Reply of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

INTERNATIONLOURTOF JUSTICE
PLEADINGSORALARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS

CASE CONCERNINGTHE
CONTINENTALSHELF

(LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYAIMALTA)

VOLUMEIII
RepUe;OralArguments

COUR INTERNATIONDE JUSTICE
MÉMOIRES,PLAIDOIRIEETDOCUMENTS

AFFAIRE
DU PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

(JAMAHIRIYAARABE LIBYENNE MALTE)

VOLUME III
Répliq;procédureorale Abbreviatedreferen:e
1C.J.Pleadings, Continental Sheu (Libyan
Arab Jnrnahiriya/Malta),1IIl.

Référencaebrég:e
C.I.JMémoires,Plateau continental (Jarnahiriyu
arabe libyenne/Maire),111l,

""'Sn"""" "8 1
ISSN 0074-4433 No de vente:
ISBN 92-1-070676-5CASE CONCERNINGTHE CONTINENTALSHELF

(LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA/MALTA)

AFFAIRE DU PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

(JAMAHIRIYAARABE LIBYENNE/MALTE) INTERNATIONAL COTF JUSTlCE
PLEADINGS,ORAL ARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS

CASE CONCERNINGTHE

CONTINENTALSHELF

(LIBYANARAB JAMAHIRIYAIMALTA)

VOLUME III
Repl;OralArguments

COUR INTERNATIONEE JUSTICE

MÉMOIRES, PLAlDOlRlES ET DOCUMENTS

AFFAIRE
DU PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

(JAMAHIRIYAARABE LIBYENNE/MALTE)

VOLUME111
Répliq;procédureorale The case concerning the ContinentalSheif(LibyanArab JarnahiriyuM / alta),
entered on the Court's GeneralList on 26 July 1982under number 68, was the
subject of Judgments delivered on 21 March 1984(Continentnl SheiJ (Libyan
Arab JarnahiriyalMolto), Application to Intervene, Judgment,I.C.J. Reports
1984,p. 3)and 3 June 1985(ContinentalShelf(LibyanArabJarnahiriyu1 Molta),
Judgment,I.C.J. Reporls 1985,p. 13).
The pleadings and oral arguments in the case are being published in the fol-
lowing order :

Volume 1. Special Agreement; Memoriafs of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and
Malta.
Volume Il. Counter-Memorials of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriva and Malta;
Application by Italy for Permission to ~ntehene, and consequint proceedingsi
Volume III. Replies of Tunisia and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; c.mm.nce-
ment of Oral Arguments.
VolumeIV. Conclusion of Oral Arguments; Documents submitted to the Court
after closure of the written proceeding;Correspondence.
Volume V. Maps, charts and illustrations.

Certain pleadingsand documents of this edition are reproduced photographic-
allyfrom the original pnnted text.
In addition to the normal continuous pagination, the Volumesfeature on the
inner margin of pages a bracketed indication of the original pagination of the
Mernoriais, theCounter-Memorials, the Repliesand certain Annexes.
In interna1references,bold Roman numerals (in the text or in the margin) are
used to refer to Volumes of this edition; if they are immediately followed by a
page reference,this relates to the new pagination of the Volumein question. On
the other hand, the page numbers which are preceded bya reference to one of
the pleadings relate to the original pagination of that document and accordingly
refer to the bracketed pagination of the document in question.
The main maps and charts are reproduced in a separate Volume (V), with a
renumbering, indicated by ringed numerals, that is also added in the margin in
Volumes 1-IV wherever corresponding references appear; the absence of such

marginal reference means that the rnap or illustration is not reproduced in the
present edition.
Neither the typographical presentation nor the spelling of proper names may
be used for the purpose of interpreting the texts reproduced.

L'affairedu P/ateaucontinental(Jarnahiriyu arubelibyenne/ Moite), inscriteau
rôle générad le la Cour sous le numéro68 le 26juillet 1982,a fait l'objetd'arrêts
rendus le 21 mars 1984(Plateuucontinental(Jarnahiriyuarabelibyenne/Malte),
requête 9fln d'intervention, arrêCt,.I.J.Recueil 1984,p.3) et le3juin 1985(Pla-
teau continental (Jamahiriya arabe libyenne/Malte), arrêtC , .I.J. Recueil 1985,
p. 13).VIIl CONTINENTAL SHELF - PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

Les piècesde procedure écriteet les plaidoiries relatives a cette affaire sont
publiéesdans l'ordresuivant:

Volume1. Comproniis ;mémoiresde la Jamahiriya arabe libyenneet de Malte.
Volume II. Contre-mémoiresde la Jamahiriya arabe libyenne et de Malte;
requêtede I'ltalieà find'interventionet procédurey relative.
Volume III. RCpliquesde la Jamahiriya arabe libyenneet de Malte; début dela
procedure orale.
Volume IV. Suite et fin de la procédureorale; documents présentés A la Cour
aprèsla fin de la procédureécrite: correspondance.
VolumeV. Cartes et illustrations.

Certaines piècesde la présenteéditionsont photographiéesd'aprésleur texte
imprimé original.
Outre leur paginaiion continue habituelle, lesvolumescomportent, entre cro-
chets sur le bord interieur des pages, l'indication de la pagination originale des
mémoires,descontre-mémoires, desrépliques etde certaines de leurs annexes.
S'agissant des renvois, les chiffres romains gras (dans le texte ou dans la
marge) indiquent le volume de la prksente édition; s'ils sont immkdiatement
suivis par une référencdee page, cette référencerenvoie éla nouvellepagination
du volume concerne. En revanche, les numkros de page qui sont précédédse
l'indication d'unepiPce de procédurevisent la pagination originale de ladite
piéceet renvoient donc éla pagination entre crochets de la piècementionnée.
Les principalescartes sont reproduitesdans un volume skparé (V) où ellesont
reçu un numérotagenouveau indiqué parun chiffre cerclé.Dans lesvolumes 1A

IV, les renvois aux cartes et illustrations du volume V sont portésen marge
selon ce nouveau numérotage, etl'absencede tout renvoi a la présenteédition
signifiequ'unecarte ou illustration n'estpas reproduite.
Ni la présentation typographique ni l'orthographe des noms propres ne sau-
raient êtreutiliseesaux finsde I'interprktationdes textes reproduits.Reply of the SocialistPeople'sLibyan Arab Jamahiriya . Réplique

de la Jamahiriya arabe libyenne populaire et socialiste

CHAPTER . THE REQUEST MADE TO THECOURT ...............
CHAPTER2 . THE CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES AND THE ALLEGATlON OF
LIBYAN "ACQUIESCENCE" IN THEMALTESEMEDIANLINE .........
CHAFTER 3. ISSUES REGARDING THE PRINCIPLES AND RULES OF INTERNA-
TIONAL LAW GOVERNING CONTINI:NTA SHELF DEL~MITATIO N......

A . The process of applying equitable princip.............
8. The role of relevant circumstan...................
C .The legal significance of the physical facts and circumst....s
CHAPTER 4.THE ~NAPPLICABILITYOF EQUIDISTANCE IN THEPRESEN T ASE .

A . Malta's thesis of tprimacy of the equidistance metho......
1. Delimitation agreements......................
(a) The import of State practice and its ...........
(b) New interpretations bMalla of parlicular delimitatian ex-
amples ..............................

2.Other consideraiions advanced by Malt..............
B. The Maltese argument IO justify equidistance based upon considera-
tions claimeIO berelevant ......................
C . Hintsof "flexibility" in Malta's approach to equidis......

CHAPTER 5 .ISSUESREGARDING THE PWYSICAL FACTORS AHD CIRCUM-
STANCESOFTHEPRESENTCA .SE....................
A . Geographical facts...........................
B . Sea-bed and subsoil features and character............

I.The Rift Zone ............................
2.The Escarpmenis-Fault Zcine....................
CHAPTER 6. REFLECTIO NF THE FACTS AND RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCE Ih'
ORDER TO ACHIEVE AN EQUITABLE RESUL T................

A . The general settin...........................
B. Geographical factors..........................
C . Libya's 1973proposal .........................
D. Sea-bed and subsoil feature- a boundary within and following
the general direction of the Rift .................
E. Geography .geomorphology and geology pointing IO the same result

CHAITER 7.~OPORT~ONAL~TY AS ATEST OF THE RESULT ..........
A . Proportionality in princ.......................
1. Common ground between the Parties................
2.The principal points in isbetween the Parties ......... B. The relevant area . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . .
C. Proportionality in practice . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. .
CHAPTER 8. OBSERVATIO NS THE APPROACHE OF THE PARTIES TO DELI-
MITATION IN THE PRESENT CASE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .

Annexes to theReply oflibya

Annex1. Extracts from Maltese Parliamentary Debates, 20-22 July 1966;
translation . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Anne-r2. Mattese Note Verbale to ltaly dated 31 December 1965 . . . .
Annex 3. Documents relating to Concession NC 53: (a) extracts from
Heads of Agreement of 14 April 1974; (h) extracts from EPSA of
panying map; translation;t (d) exchange of letters between the Libyan
Ministry of Petroleum and TOTAL, dated 17 November 1974 and
12 January 1975 ; (elreduction of map published by the NOC in 1975
Annex 4. Extracts from Maltese Parliamentary Debates, 16 January
1978 : translation . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .. . .
Annex 5. Seismic profiles of the Medina and Malta Channels . . . .. .
Annrx 6. Extracts from D. Jongsma, J. E. van Hinte and J. M. Wood-
side, "Geologic Structure and Neotectonics of the North African
Continental Margin South of Sicily", submitted for publication,
1984: pages 1, 11, 14 and 15; Figure I : Simplified tectonic frame-
work of the Mediterranean region. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. .
Annrx 7. Extracts from 1.R. Finetti, "Geophysical Study of the Sicily
Channel Rift Zone", 1984: Figure 13: Residual Gravity Map of the
Pelagian Sea (page 18); Figure 15: Comparison of rifting in the Red
Sea and the Sicily Channel Rift Zone (page 20); pages 3, 9 and 27. .
Annex8. Comparison of the Medina Channel and the Jerrafa Trough . .
Annex 9. Bathymetric Profiles: (a) bathymetric profiles prepared under
the direction of Professor F. Fabricius; (hi bathymetric profiles pre-
pared by the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory under the
direction of Dr. W. B. F. Ryan . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ..
Annex 10. Certification. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .

Reply of the Republic of Maita - Réplique de la République de Malte
INTRODUC~IO . .N. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .
PART1. SOME FAcTU.~L ELEMENT S. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .

Introduction. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . ..
Chapter 1. The background of the dispute. . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .
1. Legislation . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .
2. Exchanges between the Parties 1972-73. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Petroleum activities of the Parties . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. , .
4. The "no-drilling understanding" . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .
Chapter II. Econoinic considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. General economic considerations. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .
2. Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .
3. Malta's status as an "island developing country" . . . . . . . . . . Iniroduction .................................
Chapter III. The nature of the delimitation sought and the sources of
the applicable taw ............................
I. The law applicable to the delimitation of the continental she...
2. The relevance of the exclusive economic zone to the delimitation
of the continental shelf.......................

Chapter IV .Entitlernent and delimitation.................
I.The relarionship between entirlement and delimitation .......
2. Entitlement and delimitation go hünd in hand ............
(a) Natural prolongation and the distance criterio.........
(h) The method of delimitaiion musr berooted in the legal basis
of title.............................
3. The prncess of delimitaiion......................

Chapter V . Legal basis of title: the concept of natural prolongat. .
I. The so-called "physical facts" of natural prolongation.......
2. Geology and geomorphology: their irrelevance iithe present case.
(a)The evolution of the concept of continental shelf........
(h) Article 76(1) of the 1982 Convention ..............
(c) Case Iliwand physical features .................
(d) Physical features and State practice...............
3 Coastal geography ......................
(a) Coasts and nor landmass generate entitlemeni ..........
(hl Landmass irrelevani Corthe purposes of delimitaiion ......
(c)Coasts and distance from coasts are the relevant considerations
(d) The equality of the seaward projection of coasts........
(el Entitlement is measured from basepoints and in al1directions .
fl Malta's entitlement is delimited only by the equal entitlement
of neighbouring States ......................

Chapter VI .The equidistance method ...................
1. Imaginary Libyan argument ....................
2. The so-called "trends away from equidistance" ..........
3. Equidistance and equity ......................
PART III. REBUTTA .IOF LIBYANARGUMEE~T TENDISG TO DISTORT THI:
GEOGRAPHIC AAND LEGALFRAMEWOR OF THE PRESEN C ASE ......

Chaprer VI1. Recognition and appreciation of geographicat factors ...
1.The allegation of Malta's neglect of geographical factors......
2.The geographical framework of this case: the appropriate legal
perspective ..............................
3. The continuing significünce of the distinction between opposite
and adjacent States ..........................
(a) Attacks upon a non-existent Maltese thesis ...........
(h) The consequence of the dichotomy between "opposite" and
"adjacent" situations.......................
(c)The role of the distinction between "opposite" and "adjacent"
States in cases decided by international tribunal........ Page
(d) The reasoning of the court in the Anglo-French Continental
Shelf Arbitration .........................
(e) The relation between the equidistance method and the distinc-
tion between "opposite" and "adjacent" States .........
Chapter VI11 . The rôle of geographical considerations in achieving an
equitable result ..............................

f. The misconceptions of the Libyan Counter-Memorial concerning
geographical considerations .....................
2 . The relation between legal principles and geography ........
3. Pexample of proportionalityiti......................yan case: the

Chapter IX . The equal status of isiand States within the framework of
equitable principles .............................
I. Refutation of the allegation that Malta argues for a privileged
status for island States .........................
2. Libyan recognition of the correct principle .............
3. Libya's claim to privileged status ..................

Chapter X . The underlying principles ...................
I. The importance of the relationship of coasts to other geographical
features ................................
2. The need to identify the area of shetf relevant to the decision of
the dispute...............................
3. The coasts in relation to the basis of entitlement to submarine areas
Chapter XI. The significance of lengths of coasts ............
I. Libya's case rests upon basic errors of principle ..........
2. Coasts have a similar legal significance in terms of seaward reach.
3. The link between attribution of shelf areas and delimitation ....
4. The =ale of equitable adjustment ..................
5. The ratio of coastal lengths: proportionality advanced as an inde-
pendent source of rights .......................
6. The significaiice of the distinction between opposite and adjacent
States .................................
7. Delimitation tnust relate to the coasts actually abutting on the con-
tinental shelf .............................
8. Coastat relationships and delimitation in semi-enclosed seas: the
results of the Libyan approach ....................
9. Significance cif lengths of coasts: summary .............

Chathe r6le of proportionalityr........................sition concerning
Chapter Xlll. The legal framework ....................

1. A Libyan position based on fundamental error ..........
2.The length of coasts treated as an abstraction ...........
3.Proponionality in the Libyan mode causes inequiry ........ CONTENTS . TABLE DES MATIÈRES XII1

4. The importance of the relationship of coasts ............
5. The Libyan version of proportionality is inüpplicüble even in cases
of adjacent coasts...........................
6. Malta's position is compatible with the framework of legalprinciple
PARTVI. STATE PRACTICE: ITSRBLE IN CONFIRMING THE VALIDITY OF
MALTA'SPOSITION .............................
Chapter XIV .Criticism of the modusr~ppci-und oif the Libyün Counter-
Memorial ..................................
Introduction................................
1. Libyan missiatement of Malta's arguments .............
2. The Libyan aitempt to discount State practicefoiri coiri.r....
3. Conclusion: the extraordinary character of the Libyan attück on
State practice .............................

Chapter XV . The so-called "trends away from equidistance" and State
practice..................................
I The Libyan contention .......................
2. The errors in the Libyan üssessment of State practice.......
(a) lrrelevant statements .......................
(h) The statement that many agreements do not specify the me-
thod upon whichdelimitation was based ............
(c) Persistent under-estimation of ihe incidence of the equidis-
tance method in delimitation agreements ............
(dl An unwarranted emphasis on the fact that an alignment was
"negoiiated" ............................
(e) The fact that States sometimesuse other rnethodsof delimitatiori
,"jCoriclusion: the Libyan thesis of the "trends away from equi-
distance" is false .........................
Chapter XVI . The legal significance of State practice in confirming the
equity of the equidistancemeihod ....................

1. General recognition of the significance ofState practice ......
2. Certain admissions by Libya concerning the seaward reach of coasts
3. The significance of State practice in the present case reaffirmed . .

Annexes to theReply ofMalio ......................
Annex 1 .Extract from notes on talks of 10 April 1974 ..........
Annex 2 .Letter from Exxon dated 25 June 1975 .............
Annex3. Notes on meeting of 23 April 1980 ...............
Annex 4 . Expert opinion on State practice: an opinion by J . R . V.
&SCON ..................................
Certificatio.................................

Oral Arguments. Plaidoiries

Histoncal and economic background of Malta's claim ........
The initial conduct of the Parties....................XIV CONTENTS . TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Pav
The decision of the Couri in the Norrh Sea Cnnrin~ntalShelfcases and
the new attitude of tibya ........................ 281
The Special Agreement of 1976 and the task of the Court ........ 282
The Court should indicate the practical way to apply the principles and
niles it identifies........................... 283
The rights of ihird States are safeguarded by Article 59 of the Statute
of the Court............................... 284
The principles and rules of international lawapplicable......... 285
The so-called "Rifi Zone" ......................... 285
The "Rift Zone" and ~hephysical facts .................. 288
The "Rift Zone" and the law ........................ 292
The Escarpments-Fault Zone ........................ 300
Refutation of Libya's position on proportionality............ 302
The identification of equitable principles and relevant circumstance. . 309
State practice confirms the validity of the equidistance method ..... 315

ARGUMEN T F MR. LAUTERPAC(H MTALTA .)................ 318
The task of the Court in the lighof the Special Agreement ....... 318

The Court's decision should set out in detail the practical method of
delimitation in order to preclude further controver.......... 319
The position of third States....................... 321
The iask of the Court in the light of the applicable .......... 323
Equity: judicial history and State practice.............. 323
Relevance of economic considerations ................... 326
The relationship between equity and equidistance in State practice ... 330
Geology and geotnorphology: the so-cailed "Rift Zone" dws oot con-
çtitute a fundamental discontinuity................... 336
Similar features eaist further to the south.............. 353
The Escarpments-Fault Zone does not form the edge of the continental
shelf.................................... 357
PLAIDOIR DEIEM .WEIL (MALTE) ....................... 361

1. Les sources du droit applicable.................... 362
La notion de prolongement naturel est à examiner dans le contexte
du droit coiitumieret de la pratique des Etats, marquéspar un effa-
cement progressif des donnéesphysiques; pertinence du concept
de zone économiqueexclusive ................... 364
I. L'opération de délimitation ...................... 366

I. Les positions des Parties...................... 367
Les divers arguments de la Libye pour dissocierle titre juridique
et la délimitation........................ 369
2. Structure et contenu de l'opérationde délimitatio........ 373
3. Titre juridiquet délimitation ................... 377
III. Le prolongement naturel........................ 381

I. L'existence prétenduede deux plateaux continentaux physique-
ment *par& par un accident naturel du type de la soi-disant
RifiZone est incompatible avec le concept mêmede délimitation
du plateau continental....................... 382
2. La prise en considkration des caractéristiques géologiqueset
gkomorphologiques des fonds marins comme élémentdétermi- nani dans la délimitation du plateau continental est condamnée
par le principe de I'égalit6des Etars ................

L'évolutiondu droit international du prolongement naturel vers
le principe de distance ......................
Egalitédes Etats et principe de non-empiétement .........
IV . Le principe de distance ........................
I. Les «côtes >&.............................
2 . La «distance» ............................
Le concept de distance et l'article 76, paragraphe 1. de la con-
vention sur le droit de la mer de 1982 ..............
La mise en Œuvredu concept de distance: la projection radiale ii
partir des cotes ..........................
V . L'équidistance .............................

L'équidistancecomme point de départde l'opérationde déliinitation
Equidistance et solution équitable ...................

I. Iniroduction ..............................
II. The general significance of coasts in maritime delimitation as ;I
question of principle ..........................
III.The legal significance of coastal configurations in relation to conti-
nental shelf delimitation ........................
IV . pute"de..................................to the decision of the dis-
V . The concept of equality and the geographical features which estab-
lish the legal framework ........................
VI . The rote of proportionality ......................

I. Introduction ............................
2. The Libyan view of proportionality ...............
3. Malta's view of proportionality in outline ............
4. The importance to the delimitation process of the general legal
frürnework .............................
5. The ratio of coastal lengt. .produces a crude apportionment in
this case ..............................
6. The special funciion of the test based upon the ratio of'coastal
lengths ...............................
7. The scale of equitable adjustment ................
8. Proportioiiality is no........................oviding an indepen-
dent source of rights
9. as an instrument of equity: the jurisprudencef pro..........ty
10. The concept of proportionality: the evidence of State practice .
11. Coastal relationships in semi-enclosed seas ...........
12. The coincident results of proportionality and the principle of
natural prolongation in the Libyan argument ...........
13. Conclusion on proportionality ..................REPLY OFTHE SOCIALISTPEOPLE'S
LIBYANARAB JAMAHIRIYA

RÉPLIQUE DELA JAMAHIRIYA
ARABE LIBYENNE POPULAIRE
ET SOCIALISTE 1. This Reply is filed pursuant to the request of the Parties for the
exchange of written pleadings as conternplated by Article 11(2) (c)of
the "Special Agreement'" signed by the Socialisi People's Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya (hereinafter referred to as "LibyatYs)and the Republic of

Malta (hereinafter referred to as "Malta") on 23 May 1976 and the
Order made bythe President of the Court in the present case on 21 March
1984,fixing 12July 1984as the lime-limit for the filingof a Replybyeach
Party. In conforrnity with Article 4913) of the Rules of Court, this Reply
is directed to bringing out the main points in issue between the Parties.

2. It is evidenr that the Maltese Counter-Mernorial has introduced
many new elements and lines of argument. This Reply must necessarily

address these points. In so doing, however, emphasis will be placed on
majar points of difforence. While the new material submitted by the
Parties in their Counter-Mernorials wouldalone have made the exchange
of written Replies desirable, the nature and content of the Maltese
Counter-Mernorial also has made a further exchange necessary. Unfortu-

nately, il introduces so many misunderstandings and misinterpretations.
especiallyof Libya's position andarguments, that clarification isessential.
Itwouldbe futile and confusing totry to deal witheach and everypointof
this kind to be found in the Maltese Counter-Memorial, but an attempt
wilibe made in this Replyto rectify someof the moreserious errors. Inan

effort ta keep the Reply withinrerisonableproportions. a number ofpoints
will dot be dealt with here. Libya, however. respectfully reserves
the liberty to revertto such points as may beadvisable during the oral
hearing.

3. In order to illustrate the nature of the "misunderstandings and
misinterpretations" mentioned above. one need go no further than Chap-
ter i of the Maltese Counter-Mernorial. The very heading to Chapter I is

gross distoriion. The heading reads, "The Substance of ihe Libyan Case:
Malta Disregarded". Such an imputation is manifestly without founda-
tion. The fact that Libya appears ina case concerning the delimitation of
thecontinental shelfon an equal footingwith Malta itself beliesand shows

'See para. 4 of tLibyanM~morial and în5 ai p. I thereof.
lbid.in.Iat p. 1.4 CONTINENTAL SHELF [21

the absurdity of the imputation. It is dificult to understand how such an

assertion could be made in the light of the detailed treatrnent of the
geographical. geomorphological and geologicalfacts concerning Malta
contained in the Libyan Mernorial andits Annexes.There is no issueas to

the existenceof Malta and, therefore, no meaning of significancethat can
be attributed to the final remark in paragraph 25 of Chapter 1:"Malta,
however, does exist". That rernark reflects the sensitivity shown in the

Maltese pleadings tothe fact that the Maltese Islands are small and their
coasts are short in relation to the size of Libya and the length of its
relevant Coast.It also suggests an awareness of the exaggerated extent of
Malta's claim to areas of continental shelf inthe Central Mediterranean.

The question posed by Malta - "which is the 'disproportionate claim" "
- isa goodquestion. and onewhich Libya seekstoexamine in the manner
usual in continental shelf delimitation cases'.

4. The Libyan case is based on the geographical and other physical
facts as they are. It is in no waybased on some hypothetical delimitation
with Italy as ifMalta did not exist as suggested in paragraph 4 of the
Maltese Caunter-Mernorial. It is the delimitation of continental shelf

areas as between Malta and Libya which is in issue in the present case.
This was underlined in the proceedingson Italy'sApplication for Permis-
sion to lntervene in the case and is a basic assumption of the arguments

subrnitted by Libya to the Court. No amount of rhetoric can alter the
geographical and geomorphological positionof Malta.

5. The difference between the nature of the Libyan and the Maltese

approachestodelimitationthat emerges with even greater clarily from the
Counter-Mernorials ofthe Parties also givesriseto the need for a Reply in
this case.An examination of this digerence inapproach is fundamental to
a proper assessrnentof the strength of the cases presented by the Parties.

The approach of Malta is highly abstract: it seems to be designed to
divorce the concrcte question of delimitation from the reality of the facts
with which it is concerned. Bycontrast, Libya lays emphasis on the facts

and circumstances of this particular case and aims at achieving an equita-
ble result in the light of them. This difference in approach will be
exarnined in the Chapters that follow.

'Mulft.r~Counirr-Mrniuriol.para. 22.
*Similar examplesor rnisrcprcscniariof Libya'case roundin Chaptcr I ofthe Maltesc
Counirr-Mrnrorial appcürai paras.6. 17and18.whcreihc phrase,the*indeFinitcextenof
thc Libyanclaim scawards".appearingai para.4.21or theLibyan Mrmorial is iaken and
twistedouioTconiext:ai paras.8 and15.whcreir issuggestedihat par2.37 of thLibyan
Menioriol deniesro Mülta anysourh-racingcoüsiat al!: aütpara. 18wherethe Malie~e
Counier-Mentorin1 asscris:"Libya alsocndcavoursio dcny Malia notonly its physicaland
cultural indcpcndcncç.but also ils positas a Sraie." The misreprcsentaiionin thest
paragraphsissocvidsntfroma mcrcreadingthai anydctailcdrefutaiioninthisReplywould
be iaking up the Couri's timc unnccessari. ccalsopara. 5.04. bclaw. i31 REPLY OF LlBYA 5

6. One contention of Malta appears in a novel form in its Counter-
Memorial and. as it isa side issue,has been included ina separate chapler,
Chapter 2 below. This is the allegation of Libya's "acquiescence" in a

median line. With this assertion of MaIta, made in different termsin the
Maltese Memorial where the words "srarus quo" were repeatedly used,
another new element has been introduced into the Maltese Counter-
Memorial. In addition, an attempt has apparentiy been made to show a
lack of candor on the part of Libya withrespect to information regarding

Concession NC 53. Any such insinuation is plainly wrong as will also be
shown in Chapter 2 below.

7. As regardsthe facts. the Maltese Counter-Mernorial adds consider-
ably, in terrns of pages. to the material previously providedby Maltain its
Memorial. This material appears mainly in Annex 2 on "The Scientific
Facts", and in Chapter III of the Counter-Memorial. The aim of the
Maltese Counter-Memorial is to try to minimise the significance of the

major geomorphological and geological features to which the Libyan
Memorial drew attention. The truth is that the scientific evidence now
produced by Malta onlyserves toconfirmthe particularity and importance
of the "Rift Zone" andthe "Escarpments-Fault Zone" which Malta previ-
ouslychoseto ignoreor brush aside. Toa large extent, Malta continues to
gloss over the salient geographic facts of the case. There are here major

differences between the Parties which will have to be dealt with in some
detail in this Reply'.

8. Nevertheless, the main dividing issueis one of law. It siems frorn
Malta's insistence- consistently maintained since the very origin of the
dispute - that equidistance and only equidistance can provide the basis
fordelimitation in the preseni case. Although Mafta'sreasoning insupport
of equidistance has undergone some evolutionsince its initial proposal in

1972and even during the course of these written pteadings - as will be
noted inlater Chapters of this Reply' - its basic positionfounded on the
application ofequidistance has notchanged. Libya,on the other hand, has
consistently sought a delirnitatioii which leads to an equitable result hav-
ingregard toal1the relevant facts and circurnstances. In the view ofLibya,

this poçition is infull accord with the established principles and rulesof
international law in regard to continental shell delimitation.

9. It is evident from the written pleadings to date that there are
fundamental disagreements between the Parties as to the taw. The Mal-
tese Counter-Memorial goesso far as to contend that natural prolongation
no longer has any physical content but has become a purely "spatial"
concept relating salely ta "distance". By blending the separate con-

'SeeChapter 5,betow.
'See Chapters3 and 4. below.6 CONTINENTAL SHELF [41

cepts of entitlement and delimitation, the MalteseCounter-Mernorial has
attempted to build a case for equidistance as a "primary" method of
delimitation'. In so doing, the Maltese Counter-Memorial has failed to

address the specific facts of this case. It has dealt with the case as one
between two "oppositeStates" - inthe abstract -and has avoidedany
detailed examination of the facts of geography, such as the coasts of the
Parties and their relationshipto eachother and to the continental shelf to

be delimited. It has denied the legal relevanceof the characteristics of the
sea-bedand subsoilof the continental shelf. Ithas sought refuge inexam-
plesof delimitation agreements betweenother States in difierent factual
settings;and it rnistakenlyhas atternpted to extract certain conclusionsas
to the legal significanceof this "State practice".

10. As will be brought out in this Reply, the respective viewsof the
Parties as to the iaw and the legal relevance of the physical facts of

.geography, geomorphologyand geologyare very different. Libya denies
that equidistance has any primary role or privilegedstatus and regards
itself to beinaccord withthe jurisprudence of the Court in this respect.
The emphasisin Libya'spleadingsis on the particular factsof the present

case relevant to reaching an equitable result through the application of
equitable principles and not on some abstract notion of a method which
perse, regardlessof the particuiar situation, may be claimed to lead to an
equitable result. The finalstage in the delimitation process is to test the
equity of the result by rneans of the proportionality criterion. Since the

Parties divergesharply as to the roleof proportionality, it has beenmade
the subject of Chapter 7 below.

1 1. The structure of this Reply may be seen from the Table of Con-
tents. twillbe notedthat the order of discussionin the previous pleadings
has been reversedin the sensethat the legal issuesthat divide the Parties
are taken up before the factual issues are discussed. This has been done

because - with the exception of certain aspects of th'econduct of the
Parties includjngMalta'snewallegation of "acqiiiescence"on thepart of
Libya - there appearsto bea deeperdivisionbetweenthe Parties overthe
law and its application than over the facts themselves2. Moreover, the
differencein the legalapproaches of the Parties to delimitation has infiu-

enced, to a large extent, the way in which each Party has dealt with the
facts3.
'Scc parasi 26-132of thMalrrse Coun~rr-Mernorialwhich arcdiscusscdinChapter3.
bclow.
'Howcvcr,Malta'scontinuedfailurcto addressscriouslythegeographicalfactsrcmainsa
pointofcontentionbciwccnthe Parties.Scc Chaptc5.bclow.
aOf course,it hasbccnncccssaryto treatthe diRcrcnccsoverthe physicaltactswhichdo
cxistbctwccnthcParticsiascparaieChapter,pariicularlysinceitwasonlyiniCounier-
MernorialthatMalt;!dealtwiththephysicalaspectsof thesca-bcdandsubsoilinanydctail.
Sec Chapter5. bclow.151 REPLY OF LlBYA 7

12. Whatever common ground betweenthe Parties both as to the law
and as to the facts mayenist, it appears [romthe Counter-Mernorials that
the gap between the approaches of the Parties to the resolution of the
present dispute has, infact, widened. What followsin this final written
pleading of Libya, therefore, ia reviewof the positionsof the Parties in
the light of theibasicdifferencesas to the legal framework within which

the delimitation is to occur, bringing out the other major issues that
continue to divide the Parties.
13. It appears usefulto beginthissummary of differencesby consider-

ingagain the task entrusted to theCourt inthe requestof the Parties inthe
Special Agreement. This will be the subject of Chapter I which fottows
next. CHAPTER 1

THEREQUESTMADETOTHECOURT

1.O1 The Special Agreement is discussed in Chapter 5 of the Libyan
Memorial'. Malta treated the Special Agreement in Part I of its Memo-

rial. The interpretation of the Special Agreement in the Maltese Memorial
did not prompt any addition in the LibyanCounter-Memorial to what had
already been said in the Libyan Memorial. However, the Maltese
Counter-Memorial (Part II) stresses a difference of position clairned to

exist between the Parties regarding "the task of the Court in the present
case" and. hence, it is appropriate to revert to this matter in this Reply to
clarify certain points.

1.02 The Libyan Memorial drew attention to certain distinctions
between the Special Agreement in this case and the Special Agreement in

the TunisialLic base, and pointed out that the request in the present
case is more analogous to that presented in the North Sea cases than to
that in the Tunisia/Lic basa'. These distinctions include the absence in

the present Special Agreement of any reference to delimitation by "the
expertsofthe twocountries" and the inclusionof the provisionfor "negoti-
ations" to be undertaken between the Parties themselvesfor concluding an
agreement foltowingthe Judgment of the Court. The Maltese Memorial,

on the other hand, did not focusontextual differencesand appeared to find
little difference between the Special Agreement in the present case and
that in the Tunisia/Libyacase. The Maltese Counter-Memorial failed to
comment on the observations made in paragraphs 5.05 and 5.06 of the

Libyan Memorial regarding the text of the Special Agreement.

1.03 Even thoiigh the Court has not been requested by the Parties to
draw the delimitation line" as is evident from the Special Agreement, it
has been invested with the task of deciding what principles and rules of
international law are applicable to the delirnitation between the Parties

and how in practice such principles and rules can be applied by the two
Parties in order that they may,in their subsequent negotiations, delimit
without difticultytheir respectivecontinental shelves.A-major component
of the second task of the Court willbe. in the viewof ~ib~aito identify, to

weighand to balance up the relevant factors and circumstances present in
lCounselforLibyaalsodcaltwith this subjccatt theoralhearingsinconnection withItaly's
Applicationfor Permiisionto lntervenein the presentca(CR 8414. 27 Jan. 1984.
pp.29-38).
*Libyan M~moriul,parü.5.06.
In the 1977AngleFrench Arbitratioand inthe case betweenCanada and theUnited
StatescurrentlyeforeiChümbcrof theCourtinvolvinga unitary linedelimitingboththe
continentalshelf andhe rishcrieszonesof these States in the Gulf of Mainearea, the
requestsf thepartieswcrequitediffereni.sincetheCouriof Arbitr. ndthe Chamber
in the lattercüwcrc askcdto dr~wthc actuallineof delimitation.f71 REPLY OF LIBYA 9

this case and to test the equitableness of the anticipated result by the
criterion of proportionality'.The Court has nok,however, been requesked
to apply any pre-ordained method of delimitation but rather to indicate

how in practice the Parties can apply the principle and rules "in this
particular case". a point sufficientlydeveloped in paragraph 5.07 of the
Libyan Memorial as not to require restatement here.

1 .O4 Malta claims to have perceived in Libya's final Subrnission an
important differencebetweenthe Parties as to the task of the Court. In the
Maltese Counter-Mernorial it is contended that this Submission does not

show "how in practice such principles and rules can be applied by the two
Parties in this particular case in order that they may without di'culry
delirnit such area[sl by an agreement as provided in Article III'." But
Libya's positionas stated in Libya's final Submission has been miscon-
ceived. Contrary to the assertion made a nurnber of times in the Mültese

Counter-Memoria13.Libya has not advanced the Rift Zoneas providinga
"natural frontier", but rather as a physicalfactor that constitutes a funda-
mental discontinuity in the sea-bed and subsoilseparating the shelf areas
between the Parties'. This feature, combined with the relevant geographi-

calcircumstances ofthe presentcaseand viewedinthe lightof the relevant
conduct of the Parties, leads to the conclusion, in Libya's view, that art
equitable result which meets the test of proportionality would be achieved
bya delimitation line within and followingthe general direction of the Rift
Zone<The factsset forth by Libya in itswritten pleadingsof a geographi-

cal, geomorphological and geological character point to the elements
which, when balanced together. indicate how in practice an equitable
result may beachievedin the presentcase.These elementsare discussedin
Chapters 6 and 7 below.

1.O5 Malta's positionregarding the task of the Court, and the diflicul-
ties it sees in this connection with Libya's Subrnissions, appear to be

tantamount to saying that, unless the Court is requested to draw the
precisedelimitation line - as was the case in the Anglo-FrenchArbitra-
tion and the Gulfof Mainecase - or unless the Court is to conceive its
role as prescribing forthe Parties a single method of delimitation having
the degree of precision of, for example. the equidistance rnethod, the

Special Agreement cannot be carrjed out by the Parties in their negotia-
tions following the Judgment of the Court. Libya dissents from such a
view, forit would leave tothe Court virtually nochoiceat al1other ihan to

'This pointis more lully dcvclinrelatio10 ihe prirticularroftthiscasein paras.
'ltalicsaddedby Maltu in p;ir;i. 74 of thc Mairesr Counter-Mrmorial.
See,r.g.. Molre.~eCounrer-Meniririal. para. 332.
'See paras.5.19-5.29. bctow.Scc also Continen~alShdf (Tuni.ria/Libyan Areb Jame-
hiriyo), Judgniunr. /.Reports 1982, p. 64. para. 80.
'See Chapter6.below.10 CONTlNENTALSHELF [81

sanctionthe application of a pre-ordained method,such as Malta'sappli-
cation of equidistance. Libya, onthe other hand, believesthat it has put
forwardsufiicientfactual elementson the basisof whichthe Court willbe

able to frame the kind of Judgment enabling the Parties to negotiate the
final delimitation line "without difficulty".

1.06 In the light of the proceedingsinvolvingItaly'sApplication for
Permissionto lntervene and the resulting Judgment of the Court', there
remains, however,another aspect of the request made to the Court under
the Special Agreementthat deservescomment at this stage. In that Judg-
ment the Court made it clear that "the rights clairned by ltaly would be

safeguardedby Article 59of the Statute [of the Court]"'. ln referring to
the Judgrnent to be rendered in the present case, the Court also observed
that the "future judgment wili not merely be limited in its elïects by
Article 59of the Statute: it willbeexpressed,upon its face, to be without

prejudiceto the rights and titles of third Statesa". Hence, it isthe viewof
Libyathat the task entrusted to the Court can lead to a Judgment which,
although perhaps"more limitedin scope betweenthe Parties thernselves,
and subjectto morecaveatsandreservationsinfavourofthird States, than
it might otherwise havebeen had ltaly beenpresent'",nevertheless should

extend to al1 the areas of continental shelf relevant to a delimitation
betweenLibya and Malta. Indeterminingtheseareas, it is Libya'sview
that it must be based on the relevant coasts of the Parties and their
relationship to the shelf areas lying off those coasts in the present case,

even if such areas may in part extend into areas over whichthird States
may present claims.

1.07 Thus. Libya believesthat the Court may properly indicate the
principlesand rules of international law and howin practice they can be
appliedbythe Parties throughoutthe entire relevantarea5. Nevertheless,
a distinction mayhaveto be made betweenthat part of the area in which
there are noclaims by third States, and that part or parts in which there

are such claims. In the former part, preciselybecause there are no such
claims, the Parties can proceedto a definitivedelimitation. In the latter
part, the "caveats and reservations"of the Court willprotect the rights of
third States by precluding such a delimitation being definitive vis-à-vis

such third States. Moreover, ilwillundoubtedly assist thirdStates if, in
such parts of the area, Libya and Malta proceed to a non-prejudicial
delimitation between thernselves-that is, delimitation which does not

'ConrinentolSheu (LibyanArobJumahiriya/MalloJ. ApplicationroIntervene.Judgmenr.
*Ibid.. p. 26, para. 42.
aIbid., pp26-27.para. 43.
'Ibid.. p27,para. 43.
"SeeLibyanMernorial,paras. 10.12-10.18.iwhichthe relevantarea inthe presentcaseis
described. [91 REPLY OP LrBYA II

prejudge the rights of third States'. For third States will ttien know
against which of the two present Parties, Libya or Malta, they should

presenttheir claims if.subsequently,such third States decidetheydo have
claims in this part of the relevant area. Indeed,without a delimitation

which extends throughoul the relevant area, the solution would rernain
problematical, for in principle such a restricted solution would compel
tripartite negotiations. orpossiblyadjudications, with al1the attendant

difficultiesfor those parts of the relevant area in which third States may
have claims.

'As enpresseby thcCouriinils 1982Judgmcnt.". .the righisafotherStatesborderong
thePclügiunSca whichrnaybcctaimcd inthcnorthcrnand north-easternparaT ihatarca
mus1not be prcjudgcdby the dccisionin the presenicase.ContinentalShev (Tuni-
ria/libyon Arob Jontohiriya). Ji~dgntrn~.I.CIJ. Heporrrp. 62, para.75. CHAPTER2

THE CONDUCTOFTHE PARTIESAND THE ALLECATIONOF
LIBYAN"ACQUIESCENCE" IN THE MALTESEMEDIANLINE

2.01 Beforeturning to the manner in which the Parties differ over the
application of the principles and rules of international law governing
delimitation in this case, it is necessary todeal with a new theme that has
emerged from the Maltese Counter-Mernorial. This is the allegation of
Libyan "acquiescence" in Malta's rnedian line proposal. Asthis Chapter
will show, there is simply no factual basis for such an allegation.

