta
Plateau that the Maltese Islands are per~hed".~

- Finally even toponymy has itsell been adjusted in such a way
as better to suggest this fundamental unity between Malta. the
Ragusa-Malta Plateau and Sicily." Thus what the maps and
specialists (including the IBCM, so much appreciated by Libya)
@ normally cal1 the "Malta Plateau" is referred to in the Libyan
Memorial as the "Ragusa-Malta Plateau" because, as it frankly
admits, this term is more descriptive of the geomorphological link
between Malta and the Ragusa area in Sicily"." Sometimes the

word "Malta" is itself "forgotten" and mention is simply made of
the "Ragusa Platf~rm".'~ In a comparable manner, what the
Parties in the Tunisia-Libya case generally called the "Malta-
Misratah Escarpment" or "lonian Flexure"," is described in the
Libyan Meniorial- at any rate as regards its northern part - as the
"Sicily-Malta E~carpmcnt".'~ The Libyan approach is cventually
summarizd in one phrasç:
".... Malta in so many ways is linked to the ~0rth.l~

What al1this means is clear: Malta has no bÿsis for a legal claim to any
maritime spaçc iipon which she turns her back.
16. To this insignificant island, facing only north, lacking any %in-
dow" iowards the south and inhabitcd by an "inland" and "land-

' Ibid p.23, para. 2.50.
IbU. p.20,para.2.37and p. 41piira.3.43.
lbld p. 14. par2.17.
' Ibld.p.42,para.3.48.
Ibid.p.14,para.2.14.
' ibid.o.28.oara.3.08:o.o29..ara.3.11.
Ibid.P.42,'para.3.48.
Ibd 0.16.vara.2.22:ofp. 128,para.8.05
"O Ibid il p. 42, par3.48.
Ibid.p. 28, Note1.
'' Ibid.6 40,para.3.41.
'''Libyan Memonal,p.133,para.3.21and3p.41,para.3.46.a65.
l'Ibid p.136.para9.10.wniçred" community, the Libyan Memorial opposes a "continental
landniass" ol considerable size, traditionally orientcd towards lhe sea
and facing north:

"The coastal areas of Libya have been not only where niost of
its population has settled but also the centre of major currents of
east/west trade from ancien1 times . . . Not surprisingly, in light of
this craditional orientation toward the sea,' the fishing industry of
Libya has been and continues to be locally important.. ..'Libyan
conlacl virh the sea' along this lengthy coastline was an essential

formative influence ..."l
-The people of what now forms the territory of Lihya have
rraditionally looked seaward across' the Mediterranean Sea .. ."4

17. One cannot avoid being struck in this respect by the insistence
with which the Libyan Memorial urges that at no time, nor in any
manoer, bas Libya limited its northwards-probing maritime ambitions:
the earlier legislarion mentioned in this connection has, so Libya
contends, remained in force after Libya became independent in 1951

and has since then been continued by the policy followed by Libya in
connaciion with the development of hydrocarbons. As has already been
noted,the ljbya n emorial doesnot hesitateto speak of "...the indefite
extent of the Libyan clairn seawards .. .'"

IX Insisting on rhe geomorphological and gcological attdchmcnt of
Malta to Stcilv.on Malta's "recent" a~~earünce. on the smallness or ifs
size and coai~al length, and on thé'trilling extent of its maritime
acti~ities, the Libyan Memorial strives to characterise Malta as a
"minor" by virtue OC its age, size and devclopment itnd to accord il no
more than IIjunior riile and position. To inakç m;itters wiirsc, Libya
alioendeai.'ours to deny Malla nor only its physiçal aiid cultural

indepcndcrice, btit also ils position as a Statc. Ry these multiple and
somctinieç contradictory touchcs the Libyan Memoriiil seeks 10 paint a
picture çunveying the gcneral impression of LI confrontatioii betweçn,
on the one h;ind, ;in insignitic;int irilundisl~ndwhiçh tlirns ils hack on
ihc area to k dclimited and, on the othcr hand, a çoastal Statc of
substÿntivl size, iraditionally oricntcd towards the north ;inJ whose
"claim seawards" is rightly of "iridcfinite ~xtent".~

-. Emphasissupplid.
The wordr "localtimportant" are a cleindicationofa fishingactivioflirnited
dimensionE . iwherc IheLibyan Mernorial speaks al thinieresof theLibyan papu-
latim "in khing",and specifisapeciallysponge firhing. in twatersto the north
withauran?pariicular regard lorlimitssuch asthosc orthe territorisea" (Libyan
Mernoria l. 49 para. 4.1These hmited Libyan lisheriesmaybecontraitedwith the
importance of the Maltae fisheriesin the areasubjdelimitationasisshown by the
Maltese hlernonal(pp.18-19.paras.44-46).
Lib~a nlemo~al. p. 23, para.2.48.
Ibid.p.49, para.4.12.
Ibid p.52.para.4.21.
ihatMaha a7%onktoan ;$landand that hasnosouiherncoasls.ThexemIwoaclaimshardly
appear IObe compaiibk2% CONTINENTALSHELF Il2]

19. In these circumstances, il is no1 surprising that the Libyan

argument leads in substance to nothing other than a rcquest 10 the
Court - in the name of equity - to accord Libya the bulk of the
contineoial shcU'bctwccn itself and Malta and to accord Malta no more
than a relatively insignificant area. Nearly everything to Libya, practi-
diy nothing to Malta: this is the essence of the Libyan claim.
20. Such a claim is clearly contrary to well established principles of
international law relating to the delimitation of the continental she@

- It disregards the facts which constitute the geographical context
of the delimitation. As an island, Malta has coasts on al1 sides,
including the south, and Malta has always lived - and continues to
live- in close relationship with the sea.
- it disregards the basic juridical principle that:
"... the coast of the territory of the State is a decisive factor

for title to submarine areas adjacent to it".'
For this purpose one cannot speak of "good" and "bad" coasts:
there are only coasts, from which it is necessary to start, here as
elsewhere, and the southern coasts of Malta are no less relevant
than its northern coasts for the purpose of generating maritime
rights.
- It also disregards the principle of the equality of States and takes
no account of the fact (10 which this Memorial will return in due

course) that it is precisely with a view to assuring equality between
al1coastal States that continental sheUrights have been recognized
by international law for every coastal State up to a distance or at
least 200 nautical miles from its coasts, whatever may be the
cootigiiration of the sea-bed.
21. Onc of the aspects of the Libyan Memorial mosl opcri to

çritiçism from a legal point of view liçs in thc Pdçtth;it, by placing the
boundary between the continental shelves of Malta and Lihya only ;i
Fcw miles from the coasts of Malta, it cuts Malt4 OITfrom its proFr
maritime extension, cnçroaches on Malta's itiherent right to cxplorc fur
and exploit the resources of thç sça-bed in front of its coasts and
iniringçn Maltd's secnrity interests. Onç may rççall in this connexion'
what Libyn herself asartcd in thc Tunisin-Lib,ya case:

"The ratioriale for the prohibition against encroaclinient is %If-
evident. It lies in the fact that coastal States will not tolerate a sea-
bed area immediately in front of their coasts being used by a
foreign power. Considerations of security and of practicality, in the
sense of the need to have direct and easy liaison between the
onshore and offshore activities which are essential to sea-bed
exploration and exploitation, make it imperative that a State
should havejurisdiction over activities directly in front of ils coast.
It was for this very reason that, at Geneva in 1958,the proposa1 by

' TuNrieLibyn Contin~nlolShelfCase,I.C.J. Reports 198p. 61, para73. the Federai Republic of Germtiny tu promotç 'le laissez-faire'
beyond the limits of the ier~itorial sea wu t«tally uiiaccçptahle to
the Conference. And it was for this sanie reasiin that the coastal
State's rights were regarded as attaching tu the State ipsojucta atid

ab ini~io,and no1 made dependent upon physical occupation or
even proclamation".'
Similarly Judge Jiménezde Aréchagasaid the following in his Separate

Opinion:
"The reason which explains the wide and immediate acceptance of
the dccirine was not so much the possibjlity it offered of exploiting
the oatural resources or the shelf, but rather the fact that it

authorized every coastal State to object to the exploitation of the
sea-bed and subsoil in front of its coasts being undertaken by
another State. At that time, only a handful of industrialized States
possessed the technology required for such exploitation. Yet, al1
cornal States accepted the doctrine without hesitation mainly
because of ils negative consequences, namely, that it prevented a
rush and grab for sea-bed resources being undertaken by a few
States on the basis of the Grotian dogma of "freedom of the seas".
It is for this reason that the 1958Convention does not subordinate

the acquisiiion ab initio of sovereign rights to actual exploitation
or occupation. or even to a proclamation of these rights".
Evidently the basic reason why Judge Jiménezde Aréchagarejected an
equidistance line in the Tu~iisia-Libyu case was because "this line would

impinge on the basic principle of non-encroachment. producing a
cutting-oiïeiî~l by pulling tlic linc too close to Tripoli ...".
22. The Libym Memoriiil States:
"1-hz hlediterranean Sen is hardly ihe place for dispr(ipurtioiiate

çlaims"?
Malta suhucribes~r~illy 10 this ;issertioii. Of ~hçtwo ciaims - thiit of
Miilta ro an cquidistatice linç and that of Libyri whiçh extetids the
Libyan contineiiial shelf to the very "windiiws" of Miiltn - which is the

"dispr<iportion;ite çI;iiiri"? M;ilt;i does iiot fccl that its cI;iim tnay bc sii
dcxribed.
23. In limiting Malta's ciiiitiiiental shçlf rights to a iiiinusçulç Sriiige
IO the south. and denying to Malta any extension towards the east
beyond the Sicilq-Xlalta Es~arpment,~ Libya's claim in practice leads
to placing Malta in an enclave in the middle of the Mediterranean.

'Libya'sRepl?, p. 59para. 130.
'I.C.J.Ripirrr 1983, pp. 118-9. para. 70.
Ibid pp 131 para. 104.
' Lib:, hiernorial;p 136,para.9.07.
It shouidk nwed that the.rights of ltaly vis-a-vis Greece,far from havbeen
Iimitd to this Egarprnentby the 1977 Agreemen, avebeenacknowledgcdas exiending
to themiddle of thlonian Sea(see Mupan page 100of Malta'sMernorialand Map 15
oi theLibyan Mernorial).252 CONTINENTAL SHELP 1141

Siia-a solution is quitç without precedent, in rçlation to IslandStaiçs.
In arguing for a deliinitation whiçh approximates to an enclave W.
luiion; the 1.iby;in Mcmorial once again disrçgards thç principlc nt the
cquality orStates.
24. To sum up: the Libyan case consists fundamentally in minimiz-
ing?virtually to the point of denial, the maritime rights of Malta as a

coastal State. Geomorphologically and geologically Malta is deemed io
be no more than an appendix of Sicily. Malta is exclusively oriented
towards the north. The life and activity of its people are said to have
nothing to do with the sea. Malta has no maritime window towards the
south. Malta is so small that, compared with the immense continental
mass of Libya, it may eiTectivelybe disregarded. Malta is a kind of
spoilsport to which itwould be unreasonable to attach any importance.
The only important delimitation in this area is one between Libya and
ltaly, which would disregard Malta. That, in substance is the underly-
ing theme of the Libyan case.
25. To al1 this Malta replies with a very simple contention, which
paraphrases the formula appearing in paragraph 183 of the award in

the Anglo-French Continental Shelf Arbitration: "Malta, however. does
exist". CHAPTER II

THE LEGAL BASIS OF THE LIBYAN CASE:
SATURAL PROLONGATION

26. As the Libyan Memorial recalls, the claim formulated by Libya
in 1973 rests in law on the proportionality of the length of the
respective coastlines of the parties:

"This dralt agreement ... proposed a delimitation taking ac-
count or the dimerence in length of the Libyan and Maltese
CO~SLS".~
"The distance between the two coastlines(Malta and Libya) was

dividai in the same proportion as the two shorelinesbore to each
other".'
On this juridical basis, Libya claimed a specific boundary which is
@ reproduced in Map 9 of the Libyan Mem~rial.~

27. In its Memorial submitted in the present case Libya has changed
its daim in two respects.
28. First, Libya no longer claims any precise boundary and is
content to contemplate, as a sequel to the judgement of the Court, an
"agreement on a delimitation within, and following, the general direc-
tionof the RiftZone as defined in this Memorial"." The Libyiinçlaini is
taintod by a doublc iincertainty. First, in limiting itself to claimina
boundary "wilhin the Rift %one",wiihiiut f~irtherparticulars,VI,ibya is
relerring to a x~iriçmore than IOû kilomctrçs at its widçst points,
coinprising a seriesorfeatures lacking any singleaxis and within which

it is possibleto draw an infinitc nuniber of lines. The sccond un-
certaitiiy is ihat neithof the extrernitics. western nor castern, of lhis
sriqalledRilt Zone 1s clearly defineci in gçographical terms (as will
more iully be developed in the next Chapter). In cmccçtin lailing to
formutate any precise claim Libya refusesto acknowledgc the proper
scope or the Court's function.
29. The second change in the Libyan clairn relates to its Içgalbasis.
No longer is proportionality invoked as the direct and principal
justification for ihc Lihyan position. Instead. reliance is placed upon

natural prolongation. Malta's rights, so the Libyan Memorial argues,
terminates, on the southern side, in the "Rift Zone", which marks the
end of Malta's natural prolongation and its separation from the natural

Libyao Mernorial, 57,para.4.33.
:Ibid ..58.para4.35.
'Ibid.p.164,No.9.
Ibid. g 126para7.15;p.133,para.8.18p. 149,para.9.43;p. 159,pa10.18.prolongation of Libya; while,to the east, Malta's limits stretch only io
ihc kscarpments-Fault Zone, and more particularly to the Sicily-

Malta Eçcarprnent, which is said to represent thc cnd or thc natural
prolongation of Malta in this direction. Thus, it is natural prolongaiion
"in its traditional character as a physical concept"' - thaf is to say, as
determined scientifically - which forms the legal basis for Libya's case.
30. Malta willdemonstrate in the next Chapter the ambiguities and
the unŒrtainties of the so-called "Rift Zone" theory which is so
essential an element in the Libyan claim that it isdeveloped througbout
the Memorial and appears in the finalSubmissionswhich concludethat
text.' Malta will also identify. Libya's mistakes inrelation to the

Escarpment-Fault Zone. In Malta's submission,the scientificaspects of
the Libyan contention have no legal significancesince the concept of
natural prolongation in the purely physicalsense is irrelevant to the
international law of continental sheü boundary delimitation. In in-
ternational law there is no such thing as a natural submarine boundary.
This is why the purely factual scientificaspect ofthe Libyan case willbe
only brieîly touched upon in the present Part. On the other hand, the
legalaspect ofthe natural prolongation argument willbe the subject of
detailed consideration in Part III, Chapters 1 and II.

31. Without at this stage considering in detail the Libyan argument
relating to natural prolongation, it is necessaryto note straight away
tbat the argument as presented now differs considerably from the
argument as developed by Libya in the Tunisia-Libya case. True, Libya
presents, in this case as in the previous one, a theory essentially
constmcted around the concept of natural prolongation in its physical
sense,that is to say, as defined bynatural science. However,apart from
ihis pini of similiirity the present 1.ibyünargument is in no way the
same as was presented in theprevious case. Indçcd, in çcrtain respccis

the two arguments are diametrically opposed.
32. In the Tunisio-Lihyo casc, Libyü accorded an csscntial rolc to
what the Court has called "geology in its historical aspect" which
dmrik "the cvolution in the long-distant pa~t",~and, more parti-
cularly, to the theory of plate tectonics. Libya,could then hardly find
sufficientlystrong Ianguage to criticize the importance which Tunisia
attacbed to marine topography, and more particularly to geomur-
phology and bathymetry, as well as to the examination of present
geologicalconditions. Thejudgmçnt in the Tunisia ..Libyecase contains

a sumrnary of the arguments advanced by the two Parties in thii
connection at pp. 54-56, paras. 62-1S4.~
33. In the present case, on the contrary, this combination or the

'Ibd. pi 92. para.6.28.
'Ibkl.pp. 16L164.
I.C.J. Reports 1982,p. 53,para.60 and p. 54,para.61.
DassaeesintheLibvanCounter-Mernoriaen"...thebathvmetrvisof minimalrelevaoce.Ar
.Aï~radamcntaglcalogicalconctpt, thc superfilr tupgraphical characteristics01the
shcll of uhirhbathymclr) irthemortobiious - arenot tme indicataol prolongation-
(Footnotciscontinued overkail.256 CONTINENTALSHELF [1%l

36. 'l'hcscietiiificconcçpt of iiatural proloiigaticin thus defilid hyils
~coinorphological atid geological eleinents lies nt thc heart OCthe
Lihpn lcgal ;irgiimeiit. It is only by relereiice to this conccpt ;ilid in a
maniicr suhordinatç io it that two other çlçmcnts eiiter iiito Ibç
argumenr.
37. The first of these is the notion of relevant circumstances. In the
Tunisia-Lihy[r case. Libya attached an almost exclusive importance IO
the idea of natural prolongation (as it then conceived it). At that time

Libya u,rote:
"Once the natural prolongation of a State is determined, de-
limitation becomes a simple matter of co~nplyingnmithilte dicratesof
12at11r.e.:'

"There can ... be no possible inequity in a delimitation which is
consistent with the physical facts of natural prolongation".'

As the Court explained the point in summarising the Libyan argument
in ihat Case, "for Libya, a delimitation which gives ellect to natural
prolongation is necessarily in accordance with e uitdbi..?ri'ciples.
sincz it respects the inherent rights of each State . In contras1 with
this, Lib~a, in the present case, argues that delimitation should take
into account (though under conditions which remain somewhat am-
biguous - as will presently be seen) the relevant circumstances of the
case and at the same lime no less be submitted to the test of pro-

ponionality. Chapters III and IV in Part III will examine in greater
detail these two aspects of Libya's legal case.
38. As regards proportionality, however, Libya has exerted itsell to
give ihis concept a low profile. Starting from a dictum iiithe Award in
the Aiiylu-P-rrrich Conrin~rrrrolSliel( Arhitruiioil, according to wlijch
"proportioriality is not iri itself a soiirce of title to the continental shcll
biit is rathçi a criterion for cvaliiating thç çquity of ccrtain geogr;iphical
~itu~liuns",~the 1,ibyaii Merriorii~lnsserts expressly tliat proporliu-

iialityisno1 "a Içg;ilpriiiciple whiçh itselfgives rise to riglits".' Il sçcx in
pruportioiiality merely a "tçst of the equity of the result produccd"."
aiid ilIS under this modest heading of "tcsl" that thç 1,iby;in Meniorial
cx;imines wli;it itcalls an "ingredieiit" iti the ;issessiiient(ifthc reason-
ablcncss of thç rçsult." Proportion;ility is also preserited as an "dc-
nieiit"' or ;igniii ris a "factor or giiide"." ïhç Libyan Mçmori;il iiirther
nrguçs th11 this concept does not rçquire "riicc c;ilculatioris or prççisc,
mathematical îèlationships between coastal lengths and shelf areas"

' Se Libydn Mcmorial in Tunisia-LibyaCase paras.
Mernoria lara.191. and
- I.C.J.Reporrs1982 ,. 44. para39.
"Decision of30 lune 1977;InternarionaLaw Reporrs ,ol. ,para
a Libyan Mernorial ,. 115,para.6.90.
' Ibid. g 97, para6.43.
lbid.p 155,parai. 10.06.
'Ibiiip.97. para.6.43;p. 115. para. 6.92.
" Ihir. p.115, para6.90.and issatisfied wiih "a broad, general cnmparison of sufficient flexibility
to acrornmodate the overriding aim of ;ichievitig an equitable result".'

Lihyii pushes ils coiicern 10 down-play the rnle of proportionality to
the point or presenting it as a factor not only bound but also sub-
ordinate to natural prolongation:
". ..proportionality as a factor or guide is intimately connated
with the concept of the continental shelf based on natural pro-
longation; it may even be said rhat it is the logical consequence of

this concepi, since its purpose is to ensure that each natural
prolongation will be accorded ils proportionate ~eight".~
39. Aswill be seen in Part III, Chapter IV, the subordination of the
proportionality argument to the natural prolongation argument, which
the Libyan Memorial justifies on grounds of logic, is logically un-

sustainable. It is impossible to see by what miracle of nature the
respecfive natural prolongations of the two States may be divided from
each other by a feature of such a kind as the "Rift Zone" at praisely
the same location as one might place a line based on the proportional
relationship oi the two coasts (and, even less, the proportional re-
lationship of the areas of the Iwo States). Even if one were to disregard
Malta, and consequently identify in the so-called Rift Zone the "natural
boundary" between Libya and Italy, could one then say that the test of
proportionality is satisfied by the relationship between the Libyan coast
and the Sicilian coast exactly as it is (according to the Libyan argu-
ment) between the coast of Libya and the coast of Malta? Again, if

nature had placed a deep trench some miles from the Libyan coast - an
wen deeper Tripoliianian Furrow, for example - the shelf appertaining
IO Libyii wouid be niinusculc in comp;irisoii with that belongitig IO
Malta. R'ould Libyii then speak of proportionality as the "logical
çonsequcnçc" ol Ihe concepl of ii;ltirral prolotigalion'? Whilsl it is
conceii'able thüt a line dictated by natural prolongation mdy coincide
with one dictated by proportioniility it is to say the least, no less
conceivahlç ih;it it may also bc dilTercnt. In troth thcrc is no logical
connçction - nor evcn any neccssary compalibility - between thç
concepts of nntural prolongation and proportionality.
M. Even if in practice proportionality phiys in the Libyan argumcnt
a grcater role than th<:Libyan Mcmorial wishes to suggc~t,~Malta niay
take courage from so restricted an assessment of the rolç of pro-

portionality. There is, in the Libyan attitude, an implied - but signi-
ficant - recognition of the legal weakness of any argument founded on
proportionality.

' Ibid. p115.para. 6.91.
Ibid.p. 115,para 6.90.
Saebelou, Pari ifl. Chapter IV. CHAPTERIII

THE KEY SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS
OF TH----BY---C-~E-
THE SO-CALLED RIFT ZONE AND THE
ESCARPMENTS-FAULT ZONE

41. The argument of natural prolongation, which forms the legal
basis for the Libyan claim, itselfrests on two geographical concepts.
The firsris that of the "Rift Zone" which,according to Libya, formsthe
northem limit of the Pelagian Block and constitutes the natural

hounda~ybetween the continental shelf of Malta to the south and the
continental shelf of Libya towards the north. The second element. or
geographical concept, is that of the EscarpmentsFault Zone which,
according to Libya, forms the eastern boundary of the Ragusa-Malta
Plateau and of the Pelagian Block and is the natural boundary of
MaIta'scontinental shelftowards the east. Libya contends that it is by
the innermost of these two natural boundanes- the "Rift Zone" to the
south, the Escarpments-Fault Zone to the east - that the continental
shelf rights of Malta are enclosed. But for Libya, so the Libyan
Mernoriai severül times asserts. in the area east of the Escarprnent*
Fault Zone, continental shelf rights may extend freçly in a northerty
direction until they meet the continental shelf rights of Italy.

42. As Malta hopes ptcsently to show,' the natural prolongation
urgument, as dcveloped by Libya, entirely lacks siipport in inter-
national law. Wliether lhc "Rift Zone" and the "EscarpmentsFaulL
Zone" correspond or not to the description given in thc 1,ibyan
Mcrnorial, is entircly without legal interest. Quitc dinèrentcritcria are
required by international law to form the basis of thç delimitation of
lhccontinental shelf between Mülta and Libya. It is, therefore, only out
of respect for the Court that Malta proposes to revicw briefly in ihc
prant Chaptcr the errors and contradictions of the technical pre-
sentarion contained in the Libyan Memorial. The Court will find a
fuller scientific assessment of the two key features of the Libyan
argument in a Technical Annexto this Counter-MemoriaL2 Malta is of

course entirely ready to provide the Court with further explanations if
these are called for.

' SeePart III,Chaptersand II
' Anner2. [zll COUNTER.MBMOKIAL OF MALTA 259

1.THE"RIFTZONE"

43. A preliminÿry remark is necessary regarding thç expression the
"Rilt Zone". The Libyan Mcmurial tends to give thc impressiori thnt in
this connection it is dealing with a physical entity which is easily
identifiable and generally known under this name in maps and litera-
iure. The tmth is quite otherwise. Of course - and Malta does not seek
IO deny this -a zone of faults and depressions exists in this part of the

Mediterranean. However, il is no lesstrue that neither the maps nor the
literatureidentily this zone by the name "Rift Zone". Particularly
noteworthy in this connection is the absence of any such reference on
@ the IBCM. which is used as a basic scientific reference work in the
Libyan Memoriül. No les'sremarkable is rhe fact that the study by
Professor Fabricius which Libya produced as an annex to its Counter-
Memorial in the Tunisin-Lihya case' spoke, in relation to this area, of
the "Pantelleria-Malta Trench system", of "the system of the Large
Southeasi-Nonhwest Grabens" and of "the rift stem".^ Of the "Rift
Zone" (iviih capital letters) no mention was ever made. But there is

something e\'en more extraordinary. In the Technical Annex to the
Libyan Mernorial in the present case the same Professor Fabricius,
alter having spoken a number of times of the "Rift Zonew3 which he
says "is often called the 'Strait of Sicily"': goes on to write: "To look
more closely ai ihis fault zone (called in the Mernorial the 'Rijt
Zone'). ..".'In the same Technical Annex Professor Finetti's study
identifies ihis region of Grabens by the name "Sicily Channelw6 or as
"the rift zone area of the Sicily Channel".' To descrihe the "Rift Zone''
the Lihyan Mernorial invokes the authority of the French geologist.
Winiicck. sayiilg thai he d'scribes Ihe Pantelleria, Malt;' and Linosa
Troughs "as part of what he calls the 'Siçilian C:hantiel"'."lhe

supposedly relevant passages from Winn<rk's work are reproduced as
Anncx 7 to the Libyan Memorial. However, ihough Winnock speaks of
thç "Chenal dc Sicile". one rnay look in vain iri the passages quoted hy
Liby;t for any rncntion of ihe "Rift Zone". ln at least two pliiccs in the
Mernorial Libya abandons ;IIIpreteiice regarding the origin of this
nomenclature, to which it has attrihut~d toponymic stiitus. Thus one
linds in ihe Lihyan Mcrntiria19rhe following: "Wliat has beençall~ulin
this Memorial the Rift Zone Jor rerisons oj'sinipli~it..."; arid ;igairi:
"Thç ~~nriniisj~,~~t~trhtsat will hc disciissed hcre comhinc ro rrinkcirpu
r$t zone (hereinafier referred tous the 'Rijt Zone') - afeatare of major

' Anner II in Vol III.
' lbidpp.13. 14and 17.
Seefor example.Tshnical Anner pp.1-4. 1-5. 1-11.
' lbid p.11-3. Ernphassupplied.
lbid.p.111-2.
'1bd. p. 111-6.
'Libyan 4lemorial p29. pira3.12.
' Ibid ..33.para 3.20.260 CONTINPNTALSHELF [221

importance ...".' Onç could hardly recogniïe more clearly that the
expression - çvcti the concxpt - of" Rift Zone" has bçcn conjiired up hi.
Libyii without any basis in establishcd scientific designation.'

44. Moreover, even what the Libyaii Mçmorial calls the "Riit Zone"
is not a trough which joins the western Mediterranean to the Ionian
Sea. It is in no way comparable even with the Norwegian Trough or the
Okinawa Trough and much less the Timor Trench. It does not con-
stitute a simple "major feature". It is rather a succession of highs and
lows, an accumulation of crests and winding valleys the depth of which
varies from 645 metres to 1715 metres - a dikrence in height of more

ihan 1 kiIometre. There are it is true, in this rnorphological complex,
ihree Troughs (Pantelleria, Malta and Linosa). of which the maximum
depths are respectively 1314, 1715 and 1615 metres. But the hlalta
Channel and the Medina Channel have a depth which hardly exceeds
500 met16 and even their inclusion as part of the same morphological
complex is quite open to question. The passage in the report of
the geologist Winnock quoted by Libya, and to which reference has

already ken made, does not in fact mention these Channels as part
of the "Chenal de Sicile".)
45.LibyaisevidentlytroubledbytheshallownessofthesetwoChannels.
compared with that of the Troughs further to the west, as is shown by
the embarrassed explanations which the Libyan Memorial gives for
Libya's view that these two Channels constitute "eastward extensions"
of the Troughs. What Libya says is, in other words, that one could

assimilate the Channels 10 the Troughs. even though the former do no1
share the significant features of the latter." From the Libyan Memorial
one may nbserve, indeed, that it is in a very artificial way that thc
Libyan 4lcmori;il presents as a unique "Zonc" ;iheterogencous col-
lec~irmor extrçrriely varied reliefs comprisiiig the three large ir<iughs,
the intermediate crests, the suhmariiie triountains aiid thç simple chan-
nels. The cotisidçrahly smaller rifting to the east (ifthe Troiiglis andthe

consequeni shallowtiess (II' thç Mülta alid Medina Cliannels - as well as
tacikal considerations - compel Lihya to ignore çompletely, or rnisre-
present as insignificant. the subst;intial rifting fiirther south towards thç
Lihyan Coast, as is apparent in the Jarrafa Troiigh and the
Tripolilanian Valley. 'l'hesefeatures will hç ex;imitied shurtly and arc
disçussed iii grenter detail in thç Technical Annex attachçd to this
Countcr-Mem~rial.~ The point to be made Iiere is lhat. having takcn

this position, it becarne necessary for Libya to give a geotectonic
explanation for the evident difference between the Pantelleria. Linosa

-~ p
' lbid p. 29para.3.21.
Lappears alreadyinFigure 7 of thLibyanCounter-Memari althe Tunisia-Libsn
caw (p.90).rhereilspurpose was toshowwhernaticalltyhelirniial thePelagianBasin
(reeklow, para.50,on thesubjectofthenorthern limitor thisBasin).
SCLAnncx 7IO <heLibyan Mernorial.
CI.Libyan Mernoria l. 32. para3.20p.42. para.3.50p. 128.paras.8.03and 804:
ri131.paras.8.11and 8.12. and Malta Troughç on the one hand and the Malta and Medina
Channels on the othcr. As the Technical Annex will show, the enpla-

nation ;idvancd by Libya is contradicted by well-establishçd~ientific
iacts. It willrurther show that the trouas to the northwcst and thosc tu
the sourheast of the Pelagian Block have the same cause.
46. But the most striking weakness in the theory of the "Rift Zone"
can be seen by a mere glance at the maps produced by Libya itself.
These show quite clearly that the deep and significantdepressions and
clefts of what the Libyan Memorial calls the "Rift Zone" (Pantelleria,
Malta and Linosa Troughs) are to be round only to the west,northwest
and soutbwest of Malta. Indeed, they lie beyond the western limits of
the "relevant area" as seen by Libya itself.' They are, consequently,
quite irrelevant to the delimitation of the shelf between Malla and

Libya. ln the area to be delimited between Malta and Libya the "Rift
Zone" presents only a relatively elevated sea-bed andin any case one
hardly sufficientlysignificant to warrant the weight accorded toit by
Libya.
47. Nor does the "Rift Zone" have welldefined contours. Its edges,
especiallyto the south, are irregular,jagged and frayed by a variety of
submarine ravines. In the east, the "Zone" is presented as terminating
atapprbximately IVE, at the intersection of the Heron Valleyand the
Sicilu-Malta Escarpment. In reality, the Malta Trough is linked to the
Ionian Seaby a corridor whichis hardly conspicuous, very shallow and
cut by crests and banks which follow the southern edge of the Malta
Plateau witb a swerving course. To the west, the uncertainty is even
greater. On page 127, in paragraph 3.12 of the Libyan Memorial the
'*Zone'-is dcscribed as beginniiip ai 1O030'.Later, on the same page

and on pages 127-128,para. 8.03,it is said to begin at the Pantelleria
Trough, tn the east ofthc island of the same name. The two definitiuns
do no1 correspond siiice the island of Pantelleria is siiuated ai 12"E,
thus well tothe east of the 10"30'initially givcn.The overlay of Map
172 identifies thç hcginning of the "Rift Zone" al yet another point,
@ more ro the west-north-we$tthan Pantelleria but less to the Westthan
10"3 U on thismap iitabout 11"20'.These inconsistençicsrcgarding
the limitslthe so-called"KiltZone" affect- as has already been noied-
the very substünw of the Libyan claim as much hy the width of the
"Zonc" as by the lack of precisiori for its eastcrn and western limits.
Tbus, onc may as):where in the Westshould the boundary line between
MaIta and Libya begin:at 10"30'?at the Pantelleria Trough? or rather
more to the west - and irso where?Asto how a boundary line between
Malta and Libya, of which the first segments evidentlyencroach on the
delimitation eflectedby the 1971agreement betweenTunisia and Ital~,~

may be combined with this latter delimitation, the question is passed
over in silence by the Libyan Memorial.

L Lbyan Mernoriap. 10,para10.17.
kebMapMe1501the LibyaMcmorial.262 CON~~NENTAL SiiELF i241

48. The Lihyan Mernorial assigiis to the so-callcd Kilt Zone a precisc
üiid leading role namçly that it "separates in a physical scnse the
nutur;il prolongation of the Libyan Iandm;iss northward frorn thç
uatural prolongation of Malta southward".' The "Kif1 Zonç" is thus
presented as a kind of natural frontier separating the physical feature
lying to the north from that lying to the south. That is why the
Memorial defines the "Rift Zone" as the northern line of the Pelagian

Block (or Ba~in).~This is done in a further effort by Libya to reinforce
at any cost the character ofnatural separation as the delimitation of the
continental shelf.
49. In this connection one mus1heed thecaution shown by Professor
Fabricius in coiinection with the position adopted in the Memorial
regarding the definition of the "Rift Zone" as the northern lirnit of the
Pelagian Block:

-The northern limits of the Block are defined in the Libyan
Memorial as created by the Rift Zone.. .Other definitions adopted
by some scientists place the northern boundary of the Pelagian
Block along the African plate boundary running across Sicil! or
make the Block coextensive with the Pelagian Sea extending as far

north as the Sicilian ~oastline".~
Refusing thus to acknowledge the paternity of the idea adopted in the
blemorial, Professor Fabricius, limits himself to accepting a distinction
between "a southern unit and a northern unit", the dividing line

between uiiits being the "Rift Zone"; and even such a distinction is
ampted by him only for the purposes of description.
50. Nor is it without interest to recall that in theTunisia-Libyu case
(to which the Libyari Memurial refers in conriection with the PcIagi.iÿn
Hlwkh Lihya did riot adopt ihc same view reg;irdiiig the riorihern
bûundary of lhc Pclagian Block. The Libyaii Mcmorial in that caw
described the Block4 as lying "gçnçr~lly between 32"N and 36"N and
addcd: "lis northern boundary riiiis aloiig the Pantçllcria Troughn.'The

36"X p;irallel ruiis jus1 north of lhc isliind of Malta aiid jus1 soulh of
the island of Ciozo. so that the wliole of the shclf arca hetween Malta
and Libya, ;$partfroni the arca çast of 15" 30'E,falls within the Pclngian
Basin. Mürmvçr in the TunisieLibyiicase, Libyÿ trc~tcd this area as of
Funddmental coiitiniiity both geologiç;illy aiid geomorphologically.
Figurc 7 in lhç LibyzinColinter-Mcrnorial in that sanie case, of which
the purpose was (according to note 2 on page 90) to set forth "the
boundaries of the Pelagian Basin", placed the northern boundary of the

Basin on the Sicilian Coast, thus enclosing the "Pantelleria Rift Zone"
withio the Pelagian Basin. This basin is in turn defined in the same

1 Libyan Mernorial,p. 29, para.3.12.
Ibid. p 27,para. 3.07;p.43 para. 3.52; p. 1,ara.805 etc.
TechnicalAnnex to the Libyan Mernorial,1-4.
Libyan Mernorial;p. 27, para.3.06.
9uiurbl.ibyn case, Libyan Mernorialara.62 and LibyanCounter-Memonal page
10.Noce 3. Criun~cr-Memriri;ilt as "a geologic;tl ntid physiographic 1iiii1".~III al1

Anncx ro Ihai rame Counter-Metnorial Priifcssor Fabricius wrote -
more aapliciily ihiin in Ihc Techtiic;il Atinex in Ihc prcsçni case ihai
the Pelagian Block "extends tu Sicily in the i~ortli".' Atid Professor

Bowett, in his oral argument, told the Court that "some scientists place
the boundary (or the Pelagian Block) even further north through
Sicilyx? In its 1982 Judgement, the Court itself said that the Pelagian
Block .'extends on the north at least as far as a series of large

depressions (the Troughs of Paritelleria. Malta and Linosa)".'
51. It can thus be seen that the attempt in the Libyan Memorial to
establish that lhe "Rift Zone" marks the boundary of the Pelagian

Block towards the north and separates in a clear manner two distinct
features is self-deïeating.
52. Because of its attempt to persuade the Court of the existence of
one - and one onl~ - possible natural boundary, Libya is obliged to

disregard the existence south of the "Rift Zone", hetween the latter and
the Libyan shore. of geographical features which are at least as
important as those of the "Rift Zone". The Libyan Memorial refers
several times to what it regards as a fairly even relief of the sea-bed

betwaen Matta and Libya: it speaks of "the gentleness of the slope".' of
a "rather gently inclined depression"' and of the "smooth9 character
or the seabed areas in this region.
53. However. this impression of topographical "mediocrity", which

' Ar page 90, para. ?W.
Conirur) to irrpresent position.l.ihya argued in the carlier case in favour of the
iuridxmcni~lciintinuity ofthc Pçlagiati Hasin.By way iifexarnplchci'earesomc arnrrn~~t
ntlier psrssges 1;rkerifrnm the Lihyan Cnunter.Mcmnrial iiihç 'i'u,iisi+l.ih~ocasc". ..
th. runijrientri~klf conçcrncd ir harically tindillercntiatM and forttir part 01'ihc
pelagian B&iri; a disririci geolugic undgrugraphic unil...withuui m:,rkcdfcaforcr thni
woiild nfîccldeliuii1;itinn." (p.10.pan,. 25):- "the coniineniil sliïarc. ir much likeii
gcntly rulliiip plain rjlt nn rnrrkçd fcrliirc of iiiiportai.WCaie dealiiig hrre witlio
sjmplc rhçll?a ph!iiogruphic unii, prrtirïihc PcIïgilm Basin" (p. 103.para 233): - ". ..
rk iklt ir iiaingk, qhy~io~rophiç uni1 with<iut iiiiyrionificant fcaturç fhst would
noniotclystlwt dclirnjraijori" lp, 147.p;li;i. 348): "Ille geolugicillcvidrnçç dcrnnnstrntri
ihc cxirlcnçc ofn sinplc contiiicntal sliel.devoid of ariysigiiitic;inifealurcs thil coiild
ciincciwbly sNmi dclimitntion. Thil1sliiljforrns e pnvtiunoj'lhiPelrilliuHiasinwkicli is
i~reiJu ycvlnqirorid Fhr.?i<,qr~phictai,Ji,mitro ?nin,~oti<'nr tlicsieblr Nurth Ajrii.o!i
~,lriie(p. 158.pirit 391)Ciiipliiisiruptiliçd"lhc çnlirc Hasin urca ir apcologic:il snd
phïniographii. uiiit... therr arc nu geulogic or physiographic fcatiirci of siifticicnl
impor~anceto influencea delimitation of the relevant continental shelfarea"(197,para.
491t The ArtisiRediiiiin which canstitutes Figure 4 of the Libyan Counter-Memorial in
rhe Tuni\w-Libw case (p. 76) illustrales this continuity perfeclly, especially betweeo

NaltaSendYoI II1 n at?~oes Figure II in the same Volume.
-.. -- -~~.?...
CR Y IjZû. p. 19.
I.C.I. Reports 1982. p. 41. para. 32.
ProfaessorFabrious notes in the Technical Annex (p.1.-12) that there exisi other
faulrs (rhich,acfurdin 1ghim, are lessimportant) to the north as wellas ta the sauth of
th: "Rift Zone".
Libpn Memorial. p. 35, para. 3.27.
' Ibid.p. 36. para 3.29.
' Ihid p. 37.para. 3.34. 264 CONTINENTAI. SHEI.F [26-291

@ Libya seeks tlius to cstablish, is rebiitted by thç IBCM' itself whiçh
demonstrÿtçs the presence of Iwo serics of highly signifiçant-feütures
irrbichtlir Libyan Mernorial passes ovcr practically iri silence.
54.First, one finds, lu the south of the "Kifi Zonc" aiid at the vçry
hean of the area to be delimited, two quadrilateral plateaux which rise
sharply above the neighbouring bathymetric level: the Medina Bank
(ivith a minimum depth of 146 metres) and the Melita Banks (with a
minimum depth of 86 metres), which Professor Fabricius describes as
being "part of a structural 'high' extending from the Lampedusa

Plateau on the Westto the Medina Escarpment on the ea~t".~One may
ask here why were these banks, of which the depth at no point
exceeds 200 metres, which find themselves near enough mid-way be-
tween the two countries and which are particularly interesting in
relation to hydrocarbon development, not given the same attention3 as
was given to the Malta and Medina Channels?
55. One also finds, south of the "Rift Zone", and also in the hean
of the area to be delimited, several "valleys" with a more pronounced
relief than Libya would have one believe4and of which the profiles are

quite comparable to those of the Malta and Medina Channels (Jarrafa
Trough. Medina Valley, Misurata Valley, Tripolitanian Valley). It is
thus difficult to follow the Libyan Memorial when it States:"If one were
$0 cross on foot a similar area by land, the "valleys" would not be
di~cernible".~The Technical Annex of the present Counter-Mernorial
shows how mistaken the Libyan Memorial is on this point. The Jarrafa
Trough. for exatnple, is an important basin with an area of about 60
kilometres by 15,of which the gradient achieves 9.8 per thousand: and
@ the 400 metre isobath by which it is marked nn the IBCM is very near
ihç high of 86 rtictrçs of the Mclit;~Banks. It is therefore difficult to

undcrstand the Libyati suggestion that the Jarrafa Trough "is nui
re;idily distinguishablç from ils irnmediate ~urroundings".~ The figures
iippnsite this page and thosc on thc îollowing pages7 are illustrationsot
Malta's submissions 011this matter.
56. Furthçr Io the sooth, as onç approaches the Libyan ço;ist lies the
Tripulitanian Valley (or Furrow). Iii its 1982 Judgment the Court
corisidcrcd-that:

"The only fcature or aiiy substantiÿl relevance is the
Tripolitani;in Fiirrow, but that suhmarine valley docs not displ;iy

' A reducedcopyoftheLBCM isherereproducedfortheconveniencoeftheCoun.
LibyanMernorialTechnic alnex,p.1-10.IntheTunisa-Libyjudgerncntthiarea
aas referred10as "the'Melita-MedinaPlateau'coveringthe banksof Melitaand
Medina"[I.C.J. Report1982,p.41,para.42).
The mentionof the Medina Bankast 3313.21ispurelyallusive.
@ Itk pnhapssignificantthon Map 6 otheLibyanMernoria(lp.26)thenamesor
the"\augus'situatedsouthofthe34thparallelhavedisappeadespitethefacthat the
na--LibyanMernorialp.s37,para.3.34.rallarefaithfulincluded.
LibyanMernorialp, . 37para.3.32.
' SeeFigures 14. any really marked reliefuntil it has run considerahly further to the
east {han the ;ira relevant to thc delimitalion".'
"The greater part of il (the Furrow), end the most significant
from a geomorphological aspwt, lies beyond Kas Tajoura.. . ".'

ln the Tunisin-Libyo case the Court attached no importance to the
Tripolitanian Furrow for purposes of delimitation, and this for two
reasons: because the most significant pan of the Furrow lieseast of Ras
Tajoura and because it is"comparatively near, and running roughly
parallel to; the Libyan coastW."n these circumstances it could not have
been taken into consideration iinless it "were such as to disrupt the
essential unity of the continental shelf so as to justify a delimitation on
the basis of its identification as the division hetween areas of natural

prolongation? Disregarding the assessrnent thus made hy the Court,
the Libyan Memorial treats the Tripolitanian Valley as a minor feature,
even to the east or Ras Taj~ura.~
57. In order to diminish the importance of these "valleys", the
Libyan Mernorial seeks to characterise them as sirnply the result of
er~sion;~ wbile the "Rift Zone" is said to he the result of structural
causes such as volcanic activity. The Technical Annex to this Counter-
Memorial shows how wrong this view is and that the geomorphology of
the area between the "Rift Zone" and the Libyan Coast is no less the
consequence of structural causes.

58. Whatever the description one may wish to give to these various
learures* Malta maintains that the continental shelf lying hetween
Malta and Libya is characterized hy a fundamental geomorphological
and geological continuity.' Moreover, as will he set out more fully in
ihis Counter-Memurial, the arc:is of continental shelf appcrraining to
two Stiits whose coasts are adjacent or opposite each other arc no! IO
be determined: accnrding IO intcrnatiuiial law, by refereiiceIO "iiatiiral
boundarid rormed by geological or gcornorphologiçnl featurcs. Ii isto
bç ohscrved in thiscoiinection that, contrary Io what üppears to be

suggestçd in the Libyan Mernorial,' neithcr the 1tali;i~~l'unisian
Roundary Agreement of 1971,tior the IlaliawGreek Agrcerncnt of 1977
is related inan), way to any geomorphological featureand even less to
the "Rift Zone" .he Italia-Greek dclirnitation does not follow the
Sicily-Malta Escarpmeiit but h:is hceii constructed on the basis of a
median line betweeii thc Itiilian and Greek coasts and islands.
Evidently the Grwk and ltalian Ciovernments did no1 consider that il
would be equitable for the Greek plateau to be extended to the very

'
: I.CJ.Rrge~ts 1481p..57,para.66.
- Ibidp. M. para.SC.
' Ibid.
LibganMcmo~l. p.36. paras. 3.30 and 3.31.
Sccrg. inrclaiio10 theJarrafaTrough.p. 37.para.3.32
' CI.Malta'sMernorial, .21. para.57andAnnex 2.
' p.1%. para. 9.51.windows of southern Italy and of Sicily although this would have been
consisteni with the logic of the Libyan approach towards thç "Rift
Zone*.' A glance at this samc map is enough to show that the Italiatt
Tunisian dçlimitation, far from following the so-called "northwcst -
southeast axis" of the "Rift Zone", is also essentially an equidistance

iine and its axis in no way coincides with the "Rift Zone". Malta
submits that the so-called "Rift Zone" does not dictate the boundary
line any more than do the Melita-Medina Plateau or the Tripolitanian
Furrow. If nevertheless, despite al1contrary indications one wished to
achieve a delimitation along the "natural boundaries", the Melit*
Medina Plateau or the Tripolitanian Furrow would constitute natural
features at leasi as significant as the Medina Channel or the Malta

Channel if not more so. If there is, in this whole area, an insignificant
feature it is that part of the so-called Rift Zone which lies between
Malta and Libya.

