Observations of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya on the Application submitted by Tunisia for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982

OBSERVATIONSDE LA JAMAHIRIYA ARABE
LIBYENNE POPULAIRE ET SOCIALISTE

SUR LA DEMANDE EN REVISION
ET EN INTERPRÉTATION
DE L'ARRET DU 24 FÉVRIER 1982
PRESENTE PAR LA TUNISIE

OBSERVATIONSOF THE SOCIALIST PEOPLE'S
LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA ON THE
APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY TUNISIA FOR
REVISION AND INTERPRETATIONOF THE
JUDGMENT OF 24 FEBRUARY 1982 VOLUME 1

1. Introduction

1. On behalf of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya ("Libya")
have the honour, pursuant to Articles 98 and 99 of the Rules of Court, and the
decision of the Vice-President of the Court fixing 15October 1984as the time-
limit for the filing of written observations, to submit the following Observations
on the Application of the Republic of Tunisia ("Tunisia") made by letter addres-
sed to the President of the Court dated 17July 1984and entitled "Requ&tede la
Tunisie en revision et en interprbtation", and Annexes 1and II attached thereto
(the "Application") 1,concerning the Court's Judgment of 24 February 1982in
the case concerning the ContinentalShelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)Z.
The Application was filed in the Registry of the Court by Tunisia on 27 July
19843.

2. In accordance with the fundamental orinciole set forth in Article 60 of
the Statute of the Court, the Judgment in Îhe ~Lnisial~ib~acase "is final and
without appeal". Moreover, Article 94 of the Rules of Court provides that a
judgment becomes binding on the parties on the day of its reading - in the
oresent case. on 24 Februarv 1982.The Anolication bnnes before the Court for
ihe iïrst timc in its histo1y or in ihe hisi;ry of ils pred&cssor, the Permanenr
Court of International Justice - a requcst 10rcopen one of ils judgments and 10
revise a decision which has alreadv~been adiudicated with bindina force. In
addition, the Application asks the-court to~"construe" its ~udgmënt and to
"correct an error". While this Court has previously been presented with one
request for interpretation', il has never been asked to "correct an error" in the
manner Tunisia suggests.
3. As requested in the Registrar's letter of30 July 1984,these Observations
are directed, in particular, to the question of the admissibility of the Application
as orovided in Article 99 (2) of the Rules of Court. Since Article 99 deals with
pr6cedures related to appl~c&ionsfor revision of a judgment, thcsc Observaiions
will focus primarily on Tunisia's request for rcvision. In so doing, ihcy will
cxamine the provisions of Aniclc 61 of the Siatuic which govern the qucstion of
revision and which set fonh the various conditions ihat must be salisficd by thc
pany claiming rcvision in order for ils application IO be admitted. While ii will
be necessary to deal also with the subsidiary requests for interpretation and
correction of au error, it appears that the essence of the Application is a request
to revise the 1982 Judgment and that the subsidiary requests are, in effect,
requests for revision under a different guise.

' See pp. 3-47suprn.[Noie byrhe Regisrry.]
I.C.J.Reports 1982,p.18.[Note by the Regkiry.1
' References intheseObservationsto the Avalication are to the Enalishtranslation52 APPLICATION FOR REVISION AND INTERPRETATION

4. Neither the extraordinary remedy of revision nor a rcqucst for the intcrpre-
tatiun of a judgmcnt of ihe Court are justificd in the present case. In ils Judg-
ment. the Court did what the Parties asked of it in a~~.. .eca-ita.lc principles
in reaching its decision by selecting, considering and balancing up the-":ele;ant
circumstances which characterize the area" In so doing, the Court considered a
wide range of factors and circumstances in pointing to what it regarded to be an
equitable result in the light of them - a result which satisfied the optimum
claim of neither Party. As for this result, the Court indicated in paragrapb 27 of
the 1982Judgment that it "has in any case to be precise as to what it decides".
TheCourt went on to say that -

". . .there will be no need for negotiation between experts of the Parties
regarding the factors to he taken into account in their calculations, since
the Court will have determined that matter. The only task remaining willbe
the technical one making possible the drafting of the treaty in corporating
the result of the work by the experts 1."