2.02 TheCourt willhave perceivedthat, in advancing its acquiescence
contention, Malta's arguments directed al the conduct of the Parties have
changed. Whereas the Maltese Memorial asserted that delimitation by
means of equidistance represented the"status quo" between the Parties,
the Maltese Counter-Memorial attempts to show Libyan acquiescencein

Malta's equidistance line during the period from t965 to 1973'. The
Maltese argument nowtreats this "acquiescence"as an additional founda-
tion for its claim that equidistance produces an equitable result. Since
Libya dealt with the invalidityof the earlier "starusquo" argument in its
Counter-Memorial', there is noneedhere to repeat thoseobservations. In
the light of the pertinent conduct of the Parties, however, Malta's new

contentions alleging Libyan acquiescence in Malta's median line are
equally ill-founded.

2.03 One answer to Malta's clairnof acquiescence isthat there wasat
that time no legal position put forwardby Malta vis-à-vis Libyain which
Libya could acquiesce.This isevident fromthe nature of theacts on which
Maita bases its argument: the 1965 Maltese Note Verbale, the 1966

Continental Shelf Act and the grant of Libyan concessionsin 1974. A
secondanswer isthat the conduct of the Parties, and inparticular Malta's
own conduct at the tirne of the enactment of its continental shelf legisla-
tion. attests to the fact that as early as 1966 Malta recognised the exis-
tence of an area of deep water lying between Malta and Libya
corresponding generally to thearea of the Rift Zone and acknowledged

thesigniiicanceof this fact forthe limitof itscontinental shelfri10the
south at that time. These aspects will be discussed in turn below.

2.04 Malta seems to have found sorne new importance in its Note
Verbaleof 5 May 1965,forthe Maltese Counter-Memorial placesconsid-
erable emphasison itdespite the fact that its existencewas not mentioned

Molicse Countrr-Mrmorial, para. 194.
*Libyan Counrer-Mernorial, Chapter 1. inthe Maltese Memorial'.It was Libyawhichannexeda copyof this Note
to the Libyan Memorial, thus bringing it to tight in these proceedingi'.

2.05 The upshotof the Note isapparent from itstext, whichindicated

that itwas Malta's intention io accede to the 1958Convention on the
Continental Shelf and that Malta had beenguided by Article 6(1) of that
Convention in determining the boundary of its continental shelf. How
Malta can find Libyanacquiescence in a median linedelimitation from a

Note which stated that Malta had been guided by the 1958 Convention
which called, above ail, for agreement on delimitation has yet to be
explained by Maltaa.

2.06 On 19May 1966.Malta accededto the 1958Convention without
any reservations. Shortly thereafter, Malta's 1966Continental Shelf Act
was enacted.This isthe principal itemof legislationon whichMalta relies.

As such. it reveals Malta's real attitude toward delimitation al that time.
The unilateral nature of this Act and the fact that it could not, of ilself,
establish a delimitation with other States has already been mentioned in
the Libyan Counter-Memorial'. In relation to Malta's newacquiescence

claims, however, the 1966 Act merits close attention. For. as the facts
set forth belowshow, this Act didnot "assert" a claim to the median line
vis-à-vis Libyaas the Maltese pleadings havesuggested.

2.07 It willbe recalled that Section 2of the 1966Actprovided forthe
definition of Malta's continental shelf as follows:

" 'The continental shelf means the sea bed and subçoil of the

submarine areas adjacent to the coast of Malta but outside territo-
rial waters. toa depth of twohundred metres or. beyondthat limit.
towherethe depth of the superjacent watersadmits of the exploita-
tionof the natural resources of the said areas...".

These provisions wereby and large faithful to the text of Article I of the

1958 Convention tu which Malta had just acceded. The rernainder of
Section 2 of the 1966 Act, however, reads:

"[SI O howeverthat whereinrelation tostates of whichthe coast
isopGsite that of Malta it isnecessarytodeterrnine the boundaries
of the respectivecontinental shelves,the boundary of the continen-

tal shelfshall bethat determined byagreement betweenMalta and
'SeeMalreseCouorrr-Mernorial,piris. 183-186.
'Sec LibyyanMrmorial. Anncx34.
The fact thai the 1965Note. incorrcctlyquotcdin para. 183 of the Maltese Counrer-
Memorial. failcIOrcflcctiiccuraiclytheprovisol Artic60) of the 1858Convenlion
was ofliiile rclcvunccto Libyüat thelime andcallcdfor nocomment.In anyevLibya
was nota party to thni Convcntian.
LibyanCounirr-Mernorial,püra1.OS. copyofthe 1966Act may bcfoundinAnncx 15 ta
theLibyonMenrurial. CONTINENTAL SHELF [121

such other state or states or, in the absence of agreement, the
rnedian line, namelya lineevery pointof which isequidistant from
the nearest points of the baselines from which the breadth of the

territorial waters of Malta and of such other state or states is
measured."

As the Libyan Memorial pointedout', this second half of Section 2of the
1966Act did not accurately reflect Article 6 of the 1958 Convention.

2.08 The ambit of the 1966 Act and its application to the specific
situation around Malta were clarifiedduring the debates whichtook place
within the Maltese Parliament over its scope. During the second reading
of the Act, Dr. Caruana Demajo, the Maltese Minister of Justice and

Parliamentary Affairs, explained the operation of the bill in this manner.
He stated that -
"... it isnaturally desirable that an agreement should bereached

between the states concerned regarding the limits of the Continen-
tal Shelf and the Convention relating to the Continental Shelf to
which I have already made reference [the 1958 Convention],
already provides for such an eventualityY."

As regards the limits of Malta's continental shelf, he went on to state:

"1 would like to make it clear that in so far as Africa is con-
cerned, this matter is not relevant today since the Maltese Conti-
nental Shelf and the African Continental Shelf do not meet, and
the seas between them are so deep as to prevent exploitation2."

Dr. Caruana Demajo then drew a clear distinction betweenthis situation
and the one between Malta and Sicily. In the latter case, he noted that the

"situation vis-à-vis Sicily is different2", and that exploration could be
carried out. The Minister stated that is was thus desirable for agreement
ondelirnitation to bereached withItaly. He wenton to pointout that Italy
had already been inforrned that if agreement were not reached, Malta
wouldconsiderthe median line between itselfand ltaly asconstitutingthe

dividing line? Seen in this context, these discussions revealthe following.
2.09 First, the Maltese Minister expressly acknowledged that the

limit of the continental shclf was to be determined by agreement where
twoStates laidclaim to it. In the light of Malta's acquiescenceclaims. this
affirmation is significant in itselP.

2.10 Second, he observed that the extent of Malta's continental shelf
was determined by reference to what was known as the "exploitability
'Libyan Memorial, para.4.06.
'Extractsfrom the Maliese Parliamcniarydebates.20-22 July 1966,are attached as
Ann~x 1. hereto;sep. 3.thereof.
See LibyanCount~r-Murnorial,paras.1.OS-1.06.1131 REPLY OF LIBYA 15

criterion". This. ofcourse. reflectedthe provisionsof Article I of the 1958

Convention wherebythe continental shelf of a coastal State extended
beyondits territorial sea to a depth of 200metres or. beyondthat lirnit. to
wherethe depth of the superjacent waters admitted the exploitationof the
natural resources. Accordingto Dr. Caruana Demajo, however,the sea-

bed areas lying betweenMalta and Libya weretoo deep to be able to be
exploited.Asa bathymetric rnapof this area shows, they reachdepths well
in excess of 200 metres, particularly in the area where the Rift Zone is
located. The conclusion to be drawn frorn the text of the 1966 Act end

from the Minister'sremarks is that the sea-bedareas lying in this dceper
zone fell beyondthe lirnit ofMalta's continental shelf as it wasdefinedin
the 1966Act. That being the case, the implication is that Malta, at the
timeit enacted ils 1966legislation. did notcontemplate claimingcontinen-

ta1 shelf rights in this deeper area and, thus, did not contemplate any
continental shelf delimitation wiih Libya. As a result, it is dificult to
understand howLibyacouldbesaid to have"acquiesced" inany particular
delimitation whennodelimitation with Libya wasforeseenby Matta at the

time and no claim was advanced.

2.11 Third, Malta evidently viewed the situation between Italy and
itselfin quite a different manner. In contrast to the situation between
Malta and Libya,the sea-bed north of Malta betweenthe Maltese Islands

and Sicilyis relativelyshallow (generally lessthan 200 rnetres) and thus
could be said to fall within the definition of Malta's continental shelf as
contained in the 1966 Act. This much was confirmed by Dr. Caruana
Demajo in his remarks to the Maltese Parliament when he noted the

desirability of reaching a delimitation agreement with Italy. To that end.
Malta had already sent to ltaly a specificproposa1forthe continental shelf
boundary betweenthem'. Malta reirained, however, from sendinga com-
parable proposal to Libya. This is further evidenceof the fact that Malta

did not believe it had a boundary to delimit with Libya because of the
water depths involved.

2.12 These aspects of the 1966 Act shed light on Malta's subsequent
conduct as well. For example, the very first offshore concessionsgranted

by Malta - those offered for bidding in 1970 and issued in 1971 -
confirrned the limited scope of the 1966 Act. As the Libyan Mernarial
pointedoutY,these concessions were groupedcloselyto the north and east
of Malta. Map 2 illustrates these concessionsand showshowtheir lateral

limits coincidtd alrnost precisely with the 200 metre isobath3,and their
'Malta inîormeJ[taly oCthispropsat bya Notdaicd31 Decembcr 1965.A copyof this
Notc was attachcdas Anncx 2 i<iMiiltÿ'Oùsciva\ionson theIialian Applicationfor
Permission10lntcrvcncand may bcfoundas Anntx 2.hcreto.
'Sce Libyan Mrmorial.pÿras. 4.29 and 9.32.
'Scc alsoibid.Map 13.îiicinp. 146.16 CONTINENTAL sHELF [141

northern limits ranapproxirnately along a rnedian line betweenMalta and

Sicily'. No concessions were granted during this period to the south of
Malta where the deeper areas were not considered exploitable. This
practice was consistent withthe provisions ofthe 1966 Act as interpreted
by the Government of Malta since the exploitability criterion defined the

outer limit of Malta's continental shelf.

2.13 These facts exposethe lackof any substance in Malta's assertion
that Libya acquiesced in a median line south of Malta inthe period from
1965 to 1973. Malta itself did not contemplate a delimitation vis-à-vis
Libya and other North African States at the tirne of its 1966 legislation.

Indeed, Malta appears to have become activelyinterested in reaching an
agreement with Libya only after the 1971 Italy-Tunisia Agreement
focussed Malta's attention on the area to the south. The first time Malta
unveiled its median line proposal to Libya was at the meeting at the

Auberge de Castille inJuly 1972'. At no time during the discussions that
followed did Malta raise the claim either of Libyan acquiescence in a
particular line of delirnitation or of the existenceof a"srarusquo". What
is significant is that Malta's Prime Minister referred to Malta's proposed

median line as "provisional" in a Note dated 23 Aprii 1973 addressed to
Colonel Ghadaffi:'.Such a characterisation of Malta's position hardly
supports the arguments now advanced alleging Libyan acquiescence.

2.14 The final elementsin the MalteseCounter-Memorialon which the

contentionof Libyanacceptanceof the median line is basedare the Libyan
petroleum concessiong sranted in 1974and, in particular, ConcessionNC 53
granted to TOTAL. There it is asserted that ConcessionNC 53 "reflectsa
measureof Libyanacceptanceofthemedianline4".Regrettably,thisassertion

istaintedbyan insinuationthat Libyahas misledthe Courtas to the extentof
thisconcession.Thisisnotso.Asthe facts thatare recountedbelowattest. the
grant of ConcessionNC 53 in no wayconstituted an acceptanceof Malta's
median line. Nor has this concessionbeen falsifiedin any way in Libya's

pleadingsas the rernarks in the MalteseCounter-Memorialwould suggest.

.2.15 ConcessionNC 53 had its origins in discussionsthat were held
betweenrepresentativesof Libya andthe Compagnie Françaisedes Pétroles
("C.F.P." - the parent Companyof TOTAL). These discussionsled up to
minutesofunderstandingbeing signedinParison20February 1974.Basedon

these minutes. the LibyanNational Oil Corporation (the "N.O.C.") and
'As notcdin para. 2.11,abovc.thc hct that dclimitationwith Italy was contcmplatedwas
reflectedin the Pirliamcntary dcbaicsovcrthe provisiothe1966Act.
'See Libyan Meniarinl. par4.30.
"Ibid., Annex41.
'Malfvsr Counier-Menimial.para.189 (d).As notcdinthe LibyanMcmorial, para.4.44,
Libyan"conccssionsw~crcgranrcdat thistirncin thc form of Exploration andProduction
Sharing Agrccmcnts("EPSAs"). [151 REPLY OF LIBYA 17

C.F.P.signedHeadsofAgreement foran Explorationand ProductionSharing

Agreement("EPSA")on 14April 1974. Subsequently,the EPSA itselfwas
signedon 13October 1974'.Thisagreementencompassedfourseparateareas,
of which one- Area A - constituted NC 53.

2.16 Appendix !-A of the Agreemen tefined Area A in the following
terms:

"a) On the one hand, the seaward lirnit of jurisdiction of the Libyan
Arab Republicoverthe seabedand subsoilunderlyingthe Mediter-
raneanSeaas establishedbyor pursuanttoanyagreementbetween
the Libyan Arab Republicand any other relevant Mediterranean

State claimingjurisdiction osuchseabedandsubsoil. betweenthe
westernmostand theeaçtern intersectionsof thsaid limitwiththe
broken line definein (b) below.

b) On the other hand, that part of the continuousbroken line defined
hereafter whichiscomprisedbetweenthe easternmost andwestern-
rnostintersections referredto in (a) above."

The"continuous broken liner"eferredtoin (b)abovewasspecifiedbycoordi-
natesand correspondsto the southernboundaryof NC 53as ilisdepictedon
MapIl inthe LibyanMemarial.As forthe northernandwesternIimitsoFNC

@ 53,thesewereclearlyindicatedontheofiîcialLibyanmapwhich wasattached
to the legislationauthorisingthe grant.

2.17 3y Act No. 58of 23September 1974*,N.O.C w.asdulyempowered
to executethe contract by the RevolutionaryCommandCouncil.As usual.
Act No. 58 was publishedin the Libyan Gazette together with the map
mentionedaboveindicating the limitsof the pertinent Libyan concessiA.s
copy of the Act together with this map appearsin Annex 3. Asthe map

reveals,the limitsofConcessionNC 53thereindepictedare thesameas those
that were shown onMap 1I in the Libyan Mernorial. A subsequent map
published by N.O.C. in 1975 çliows the identical configurationfor this
concession3.

2.18 At the timeConcession NC 53becarne effectiverherefore,the area
it encornpassedwasnot in issue.Article 13 (a) of the Headsof Agreement

stipulaiedthatthe graniwould"no1 exceed22,000square kilometres" - an
'A copyof the relevant portionosf ihc Hcadsof Agreementand tiatiached in
Annrx 3. hereto.In accorwiihAriiclc 50(2) oftheRulesof Court,a copyof i.centire
EPSA hasbecnfurnishcdto thc Rcgisiry.
*This legislationbecamcciTcciiveupon itspublicationon 17 Decembcr1974. Thc Libyan
Ministry of Petrolcumno~ilicdrcprcscof TOTAL by a letlcr daicd 17 Novembcr
1974that NC 53hadbccnraiifbythisIcgislation.AL rcspondcdby a Iciterdated
12January 19in whicilacknowlcdgc17Dccernber1974asthe"EffcciiveDate"of the
conirici. Copiesof thescleiicrsarc attachcdat Annex 3, hereto.
'A reducedcopyofthjmapappcarsat ,4nn3.hereto. A fui1scalccopyof thismaphas
beendepositedwith the Rcgistry.18 CONTINENTAL SHELF 1161

area whichcorrespondsto the sizeof NC 53as it appearson Map II in the

LibyanMemorial.Moreover. Appendix 1-Aof the EPSAitselfset forth the
gridsystemalong whichtheindividual blocks withitn heconcessionwereto be
subdivided'.Underthe provisionsof this Appendix,theseblocksextended as
farnorthas35"50'N iatitude (towardwhichNC53maybeseentoextendon
Map 1l), as far south as 33" 50'N latitude (correspondingto the actual

southernrnostlimitoftheconcessionon Map II ).and as far eastas 14"45'E
longitude(the easternmostlimitas againdepictedon the map).The western
boundary of NC 53 was simply extended alongthe same bearing as the
westernlimitsof Libyan Concessions 13a7 nd NC 41.

2.19 In this manner the insinuationsof the MalteseCounter-Mernorial

rnaybe laid10rest. What is clear is that Malta'sassertionto have found a
measureof Libyanacquiescence in Malta'smedianlinebyvirtueof thegrant
of ConcessionNC 53 has nosubstanceat all. Nowhereinthe relevantdocu-
mentsisthere anymention ofsucha line.The factsspeak otherwise. Indeed,
Maltaitselfsenta NotetoTOTALon 17June 1975indicatingthat Maltahad

beeninformedthat TOTAL wascarryingout oilexploration activities in the
offshorearea in the Mediterraneannorth of Malta'smedianline2.1tisdiffi-
cult,therefore,toseehowthe "Median Line"couldnowbesaidto have been
"accepted"by virtueof NC 53. In addition,the MalteseCounter-Mernorial

has chosen to ignore completely the implicationosf the Libyan grant of
ConcessionsNC 35A and 358. as well as Libya'sprotests over Maltese
concessionssouth of Malta and Libya'sreaction to the breachof the no-
drillingagreementat the time of the Texaco-Saipemincident3.

2.20 Malta'scontentionthat Libyahas acquiescedina medianlinedelimi-

tationis,thus,wrong.Tothecontrary.Malta - at thetimeof the enactment
of its 1966ContinentalShelfAct - implicitlyrecognisedthe significanceof
the area comprisingthe Rift Zone inasmuchas it did notcontemplatea
delimitationwith Libyadue tothe depth of the sea-bedin that area. Thus,
whileMalta has exhibited acertain obstinacyin its claim to a medianline

delimitation since discussions betweenthe Parties began, Malta never
advancedsucha daim vis-à-vis Libya priotro July of 1972. As Malta itself
acknowledgedinparagraph62 ofits Memorial,discussions with Libydaidnot
beginuntil 1972,niakingitdifficulttoseehowLibya could have acquiesceid n

anithing beforethat tirne.Theclairntoa medianline,when iteventuallywas
prbposedby Malta at the meetingat the Aubergede Castille,wasnot inany
;ai acceptedor acquiescedin by Libyabut, beingthe first time Libya had

'A copyof thisdocumentis attachedai Anne3.hereto.
*A copyof thiNole wasaltachedasAnnex 56 10the LibyanMemorial. 1tshouldalbe
noied that ihc Maltcse NotiL.N. 41 of 1973 itself acknowledgedthat Malia's own
concessjonwerc subjectio alteratinthe eveni of a different agreementon the shclr
boundarybciween Libyüand Malta. SeeLibyan Mcmorial. Annex 42, B.234.
See LibyanMemoriril.paras.4.49-4.53 and paras.4.79-4.81. and LibyanCounier-Mcmo-
rial. paras. 1.14-1.27.[ 171 REPLY OF LlBYA 19

been informedof a concrete Mallese position,was taken away for study.
Libya'sAatrejectionof the mediantinecame lessthan a year later, as the
Libyan pleadings hava elreadyexplainedk.

2.21 It maybesaid,therefore,that both Libyaand Malta recognisedthe
existenceof a differencein their views regarding delimitation soon after

discussions between them ha commenced.Thisrecognitionledinturn tothe
drafting of the Special Agreement and to the no-drillingunderstanding
betweenthempendingthe resolution ofthe dispute.Malta continues to omit
anyteferencetotheexistenceoftheno-drillingunderstandingdespitethefact

thatit constitutesan importanteiementof mutualconductthat isrelevantto
thedelimitationquestionYB . yitself,the no-drillingunderstandingcontradicts
the notionofeither Libyanacquiescenceinthe medianlineor theexistenceof

any"~iarusquo".As notedin the Libyan Mernorialand Counter-Mernorial,
however,this understandingand history shed light an the area in dispute
betweenthe PartiesJ.

'LibyanMernorial,para. 4.33. and LibyonCounter-Mernorial,para. 1.12.
'The existenceof anagreementbelwttn ,Maliaandils concessiholdcrsto suspendcxplo-
raiion ac~iviiiespendithe resoluiionof ihc dispute was explainby Primc Minister
Minioff belortheMalteseParliamcnton 16Jan. 1978. ExtractsfromthePrimcMinistcr's
addrcssarc attachcdin Anncx4. hcreto.
'LibyanMernorial,para. 9.26. and LibyanCountcr-Mernorial,paras. 1.23-1.27. CHAPTER3

ISSUES REGARDING THE PRINCIPLES AND RULE'S OF INTER-

NATIONAI,LAWGOVERNlNGCONTINENTAL SHELF
DELIMITATION

3.01 Apart fromthe obviousdifferencethat exists betweenthe Parties
as to whether any one method of delimitation commands a privileged
status', three other basic diflerences over the wayin which the Parties

interpret and apply the principlesand rules of continental shelf delimita-
tion to the presentcase may be identified.Stated briefly,these diiïerences
relate to (i) the meaningand content each Party ascribesto the processof
applyingequitableprinciples;(ii) the roleofreIevantcircumstances inthe

detimitation process;and (iii) the legal relevanceattached to particular
factors and circumstances2.

3.02 Thesedifferencesgoto the veryheart ofcontinental shelfdelimi-
tation. Their resolution has consequencesnot only forthe delimitation in
the present case, but also for future delimitations in other parts of the
worlda.In view ofthe importancewhichattaches to these issues,each will

be addressed separately in the Sections that follow.
A. The Process of Applying Equitable Principles

3.03 The Maltese Counter-Mernorial has unveiled an approach to
delimitation - only hinted at in the Maltese Memorial - which does

violenceto the primary role of equitable principles in delimitation. This
approach results from the intermingling and confusionof two quile dis-
tinct concepts - entitlement and delimitation.Such interrningling and
confusion hadbeen introduced in the Maltese Memorial; if anything, it

has been accentuated in Malta's Counter-Mernorial'. The end result is
that the proper criteria relevant todelimitation, whichcenter around the
principlethat the delimitation istobeeffectedin accordancewithequita-
bleprinciplestaking intoaccountal1the relevantcircumstancesinorder to
reachan equitableresuft,have been ignoredby Malta in favourofconten-

tions relating to the outer limits of a State's continentalshelf rights in
situations where no delimitation issue existA. closelook at certain por-
tions of the Maltese Counter-Mernorial reveals the failacies in this

'This dimetenccis discussedin Chapter4, below. also Chapter of theLibyan
Memorial and Chapter5 of tLibyanCounter-Mernorial.
The issueofproportionalityo,verwhichthePartiesalsodibeetakenupseparatelyin
Chapter7.below.
=Sec,in this regard.ChapterB.below.As pointedout iLihyanCouri~er-Mernorial,
para.5.97,over300 maritirncdelimitationsituationsexist,thevasi rnajorityof whichhave
not.as yct, beenagreed.
'Boththe Libyan Mcmorialparas6.01-6.09and theLibyan Counter-Mernoriparas.
areasof continentalshclfandthc dcliinitaiionof thoseareasin a concretecase. to [191 REPLY OF LIBYA 21

approach, for it is an approach which subordinates the role of equitable
principlesto a single method ofdelimitation - the equidistance method
- and which givesa primary status to that method.

3.04 Matta'slegalexpositionof the rulesof international tawwhichit
considersas "governingthe delimitationprocess"isset forthinparagraphs
152to 176of the Maltese Counter-Mernorial. Thestarting point of the
delimitation process,according to Malta. isto be foundin the "legal basis
of title to continental shelf righis'". It is asserted by Malta that on this

point thetwo Parties are in agreement and that where they diverge"is on
the content of thiç legal basis of title'" itself. Although the Maltese '
Counter-Mernorial acknowledgesthat physical considerationslie at the
origin of the continental shelf concept. itasserts that the "meaning and
content of the conceptof prolongationhas evolvedY".This is followed by

the sweeping,unsupportedassertionthat prolongationis nolongerdefined
by reference to physical factors "but by reference to a certain distance
from the coasts'". Frorn this. Malta proceedsto contend that "the basic
conceptofdistance betweenthe coasts formsthe necessarypointofdepar-
tureof the wholeprocessg"A . nd in paragraph 156of the MalteseCounter-
Mernorial this lineofargument isbrought to its ultimate conclusionwhen

it is stated that "Malta expressly requests theCourt to recognize this
principle [the so-called"distance principle"] as the conttollingelement in
thedelimitation in the present case".

3.05 This is an extraordinary request. and differs sharply from the

fundamental rules of continental shelf delimitation as these rules have
beenexpressedbythe Courtand as theywoutdbeappliedunderArticle 83
ofthe 1982Convention."Title" is, of course, relevanttodelirnitation inthe
sense that if there is no claim of litie there can be no dispute about
delimiiaiion. But it does not follow lhat the "basis of title" means the
"basisof delirnitation".This isclear both in principleand fromparagraph

IOofArticle 76ofthe 1982Convention:inprinciple,becausea question of
delirnitationonlyarises where there isa clash ofdaims to title; and from
paragraph 10of Article 76, in the light of th-plain meaning of iu text:

"The provisionsof thisarticle [Article761 are without prejudice

to the question of delimitation of the continental shelî between
States with opposireor adjacent coasts."

3-06 The Maltese Counter-Mernorial atternpts to support the conten-
tion that distance is now "the controlling element" in continental shelf

'Malir.rCounfrr-Mernorialpari. 153.
Ibid., par122.
aIbid.. par155.22 CONTINENTAL SHELF (201

delimitationbyciting paragraph 48ofthe 1982Judgment'.The portionof
this paragraph cited by Malta reads as follows:

"lt is only the legal basis of the title to continental shelf
rights-the mere distancefromthe coast-which can be taken inro

account as possibly having consequences forthe claims of the
Parties."

It willbe apparent that this quotation is taken out of context and in a
manner which distorts its meaning". The entire paragraph 48 of the
Court'sJudgment is set out belowwith the portionquoted in the Maltese
Counter-Mernorial italicised:

"48. The principlethat the natural prolongationof the coastal
State isa basisofits legaltitle tocontinental shelfrightsdoesno1in
the present case,as explained above, necessarily provide criteria
applicableto the delimitationof the areas appertaining 10adjacent
States. In sofar as Article76, paragraph 1,of the draft convention
repeats this principle,it introduces no new element and does not

therefore cal1for further consideration. In so far howeveras the
paragraph providesthat incertain circumstances the distance fram
the baseline, measured on the surface ofthe sea, isthe basis forthe
title of the coastal State, it departs from the principle that natural
prolongation is the sole basis of the title. The question therefore

arises whetherthe concept of the continental shelf as contained in
the second part of the definition is relevant to the decisionof the
present case. Ir isonly the legal basis of the title to conlinenial
shelfrighrs - the mere distancefrom the Coast - whichcon be
taken intoaccountaspossibly having consequencefsor rheclaims

of theParties. Both Parties relyon the principleof natural prolon-
gation:they have notadvancedany argument based onthe "trend"
towards the distance principle. The definition inArticle 76. para-
graph 1,therefore affordsno criterion for delimitation in the pre-
sent case."

It isquiteevidentthat in the passagequoted by Malta the Court was only

dealing withthe newelement contained in paragraph 1ofArticle 76ofthe
1982 Convention,inwhichdistance fromthe baselines incertain circum-
slances - whichdo not existin the presentcase - may becomethe basis
for the litle of the coastal State. The Court was not making a general
statement about the existinglawgoverningthe basisof title,still lessabout

delimitation.
'ContinentuSheIJ {Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriy.Judgmrni. I.J. Reports 1982.
p.48, para.48.
Mollese Counter-MemoNal.para.155. [21] REPLY OF L~BYA 23

3.07 This is made clear bythe previousparagraph (paragraph 47) of
the 1982Judgrnenl, where the Court discussed briefly Article 76 of the
1982Convention.TheCourt, after mentioningparagraph 10ofArticle 76,

analysed the definition of the continental shelf found in paragraph 1 of
Article 76 in the followingterms:

"That definition consistsof two parts, ernploying different crite-
ria. Accordingto the firstpart ofparagraph I the natural prolonga-

tionof the land territory isthe main criterion. In the secondpart of
the paragraph, the distance of 200 nautical miles is in certain
circumstances the basis of the title of a coastal $tale1."

What are the circumstances in whichdistance becomesthe basis of title?
They are clearly spelledout in paragraph I of Article 76: when"the outer

edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance'".

3.08 Aside from what the Court had to Sayon the subject in its 1982
Judgment, the proceedingsof the Third Conferenceon the Lawof the Sea
stand as a ctear rejection of the Maltese thesis that simple distance has
nowbeen recognisedas the sole basis of title. Such a thesis iscontrary to

what the Conference intended. Physicalnatural prolongation of the land
territory is still regarded as the essential, primary basis of title - the
"main criterion" in the Court'swords-for the coastalState's continental

shelf rights. The distance criterion ernerged as a purely secondary and
subsidiary basis of title in those particular situations where a coastal
State'scontinental margin did notextend as far as 200 nautical miles. For

such disadvantaged States it thus extended the outer limit of their shelf
entitlement. ln addition, the distance criterionserveda secondpurposeof
setting an absoluteouter lirnitforal1States of 350 nautical milestoassure

that adequate areas of sea-bed, ocean fioor and subsoil would remain
available to al1States as the "common heritage of mankind". Thus. the
distance criterion wasconcerned only withouter limitsof the continental
shelf and not with delimitation of that shelf wherethere were conflicting

claims3.
'Italics added. It is cvident ihat thcwasurefcrring here to naiural prolongatian in
physical senseand not ns a purely spatial concept, as Malia appearsio contend.
'The "continental marginisof coursc,a dciincd tcrm. Ihc definition apparing 3ofpara.
Article76.It is, therefore. rathcr a surprise to find this samc para. 48 of the Court's 1982
Judgment quoted in part ügain ai parii128 of theMalrcse Counter-Mernorial wherc
languagehas ken includcd in thequotution "(i.e.,200 miles)" which is notbcfound
in para48 ai al1andwhich changesthe meaninofthe words"in certain circumstances".On

the basisf the scicntiiic cvidcnce, the cntire sea-bedareasof theandllonian Seas
fall within the A76.dcfnition of ^coniinentul margin". In tact, there sbeagree-
ment with Mülta on this point. Consequcntly, ihcre is no area ai issuein the prcscnt case
which lieseyondthc contincntal mnrgin andto which the "distance principle" might besaid
to apply.
Distancemay only bc said to involvc "dclimitation" in the sensethat it "delimits" the outcr
limits of the contincntal shell from thc international area beyond. 24 CONïïNENTAL SHELF 1221

3.09 It follows that the whole argument erected in the Maltese
Counter-Mernorial in order to establish natural prolongation solely as a
"spatial" conceptis ill-founded'.And as the spatial argument vanishesso

also does the basis for Malta'sassertions that "the delimitation process
must inthe submissionof Malta, necessarily beginbytaking intoconsider-
ation an equidistance line betweenthe twocoasts" and that "equidistance

isthe mostappropriate technique to giveeffectat the same time to the two
components of natural prolongation: distance and coasts2".

3.10 Malta cites noauthority for these propositionsregarding equidis-
tance. But the cornerstone of Malta's entire argument as now presented
appears to consistofthecontention that natural prolongationisa "spatial"

concept which, together with a so-called "basic concept of distance
betweenthe coasts", formsthe "necessary pointof departure of the whole
process3".As noted above, neither Article 76 of the 1982 Convention

(particularly inthe light of the proceedingsof the Third Conferenceonthe
Lawof the Sea) nor the Court's 1982Judgrnent can be relied upon for the
propositionthat natural prolongation has becomea purely "spatial" con-

cept. Byfailingto preservethe clear distinctionbetweenthe conceptof the
. continental shelfas definedinparagraph 1of Article 76and the process of
delimitation provided for under Article 83 - a distinction so clearly

pointedto by paragraph IOof Article 76-the Maltese position,as it has
evolvedin ils Counter-Mernorial, hasthe eflect of evading the fundamen-
ta1principleof delimitalion: that it should beeffected inaccordance with
equitable principles4.

3.11 Inthis rnanner, the MalteseCounter-Mernorial setsthe stage for
a new approach whereby equidistance becornesa "primary delimitation"
whichisprima fade equitable5.This propositionis advanced in the teeth
of the unmistakable trend away fromequidistanceas a mandatory method

'What, ifany. distinction is intcnded betwccn the terms "spatial concept" and "distance
principle" is Icri uncxplaincd in the MalrcscCounier-Mernorialand it is. thcrcforc. assumcd
herc that thcy arc usby Malta inierchangeably.
MalteseCounier-Mernorial.para. 157.
aIbid.para. 155.
'A clcar expressionof this fundamental principle wasprovided by Counscl for Malta during
the Oral Hcarings on Italy's Application for Permission to Ini(CRcn8416,30 Jan.
1984.p. 16):

"The applicablelaw is now clear as a result both of case law and OCthe tcrms of
Articl83 of the 1982Law ofthe SeoConvention. lnternationat taw rquircs in the
delimitationproccssihe applicatioofcquitablc principlcs to rcaan quitable
rcsult. Thc considerations which lcsa pnrticular conclusiinone casedo not
necessarilylcad to the samcconclusion in anothcr. cvenin a neighbouring or possibly
ovcrlapping arca. Eachcasemust bedecidcd upn iis own rncrits, having regard to
al1ihc relcvani circumstances."
'Maliese Counrer-M~morial,para. 166. [231 REPLY OF LIBYA 25

of delimitation as reflected inthe jurisprudence, in the 1982Convention
and in State practice'.

3.12 Yet even if, arguendo it,were granted that entitlement would
flow from a "spatial" concept, this would not have the eKect of setting
aside the prime objectiveincontinental shelf delimitation of achieving an
equitable result through the application of equitable principles having

regard tothe relevant factsand circumstances of the particular case and of
substituting therefor the equidistance method as a "primary delimitation",
as MaJta wouldurge. Eveninsuch a case, the lengthsand the relationships
of the coasts of the Parties and the characteristics of the sea-bed and

subsoil ofthe continental shelf, together with the other relevant facts and
circumstances, necessarily mustweighin the balance indeterrnining what
is an equitable result.

3.13 Incontrast to Malta'sapproach, Libya regards the starting point
of the process to be not equidistance but the application of equitable

principles taking into account al1 the relevant facts and circurnstances.
Hence, the facts of the particular case are the key elements to consider,
and it is inthe light of these facts that an equitable result that satisfiesthe
test of proportionality must be sought. Malta's approach relies on an

abstract construction based on the outer limits of a State's entitlement to
continental shelf - a matter not in issue in the present case. Libya's
appraach restson the facts of the particular case and howthey relate to an
equitable delimitation. It is. therefore, to the roleof the relevant facts and

circumstances of the present case that the next section turns.

B. The Role of RelevantCircumstances

3.14 In paragraph 107 of the Maltese Counter-Mernorial it is said
that the concept of the delimitation process developed in the Libyan
Memarial is "flawed" in respect of the role which the relevant circum-

stances are required ta play in the process. The Maltese Counter-Memo-
rial then claims to accord relevant circumstances "a leading place in the
delimitation processV'- a proposition with whichLibya is in fullaccord
- but suggests that thcir "preciserolehas yet to bedefined".Whether any
further definirionof the precise roleof relevant circumstances isnecessary

isa pointof no realsignificance. The essential point isthat the primacyof
equitable principles and relevantcircumstances is wellestablished in the
jurisprudence. Since the application of equitable prjnciples involvesthe
balancing of al1the relevant facts and circumstances, their role depends

inev-tably-on the facu and circumstances of each case. Therefore, the
'This rendhasbccndiscusscdaiIcngthiChiipie7 orLheLibyunMrniorialandChapier 5
orihc LibyanCounr~r-Mcnrorial. 26 CONTINENTAL SHELF i241

abstract approach of the MalteseCounter-Mernorialseekingfurther defi-
nition is going in the wrong direction. Yet with this starting point. the
MalteseCounter-Memorial embarks on a lengthy effort todefinethe role

of relevant circumstances (paragraphs 109 through 115), an excursion
whichseemsdesignedto minimisetheir role in order to pave the way for
establishing equidistance as the primary method of delimitation.

3.15 The analysis in the MalteseCounter-Memorial takes the follow-

ing course: (i) the judge's taskis not merely a mechanical one - it
involvesa balancing of the various relevant considerations rather than
applying some predeterminedsolution drawn from the relevant circum-
stances (paragraph 109); (ii) thejudge must followa course betweenthe
application of too general or abstract a rule, on the one hand, and an

"excessiveindividualisation ofthe ruleof law",onthe other;there must be
a minimum of generality to avoid the process becomingan "exercise of
discretion or concitiationwor an "operation of distributive justice"
(paragraphs 110 and 111,citing paragraph 71 of the 1982 Judgment);
(iii) hence,the taking intoconsiderationofrelevantcircumstances "never

occursonitsowninthe delimitationprocess"withthe resultthat "relevant
circumstancesneversufficeby themselvesto establish the boundary line"
sincethe legalnature ofentitlement hasa decisive roleinthe delimitation
process',nor do they eversupport a boundaryline but rather they enable
the judge to achievean "equitable and reasonablesolution" (paragraphs

112, 113and 114); (iv) therefore, "relevantcircumstancesdo not provide
the original basis fordelimitation,but rather havethe status ofcriteria for
evaluating the equitablenessofa delimitationprima facie indicatedbythe
geographic facts" (paragraph 114).

3.16 Thisfiowofargument consistsofa mixtureofuncontestedgener-
alities and unsupported contentions. It leads to the propositionthat the
first step in the delimitation process is to start with the equidistance
method - whichin Malta'sviewisthe appropriate technique requiredby

the "distance principle" betweencoastswithan oppositereiationship.This
analysis leads,in turn, "provisionalty,notdefinitively", toa line produced
by equidistanceas the prima facie method in contradiction with Malta's
assertion that the judge's task is not to apply a predetermined solution2.
The second step in the delimitation process is to use relevant circum-

stances to "adjust" this equidistanceline (the prima facie method) ifit
proves tobe inequitable or unreasonabl$.
'This view is coniradictedby Article76. para. 10 of the 1982 Convention
, *See para3.15 (i). above.
.'To quote Maltaexactly in this regard:
"This firstapproach.purely provisionaalndtentative.is followedai asecondstage
by takinintoconsiderationthe relevantcircumstancesofthccase. Ifthisconsidcra-
tionleadstotheconclusionthatthe lineemergingfromthefirststageisinequitablcor
unreasonableii musi bcadjusiedor even, in certain cases. combinedwith other
methods." Malrese Counler-Mernorial,para117. REPLY OF LIBYA 27
[ZSl

3.17 These paragraphs, which might have borne the heading "The
Subordinate Role of Relevant Circumstances". reveal several things.
Firs his part of Malta's argument posesconsiderable dificulties in view

of the clear position of prirnacy accorded by the jurisprudence to the
application of equitable principles and, consequently. to the relevant cir-
cumstances of the particular case. Second, Malta's reasoning attempts to
pave the way for its assertion of a primary role for the application of the
equidistance method. Third, Malta attempts to lay a basis for leap-frog-

ging over (jouer à saute-mouton) the important physical features that
exist in the relevant areas of the continental shelf in the present case and
deflectingattention from the relevant coasts of the Parties. In short, what
Malta seeks ta do is to assert distance as the basis of title, then to equate
the "distance principle" with equidistance, and finally to consider "rele-
vant circurnstances" onlyas subsidiary factors which may cal1for some

minor adjustment of the equidistance line. Predictably, Malta contends
that there are no such relevant circumstances in this case and soequidis-
tance stands unmodifiedand unirnpaired. It isa processof reasoningwhich
elevates equidistance from merely one possible methodamong others to
the status of an absolute principle. Anything more alien to the whole

devetopmeniof the law since 1958, and to the outcome of the discussions
at the Third Conference on the Law ofthe Sea, can hardly be irnagined.

3.18. It is appropriate now to turn to what the Maltese Counter-
Memorial hasasserted is"flawed"inthe role ascribed by Libya to relevant
circumstances'.The curious fact is that the alleged "flaws" in the Libyan
position are not revealed. Paragraph 113 refers forward to Malta's disa-
greement with Libyaoverthe legal basisof title, involvingMalta's conten-

tion ihat natural prolongation is a "spatial" and not a physical concept.
But as to the delimitation processitself, no "flaws"are specifically singled
out. To the contrary, paragraph 114erroneously suggests that Libya is in
agreement with Malta in according to relevant circumstances the
subordinate role of "verifyingwhether the delimitation suggested by the
recourse tothe legal basisof title is equitable and reasonable2".No refer-

ence to this effectis made to any portion of the Libyan Memorial, and no
such statement can be found in Libya's pleadings.This is not the viewof
Libya as to the role of relevant circumstances in the delimitation process.

3.19 The role of relevant circumstances was covered principally in
paragraphs 6.32 through 6.43 of the Libyan Memorial in a subchapter
headed "Equitable Principles and the Airn of Securing an Equitable

Result". The Libyan Counter-Mernorial also devotedconsiderable atten-
tion to the role of relevant circumstances in the delimitation process3.It is
not necessaryto restate the points made there in this Reply: they suggest
no such subordinate or secondary role for relevant circumstances.