59. According to the Libyan Memorial, the Ragusa-Malta Plateau,
on which, as Libya contends, Malta lies, ends in the east at the Sicily-
Malta Escarpment, which thus constitutes "the physical boundary
between the Ragusa-Malta Plateau and the Pelagian Block on the West

and the Ionian seafloor on the east".2 Libya sees this Escarpment not
only as the end of the Ragus*Malta Plateau but also as the end of
Malta's natural prolongation3 and concludes that the boundary line
between the Maltese and Liliyan continental shelves cannot extend any
rurthzr tasi than the E~carprnent.~
60. This Libyan argument caii be valid only to the extent that il
could tK .hown that the Escarpmcni- the existence of whiçh caniiot be
deiiied - represents ihç edstern end of Malta's continental shelf This

Libyan ç~>ntention has riot beçn çsl;iblished either sçieniitic;illq' or
legally.
61. Firsl. on the scieniific planc, itis tiot correct Io s;iy that the
Escarpmait r~~rcsçnts the eastern end of M;ilta's coritinental shell.
Acçording to the defiriition in Article 76 of the 1982Convention on ihc
Law or ihc Scd(which must in this rcspçct be regarded as reflectinp tlie
prcscnt state of customary international law). the continental shclf
ext~nds "Lu the outer edge of the çuntiiietital niargin" and "the con-

tinental margin . .. consists of the sea-bed and subsoil of the shelf. the
slope and the risz". The Technical Annex annexed to this Counter-
Memorial shows that it is not scientifically possible to maintain that the
Escarpment forms the eastern limit of Malta's continental margin. Such

L Cf Map 15 of Libyan Mernorialat p.150.
Libyan Mernorialp.34, para.3.24cf. p29,para. 3.09 andp.41,para.3.46.
' Ibid.p. 132,para8.15and p.133,para. 8.18.
Ibd p. 133,parti. 8.and p. 153,para.9.64.a contention is cenainly not truc south of the 35th parallel; and north
cf the 35th parallel it is, to say the very least, disputable, with the
experts divided on even whether the abyssnl plain of the Ionian Basin is
an old oceanic cmsr covered bv a thick sedimentary sequence.or a.
continental cnist.'
62. On the leeal dane. the auestion whether Malta's continental
. -.
margin ends at the Escarpment (as Libya argues) or extends beyond it
jas many mentists klieve) makes not the slightest difference to Malta's
continental shelf nghts or to the delimitation of the continental shelf
between Malta and Libya. The rule of customary international law
renecred in Article 76 of the 1982Convention defines continental shelf
rights as extending "10 a distance of 200 nautical miles.. . where the
outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that
distance". Even supposing for the sake of argument that Libya's thesis
that Malta's continental margin does not extend beyond the

Escarpments were correct, it would not aflect either Malta's entitlement
beyond those Escarpments or the delimitation of its continental shelf
with Libya. The decisive importance which Libya attaches to the
Escarpments as the eastern boundary of Malta's continental shelf rights
is completelg coniradicted by present day principles and rules of
customary international law. The matter need not, therefore, be further
pursud.

1SeeAnna 2,para37. CHAPTER IV

THE PRACTICE OF STATES DISREGARDED

63. Malta has already referred to the substantial State practice

relating to geographical situations comparable to the circumstances of
the present case.' This State practice takes the form oftreaties and such
agreements must be drawn up- at least inthe framework of customary
international law-"in accordance with equitable principles";'"in order
to achicve an equitable result".%onsequently, boundary agreements
carelully negotiated by governments constitute evidence of the view of
those governments on the content of an equitable solution refiectingthe

application of equitable principles.'
64. Strange though it may seem,the Libyan Government has chosen
to disregard the relevant State practice. It is true that the Libyan
Memorial mentions State practice on three occasions but on each
-ion the treatment involves a serious distortion of the significance
of this important aspect of the case now before the Court.
65. The Libyan Memorial first of al1 mentions State practice in

connection with equidistance. It notes that:
". ..in many agreements some considçration was givçn to other
mc~hudsin delimiting the maritime areas concerneci.Such mcthods

refiated in thcsc agreements include: modifying an çquidist;iuce
linc tu give partial effect10 islands; the iisç of partial or complclc
enclaves: lincs refleçting an allocation of arças of sea-bed in
proportion to respectivc eoastiil lengths; lines at right anglçs 10 ü
gencral line of co;istal fronts: lincs adoptinga line of latitude ora
fixed azimuih; and lincs iollowing a shipping route tir çhannel".'

This siolcmçnt is inexact in two ways. First lhc only precedents for
"vartinl eiïect of islands" and the use of cnclaves relatc Io d~pandenr
islunds. None of rhem bear upon the position of Island States. Secondly
elyenif it is Lruethat certain agreements haveused delimitation metbods

'MernorialPART III, ChapterVII.
: ICJ Reports1969,p. 53, para. 101.
I.CJ. Reports 1982p. 59, para.70.
ln the awardin theAnyl+French Continent0SheljArbitratiothereare numerous
refercnw [Othe practicofStates (paras85.107, 200, 249, 251). Likewise the Court.
whihfollored the samecoursein ils 1982judgme(p.41, para.45;p.79, para. 109).has
eonero faras to sav that theconcofnaturaloroloneaiion mus1be"examinedrilhin
rhecontext of cust&narylawad tar erocrice(p.46;para.43)
Libyan Mernorialp.125, para.7.12.1351 COUNTER-MEMO RFIAALLTA 269

othcr ihdn thai of equidistance,it1sno less tme thai the vast majority
of agrements makc use of an cquidistance line, especially between
States with opposite coasts. This is true as between continental States.
Malta thinks it hardly necessary Io provide the Court with a list of
gencral precedcnts ofthis character. But it isalso true as betweenStates
ofwhicb one isan Island State, as the examples cited by Malta in its
Memonal' show. A recent study2 ofa suhstantial sample of seventy-five
delimitation agreements akting various regions in the world has led
Dr. lagota, legaladviser Io the Indian Government and an expert who
has had direct and extensive practical experiencein the law of the sea,
to draw the followingconclusion:

" ...in a large majority of cases States have been satisfied that the
median or equidistance line leads to an equitable solution or
result"'

66. The second instance of recourse by Libya to State practice is in
connection withdepressions and troughs in the sea-bed.As willbe seen
in Part III, Chapter 11,the Libyan Memorial seeks to draw from this
practicea manifestly partial and inexact picture.
67. The tbird mention of State practice in the Libyan Memorial
appears in connection with the position in the Mediterranean as seen
by Libya:

"In the confines of the Mediterranean and in particular in the
Central Mediterranean, if delimitation by equidistance were a
panaŒa, one would have expected delimitation agreements on the
bais ofequidistance to have been rapidly completed. This has not
becn thc case".j

Malta does not claim that çquidistance is a "panacea" in the
Mediterrnncan any more than elsewhere.What Malta süysis thüt, in an
absolutely incontwtable manner, a large number of agreements - in
truth, the ~ast rnajority- adopt an equidistance linc for al1or part of
the boundary or, at least, use siich a line as a point of departure and
adjust itonly to a smalldegrce. Mnlta dots not say,and has never said,
eitber thai ibe use of equidistance is compulsory or that il is a
universally applicable method. As regards the Mediterrünean in part-
icular, the views expresscd by Libya are rather superficial - as çan
readily hseeo byrelerringto Map 2ofthis Countcr-Memorialand to the
lists olboundary agreements between the Mediterranean States pro-
vided in the Maltese Memoria14

' Malta'sMernorial,p.61 io 78.
' S.P. Jagola, Maritime Boundnry, Hague RecueilV,al. 171, 1981 - 11,
p. 83atpp. 130-131.
' LibyanMemorisl.p. 152,para9.60.
Sa pp.96-103 .aras.196200. PART II

THE TASK OF THE COURT THE TASK OF THE COURT

68. There appears to be some diaerence of position between the
Parties regarding the task of the Court in the present case. Malta,
which dixussed tbe matter specificallyin its Memorial,' reached the
following conclusion:

"Malta concludes that in the present case the task of the Court
isto identify the principles and rules of international law applic-
able to the delimitation of the continental shelves of the two
Parties with effectivelythe same degree of particularity as those
principles aere identified in the Tunisi~Libya judgment. The
Coun should indicate the boundary which, in its view, would
result from the application of such method as the Court may

chocse for the Parties to achieve the relevant determinati~n."~
In its Subrnissions~alta makes two requests to the Court which
specificailymirror these conclusions and invites the Court to make two
findings-one as to the applicable principles and mles of international

law. the otber as io the application in practice of these principles and
rules by means of a median line betweenthe Parties.
69. Libya, on the oiher hand. without spxifiçally addressing irseli10
the problçm, by implication suggestsa riarrower viewofthe function of
the Court. Perusal of thc Libyan Submissions" revçals none pertaining
IO atiysp~cific lin+ but only n series of abstract legal propositions
cuiminatiag in the following final subrnission:

^9. The principlesand rules ofin~ernational Iüw çanin practice
be applied hy the Parties so as to achieve an equitable result,
taking account of the physical factors and al1 the other relcvant
circumstanceliof this case, by agreement on a delimitation within,
and followingthe genersl direction of. thç RiftZone as defined in
this Mern~rial."~

70. Tbe àiierence between the two sides is thus evident. ReducedIo
its essentialsitis that Malta believesthat the Court may, and should,
do in this case much as itdid in the Tunisia-Libya case. There, at pp.
9S94 of the operalive part of the judgment, the Court indicated with

' Ibid. p11,pra.22.art 1pp.7-1 1
' Ibid. p. 135,ga273.
a LibyanMemoial, pp. 16%1&1.
Vbid. p.lm. para.9. COUNTER-MEMO ORFIALLTA 275

Zone"' is hardly rçsponsivetri thc second part ofAriicle1of thc Special

Agrcçmcnr. Itdws not show how "in praclice such principles and rulcs
çan be appli by thçLwoPartics in this particular çasç in order that
thcy niay withoui di/ficirltydelimit such iireii hy iin kipreementas
provided in Anicle III."Even if Libya wereto be one hundred percent
sucmssfulin its submissions,there would be no realistic prospect of the
Parties agreeing "without difficulty"upon a line which evennow Libya
is notprepared to particularize. The "Rift Zone" exceeds 100km at its
widest,greater in ividthat the middle than al the ends. It is not straight
but shaped like aboomerang. Such an area iscapable ofcontaining not
simply one line but literally scores of lines,on the location and precise

direction ofwhich dispute could be endless.Given that the object ofthe
present proceedings isto lead swiftlyand surely to the resolution ofthe
dispute between the Parties, the approach of Libya represents a pre-
scription not for the settlement but for the indefinite prolongation of
the problem.

' bbym Mcmnnal,p. L64para.9.
Emphask ruppüd. PART III

CRITIQUEOF LIBYAS

SUBSTANTIVE CASE CHAPTER 1

THE PRINCIPLES AND RULES
OF INTERNATIONAL LAW GOVERNING
THE DELIMITATION OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF

75, The Spial Agreement asks the Court ta decide, in the first
place,"[W] hat priiiciples and rules of international law are applicable
ro the delimitation of the area of the continental shelf which appertains
to the Republic or Malta and the area of continental shelf which
appertains to the Libyan Arab Republic". Chapter 6 of the Libyan
Memorial contains "a succinct statement of the applicable law, as
perceived by Libya-.' and Chapters 7 to 10 apply the principles and
rules ihere de%,elopedto the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Malta submits that the statement of the applicable law contained in
Chapter 6 of the Lihyan Memorial contains a number of serious errors:
the principles and rules of international law which Libya requesls the
Court toapply are not those principles and rules which international
law has in lact developed in relation to the delimitaiion of the con-
tinental shelf. Atthough in disputes of this kind the Parties usually diiTer
less on the principles and rules of the applicable law than on their
applicaiioii to the imnicdi;itc r;ii:ts, tlieiritliicüsc importarit

dimerencesof opinion betwceti Malta and Libya on cvçti the contcnl of
the applicüble principles and riiles. That is why Malta considers it
nacssary to prriceetl tirs!, in thç prcsçnt Ch;iptcr. to a critical cxam-
iiiaiion of the spplicable law "as percçivçd by Libya" and to show
briefly how hlaltü itself titiderstands the relevant prinçiples and rulçs of
in~crnaiion;il Innmgoverning the delirnitüti<in of the conlinçntal shelf.
The Chapiçrs ihit follow in this Eirt will bc dcv(ited to a dctailçd
cxaminatioii, boih in Içgalterms and in relation Io its application to the
preseni çasç,of the inannçr in which the Libyan Meniorial resorttii
nütural prolongntirin. to reieb'8nl circ~imstaiiccs and to the les1 of
proportionality.

1. THE SOURCE SF THE APPLICAB LAEW

76. As regards the sources of the rules applicable to the resolution of
the dispute, the Libyan Memorial States:

"In the present case, neither the 1958 Convention nor the
Convention on the Law of the Sea appl- in the first case because

LibyaMernori4 p. 81. para. 6.0.280 CONTINENTAL SHELF [Ml

Libya is not a Party and in thç second case hççausc the
Convention on the Law of the Sea is iiot yet iii force aiid has no1
becn signed by 1.ihy;i. Given the absencç of any trcaiy or çun-
ueniion prtividing rulçs directly applicable irithe preserit dispute, it
lollows that the Court is asked ta give expression to the principles
and rules of customary international law".'

hlalta agrees with this statement. The principles and rules ofcustomary
international law which the Court is invited by the Parties to determine
and apply are those which result from the practice of States (including
the evolution reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention of 19821and
from jurisprudence.

77. Of course, these rules of customary international law are not
unchangeable and it is in the light of customary international law as it
exists at a given moment that it is necessary to assess the concepts
pertinent to a delimitation of the continental shelf. Thus the Court has
referred IO "the historic evolution of the concept of the continental
shelt from its iiiception in the Truman Proclamation.. .'through the
Gene~a Convention of 1958. through the Norrh Sea Coririi~ento l helJ
cases and subsequent jurisprudence, up to the draft convention ol the

Third Law of the Sea Conference, and its evolution in State practice"
and has also stated that it has "endorsed and developed those general
principles and rules which have thus been established".' More parti-
cularly, on the question of'natural prolongation the Court says that it
"was and remains a concept to be examined within the context ol
customary law and State pra~tice".~ The concept of natural pro-
longation is thus one of which the scope and content may change- and
have changed - with the evolution olciistomary international law.The
sarne observ;ition is ;ipplicable 10 XIIthç othcr concçpts rclcv~nl in ~his

case: rclevanl circumstancçs, eaoitable uriiiciule., e..itable result, pro-
portioi~ality, etc.
78. Morç n;irticularlv.,.s ~e~-rds the Law of the Sça Convenlion. il
is plain that no provision of this Convention hinds the Parties as a
ireaiy rulc such. It is no less evident, however, that the absence of a
strictly contractiial quality docs niit prevcnt this or that provision ol
the Convention [rom being regarded as embodyitig or crystallising a
pre-existing or emergent rule of ciistoniary I~W.I~ t nppears that Libya

sharex ihis opinion since it has relied in ils Mçmoriÿl on ççrtiin
provisions of the Convention in support of its arguments. This is so
particularly of articles 76and 77q article 83' and article 121s However,

L Libyan Mernorial ..84,para 6.10.
Proclamation 2667,Reproducedas Annex 3 to ihis CaunteMernorial.
' Ibid.p.46,bpara.43.entalShelfCase,I.C.J. Re~orts.1982o. 92.vara.132.
Ct Xorth Sea Cases; I.C.J. Repor1969, p.41, para.69 and Tunisi-Libyo Case.
I.C.J. Rrport1982 ..38,para.24.
Sec Libyan Mernoria l.82, paras6.046.07.
' Ibid.p. 82,para.6.04,p.97, para.6.42;p.124,paras.7.09-7.10.
' Ibid.,p.III,para.6.81. when a provision oi the Convention appcars to Libyü tu bc iirifavour-
able to ils arpunielit it dues not hesitate to disregard il, claiming ibat
the Convention dues not establish law between the Parties. It does this
for exampte with what il çalls "the new feature of the Coriventiun on
the Law of the Sea which uses distance.. ." '
79. When one mentions, as has just been done, provisions of the

Convention on the Law of the Sea which reiiect or express a customary
mle, it is more broadly to the whole ensemble of the work of the Third
Coderence on the Law of the Sea on the pertinent question that one is
referring.2 This work obviously could not reiiect new law during the
first years or the Conference, at a time when the evolution of certain
provisions was not yet sufficiently advanced. This explains the evident
pmdence with which this work was approached by the Court in the
Fisheries Jurisdirtion case in 19743 and by the Court of Arbitration in
the Angl~French Continental SheifArbitration in 1977.4In 1982,in the

TünisieLibya case*the Court showed less reserve since at that moment
the work of the Conference was much further advanced: the text of the
draft Convention had been adopted by the Conference and the only
step remaining was that of signature - a step which was taken a few
months later. When referring to ils observations of 1974,the Court said
"it must however take note that the Iaw-making process in this respect
has now progressed much fur the^", ^nd it added:

"Funhermore, the Court would have had proprio moru to take
account of the progress made by the Conference even if the Parties
had not altuded to it in their Special Agreement; for it could not
ignore any provision of the draft convention if it came to the
conclusio that thç content of suçh provision is binding upon al1
mcmbers or rhc international çonimunity because itembodies or

crysiiilliws a pre-exisling or emergent rule of cusloniary ~aw".~
Ai prevent the draft Convention has become a Convention sigtied hy
numeroui; Sraies, and il is çlçar that thç position taken by the Court in
the TuriisiwLihyn case today linds itself coiisider;ibly reinforçed.

80. Among the provisions of the 1982 Convention whiçh refiect the
staic riiciistomary international law, particular attention mus1 be
diristçd to paragraph 1 of Articlç 76. In thc Tirnisin-Libgu case the
Court reïerreà expressly to this provision and said that "the definition
given iii parÿgraph 1cannot be ignored".' This text cxpressçs two rulçs
of customary international law. The first is that the rights of each
coastal Staie in the continental shelf extend to a distance of 200

' Ibui..pp.8'+90.para.6.22.

Dara.26.hereaarks of JudgeOda inthe Tunisi-Libya Case.I.C.JReporis1982,p. 172,
' I.C.JReooiis 1974.0~2.S24. oara.53.
~ezisiond 36 lun;'f977,1nk;noriono lnw Reporrr.Val.54, p. 6.paras. 47 and 96.
' I.CJ. Reparis1982,p. 37, para. 23.
' Ibid... 38.,m. 24.
' Ibid.p.48.para.47282 CO~NENTAL SHELF

nautical milcs from ils co;ists - a provision which meaiis, according to
~hcIanguage of the Court, that "the distance of 200 milcs is in ccrtain
circumstaiiccs the hasis of the title of a coastal State".' The second rule
iuthÿt when the con~in~ntalmargin »f a Statç çxtçnds bcyund 200miles
the continental shelf rights of this State apply "throughout the natural
prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental

margin". Ifthe Court did not, in the TunisieLibya case, take direct note
of the concept of distance, it is - according to explanalions which it
gave in its Judgement - because the two Parties invoked only "the
principle of natural prolongation" and "have not advanced any argu-
ment based on the 'trend' towards the distance principle"? The terms of
Article 76. and particularly those concerning the "distance principle",
also figured in several separate and dissenting opinions, as Malta has
notd in its Memorial.)

81. In the same way, it is beyond doubt that the concept of the
exclusive economic zone "may be regarded as part of modern in-
ternational law", as the Court said in the Tunisio-Libyu cas~.~The
United States proclamation of ün Exclusive Economic Zone on 10
March 1983'constitutes an additional confirmation of this recognition
of the economic zone concept by customary international law. As a
result, each coastal State possesses, to a distance of 200 nautical miles
from itscoasts. continental shelf rights over the sea-bed and subsoil and

economic zone rights over the superjacent water ~olumn.~
82. The provisions jus1 mentioned relate to the extension of coastal
Siate rights towards the open sea and do not govern the determination
of the limits between the maritime jurisdictions of States with opposite
or adjacent coasts. It will presently be seen, however. that these
provisions have a direct bc;iriiig oii qucïtions of deli1nit;itioii.

2. LIBYA.L ~EWL (:ASE

II) Lib!-rr'\qul Pr~srrirerioii

83. The Lihyan Meniori;tl adopts ;is the startiiig point of ils lepl
rcdsoning wliat il prçsçnts as "an important Icgal dislinctioii of con-
siderable c«nsequence for the prccent case".' On the one hand, 50 it
nrgucs. ihere is "thç Içgal hasis of ;iStatç's cntirl~mcritto shelf", ihc

"b;isisor 'ruot' of title"; oii the other. there are the rules govçrning the

i lmbr.
Ibd..pp.4?-49, para. 48.
' Malia'sMemorial,p. 123, paras.251-252.
' 1rJ .~.
Rep :er-MemoriaL
CT thereparate opinioof JudgeJiméned ze Aréchagain the Tunisiu-Libpce, tp.
115.pans. iS56) and thedisseniingopinionsofJudgeOda (p. 247.para.145andp. 249.
pra. 146) andJudge Evensen(p. 287,para. 9).
: Libyan Memonal. p. 81,pari.6.01.prccise delimiialioii iifsheli boundaries. The Libyan Memorial siiggcsls
ihüt iniernaiional law accords an important, and sorrieiimçs çveii
decisive, rlrle to thç concept of natural prolongatioii bolh in the
determioation of the legal basis of title and iri the dçliriiitation of the
boundaries of the shelf between two States, but in diferent ways.
84. Where itis a question ofdetermining the legal hasis of a State's
en~itlemenl to shelf. natural prolongation, according to the Libyan

Memorial, has no1 ceased to be the key concept which it has been from
the Truman Proclamation' up to and including the Law of the Sea
Convention."The deliberations at the Law of the Sea Conference, have
reiniorced, rather than weakened, the fundamental concept of the
continental shell as being the natural prolongation of the land do-
main".' Io a word! for the Libyan Government, "natural prolongation
remains the îundamental basis of legal title".3 Consequently, when one
is delimiting the continental shelf of a State towards the open sea,
"where no problems of delimitation with neighbouring States arise", the
"outer limits are controlled exclusively and directly by reference to

natural prolongation - "entitlement and delimitation (in terms of
absolute ouier limits) go hand in hand when the issue is one of
distinguishing between an area within natural jurisdiction and an area
beyond it".4
85. But when it becomes a matter oi"delimi~afio~r"between the areas
of continental shelr klonging 10two or more States, the function of the
concept of naiural prolo~gstioii is, according to the Libyan Memorial,
more complex. The argument proceeds as follows. Before being able to
claim a deiimitation which attributes to a coastal State an? area of
shelf, thç State musi firsf establish that it has an "~~itrirl~rnetz,""busis
of tirl~"~ro sucli an arça:

". .. ;is ü first stcp, ench Part), has to provc thai thç naiurnl
prolongation of its land territory exterids inio the ;ire4 iii which ihe
delimitaiion is to hc cffe~tcd".~

Once thi:. is donc ihç delimitation, properly so-çalled, may take pl:ice
on ihç hisis of a distiriction which Lihyn characterises as "vital",
"basic", or "fundamcntal" and which is set ou( in detail in Iwo ïort~is:"

(a) Where iherc exisi two separiite shelves, i.e. wherç neighboiiring
Siarcs are lociited on dircrçnt shelvçs, in terms of distinci natiiral
prolongations, "the çvideiice of 'natural prolongation' . .:serves
to establish the boundary between different shelves"; "legal en-
titlement and delimitation go hand in hand", and "the boundary
should lie along the general line of that fundamental
discontinuity".

: Amer 3.
' Ibidp. 89. pard6.21.9, para.6.20.
Ihidp. 6L para .06.
' Ibd p. 89,para.6.21.
lbidp. 83.parar 6.08 and 6.09pp.90-92. paras 6246.29.284 CONTINENTAL SHELF [sol

(b) Whçrç there exists onç continuous shelf adjoined by two or more
States, i.e. where natural prolongations meet and overlap and
where the shelf are;i rnay be regardçd xr much the natural
prolongatitin of the one as of the other on thc geological and
geomorphological evidence, legal entitlement on the basis of
naiural prolongation and delimitation no longer have any nec-
essary correlation. No doubt, the geological or geomorphological
structure of the shelf, which characterizes natural prolongation,
-'remains the basis ofthe title of each and every adjoining State".
Natural prolongation "in its traditional character as a physical

concept" is, however, no longer "conclusive for delimitation
purposes". no longer "sufficient 10 be determinative of a de-
limitation". The physical elements which determine the natural
prolongation of a State do not, however, even in this situation,
lose al1 legal relevance. Basing itself on paragraph 68 of the
Tunisia-1.ibyajudgement' the Libyan Memorial states that "a
feature, which is not sufficiently substantial as to divide two
distinct natural prolongations may continue to have significance
as a relevant circumstance"; in this case, "the geological and
geomorphological factors mus1be considered with other factors"?

86. Natural prolongation may thus be seen to lie at the heart of
Libya's legal case. The Libyan Memorial speaks of the "double aspect"
of natural prolongation: "as being, on the one hand, the basis of legal
title to continental shelf areas and,on the other hand, a relevant factor

in determining these areas between neighbouring State~".~There are
hou,e\:er three aspects of natural prolongation between which the
Libyan argument suggests onç mus1 distingiiish:
-- ;is;ibasis of Iegal title: soinething which, according to Libya,
cxisis in cvcry ciise;

- as "conclusive" or "detcrminativc" foi. delimiiarion between
neighbouring Slates: sorneihing which exists in thuse cases whcrc
thçrç are two physicÿlly distinct shelves;
- or as one of the rclçv;int circuiiistanççs to be takcn into

aççouiit ainongst others in secking an çqiiitable rçsult: which is the
case whçrç ncighbouririg Staics iibiit on ihç same. continuous.
shclT
87. The kt that Libya defines natural prolongation by reference to
physical etfidence tenders al1 the more surprising - and awkward -

those passages in which Libya slides from the indisputable propositions
that "the land dominates the seaM4aiid that "continental shelf rights'.,
are lepally both an emanation from and an automatic adjunct of the
territorial sovereignty of the coastal State"5 towards a totally different

Ibid p102.ppara.6.53and para6.55.Libyan Mernonal.
' Ibiil. 90.para.6.23.
i\'onSeoCases.I.C.J. Reports1969p. 51.para96.
' Aqerin SeciCunrinenroSherCase. I.C.J. Repurr1978,p. 36. para. 86.1511 COUNTER-MEMOKLAL OF MALTA 285

concepi. The Libyan Memorial appears not 10 hesitate to speak of "the
gcogrnphic correlation hetween landmass and sca-kd which is thc
basis nt title".'

Elsewhere the Libyan Memorial dots its i's when it says:

"...the size of the landmass should have some correlation with the
eaient .and 'intensity' of its natural prolongation into and under
ihe sea".'
88. Malia musr immediately respond to such a proposition. Where

the Coun has said quite clearly:
"The geographic correlation between coust and submerged areus
oflrhe cousr is the basis of the coastal State's title"."

the Libyan Memonal appears to say:

"...the geographic correlation between lanilrnuss4and sea-bed ...
is the basis of title".

As the Coun said in the continuation of the sarne passage quoted
above:
'iAs has been explained in connection with the concept of
natural prolongation, the coast of the territory of the Staie is the

decisive factor for title...".
The Court's emphasis is always on the "coasl", not the "landmuss", and
even less on "the siieof the landmass". The maritime jurisdiction of the
coastal State depends on its coasts, not on the extent of iis territory.

The naiural prolongation of a large coastal Staie docs not have an
"intensity" grcaicr than that of a criasial State of srnaller dimensions.
Thc "size or the Lndniass" has absolutely nothing to do with the
preseiit cüsc Tri repeat the point, it is thc equality of Stalçs in relation
to maritime rights %'hichis here put in question.
89. This said. rbecentral argumeni uf the 1-ihyan Meinorid is that,
in relationIo ihc present case, the nalurai prolongations of cach of the

two countries are gcologicaliy and geoniorphologically separated hrn
each oiher by the so-called Rift Zone. The "Rift Zone" lhus marks
simultaneously the lirnils of Malta's southern cntitlemeni and Libyÿ's
nurthtrn enlitlement and ihe bountlary ofthe shçlf between thcse two
oeighbouring Stata:

' ~jbyan Mernorial,p. 114.para6.88In supportof ihis unexpectadproposition. the

y.bya62)spcakslol"thenaturalprolongation of thelandmasses(nto and under lwa54,
... but dm ro as pariof thc rtatemcntofthe Libyan argument(and no1 ihar of the
Court)regardingthe nonhwardprolongation ofthe Africanlandmass.As for thesecond
(p.61,para.73).larfromspeakingof "1andmass"-the word irnot there- il stresses,on
ihe contra-,Lhai !k only matter that counts is "the gcographiccarrelation betwecn
comf and rubmergadareasOBthe roost ...".
' lbid p. 137.para9.12.
Tuoisin-LibjaCas+ I.C.J. Report1982 ,. 61. para. 73 Emphasissupplied.
Emphasissupplid.286 CONTINENTAL SHELF i52l

"... thc Rift Zone constitutes a fundamental discontinuity existing
ioday in the se;i-bed and subsoil and forms an actual separarion in
the natural proltingatitins nf 1-ibya iiorthward and Malta south-
ward. As such, the Rift Zone serves to 'point iip' those portions of
the continental shelf that are appurtenant to Libya and Malta
inasmuch as it marks the limits of each State's area of entitlement
to areas of continental shelf lying between them".'

For similar reasons the Libyan Memorial maintains that Malta is not
entitled to claim continental shell rights beyond the Sicily-Malta
Escarpment, since this "terminates any natural prolongation easr of
Malta".'

90. Libya's legal argument as developed in its Memorial does not
stop there. Althougb in the present case natural prolongation is,
according to Libya, "conclusive" and "determinative" for the de-
limitation - since. in Libya's view,there are here two physically distinct
shelves se~aratd bv the "Rift Zone" -. the delimitation thus obtained
cannot be treated as definitive until after verification of ils equitable

character. Although in such a case, according to Libya's viewi, "legal
entitlement and delimitation eo hand in hand".3 the determination oithe
limit of the natural prolongaïion of each country (in this case up to the
"Rift Zone") is no more than "a first tep".^ and this limit may only be
reraind as the boundary of the areas of continental shelf belonging IO
each country "provided an obviously inequitable result is not reached.'
The Memorial furtber acknowledges expressly that "there are situations

in which natural prolongation is not in itself sufficient to be de-
terminative of a delimitation, but where consideration of other relevant
factors is requircd".6
91. If Malta hbs properly understood the Libyan argument, this
control of the çquity of thc rcsult achievtd with the ;issist;incc or rhc
criterion of natural proloiigatioii (in the case always of two physically
distinct shelvcs) is implcmented in two forms. First, in cheçking whcthcr

.
' LibsanMrmorial .. 132.para.8.13;ci p. 133.para. 8.17.
Ihidp.132.pîra.i1.ISandp.133.para.X.17.
' lhid p.83. paia.6.119.
' fhid p.hVipais. 6.21;p.127,pura.8.01.
Ihiilp.91,para. 6.25.
'lhnl. p.90.paia.6.23. Inthe 'lioii.si+Lihcau. Libyaniiÿiniiiuncdshas alrcdy
bren noicd,that,aincethe naturalprolongation was in thatcase "dacrmbblc as a
maticrofrcicntifilcaci".thewas no xope foraccording arôletoequitableprinciplcsX.
delimitariogiving ekt to thcprincipleofnaturalprolongation ,oLibyamaintained.
mus1nsessarily conforrnwithequitablcprinciple(scl.TunirieLibyocaw,p.44. pari 39).
The CourirejcctcdLibya's contentionandstatcd that adelimitatioainconformiiy aith
Iwouconsiderationos the1satidyingol equitableprinciple andtheidcntification1-the
nauiralprolongatio n areno1to bcplaced on aplaneofcquality" (ibipd.47.para. 441.
For rheCourt,"satislaction of equitableprinciplcsisin thc delimitaiionprwcrs.of
cardinalirnportancc ibid.). tt isordcrIo lall in wiithis positionftheCoun thai
Libya harabandoncditspreviouscontention and that itnowquitcproperlyintroduud
relevancircumstanccfsorthepurpose orverifyinwghclhernaturalprolongation kads LO
an equiiablcresult.1531 COUNTER-MEMOR O A IALTA 287

ihe circumsiançes relei,arit to the c;ise nllow onc to c~iiisider the
delimit:ition estahlishçd ";is;I Firststep" as hciiig cqiiit:ibl- in which
case the dclirnitation inay be confirnied; if iioiil riiust bc moditied.

Secondly. ln submiltirig the provisioti;il dclimitatioii to the "içsi of
proportionaliiy". Chapter 10 of the Libyan Memorial piirsues this
approach.
92. In considering the Libyan view of releviint circumstances con-
ceived as n means of checking the equity of the result ohtained hy
recourse to natural prolongation, attention must be raid to the last
paragraph of Chapter Y of the Libyan Memorial. There. after having

determined "The Physical Limits of Natural Prolongation". which is
the title of the Chapter. the Mernorial says: "ln the Chapter which
iollows iiremains to be considered whelher a delimitation boundary
within the Rift Zone.. . would lead to an equitable result in lieht of the
other ~ircurnsta~ice~relevant Io this case".' II is also pertinent to
observe rhat Chapter 9, whicli is concerned with "The Relevant

Circumstances or this Case", delines these circumstanccs precisely 3s
those "relevant to an equitable result in the particular casen."his
Chapter concludes with the observation that the various relevant
circumstances ". .. either support, or are compatible with, the view that
an equirable result would be achieved by a delimitation within the Rift
Zone.. ."'.
93. The Libyan Memorial reveals a number or uncertainties and

vagaries in the exposition and ;ipplication of this juridical approach.
Thus, so Libya maintains, in the case of Iwo physiclilly distinct shelves
natural prolongation is "concliisive" or "determinative" of the de-
Iirnita~ion(suhj~i iu rlic ctinditiori that the result he eqiiit:ible in the
light of the relevant circutnstançcs and of the test of pr<iporiioii;ility)
while, in ihc use of a singlc and coiitinuous sliell, na1ur;il prolotigation
iç no more than onç relevant circunistiiiice arnottgst othcrs. Given ihat.

accordinp 10the Lihydn argument, the so-callcd "Rift Zonc" ainounis 10
a markedsepûrütiun of the coiilincnial shelvcs of Malta and I.ibya. it is
difiicult to iinderutdnd why the Mernuri;ll cx;iinines ;il Icngih and <in
IWO OCC~S~~TIS the pliysiçal çlernents of naturiil priilnrip;ition iii the
preïent case as a releviint circumsvariccP This coritradictiriii at least
indicatcs a lack of çoniidençc iti the thçsis of niiirked separation.
94. Another uncerl;iinty deserves tri hc meiitionetl. To the çxtctit

that it isthe Function of relevant circurnsiaiices. ;iccording Io the
Libyan argument, to verify the equity of the result obtained by re-
ference to the concept of natural prolongation, it is difficiilt to see why
those circumstances deemed to be relevant must - or even should -
have some sort of relationship with the geological and geomorphologic-
al facts which define the continental shelf. There is certainly no such
relationship in the circumstances invoked as relevant hy the Libyan

Libyan Mcrnorialp. 133,para.8.18.
Ibidp. 134,para. 9.01.
Ibài. p153.para.9.64c;i. also p. 1para.7.15i~ihiic.
Ibidai page 91 escq. andagain al page134et seq.288 CONTINENTAI. SHELF i541

Mernorial: geo~raphy. çondiict of the Pariies, seciirity intcrcsts. islands

dclimitations with third States. Why, theri, doçs Ihç Libyaii Mernorial
reject economic considerations as not beiiig relevant pcr se under the
prçiçxt ihiit "siich coiisidcrations have nothing whatever to do with thç
physicol facts of prolongation of the land territorv into and under the
sea and the geographic correlation between Itindmass and sea-bed
which isthe basis of title"?' Ifthis argument has uiiy value- which it has
not - none of the other relevant circumstanccs introduceà by the
Libyan Mernorial would warrant a moment's retention.
95. Regardless of these relatively minor uncertainties and con-
tradiciions. the Libyan argument represents an interesting attempt at
legal construction in an area where the rapid evohtion of the law
hardly facilitates the statementof clearly defined principles and rules.

On certain points, as the Court will notice, Malta raises no objection
to the way in which Libya perceives the relevant law. As to others, on
the conirary, hlalta cannot associate itself with the Libyan presen-
talion. Malta will, thereiore, in the pages which follow, identify those
points in the Libyan argument which appear to diverge from customary
iniernatiorial iaw and will at the same time set out its own view of the
principles and rules of the international law applicable in the present
case.

2. AN ASSESSLIEN OF LIBYA'S LEGAL PRESENTATION

(a) Entirlemeritund Drlimitution :Outer limiis and Boundaries

96. Malta sees no objection to ihe legal distinction developed in ihe
Libyan Meinorial betwçcn thc hasis of tillc, whiçh çonfers on ;iState an
"en~itlçmçnl to shelf", aiid delimitation. Tlie first ia matlçr of dc-
terminiiig thc conççpts on the hasis of whiçh ;iStiite is legally erititled
tu cxerçise ;icertain jurisdiçiioii in rriaritiriiç arcas sitii;ited beyond its
co;ists; ihc second is a matler of drawing the hoiiiidary betiimeen
maritime juri~dictioiis of two neighbouring States whosç çoasts are
opposite or adjacent 10cach othcr. Thçsç Iwo problems are clcarly not
idcntical; hut al the saiiie lime they bear an intimate relationship to

each other.
97. The "entitlernent" ur "hasis of titlc" raiscs the question of thc
naturc or ihç rclxlionship betwecn I;iiid aiid sza. It is because ihis
relationship has developed from the sole purpose of the protection of
coasts to the safeguarding of the resources of the sea-bed and subsoil
thereof and, ultimately to an appropriation of al1the resources of the
sea lying beyond the Coast, that the nature of the entitlement has
changed and the dilferent zones of maritime jurisdiction have corne Io
be defined. Entitlement and legal basis of title are therefore intimately
linkeà to the fundamental concepts of the law of the sea. Entitlement[551 COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF MALTA 289

and baçis or title tbus refer esscntially to thc cxtçnsion of maritime
jurisdiction towards the sea.'
98. The dynamism of the extension of maritime juridiction towards
the upen sea is, huwever, restrained by the conccrn of the international
community as a whole to avoid an indefinite enlargement of the marine
areas which lall under national jurisdiction to the detriment of those

areas which remain tmly international. This is why international law
has been led Io fixouter lirnits for each-of the different types of
juridiction which have evolved over the course of the years, as is
particularly shown by the evolution of the outer limits of the con-
tinental shelf between the time of the adoption of the 1958Convention
on the Continental Shelf and the conclusion of the Law of the Sea
Convention of 1982.According to present day customary international
law. the outer limits of the Continental Shelf may be considered as

those which are defined in Article 76 of the Convention on the Law of
the Sea.
99. As for delimitation, this term may be used largosensuto include
at thesame iime both the fixing of outerlimits and the establishment of
limits beiween the jurisdictions of neighbouring States. However it
seerns prelerable - ihe two Parties are in agreement on this point - to
reserve the term "delimitation" for the determination of maritime
boundaries between neighbouring States with opposite or adjacent
coasts. Thus understood, delimitation implies the necessity of fixing

with precision, according to appropriate methods, the maritime rights
ofeach ofrhe States concerned. In the TunisieLibya case, the contrast
drawn by Libya between "the outer limits of the shelr" and "boundaries
between Staics" was even stronger than in the present
100. The Court has itseli had occasion to draw this distinciion
bziween. the legal basis of title to the continental shelf and the de-
Ilmitarion of areas tu conrinenlal shelf bclonginp to neighbouririg
Statm. In the Nrirlh Sea cÿses, aftei having defined the "basiccon-

tinental sheli doctrinç" by rcference to the concept of natural pro-
longation. ihe Court stated that this definitiori does not entail iis a
consequence "the existcncç of siIrne rule by which those arças cari hc
obligatorily delimited" betwecn ncighboiiring States: "'The appurren-
ançç of a givcn arta, çonsidcred as an entity, in no way governs the
precise delimitation of its houndaries.. .".3 In the Tirnisir+Libyacase
the Court confirmd, with reference to thç passage jus1 quoted, the
distinction "between a principle which affords the justification for the
appurtenance ol an area to a Stateand a rule for determining the extent

and lirnits or such area".' The Court added: "Adjacency of the sea-bed
to the territory of a coastal State has been the paramount criterion for

' Tnt Libyan Mernorialconsidcrs thc dcfinition confaincd in ihis ARicle an an
"abroluiTdchnition inthe wnw thatifisapplicableonly in the case of 'outer Limits
rhereno probl~m ojdeliimirotionwithneighbouringStnrise" (p82,para.6.06).
LibyanCounia-Mernorial,pp. 130and 132.
I.C.J. Reports1969,p. 32, para.46.
I.C.J. Rrport1982.p.47, para44.[571 COUNTEK.MEMORIAL OF MALTA 291

"the physiçal factors of geoniorphology and geology ... in order to
determine the limiis of the n;itural prolongalion of Libya and Malta
rclevant to ü dclimitation in this casç",l is tliereforc radically outsula th<
legal yrinciples whichthe Coirrt tius luid donm

(b) The Delimitarion Process

103. As has kn shown above, Libya sees what the Court in the
TuviisieLibyo case has called the "delimitation process"2 as an oper-
ation in Iwo stages:

(a) the first, common to al1 cases. consists of the establishment of the
naiural prolongation of each Party in its physical sense "as a first
step";
(6) the second depends on whether one is faced by one or the other of
the lollowing two situations:
- where there are two physically distinct shelves, delimitation

musi be effected along the line of their physiciil separation (subject
to achiering an equitable result in the light of the relevant circum-
stances and the application of the test of proportionality):
- where there exists only a single continuous plateau within
which the delimitation is to take place, the physical features of this
plateau are one relevant circumstance amongst others to be taken
into consideration.

1M. Libya's argument is that in the present case the first situation
exists so that the determination of the respective physical and natural
prolongation oi Mnlta and Libya operates by itself Io delimit their
coniinçntal shelf righis, siibject to thç çoiitrol of achieving ;in equiiable
resull.