5. The claritv and soecificitv of the 1982Judement affirm the conclusion that
th= ~~~lication conccks reviGon of the ~ud~mint and that therc are no aspccts
of the Judgment calling for interpretation. It has bccn Libya'sview from thc
time the Judgment wGrendered,~and throughout the discussions between the
Parties, that only the technical task remains for the experts of the Parties to
perform in order Io implement the Judgment. This task was clearly identified by
the Court and can be completed, to use the words of the Special Agreement,
"without anv difficulties". This remains Libva's view todav. The hieh deeree of
spccificityO; the Judgment has been acknoiledged in a rcccnt artick by Profes-
sor Bcn Achour. who actcd as counsel to Tunisia during ihc oral henrings and
who was semine as-Co-Agent a- the time of the article.-Professor Ben Achour
wrote :

"Pour la Tunisie. le rôle de ces exoerts &taitDurementtechniaue et consis-
tait à transposer canographiquemént la méthodepratique dc'dtlimitation
dont la Cour aurait auparavant indique les param6trcs ci variables .. .
La Cour a cn cffct suivi I'o~tiaucdc la Tunisie. et l'a mOmcdt~asste. cn
fixant non pas sculcment ~es'~rinci~esdbnc mtihode, non pas ;culcmcnt
une mbthode. mais une Iignc proprement dite avcc chiffrage et traGagesur
une carte. . ."

In the same vein, Professor Ben Achour explained that ".. .le trace de la ligne a
&té fixe dans le dispositif m&mede l'arrêt .. ."2.
6. Libya's viewsas to the clarity of the Judgment and the purely technical
nature of its implcmentation were made clear to Tunisia during the diplomatic
exchanees and contacts that look olace between the Parties after the Judement
was rcidcred. In the light of the riferences io thesc evcntr which appearyn the
Application, however. certain clarifications and corrections are necessary.
Accordingly, thcsc Observations will fint revicw the history of thcsc evcnts

1 ContinentalShel,T.un~ial.ibva.ArabJomnhirivoJJ.. .ud"menr.I.C.J. Reuorts1982.
p 40.para.30.
2 RcnAchour. Y.. "L'aifallru platcaucontinentaliunso-libyen(Analyrrempinquc)".
Clunet. 1983.pp. 254-255. This aniclc wcllillustratcsihc dilcmma in whichTunisia is
placcd.Havingargucdiniisurittcn and oralplcadingrihat thcCoun'sJudgmcnishould
yct'forcedto argue thatndiltis unclcarand crror-riddcn.8nd in nccd of intcïprctation,
correctionand,mostof all,revision. OBSERVATIONS 53

which are of importance sincc. whcn viewed in their proper contexi, ihey shed
lighi on the naturc of thc revision ihat Tunisia is now seeking. Follo~ing this
hlstory, the circumstances surrounding the Vnewfact" allegedly discovered hy
Tunisia will be examined. This. in turn. will lead to a discussion of Tunisia's
failure to satisfy the conditions for revision of a judgment laid down by Article
61 of the Statute. The next two sections of these Observations will then deal
with li) Tunisia's contentions relatinx to interoretation of the Judement and
correct'ionof an error and (ii) the mo; westerlfioint of the Gulf of Gahes. The
final section sets forth Libya'sSubmissions.