'See Maltese Counfrr-Mrmorial, para. 107.
*Libyan Counter-MrnioNalChapicrfiScciion A.28 CONTINENTAL SHELF [261

3.20 The subordinate role that Malta. would ascribe to the relevant
circumstances of the case is evidently tied to the norrnality which Malta

asserts characterises the particular geographical, geomorphological and
geological setting. As expressed in paragraph 330(a) of the Maltese
Counter-Mernorial:

"The key elernentsare to be derived fromthe geographical circum-
stances, which are characterised by an absence of unusual features."

Malta's constant resort to what it regardsas the norrnality of the situation
of the present case-a Farcry from the actual facts, as the Libyan plead-
ings, includingChapter 5 below,demonstrate-seems to be a throwback

to the "equidistance-special circurnstances rule" derived from the 1958
Convention. Mal:;i seerns to treat relevant circumstances as if they were
special circumstances that have relevance only if they justify departing
from equidistance in the event the situation is not "normal". In its 1969

Judgment, the Court disposed of such a resort even to special circurn-
stances when it said that-

"...sinceonce the useofthe equidistance method ofdelimitation is
determined not to be obligatory in any event, il ceases to be legally
necessarytoprovethe existenceofspecialcircumstances in order to
justify not using the method'."

In no sense, therefore, are relevant circumstances to be relegated to the

role of a rnere check on the result produced by equidistance. The appro-
priateness of equidistance, or any other method, in a particular case is
determined on the basis of whether in the light of al1the relevant circum-
stances of that case it leads to an equitable result. In the present case.

such a test is clearly not met by the median line proposed by Malta.
C. The LegalSignificninceof the PhysicalFacts

andCircumstances

3.21 Libva's Memorialand Counter-Mernorial dealt extensivelvwith
the relevant physicalfacts and circumstances both inrespect to their legal
significance'and their factual content! There are,first, the physical fac-
tors of primarv "inn-ficance such as the coasts of the Parties. the Land
territor; for landrnass) of each and the characteristics of the continental

shelf (that is, the sea-bed and subsoif ) related to the coasts. Second, the
broader geographical setting isof importance in the present case: a small
island group is located in a confined sea surrounded by larger coastal
States and other islands, both large and small, rather than being situated

alone in the middle of a large ocean.
'North Sra ConfinrnfalShew Judgnienf.I.C.J.Reporta 1969.p.46.para.82.
'See.generally. Libyon MrnlaNal, Chaptc6.and Libyon Cairnfer-Memariol,Chapier4.
:'Sec Libyan Memorial. Chapicr2 and 3.andLibyan Count~r-Mernorial, Chapter2.~271 REPLY OF LIBYA 29

3.22 As Chapter 5 belowbrings out, the Parties differ not so rnuch as
to the facts themselves but rather as to their legal significance and the

weight to beaccorded to thernfurpurposesof the present delimitation. On
a superficial plane, the Maltese Counter-Mernorial continues to appear to
discussgeography asa keyaspect of the case. On closerexamination, it is
evident that the Maltese pleadings avoid or ignore most of the relevant

geographic facts. Coastal lengths. configurations, orientations and rela-
tionships. which'thejurisprudeiice has established as being of prime rele-
vance, give way'to basepoints. which reflect none of these elements of
geography. Tosay. as Malta does',that the relationship of the Libyan and
Maltese coastlines is "remarkable only in terms of its norrnality" or that

the "primary elements in the geographic facts are uncomplicated" or that
"each pertinent Coastshould be given its appropriate legal significanceon
the basisof the distance principleand the useofcontrolling basepoints", is
to utter a series of incorrect or, at best, ambiguous phrases devoid of any

content regarding the particular geographic facts of the case.
3.23 Libya'sviewsregarding the legal relevanceofcoastal lengthsand
configurations, size,the relevant area. and the presence of third States

have been amply developedin the Libyan Memorialand Counter-Memo-
rial. Their importance rests on concrete, readily ascertainable facts and
not onabstract notions.The Maitese Counter-Mernorial has,byand large,
elected not to dispute the geographic facts put forth in the Libyan Memo-
rial. Whatdoesdeserve mention at thisstage.however, is the question of

the legal relevanceof sea-bed and subsoil features to the delimitation of
thecontinental shelf. Thisisa point which, based onthe Counter-Mernori-
als of the Parties. is in serious contention between them'.

3.24 These features are. according to Malta, legally irrelevant due to
the purely "spatial" content which natural prolongation is said to have
acquired as a result of Article 76 of the 1982Convention. The intermin-
gling in the Maltese pleadingsof the basis of entitlement with the delimi-

tation process isaimed at making these features irrelevant to delimitation
as well.Thedefects inthis lineofargument have beendealt withinSection
A above. The Maltese Counter-Memorial then proceeds in Part 1,where
scientificmatters are taken up (paragraphs41-62), to make the following

assertion:
"As Malta presentiy hopes to show, the natural prolortgation
argument, as developedby Libya,entirely lackssupport in interna-

tional law. Whether the "Rift Zone" and the "Escarprnents-Fault
Zone" correspond or not to the description given in the Libyan
Memorial. isentirely without legal interest. Quite different criteria

'Malrese Counrer-Mernorial.para. 270.
YThe more factualaspcctsor gcographyand or the sea-bedansubsoilfeatures will be
discussein Chüpter5. bclow. CONTINENTAL SHELF 1281

are required by international lawto form the basisof the delimita-

tion of the continental shelf between Malta and Libya. It is, there-
fore,onlyout of respect forthe Court that Malta proposestoreview
briefly in the present Chapter the errors and contradictions of the

technical presentation contained in the Libyan Mernorial'."
3.25 These propositionsare flatly contrary to the statements made by

the Court in its 1982Judgment. The Court quite clearly indicated that
even those geornorphological features which do not interrupt the con-
tinuity of the continental shelf may still be taken into account in the
delimitation processas relevant circumstancei~ Of course, ifthe features

in question do represent such a discontinuity - as has been demonstrated
by Libya -. they must necessarily be given greater weight.

3.26 In addition. the vigour with which Malta tries to show these
"errors and contradictions of the technical presentation contained in the
Libyan Mernorial"beliesthe confidence assumed by Malta in saying that

the sea-bed features referred to are "entirely without legal interest3". As
Chapter 5 below reveals, the simple condusion is that the Maltese
Counter-Mernorial and its technical annexes fail to show the "errors and
contradictions" alleged to exist in Libya's technical evidence.As for the

ernphasis placed in the Maltese Mernorial, and carried over into its
Counter-Mernorial, on the assertion that the continental shelf area in
question is a "geological continuum", the Maltese Counter-Mernorial. in

attempting to rebut the signifrcanceof the Rift Zone, has itself demon-
strated the lack of a "geological continuum4".

3.27 The presentcase fallssquarely within the scopeof the statements
of the Court inthe Tunisia/Li cbse dealing with the possiblerelevance
ofphysicalfeatures ofthe sea-bed. Libyahas furnished to theCourt, inthe
Technical Annex to ils Mernorial, scientific evidence whichestablishes

that in the presentcase there are sea-bedand subsoil features breaking the
continuity of the continental shelf and constituting an "interruption ofthe
natural prolongation" of Malta and of Libya. To use the language of
paragraph 80of the 1982Judgment, these features "disrupt the essential

'Maltese Corrnter-Meniorialpara.42 (footnole dcleied).
' 'ConrinenralShelf (TunisialLibyanArab Jamahiriya). Judgment.I.C.J. Reports 1982.
p. 58. pÿra. 68. Sec aihid.p. 64, para80. where the same possibility is alluded 10.
"So alsodoes thc stalcrnent appeaalpara. 136of theMalfeseCounrer-Mernorial,citing
I.C.J. Repori1982. p. 58para. 67, in which ii isadmitted that the Court-
*.. certainly did not cxcludc completely the possibility that a very marked physical
separaiion mighi serve as a basis fordclimitation, Nor did it exclude the possibility
ihai a physical .sepraiion whwiisno1as marked might havea funclion 'asone of
the several circumstanccs consid10be the elements of equitabledelirnitaiion'."
'See Chapter 5.bclow.Thc F~ctthat thc relevant area, that isthe area of shelf betweenthe
Parties underlying thc Pclagian Sca. cannot possibly be regarded as a "geological contin-
uum". and the inhcreni dcfccis in thc tcrm itself. wcrcfullycovered in paras. 2.58-2.69ofthe
Libyan Counter-Mernorial. 31
1291 REPLY OF LIBYA

unity of the continental shelf' and involve.in the language of paragraph
66 of the same Judgment. "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 natural prolongations".

3.28 It is evident that Molta is troubled by the words of the Court
quoted in paragraph 136 of thc Maltese Counter-Mcmorial'. So the Mal-
tese Counter-Mernorial resorts again to casuistry:

"That twoStates mayadopt physicalfeatures as the boundary of

their continental shclves(as did Australia and lndonesia inrelation
to the Timor Trench) is one thing. That a judge or arbitrator
should make these same features into a compulsory legal criterion
is quite anothe?."

This statement is remarkable in several respects. Apparently, where geo-

rnorphologicalfeatures are concernedState practice losesthe legalsignifi-
cance otherwiseaccorded it by Malta".And the phrase "compulsory legal
criterion" rests totally unexplaiiied. The statement also ignores the faci
that the Court has clearly said that feaiures characterised in paragraphs
66, 68 and 80 of the 1982 Judgment might indeed constiiute relevant

circumstances to be taken into nccount in a given case.

3.29 The Maltese Counter-Memorial then attacks the conception of
natural prolongalion as having physical characteristics'. Iistresses ihe
element of chance as relating to the location of sea-bed fcatures; but it is
hard tosee howone mightnot try toescape fromany geographicalor other

physicalfacts on the same basis. Jicould be regarded as a matter ofchance
- "as a fact of nature" - that Malta is not still attached physically by
land to Sicilyand isa group of small islandsat all. Libya'spositionis.and
has been from the start of the dispute. that an equiteble result must be

achieved in the resulting delimitation in the light of all the facts. As
Chapter 6 below will develop in some detail. Libya believes that such a
result can beachieved by a linewithin the Rift Zone whichreflectsal1the
relevant circumstances of the present case.

3.30 The Maltcse Counter-Mernorial then develops another line of

argument based on State practice". The discussion of the Norwegian
Trough and the Hurd Deep in these paragraphs has already beencovered
'Sec In.3üi p. 28. übwc.
Malrrsv Counter-Mr.i>~oria/.para. 137.
'Butseeparas. 140-140of ihc Mallcrr Ciiuntrr-Meninria/ whcrcnohcsiiÿiionissIOw
aitempi Io discredii ihc rclcv;intsca-bcdicüturcson ihcOCSiÿtc praciicc. In ihis
regard,secpara. 1.15. bclow.Scc alsopnrils.5.54-5.60of ihc Libyan C'ourrfrr-MrriiorioI
dealingwith thc tcgülrclrviinccof Staic priiciicc.
'Malrere(aunier-Mcniorial.paro. 138.
"Ibid.paras. 140-150.32 CONTINENTAL SHELF 1301

in the Libyan Memorial'. However. some further comments must be
added regarding these paragraphs of the Maltese Counter-Memorial. The
very fact thal there have been fewexampies tocite inState practice where
geomorphological features appear to have affected the result must be

viewed in the light of the followingconsiderations:jirst, it points up the
highly special nature and. hence, the significance for the present case of
just such I'eaturesas the Rift Zone and Escarpments-Fault Zone; second,
as has been brought out in the Libyan Counter-Mernorial" it is by no

means clear what factors States may have considered in reaching agree-
ment ona lineofdelimitation. The agreements themselvesseldomindicate
the considerations that were weighed in the balance, a fact borne out by

the Australia-Indonesia Agreement whichdoes notexpressly mentionhow
and to what extent the Timor Trough was taken into account, although
there is clear evidencethat it had an important impact on the determina-
tion of the boundary line3.

3.31 The first point mentioned above - the highly special nature of
the sea-bed features in the present case - in fact proves the reverse of
what Malta suggests. It may be true that in relatively few cases among

existing delimitations have sea-bed features played an important role in
the result. This niay have been due either to the absence of any such
relevant features that might haveaffectedthe result inthe particular cases
or to the fact that they havebeen outweighed by other considerations (as,

for example. in the case of the Norwegian Trough). But where, as here,
truly remarkable sea-bed and subsoilfeatures do exist, cutting across the
relevant area and. in the case of the Rift Zone, the area of dispute as
indica~edby the proposalsof the Parties and their no-drilling understand-

ing, such features deserve major weight in arriving at a delimitation. It
shouldbeadded that. inthe present case, it is not these features alone that
stand out - so also do the entire geographical setting and the coastal

relationships of the Parties. We have here a case where the sea-bed fea-
tures and the geographical setting support each other in leading to the
same result.

3.32 Ltcan only besurmised that Malta has had to relyonan interpre-

tation of natural prolongation as a purely "spatial" concept in order to
'Lilq,ariMei~iorial.piiras. 6.45-6.51. Scc also para. 5.33. bclow.
Li-nan Coirnrr~r-Mri!iorid.par5.54.
"Sec Lib!laii C'orrnrrr-Mi,r>rrir.aras. 5.70-5.75. Nor docs Libya agrcc thüt thc
Iialy/Tunisia dcliiniiiition linc docsnui in the southcrn pari Followihc gcncral direction OC
thc Rift Zone.Sccpara. 14ofthe Mnlir.~~Ci>unler-Mriiiorial.Map 13facing page 130or
thc Lihi.aii Cùirnrrr-McniiirioI can be sccn to show othcrwisc10Athe Italy/Greecc
dclimitation linc. para. 150of thc Maliesr C'oirnler-Mcnioriailsincomprehcnsiblcif thc map
dcpictinghc couric or ihis linc roundin ihc Anncx oldclimiiation agrecmenis. No. 51. to the
Lih.i,an C'oidnirr-Mrnioriolis cxüniincd. How possibly could ihc Sicily-Maiia Escarpmeni
havc becndccnicd relcvani in thai ciisc? Thc linc oîdctinigcncrally runs parallei Io
this fcaturc aswcll astu signilicani scii-bcd fcaiurcs onlhc casicrn sidcof the lonian Seanear
Grcccc. In conirast. Mtilta proposüslinc ihat would cut across the Escarpment. Thcsc
siiuaiions arc cntircly ditrcrent. Thcsc iwo dclimiiations can bc round on the bathymetric
chart. Mar II facinp. 76.1311 REPLY OF LIBYA 33

providea basis for its contention that the phyçical features of the sea-bed
and subsoil are irrelevant. As pointed out in Section A above, however,
these arguments are neither in harmony with the jurisprudence of the
Court nor with Article 76 of the 1982Convention as interpreted by the
Court.

3.33 The inevitable conclusionto be derived from a close analysis of
Malta's legalapproach to the present delimitation isthat it has undergone

considerable evolutionsince the Maltese Memorial. Natural prolongation
and enlitlement to areas of continental shelf have been flatly stated to be
purely "spatial" in content. Entitlement under Article 76 of the 1982
Convention and delirnitationunder Article 83 have been intermingled and
confused by Malta, in spite of the clear language to the contrary in

paragraph 10 of Article 76. By this rneans, the "spatial" or "distance"
concept hasbeen introduced in Malta's pleadings as a dominant factor in
the processofdelimitation of the continental shelf.Although theseconten-
tions fly in the face of the 1982 Convention. they have served several
purposes in Malta's pleadings: first,to thrust equidistance into the fore-
front as the prirnary delimitation onty to be adjusted if necessary - but
not here - by relevant circurnstances.which have beengivena secondary,

subordinate role; second. to push into the background the application of
equitable principles to the relevant factors and circumstances of the pre-
sent case inorder to reach an equitable result byclaiming for the equidis-
tance method a primafacie equitable character and a primary role; and,
third. to discard as irrelevant geographical factors and sea-bedand subsoil

features, regardlessof howpronounced they are, that present an insupera-
ble obstacle tothe Malteseclaims represented bythe Malteseequidistance
line.

3.34 The arguments in the hlaltese Counter-Mernorial culminate in
the asseriion ihak: "Equidistance is the method by which the priniary
equitable delimitation is achieved'." To this is added:

"The equitable nature of the primary boundary isthen, so to speak,
tested and. if necessary, refined by reference to other relevant
considerations. Such adjustment or abatement does not involve

major re-ordering of the primary delimitation. still lessa reappor-
tionment - since no apportionment took place originally."

In this manner, Malta tries not only 10 do away with potentially trouble-
some factors of a geomorphological and geotogical nature but also to
diminish to the point of'extinction any substantive role for the geographi-
cal facts and other relevant circumstances. In so doing, it abolishes the
primacy of equitable principles in the delimitation process.

Malir.re Countrr-Mrnioriplira. 340.34 CONTlNENTALSHELF 1321

3.35 What this section hasdemonstrated is that Malta's conclusions
as tothe legalrelevanceofthe physicalfactorsiswrongas a matter of law.
ln the next Chapter the primary role which Malta wouldascribe to equi-
distance will be examined inrelation to the additional legal and factual
contentions Malta employsto support equidistance as akind of "primary
delimitation" in thisspecificcase. CHAPTER4

THE INAPPLICABlLITY OFEQUIDISTANCE
IN THE PRESENTCASE

4.01 Despite Malta's dogmatic adherence to equidistance, the Mal-

teseCounter-Mernorial seems to hint at a slight softening of presentation.
To the extent this indicates a hint of flexibility in Malta's approach to
delirnitation, it is welcomed by Libya. Nevertheless, it remains true that.
for Malta, equidistance is the method of delimitation warranted by law.

The Maltese argument is maintained both as an abstract proposition of
law'and as an assertion based on considerations claimed to be relevent in
this casey.It will be appropriate to treat these two direrent facets of the
Maltese argument separately, and then to turn to the new evidence of
Malta's "flexibility".

A. Maltais Thesis of the Primacyof the EquidistanceMethod

4.02 The previousChapter has demonstrated the manner inwhich the
Maltese approach to delimitation is fundamentally mistaken. Contrary to

Malta's assertions, the so-called "distance principle" does noinlawcon-
stitute the "controtling element" for continental shelf delimitation either
as an abstract notion or as applied in the present case! Nor is there any
juridical basis for Malta's contention that equidistance isestablished aa
kind of "primary delimitation" which is prima facie equitable in every

case4.Tosustain such a novelthesisone wouldhave to accept equidistance
not onlyasan obligatory method that has an apriori or privilegedstatus,
but alsoasequivalent to the basisof titl- thereby confusingdelimiiation
with entitlement; and one would have to disregard al1the evidence that

States are not in fact prepared to concede to equidistance such a roles.
What remains to be dealt with in this Chapter is to examine the other
bases upon which Malta seeks to support its untenable thesis.

1. Delimitation Agreements

4.03 Examples of delimitation agreements entered into by third
States have beendeployedat considerable length in both of Maita's plcad-
ings. Theseexamples have been discussed by Malta under the heading
"State practice", a term which will also be used in the following

paragraphs as a convenient short-hand terrn6.They have been used to
support several diflerent contentions. With the submission of Counter-
'Malte.~eCovnler-Mrnii~riChapicrII.Scciio2 and Chnpicrlx.
*Ifid.. ChaptcrsX. XI andXII.
Ibid.. par156:secpiira.3.0übovc.
'Ibid.paras.164-166: sccpura. 1.nbovc.
Fora revicwofthis cvidcsccthcLihyon MenioriaChaplcr7.andihcLibyan Counrcr-
MernorialChüptcr5. ScciioA.
"Sec Libyan Counter-Menrurial,7Tnip.104.36 CONTINENTALSHELF [341

Memorials, it isnow possibletosummarise the principal differences which
dividethe Parties on this issue and to reveal the misconceptions in Malta's
argument as to both the legal relevance of State practice and the interpre-
tations put on individual exarnples, as well as on the practice as a whole.

4.04 Libya trusts that, with the filing of its own Counter-Mernorial,
Malta's cornplaint that Libya has disregarded State practice has been laid
to rest'. It must be noted. however, that Libya deerned it necessary to
submittothe Court an Annex dealing with al1the delimitation agreements
of which il was aware because Malta's subjective selection of only a
portion of these agreements in its Mernorial had created an unbalanced

picture. It was necessary, therefore, to place Malta's contentions in their
proper perspective and to demonstrate that the physical setting of the
present case bears little resemblance to other examples of State practice.
The fact that the complete picture is now before the Court means that
there isno need for Libya to gointo this material in extensive detail in this

Reply. Libya is confident that the Court is in a position to draw its own
conclusions from these agreements. As has already been noted, rnuch of
the practice is of marginal legal relevance in any event'.
4.05 The Maltese Counter-Memorial has introduced, however, sev-
eral new examplcs of State practice. and has employed other examples

previously referred to in a novelway. These new aspects are conveniently
dealt with in this Reply even though, in Libya's view, they do not add
anything substantive to Malta's case. Before going into these details, it is
first necessary to deai with the principal differences between the Parties as
to the general relevancc of the ascertainable State practice relating to

existing continental shelf delimitations.
(a) The Import of State Practice
and its Limits

4.06 Malta's underlying contention regarding the overall import of
State practice is best expressed by the followingwords found in the Mal-
tese Memorial:
"Both as a matter of logical necessity and the practice of States in

delimitation it was recognised that island States and island depen-
dencies were entitled to a median line delimitation whenever the
situation was that of opposite States3".

Basing itselfon this premise, Malta has attempted to introduce a number
of delimitation examples said to be "comparable" ta the Libya-Malta
situation where the equidiçtance method was utilised. This Malta has done
in order to create the impression that because equidistance was used in
these exarnples,it must, apriori. beernployed between Libyaand Malta in

'Scc Malte.~rli~unti~r-Mt,ntoria/, pürü. 64.
'Sec LihyanC'ounlt,r-Mritiorial, p5.5t-5.60. and para. 5,below.
Molrr.te Mrniorial. para. 154(c). i351 REPI-YOF LIBYA 37

order to produce an equitable result. It ison this series of contentions that
the Parties are fundamentally at odds. As will be demonstrated in
the following paragraphs,there are three principal defects in Malta's
argument.

4.07 Firs f.alta's premise that island States and island dependencies
have been "entitled to a rnedian line whenever the situation was that of
opposite States" iswrong. There is no particular reason whya median line

solution should be preferred in the case of delimitations involving island
States or island dependencies. Moreover, State practice does not indicate
any such result. It is clear that there is a large nurnber of delimitation
agreements where isiand States and island dependencies have not been

accorded a median line in the delimitation of their continental shelves.
Examples rnay readily be found in the Annex of delimitation agreements
furnished with the Libyan Counter-Memorial. Perhaps by inadvertence.
examples disproving Malta's contention may also be found in the Maltese

pleadings themselves, although For the most part Malta has tended to
avoid discussing examples of Stale practice unfavourable to its case'.

4.08 Using exarnples found in the Maltese pleadings, however, the
fotlowingagreements may beadvanced as disproving Malta's thesis. In the
delimitation between Australia aiid Indonesia, there can be no doubt that
portions of Indonesia's territory (and Indonesia isclassified as an "island

State" by Malta) received significantly less than equidistance treatment'.
This is particularly true with respect to the Tanimbar Islands and Timor.
Equally true is the fact that the ltalian Islands of Pantelleria, Lampedusa,
Linosa and Lampione were not accorded a median line delimitation in the
Italy-Tunisia agreement. In this respect. even Malta's own conduct dis-

provesitscontentions. For Malta has revealed that during its negotiations
with Italy over delimitation, Malta proposed that these same ltalian
Islands should not receive equidistance treatment, but be accorded
enclaves instead".Apparently Malta was prepared to take the small sizeof

these ltalian Islands into account in this instance despite the fact that they
lie "opposite" the Maltese Islands. Finally, it isquite clear that the Chan-
nel Islands did not receive equidistance treatment in the Anglo-French
Arbitration in spite of the fact that they lay "opposite" the French

mainland.
'60th theMallrsr Mrnioriaand Counrer-Mrmoriol deali with agreementswhichincorpo-
ratedequidistancclor ai Icastpart of the boundary.Orher examplesnot basedon equidis-
tance werelargely ignorcd.
*SeeMolre.reMernorialpara. 187(cLihyanCoun~er-Mernoria laras.5.70-5.75,andthe
Annex of delimitationagrccrncnts.No. 24.
'See LibyanMeniorial.paras. 9.56 and 9.59.See also ihe presentationof Profcssor
Arangio-Ruiz aiiheOral Hcarings, Ilüly's Applicationfor Permissionto [ntervene(CR
84/1,25 Jan. 1984p.33).38 CONTINENTAL SHELF Lw

4.09 For the sake of brevity, other obvious examples where islands
werenotaccordedstrict equidistance incontinental shelfdelimitationsare
listed below in tabular form. Details regarding each of the agreements
cited, and maps depicting the actual boundary lines, rnay be found in the
Libyan Annex of delimitation agreements furnished with the Libyan

Counter-Mernorial.
TheNerherlands - Venezuela'

The Dutch islandsof Aruba, Bonaire and Curaçao did no: receive full
equidistant treatment, but were accordedsubstantially lessshelfarea than
equidistance would have provided.
Iceland -Norway'

The much smaller Norwegian islandof Jan Mayen did not receivefull
equidistance treatrnent as against Iceland.

France - Venezuela3
The delimitation line falls significantlycloser to the srnall Venezuelan
Island of Aves than to the much larger French lsland of Martinique.

Indonesia - Malaysia4
The delimitation line in the third segment appears to discount the

Indonesian islands; the line falls noticeably closer to them than to main-
land Sarawak.
Kenya - Tanzania"

The delimitation line followsa parallel of latitude in its seaward sector,
thus ignoring the presence of Pemba Island.
/ran - Saudi Arabia6

The important Iranian Islandof Kharg received reducedeffect,and two
smaller islands lying betweenthe States were partially enclaved.

Japan - Korea7
The southern segment of the delimitation forms a joint development
zone which liessignificantlycloser to Japan than to Korea.

Bahrain - Saudi Arabia"
In the northern sector, a joint development zoneisprovided for which

appears to fall closer to Bahrain than Saudi Arabia.
'See Libyan Counirr-Meniorial, Anof dclimitatiagrccrncniNo. 57.
*Ibid., No. 70.
'Ibid.. No. 67.
"Ibid., No. 22.
'Ibid., No. 46.
"Ibid.. No17.
*Ibid.,No. 5.5. REPLY OF LlBYA

ltaly - Yugoslavia'

At least three Yugoçlavand one Italian island weregivenreduced elTecl
in the delirnitation which essentiaily look place between two mainland
coasts of approximatcly equal length.

Colombio - Panama'

Certain Colombian islandslyingin the Caribbean did not receiveequi-
distance treatment.

Abu Dhabi - Qatni'

ORshoreislands belonging to Abu Dhabi appear to have beenencloved,
at least partially.

4.10 The secondmajor defect that taints Malta's use ofState practice
is the assumption that a method of delimitation. because it has been used

in particular delimitation situations between other States, must of neces-
sity be employed as between Libya and Malta at 1eastas an a priori or
"primary" delirnitation'. Such an argument isa non sequitur. It ignores
the importance and the individuality of the facts and relevant circum-

stances of each particular case. As the Libyan Counler-Mernorial made
clear, existing delirnitation agreements rarely indicate the full range of
considerationsthat may have beentaken intoaccount byStates involvedin
negotiaiing a continental shelî boundary'. II is dangerous. therefore. io
state categorically whether or not a particular characteristic played a role

in the ultimate delimitation.
4.11
The MalteseCounter-Memorial asserts. forexarn~le.that "State
practice does not take account. with but one exception. of trenches.
traughç, channels, depressionsand ather îeatures .. ."'Howdoes Malla .
know? Certainly the Australia-lndonesia agreement did iake account of
geomorphology, as did the agreement between Saudi Arabia and the

Sudan7.Geomorphology may alsohave played a role in the Italy-Tunisia
agreement as Counsel for Malta has explained? And there is some evi-
dencetosuggest that sea-bedfeatures mayalso have influencedtheJapan-

'Scc LibyanCounrer-Menroria/, Anncx of dclirniiaiionügrccmcNo..14.
*Ibid..NO.48.
'See Maltese Mrniorial. par195.
'SeegenerallyLibyan Ciiirntrr-Mcntnriul. Anncx~Tdclirniiationagrccmc2.para.8;
and sec in pariicutar ihc commcntsor ihc Dcputy Lcgal Adviscr of thc Uniicd Stuics
Depürtmcniaf Staic whcrchcnoicdihai "spcciliciradcofTs"couldbcinvolvcdin ncgoiiaiing
ihoscagrcemcnis:Anncx of dclirniiationügrccmcnNo. 23.
'Molrese Coufifer-Meiiiorpira. 144(Tooinotcdclctcd). Scc.inihisrespect.p3.30.
above.
'See LibyanCounier-Meniorial. Anncx or dclimiiaiion agrccrncnts.Nos. 24 and 37.
5ee Libyan Meniorial. para9.52.40 CONTINENTAL SHELF i381

Korea and France-Spain delimitations as well'.The exlent to which indi-
vidual features figured in each example, however. is a question that must
be left to conjccturc. If reference is made to the rnaps included in the

Annex of delimitation agreements, it may be noted that. for the most part.
there were no features similar tothe Rift Zone which represented funda-
mental discontinuities inthe areas of continental shelf to be delimited and
which would haveassisted in pointing to an appropriate delimitation.

4.12 It is particularly revealing that the Maltese Counler-Mernorial

attempts to construct an argument based upon State praclice which aims
ai diminishing the importance of the lengths and configurations of the
coasts relevant tothe delimitation?. Once agüin, Libya would ask on what
basjs Mülia claims io know howindividual Slüies arrived at delimitation

agreements and how coastal configurations influenced the end result. If
size and coastal length are without relevance, why is it that small islands
with correspondingly short coastlines have been enclaved or given reduced
efict or even ignored in numerous instances where they face larger land-
masses (as in the examples portrayed on Maps 3 and 5)3,while in other

cases islands have received an equidistance boundary where they faced
islands of similar size (as in the examples porlrayed on Maps 4 and 6)'?

4.13 Riither than drawing hard and fast conclusions from what
amount to a large numbcr of very diverse agreements, Libya believes ihal
State practice. when viewedas a whole,supports the viewthat eachcaseof

delimitation is a function of the particular facts of that case and that,
consequcntly. cach case isdifferent and must be approached in the light of
its own characteristics and no1with any preconceived or a priorinotion of
what constitutes an equitable result", A factor ofimportance in one exam-

ple may noi be present in another. As a result, State practice does not
suggest that the equidistance method possesses a privileged position above
al1 others that is responsive to al1 different factual situations. Rather,
examples of State practice present a wide spectrum of factual situations

and a correspondingly wide divcrsity of methods utilised and solutions
reached.

4.14 Malta's attempt to extract rules of delimitation from State prac-
tice underlies the rhird major defect in its approach to this practice. In an
' Lihnan C'orrnii~r-hfn>roria/.paras.5.85.93.
' 6folie,Ciiirtrirr-Mi,titnparas.252-257.
;'Sec.for cxamplc.thc Iceland-Norwayagrccmcniwhcrc thc largcr islündof lcetand
rcccivcdalargcr:~rcaor sh~irthanJan Miiycn.Sccalsoihc ioltowjngcxarnplcs:Indoncsia-
Ausirüliü:Indoncsia-M;iIay?;V:cnczucla-ThcNcrhcrlünds:Tunisiü-ltaly;Iran-SaudiAra-
bia; and ihc An~l»Fr'rrrirh Arhiiraiion.
'Scc. Corcxrimplc.ihc agrccmcnisbciwccnFranceand Mauritius. New Zcalrindand the
Uniicd Siaica.Cuba andH:iiiand /\uslralia and Francc.
'Ccriainly ihc 1-ibya-Maliasciiing prcacnisa Paciualmairix which is fike no oihcr and
whichmusi bc üpproiichcdin thc contexiof itsown pcculiürchüractcrisiics.[391 REPLY OF L~BYA 4 1

eRort to show that State practice accords the equidistance method a
privilegedstatus. the Maltese pleadings have misconceivedthe legal rele-
vance of such practice to the actual delimitation between Libya and

Malta. For what Malta failstoacknowtedge isthat the situation regarding
State practice today is no ditïerent than it was in either 1969or 1982 -
the two previousoccasionswhenthe Court had occasionto comment on ils

legal relevance.As was fullydiscussed in the Libyan Counter-Mernorial'.
State practice in the area ofcontinental shelfdelimitation does not amount
to a "settled practice" as to any particular method. It neither demonstrates
that States have felt themselves legally compelled to use a particular

method ofdelimitation nor points to the fact that any one method hasan a
priori or privilegedsiaius.

4.15 The irony now presented by the Maltese Counter-Memorial is

that Malta itself has acknowledgedthe limited valueof recourse to State
practice. In paragraph 145,the Maltese Counter-Mernorial takes pains to
downplay the significanceof the fact that Australia and lndonesia took
account of geomorphologicalfeatures inarriving at their continental shelf

boundary. Malta cites with approval an observationmade byJudge ad hoc
Jiménezde Aréchaga in his Separate Opinion tothe TunisialLibyo Judg-
ment, and States that "the fact that in one case or another States may

decide to fixboundaries oftheir continental shelvesat a trench or depres-
sion may not be interpreted as being significant unless there was a legal
obligation for them toproceed in this wayY".In Libya's view. the same
mus1be, and indeed has been.saidabout the significance of the useof the

equidistance rnethod". Absenta legal obligation forStates to apply equi-
distance (and there is no such obligation), examples of State practice
where equidistance has been employed prove nothing tosupport the Mal-

tese thesis.

4.16 The practice of States in the Mediterranean providesfirst-hand
evidence of the potential dangers in drawing general conclusions from

individual delimitation agreements. The Maltese pleadings have argued
that this practice attests to the "normality and prominenceof the equidis-
tance method'" and "provides significantindicators as to the proper basis
of an equitable solution in the present proceedingçl". Ashas been noted

LibyanCounrrr-Meniorial, paras.5.54-5.60.
Mri/iesr C'r>unier-Mrnir.ara.145.As cxplaincdinBnciwni.ii.1..PrincipoffPsublic
InturnaiicinrLaw. Clurcndon Prcsx.Oxîord. 1979.p. 5. citingBHII~KI.YT.he Law rij
Nurions.6th cd.: "WhiitissoughlTorisü gcncrülrecognitionumongSiatcs of 3 ccriain
practiccasobligiiiory".ThcisnosuchgcncrulrccognitionümongStatesthat applicationor
equidistancc.cvcnas:i"prirnnrydclimitaiionisvicwcdni al1as bcingobligütory.
"Sec. Cor cxarnplc. North Sra Ciintinental Shulf: Judgmeni. I.C.J. Heporrs 1969.
pp. 44-45, para. 78.
'Molfe.frMernorial,para. 198.
'Ibid.,para.200.Scc ulsathc Malre.~eCiiuntur-Menroriapari.302.42 CONTINENTAL SHELF 1401

during the course of these proceedings, ltaly is a party to each of the
delimitation agreements concludedthus far inthe Mediterranean'. Under

the Maltesethesis,one wouldexpect Italy to approach delimitation inthe
Central Mediterranean also on the basis of equidistance. But Italy'sposi-
tion appears to be quite different, as the proceedings devotedto Italy's

Applicationfor Permission to Intervene have broughtout. Indeed, Counsel
for ltaly stressed that, although ltaly had made use of equidistance for
certain parts ofdelimitations to whichit isa party. equidistance "is not an
obligatory method for the delimitation of areas of continental shelfL".

4.17 It appears that Malta. too, may now be corning around to this

view of State practice inasmuch as Counsel for Malta stressed that:

"The considerations which lead to a particular conclusion in one
casedo notnecessarilyleadto the same conclusioninanother, even
in a neighhouring or possiblyoverlapping areaf."

Thus al1that existing delimitation agreements show is that boundaries

based on equidistance have been usedin the past in particular situations
where they wereequitable or regarded as such by the respectiveStates for
reasonsvalid in those situations. These agreements also showthat many
other methods havebeen used as well, each presumably tailored to the

individual situations at hand.

(b) New Interpretations by Matta of Particular
Delimitation Examples

4.18 The selective useofState practice whichappeared in the Maltese
Mernorial hasbeen continued in its Counter-Mernorial where individual
examplesare intraduced iosupportthren eewlinesofargument endorsing

equidistance. First, four casesare cited for the proposition that equidis-
tance - without regard to the requirementof proportionality - had been
used in what Malta terms "comparable geographical circumstances4".

Second, the Maltese Counter-Mernorial introduces a category of exam-
ples involvingwhat it terms "peninsular States" which are apparently
designed to show the rejection of any reliance on the ratio of coastal
lengths in arriving ai boundary linesS.Third, fiveexamples are advanced

'Scc Libyan Counier-Mriiiorial, paras. 5.76-5.87. Sec also thc slatemeni by Profcssor
Virally duririgthc Oral Hciiringson Italy's Applicationfor Peto Interven(CR
8413. 26 Jan. 1984.p. 48)Ii isalsoof inicrcstio noicihat ltaly wasa signU.N.yof
Dac.NG 712.Inîorm:ilSuggcstionRclliiiioParagraphs1.2 and3of Articles74and 84.
ICNT. duringthc Third ConCcrcncon thc Law or ihc Sca.
'Statemcni wadcby ProîcssorVirally duringthcOral Heirings on Iialy's Applicationfor
PcrmissionIO Intcrvcn(CR 8413, 26 Jan. 1984,p. 49. Englishtranslation).
"iatcmcni madcby Mr. Laulcrpÿchtduringthc Oral Hcaringson Iialy's Applicationfor
Permissionio Intcrvcnc,(CR 8416. 30 Jan. 1984. p. 16).
MalrcsrCOunirr-M~.ni(~riI.ari. 253.
' 1bid.paras.255-256. whichare designedto showthat "significantsectors" of a delimitation line
may be generated by one or two control points'.

4.19 As for Malia'sfirst category of State practice. the propositions

for whichthe examplesare advancedare so totally devoidof any reasoned
analysis that it isverydifficultfor Libyato comment. Malta has presented
four maps depicting the following delimitation agreements: Denmark-
Norway; Bahrain-Iran; Norway-United Kingdom; and India-Indonesia.

Also appearing on each of these maps isa second linelabelled "hypotheti-
cal proportionality line".

4.20 11issaid that the "hypothetical" lineshave beenconstructed "on
the basisof proportionalityas propoundedby Ljbya'".But Libya hasnever
advancedproportionalityas a rnethodor lineof delimitation. Ifreference
is made either to the background of thedisputeor to Libya's discussionof

proportionality in these pleadings, it isimpossibleto see how the Libyan
position could possibly forrn the basis upon which Malta has arrived at
these lines. Presumably, they have been drawn on the basis of some pro-
portion calculated by Malta. Presumably also, Malta has ernployed

coastal lengthstoarrive at ils proportions. Butnowhere içirexplained how
this wasdone. 11is not indicated, for example, whichcoasts Malta consid-
ered relevant to any of the delimitations portrayed and what coastal ratios
Malta came up with. It seemslikely.however,that Malta is not taking, as

the basis for its calculations. the coasts that are actually relevant to the
particular area to be delimited. Absent any reasoned analysis to make
these examples intelligible. only brief comments need be made at this
stage.

Denmork (Faroes) - Norway (Map No. 2. p. 1133)

4.21 The use ofthe median line in this situation bears no analogy to
the present case. The relevant Danishand Norweeian coasts involvedare
of aiproximately equal length. The lengthof the b;oundaryisrestricted by

the adjoining U.K.-Norway boundary, so that there isno possibilityof the
"fan-like" spread to the equidistance Iineas in the case of Malta. It should
finallybe noted that the Faroes müy beregarded as "opposite" to only a
very short stretch of Norwegian coast", quite unlike thar of Libya.

'Ma1re.w Cr~untrr-Mi~niorial,paras.214-278.
Ibid.para.253.
'Rcicrcnccsin ihcpircnthcs10thisdclimitationagrccmcnt,asweasiothosethai follow,
arcto thc Molfr.~eCi~nrur-Menioriol.
'See Libyan C'ounirr-MrniorialAnncx OCdclirniiatioagreements,No. 62. And for
dctüilccommcnt on ihis agrccmcni.scc Libyan C'ounter-Mrniorioi. paras. 5.65-5.66. CONTINENTAL SHELF [42]

Bahrain - Iran (Map No. 3. p. 114)

4.22 The same comment maybe made here. Given the broad equality
of the coasts on oppositesides of the Gulf, the rnedian lineis the obvious,
and equitable. solution. The length of lranian coast deerned "opposite" to
Bahrain is in fact very limited.

Norway - United Kingdom (Map No. 4, p. 115)
4.23 The Maltese Counter-Memorial mistakenlyconstrues this exarn-

ple as a delimitation between Norway and the Shetland Islands. In fact,
the delimitation is between Norway and Great Britain sothat the delirni-
tation cannot be interpreted as being solelyone employing a median line
which dividesthe shelvesof Norway and the Shetland Islands per se. The
shelf area attaches Io the British Islesas a whole,and not to theShetland

Islands. Of course. the coasis of Scoilanand northern England are also
relevant to the delimitation and facea length of Norwegian coast which is
comparable.
lndia - Indonesia( Map NO.5. P. 116)

4.24 This is a modified median line between two very short coasts.
includingontheone sidethe Nicobar Islands belongingto India and onthe

other a group of several smaller islands - including Rondo Island -
belongingto Indonesia. This situation is not analogous to that of Libya-
Malta'.