105. On ihe othcr han<\,the Lihyari Meniorial is no1 very explicit in
the uray in which ir concçives the operaiion of delimitaiion in the
seconil situatioii. Until now, it hÿs bcçn tliis second situation - tliai is
to 53s. the existerice of oiiç iind tlie saiiie çonlinuoi~s coniinçntal slielf
oiiwhich there isrio physiciil fr:aturç ïufficiently "signilicaiit" to con-
siitu~e '-a narural subniiirinç îroiitier" - which has existed in al1 the
ciises hithcr~o submillcd to jiidiciiil or arbitral scitlcrrieiit. As rcgnrds
the Pelagian Rüsin (or Block) itself, it has hççn seeii thiit Libya irisistçd

srrongly in ilie fiiiii.~ii1-ibyirc;isç on ils liindiinterital geologiçal iiiiity
and resistad Tunisia's attempts to identify in this Basin (or Block) those
naturül leatures %.hichmight serve as the natural boundaries ofthe two
countries.' hlalta has shown thiit the continental shelf between Mülta
and Libya is effectively characterized by an essential unity and a
fundamental coniinuity on the physical plane. However that müy be,
Libya kas chosen to assert in the present case the existence of a so-

' Ihidp. 127,para.8.01.
Cf ludgerneni ithepTunisio-Li 4casueI.C.J.Reports1982 ,.57.para.66.Seealso

abore para. 50 and iooinoi3.292 CONTINENTAS LHELF [sgl

cÿlled "Rift Zonç" interrupting thç physical continuity of the shcll and
creating two physically distinct shelves, onç belonging to Malta, the
othcr to Libya. Thnt is probahly why Libya did not considcr it uselul
to xi oui in detail in its Meniorial thç rules which it considers ap
plicable to the delimitation of a single and continuous continental
shelf.
106. The proof which the Libyan Memorial requires each Party to
provide "as a first step" that its natural prolongation "extends into the
area in which the delimitation is to be efected" does not really help the

delimitation process since each Party can provide this proof for the
whole extent of the shelf which is to be delimited. It is no more a
question of verifying a delimitation achieved on the basis of physical
and natural prolongation by testing it against the relevant circum-
stances, geographical and otherwise. The relevant circumstances may
certainly be taken into consideration but it is then they who direcrly
diciatethe solution, and are not merely a method of uerifyingthe equity
of ~hesolution reached on the basis of naturul prolongation. lnstead of
an operation in two stages, there is really only one single operation - in
which natural prolongation plays no more than the associaied râle ol

being one factor amongst others.
107. The concept of the delimitation process developed by the
Libyan Mernorial is liawed, in Malta's opinion, by two objections. One
- which amiIlbe examined immediately - relates to the rôle which
relevant circumstances are required to play in this process. The other -
even more fundamental, if this is possible - relates to Libya's under-
standing of the legal basis of title to continental shelf rights - and will
be examined in Chapter II.
108. Relevant circumstatices ccrtainly occupy a leading place in the
delimiiaiion process. This concept does no1 appear as such in the 1958

Conventioti on the Continent;il Shelf, of which Article h nicnti<insonly
"spial circumstançes" ol such kind as to leiid to a dehiniiaiion iither
than by nieans of an equidistance liriz.Thç dilïerence bctweeii the two
concçpis is clçar: while "special" circumstancçs do not exist in cvcry
mncrete situation, "rçlcvant circuinsiances" exisi inçvitably iii every
cas. The award in the Atiglr~~~renchCot~fiticirfalSlic/f Arhitrufioit has
howevcr shuwri that the operation of lhç "coinbined eqiiidistance -
special çirçunistances rule" leads in practice tr> "the full liberiy of the
Court in deterniiriing the geographical and othet çircumstances re-
levant to the determination of the continental shelf boundary".' It was

the Court which in 1969 introduced for the firsi time the expression
"relevani circumstances" into the law relating to the delimitation ol the
continental shelf ("delimitation is to be efected.. . taking account ol al1
the relevant circumstances ..."') and this term was subsequently much
used in the award in the Angio-French Confinenfui Shelf Arbitrafion of
1977 and in the TunisieLib~u judgment of 1982. The fact that the

' Deciion of 30 June 1977.InrernarionLaw Reporrs.Vol. 54, p6.para.69
' 1.C.J.R~ports1969,p. 53,para.101.expression does no1 appçar in Article 83 cifthe new Convention on the
Law of the Sea does not mean thnt it lias Ioai its importance in the
delimitatiun prwess. But its precise rôle kas yet to bç dcfiried.
109. First, it iscertain that the task of the judge or arbitrator canriot
be reducad to a mechanical or automatic one, allowing a predetermined
solution to be drawn from relevant circumstances. Relevant circum-
stances do noi amount to a diktat, but require the active intervention of
a judge or arbitrator who takes a decision "having regard to relevant
circumstances" u'ithin the framework of his discretionary power. The

judicial or arbitral decision "is very much a matter of a prP.iation in
the iight of the geographical and other circumstances". Similarly, in
the Tunisio-Libyacase the Court held that its task consists of "balanc-
ing up the various considerations which it regards as relevan~".~
l l0. Secondly, the power of appreciation of the judge or arbitrator
must keep a reasonable distance from two extremes. On one side the
judge or arbitrator must avoid the application of any too general or
abstract a rule. Recourse to relevant circumstances, dillering in kind
from one case to another, enables him easily to avoid this risk. Thus he
can achieve his objective of an equitable or reasonable solution, since
"it is clear that what is reasonable and equitable in any given case must

depend on its particular circumstances".' In other words "each con-
tinental shelf case in dispute should be considered and judged on its
own merits, having regard to ils peculiar circumstances, therefore, no
attempt should be made.. . to overconceptualize the application of the
principles and niles relating to the continental ~heif".~As in any other
situation,excessively general rules of law, neglecting the particular facts
ora case. will lead to unjus( or unreasonable solutions.
111.On the rithcr haiid however. an excessive individualiçation of
the rulc III Iaw, which changes from one case to another, would he
incompatible wiih ihc very concept of law. Evcry legiil rule presupposes
a minimum of generality. A rule which is elaborat~d on a ciisc by case
basis rests on the disçrctionary power of the judge, on concilinrion. on
diatributive justice- in bricf, on ex aequo CI borio.7-hç risk of excessivç

individualisation is cvcn more rcal when there exists no definition
whiçh permits one to idçntify the circumstanççs to be treated ar.
relevani or the criteria enabling one to assess the respectivç weight of the
circumstances. The Court rwognised this as early as 1969: "ln fact.
there ir no legal Iimit to the considerations which States may take
account of.. . The problem of the relative weight to be accorded to
difierent considerations naturally varies with the circumstances of the
case".' In other words, the taking of relevant circumstances into
consideration avoids the application of any automatic rule, but this

AngbFrench CoivinentalSheÿ Arhitrolion,Decision of 30 lune1977.para.70
I.C.JReponr 1982,p. 60para.71.
' Ibid p.ai.para.71
Ibid p.92. para132.
I.C.J.Repor~s1969.p.50,para.93.294 CON'IINENT AHELF [ml

musL hc done in such ;iway as no1 10 deprive the deliinitatiori of its
ititrinsic legal cliaracter. The Court said this in 1982:"While if is clear
that no rigid rules exist as 10 thc cxüct weight to be attaclied to each
çlcmçni in the casç, ihis is very far frurn bçing an exercise of discretion
or conciliation; nor is it an operation ofdistributive justice".'
112. tt follows that the taking into consideration of relevant circum-
stances never occurs on its own in the delimitation process, bui it
always and in every situation, plays a rôle of extreme importance. This
statement will be considered in its two parts.
113. In the first place, relevant circumstances neuer suffice hy them-
scl~~sto c~stablishthe boundury line. As has been seen they do not

dictate this line to a judge or arbitrator in an automatic fashion. Nor
are they the sole element of which a judge or arbitrator must take
account in exercising the power of "appreciation" accorded to hirn hy
the jurisprudence. Although the judge or arbitrator does "take into
account" relevant circumstances, his decision will still not be a direct
and exclusiveconsequence of the examination of relevant circumstances
alone. Another element plays an important part - that of idsntifying ihe
legal basis of title to continental shelf.The legal nature of "enlitlement"
to continental shelf rights has a decisive rôle in the delimitation process.
and it cannot bc otherwise unless one considers delimitation as a mere
mechanical operation having no relationship with the fundamental

concepts of the continental shelf - something to which the Court was
clearly opposed both in 1969 and 1982.The Libyan Memorial is open
in this connection to two objections. The first is that it salisfies the
requiremeiit of taking into consideration the legal basis of title only
when the situation in one of Iwo physically separatcd sh~lvcs, and ii
neglects it when the casc is one of a single and continuous sliçlf.
Swondly, as M;iltü will show in thç ncxl Chapter, eveii iii the case of
physically distinct shelves, Libya has recourse to a lcgal hasis or litle
which is ou1 of harmoiiy with the prçsçni slatc of customary in-
ternational law.
114. Secondly, relevorii circirni.sturiscsare alwuys prcserrl iri (lie prri-

ress oj'delirriitutiori.l'hc two Parties appear to bc in agrççmçnt on this
point. As to their furiction, the1,iby;in Mcrnorial properly describes ii
aï çonsisiing of verifying whether the deliniitation suggcstcd by rhe
recoiirse to the legal basisof title is cquitüble and re;isonable. Relevani
circunurarrccs tlrirs da rior Iiaoe tiie rüoJ siryyestiriy,urid sri11less of
dicraring. ro the judge or arbitrarora giveii boundarg line, but rurhcr of
eitabling him ro achleue an equitable and reasonable soh~tiorr.The
examination of relevant circumstances forms an integral part of the
search for an equitable result, and it is at the stage of seeking an
equitable result that it is proper to conduct this examination. The
Tunisia-Libya judgment speaks of "... circumstances considered IO be

the elernents of an equitable solution",' and mentions in the dispositif

' 1.C.JR.eports1982p.60, para71.
I.C.JR.eports1982p.58.para.68.[OII COUMER-MEMORIAL OF MALTA 295

"thc rclcv;int circiimstances... to be takcn into account in achievirig an
cquitable deliniit;ition".' As for equitable prinçiplcs, irltiinatçly they
signify notbing othcr than thc requiremcnl of looking al the relevant
circumstances ut the case for the purpose of açhiçving an equitable
result. This is reflected in the passage of the award in the AngleFrench
Conrinenral SheY Arbirrutionwhich says: "Any ground of equity, the
Court considers, is rather to be looked for in the particular circum-

stances of the present case.. ."'.The same was, with equal clarity, stated
by Judge Jiménezde Aréchaga in his separate 1982 opinion when, to
the question "What .. .is the meaning of equity in this field?",he replied
- referring to the 1977Award - that the latter "gave a positive content
to the notion of equitable principles as applicable in this context by
linking them to ihe circumstances of each case".'
In sum: relevant circumstances do not provide the original basis for
delimitation, but rather have the status of criteria for evaluating the
equitableness of a delimitation primafacie indicated by the geographi-
cal facts.

115. ifthe analysis in the above paragraphs is correct the description
of the delimitarion process in conformity with the principles and rules
ofinternational law gives rise to no further difficulties.
116. As a first srep. it is necessary to take account of the legal basis of
title.r. alternatively? of the very concept of the continental shelï itselï
rince. according to the dictum in the Tirnisin-Libya judgment, the
principles and rules of international law applicable to delimitation
"must be derived lrom the concept oï the continental shelf itselï, as
understood in international lawm?Thefollowing chapter will show that,
contrary to the ~isition of the Lihyan Memorial, it is not natural

prolong;ltion "iiiits physical sense" which is the appropriate basis of
title. but naiural prolongation in ils legal sensc ul'a spatial distance
îrom the co:ist nieasured ;it the surface of the sea. 'Thesarne chapter
will show that giving due consideration to the distance principle learis,
as a Cirststep -provision;illy, not definitivcly- to an equidistance lirie.
117.This firs1;ipproach, purely pruvisional and tentative, is followçd
at a second stagc by takirig into ccinsideration the relevant circum-
stances of the case. IIthis consideration leads to the çonclusion thilt the
line ernerging from the first stage is inequitablc or unreason;ible it mus1
hc adjusted or etmeni.n certain cases, combincd with othçr methods. The

quation uf proportionality, when the coticretc situation rendçrs re-
course to it appropriate, will also be examined in order to assess the
reasonable or equitable character of the result. Chapters II to IV which
lollow will be devoted to a specific examination in relation to the
delimitation process of the legal basis of title, of relevant circumstances
and of the test of proportionality.

lbid. p. 9para 1338.
07 Dechionof30 lune1977.Inlernolioiialw ReporlxVol. 54. p6.para.195cf.pzira.
I.CJ Reports1982,p. 105para. 22.
' fbd. p. 4;. par36. CHAPTER II

THE LEGAL BASIS OF TlTLE
AND THE
DELIMITATION PROCESS:
THE CONCEPT OF NATURAL PROLONGATION

118. It is appropriate to recall that, according to the Libyan

Memorial, natural prolongation has a "double aspect". First, it con-
stitutes the basis of legal title to continental shelf areas. Secondly it has
a riile in the delimitation process: that of identifying the boundary when
there exist two sharply distinct natural prolongations; that of a simple
circumstance or relevant factor when the separation of the two natural
prolongations is not sufficiently markeà.
119. It is also appropriate IO recall that natural prolongation is seen

by Libya "in ils traditional character as a physical concept", that is to
Say.by reference to iis present geomorphological elements. On the basis
of this legal concept, Libya presents the so-called Rift Zone as the
appropriate boqndary in the present case. Geomorphologically, Libya
argues. the "Rift Zone", with its succession of troughs and channels.
preseiris leatures of greiit deplh, in contrast to the surrounding ~ea-bed,
npprs "to have steep iiatiks and 10 he ol considerable si7.~-~
Geologically, so the Libyan Meniorial suggçsts, thç "Kift Zonc" is "the

rcsult or receiit arid çurrcnt ritting ;ictivity7'.The result of this con-
junciion olgçomorphological and gcol(igiçal ftictors, Libya sugg&is. is
thai "the Rift Zone constitutes a fundamental discontinuity existing
ioday in the sea-beà and subsoil and forrns an actual separation in ihe
natural prolongatioris of Libya riorthward and Malta southward".'
Towards thc cüst, adds Libya, th: natural prolongation of Malta cnds
in the Sicily-Malta Escarpment, as a result of which Malta has no

çr~ntinent;il shelf rights çxtcnding beyond this other geological and
geomorphological "feature of major imp~rtance."~

' Libyan Memarial,p. 128, para.8.03.
II rhould be remcmbered that itis abovc al1 in relatio10the three Troughs
(PanteUeria.Malta and Linosa) that the Libyan Memorinl insiston the marked
characteroi the depth and shape.The LibyanMemonal recogniwsthat thMatta and
-extension eartward"of the Troughs (sec above, para. 44). Bctween Matta and Libya
thereare notroughrbut only channelr.Fora particularlygraphicillustration seeFigure
II in the LibyanCountcr-Mcmorialin the TunisieLQyacase,oppositc pagc 104and
Fiaurc 4.mpe 76.
~ibyan ~emorial, p. 132, para.8.13
' Ibrd pp. 132-133. paras. 8.lb8.18.I631 COUNTER-MEMOR O FALALTA 297

120. hlalta will in the present Chapter show, first. that the thçory
devclopd in the Libyan Memorial is legally unsoutid.' In the purely
physical sense givrn to it by Libya, natural prolongation does not
constitute the legal basiof titletocontinental shelf rights and, by the
same token, cannot play the rôle that Libya wishes to accord to it in

tbe delimitation process. Malta will then set out the rules of in-
ternational law applicable to the delimitation process in the ligof the
entiilement to continental shelf rights as understood by Malta.

1. LIBYAC ONCEPTIO NF NATURAP LROLONGATIO ISNNOT IN
ACCORDANC WlTH INTERNATIONAL LAW

121. By way of dealing with the Libyan theory of natural pro-

longation, it will be convenientto recall some elements in an evolution
which has often been described - the latest occasion being the Court's
onrn judgment in the Tunisia-Libyocase.

122. There can of course be no doubt that physical considerations lie
iitthe origin of the continental shelf concept - as was stated by the
Court itsell, not only in 196* but also in 19823 Nor can there be any

doubt that "the legal concept, while it derived from the natural
phenomenon, pursuad its own de~elopment"~ and that this development
corisisced ofa "widening of the concept for legal pur pose^".^The
definition given by the Court in 1969 still remains valid fifteen years
Litcr; the contineiital shclf ofa St;ite "constitutcs a natural prolongation
orits land territory into and under the sea ... a prolongation or
çnntiniiationoi that tcrritory, ;in extension of it under the sea"."ut
the meaning and content of the coricept of prolongation has cvtilved.

Prolongation is no longer defined by refcrence to physiciil fcatures,
whcther geological or bathymetric. but by rcfcrcnce to a certain dis-
tance îrrirn ihe coasts. It is this fundamental devclopment that the
lihyan Mernorial disregÿrds, overlooking in doitig so thç principle
çtntedhy the Court: "The conççpt of natur;il prolongation.. . was atid
rcmains a concept to hç çxamined within the ç<intçxtofcustoniary law
aiid Staie practicc=.'
123. In truih, naiural prolongation in the physical sense - geomor-
phological and geological- has at no time alone formed the legal basis

of title to continental shelf rights. Before the 1969 Judgment, in which

' £,torel (acaUriing the descriptionof region ithe LibyanMcmorial have
betixr oui inPan I oftheprescni Counicr-Memarialparas.4142.
1.C.J.Reyor~ 196p. 51, para. 95.
' Ibd.p.46 para.42.. 45. para.41.
' Ibidp.45.para 41.
Xorth Seo c-, I.C.J. Reports 196!),p. 22. para. 19 and p. 31. para.43.
' Tunino-Liby Cze, I.C.J. Reports 1p.46, para.43.298 CUN'I'INENTAI.SHELF IM1

iht txpression "natural prolongation" was inlroducd "as part of the
vocabulary of the international Iaw of the sea",' neither thc work of the
Intçrnational Law Commission nor Article 1 of the CietlevaConvention
of 1958on the Continental Shell had scçn the theory ol the continental
shelf and natural prolongation in its physical sense to be identical.
From that moment there was thus established what the Court has
called "the lack of identity hetween the legal concept of the continental

shelf and the physical phenomenon known to geographers by that
name",' in particular by the introduction of the criterion of exploit-
ability. It is interesting to note that fromthe time of the first work of the
International Law Commission in 1953,certain members had suggested
defining the continental shelf by reference to distance from the coast.
regardless of dep~h.~At that time the attention of the Commission was
also drawn to the case of those States which do not have a continental
shelf in the physical sense and to the inequality that an exclusively

physical definition of the continental shelf might introduce to the
detriment of such States. One member of the Commission ohserved
that "If a geological definition were now adopted, States like Chile and
Peru, which had no continental shelf in the geological sense or the
word, would be placed at a serious di~advantage."~ It was also in 1953
that the Commission envisaged the case of areas of which the depth
exceeded 200 metres situate near the coast of certain countries and
separating these from areas with a depth of less than 200 metres. In

such cases the Commission recognisd that the physical concept must
admit or an ex~eption.~This opinion was confirmed by the Commission
in the commentary on its Draft Articles of 1956.'
124. The 1969Judgment in the Norrh Sen cases confirms the limited
r01ç or physical fcatures in the definition of the continental sheK7 In
1969 the Court had no iiitention 10rcopn the question of thc righis of
Nnru,ay over the ürcaï of continental shelf in the North Sea sitii;ite
beyond the Norwegian Trough ;icknowlcdg~ul by the dclimilaiion

agrccmtnts concludd with thç other States bordcring on that ses.= As
Judge Jiménezde Aréchaga concludd:
"Consequcntly, il is no! possible IO interpret ihe terin 'nariira1
prolongation' in the 1969 Jiidgment as rcintrodiicing into thc

definition or the continçntal shelf the geologiçal and geoinor-
phological elements which had been lell out by the Internaiional
Law Commissiun in 1956 and by the Coriferçncc in 1958".9

L lhid.
' Ibidp. 46,para.42.
Yeorbookof rheInternotionofLaw Commirsion1953.Vol.II, p9.
' IbidVol. 1,p.73.
IbidVol.II,p. 214,para.66, Repor10 the GenerolAssembly.Cf.JudgeJiménezde
ArRhaga, Sep. Op. I.C.J. Repor1982 ,. 111-2. para.43.
CI Tunisio-LibyoCase, I.C.J. Repor1982s,.46,para.42 infine.
a A'vrrhSeocares,I.C.J. Reports1969,p. 3para.45.
* I.U. Reports 1982,Sep Op. p. 112,para. 46.i65J COUNTFR.MEMORIALOF MALTA 299

125. The award in the Ariglo-Fi-ericliCoriririe~itl lrclfArhitrurioir of
1977 Citllysupports these views. 11said: "the vcry fact that in inter-
national law the continental shelf is a jiiridical cotiççpt means that
its scope and the conditions for ils application are iiot determincd cx-
clusively &ythe physical facts of geography but also by legal rules"'.
126. The work ol the Third Law of the Sea Conference pushed even
,further this lack of identity between the concept of the continental shelf
and the purely physical elements. To the end, essentially, of assuring the
equaliiy of al1 coasial States - uphether or not they had a continental

shelf in the physical sense of the term and whatever might be its extent
- the Conference recognized to al1States continental shelf rights ta a
distance of 200 nautical miles [rom their coasts. In other words, the
natural prolongation of each coastal State today automatically extends
at least to a uniformdistance of 200 milesfrom its coast. The concept of
natural prolongation has thus become a purely spatial concept which
operates independently of al1 geomorphological or geological charac-
reristics. Stis only beyond 2W miles that it resumes a physical signific-
noce. since the States which possess a more extensive physical natural
prolongation enjoy continental shelf rights to the edge of their con-
tinenial margin. Up to a distance of 200 miles from the coast, it is,
therelore, in a combination of these concepts of coast and distance -

that isto say essentially on geographical ideas - that one finds the
contempwary definition of the continental shelf and the legal basis of
title thereto. Article 76 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea gives
expression to these new ideas.
127. One niay thus readily identify the error of interpretation which
Lihy;i çurririiirs whçn, referring tcrArticle 76,il says:

"Not only does the physic;rl Tactof riatural prolongiition opcrilte
ihroughoiii ihe shelf are;\ (uiilikç the 200 mile limit which is an
arbi~rÿry limit ;ind which operates only as an outer liniii)..".'
No doubt one may say ihat the conccpi of riatural prol»ng;itiori
oprates 3s \i,ell wjthin, as outside, the 200 inilc limit, but only on the
understanding that it does so in two tot;illy dillererit sçnsçs: iip to 200

nautical milcs natural prolotigatir>ri is defiried çxçlusively by thç dis-
1~nçç kom the coasts; and il is oiily bcyonll 200 niiles that it is dehed
by relermce IO its physical charactçristics. Iridcçd, sub;cçi to liinitcd
axwptiuns~ ewn ~his oiiter liniit is rlcfinctl by distance, namely 350
nautical miles.
128. These new considerations are highlighted by the judgment in
the Tunisiu-Liha case in several places. The legal notion of the
continental shelf. it States, has:

-acquired a more extensive connotation, so as eventually to
embrace any sea-bed area possessing a particular relationship with
the coastline of a neighbouring State, whether or not such an area

' Decision d 30June 1977,para. 191
: Libyan Memorjïl,p 83, para.6.08.3@3 CONTINENTAL SHELF [w

presented the spzçific characteristics which a geographer wouId
recognizc as those of what hc would classiîy as 'continental shelf"'
". .in cerhin çircumstances (Le.up to 200 miles) thc distance lrom

the biiscline, measured on the surface of the sea, is the basis fothe
title of the coastal State.. . The legal basis of the title to con-
tinental shelf rights - the mere distance from the coast -. . .Y2
"... exclusive rights over submarine areas belong to the coastal

State. The geographic correlation between coast and submerged
areas off the coast is the basis of the coastal State's legal tiile.. .
(T)he coast of the territory of the State is the decisive factor for
title to submarine areas adjacent to
"The coast.. . constitutes the starting line from which one has to

set out in order to ascertain how far the submarine areas.. .extend
in a seaward direction.. .".4
"... The physical factor constituting the natural prolongation is
na taken as a legal title. ..".'

129. It is hardly necessary to recall that the two ways of identilying
natural prolongation - by the physical elements arid by the distance
from the coast - are not the same. One can understand that, since
Libya is anxious to relate its approach closely to physical prolongation,

it has made no more than discrete allusions to distance and to coa~ts.~
If, as the Libyan Memorial contends, it is the existence and extent of
the physical and natural prolongation which determines the continental
shelf rights of a State, neither the configuration of the coast nor the
distance lrom it has any rôle to play. If, on the other hand, as is true of
presçnt doy customary inlcrnatiotial law, the distance ïrom thc cciast is

the peiierative elenietit of the çonlincntal shclî rights of a State, Lhc
physicol characteristics (if the sea-bed (its geological structure aitd
geoniorphological coiifiguration) are irrelevant for the purposes
dçtcrmining thç çxtent of the rights of the coastal State tinless ils
physical cotitirierital shclf cxtcnds beyorid 200 tiaiitical miles. The
Liby~n Mçnioriol acknowledges that one of the trends during the Third
Conierence on the Law of the Sça was to ;tpproach the cotititiental shclf

"on ~hc hisis (if a simple distance critcrioti of 200 miles oird tkus
disri,gurrl rinlurol pr«lunyrriiori'~.'Whiit the Libyati Mçrnori;tl does noi
staic is th;it ilis precisely this trend which hos çonie to be acccpted
by ciistomary international law.
130. It is clear that in this conception of the continental shelI the
extent of the rights of a coastal State is not aikted by the presence of
features such as trenches and channels. Judge Jiménezde Aréchagaput

the point thus:
'I.C.J.Reports 1982,p. 4para.41.
'lbrdp. 48,para.48.
'lbid p.61,para.73.
~-ido.61..r ~ ~ -.~
lbd. p.58.para68.
LibyanMemoria lp.87-89 .aras6.17-6. 20104,para6.61
'Ibrd p.87,para1..1.Lb71 COUNTER-MEMORIAL 01: MAI.TA 301

"This neur mcthod of defining the continental shelf by laying
down an sgreed distance from the hasclines definitcly severs any

relatinnship it might have with geologicitl or geomorphological
lacis. The continental shelf extends, regardless of the existence of
troughs, depressions or other accidental ïeatures, and whatever ils
geological structures, to a distance of 200 miles from the baselines,
unless the outer edge of the continental margin is to be found
beyond that distance".'

131. A second consequence of this approach to the legal basis of title
is that al1 coastal States have the same continental shelf rights. This
equality or States underlies the evolution of customary international
law in this matter - as has already been mentioned. To quote Judge

Jiménez de Aréchaga once more, the natural prolongation - in the
present spatial sense of that expression -
"... exists in every case, whatever may be the characteristics of

depth or geological composition of the sea-kd. To enjoy con-
tinental shelf rights al1 that a State needs is a coastal front to the
sea. .."."

132. From what has been said above there can be no doubt that the
theory ol the Libyan Memorial according to which natural pro-
longation in its physical sense - geomorphological and geological -
constirutes the Iegal basis of title to continental shelf rights does not
accord with international law.)

(2) Delimitarion

133. In these circi~mslançcs it is hardly sirrprising that thc Libyaii
thcory oï delimiiaiion b;ised on the idcniificatiori riflhc nutural pro-
longations of ,Malin and Libya in the physical scnse is also in conflict
wilh international law.
134. On ihis pciint, as on the prcvious oriç. Ihc çvolutioii began very
early. As the judgment in the 'lidnisiaLihyo case riolixl, eveii in 1969

the Court "did not regard an equitable delimitütiort and a dctcrini-
nation orihe Iimiis of 'naiural prolongütion' as synonymous" and only
indicnted ihai the delimitation miist be "ell'ectedin soch a way as to
lcnve 'as mirch AS possible' IO çach Party the slielfareas c<institutirigits
natural pr~longation".~ Even within this limit, the "physical and geog-
raphical lacts were not placed by the Court among the legal rules which
govern or determine delimitation.. . but as factors which the Parties

may take into account in negotiating their delimitati~n".~ The refusal
L I.C.3Repwls 1982,Sep. Op. p.114. para.51
: ~.~~~. -~7.zra. Ir).
' lnihe Tunisi+iiby case,Libya erpressed more precisopinions on thelegal bais
ol iitl10 conuneutalshelfrights:"Thecriterion of dcpth or bathymetry hasceared Io
have an? relevanceto rhe definitioof the sheü within 200 milesfrom the baseline"
(Counier.MemoriaL .. 140..ara.3171.
I.C.J. Rryorr1582.p.46, para.44.
" Ibid Sep op.byJudge Jiména de Aréchaga p,117,para. 60.of the arbitral iiward of 1'177to aitribute a delimit:itive efect to 'so
suhsiiintial a fc;ittire as the Hiird Deep"' is iii the samc linc of thought.
135. Bi11il is prinçipall:/ ihc Tiiriisiri- çlsciwh)icrihas pertniirtd
ihc Couri 10 rçjcct categiirically the arguineiit that the dçiimitdtiun or

areas orcontinental shelf appertaining to two States must be eiïected by
reîerence to their natur:il prolongations in the physical sense of the
ierm. The position taken by the Court in this case is even more
remarkable since the tuo Parties had maintained that the delimitation
should reflect their respective natural prolongations. The scientific
deiermination of the natÜral prolongation appeired to the two Parties

as an esxntial element of the delimitation.' The Court did not accent
that the delimitation should be carried out according to physical
cnteria of a scientific character (whether there was a oî
essential geolorical considerations. as Libva demanded. or a auestion or
ge~mor~ho~o~ca~cones,as Tunisia conténded). The court considered
that in certain cases it was not "possible" to "identify", "define",or
"determine" the limits of the physical and natural prolongations of the

Iwo Parties and that even if this were possible, "the idea of naiural
prolongation" would not be "sufficient, or even appropriate in itself to
determine the piecise extent of the rights of one State in relation to
ihose of a neiglibouring State".'
136. The Court certainly did not exclude completely the possibility
ihai a very marked physical separation might serve as a basis for

delimitation. Nor did it exclude the possibility that a physical sepa-
ration which wlis not so marked might have a function "as one of the
several circumstances considered to be the elements of an equitable
d~limitation".~
Howc\.er thc Coiirt also said in thç same case. th;it unlcss the
physical feature "werç such as to disriipt the essential uriity of the

contineiital shelf so as to jusiify ;i delimitation oii the hisis oi its
idcn~ificationas the division bztween areas of riattirÿl prolonaalion. it
woulrl he an elcinelit inappriipriale for inclusion anioni thc Gçlors lu
be balanced iio witli a view to an eaiiitiible dclimitatiori".'
137. Th;it Iwo Stiites m;iy adopt physical features risthe houndary oî
thcir continental shclves (as did Australia alid Indoiicsia in relation to

the Tiinor Trench) is one thing. That a judgc or arbiirator should miike
these sarne feiirures into a compulsory lcgal criterion is quite ano~her.~

' ~~id r ~ . .ara ~ ~
Çee theJudgmen in thatcasep. 43,para.36and p.44.paras.38-39.
Ibidp..46par;,43.ai page47, para.44.TheCourtfurtherstated thit"Itwould k a
mistalitosuppose that it wiinailcases.oreven in the majorilofthem, bcpossibleor
thenatural prolongatiohofanotherState,ljus1soafarande noafartherso thatetheIwoo
prolongation sect dong an easilydefinedline".
Ibid. p58,paras.67 and 68.
' Ibidp. 64,para.80.
Jradge Jiménez de Aréchaga was ako catcgoricalin his condcmnation oi the
argument that a coniinentalshelfshould k delimiied by referenceto the natural
prolongatioonfthetwo Statesin thephysicaslenseofthetem. InhisSeparateOpinion. 138. Therc is anoiher reason which runs counter Io the Lihyan
orgumcni seeking [o find a decisive factor for delimitation in the
identification or niliiral prolongation in thç physical setise. As Ihe
Court in the Aiiylo-French Conri~ienrulSh~IJArbirrariri~isaid in rclation
to the Hurd Deep. the location features of this kind is matter ofchance
-"a fact of nature"- and "there is no intrinsic reason why a boundary
along this axis should be the boundary"'. What justification could there
be for accepting this element of chance when the feature which one

seeks to retain as a kind of natural boundary is situate very close to the
coasi of one of the Parties? In such a case the inherent right of the State
concemed Io ihe exploration and exploitation of the submarine re-
sources of its natural prolongation (Le.to a certain distance from its
coast) u'ould be denied. There would also be a risk of compromising its
security interests thereby infringing one of the dominant principles in
the theory O[ rhe continental shelf,namely, that third States must not be
alloud to exploit the resource:r of the sea-bed and subsoil of the

manne areas close ro the coast. A separation of the physical pro-
longations situate near the coast of one of the States would produce at
the same ijme an "encroacbment" of one of the States upon the natural
prolongation. spaiially defined, of the other and the "cutting-off" of the
latter from areas directly situate in front of its coast.
139. These basic interests of a State are not simply a relevant
circumstance showing up the inequity of the result achieved and ihe
need to change it. Ii is something more than that: it amounts to a
restriction upon one of the constitutive elements of the concept of the

continental shell. namely, equality between coastal States, whether or
noi they possess a physical natural prolongation and regardless of the
cxtenl of tlie latter. Nçarly ,111 rhe sea-bed IO onç, virtitally nothitig to
the ailier: ihdt is pr~isely the kind of dclirnitation thai the prinçiplcs
and riiles tifiiiternntional law çannot justify. 'l'hat isprecisely the kirid
of situation whiçh woiild arise iri tliis case ifthe Libyan ürguitient of lhc
,'RiftZrinc" and of ihç "Siçily-Malta Escarpnicni" wçre to be ;iccepted:
Malia would sceiis coiitiiienial shelf rights - rights inhçreni in it as ;i
coastal Staie - reduccd to almost nothing iti rel;iti<into its southern

and czqtern toasts? while Liby:i woiild he etiabled to çxplore aiid
cnploit the resourcej of the sea-bed ;is f;tr. so one ni;iy say, as the vcry
-'windows'of Malta. Libya would hiive M;ilta wedged hciwçcn narrow
boundaries sel b!,Libya'stirtificialconception of n limited prolongaiion
towards the south and east. Malta would thus be virtually enclaved,
vihile the maritime rights of Libya would spread broadly towards the
north and skiri the Medina Escarpment towards the east.
140. The Libyan Memorial does not seek to conceal this Tact.'

at page Il7 para61, hcriatesthat"Physicalleaturcrsuchasdepressionr .hannelssea-
bcd contours geologjcastructurestc.c;innofbyihemrelve governthe determinalionol
continental shcKboundanes".
Decirionof30 Juoe 1977.In1ernotionRoleporrs,ol.54,p.6,para.108
Libyan Mcmorial. pp. 132-133 .arm. 8.158.16, 3a4 CON'TINENT SAHLLF [TOI

@@ Figure 1' and Map 17'. moreovçr, Içavç not the le;ist doiibt as to ihe
prnciic;il cotiseqiiences of thç Libyati legal argumçnt. Karcly aould
cnçroaçhmçnt and cul on have bcçn çle;trer. Rarely would a State haut.
scen itself so siibstantially deprived of the largest part uf ils natural
prolongation in the name and under the pretext of conformity with
natural prolongation (physically defined). Recalling the agreement of
1965 by which the United Kingdom and Norway delirnited their
continental shelves in the North Sea on the basis of a median line and

withoui iaking account of the Norwegian Trough, situate near the
Norwgian Coast, the Libyan Memorial States:
-0therwise the United Kingdom would have acquired a grosly
disproportionate share of the continental shelf of the North Sea

betreen the two States if the boundary line had followed the
Sorwegian Trough which runs close to the Norwegian c~ast".~
Does not Libya realise that il thus destroys the argument which it
develops against Malta in ils Memorial?

141. Like land boundaries, maritime boundaries are not a product of
nature but of man, a political fact. This is true not only in terms of
customary international law but also in terms of State practice: "The
concept of natural prolongation.. . was and remains a concept to be
examined within the context of customary law anclStureprocrice"." As
already pointed out, the Libyan Memorial says little about such
practice. At most it mentions the agreement of 1972 between Australia

and Indonesia, which takes account of the Timor Trench for the
delimitaiion ofthe continental ~helf,~as well as the agreements between
the United Kingdom and Norway of 1965: ltaly and Greece of 1977:
and 'Œtweeri Iialy and Tunisiil of 1!J71.R'l'hçsc rcfcrcncçs arc quite
iwufficient to rellect the relevant pr;ictice: more so since the Libya~i
interpretation of thçsc agreements is no1 çvçn correct.
142. As iti relatiori Io customiiry law, ii is conveniçni to distinguish
betweeti state praçtiçç rclativc to the legal basis of title and st;ite
pr;ictiçc bcaring on deliinitatioti.

143. Asregards Içgal cntitlement, it issuffiçiçnt to refer to such State
ineasures ns decrees and concessions which identify thç oulçr limits or
rhc shelf withotit ;egard to trençhçs, dcprcssions, troiighs, etc?
144. As to the dçlimitation, the esseritial fact is that Statç practiçc

' Ibid.p132.
' lbid p160.
' Ibrdp.101,para. 6.51.
Tuoiriî-LibyocaseI.C.J.Reports1982 .. 46, par43.
' lbidap.101,para.6.51. para.6.48.
'lbid.p.149,paras.9.469.48.
IbS p. 150.paras.9.50-9.52.
As uas statedhy JudgcJirntnezdeArtchaga ,n his %p. Op.inthe TvnisieLibym
caw (p.118.para. 64.Thisisthecase.forinstancofthe SovietUnion, Norway offits
norihcrn coart.Bruzil. Venezuela. Canadand the UnitedStates OB the coartr 01[71-72] COUNTER-MEMO OF A LLTA 305

does not rake account, with but one ~xception,~of irenchcs, troughs,
channels, depressions and other features even if thcy are of a kind
which cuuld mark the limits of the physical natural prolongations of
the States conccrned. This feature was noted in the award in the Anylo-
French Conritienta!Sheljcase:

"... to attach critical significance to a physical feature like the
Hurd DeepHurd Deep Fault Zone in delimiting the continental
shelfboundary in the present case would mn counter to the whole

tendency of Siate practice on the continentdl shelf in recent
years".'
Commenting on this passagethe Libyan MemorialStates:

"The relerenceto the 'whote tendencyof State practice' wasnot
further amplified,and it is not entirely clear what practice the Court
of Arbirration has in mind. There is, however, clear evidence that
the Parties to the Australiaflndonesia Agreement of 9 October
1972took account of the Timor Trench in determining the boun-

dary betwm their respectiveshelves".'
145. Libya apparently had some difficulty in finding delimitation
agreements which disregarded trenches or depressions. Instead, the
Memorial has round precedent in the reversesense, namely, that of the

unique agreement between Australia and lndonesia which takes into
consideration the Timor Trench and it is this agreement which Libya
represenis as renectingState practice.If however Libyain this casehad
thought to look back its own C:ounter-Memorial in the Tunisi~Libya
cnsc it would have lound some interesting information on this malter.
There ii would have sccn the scltlcment descnbed not as reflcctingState
prxtiçe but ratber as an exception to this practice, as an examplc
which: "discloszs how significant the 'discontinuity'rnust be" hçfore

States agree to pay heed to itin the delimitation of iheir continental
shelves4 The Timor Trough is clfectively "hugc": according to the
source justmentioned, "it is more than 550 nautical milcs long and on
ihc average 40 miles wide. and the sea-bcd slopes down on opposite
sides to a depth over 10,000 f~et".~In an> case, as Judge Jiménezde
Aréchagahas okrved, the fact that in onc case or another States inay

declde to fin the boundaries of their continental shelvesat a irench or
Sce belowin ihipragraph.
Dsirion oTM Juw 1977,lnrernorioLlawReporrsV, o54 p.6 para.10Scealso
Red& MapNa. I onfollowingpage.
LibyanMernorialp 99 para.6.48.
The map oppaîitcRDdwcdMap No. 1,iscleaandsubstantiaicvidcnefState practice
ipnoriagphysicallealures.II is a map of theNorth Sea showingthe main physical
ieanire ofthares endtheactualinesofdelimitationbetwecnthecountrconcerned.
Itah shows,contraryto Libya'sassertion. the nitcdKingdomdidinfactacquirc
ahut hall thtarea.uhilstNorwav.Dcnmarkand the Ncthcrlands(and of courx
&nvt ..had 1;shareIhcother ha ^etweenthem
' ibd. p. 133.pan. 297.
"or more detaiws LibyanCountcr-Mcmoriailn TunisieLibyocasep.133and
n4e 4 and LibyanMcmonal inthepresentcasep.LOOnote 1.306 CONTINENTAI. SHELF I731

deprcsion may not be interpreted as being signiticaiitunless there was
a legal obligation for them to procced in this way.' The agreemenl
between Australia arid Indonesia is in fact an isulated case confronling
a.substantial practicc Io the contrary.

146. From this practice the authors of the Libyan Memorial in the
present casewould have found someequally significantexamplesin the
Libyan Counter-Memorial filed in the Tunisia-Libyacase. Libyathen
wrote:
"Delimitation agreements between States commonly cover areas

ofshelfup to depths of 4,000metre~",~
And this proposition was accompanied by a footnote providing a long

listof examples. Among these examples a number relate directly Io
troughs or trenches of considerahle depth.'
147. To these examples one must add three agreements which are
referred to in the Libyan Memorial but which are there incorrecily
interpreted.
148. Referencehas already been made Io the agreement between the

United Kingdom and Norway which establishes the continental shelf
boundary betweenthe Iwocountries along the median lineand takes no
account of the Norwegian Trough. This Trough is 300 nautical miles
long, has a depth of between 530and 742 metres and is 20 to 80nauti-
cal miles ide.^ As it is separated from the Norwegian Coastby an area
or strip of shelf which is only 2 to 10miles wideand which isless ihan
200 metres deep, this Trough should have, in the logic of the Libyan

argument, marked the separation of the natural prolongation (and thus,
of continental shelf rights) of Norway and the United Kingdom. The
Coun saidunanibiguouslyin 1969that "the shelfareas in the North Sea
separatd froin the Norwegian coasl hy the 8&100 kilometres or thc
Trough cannot in iinyphysic;ilsensebe said 10 be adjacent tu il, nor to
be its naiiiral prolongation". Bu1this did iiot preveiit the Partiçs. said

ihc Court, from decidiiig that the areas situate west of the Trough,
althiiugh not forming part of thc nütural physic;il prolongation id
Norway, sh<iuldbe part oc its continenidl shelf as fyas the median
Iine.'
149. Pissiiig next to thc two othcr agreements which are nientirincd
in [he Libyan Memorial, the sanie observations may hc made. The

agreement between Italy and lunisiil of 20 Augiist 1971is presentcd by
Lihya as "rclalcd to a major geoinorpliological feature: theRilt Zone"
as well as to the Pantelleria and Linosa Troughs.6 It appears clearly
from Map 15 of the Libyan Memorial7 that the boundary established

' Tuiiisiî-Libyd caSep. Op. p117,paras.@61.
Tunisi-Libya case, LibyanCounier-Mernorial.138.para. 312.
"K also Rhee in 21HoruardInternation<lnw Jmirnal667 al p678.noie 48.
Thc dircontinuirysuchthat wellson theNonvegian shelseawards althe troua
arc conricicd by pipeline ro the United Kingdom rather than to NorwaSeeafso
Rcducd Map No. 1.
%.\orth SeoCases, I.C.J. Reports196p.32, para.45.
Libran Mernorial,p. 150,par9.51.
' At page 150. hy this agrcr-meni has absolutcly ntilhing lu do with the "Rift Zone" or
with the Pantellcria and Lirios;~Troughs, of which it dots no1 follow
the w-often.mciitioned northwest--southe;ist axis. Article 1 of the
Agreement refcrs to a median line and Article 11defincs the bou11d;ary

around the islands of Pantelleria, Lampione, Lampedusa and Linosa by
simple distanoes !of 12or 13miles as the case may be) measured from
vanous coastal points. Far frorn supporting the Libyan argument this
Agreement is a perfect example of delimitation based on distance from
coasts.
150. The Agreement between ltaly and Greece of 24 May 1977 is
also presented by the Libyan Mernorial as having a relationship with
eeological and geomorphological facts in the sense that the most
-
southerly point of this delimitation lies in the lonian Abyssal Plain,
"the major geomorphological and geological feature in the lonian
Sea".' Libya apparently hesitates to go so Car as to invoke this
Agreement in support of its thesis of natural prolongation in the
physical sense. This hesitation is understandable since it is sufficienl to
@ look,at Map 15 of the Libyan Memorial or the lCBM to see that the
physical natural prolongation of Sicilytoward the east is of small extent
and thar ifone applies to Sicily the Libyan argument, according to

which the natural prolongation of Malta stops at the Sicily-Malta
Escarpment, Italy's rights to the continental shelf east of Sicily would
also end at this s;lme Escarpment. It was not this solution, but the
opposite one, which was adopted by the Parties to the Agreement of
1977:the boundary line was established, according to the Preamble of
the Agreement. "on the basis of the principle of the median line", or, in
other words, on a "spatial" or "area*' basis and without in the least
tüking into ;icçoiiiit, the physical eleinents of the sen-bed - geology,

hcithymetr): or gctxnorphology.
151. One rnay concliide therefore that the Liby;iii view of riaturnl
prolongaiion as the legal basis ol title, or as a factor in thc procçss of
delimitation. isiiot inaccord with interiiational law. Malta now wishcs
hricfly in prcscnt its tiwn conçcption of the Iirst phase in Ihç de-
limiiütion process.

2. TIIF, RUl.ii5ui; INTEI~NATIoNAL LAWGUVERNIN IHli I~li~l~ll'ATiO~i
Pnocess: MALTA% VIEWS

152. iMalta will restate ils case in Part IV of this Counter-Memorial.

Here itwill do no more than indicate its views regarding the manner in
which. in a case such as this, lhe delimitation process should unrold.