II. The Diplomatie Exchanges andContaets between the Parties
following the Judgment

7. An atiempi is made in the Application io give ihe impression thai Tunisia
has continuously tried IO implement the 1982Judgment in good faith but ihai ii
has been hindcrcd in this task by the dogmatic and inflexible attitude uf Libya.
This theme, which runs thoughoui the Application. finds exprcrsion in such
allegaiions as ihat Libya "categorically refused Io examine the questions raised
bv Tunisia" (para. 2). that Tunisia's o5,enures werc "mct wiih a flat refusal"
(para. 3) and- that ~ih~a refused "to agree even to an opening of technical
discussions" inregard to the so£aüed "dificulties" Tunisia claimed it had encoun-
tered (para. 28).
8. The events that have transpird since 24Feb~ary 1982actually show quite

a different picture. Throughout 1982, it was Libya that look the initiative to
convene meetings to carry out the Judgment. It was also Libya that indicated
with precision how the Judgment could be implemented. After considerable
urging by Lihya, the first meeting look place hetween the Parties during 13-16
May 1982 1.It was certainly the most revealing of all. Tunisia has avoided any
mention of this meeting in ils Application despite the fact that it sheds light on
Tunisia's real attitude towards implementation of the Court's Judgment and,
thus, has considerable relevance to a consideration of the admissibility of the
Application.
9. Straieht awav. the Tunisian reoresentatives at this meeting com~lained
that the ~Ld~menicontained ambig;ities and contradictiunsz. At thi; point,
Tunisia introduccd the suggestion now contained in the Application -and with-
out any need to have its imagination sparked hy an allegedly newly discovered
and "decisive" fact - that. in the first sector. the line should follow the

casiern limits of Tunisia's 1966 Concession, and hence a bearing of approxi-
matcly 28'or 29'rathcr than of approximatel) 26'. In advancing this argument,
the Tunisian representatives referred to the faci that the Tunisian 1966Conces-
sion and Libyan Concession No. 137uverlapped but that the Tunisian Conccs-
sion, having heen granied first, should be given precedcnce in detcrmining ihc

1 Sec,for example,the NotesVerbalessent by Libyaon 13Marchand 6 May 1982
attachedinAnnex Ihento. Aeopyof an EnglishtranslationoftheseNotes,aswellasofthe
ather Notesreferredta intheseObservations,has beenincludedin Annex 1.Withthe
exceptionof the lettersdated 23January 1984and 4 April 1984, a capy ofthe Arabie
ori 'nalsoftheseNoteshaspreviouslybeeniiledwiththe Registry.
&his complaint ,assubsequentlyrciterated in a letter from the Tunisian Prime
Ministerdated23January 1984referredto in paragraph18below.TheTunisiandelega-
technicalerrors. that the Judgmentlackedclarityand contained a numberof legaland OBSERVATIONS 55

Verbale dated 22 August 1982,Libya expressed the view that until that step had
been taken by Tunisia it was of no use to convene a meeting Io discuss going
back to the Court. Seven weeks uassed without a Tunisian resuonse. Accord-
ingly, on II October 1982,Libya again took the initiative and sent a Note Ver-

bale which, inter aliu, invited Tunisia, if it still believed it necessary to return to
the Court, to prepare a draft requcst specifyingthe point or points rcquiring inter-
pretation or clarification in the view of Tunisia. Further Notes were subsequently
exchanged in which Lihyacontinued to urge Tunisia to state preciselyin writing
al1the differences Tunisia had with the solution contained in Libya's 10August
1982 Note which had been pnpared in accordauce with the dispositif of the
Coun's Judgment. Inexplicably, Tunisia expressed astonishment ai Libya's
' request for specificityand accused Libya of refusing to return to the Court.
16. Tunisia even went so far as Io inform Libya, in its Note of 28 February

1983..h~ ~ ~ ~~~sidered that Libva had reiected the nroc~sion~ of Article 3 of the
Special Agreement (Ïfand that~uiisia,'therefore, had "decided Io go back to
the Coun unilaterally in the near future to request interpretation and clarifi-
cation". Libva resoonded bv em~hasizine thatit had atno lime reiected the
provisions oi the Special ~~rcemcnt 1. li pointcd out, howcver, thai .if Tunisis
wished IO return joinily to the Coun under Article 3 ihcn Tunisia should ideniify
exactly which malters it regarded as requiring interpretation or clarification.
This was al1the more necessary since Tunisia was then aware of Libya's precise
position as to the line of delimitation which would carry out the Judgment of
the Court in accordance with its terms.