4.25 Thus, not one of these examples is simitar to the situation now
before the Court. ln addition, the construction of "proportionality" lines,
being unsupported by any explanation enabling the examples to be under-
stood, ismeaningless.What Malta has actually demonstrated isan unwill-
ingness toappreciate and grapple with the factual setting of each example

that has been put forward.As in the presentcase, soalso inits hypothetical
constructs, Malta has failed to identify whichcoasts are genuinely rele-
vant to the delimitation.

4.26 In the second category of examples referred to in the Maltese
Counter-Memorial the notion of so-called "peninsular States" is intro-
duced. Five examples are put forward but, here again, it is unclear pre-
ciselywhat these examples are designed to show. Asthe maps themselves
demonstrate, none of these new examples is at al1 comparable to the

Libya-Malta setting. Accordingly. although a brief comment on each
example isofferedbelow. Libyarespectfully refers the Court to the Annex
of delimitation agreements which accompanied Libya'sCounter-Memo-
rial where a f~ller treatment of these examples. together with a map of
each, may be found.

'Sec LibyanCounrer-Meniorial, Anncx of delimitaiion agrecmenis,No. 41. Scc also
Mop 7.facinp.44.bclow. I431 REPLY OF LIBYA 45

Denmark -Norwaj~(Map No. 6, p. 118)

4.27 This is a median line between two broadly equal and similar
coasts': the coasts are initially opposite (in the Skagerrak) and then
assume a lateral relationship (facing the North Sea). The rnedian linein
fact respects the broadly equal ratio of the two coasts.

Iran - Qatar (Map No. 7, p. 119)

4.28 As indicated above. this rnedian line boundary lies between two
broadly equal, and sirnilar. coasts in a very shallow area.
United Kingdom - Denmark (Map No. 8, p. 120)

4.29 This isa veryshort line (only about 1 1nautical mileslong) and is
also restricted by other boundaries running up the North Sea and lying
between broadly equalcoasts'. The Danish coast has to be seen, not in

isolation, but as a sector of the coast which stretches from the Nether-
lands, to the Federal Republic of Gerrnany, to Denmark and to Norway:
and al1of the coasl is opposite the United Kingdom. The North Sea is
typically an area where, save for the special problem of the German
concavecoast. a median linewilleffecta roughly proportionate allocation

of shelfareas in the ratiof coastal lengihs.As such,there is little similar-
ity to the Libya-Malta situation.

Iran - Oman (Map No. 9, p. 121)
4.30 Likethe Bahrain/lran and Qatar/Iran boundaries. thisissimply
one segment of a long. averall boundary between opposite coaçts that are

roughly comparable in Icngth, ifnotentirety equal",in an area where there
is no significanksea-bed relief.
Australia - Papua New Guinea ( Map No. 10, p. 122)

4.31 The comment in the Maltese Counter-Memorial is that "Cape
YorkePeninsula and its off-lyingislands havebeen givennormal weight-

ing". As the map itself shows. the Torres Strait is narrow, and the Cape
Yorke Peninsula is enormous. In essence, the delimitation line falls
between two stretches of coast which are roughly equal in length. Thus. it
is impossible to discern the analogy with the Libya-Matta situation.

4.32 The purpose of the first two categories of State practice referred
to in the Maltese Counter-Mernorial appears to be twofold: first, to
demonstrate the adoption of median line delimitations in State practice,
and, second,to provethe irrelevanceofcoastal configurationsand the ratio

of coastal lengths. What the review actually achieves is precisely the
opposite. It simplydemonstrates the rather obviousfact. noted repeatedly
Libyon Cuunrrr-MunioNal. Anncx or dclimitügrccmcnts. No12.
'Ibid.No 13.
"Ibid.No. 40.46 CONTINENTALSHELF [441

in the Libyan pleüdings. that with broadly equal. opposite coasts, and
absent any other distinct features or circumstances, the median line will
normallyafford an acceptable solution because it will.in practice, effect a
delimitation of shelf areas in proportion to the length of the relevant

coasts. The problem in the present case arises for two reasons which are
peculiar to thiscase and which have no counierpart in the examples used
by Malta. The Firstreason isthe existence of a fundarnental discontinuity
between the twoshelf areas - the Rift Zone - and the second reasonis
the glaring disparity in the coastal lengths of Libya and Malta. ln other

words,the essential justification forthe median linesolutionin the illustra-
tions of State practice used by Malta is not present in the Libya-Malta
situation: there is sirnply no analogy.

4.33 As noted above,there isa rhirduse io whichState practice is put
in the Maltese Counter-Mernorial'.This isto showthat a limited number
of basepoints can "generate" a long segment of a delimitation line and,

thus.a large area ofshelf. Fiveexamplesare given;yet, asa closeexamina-
lion of them reveals, theydo not offer any similarities to the present case.
In the analysis of these boundaries Malta confuses the basepoints which
are used for the construction of a line (such as an equidistance line) with
the relevant coasts from which the land territory extends into and under

the sea. and which generate the coastal State's entitlement to continental
shelf.

4.34 The first example - the delimitation between Norway and the
United Kingdom - illustrates howthe tipof the Shetland Islands controls
the construction of the northern portion of the line. It fails to indicate.
however,which points were innuential on the Norwegian coast. Malta has
sirnplydecidednot to draw in the corresponding lines. Libya suspectsthat

perhaps only one point on Norway's coast would have controlled the
northern sector of ihe line, too. Al1this shows. therefore, is that single
pointson each side acted as basepoints forthe construction of the bound-
ary. This does not mean, however.that there wasa disproportion between
the lengths of the relevant coasts involvedas there is in the present case

between the length of relevant Libyan coastand that of Malta.
4.35 The maps showing control points for the Bahrain-Iran. Den-

mark-United Kingdorn and India-lndonesia agreements are equally
meaningless.In the firsttwocases. again, a single pointcontrols the lineon
each coast.Thisonlyillustrates howa limited stretch ofcoastofeach State
can properly be identified as being pertinent to the delimitation. The
significantfact isthat the coasts involvedwere roughlyequal in length and

there were nofundamental discontinuities betweenclearly distinguishable
shelf areas on each side. As for the example of the delimitation between
'Sec MalteseC'uirnrrr-Meriiorparas 275-278 and thcmaps on pp. 135-139,therein. [451 REPLY OF LIBYA 47

lndia and Indonesia, the Maltese map demonstrates that the coastal
lengths or coastal frontson the Nicobar Islands,on the one hand, and on
Indonesia (or between the two small islands lyingjust offshore), on the
other, were approximately equal. Map 7 illustrates this example and
shows the rnanner in which the examples chosen by Malta bear little

similarity to the Libya-Malta situation. Absent any other compelling
circumstancesin the India-lndonesia example,onewouldexpectan equi-
distance line to be drawn between such comparable coasts.

4.36 All the examples illustrate the same fundamental error. The
error liesin assumingthat it isthe basepointsas such which "generate"a
shelf area. The truth is that the shelf is a prolongation or extension from

the coastofthe landmassor land territory (not ofoneor morebasepoints)
into and under thesea, and the area of shelfattaching to a coastalState is
an extensionof the landmassof that State, normally measuredand repre-
sented by its coastallength. What determines theappropriate method of
delimitation is the relationshipof the two landmasses andthe twocoasts,
viewedinthecontext ofal1the relevantcircumstances.It maywellbethat

the relationshipissuch that the appropriate methodis notequidistance -
as inthe situationsbeforethe Court inits 1969and 1982Judgments - in
which case the basepoints becometotally irrelevant, since application of
the appropriate method willnot depend upon them. Evenwhere equidis-
tance, inoneformor another,strictor rnodified,isan appropriate method,
the shelfarea is"generated" bythe respectivelandmasses and coasts,and

howmany basepointsare usedto construct the boundary line which prop-
erly reflectsthe relationship betweenthe IWO coasts isoften purely fortui-
tous,dependingon the configurationof the coasts in question.The sectorç
actually shown by Malta show the use of fwo (Norway/U.K.), one
(Bahrain/iran), one (U.K./Denmark), five (Spain/ltaly)' and five
( India/lndonesia) basepoints.Butwhatdoesthisprove? Itprovesnothing

more than, given that the relationship of the two landmasses and the
relevant lengthsof the two coasts justified the use of the equidistance
method,the particular delimitation line was arrivedat bythe use ofone or
more basepoints on each side, Yetto assert that it is the basepointswhich
"generate" the shelf,and that somehowequidistancecan alone reflectthe
relevant coasts, is simply incorrect.

4.37 In summary, what is significantabout the Maltese use of State
practiceisitsinabilitytofind anyexamplereallycomparableto the Libya-
Malta setting. This emphasises the importance of the point made by
Libya, namely,that the appropriateness of any method of delimitation
dependsonthe particular facts ofeach case andthat there isnobasis fora
clairn that any method hasa privileged, letalone obligatory, character.

' Foutbastpoinion Minorca;fivon Sardinia. CONTINENTAL SHELF 1461

2. OtherConsiderationsAdvancedby Malta

4.38 The remaining arguments raised by Malta to support equidis-

tance as a legal principle center around four main contentions alseady
discussed in considerable detail in the the Maltese Memorial: (i) the
alleged "general toleration" of the equidistance method by the interna-
tional community: (ii) the need for finality and stability in the use of

delimitation methods; (iii) the alleged support for Malta's position in the
jurisprudence; and (iv) the principle of the equality of States. Since the
Maltese Counter-Memorial has only mentioned these aspects in most
sumrnary fashion without adding any substantive argument, comment

here can be brief'.

4.39 in Chapter IX of its Counter-Memorial, Malta relies on the so-
called "general toleration" of the international community in support of
the assertion that equidistance is the equitable solution, sanctioned by
State practice and "analogous consideraîions", referring to the Anglo-

Norwegian Fisheries case where the Court had used this argument with
respect to the Norwegian straight baselines system? Apart from the fact
that there is not the slightest evidence of such a "general toleration" or
acquiescence in Malta's claim for equidistance boundaries around its

Coast,the best evidenceagainst such a "general toleration" can befound in
the proceedingsof the hir rcdonference on the Lawof the Sea. As pointed
out in detail in the Libyan Counter-Mernorial", the proceedings of this
Conference and the final versionof Article 83 of the 1982Convention on

the Law of the Sea demonstrated the absence of any consensus on the
acceptance or "toleration" of equidistance as the primary or preferred
method forcontinental shelf delimitation. Itisa travesty of the history of

the Conference, and a misrepresentation of the general opinion of the
international community, to pretend that there exists general support
amongst States for the idea that equidistance has a special, preferred
status and is accepted as being generally synonymous with an equitable

result4.
4.40 Malta then argues that becausequite a number ofexistingdelirn-

itation agreements - someof them allegedly in situations "comparable to
that of Malta and Libya" - have made use of the equidistance rnethod, it
wouldcreate an "atmasphere of uncertainty" ifthe Court wereto sanction

'See.for examplc, ChripiIX oCthcMaltrsr Counfer-MernorialFor adeiailed rebuttal or
these contentions initially iniroducthc Malirsr Memorial.scc gcnerally thLibyon
Counter-Muniorial,Chiiptcrs3,4 (B) and 5.
'The citalion to Angln-Norwegiunfisherius cise in support of ihis propoaitp. 146
of theMalre,~Counier-Murnoriali,olTcrcdwithout îurther cxplanation. and wiselysasince
it had absoluicly noihing to do with continental shclfdelimitaiion ostatusafthe
equidistance mcihod.
LibyanCounirr-Mrn~orial. paras.5.29-5.33.
'See LibyanMemorial, Chaptcr7. and LibyonC'ounter-Mernorial,hapler 5.id71 REPLY OF LIBYA 49

a different methodinthiscase'.This argument alsomeritsonlythe briefest
response. Firsr,Malta has been unable to discloseany existing delimita-
tions whichare in situations truly comparable to that of Libyaand Malta.
Second, the wholetrend of the Court's Judgments in 1969and 1982.and

the Court of Arbitration's Award in 1977,has been to stress the specific
characteristics of each particular situation, and to base the appropriate-
ness of a method of delimitation on those specific characteristics. And.
third, there is no evidence that States rely on the expectation that the

Court would, in principle, endorse the equidistance method as the pre-
ferred method mostlikely to yield an equitable result. Indeed. given the
widespread oppositiontoevenmentioningequidistancein Article 83ofthe

1982Convention,it is inconceivablethat States would haveagreed to the
final wording ofthat Article had they expected the Court to endorse the
general applicability of the equidistance method.

4.41 Itremains part of the Maltese legal argument that the jurispru-

dence in rnatters of continental shelf delimitation, namely the two Judg-
ments of the Court in 1969 and 1982, and the Award of the Court of
Arbitration in 1977, does not controvert Malta's thesis of the preferred

status of equidistance as the most appropriate rnethod apt to produce an
equitable result'. Clearly. Libya does not share this view ofthe import of
thosedecisions".In neither of its Judgments did this Court adopt equidis-
tance, and it expressly deniedto cquidistance any obligatory or preferred

statusas a method which has to be tried as a "first step" in delimitation'.

4.42 It is, of course, true thaî in the AngleFrench Arbitration the
Court of Arbitration adopted forparts of the boundary a method basedon
equidistance. However, in that case both States were parties to the 1958

Convention" and their mainland coasts were broadly equal in length with
no fundamental discontinuities of the sea-bed or subsoil lying betweenfi.
Moreover, in relation to the two groups of islands which created the real
difiicultiesin the delimitation - the Channel Islands and the Scilly lsles

- the Court of Arbitration used a 12-mile enclaveand "half-effect". So
even this decision lends no support io the Maltese thesis,

'Molrrsv CI>unlrr-Mi~niorial, paras.299-300.
Ihid..paris. b4-171.
.Forihc Libyiinanalysixoîthoscdccisiosccthc1,ibyonMrniorial. paras.6.11.6.20.6.23,
6.56-6.59 and thc Lihr.riii C'oirtrfi~r-Ml*~rtoriapl.iiras.5.03-5.09.
'SccNorrh Sr~aCi)nrin~irfalShrlj; Judgr~t1.ï.J. Hrporr1969.pp.35-36.parüs. 55-56;
C'onrinrniaShrlJ'(Tirtri.ria/LihjAruh Jarriahirij,a). JudgnirI.C.J.Reporrs 1982.
pp. 78-79. parus.109-110.
"Although. ii musi bc addcd.ihc Court roundihiiby rcisonof ihc Frenchreservation,
Ariicic 6 did not :ipplyto ihc ChnnnclIslandsscctor.
'Thc Couri orArbiiraiion wcntou1of itswnyiosircssihcovcrallcqualityof ihc mainland
Frcnchand Briiishcolisrs,mcniioni\biscqualiiynolcs\hanfour timcsin ihespaceofsix
paragrnphsin ils Awürd: Angl(rFr~nrh Arhirrorion. Beci.cofn30 Jonc 1977 (Cmnd.
7438). pp. 93-95, paras. 196-201.50 CONTINENTAL SHELF [481

4.43 The Maltese Counter-Memorial in fact concedes that "at first
sight" the reasoning of the 1982Judgment appears contrary to Malta's
thesis'.But then t al ta attempts to diitinguish the 1982Judgrnent on two
grounds. The first is that the court was no1dealing with opposite coasts.

Yet the Court noted expressly that. in the second sector, the relationship
between the Tunisian and Libyan coasts was largely transformed "from
that of adjacent States to tharof oppositeStates"". The second is that the
Court's Judgment wasspecificto the facts of that case. But of course! It is

precisely Libya's position that the rnethod which is appropriate must be
determined on the facts of each case, and it isMalta which seeksto confer
on equidistance some general. abstract virtue as a method appropriate in
al1 cases of opposite coasts. Thus. neither of the alleged grounds for

distinction in fact serves to support Malta's atternpt to construe the 1982
Judgment as a decision in favour of Malta's thesis.

4.44 The Maltese Counter-Memorial also seeksto prove,by reference
to the 1982Judgment", that in practice Courts do use equidistance as a

starting-point, whatever they mightSay.The argument is that otherwise
the Courts could not decide whether or not equidistance produced an
inequitable resuli without first trying that method. But this is pure specu-

lation and does not address the real issue. In any event, a Court's prelimi-
nary essay,perhaps involvinga wholeseries of possiblemethods, does not
involvegivingto any one of those methods a preferred or specialstatus. As
the Court has said, it isthe coasts that providethe starting point', not the

method, sothat whichever method isused in the initial, tentative essay by
a Court, it is still the result of the Court's evaluation of the coasts and
other relevant factors. and not the result of that method having some
cpecial status.

4.45 In the light of these contentions, it comes as something of a
surprise to find the Maltese Counter-Mernorial conceding that there has
been a "toning down of equidistance" over the past 15 years" Malta
argues that this "toning down of equidistance" does not mean that use of

the equidistance method always produces an inequitable result. Of course
this is true, and Libya is well aware that in certain circumstances an
equitable solution can be achieved by use of either strict or modified
equidistance just as under other circumstances different methods are

'Malresr Counter-Meniorial,pÿra.170.
*ConrinenfalShelj (Tunisia/LibyanArab Jamahiriya). Judgm~nt.I.C.J. Reports1982.
p.88. para. 126.Inaddition,müy bc notcdthaltheCourt lookaccountof bothlengthsof
Tunisia'scoast for purposor applyingthc proportionalitest.
"Molt~seCovnte~-Meniorial .ara.170.Itmay benotedthai thereferencesreallyreliedon
by Maltain pari. 171 arcto scpiratc or disscntingopinions.
'ContinentalSheif (Tunisia/LihyanArab JamahiriynJ .Judgmeni.I.C.J. Reports 1982.
p. 61.para.74.
"Mufre.reCounfrr-rCit.nrrirparas.163-164.i491 REPLY OF LlBYA 51

called for. But this hardly supports the Maltese contention that equidis-
tance must be used as a first step - asa kind of "primary delimitation"
which is presumed to be equitable until proven otherwise. The jurispru-

dence uponwhich Malta has sought to rely suggests preciselythe opposite
approach whereby no single method may be said to possess an a priori
validity. Asthe Maltese Counter-Memorial adrnits, "equidistance cannot
always be regarded as equitable'".

4.46 The final argument 10 which Malta has resorted rests upon the
principleof the equality of States. The Maltese Counter-Memorial spared
noeffort inpressingitsclairnson this point, going sofar asto accuse Libya

of misunderstanding "the fundamental principle of the sovereignequality
of States2".
4.47 Libya'sviewson the principleofequality of States and the appli-

cability of this principle to rnatters of continental shelf delimitation were
fullydiscussedinthe Libyan Counter-Memoriai and need not beamplified
heref However,it rnaybe pertinent to recall that the issueof the equality
of States was raised by one of the parties to a previous case involving

continental shelf delimitation - the Anglo-French Arbitrarion. As a
result, the Court of Arbitration had occasion tocomment on this principle
and its relation toquestions of delimitation. In language which is crystal
clear in its import and which disposes of the Maltese contention, that
Court stated:

"In the opinion of the Court, the doctrine of the equality of
States ... cannol be considered as constituting such an equitable

ground.The doctrine of the equality of States, applied generally to
the delimitation of the continental shelf, would have vast implica-
tions for the division of the continental shelf among the States of
the world. implications which have been rejected by a majority of
States and which would involve,on a huge scale, that refashioning

ofgeography repudiated in the North Sea CoritinerifalShelfcases.
Any ground of equity, the Court considers, is rather to be looked
for in the particular circun~stancesof the present case and in the
particular equality of the twoStates in their geographical relation
to the continental shelf of the Channel'."

4.48 The conclusionthat may hedrawn froman examination ofal1the
legal grounds which Malta puts forward to support its daim forequidis-

tance as the method requiredby law isthat this claim iswithout substance.
Neither State practice, nor the record of the Third Conference on the Law
'Malrrsr Counter-M~nioria/. para. 164.
Ibid.. para. By.allcgcdlydisregardingihisprinciplc,Libyaisalsosaidio berefashianing
geography;ibid.. para. 328.
:LibyanCorinter-Mrnioriolparas.4.02-4.08.
'Anglo-French Arbitraiion. Deci.rioJtIJunr 1977 (Cmnd. 7438). p. 93, para. 195.52 CONTINENTAL SHELF [501

of the Sea, nor the judicial precedents. nor the concepts of "finality" and
"general toleration", nor the principle of equality of States afïord any
support for the Maltese thesis. It inecessary,therefore, tuturn to Malta's

use of the "facts" of the present case in order to show that they do not give
any support to Malta's thesis either.
B. The MalteseArgumentto Justify Equidistanc Beased

uponConsideration s laimed to be Relevant
4.49 Chapter X of the Maltese Counter-Mernorial begins with the

proposition that the coasts of the Parties indicate the "primary delimita-
tion" (which in Malta's view is equidistance), and that the equity of this
primary delimitation must then be tested in the light of.other relevant
factors'. These appear to be six in number. namely:

(i) Malta's special dependence upon sea-bed energy resources;
(ii) Maltais requirements as a developing country;
(iii) Malta's considerations of national security;
Malta's range of fishing activity;
(iv)
(Y) the conduct of the parties; and
(vi) the constriction ofMalta's continental shelf by the presence
of third States in the region.

4.50 It has to be said that, in autlining these factors, the Maltese
Counter-Mernorial contains nothing new as to the facts. and simply

repeats arguments already made in the Mallese Mernorial. These have
already been dealt with in the Libyan Counter-Memorialyand, in the
case of Malta's claims relating to the conduct of the Parties, in Chapter 2
above). It is only necessary. hete. to emphasise three points. TheBrst is
that Malta treats as "relevant" factors those very economic and political

factors which Courts have already rejected as being irrelevant and extra-
neous to shelf delimitation''. The second is that these alleged factors still
lack real substarice. For exarnple. we are still not told what the security
considerations are which concern Malta (except in the rnost general sense
that al1States are said to be concerned tocontrol activitiesimmediately off

tbeircoasts'). Nor are wegiven any moreevidenceabout Malta's alleged
fishingactivities in the areandispute. And the reference to delimitations
vis-à-vis third States remains one of extreme vagueness" Yet it is the
third point which needs most emphasis, for it remains the case that
nowhere does Malta explain why any of these factors point to. or relate [O,

'Mallust. COurirer-Mrf?iorial. paras. 303-306.
Libyon C'ounrrr-Mrtitoriol, Chapicr 3 (paris. 3.02-3.46)theeconomic,iishing.
security and othcr political arguments üdvanccdby Mülta: Chapicr I dcals wiih ihc conduci
OCihe Parties:and Chapicr 2. A. 4 (piras. 2.18-2.28) wiih thcofrihird Slates.
Libyon Counier-Mei?iciriol. para. 3.02.
Maliesr Cùunrrr-Muniorial. para. 314.
Ibid.parüs. 317-318. 1511 REPLY OF LIBYA 53

an equidistance line as the method which would reflect the balancing of
these factors and would lead to an equitable result. Why do economicsor
fishingpracticesor the presence ofthird States pointtoequidistance inthis
case? Why not an enclave of 25 miles to bc consistent with Malta's 25-

mile fishing zone? Or 24 miles to be consistent with Malta's contiguous
zone, or even lessto be consistent with Malta's viewas to howthe ltalian
Pelagian Islands should be treated?

4.51 It might have been thought that answers to thesequestionswould
be found in the followingChapter XI of the Maltese Counter-Memorial,
which sets out the significance of the legal framework of this particular
delimitation, but that isnot so. Al1Chapter XI does is to restate, in the

most abstract terms, the four "significant" principles of non-encroach-
ment, equitable considerations',"distance", andequality of States. Soone
is no nearer to understanding what exactly are these relevant factors that
confirm the equitable nature of the equidistance line in this particular

case.Theywouldappear to be a matter of mere assumption rather than of
factual demonstration or logical argument. Not surprisingly. therefore,
exactly the samedificulty is faced in atternpting to discern the elementsof
the new "flexibility" hinted at in the Maltese Counter-Mernorial.

C. Hints of "Flexibility"inMalta'sApproach to Equidistance

4.52 It is notentirely clear whether, according to Malta, consistencyz

or flexibility3is the more virtuous. Be that as it may. certainlyone notable
feature of the Maltese Counter-Mernorial is its recognition that equidis-
tance rnay not be the appropriate boundary in the present case. Indeed,
Malta admits to the "toning down of equidistance'" and to the fact that

equidistance daes not always produce an equitable solution. In the words
of the Maltese Counler-Memorial-

" . . .in order to avoid al1 misunderstanding, Malta considers it
necessary to state that in adopting this equidistance line as the
starting point of the delimitation process. it does not intend in any
way to suggest that the equidistance line must necessarily be - in

some inhereni way - the appropriate boundaty in every case, or
even in the presenr ~as8."
'Thesc.lisicdai para330(j).arcinlargcparta rcpctitionthc considcraiiaalreadyset
oui in ChaptcrX.
:$ce thcMaltesc tribuic tu thc consisicof its position.and its criticismoallcgcd
changein the Libyünposition,in thc Ma/re.ïe COunrer-Menioriul.Chaprerparas.761-
269.
Mallese Cuunter-Menturial.par;is.163165.
'lbid..para. 163.
'Ibid..(italicsadded).54 CONTINENTALSHELF Lw

The idea now being put forwardseems to be that the geographical rela-

tionship between the two coasts dictates a primary delimitation'; that, in
the case of opposite coasts (or States), this is the median line which is
prima facie equitable';and that this line may beadjusted inthe light ofal1
the relevant circurnstances'. This adjusted line would presumably give
the secondary (and final) delimitation, being the line which reflected al1

the relevant circumstances.

4.53 The idea of a primary and secondary delimitation is clearly not
the same as that used by the Court of Arbitration in the Anglo-French
Arbitrarionof 1977: Therethe Court had drawn a median lineboundary

betweenthe two, broadly equal mainland coasts as a first stage and then
turned to the particular problemof the Channel Islands as a secondstage
in devisingan equitable solution for those islands by a second, separate
boundary: in the event, a twelve-mile enclave. But here the Maltese

Memorial saysexpressly-

" .. . the processof delimitation does not involvetwo successive
stages any more than the application of equity, inother spheres of
international law, involvesthe successiveapplication of a general
rule followedby the application of a particular rule which dero-

gates from it. Equity consists not in that, but in a reasonable
application, taking into consideration al1the circumstances of the
case, of the general rule'."

4.54 So, if the delimitation process is not to be separated into two
stages, of what does the "primary" delimitation consist? It is not possible
to discern the answer to this question with any clarity from the Maltese
pleadings. Itwouldseem that Malta still has in mind a median linewhich

is legallypresunied,prima facie. to be equitable. Although Malta claims
to be willingto test that presumption by reference to the relevant factors,
this nevermaterialises.Theoretically accordingtothe Maltese framework,
that "testing process"couldleadeither toconfirmingthe lineas an equita-
&leresult, or modifyingit to conform to an equitable result. But in either

case, evidently, the median line has a preferred or privileged status
because of the presumption. However,as Libya has shown" neither this
proposition, nor the Maltese approach which relegates the role of the
relevant circumstances to one of secondary importance, is consistent with

the law.
'Molfrse Counier-Mrnioriaparas. 162-163. But note iWClarestilno1told precisely
whichare the two rclevani,opposcoasls.
'Ibid.. par166.
"Anglo-Fwnch Arbitrarion. Decisionof 30 June 1(Cmnd. 7438). paras.201 R.
'Maite-sr Courrrer-Mrnioria/, 176 (italidcceted).
Qibyari Counter-MenrurialChapier 6. SccalsoChapicr3,SectionB. above.[531 REPLY OF LlBYA 55

4.55 ln the present case, it is Malta's view that the relevant circum-
stancesconfirmtheequitableness ofthe median line. However,as shownin
Section B above, there is no meansof knowingwhy this may be so, since

Malta has failed to explain why or how the circumstances alleged by
Malta to be "relevant" support that specific line of delimitation.

4.56 It necessarily followsthat the flexibility hiatin the Maltese
Counter-Mernorial does noi reallymaierialise. Iiremains, for Malta, a
purely theoretical idea precisely because Malta proceedson thbasisof a
presumption of the equitablenessof the median lineand totally failsat any
stageto test that presurnption by reference tothe actual, relevant fofts

this particular delimitation or by reference 10 the criterion of
proportionality. CHAPTER 5

lSSUES RECARDINCTHE PHYSICAL FACTORSAND

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE'

5.0 I
On the geographical plane, the Maltese Counter-Mernorial has
added little to the treatrnent accorded geography in the Maltese Memo-
rial. Nor has it called into question the geographical facts set forth by
Libyain itsMernorial. The principal new material in Malta's Counter-

Mernorial relates to geomorphologyand geology. Here too. however,the
Maltese Counter-Mernorial and accompanying technical annexes have
not seriouslydisputed the geornorphologicaland geologicalfactsadduced
by Libya'. This should come as no surprise, for the scientific facts are

straightforward and arc based on objective.readily observable dataa.

5.02 Yetthe Maltesc Countcr-Mernorialhas soughi locreale a rather
different impression. To this end, it has resorted to the technique, noted
earlier. of misstating Libya'spositionas ta thefacts both inthiscase and in

the previouscase between Libyaand Tunisia. It has also tried to demon-
strate inconsistenciesin Libya'sprescntation, divisionamongst the scien-
tists, and even a certain liberty on the part of Libya in dealing with the
facts. These techniques seem aimed at giving the misleading impression

that there is significant disagreement between the scientists advising the
two Parties and even amongst ihose advising Libyal; hat the Libyan case
includes distortions or the evidcncc; and that the scientific facts are too
complex or ambiguous to be of value to the present case.

5.03 Such an outcorne would probably be welcomed by the other

Party. which lavours a solution couched in abstraction and bolstered by
tenuous analogies with other delimitations. Libya regards the facts of the
particular case to be a critical element in the resolution of the disputeand

believes thal they are sufficiently unambiguous to enable them to be
balanced upsoas to achievean equitabledelimitation. Indeed, the Memo-
rials and Counter-Mernorialsalready belore the Court show that by and
large the scientists on both sides have come to the same general

conclusions.
'SecLibyanCountrr-Mrniorialfn.2aip.23,whcrcihc rcrm"physical factors*isdeIOned
includc fcaruror agcogr:iphical.gcomorphologicaland geologicalcharacicr.
*Therearc, howcvcr.ccrtiiincrrorsoifücisand difïcrenccsof inicrpretabedealtt will
wiihfurihcr oin ihis Chaptcr.
aII isofinicrcstto noicthai during ihcOral Hcaringson lialy'sApplicationTorPermission
to Intcrvcnc. Iialy's dcscrip~ionof physical faciorsIOihc prcseni case closcly
approximaicd thai givby Libyu.(CR 84/1.23 Jan. 1984.pp. 37-39). 1551 REPLY OF LIBYA 57

A. GeograpbicafFacts

5.04 Malta's neglect of coastal details was brought out in Libya's
Counter-Mernorial; it wascontrasted with the detailed treatment givenby
Libyato the coastal geography of both Libya and Malta'. The entire first

Chapter of Malta's Counter-Memorial isa transparent deformation of the
geographical facts put forward by Libya, making any detailed refutation
ofthe many exaggerations (such as Malta being representedas "not really

an island" or, if so, as a one-sided. or a "kind of unilateral island") seem
hardly necessary at this stage. However, when the Maltese Counter-
~emorial asserts in paragraph 10that Libya regards the coasts of Malta

to be "insignificant", it entirely rnissesthe point. The lengths of the coasts
of the Maltese Islands as well as those of Libya, the directions in which
they face,their configurations, and their relatianships toeach other and to

the-areas of continental shelf 10 be delimited areail geographical factors
that have major significance in the present case.~heie involvernattcrç of
fact rather than of opinion. They must be examined as they actually are
and not on the abstrait, hypothetical planeupon whichthe analysis inthe

Maltese pleadings restç.

5.05 Given the extensivedescription of the coasts of the Parties in the
Libyan Memorial, some factual discussion of the coasts rnight have been

anticipated in the Maltese Counter-Memorial. There is virtually none -
merely a series of broad assertions (strongly reminiscent of the Maltese
Memorial) together with the same lip-servicegiven to the importance of
geography as a factor in delimiiation. To Libya'sdetailed description of

the coasts of the Parties is opposedthe asseriion by Malta that they are
"facing coasts";to Libya'sanalysis of the "relevant coasts" and the "rele-
vant area" isopposeda geometrical construct - the trapeziurn. It isas if

Malta could not deal with the actual facts of the case and has been
compelled to invent a geographical case divorced from these facts and
built instead around abstractions and hypotheses'. Yet,insodoing, Malta

has not put inkodispute the actual facts set Forthand illustrated inLibya's
pleadings'.
'Libyon Counfer-Mrnlcirial. paras.2.30-2.35;2.43-2.44. 11is. thus. remarkable to find the

iitlol thc initial Chapicr oî ihc Maltrsr Corrnftr-Meniarial to read: "The SOCthence
Libyan Case:Malta Disrcgardcd".SCC para.3,above.of the Introduction to this Reptyand
in. 2 atp. 2.
'Similarly, Malia's constant rcsort to cxamplcstaken from State practice differcnt
geographical scttings isan aticmpi to cscapcfrom thc gcographical realities of the present
case.
:Thc Libyan C'ounrrr-Mrniorial addedsomccommcntary on thc Maltese baselinesthat had
made their hrst ollicial appcarancc (to the knowledgc of Libya) in the Malrese Memorial.
and any remarks or Malta rcgarding thcsc baselinespresumably wilt appear in its Keply.
However. ilmay bc notcd that the Maltcsc basclincsdemonstrhow litiof Malta's very
short lengthsoîcwast. kingasthcy do the coastsof third States.bearegardedasfacing
the coaslsor Libya.58 CONTINENTAL ÇHELF [561

5.06 The Maltese Counter-Memorial has made it increasinglyclear
that not onlydoes Malta regard the factor of coastal lengthsas irrelevant
to delimitation,but alsothat the onlygeographicalfactors that it regards
asrelevantare the "oppositeness"ofthe coastsof Malta and Libyaand the

"considerabledistance" separating thern'. Totheseisadded the "absence
of intervening islandsor other unusual features".The relationshipof the
coastlinesof Libya andMalta isdescribedas "remarkable onlyintermsof
its normality'".

5.07 From these conclusionsof "fact", Malta asserts that, since the
"primary elements in the geographical facts are uncornplicated", each
"pertinent coastshould be givenits appropriate legal significanceon the

basis of the distance principle and the use of controlling basepointsa".
Stated in difierent words, Malta asserts (after suggestingthat the Libyan
Memorial showsa certain "obsession" with the length of the Libyan
coastline) that the "location andrelation of coastlinesare the over-riding
factorsand the dominant geographicalfeatures inconsequenceis [sic] the

positionof Malta al a distance from the Libyan coast and the absenceof
any intervening islandsor other unusual features'."

5.08 It isimpossible toaccepttheseassertionsasconstituting aserious
treatment of the geography that characterises the present case. Which
coastsof Malta and Libyaare "opposite"toeach other and relevant tothe
delimitation? What is the "appropriate legal significance"which Malta
contends each stretch of coast should receive? What is the factor of

distance between the coasts of the Parties that is said ta be of such
significance andhowisit significant - and between whichcoasts? Com-
pared to other situations around theworld, what is "normal" about the
relationship betweenthe coastlinesof Libya and Malta, a relationshipnot
inany waydescribedother than tostate that certain unspecifiedcoastlines

are said to bear an oppositerelationshipto each other? An islandnecessa-
rily hasan oppositerelationshipto surroundingcoastal States. But notal1
ofitscoastsare opposite toal1 ofthe coastsofthesesurroundingStatesany
morethan Valletta can be said to lieoppositeto Tripoli, and notal1of its
coastsare necessarily relevant toa particular delimitationwithany oneof

these neighbouringStates.
5.09 As was pointed outin the Libyan Memorial",the preliminary

question to be answered regarding the coastsof the Parties is what rela-
tionship.if any, particular portionsof the coast of each Party have with
each other and with the area of continental shelf to be delimited. This

'Sce,e.g..theMalreseCounrer-Mernorial,para. 270
'1bid. Sec alsopara.3.20above.
'Ibid., para274.Mrmorial, pan. 270.
'LibyanMemorial. para. 10.08.1571 REPLY OF LlBYA 59

question cannot be ançwered in abstract terms. It has significance onlyin
the conlexi of the aciual delimitation of maritime areas lying between the

twoStates and bearing inmindthe presenceof third States and third State
delimitations. Italy's Application for Permission to Intervenein the pres-
ent case and the resulting Judgment of the Court in the matter brought
this point home veryclearly. However,this essential questiongoes unan-

swered by Malta which seeks refuge in "oppositeness" as a general,
abstract concept and in basepoints which cannot be said to "face" in any
direction'.

5.10 Libya believes that a reasonably precisedetermination of these
relationships isessential and that this requirement does not vanish merely

because an island is involved, the coasts of which necessarily bear a
relationship with the coasts of other States surrounding this island. The
special geographical position of Malta is that of a group of small islands
almost surrounded by continental States in a constricted sea. Only a part

of the coasts of the various Maltese Islands can count in respect to conti-
nental shelfdelimitation witheach surrounding State. The fact that Malta
isa group of srnallislands necessarily leadsto another result that seernsto
have eluded Malta - it is bound ultirnately to be enclaved. whatever
meansofdelimitation are agreed between Malta and ils neighbours". I t is

tempting, therefore, byway ofrejoinder tosuggest that it isMalta whichis
ignoring itself in the present case.

5.11 The "relritionship/disiance" iheme reappears in paragraph 245
of the Maltese Counter-Mernorial where diagrams are used (Figures 5
and 6 at pages 109 ta 110) in attempted explanation. What these dia-

grams (Diagrams A and B) show, taken on the basis of Malta's own
explariationsand as conceded by paragraph 245 itself, is that the distance
between the coasts (the factor h) is not an element inthe result. So injust
whai way distance is regarded by Malta asa major geographical factor in

the present case is left quite unclear. By contrast. it wasshown in para-
graph 7.26 of the Libyan Counter-Mernorial that increasing the distance
between coasts of unequal lengths hasthe effect of distorting the coastal
relationships in the context of continental shelf delimitation by allocating
to the State with the shorter Coasta disproportionate. and henceinequita-

ble, area of continental shelf. The Maltese pleadings fail to recognise or
explain this fact, which is the true meaning of distance as a relevant

'Malia's failurctodcalscriouslywithcithcritscolistsoOCLibylihardlycomporiswith
ContinenfalSheîf (Tuni.iio/Lihyan Arah Jantahir.aJudgntenf.I.C.J.Heport.1982,mcni.
p. 61. para. 73.
In asense.howcvcr,an islündcnjoysa certain gcographicalndvaniagsincc.unlikc a
mainlandSiatc. it mayclüim maritimc righisalt around itsicrriiory. 60 CONTINENTAL SHELF 1581

circumstance in the present case and, thus, constitutes a major issue

between the Parties1.

5.12 With regard to the factor of size, Malta is understandably sensi-
tive. Ifgeography is not to be refashioned, however,the site of Mafta and
thesize of Libyaarc undeniable facts relevant to the question ofdelimita-
tion. Apparently, Malta does not grant any relevance to the factor of size

whether in terms of coastal lengths or size of land territory or landmass.
@ Map 18 facing page 166 of the Libyan Counter-Memorial (which has
been reproduced as Map 8, facing this page) demonstrates howunrealistic

isthe basisof Malia'sclaim. Far thedotted portion of this Map represents
what Malta regards as the area of natural prolongation of the land terri-
tory of Malia that overlaps the area of natural prolongation of the land

territory of Libya. It will be seen that Malta regards the two natural
prolongations as identical. But the coasts of Malta from which the lines
project do not even face Libya, and the only Maltese coaslal segment
facingsouiheast toward the vast area of the lonian Sea -Sirt Rise encom-

passed within the Maltese trapezium figure is a mere 5.4 kilometres in
length. Can these areas really be said to constitute as lo Malta "a prolon-
gation or continuation of that territory, an extension of it under the sea",

to use the words of the Court in ils 1969 Judgment'? The contention
expressed by'the trapezium is totally incongruous - il defies comrnon
sense - and itdoessobecauseof the verysmallsizeof Malta compared to
that of Libya. It surely would be - to borrow the phrase used in the

Maltese Mernorial - a "massiveencroachment" on the natural prolonga-
tion of Libya seaward from its coast facing northward toward the lonian
Sea to grant this contention of Malta expressed by the trapezium figure.

5.13 As to Malta's reliance on basepoints rather than coastlines,

Malta does not identify the basepoints upon which it relies. Quite aside
frorn this oversight, itremains for Malta to demonstrate how basepoints
reflect the coastal relationships of Libya and Malta and how, in them-
selves, they "generate" continental shelf rights" Basepoints cannot be

relied on to escape from an exornination of actual coasts and coaslal
relaiionships. Natural prolongaiion of the land territory or landmass of a
Siate starts from the coastline. In this respect. baselines orcoastal fronts

ThcCouri hüi rccrignisth;ii ihcgrcathcdisianccrromihccoastsoTaStaic thegreaier
isihclikclih ih:dcquidisi;inciinIcüdIOünincquirablcrcsuli.Sch'urihSeoConlinen-
ta/SheiJJird~tii~trrI..C',J. Hi,por/.p.37. para. 59. This obscrvaiion.madeby the
Couri in ihc conicxiul iidj:iccniço:ists.wouldnt>iu/oti.~ ntutanin a situaiionaT
opposiicrclüiionhhipbciwccncoasis.pürticulürlywhcrcihcrcis,in addition.a majordispro-
portiobciwecnihc rc~pcctivclcngthsoTcoasts.
Nurth Sra C'oii~itirShtsljJird~ntrnrI.C..JHrporrs 1969. p. 31. para. 43.
.SCCpnru.4.36. abovc. 1591 REPLY OF LIBYA 6 1

are relevant, not basepoints,for onlythe former reflectthe length, shape

and direction of the coasts.