'lbid p. 149, gar9.47.Thc Coun will ndoubt recail thcritical attitude adopted
'IonhoAbyssaPm"mir(1C.J. Pleadings,VIICaunter-Mernorial,p. 1para234;Vol.IV,d
Replipp. 42-43. par90;examinatioof Profcssorabnciusby ProfessorBowctVol.V,
p.196).308 CONTINENTAL SHEI.F [751

(1) Tlir Stortirrg Poiril: ori EqiiidisranceLiiie

153 For reasoos whiçh hiive alrcady hccn given, the starling poirit of
the delimitation process is to be fouiid only by consideration of the
concept of continental shelf, that is to say, in the legal hasis of title to
continental shell rights. On this point the two Parties are in agreement.
Where they diverge is on the content of this legal basis of title. Libya
places this basis in natural prolongation in its physical sense. Malta
hopes that it has established that this approach is not in accordance

with international law. Each coastal State is entitled to continental shelf
rights to a certain distance from its coast, whatever may be the physical
characteristics of the sea-bed and subsoil, and it is only beyond 200
miles (rom the coast that natural prolongation in its physical aspect
resumes a rôle. To take due account of this evolution one might even
say that the concept of natural prolongation has lost its importance.
Suchpropositioii is however correct only if one States that it relates to
the ph>:sicalconception of natural prolongation.' Detached frorn its
purely physical aspects, the concept of natural prolongation remains
however entirely valid. The continental shelf of a State is today, as it

has always been. the natural prolongation of its land territory; but the
natural prolongation is no longer (il it ever was) the physical source of
the rights of the State over certain parts of the sea-bed: it is the result or
a legal operation which acknowledges that each coastal State, inde-
pendently of the physical characteristics of the sea-bed adjacent to its
coast, has an inherent exclusive right. ipso jure and ah inirio, to the
exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of its sea-bed up
LO a certain distance îrom its coasts.
154.'Ihis right iricludes i positive aspect. The possibiliiy iï open to
cach coüstal Statç Io explore and çxploit the tiaiurÿl rcsoiirces lying at

a ccriain distancc froni its coasts. It also iticludes a nçgiitive aspect.
which was iriiportani. as lias bçen secn, ititlie evolutioti of thç Iaw on
this uuhjcct. This is ihc f;iciilty possçsscd by eacli çci:isi;il State IO
pre\-ent third Siatcs. which happçn IO be riclier or more powçrful. Iroin
exploring or exploitirig thç natiir;il resourççs close to ils ç<i:isi.In this
wÿy al1 coastal States are sdeguarded froni encro;iclimerit hy third
State. In lhis WJY, ~Iso, ihe eqiiality of :ilco;istal Staiçs is;issured in
relation tu iho exploration and exploitati~in ol the sea-bçd lying OB
ihcir çr~;rstalIrorits.
155. The point of departure in the delimitation process must of

necessiiy reflect these elements in the international law of the sea. When
it isa matter of establishing the limits of the continental shelf zones
between two neighbouring States, the basic concept of distance between
the coasts forms the necessary point of departure of the whole process:
"lt is only the legal basis ofthe title to continental shelf rights -

the mere distance from the coast - which can be taken into

'ct JudgeOda;Diss.Op. inTu>zi.siu-Libjucase.I.C.J. Rep1982,p. 222para.207
"...the fadinaway oi thegeomarphologicn alalionof ntturiprolongation.". COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF MALTA 309

accounl as possibly having consequences for the claims of the
Partic&'','

156. ln the Tuiiisiu-Libyacase the Court considered that siiiççthe two
Parties had invoked the principle of natural prolongation in ils physical
sense, itwas not for the Court to treat the "distance principle" as a
"criterion for delimitati~n".~ In order to avoid any such misunderstand-
ing in the present case Malta expressly requests the Court to recognize

ihis principle as the controlling element in the delimitation in the
present case.
157. Given that there does no1 exist between the coasts of Malta and
Libya a sufficient space for each of the two States to benefit from
coniinental shell rights up to the full distance of 200 miles recognized
by international law, the delimitation process mus1in the submission of
Malta! necessanly begin by taking into consideration an equidistance
line between the two coasts. This is because equidistance is the most
appropriate technique to give ekt at the same time to the two

components of the concept of natural prolongation: distance and
coasts.
158. That equidistance gives full weight to the fact of distance is too
e\,ident a proposition to require any demonstration. By very definitioti it
consists in tracing a line each point of which is equidistant from the
nearest point on the baselines of each of the Parties.
159.It is abo clear that equidistance gives full weight to the second
component in the concept of continental shelf and of the legal basis of
title to continental shelf rights, namely, the coasts. This link between

delimitation and the coasts was underlined by the Court as early as
1969 in relation to the idea oi iiatiiral prolongaticiii as it was urider-
stood in the statc ni çustoinary international law of that datc: "it is.. .
necessary tu examine çloscly the geogrriphiçal çontigiiratioii of ihç
coastliii~".~ The same liiik was recallcd. always in rclvtion Io Ihç idea
oinaiural prolongation, in the decision in the Anglo-French Cortrineiitrrl
Sher Arhitruiionol 1977.4It was contirmed with particular forcc in the
judgment of the Court in the Tunisio-Liliya çasc in 1982,once inorç in
relation to the idca of iiatiiral prolongation: "The codst of e;ich of the

Pariies.. .constitutes thç starting poiril from whiçh oiie has 10 set out
in order Io asccridin how far the submiirinc areas apperlaining Io each
ol them entend.. in relation to rieighbouring States.. .".5
1o0. In this cannection it is necessary to emphasise that both those
who oppose and those who support equidistance are in agreement that
equidistance achieves a reflection of the coastline in the process of
delimitation (while natural prolongation in ils physical sense is inde-
pendent of the coastline and does not take in10 account this essential

'Tirnisi+i.ibrcase.I.C.J. Re~orrs196. .48. vara.48
Ibd.
'.Sor~h Sea casesI.C.J.Reports1969,p. 51,para.96.
aefisioool 30 lune 1977,paras, IW and248.
'I.CJ. Reports1981.p. 61,para. 64.310 CONnNENrA LHELF i771

feurure or the legal basis tiftitlc10 çtintinciital shelf rights). The Couri
has itseiî rioted that with eqoidistaiice "the delimitation line is directly
governed by points on thc co;ists conceriied",' and it has dççlarcd that:
"... it should be recognized that il is the virtue - although it may
also be the weakness - of the equidistance method to takc full

account of almost al1variations in the relevant coastline~".~
161. Libya's contention that "The attempt to use equidistance is
precisely an attempt to equate the two coasts"~~ unjustified since the

line of equidistance reflects precisely the respective configurations of the
rwo coasts including their differences.As for the "weakness" mentioned
by the Court, namely, that of being too faithful a reflection of almost al1
variations in the coastlines, it is easy to remedy that, as Judge Oda has
pointed out, by an appropriate selection of basepoints and baseline~.~
Besides, an equidistance line does no1 reflect every irregularity of ihe
Coast in its smallest detail since, by definition, it is constru'cted on the
basis of the nearest point, that is to Say,on the basis only of a certain
number of "control points". As Judge Oda pointed out: "only salient

points or convexities on the coastline can affect the drawing of this
line"?
162. It should here be observed that the taking into consideration of
the coasis of the Parties as a geographical element is not to be done in
the abstract. In applying the concept of distance from coasts within rhe
framework of the process of delimitation, what really matters is the
concreie relationship of the relevant coasts. Hence the interest which
international law has never ceased to have in the distinction between
-'opposiieVand "adjacent" coast~.~Equidistancc as thc primnry element
in the deliinitation bas cvcn gtçdtcr relevance, if sucli is possiblç. in ihc

caw tifa rçlationship between "opposite" co;ists thnn iii that or a
relationship bçtwcen "adjaçcnt" çoasts. Rur it is at thc stage of çonirol.
by rçfcrencç to the eqiiitable character ofthe result, th;it this distinction
produces its principal cffcçts. l'rithis further reference will prçsçntly hç
made.
163. Before prticççding furthcr, and in order to avoid al1 rnisundcr-
standing, Malta considers it necessary to state thiit in adopting this
cquidist;ince linç as thç starting point of the deliniitation procas. ii
does no1 iritend in any way to siiggest that the equidis1;ince liiie musr
ricccss;irily he- in somc inhcrcnt way - the appropriate houndary in

every case, or even in the present case. Malta is perfectly aware ol the
criiicisms which have been levelled ai equidistance seen as a legal rule

' Ibid.p.62,para.76.
' Ibid.p.88, para.126.
' Libyan Mernorialp ,.155para.I0.M.
Tunisi-Libyacase ,.C.JReports 1982D. iss.Op.,p.262.pars168.
' lbd. p.272,para.185.Seealsobelowpara. 275 andReduced Maps Nos. 12 ro 15.
' The decisionin the Anglo-French Conrinenral Shey Arbirrorionwhichatiached
mniinmtalshelf"sr,taieihat"the relationshipf'opposite' or 'adjacent' Sitnoihing
but a rdection 01thegeographicallacis"(paras.94-95). URI COUNIER-MEMORIAL OF MALTA 311

IO bc conipulsorily applied in evcry case. It iippreciates that in certain
cases quidistance cati lcad t<isn iiieqttitablc or iiiireasoiiable rcsult.
Malti in no way inicnds to pliiccin qticstion the pririiortli;ilimportaiice
of equity as a Iegat priiiçiplï nor the "toning dowii of eq~idistnncc".~
hfalta advocates the use of the equidistance line - in this case as in
eyery other - only as a kind of primary delimitation dictated by the
geographical facts. l'hese are: the coasts of the Parties and their opposite
relationship, on the one hand; the distance from these coasts, on the
other. It isin relation to this primary delimitation that the question of

n-hether ihe result achieved is equitable and reasonable can then be
askd. II. on the basis of this "control", one can be assured of the
equitable and reasonable character of the solution then it may be
maintained as the boundary; if not, the equidistance line must be
adjusied or combind with some other method of delimitation.
164. Thus. for the moment, it is simply as a primary delimitation that
equidistance is seen as starting ihe delimitation process. To object to
such an approach itwould be necessary to concede that the "toning
down" of whkh one has been aware for the last 15 years was inspired

by the conviction that equidistance is always and in every case
- necessarily inequitable. Malta is not aware that any such proposition
has ever been assened. The contraposition between "equidistance" and
"'quitabte principles" has never meant that equidistance would not be
equitable in un?case or that to advocate equidistance would amount to
arguing in lavour of inequity. What this contraposition signifies is lhal
equidistance cannot always be regarded as equitable and that equity
someriniesrequires nnother solution. Even those judges and arbitrators
who haire beei~mtpit rcticcnt regiirding equidistitnce as a principle have
noi Iiesitatcd i~irecogiiiae the pcissihiliiythat asa riicthtid il ciiiild leiid

to an cquirable solution ifthe p;irticular situaiioii so pcririitsIfjudicial
a~idarbitrÿl dwisions have deriicd tiicqiiidistancc thç character of ;i
nacsïÿrily eqiiiiÿblç nicthod. they have nui ai any lime asserted thai ii
isa necessarily ineqtiitablç riicthod. On the coatrary. the 1969Judgrnent
of ihc Court staiçs that equitlistance is a mçihod "the use of whiçb is
indicated in u considerable nutnhcr of ca~es".~Thç award in the A!iyl+
FrerichCuiitiiirntol Slir!ljcaseof 1977,while eschewiiigcquidistancc iisa
scilution which isalways çquitable and thus legiillycoinptilsory, rioiie-
theless cxprcssely ;ipplies eqiiidistance iis the primary iriethiid ul
delimiiation kt11 w,ithinthe <:hanilel and in the Atlantic Regioi1.JThe

Court of Arbitralion approves the fact that the Parties have retained
the equidistance solution for the greater part of the delimitation.' The
Court's Judgemeni of 1982,however little favourable to equidistance it
seems. was iar from excluding u priori the use of the concept and

' Sce wp. op. JudgeJiménezde Aréchagain Tunisi+Libw case,I.C.J.Rcporis1982.
p. 109,para36.
1.C.JRepori~19b9.p 23,para.22.
' Decirion o30 lune 1977 ,aras.84-86,95.103.109. 182and 239.
Ibirl. par15. 2: 37,103,111,120 and 146.312 CONTINENTAL SHELI' i791

cxprwsly mentioiied that it niight in ççrraiti cases lead to ;in cquitnble
solution.'
165. One inav ihus çonçludc Ih;it the criliçisms which have been
levellodiigainsl équidistanceseek only to exclude the suggestion that as

a method it is alwavs eauitableand thus universallv aool<cab..: thev d, ,
noi seek todeny that equidistance is in certain cases equitable and thus
applicable. Nor can one oppose the use ofequidistance at the beginning
or the delimitation on the ground that "any specific reference to
equidistance" was eliminated from the final version of article 83 of the
Convention of the Law of the Sea.' It should he recalled that this
compromise text3adopted on the eve of the closure of the Conference.

deleted simultaneously the rwo expressions around which controversy
had centred within the Conference for nearly 10 years namely those of
"equitable principles" and "equidistance". As the Court says in the
Tunisia-Libyu case, "in the new text, any indication of a specific
criterion.. . has been excluded. Emphasis is placed on the equitable
solution which has to be achie~ed".~Neither the jurisprudence nor the

work of the Third Conference on the Law of the Sea permits one to
believe that a radical obiection of orinciole could be raised to the use of
equidistance.
166. Xo doubt this analysis willbe confronted by the criticisms made
ofequidisrance on the grounds of the unreasonable or inequitable result
io which it occasionally leads. However this objection is irrelevant for
two reasons: first, because a primary delimitation based on the geo-

graphical relationship is in itself prima fucie equitable; secondly, because
this pnmary delimitation must be subjected to such adjustment as may
provs to be necessary in the light of $111relevant circurnstances. The
tquiiiihlçness ;ilid re;isoiiabletiess of a resiilt caiiiiot be assess~d in
ubsrracro~ bot otily by refcrence to a givcn lirie.It is only hy rçrcrçncc to
equidisra~iccas a st;irting poiiir thlit this assçssmciit c;iii ;niidiniistbe
rn;ide.

167. Undçr ihçsç çi~umst;inces one can undersrund why everi those
eÿrlier c;ises which decided 10 "abatç" thç operation of çquidistançc in
ilie particular çasç, in order to coiitrol thç rçsuli. did not decline to
rreüi equidistntice as the poirii of dçparture.

lis. In ils 1969Judpinciit the Coiirt said:
the Court tiiusi examinç ihç question of how thç çciniinçntal
shelf can be deliniited wheti it is in fact the case that the eyuidis-
tance principle does not provide an equitable ~olution".~

How could the Court know that equidistance does not provide an

' I.C.J. Reporrs1982,p. 79, para.109.p. 88. para. 126.JudgeJiménez deAréchaga,
rhile rhoaing some reserve towardsequidistance. ina way assertsthat if coulnewr
lead roan quitable result(ciSep. Op. p.107, para.31 and p. 109, para35).
Libpn Mernorial p. 97,para. 6.42 andp.124, para.7.10.
obb~ervatianosf Judge Oda, Diss. Op. Tunisin/LihyaI.C.J. Repo1982 p.246.
paro. 113.
' I.C.J. Reports 1982p. 49,para.50.
5 1 C.I.report^1%9,p. 50,para.92.Vol COUNTER-MEMOR 0IAMLALTA 313

euuitable solution in a soccifiç case without havin~ first iaken it into
co'nsideration? -
169. The decision in thç Aiigln-French (:»ntinrnrnlShercauç of 1977
raises "... the auestiun whether the ekt of individuiil neonranhical
ieatures is to rénder an equidistance delimitation 'unjuscfiefiedo .r 'in-

equitable"' and speaks of "the eflect of individual geographical ieatures
on the course of an equidistance line".' With reference to the Scilly
Isles, the decision says that "the essential point. .. is to determine
whether. in the actual circumstances of the Atlantic region, the pro-
longation of the Scilly Isles ... ' renders 'unjust' or 'inequitable' an
equidistance boundary ... ". It would hardly be possible to identify
more clearly a delimitation process which began with the use of
equidistance and rhen went on to test the equitableness and reasonable-
ness of rhe result byreference to the circumstances relevant to the case.
170. The 1982 Judgment of the Court at first sight seems to take a
diilerent position since it states rhai "equidistance is not, in the view of
the Court,. . .a method having some privileged status in relation to
other methods and since it declined to begin by examining the
establishment ofan equidistance line." But a more careful reading of the
Judgment shows ihat the Court's position was stated specifically in
relation to the particular case: "Nor does the Court consider that it is in
~he preseni cose required, as a first step, to examine the effects of a
delimitation by application of the equidistance method, and to reject

that method in favour ofsome other only if it considers the results of an
equidistance line tobe ineq~itable".~The Court's view may be explained
by two consideraiions specific to that case which were mentioned by
thc Court in the same passage. One is that the two Parties themselves
cacluded an cquidistnnce solution and. as the Court itsçlf süys, "the
Coun must take this firmly expressed viçw of the Partiçs into iiççount".
The second çoiisideration is that this was not in any way a case
inwilving opposite coasis - as is show11hy the reîcrçnce to the Norili
Seu case."whiçh also conccrned ;idjlj;içcnSt tates".' Again - and better --
at the end of paragraph 109 the Court splls out iiiwords that it had
arrivcd at the coriclusion thai:

".. .equidistancc niny be applied il it Icads to an cquitable solution:
il not, othcr methods rhoultl bc cmployed".
How could thç Court tcll whethcr cquidisiancc does. tirdoes not, lead
to an equitable solution ifequidistance had not first been considered in
the delimitation process? And in effect the Court clearly took equidis-
tance as a starting point of its delimitation of the second sector of the
demarcation line.6

'Decirianof30 June1977.lnternotiottLaw Repons,Vol.54,p.6,para.240.
'Ibrd. para. 243.
9.C.J. Reports1982 ,. 79. para. 110.
Ibid.emphais rupplied.
'Ibid.p.74.para. 109.
/.W. Rrporrs1982 ,. 88. para. 126.314 CONTINENTAL SHBLI: L81]

171. The separate and dissenting opinions in the 1982 case do not
detract froni this analysis. Judge Jiménczde Aréchaga,though dçnying
cquidistnnce the character of "a privileged mcthod or one having pride
of place",' and excluding any "prcsumptions iri favour of cquidis-
tance-2 nonetheless says:

"Naturally, in al1cases the decision-maker looks at the line of
equidistance even if none ofthe Parties has invoked

Ir may be noted also that Judge Jiménezde Aréchaga emphasises even
more than the Court the objection which the two Parties had raised to
the use of equidistance in the case. In his view, the Court was noi
entitled to contemplate of ils own initiative any solution upon which
neither of the Parties had presented detailed arguments; consequently

to use equidistance in such a case would have led to what he described
as a-procedural inequity". Other members ofthe Court go even funher
and expressly stated that it was necessary - even in this case to kgin
by using equidistance and then verify whether the result thus obtained
was reasonable. Judge Gros says:

"The Court's first task was thus to see what an eauidistance Iine
would produce in order to identify the 'ïrtraordindr), unnaiurdl or
unre3sonable'. re\ult io uhich. iiir said, this niethod might Ic.id ,'

and heconsiders that it is proper in al1cases to "crosscheck the equity
of the result" - "proceder au conrrole de Pequitable".5 Likewise, Judge
Oda considers that the equidistance method "should be tri& before al1

others? as does Judge Evensen.7

iZ) Checkiny !hi. eqrriruble utrd reuso~inhlechurrrcirr r>l'tlir rcsulr:
rel?t~urircircirms1urice.s

172. Ai the first stage, as has jus1 been described, equidistance mirst
hc seen ;IS ;I formula founded on the Içgal basis of litlc tri thc
coniinental shelf 11follows that thç dçfinitive soliitioii to the qiiestion
ut delimiiation cannot he re;iched ;II this stage since thç fundamcntal
rule or international law is that the dclimitatioii miist be eqiiitable and

re;isonable. As the Court has said: "equidis~~nççmus$ bc applied il' it
lcads IO an equitable solution; if not, olher inethods slioiild be ein-
ploycd"."o piiss from the iirst stage to thç dçlimitation proprly 50-

' lbidDiss.Op.p. 109,para.35.
IbidDiss.Op.p. 105, para. 18.
lbidDiss.Op. p.134.
lbidDiss.Op.p. 149. para 12.The adjective qsuatedare lrom the 1969Judgment.
' lbulDiss.Op. p.151,para. 15.
'Ibrd.Diss.Op. Dp.297..para. 15.ara. 181.
CI A cecentstudy by P.J. AllottPower Sharing inthe Law ofthe Sea. Amricon
Jouino1 oflnlernationoLaw Vol. 77(1983) ,.I;stresse"...theprominenctehal Geneva.
StatepracriceandtheInternationalCouh rtadgiventothemethcd(ofequidistance aj ihe
ooiurolpoint afdeparture lorsea boundary delimiiatians(p. 22.Empharissuppliedi.
' TunUiî-Libgocase, I.C.J.Reporrs1982p.. 79,ara.109.[a21 COUNTER-MEMOKIALOF MAI-TA 315

called it is nwessary to check, with the aid of equitablc priiiciplçs.
whcthcr an equiiable result has beeii ohtained. This is why, as has
already bcçn siated, 11is necessiiry Io weigh al1 thc relevant circum-
stances and IO balance up the equities, in urder to rcaçh an equitable
result. It is at this stage that other geographical and additional circum-

stances or the situation intervene. These various circumstances will be
examined in the next Chapter.
173. The fact that the application of equitable principles is effected
by taking into consideration relevant circumstances highlights a parti-
cularly important aspect of the process of delimitation. This is that the

equities of the situation must be assessed by reference to objective facts.
As early as 1969 the Court emphasized that "there is no question.. . of
any decision rx neqrio et bono" and that it is necessary that "the
decision finds its objective justification in considerations lying not
outside but within the rules".' In 1982 the Court strongly affirmed this

distinction and stated that the assessment of relevant circumstances '-is
rery far lrom being an exercise of discretion or conciliation; nor is it an
operation or distributive justice".Vhe judge or arbitrator does not
develop a personal and subjective conception of what amounts to a just
delimitarion, but only a view based on the objective facts of the

situation.
174. Siate praclice shows in an incontrovertihle manner that in a
large number - indeed, the largest number - of cases equidistance
commended itself to the Parties as the appropriate solution. This is true
esppcially, as has already been shown in the Maltese Memorial, in the

situations of Island States opposite mainlands concluding houndary
rigrwments. In opprisitc coasts situations, jiidges and arbitrators have
recognized ihar cquirlistaiice is ririrrnally thç appropriste solulir>n.This
is ucknowledgd by tliç Court in ihe 1969 Judgrriçnt hççause, says thç
Court.. "such ü line inust clTççt iiieqiial divisiiin of tlic p;iriicular arca
involved'.' Si is ;ilsu recognized by the 1977 Arbitral Decisiim. which

exprcssly corniriends the Iwo P;irties for having coiisidercd that "in
principtc. ihc rnethd spplicahlc in the Englisli Chlinncl is to dr;iw a
median line equidioiant irom their respective ~oasts".~ASthe Court of
Arbilratiiin sa)'s Liler,"iri a situali(in where the coasts (ifthe two States
are npposiie eliçh uihcr. the mediari linç will noriii;illy effeeçiu hr«;idly

equd and equiiable delimiiation".' hiid tliis is clinfirmed hy tlie Court
in its 1981Judgrnçnt a~liicliacknowlcdgcs th;it the sit~iations iifop-
posite coasts lend themselves more easily to a delimitation on the basis
01 eqnidklance than did those of adjacent coa~ts.~The importance of
these precedents for the present case cannot be overstressed. What may

' I.C.J. Reprrr 1969.p.48, para. 88 (Emphasissupplied).
' I-C.. Rvnorrr 1YB: n.M) "ara. 71
1.CJ. Repuris 1969. p36. para.57.
" Decisionor 30 June 1977.Inrernoriotiu!LuiiReports, Vol. 54p.6. para. 87
Ibid para.239:ct paras.95,103and 182.
' ICJ. Reporrs 1982.p.88, para.126.316 CON'rlNENT AHLELF 1831

be iiecessary 10 ;idd is that evcn whçn examinaiioii of relev;iiit circum-
stanççs 1e;idsto somc modific;itioii of the equidintance fi~rmul;~T . his is
iiortnnllv done hv iiiearis of an iidiiistnient of tliis iiietliod rathçr than
hy its a6;indoniriçni.

175. Asreeardsthe ~racticeofStates. thedecision in the Anal~+Frencli
CoiitiiiprrruSkelj. ~rhirraiioti of 1977 deals with this maGer at IWO
points.' The well known work (twice cited in the Libyan Memorial) of
Professor Conïorti and Professor Francalanci,' summÿrises the practice
as follomms:

"... the instances are very rare of agreements in which the equi-
distance criterion turns out to be radically departed from, unless
'specialcircumstances' of a geographical nature require it".

176. In Maltii's submission the previous paragraphs state the prin-
ciples and rules of international law which govern the delimitation

process. As has been said, the process of delimitation does not involve
two successive stages any more th:in the application of equity, in other
spheres of international law, involves the ,succes.siu rpplication of a
general rule folloa~rd by the iipplication of a particular rule which
derogiitcs from it. Equity consists not in that. but in a reasonable
applic:irion, taking into consideration al1the circumstances of the case.
of rhe general rule.' The delimitation process es thus conceived assures

the saiisPdction of the double requirement of every rule of law: on the
one hand. the reflection of a sufficient degree of genefiility to avoid the
siibjcçtive qii;ility of dçcisions1.r iretlrr6.1hr>iio:iiid, on ihc other: the
acccptEince oï LIsiifticietit degrecof adaptation Io the circuinstiiriçestif
cach ciisc 10 acbiçvç a çi>ncliisioiiwliich is "rcasonablç" niid "eqiiit-
:iblc". Theprocedure wtiicti cusion::iry iiitçrnÿtioiial law Ii:isdevçliipd
ensurçs ;i proper hnl;iiice betweeri thçse two rçqiiirçmcnis: enougli

flcxibiliiy. but not too iiiiicli. As MaItii ondçrstands it.tliis procedure
offers rlie adv;iiitage bothof bçing based on the f~iiid:ttiieiitalçonccpt of
ihc cuntincninl shelf and of hiiviiig ils roots in the Icg;il b;isis of ~i~tc.
while ui thç sniiic tirnc iaking iiito nccount the Tactthiit. although they
;ire iiitiin:itçly liiiked. etititlciriçnt and dçlimitatioii are tioiiethçlçrs
distinct idcas. Mnlia suhrnits th;it it is iii tliese coiisiderations which
brings togeiher the experience both of State practice and of inter-

national jurisprudence - that the Court may find the equitable and
reüson;ible solution to the issues submitted to it.

'Decision or 30lune1977. psres.85 and 249.
Arliiii'Ir,confinSorrumiirii(iilan.1979).
"CT Biirc@loni ioerioI.C.J.Rupr>ri1970 S.ep Op. by SirGer;ildFitzmauricepp.
85-86. para.36. CHAPTER 111

"OTHER RELEVANTFACTORS"

177. Malta no%,turns to consider the remaining relevant factors to
which referenoe has been made in the Libyan Memorial.
178. Libya has referred in its "Statement of Principles and Rules of

International Law Applicable to the Present Case" to five "Other
Relevant Factors": (a) Conduct of the Parties; (b) Delimitations with
Third States: (c) Security interests; (d) Islands; and (e) Economic and
related factors.' This reference was made on a relatively abstract,
almosi acadernic, level; and it was only pursued in a more specific way
in Part III, on "The Application of the Law to the Facts and Relevant
Circumstances of the Case" in relation to (a)the Conduct of the Parties
and (b)Delimitations with Third States.
179. Malta will now examine these various factors, by reference both
to the Libyan aiid the Maltese positions.

1.CONOUC ~ F THE PARTIES

180. Libya concedes in general terms that the conduct of the Parties
is,in principle, a rclcvant circurnstance.~ But the Libyan Metnorial's
firsttreatmçnt of the suhject then goes on to idcntify a numbcr of
circumstances which may akct the value of three specific forms of
conduct: positions xiopted in negotiations, grants of concessions and
Iegislat~on.~Tliere sccms little point in comrrieritiiiguport tliese abstruci
considerations in coinparably atistraçt tcrms. That there may be cir-
cumstanccs in which Slatc conduct is not material Io the qucstion of

continental zhelf boundary delimitation goes without saying. The rcal
qucstions ;ire(i) urhether, in relation to the aspects of State çondiict
iiivoked by Malts and with whiçh sorne parts of the Libyan Mernorial
coincide. ihere is aiiything in the Libyan casc Io diminish the valuc of
the factor as relied upon by Malta; and, (ii)conversely, whether Libya
introduoes any element of conduct in its own favour which calls for
commeni from Malta.
181. Ir js convenient to deal with these matters by responding
directly to the five"conclusions" which Libya seeks to draw from its
"brieî résumé"of the conduct of the partie^.^

'Libyan Mernorial,Chapte6, pp. 107-114.
LibyanXiernoriap. 107para.6.70.
"Ibid.pp147. para943.s6.7M.73.3t8 CONTINENTAL SHELF PSI

182. The Firsi LihyuriCrinclusionis that:

"No spccific line of delimitation or deiacio arratigeiiient appcÿrs
from the coriduct of thç Partics sinçç thç cmergcnce 01 the
dispute."'

Maita has no1 asserted that any specific line or defacto arrangement
appears lrom the conduct of the Parties. What Malta hus suid is:
(a) that Malta's conduct from the start (that is, in 1965)has involved
the assertion of a median line as the correct boundary line and has
always been consistent with that;
(b) Libya look no position in opposition to that of Malta until, at
the earliest, 1973. In that year, eight years after Malta's first formal
assertion of the median line, Libya put forward its own proposal ior a
line, quite close to Malta, calculated by reference to the ratio of the
respective coastlines of the two countries. This line was in no nray
constructed by reference to Libya's now dominant concern to reiiect its
own "natural prolongation".

183. The public assertion by Malta of an equidistance line by the
enaciment on 28 July 1966of Malta's Continental ShelfAct' was in iact
preceded by a specificcommunication from Malta to Libya making the
same assertion. This is the Maltese Note Verable to Libya of 5 May
1969 in which Malta advised Libya that it had assumed from the
United Kingdom treaty rights and obligations made applicable to
Malta prior to ils independence, that Malta intended to accede to the
1958Convention on the Continental Shelf,and that "in determining the
boundary of the continental shelf appertaining to Malta. the
Government was guided hy the provisions relatinp to an equidistance
line contained in Articlç h(l) of the Convention." The Note Vcrbale
concludcd with Ihc following words: "the Government of Malta will be
grateftil to know that the Government of Lihya is in full ;iccord wiih

this derermination". Libya refers to this Note in paragraph 4.27. p.54.
of its .Metnorial, without anysuggeslion thal Liby;~reacred ro the Note
in any way, And it is ;ifact thrit Libya did not. Thus thç period of
piiblic assertion of Malta's mçdian linç position referred to in Malta's
Memori;il as hcginning on 28 July 1966.in fact, vis-?-vis Libya beganat
leaït afull ycar carlier, in May 1965;and the period of Libyan inaciiviiy
in rclaiiun to this issue is consequeritly eight years.
184. It is, of coursç. nçcçssary to consider these two events of 1965
and 1966in the light of the Court's own treatment, in the Tunisi~Libyu
case, of the ekt upon Tunisia 01' Libya's Petroleum Law and
Petroleum Regulations No. 1 of 1955. There the Court held that the
line referred to in the Libyan legislation of 1955 was not opposable to
Tunisia and could not be taken into consideration for the purposes of

the j~dgment.~ But the situation in that case is clearly distinguishable

LjbyanMcmonal. p. 147,para.9.43.
Malta'sMcmorial ..16,para. 34.
LjbyanMemonalA . nner34.
1.C.J.Reporta1982.p69. para. 92.1861 COIINTER-MEMOR OFAMI.LTA 319

from rhe one iiichi.prçseiit case. Thçrç rhç Court round three feilturçs
or coiisiderations which served to deny elrect 10 the Libyiin iiieasurc.
EacIi of them will now bc mentioned, togcthcr with 311 iiidic:ition of

u~hythat feature is not operative in the preseiit case.
185. The first consideration was that the Libyan legislation could
hardly be considered as a unilateral claim for maritime lateral boun-
daries with Tunisia. Malta's coinment is that in view of the express
terms of the 1965 Xote Verbale, coupled with the 1966 Continental
Sheü Act. itis quite clear that in 196511966Malta did assert as agairist
Libya a clajm IO an equidistance boundary.

186. The second consideration was that there was no evidence that
Libya was clairning jurisdiction and control over a contiguous zone of
about 50miles kyond the territorial sea of Libya. Miilta's submission is
th+ in the present case the nature and extent of the Maltese claim was
quite clearly expressed. And the fact that the Government of Malta
adopted the courtesy of saying in the Note Verbale that it would "be

gratelul to know that the Government of Libya is in full accord with
this determination" does not detract from the legal quality of the
"determinaiion" or rnake ils efficacyconditional upon receiving express
Libyan consent. Libya's silence over the ensuing period of eight yeiirs,
in the light of which Malta eventually felt free to make the 1973
concession oiTers aiid grants, is sufficient to amount to the necessary
consent. ifconsent be found to be required.

187. Thirdlv. the Court considered the facts of the case as not
allowing any &sumption of acquiescence by Tunisia, whose manifested
-ttitude exclude~--he nossibilitv of soea&ine ~ -such ~cauiescence. In
rhc prcuçnt casc. on the othcr hand, as already indicated, the only
attitude of Libya m:ioifcsied in the situaiion wiisone ofsilence filr cight
VCdT?i.
188, 11iç. inrl~xl, pertinent to reçiill some of the observiitions made

hy Libya oiiihe tiaiur~.aridimportance, in iisrçlaiions with Turiisia, of
Libya's own funduci and of Turiisiti'ssilence in relation theretr):
".. . such s mclhcid (Libyii's proposed praçtical meihod) woiild

conform to the first çoncrçte ;ind tiiiçoiitested indication of suve-
reigiiiy by une of the Parties, i.e. the lirnits of the Libyiin
Petroleurn Zone No 1 of 1955"1
"II is not conceivable that this legislaticin was unknown to
Tunisia .. . Yet 'Turiisiakas made no protest or resçrvatioii at any
tirne regarding either the Law or the ~egulations"'
". .. it is quite clear that Tunisia from 1968 was well aware that a

concession following the direction of this line had been granted by
Libya to rhe sime Company, Aquitaine.. . Where are the protests
byTunisia? ... It is futile, in the light ofthis evidence and the hcis
as ihey are known, for Tunisia to say ... that the area of the
Concession has never been officially publicized by Libya .. .".3

Libye-Tuniriocîw. LibyanCounler-Memonal, p.209,para.524.
' lbad.g 18.para.30.
Ibid. p25, para.50.320 CONTINENTAI.SHEI.F

IKY.Thç Scroi!rl I.ih)'uirc.riiic.lri.iiriric;I.rollows:

"The diffcrent appro:icbes t:ikeri hy tlic iiiaritiriie legislation of
Lihyo ;ilid M;iIt;i makç clear that I.ihya lert opçn lhc northcrii
limits to its continental shelf byvirtue of its legislation whercis the
Maltese legislation specified the extent of what it claimed to be its
maritime jurisdiction. The concessions olïered and granted by
Malta pursuant to its legislation therefore are relevant to its
boundaries of Malta's claims: they iollowed geomorphological
features in a manner consistent with the 'exploitability criteria'.
Libya, on the other hand, in granting its concessions did not
purport thereby to limit the extent to [sic] its jurisdiction over the

continental sheli."
Ir1 reply Malta makes the following points:

iu) The instruments to which Libya refers as "leaving open" the
northern boundaries of its continental shelf were the Petroleum Law of
1955 and the Petroleum Regulations or the same year. These were
promulgated a year belore the final drait articles on the law of the sea
prepared by the International Law Commission and three years kfore
the 19% Continental Shelf Convention, and thereiorc ai a time when,
though the general concept of the continental shelf was est;iblished. the
details relating to delimitation were not. It is, thereiore, hardly surpris-
ing that at that time Libya did not commit itself to a method of

delimiration; and no importance can be attached to that omission one
\va? or the other.
(b) As already stated, it is true that Malta, from the earliest days of
irs indeperiderice, openly clainied that the bouridary of ils shelf was ari
cqiridist;ince liiie. It tidhered to that line coiisisteiitly from thcn onwarrls
- Toicight years without Libyan rçaction and, thçrçahçr, riotwithsiand-
ing Libyan re;iction. It is correcIO s;iy tkit the coiicessions ollered tind
granlcd by Malta arc rclçvant io ils claims. Thcy show. indççd, thar
Malta treated areas iip to the median line as falling within its jurisdic-
lion and as bcing suhjçci 10 ils çonirol. As appcars vcry clcÿrly frcim
Map 3 of tliis Counter-Meinorial and from Map 13 in thç Lihyan
Mcmorial, the sourherrrboiiiidaries of Maltese blocks 12, 13, 14,15and

16al1 coincide exactly wiih ihç mçdian linç.' Thc Libyan cnntention2
that the sixteeri offshore blocks ofïered by Malta in 1973"iollowed the
gcomurphology of the arca" partly rnisstatçs and partly rniscunutruçs
the situation. The misstatement lies in the pretence that the hlocks in
their entirety follow the geomorphology of the area. The blocks are
qliiie clearly laid out on a geometric pattern with rectilinear boun-
daries unrelated to bathymetry except superficially in the eastern limits
of Blocks 6, 11 and 16.The misconstruction lies in suggesting that the
eastern limits of these three blocks reflect a Maltese conviction that its

' LibyaniMernorial,. 145.para. 9.33.,anMap 3 of ihCounicr-Mernorial en[itlement stoppeà at thc edge of the Escarpment. Thcrc is no cvidcnce
tifthat aiid the explanation lies elscwhere in a siniple practical con-
sideration. One elemçnt in the pyrnents due frorn a licensee to the
Governmeni is related to the surfaçç area of thc Concession. A licensce
may reasonably be expected to pay for areas which are potentially

relatively easily exploitable. But the attraction of paying a rental and
orher payments for an area of deep sea-bed, when other more interesting
areas lie at lesser depths, is evidently sma-lor, at any rate, was so in
the technology of 1973.For that and other entirely pragmatic reasons
Maha Iimited the houndaries of the three blocks in question by, be it
noted. siraight, not bathymetric, lines which correspond only in the
roughest terrns to the edge of the escarpment.
(c) It is difficult to know exactly what significance to attach to
Libya's siaiemeni that in granting its concessions it did not purport to
limit the extent"ta" [sic] its jurisdiction over the continental shelf. If
these words are to be taken at their face value, they appear to suggest
ibat there is no correlation between Libya's grant ofconcessions and its
continental shelf boundaries. If this is so, every reference to the grant of
concessions by Libya rnust be deemed to be entirely without relevance
as a factor in the determination of the boundary.
(d) At the same time, Malta is bound to draw to the attention of the
Court a substantial and rnisleading distortion of the situation regarding

Libya's grant of concessions. At p. 61 of the Libyan Mernorial' there
appears a reference to an ofshore concession NC53. This is the most
northerly and norih-westerly of Libya's concessions, at any rate as
@, illustratedon Map 11opposite p. 62 of the Libyan Mernorial. There is,
howeimer strong ground fordoubting the accuracy of the representation
on thç müp. A differenl version of the areil of thç same concession can
bt seen in Map 3 coritained iri Volume III (Maps) of the Maltese
Mernorial. IIIthis dinerent versioii the tiortherri linç of the çuncession is
clnsç to and appe;irs generally to lollow the direction of Malta's
equidistance boundary. This discrçpancy rcgarding the boundary of
NC53 willt no doiibt, he resolvcd once Libya produces a çopy of the
miginal tex[ of thç C:oncession frorn which the iireü grÿiited çan he
rerified. Until Libya does tliis, however, Malta inust adherç to ils vicw
that ihis concession in partiçular refl~xtsa mcaçure of Libydn accep-
tance or the median line rather tliiin any clcar disregard for il. The basis
on which MalPa m;iinlains ils position is more fully set out in Annzx 5.
190. Generally in this connection it may be recalled that the Court,
in para. 96 of the 1982 Judgment, acknowledged the elTectupon the
boundar? of ihe grant of concessions:

"... The line of adjoining concessions, which was tacitly respected
for a number of years, and which approxirnately corresponds
îunhermore to the line perpendieular to the Coast at the frontler
point which had in the past been observed as the defacto maritime limit, does appear to the Court to constitute a circurnstancc or
great relevance for delimitation".

At the same titne*it is important to note that the Court's eniphasis on
the grant of çuiiçessions was tiot limited to concessions as such but was
really concerned with the grant of concessions as

"indicia .. .of the line or lines which the Parties themselves may
have considered equitable or acted upon as such.'

Thus viewed, what matters is not so much Malta's 1973Concessions ar.
Malta's 1965and 1966actions, which were unequivocal in a declaration
of an equidistance line, coupled with the absence of adverse reaction
thereto by Libya.
191. In the Third conclusion Libya argues that:

The position set forth by Libya in 1973 taking account or
coaslal lengths ... lies far to the north of a median line and has
been maintained by Libya. This line lies within the boundary zone
~~hicliLibya proposes in this Memorial should be the basis for
negotiations between the Parties to arrive at a precise line of
delimitation".

Again, it is difficult to identify the thrust of this "conclusion". Is it
meant Io support some alleged "consistency" in Libya's position irom
1973 to the present day? Or is it intended to show that that.position is
diciated by some clear and guiding principle?.Such questions must
remain for answer by Libya. But it is a fact that the stated theoreiical

basis for the 1973 Libyan line is not the same as that now advanced for
resort Io "the boundary zorrp"(the "Rift Zonç") as the possible locntion
of a ncgiiliated line. It inunt be borne in iiiind that cvçn on the Libyan
approach to the task of the Court, which Miilta does no1 shar~.~the
ncgotiation following lhç Judgmerit of the Court must take plnce in ihc
lighi nl whatever applicablç principles and rules of intcrnatioii;il law the
Court may identify. C:haticeaiid coiticidencç have not beeti pleadcrl by
Libya as relev;iiit principles of international law. Yel the ide;i that there
isgreater force in the Libyan clairn ta 3 "border zotie" in thç "Kilt
Zrinc" because the 1973 linç hnppens, so Libya assçrts, to fall within it,

appeors IO çIçv:ite ;iccidetit ta thç Içvel of giridaiice.
192. ln its Fourrh conslirsion Libya asserts that
-Libya has protested any activities of Malta falling within the
areas considered to lie within Libya's continental shelf and has
itself refrained from drilling in disputed areas until the matter of

delimitation bas been settled between the Parties. Similar restraint
has not been exercised by Malta which, apparently pressed by ils
cancession holders, has attempted to drill in areas which Libya
considers f;ill under its jurisdiction".'

TunisieLibyo caseI.C.J.Reporls1982.p. 84para. 118.
Sec PartIIabove, para. 68-74.
UWan Memorial. p. 148,para.9.43.[go] COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF MALTA 323

~l.fal1fl'rscplj:
(O) 11 by "any" Libya mrans ";III", Libyii has iiot protested uriy
aciivi~iesor Malta as aforesaid. Malta's "activities" in thç are;i precçded

hlalta's 1973 concession grants and look the form of the open asser-
tions of right to the area extending to the median line evidenced by the
Note Verbale to Libya of 1965 and the continental shelf legislation of
1966.
(b) Howre\~er,that is a small point compared with the fantasy of
Libya's "restraint". Restraint is something normally thought of as a
commendable virtue, involving some element of sacrifice or tolerance.
ln rhe period from 1976to 1980, Libya'soil revenues amounted to over
U.S. S75 billion! equal to U.S. $3 million per head of the Libyan
population. Libya itself has described ils position in ils Counter-

Memonal in the Tunisia-Libya case in the following terms:
"The growth of oil production from onshore sources in Libya
\vas rapid and Libya soon look its place uniony ~hemajor oil
ergorring couritries of the tvor/d. Offshore Libvu has also been

fartii~~u~e~.'
Malta's revenues from oil were ni]. At that level of income, Libya's
disinclination io seek further oil is understandable. Malta, on the other
hand, has to devote a very substantial part of its hardly earned foreign
exchange to ihe purchase of oil. But if considerations of this kind are to

be bwught into the picture, itis material to recall Libya's persistent
and successful efforts 10 prevent even the entry into force of the Special
Agreement submitting the prescnt dispute to the Court. Despite al1
endenvours by Malia, 1,ibyÿ procrastinated coiitinuously hy taking
ihree ycars to negotiate the agreemçni and ;ifurther six Io i-atih il.
hlureover ihc çvetirs of 1980 whicti prevçntçd Malta from carrying on
explor;itioii activities in a location lying some 50 iniles north of ihç
rncdian line ;ire too well knowti to need rcpctition. The kirid of thitik-
irig khind ihis usç of langu;ig,e resemhles that which undcrlics the
Liby:n contention. discuused above, thal to the ricli sliall bc given,çven
ai the expense of Ihç poor. In siicli thinking thçrc is no place for

the rundümentül prjiiciple of intçrnational Iaw rclating to the equality
ofStates.
193. The F$h and I;istof Libgu's conclusir»isdrawn from its "brief
resume ofthe conduct of the Parties, is tliat

'Malta has consistently advocated delimitation along a median
line and Libyd has consistently refused to accept equidistance as
the basis for an equitable delimitation in this situation."
To this Mollu replies:
(0) It is true! of course, that Malta's position has been consistent

Ihroughout; and Malta welcomes Libya's admission to this ellect.

'lnrernorionoFNiancioSltorisrI.M.F..sec.1982
P. 21.para.41 Emphasissupplied.324 CONT~NEMAL SHELF

(h) 11 is lcss [rue that "Libya has corrsisr~.rirlyrefused to acccpt
equidistancç". On the coritrary 1,iby;i'ssileiice for çight years aniouiits
trian xcceptaiice of Maltii's equidistançç linç. It is otily siriçç 1973ihit
Libya li~isexprçssçd itself othçrwisç on the niatter and iiiso doing it
has varied its choice of guiding principle. In 1973 the argument was
e~clusi\~eIybased on a certain version of proportionality and led to the

proposal of a specificline; this has now been abandoned in favour of an
undetermined line somewhere within the vast area described bv Libva
as the "Rift Zone".
194. To conclude on the issue ~~ the conduct of the Parties. Malta
subi& that by its conduct over the years Malta has constaitly and
consisiently applied the principle of equidistance and that Libya for
eight iormatively important years, from 1965-1973, refrained from

giving Malta any reason to doubt the validity of that approach. This
simple pattern of "conduct" can be viewed either as a cogent reflection
of the equitable character of Malta's position or as evidence of acquies-
cence by Libya in Malta's position or as precluding Libya, in law as in
fact. from challenging the validity of Malta's position. The words of
Judge Ago are particularly pertinent here: "... consent evinced by
inaciion ...".' Moreover, regardless of the way in which this conduct is
viewed. the other feature of the conduct of the Parties, namely, Libya's

own condiict is, as shown both in Malta's Memorial and elsewhere in
this Counier-Memorial, consistent only in ils assertive and self-seeking
character [rom the lime when it was first put forward in 1973. But in
terms of law itrests upon no consistent foundation. Libya's case to-da)'
is in principle quite difirent from Libya's case a decade ago.

2. [)ELIMITATIONS WII'II TIIIKU STATES

195. Liby:i nppctirs IO base ils rççoiirsc to deliiiiitatioiis witli tliird
Sratçs ils 2releviitit considcriitiotU~OII the ftillowiiigphrase liftçd fruni
1112Court'. 19x2.;iidginerit:

".-.tlic circi~t~i~tançcof the existetice and interests of othçr Staics
in the arca. und the existing or potciitial deliiriitutii>ns betïreen
eÿch of tlie Psrtics ancl siicli States".'

As will be noiiccd. however, the wurds qiioted are no iiiore tliari IL
phrÿsç. They Iack ari oprative verb aiid thç çritic;tl re~der irî the
Libyan Memorial is left wondering what signihcance. if any' theCourt
atiached to this "circumstance".
196. To find an answer one has to look at the Judgment as a whole.
As a result. the following may be discerned.
197. The Court first refers to third States at p. 35, para. 20, in a
section of the Judgment which opens with the words:

' I.C.JRrnorrs 1982..o. . = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Libyan ~emori;ilp. 148. p. 9.4quoling [rom thejudgment in the Tzoxisiu-Lihyd
case.1~C.J.Rrporir 1982,p.64.para. 81. "It shoulci hç emphasiz~d that the orily purpose of the de-
scription ivhich follows is to outline the hackgrourid, and no1 to
detine legally thc area of dçlimitütion nor 10 çüy how the Court
views the various geogrdphical leatures for thc purposçs of their
impact on the legal situation.'

There then îolbou,s,on the next page, the first mention of third States:
"So far as limits seawards are concerned, no delimitation agree-
ment has been concluded by either Party with Malta; Tunisia has
concluded an Agreement ... with Italy .. ."