17. In an aooarent chanee of mind. Tunisia informed Libva on 28 Aoril 1983
thai it had p&iponcd its gecision toreturn unilaierally to'the ~oun..Tunisia
suggcsted thai one final aiicmpt at breaking the deadlock bc made. Yetei,cnthis
Tunisian Note was impreciseand went onio suggest that as part of the agenda
of the meeting there should be an exchange of views regarding delimitation of
maritime zones other than the continental sbelf- a matter clearly falling outside
the scope of the experts' task.
18. Notes continued Io be exchaneed and an ineffectual meetine was held
during 14-16December 1983 2. ~olloGn~ this, the Tunisian Prime ~ynister sent

a letter dated 23 January 1984 in which he again alluded to Tunisia's position
that the Judgment was ambiguous, contradictory and imprecise. The letier went
on to suggest, among other things, that the eastern boundary of the Tunisian
concession be accepted by Libya as the boundary in the first sector. While
raising the possibility of returniug together to the Court to seek clarifications,
the Tunisian Prime Minister noted that this alternative did not eenerate a ereat
deal of enthusiasm on the part of Tunisia. Libya responded bya letter daied 4
April 1984.This letter expressed Libya's regret over the fact that the Tunisian
experts had attemptcd toopen negoiiations on the substance of a Judgment

which was binding on the Parties, instead of sticking to the technical task of
implementing a Judgment which was clear. Libya rejected the suggestions stated
in the Tunisian letter].
19. From this history, certain conclusions emerge. Libya believed the Judg-

LibyanSoie Vcrbdrdatcd 16March1983
' Ai ihis mcciing.Tuniria'r rc rcrcntaiivcrprcscntcd a drali dclimitattonagrrcmrnt
uhich Irfiblanksoarcr[orcaîh 07th~ kcv clcmcntsofthccourseofthedclimitaiionIine
Thus, oncc again.'~unisiafailcdta indicitein writingilspositionas 10 thc counc ofthis
line.
Thisaccount of the meetings and exchangesbetweenthe Partiescan, of course, bc
considcrablycxpandcdbuttheforegoingappean adequate.56 APPLICATIONFOR REVISIONAND INTERPRETATION

ment to be clear and precise and not dificult to implement. It pressed Tunisia Io

meet in order to get on promptly with the technical task of the experts. The
Application has, however, described Libya's conduct in the following terms:
"Libya, for its part, clung to the repeated assertion that thc Judgment was
perfectly clear and could be implemented without any difficulty. . ."(para. 2).
As was indicated in the Introduction, Libya still "clings" to this assertion. The
Application goes on to Say in the same paragraph that Libya has - ". . .
cateeoricallv refused Io examine the auestions raised bv Tunisia". As the record
shows, this-is simply not true. whileA~ibyadid regard'proposals to renegotiate
portions of the Judgment and to discuss maritime areas other than the conti-
nental shelf as outside the competence of the delegations and inconsistent with
the Court's Judgment, Libya, far from refusing to discuss questions raised by
Tunisia, urged Tunisia to put its position as 10 the course of the delimitation
line in writing in precise terms so that any issues or differences between the
Parties as to the interpretation of the Judgment could be made clear. This
Tunisia refused to do. On the contrary, Tunisia sought from the very outset to
reopen the Judgmcnt, complainina of its ambiguity and errors. Thus, the state-
menis appearik in paragraph 3 'f thc ~pplication are misleading in that ihey
crcaic a onc-sidcd impression of Libyan obduracy and of "rigidly clinging to
iheir viewpoini". Infaci, Libya sought IO carry oui ihc Judgmcni in accordance
with its terms; Tunisia sought to open up through negotiaiions matters settled
hy the Judgment. As a result of the Tunisian attitude, the experts were prevented
from undertaking their purely technical task in accordance with the Special
Agreement, as Libya repeatedly urged.
20. A second conclusion that emerees is that. far from refusine to return
joinily to thc Court undcr Ariicle 3 of ïhe ~~ecial~~reemcnt. ~ib~aur~cd thai