5.14 Another issuethai has beenavoidedby Malta isthe relevantarea
in the presentcase,a rnatter intimatelyconnectedwith the questionof the

relevant coastsof the Parties'. The relationshipofthe relevantarea to the
element of proportionality is taken up in Chapter 7 below.lnsofar as the
physicalfactorsof the presentcaseare concerned, it maybededuced that
Malta regards the relevant area in the present dispute to be the area of

shelf between the two Parties underlying the Pelagian Sea in spite of
Malta'sclairnedequidistanceline extendingfat to the east into the Ionian
Sea. A number of the scientificassertionsin the MalteseCounter-Memo-

rial can onlybeconstrued,evenaccepted on their ownterms, as referring
to the areas of shelf underlyingthe PelagianSea, and not to areas east of
the edge of the Pelagian Block marked by the line of Escarpments and
Fault Zone2. Certainly the Maltese assertion that thearea isa "geologi-

cal continuum"can havebeen intendedto referonlyto theareas ofsea-bed
and subsoil south of the Rift Zone underlying the Pelagian Sea.

B. Sea-Bedand Subsoil FeaturesandCharacteristics

5.15 The Maltesepleadingsappear to contain an interna1contradic-

tion regarding the relevant areas of sea-bedand subsoil.On the one hand,
they have tried to play down the Rift Zone in order to sustain the claim
that the entireshelfarea betweenMalta and Libyaisa "geologicalcontin-

uum". On the other hand, the technicalnotesappearing in Annex2 ofthe
Maltese Counter-Memorial preparedby Malta'sscientificadvisersrefute
any notionofa "continuum". The existenceofthe Rift Zone isconfirmed
by these papers, although it is given a different narne - "The Central

Trough and RidgeSystem" - and efforts to point upthe importance of
features to the south of the Rift Zone,both in the sea-bedand the subsoil,
can hardly be regarded as consistent withany "continuum" theory.

5.16 Not surprisingly, the two technical notesincorporated in the

MalteseCounter-Mernorialrevealthat the scientistson hth sidesareto a
large extent in agreement. However,the Maltese Counter-Mernorial also

'The subjectof the relevaniarwis dcalt with in Chapte10of theLibyan Mernorial
(paras. IO.l2-10.18).
'Thisconclusionappcnrsfrom the scieniificnotesanncxedto the Maltese Counter-Merno-
rial wherethc emphasishasken placedalmost exclusivclyon the geomorphologyand
geologyof arcasof shelf underlying the PelagianSeaasseennot onlyfrom thofthee
notesthernselvebut alsoîrorn suchfiguresas Fig1,Figure8 and Figure19. It isalso
confirmedby ProtessorVanney'scmphasisin histechnicalnoteon the "structuralunity"of
thePelagianBlockandhiscontraslindescriptionf the lonianBasinttheeast(Annex2,
p. 16). Figur3 orAnnex 2of the Maltese Counrer-Mernorialis focusscdsolclyon the
tcaturesunderlying the PelagSea. Sec. in this cannection,ContinenSheif (Tuni-
sia/LibyanArab Jamahiriyul. JudgmenfI.C.JReporis1982, p.41. para. 32.62 CONTINENTALSHELF [a

contains the kind of misstatement of Libya's positionthat requires com-
ment in this Reply.

5.17 Inconsidering the paragraphs which follow,three general obser-
vations should be borne in mind:

Firsi, as observed above, there are Fewsubstantive dimerencesamong
the scientistsas to the physicalfeatures of the sea-bedand subsoil.The few
that do exist - including a nurnber of seri0u.serrors and misleading

impressionscontained in the Maltese Counter-Memorial - will,however,
be mentioned below.
Second,there is a lack of conformity between a nurnber of statements

made in Volume I of the Maltese Counter-Mernorial and the technical
notes included in Volume II. Annex 2. thereto.
Tbird,the mainpoints regarding the physical factsof relevance in the

present caseare based on easily understood and readily observable data:
they are no1 controversial and are well accepted within the scientific
comrnunity. This is borne out by Malta's own scientitic evidence.

5.18 The two major features of special relevanceto the present case
are the Rift Zone. which cuts across the relevant area of continental shelf
lying between Libya and Malta, and the Escarpments-Fault Zone which
limits thisarea in the east. The physicalcharacteristics of the sea-bed and
subsoil withinthe area of continental shelf of relevance to the present case

will be discussed below in relation to thesetwo features.

1. The Rift Zone

Its ExisrenceRecognised by BorhParties
5.19 The principal pointabout the Rift Zone that has emerged from
the pteadingsof the Parties todate isthat its physicalexistenceisacknowl-

edged by both Parties. (Of course, as noted in Chapter 3 above, Matta
questions its legal relevance.)

5.20 The Rift Zone is referred to in several parts of Volume I of the
Maltese Counter-Memorial and is discussed in some detail in the two
technical notes foundinAnnex 2to that pleading. Figures I and 3ai pages
16and 20of that Annex accurately depict the Rift Zone area as extending
al1 the way east to the Heron Valley which separates the Sicily-Malta
Escarpmentfrom the Medina Escarpment'. As the followingparagraphs

willshow,the Maltese Counter-Memorial itsetf and ils annexed technical
notes refute the statement in paragraph 5of the Maltese Counter-Memo-
rial that "Malta willdemonstrate in the course of this Counter-Memorial
that in fact the so-called'Rift Zone'does not show thecharacteristics of a

SeeLihyan Memarial.paris.3.14 an3.50. [6:1 REPLY OF LIBYA 63

radical physical separation between the natural prolongations of the two

countries . . . ".

5.21 Libya has demonstrated in its Memorial and Counter-Mernorial
that the Rift Zone constitutes a fundamental discontinuity in the areas of

continental shelf lying between Libyn and Malta relevant to the present
dispute. The notes includedin the Technical Annex tothe Libyan Memo-
rial (Volume 1) amply support this conclusion. It is supported as well in

recent scientific literature. a nurnber of examples of which are noted
below'.Apart rrom Figures 1and 3 at pages 16and 20 of Annex 2 to the

Maltese Counter-Mernorial, which clearly illustrate the sea-bed manifes-
tations (or gcomorphology) of the Rift Zone. the three seisrnic profiles
(Figures 4. 5 and 6) found at pages 22, 24 and 25of this same technical

note equally clearly reveal the subsoil manifestations (or geology) of the
Rift Zone. These are the same seisrniclines that appear as Figure 7, Part

II, of the Technical Annex to the Libyan Mernorial.They were prepared
by Professor Finetti whoexplained their relevance in the followingterrns:

"The particular area between Sicily and Libya presently corre-
sponding to the area of major grabens (Malta, Linosa. Pantelleria

and Medina) - the Sicily Channel - consisted of a substan~ially
Bat, unfractured and undeformed Paleocene-Eocene-Oligocene-
Miocenecover. Then an extensive rifting process started to occur

during the Neogene- Quaternary stretching phase (about 15mit-
lion years ago), a process which continues today. It produced a

temarkable deformation ofthe above-rnentionedarea along the rift
zone.

"Intense faulting. collapse and uplifting of blocks, tilting and
igneous extrusion (and intrusion) i.e.,volcanic activity. were the

'Ii.i.iiiJ.H.. "GrabcnFotmation -The MaltsscIslands- h Case History".Terionophgsics
73. 19111.p. 151-168;Fi~ic'r'iI.R., "Gcophysical Study of ihc Sicily Channel Rift Zone",
1984. Bo//.Gr($ Tr*or.Appl.. Vol. 26. No. 101ALAI., T.. "The General Gcophysiïs and
Gcology of thc Strait of Sicily". 1972.AroniigraofrheSrraii of Sicily.T.DAI.I.AN,T.

AL AI. ANI)R. MOI.(.AKI) (cds.). SiiclaASW RcscarchCcnter. La Spcria. Conf. Proc..
Vol. 7, pp. 177-192A copyoîthc rcccnily publishcd Finciti paperhasbèenfurnished to the
Rcgistry. Thc papcrcontains somcmaicrial and tcchnical analysisrelated. in part. to work
donc byProfcssorFincttjasscicniilic iidviscr to Libya in connectionwith the presentcase. It
will bc rcfcrrc10 hcrcinaftcr asFINI:.I1.I.R.. (1984). Sce ais0 JVN<~SMA D...VAN
H IN.I.IJ.E.,and Woi>iisi~>iiJ.M.. "Gcologic Structurc and Ncorectonics of the North
Afriean Coniincnial Mÿrgin South oîSicily". a papcrsubmittcd for publication on 18Junc
1984to Marine and Pe~ri>lrunG i ctilogyA draît oî ihis paper has bcen furnished to the
Regisiry andrcrcrcnccsin ihis Rcply aiothis draft or the paper. Theauthorsof this paper
hiivcalsoscrvcd asscicniilic iidviscrs to Libya in conncction with thc presentcaseand their
püpcr coniains bomc daiu sicmming îrom this work. (Scc Iniroduction10the Technical

Anncx IOIhc LibyanMrnti>rial.) This papcr will bereferrcd 10hereinarter JoNc~SMA.
D.,ei al.,(1984). CONTINENTAL SHELF [621

main geological resultsof this rifting process. The general dorni-
nating trend of rifting wasnorthwest/southeast. With a fewexcep-

tions, al1main geomorphologicalstructures of the Sicily Channel
were generated during this extensional process'.

"The Islandsof Malta, in particular, appeared ai this time as a
small area of the uplifted block at the north flank of the Malta

Graben . . .

"Between Malta and the Medina Bank there exists, with no
interruption whatsoever. whatis the continuation to the east of the

Pantelleria-Malta-Linosa Rift Zone (the Sicily Channel). I refer
here tothe major rift area, the Medina Graben, whichgeomorpho-
logicallyis expressed by the two channels running between Malta
and the Medina Bank (sometimes referred to as the Malta and the
Medina Channels) . . '".

5.22 Portions of this technical paper are quoted above since both
Professor Vanney and Professor Mascle reliedheavily on the data pub-
lished by its author in their technical papers annexed to the Maltese

Counter-Mernorial. However.these data have been usedquite selectively
in Malta's pleading. Forexample, the part of the seismic profilealong the
line MS-14,which shows the Medina graben and which illustrates so well
the continuation of the Rift Zoneinthe area of the Medina Channel lying
between Malta and the Medina Bank, was not shown by MaltaJ. (The

seismicprofilehas been placed in Annex5 hereto, together with the same
profileas depicted in Figure 7 of Finetti ( 1984). Another profile taken
from Jongsma. et al. (1984) is also included in this Annex.) These
seismic profiles demonstrate the continuity of the Rift Zone along the

Malta and Medina Channels out to the lonian Sea. The omission of the
Medinagraben profilefromthe Maltese Counter-Memorial made it easier
for Malta to make the kind of comment found in paragraph 45 of its
Counter-Memorial, quoted below:

"Libya is evidently troubled by the shallowness of these two
Channels [referring to the Malta and Medina Channels], com-
pared with that of the Troughs further to the West,as is shownby
the embarrassed explanations which the Libyan Mernorial gives

for Libya's view that these two Channels constitute 'eastward
extensions'of the Troughs."

area of rifiing and faulwhichdLibyli refcrsio in iis pleadingsasthe "RiTi Zone."
'LibyanMernorial. TcchnicalAnncx III, pp2-3.
'Figurc No. 2.PariII.of ~hcTechnical Anncxio theLibyonMernorial. Sccalso Figure
No. 1.Pari III or ihsamc TcchnicalAnncx. 1631 REPLY OF LIBYA 65

5.23 Professor Vanney,in his technical note, demonstrated exactly
this continuity between the Troughs and the Channels, even though he

substituted the term "The Central Trough and Ridge System" for "Rift
@ Zone"'. This is graphically demonstrated by Map 9. which consistsof a
bathymetric map with the Rift Zone shaded in. ProfessorVanney'sCen-
tral Trough and RidgeSystemhas been superimposedon Map9, revealing

that the Rift Zone isentirelyencompassed withinthe "System."of Profes-
sor Vanney. Since Figure 3 of Professor Vanney'spaper concerns itself
with the sea-bed and notthe subsoil,that is,with geomorphologyand not
geology,his choiceof terminologyisquite understandable. Whileobserv-

ing that "The Central Trough and Ridge System" does not comprise a
single long trough with a flat bottorn sirnilar to the Hurd Deep or the
Norwegian Trough - an indisputably correct staternent - Professor
Vanneygoes on to say that " [alll this complex morphologyis the most

remarkable expressionof the distensive forcesacting since Miocenetimes
(10 million years aga)*". This accords entirely with such staternents
appearing in the 1984 Finetti paper as -

".. .cutting across the sea-bed of the PelagianSea from the Egadi
Valley to the Heron Valleyare the huge troughs of Pantelleria,

Linosa and Malta and the Medina and Malta Channels. The
ensembleof these troughs and channels constitutes a distinct and
unique geomorphological provincethat, with differing widths and
varying water depths. crosses with continuity the entire Pelagian

Sea'."
The introduction to this paper further states that-

". .. it has becorne clear that this area has been affected by a

prominent rifting process which remarkably deformed the previ-
ously existing quiet tectonic conditions. Moredetailed observa-
tions revealedthat thiç tectonic fragmentation is due to a young
geodynamic process.still active"."

5.24 In paragraph 18 of the Vanneypaper, the volcanismalong this
System is also mentioned4.In fact, this paper at paragraph II, page 23,

clearly connectsup the deeper troughs and shallowerchannels as part of
'Maltese Cocrnrer-MrnioriaVol.il, Anncx2, Figure3 ai p. 20.
'Ibid.. Vol. II,Annex2, para.18. "Distensive"is anothertermfor riftingor pull-apart.
'FIN~~TT1I,.R.. (1984)op.cirp. 3. A copyolthis pageisattachedaAnnex7. hereto.
'The paperis surprisinglysilcntas to theintensemagneticanomalies indicating volcanic
activitybctweenMaltüandthc McdinaBank.importantevidcnceof the continuationof the
Rifi ZoncscrossIhc MedinaandMültaChannelsto the HeronVallcy.See FIN~~TTII.,R.,
(1984). op.cil.sec ZAKCII)ZKI,E.F.K,,"SubmarineVolcanmain the Strait of Sicily",
Rapp. Comm. ln,. Mer Médit,24, pp.233-234(1977). The volcanism within theift
Zone. including theltaand Medina Chünnel s, alsodiscussedinJONGSMA D..d al..
(19843,op.rit.. p11-13,Thispipernotcstheabsenceofrecentvolcanisminthesouthcrn
areaof thePclagiünSca.66 CONTINENTALSHELF i641

the same system which, to quote from this paragraph of the paper,
" . . . contains the major Malta, Pantelleria and Linosa Troughs with
intervening ridges andthe smaller Malta and Medina Channels". In the
light of these observations, there can scarcely be any question as to the
existence of a major discontinuity in the sea-bed between Libya and
Malta, whether it is called the "Rift Zone" or "The Central Trough and

Ridge System", a discontinuity that includes the Troughs and Channels
extending east to the Heron Valley.
5.25 It is surprising. therefore, to find the main body of the Maltese

Counter-Mernorial taking a different viewof the Rift Zone. The principal
discussion of the Rift Zone in the Maltese Counter-Mernorial itself
appears in paragraphs 41 through 58. These paragraphs - devoted to
criticizing the use of the term "Rift Zone", to describing ils complexity.
and to a criticism of Libya'sfailure to identify ils exact starting point -
do not seem to be of particular significance.A feature of this size, involv-

ing pull-apart aiid shearing motions, is necessarily diffuse. It could be
identiiied by many names. but as the Libyan Counter-Mernorial brought
out, the terrn "Rift Zone " iscommonly used forfeatures of this kind'. It
will be seen that the technical noteof Professor Vanneyis full of descrip-
tive terrns which point out the significanceof the Rift Zone: he refers to
"recent faulting", to an area "cul by discontinuous indentations", and to

the "steepness and height" of the troughs (al1 at page 26 of Annex 2).
Such statements hardly validate the introductory statement in paragraph
5 of the Maltese Counter-Mernorial that "the so-called 'Rift Zone' does
not show the characteristics of a radical physical separation between the
natural prolongations of the two countries . . .".

5.26 Paragraph 46 of the Maltese Countcr-Mernorial asserts that the
"striking weakness" regarding the Rift Zone is that its major features do
not lie between Libyaand Malta. Yetthis point isnot borneout by Malta's

own annexed technical paper of Professor Vanney. In fact, Figure I at
page 16of that paper (which has been reproduced as Figure 1 facing the
followingpage) shows the Malta Trough to extend to the south of al1of
Gozo and most of the southwest-facing coast of Malta and. thus, to fie
between these coastsand the coast of Libya. The Malta Trough isclearly
not located "beyond the western limits of the 'relevant area' as seen by

Libya itselfL".The extent of the Malta Trough is also shown on the
sketched bathymetric map appearing as Figure 8 at page 28 of Malta's
Technical Annex where thisdeep feature isshownto crossin front of most
of the Maltese Islands. The legend to this sketch describes the Malta
Trough as being "closed South of the island of Malta . ..".But, in any
event. this isnot really the point,as wascarefully explained and illustrated

'See LibyanCOunfrr-Menzorial n. 1 a1 p. 52.
*MalreseCounrer-Mrmorial, para. 46. i651 REPLY OF LIBYA 67

by a diagram inthe Libyan Mernorial'as wellas in the Libyan Counter-
Mernorial".It isto be expected that there wiilbe geomorphological varia-
tions along a Rift Zone of these proportions in which pull-aparl (rifting)

and strike/slip (shearing) movements are occurring in the subsoil. The
formwhich ihese features take on the sea-bed hasa direct correlation with
such variations in subsoil movements. As described in a very recent
scientific paper:

"After the Messiniana rift and dextral shear zone established itself

across the African Margin fromthe Strait of Sicily (used in the
sense of that narrow body of water lying between Cape Bon in
Tunisia and the oppositeSicilian coast] to the Medina Ridgein the

Ionian Basin. The zone is marked by up to 1.7km deep grabens,
narrow active wrench faulted channels. volcanic fissures and local
uplifted 'Keilhorsts'such as Malta"."

A particularly lucid account of the faulting in this zone appears in the
same paper:

"The pattern of faulting derived from tracing active faults in seis-
mie profiles across this zone, showsal1 three general styles of

faulting which have been recognized to be associated with wrench-
ing [citing Wilcox, ei al.,(1973) 1. ln the area of the Pantelleria,
Linosaand Matta Troughs. divergent wrenchingis seen resulting in

deep grabens perpendicular 10the main tensionalaxisof the strain
ellipse. The zone narrows between the Malta Plateau and Medina
Bankand the style issimple parallel wrenching producinguplifi of

'keilhorsts*such as Malta . . The eastern part of the wrench zone
in the Ionian Sea. the Medina Ridge is typical of convergent
wrenching . ..I."

5.27 A technical study" of the gravity anornaly data-long the Rift
Zone bears out the fact of the continuity of the Rift Zone from the Egadi

Valleybetween Sicily and Tunisia in the northwest to the Heron Valley
@ dividing the Sicily-Malta and the Medina Escarpments. Map 10showsa
red line running down the Rift Zone. It represents the axial ridge of the

'Sec Lihyan Menicirialvira. 3.20.Fig.2.and Pari II ofihc TechnicalAnncx.
*SeeLibyan C'oirnrrr-Mrnrorial. aras.2.75-2.76.
JON(;SMA, D.,rl al.( 19841,op. cd!..p. ütiüchcdas Annex 6.hcreio.
'Ibid.,p. 14. atiachcab Annrx 6.hcrcto.
FINI~TTI,l.R,.(1984). op.ci!.
"Graviiy anomalie5arc uscdto trücc gcologicasliruciurcssinccthcy indicatccxccbsor
delicicncyof massai dcpih. A graviiy ancirnisihc dilTcrcnccbctwccnihc localvalucor
graviiy and thaiIO bc cxpcctcdin thc iibscnccof gcologicil variations butallowing for
Latitudeand clcv~tian.Scc alw 0n.i'i:sR.L. n~it Jnr'w.%~~.J.A. (Eds.). G/«ssary of
Guolngy, secondcdiiiiin. AmcricanGcologicalInsiiiutc. FallsChuich. Virginia. 1980.68 CONTINENTALSHELF 1661

Rift Zone where the crust has been stretched to its thinnest pointL.The
data from which this line has beenobtained appears in Annex 7 hereto,

which is page 18of this technical study and includes a residual gravity
rnapof the PelagianSea on whichthis lineappears. This technical study
also makes a comparison betweenthe Rift Zone and the Red Sea Rift

Zone, where similar geornorpholog variations are foundT .he Figure,
alsoappearingat Annex 7,illustrates this comparison.Asidefrornsimilar-
ities in respect to crustal thinning, it is also of interest that the Gulf of

Aqaba and the Dead Sea are part of the same Red Sea Rift Zone; yet
geomorphologically theyare areas whichare considerablylesspronounced
in depth than other parts of the Red Sea Rift Zone. This is the result of

strike-slip or shearing rather than pull-apart or rifting motions in the
subsoil,a factor common toboth Rift Zones".Thus, when the movements

occurring in the subsoil are examined - as seen, for example, from
seismic profilesof the Medina graben",whosesea-bed manifestation is the
Medina Channel iying between Matta and the Medina Bank - iiis

evident that deep rifting down to the upper mantie is occurring, with
resulting volcanisrn. It is, thus, the Rift Zone as a whole which is the
significantfeature regardlessof the variation ingeomorphological expres-

sion normal in parts of such a Rift Zone.

5.28 The simplediagram used by Libyato explainthe foregoing ( Fig-
ure 2ofthe Libyan Memorial) wasapparently mistakenby Malta assome

kind of theoretical model. This is revealed by the rather imaginative
discussionof rotational theory for the originsand nature of the Rift Zone
inthe technical paper of Professor Mascie. Libya hasseen nothing inthat

aspect of the technical discussionof relevance to the present case that it
need take issue with. The Rift Zone - its rifting and shearing in the
subsoil. and its sea-bedfeatures - is based on scientificdata, noi on mere

theory. It does not seem necessary,therefore, to introduce a complexand
controversial subject such as "rotation" into the discussion of plainly
evidentfeatures.The data put forwardinthe Libyan pleadingsare readily

availableand do not depend on models.These data are notdifïtcuitfor the
non-expert to understand, unlike complex and questionable theories of

'Scc para. 6.20, bclow.and în.2 aip. 83. bclow.Cora furthcr discussionof this pointof
maximumthinncss.
* III11.s..H..(198l).op. cir.;SrIII.KR.."SeismotectonicSurveyof theCentral Meditcr-
rancan".Inter-Union CToninii.c.crinCrodynanritir.Srieniific ReportH. CIoss. D. Roii-
I)I:KK. S~'IIMII~T(cds.). Stutigart. 1978;JOM~SMA . .etal.,(1984). op.rit.p.1and p.
3. whcrc"wrcnchFauliing"in thc Mcdinü-Malia Channelis noredaswell aslhicknesscs of
more thün800 mctrcsor post-Mcssiniiinscdimcniswithin the grabens formed by this
wrenching, indicatinfirapid lilling. FINI:I..I.I,1.( 1984). op, cip.20.Sirike-slipor
shearingmotionsin both ihc RiîtZone and ~hcRcd Sca Rift Zone aresaidby Professor

Finetii to accountfor "rcduccdpull-apart movcmcnts": this factor accounFtsorthe more
rnoderütcgcomorphologicalmunifcstütionsin certain areas of the Rift Zones in both
instances.Scc ülsoJON(~SMA. D..et al..(1984). op.rit.. pp. 10t.
"See para. 5.22.abovc.and fn. 4 at p. 63, übovc.See Annrx5. hereto. "rotation" that neither confirm nor deny the presence of actual physical

features. It is Libya's belief, confirmedby scientific papers and even by
Malta'sownexperts. that the essentialelementsof fact whicheslablish the
Rift Zone are clear and uncontroversial.

5.29 In short, the evidence put forward by the pleadings of both
Parties establishes the existence and importance oc the Rift Zone. This
evidence showsthat it cannot be regarded as other than a fundamental
discontinuity in the sea-bed and subsoil in areas of shelf lying beiween

Libya and Malta. To characterise this area of shelf as a "geological
continuum" is at odds with the scientific evidence put forward by both
Parties to the present case.

Points Requiring ClariJication or Correction
5.30 It is now necessary to turn to certain specifictechnical pointsto

be fouiidin the Maltese Counter-Memorial requiring correction or clarifi-
cation. One example is found in Professor Mascle's paperat paragraph 60
- where an attempt is made to emphasise the faulting in the southern
area of the PelagianSea inorder to refute statements to the contrary in the

Libyan Memorial. This conclusionis based on a seismicprofilealong MS-
, 19 ( Figure 24at page 55of frofessor Mascle'spaper). However.a serious
error regarding the locationof theJerrafa Trough has been made. What is
identified on Figure 24 as ihe Jerrafa Trough is not that feature at al!.
which in fact lies some 30 nautical miles to the south - well below the

35"N parallel'. The Jerrafa Trough is a relatively minor feature of the
sea-bed and subsoil and does not at al1 resemble the faulting shown in
Figure 24'. Rather than disproving Libya'scase regarding the considera-
bly greater faulting north of the35"N paraIlel than southof il.Figure 24
of Professor Mascle'spaper implies the contrary.

5.31 The Maltese Counter-Mernorial has sought to attack Libya's
scientificdata in other wayswhich ayeerroneous and deserve mention. It

has sought to portray inconsistencies between Libya's positionregarding
the physical iacts in the present case and in theTunisialLi caye. One
example concerns the definitionofthe Pelagian Block.Libya had thought
that this matter had been cornpletelydealt with inPart 1of the Technical
Annex to the Libyan Memorial. However,paragraphs 49 and 50of the

Maltese Counter-Mernorial seem intent on trying to showsomedifference
between the Libyan Memorial and Professor Fabricius, whoprefe~redin
his paper in Part 1of the Technical Annex to refer to a northern and
southern unit divided by the Rift Zone - a rninormatter of terminology.

'The feaiureerroncouslyidcniiricdin thc MalieseTechnicalAnncxJcrrifTrtiugh
hasbcengivcnrhcnamc LarnpcdusaTrough in FINI:~TII.R.. (1984op.rit.
'Sec the Figurewhichappcarsin AnnrR IOîhis Rcplwhere cornparisoarc made Io
showho* muchmorcsignificanigcomorphologicalliyhc McdinnChanisthantheJerrüfa
Trough. Sec alsoFINI:TTII.R., ( 1984). op.p. 9..70 CONTINENTAL SHELF [681

Malta also suggeststhat, whereas in the TunisialLibyacase Libya found
nogeomorphologicalfeatures of relevanceto delimitation in the Pelagian

Block,in the present case Libya has "discovered"the Rift Zone and, with
it, the importance of geomorphology.

5.32 It isclear that the delimitation in the TunisialLibyacase did not

involvethe area of the Rift Zone but rather the area lying to its south.
There were no features in the TunisialLibyacase on the sea-bed or in the
subsoilinthat southern area whichinthe least resemblethefeaturesofthe

Rift Zoneinthe present case'.The twocases are markedlydiflerent inthis
respect.

5.33 Malta has also sought to play downthe significanceof the Rift

Zone by attempting to highlight other geomorphological and geological
characteristics of the continental shelf underlyingthe PelagianSea. Many
of these features, such as the Tripolitanian Valley, fa11well outside any

area ofshelf claimed by Malta in the present case; their relevance, there-
fore.isquite different fromthat ofthe Rift Zone,whichruns right through
the area of dispute. However,as features underlying the relevant area of

the Pelagian Sea in the present case they undoubtedly have a closer
connection to the case than such more remote Features, mentioned in
several places in the Maltese Counter-Mernorial. as the Hurd Deep, the

NorwegianTrough, the TimorTrough or the Okinawa Trough.Ofcourse,
the Rift Zone is quite difierent from each of these features. The Libyan
Mernorial discussedin some detail the Hurd Deep and the Norwegian

Trough,as wellas the Tripolitanian Valley,showinghowthey were hardly
comparable to the Rift Zone2.

5.34 With regard to such pronounced features as the Timor Trough

and the Okinawa Trough,although they mightwellbe regarded as discon-
tinuities of significance in any delimitation (and the Timor Trough did
play an important role in the delimitation agreement between Australia

and IndonesiaY).to try to compare their physicai forms with those of the
Rift Zoneislikecomparing appleswithoranges.Nor doesthe fact that the
Rift Zone is not a unified trough have the significance impfiedby para-

graph 44 of the Maltese Counter-Memorial. There is nodoubt at all. in
spite of the diversityof its features, that geornorphologicalIy,geologicaIIy

'Thc Ridedc Zira undthc Ridc dc Zuara,Torcxample, carihardlybe comparedio the
featuresoCthcRirtZonc.The Ridc dcZirariscsnomorcihan25rnctresabovethesea Roof
ovcra lengihOC41 kmand awidthof 7.5 km. Hcncc, il is a barelydisccrnablesea-bed
feaiurc.The Ridc deZuarü risconlybctwccn5 and IO mettesabovethe seaRmr. These
leaturcearcthc rcsultosaltdomingrathcrthan thc pull-apari,riitinganshearingihat
creatcdthe grabensOCihc Rift Zonc.
*Seethe Libya nrriioriaparas.6.45-6.5and8.06-8.08:fn. aip.99;andfn. 1aip. LOO.
5ee para.6.48 oflhc LibyanMuniorial;and pÿras.5.74-5.7and Annex ofdelimiiaiion
agreements.No. 24. to thLihran Counrrr-Mrniorial. and oceanographically'the Rift Zone formsa connecting link betweenthe
Western Mediterranean and the lonian Sea. Thus, paragraph 44 of the
Maltese Counter-Mernorial which claims that the Rift Zone iç not a

"major feature" cannot be taken as a serious comment on the Rift Zone,
which contains troughs descending to depths exceeding 1,700 metres;
which extends for some 300 nautical miles from the Egadi Valleybetween

Tunisia andSicilytothe Heron Valleyseparaling the Sicily-Malta Escarp-
ment frornthe Medina Escarpmeni at the eastern edge of the Pelagian
Sea: which is between 15 and 50 nautical miles in width: which in iw

subsoilcontains deep ruptures descendingdownto the upper mantle of the
earth; and alongwhichyoungvolcanism is found, attesting ta the depth
and activeness of the rifting throughout its extent.

The Area South of the RiJiZone

5.35 As forthe southern "valleys". includingthe Tripolitanian Valley,
which are introduced in the Maltese Counter-Memorial in an attempt to
play downthe significanceof the Rift Zone, they rnaywellbe located over

ancient, inactive faults. The important fact, however,isthat their present-
day sea-bed expression is gentle' and the direct result of erosional and
depositional factors". They are heavily blanketed by thick columns of

sediment. 11is the presenl-day characteristics of these areas-no1 the
past-which is of interest. The fact is that there is no active rifting
revealed byyoung volcanism hereand, consequently,little sea-bed expres-

sion,quite unlike the Rift Zone. There is no evidenceof any rift network
that rnay be separating the African plate as in the case of the Rift Zone'.
In fact. the Reduced Map No. 1 at page 72 of the Maltese Counter-
Mernorialshowing "major structural features" of the North Sea might be

compared with the situation in the southern part of the Pelagian Sea. For
the North Sea has ashallow,featurelesssea-bed that may be likenedto the
seafloor of the southern part of the Pelagian Sea: although there may be

ancient underlying structures of geological interest, the sea-beds ihem-
selves are not today the direct reflection of these structures. There is no
fundamental discontinuity reflectedin the sea-bed of either the North Sea

or the area underlying the Pelagian Sea soulh of the Rift Zone. When
Professor Vanneyspeaks of the %tructural unity" of the Pelagian Blwk,

'The oceanographicconncciivnbciwccnthccüsicrnandwesternMediierraneanrormedby
ihe Rifi Zoncis mcntioncd(wiih rcîcrcnccs)JC)N<~SMO A..et111.(.1984)op.cil., p.2.
*Therc isan obvious crrorap.33 of VolII.Anncx 2, or thMaliesr Coun~er-Memoriol
whcrcihc gradicniof ihc slopcsof thc TripolitanianValley issaidio surpass40 and even
50:IOO.What isclcarlyinicndcdis40 or 50:IOOO. rüihcrgcnilcslopc.Measuremcntsor
gradienisiakcnIromscvcraldireciionsinihisValleyrnaybfoundin PariIof theTechnical
Annex Io ihc Lihj~aMrniurial.
"Toquotc from JON(~SMA O.,PIal.(1984). op.ci!., p. II: "To thesou35"N ovcrihc
JarraFaTroughand Tripolitania Basinthc contoursrcflccithc erosionaleffectsof a river
systemal ~hccnd ofthc Mcssinian." A copyof ihis pdgciattüchedas Annex 6.hçreio.
'Sec para. 5.43. bctow.72 CONT~NEKTAL SHELF i701

he is quite accurately describing the shelf area lying south of the Rifi
Zonei.

5.36 A quite misleading impression is created by the "bathymetric
profiles"which appear as Figure 2 atpage 19of Annex 2 of the Mallese
Counter-Mernorial and as Figures 1 and 2 at pages 27 and 28 of the

Maltese Counter-Mernorial. One of these profiles appears to have been
carefully selected to cross the Medina Channel in a particularly shallow
area and to crossthe southern "valleys" at their deepest points.The latter
are deep because the southern sections of the Pelagian Bloçkvery gradu-
ally deepen toward the area of the Sirt Rise-lonian Sea. What is not

revealed are the steep Ranksof the southern part of the Medina Channel
where itpassesalong the Medina Bankdividing it frornthe Ragusa-Malta
Plateau. Bathymetric profilesto be of informative value should be drawn
perpendicular tothe features being measured - which,sincethey trend in
thisarea roughly north-northwest/south-s wooulhbeapsro,ilesrun-

ning out from the Libyan Coastat approximately 26". The Figures con-
tained in Annex 9 hereto show twoprofilesdrawn in this mariner: the first
profilepasses betweenthe IslandsofGozo and Malta; the second fallsjust
to the east of the Island ofalta. They givequite a different impression
from that in the Maltese account and, being constructed perpendicular to

the features. they have a more scientific basis. The same Annex 9 also
contains profilesthat followthe westernsegment of the Maltese trapeziurn
from Ras Ajdir ioGozo and its eastern leg as far as its intersection with
the proposed Maltese rnedian line. These profiles illustrate how com-
pletely Malta has ignored the geornorphologyof the sea-bed in its pro-

posed result. However, idoesnotseemnecessary toresort to the drawing
of profiles any more than to rely on abstract constructs or models to
illustrate what plainlyappears froma bathyrnetric map of thearea regard-
ing the nature of the sea-bed oï interest in the present case.

5.37 The only point that emerges from this discussion,whatever tiie
language employed orthe illustrations used,isthat the southern portion ?f

the Pelagian sea-bed becomesdeeper toward the east. In this sense, depth
per sa does not creatc a discontinuity. There is no network or zone of
rifting here that can be compared in any way with the Rift Zone. The
legendson Figures Iand 2of the Maltese Counter-Memorial and referred
to above - to the effect that the Misurata and Tripolitanian Valleysare

"established on old, partly buried grabens" - is incorrect. The "valleys"
are merely a general reflectionof oldgrabens (over 90 million years old)
underlying this region. The "valleys" themsetves were formedby other,
much more recenl factors such as erosion and deposition. Moreover(and

'See Mulre.rCuunrer-MrniorialVol. Ihnncx 2. p18. 73
[Tl] REIaLYOF LIBYA

moreirnportantly ), thegrabens are heavilyblanketedby thick sedirnents'

- they are not "partly buried grabens".The general smoothnessand lack
of steepgradient of this wholearea of the sea-bed underlyingthe southern
Pelagian Sea was fully detailed in the Libyan Mernorial' in both a

north/south and an east/west direction, and has not been controverted.
The Maltese Counter-Mernorial fails completeiy in this respect - the
mostit showsisa mere deepeningofthis portionof'the sea-bedto the east3.

5.38 What stands out rather conspicuouslyfrom Malta'seffortto play
down the significanceof the Rift Zone by emphasisinggeomorphological
and geologicalfeatures south of the Rift Zone isthat it rnakesa shambles

of theargument in the Maltese Memorialthat the wholearea isa 'geolog-
ical continuum". It might have been expectedthat this assertion would
fade away in the Maltese Counter-Mernorial but, to the contrary, it

returns with full vigour.In fart IV, where Malta's case is restated, it is
again asserted at paragraph 270(a) that:

"The seabed between Maltaand Libyaisa geologicalcontinuum
consistingof the Pelagian Blockand thus the shetf in the relevant

area ischaracterised by itsessentialgeologicaland geomorphologi-
cal continuity'."

As the foregoingparagraphs have made clear, however.this is simplynot

the case. Even the descriptions found in the scientificpapers annexed to
the MalteseCounter-Mernorialcontradict any notionofa geornorphologi-
cal or geological "continuum" in the relevant areas.

2. The Escarpments-FaultZone

5.39 Less need be said about this feature at this stage of the written

pleadings. It was arnply discussed in the Libyan Memorialand Counter-
Memorial. Neither the Mattese Counter-Mernorial nor ils two technical
notes attempt to deny its existence andimportance on the factual plane.

ProfessorVanney evendescribesthis feature as "one of the most remarka-
bleinthe Mediterranean becauseof its length (more than 700 km) and its

'FINI.:TTI1.R.."Structure.Stratigraphand Evolutionof Pclagian andlonianSeas"Bol.
Geoj. Teor.AppI.. '/O\24, NO. 96. 19B2. pp.247-312; ~UN<~SMA. D.. el al.,(1984).
op. cil.p.13.
*See Libyan Mernorial.TechnicalAnncx. Pari f.
'The implicationin para. 56 of Malrrse Counrer-Mernorialthat theCourt in paras.66
and 80, pp.57and64, of its 1982Judgmcntrnadcan assessmcna tsto the relevanceor the
"Tripolitanian Furrow"whichLibyaisnowdisrcgardinginihe presentcasisincorrect.This
featurewasmcrelynolcd LISthconlypossiblconclhai mighthave relcvance whecompared
with suchtriviasea-bcdfcalurcsasihc Ridcde Zira and the Ridede Zuara.uponwhich
Tunisia had placcdso muchemphasis.
'See para.5.14,abovc,rcgardinMalta'sapparcntadmissionas tawhakis the relevantarea
in the presenicase.
'See paras.5.15-5.29.nbave. 74 CONTINENTAL SHELF [Ta

height (dimerencein level between 1to 3 km)'". The technical paper of
Professor Mascle,since his interest is focussed on the sea-bed between

Malta and Libya fromwhichhe apparently excludesany area east of ihis
line of escarpments and fault zone, does not expressly deal with this
@ feature at all. However,Figure 19at page 50of his paper portrays thetwo

Escarpments in very clear, graphic form running southward to a point at
about 15" E longitude and 33" N latitude'.

5.40 It must, therefore, be taken as admitted that the Parties are in
agreement over the fact that the Escarpments-Fault Zone forming the

eastern boundar),of the Pelagian Blockconstitutes a fundamental breakin
the morphologyof the sea-bed and subsoil. However,Malta makes two
curious comments relating to this feature that require discussion.

First M ,alta asserts in paragraph 60 of its Counter-Memorial that the

importance attributed by Libya to the Escarpments-Fault Zone can be
valid only if "the Escarpment - the existenceof whichcannot be denied
- represents the eastern end of Malta's continental shelr'. In paragraph
61. Malta then invokesthe definitionof the continental shelf in Article 76

of the 1982 Convention. But this again indicates a confusion betweenthe
conceptsof entitlement and delimitation. For Libyadoes not Saythat the
Escarpments-Fault Zone marks thelimit of areas of national jurisdiction,

beyond which liesthe "area", the deep sea-bedg.The point issimply that
the Escarpments-Fault Zone represents a fundamentalchange in the mor-
phologyof the sea-bed and subsoil, forming the edge of the continental

shelf underlying Ihe Pelagian Sea, often referred to as the "Pelagian
Block". Accordingly. it constitutes a relevant factor ofgreat importance
to the present case.