Up to this point then the mention of third States is entirely matter-of-
fact.
198. The Court reverts to third States at p. 42, para. 33. Again in a
"facrual" context, the Court identifies

"the Pelagian Block ... as a much wider region than that which
can possibly be available to be delimited between the Parties",

and continues:
"The nonhern and north-eastern parts of the Pelagian Block,
where conflicting claims of the Parties exist, are situated in a
region where claims of other States regarding the same areas have
been made or mdy be made in the future. The Court has no

jurisdiction to deal with such problems in the present case and
must not prejudge their solution in the future."
199. Then. coming closer to the passage cited by Libya, the Court at
p. h2 seeks to define the area which is Içgülly rclevant tu lhç de-
ter1nin;ition and says (at the çncl of para. 75):

"The conclusion tkit tliese arcas arc not lcgally relevant to the
delirnirntioti betwçcn the Parties does not however lead to thç
cvnclusion by way ofcorollary that thc whole area boundcd hy the
coasis of both çountries and by such szaward boundariçs is
rcserved in il.; entirety for division hctween Libya and Tunisili. As
mentionad above. thç rights of otlier Statçs horderirig or1 thç
Pelagian Seawhich may be claimed in the northern and north-

eastern parts of that arcn must not be prejudgçd by the decisicln in
the present çasç."
This reierence. therefore, is no more than a formal saving of the
position or third States.
200. From here the Court moves on to describe the ~ositions of the
Parties regarding "relevant circumstances". It records that Tunisia had

spsified among such circumstances "the situation of Tunisia, opposite
States whose coasts are relatively close toits own, and the eiTectsofany
actual or prospective delimitation carried out with those States"' and

' 1.C.J. ReporI1982,p.34, para18
Ibidp. 62,para 76.326 CONTINENTAL SHELF 1931

ihat Libya had menlioned "as a related factor. the existence of actuül rir
prosptive delimitations with third Statesin the region".'

Ml. Evenlually, the Court begins ils own discussion of "the relevant
circumstances which characterize the area" and it is here that, entirely
in passing, the Court used the phrase quoted so portentously in the
Libyan Memorial:
"Apart from the circumstance of the existence and interests of
other States in the area, and the existing or potential delimitatiom
between each of the Parties and such States, there is also the

position of the land frontier ... to be taken into acco~nt".~
Seen thus in perspective, the Court's reference to third States is not a
statement of a relevant factor, save to the extent that the Court is
concerned not to prejudice the position of non-Parties to the case. The
Court is in no way saying that consideration of the position of third
States is an independent factor which can alfect the delimitation
between the Parties.

202. This analysis is borne out if, as one continues reading of the
Judgment, one asks the question: Does the Court come back to this in
any significant way? The answer is No. The only further references to
third States arc inits discussion of proportionaliiy and in the oprative
parngraphs. In paragraph 130,' the Court siates that

"how far the delimitation line will extend north-eastwards will,
of course, depend on the delimitations ultirnately agreed with ihird
States on the other side of the Pelagian Sea".
and concludes:

"II is legitimate to work on the hypiithcsis of thc whole of that
arca hcing dividod by the delimitation line betweeti Tunisiü and
Libya; because although the rights which othcr Statcs rnay claim in
the north-eastcrn portion of that area must not be prejudg~xiby
the decisioii in the prcscnt casc, thc Cuurt innut dealing here with
ahholute areÿ, but with proportions."

Lastly, in paragraph R(1) of thc operÿtivc parÿgrÿphs the Court
mcrvçs the rights (ifthird States and in paragraph C(3) declares that
"the extension uf this line northeastwards is a rnatter falling

oucsidc the juridiction of the Court in the present case, as it will
depend on the delimitation to be agreed with third State~."~
203. If this analysis of the Court's judgment of 1982 in ils bearing
upon reference to third States seems a trifie extended, it is so only
because there is no other way, apart from unsupported assertion, in
which one can counter the apparently intentional implication in the

ibid.p.63, para. 77.
' Ibkl.pM. para.81.
' lbid.p91.
Ibidp. 94.Libq'an ,Memtinal that in some way the Court supports corisidçration
ol relations with lhird States generally as "a relevant circumstance" in a
dclimiiation between two Parties. The Court is concerned with third
States only for the purpose of ensuring ihat - as non-Parties - their
psitions are not lorrnally aiïected by the decision of the Court.
204. It is, therefore, entirely irrelevant and inadmissible for Libya to
introduce a suggestion that Malta's claim to continental shelf east of
18'E line of longitude "would therefore eut off any meaningful de-
limitation between Libya and ltaly in the lonian Sea".' What has that
got to do with a delimitation between Libya and Malta? The Libyan
proposition pre-supposes what has to be established and decided,
namely, that tbere is (contrary to Malta's contention) an area of Libyan
continental shelf which projects so far north in the Ionian Sea that
there is a need lor a "meaningful" (whatever that may mean!) de-

limitation between Libya and Italy. Equally self-serving is the pro-
position in the same paragraph tbat Malta's claim "would erase the
obvious relationship that exists across this Sea between the coasts of
majnland Italy and Libya". What is this "obvious relationship" other
than petilio principii.
205. Turning Io Libya's second "delimitation of interest", namely,
that between Italy and Tunisia concluded in 1971,one must ask how
does that affect the situation between Libya and Malta? If the argument
is that the treatment of the islands of Pantelleria, Lampedusa, Linosa
and Lampione detracts [rom the principle of equidistance, the point is
oneto be made in the context of the treatrnent of islands generally, not
under the heading ol "Deiirnitation with third States". If the argument
is that insumc way the agreement reflccts the vicw of Italy and Tonisia
thal Malta should bc disregarded whcn constructing the boundary,
thcn il proceda on an incorrect basis of fact. The Lihyan Mernorial is

wrong in suggestinp lhat
"Apparcntly, thc çontrol points which served for the construc-
tion oiihe ljneare IO be fourid along the baselines represçnting, on
the Italian side, the entire southern coastline of Sicily ... and on
thc Tunisian side, the coast from Cap Bon to about the latitude of
the Kerkennah Islarids .. ."'

As a momcni's work with a piiir of dividers will dernonsirate, thç
extreme wuth-e~stcrly terminus of the Ilülian-Tunisian line, Point 32,'
isconstmcted as an equidistance point between Lampedusa and Malta.
206. The fact that in the West there may be an inconsistency with
the Italian-Tunisian delimitation is a matter between Malta, Italy and
Tunisia. But it cannot be invoked as a ground for rejecting the
underlying .principle of Malta's claim to equidistance. Nor is there,
contrary to the Libyan suggestion, "a potential conflict" inthe south

' iibyan Mernorialp,.149.para.9.49.
Libyan Mernorial.Map 15,opposite page150wi~h ihe Tuiiisian/Libyan deliinitation "which shoiild flow frtim ihc
Coun's 1982 Judgmcnt". That is cxpressly exclud~xiby thç tcrnis or the
Judgmcnt.
207. 'Chç full çxtravagançc of Libya's recourse 10 the positions or

third States appears in paragraph 9.57. In the east Malta is said to be
making a "vast" claim extending into areas lying between Libya and
third States (unspecified). But why is Malta's claim said'to be "vast-? It
is certainly not as vast as Libya's entitlement on an equidistance basis
along the wbole of its coastline. What mus1not be forgotten is that by
virtue of the simple geography of this case, it involves, proportionally
speaking, much more of Malta's continental shelf than it does of
Libya's and that Libya'sclaims upon Malta make much greater inroads
proportionally upon Malta's overall continental shelf rights than do
Malta's claims upon Libya. Even if Malta were accorded more than its
full claim Libya would still be left with a continental shelf wbich by
cornparison with Malta's would deservingly merit thedescription "vast".'
208. But apart from these inherent defects in this part of the Libyan

argument, the most striking flaw in Libya's recourse to "delimitaiions
with third parties" is ils evident inconsistency with the essentials of the
Libyan case. Malta, we are repeatedly told, can have no rights extend-
ing beyond her limited "natural prolongation" in the physical sase
and. in particular, cannot bave rights which project beyond the edge of
the Sicily-Malta and the Medina Escarpments. Libya, however, don
noi regard itself as bound by these limitations but, so it argues, should
be allowed to.develop its claims right through this "forbidden" area in
order to establish a delimitation with "third States". Why is it, one is
bound to ask, that considerations of geology, geomorphology and or
the principle of natural prolongation which are so streniiously adduced
as ihc bnsis of Libya's casc against Malta, have no reciproclil applica-
bilityin relation to Libya's ambitious claims?

209. IIaving devoted additional consideration in Chapter 9 01 its
Mernorial trithe "Condiict of the Partics" and tu "Delimit;itions with
Third Statc~"~,thc Libyan Mçmorial iscontent to lirnit ils discussion of
the rernaining factors "Sçcurity interests", "Islands" and "Economic
and rclated factors" to the niuch shorter treÿtment accorded to thcm in
the chapter on the "Principles and Rules of International Law
Applicable to the Present Case". Nonetheless, the relative brevity of
their examination by Libya does not relieve Malta of the need to
respond. however briefly, to some of the observations made in those
pages."

210. As to the relevance of security interests, Malta concurs with

'Sce Malta'sMernorial,pp.3637, paras. 117-118 and p. 125. para.cf.pp. 119
@ 121and FiguresA and Bon pp. 118and 120.
LibyanMernorialpp. 143-153.
Malia'streatrnentof this subjecfin ils Mernorialis to be p.114,para.232.
,P6I COUNTER-MEMO ORFIALLTA 329

1,ibya in identifying them os material 10 the present Ca:. However,
Malta's viewof the facts is entirely dikrent from Libya's.The Libyan
Memonal is quiie wrong in seeking IO ernphasize that the weight of
Malta's security interests lies to the north of the Maltese islands, with
the implication that Malta does not have significantsecurity interestsin
other directions. The fact is that, as an island, Malta has security
interests in every direction andl1of thern are seawards; these interests
are the greater in whateverdirection it is that the threatesfrom.As
Libya recallsin opeaing this section of the argument, it is not tolerable

to have a foreigo State or its licenseesexploit resources off one's own
masts.' The impact upon the securit~,or senseof security of a State, is
related not to geology, geomorphology, bathymetry or natural pro-
longation, butto simpleconsiderations of distance. In viewof this, in a
situation where wbat is sought is an equitable result, considerations of
security would appear to militate in favour of equidistance more
heavily than they do in favour of a line whichliescloser to the territory
of one State than to that of the other. This approach operates with
particular cogency when the claim of one State is brought so close to
the territory of the other as Libya's'isto Malta.' For the moment it is
enough Io point out that the distance from the northern edge of the

"RiftZone", as defined by Libya for the purposes of delimitation, to the
nearest point on the coast of Malta is barely 7 nautical miles while the
distance from the southern edge of the same zone to the nearest point
on the Libyan coast is about 140 nautical miles. Considerations re-
levant to Malta's ioterest in exercising political authority in respect of
continental shelf areas appurtenant to it are developed in paras. 28C
292 below.

211. Whütever advantages thcre rnay be in the systçrn of simul-

taneous exchange of written pleadings in a case such as the present, the
syslm dŒs carry with il tht risk that the iipcning pleadings may not
focus on identical issues. This is nowhere more strikingly apparent
tban in tibya's treütrnenl of "islands" as a relevant facior. The qucstion
of islands idealt with extensively inMalta's ~ernorial' and the rnatter
will lx mention4 again in this Countcr-Mcrnorial. Libya, for reasons
which are presurnably tactical in nature, has dealt only hrieflywith this
question and even then only by referenceto islands generally, without
identifyingthe situation of Malta in its true and dominant terms, as one
of an islandSrate.'Indeed,the only authority adduced on the subject in
the Libyan Mernorial is a passage in the Anglo-Frtnch Arbitration
dzaling with the Channel Islands. These islands, of course, are in no

' LibyanMcmod, p. 110.para6.67.
SeeMap 4opposite.
' Seecs~ialiyChapterVI.pp. 43-58 and ChaptcrVI161-96.
LibyanMernoriapp.110-113. par6.79-6.86.330 CONTINENTAL SHELP
t97l

relevant waycomparable to Malta, being not an independent State, but
dependent Islands with an cxtreme dislocation from the mainland
ierritory of the parent State coupled with closc proximity to the
oppositc State.

212. Libya has dealt no more extensivelywith economic and related
laciors than it has with secunty interests,' contenting itself with a
general admonition against attnbuting weight to arguments of relative

walth or size of population. This is entirely understandable in viewof
the Factthat the whole weight of economic advantage is with Libya.
213. Malta has opened up the subject in its Memorial in the short
statement at the beginning under the heading "Importance to Malta of
the Present Case",' inthe statement of the economic background"nd,
in more detail, in the section entitled "Certain Equitable
Considerations of Particular Relevance in the Present Case".' In
particular, it has commented on the very passage fromthe Court's 1982
Judgment which Libyahas cited at p. 113,para. 6.87.There is therelore,
nothing to be gained by developing further at this point Malta's case

relating to the relevance of economic considcrations. Malta's basic
position is, however, restated below, particularly in Chapter X.

'Ibid.pp.11>114, paras.6.87-5.89.
' Ibid.pp.15-16.al,p.3, parasb6
' Ibd. pp.LW114 CHAPTER IV
PROPORTIONALITY

1.THE R6LE ALLOTTE D0 PROPORTIONALITY
INTHE LIBYAM NEMORIAL

214. The genesis or the argument of the Libyan Ciovernment related
to proprtionality appears to be the position adopted hy the Libyan

deiegation in the course of the talks on 23 and 24 April 1973.' The
Libyan delegation stated that in the draft agreement the respective
lengths of the ponion of the coastline of Libya lacing Malta (from
the Tunisian border eastwards to Misurata) had been taken into consi-
deration in determining the dividing line. Thus the distance between
the two coastlines was divided "in the same proportion that the two
shorelioes bear to each other". At these meetings the Maltese dele-
gation maintained the legal validity of the equidistance line.
215. Chapier 6 of the Libyan Memonal is devoted to a rairly

extensive statement of "The principles and rules of international law
applicable to the present case" from Libya's point of view. In this ex-
poséihe main headings are as foll~>ws:-
"A. Principles and Rules Governing a State's Legal Basis ofTitle to

the Continental Shelf".
"B. Rinciplcs and Rules Governing the Delimitation of tlie
Continenlal Shelf".
"C. The Kiile or Proportionality".
216. It is clear [rom both the ordering and the content of the chapter

ihal proportionality is accorded a secondary signific;ince. Much of the
chapter is devolad io thc iopic of natural prolongation, and thç list OC
"principlcz and ~ules"~does no1 includc a reference to proportionality.
Moreover, in the "Conclusions" to the chapter' there is no çmphasis
upn and: inded, no single rcfcrence to, the question of
proportionality.
217. In paragraiph 6.43 it is stated that "the element of proportio-
oality will be discussed in the light of its rôle as a test of the equity of

the result produc&, and the subordinate rôle of proportionality
indicated by this formulation is reinforced by the passages which
elaborate upon "the rôle of prop~rtionality".~ Thus proportionality is
stated to be a "test-.5

SeeLibyan Mernoriapara. 4.35 and Annex 39 and 40.
ihid. par6.94.14.
Ibid para6.W6.93.
ZbS.Twice inpara. 6.9Lwiceinpara.6.91.twice para. 6.92 are four limes in
para.6.93.332 CONTINENTAL SHELF i991

218. The primary statcmçnts of pririciple relative to the rôle of
proportionality arc as follows. First, the Libyan Mernorial quotes rrorn
ihe Court of Arbitration in the Ariglr~FrcrichArhirrutiofil whcn il said:
"Proportionality ... is to be used as a criterion or factor
relevant in evaluating the equities of certain geographical si-

tuations, not as a general principle providing an independeni
source of rights to areas of continental shelf."
In the same connection the Libyan Memorial reiterates the view that
proportionality is "not a legal principle which itself gives rise IO
rights".'
219. Part II1 of the Libyan Memorial is concerned with "the appli-

cation or the law to the facts and relevant circumstances of this case-
and consists of four chapters, of which the last, Chapter 10, is entitled
"the acbievement of an equitable result". In a first part, the text or
Chapter 10 emphasises the "physical factors of natural prolongation"
and other "relevant circumstances" of a "geographical character".' In
the second part of the chapter4 the Libyan Memorial returns to ;the
test of proportionality" and explains how, in the Libyan view,the test is
10 be applied in the present case. The question of the applicabiliiy of
the test will be reserved for later e~amination.~ For present purposes, it
is sufficient to note that the Libyan Mernorial applies the "test" in the
particular form of "proportionality in the light of the ratios between the

lengths of the coasts of the partie^".^
220. The overall treatment of the issue of proportionality in the
Libyan Memorial displays two characteristics. First. the relevant for-
mulations and exposition take up only slightly more thsn seiien pages
in ü Mernorial consisting of 160 pages of text. Secondly. the position ol
principlc adoptcd is to the ellect that proportionality is not an inde-
pendent source of righls. but a "test" of the equity (if the result
prnducçd by the application of the pertinent principles and rulcs
governing the delimitation of the continental shclf.

221. As a matter of practicc, the rhle vccorded to the element or
proporrionality in the Libyan Memorial is much more substanti;il than
the formulations ofereci in that pleading indicütc. Far îrom being used
as a means of checking, testing or verifying the equitable nature of a
result achieved by the application of the pertinent principles and rules.
the Libyan Government has relied upon proportionality as a dogmatic
basis for what is in eîTecta delimitation. Indeed, in the history or the

aDsi-rion of30 June 1977.para.101.
'LibyanMcrnarial. para.6.90.
' LibyanMemorial p,p. 154-155. par10.01-10.05
lbrd pp.155-160 paras.10.0&10.18.
Sse belowparas.237-251.
Libyan Mernorialpp. I59-1MI.para10.18.[laol COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF MALTA 333

dispute the meetings of 23 and 24 April 1973' reveal the primary
reliance upon a certain conception ofproportion;ility. Whilethe Libyÿn
Govçrnrnent has continued to rely upon this conception of pro-
prtioi~ality in ils Memorial ilmust be noted that the actual basis of its
claim is now the "Rift Zone", has therefore changed.
222. The use of proportionality as a primary criterion or method of
delimitation is, of course, incompatible with legal principle, and the
Libyan argument necessarilyinvolvesan unhappy tension betweenthe
radical and arbitrary rôleactually accorded to proportionality, and the
rôle justifie3 by Iegal principle. Stripped of the detail, the Libyan

position is basd upon a highly abstract conception involving a part-
ition of theseabed in accordance with a specialised version of the test
or proportionality, vhich in effect becomes an independent criterion
advanced asthe basis for a claim to a just and equitable share. This
approach appears very clearly in the course of the meetingsof 23 and
24 April 1973and it is evident in the followingpassage in the Libyan
Memorial:

-In the present case, although the dispute came to a head as a
result of conacting petroleum concessionsgranted by the Parties,
itemerged out of difierences of view regarding the principles of
international law which should govern the delimitation of the
continental shelf between Malta and Libya. Malta has persistently
adhered strictl? to "the Median Line", i.e. the "principle" of strict
equidistance. Libya,on the other hand, has taken the viewthat, in
thecucumstances of the verysmall island group of Malta, and the
Iage continental State of Libya with itseltended coastline on the
southern side of the Mediterrÿnean, the "equidistance principle" is
wholly inÿppropriaie and inapplicable. Fromeneurly stuge, I.ihyo

Rus raken the riew thar the solution should beJair and reasonal?le,
tukingjully inIo uccountthe circumsrunccsof the purticulurcase."'
223. This passügefrom the Libyÿn pleadings occurs in the context of
an account of "rh~eniergence of the dispute" and, as suhsequent
passages indicate:' ~hebasis of the solution rcgardcd by the Libyan

Gownment as "rair and reasonahlc" (and propounded in 1973)was a
version of proporiionality in terms of the ratio of the lengths,of the
coastlincs convidered relevant for the purpose of such apportionmcnt.
The use or proptinionality ns an independent method of apportioning
the intervening areas oTseabed thus appears in the diplomatic record,
and in tbe Libyan Mernorial thjs episode is linked directly with the
legal argument and subrnissions of the Libyan Government in the
p&nt proceedings.
224. The employment of proportionality in the form proposed by the
Libyan delegation at the talks in April 1973involves the adoption of

' LibyaaMemonalor.. 53,para. 4.24.Emphasissupplicd. that Mcmorial.
1bid.p~ 57-59, paras.4.3S4.35.334 CONTINENTAL SHELF [Io11

the posilion that each Slale should have a "jus1 and equitable sharc" of
the continental shelf areas in dispute. This approach is inconipaiible
with the relevant lcgal principles and the doctrine of the just and
equitable share has been consistcntly rcjecied by international
tribunals.
225. In the North Sea Continenral Sheifcases this Court expressed
the following views:

"mhe doctrine of the jus1 and equitable share appears to be
wholly at variance with what the Court entertains no doubt is the
most fundamental of al1the rules of law relating to the continental
sheli. enshrined in Article 2 of the 1958 Geneva Convention,
though quite independent of it - namely that the rights oi the
coastal State in respect of the area of continental shelf that
constitutes a natural prolongation of its land territory into and
under the sea exist ipso facto and ab initio, by virtue of its
sovereignty over the land, and as an extension of it in an exercise
of sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring the seabed and
exploiting its natural resources. .. .

It follows that even in such a situation as that of the North Sea,
the notion of apportioning an as yet undelimited area, considered
as a whole (which underlies the doctrine of the just and equitable
share), is quite foreign 10,and inconsistent with, the basic concept
of continental shelf entitlement, according to which the process of
delimitation is essentially one of drawing a boundary line between
areas which already appertain to one or other of the States
affected. The delimitation itself must indeed be equitably effected,
bu1it cannot have as ils object the awarding of an equitable share,
or indeed of a share, as such, at al1- for the fundamçnial conççpt
involved doçs no1 admit of there being anythitig undividai to
share out."l

226. Similarly, in the AngleFrench Conrinerilu1Shclf Arbirruriun the
Court (if Arbitration rclatcd the same thinking to certain French
arguments based upon proportionality. In the words of the Court:

"The equitahle delimitation of the continental shelf is not, as this
Court has already enipliasised in pÿragraph 78, a qucstiun of
apportioning - sharing out - the continental shelf amongst the
States abutting upon it. Nor is it a question of simply assigning to
them areas of the shelf in proportion to the length of their
coastlines; for to do this would be to substitutefor the delimitation
of boundaries a distributive apportionment of shares.
Furthermore, the fundamental principle that the continental shelf
appertains to a coastal State as being the natural prolongation of
its territory places definite limits on recourse to the factor of
proportionality. As was emphasised in the Norrh Sea Conrinenrul
Shelfcases (I.C.J. Reports 1969,paragraph 91), there can never be

'I.C.J.Reports1969,p. 22, paras1920. 11021 COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF MALFA 335

a quaiion of crimpletely refashioning naturc. sucli as by rendering
thc situation of a State with an extensive coastlinc similar to that
ol a Staie with a restricted coaitline; it is rüther a question of
rcmcdying the disproportionality and inequitahlc cÏTcctsproduced
by particular geographical configurations or features in situations
where otherwise the appurtenance of rougbly comparable attri-
butions oicontinental shelf IO each State would be indicated by the
geographical facts. Proportionality, therefore, is to be used as a
criterion or factor relevant in evaluating the equiiies of certain
geograpbical situations, not as a general principle providing an

independent source of rights to areas of continental shelf."'
227. Finally, this Court was careful to emphasise the dilference
between equity, as a vague appeal to distributive justice, and the
application of equitable principles, as a part of positive international

law, in its Judgment in the TunisipLibya Continental Shelfcase:
"Equity as a kgal concept isa direct emanation of the idea of
justice. The Court whose task is by definition to administer justice
is bound to apply it. In the course of the history of legal syslems
the term "equity" has heen used Io define various legal concepts. It

was often contrasted with the rigid rules of positive law, the
severity of which had to be mitigated in order to do justice. In
general, this contrast has no parallel in the development of in-
ternational law; the legal concept of equity is a general principle
dir&ly applicable as law. Moreover, when applying positive in-
ternational law, a court may choose among several possible in-
terpretations or the law the one which appears. in the light of the
circiimstanca of the case, to be closçst Io the requirenients of
justice. Application of çquiiable principles is 10 be distinguished
rrom a decision ex aequo tr bono. Thc Court can take such a

daision only on condititin thrit the Parties agrçe (Art. 3X. para. 2,
of the Statute), and the Coiirt is thcn freed froni the strict appli-
cation of legal rules in order to bring about an appropriate
setllcrnent. The task of thç Court in the prcsent case is quite
different: it is hound to apply equitable principlcs as part of
international law, and 10 bahnce up the various consider~tinns
which it regards as relevant in order to produce an çquitable result.
Whilr ilis clerirrliariorigid rirlecxist as ro the cxacr wcight tu hr
aitached ro earh elernenrin the case, this is veryfar from being an
exercise of discrerion or conciliarion: nor is ir an operation of
disrributiuejusrice."'

228. The reliance upon a proportionality doctrine lying outside the
. lramework of legal principle involves the Libyan Government in an
appeal to a self-serving version of distributive justice which entails not a
delimitation but an apportionment. The position is underlined hy Map

1hision or M Jvnc 1977,InrernnrionLlaw RrportsVol.54. p.6.para. 101
I.CJ. Reports1982. p.M).para.71. Emphasissupplicd. 336 CONTINENTAL SBELF [IO31

@ 9 i' Ihc I.ibyan Memorial. which reprçscnts the Lihyan proposal riE
April 1973.' Thc line indicated renects no ktiown rnethod ofdçlirnitation
iiiacçord;ince with Iaw and is impressioriistic and arbitkary, as bcfi~san

approach based upon apportionnicnt.

(3) Conrradicrionsin rheLibyan Argumenr

229. The argument of the Libyan Mernorial in respect of the issues
concerning proportionality is disfigured by two major contradictions.
The first lies in the assertions of principle- that proportionality is "not
a legal principle whicb itself gives rise to rights".2 These assertions

stand in opposition to the large significance in effecraccorded to
proportionality in the general economy of the Libyan case and in the
Submissiotis addressed to the Court. This aspect. of the Libyan
Mernorial has been explored in the preceding paragraphs.
230. The second contradiction stems from the insistence of the
Libyan Memorial on a large rôle in pracricefor proportionality (in a
certain extra-legal version) and the prominent rôle also accorded to
"the principle of natural prolongation". Thus in the Submission sr the
Libyan Government paragraphs 2 to 4 relate to "the principIe or
natural ~rolonnation" and Daraera~hs 5 10 7 relate 10 the issue of
proportionality. . -.

231. The Court is, in the Libyan MemoriaL3 asked to approve the
orinciole that the delimitation should be "witbin. and following the
general direction of, the Rift Zone as defined in this Mern~rial".~ the
pages of the Libyan Memorial considerable effort is devoted to estab-
lishing the legal significance ofnatural prolongation and, consequently,
the tactual relevançç of the "Rift Zone" as an alleged "fundamental
discontinuity" in the continent;il shelEs
232. Ilere is a remarkablc çuriosity of Icgal logic. Paragraph 4 or lhe
Libyan Submissions invokes "thc principle of natural prcilongation",
and the existence of "a fund;ilnelital discontiniiity in the seabed and
subsoil"as "a critçrion for delimitation of contincntal shçlf ;ire;is in the

present case".Howfiuer,iliereistioloyirulconneciionherweentheleo~rhs
t~r~iosr1inr.sor16rht. ralioif rlioselenyilis,on rhe orle liatiti, rinil the
itt~idri1oj'~YOIO~~ CndIqrot~iorplioloai~fal't~turiti lh~seuhed,Re
rh~,y'$iiitrlimrnriildi~ro~irinir~r"trol,ontlie orhur1-hus the concept
OFproporiionality, irthç form of the ratios of lenglhs of coastlincs~has
no relation whatsoever to the principle of natural prolongation. lndeed.
this 1-iewisgiven clear and emphatic expression in the Libyan Counter-
'Iemorial addressed to this Court in the TunisieLibga case, in the
following passage:-

"In Libyzi'sview, the concept of proportionality is applicable

LibyanMernoriap.i114para6.90.rnorl hichreproducesthelineproposc1973.
lbidpp.163-164
lbidp.159.para10.1and the Submissiopara.9
' Libpn Mernorial,p'84-92and97-104. solely to areas where the application of the principle of natiiral
prolongation leads' to conflicting rcsults, or where (as in the
prEsent case) the question pur to the Court requires il to give eiiect
io rele\.int çircumstances wliiçh might create a'"margina1 arca" of
divergence.. . . Proportionality has no place in connection with de
jure appurtenance. Indeed, to impose proportionality as a restraint
upon a delimitation of areas of shelf that de jure and ab initio
appertain to State A, in favour of State B, hecause of the pro-

portion borne by its srnaller (theoretical) area of shelf to the length
of irs longer (theoretical) coastlines, would be contradictory to the
fundamental legal concept that the continental shelf is the natural
prolongation - in that example - of the landmass of State A into
and under the sea."'

233. In the Submission~,~and generally, the Libyan Mernorial pre-
sents the "natural prolongation" argument and the "proportionality"
argumenr as producing a coincident result, namely a line somewhere
within the "Rift Zone".' Such coincidence where it occurs at al1is only a
chance result, and it can have rio persuasive value. Unless the coinci-
dence has someiegal sign$cance, it is a meaninglesscorrelation (like that
betwmn the stork population on the island of Bornholm and the
human population on the mainland of Sweden: the standard example of
such a correlation).

234. The insignihcance of the coincidence can be demonstrated in the
lollowing xay. Each principle or criterion is given equal importance,
and il the two approaches had produced non-coincident lines of
diuisjon, some method of reconciliation would have been necessary.
Huwcver, when proportionality is ofTcrd as a method roui court of
achieving distributive justice, rathcr than a retrospective test iif the
overalt tquity of a delirnitatiori, it can only operatt on ils ciwn plane
and thus hors no relation either to geology in general or to iiatural
prolongÿtion in pnrticular. In short, the reliançe upon natural pro-
longation as a principle is logically in collision with the substaniial r91e
givcn io proportionality virtually as a method of delimitation. The

inveiitiori of a casual coincidence of result in the Lihyan Memorial
provides no penuine way out of the logical difticulty.
235. Thc illogicality of the 1,ibyan argument cm he summarised
thus. ifthe proportioriality argument is valid, the natural prolongation
pnnciple is irrelevant. If the latter principle is valid, the proportionality
argument is irrelevant. A factual "coincidence" of the solutions
produced by the two principles does not obviate the contradiction
between the two principles. Alter all, in this case the physiography of
the seabedhas nothing ro do with the lengths of the coastlines ofthe two

*Ljbyan .Mernoris1n Tunisi~Libyocase.p.205,para.310. In thiollowi~gpara-
graphIhe Libyan pleadingquotcdthe dsisionof U)June1977 in the Anglo-French
Arbilrmim, par101 (quotedin thprewntCounter-Mernori alove,para. 226).
Paragraph9.
'Assbown onMW il, withoverlayf,ollowip.IM).
@States. No Legal or other conne~tion exists bctween the "Rift Zone"
and thc Libyan coastline betwccn the Tunisian bordcr and Misurata
which is the basis of the Libyan "ratio of coüstal lengths" calculation.
Moreover.as a matter of historical fact, the Libyan proposal of April
1973was not büsed upon geological features either in conception or in

ract.
236. The only attempt in the Libyan Memorial to reconcile the two
priociples occurs in the following passage:
"Although no1 a legal principle which itseü gives rise 10 rights,
proportionality as a factor or guide is intimately connected nith
the concept of the continental shelf based on natural prolongation;

it may even be said that it is the necessary logical consequence of
this concept, since its purpose is to ensure that each naturai
prolongation will be accorded its appropriate weight."'
Far from effecting a reconciliation, this passage simply restales, indeed
underlines, the problem. The final assertion, that the purpose of pro-
portionality is to give each natural prolongation its "appropriate

weight", makes no sense and effectively contradicts the use of pro-
portionality in the Libyan Memorial, which depends not on the alleged
extent of natural prolongations but on the lengths of coastlines, or at
least selected coastlines.

2. THE CORREC~ APPROAC HO THE ISSUE OF PRINCIPLE

(1) The Proper Funcrionof Proportionality

237. The correct vicw of proportionality, in legal terms and jusiifid
by prodent aiid pri,nciple, is that the rble of proportionality must
depnd upon the gcneral legal framework. Thus the concept of pr*
poriionality is "inherent in the notion of a delimitation in accordance
with çquilahle principles", as the Court poinlcd out in the Ariyl*
French Coniinentul Shelf case. =he same Court emphasised that
"Propxtionality is not in itself a source of title to the continental shclr,
but is rather a criterion for evaluating the equities of çcrtain gcograpki-
cal siiuaiions".' Indced. 8uch statements of principle are to be found in
the Lihy~n Memorial itself and the Memorial rcfcrs to "proportio-

LLibyan~e&xial, p. Ils,para.6.90.
'Op. cil.para. 246; and see also paras.1M).The latter paragraphdescmcr
quolatioo in full:-

"IDO.A Statc'scontinentalsheü,beingthenaiuralprolongationundcrth01its
Iwo 'oppositcorn"adjacent"States abut on the rame continental shelf,thci1ly,when
mntinentalsheUboundarymus1in largemcasurcreflcctthe respective configurations
of theirIwocoasts.But particularconfigurationsof thecoast or individualgeographi-
calfeatum may,undercertainconditions,disiortthecooftheboundary,andthus
aEcctthc attribution ofcontincntalshclf to cach State, which would oteerwk
indicatedbythegeneralconfigurationof thcircoasts.Theconcept of'proportionalitynaiity" as a "içst" ol the equity of the result produced by thç appli-
cation of other principles.l
238. In the same connection it is the gencral framework which
matters in the chuicc of a method of delimitation. This choice in any

givencase is to be determined in the light of the geographical and other
relevant circumstances and of the fundamental norm that the de-
limitation must be in accordance with legal principles! Consequently,
the concept of proportionality has no a priori rôle in delimitation cases
and whether it bas a rôle and. ifso, the ~recisenature of that rôle, must
be dependent on the circumstances of each case. In the Anylo-French
Conrinenrol Shzlfcnse the Court statd the ~osition with rreat clnritv in
-
the passage of th decision set forth above?'
239. In the present proceedings the Libyan Government not only
invokes the test or proportionality but invokes a particular version of
proportianaliry based upon the ratio of the lengths of the respective
coastlines reprded as relevant for the purpose. This version of the
concept was formulated by this Court in the Norrh Sea cases but in
such a way as to make clear that the rôle accorded to proportionality,

and the version employed, depended on the particular situation of three
adjoining States located on a concave coa~t.~ Thus the Court of
Arbitration in the Anglo-Frencli Continenral Shelj case expressed the
point in these terms:

"In particuhr, this Court does not consider that the adoption in
the Norrh Sea Conrinenral Sheljcases of the criterion of a reason-
able degree or proportionality between the areas of continental
shelf and the lenrths of the coastlines means that this criterion is
one for applica&n in al1 cases. On lhe contrary, it was the

narticular e--.rnnhical situation of three adioinin~-Statcs situated
on a concavc Coast which gave relevance tri that çriterion in those
c3ies." '

240. It inay h recalled that in the Anyl+Frenck Continental Slielj
case the French Governmetit had invoked the "ratio of the lctlgths of
the respective coasts" argumcnt in two respects: first, with reference to
ihe boundaryin the Channel Islands region, and secondly, the course of
the boundary in thçAtlantic rçgioti. Thc Court spçcifiç;illyrejeclcd ihis

mcrelycxprcrm thc critcrior Iactnrhy whichiimry bedclcrminrdwhrilicrruch a
distortiorcrultrinan inequilabledelimitaiionof thecontinenialslirll as ktwrxn ihr
coartalStaia conccrned.The lactorof proportionalityma?appearin the formof the
ratiobeireenthe arearof continentalshelfto ihe lengthsof therespeciivecoastlines,as
in thefiorth Sez Conrinent0Sheifcases. Butitmay also appear,and more usually
dw as a iactor for deierminingthe reasonableor unreasonab-e the equitabtcor
inequitabie- dmü of particulargeographicalfeatorer or configuraiionrupon the
course of an cquidirtance-lineboundary."
' Libyan Mernonal p 114, para.6.90 and p. 97,para.6.43.
Angl+Firmh CoarinenralShelfcase, Da'irioof 30 June1977.para.97; Tunirio-
Libja ConrinenS iaellfcose,I.C.Reports1982,pp.59-60, paras.70.71.
---?a-- -. .
1.C.J.ReportsIP6Pp .. 49, para.91 (p. 50);p.52,para.98;pp 53-54,para,101.
Op.cil.p,ra.99.340 CONT~NEN'Is'H AELLF ~071

form of thc French argumcnt and did so in both resWts.' thus
underlining the proposition (in pÿragraph 99 ut the decision, abuve)
rhat this criterion "is not one for application in al1casçs".

(2) lrreleuance of Proportionality in terms of Coasral Lengths in the
Present Case
241. The rôle, such as it is, of proportionality in the case of opposite

States abutting upon the same continental shelf may take two forms.
Proportionality may be invoked as a general test of the equity of a
solution arrived at by means of various equitable principles. In the case
of opposite States, the use of the method of equidistance involves a
more or less ex hypothesi compatibility with the test of proportionality,
since both coasts are given equal value.
242. The second form which proportionality may take involves the
need to make adjustments to abate disporportionate ellects resulting
from "the presence of islets, rocks and minor coastal projections"? or

from the presence of islands "wholly detached" from the mainland and
anomalous in relation to the "primary" equitable b~undary.~ No such
causes of distortion exist in the circumstances of the present case; and
the equidistance method produces the solution which satisfies the "test
of proportionality", as a general means of evaluating the overall
equitableness of that result.

(1) Proportionality: Rehr~rralon the Facts

243. It is Malta's position that the tçst of priiportionality in tçrms of
~hc ra~in of the leiigths of cwastlines coiisidered to be rçlcvdnt for the
purpose is no1 applicdhle in the circumstances uf the present case. At
the samc rime it is necessary 10 point out that the resiilt of applying the
mahod of equidistanw isby iio nieans inçoinpaiihlc with equitablc

principles.
244 The actual rçlationship of Maltcse and Libyan coasts, dc-
nionstraied hy the trapeziurn figure included in the Mernorial of
m al ta :rodiices a situation in which the equidistance method reflec~ç
the essential clcments in the gçographical frarnework. Conscquently,
Libya rexives a broad wedge of shelf which reflects the West to east
extension of Libyan coasts, and conforms in terms of lateral reach with
the principles of non-encroachment and of the equality of coasts in
generating shelf rights. Malta receives an area of shelf which reflectsthe

same principles of non-encroachment and of equality of coasts.

3 Op.tir.paras. 98-99; par166paras. 195orscq.para.246.
,%'orSea Conrinent0Shelfcases,I.C.J. Repo1969 ,.36.para .7;AngleFrench
Con~inent Shlelfcas. pcilparas.IW,101,248-251.
' AngIelTe>iehConiinentoShelfcaseop.tir., para1992,01,202.
Malia'rMernorialp. 120. 245. The eniitlement of Malta depends upon the rclutionship (op
psite) and the disruncc betweeri Lihyü and Malta. ?'hc distancc factor
@ hss a certain etect demonstrated by Diagrams A and Bin Figure 5.If it
isassumed that the coastal lengths of States 1 and 2 remain constant,
then the effect of State 1 (as the apex of a trapezium) receding from
(Diagram A) or advancing toward (Diagram B)State 2 can be assessed.
The ratio or the areas of the two sectors of the trapezium, divided by

the equidistance line, remains constant, whatever the value of h, the
distance betwwn the two coasts. The efiect of the equidistance method
is always to reflect the equul lateral reach ofjurisdiction from the coasts
of States 1 and 2.Thus the value h is always shared:' whereas in the
Libyan scheme of ihings State 2 receives a very high proportion of the
areas dividing the Iwo States, however great the distance between them.

(2) The Median Line does nor cal1for the Refashioning of Ceography

246. The fundamental doctrine of continental shelf law is that the

lramework or equitable delimitation is established by the dominant
geographical features. Such dominant features may include both the
coastal features and the relationships of such coastal features. They also
may include mainland coasts, such as those of Libya, and island States,
such ar,Malta. There are 38 island States in existence and the coasts of
such States generate continental shelf rights in the same way as other
toasts.
247. St is the dominant geographical features which indicate the
equitable delimitation, and only "incidental special features" can justify
same abstemenr of the effects of geographical data."hc Libyan

argument basrd upoii proportiiinülity by relcrcnce to the length of
coasilines iç incunsistçnt with legal principlç since il is a crill for a
substantial refashioning of geography and such a c0urs.e of ;içtiori has
been rcjected by this Court in the Norili Scu cascs' aiid also by the
Coun Arbitration in the Anglu-French Contincnlal Sheÿ~ase.~
248. Given the rclationship of the coasts of Malta and Libya thcrc iç
no hasis for mort to priiportionality in the forrn invoked hy the Libyan
Meniorial. 'I'hepiirpose of propiirtionality is to niaintain equity wiihin
the ~i.n~rul~lrameworki!fgeographical dritu unil relei1untlcgal principles.
IIcannot be usd to re-ordcr the dominant geographical (and political)
featrires of the particular case. The requircmcnt of equity- indççd. "the

only absolute requirement of equityX- is that "one should compare like
with like". as the Court pointed out in the Tunisi6Libya Continental
Shey case.' The difierence in the geographical identity of Malta and
Libya is so marked that the introduction of the Libyan version of
proportionality would be incompatible with that "absolute require-

@ oS~eeFigure 6.
i?IoiihSen ConthenrnSheljcaseI.C.J.Reports1969 ,. 50para.91.See alsothe
An&-Frmh CoiirinentSheljcase,op. ciparas100,101.
InienoiioiloLou Reports, Vol. 546,pparas. 101. 248.
'I.C.J. Rqens, 1982p.76, para104.342 CONTINENTAL SHF.1.F IlIll

ment" of equity. In consequence the respective co;ists of the oppusite
Slate. Malta alid Libya, must be given their normal effectin generating
shell rights, on the basis of the principle of distance, the significÿncc of

which ha been considered in the Memorial of Malta,I and again in ihis
Counter-Mernorial both in relation to entitlement and to delimitation.'

(3) The Libyan Position disregards ihe Principle of Aron-
Encroachment

249. The argument of the Libyan Memorial based upon proponion-
ality is offered as an autonomous principle and it necessarily lacks a
context, a proper relation to other pertinent legal and equitable prin-
ciples. It has already been pointed out that the argument derived from

the ratio of coastal lengths has no logical connection with the principle
of natural prolongation, and is in fact antipathetic to that principle.'
The argument is similarly incompatible with the principle of non-
encroachment, which remains a fundamental aspect of the law relating
to continental shelf delimitation.
250. In the case of opposite States abutting upon the same con-

tinental shelf the equidistance principle takes care of the problem of
"cut-off with which the Court was preoccupied in the North Seo
cases.4 The matter can be expressed by saying that the issue of
encroachment does not arise. The Libyan argument, precisely becaux it
seeks to refashion geograpby, proposes a massive breach of the pnn-
ciple of non-encroachment.
251. The Libyan argument rests upon a misconception: that the

generation of shelf rights rests upon length of coasts. It does not. The
generation ofshelf rights dcpcnds upon thc pertinent control points and
the measurements taken from them in order to givc cffect to the
distance principle; and, in the case of oppositc States, this will produce
an equidistance line. In other words, coasts have a "distance" signifie-
ancc and no1 rnerely a "length significancc. Indeed, even when the

Libyan version of proportionality is applicable, rcsort is 10 bc hnd Io
"çoastal fronts" in making thç ncccssdry çdlçulation, an example of the
relative signiticance of coastal length."

4. Tii6.EQLIITY 01;THE MIIDIAN LINE CONFIRME ^Y THE PRACTIC BF
STATES
(1) Urlimiiatlons InuolvingIsland Siuies

252. In its Memoria16 Malta recalled the considerable body of State

' Malia'sMemorial ,aras. 248-255.
Seeabove,in particulparas.122-132and 153-158.
Seeabove.parar23CL236.
I.CJ. Reports1969,p. 31para.44,pp.34-36,paras. 51-57;pp.4647, para 85;
p. 49. para 89;53,para.101.Sccalro the Tunisi-LibyContinent0Shel/case,I.C.J.
Repris, 1982,pp. 118-122,parar65-76. SeparatOpinion of JudgeJiméne z AS-
hga.
loi,D(3). Seo Continent01Shefcases, I.C.J. Reports, 152,para.98; p.54.para
Chapta VII,section2-5.[llz-1161 COUNTER-MEMOKIAO LF MALTA 1\43

practice supporting Ihe vicw that, in circumstanccs comparÿblc to those
of the present caw: the eqiiidistançc rncthod produces an equitablç
rcsult. This hody of Statç practice necçssÿrily establishes that the
equidistance method, in the cases of island States oppositç both distant
and non-distant mainlands, satisfies the factor of proportionality in the
genmulform in u'hich ic can be suid to upply to the case of opposite
Stores, that is to Say,as a test of the overall equitableness of the result.
It willbe appreciated that "equity" and the test of what is equitable
cannoi be conceiv& in terms of an intellectual or legal abstraction, but

must reflect values and standards current and generally accepted in the
cornmunity of States at the present time. In the absence of a previous
dwision of this Court or another international tribunal relating to
similar geographical and political circumstances, the practice of States
is the only sure guide to generally accepted and current notions of what
is equitable in the sphere of continental shelf delimitation.
253. One of the striking features of the Libyan argument based upon
proportionality is the air of unreality with which itis attended. This is
irnmediately apparent when the Libyan modus operandi is applied to a
sample of existing delimitations in comparable geographical circum-

stances. Four such cases may be taken:
(a) Denmark (Faroes) - Norway
(b) Bahrain - Iran
(cj Xorway - United Kingdom (Shetlands)
(d) lndia (Nicobar Islands) - lndonesia

Ilie actual delimitations resulting from the Agreements concluded
between the couniries involved, as well as ihc tçxis ofthosc agreeniznrs,
have already bçen provided by Malta in its Mernorial.' The Reduced
Maps reproduçcd in this Coutitei--Mçrnorial in tlic pages which follow2
show Iwo lines: one is the actii;tl linç 01' dçlimitation under the
approprialc Agmment - and is $0 indiçated; the other is a line drawn

on ihç basiç of prnportionality as propoundcù by Libya. The contrast is
Looeviden~ tu nced any further comrnçnt.