Tunisia specify in writing the prccisc diffcrcnccs it considcred existed between
the Parties. Tunisia coniinuouslv evaded takina this sico Libva has not ihc
slightest doubt that its insistent 'n drafting teks of referencéfor referral to
the Court setting forth the precise differencesbetwcen the Parties was appropri-
ate and that otherwise a return to the Court would have been fmitless and
contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Court's own procedures. It is
noted, for example, that Article 98(2) of the Rules specifies that a request for
interpretation of a judgment must indicate "the precise point or points in dis-
pute". It was this which Libya sought and which Tunisia refused to do either in
the context of the discussions between the Parties or in connection with a retum
Io the Court under Article 3 of the Special Agreement.
21. The statement in paragraph 56 of the Application implying that Libya
refused Io return to the Court is, therefore, incorrect. It is there asserted that
"... despite the invitations of the Tunisian Government, the Jamahiriya has not
agreed Io join Tunisia in returning to the Court together on the basis of Article
3". However, the record shows quite the contrary. It was Tunisia that thwarted
its own desire to retum to the Court by ils failure to clarify the points or
questions at issue which it wished to refer back to the Court. What Tunisia
sought throughout the discussions between the Parties, and what it evidently
hooed to obtain bv a return to the Court. were chanees in the Judement so ~ ~t~
obiain a more favourablc line for uni si Thu.s. whylccvading th; implcmenia-
lion of ihc Court's Judgment, Tunisia at thc samc timc rcfuscd IO commit itself
in writing to the exac~~~uestionsrequinng clarification. It evaded the duty of
making ils position precise so as to keep al1 of ils options open. This same

tendency is seen in the divenity of the requests now contained in the Application.
22. In the light of Tunisia's conduct since the rendering of the Court's Judg-
ment, and its insistence on the contention that the Judgment is unclear, it is OBSERVATIONS 57

ironic to find that thc Tunisian State petrolcum Company. E.T.A.P., apparently
did no1find itdifficuli to draw the delimitation linc as set forth in the Court's
dis~osrirf on a mao of the offshore Tunisian concession areas 1.This map is
daied 3f ~ecembei1982 and indicates, as closely as may be ascertained from its
scale, the line as passing through the Point 33'55'N; 12'E (and not through
Point 5 on the Tunisian 1966Concession asthe Application now suggests)and
veering at an angle of 52'at the latitude of approximately 34' 10' 30N, the
latitude at which the Court found the most westerly point of the Gulf of Gabes
to appear 10lie.
23. Finallv - and oerhaos mnst imoortant in relation to the issue of the

admissibilitiof the ~~;~licaiion - ncvir during any of the meetings following
the Judgment nor in any official exchangcs betwccn ihc Parties did I'unisia
reouesi information from Libva regarding the CO-ordinatesof 1-ibyanConcession
~o'. 137or of anv other concéssin<.let aïone reauest to be furnished with a coov
of th; ~esolutio; of the Libyan ~ouncil of ~iiisters of 28 March 1968. As&il
be seen below, this same lack of interest in the details of the Libyan concessions
was manifest in Tunisia'swritten and oral pleadings

III. Background Facts regarding the Resolution of the Libynn Councit
of Ministen of 28March 1968and Libynn ConcessionNo. 137