'Malfcse Counier-MrniorialVol.II.Anncx 2, para. 29. p. 34. Other descriptive phrases
uscdby ProrcssorVanncy for thcsc fciturcs arc: its "rcmarkable exieni"...ldipsdge
on the eist to dcpihs in thc lonian Büsinwhich are excepiional for the Mediterraocan"; ihc
"ruptureoîihc slopc": "divcrse rclicrs staggcrdown"; "erecl scuiebya nctwork OC
ravines or by several small vallcys). crc..peaks(in many casesvolcanic)ordccp
basins" (311found at p. 18).
'This Figure in oihcr rcspccisisconiusing. making nodistinction betweentypesor structural
featuresand lhcir agcs. Thsuggestiothai thcrc is sorne*network" uniiing al1of thesc
fcaturesconvcysa vcry mislciiding impression.It is wcll-known and beyondquestionihat the
various Ccaturesdepictcd. to the cxtcnt ihcy cxist ai all. occurred ai widcly separated
geological times and hüd quitc diffcrcnt causes.(li is worth noting howevcr. that ProCessor
Masctc uscs Libyi's norncnclaturc for ihc "Ragusa-Malia Plaieau".)
'Sec Par! XI, Artic133,riseq..of ih1982United Nations Conventionon the Laworthe
Sea. It is not thc position of Libyü that ihc continental margin. aisdefincd in
paragraph 3orArliclc74.endsai this significant fcaiurc. In faci, Libya hasneverconceded

thsi Malta's continental shclf rights cxtcnd this far to the east.The whole matter raised by
Malia of whethcr thc loniaSci isunderlain by continental or oceanic crust or some
interrnediate form is. in thc vicw oüscicntific qucsiion of no relcvanct io ihc present
case.Sec. in this rcgürd.2tai p. 21. above. [731 REPLY OF LlBYA 75

Second,the analysis inthe Maltese Counter-Mernorial of the relevance
and significanceofthe Escarpments-Fault Zone seemsbased on a funda-
mental confusion. Forexample, in paragraph 6 of the Maltese Counter-

Mernorial, the question is posed:
" [W] hy should the descent into the depths of the Ionian sea limit

the rightsof Malta towardsthe east but notconstituteany obstacle
to the extension of the rights of Libya towards the north?"

Again, in paragraph 139, Malta speaks of Libyan claims to maritime
rights that "skirt the Medina Escarpment towardsthe east". The complete
- and most baffling - statement of Malta in this respect is found in
paragraph 208 of the Maltese Counter-Mernorial, quoted in part below:

"Malta. we are repeatedly told, can have no rights exlending
beyondher limited'natural prolongation'inthe physicalsenseand.
in particular, cannot have rights which project beyondthe edge of
the Sicily-Matta and the Medina Escarpments. Libya. however,

doesnotregard itselfas boundbytheselimitations but,soit argues,
should be allowed to develop its claims right through this 'forbid-
den' area in order to establish a delimitation with 'third States'.
Why is it, one is bound to ask, that considerations of geology,
geomorphologyand of the principle of natural prolongation which

are so strenuously adduced as the basis of Libya'scase against
Malta, have no reciprocalapplicability in relation to Libya'sambi-
tious claims?"

A simple referenceto a map willprovidethe answet. For a map showsihe
very iong length ofLibyan coast extending from the line of Escarpments
and Fault Zone eastward across the southern limits of the entire area of
the Sirt Rise-IonianSea,al1the way to the Egyptian border'.The Escarp-
ments-Fault Zonedoesnotcut acrossand disrupt the natural prolongation

northwardsof the Libyanlandmass from this lengthof coast as it doesany
Maltese prolongation to the east.

5.41 In lhis connection,oneof the most misleadingillustrations inthe
@ entire Counter-Mernorial of Malta appears as Figure I of Annex 2 at
page 16. This has been reproduced as Figure 1 facing page 65. The
north/south dark blue linewhich marks the eastern edge of the Pelagian
Sea formedbythe lineof Escarpments and Fault Zoneismade tocontinue

onto the east as ifa similarstructure blocked Libya'snatural prolongation
into the area beyond the Escarpments-Fault Zone. The legend makes
matters worse by asserting that the isobaths underline major structures.

OralHearingsand Judgmcntof the Court did much to clariîy the obviousrelationshipent
between theoastOCItaly and Libya in areaof continentalshelf eastEscarp-
ments-FaultZone.76 CONTINENTAL SHELF 1741

The
There is no discontinuity lying off the coast of Libya in this area.
natural prolongationof the land territory of Libya northward inthis area
isillustrated ingeologicalterrnsbythe pull-out cross-sectionappearing as
Figure 1 in the LibyanCounter-Memorial, a figure based onseisrnicand

drilling data. Malta's claim, displayedby its trapezium figure, would,if
allowed,be aclear violationof the principleof non-encroachmentsooften
emphasisedin Malta'spleadings-the encroachrnentinthis casebeing on
the natural prolongationof Libyaseaward frornits coast into areas of the

Sirt Riseand lanian Sea lying to the north of Libya, or on the natural
prolongationof ltaly tothe south - areas whichal1lieoutsidethe relevant
area in the present case.

5.42 Thus,it stands outclearly frornthe pleadingsofthe Parties todate

that, just as Malta seeks to avoid a serious analysis of the geographical
facts,so alsodoes it atternpt to divert attention from the remarkable sea-
bedand subsoilfeaturesthat existinthe areas ofcontinental shelfrelevant
10 this dispute. In the view of Libya, the physical facts of geography,

geomorphologyand geologylieat the veryheart ofthis delimitationofthe
continental shelf. They are not complex to understand and constitute
relevant factorsof primesignificancethatcannot be ignored inseekingan
equitable result.

5.43 The significanceof the Rift Zone is underscoredby the fact that
twoof the rnost tecent technicalpapers dealingwiththisgeomorphological
and geological phenornenonhave reached the sarne conclusion:that a

"microplate" may be in formation alongthe Rift Zone'. To quote from
the firstofthesepapers.referring 10the resultsofthe collisionbetweenthe
African and Eurasian plates:

"This initiated the latest periodof tectonic activity and broke the
Pelagian area in a passivesouthern platform attached to Africa
and a separate fractured mobileterrain north of the Tunisian Pla-
teau and Medina Bank. The neotectonics north of 35" can be

described by uplift of Sicily and dextral shearing of the east to
southeast rnovingSicilian-Calabrian block with respectto Africa.
This rnovement,ofwhat might beconsidereda microplatebetween
the African and Europeanplates, is sirnilar to that of the Aegean

microplate,bothofwhichare apparently consurning fromdifferent
directions what remainsof the oceanic part of the Ionian Basin'."
'Thesepipcrssupportthc conclusiorcfcrrcdioinfn.2ai p.29 ofthe LibyonMemoriol.
ciiing Diiwi:~, et (1973).whosc Rgurcillustratinthispointappearcdai Annex 12,
thercto.
*Jo~ris~n, O.,utal.( 1984)op.cil.p.15.aswcllas Fig.Iofihatpaper. Minorspelling
errorshavebccncorrccicdinthcabovcquolaiion. Thipage and Fig. I appearinAnnex6.
herelo.1751 REPLY OF LIEYA 77

Thesecondpaper,after comparing theRift Zone withthat ofthe Red Sea,
concluded as follows:

"The rifting process in the [Rift Zone], though quite recent in
cornparison tothe rifting in the Red Sea, for example. has already

produceda huge fragmentation of the crust alongthe [Rift Zone]
and a prominent Mantie upiiftingand crustal thinning. Hence,it
ispossible to delineate the tectonic separation of a Sicihan
microplate,whichincludesthe Adventure Plateauandthe Ragusa-

Malta Plateau. from the African megaplate'".

-
'FINI:TTI. I.R(1984). op. ritp. 27. Thispage appearsiAnner;7.hereto. CHAPTER 6

REFLECTION OFTHE FACTSAND RELEVANT
CIRCUMSTANCES IN ORDERTO ACHIEVE
AN EQUITABLE RESULT

6.01 The principal elements which point to a delimitation that is
equitable under the particular circumstances of the present case can be
foundon a bathymetric map of the Central Mediterranean'. The various

considerations introduced in the Maltese Mernorial under such headings
as Malta'spolitical status,the absenceof land-based energy sources,and
Malta'sstatus asan islanddevelopingState are extraneousand clearly not
relevant to the question of delimitation'. Othcr factors, such as those
relating to Malta's fishingactivities and national security considerations,

have alsobeen shown to be lacking in substance3.
6.02 The factors of particular relevanceto delimitation in the present

caseare thephysicalfactors in the sensethat they relate to (i) thegeneral
geographyof the setting in whichthe delimitation is to take place, includ-
ing the presenceof third States and third State delimitations in the area,
(ii) the specificgeographical factorsof coasts, sizeand distance, and (iii)
the characteristics of the sea-bed and subsoilthat constitute the continen-
tal shelf. As to the subsoil, it is when these geological elements have

aîïected the surfaceof the sea-bedthat they acquireparticular significance
in pointing-up what, in fact, constitutes the natural prolongation of one
State or thether and whether fundamental discontinuities exist4As the
Court said in its 1982Judgment -

"... jusr asitisthe geographical configurationof the present-
day coasts. so also it is the present-day sea-bed, which must be
considered. It is the outcome, not the evolutionin the iong-distant
past, which is of importance"."

6.03 Map II displays the physical setting of this case and may be a
@ useful guide to the paragraphs that follow.On it have been placed the

delimitation lines according to the Italy-Tunisia Agreement of 1971, the
Italy-Greece Agreementof 1977and the Court'slineinthe TunisialLibya
case as it appeared on illustrative .MapNo. 3 of the 1982Judgment. The

ricchari. Itsrclctonihc prcscntcase isiakcn upin Chapter2, above.See alsoparas.
1.04-1.27of the Libytin Counirr-Meniorial.
'See. generally.Chapiofthe Lihyan Counier-Mernorialand paras.4.49-4.51.above.
Ibid.; Malia'sreliancc onihc principleoorStates has beendewiihin para.
4.47.abovc. andin LihyanCounfer-Muniorial(paras.4.03-4.08) wasshownio
be of no relevancein cffcctinga dclirnitationbeiweenthe Parties.
'See NotrSea ConfinenraiSheij, Judgmeni. I.C.J. Reports51,para.95.
Toniinenral Shelf (TuoisialLiArabJnmahiriya), Judgmeni. I.C.J. Reporrs 1982,
p. 54. para.61. [771 REPLY OF LIBYA 79

Rift Zone is shownby a slight shading, and the key features of the Rift
Zone have been labelled, as well as certain other features of particular
interest in the present context.

A. The General Setting

6.04 Reverting to the broader geographical and geomorphological
@ setting revealedby Map II, certain pointsstand out. The distinct charac-
ter of both the geographical situation and the characteristics of the sea-

bed inquestion is immediatelyevident. Malta is seen to be a srnall island
group,not locatedby itselfinthe middleofa vastocean,but placed within
a constricted sea bordered by mainland States with extensivecoastlines
and large land territories. It is also apparent thar the lines formed by the
Sicily-Malta Escarpment and the Medina Escarpment divide two very

differentareas of sea-bed:that underlying the PelagianSea, on the West,
and that underlying the lonian Sea, on the east. Focussingon the area
under the Pelagian Sea, the Rift Zone may beseen to divide two other.
clearly separable areas or units: to the north are the Maltese Islandsand
theshelfof the Ragusa-Malta Plateau, the latter appearing as a subma-

rine extensionof Sicily; to the south lies the shelf that extends froni the
Libyan shores through the Melita and Medina Banksup to the Medina
Channel, whichseparates this southern area from the Ragusa-Malta Pla-
teau. The eastern border of the banks is the Medina Escarpment. These
banks run generally southwestward towardLibya and westward toward

Tunisia. To the east, the sea-bed area underlying the Pelagian Sea is
boundedin the north by the Sicily-Matta Escarpment andin the south by
the Medina Escarpment'.

6.05 With respect to the presence of third States in the region, the
southernmost points of the Italy-Tunisiadelimitationon the Westand of
the Italy-Creecedelimitationon the eastare ofparticular interest. Ifthese

pointsareconnected, it isseenthat this liwould notsubstantiallydepart
from a line running through the Rift Zone.

B. GeographicalFactors

6.06 An examination of the relationshipof the coasts of the Parties
reveals,jrst, that the Maltese Islands are very small in relation to the

surroundingland territoriesand, second,that the generat directionofrnost
of their coastsdoesnot run fromWestto east but rather from northwestto
southeast, generally parallel to the Coastof Sicily to the north and to the
featuresofthe Rift Zoneto the south.The effectofthis, particularly when

As Mup IIshows,thc Mcdina Escarpmcnicxicndssouthio approximat33" 30'N
latitude.Tdividinpoiniof ihcscEscürpmcisthcRiftZoncanditsextensionintothe
Heron Valley.80 CONTINENTAL SHELF [781

this "tilt" is emphasised by Malta's official baselines', is that only short
lengths of the coasts of the Maltese Islands can be said to face Libya
directly. Only those south or southwestern facing coasts on the Islands of

Gozo and Malta that were identified in the Libyan Memorial bear a
relationship to the Libyan coast between Ras Ajdir and Ras Zarrouq,
which. similarly. was identified as relevant for purposes of the present
delimitationz.

6.07 Of course. the Libyan coast extends along the entire southern
flank of the Central Mediterranean. However. the portion of this coast
lyingeast ofRas Zarrouq lieswelloutside the area relevant for purposesof

the present delimitation as identifiedin paragraphs 10.12through 10.18of
the Libyan Memorial. In theory, the tiny segment of Maltese Coastfacing
southeastward (a coastal facade of only some 5.4 kilometres) might be
said to facethe Libyan coast in the vicinityof Benghazi.some350 nautical
miles away. In reality, these coasis bear no more relation to each other

than do the coasts of Crete to the coasts of Tunisia. Aside from the
considerabledistance that separates the twocoasts and the vast difference
insize. the Libyancoast east of Ras Zarrouq abuts ona verydiKerent area
ofcontinental shelf lyingeast ofthe Escarpments-FaultZone consistingof

the Ionian Sea and Sirt Basin. Moreover, the small southeast-facing part
of Malta's coast isdwarfed by the coasts of third States - in this case of
italy and Greece - which also extend into this area, and, as noted above,
by the coast of Libya. This highlights the fact that delimitations in the
Ionian Sea involvethese larger mainland States, not Malta.

6.08 It followsthat the only coasts of the Parties which can realisti-
cally be regarded as having a relationship to each other for purposesof the
present delimitation are the Libyan coast between Ras Ajdir and Ras

Zarrouq and, al the very most, the Maltese coasts between the western-
most pointonGozoand theeasternmost pointon the Island of Malta3.The
lengths ofthese coasts stand in a ratio of between approximately 1:8and
1:12 to each other'. Whenviewed in this context, the 1973 proposal of

Libya - to which the Maltese Counter-Mernorial devoted considerable
attention - can readily be understood.

C. Libya's 1973 Proposal

6.09 The manner in which the Maltese Counter-Memorial has mis-
characterised Libya's 1973 proposal calls for some comment5. This pro-
posal is attacked on three main grounds in the Maltese Counter-

'f hescbasclincswcrc discusscdin iLibyan Counter-Memoriol,para.2.35.
'Ibid., ansecapara. 6.06. abovc..11.
'Libyon Mrmorial, para. O.I1.
'Thehistoribcaa ckgroundta Libya's1973proposahasken fullyset forthinChapterto
ihc LibyanMernorial. i791 REI'LY OF LIBYA 81

Memorial: it is said that it would be "the product not of a method of
delimitation but of a systern of apportionment based upon a concept of
proportionality'";thus, "[t] his line was in noway constructed by refer-
enceto Libya'snowdominant concernta reflectitsown'natural prolonga-

tion'*";this, inturn, issaidioshow that "Libya'scase to-dayis inprinciple
quite dilïerent from Libya'scase a decade ago3". The invalidityof ihese
assertionsrnay beseenif the 1973proposalis examinedfor what it isand
not for what Malta would claiai it represents.

6.10 The 1973proposa1of Libya wasgeared to the physicalsetting of
the area between Libyaand Malta. lt wasarrived at by conneclingpoints
alongthe relevantcoastsof the twoParties and dividingthe resultinglines

in the ratio of the respective lengths of the relevant coasts.These were
regarded by Libya as approximately the lengths of coast described in
@ Section B above. The resulting lineappears on Map 12.

6.11 In July 1972,Libya had. for the first time,been presentedwith a
concrete proposalfor delimitation by Malta. Examinationof the Maltese
medianIinequickly showedthat the equidistancemethod couldnot leadto
an equitableresuItin thecircumstancesof the case and wascleariydispro-
portionate. As showriby the minutes of the meetingsof April 1973',the

approach taken by the Libyan side representcd a method based on the
facts characterising the situatiorithat would be responsive,in particular,
totwokeyquestions:what coastsare relevant tothe deiimitation,and how
can the very different characteristics of thosecoasts be reflected in the
delimitation?

6.12 The answergivenby the Libyan sideto thesequestions - divid-
ing the distance separating the coasts of the Parties in accordance with
their relative length- is nowattacked by Malta as reflecting "no known

methodof delimitation inaccordance with Iawand [being] impressionis-
tic andarbitrary, as befitsan approach basedon apportionment'". Such a
conclusion seems to stem frorn the insistencein Malta's pleadingson the
"normal" nature of the geographical setting. The fallacy in Malta's
description of the geographical situation involvedin the present case is

that Malta apparentlyseesitselfas ifit werelocatedaloneinthe rniddleof
an ocean. It is not. It is located in a narrow sea witha number of much
larger neighbourshaving far more extensivelengths of coast flankingthe
surrounding areas of continental çhelf.

6.13 The 1973Libyanproposaldealt with thisparticular situation-a
small group of islandswith onlyvery short lengthsof coast that could be

'Mal~t=seCoun~er-M~moria lara267.
*Ibid.para. 182.
'See LibyanMemorial, Annex40.
'MaiteseCounfer-Meworial,para228.82 CONTINENTAL SHELF [go]

said to face a much longer lengthof the mainland Libyan coast - in a
fashionthat wouldreflect thesecoastal dilïerences. For this reason,it was
not basedon equidistance sincethat method fails to reflect,among other

factors, the diflerences in coastal lengths between Libyaand Malta'.
Rather than beingderivedfrom a pre-ordained methodas such, the 1973
proposa!sought a way of achieving an equitable result in these circurn-
stances.The technique ernployedassured that each kilometre of Maltese

coast receivedapproximatelythe sameweightaseach kilometreof Libyan
coast,withthe result that the differencesincoastal lengths weretaken into
account and the distorting effects of equidistance, particuiarly given the
distance between the coasts, were eliminated2.

6.14 In the light of these observations,it is interesting to turn to the
Maltese assertion that:

"Stripped of the deiail, the Libyan positionisbased upon a highly
abstract conceptioninvolvinga partition of the seabed in accord-
ance witha specialisedversionof the test of proportionality,which

in eflect becornesan independent criterion advanced as the basis
for a claim to a just and equitable sharea."

In fact,itis obviousthat the Libyan approach of 1973 isnot based on or
derived from anapportionment of areas of continental shelf. An appor-
tionment presupposestwooperations:first, a measurementof the areas of
continentalshelfto beapportioned betweenthe Parties;second,a partition
of those areas to each Party in accordance with a set ratio. The method

proposedby Libyainvolvedneither of thesesteps. It involvedthe construc-
tionof a line byapplyinga ratio basedon the differenceincoastal lengths
to the distance separating the coasts of one country from those of the
other, and not a "sharing out" of areas.

6.15 Evenwere the Maltese assertion correct, it could be made with
equal force aboul equidistance, the difference being that equidistance

wouldrepresentan atternpt to apportionthe continentalshelf betweenthe
'The questionor the distortingcffectwhichçrnallismaydhaveon an quidisiance line
hasalwaysbeena problcm.Howto rcrnedythat effeciin order to reaanquitablc rcsult
mustbeanswercdwithinthc frameworkoCeachparticularsituation.Thediversity ofpossible
rneihodswhich müy bcuscd to obviatesuch dispraportionatereswassillusirated by the
1977Anglo-French Arbirruiion wherctwodiffercntapproacheswere used:an enclavesolu-
tion around ihcannel Islandsand the useof halî-effectwith respectto the Scilly Islands.
Examplesof State practicc also illustrate oiher methods or dealing with istands.
*During the April 1973 meetings.the Libyan delegationmade the followingpoint:
"In replying ithc example stated by the Maltese delegation concerning the
determinationr the dividinglineby the equidistancemethod betweenthe Islandof
Malta and Sicilythc Libyan delegationstated that in ihisspccificcaseboth methods
willgivealrnostthe sameresulis.becauseof the tact that the portionof the coast line
ofSicily Islandnearlyequel io ihe lofgthe Maltesecoasi FacingSicily." Libyr
Mernorial. Annex 40.
Moltese Counrer-MrmoNalp . ara222. REPL.YOF LIBYA 83
[811

countries involvedin a 1 :1ratio', whatever their coastal lengths,whereas
the Libyan' proposal reflected the difference in coastal lengths. Which
conception isthe more"highlyabstract": that of Malta, whichdictates the
automatic application of a method simplybecause it has been used else-

where. and in spite of the fact that it leads to results divorced from the
concrete circumstances of the case, or that of Libya. which açsessesand
balances those circumstances, and reflectsthem in the delirnitation?

6.16 The second ground on which the 1973 Libyan proposal is
attacked by Malta stems from what Malta seesas an inconsistencyin the
Libyancase. The 1973line is said by Malta not to have beenconstructed
by reference to what is "Libya's now dominant concern", natural
prolongation.

6-17 Malta's assertion that the "proposal based upon the ratio of
coastal lengths and the 'Rift Zone' boundary represent two distinct con-
ceptions whichcannot in legal terms be complementary since they lacka

commonbasis""isat the same time inexact and misleading.It isinexact in
implyingthat there is no comrnon basis betweengeographical factors,on
the onehand, and geornorphological or geologicalones,on the other. Thai
common basisis the concept of natural prolongation, whichcannot be
reduced 10either one or the other set of factors" lt is misleading in
stating that these factors "cannot in legal terms be complementary",

becausethis iscreating a problemwhichdoes notexist. In the delirnitation
process, al1 the relevant facts and circumstances must be identified,
examined, assessed and weighed in order to reach an equitable delimita-
tion, Foremost among those facts and circumstances are those which
concern the coasts of the Parties and the sea-bed and subsoil of the

continental shelf itselfinthe area to be delirnited. The question is not,
therefore, to knowwhether the solution toward which an examination of
the coastal retationshipsofthe Parties and that lowardwhichan examina-
tion of the sea-bed would lead are "complementary" in an abstract way;
the question iswhether those factors point towards the same solutionand,
if not, how much weight lhey must be given in relation toeach other,

within the framework of the parlicular delirnitation in order to reach an
equitable solution.
6.18 It is also impossibleto accept Maltais contention that Libya's

case has materially changed since 1973.Today, as ten years ago, Libya
takesthe viewthat "the solution shouldbefair and reasonable,taking fully
into account the circumstances of the particular case4". In 1973, the
See LibyanCounrer-Mernorial. DiagrA facingp. 160.
@ ' mai^,^Counirr-Menioriol.paru 269.
:'SecLibyanMurnorial. ptra. 6.55. and Libyan Caunicr-Mernori4.21.ara.
, LibyanMernorial,para.4.24,disapprovinquotedbyMaliain iis Counter-Mernorial.
para.222.84 CONTINENTALSHELF 1821

Parties met to reach an agreement on a line, and Libya made a proposal
taking into account what are still, in Libya's view, important relevant
circumstancesin the presentcase includingthe coastal relationshipof the
Parties'. The question then was to arrive at a line of delimitation by

agreement, not to develop a full legalcasein supportof this proposal.The
general physicalcharacteristicsof the deep areas of sea-bed lyingsouth of
Malta were,of course, wellknownto both Parties at that lime2. Libya's
1973proposal,though basedprimarily on the coastsof the Parties, wasin
harmony withthis fact. It isevidentthat during a one-day meeting a full

discussionofthe factors supportingthe proposalsofeach Party wouldhave
beeninconceivable. Morever,sincethis meetingthe potentiallegal signifi-
cance of sea-bed and subsoil features such as the Rift Zone has been
amplifiedbythe Court of Arbitration in its 1977Award and bythis Court
in its 1982Judgment. Thus, there is no inconsistencyin the approach of

Libya tothe present delimitation which hasalways been focussedon the
facts.Today,as ten years ago, Libya seeksan equitable result that refiects
the relevant circumstancesof the present case which, as was observedat
the start of this Chapter,onsistlargelyof the physical factorsof geogra-
phy and the features of the sea-bed and subsoil of the continental shelf

areas in question.

D. Sea-Bed andSubsoilFeatures - a Boundary Within
andFollowingtheCeneralDirectionof theRift Zone

6.19 Turning next to the sea-bed and subsoilfeatures of the continen-

tal shelf withinthe relevant area, the Rift Zone is evidentlyof particular
importanceinthe light ofthe scientificevidence. Asdiscussed inChapter
5above,in its essencethis evidencehas not beendisputed by the scientific
papers furnishedby Malta with itsCounter-Mernorial.However,the Mal-
tese Counter-Mernorial has ctiticised Libya forsuggesting that the Rift

Zone shouldconstitute the boundary betweenthe continental shelf areas
appertaining to each of the Parties. This characterisation of Libya'sposi-
tion is inexact. Libya hasnever advanced the proposition that the Rift
Zone per se constitutes a natural maritime boundary line betweenthe
States. Rather, Libya's position is that the Rift Zone provides critical

physicalelements forthe determinationofa boundary linewhichwouldlie
within and followits general direction.
DuringtheAprit1973rncctingLibya hadnoopportuniiytodcvclopfultyitspositwas.It
onlyaone-day sessioninwhichihc Particshadtheopportunitytodo nomorerhansetforth
theirpositions andai which no cornprehproposalwercformulattd.Iiscvidcntthat
Maltahad nointerestindiscussingüliernaiivestoits"medianlinc"position.Theoui-of-hand
rcjectionof Libya'sproposalby ihc PrimcMinistctOCMaltaon the veryday the Libyan
proposalwas tablcdaitests to thisf;ici.Scc Mernorialpara4.37.
Seeparas.2.03-2.12,above.withrelerenceto Malta'sacknowledgr1966tof thisfact. 1831 REPCY OF LIBYA 85

6.20 The characteristics and features of the Rift Zone and its general
extent have been fully discussed in the Libyan pleadingsand are illus-
@ trated on Map 13. With respect to the geological factorsof primary

importancewhichunderscore the significanceof the Rift Zone,of particu-
lar pertinence is the scientific study containing an analysis of gravily
anornalydata in the area generallyunderlying the,PelagianSea'. Il should
be stressedthat the bulk of the data on whichthis study relieshas been in

existence for some10yearsand isabjectivetyverifiable.What thisanalysis
confirrnsin geologicalterms is the magnitude and importance of the Rift
Zone. One of the illustrations in this paper depictsa iine along the axial

ridge of the Rift Zone where the crust has been stretched and hence
thinned the mostas a result of the deep-seatedrifting and faultingoccur-
@, ring there. This red line appears onMap 10 facing page66 in Chapter 5

above,and has beensuperirnposedon Map 13. Toquote fromthe legend
appearing on the illuslration to lhis study (attached hereto as Annex 7):
"This axis is associated with a remarkable Mantle uplifting and Crustal
fragmentation." Thus, itreflectsthe geologicalfactors whichpoint up the

extent and continuity of these sca-bed features".

6.21 As for the relevant geomorphological - or sea-bed - features
that appear within the Rift Zone, they stand out clearly on these bathy-
metricmapsof the area. Il isevidentthat inthearea ofthe Rift Zonethat

crossesto the muthof the Maltese lstands there are two related seriesof
troughs and channels;one maybeseento followthe Malta Trough-Malta
Channel route where depths exceed 1,700 metres; the other followsthe

deepest parts of the Linosa Trough-Medina Channel. The depths and
dimensionsof these various features wereset forth in the Libyan Memo-
rial and its Technical AnnexY.Whenthe axial ridgedepicledon Map 13is

comparedwith theselinesof deepestsea-bedrelief.it rnaybeseentorun in
the same general directionand roughly between them.

'FIN~T~I, I.R(.1984)op.rii. Scc pra. 5.27.abovc. Fora definitionof "gravityanoma-
lies"ecfn.6 ai p65.abovc.
YAS isstatcd in FINIITTI, (19843, opdi..p.9 (aitachcd Annex 7. hereto):
"Thcgravity müp (Fig. 13) clcürly indicütcsihc area of the [Rifi Zonc] and the
positionofihc axisof maximumliftand crustal thinning. The length andthe axisor
the upliRarc wcllouilincdby lhc contofthc gravityanomaliesacrossthe whole
PelagianSca. Suchcvidcnicontinuitycankoroundelscwhcrein the PetagianSea."
It would bealong ihis linc lhat any scpnration of platc boundaries would bc expecied 10
occur. and. if ihc Rift Zonc should IOihis extena.newocean wouldstart io be
iormedAlthoughihccnd rcsuor thrifiingalanthcRift Zonisspeculaiive,theîactthat
ihis line represcnts lhc urcasof grcatcst ihinning is not.
LibyunMernorial.paru3.14.and TcchnicalAnnex, Pari 1.pp. 1-12-13. 86 CONTINENTAL SHELF [841

E. Geography, Geomorphologyand Ceology
Pointing to the Same Result

6.22 This Chapter has set forth the rnanner in which the principal
physicalcharacteristics of the relevant area between Libyaand Malta are

teflected on a bathymetric map of the region. With respect to the geo-
graphical facts of the case. thi key elements of interest are (i) the great
disparity in the lengths and configurations of the relevant coasts of the
parties and (ii) the general setting of the dispute and the proximity of

third States and existing third Staie delirnitations. As has just been
pointed out,the 1973proposalof Libya refiected,among other considera-
tions, the first of these geographical elerne-tsthe rnarked differencein
the lengths and configurations of the coasts of Libya and Malta. This
@@ proposalhas been depicted on Maps 12 and 13on which the area cornpris-

ingthe Rift Zone has been superirnposed. As for the secondof the relevant
geographical elements, the presence of third States and existing third
State delimitations.itwas noted howa line connecting the respectiveend-
points of these two delirnitations runs generally through the Rift Zone'.

With respect to the geologicaland geornorphologicalfactors characteris-
ingthearea,the existence and significanceof the Rift Zone constitutes the
most striking elernent. Within the Rift Zone itself, the scientific evidence
indicatesthe presenceof an axial ridge linemarking the area of maximum

stretching of the subsoil underlying the Pelagian Sea. This line also
appears on Map 13, and rnay be seen to fall generally between the two
deepest geomorphologicalseries of troughs and channels.

6-23 The expression of these factors and their relative proximity to
each other illustrates howa balancing of the relevant geographical, geo-
morphologicaland geologicalcircumstances of the present case rnay point
to a result that wou,ldnot be difficult 10identify. Such a delimitation

would also run right through the disputed area encompassed by the no-
drilling understanding entered into between the Parties at the tirne of the
signing of the Special Agreement and, as Chapter 7 below shows, would
satisfy the test of proportionality'. It isthis combination of circumstances

which suggests that il should not be an insurmountable task, contrary to
Malta's assertion. for the Court to indicate how inpractice these relevant
facts and circumstances rnight be reflected by the Parties in
negotiating a line of delimitation dividing the areas of continental shelf

between them3,thus enabling thern toarrive at a delimitation without any
difiiculty.
'It rnay~lbcnotcdihai ihccxrcnsiofthcLibya-Tunisiadclimitation.asdepicîedbythe
Court inls ilIusirüiivcMüp No. the1982Judgmcni.alrnostinicrscctswith thecnd-
painof the Italy-Tunisiiidclimitalion.
*SeealsoChapicr IOof thc LibyuMernorial.
Tee paras.1.Oand 1.07übovc,regardtnthesafcguardinoranyclairnsof thirdStatesin
thearea. CHAPTER7

PROPORTIONALITY AS A TEST OF THE RESULT

7.01 The shift in Malta's treatment of proportionality in its Counter-
Memorial as compared with its original Mernorial is welcome if only
because it enables the dispute on this point to be conducted in more

realistic terms. In its Memorial, Malta asserted the irrelevance of the
proportionality test in the present case'. In its Counter-Memorial, Malta
devotes the wholeof Chapter IV to proportionality, conceding itçgeneral
relevance to a delimitation in accordance with equitable principles', but
still attempting to limit its application in the present case3.Nevertheless,

basicdifïerences between the Parties exist both at the conceptual level-
that isto Say,in relation to the roleofproportionality in principle-and at
the factual level, in terms of how, if at all, it should be applied having
regard to the facts of this case. It will help to clarify the points in issue if
these two levelsare dealt with separately below.

A. Proportionalityin Principle

1. CommonGroundBetweenthe Parties

7.02 The Parties nowshare the viewthat proportionality isinherent in
any delimitation in accordance with equitable principles although Malta,
sornewhatinconsistently,still contends that proportionality is not applica-
ble inthe present case'.Theyequüllyshare the viewthat proportionality in
itself is not a source of title to a continental shelf area, but a criterion for

evaluating the equitableneçs of a delimitation" Beyond this. however,
there is little on which the Parties agree.
2. The Principal Points in IssueBetween the Parties

7.03 The main pointsof disagreement may be most readily identified
by reference to the critique of Libya's position foundin the Maltese

Counter-Mernorial. Reduced to ils essentials, this critique takes three
steps. First, Malta attributes to Libya a positionregarding proportionality
which Libya has,in fact, neveradvanced. This isthe Malteseclaim that, in
effect, Libya employsproportionality as a method of delimitation" Sec-
ond, Malta attacks this hypothetical position, which is of its own making,

as constituting an "apportionment" of the continental shelf. Third. Malta
thus avoidsdiscussingthe proper roleofproportionality inthe delimitation
process and fails to apply the test of proportionality even to its own

'MalreseMemorial,plira. 129.
*MalleseCouiirrr-Memoriol,para. 237.
'Ibid.; LibyanCounrcr-Mrmorialparas. 6.25-6.32.
'Malie.reCounrrr-Munrorial,ara.243.
"MolteseCountar-M~moriulor,ara221.ra.6.90.88 CONTINENTALSHELF Lw

proposal for an equidistance boundary. Each of these steps requires sorne

comment in order to place the issue in the appropriate context.
7.04 At the outset, it isconvenienttodispense withone point raisedby

Malta. This is the comment that Libyadoes not treat proportionality as a
"principle", and accords to it only a secondary role'. Of course, the
jurisprudence has emphasised that proportionality is not a principle or
method of delimitation. but rather a criterion or test of the equity of the
result'. This. however.does not diminish the importance of propartional-

ity since. as the Court has noted, it remains a fundamental "aspect of
equity3". Thus, it isquite wrongtosay that Libya accords proportionality
a secondary role.

7.05 The major criticism by Malta. which merits more attention, lies
in the assertion that Libya is advocating the use of proportionality as a
delimitation method - "a dogrnatic basis for what is in effecta delimita-

tion4". To avoid al1 further misunderstanding, it should be pointed out
that thisallegation findsabsolutely nobasis in any positionput forward by
Libya inils pleadings or elsewhere. Nowhere has Libya reliedonpropor-
tionality as a method of delimitation. Malta has simply chosen to ignore
what Libya has actually said on the subject of proportionality5.

7.06 Instead, Malta has attempted to equate the 1973 delimitation

proposal made by Libya with Libya'sviewson the role of proportionality
as a legalconcept. That this is Malta's design isclearfrom paragraph 221
of its Counter-Mernorial where it isasserted that the meetings between
representatives of the Parties of April 1973 "reveal the primary reliance
upon a certain coiiceptionof proportionality" and that Libya "has contin-

ued to rely upon this conception of proportionality in its Memorial".
Having thus created the impression that Libya'sviews onproportionality
are reflected in its 1973 proposal - erecting in effect a straw man -
Malta proceeds to attack this position.

7.07 The reasoning underlying Libya's1973 proposal has been dis-
cussed inthe previousChapter. As was there pointedout, the 1973propo-

sa1was basedon the physical reaiities of the particular situation. It.is true
that Libya did utilise a ratio between the lengths of the relevant coasts of
the Parties in order to arrive at a proposai which would reflect the geo-
graphic facts of the setting. That coastal ratio came into play, however,
onlyas a technique for givingcomparabletreatment to the relevant coasts

Malru.~rCbuniur-Mrniurial, paras.2.16-2.20.
'See, especial. nglo-FrtnchArbilralion. D~risiJOlune 1977(Cmnd. 7438). p.61,
para. 101.
'CunrinrnraShuv (Tunisia/Libyan Ara6 Jamahiriy.Judgrnrnr.I.C.JReporis 1982.
p.91.pürü.131.
Maliese Counitr-Miniorial, pü221.
"See Libyan Mrnroriol. Chapter IO, and LibyanCounrcr-M~morial.Chap6.r i871 REPLYOF LIBYA 89

of each Party so that each kilometreof the Maltese coast would receive
moreor lessthesarne weightaseach kilometreof the Libyancoast.Thus it

was that the 1973proposalof Libya took account of geography and the
relevant coasts of the Parties and did not involveproportionality in the
sense of apporlioning out areas of continental shelf.

7.08 Thejustification forsucha methodisself-evident.ThisCourt has
emphasised that:

"The geographic correlationbetween coast and submerged areas
ofi the coast is the basisof State's legal title .. .the coast of the
territory of the State is the decisivefactor for title to submarine

areas adjacent to it'."
Sirnilarly, the Court of Arbitration has obsewed that:

"A State's continental shelf, being the natural prolongation
under the sea of its territory, must in large measure reflect the
configurationof its coasts. Similarly, whentwo'opposite'or 'adja-
cent' States abut on the same continental shelf, their continental
shelfboundary mustinlarge measurereflectthe respective configu-

rations of their Iwocoasts'."

Thus, if the coasts are the starting point for determining the areas to be
delirnited,and if the continental shelf of a State shouldgenerally reflect
the configurationof its coasts, the logicalsequence forarriving at a suit-
able method of delimitation would seernto be:

(i) to determine which particular coasts are relevant for the
delimitation between the Parties concerned3;

(ii) to determine which areas of shelf are relevant because they
abut on thesecoasts inthe sensethat the areas are the "natural

prolongation" of the territory of one or the other Party';
to determine what are the relevant geographical and other
(iii)
physicalfacts and howthey are to be reflectedin the delimita-
tion within the relevant area;

(iv) to balance inany other considerations (e.g.,the conductof the
Parties) that may be relevant for an equitable delimitation;
and finatly

(v) to test the resuli by means of the criterion of proportionality.
'ConrinenialSheij (Tirnisiu/LibyanArob JaniahiriyaJ. Jodgment.I.C.J. Reports 1982,
p. 61. para. 73. And scc Libyan Menrurial. paras.7.07-7.20, for a rurthcrdiscussion.
'Anglo-FrenchArbitration. Drrision oj3O June 1977(Cmnd. 7438). p. 60. para. 100.
'This is thstageof thcprwcss discusscdinthc Libyan Mernorial. paras10.08-10.1.
'This secondstageof thc processisdcscribcditheLibyunMernorial.paras. 10.12-10.18.90 CONTINENTAL SHELF [88]

7.09 Itisthe third stage of the proccsswhichcalls forthe "weighting"
of the two coasts and the balancing of the relevant circumstances of

coastal lengthand configurationwiththe other relevant factors,whereas it
is the last stage by which the result is tested by meansof the element of
proprtionality. Of course,the Maltesethesisisessentiallythat no weight-
ing is required nor any testing necessary, sinceit regards al1coasts in the

abstract as equal, but that thesis accords neither with commonsense nor
with the law'. Some "weighting" has tooccur ifCourts are to treat the
geographicalfactorsrealisticallyand to balancethem intothe delimitation
equation, for to ignorevery rea-lditïerences in two coasts is to ignore the

facts of nature, the true geographicalfactors from whichthe deimitation
exercisebegins. Asthe Court hdicated in its 1969Judgment, there can
neverbea questionof "renderingthe situationof a State Withan extensive
coastlinesimilar to that of a State with a restricted coastline'". Whether
onedescribesthis processas "weighting",or "evaluating the geographical

factors" makesverylittle difference.The point is that Courts have to take
account of real differencesa,and the only questionis howshould theydo
this.

7.10 Twocriteria suggest themselves(indeed, it isdifficultto imagine
any others): thefirsr isthe lengthand configurationof the coasts, and the

second is the sizeof theland territory or landmasswhichextends into and
under the sea fromthe coast or coastal front. Thefirst criterion needs no
further expianation. The second criterion followsfrom the fact that it is
the natural prolongation of the landmass - the extension of the land

territory into and under the sea - which appertains to a State as its
continentalshelf.And whilstthe rnethodofdelimitation may wellhaveto
be based on the actual coast, good sensewould require that an equitable
delirnitation shouldreflect the landmass behindthe coast in terms of the
"weight" of its natural prolongation. The treatrnent of islands in the

jurisprudence and in State practice where they have received reduced
effectsupportsthisview. It appears that the site of the islandwillvirtually
always be a relevant factor in the delimitation'.