(2) Proportionuliiy in Relaiion tiiBelimiioliuns IrtiioltiinyPeninstilar
Staics Opposite Milinlondx

254. The isolation of the Libyan proposal of April 1973 from the
geieral trend of the practice of States in matters of delimitation is
illustraied further by the cases of peninsular States opposite mainlands.
The cases set forth below are relevant in so far as they demonstrate that
Stateshave not apphed a concept of proportionality in "oppodte State"

sitiiationsof the type adhered to by the Government of Libya. A study
or the cases shows the absence of any criterion based upon the ratio of
the lengths of the relevant coasts.
255. The delimiiations involving peninsular States provide a general,

Mernorial.cd Maps 11pp. 38,63, 81and82 andAnnexes20.22. 50 and51oMatta's
Rd4 Mapa No.2.3.4 and5.344 ÇONTINEN'rA SHELF [117-1221

but reliable, indication of the notions of equity actually applicd by
States in the practiçc of continental shclf delimitation. In conjunction
wiih the evidence of the practice of States relating 10 island States
opposite mainlands,' thc çvidence concrrning pcninsular States points

unequivocally away from the Libyan conception of what is equitable
and, in that context, of what satisfies proportionality as a test of what is
equitable.
256. The precedents set forth below relate to delimitations involving
peninsular States facing opposite "mainlands" abutting on -the same
sheli. The examples include the following2:-

(al Denmark - Norway, Agreement signed on 8 December
1965.1 Article 1 of this Agreement states that the continental shell
boundary shall be the median line. The alignment has a length ol 255
nautical miles. The boundary is an average distance of 58.4 nautical

miles lrom both Danish and Norwegian territory. The first five of the
terminal or turning points lie olf the attenuated feature which is the
northern aspect of the Danish peninsula.
(6) Iran - Qatar, Agreement signed on 20 September 1969." The
agreement establishes a continental shelf delimitation between the two
opposite States. In his analysis5 the Geographer of the U.S.
Department of State remarks that the boundary is "based on the

equidistance principle with the exception that the presence ofal1islands
in the Persian Gulf was disregarded".
(c) Denmark - Unifed Kingdom, Agreement signedon 25 November
1971P Article 1 of the Agreement also states that the delimitation ol
the continental shelf is in principle an equidistance line.
(4) Iran - Oman. Agreement signed or125 July 1974.' Thc con-

iincnial shelf boundary adopted in this agrççmcnt consists of a mo-
dified equidistancç linç. On the Dmani side full ekt has beeti given to
lhç clongÿted Musandam Peninsula and the associatd islands.
(e) Ausrralia- Pupuu Nrw Guineo,Agrecmcntsiqned on 18 December
1978.& This delimitation applies to the continenial shclf areüs lying
between tlie northcrn aspect of the Cape Yorke Peninsiila and, across

the Torres Strait, the southerti Coast of Papua Nçw Ciiiine;i. The
spxific arrangements are elaboratc and the alignment rests upon a
ncgotiÿted compromise. Nonetheless it is evident that in principle the

Theicrt af thc Agreementsir reproducedin An6.7,8,9 and 10;but thechartred.
a~exed ta the Agreements andshowing the line ofdelimitationare reproducedin the
pafcsrhich lollow:ReducedMapsNo. 6, 7,8.9, and 10.
Limiu in the SeNo. 10(Re". Th.e 1965Agreementwas amendedon 24 April1968
folloring moreprcciwgccdctic calculatians.Thc Exchaogeof Nota eflstchangee
irako rrproduccdaspan of Anncx6.
' IbrdN,o.25.
fbido.2.
b ibid.; 9..
' ïbid.. ND.67
aInternoliL ongalMateria Ia,. 18 (1979).p. 291Cape Yorke Peninsula and its omying islands have been givennormal
weighling.

5. CONCLUSIOT NHELACK OPPERTINENC OE THE RATIO 01:LENGTII OSF
COASTS

257. The reliance placedupon the argument based upon the ratio of

lengths of coastlines in the Libyan Mernorial is fundarnentally in
contradiction of the pertinent principles of law and equity. In the
present casethe equidistance method,on the contrary,atisfiesthe "test
of proportionality" as a general rneans of evaluating the equitableness
of the result produced by the application of the pertinent equitable
pnnciples and by relerence to the relevant circumstances.
258. The iack of pertinence of the ratio of lengths of coastlines is
established, in particular, by the followingconsiderations:

[a)In the circumstances of the present case reliance upon the ratio of
lengths of coasts constitutes a resort to a crude mode of apportion-
ment based upon the discredited doctrine of"the just and equitable
share".
(b) Such an approach is inapplicable as between opposite States abut-
ting upon the same continental shelf.
(c) The Libyan reliance upon proportionality in this form is logically
inconsistent with the prominent rôle accorded to "the principle of

natural prolongation" in the Libyan Memorial.
(d) The Libyan position involves a substantial refashioning of geo-
graphy. and "the only absolute requirement of equity" is that "one
should compare likc wiih like": but Malta and Libya have essen-
tially diîïerentgeographical idcntities.
te) The alignment called for by the Libyan Governmeni would con-
stituie a major hreach of lhç principle ofnon-cnçroachrnent.
(j')The practice or States provides no support for the çquity of the
Libyan cunteniion but confirms the equity of the equidislance
meihod itithç circumstances of the vrcsent case. PART IV

RESTATEMENT OF MALTAS CASE
IN THE LlGHT OFTHE
LIBYAN MEMORIAL CHAPTER V

THE IMPORTANCE TO MALTA OF THE APPURTENANT
CONTINENTAL SHELF

259. Malta lacks natural resources and explorations carried out
indicate that ihere is no prospect of discovering minerai resources

onshore. Malta has been recognised by the United Nations as having
the status of an %land developing country".' With a limited territory
and a population of 320,000 persons, Malta has an evident need for
resources and, not least, sources of energy. There are good prospects of
the discovery and production of oil in the appurtenant arecs of
continental shelf and. indeed, the most promising areas lie adjacent to
the southern sectors of Malta's equidistance line. Malta thus has a
significantinterest in access to the minera1 resources of the shelf.
260. It is also necessary to recall the importance to Malta as a
coastal State of the exercise of political authority in respect of ils
appurtenant continental shelf. The "sovereign rights" which coastal
States may exercise over the shelf are for the purpose of exploring it
and explniting its natural resources, but the exercise of such rights

involvcs a gencrül cornpetence Io m;iintairi puhliç order in lhç arças
concerned u an aspect of the proper management of thç resources.
Morcover, the çrilisrÿlState lias sccurity interests in the seabed lying OIT
itscoasts. It is iibvious thüt such securily interests areIcïsiinportani
whçn Lhe homc1;ind corisists of ;I srnall grriup of islands. The
Convention on the Law of the Sça contirms the securily iriterests of
groups or islands in s<i far as "archipelagiç St;ites7'arc accorded a
spxial régimein respcçt ofthe arçhiplagic watçrs, as well as their hed
and subsoil: sce the elahorÿtç provisions of Part IV of thc Convention.

IIp.24ûIAn-ocu68.nraliosne Malta'sMernoriapp.I1@114. paras226230.and Vol. CHAPTERVI

THE LEGALITY AND CONSISTENCY OF MALTA'S
POSITION SINCE 1965

1. MALTAT EQUIDISTANL CINE

261. In accordance with the principles and rules of international law
then existing, Malta's legal rights in respect of appurtenant areas of

continental shelf were confirmed in a Note Verbale of 5 May 1965and
subsequently regulated by the Continental Shelf Act adopted in 1966.
The lorm of this legislation was in no way exceptional. Like much other
legislation employed by States in regulating their shelf rights. the
Maltese enactment prescribed an equidistance line.The appropriateness
or the equidistance method in delimitation of shelf areas dividing
opposite States was not long afterwards confirmed by the Court in the
Norlh Seo Continental Shel/cases.'
262. Moreover several important agreements involving States of the
Mediterranean region concluded in the same period relied either im-
plicitly or explicitly on the equidistance method. These agreemenrsl

were made in the period between January 1968and May 1977,and ihe
parties includetl Italy, Yugoslavia, Tutiisia, Spin and Grccçç. Nonc of
these instruments rnakcs any refercnçc to "special circumstances" and
such a relercncc would be unusual in terms ofthe practiçe of Statcs? Ycl
the Libyan Memorial makes the odd cornplaint that the legislation of
Malla omils suçh a rcf~rcnce.~
263. In the yçriod since the Note Verbale of 1955 and thc Act or
1966 Malta lias behaved with complete consistency and this is ndmitted
by the Lihyan Mernorial when il stalçs that "Malta appeiirs cornmiltd
IO thç mcdian lineWJanddraws the conclusion (from the conduct olthe

Pariies) that "Malta kas consistently advocated delimitation dong a
maiian li~ie".~

264. The consistency of Malta's adherence to a delimitation based

' Scebelow.para279.
Malta'rMernorial, Ann6.1 to M. Sce also Map 2 of thisCounter-Mernorial.
' Seebelow. para301,and the referencesthereinmadeto ihe Annexin MalLa's
Mernorial.
Paras4.06. 9.3o 9.35.
Para.9.43. tirrnly upon customary intçriiiitioniil law, and reflçcting the principles
applicable in ihc gcographical framçwork of the coastal rclationships of
Malta and Libya* is to hc contrastcd with the diversity and incon-
sintency which have charaçterised the Libyari view of delimitation in
this case.
265. Malta's 1965 Note Verbale and the legislation of 1966 evoked
no protest or reservaiion of rights lrom Libya, and the first expression
ol a dillerent view on the issue of delimitation on the part of Libyan
officiaistook place at the meeting of delegations in April 1973.' The
hrst Libyan concessions in the area which infringed Malta's median line
of 1965 were grantd in September 1974.' These essential facts are not

contradicied by the history of the dispute as presented in the Libyan
Memorial.'
266. The Libyan Government's position since 1973has been charac-
tensed by a signihcant number of variations, and this diversity con-
trasis with the consisiency of the position of Malta dating hack to its
1965Note \'erbale. The insecurity of the Libyan stance is well characte-
ri& by the loose lormulation of the Libyan Submissions, of which
paragraph 9 refers to "a delimitaiion wiihin, and following the general
direction of, the Rili Zone as defined in this Memorial". The "Rift
@ Zone", as indicated by Map 17 (and the overlay), is rifeature which, in
the areareleirantIO ihe present proceedings, hasa breadth of more than

100kilometres.
267. The Libyan positions on delimitation include the following:
(a) Acqiriescencein Malra's Eqiiidistance Line 1965 ro 1973. It may
be noted ihat until the meetings of the delegations in April 1973 Libya
had lailed to makc nny protest or express any reservation in response io
Malta'sI9h5 Note Vçrb~lc and Legislaiion of 1966 and the çquidis-

tancc iincihus consiituted.
(b) The 1973 Kutio oJCoosiol Lt.ngr1i.sproposal. In the course of thc
mcçiing ol detegaiioris ori 23 and 24 April 1973 thc Libyari
Ciovernrnent proposed 11line of division whiçh wlis the product not o;i
methd ofdclimiiaiion but (ifa system of apportionment b;ised upon a
crinççpi of proportiiinality in tcrms of the raiiii of the lengths of tlie
Maltese and Libynn ~oasts.~The resulting division is dçpicted hy Map
@ Y in the Lihyan Memorial and iu also reproduced in lhis Couuter-
Memorial.' The "linc" indicated rçprçscnts ;iniirbitrary proççss of
dihision and bears no relation lu any kiiowti method oi'dclirnitatioii.
(c) A Boundary virhin the "Rift Zone". In the Libyan Memorial,
and in the Submissions of the Libyan Government, the position is

adopied according to which the "Rift Zone", as identified by Ljhya,
constitutes a discontinuity which separates the natural prolongations of

hialta'sMernoria,.23, para. 65.
: Ibid.pp.lF18, para. 31.
' Scc LibyanMernorial.paras4.2W.57:6.7C-6.73;and 9.25-9.43.
' Map4.byanMernorialp.ara.4.3Ann. 39. 352 CONTINENTAI. sHE1.F il301

Malia aiid I.ibya.' Thç boundary liçs wiihin this Zone, according to thc
Lihyan ~hçsis,but Libya does not indicate a precise liiie.'
268. It may Lieiioted tliat tliese thrcç positions are 1101varialits of
thc wrnç principle but arc radically dinèrçnt iti provçnance. In partic-
ular, the proposal based on the ratio of coastal lengths purports to
reflect the resr01'proportionality - though us upplird it becomes a
sirbsritilrr for a method of delimitation. The "Rift Zone" boundary is
supposed to be based upon natural prolongation and thus has a totally

diITeren1technical provenance. The result is that the "proportionaliiy"
@ line of division (Map 9 of the Libyan Memorial) contrasts with the
vague concept of a boundary to be discovered within the extensive area
@@ or rhe -Rift Zone" (Map 17 of the Libyan Memorial). Map 4 of this
Counter-Memorial reproduces both boundaries.
269. The proposal based upon the ratio of coastal lengths and rhe
"Rift Zone" boundary represent two distinct conceptions which cannot
in legal terms be complernentary since they lack a common basis. The

one common feature is the fact that neither position involves a method
of delimitation. The proportionality position constitutes R claim to a
just and equitable share as has heen explained above in Chapter IV.
The "Riir Zone" thesis bears no relation to the proposal of 1973based
upon the ratio of coastal lengths and is not a reasonable indication of a
method or principle of delimirarion. The identification of a zone. as
show on Map 17 of the Libyan Memorial, or Map 4 of tliis Counter-
Memorial does not even approximate to a method of delimitation.
Delimitation involves the identification of a liniir,or liiie. In the present

case the Court is asked to identify the "principles and rules" applicable
tu the "delimitation" of the;rre;iThe Court is not asked to identify the
"principlçs and rules" applicable 10 thç idcniitic;itioii of a "zoiie".'

L LibyanMernorialparas.6.54,7.18.17.9.64and10.18.
: Ibidparas.715 and 10.18;andseeMap 17 (following. IM) LibyanMernoriaIl.
% Pm II of ihiCounter-Mernori al theTask oftheCourt,paras. 6b74. CHAPTERVI1

THE GEOGRAPHICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE PRESENT CASE

1.INTRO~UCTT ~OHNE: EYELEMENTS

270. A major principle of international law concerning delimitation

of the continen!al shelf is that it is the geographical framework which
determines the approach to delimitation. In the present case the key
elements in that iramework - and they are clear to see and not the
result ol sophisticated construction- are as follows:
{a) The seabed between Malta and Libya is a geological continuum

consistingor the Pelagian Block and thus the shelf in the relevant
area is charactensed by its esçential geological and geomorphologi-
cal continuity.
(b) The coasts of Malta and Libya are opposite and are set at a
considerable distance from each other.
(c) Tbere is an absence of intervening islands or other unusual features
and the relationship of the Maltese and Libyan coastlines is re-
markabke only in terms of its normality.
(d) The pnmary elements in the geographical facts are uncomplicated
and consequently each pertinent Coast should be given its approp
riate legal signifiçance on thc basis uf the distance principle and the

use of controlling basepoitits.

271. The we;ikiiesses in the Libyan thcsis relating 10 natural pro-

longation and rhc "Rift Z~inç" havc bceii explored e;irlier in this
Countcr-Mem~rial.~ In terins of legal principle and the language usçd
by the Court of Arbitration in the Anylo Frerich c;isc, the Pelagian
Block "is char;icterised by ils essential geological continuily".~~is
helpful to recall the analysis by that Court in respect of a clearly
comparable sir~ation:~

"TheCourt shares the view repeatedly expressed by both Parties
that the continental shelf throughout the arbitraiion area is char-
acterised by its essential geological continuity. The geological

' AiylwllenehCon:inen~oSheycase, Decision of30 lune 1977,InternoLawnal
Reports.VOL54.p.6.para. 107.
' Ibid.:ansecako paras108and 109.354 CONTINENTALSHELF [Il21

faults which constitute the Hurd Dcçp and the so-called Hurd
DeepFault Zone, everi if thcy be considered as distinct featurcs in
th? geomorphology of the shelf. are still dixontinuities in the
szabed and subsoil which do not disrupt thc essential unity uf the
continental shelf either in the Channel or the Atlantic region.
Indeed, in comparison with the deep Norwegian Trough in the
North Sea, they can only be regarded as minor faults in ihe

gmlogical structure of the shelf; and yet the United Kingdom
agreed that the trough should not constitute an obstacle to the
extension of Norway's continental shelf boundary beyond that
major fault zone. Moreover, to attach critical significance to a
physical feature like the Hurd Deep-Fault Zone in delimiting the
continental shelf boundary in the present case would run counter
to the whole tendency of State practice on the continental shelf in
recent years".

The Libyan argument ignores "the whole tendency of State practice.. .
in recent years". It is indeed extremely rare for topographical features
such as troughs to be taken into account for purposes of delimitation.'
272. In any case, the inclination or axis of a fault zone is, as the
Court pointed out in the Anglo-Frenchcase,2"placed where it is simply
as a fact of nature", and such a fact has no relation to considerations of
equity. Conseqiiently such a fault zone does not mark a separation of
distinct natural prolongations and does not count as a relevant circum-
stance when the key elements in the geographical and legal framework
militate in favour of some other basis of delimitation.
273. In conclusion Malta would respectfully remind the Court ofthe
findings ccincerning thc Pclagian Block in the 'liinisia-Libya
Conririentri1Shry case, tindings which resultçd frnrn a considcrÿble
volulnç (ifgeomorphologiail evidence presented by thc p;irties. The
Court's firm vicw on the abscnce of distinct natiiral prolongations in
the Pclügian Block is evideni frorn the following passages from Ihe
Judgmeni:J

'66. Sincc the Court is hcrc dealing only with the question 01
georn~>rphologicalfcatures froni thç vicwpoint of thcir relevance to
deterniinc the division hctween the natur;il prolongations ol the
Iwo States, and not with regard 10their more gençral significançç
as potentinlly relevant cirçumst;inces affecting for other rçasons the
course of the delimitation, its conclusion can be briefly expressed.
The Court has carefully examined the evidence and arguments put
forward concerning the existence and importance of the submarine
leatures invoked as relevant for delimitation purposes. Those relied
on by Libya in support of its principal contention as to the

gmlogically determined 'northward thmst' do not seem to the

' &above, paras 144-151,for Statepractice
Para. 108.
' I.C.JReports,1982.pp.57-58. Court to add sufitient wcight to that contention to cause it to
prçviiil over the rival geological contentions of Tunisia; nor do
ihey arnount indepçndently Io a means of idçntifying distinct
natural prolungations, which would in fact bç çontrary to Libya's
assertion of the unity of the Pelagian Block. As for the features

relied on by Tunisia, the Court, while not accepting that the
relativesize and importance of these features can be reduced to
such insubstantial proportions as counsel for Libya suggest, is
unable to find that any of them involve such a marked disruption
or discontinuance of the sea-bed as to constitute an indisputable
indication of the limits of two separate continental shelves, or two
separate naiural prolongations. As was noted in argument, so
substantial a leature as the Hurd Deep was not attributd such a
significance in the Franc-British Arbitration of 1977concerning
the Delimitation of the Continental Sheli. The only feature of any
substantial relevance is the Tripolitanian Furrow; but that sub-
marine valley does not display any really marked relief until it has
run considerably further to the east than the area relevant to the
delimitation (see further paragraph 75 below). Nor does any
geographical evidence as to the direction of any 'natural pro-
longation' assist in determining the boundaries thereof, however
relevant it may be as a circumstance to be taken into account from
the viewpoint of equity."

"67. The submarine area of the Pelagian Block which con-
stitutes the natural prolongation of Libya substantially coincides
with an area which constitutes the natural suhmarine extension of
Tunisia. Whiçh parts of the siibmariiie arça appertain to Lihya and
which io Tunisia can therefore n<ii he deterrniiid by cri te ri;^
provideci by a determination of how far the natural prolongdtiiin
of one rii ihe Parties extcnds in relation to the naturd pro-
longdtion or the other. In tlie prçsent casç, in which Lihy;i and
Tunisiii ho~h derivç continental shelf title iroin a natural pro-
Iongütioti crimmori to both territories, Ihç ascertairimcnt of lhc
cxient or ihc areas of shell'appertaining to each State musi bc
governed by criteria of international law othcr than those takçn
rrom physical rvdturcs."

274. The Libyan Memorial shows a certain obsession with the length
of the Libyan coastline which bears little or no relation to questions of
legal priociple. In assessing the geographical and legal framework
within which delimitation isto he seen, the relarionshipsof coasts are of
First importance. Thus the location and relation of coastlines are the
over-riding factors and the dominant geographical features in con-
sequence isthe position of Malta at a distance from the Libyan coast
and the absence of any intervening islands or other unusual features.
275. In the circurnstances of Malta-Libya coastal relationships, a356 CONTtNEN'lAL SHELF [IM-1391

relatively short seçtnr of abutiing çoast may gcncrate a riiiniber of in-
flueniial contrulliny points vis-A-visan opposite and distant coast. This
well knowri featurc of maritime delimilation can be illustrated by re-
ference to a samplc of existing delimitations hased upoii agreçmçnt.
Thus reîerence may be made to the following delimitations in which
significant sectors of the line are generated hy one or two controlling
points. The maps reproduced in the pages that follow show the actual
line of delimitation and indicate the controlling points which generate
al1 or part of those lines.' The cases given as examples relate to the

following agreements:
(IIN)orway-United Kingdom, 10 March 1965
(b) Bahrain-Iran, 17 June 1971
(c)Denmark-United Kingdom, 25 November 1971
(dl Iialy-Spain, 19 February 1974

(e) India-Indonesia, 8 August 1974 and 14 January 1977.
The texts of these Agreements are reproduced respectively as Annexes
50. and 22 of the Maltese Memorial, Annex 8 of the present Counter-
Mernorial. and Annexes 63 and 51 of the Maltese Memorial.
276. The extensive longitudinal reach of the Libyan coast produces a

generous appurtenant area of shelf for Libya in spite of the fact that hy
reason of its length and regularity a number of basepoints are super-
fluous.This is the natural consequence of the distance principle and the
emptoyment of basepoints. On the basis of the criterion of distance, and
the treatment of al1 normal coastal relationships on the basis of the
equality of significance for purposes of delimitation, the equitable result
musi be an equidistance line.
277. The whole quçxtinn of the Iength of coastliiies is sçen in a
proper lcgal perspective whçn it is related to the trapzium figure usd
in the Memorial of Maltÿ,' to illusiraic the product of the coastal

relationships. Ihis prodiict reflcçts both the reality of those relation-
ships and the equitablc rcsult of the equidistançe line."
278. 7'hcattention of thç Court is respectfully drawn to ari esseniial
aspççt of the present case. The disiançç prinçiplc. of which the çquidis-
tance line ishut ;iparticular applic;itioti, gives full vatoecoasts in the
ahscnce of any rçlçvani circurnsvanccs requirinp aiiy adjustment on
equitablc grounds. The distance pririciplç gives eT1çç1 to the concepl nf
shelf rights as a natural prolongation of land territory in the legal selise
which this phrase has in contemporary law of the sea and also refleets

the actual coastal configurations, the importance of which was em-
phasised by the Court in the Tunisi-Libyu case.4 In face of the
imponance of the rôle of coastlines in contemporary international law,
the attitude of Libya is strange indeed. Neither the Libyan thesis of
1973on the hasis of the rurioof the lengths of certain coastlines nor the

' Sec Rduced Maps No 11, 12, 13,14 and 15.
* P. 1%.
' 7.C.J. Reporr1982p. 53para.61;p. 61.paras. and 74.6).ncw "Rift Zone" thesis of the Libyÿn Memorial reflect coastal gço-
graphy at all 'Theratio of the lerigths is simply a formula, a prescription
tor an apportionment, and produces an enclaving effcct which involves
a hrutal and eccentric disregard of coasts and actual coastiil re-
laiionsbips. The "RiftZone" thesis has no connection whatsoever with
the coasts of Malta and Libya.

4. THEEQUIDISTANM CEETHOD NORMALLE YFFECTS AN EQUITABLE

DELLMITA~O OFAREAS DIVIDING OPPOSITE STATES '

279. Given the nature of Malta-Libya coastal relationships the
equidistance method of delimitation produces an equitable result.
:Malta would recall once more the formulation of this Court in the
,\'orth Sea ContinentalShelfcases:l

"57. Before going further it will be convenient to deal hriefiy
wiih two subsidiary matters. Most of the difficulties felt in the
International Law Commission related, as here, to the case of the
lateral boundary between adjacent States. Less difficulty was felt
over that oi the median line boundary between opposite States,
although it too is an equidistance line. For this there seems to the
Court to be good reason. The continenral shey area off, and
dividing, opposite States,al1be claimed by each of [hem ro be a

naturol prolongarion ofits ttrrritory. These prolongations meer and
o~vrlop,and con therefore oidy be delimiredby means of a median
lirie; and. ignoring thepresence ofislets, rocks and minor coastal
projections. the disproportioiially distorting effecr of which con be
efiminuteilhyoihermc.ans,sticha linemitsrquecian equulditlisionof
~heparlicular urcuinuol~ied."

'Thisstatemcnt oi priiiciple has rio1heçn modified or contrÿdicted either
by suhwquetit jurisprudençc or by trends iri the praçiice of States.
280. Inthç nre;i dividing Mallii and Libyii thele are no islets or othçr
leatures creating disproporiionately distorting elkcts which nced Io be
eliminated iir abared. The equidistance rnethod is justified hy thc
geogrüphical lramçwork and prodiices an equilÿhlc result which in-
volves nu rcfashioning of geography. Moreover, a niçdian linc is in
accordanw ciih thL principle(ifnon-encroacliment.

' I.C.J. Repar1969p. 36, para.5Emphasis supplic.EC alsotheDisposilCfal
p.53para 201. CHAPTER VI11

THE EQUALITY OF ISLAND STATES IN SHELF
DELIMITATION

281. As a matter of legal principle islands, whether island States or
otherwise. have a normal significance in matters of shelf delimitation.
As a sample of State practice only three States hecoming parties to the
Continental Shelf Convention of 1958 made reservations which con-
cerned islands in any form.' In general, and if at all, islands are
discounted only if they are dependent and then only for such reasons a!
the îollowing:

(a) that ihey are insignificant rocks or islets (but this is not invariably
the case);
(b) that they are wholly detached geographically from the mainland
and thus lie on the "wrong side" of the delimitation indicated by the
major geographical facts;'
(c) thai the islands, though Io be given weight as an extension of a
mainland, have a location which deflects the equidistance liiie

furthcr than would a haseline of the mainland.'
282. In general, the overall geographical and other circurnstnnces of
ihc particular çasç dctcrminc the equitable solution and, in that rcsvi,
the rôle of islands. There are numcrous cxamplcs in the practice of

States of groups of islands heing given full weight, espeçially whcn ihcy
;ire,in geographical and political terms, extensions of the niainland.
The rollowing dclimitations are relevant in this conneçtion:4

Norway - llnitcd Kingdom (Shetland Islands)
lndia (Nicobar Islands) - Indonesia
Uniid States (Puerto Rico) - Venezuela
India (Nicobar Islands) - Thailand
Denmark (Faroes) - Norway
Australia - France (New Caledonia)

Italy- Spain (Balearic Islands).

'SecMatta'sMemorial.paras164-165.
Angl+Freneh ConrinenialSheycaa,Decisioonf30June 1977p,aras.196-201 (and
secpara.199inparticular).
' Ibrd. para243-254.
SccMalta'sMemorial Annexes50-53.20.54and 63rspcctivety. 2.THEGESI.,KAI.IR .ECOGNISIS ~I>NIFICANC 0:'ISLANS D.ICI'EIN
SIINF DELIMIIKIION

283. Out of a total of154 indepetident States, 38 ;ire islarid Siates, a

proportion of 25 per cent. The sources of international law relating to
the continental shelf and its delimitation give no indication that island
Stores are disadcanzaged.' The relevant multilateral conventions, in-
cluding the Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, make no
reference to island States as constituting a special case. The point is
underlined by the lact that Part Vlll of the 1982 Convention ("Régime
of Islands") atiaches a certain disahility only to "rocks which cannot

sustain human habitation or economic life of their own".' It is to be
recalled that, of the reservaticins made by Parties to the 1958
Convention on the Continental Shelf, none related to island States.
284. The lact is that the Libyaii Memorial does no1 seek to question
ihe principle that island States are under no legal disability in matters
or entirlement IO and delimitation of continental shelf areas. The

Libyan argument is related to particular circumstances as alleged to be
relevant in the preûent case. The Libyan position is based on theses
which do noi in terms stipulate for a legal disability for island States as
such. But the undoubted and direct ekt of the Libyan contention is to
depriw Malia O[ her legal enlitlement as a coastal State.

3. THELISK BETWEEN ENTITLEMEN ATD DELIMITATION

285. In theory the issue of entitlement to continental shelfrights and

the issiie of delimitation of appurtenant shelf areas are distinct. In
reality ihc iwo qi~ations are çlosely related,had this will be espeçi;illy
thç we when thç geographiciil situatiori atlracts a wcll-rçcogiiised
method ol'dclimitation. Thus iti the cüsc ofopposite States abiitting on
the same coniincntül shelf, and in the absence of incident;il special
leatures crçiting distorting cfTects,the equitable solution takes the form
of an cquidistane lirie.This is rççogtiised bolh in the jurisprudence of

inrcrn~tional tribunals aiid in the pr;ictice of States. In sucli situations
the standard i,equity çmhodied in gençral iiiternational I;iw is rcpre-
smtd by the equidistance rnethod of delimitation, and this is so
wheiher or not one or both of tlie States coricerried are islarid States.

286. The hasis or the law concerning the continental shelf is often

stated in terms of Ihe principle that the land dominates the ~ea".~The

SecMalta'sMernoria lp. 48-57. para154-175.
Articl121(3)ofrheConvention.
SE abave para. 101.
hrwih Seo F~SPSI.C.J.Reports1969,p. 51. para96,quoicd in theAqeon Seo
ConrimentaSheÿcase, ibid1978,. 36,para. 86.and tTunisio-Libp Coniineniol Shelf
case,ibid., 19p.61; para. 73.3dl CONTINPWI'AL SHELF il431

Truman Procl;im;ition' coritairis notions of the practic;il control exer-
cisable by the ~oastal StaIc by rcasori of its contiguity. I'hc followinp
preanibi11;irparts of the Proclaiiiation deserve spcial nieritioii:

"WHEKEAS it is the view of the Government of the United States
that the exercise of jurisdiction over the natural resources of the
subsoil and sea-bed of the continental shelf by the contiguoirs
narioii is reasonable and just, since the effecriuenessof melrsuresta
fdtiliseor consertietl~eseresources u,oirldbe contingent npo~irooper-
atio~ alid j>rotectiorifroni the shore, since (lie continental sliel/'mri.v
be regarded us an extension ofthe Iandrnossofthe coastrrl nation and
thirs natur~illy appurtenwt ru ir, since these resources frequently

form a seaward extension of a pool or deposit lying within the
territory, and since self-protection compels the coastal nation to
keep close watch over activities oiï its shores which are of the
nature necessary for utilisation of these resources;"'

287. It can hardly be doubted that a coastal State such as Malta has
the ability, and the right, 10 offer the necessary "CO-operation and
protection from the shore" in respect of the utilisation of the mineral
resources of the appurtenant shelf areas southward to the equidistance
line. Norcan it be doubted that anisland State has the same need as other
States to exerciseeffectivesupervision over adjacent areas of seabed.

288. In addition it is clear that control over the seabed has a
significant security aspect. When the entire homeland ofa State consists
of an island or group of islands the interest of the coastal State in the
maintenance of political authority for the purposes of such control is
enhan~rrl.
289. lt is tiot surprisirig that in ilie Auyeati Seri CoririnenttilSlielf
cad thc Court hcld th;it ;idispute rcgdrding rights of exploration and
exploitatiori over the ciintincnlal shelf 10 which a State is cntitld is
"one whiçh m;iy bc said to relate to th^ crriluriiil st;itiis of the coastal
Stnte".
290.The question of political ;iuth<irityis one or substaritial irnport-
anCr. I'hc sçlcçti~inor an equitable soliitiori is one to hç made in the
light OF the geographical franiework and the othcr rclc~ia~it cirnrm-

srunr:ei-.Itiothçr wtirds the question of what is çquitable is not to be
apprnached in ternis of "gcography in the abstract" but iri terrns of ~hc
broad cuntext of legal policy. In this same context equitable con-
siderations include elements of the interest of the coastal State which
are not purely "economic" or "functionai".
291. It then follows that the equitable solution cannot be seen in
lems of sharing resources by reference, for example, to the length of the
respective coastlines, or "relevant" coastlines. The political and secunty
aspects of the interest of the coastal State are not a subject-matter for

' Anne1 3.
' Emphasis supptied.
' I.C.J. Reporr1978,p. 36. para. 86.
' Anglo-FrenchConiinento lhel/caseparas. 97,194.appuniunment and the distancc principle, applied in the form of a
median line. is the best expression of thc cquitable result which, iin the
one hand, gives crcdil10 the geography of the case and, on the other,
eiues recoenitiun to the "territorial" and "vrotectivç" ascects of mü-

hime juriaiction.
292. The issue of political autliority is one of great significance for
island States generally. but in the case of Malta this factor is combined
wilh the needlor a&s to oil resources of the seabed and the absence
of land-bad energy resources. Malta would, respectfully and by way
of necessary emphasis, repeat the formulation of principle which ap-
pears in its Mernorial: '

"ln this litigation Malta is seeking the legal affirmation and
protection of important aspects of her national patrimony and in
particular the sovereign rights to govern, manage, exploit and
conserve the resources of appurtenant shelf areas. The method of
equidistanΠprovides a delimitation which gives appropriate re-
cognition of the need for an adequate political control, both as 10
the quality and extent of such control, by the island State of Malta
in respect or adjacent submarine areas. The Coast of any State
generates appurtenant zones of maritime jurisdiction. The distance
criterion, which is prominent in recent sources or the law of
maritime delimitation, is a reflection of the rule that all coastal
States have a lateral reach of jurisdiction. Such an apron of
jurisdiction i a necessary attribute of national security. The
equidistance method thus gives effectto the logic that Malta's need
for srcurity is no less than that of Libya."

1p. 47para.149. CHAPTER IX

EQUlDISTANCE AS THE EQUITABLE SOLUTION
SANCTIONED BY STATE PRACTICE AND ANALOGOUS
CONSlDERATlONS

293. The State practice concerning delimitation of shelf areas divid-
ing island States and opposite mainlands has been surveyed in the
Mernorial of Malta.' Twelve bilateral agreements were there set forth,
al1 of which either involved express reliance upon the equidistance
method or substantial application of a median line solution in practice.
These agreements involved seventeen difirent coastal States of various
regions.
294. In addition other bilateral agreements have eflected an equal
diilsion of shelf areas dividing mainlands and major island dependen-
cies opposite such mainlands, as, for example, the Agreement establish-
ing an aliçnment between the mainland of Norway and the ~aroes.'
295. These two sets of dclirnitation agrççmçnts constitiite a signi-
ficant prop(iriion of the practice of States in situations whiçh are
geogr;iphically coriiparahlç. Thcy providç çornpelling evidence of the
standard of equity in customary law, more particularly in viçw or the

fact that ilie devclopmçnt of the customary Iaw of the contiiierital shelf
cnçiirnp;isses several decades and haï a reasonablc dçgrçç of ni;iturity.
296. In reççni ycars the iiational Icgisl;itio~iof States, iricluding
ishind States and States which have island dependçnçies, h;is kn
charÿçicriscd by ;imarked tendericy IO ;issin~ilatethe continenial shclf
ta the exclusive economic zone for many purposcs. Such legislation
cornmonlu spcciiies the method of delimitation or1the basis ofa rnodiÿn
line in relation either to thç shçlf,ur to the exclusive eçonomic zone. or
to an exclusive fishery zone.' This development contributes in a
significant way to the consolidation of the customary law standard.
297. The absence of any consideration of the relevant State praciice
in the Libyan Memorial is odd in view of the setting of the case, which
is ihat of customary international law. The omission creates an air of
pure hypothesis and unreality, since the State practice is substantial and

'ChaprerVII.
4lalia'Memarial. pS(t86.
'Ibid.,pp78-9.if461 COUNTER-MEMORIAL 01: MALTA 363

militaies strongly against the view that the Libyan posiiioii coincides
umith an alignmeni whiçli is equilablc in ierrns of tliç applicable
principles and rules ol intçrnaiioiial law.

298. To the practice of States in respect of the enritlemeni of island
States, and the use of the equidistance method of dividing continental
sheU areas on which they abut, there mus1 be added "the general

toleration of the international community". This toleration was a
significant element in the reasoning of the Court in the Anylo-
?VorwegioiiFisheries case,' on the basis of which the Norwegian system
or baselines was accepted as valid in customary international law.

3. THE ~MPORTANCE OF FINALITY AND STABILIT~

IN MATTER SF DELIMITATION

299. The use or the equidistance method between opposite States 1s
widely recognised as the normal method and the use of the method in
dividing shelf areas between island States and mainlands opposite is
more widely recognised than was the system of straight baselines al the

time when the legality of that system was accepted by the Court in the
Angl~-i\~orwegiunFiskeries case.2 In view ofthe number of island States
in the iniernational community and the prevalence of the use of the
meihod of equidisiance in situations comparable to that of Malta and
Libya, the giving oi legitiniacy tn a position iitvariance with the
meihid oiequidisi;inçe would, to say the Icdxt.çrcate an atmospliere of
uncertaini)'.

300. As Malta h;isshow11 iiiits Mertiori;il, the principles govcrn-
ing the issues of biith cntitlement and dçlimit;ition have a rcasonable
dçgroc ui m;iturity and the prcscriitcase is no1 in thiit seiisc one of firsl
impression. Thc principles of iinality and stability. ihç imporriince of
which ihe Coiirt has recognised in relation to miitters of frontier
delimitation.%re ciioless iniportanl in ihe context of the division of
appuricnani shelf arças. 11mÿy be recallcd thÿr in the Atyt,on Seo

Conrifieritu1Shcr case4 the Court recognised the affiniiy or r'glits in
respwi oi sheli arçaç and the territorial staius of the constiil State, ;iiid
made the following important aflirmation:
-Whether it is a land frontier or a boundary line in the con-

tinental sheli that is in question, the processisessentially the same,
and inevitably involves the same element of stability and
permanence. .

' I.C.3. R~~LIIS951.p. 138.
Ibld,p.116 aipp. 138, 139.
Temple case(hleriG1.ibid1962 ..liaip.34.
I.C.I. Repris1978.p.36,para. 86.
' Ibid.pp.35-36.para. 85. CHAPTER X

EQUITABLECONSIDERATIONSRELEVANTTO
THE PRESENTCASE

303. There can be no doubt that the concept of natural prolongation
reflects the signilicance of the coast of the territory of the State as the
decisive factor for title to submarine areas adjacent to il. This signific-
ance is enhanced when the geological continuity of the relevant sea-bed
areas excludes reference to topographical criteria of title. In such a case

as the preseni. disiance from the coast provides the legal basis of the
title to continental shelf rights.
304. The importance of coasts, in conjunction with the distance
principle or criierion, in relation both to title ato delimitation-
since the method of delimitation should be in harmony with the legal
basis of titl- is not a question of giving significance to geography in
the absrract. The customary' law of the continental shelf has alwdys
reflected the lcgal and political factors of adjaccncy iiiid non-
cncroacbment. Pictors which ;ire commori 10 311lorms of çoaslal State
jurisdiction.
305. The plitical conscquences of coastal geography arc mirrored
by the equitable prinçiple of noti-ericroachment and ihç acceptancç hy
international tribunals that non-gçogrÿphical consideriitiiins may hiive
u rSlein finding an cquitablç solution.'
306. Thc rcliitionçhips of the coiists of the parties crcate the legsil
rramework and indiciite the "priintiry de1irnit;ition" which is equitahlc.
This primiiry dclimiiation must thçn he tested and weighcd in the light
of other relevant considerations and fz~ctors.[In ihis chapter ccrtain

non-geogriiphical considerations ;ire set forth which in thç view of
Malta confirm that the primary delimitation reiulting from the equidis-
tance method is the equitable solution in the present case.

2. MALTA.S SPECIAL DEPENDENC UPON
SEA-BED ENERCY RESOURCES.

307. Malta has already mentioned the importance to il of the
getroleum resources of the sea-bed in the region delimited by her

' Angl-French CmrvienrSheljcase, Dsision of 30 June 1977.para. 194,3M CONTINENTAS LHBLF il491

equidistaiice lirie. The absencç of land-hascd cncrgy resources con-

trolled by Malta is a fact, a question of stalus in the serise that il
rçprcwnis a 1xrm;inent stiite of deprivatioii. Thus the ahscnce of
resources on the mainland of Miilta çannol hçdçsçribed lis $"vari;iblt."
in which "unpredictable national fortune.. . might cause to tilt the scale
one way or the other".'
308. This permanent lack of land-based energy resources constitutes
a relevant equitable consideration or factor which confirms and rein-
forces the appropriateness of the equidistance method in this case. The

significance of this element in the context of maritime jurisdiction and
access to resources is underlined by the reasoning of the Court in the
Fisheries Jirrisdicrion case (United Kingdom v. I~eland).~In that case
the Court recognised "the concept of preferential rights of fishing in
adjacent waters in favour of the coastal State in u situation of speciul
dependence on irs coastul fi~heries".~ By virtue of her inherent and
sovereign rights over adjacent shelf areas, Malta has accrss to a vital
resource. which is contested by Libya. The Libyan views on sea-bed

division intheareacould not belessequitable,given Libya'smassiveland-
based oilresources and given her attempts to control virtually al1the sea-
bed between itself and Malta.

3. THEREQUIREMEN OTSMALTA AS A DEVELOPINIC SLAND COUNTRY

309. The tex1of the Law of the Sea Convention of 1982is but one of
a number of instruments which evidence the concern of the inter-

national community with the requirements of developing countries.
This constantly reiterated concern constitutes a relevant equitable
çonsidcration to be given ils proper signifiçançe in achieving an equii-
able solutiori iri thç cirçumstanccs of the preseiit case.
310. The releviiiice and weight of Malta's clcvelopment nççds arc
enhaiiced considçrahly by the recognition on the part ol the orgaris or
thc United Nations, as well as UNCTAU. of the partiçular nccds or
idunil droeloping c~iriirries.~This classiticatiori signais the recognition or
such coulitries as havirig a special dçgrçc of vulnerability among the

broad caiegory of dcvcloping counlries.
31 1. Malva has heen clnssitied as an "island developing country" in
the relevant Uriited Nations documents' and this çlassification involvcs
a formal and univçrsal cçrtiiic;ition of the stntiis of thç rçquirenients or
Malta as an island developing country. Malta has already expressed its
confidence that the Court, as the principaljudicial organ of the United

' Tuoisio-Libyo ContinentalSheifcase. I.C.J. Reports. 1982.p. 77. paras. 106-107.
' I.C.JReports, 1974, p.al p.23, para. 52and se also paras55-68.Scc ah
Fisherie~Juridicticase(FedcralRepublicofGermany v. Icelandibid..p. 17at pp.
191-192. para. 44:ansecalsoparas. 454.
' Ernphasisupplied.
Forihedocurnentaiiose Matta'sMcmonal pp. 110-114paras226-230 andAnnex
68.
SCPihe1976 ReportoftheUNCTAD SsretariatM. M.Ann.68. p.253.Nations, will reÿdily recognisç the significünce of the practice of organs
oi the United Nations, and of the Member Statçs, in relation to isl;iiid

devcloping counlries Morcovçr, such practice forms a coinplemenl Io
the reasoning of the Court in the Yiskeries Jurisdiction cases, which
reiers IOthe "special dependence" of the coastal State upon resources in
adjacent maritime areas.'

4. THECONSIDERATI OFNNATIONAS LECURITY

AND NECESSARC YONTROL OF ADJACENS TULIMARIN AEREAS

312. Malta, as a coastal State, has an interest in national security
which is no less than that of other States in the region, and her status of
neutrality' must increase the importance of that interest. It has already
ken pointed out' that the interest of the coastal State in appurtenant

shelf areas involves a need for a certain political authority. As in the
case or the territorial sea, the protection of the coastal State connotes a
lateral reachfrom the Coast.
313. The r61e of "navigational, defence and security interests" of the
Parties as equitable considerations was recognised by the Court in the
Anglc-French Cnntinenral SheYcase.4 Indeed, there is good reason to
believe that such considerations militated strongly in favour of the

riparian Srate as against the United Kingdom in respect of the Channel
Islands. The Court clearly preferred to avoid any major encroachment
upon what itperceived to be the predominant French interest in the
southern areas of the English Channel.'
314. In the circumstances of the present case, the equitable con-
sidcrztion of security and defence intercsts confirms the method of

eqiiidistance, which givcs each Parly a comparable Iatçrÿl control from
its coaïis. This equality of re;icli is jltstificalso by the prinçiples of
diçtaiice6 and of non-encroacherncnt. The ititerests of Mültese security
cannoi be re~onciled~with the 1,ibyati claim. As tilt: Libyan Mernorial
ilself recogniscs:

"It is undeniable tliat onc i>f thc motivations of the Trumati
Proclamation in 1945 rekited to seciirity: the ideatkit it w;is no1
tolerablc LO hive a forçign St;ite or ils licensees exploiting re-

sources offone's own coast~."~
The positioii n'as cxprcssed even more emphatic;i!ly by Libya in its
Reply in the Tunisia-Lihya case, and the passage is worth quoting

again:

' FUkries JurisdIClioncase (Unitcd Kingdv.lcelandk I.C.J. Repor1974p,. al
p.23, para.52 FisireriesJuridiction case (FcderalRcpubofcGermany v.Iceland),
ibid, p. 1aipp. 191-192para.44.
For the backgcoundthe Court is relerredto hfemorirrl,22.
"Abore.
hision of ?Olune 1977,Inrer>ioti<Law Reporis. Val. 54, p. 6, p188.
Ibid.
' Cp. IO.para6.77.il521 COONTER-MEMOKIAL OF MALTA 369

Judgmcnt bas bcen carefully scrutini7.d and it hüs been shown that
pnssages touching on the suhjcct of third States wçre directed cx-
clusively at establishing that tlie dwidon of the COUR could not
rormally affect the position of States not parties to lhç litigation. The
CourtS views, and Malta's analysis of them, are entirely in line with the
views expressai by the Court of Arbitrafion in the AngleFrench
Conlinenta1Sheifcase in 1977:

-. . .the Court does no1 consider that the course of the boundary
beiween the United Kingdom and the French Republic in that
region depends on any nice calculations of proportionality based
on conjectures as to the course of a prospective boundary between
the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland". '
318. To the extent that there is any function in a teference to

relations with third States, it is, in Malta's submission, to point out (a)
the relati~e.elyconsiricted position in which Malta finds itself in the
north, West and southwest vis-à-vis ltaly (by reference to Sicily to the
North and the group of islands, Lampione, Lampedusa and Linosa to
the wesi) and Tunisia (to the southwest) and (b) the enormous actual
and potential continental shelf which would remain to Libya on the
basis of an equidistance delimitation with Malta.