24. Since the supposed "new fact" allegedly discovered by Tunisia on wbich
the Anolication rests is the text of the Lihvan Council of Ministers Resolution
~== ~ ~
of28 March 1968, itis nccessaryto examin; this document as a prcliminary step
to considering thc question of the admissibility of Tunisia's requcst to rcvisethe
1982Judgment undcr Articlc 61 of the Statute of ihc Court. This document was
hardly a secret or issucd in a "semi-clandcstinc" manner'. Thc cntire iext of the
Council Rcsolution was published in thc Libyan Offinal Gazerreon 4 May 1968.
A coov toeether with an-English translation is attached to these Observations as
~nn& 113yThedocument is-a mere three pagcs in length and contains no details
as to Concession No. 137.No map is included as part of the Resolution4. What
it consists of is the approval of a suhmission of .the Minister of Petroleum
Affain as recommended by the High Council of Petroleum to grant to two
companies, Aquitaine Libye and ERAP, the right to exploit certain petroleum
areas as defined in a Concession Agreement negotiatedbetween these companies
and the Libyan Ministry of Petrolenm Affairs. The Agreement itself is not
annexed to the Resolution.
25. Publication of the Council Resolution in the OfJcial Gazette was a re-

quirement of Libyan law. The text of the Council Resolution itself was not only
oublished in the Official Gazette but it had also been oublished by the Middle
br Econornic skvey, known as MEES ("A weekly Gview of news and views
on Middle East Oil'?),on 9 August 19685.The source of authority for approval

1 A CO y ofthismaphasbccndcpositedwiththcRcgistry.
Secan Achour, op. eit.,p. 291.
3 It is curiousindccdthat this document- the supposcd"ncwfact" allegedlydis-
covercdrecentlybyTunisia - wasnotinfactfurnishcdto theCoun,withtheApplication.
"he refercncein Article1of the Resolutionto an accompanying maprcfen Io the
92 mapattachcdto the "ConcessionContract"whichwasno1anncxedto the Resolution.
O Thismapappean inAnnex 7 ofthe LibyanCountcr-Mernarial.
5 The coverpageon thiscditiontogethcrwithpagcs12and 13thercofcontainingan
May 1968rarcattachedhcrctoas AnncxIII.lutionas publishcdin tho//iciaGazeireon 4 OBSERVATIONS 59

been misread. The word "defined" modifies "Concession" - and as seen above
the Council Resolution made onlv the most eeneral referenceto the Concession,
containing no precisedeinils as toihr area c&ered or its co-ordinatcs.
27. Leating to onc side the fact ihai this cxtraordinary rcqurst io reopen ihc
1982Judnment is basrd on the iext of a documeni no1evcn furnished with the
~nolication. il is evident that the Council Resolution was nublished and. there-
f&E, atai~ah~eto anyone intcrested in petroleum affairr in ihis part of theworld.
Its texi would havr immediately alerted such a person to the fact ihat for further
details regardinp.Concession No. 137the Concession itselfor information dcriwd
from it iould have to be sought. The two companies holding this Concession
were by no means unknown to Tunisia. Elf-Aquitaine, the parent Company of
Aquitaine Libye, held the adjoining Tnnisian 1966 Concession to the West.
Moreover, MEES had obtained and published the Council Resolution text in
1968 and Petroconsultants had obtained the exact CO-ordinatesof the area
covered by the original Concession No. 137in 1976and 1977.Information of

this kind obtained bv Petroconsultants is not confidential: thev are in the busi-
ness ofdissçminaiing petroleum dais io intcre\iy? pariies. 'l'hce farts. ihereforc,
set the stage for an examination of the admirsibility of the Applicatiain.

IV. The Inadmissibility of the Application for Revision

28. In its fint Submission, Tunisia requests the Courtto adjudge and declare:
"As regards the first sector of the delimitation:

That there is a new fact of such a character as to lay the Judgment open
to revision within the meaning of Article61 of the Statute of the Court;
That the application for revision submitted by the Tunisian Republic is
on that account admissible."