7.11 However,whether the cornparisonsare of length simpliciter, or
of length plus weight, theyare necessarily reflected in a ratio.'But to

confoundthis methodofdelimitationwiththe "test ofproportionalitynis a
gross misrepresentation of this method.
'Sec LibyonCounier-Memarial,paras.7.16-7.20Indecd.in ihc Tirnisio/Libyacasehow
clsccouldihc changeordirection inthcTunisiancobttakenintoaccountwiihoulking
accordcda ccriain'weight" in iht dclirniiaiion?
*Norih Seo Conrinrntal hrlj. Judgment. I.C.J.Repo1969.pp. 49-50, par91.
aOf courseminordilfercnccsor incidentalfcaturesof coastal configunanbectakcn
accountofby rcprcscniinga coasbya "coastafront".
'Sec,in particular,pa4.12,abovcand,gcncrallytheLibyanCounier-MernorialAnnex
or delimitationagrccrnents. 1891 REPLY OF LIBYA 91

7.12 Proportionality is a criterion whereby the equity of the result
arrived at by balancing the facts and relevant circumstances is tested.
Indeed, as Libya hasalready pointed out in iu Counter-Mernorial',reli-

ance on proportionality cannot be, per se, drawn from a reliance on the
idea of a "just and equitable share" which the Court has rejected in its
1969 Judgment', forthe Court itself hasused the proportionality test in
the very cases in which it had rejected the doctrine of the "just and

equitable share". In addition, one cannot escape the fact that the Court
has held inprior cases that a reasonable degreeof proportionalityshould
exist betweenthe extent of the shelf areas appertaining toa coastal State
and the lengthofthe relevantpart of itscoastline. Whileit isunderstanda-
blethat Malta doesnotlikethe result ofthe applicationofthe proportion-

ality test to its equidistanceproposal,nature cannot berefashioned, andit
servesnoconstructivepurposefor Malta to circumventthis fact through a
suggested view ofproportionality attributed to Libya that, in fact, is
totally at variance with Libya's pleadings.

B. The RelevantArea

7.13 It is apparent that the proportionalitytest to beapplied within
the area which is relevantto the delimitation. Although the presenceof
third States isgermane to the definitionof the relevantarea, it is the view
of Libya that for purposesof the present case this area is to be defined

essentiallyon the basis of the coasts of the Parties which are related to
each other evenif third State claims may potentially existin parts of this
area. The area considered relevantto the present dispute wasoutlined in
paragraphs 10.12 to IO.t8of the Libyan Memorial. The facl that third
States may claim certain parts of lhis area cannot serve toalter the basis

for determining this area as relevant toa delimitalion between Libyaand
Malta, even though the extent of the area to be delimited definitively
between the Parties may be thereby affected. It is also apparent that in
any part of the area in which third States have clairnsthe delimitation
must remain non-prejudical until such time as these claimçare resolved.

As the Court stated in its 1982Judgment:
"lt islegitimate to work on the hypothesisof the wholeof that area

being dividedby the delimitation line between Tunisiaand Libya;
because although the rights which other States may claim in the
north-eastern portion of ihat area must not be prejudged by the
decision in the present case, the Court is not dealing here with
absoluteareas, but with proportions. Indeedi,fit were notpossible

'Libyan Countrr-Mumarial.para..15.
YNorthSeu ContinentalShee JirdgrnenI.C',Reports 1969. p.22. paras.1And0see
thesirnilarvicby ihc CourorArbiirationinihc 1977Anglo-FrenchArbitrarionandthe
Courtinthc 1982Tuni.~ia/Libyacasc.quitcpropccitcby MaltainitsCounler-Meme
rial. paras.226-227. CONTiNENTALSHELF [wl

to basecalculationsofproportionalityuponhypothesesofthis kind,

it isdifficultto see howany two States could agree on a bilateral
delimitation as being equitable until al1the other delimitations in
the area had been efTectedl."

C. Proportionalityin Practice

7.14 It may be recalled that the Libyan Memorial, having identified
the relevantcoasts and the reievant area, suggestedthat the ratios of the

two coasts (broadly between I:8 and 1:IZ) be applied to determine
whether, within the relevant area, a delimitation which falls within the
Rift Zone and whichtakes intoaccount al1of the relevant circumstances

rneetsthe test ofproportionality". Theconclusionreachedwasthat sucha
delimitaiion wouldsatisfy this test. tibya did not advance a precise line,
since the Court's task is no1to deterrnine a precise line.

Obviously. when.intheir negotiations.the Parties rnoveon to the
7.15
task ofdetermining thepreciseIine,that line willhave toproducea result
which reflects the balancing up of al1the relevant factors and circurn-
stances and which rneetsthe proportionality test3.The previous Chapter

has shownhow the geographical,geologicaland geomorphologicalfactors,
if properly reflectedin the delimitation. lead to a similar result. Each of
these factors points to a solution falling within the area of dispute as
evidenced by the conduct of the Parties, respects the presence of third

States and existingthird State delimitations,and producesa result within
the Rift Zonewhichsatisfiesthe test of proportionality asa "touchstoneof
theequitableness4"ofthe result.There isnoparticular magicor sanctity in

any onemethodofarrivingat the particular delimitation. What matters is
that the result shouldbe equitable: itshould bea product ofa balancingof
the relevant factsand circumstancesofthe caseand should reflectapprox-
imately the ratio ofthe relevantcoastsofthe twoParties. The drawingof

the precise line should not presentmajor problemsforthe Parties. oncethe
Court has indicated the relevant area along with the relevant circum-
stances.the weight tobeaccorded themand howtheyare to be reflectedin

the delimitation, and the ratio of areas which such a delimitation estab-
lished according to equitable principlesshould bring about.

'Set ContinentalSheIf (Tunisio/Libyan Arab Jarnahiriyo). Judgment. I.C.Reports
1982.p. 91.para.130.Sccatso paras.1.06 and1.07,ahvc.
*Libyan Memorial.para.10.18.Thisbroad approachwas followcdin thhbyan Counier-
Mernorial.para.8.05.
'Forihis purpc. "nicccalculriiions"or proportionality no1be uscd(AnglrFrench
Arbirrarion. Becirion JO Junc 1977 (Cmnd. 7438).p. 117, para.250). but rathcra
'reasonablcdcgrccorproportionaliishouldbeachieved bctwccnthearcasof shclfappcr-
taining!OcachSiatc and ihc gcncrallenglhof iheir rclcvanicoasis.
'ContinentalShry (TunisiafLibyan Arab Jarn~hiriya), Judgmrnt. I.C.J. Reports 1982,
p. 78.pürü.108. [911 REPLY OF LtBYA 93

7.16 Ifthe additional factor of weighting of size of the landmass or
land territory isconsidered, it should operate soas to justify the selection

of a higher, rather than a lower, ratio of coasts in the present case. As we
have seen, depending upon how the relevant coasts are measured. the
coastal ratio could be anything from 1:8 to 1:12. But, given the fact lhat
the factor of size is weighted so heavily in Libya's favourbecause of the
enormous Iandrnass lying behind the Libyan coasts compared to the very

smatl size ofthe Maltesc Islands, this would suggest that the delimitation
should be tested by taking at Ieast the 1:12 ratio rather than the 1:8.

7.17 The Maltese Counter-Mernorial has not disputed Libya'sdeter-
mination as to whichcoasts of the Parties are relevant tothe delimitationt.
Nor has it taken exception to the coastal ratios. indicated in the Libyan
Memorial, which flowfrom a comparisonof thesecoasts2.Moreover. while

it istrue that the MalteseCounter-Mernorial challenges the importance of
the Rift Zone. ithas not advanced any argument contradicting the fact
that a delimitation within and followingthe general direction of the Rift
Zonewouldsatisfy the criterion of proportionality based onthe ratioof the

coastal lengths of the Parties and maritime areas appurtenant to them.
7.18 Instead. Malta has accused Libyaof being illogical.The Mattese

argument is that Libya treats natural prolongation and proportionality as
producing a coincidentat result3. According 10 Malta, since there is no
necessarycorrelation betweenproportionality, as a function of the lengths
ofcoastljnes, and the principle ofnatural prolongation, the fact that both

produce results within the Rift Zone is meaningless. Thus the Maltese
Counter-Memorial asserts: "If the proportionality argument is valid, the
natural prolongation argument isirrelevant. Ifthe latter principle isvalid,
the proportionality argument is irrelevant'."

7.19 This lineof argument entirely missesthe point: it illustrates how
the Maltese pleadings have failed to appreciate the proper function of

proporlionaliiy. Thete is no reason in law why each and every factor
relevant todelimitation must of necessity "coincide" withproportionality.
In the Tunisia/Libyacase, for example, there was no inherent correlation
between the existence of a modus vivendi - a line extending roughly
perpendicular frorn the parties' common land boundary - and the test of

proportionality employed by the Court. And yet the existence of çuch a
modusvivendiwas deemedto be arelevant factor in that delimitation5;its
recognition as a relevant circumstance was not considered to be exclusive

'These coastwcrc idcntificinthcLibyan Memorial. paras. 10.08-10.11.
*MaI~e.wyCorrnrur-M~mwiai.lara.233.
'Ibid.. par235.
'Contin~ntolShclf (Tuni.ria/LibyanArab Jomohiriya). Judgmtnt,I.C.J. Reports 1982.
pp. 84-85. para. 119.94 CONTINENTALSELF 1921

of any other element orcircumstance;and certainly not to be preemptive
of the requirement that the equitableness of the outcome be verified by

applicationof the proportionality test.Similarly, inthat case there wasno
automatic correlation between,or mutual exclusion of,the givingof one-
half effectto the Kerkennah Islandsand the applicationofthe proportion-
ality test.

7.20 The reason whythere is no predetermined relationbetween pro-
portionality and any particular factor is straightforward. lt is simply

because"proportionality" per sedoes not result in any one particular line
of delimitation representing a divisionof areas of shelf. Within any given
area,an infinitenurnberof linescandividethe area ina set proportion. But
thisis notthe roleof proportionalityasthe Courts have madeuseof it. For
proportionalityis notapplied to producea "line" whichis then compared

with the individual factorsand relevantcircumstancesof the case to seeif
itisconsistent with individualfactors. Proportionality is used as a test of
the result -a result whichhasbeen arrivedat byselecting,weighingand
balancing-upal!the relevant considerations.The question whichthe crite-

rionof proportionality seeksto answeris:doesthe delimitation to whicha
balancingof the factsand relevantcircumstancesleadsproducean equita-
ble result? Is it one which includes -

"the element of a reasonable degree of proportionality, which a
delimitation carried out in accordance with equitable principles
ought to bringabout between the extent of the continental shelf

and the length of the relevant part of its Coast ... lm?
7.21 If the proportionality testisapplied to Malta's proposedmedian

linedelimitation, theanswer tothesequestionsisunequivocally,"No". By
no stretch of the imagination may it be claimed that, within the area
relevant to delimitation between tibya and Malta, an equidistance line
producesa result which includesthe "reasonable degree of proportional-
ity" that this Court has insisteduponin both its 1969and 1982decisions.

The Malteseproposa1isdisproportionateuponits face.It failsoutright the
test of proportionality "asan aspect of equityy".

7.22 In summary, what needs to be stressed is that the treatment
afforded to proportionality in the Maltese Counter-Memorial remains
purely theoretical; il adheres to the abstract trapezium exercisea,and is
divorcedfrom any appreciation of the actual coasts of the Parties or the

actual area which liesbetweenthem.This isinitselfthe bestproofthat the
realities of the situation are wholly inconsistent with Malta's proposal.
'ConritwnfaShclJ (Tunixia/L.ibyanArab Jamahiriya.Judgmcnt.I.C.J. Rcporfs 1982,
p. 93.para.133 (B)(5) fdi.ryio.riti/l.
'Ibid.,p. 91, para131.
aSecChaptcr7ofthe Libyan Counier-MernoriaalndtheAnncxthcrcio foracritiqueofthe
trapcziumcxcrcise.[931 REPLY OF LIBYA 95

The moment oneexaminesthe actual coastsand the area relevantto those
caasts (taking accountof the presenceofthird States), the inequityof the
median line is al1 too apparent. As for proportionality. it must remain

Malta's thesis that proportionality is irrelevant. For once its relevanceis
conceded.the lack of proportionality in Malta's median line is glaringly
obvious.And once that is revealed, the inequity of the result sought by
Malta is inescapable. In contrast.a delimitation withinand followingthe
general direction of the Rift Zone produces a result which takes into

account al1the physical factors and relevant circumstances and satisfies
the test of proportionality. CHAPTER8

OBSERVATION SNTHEAPPROACHES OF THE PARTIES
TO DELIMITATION IN THE PRESENTCASE

8.01 In the Introduction to this Reply, attention was called to the

numerous "misunderstandings and misinterpretations" whichcharacterise
the Maltese Coutiter-Memorial. Libya's firstreaction was that the errors
should be corrected one by one. On closer examination. it was found that
any attempt to deal with each and every one of these "mistakes" would
lead to a document of inordinate length and complexity. Accordingly,
comment in the lntroduction was limited to just a few illustrative exam-
ples of the misunderstandings or misinterpretations which appear in that
Chapter.

8.02 The final Chapler of the Maltese Counter-Memorial, Chapter
XIII, adopts a somewhat different approach from ihat of Chapter 1. It

suggestsadverseimplications"for the developmentof the principlesof law
and equity relating io the continental shelf" flowing from the Libyan
arguments in the present case.The alleged implications are themselves a
fantasy and are based on an incorrect and. at times, distorted viewof the
Libyan arguments. In fact, the Chapter isone which should be examined
closely in order to appreciate the extent to which the Maliese Counter-
Memorial has employed rnisrepresentation and exaggeratias a tech-

nique of pieading. In the end, the Court will, of course, judge where the
truth lies. Even the Maltese Counter-Mernorial admits (paragraph 333)
"that the Libyan Memorialappearsroaccepithe existing body of princi-
ples". Properly understood. the Libyan case is directly founded on the
applicable relevant principles and rules of international law concerning
delimitation of the continental shelf.

8.03 Apparently. in an attempt to evade this self-evident fact, para-
graph 332of the Maltese Counter-Mernorial resorts to the presentation of
a view which is a mere caricature of Libya's position. Libya has not,

contrary to what is said in paragraph 332(a), presented sea-bed features
as "natural frontiers" or,as isalleged in paragraph 332(d). "topography"
as one of the "actual bases" for a "primary delimitation". In fact. the
wholeconcept of a "primary delimitation" isalien to Libya's thiAking.
composite feature of the dimensions of the Rift Zone does not. in and of
itself. provide a natural boundary line. However, the physical factors of
geomorphology and geology. just as those of geography, have ken

brought to the Court's attention because they are of relevance to the
entitlernent of the Parties and constinuany event relevancircurn-
stances that provide important elements pointing to an equitable result. ~951 REPLY OF LIBYA 97

8.04 Contrary to what is said in paragraph 332(b), Libya has never
talked in terms of the "jurisdictional needs" of one Party being "more
significant"than those of the other. If by "territorial extent" in paragraph
332(c) is meant the factor of the very small size of the Maltese Islands
and, in particular, their very short lengths of Coast in comparison to
Libya's very large size and extensive coasts. then Libya has, consistent

with the jurisprudence, advanced these geographical factors risrelevant
circumstances, particularly as concerns the coasts of each Party that are
related to the shelf area to be delirnited. As to paragraph 332(d), it
misstates cornpletely Libya's vicw as to the role of proportionality, a
matter adequately brought out in the previousChapter.

8.05 These misstatements of Libya'scase have pavedthe way for the
Maltese Counter-Memorial, in paragraphs 333 and 345, to suggest that
dire consequenceswouldresultif Libya'sapproach to the present case -

wrongly describedas a "radical change inthe existingstructure of the law
of maritime jurisdictions" - were favourably consideredby the Court.
Matta put5 its threat of dire consequences in these words:

"Were an international tribunal to show favour toarguments of
the type advanced by Libya in this case, the law would bethrown
inta confusion. The implications, the invitation to forms of
aggrandisement and revisionism whichsuch a change of direction
in the law would presage, would beserious indeed'".

8.06 But this alarmist suggestionthat the case put forward by Libya
represents a "change of direction in the law" - in fact a "radical change"
- ispure fabrication. It isnot Libya but Malta whichisadvancinga novel
approach to delimitation - an approach which,in fact, did not fullytake
fvrmuntil the Maltese Counter-Mernorial. It is that approach which is

contrary to the jurisprudence and tendencies of legal development from
the Truman Proclarna~ionof 1945 to the 1982 Convention. It is an
approach based on a theoretical priority for the equidistance methad now
bolstered by appeal to a "distance principle" whoserelationship to delirni-
tation of the continental shelf istenuousat best, particularly inthe light of
paragraph 10of Article 76 of the 1982Convention. The Libyan case,on

the other hand, is solidly grounded in the particular facts of the present
case and in the jurisprudence.
8.07 It is not necessary for Libya totry to outdo Malta in predicting

thedire consequencesthat wouldresult if the Malteseapproach to delimi-
tation should find favour with the Court. For Malta's line of argument
does violence to the fact that no special or privileged status ha$ been
accorded to the equidistance method in the jurisprudence, in State prac-
tice and in the 1982Convention. The Maltese approach rests on alleged

'Malfcse Coonter-Mernoriapara.345.98 CONTINENTALSHELF [961

"principles"with nofacts to back themupor to establish their application
in the present case.It ignores orside-stepsthe circumstanceswhichin the
jurisprudence have clearlybeen regarded as relevant tocontinental shelf

delimitation, namely, the specific geographical facts such as coastal
lengths, coastal relationshipsvis-3-visthe area of continental shelf to be
delimited. sea-bedfeatures and the presence of third States. In Maltais
viewrelevantcircumstances may beusedto "refine"the "equitable nature
ofthe primary boundary"asto the "marginal aspectsofthe equalrelation-

shipsof the twocoastal States", but neverto require a "major re-ordering
of the primary delimitation'".Such a viewrelegates the relevant circum-
stancesofthe particular case - and henceequitableprinciples - toa role
subordinate to the equidistance method which,as Malta wouldhave it, a
priori leads to a "primary boundary" which is said to be primafacie

"equitable".

8.08 Thisprimarydelimitationtheoryonlyclearly emergedin Malta's
Counter-Memorial,and may wellbe termed novel.The a priori role that
Malta wouldassignto equidistanceneverhas existedin customary inter-
national law. In fact, the Truman Proclamation of 1945,invoked no less

than four times in the final chapter of the Maltese Counter-Memorial,
itselfsuggeststhat sucha position as Malta nowadvanceshad nostanding
even in 1945.For the Proclamation Statesunequivocally:

"ln cases where the continental shelf extends to the shores of
another State, or is shared with an adjacent State, the boundary
shall be determined by the United States and the State concerned

inaccordance wjtheqrritable prjnciplesPW

8.09 What issodifferentbetween theapproachesof the Parties, then,
is this. The Libyan approach starts with the viewthat each case of conti-
nental shelf delimitation has to be consideredon its own facts. Accord-
ingly,Libya examines thefacts, openingup the map, observingthe coasts

of the Parties that relate to the area to bedelimitedand al1the geographi-
cal, geomorpholugicaland geologicalfeatures. Other factors such as the
presence of third States and the conduct of the Parties are examined.
Giventhis special situalion involvingthesevariousfactual circumstances,
the task, in the viewof Libya,isto determine which ones are relevantand

how much weight shouldbe accorded those that are relevant in order to
reachanequitable result.Thewayinpracticeofachievingthat result flows
from these facts - it is a function of how best to achieve an equitable
result.

'MaltesrCounler-Mernorial,para340-341.Thisnovcspproach conccrninthe"primary
delimitaiionisunnmbiguously setforth inparas. 338-344of the MaltescCountcr-
'SecoLibyanMernorialAnnex80.i971 REPLY OF LlBYA 99

Malta'sapproach isdesignedtocircumvent thefacts. To dothis a
8.10
sortof codeisernptoyed.But this codeis readilydecipherable. Malta'slip
serviceto the geographicalfactorsof the presentcase is quite transparent
as has been brought out in Chapter 5 aboveand in the LibyanCounter-
Mernorial'.Malta deniesthe relevanceofsize.coastal lengthsand coastal
relationships. Instead,in Chapter XIII. Malta refers to -

"the equitable principle of non-encroachmentwhich recognises
the elernent of self-protection and requires that proximity of a
coastal front shouldpredominateoverany geomorphologicalargu-

ments which would allow cutting across the coastal front of one
coastal State in favour of another'."
Similarly, Malta asserts:

"In principle coastalStates which are oppositeand abut upn the
same area of continental shelf should beaccorded an equal lateral
reach of jurisdiction3."

And, again:

" ... the equality of lateral reach from the coastswhich results
from equidistance is in harmony with the traditional thinking
behind the legal principles governingmaritime delimitation'."

These pronouncements havenosupport in the jurisprudence and noneis
cited. Terms like "equal reach of jurisdiction" and "equality of lateral
reach" are just code words for use in getting around the facts - of
rendering irrelevantthe coasts of the Parties and the other relevant cir-
cumstances of this particutar case. In reality, these propositions are
nothing more than a restatement of the equidistance method in other

terms.
8.11 Similarly, Malta's resort to State practice is another device for
deflectingattention from the facts of the present case as if somedetermi-

native principleor ruleof delimitationcan bedrawn frornsuch practice in
other factual settings. Bythe same token, Malta'snewemphasison natu-
ral prolongationas a purely spatial or distanceconcept is well suited toa
theory ofleap-frogging features of the sea-bed as well as ignoring size,
coastal lengths and coastal relationships;but, similarly, it has nosupport
in the jurisprudence or in the 1982Convention.

8.12 Maltais case is built around abstractions and theories - princi-
plesthat lack a legal foundation, rather than facts and relevant circum-
stances.The equitablenessof Malta'sresult is not arrived atinthe light of

'Sec. gtncrally.Chapt2rof ihc tihyaCounirr-Mrmorial.
*Maliesc Counrcr-Mrmarial. par337(b).
Ibid.para.340.
'Ibid.para.339.1O0 CONTINENTAL SHELF f981

the factsand relevantcircumstances in this particularcase but on the basis
of an a priori judgment that equidistance must be the primary delimita-
tion to be adjusted in an appropriate case - but not here - and only
slightly adjusted if "relevant considerations" so require.

8.13 Apparently these "relevant circumstances" have nothing to do
withgeography, geomorphologyor geology.They appear to be the various
considerations so prominently advanced in the Maltese Mernorial which
Libya regards either to have been found by the Court as not relevant in a

case of continental shelf delimitation - considerations such as compara-
tive economic needsand lack of natural resources - or to be unproven or
irrelevant inthe present case - considerations such as "security needs". It
does not sufficernerely to state:

"The security needs of small States and especially small island
States are no less, to say the least, than those of other States'."

What are Malta's security needs that require it to have rights to the sea-
bed and subsoil as far south as almost 34" N latitude and as far east as
18" E longitude, let alone the Medina Bankarea? If Malta has security
interests that would be affected by Libya's claim, just what are they?

8.14 The case-by-case. faclual approach of Libya isclearly in accord
with the jurisprudence, the basic principle of delimitation by agreement,

and the praclice of States. It also makes sense;no situation is entirely like
another. If equitable principles are to govern the result, the facts of each
case have to be the starting point and keyelement in any case of continen-
tal shelf delimitation. It is clear, as the Court itself has noted, "that it is
virtually impossible to achieve an equitable solution in any delimitation
without taking into account the particular relevant circumstances of the

area'". An abstract. theoretical approach isalways prone to workinjustice
in particular cases. Such an approach as adopted by Malta in the present
case would cerlainly do so. To adopt Malta's approach would be to pre-
judge future delimitations regardless of the facts or other relevant circum-
stances and considerations in the particular case.

8.15 The crucial task lies in balancing the various factors relevant to
the delimitation and in weighing the effect each particular circumstance

should have in the overall result3. It is not surprising that a factor of
major importance in one case may be less in evidence in another. Given
that each particular delimitation situation presents its own matrix of
relevant facts, this is to be expected. But this does not prevent al1 the
relevant factors from being balanced in a manner which points to an

Malie.tr Courrter-Murnoripara.339.
'ContinentalShelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arah Jamahiriya). Judgmcnt. I.C.J. Reporrs 1982.
p. 60, para. 72.
.Ibid., p. 60, pa71. [99-1001 REPLYOF LIBYA 101

equitable solution in that particular case. What then remains isfor the
result that emergesfromthe facts to be tested by meansof the elementof
proportionality to determine whether, in fact. a result which bears a

reasonable degree of proportionality has been achieved. This does not,
however, convert the test of proportionality into a "method" of
delimitation'.

8.16 The Libyanapproachtodelimitation inthiscaseisdictated by -
and indeedarisesdirectly outof -- the principlesand rulesofinternational
lawconcerningcontinentalshelfdelimitationasthey have evolvcddownto
the presentday. Such an approach cannotthreaten the existing principles
and rules,and Malta'sdire predictionsare completely unfounded. Libya is

confidentthat this approach is the right one and that it givesscopeto the
Court to fulfillits task under the Special Agreementin appreciating the
geographical and other circumstances relevant to the delimitation in the
particular case', a role denied tothe Court by Malta's insistenceon the
primacy of the equidistance method.

8.17 Inspiteof the diversionsand falsescentsprovidedby the Maltese
Counter-Mernorial, it is Malta's insistence on its equidistance line that
remains a principal issuein the present case. It is the main obstacle to a

solution which will achieve an equitable result in accordance with the
principlesand rules applicableto continental shelfdelimitation.The Mal-
tese contentions concerningthe "distance principle"confusethe issue of
delimitation and have no real impact. Malta's arguments on alleged
acquiescence havebeen shownto be without merit. There is overall

nothinginthe MalteseCounter-Mernorialtocause Libyatoalter the basic
approach adoptedin its Mernorialwhichrejectedthe equidistancemethod
asobligatoryand maintained that itsapplicationin the presentcasewould
not lead to an equitable result. Libya continues to seek an equitable
solution which wouldtake account of al1the relevant facts and circum-

stancesofthiscase. Accordingly, Libyacontinuesto maintain the Submis-
sions made in its Mernorial,

'See paras7.12and7.20,abovc.
*Anglo-French Arbiirotion, Deciof30 lune 1977(Cmnd. 7438). p48, para69. Libya confirrns andmaintains its Subrnissionsmade in its Mernorialas
follows:

Inview of the facts,the staternent ofthe law,and the applicationofthe
law to the factsasset forth in the Libyan Memorial,the Libyan Counter-
Memorial, and in this Reply;and

In viewof the observationsconcerningthe factsas stated in the Maltese

Memorial and Counter-Memorial and the statement of law as therein
contained;

Considering rhai the Special Agreement between the Parties requests
the Court to decide "what principlesand rules of international law are
applicable to the delimitation of the area of the continental shelf which
appertains to the Republic of Malta and the area of continental shelf
whichappertains to the Libyan Arab Republic,and how inpractice such
principles and rules can be applied by the IWO Parties in this particular

case in order that they may withoutdificulty delimit such areas by an
agreement" in accordance with the Judgment ofthe Court:

May itplease the Courr,rejectingal1contrary claims andsubmissions,
to adjudge and declare as follows':

1. The delimitation is to beelïected by agreement inaccordance
with equitable principles and taking account of al1relevant
circurnstances in order to achieve an equitable result.

2. The natural prolongation of the respectiveland territories of
the Parties into and under the sea is the basis of title to the
areas of continental shelf which appertain to each of them.

3. The delimitation should be accomplishedin such a way as to

leaveas much aspossibleto each Party al1areas ofcontinental
shelfthat constitute the natural prolongationof its land terri-
tory into and under the sea, without encroachment on the
natural prolongation of the other.

4. A criterion for delimitation of continental shelf areas in the
present case can be derived fromthe principleof natur7.lpro-
longation because there exists a fundamental disc0r:inuity in
the sea-bedand subsoilwhichdividesthe areas of continental
shelf in10 IWO distinct natural prolongations extending from

the land territories of the respective Parties.
'The nurnbcredSubmissionsarc as lhappearin thLibyonMemorial.Il021 REPLYOF LIBYA IO3

5. Equitable principles do not require that a State possessinga
restricted coastline be treated as if it possessed an extensive
coastline.

6. In the particular geographical situation of this case, the appli-
cation of equitable principles requires that the delimitation
should take account of the significant difference in lengths of
the respective coastlines which face the area in which the

delimitation içto be effected.
7. The delimitation in this case should reflect the element of a
reasonable degree of proportionality which a delimitation car-
ried out inaccordance with equitable principlesought to bring
about between the extent of the continental shelf areas apper-
taining to the respectiveStates and the lengths of the relevant

parts of lheir coasts,account beingtaken of any other delimita-
tions between States in the same region.
8. Application of the equidistance method is not obligatory, and
its application in the particular circurnstances of this case
wouldnot leadto an equitable result.

9. The principlesand rules ofinternational lawcan inpractice be
applied by the Parties so as to achieve an equitable result,
taking account of the physicalfactors and al1the other relevant
circumstances of this case, by agreement on a delimitation
within,and followingthegeneral direction of, the Rift Zone as

defined in the Libyan Memorial.

(Signed) .................. .....................................
ABDELRAZEG EL-MURTADISULEIMAN

Agent of the Socialist People's
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya ANNEXES TO THE REPLY OF LIBYA

Annex 1

EXTRACE FROM MALTESP EARLIAMENTD AERYATES.
20-22 JULY1966

(Unoflcial franslufion)

120July 19661
DEBATE ON CONTlNENTAL SHELF BILL
CONTINENTAL SHELF BILL

Hon. Dr. T. Caruana Dernajo (Minister of Justice): 1move that the Draft Bill
on the Continental Shelfe read a second time.
Mr. Resident.as the House will remember, the Draft Bill was presentedin
the last Parliament. Its general principles and aims were discussed. itwas
even given a second reading; unfortunately, however, Mr. Speaker. this Draft
Bill did not become Law because of the dissolution of Parliament.

Today, for the benefit of rhe new Honourabte Members of the Mouse, and
also because some doubts were expressed by the Opposition when this Draft
Bill was discussed last time1shall repeat. in brief, the pnnciples and aims of
the Draft Bill.
This Draft Bill assumes and indirectly affirms the sovereignty of Malta over
the ContinentalSheff, and gives to the Government al1 the rights which Malta
has over the Continental Shelf, as well as al1the natural resources of the Shelf.
1 think that the House will appreciate that this sovereignty which Malta has
over the Continental Shelf does not come from the Draft Bill which lies before
the House, but cornes from International Law which has now been enshrined in
the Convention on the Continental Shelf. This Draft Bill therefore assumes
Malta's sovereignty and continues to assert and affirm it. as happens in every

country which possesses a Continental Shelf. However, although this sover-
eignty over the Continental Shelf exists independently of whether or not there is
a Municipal law, and thus it existed without the Draft Bill which lies before the
House. and without the amendments which were made ta the Petroleum (Pro-
duction) Act, 1958, it is necessary, Mr. Speaker, to have a Municipal law su as
to hand over to the Government the rights whichalta has over the Continental
Shelf and over its natural resources, and so as to regulaor.rather.1 should
Say, so as to find a means of regulating the exploration and exploitation of this
Shelf and of its resources.
Thus in the first instance the Draft Bill which lies before the House today
invests in the Government the rights which Malta has over he Continental
Shelf and over its natural resources.

Hon. P. Carachi: For the fourfh time this evening 1askthat there should be a
quorum. because we do not have a quorum. 1am asking this for the fourth time.
Mr. Chairman.

At8.42 p.m.. a quorum beingpresent.the sirtinwas resumed.[2-31 ANNEXES ro THE REPLY OF LIBYA 105

Hon. Dr. T. Car-ana Demajo: Thus, Mr. Speaker, in the first instance, the
Draft Bill which lies before the House invests in the Govemment al1the rights
which Malta has over the Continental Shelf and over its natural resources and
by making it a condition that al1the oil which may be found here in Malta will
besubject to the relevant provisions of the Petroleum (Production) Act, it prohi-
bits the exploration for oil without a Govemment licence, and regulates also the
granting of that licence and the conditionsunder which it must be given.
The relevant provisions of the Petroleum (Production) Act, 1958, to which 1
have referred are to be found in Section 3, sub-section 2 of the Bill which lies
before us.
The Draft Bill also provides for the protection of the living resources of the

sea and also for the cleanliness of the sea, and it will impose penalties on
anyone who discharges oil or allows it to flow out in a way which would pol-
lute thesea.
The Draft Bill also controls, inso far as it is necessary for the production and
exploitation of oil, underwater cable installations, the laying down of under-
water cables iswhat 1meant to Say.
It results, from Section 4, that this Draft Bill gives the Prime Minister the
power to indicate the area or areas over which. from time to time, the right of
Malta over the Continental Shelf rnay be exercised, and he has this power not
only as a consequence of an agreement with other countries over this Continen-
tal Shelf but also for the purpose of exercising certain rights for the protection
of the installations or other equipment which it may be necessary to install and
for the application of thealtese 1;iwto these installations.

Hon. P. Carachi: Mr. Speaker, 1wish that things would be taken seriously.
I had insisted on a quorum, and this is now the fifth time that 1 am insisting
on it!
We should beashamed of the fact that in this House we are cutting such a
bad figure. If we are unable to stay in this House to cany out our duties, we
should not have corne here, we should not have had a sitting!

The Clerk counted the House and, a quorum being present, rhedebate con-
tinued.

Hon. Dr. T. Camana Demajo: In this context 1 would like to explain a few
things about the limits of the Continental Shelf.
The Continental Shelf of every country has two main limits. The first limit of
the Continental Shelf is established by the depth of the sea because it is a fun-
darnental principle of International Law that çovereignty only extends as far as
itcan be exercised, and modem technological means only permit exploitation
up to a certain depth. The second limit of the Continental Shelf comes into
being when two States claim equal or conflicting rights, that is when the sheif
of one country, in line with the first limitation whic1mentioned earlier, meets

that of anothe~country.'
As regards the second limitation, it is naturally desirable that an agreement
should be reached between the States concerned regarding the limits of the
Continental Shelf, and the Convention relating to the Continental Shelf, to
which 1have already made refererice, already provides for such an eventu~lity.
Wowever it is not possible, although it is highly desirable, that there should
always be such an agreement. However, even in the case of lack of agreement,
the Geneva Convention provides for a median line, which is that line which
divides the two shelves.106 CONTINENTALSHELF [3-41

1 am mentioning this mainly because when 1moved this Draft Bill in the last
Parliament, the Opposition referred to the negotiations with Italy and with the
African States.
1 would like to make it clear that in so far as Africa is concerned, this matter
is not relevant today since the Maltese Continental Shelf and the African Conti-
nental Shelf do not meet, and the seas between them are so deep as to prevent
exploitation. However, Our situation vis-&vis Sicily is different, Mr. Speaker.
But even here 1 would like to clarify that although it is desirable that there
should be an agreement on the Limitsof the Continental Shelves of Sicily and
of Malta, this is not at al1essential. Should thebe no agreement, Mr. Speaker,

the Govemrnent of Malta has already made it ciear to the Italian Government
that until a different agreement is reached, the Maltese Govemment considers
that the median line is that which divides the two shelves.
Finally 1would like to refer to what 1 have already stated in an earlier Sitting
when the first reading of this Draft Bill was moved regarding the way in which
the survey of our Continental Shelf will be canied out, and eventually its
consequent exploration and, should oil be found, its exploitation. 1 also recall
that in the last Parliament 1had announced that discussions were to take place
with cornpanies which had shown an interest in the exploration and exploitation
of oil in Malta. In fact, Mr. Speaker; these discussions did take place, but
senous doubts were expressed, and these senous doubts were expressed not only
by the companies but aiso by the Government's experts because jtemerged
that it was not worth while carrying out a preliminary "combined survey"
because of the geological structure of Our Continental Shelf and the result
which such a suwey rnight yield.

The Govemment is giving this matter al1 the necessary consideration and it
will not be long before it will announce the procedure and the method which it
intends to follow . . .
Hon. D. Mintoff: Do 1 understand correctly that the survey is not going to
take place?

Hon. Dr. T. Caruana Demajo: No, it is not going to take place.

Hon. D. Mintoff: Was there no need for it?
Hon. Dr. T. Caruana Demajo: There was no need for it. We were shown as
much both by the companies as well as by the experts which the Govemment
has at its disposal. Of course the Governrnent will publish the regulations which
in fact are in the process of being prepared by my office, and thus al1the preli-
minary steps will be taken which 1am sure, as al1members of the House would
wish, will have a successful outcome in the interests of the economy of the

country should we succeed in finding oil. This is ail 1had toSay regarding the
pnnciple and the airn of the Draft Bill which we have before the House.
Hon. Dr. P. Borg Olivier: 1 second it.

Hon. D. Mintoff: 1 think. Mr. Speaker, that the Government will not take
offence if the Opposition should state that it is not very impressed with the
speed and rapidity with which these matters concerning oil are being taken, and
1honestly cannot understand how a few months ago the Govemment felt that
there was a need for a survey, and not only that there should be such a survey,
but thatitshould becombined, and that it should be undertaken by al1the corn-
panies together, and today the Government is stating that it has been informed
by the experts that there is no need for i1cannot understand how they did not
know this six months ago and nine months ago. 1am saying this on the basis[4-51 ANNEXES TO THE REPLY OF LIBYA 107

of what 1 have just heard. 1 will repeat that it is a mystery to me why the
Govemment was not informed by its experts six months and nine months ago
that there was no need for this survey.
1 will also repeat, Mr. Speaker. that we should be pleased if agreement is
reached with the Italian Government, but the Minister was not particularly
explicit on this point. 1 agree with hirn over the point that the depth of the sea
which divides Malta from Sicily is much less than the depth of the sea which
divides Malta from Libya and from Tunis. Thus far 1 agree with what he says. 1
also think that the Minister will also agree with me when 1 say that thereis a
part of this area where the sea is shallow, especially the area between Malta and

Libya. 1 think that if the Minister were to investigate thoroughly. he would
agree with me on this point. From what 1know of geology of the sea and of
our island, the shallowest part of the whole of the Mediterranean basin is that
between Libya and Sicily and the pnrtaround Malta. Of course the deplh be-
tween Malta and Sicily is less than the depth between Malta and Libya, but
there isa shallow part in this area which divides Malta from Libya which is so
shallow as to permit it to be exploited for the purposes of research for the
exploration of oil, and1 think that what the Government meant to Say when it
said that the sea was deep was that the shallow part was so much nearer to
Malta that there should not be much cause for dispute on this point between
ourselves and Libya, and up to thiç point we are in agreement.
1 have also tried to understand how the law has been drawn up, constructed,
and put togeiher,and 1couldno1honestly understand why there are suchdiscrep-
ancies in the penalties for breaking the law which we have before us. For
example, ifone were to lay a cable in an area designated as a petroleum area, a
fine of £50 a day would beimposed, and then if a tanker were to pass through
that area and do anything where oil exploration was being carried out, we find

that the fine is £100, and then, yet again, if somebody else were to break the
law in another way as is mentioned at the end of the law, you will find that
there isa fine of £1000.

Hon. Dr. T. Camana Demajo: During last Wednesday's sitting, the Opposi-
tion raised two matters after1 had spoken about the principles and aims of the
Bill. The Opposition referred to the limits of the Continental Shelf between
Malta and the African States and it also referred to the fines which are laid
down in the Draft Bill.
As regards the first observation, 1can say there is no problem regarding the
Continental Shelf of the Afncan States, for the moment at least, because they

are separated by a depth which cannot be exploited and, whilst1 was explaining
the principlesof the Bill, 1 said that one of the principles of International Law
is that sovereignty extends only so faas it canbe asserted, and modern techno-
logy today does not permit exploitation beyond a certain depth.

Hon. D. Mintoff: If you will allow me. There is a part of it, however, which
can be exploited, is that not so?
Hon. Dr. T. Caruana Demajo: But they do not touch one another.

Hon. D. Mintoff: But they al1touch one another.

Hon. Dr. T. Caruana Demajo: Eiiitthere is the question of depth.108 CONTLNENTALSHELF [6f
Hon. D. Mintoff: A part of it. For example, towards Libya it is shallow
enough, but lhis partdoes not corneas far asthe areabetween us.

Hon. Dr. T. Caruana Demajo: Mr. Chairman,as 1was saying, there are three
different penalties. Thefirst isa penalty of not more than £100 or irnprisonment
for a pend of no1 more than three months, or a combination of the fine and
imprisonment together.There is a provision for this penalty in Cla... 4 ANNEXES 70 THE REPLOFLIBYA

Annex 2

MALTES NEOTEVERBAL .0~ALY DATED 31DECEMBE1R 965

[Sec1,p. 551, Mernorialof MAnnex 6.51 CONTINENTAL SHELF

Annex 3

DOCUMENT SELATING TO CONCESSION NC 53: {a) EXTRACTS FROM HEADS
OF AGREEMEN OF 14 APRIL1974; (b) EXTRACT SROM EPSA OF 13 OCTOBER
1974; (c)An No. 58 OF 23 SEPTEMBER 1974,W~TH ACCOMPANYIN MGAP;
TRANSLATION (d;)EXCHANGE OF LETTERS BETWEEN THE LIBYANMINISTRY OF
PETROLEUM AND TOTAL, DATED17 NOVEMBER 1974 AND 12 JANUARY 1975;
(e) REDIJCTIO NF MAPPUBLISHE DY THE NOC IN 1975

(a)EXTRACTS FROM HEADS OF AGREEMENT OF 14 APRIL1974

HEADS OF AGREEMENT

Preamble

As aresult of discussions held in Tripoli, pursuant to the minutes of under-
standing signed in Paris on 20th February, 1974 by representatives of the
Govemment of the Libyan Arab Republic and Compagnie française des petroles,
it was agreed upon the following principles:

1. (A) Type of Contract:

Petroleum Exploration and Production Sharing.
(B) Parties to the Contract:

(1) National Oil Corporatio- General Corporation established in the
Libyan Arab Republic according to Law No. 24 of 1970 and its
amendments (First Party)
(2) Compagnie française des pétroles - a Corporation established
under the Laws of France, acting for itself and for itsaffiliate,
Compagnie des pétrolesTotal Libye (C.P.T.L.) (Second Party).