8. CONCLUSION

319. The equitable considerations of particular relevance' to the
present case may be summarised as follows:-
(a) Malia's permanent lack of land-hascd energy resoilrces, coupled
with thc existence or petroleuin resources in thc shelf ;ircÿs delimired by
her equidisiance linc.
(h) The particular requircnients of Malta as an island developing

country, rçcogniwi as such in thç practicc of UNCTAD atid thc orguns
ufthe Uilited N;itions.
(c) Thc cunsideration of M;ilta's national security in maintainin6
control of adjacent submarine areas, an iiiteresi of M;ilt;i the signific-
ancç or whiçh isincreascd as ;içorisequencc of its status of nculrality.
(d) The estaMished pattcrns of Maliese tishing acfivity by Maltese
boats in thç regirin southward to the cquidistniice litie and further.
(e) The conduct of the Parties and, itiparticular, thç ~(insistency of
the conduct or Miilta since the Continental Shelf Act of 1966, and
Libya's acquiescence from 1965 to 1973.
(f) The existence and interests of other States in the area and their
constricting eE&s on Malta's entitlement.
320. These equitable considerations or relevant circumstances con-
firm and reinforce the appropriateness of Malta's equidistance line as
the equitable solution in the present case. CHAPTER XI

THE EQUIDISTANCE METHOD SATlSFlES THE TEST OF
PROPORTIONALITY IN THE PRESENT CASE

321. The Libyan Memorial uses a proportionality argument which is

impossible to reconcile with legal principle. The Libyan thesis in effet
employs proportionality as an independent source of rights over shelf
areas and the result is a cmde apportionment of the pertinent sub
manne areas. Moreover, the version of the concept cf proportionality
used by the Libyan Government is completely inapposite in the geo-
graphical circumstances of Malta and Lihya. The particular version of
proportionality based upon the ratio of the lengths of the respective
coastlines is applicable (and then only as a resr of the equitable result)
in the situation of three adjoining States located on a concave Coast.
This form of proportionality is not of general application.
322. Libya's approach to the test of proportionality misunderstands
the importance of the relarionshipof the coastlines of the Parties, and

fails to recognise the significance of disroncebetween the coastlines of
Maha and Libya and the locarion of the Malta group of islands
opposite the Lihyan coastiine. This relationship ofthe two cnastlines is.
gcnerally speaking, Irapezoidal and is illustr;ited itithe Memorial of
Malta.' Thc figure of a trapeziiim illustratcs the generous proportionof
the periincnl shelf arças which fall to Libya whçn the equidistance
method is applied and how that mçthod rellects the extensive west-easi
reach ti~hçLihytrn çoastline.

323. In the context of coiitinerital shçlf dclimitation the elTe10 he
giuçn to aiiy particular principle "is always dependent nut only un the
particular geographical and other circumstances but also on any re-
levant coiisiderations of law and equity".' The Libyan version of

proportionality treats the concept as a substitute for a method or
delimitation and. in so doing, proposes a solution which utterly dis-
regards "the legal framework within which the Court must decide the
course of the boundary"."

@ 'Spetbe Dsision intheAngleFrench ContinentalShelfcasecilpara.194.
Vbid.,para. 187. 324. The legal framework of the delimitation in this case includes the
lollowing yigniîicant principles:

(u) The Prir~iplcof Non-en~roachrn~ri~

325. This principle is a fundamental aspect of the law relating to
continental shell delimitation, and in the circumstances of the present
case a departure from the equidistance line would involve a major
encroachment upon the shelf areas adjacent to Malta. Indeed, the
Libgan claim is an atternpt to reserve virtually the entire Pelagian
Block to Libya, and constitutes a taking in of continental shelf not
related to Libyan coasts. It is absurd to think that Libyan coasts could
play the rôle of land which "dominates the sea" in respect of sea-bed
areas a ïew miles otl Malta.

(b) Eqilirable Coiisiderutionsapplicable ta the presenrcase.

326. The equitable considerations set forth in Chapter X above bear

no relation to an abstract conception of spatial proportionality of the
kind utilised in the Libyan Mernorial. These considerations, which
include the siatus of Malta as an island developing country and
considerations ol national security and necessary control over adjacent
submarine areas, militate strongly in favour of the equidistance line.
The Libyan daim in these proceedings is totally incompatible with such
equitable considerations.

(c) T~Pcritcrion ofdisrance.

327. The criterion of distance haï a decisive rôle in the law of
continental shçlf delimitation wlietlier regarded indcpçndently or as a
facet of the Iaw relatirig to the Exclusive Eçonomic Zone, and, in thç
case ol opposite Slates abutting ~ipoiithe sanie continental shclf, the

criteriqn coiitirms the equidistance mcihod as the appropriatc route 10
an equiiablc snluiion.

(d) Thr principlc ofequaliry of'Sraras.

328. Thc principlc of the equality of States, a gcneral pririçiplç of
international law, forms an obvious but nonetheless significant part of
the legal framework of the delimitation. The division of the submarine
areas ktween Malta and Libya as envisaged in the Libyan Memonal
would inrolve a refashioning of geography and a violation of the
principle orthe equality of States. Malta is not invoking the principle as
a basis for the reordering of geography, but to confirm the validity of
the equidistance bine as an equitable reflection of "the particular
equality ol the IWO States in their geographical relation to the con-

tinentalshelf-' ol the Pelagian Block.
' AqlwFr~mit Coniineni~Shel/case, Decisiof30 June1977,op.eir.para.195.312 CONTINENTALSHELF

329. In Malt;iVs siibinissionthç method of eqiiidistançcproducesan
equitable resuli. whiçh meets the tesi tifpriiporiionality 10 the cxtent
ÿpptic;ible iiithe circurnsiançcs oI thiscase, and is compatiblewith the
oihçr rclçvantçircumstancesof law and cquity which form the legal

frameWorkof the delimitation. CHAPTER XII

THE PRINCIPAL ELEMENTS JUSTIFYlNG THE EQUITABLE
SOLUTION BASED UPON THE METHOD OF
EQUIDISTANCE

330. The principdl elements which justify the conclusion that the
equitable delimitation in the present case is that based upon the
equidistance method are now presented for the convenienceof the
Court.The elernentsare identifiedin the followingpropositions:
(a)The key elementsare to be derived from the geographicalcircurn-
stances. which are characterised t~yan absence of unusual features.The
coasts of Malta and Libya are opposite one another and set at a
distance, and they abut upon a continental shelf which is a geological
continuum.
[b) In such geographical circu~nstances,the delimitation which oflers
itseN,as the equitable delimitation, is an equidistance line. Both prin-
ciple and State practice substantiate the view that in the case of
opposite States the equidistance line constitutes the equitable solution.
(c)The appropnateness of the equidistance method is confirmed by
the criterion of distance, of whicht is but another form. The criterion

of distance in the iaw of continental shelfdelimitation lends weight to
the right of a coastal State to alateral reach of shelfjurisdiction, and
this on a basis of equality with other coastal States.
(d) There is no evidence in State practice to suggest that island
Staics are placed ai a disadvantage eithcrin the mattcr of coritinçntal
shelfdelirnitntion or in the analo[:oiissphere ofdçlimitation tif exclusive
cconornic zones ns bçtween opposite or adjaçcnt States abutting upon
the saniç submariue areas.
(F)7-helegalvalidityofthe equidistance rncthod in the circurnstanççs
or the prcxnt case is confirmed by the pririciplç of the equality of
Srdtcs. This principlc is not invokzd by Malta in ordçr Io seek a
refashioningor geography but in order to contradici a Liby;iiithesis ori
delimitation which would restilt ia manifcstly inequitable solution,
leaviag Libya witb a rnonopoly of the sea-bed rcsources of those parts
or thç Pelagian Hlockdividing the two Statcs. In shon, the principle of
equality iscalled upon to preuent a refashioning ofgcography.
V) ïhe equidistance line provides an adequate reflection of the
coastal State's major interest in exercising political authority in respect
of adjacent submarine areas, in order to protect ils securityand to main-

taina stable rkgirnefor the management of the natural resources of the
sea-bed.An islandState has at leastthe sameneedand the samecapacity
as otber States to exercisesupervision over adjacent areas of sea-bed.
(g)The distance critenon, as an element in the law of maritime
delimitation,is a reflection of the major interest of coastal States in a
lateral reachofjurisdiction. This attribution ofjurisdiction is based on
the political and geographical significanceof possessingcoasts abutting 374 CONTINENTAL SHE1.F [l57]

upon the relevünt shelf areas. The distance criterion provides an apron
ol jurisdiçtiiin ~vhichindiçatcs and assunies tlie equality of the seciirity
needs or coastal States, aiid in the prescnt case such cqiiality c;in only
be maintained by resort to the method of equidistance.
(h) The appropriateness of the equidistance line as the equitable
delimitation of the shelf areas dividing Malta and Libya is evidencby
a substantial State practice involving island States. This practice pro-
vides cogent evidence of the pertinent standard of equity in the matter
ofdelimitation embodied in customary international law.
(i)In view of the number of delimitations based upon equidistance in
comparable situations, and the political and security aspects of the
boundary line in the continental shelf, a departure from the method of
equidistance in these proceedings would produce a certain discordance
with those principles of finality and stability in matters of delimitation
which have received the avvrobation of the Court.
Ij)The equitable consid&ations relevant to the present case confirm

that the delimitation resultine fromthe eauidistance method constitutes
the appropriate equitable solution. ~he' pertinent equitable conside-
rations include the following:
(i) Malta's special dependence upon sea-bed energy resources.
(ii) The requirements of Malta as a developing island country.
(iii) The consideration of national security and the need for control
of adjacent submarine areas.
(iv) The geographical range of Maltese fishing activity.

(1,The conduct of the Parties and, in particular, the consistency of
Malta's sonduct since the Note Verbale of 1965 and the legis-
lation of 1966.
(k) In the present case the test of proportionality is satisfied by the
equitable solution bascd upon thc equidistance rnçthod. Thc Lihyÿn
viw of delimitation is clearly incompatible with ari equitable soluiioii.
consiiiii~csan attcmpl to reserve virtually thç çntirc Pçlagian RloçIO

Lihya, and would involve a major cncro;ichment upon shelf areas
adjacent to Malta and unrclatd to I.ibyan coasts.
(1)The Libyiin version of proportionality based upon tlie ratio or
Iengths of coastlines is not only essentially incquitahlc in result but
shi~ws a marked disregard for the legal framework within whicli the
delimitaiion must be çonsidcred. The legal framcwork of the present
case includes the principle of non-encroachment, the criterion of dis-
tance, and the principle of the equality of States.
(m) The types of division of the sea-bed proposed by Libya, in the
@@ forms illustrated by Maps 9 and 17 of the Libyan Memorial,' are
essentially based on the principle of the just and equitable share and
they thus rest upon an extra-legal conception.
(n) Malta's equidistance line is equitable and is in conformity with
the relevant considerations of law and equity which constitute the
overal1 framework within which the delimitation must be effected.

' Rcpraduccdalroin Map 4 of Counier-Memonal. CHAPTER XII1

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE LIBYAN ARGUMENTS IN THE
PRESENT CASE

331. The Libyan arguments in the present case have serious impli-
cations for the development of the principles of law and equity relating
to the continental shelf. Indeed, given the particular form of the Libyan
case, the present proceedings have a critical relation to the law relating

to maritime jurisdictions in general.
332. The 'essenceof the Libyan arguments can be stated in the form
of the lolloning propositions:
(a) Physical features of the sea-bed, such as depressions or faults, may
present natural frontiers.

(b) In the case of a small islanti State opposite a mainland coastal
State. the jurisdictional needs of the latter are much more signi-
ficant than those of the former.
tc) The large rerritorial extentof a coastal State opposite another
smaller coastal State is relevant in determining an equitable
solution.
Id) Proportionality in the form of the ratio of coastal lengths, and also
ioprigraphical factors, providc not nierely factors whicli mÿy he
einplvyed us rhr husisfor nhuicmcnr or udjusrmcnt (i rfirprintrlry
houiidun. indicofedby cyuiiuhleprinciples:these two eleinents,Pr[>-
portiunality aiid topography, are tu provide the ucrlrul I>osrfor
such a primary deliniitatiori.

333. M;ilta cÿnnot bç indiiîcreiit to the implicationsor the Libyan
iirguments for iii;tnotlicr co:islal St;iles iri the viçiriity of extensive
"mainland or "con~inen1;il"coastal Stiites.In eJxi the I.ibyari case
salls for radical ckiiige in the existing structure of the law of maritime
iuridiçtions in spite of the kicl ihat the Libyiin Mernori;iloppctrrsio
cirrrp!the exisiiiigbody of priticiples.

334. The existing law has a strong basis in good policy and shares
the aisumptions of traditional tliinking about maritime jurisdictions.
The developmenl of the territorial sea and the concept of contiguous
zones was based uponthe political implications of coastal geography. It
has long been accepted that coastal States have a political and security
interest in controlting activity in the sea areas contiguous 10 their
coasts.
335. The language used hy the draftsmen of the Truman
Proclamation on the continental shelf is faithful to this traditional
thinking. Thus the prearnbular part states that "self-protection compels
the coasial nation IO keep close watch over activities OITils shoresrcaçh or jurisdiction. Equidistançe is the method by which the primary
equitable delimitation is uchieved. The equitahle nature of the primary
boundary is then, so to speak. tested and, if ncccssary, refincd by
reference to other relevant considerations. Such adjustmcnt or abate-
ment does not involve major re-ordering of the primary delimitation,
still less a reapportionment - since no apportionment took place
originaliy.
341. The second stage of delimitation necessarily involves a limited
operation. since it can only apply to the marginal aspects of the equal
relationships of the two coastal States. In the present case the relevant
considerations confirm the equitahle nature of equidistance. In the
same connection the test of proportionality is no more than a verifi-
cation of equity and, in any case, cannot be used to set aside the
primary delimitation. Even when proportionality justifies some change

in the primary boundary such adjustment or abatement can only have
a limited scope.
342. The two stages involved in the process of equitable delimitation
constitute a practical expression of a legal policy of major significance.
Inamordance with the concept of the inherent rights of coastal States,
the criterion or distance, and the political interest represented by the
pnnciple of non-encroachment, the coastal configurations of the States
and their geographical relationships must be given full faith and credit.
The criterion of distance and the method of equidistance provide the
instruments by which such full faith and credit are accorded. The
significance of coasts. the equality of lateral reach, and the needs of self-
protection in respect of adjacent areas, recognised in the Truman
Prwlamirtinn and in thç çritçrion of distance, militate agiiinst any
policy ofsubsianiial revision of thc primary deliiniiation which em-
brxiicï such value.
343. The rnnttcr ran beexpresscd more siicciiiçily. Tlie biisic cntillç-
ment ad politicai and securiiy iiiterests of colistal Siales in omyin~
sea-bed areas çunnot be iipportioned. Morei~vçr,even whçn adjustmeiit
isjuuiified in principlc on cquitjible grounds. certain iritercsls çan orily
be ordercd cquiiablv on the basis of equality.
344 This legal policy is evidenççd hy the extensive pattern of Stzitç
practice which coiistitutes clcar evidence of the types of delirnitation
which are compaiiblc with equitable principles as recognised in cus-
tomary international law. The State praçtiçc indicates very clearly th;it
island States are not disadvantaged. It may be noted also that the
practice of States. including States of the Mediterranean region, with
almost no exceptions, ignores faults and depressions as criteria of
delimitation and gives no support to the Libyan version either of
natural prolongation or of proportionality.
345. Were an international tribunal to show iavour to arguments of
the type advanced by Libya in this case, the law would be thrown into
confusion. The implications, the invitation to forms of aggrandisement
and revisionism which such a change of direction in the law would
presage? would be serious indeed. In many regions of the world small378 CONTINENTAL SHELP Cl611

Statu, some island States some not, face larger States or States with
"mainland" coasts. Examplcs may be round in the Baltic Sea, the Guif,
the Bay of Bengul, the Indian Ocean, South East Asia and iht
Caribbean. Morcover, apart from small States whieh are opposite
mainland States, there are examples of small or smaller States more or
less adjacent to large States in several continents.
346. The "large State" and "long coast" arguments embodied in the
Libyan case are fundamentally opposed at once to good legal policy, to
traditional thinking in matters of maritime jurisdiction, and to existing
patterns of customary international law as evidence of equitableness in
the context of continental shelf delimitation.SUBMISSIONS 347. Having regard to the considerations set out above, May il
gleasethe Caurr.rejecting al1 submissions to the contrary, to adjudge

and declare that
(i) the pnnciples and rules of international law applicable to the
delimitation of the areas of the continental shellwhich appertain
to Malta and Libya are that the delimitation shall be elfected on
the basis 01international law in order to achieve an equitable
solution.
[ii) in practice the above principles and, rules,are applied by means of
a median line every point O which 1se,quuidistantfrom the nearest
points on the baselines of Malta, and the low-water mark of the
Coast of Libya. VOLUME Il

ANNEXES TO
THECOUNTER-MEMORIALOF MALTA

Annex 1

THE ~IPORTANCE TO MALTA OF THESEA AROUND IT

From time immemorial, lire in Malta has evolved and has been
fashioned and conditioned by two basic and indisputable facts, both
closelylinked to the sea: Malta'sstrategic position as a group of islands,
in the ver):centre of the Mediterranean Sea- a sea wbich has for so
long been the scene of many of the world's most important historical
events- and Malta's fine,deep and wellsheltered harbours both in the
oonh and in the south-east of the main island.'
These main characteristics have had a fundamental influenceon the
course of hjstory, both for Malta and its people and for those nations
and people$ whether fromthe Mediterranean or not, for whom that sea
was, or was to bme, of vital concern.

For Malia these fundamental features have been both an asset and a
liabilitv.he\ hdve meant lone-.rids of settlemenr or domination bv
the pe&ples or empires that from time to time colonized or dominatd
the region: Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines,
Arabs, Normans, Spanish, the Order or St. John. the British.
They have brought 10 Malta a mixlurc of cultures;.prosperily and
wcll-king, and even freedom, alternating with perids of servitude
and want; years OF Face and years in which the inhabitants were
decimateci by maraudcrs and other pirates irom the Barbary coast of
North Africa and from thc east; they have also meant decades of
sustained emigration to keep the populationto the numbers which the

limitedresources ol thc islands could support. In brief, Malta hvs had.
bmause of irs characteristics as an island in the Middle Sea and ils
siraiegic and geographical advantages, a long and chequerd history,
intimately related Io the see and highlighid by leats of heroisrn and
evtn glory whichhave lewparallels in the annals of the region'shisiory.
For the maintrading or military powersof the past, Malta has meant
a safe haven alter a long and perilous voyage hy sea, and a centre from
which to undertake further voyagesand more trade; a safebase for sea-
fanng activitie- whether of a militaryor of a peacefulnature; a major
outpost on the main sea-routes, particularly on the way to lndia and
the Far Est; a major entrepôt for trade and an important bunkering
station.

'Didorus Siculuihc 1stCenturB.C. histaraitributtheprosperiofMiilta
at the iimc iishnd'"Geographic alsition, exceharbourand sea-merchants"
(V. 12. 1-4).384 CONTINENTAL SHELF id]

In the two world wars of this centtiry Malta was vital to thc Allies,
and in iliç 1939-45 war was significantly itistrumen~al in ihc final
viciory against Nltiism and Fascistii. fo honour the bravery and

hcrvisrnof its people diiring thç last World War, Malta was awiirded
the George Cross by King George VI of Great Britain and a Scroll ol
Honour by President Roosevelt.'

The population of Malta has lived and thrived, as is natural for an
island people, on both agriculture and fishing, ta which other activities
were added from time to time. In the days when it was not very sale to

Iive too near the Coast except behind well-defended and properly
fortified settlements.' the Maltese lived either in the security of lor-
tifications within the harbours or somewhat more inland, but,of course,

always wiihin walking distance from the sea. After the Great Siege of
1565 the whole of the Grand Harbour and Marsamxett area were so
well fortified that Malta has since experienced no other attack from the
sea; and the population kas grown mostly by the sea around those

harbours, to the extent that this area has become one large settlement
in which about two-thirds of the population now live.
The arable land in Malta is, however, very restricted, and fresh waier
has always been very scarce. A good part of the population had

therefore to turn to the sea, and to other activities in one way or
another connected with the sea, for a living.To the sea the inhabitants
of Malta turned mainly either as sailors or fishermen and, in later years.
in the service or repair of the merchant or naval ileets that operated

lrom or through Ma1ta.j

aIhc iiiolivaiion for the awsrd of the Crorgc Cross reusfnllows:"To hunour hcr
brarc ~riplc I award thc Gcorgc Cross to the lrland Fnrtress of Multa tn bear witncssro
a heroism and dcvotiorthii will luns hc inmous in hirtory."
Prçsidmt Ruoïrvclt wrole:"In the riamc «i thc people of thc iinited States <ifAmcnca I
sslutc thc Islandor Malta. ils people and dcicndcrs. whu, in thc cause uf frccdand
juriiicand dccericythrnughoui ihc world. huvc rcndcred villurnusscrvirilahore and
hiund thc cal1of duiy.
"llndcrrepvïitd firfront the skies. Maltil stood alone but uiiafraid in the ccntre or the
reÿ.une ii~i b-ielit flamc in the drrktiess - u hciicon of huv for the çlrnrcr days which
hair ciirnt
*Malia's hrifiht stori>Ihunidn iortittide and couragc wilhc rcad by poslcrity with
rondçr and with gtaiiiudc 1hroub.hal1 thagrr.
-'Wh21waldunc inrhis irliind maintains ihc highest traditiongallantmenand womtn
who From ilIrbçginning of time Iiavclivcd and did to preservc civiliralion for al1
pnkind.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Dscmbçr 7th 1943"
' Some 15villagesmost of [hem closela the sea,disappared between the fifteenthand
the iatcr eighteenth centuries: and about 30 villags mostly concenlrated on the Sourheast
of Malta. diwppeared before1419 . he depopulation of these villages was larduey10
the operations of the Barbary corsairs. SecG. Wcttingcr "The Los1Villagesand Hamkts
ofMalia- (1975pp. 181-204) and Brian Blouet "Thc Story of Malta" (1962,pp.9L991.
QA. Lutrell, in his study "Eighteenth Century Malta: Prosperity and Problemr-
(publishedin Hgphen Vol.111 No. 2 1982)writcs"... in172113 thc mcrchanr fleet ras
probably employing some 3000 men and the corsoabout 700 aboard ship. For much of
the mrury the corso was in serious declinc, but alter 1776 if cnjoyed a comparative

[~ootnote 3continuedon nextpng~][SI AXKVXLS '1'0 'THECOUNTER.MEMOR1ALOF MAITA 385

Sevaal çettlemenLs have for many ycÿrs thrived exclusively on

Ashinr: Marsaxlokk, Wied il-Chain, Wied it-Aurticq, Marsalforn, San
~awl;l-~ahar, Mkarr, Xlendi, sri al1names intimatçly çonnccted with
ftshine aciivitics. and three of these face southwards. A nood number of
ah& migrants to North Africa, particularly those-that settled in
Tripolitania, were fishermen who went there to settle as such; and to
this day there are families that owe their ancestry Io those Maltese

fishermen.
Tens of thousands of Maltese sailors have over the years served in

:he merchant ileet and on the galleys of the Order of St. John,' on
British merchant vesselsand on ships of the Royal Navy. Today Malta
has its own merchant fleet and its own shippine, Company. This lleet
carries mat of the goods exported by al taand a substantiai part of
%%alta'ismoorts. The Maltese national shiooine cornoanv - Sea Malta
- is a thrihg one and has been so suc'céss61th; it'has provided

managerial services not only to its own ships but also to those of other
countries. including Libya.

One of Malta's main attractions to the military powers whose
interests, or greed, brought them to the Mediterranean were its fine
"arsenali" or dockyards. To this day Malta's main industry is ship-
repairing. The Malta Drydocks provide direct work to more than 5,000
higblv skilled workers.and an annual turnover of more than US $50
million to the Maltese economy. A new shipbuilding yard is in the

course of construction capable of building ships up to 120,000dwt.
The existing shipyards, besides being capable of building ships up to

l0,W dwl and olher rnnritinie equipment. cen repair almost any ship
doai. There are eirht dry dr%ks.of varying sizes,of which the Iast to be
constructd iscapable of acçcimodating tankers up 10300,000dwr. It is
ihe Iürecst in the Mediterranean ;andone of orilv a hiindful in the entirc
~orld.~~hi~sof al1 nationalities have been reGired tliere; and scvcral
Libyan shi~, koth military and commercial, and other rnaritinie equip-

mcnt including a floating dock, werc constriicted or repaired in the
hlahese shipyardsand for a whilc cveii operatcd hy Maltese workcrs.

The oil industry.particularly offshorc ail production. in the Central

1788the Order's flm s~illemployedaround 19M)men. andanaverage of 52were alsea.
in rhecorsobelwem 1792 and 1797:thesewere mainly Maltese."
1.Mizii.inthe lnrrduction to Vol.XII of the Cornlogueofrhe RecordsofOrderof
Sr.John of Jeni8oiemin thRoyol Molro Lihory (1968. p. 12)siates, in relation 10 the
French mirpalion oïMalta that"...the annals of the Maltcse reamen who manncd the
Order's wanhipa do noi end thcrc. Ovcr IOM)Maltcw sailars and 900 Maltese soldicrs,
iorming a body 2W rtrong and callcd the Maltere Legion.followed Napoleon to Egypt.
where ihcyrcre crowned by a hcroic death a brilliant tradition of courage and daring.
' The IR29 CC~SUS heures quoted by Miege (Histoire dMalre Vol. 1, Paris, 1840,
p. 159gire a global figureof 16,440persons as belonging to the class of merchantseamen
and 9.240 IOthatofboaimen and fishermen - Out of a total population of114,236in
1829,25.680 perronsretethercfore directly dependonttheseafor a living.The figure
giren for agricultu[orrhat ycar is 32,428.[7-111 A'IKEXESTO THE COUNTER.MEMORIAL OF MALTA 387

Annex 2

This annex,whicb describes and analyses the scientificfacts concerning
the Pelagian Basinand whichis also referredto as the Technical Annex,
has been prepared by independent scientists who have wideknowledge
and experience in their field of specialization and a very special
knowledge and experiencein the region relevant to the present dispute.

The two pans of the Annex have been prepared respectivelyby:

Professor D-xtor Jean-René Vanney, Department of Dynamic
Geology, Pierre et Marie Curie University, and Department of
Teaching and Research, Sorbonne University, Paris, France;
and

Professor Georges H. Mascle, Professor of Geology, Dolomieu
lnstitute 01 Geology and Mineralogy, University of Grenoble,
France. GLOSSARY

Pelagian Sea: A geographic term derived from the name of the islands
siruated at its centre, extending hetween Tunisia to the West and
southwest, Sicily to the north, and Lihya to the sou~heast.~The
Pela~an Sea is a part of the Pelagian Block.
Pelugian Block: A geological term created IO define the structural

prolongation of Tunisia. To the north it is limited by the North
Sicily mountain chain; to the east, by the Sicily-Malta-Medina
Escarpment; to the south, by the Jeffara Flexure. It is hence a
strucrural entity, sometimes submerged, sometimes emerged, as it
includes the Sahel of Eastern Tunisia, the Gulf of Hammamet. the
leffara ~lains of Southern Tunisia and of Northern Libya and
southein Sicily.
S~roit o,S~ ~li.lor SiculeTunisian straits): This is the arm of the sea
between kitp Bon (~unisia) and capo Feto (Sicily). See the hy-
drographic chart, especially that of the U.S. Naval Oceanographic
Ofice (N.B.C. 3920).

Sicil? Chaiinel: A maritime passage which extends between Tunisia and
Sicily. In the narrow sense: it is equivalent to the Straits of Sicily;
in a broad sense itis an arm of the sea having a trapezoidal shape.
limited IO the South by a line drawn (rom Malta 10 the Kerkennah
Islands. Approximate area: 250,000km2."
Some authors wrongly interpret the Sicily Channel as thç çol-
Iwtioii ordcprcsscd and irregular scabcds siiuaiçd South of Sicily.
Iviiiun Seti: Part of the Eiisterii Mediterratieati, between tlic kdst
Sicilixn cnasl. the souiheast Iialian coasi and thç wçstcrn Coast of
Grcece. Il is sometimes soniewliat wroiigly interpreted ils the
wliolc loriiaii Basin rcaching to the coiist of Africa, iiicliidwhÿi
was îurmerly delined as the Gulf of Higand Smiiil Sirlc. THE SCIENTlFlC FACTS

PART 1

THE RELEVANT GEOMORPHOLOGICAL AND
GEOLOGICAL FACTS CONCERNING
THE PELAGIAN SEA

by

Professor Jean-RenéVanney

1. This Part of the Technical Annex describes and explains the
submarine topography of the maritime zone of the Pelagian Sea1to the
east or the Tunisian Plateau? that is approximately east of the 150m
i~obath.~The study also describesand examinesthe escarpments which
form the eastem limits of the Pelagian Block and their extensions into
the Ionian Basin The study is the result of an objective utilization of
almost al1the available data on the subject. These include:

- bathymetric data, the quantity and qualityof which have
increasçd asa result of oil exploration, They have served for the
@ compilation or the bathymetric chart IBCM published in 1981
under the direction of the International Oceanographic
Commission. Howevcr,duc to the coarse spacing orthe isobaths
(200m) used for the final foof this map, recourstathe original
sources have been necessary:sonde readings at a scale of 1:250000,
taken by multibeam sonde surveys carricd out and published by
Groupe ESCARMED;4

-the seismicreflection profiles collected and published by the
gtophysicistsof the Osscrvatorio Geofisico Spcrimentale (O.G.S.)
of Trieste(C. Morelli, 1. Finetti): some of the profiles are com-
mented upon in this study.
- the observations made by the Groupe ESCARMED5 after
diving by submarine SP3000 Cyana on the Malta Escarpment;

' The tcrmidefmedintheGlossary.
' ïüctoponyrnyuredis chatadoptedfor theInternationalBatChanrof the
MediterraneanoIBCM (Shat8). 1981.
@ :kcFigrucL.
SceB.Biju-Duvae01.1981, 198A. Baudrimontal, 1982.
'Op. cil.3W CON'I'INENTALSHELF [!Tl

- the publications, especially those rearranged under the dirw-

tion of P.F. Burrolet ci al. (1979) and in particular the works of
E. Winnock, (1979,1981),'
- the morphosedimentary studies by C Blanpied and G.
Bellaiche in the south, and of D. J. Stanley and A. Maldonado in
the north?

2. This study expresses the author's interpretation of the relevant
data and the results of his own personal experience on the subject of
geomorphology of continental margins. Within reasonable limits, the
analysis of the relief attempts to show the relationship between the
shape of the sea-bed and the structure of the underlying terrain.

2. GENERAD LESCRIPTION
(a) Main GeomorphicCharacters

3. Numerous authors are of the view that the Pelagian Sea is a key
region for understanding the Mediterranean. This is due to:

(i) Its strateyic position standing as it does between the two great
basins (West and East) of the Mediterranean. The Pelagian Sea forms a
son or a "continental bridge" with Africa on one side, Malta in the
middle, and Sicily on the other side. It is the most extensive and the
shallowest sill of the Mediterranean. Because of ils geographic position
and bathymetry, the Pelagian Sea has:

- a miiltiplicity of continental and marine erosional phases,
which have been partiçularly irnportrinl during the las1 five mil-
lion years;
- currents, bolh channelleà and accelerateà, causing hydrologi-
cri1changes. On thç surface. the çurrents are oriented [rom norih-
wesi 10 southeast from the SiciliawTunisian straits (or Siciliao
straits) to the Ioniun Scÿ. This surface water, relatively less dcnse.
covers a movemerit in the opposite direction: between 300 and
MlOm itruns in the opposilç direction to that of intermediaie

waters whiçh connmt the deepest depressioris situated between one
çide and the other of the Mcdina and Melita Banks. Finally, in thc
cstcrn watcrs of the escarpments described in section 7 or this
Annex, there is a hydrologically mobile and sinuous front: the
Maltese Front.
(ii) Itsconfiguration:the morphology of the Pelagian Sea can be
summarized as a vast continental sheUbordered on the east by a long

escarpment varyingly abrupt and excavated by interna1 basins ("the
intermediate basin? of ltalian geophysicists Finetti and MoreUi).
A cornparison with the neighbouring continental margins shows its
distinctiveness which isbased on three dominant characteristics:

Sb hl of rcfcrencesathecnd of this Anncx.
Ibid-392 CONTINENTAI. SHELF [21-22]

southeasi. This dominant northwest-soiitheast structural trend is cut by

Yaulrsoricntcd ;ipproximately ncirth-soulh. A miijor discordance clcarly
visible on seisniic reflection profiles has been dated from rock saniples
ubr~inal from drill holevto thc latç Mioccne. It was during the late Miu-
cene that the major morphological features started to be formed. The
major tectonic phase seems now to have ended, but the submarine
escarpments are still actively moving and volcanic activity still occurs.
5. Bnefly,the medium depth parts (more than 150111)of the Pelagian
Sea owe their appearance of alternating basins and blocks to a system

olcontinued extension to which the Pelagian Block has been subjected
since late Miocene limes. as shown by G. Mascle in Part II of this
Annex. These earth movements have produced sections clearly charac-
terized by their shape, structure and origin. The purpose of the follou-
ing regional study is to underline the morphological variety of the
different parts of this tectonic marquetry.'

6. In the northern part of the Pelagian Sea are a series of shallow
piaieaux separated by deep basins elongated parallel to the southern
Coast of Sicily. Topographically this assemblage resembles the overall

structure of the Pelagian Sea. The plateaux are similar to the Medina-
hlelita Banks, and the deeps are identical in form and in origin to the
central Trough and Ridge system described in Section 4 of this Annex.
The Adventure Bank and the Malta Plateau form two basically quad-
rangular apophyses which extend to the south of the extremities of
Siçily. (In lhc bathynietric cliarts they arc dçlimitcd hy the 15&2Mm
irobaths. The two plateaux are relatively stable calcareous platforms
lcvcllcd in thc Miocene liniestones. Thc original topogtq~hy, deeply cut
by channels and fissurcs causeà by fracturing or erosion (Karst), has
bwn CiIlal and levclled by the relÿtively thin Plio-Quatcrnary sedimen-
tary cover.

7. To the West,thç Aducnrurc Brink (with an arça of abolit 4000 km2)
fraturcs pçaks formed oiit of rolling hills siibmerged in less th50 m tif
water (the shallowest point is 8.8m un Talbot Hank). 'l'owards theeiist
thç plaicau is bordered by the Graham Bank (58.7~1). the 'l'crriblç
Bank (20m) and thç Pinn~-Marinç Bank (53m). Thc highest relier is
formed by volcanic cones which have been detected at the surface by
the flames and fumaroles which are emitted from the sea. Navigators
have lrequently described volcanic activity and this has been recorded
in notices to mariners (1632, 1701, 1801,1831, 1863, 1923, etc). These

texts also record the seisms and the sudden changes affecting the seabed
on the border of Adventure Bank. For example, Graham Bank is the
remnant of the volcanic island Julia which rose to 60m above sea level
during the summer of 1831, but which presently exists only as a sill ol
lava beneath the sea surface.

' SecFigure3.[23-25l ANNEXES TO THE COUNTER.MEMORIAL OF MALTA 393

8. To the east, theMnlta Platcuu is formed from the sarne Miocene
Limestoneas Advcniure Bank. Ii has a pronounç~d tilt towards the
001th near thc isk~ndsof Gozo and Malta. rising in the south to more

than 2CU m above sea level.The shoals (Hurd tiank, seabed composed
or saod and coral under less than about 35m of water) which extend
the archipelago to the east, are joined to Sicily by an isthmus over
6ûkm long, very probably eroded and shaped by the sea at the lime of
its lastnse and faIla few thousand years ago.
9. The slopes limitingthese limestoneplateaux towards the south are
dinerently inclined.The slope which marks the edge ofAdventure Bank
has a very pronounced gradient reaching a 100:1000to the east of the
island of Pantelieria On the other hand, the slope bordering the Malta
Plateau descends gradually to the south and southeast of the island. It
reaches a gradient of 90:1000 to the southwest of Malta, but to the
soutbeast the slope is no more than a gently inclinedramp which does
not ex& a gradient of 15:1000.
10. Betweeo these two bastion-like plateaux lies a quadrilateral of
subsided seafloor wjrh undulating relief. Running northwest-southeast
across the region is an undenvater ridge with peaks submerged at
about 250metres (264m for the Madrepore Bank)composed of uplifted
or tilted Miocene Iimestoneblocks.' Betweenthe ridge and the Sicilian
mainland k a long (150km) and narrow (30km) submarine depression

known as the South-Sicilian Basin or Gela Basin (at an average depth
of 882m).Although there has been considerable subsidenceof the Gela
Basin,it has ben iofilledby the deposition of a very thick sedimentary
series and by the slow progression (during the late Miocene and the
Pliocene)of a giganticsubmarine slidc proceedingfrom Sicily.The Gela
Basin and adjacent ridgcs arc the result of major tectonic movements
interprerd as a çonsequence of the bending and subduction of the
northern bordm of the Pzlagian Block under the adjacent Europe;in
plate

11. Anolher depressed rcgion, with still rnrircuneven rçlicfis sitiiated
immeùiately to the south of the Northcrn Decps and Plateaux of thc
preceeding rc~on. It contains the major Malta, Pantellcria and Linosii
Troughs witb intcrimeningridges and the srniiller Maltiiand Medina

Channels. On the Tunisian side il.is limitedby the edge of the Tunisian
Plateau.Jtis quite welldefined by the 500metre isobath and forms the
deepest and most uneven part of the Pelagian Sea. Its size (80km by
lOOkm between the meridians of Pantelleria and Malta) as well as its
abrupt changes in depth and inclination make it a distinct region
although difficult to describe.' This region will be described under the
iollowing aspects:

:Sa Figure4.
- SeeFignra 5 and6.396 CONTINENTAL SIIELF

(O)The Limits of the DepressedReyiun

12.The margins of the depressed region are very irregular and have
deep spurs caused by crosion by tributary valleys. The edge or the
Tunisian Plateau in the vicinity of the islands of Lampione and
Lampedusa is step faulted and greatly dissectedby erosion. There are a
senes of levelled "terraces"(depths averaging from 200 to 300 metres),
having an undulating topography and topped by low crests, sub-
circuIar or oval peaks, and banks (Alfil,Birsa, Fonkal, Boun Banks)
covered with coarse detrital sediments. Towards the north, the "ter-
races" are cut by discontinuous indentations, which are deep (up to

more than 400 metres) and sinuous. The seismic reflection profile in
Figure 5 shows that it is recent faulting that is mainly responsible
for the topographic individuality ofthe "terraces" and banks whichtop
them

(b) The DepressionProper

13. The depiession proper presents a verycomplex morphology. It is
however possible to distinguish several interrelated elements, al1 li-
neated parallel to the dominant northwest-southeast trend:

- crests which are often tabular and several kilometres wide,
more rarely tapering and narrow; their peaks Vary between 400
and 700metres.
- closed depressions (between 600 and 700 metres deep)joined
by sligbtly sinuous valleys. One of these depressions extends for
about 50km to the east-southeast of Bouri Bank;it is 10km wide,
and 796m at its deepest. A gap in its northcrn crcst brings it into
contact with another, narrow, closed depression.
- the most striking morphological clcmcnts arc the three
subparallel basins of the Pantelleria (1314 rnetres), Linosa(1615

metres)and Malta (1715metres)Troughs.
14. ln spite of their size (Malta Trough: 150 by 18km: Panislleria
Trough: 90 by 30km:Linosa Trough: 75 by 17km) the floor of thex
shallow basins does not cover an area excecding onc fifth [if the
depressed zone. Each shallow basin forms a small cell, enclosed on al1
its sides by walls several hundred metres higb. Their flat, or slighrly
cradle-shaped bottoms are filledwith thick PliwQuaternary sediments,

several hundred metres thick (more than 2000111for the Linosa
Troughs). These are pelagic sediments, turbidites or slumped mas=
wiih intercalations of volcanic-sedimentarymaterial (and maybe lava1
flows).The evenness of the basin noors makes them look like small
submarine plains exceptat the extremities of the basins. The steepness
and height of the sides are due to a system of very close normal faults,
hardly covered by the Pli-uaternary deposits which are norma1ly
thinner than the throws (which may reach 1km) of the original
escarpments. This is especially evident in the southern edges of ther291 ANPiEXFS TO TllECOUNTEK-MEMOR 0I'LMALTA 395

Linosa and IlIalta Troughs which are strongly asymmetric bÿsins.' A
preçision survey of the southern slope of the Linosa Trough by thc
Multibeam sonde, S~ahcÿm,~indicates:
- its regularly aligned trend in a direction or abou120";

- its dissection into spurs and deep ravines, the amplitude of
which reaches the hectometre level. These have a trend of about
060' reflecting the efects of transverse faulti-';
- its elevation (about 500111)and its overall straightness with
an average slope of 500:1000.

15. Xormally, on the bottom of these shallow basins there are
adjoining hanging basins, some of which are isolated by raised sea-
bottoms which look like "bolts". The Malta Trough provides the most
typical example of such a situation. To the east of 1330'E t,e trough
undergoes a triple morphological change:

(i) a pronounced change in trend' towards a southeasterly
direction;
(ii) a remarkable narrowing, forming a gullet giving access to an
adventicious basin;
(iii) an eleration of its floor: the adjoining basin is raised to more
than 5OOmabove the deepest part of the Malta Trough (1500m-
1700m).

16.At their extremities each basin is terminated by either (i) a steep
ml-de-soc, as in the case of the Pantelleria Trough which is obstructed
by tbe'imposing volcanic cone of the island, whose Crater reaches 836m
above sea level; or (ii) by counter-slopes, as in thc case of the Malta
Trough ,he botturn of which riÿcsrapidly to the southwcsl of the
Maltcse archipelago.

(c)The Exiremilies ofthe Depressed Zone

17. The exiremitics of the depressed zone arc not ensyIO define. To
the wesi ihe Pantelleria Trough extends to the Straiof Sicily through
a sort of hanging v;illçy, which is first straight (to the south). thcn
uinuous, where it forms the P;intelleria Valley. Tii thc north, the
depressed zone narrows rapidly 10 a straight gorge blncked at ils
western end by the Adventurr Bank. Ai the oiher, eastern, çnd or the

depresd zone4 the counter-slope closing the basin of the Malta
Trough to the southeast passes progressively into a ramp with a
marked inclination to the south. It is surmounted by low crests and
high peaks (surnmits at 113 and 169m) of an unknown geological
nature. From the rnorphological point of view, the Malta Channel does
not really appear except considerably further to the east, i.e. around

'See Figure 7. 5.
Sec para4û(eof & Anncx.
SecFigure8.396 CONTINENTAL SHELF DO-311

15'10'E T.he situatiiin is similarly complex to the south, where the
Linosa Trough is separated [rom the Medina Channel by a number or
crests, channels and closed depressions, oriented wcst-east and some
50iF700 m deep. It is important to note this quite pronounced angular
swerve to west-east from the dominant northwest-southeast orientation
in the zone of the troughs. The Medina Channel, similarly oriented
west-east. is a shallow valley, the course of which is tightly constrained
between a peak at 169x11and the border north of the Medina Bank.
Because of their shallow depth (compared to the adjacent regions) and
their wide cradle-shaped profiles, the Medina and Malta Channels do

no1 pssess the characteristic features of tectonic troughs caused by rift-
faulting. They have the appearance of ancient fluvial valleys (probably
excavated during the strong sea level lowering during the Messinian)
partly filled by sediment during the subsequent sea level oscillations.
They are more erosional features than structural features.
18. In brief, the central Trough and Ridge system does not comprix
a single long trough with a flat bottom which would unite to a large ex-
tent the two great Mediterranean basins. It is not comparable to other
troughs of the continental shelf such as the Hurd Deep (of the English

Channel) or the Norwegian Trough (in the North Sea). Strictly speak-
ing. it would be preferable to define it as a "Morphological Complex"
i.e. a collection of crests. submarine channels of dillerent depths and
deep closed basins. All this complex morphology is the most remark-
able expression of the distensive forces acting since Miocene limes (10
million years ago). It appears that the relief has been produced by two
distinci phases: first a phase of dislocation characterized in the depres-
sed zone by faulting of the pre-Pliocene series. creating crests, channels
and hanging basins; siibsequeiitly, duririg Quatçrnary times a localized
deepenirig phasc forming thç hasins. This last phase is contempo-

raneuus with tlie forniation of the volcanic islands of Pantelleria and
Linosa.

19. To tlie south of the Medina Channel and half-way between the
Malta Platç~u and the Lihyan çuasl lies n second tabular rcgion
sometimes called the Melita-Medina Plateau. This region is ctearly
disiinguiohcd by the following characteristics:

(a) an altitude of several hundred metres above the nearhy sea-
floor: the major part of the banks is limited by the 300m isobath;
(b) quadrangular forms (Melita Banks 1M) by 40km; Medina
Bank: 120 by 100km) positioned to east of the Tunisian Plateau;
(c) the isobaths defining the Medina Bank are approximately

perpendicular to those ofthe Melita Banks. The Medina Bank trends
northeast-southwest, closely similar to the trend of the adjacent
Medina Escarpment.' The Melita Banks are oriented approximately
~~
L SecSection of this Annex i321 AKNEXES TO THE COUNTFR.MEMORIALOF MAL'~A 397

riiirihwesl-soulhcast and comprise thrcç plateaux, the westernmost of
which is covered hy lcss than 86n1of water.

20 Liitle i.;known about the detailed morphology of the sunimita!
regions or ihe hlelita and Medina Banks,although they appear on the
sonde data to k more irregular than expected. Near 34"48'N, the
Medina Bank is cut by a discontinuous network of fissures, oriented
from Westto east. one of which reaches a depth of more than 400111.
The three large buttes (peaks at 86, 144and 207m)of the Melita Banks
have slopinp rectilinear borders which may in places have heights in
excessOF 100 m. Geologically,these high tabular blocks have been cut
by a network or faults in thick sub-horizontal sedimentary series and

have been elevated above the surrounding region. The small thickness
ofthe PlieQuaternary cover demonstrates the role erosion has played
in the fashioning of the top part of the Banks.' Beneaththis cover the
Tertiary sedirnentsarely exceeda thickness of several hundred metres,
considerably less than in the regions described below. It is probable
thatthese plateaux, detached in10 banks on the external part of the
Pelagian shelî, have existed as regional highs since the Cretaceous.

6. THESOUTHERV NALLEYS

21. This setion describes the morphology of the second depressed
region which is entrenched between the Tunisian Plateau, the Melita-
Malta Blocks and Ihe Tripolitanian coast. The topography is more
@ complexand more uneventhan the IBCM chart makes one believe.'The
generalappearance of the depression is that of a deep and vas1basin
(300km by 150km). cut by a network of sub-parallcl valleyr, al1
orienttd from nurthwest to souiheusl like the Airican coast.
22. This region contains three major depressions callcd the Jarrafa
Trou@, the Misurata Valley and the Tripolitanian Valley.Their prc-
sencc in ihis southern region of the Pclagian Sea merits special atten-

tiou kause they are very significant for an onderstanding of its
geomorphologic ciroliition.The iippçr courses of these vallcys arçut
out in a series cil "terraces" (between 200 and 300m) built on the
Quatemnry by sedimentary progradation towards the easierri horder of
thc Tunisian Plnteau. The valleys prçsent strongly dissirnilm
morphcilogies.

(a) The Jarrafo X-ough

23. This Trough lies to the nonhwest, and has the shape of a large
rectangular basin, limited by the 300m isohath. Its upper section
(between 300 and 400m) is surrounded by steep slopes, particularly to

' SK FiguR 9.
: Intliisrenpsi chardrawnup bySOGREA(1975)reproducedin AnnexIIto the
Libyao Mernorialjnihe Tunisia-Libyacase (30 MayAnnex,IICh. II. Section3.
@ isobaihioicri(lMml.xpressivethan the IBCcharbecauseof thuseofa smallcr398 CONTINENTAL SHELF [331

the south, which are interpreted as reccnt fault scarps surrounded by
rdd structures. Thc sea bottom irregulariiies could bc due Io salt
diapirs. The central and deepest part (between 400 and 500m) is a
basin rendered irregular by escarpmenis (avcragc heights bctwm 50
and mm) locally bordered by linear, straight, closed depressions the
bottom of which goes down to more than 500m (e.g.522m at 13"5û'E
and 34" 23'N). Slopes, escarpments and depressions are al1 oriented

from northwest to southeast. The closed depressions are as yet un-
explained, but are perhaps halokinetic reliefs,whicb have been created
by the rising and subsequent dissolution of diapiric salt. The smooth
counter-slope which closes the Jarrafa Trough is cut by a straight,
narrow fissure,irregularly sunk between 400 and 470m, limited on the
side of the Melita Banks by steep talus (level: 167m;gradient: 39:1000).

(b) The Misurata Valley

24. Through this link, the Jarrafa Trough opens into the second
depression, the Misurata Valley at the soutbern foot of Isis Terrace.
Lying between the Melita Banks and along a subtabular water sheif
(between400 and 500m), the Misurata Valleyis more preciselya large
depression having the shape of an armchair, hollowed down to more
than 600m (635m on the 14"30'E meridian),'and closed towards the
northwest by a much dissected sill between 500 and 550m.

(c)The TripolitanianValley

25. This valley is undoubtedly the most distinctive depressior the
three.' It owes this to:-
(i) its length, whichis about 300km;
(ii) ils sinuous shapc, cspeciallyeast of the 14"30'mcridian whwe
its bed makes a double curvature similar to a river meander;
(iii) its cntrenchment, which becomcs much pronouncd to the

easi of the 13"30'mcridian: the gradient ofthe slopes may surpasç 40
and evcn 50:100. The maximum dcpihs of 632111and 795m have
been measured towards the 14" 30'and 14"40'E, respectively;
(iv)the important gulleyingof the slopes, somctimcs cut inio rem
leaves like the border of thç meander mentioned above;
(v)and finally,the presence of çlosçd dcprcssiuns cxcavatein the
bed: the most remarkable of these umbilici is excavated in the
concave part of themeander near 14"40'(795m).

26. Since it curves towards the south the Tripolitanian Valley
causes the gradient of the Libyan continental slope to reach as high
as 17 to 20:1000on the meridian which passesthrough Ras Zarrouq.
27.Al1three valleyshave been formed by extension in a basin which
has ben subsiding since the Cretaceous. The underlying Permc-
Triassic sedimentary section reacbes8 to 10km thick. Like the north-[363q AKNEXES TO THE COUNTEK-MEMORIAL OF MALTA 399

ern troughs or the Pelagi;iri Sea, the vallcys are intra-continental faiilt
grabeiis lyingin rclays parallcl 10 the Alrican Coast. Although they arc
establishd on old. Irücturcs, the troughs have been rcactivatcd during
thc Plic-Quaternary. The Jarrafa Trough, and prnhiibly also thç uther

southern valleys. have undergone a succession of deepenings, erosion
and back-filling during the three major tectonic phases which have
anected the region since Miocene times.'
28. The structural mechanisms causing these valleys are the same as
in the nonh of the Pelagian Block although the amount of extension is
even higher.The high sedimentation rates in this region have partially
infilled the iroughs, to a greater extent than in the northern troughs.

7. THEEASTERN SLOPE

29. The Pelagian Block is limited on the eastern side by a scarp
which is one of the most remarkable in the Mediterranean because of
its length (more than 700km) and its height (direrence in levelbetween
I to 3km).From Sicily to the northeast of Ras Zarrouq (Libya) the
scarp lorms an abrupt transition between the epicontinenial Pelagian
Sea and the derp parts of the Ionian Basin. In the last four years
information on this uneven terrain has made considerable progress as a
result of carnpaigns carried out by Italian (dredging) and French
scientists (the three precision bathymetry diving and dredging
Escarmed campaigns). The entire scarp zone is cut out of the same
sedimentary series extending from the Triassic to Neogene timcs.
However, from the north to the south, the shape and origin of the relief
changes very considerably. Setting aside the Sicilian escarpment. three
very dikrent segments can be distinguished:

(u) 771~ Malru iiscarpmrnt

30. Its orientation is almost litiea: for more thün 150km. The Malta
Escarpmeni cnnsisis of thtçç lcvels:

(i) the higher cliq shcer, ülm~istrectilincar with ils cdgc Jesceriding
rrom 20(L io 645m in the south. Its base lits ai about 70(t
100Dmetres. Thc cliff is cut in Neogene ügç deposits (chaik of a
~~iapjcnature) and is covered with cordl and miid:
(ii) half-way duwn the scarli, the slope dçscçnds getitly10 form a
large glacis (sume dozen kilometres wide) broken by biisins and
parallel or slightly converging valleys. The gashes act as a trench
which traps heavy material coming down from the high cliff;
(iii) the lower cliff, between 2200 and 3200 metres, which nses
alrnost veriically {rom the Ionian abyssal plain. It is a fault scarp
cutting ihrough a thick limestone series mainly of Jurassic age. It is
dug into by semi-circular features (for example the scarp excavated

betwm 36"26' and 36"28')."he most prominent is the Maltese
C. Blanpiedand C Bellaiche,1983.
' See Figurc10 and II.
' Scc Figure 10.400 CONTINENTALSIIELF [37-381

Valley wliich has thc shirpe of a dçcp amphithe;itre at the levelof thc
36th parallel. The circular aspççt of XIItheac çrçvices is emphasized
hy thc oval depressions at the base, which are encloscd by arched

elevations. Thç manncr in which ihçsç hasins hiive been formed has
not yet been established.
31. The age and the shape of the Malta Escarpment difler according

to the lei'elthat is being considered. The lower cliNhas been formed in
two periods: it was first an accumulation of limestone on a gradually
subsiding platform, then a fault escarpment. The intermediate glacis
and the top cliNwere formed by the accumulation of pelagic sedimenis
deposited subsequent to the subsidence of the lower clin.

{hl The Centrol Escarprnrni

32. To the east of the 16th Meridian, the escarpment changes onen-
talion. and moves eastwards to form a large promontory dissected by
canyons. The main one among them is an asymmetrical meandering
valley called Heron Valley (a liitle10 the north of the 35th parallei). To
the east of the outlet of this canyon there is a series of tabular
mouniains which form the Medina (Malta) Ridge. The depths of the
main hills Vary from 1200 to 2000m, giving local relief from ISOOto

1000m.'
33. In spite ofthe presence of magnetic anomalies, the Medina Ridge
is not lormed from a chain of levelled volcanoes. Dredging and a di~e
(by the submarine Cyana) on the westernmost ridge has shown that
Earkyand Middle Cretaceous age sediments are present. The sediments
are neritic, originally depositcd in shnllow water ai dçpths less than
200ni. The Mcdin;~ Ridge, tlierçfore, formcd ;in iiitegral part of the
Pclagiiin Shelf beforç the sinking ol the lotiian Hasin which occurrçd
first in Lale Crçlaçeous tiines and (lien sinçç the Miocene. 'l'hçModina
Ridge seeins rather likç a succession of aua~it-buiies cut hy normal
lat1lts.'

cc) Thc Mrdina Escrirpnienr

34. The southcriimost seginenl presents a t(it;illy diferen1 mur-
phtilogp. The inost striking fe;itures ;irethe widtli, thc Içvclling and the

inodificaiionor the taliis which çurves sharply tow;irds soiithwest. Thc
higher clin, forming the limit of the Medina Bank, descends and
becomes gentler, finally disappearing at the 34th parallel. Further to the
south, the escarpment changesinto terraces of tabular, elongared shape.
Below depths of 1000111,the talus descends gradually to the slope and
glacis ol the Gulf of Sirte. The slope is formed of flat hill-tops, strongly
interseried by a network of canyons (Melita Valley and the deep
prolongation of the Misurata Valley).
35. The morphological modifications and the intensities of the lur-

a SeeFLgurc12.
SceB.Biju-Duva ltal.1982.rows reveal an abrupt change in the origin of the talus. It no longer
originates from n fault scarp but instead frum the erosion and de-
graddtiun by gravitaiional processes of a sedimentary serics.

36. If the heights of the Malta-Medina Escarpment were the
effectiveatural limit of the continental shelf of the Pelagian Sea,then
one could conclude that ils base forms the outer limit of the continental
margin. On the basis of present knowledge, however, such an in-
terpretation is incorrect to the south of the 35th parallel, and proble-
matic to the north. To the south itis wrong because the Sirte Rise and
ihe Sine abyssal plain, which extend the Medina Escarpment north-
eastwards, have been built on a continental sub-basement which
swings towards the centre of the Ionian Sea. North of the 35th parallel,
despite the large amount of research in this region, it is still uncertain

where the continental crust terminates. This uncertainty is due to two
reasons (i) from the morphological point of view,between the foot of
the Malta Escarpment and the lonian (or Messina) abyssal plainthere
is a great deal of relief which is difficult to understand; (ii) from the
geological point ofnew, the contact between the continental crust and
the omit cmst whichmarks the structural edge of the margin is still
contro~ersial.
37. Indeed, even the presenceof oceanic ceustunder the deepest part
of the IonianSea isstillhypothetical. 1.Finetti, the Geophysicist,in one
of his most recent publications,' has written that "successively,vanous
auihors favoured the hypothesis that the Ionilin Ravin(abyssal plain) is
an old ofeanic crust covered by a thick scdimentary sequence.But still
cnniinmtal cmst is supported by çome authors". Conseqtrcntly, ii
nrould be imprudent to conceive and Tira physiographic frontier on
such divergent ioterpretations.

9. CONCLUSION

38.Thc Pelagian Sea is an extended epicontincntal sea, iorrncd by a
thick deformcd scdimentary scrirs. The easterii part, north of the 34th
parallcl. formed by the Malta Plateau and the Mediria-Melita Ranks,
has maintainrd ils relatively elcvated position since the cnd of the
Cretaceous. The tabular relief occupies the major part of the topo-
graphy which is only cut by erosional canals, like the Medina Channel,
having no structural significance.
39. Between the eastern plateauxon one side and the Tunisian Pla-
teau on the other, there is an important chain of impressive grabens.
They are arranged in an echelon from the Siciliancoast to the Aïrican
coast. They are the result of extensional forces undergone by the
Pelagian Block since Late Miocene times. The crustal stretching has402 CoNTlNENTAL snELF r401

multed in:(1)theanticloçkwiserotation OCSicily(2)opening of al1the

trougbs[romtheGela Rasinto the Tripolitanian ValleyT . he troughsso
iormodarc prçsentlypartially filled hy a thick Plio-Quaicrnarsedi-
mentary serieswhichin certainplsces surpassesone kilomerrein rhj~k-
ness. PART 11

STRUCTUREAND RIFTING OF THE

SEA-BED BETWEENMALTAAND LIBYA

by
Professor Georges H. Mascle

1. STRUCTURA DLATAASPER BATHYMETC RHCART(IBCM)

40. A study of the International Bathymetric Chart of the
@ Mediterranean (IBCM)' shows:
(a] A general direction of the Pantelleria, Linosa and Malta troughs
ofapproirimately 120"; this direction is the same as that of other
leatures, both negative features (depression northeast of Lampedusa,
trough between Aledina and Melita Banks, Jarrafa Trough and
Misurara Valley' Tripolitanian Valley) and positive features

(Madrepore Bank. Melita Banks Fonkal Bank).
(b)A change in the lateral extensions of the troughs from Westto
east:
.- wesi or Pdnlelleria (weOFthe 12th Mçridiün) there is a
uniqueiroughwhich isrclativelystraight (a littlemore than 100km
wideat the6MIm isohath): the Pdntelleria Trough;
- east ofPantelleria (çasi of the 12th Meridian), this triiugh
ievcn wider (about 32km at the same isohith);

- cas1ul ~he13th Meridian (near Linosa)one findstwo troughs
(thcMalia and Linosa Troughs) which together are ove[ 92km
wide.
(c)Relatively abrupt tçrminations of thc troughs, in particular the
Malta and Linosa Troughs ai their western extremities and toft
Pantelleriat ileastern extremi!~.
(d) Sudden changes in the axis of symmetry of the troughs; even the
Malta Trough shows, at the 36th parallei, a dextral displacement of
nearly 7 km oftbeaxis of symmetry.This displacement takes place
alonga bearing of approximately 060".
(e) The frequency of transverse structures with an approximate
bearing of 060" (to within 10") in particular the Med'inaBank, the

Medina Escarpment,AlfilBank west of Linosa, Birsa Bank, southwest

' Bc Figurl an3 4~ CON~INENTAL SHELF id31

of Pantellcria. lhe 200m isobath north of 'l'ripoli (north of the 34th
pirallel). It is 10be noted that this type of fracture is wcll known
onshore both in Malta (thc Victoria Lincs frtcture system in particular)
and in Sicily (Corniso fracture zone, the Ispica fault). Velailed survey
by SEABEAM of the Linosa Trough shows freqeunt structures with an
approximate bearing of 0604'

41. All this is in harmony with a distensional tectonic model in which
the trou-hs have a bearing of 120" and are "transformed" bv faults or
transforming zones' havi6g a bearing of 060". The amount of extension
caused bv riftine increases in a southeast direction from Pantelleria to the
14th ~ehdian,;howin~ that thepole of rotation for motion between the
Sicilian-Maltese zone and the Pelagian plateau off Tunisia, must be
situated to the northwest.'

42. A priori, such a system, if it continues towards the east, must
retain its characteristics: (1)direction of the troughs about 120", trans-
lorming directions towards the east at about 060"; (2) increase in the
total amount of rift extension towards the east, whether it be due to the
widening of thetroughs or to the appearance of new troughs.

43. One notes from the start that the structural model indicated by
@ t+ baFhymetric chart (IBCM)4 is in agreement with the forcasts of a
distentional tectonic model with a pole of rotation to the northwest. To
the east of the 14th Meridian, the troughs with a bearing of 1203
increase to four in number: extrapolation of thc Malta Trough to the
Malta Channel, exsggerated extrapolation of the Linosa Trough to the
Melita Banks. Jarrafa Trough, and Tripolitanian Valley. Thç trans-
forming directions at about 060' appear clearly in the Medina
Escsrpment, thc Medina Bank. and in the shape of the 200m istihtth

nrirrh of the 34th parallel (north of Tripoli).
44. In lhc Libyan Memoriül, to thç cast of 14"E only the Mülta .and
Medina Channels are considered 10form part of the teçtoiiic model and
the rifting further south, apparent for cxample in the Jarrama Trough
and the Tripolitanian Valley, is totally ignored. There is then a problcm
inmaking a tectonic mdcl which çxplains both the extensive rifting in
thc lin os;^and Pantelleria Troughs to the wesi of the 14th Meridian
and the considerably smaller rifting across the Malta and Medina
Channels to the east of the 14th Meridian. A solution is proposed by

Libya in ils Memoriall reproduced here in Figure 14. The suggestion

Gec Figure7.
tc Pi~honer el.
rcpraentcdbyerotatioaboutman axis through the centorthesphere.Thecpoleb01
roialioithe ariabout whichtwo ngidblocksonthesudaceof theearthmovcrelarive
to cxh0th.
Çce Fjgure 1.
' Libyan MernorialVolume 1, Figure2. lacing page 32. 406 CON'PINENTALSHELP [47-501

Thus. ii %vaspossible to construct the curve for "the migration of the
Magnetic North Pole" for the Iblean region?
48. This curvc was compared with the çurve for the "migration of the
Magnetic North Pole" for Africa, drawn on the basis of data about thç
African series published by various authors? It can be seen that the two
curves have the same shape and can be superposed up to the beginning
of the Pliaiene but from then onwards they are different. This means
that alter the beginning of the Pliocene, Africa and the IblewMaltese

complex ceased to form one solid block and that the latter has rotated
with respect to Africa. This rotation, althoughite small, is over 10"
and isanticlockwise. Such a rotation imposesthe formation of troughs
between the two domains.

5. COMP'ARISO ONTHE GEOTECTONM ICODELS
AND THE PALEOMAGNET DICTA

49. Figure 17 has been drawn starting from a model depicting

rifting-lault termination'andaffecting one of the compartments (that
which corresponds to the IbleeMaltese domain in this case) by an
anticlwkwise rotation of IO", purposely less than the real angle ol
rotation. According to whether the pole of rotation is near or remote
one ma? obtain a 17-2 result (pole in the vicinity), or a 17-3 result
(pole further away). In the first case (17-2) one should find the
appearance of a zone of compression (closure of the trough at the
western end). In the second case (17-3) the trough should open
notiŒably larger towards the east and cannot be transformed into a
straight channel. In both cases the directions change. Io the West in

particular. The feature to the north has a tendency to reorient itselFto a
direction east-north-east. It is enough to compare these sçhcrncs with
@ the hathymctric chan (IBCM) to observe thç contradiction.
50. In Figure IR, Iwo possible configurations of a rifting zone have
kn drawn, limiting two domains separated by an antiçlockwise
rotation of the northern blwk through ;in angle of thc rirdcr of 10".
Cac 18-1 is the most simple thçorctical model, showing that theex-
tension increases frorn wcst to east (arrows 1a-h-c-d).

51. Case 1%2 shows a more complex systern, where Ihc rifling
increasing towards the east, changes as a result of the appearance of
new troughs which are themselves shifted by transforming zorics. This
system shows the same order of extension for each compartment as the
previous one and has been constructed so that the sum of the vectors
1%2 dl + 18-2d2+ 18-2d3+ 18-2d4 is equal to the vector 18-1 d and
so iorth.
52. A comparison with the bathymetric cbart (IBCM)4 shows that

' ÇceFigur16.
SecFigur15and 1Base. 1981;.BRY elof.1981,1983.
SceFigure14,and also Figu2in ParIIofthe TechnicalAnncr of tLibyan
Memonal.
' SecFigure1. [s1-55] hNNEXF.7 TO THE COUNTER.MEMORIAL OF MALTA 407

thç wiual stmcturcs correspond to thc thcoretical rnodçl of FigureIfC
2.
53. Case 18..21 is represented by thc Pantelleria l'rough, Westof thc
13th Meridain; case 18-2b is lypical of the situation between the 13"00'
and 1Y30 Meridians (Malta and Linosa Troughs); case 18-2c is
represented by the situation between the Meridians 13'30' and 14';
andcase 18-2d is round east of the 14th Meridian where there are in
succession the Malta Channel, the widened extension of the Linosa
@ Trough, the Jarrala Trough and the Tripolitanian Valley. Figure 19
shows the main fault network as deduced from the bathymetric chart.

This system is in harmony with that shown in Figure 18-2.

54. Itappears from what has been said that the Pelagian Block has
witnessed deformation by rifting. The rifting fractures generally have a
well expressed topography (or bathymetry). However the amount of
extension undergonc by a domaiii is not only a result of the throw, i.e.
the depth reached by the troughs, but is also a result of the number of
fractures in a trough or the number of troughs in a domain.
55. Figure 20 is a theoretical scheme showing that one could ob-
tain the same amount ofextension with:

1. a complex trough with several stepped fractures; or
2. a simple trough limited by one fracture on each border

56. Figure 21 is equally theoretical and shows how four shallow
iroughs cm tore-her vroduce more extensional rifting th-n one very
dwpirough.
57. The Iwo figures show how illiisive il is to consider the displace-
men1 (rhrow) of fauliii as a discriminating charactcristic.'
58. Moreover. in the case of a niimber of faults with small relative
displacemeots, it is difficult to place a precise structural limit within the
faulted zone. This is the casç of the Pelagian Sea east of a line joining
Gozo to Ras Ajdir, neat the seismic lineMS19.'

59. An anitlysis of the extension following ihc method ofcanccllarion
of thc disphcernent of the faiilts dcsctibedJ along line MS19 shows4
that, when compared wiih thc axis of the Maltri Trough, the total
rirling iu more itnportant to the southwest tha? to the northeast.
Therefore, the southwest part of the Pelagian Sea 1smore stretched, or
else more distended. than the northeast part.
60.Line MS19, of which the southwest section is reproduced
in this Annex,' clearly shows that, contrary to what is indicated in
the Technical Annex of the Libyan MemoriaL6 the fractures found to

' d Figurer5 and 6 in PartofTechnicalAnnerof the LibyanMemonal.
SeeFigure 7 iPariIII ofTshnical Annex ai Libyan Mernorial.
SccFigure21.
' Sa Figur e3.
SeeFigure 24.
' SeePartII, parastaph 3.06and PaIIIparagraph3A Second.408 CONTINENTALSHELF

the south of the PclügianSe;ihave had receiitactiv;ition,as provedby

ihe throw of receni hori~ons ncür tothe faultsof the JürrafaTrough.
61. To conclude,the Pelagian Seais thc seat of extensional fauliing
which is relalivcly coricentratedin the westernregion aiid is on the
contrarydifised in the east.In the latter cuse,locatinga structulimit
becomes problematic. WORKS REFERRED TO OR CONSULTED

AKALT , ., 1972.The generalgeophysicsand geologyof the Strait of Sicily.In: 7.
D. ALUN, T.AKALa ,nd R. MOISARD(eds),Oceanographyofthe Srrait of
Sicily,Saclant Center, Conf. Proc., La Spezia, 7:177-192.
BAUDRIMONTA ,., BIIWDUVAL,B., BUROLLETP , . P., CLAIREFONDP ,.,
COLAKTONI ..,MASCLEG , ., MONTADERT L,., MORELY., PERRIERR , .,
ORSOLINI,P.. RAVENNEC . ., TAVIANIM, . and WINNOCK,E., (Groupe

ESCARMED], 1982.Observations géologiquesefectuéessur les escarpe-
ments ioniens (résultats préliminaires). In: J. R. Vanney and M.
G~~~-~~e~uz ..ds~,~~rocessu~Ueéod,namiouesobservés en submersible. -
Oceanis,8(8):637-643.
BELLAIC--~ G. and BLANPIED C... 1979.Evolution sédimentaireouaternaire de
la platLorme pélagienne.lnP. F. Burollet et al. (eds),La M& Pélagienne,
Gèol. Mail. 6(1):304-309.
B~ssg J., 1981.Paleomagnétismede sériesautochtones de Sicile,These3'cycle,

Paris
BESE,J., Pozz~, 1. P., and MASCLEG . ., 1981.Paleomagnétismede formation
autochtone de Sicile:relation avec l'Afrique,Terra Cognira sp. iss., p. 65.
BESSE ..P~I. 1. P.. MASCI.&G. and FEINBERG H., in press. Paleomagnetic
study of Sicily, Cnnscquences for dcformation or ltalian and african
rnargins ow rhe lafitIOOMycarr;.
BIJU-DUVALB.. ~AUDRIMONTA , .. HUUOLLET , . p.. CLAIREFONDP . .,
COMTONI. P., MASCLEG , ., MONTAIYERL T.,, MOREL,Y.,ORSOLINI ..,
PERRIERR ..RAVENN& C'.and WINNOCKE , ., 1981.KésultalsprCliminaires

de l'étudedes euïarpments cn mcr 1oniennc:levcrs baihymétriques au
snndcur multifaisçeaux et plon&s par Soucoupc Cyana. Rnpp. Conim.
[email protected] !&dit., 27(8):111-114.
Buu-DU~AL B.: MOREL,Y., BALJI>RIMONA T.,RIZON. G., BIZON.I. J.,
Boas~rri. A. M.. BUROLLETP , . F., CLAIREFONDP .., CLAUCON . i.,
CC~LANTON P.,MACLE. G., MONTADERT L,.. PERRIERR, .,ORWi.LNi,Il.,
RAV~NE C.; TAVIANI,M. and WINNOCK, E., 1982 (Groupç
ESCARMED). Donnéesnouvelles sur les marges du bassin ionien profond

(Méditerranéeorientale). Résultatsdes campagnes ESCARMED. Rev.Insr.
Fr Pétrole.37(6):713731.
BIANPIED,C. and BELLAICHEG , .' 1983. The Jarrafa Trough (Pelagian
Sea):struciural er,olution and tectonic significance.Marine Geology,52(I-
2):MI-M10.
BUROLLET P. F., MUGNIOTJ,. M. and SWEENEY P,.,1978.The geology of the
Pelagian i3lock:the margins and basins of southern Tunisia and
Tripoiitania. 1n:A. Nairn, W. Kanes and F. G. Stehl (eds), The Ocean
bains and mgins, vol.46, N. Y-London, Plenum Press:331-359.

BUROLLETP ,. F... 1967. General geology of Tunisia. 1n:Guidebook10 the410 CONïlNENïAL SHELF

Geolosv and historv of Tunisia. Pctrolcum Soc. Libva,9'hAnnual ticld
~nnf~ryncc:51-58. *
BUROLLFTP . . F.. CI.AIREFONDP.. and WINNOCK.E. (eds). 1979. La mer
. .
~élagicnnçGCOI.Médit.,6(1'):1-345.
CITA,M. B.,FANTINI-SESTINN I,.. SALVATORIN GI.,, MAZZEI,R.,and KIDD.R.
B.,1979. Late Neogene sediments and fossilsfrom the Malta Escarpmeni
and their geodynamic significance.Ann.Geol.Pays HelL,h.s. n0l:273-283.
CITA, M. B., BENELLI,P., BIGIOGGEROB , ., CHEZAK H., COLOMBO,A.,
FANTIN~SESTININ , ., FREEMAWLYNDER ,., JACCARINO S,., JADOUL P..
LEGNANI,P., MALONVERNO A.., MASSIOTTAP ,., PACCI, L., PREMOU
SILVA,L., 1980.Contribution to the geological exploration of the Malta
Escarpment (Eastern Mediterranean). Riu. Iral. Paleontol., 86(2):317-356.

CITA,M. B., BENELLIP , ., BIGIOGGERO E,., BOSSIO, ., BROGLIAC, ., CHEU&
H., CLAUZONG , ., COLOMBOA , ., GIAMBASTIAN MZ., MALINVERNO A,,
MILLER, E. l.., PARINI,E., SALVATORING I,. and VERcest, P., 1982.
Universal debris flow deposits from the base of the Malta Escarpment
(Eastern Mediterranean). 1n:S. S~xov and J. K. NIEUWENMUI(Seds).
Marine slides and other mass movements (Nato Conf. Series. S. IV.
Marine Science N. Y.-London Plenum Press:305-322.
FABRICIUSF ,. H., 1980. Geology and geomorphology of the Pelagian Sea'

Central Mediterranean. 1n:A study of the Libyan-Tunisia Continental
sheif submitted by the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Annex
11:1-22p.
FINE^ 1..1952. Structure, stratigraphy and evolution of the Central
Mediterranean. Bol. GeoJ Teor.Appl, 24(96):247-312.
FrsmL I and MORELLI,C., 1972. Regional reflection seismic exploration ni
the Strait of Sicily. 1n:T. D. ALLAN,T. AKALand R. MOLCARD (eds),
Ocennoqraphyo/rhe Strait oJSicily, Saclant Center, Conf. ProSpria.
7:20&223.

FINE~ 1. and MORELLI, C., 1973. Gcuphysical exploration of the
Mediterranean Sen. Bol. GsoJTeor.Appl.. 15(60):261-341.
GRANDJACQUEC T, .and MASCI,&G., 1978.The structure of the lonian Sen.
Sicily and Calabria Lucania. 1n:A. NAIRN,W. KANESand F. Ci.SIXIII.~.
(cdsh Thc Ocean bnsins and margins, vol. 48, N. Y.;-London, Plenum
P~ss:257-329.
HIEKk W.. 1978.l'he "Victor Htn~on Seahill": pari of a ieçtoriic striicturc in
ihe Central lonian Sea. Merine (;eobgy, 26(1-2):MI-M5.
HIEKF, W., 1982. "Heflector M" and diapir structures in the lonian Sea

(Eastern Mditcrranean). Marine Ceology(46(3-4):23+244).
IKTERNATIONALCUUK~ OC JusTlCo (1980). Continenial Sklt
(Tunisian-Libyan Arab JamahinyabAnnex II. A study of the Libyan-
Tunisian coiitinental shell.
LE PICHON, X., FRAUCHFTEAUJ,., and BONNIN,J., Plate Tecionics,
Development in Geotectonics, No. 6, Elsevier.
MALDONADO A,. and STANLEYD, . J., 1976.Late quaternary sedimentation and
strati~ravhy in the Strait of Sicilv. Srnirhsonian Conlr. Enrth Sci.

~ashingioi, 16:73p.
MALDONADO A,. and STANLEYD,.J., 1977.Lithofaciesas a function ofdepih in
the Slrait of Sicily. Geology,5(2):11-117.
MASCLEG., 1983. Structure et extension des fonds marins entre Malte et la
Libye. Rapp. Techn., This volume.(591 hKNEXE5 TO THE COUNTER-MEMORI ALMALIA 41I

MAURIN, A. F.. BERNET, K. M. C.and PAUTRATJ,., 1980. Morphologie ci

dotcctoiiique dcLi1Mer Péia&irnnrxmi-profonde. XXVI' Congr. Inrerrt.
Ceol.. Paris. 2:514.
MoRaLLi. ü.,1972. Bathymctry, gravity and magnetism in thç Strait of Sicily.
In:T. D. LuN. T. AKAL and T. MOLCARD(eds). Ocranography o/ rhe
Srrait of Sicily.Saclant Center, Conf. Proc., La Spezia, 7:19g207.
MORELL~C.. GASTAR C. and PISANI,M., 1975. Bathymetry, gravity (and
rnaeneiisml in the Strait of Sicilv and in the lonian Sea. BoTeor.oL
A~~I..171651:?9-58.
MORGUNOVY . v. G.. KALININ.A. V.. KALININ.V. V.. KUPRIN.P. N. and
Lr~oNov, A. F.. 1978. Geological structuie of the upper part or the

PlarTorm mantle in the Gulf of Sidra (Mediterranean Seÿ).Oceunology,
18!3):322-326.
Rossi S. and ZARuDsKi, E. F. K, 1978. Medina e Ci1enc:montagne sot-
tomarine del Mare lonio. &)1.GeolTeor. Appl., 20(77):61-67.
SCANDONS P.. PATACCAL , ., KADOICIC,R.,RYAN,W. B. 1.. CITA, M. B.,
R~uwsow. M.. CHEZAR, W., MILLER,E., MCKENZISJ. and Rossi, S..
1981. Mesozoic and Cenozoic rocks from Malta Escarpment (Central
Mediierraneant Bull. Amer. Assoc. Perrol. Geol.,65(7):1299-1319.
SOGREAH CONSTLTISCENCINEERS (1975).Trawl Fishing Ground survey off

the Tripolitanian Coast.Socialist People's Libyan Jamahiriya, Ministry of
Food and Marine Wealth, General Department of Marine Wealth.
STANLEY, D. J.. 1982. Plate tectonics and offshore boundary
de1imiiation:Tunis ias-LfiheyInternational Court of Justice. Ge*
Marine Leriers. 2(1-?):LOI-107.
STASLEYD , . 1..MALDONADO A,. and STUCKENRATR H.,, 1975.Strait of Sicily
deposilional rates and patterns, and possible reversal of currents in the
Latc Quaternary. Poleogeogr., Paleoclimotol..Poleoecol. 18(4):279-291.
v~liyar. 1. R., 1977. Géomorlihologiedes plaies$orrws coniineniolrs. Paris,
Doin:300 pp.

VA'INEY ,.R. and %~ANLEY D,.J., 19R3.The Shelhreak physiugraphy. An
ovm.iew. Io:D. J. STANLEY and Ci.MOORE(cd<),'I'iteShcljhrrt,k, Crirical
Inteyf'r on contiiicrtrulmaryins.,S.E.P.M.. Sp. Publ. n"33 (Tiilsii,Okl.):l-
24.
WiririWK. E., 1979. Lçs fosscs du Chmnl de Sicilr. 1nF..'dUuoi.LE~rt ul.
(eds),Ln Mcr Pêlagicnne,Céol.Médit.,6(1):4149.
Wis'ioç~, E., 1981. Siructure dit bloc pélagien. InF. C. WezuL (edit.),
Sedimntarx busiluof Mcdirerruneun ninrgins(':.N.KItalian Project af
Occariography, Bologna Technoprint:44>464.

WIN~~OCK E. and BEA,F., 1979. Structure de la Mcr Pélagieririe 1n:P. F.
BUROLLET er al. (eds), La Mer Pélagienne,Géol.Médit.,6(1):35-40.
YEVSYUKOV Yv~. D.. 1978.The fundamental features of the Geomorphology of
the Malta Ercorpment. Ocennokigy,8(6):692-695.
ZARUDSK I..F.K.. 1982.The Strait of Sicily.A geophysicül study. Reo.Ceogr.
phy5.Géol.dp..(Z), 14(1):11-28.
ZARUDSKIE ,. F. K.. 1977.Submarine Volcanoes in the Strait of Sicily.Rapp.
Cornm.Iniern.Mer Medir.. 24:232-234. CONTINEKiALSHELF

Anne%3

THETRUMAN PROCLAMAT INNTHCONTINENT SHLELF

PROCLAMATIO2667

[Nor reproduced]

Annex4

THEREAGANPROCLAMAT INTHEEXCLUSIVEEONOMIZONE

[Nol reproduced] [70-711 ANNEXES TO THE COUNTER-MEMORIALOP MALTA 413

Aentx 5

LIBYAC NONCESSIO NC 53

1.Map 11 of the Libyan Memoriall shows in red a Libyan con-
@ cession described as NC 53.

2. This concession is referred to in the Libyan Memorial at page61,
paragraph 4.44T .he referenceStates:"Concession NC 53 was covered
by a framework agreement between NOC (the National Oil
Corporation of Libya) and Total Libya of 14 April 1974, and the
oeaessaryexploration and production sharing agreement was signed on
13 October 1974".

3. ltis not disputed that a concession now calledNC 53was granted
to a French Company,at times called CFP and at other times Total
Libya. What is in doubt is the shape and extent of the concession
northwards

4. Petroconsultants- who are quoted by Libya itxlf as the main
source of itsinformation about Maltese concessions, and are perhaps
the beât source of petroleum information - reported this concession
almost from the very date the "framework agreement" was signedon 14
April 1974,and lhey have been very accurate in their reporting.
5. Petrmoosultaots reported in April 1974"the initiation of nego-
tiaiions for exploration rights under the production sharing system"

with CFP of Franm. ln May 1974,thcy rcported that thrcç compantes,
of which onc was France's ÇFP, had sigrid prcliniinary agr~Tmeiits
with Libya;and in November 1974they reported that "CFP recently
signai prcductiori sharing agreemçnts for areüs believed to hc in the
Munug basin and OBthe wcstern shelfin watcrs beyond the 200 metre
isobath. The agrwmcnl concerning NC 53 hnd, according to I,ibya,
jus1been signd: the date given hy Libya is 13October 1974.
6. The rclçvani area was first shown on a map hy Pctroconsultatits

in May 1975,i.e.on their map coiitaining a synopsis of Libya'soffshore
and onshore aniviliçsin 1974.The concessionis shown on this mdp as
CFP - PS.
7. The same area re-appears consistently,and in very much the same
shape and extent, in al1 subsequent Petroconsultants' synopsis of
Libya's activities, which they piiblish every year, and recently even
twice a year. The areas indicateù as CFPTL - PS - A in the synopsis
map for 1975,as CFP - PS - A in the 1976and 1977synopsis maps, as

CFP - PS - NC 53 in those for 1978,for the first half of 1979and for
the fullyear[or1979,and finallyas TOT- NC 53in the synopsis maps
published sincethe one covering the first half of 1980.

' Opposilp. 62 cl Libyan Memorial.dl4 CONTINENTAL SHELF [72-741

8. In al1lhcsc maps, however, the area is shown notas reproduced in
the Libyan Memorial' but as rcpruduccd by Malta in Map 3of Vol. 111
of the Mallese Memorial. In Map 3 this concession is shown as pari of
~heLibyan concessions and markçd TOT - NC 53.11will be noted that
in this Map the line facing Tunisia is not defined; the reason being that,
according to Petroconsultants, this line has never been defined, and is
infact so shown also on the synopsis maps published by them aker
1976.1

9. The same concession is shown in very much the same shape as
that given by Petroconsultants also in other publications including a
Repon published in December 1977 by the Petroleum Economist of
London entitled "Opec Oil Report". The map shown in this Annex
as Reduced Map No. 17 is a reproduction of the relevant part of a
map contained between pages 208and 209 of the said Report.

10. Compared with the area as given by Petroconsultants - who
have ben otherwise very accurate both with respect to this area and to
other concessions whether by Libya, Malta or other States, and whose
information is also confirmed by other sources - the area as given in
the Libyan Memorial tallies with that given by Petroconsultants only
in its southern border viz where it borders with Lihyan concessions NC
41, NC 35A and NC 47; but it is hugely innated northwards to such an
extenr ihat in encroaches not only on Italian continental shelf but also
on ltalian waters around Linosa and Lampedusa.

11. Several facts and considerations appear to cast serious doubts on
the Libyan version of Concession NC 53 and to confirm the version
given by Petroconsultants:

(1) As alre;idy pointed out the area as given in the I.ibyari
Mcmori;il ençroaches on Italy's Continental Shelf. even on the
liiniied area surrounding Linosa and Lampedusa allotted to It;ily
under ihc italtr-Tunisian Agreement. lndeed it extends so near Io the
shores of these islands that it çncroaçhcs çven on Ilÿly's entitlement
to territorial waters around those Islands. As far as clbc madc out
therc was no llnlian protest directed nt this I..ibyan Concession.
(2) The Concession as described in the Libyan Memorial cn-

cro;ichcs on Tunisian Continental Shelf - not only as claimed biii
also as has been dççlarcd by the Court 10 appertain to it. Again herc,
as fa as can be made out, there was no Tunisian protest directe3 at
NC 53.
(3) A concession extending to the north and Westas is claimed by
Libya for NC 53 would also encroach on earlier Tunisian con-
cessions. According to Petroconsultants, Tunisian concessions shown

as Concessions 8 and 9 in their Map for 1972 were "granted

SceMap LI.oppositc Page62 of Libyan Mernorial.
Sec RcduccdMap No. 16orthe prcscntCounter-Mernorial[751 ANNEXESTO TRI! COIJPTTER-MEMO KFIMI.LFA 415

rcspectively to C:FP - AGIP AMOCO and SEPEG". This fact is
accepted by L1bj.ain M;ip 4 of ils C<iunlcr Meniorial in thç 7'iriiisin-
L.ih~ucase:' in paragraph 34 or the sanie Countcr Menioria12as wçll
-as in ihe Map included in Atiriex Y uf Vol. III of that Counter
Memorial.'

The map showing Tunisian concessions as on 31 December 1974is
reproducd in this Annex as Reduced Map No. 18. It is identical to
thai included in Annex 9 ofVol. III of the Libyan Counter Memorial
in theTunisia-Libya casejus1 referred to.

These maps show that -
(i) Ai the time NC 53 was granted by Libya to CFP there were
still in force two concessions given by Tunisia which, if NC 53 had

in fact been as shown in the Libyan Memorial, would have
overlapped PIC 53 almost completely except part of what in
Petroconsultants' synopsis maps for Libya is shown as NC 53.
(ii? The southern border of Tunisian concession No. 9 is in the

same direciion as the northwestern border of NC 53 as shown by
Petroconsultants.
{iii) Had NC 53 been in facl as shown in the Libyan Memorial.
CFF - a major oil Company - would have in 1974accepted a
concession from Libva which encroached on practically the whole
of an earlier concess~ongiveii to itjointly with other oii companies

(CFP - AGIP - AMOCO) by Tunisia in 1972.
(4.) There is iilso another inconsistency in the Libyan versions of
NC 53. III its casc-with Turiisia thç datç for this coiiçession is givcn
hy Libya ;us18 Septeniber 1974;~whereiis in the prescrit case the date

is givenby Libp as 13October 1974.'
12. The purposa or the 1,ibyan version of NC'53is of course ohvious.
In ihe Ttinisi;i-Libya case il wiis meaiit to show that "'i'hc western
boundary or both ihesç concessions (i.c.NC 41 10 NOCIAGIP ;ind NC:
53 to NOCflotal) allowed the 21"line"."

13. Thc Libyan version may hrivealsn anticipaicd the preseiit çasç. 11
hides tlie fiiçt th:it the tiorthe;istcrii houridary (if NC 53 fi>llowcdvery
closely the direciion and shapc of the Malt;)-Lihya cqiiidist;iiice linc in
that area, and in part even the co-ordinales of that Iine. In fact it looks
like a line intended to correspond to the median line between Malta

and Libya but slightly out of its proper co-ordinates.

- ' Facimgpage tEofLibyan Counter Mernorial in Tunisia-Libya case.
lbid. pag19.
Theje concersio nppeariobe the oner againsi which Maproiesiedin a Note
VerbaleioTuniYa of6 April 1974Para34 of the Libyan Mernorial in the pcase.i
Tuniria-Libua care. Libvan Counter Memo..a20.ara.36.
~ibyan cio on al 6f-62 para.4.44.
' TuniGa-Libya cm, Libyan CounterMemoriap l.20para.36 CONTINENTAL SHE1.F

Annex 6

(1)DENMARK-NORWAYMARITIME DELIMITATI OGREEMENT,
8DECEMBER 1965

(2)EXCHANGEOFNOTESCONSTITUTIN AGAGREEMENT
BETWEENDENMARK AND NORWA YMENDING THE AGREEMENT
OF8DECEMB~ 1965 COh'CERSINü THE DELIMITATION
iJFTHt CONTINENTALSHEL24APRlL1968

[Nor reproduced]

Annex 1

IRA'I-QATARARITIM EELIMITATIAONREEMEN 20.SEPTEMBE 969

[Nor reproduced]

Annex 8

DENMARK-UNIT KIDGDOM MARITIM DELIMITATIOAGREEMENTS

(1) AGREEMENTOF3 MARCH 1966
(2)AGREEMENTOF 25NOVEMBER 1971

[Nor reproduced]

Annex 9

IRAN-OMMNARITIME DELIMITATIOAGREEME ONT25 JUL1974

[Nor reproduced]

Annex10

AUSTRALIA-PAPUA NEGUINEAMARITIME BOUNDAR AYGREEMENT.
18DECEMBE 1R78

[Nor reproduced] CERTIFICATION

1.the undersigned,EdgarMiui, Agent of the Republic oM f alta,henby
certilytibthe copiesofthedocuments attachedas Annexes 3,4,6,7,8,9 and
IO ofthe Counier-Memonalsubmittcdby the Repubiicof Maltaareaccurare
copiesoraccuraretranslationsof thedocuments or translatihcypurport 10
reproducc.

This26th dayoiûctober, 1983.

(Signed)EdgarMizzi.
Agentofthe Republic
of Malta.