2. Conrract Ares :
It shall be made of:

Area A - Western Offshore Area- as described in Appendix IA.
Area B - Murzuk Basin Area - as described in AppendixIB.
Area C - Hamada Area - as described in Appendix IC.
Area D - Eastern Dcep Offshore Area- as described in Appendix ID.

Eachblock shall have anapproximate surface of 1,500 kexceptfor Area D.
3. Confract Durariun:

Thirty-five (35) years.
4. Exploration Period:

Shall be:
- for AreaA - five (5) years,
- for Area B- six (6) years,
- for Area C- five (5) years,
- for Area D - five (5) years; as from the date of selection of the blocks
retained in that areaas provided in Appendix II. ANNEXES TO THE REPLY OF LIBYA 111

At the end of the Exploration Period for each of the areas, only the blocks in
such area in which a discovery . . .
. ...........................................
... below, if Second Party does not agree with a decision of the Commiitee on a
developmeni projeciwhich Second Party deems uneconomical. First Party may
proceed with the project at its sole risk and expense and ask the operator to per-

form such operation. and the First Party shall enjoy the entire benefits deriving
therefrom.
13. ExplorarionCornrnitments:

Second Party undertakes to carry out the work program outlined for each area
in Appendix II as approved by the Management Committee.
Second Party undertakes to spend for such operations:

(a)Areü A:
Minimum Cornmitments cif 30 millions US$ for the first 6,000 square
km.
for any area in excess of 6,000 sq. km. where TOTAL shall work after
international boundaries have been agreed upon, commitments shall be
15 million US $ for each 3,000 sq. km.

Area A shall not exceed 22,000 sq. km.
(hl Area B not less than 30 million US $.
(c)Area C not less than30 million US S.
(dl Area D I million US $ for seismic, and after the optional selection of
block or blocks, 10 million$ for each block.

In the case of Area D the Exploration Period shallbe extended as neces-
sary to enable drilling tbe conducted in a safe manner.
In the case of Area A the Exploration Period shallbe extended by a per-
iod equal to the delay between the effective date and the final determina-
tion of the limit of Libyan jurisdiction affecting the said Area.
Should the geophysical works and the general geological studies and/or
drilling information not result ia sufficient number of drillable prospects

justifyingsuch commitments, then additional area(s) shall be requested by
the Second Party to the Libyan Govemment. Should such new area(s) not
be granted or sliould the same, in Second Party's opinion and after serious
consultations and review with theSupervisory Committee, not justify the
undrilled exploration wells, then Second Party shalf be released from any
remaining obligations.

14. Force majeure: The usual clause.
15. Arbitration:
According to the Rules of the international Chamber of Commerce in Paris.

The Board of Arbitration shall consist of three (3) Arbitrators.

16. Assignmenrof Rights:
The assignment of any of the Second Party's nghts and obligations under the
agreement shall be subject to the Govemment consent.112 CONTINENTAL SHELF
If isnoted that TOTAL intendsto request such consent for the transfer of a

part interest in one or more of the areas, to another oil Company which would
become partner with TOTAL as Second Party, being understood that TOTAL
would rernain responsible vis-à-vis First Party of Second Party's obligations.
The above principles shall be developed into a detaiied Agreement which
shall be finalized as soon as practical between the Parties' representativesd
approved by a Libyan Law enacted for that purpose and in accordance with the
applicable procedures in both countries.

Signed on this day 21st Rabi El-Awal, 1394 H., corresponding to the 14th
April, 1974 A.D.

for the Libyan Party for C.F.P.
(Signed) [ILLEGIBLE.] (Signed) [ILLEGIBLE.]

Appendix IA

WESTERN OFFSHORE AREA

The Area shall be the area comprised within a line made up of:
(a) On the one hand, the seaward limit of jurisdiction of the Libyan Arab
Republic over the seabed and subsoil underiying any agreement between
the Libyan Arab Republic and any other relevant Mediterranean State
claiming jurisdiction over such seabed and subsoil, between the westem-
most and the eastemmost intersections of the said limit with the broken line
defined in(b) below.

(b) On the other hand, that part of the continuous broken line defined hereafter
which is comprised between the eastemmost and westernmost intersections
referred to in (a)above; that continuous broken line shall be made up of:
(i) that part of themeridian of 14" 45' longitude East, which is situated
north of point A being its intersection with
(ii) parallel4" 10' of latitude North, westward of point A up to point B-
being its intersection with

(iii) meridian 13' 30' of longitude East, southward of point B up to poiCt
being its intersection with
(iv) parallel 33" 50' of latitude North, westward of point C up to point D
being its intersection with
(v) meridian 13"05' of longitude East, northward of point D up to point E
being its intersection with
(vi) parallel 34' 15'of latitude North, Westof point E.

PETROLEUM EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION SHARINGCONTRACT

Between :
- National Oil Corporation, a General Corporation established in the Libyan
Arab Republic according to Law No. 24 of 1970 and its amendments

(hereafter called "NOC" or "First Party"); ANNEXES TO THEREPLY OF LlBYA 113

- Compagnie des pétroles Total (Libye), a cornpany established and organised
under the laws of France being rwholly owned affiliate of Compagnie fran-
çaise des pétroles (hereafter called "TOTAL" or "Second Party"); and
- Compagnie française des pétroles, a company established and organised
under the laws of France

Whereas representatives of the Governrnent of the Libyan Arab Republic and
of Compagnie française des pétroles have agreed in Paris in Febmary 1974 on
CO-operationbetween them in the fields of petroleum activities including explo-
ration for which an exploration coritract was tobe concluded as soon as pos-
sible;
Whereas certain principles for such an exploration contract have been dis-
cussed, agreed and recorded in Heads af Agreement signed by the Parties in

Tripoli on the21% Rabi El-Awal 1934 H. corresponding to 14thApril 1974A.D.;
Whereas NOC has the exclusive right and authority to explore for and
develop petroleum in and throughout the Contract Area as hereinafter defined;
Whereos NOC is authorised and empowered by the Revolutionary Cornmand
Council of the Libyan Arab Republic to enter into this Contract;

Now therefore it is agreed asfoliows:

Article 3- Conrracf Area

3.1. The Contract Area shaIl initially consist of:

Area A: the Western Offshore Area as described in Appendix I.A.
Area B: the Murzuk Basin Area as described in Appendix I.B.
Area C: the Hamada Area as described in Appendix I.C.
Area D: the Eastern Deep Offshore Area as described in Appendix I.D.
3.2. No later than eighteen (18) months after the Effective Date, Second Pany
shallhave the option, by notice to First Party, to designate within Area D
as defined above up to three blocks defined by portions of meridians and

parallels, of an aggregate areal extent of no more than rhirty thousand
(30,000) square kilometers.
Area D, except for areas so designated, shall cease to form part of the
Contract Area on the expiry of such 18 months period.
3.3. At the end of the Exploration Period in respect of any Area, the said Area
shall be reduced to those Blocks within which a discovery has been made
or a discovered field, structure or trap extends. Al1 other Blocks in said

Area shall cease to form part of the Contract Area.
3.4. The Contract Area may be increased by the inclusion therein of additional
areas as provided in Article 5.3. below.

Article 19- EffectiveDate and Term

19.1 This Contract shall take effect when ir shall have ken signedby duly
authorized representatives of First Party. Second Party and Compagnie
française des pétroles and approved by a Libyan Law enacted for such
purpose. CONTINENTAL SHELF

This Contract shall terminate, except for extensions due to Force
Majeure as provided in Article 15, on the thirty-fifth anniversary of the
Effective Date.

Done in Tripoli on the 27th Ramadan 1394 H.

comsponding to the 13th October 1974 A.D.

For Compagnie française des pétroles, For Compagnie des pétrolesTOTAL
(Libye),
(Signed) [ILLECIBLE.] (Signed) [ILLEGIBLE.]

For National Oil Corporation,
(Signed) [ILLEGIBLE.]

DEFINITIONOF AREAS

A- WESTERNOFFSHORE AREA

The Area shall bethe areacomprised within a line made up of:
(a) On the one hand, the seaward limit of jurisdiction of the Libyan Arab
Republic over the seabed and subsoil underlying the Mediterranean Sea as
established by or pursuant to any agreement between the Libyan Arab

Re~ublic and anv other relevant Mediterranean State claimine iurisdiction
ovér such seabed and subsoil, between the westernmost andY;he eastern
intersections of the said limit with the broken line defined in (6) below.
(6) On the other hand. that part of the continuous broken line defined hereafter
which is comprised between the easternmost and westernmost intersections
referred to in(o) above; that continuous broken line shall be made up of:

(i) that part of the meridian of 14" 45' longitude East, which is situated
north of point A being its intersection with
(ii) parallel34" 10' of latitude North, westward of point A up to point B
being its intersection with
(iii) meridian 13" 30' of longitude East, southward of point B up to point C
being its intersection with
(iv) parallel33' 50' of latitude North, westward of p0int.C up to point D
being its intersection with
(v) rnendian 13" OS' of longitude East, northward of point D up to point E
being its intersection with

(vi) parallel34" 15'of latitude North. Westof point E.
This Area shall be subdivided into blocks by such portions of the following
mendians and parallels which are included in the Area under the Libyan Arab
Republicjurisdiction :

Meridians Parallels ANNEXES TOTHE REPLYOF LlBYA

(c)ACT NO. 58OF 23 SEPTEMBER 1974, WITH ACCOMPANYING MAP;
TRANSLATION

LibyanArabRepublic

OfSici Gazette

NO.66 3 AL-HEJJA1394,
Corresponding to 17 December 1974

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LAW5 PROMULCATEDBY THE REVOLUTIOKARY
COMMANDCOUNCIL

XIIth Year
Page
Law No. 58 (1974) issued on 23 September1974 approvingexploitation
andproductionshanng agreementsas betweenthe NationalOil Corpo-
rationandcertainoil companies . . . . . . .,.. .. . . ... .. . . 2847

Publishedby orderof the Ministeof Justice

No. 66 Page 2847

LAW NO. 58 OF 1974
APPROVINGEXPLORATiONAND PRODUCTIONSHARINGAGREEMENTSAS

BETWEEN THE NATIONAL OILCORPORATIONAND CERTAINOIL COMPANIES
In th6 Name ofthePeople,

The RevoluiionaryComrnand Council,
Havingregardto

The ConstitutionalDeclarationof 2 Shawal 1389, correspondingto11De-
cember 1969;116 CONTINENTAL SHELF

The 1955 Petroleum Law No. 25 of 1955, and its amended laws;
Law No. 24 of 1970 establishing the National Oii Corporation and its
amended laws;
Law No. 8 of 1974 approving an exploration and production sharing agree-
ment between the National Oil Corporation and Occidental (Libya) Co.
S.A., and;

Having regard to what has been submitted by the Minister of Petroleurn in
his memorandurn dated 9 Jumada AL-ULA 1394. corresponding to 30 May
1974, and to the approval of the Council of Ministers,

Has prornnlga~ed thejollowing law:

ArticleI

Exploiiation of areas illustrated in the annexed chartand in the exploration
and production sharing agreements between the National Oil Corporation and
the follllowingoil companies hbeen agreed upon:

1. The French Petroleurn Company and its subsidiary Total (Libya) Petroleum
Company;
2. Esso Libya S.A.;
3. Mobil Oil (Libya) Ltd.;
4. AGlP Company S.A.;
5. Petrobras Internatiopai Company S.A. Braspetro.
And that is according to conditions specified in the memorandum of the

Minister ofPetroleum referred to above.

Article2

The Minister of Petroleum is authorized to take the necessary measures to
complete the detailed and final Agreements between the National Oil Corpora-
tion and the companies referred to in the preceding article. He may delegate any
official othe Ministry of Petroleum, the National Oil Corporation or any of its
subsidiaries, to sign such agreements.

Article 3

The Minister of Petroleum shall implement this law which enters into force
as of the date of its promulgation. 11shall be published in the Official Gazette.

The Revoluiionary Command Council

lzziddin AL-MABROUK, Major Abdussalam Ahmad JALLOUD.
Minister of Petroleum. Prime Minister.

Issued on 7 Ramadan 1394
23 Seprember 1974 ANNEXES TO THE REPLY OF LlBYA 117

{d) EXCHANGE OF LE'lTERSBFlWEEN ME LIBYAN MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND

TOTAL, DATED 17 NOVEMBER 1974 AND 12 JANUARY 1975

Libyan Arab Republic
Ministry of Petroleum
P.O. Box 256, Tripoli.

Tripoli, 3rd. Zul Keda, 1394 H.Y.

Corresponding to the 17th Nov., 1974.

Messrs. Compagnie française des pétroles- TOTAL
39-43, Quai André Citroën
75739 Pans-CEDEX15
France.

Kindly be informed that the Revolutionary Command Council of the Libyan

Arab Republic has on the 29th Shawwal, 1394 H.Y. corresponding to the
13th November, 1974, promulgated a Law ratifying the terms and conditions of
the agreement concluded on the 27th Ramadan, 1394 H.Y., corresponding to the
13th October, 1974 betweenthe Ministry of Petroleum, acting on behalfof the
National Oil Corporation and your Companies.
You are hereby notified accordingly so as to commence the implementation
of your commitments.

Yours faithfully.
(Signed) Hussein ABDINE.
Legal Advisor,
Ministry of Petroleum.

Mr. Hussein Abdine
Legal Advisor
Ministry of Petroleum
P.O. Box 256, Tripoli.

Tripoli, le 29 Thoul Haja 1394.
12 Januasy1975.

DearSir,

We the you for your leiter of 17 Novernber 1974.in the course of which
you informed us that a law had been promulgated ratifying the agreement
entered into between the Ministry of Petroleum and our Company on13 October
1974.
This law was published in theofficia1gazette on 17 Decernber1974.
We take it that on a proper interpretation of the contract the "Effective Date"
is the date of suchpublication.
As far as we understood it correctly, it was our same understanding when we

discussed the rnatter in your office on 8 January 1975.118 CONTINENTAL SHELF

In the absence of advice from youto the contrary,thereforewe shall regard
the date of such publication as theeffective date of the contractand shall act
accordingly.

Yours faithfully,

(Signed) P. RONDEAU.

(eJ REDUCTION OF MAP PUBLISHED BY THE NOC IN 1975

[Norreproduced] ANNEXES TO THE REPLY OF LIBYA

Annex 4

AGREEMENTWITH THE OIL COMPANIESREGARDING THElR POSITION UNTIL
THE SITUATION BETWEEN MALTA AND LIBYA IS RESOLVED

The Hon. Dom Mintoff: On the 7th December, 1977, after many months of
negotiation, agreement was finally reached with the three companies who were
given a licence to drill for oil towards the south of the Maltese Islands. This
special agreement was made necessary because of the disagreement between
Malta and Libya regarding the median line which separates the two countries.
All the companies who had been given a licence to drill for oil agreed that

the matter had to be resolved by the International Court; so much sa, that
agreement was reached with two of' these companies before the Special Agree-
ment with Libya of the 23rd May, 1976 was signed. This Agreement was
placed before the House in the statement of the 24th May, 1976.
Although the cornpanies were in agreement regarding the International Court,
the details regarding changes to the licence, the talkswere not finalised with
them al1 in a short time. One should not be surprised at the lengthy proceed-
ings if the Government's aim in these negotiations isunderstood. This was that
whilst the Maltese Government allowed the companies to postpone those under-
takings that could not be effected before the case between Malta and Libya was

resolved, at the same time would force these companies to satisfy ihe other
undertakings which were not tied to the drilling of ojl proper.
The agreement now reached between al1the companies Statesthat prospecting
for oil willbe stopped pending the decision of the International Court regarding
the extent of the Maltese continental shelf, thus ensuring that any future pros-
pecting willbe conducted in ouf (Maltese) waters. The companies want to know
what will happen should the International Court decide that the median line is
not that which Malta maintains. Consequently we had to foresee what changes
to the licences would be required should the International Court ,not decide

wholly in our favour.
The new agreement made it clear that irrespective of the Court's decision, al1
monies which had been paid to Malta would be retained by Malta and Malta
would not refund any money neither would it forfeit those sums which fall due
for payment during the period of the disagreement.
The Agreement re-enforces that part of the original agreement which bound
the companies to invest in industrialprojects in Malta. These changes have not
been effected because of the disagreement between Malta and Libya, but
because of difficulties encountered by these same companies in investing in

industrial projects in Malta. We ourselves have encountered these sarne difficul-
ties, as can besaid of the whole World; because ofthe recession.
Notwithstanding, the Government made sure that whilst it was not possible ta
create the desired number of jobs for the people of Malta, they would reap
other benefits.
The agreement made with the consortium mn by Aquitaine regarding invest-120 CONTINENTAL SHELF [2-31

ments did not raise any problems. Not only did they set up the proposed factory
but it is beingrun in accordance with the;agreernent and is making progress.
Texaco fulfilled its undertaking to appoint "consultants" in an endeavour to
establish which industries could be profitably set up in MaIta. In November
1974 Stanford Research Institute made a long report to Texaco and the Malta
Developrnent Corporation in which the necessary advice was given as well as
naming the American companies who had shown interest in setting up indus-
tries in Malta. Because in the past years trade between countries was reduced
(there was the "recession") every effort of Texaco and the Malta Development
Corporation to set up industries came to nothing.
Therefore, we agteed with Texaco that out of the unspent sum, which amoun-
ted to 2.8 million Arnerican dollars, the surn o1 million dollars would be paid
imrnediately to the Government to be spent as it thought fit. and the balance
would be retained hy Texaco to be invested by this company in an industrial
project of the Maltese Govemment's choice. This money will be expended as
soon as we have a worthwhile project in which we wish Texaco to invest. In

the meantime, we hiive kept this money as a reserve, as we had other means on
which to draw.
Joc Oil's problems were more complicated and difficult, and they took
longer. Joc Oil's undertaking was precise: it was to invest ia cernent company
costing approximately 35 million American dollars. After careful study made
by the company, it was found that the project would not be a profitable one,
principally because i~fthe high cost of oil.
Despite the considerable effort made in an endeavour to find an alternative
project to take the place of the cernent project, nothing was achieved. After
months of negotiations, Joc Oil agreed to give to the Govemment the surn
invested in the cernent project. This surn, together with accnied interest, was
approximately Lm580,OOOT . his surn was placed in Malta's treasury to meet the
needs of its people.
Itis therefore clear that, despite the deiay in oil exploration because of the
disagreement with Libya, and despite the problems which the oil cornpanies had
to face in their efforts to set up industries, not only did the Government not
remain passive, but it took al1 the necessary steps to obtain for the people of

Malta as much as possible. Notwithstanding that circumstances were al1 against
us, the people of Malta succeeded in obtaining an appreciable sum.
1 know how much the people of Malta would like oil exploration in Our
waters to be resurned as soon as possible. 1 know how beneficial to the people
of Malta this oil exploration would be. However, 1also know that if oil explo-
ration is not undertaken in a peaceful climate, it would be a cause of hm to
us. Therefore, whilst 1promise that we will do everything possible to urge our
friendly Government of the Libyan Jamahiriya to hurry up and ratify the agree-
ment to go before the International Court,1also want to wam our people not to
allow themselves to be misled on the matter without understanding how. even
amongst countries of the West who are the best of friends, it took years to
resolve peaceably matters of this nature. When disagreement ended in quarrels,
everyone was the loser.
1hope that in a short time 1will be able to give information which will be to
the good of the Maltese people regarding the matter between Malta and Libya.
(Applause)
. ........................................... ANNEXESTOTHEREPLYOF LIBYA 121

Annex5

SEISMICPROFILEOF THEMEDINA AND MALTA CHANNEL S:EDINACHANNEL
(ORGRABEN )LONG LINEMS14. AFTER FINETTMEDINA GRABE MIOCENE
TOQUATERNAR RIRING)ALONG LINEMS14. FINETTI984); MEDINA-MALTA
CHANNE(LSEEFIGS .AND 9B,JONGSMA, ETA(1984))

[Not reproduced] CONTlNENTAL SHELF

Annex 6

EXTRAC ~SOM DERK JONGSMA',JANE. VAN HINTE~ AND JOHN M. WOOD SI DE^.
"GEOLOGS ITRUCTUR AND NEOTECTONI CSTHE NORTH AFRICAN CONTINEN-
TAL MARGIN SOUTH OFSICILY",SUBM~TTE DOR PUBLICATION,1984: PAGES1,
11,14 AND 15;FIGURE 1: SIMPLIHETDECTONI FRAMEWO ORKTHE MEDITERRA-
NEAN REGION

Marine geological and geophysical data together with drilling information
indicate that the North Afncan passive continental margin has been subjected to
extension and wrenching after it collided with the northern part of Sicily.
The area of the Tripolitania Basin, Jarrafa Trough, Melita and Medina Bank
and theRagusa-Malta Plateau formed part of a sinking passive margin since the
dispersa1 of Gondwanaland at about 180 Ma as observed from geohistory dia-
grams. A record of rifting in a NW-SE direction accompanied by dextral shear
along the southem troughs is observed in seismic reflection data. The nfting

started during the Neocornian and lasted until the Eocene whenactivity became
minor.
A pre-Middle Miocene period of northward subduction of oceanic cmst is
inferred from the geoIogy in NE Sicily. Uplift of the northern part of the Afn-
can margin after collision in the Middle Miocene is seen in wells in southern
Sicily. After the Messinianft and dextral shear zone established itself across
the African Margin fromthe Strait of Sicily to the Medina Ridge in the lonian
Basin. The zone is niarked by up to 1.7 km deep grabens, narrow active wrench
faulted channels, volcanic fissures and local uplifted "Keilhorsts" such as Malta.

[Page 111

changing in polarity. A two stage development of fault tectonics in the Sicily

Channel as envisaged by Winnock979) confonns with this change in the gen-
eral pattern of faulting. The first extensional phase caused a complex field of
faults and tilted blocks. Ther wrenching phase caused 'manyof these faults
to lock while major vertical motion continued along others (Jackson and
McKenzie, 1983)causing the deep grabens.
In response to or just prior to the wrenching, the Medina Bank appears to
have rotated clockwise. This would explain the peculiar NNW trend of the dis-
turbed fault zone seen along the southwest ffankof Medina Bank (Figs. 7c, 8b
and 16) and the NNE trend of the Medina Escarpment and of the top of the

bank as shown by the 200 m bathymetric contour (Fig. 2). The structural pat-

' Free University, Inst. for Earthsciences, P.B. 7161, 1007 MC Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.

LyngbyGeophysicaService46 LyngbyAve, Darthrnouth,N.V.. Canada. ANNEXES TO THE REPLY OF LIRYA 123

tern of the Medina Ridge is also typical of an East West dextral shear. lndivi-
dual ridges have a NE-SW trend being the expected axis of folding and reverse
faulting (i.e. compressional features) suggesting continuation of the wrench
zone into the Ionian Sea (Woodside and Jongsma, in prep.).

Basal Pliocene SurfaceMap

The difference between the underlying structure of the area soulh and north
of Medina and Melita Bank is well displayed by a map of the depths to the
"MW reflector. The contour map on the base of the Pliocene (i.e. "MW reflector)
presented in Figure 17. illustrates two contrasting topographies on this horizon.
To the south of 35" N over the Jarrafa Trough and Tripolitania Basin the
contours reflect the erosional effects of a river system at the end of the Messi-
nian. In the area of Sicily Strait and between the Medina and Malta Platform
the contours clearly show the effect of post Pliocene stmctural changes super-
imposed by faulting of the"MW reflector.

Volcanism is closely associated with the active phase of faulting north of the
Tunisia Plateau (Fig. 4). The volcanic islands of Linosa and Pantelleria lie on

NW-SE trending faults through which lava was extruded and dong which the
islands have elongated (di Paola, 1973). These faults do not appear to be
the boundq faults for the grabens (e.g. volcanoes on Linosa and Pantelleria
are on the bordering highlands and in the centre of the graben. respectively).N-S

from Tunisia (Caire. 1977; Illies, 1981) to the Medina Ridge in the ionian Sea.
The pattern of faulting derived from tracing active faults in seismic profiles
across this zone, shows al1 three general styles of faulting which have been
recognized to be associated with wrenching (Wilcox eral.. 1973). In the area of
Ihe Pantelleria, Linosa and Malta Troughs, divergent wrenching is seen result-

ing in deep grabens perpendicular to the main tensional axis of the strain
ellipse. The zone naKOWSbetween the Malta Plateau and Medina Bank and the
style is simple parallel wrenching producing uplift of "keilhorsts" such as
Malta. Crustal blocks such as Medina Bank appear to have been rotated during
the early phase of wrenching. Presently flower structures are being produced in
this zone. The eastern part of the wrench zone in the ionian Sea. the Medina
Ridge is typical of convergent wrenching with folds forming parallel to the
main tensional axis of the strain ellipse and normal faulting perpendicular to
this trend (Fig. 16).
The geophysical data summarized in this paper is consistent with the above
interpretation and supports the contention that a sliver of the African Margin
including southem Sicily is moving eastward relative to Africa. Crustal structure

investigationand Bouguer gravity anomalies show that extension is pronounced
in the Strait of Sicily where cmstül thickness has been reduced to about 20 km.
Present seismicity isat a low level and within the top 10 km of the crust. A
poorly constrained fault plane solution within the Wrench Zone supports dextral
shear motion, Paleomagnetic data (Besse et al.,1981) from the Ragusa Malta
Plateau in Sicily show anticlockwise rotation of Sicily by up t10" with respect
to Africa since the Pliocene. Prior to this Sicily moved with Africa.124 CONTINENTAL SHELF

The most convincing evidence in Ourminds for a deepseated crustal fractur-
ing is the presence of alkaline volcanoes within the rifts and on southern
Sicily. The short wavelength magnetic anomalies within the wrench zone SE of
Malta indicate that volcanic material may also be entering the fractures caused
by the wrenching within the MedinaMalta Channei. Longer wavelength anoma-
lies over a large part of the Pelagian Sea are related to older Cretaceous and
Jurassic periods of volcanic activity. of which the products were encountered
during drilling in the Tripolitania Trough and on Sicily.
Relief on the Messinian erosional surface conclusively shows that majorver-

tical motions due to faulting in the Pelagian Sea took place after the Messinian.
Most of this faulting is located nonh o35" N and is associatedwith the wrench-
ing. The surface mapped shows an eroded river system within the Tripolitania
and Jarrafa troughs. Subsequent deposition has smoothed out thebathymetric
contours in this region.

Conclusions

The tectonic development of this ponion of the nonh African margin began
with rifting and subsequent drifting about 180 Ma ago. Normal developmentof
the passive margin was modified in the south by Neocomian to Eocene rifting
of a failed arm of the Sirte Triple Junction and by Eocene to Middle Miocene
subduction in the nonh. Dextral shearing in the southern Tripolitania Basin was
probably a reaction to the change in relative motion between Europe and Africa
(Dewey el al., 1973). Northem subduction ierminated with the collision of

major alpine fragments with North Africa from the Grande Kabylieto Calabria
(e.g. Cohen et al., 1980; Alvarezet al.. 1974).This initiated the latest period of
tectonic activity and broke the Pelagian area in a passive southern platform
attached to Africa and a separate fractured mobile terrane north of the Tunisian
Plateau and Medina Bank.The neotectonics north of 35"can be described by
uplifi of Sicily and dextral shearing of the east to southeast moving Sicilian-
Calabrian block with respect to Africa. This movement, of what might be con-
sidered a microplate between the Africanand European plates, is similar to that
of the Aegean microplate, both of which are apparently consuming from dif-
ferent directions what remains of the oceanic part of the Ionian Basin. Brittle
fracture of the African margin through the central Pelagian Sea is a response to
post-collision uplift and the shear stresses posed on this region by differential
horizontal plate consumption. ANNEXESM THE REPLYOF LIBYA

Annex7

EXTRACT SROM 1.R.FINFITI"GEOPHYSICS ALUDYOF THESICILYCHANNEL
RIFTZONE",1984:FIGURE13:RESIDUA LRAVITYMAP OF THEPELAGIASNEA
(PAGE18);FIGURE15:COMPARISOOF RIFTINN THERED SEAAND THESICILY
CHANNERLIW ZONE(PAGE20); PAGE3, AND 27126 CONTINENTAL SHELF

BOUETT~ DNGO~o~rsicT~EORICABAPPIACATA

GEOPHYSICALSTUDYOF THE SIClLYCHANNELRlFT ZONE

Summary. TheÇicily Channelareaof ihe Pclagian Sea, runninggenerallyalong the Pantelleria.
Linosaand MaltaTrtrughs and ihe Maltaand Medina Channels ioihe Heron Valley.constiiui~sa
promineni rift zonc. The riliing process has produced a remarkable uplifiing of the Manilc and
crusial ihinning in a ridge area associated with a disiinct positive gravity anomnly axis (axial
ridge). This axial ridge is coniinuous along a line which includes the Pantelleria volcano. the
Linosa Graben and the Medina Graben.
The first rift movemenis commcnced in the Early Pliocenc (or Late Miocene)and continued
with high intensiiy until the LaieQuaicrnary; then ihey dccreased but remain still aciivc ai ihr:
present time.The5icily Channel RifiZone(SCRZ) reachesamaximum width otabout 100km in
thecentral part where a ioial pull-apart amount of 17-18kmhas been compuied. lis dimensions
are less at ihe two exirerniiies.
Acomhined puli-apartand sirike-slip modclispropomd. This rnodelisbascd onthe viewthat
in ihe areas of Cape Bon on ihe Westand the Medina Graben on the easi sirike-slip movcments
prevail vver pull-apari movemcnts.

ReceivcdNovember 5, 1983

1. Introduction
The PelagianSea isgenerally characterized by large areas having flat or slightly

deformedsea-bedmorphology. Howeverc ,uîtingacross thesea-bed ofthePelagianSea
fromthe Egadi Valley tothe Heron Valleyare the huge troughsofPantelleria, Linosa
and Malta and the Medinaand Malta Channels. The ensemble of these troughs anii
channels constitutes a distinct and unique geomorphological province that, with
diffenng widthsand varyingwaterdepths, crosseswith continuity theentire Pelagian
Sea.This partofthe PelagianSea isgiveninthis paper thename"Sicily Channel"; the

geologicalphenornenonrnanifestedby these sea-bed featuresis referredtothere asthe
"Sicily Channel Rift Zonet'(or in abbreviated fashionas the "SCRZ").
More than a decadeagothe firstmodern geophysicalinvestigationof the Petagian

Sea (Finetti and Morelli, 1972) and in particular the seismic reflection exploration
conducted by theOGSofTrieste showedthat the SicilyChannel zoneofthe Pelagian
Sea is characterized by huge tectonicdeformation wilh numerous normal faults and
collapseofblocks.Sinçetheseearlierstudies. ithas becomeclearthatthisarea hasbeen
affected by a prominent rifting process which remarkably deforrned the previously
existingquiettectonicconditions.Moredetailedobservationsrevealedthat thistectonic

fragmentationisdue ioa younggeodynamicprocess,stili active.Theknowledgeoithis
crustal deformation is of importance to an understanding of the latest geodynamic
movements of the CentralMediterranean.The main sourcesforareconstruction of the

Insiituie or Geodesy and Geophysics, University oCTr-Pubbl.n.223 [!a ANNEXES TO THE REPLY OF LlBYA 127

relativiily low grüvity iiiiiiniütics iitrouplis 1atcr;il io ail nxial ritige is quite normal and
freilui:r1t inü rift ai.i:a (i.ib. th: I(t:tl Si:a).
.1hcgrdviiy nial) (Fia. 13) clcarly indicatcs (hi:art:a of the SCIU and the position i~f

ilii~axi?iorinrixini~ini iililiüiid criistal ihiiiiiing.'l'llerigth and the üxis ol tlic ulilifi are
wt.ll i,utliiic11) tli* cciiitiiiiliof the gravit). anomalies across tlic whole Pelagian Sca.
Su,ti t.vii1i~rit i:oiitiiiuii:aniioi Iic li~uiidelsewheri: in ttie Pelagian Sea.

il) iltiliairia11th13riiii;it:rous availablc geolihysical data, it is ~iossililc to reconstriict
the rtagiiiiial structural sctting uf the SCIL! sliiiwri in Figs. 18 arid 19.Duc to the smüll
scali: iiseil. iiiily thc rnairi riiiilts, withuut the tirne-structiiracoiitour linçs, have hcen

plottctl.'I'hth SCI{% is shown in greu. iri the sectoroïthcSCRZ running frorn Pantelleria
tii 1,iiiosa ulititlii: scisrniç lirhlS- 19, tlic rifting Iirocess has ~iroiluced ihe maximum
t:xtt:risiuiiaiiffi.cts wiili ihxtrusiiiri of die niajor liasaltic shows (Pantcllcria, Linosa,
Baiititick. etc.). E'rriiliiihlS- 10 tu ~[icrire3ul the Medina Gni)en sliown iriYig. 7(ihis

figiiri: shows uiily tlii: axial ~iart of thta miicli witlcr irapincnted area uf thc Medina
Graben). tlii: fault iiiti:iisiry arid tlic width of the fricturccl ari:a cornniences tu diminish
consitlt:rably. In ilic easit:rn pu-t of the SCHZ, frorn rouglily 15" longitude east io the

Sicil!-Maltü I.:scarliincni (1fi" longituile), thc seismic sections show siibvcrtical laults
i\riihtlr:lormatioiiül charaeters tIirtt ;ire indicative of strikt-slip rnovcrnents or of a
coriibiriatiriivf striki:-.slip ariti vi:rtical riioveniciils.
..
1 liis iilil~t-ars i:vitliiIioth frir the Mi:ijiiia Gratien (Fig. 8) ariil for the c:ûstern
i:xii:tisiun ofihiiMalt:i Grolicii (Fig. 9). The strikc-slip Cüulis showri oti thc structural
malis (Fias. 18 aiiil 19) arc iri:iiJiiigW-E (or WSW-ENE) accrirdiiig to the existing
~ihysiogratihic sliülir:.

1'iircetiri~trucI tliy ubst-rvcd arid/oi. itii:extrapolaicd or iriîerred dcforrnational
pattern at iticiiorthwi:sti!rn i:xtri;mity of thc SCRZ. Where the tiiill-apart componetits .

or tlic rnovi5rni:nts alsii Iiccomc Iiiss. it is iiecessary to cxaminc carcfully the structural
i.lemciits of thc art:a Ironi Capi: Bon iri Tunisia tu I'antelleria and to the Adventure
I'latcau (Fig. 19). 'l'histructiiraI cietails of this [)art vl the Pelûgian Sea have bccn
~iuhlishi:d suirit: pars agtt (\Vinnock. 1979: 1981).

Nurth id Püriielleria 1111l:arge I'antelleria Trouch contiriues east of the Adveniure
Platibau witli a very consisti:nt rciluctioti iri numlicr of fiiults and in the width of the

cxtcridtitl area.'l'hc structurel \iictiirr: indicates the presencc ofNNW-SSE (ncarly N-S)
Faiilis and. friirn Lalic I$ciitii l'aritt:llt:rsonie W-E accentuated features thar suggest
thc existi!ncc oî sirikc-slili iIi:ltirmaiion components.

i,) Ouring 1tii: gcoilyriamiç phase which prnerated tlic SCKZ, other parts of the
I'rla~ian St-ü wi~i? afii!cti:(l Iiy miich smalli:r stretchi:rl zones which crcated some
iriiughs. sucti as tliv I.anilicdiisa Trougli (Fig. 11) und the Jarrafn Trough (Fig. 10).

'Thi.si. ~cciriid-orilcrti.ougIis cüririot l~ccornpar4:d in tcrrns of magni~utic and crustal
si~nilicaiicii witli tliii lirsi-oriltrift irf the SCIii!. Aii immetiiate comparison of the
ilirfvr~tii ortj+:riif riCtinpt:xisting tictwt:en thi:SCRZ ancl thesc Ii:ssertroughscan Liesciiii
in (hi, striicitiralgeoliiiic.al cross-seciioii ol thc Pelagian Sca ~iulilished by Winnock

(1979: 1081) (Fic. 12).

3.2. 'l'iiiicü~iiilysi~ (il'[lit.riftiiig prvcras iri tlie Siçily Cliütincl

Friim ihi.svisniic ri~fli:t.tii>n'iInia aiiil frorn thi.gcolugical (lata of ihe dredgsa ni pli.^;
ri.riiirttsil in liit?raturc. it is ~iiissihlt- io i.31alilish tlir gt~~lo~irnl iinic during whiIII,*
1.111111~ii.ii,...-- #il-1i'Il/ lniii111.~1.ii''I.~~~-~~~liilti.:tI.rlit~tiliirlv ilitlatii. I'rirr1i.h
sr.vc*ral çli-ar iiiiticütiii~is riyarilinilin, timtof' iicciirri.ricis tif thi: riftirig iri thi: Sicily

(:haiirit;Iitribri.
-1 !tiiniliib~.iif i'hli'll?iiil~üs Iiavi~dïi*~t~iI thi:SCU- [II-([ s~irfac(Figs.4. 5 and6).
whiitli i.Ii.;iiiiiilii~eii~~ili[Ilirifti~i~ [iriii.t>ss Ili-ri-is ~iiiiiigürirl still ac[hi-hlalta

I'r~~ir~l4Fi<. 1). thi~rt-is chaiir i-vir11-1ii~tvliiit sonitbI'a~iltsart! riot aif<bctingthe uliIi(brmosf 128 CONTINENTALSHELF [271.

Froni a cirmparisoii of the data, il is of interest tu note that in the SCRZ the
delormational rirocess,in termof crustal stre~ching,isthe orderofalmostone-third
thal of ihti Rçd Sea rift zoiie.

4. Pruposrd riiudcl For ttii: Sicily Chaiincl Rili Zunc

Takinginio accuunt al1the ohserved delormational data above described. it is now
possible to colistruct a rift modcl. It is immediately evident that a simplc puH-apart
rnoilel docs no1explaiii tlic rcconstructed deformational pattern.
'i'hcresultsUT a c:riiicülanalysis oi the possible applied stretching furces and
observcd deformational compoiicnts are shown in Fig. 17. 111the upper part of the
figurc,at thc northcristcrnhoundary olthSCRZ (greyarca),the varyingarnouiit ofthe
total pull-apart dcforniaiioiicalculated from the seismic lines is plotted (dashcd ürea).
l'hc witlth of the area is proportional io thc computed total pull-apart. FoHowingthe
obtained data. and restricting the SCRZto the pull-üpari calculated to have occurred
IietwecnPl<(I'rcsciiitirnc) aiid 1'1,(Early Pliocene, beginning of the rift process). the

[)ri,-riftconditions, niudified I>ythe pull-apart cornponerits,caii be computed.
As abovc rnciitioned, evidencr of sirike-slip components are obscrved. 11seems
evidcnt tliat the first-order strike-slip faultW-Eakdirection.This is inaccordancc
withthe moregeneraledeformational pattern observed in offshorenorthern Sicilyand
in the southcrn Tyrrhenian Sea. Sorne strike-slip faults NE-SW direction are alsu
inferrcd, bu1 thcse are, rnost ~robabl~,of second-order significance as compared tu
thuse ~rcndiiigW-E.
Assuming the direction of the stretcliiiiggeodyriamicforceand the deformational

cornporieiitsof ilie pull-apart aiid strike-slip movements indicarcd in Fig. 17, it is
possibleio propose the combiiied pull-apart and sirike-slip rift rnodel shown in the
lowcrpart oftlicsarne ligure.This modelfits very wellal1the observed deformational
data and the calculatcd total pull-iipart movcments of the SCRZ.
The rilting tirucessinthe SCKZ,ihough quite recent incornparison to the rilting in
the RedSea, forexample,liasalready produced ahugcfragmentationofthecrus1along
theSCRZand apromineni Mantleupliftingand crusial thinning. Hence,itispossible to
delineatethctectonicseparalion ofaSicilian microplate,whichincludesthe Adventure
Plateau and theRagusa-Malta Plateau, from the African rnegaplate. ANNEXES TO THE REPLY OF LIBYA

Annex 8

COMPARISOOF THEMEDINACHANNE LNDTHE JERRAFA ~OUGH:

LOCATIO NAP;PROFILES

[Nor reproduced]

Annex 9

BATHYM~IC PROFILES(0) BATI~YM~IC PROFILESPREPARED UNDER THE
DIRECTIOOF PROFESSOF. FABRICIULS:OCATIMAP; PROFILA; PROFILBE;
(6) BATHYMETR PROFILESPREPAREDBY THE LAMONT-DOHERTYGEOLOC~ICAL

OBSERVATOR UNDER THEDIRECTIO NFDR.W. B. F.RYAN: FROMRAS AJDIR
TO GOZOALONG THE WESTERNEDGE OF THMALTES ERAPEZIUMFROM GOZO
ALONG THEEASTERN EDGE OF THE MALTEST~~APEZIUTO ITSINTERSE(TTION
W~THTHE MALTESEEQUID~STAN LC,EE. OTHSETSOF BATHYMETR ~COFILES
ARE BASEDON DATADERIVE ROM THElBCM

[Not reproduced] CONTINENTALSHELF

Annex 10

1, the undersigned, Abdelrazeg El-Murtadi Suleiman, Agent of the Socialist
People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, hereby certify thatthe copy of each docu-
ment attached as an Annex in the Reply submitted by the Socialist People's
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is an accurate copy; and that al1translations are accu-
rate translations.

(Signed) Abdelrazeg EL-MURTADI SULEIMAN,
Agent of the Socialist People's
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.