29. Reqnests for revision are governed by Article 61 of the Statute. It is
apparent that Article 61 places a heavv burden on the Party seeking revision hy
Coviding that an appl&ation for revision may only be~made when certain
specificconditions are satisfied by the applicant. These condititions are:

(i) the application mnst be based on the discovery of a new fact;
(ii) that fact mus1be of such a nature asto be a "decisivefactor":
(~iijiimust havebccn unknown to the Coun when thc judgment was gii,en;
(i\,)itmust also have bern unknown ai that tirne Io the pany claiming revision:
(v) the party claiming revision must not bave been ignorant of the new fact
"due to negligence"; and

(vi) the application mus1be made "at latest within six months of the discovery
of the new fact".
30. Under Article 99 (1) of the Rules of Court, an application for revision of
a judgment shall contain "the paniculars necessary to show that the conditions
specified in Article 61 of the Statute are fulfilled". This means that the party
clairning revision bears the burden of proving that each of these six conditions

has been met. It follows that if even one of the requirements of Article 61 is not
satisfied by the applicant then the application cannot be,considered admissible.
As the ensuing discussion will demonstrate, Tunisia in its Application fails to
snstain this burden; it has not proved that the conditions required under Article
61 have beensatisfied. 60 APPLICATIOF NOR REVISION AND INTERPRETATION

A. THEALLECEDDISCOVERY OF A "NEWFACT"UNKNOW NO THECOURT
AND TOTUNISIAWHENTHEJUDGMENT WASGIVEN

31. Since "discovery" of a fact and "knnwledge" of that fact go hand in hand,
it will be useful to consider these elements of Article 61 toeether. For it is
evident that a fact cannot be "discovcredilwas already knoin. Accordingly,
this section willexaminr togeiher the first. third and fourth conditions requircd
bv Article 61 and the dcficienciesin Tunisia's Aoolication with resoeci to thrm.
.32. According to paragraph 50of the ~~~licaiion,the "new faci" is said to be
the discovery of the tex1 of the Resolution of the Libyan Council of Ministers

dated 28 May 1968.The alleged "decisive" nature of this "new fact" is that it
contained the co-ordinates of Libyan Concession No. 137 which revealed a
course of the north-western boundary of this Concession that is claimed in the
Application to be "very different from the one emerging from the descriptions
Libya gave during the written and oral pleadings". Paragraph 51 ofthe Appli-
cation funher Statesthat theseco-ordinates showed that the "north-western boun-
dary of the Libyan petroleum concessions, and in particular that of concession
No. 137,isnot aligned on the southeastern boundary of the Tunisian permit of
1966".
33 The background facts relating IO the Council Resolution of 28 March
1968have alrcadg been <etout in Section III above. As cxplained in paragraph
26 abo\,e. ihe documcnt dated 13Aoril 1968which aoocars as Anncx II to the

original French version of the ~~~lfcationfiled with ihe Court 27July 1984
is not the Council Resolution at all. It is an annex to the Concession Agreement.
It bears the sienatures of reoresentatives of the Libvan Ministrv of ~etroleum
Affairs and of'ihc cornPanie;. Aquitaine Libye and ÉRAP Italso bcars the seal
<ifthe Ministry This annex tathe Concession Agreement setsforth the area
covered by the Concession in square kilometres as well as the co-ordinates of
the houndaries of concession.
34. The data contained in the Concession Agreement annex accords with
what Libya stated in its Memorial in paragraph 36:

"The area covered bythis Concession was 6,846square kilometres, lying
to the eastward of a line running south/southwest from the point 33'55'N,
1Z'E to a point about one nautical mile offshore. The point of origin
viewedfrom Ras Ajdir is at an angle of 26degrees."

The area covered is the same- 6,846 square kilometres. The starting point is
the same - 33' 55'N; 12' E. Moreover, as Annex 1 attached to the Tunisian
Application acknowledges,the south-western corner of this Concessio- over
which Tunisia expresses so much concern - does lie approximately one mile
from the terminus of the land frontier at Ras Ajdir2, and the bearing of the
angle viewedfrom Ras Ajdir Io the point of origin of the Concession (33'55'N;
IZ'E) is approximately 26' 3. As for the point 33'55'N; IZ'E, this was
referred to in paragraph 36 of the Libyan Memorial as well as in paragraph 117
of the Court's Judgment where the Libyan Memorial was itself quoted, and it

was shown on the numerous maps furnished with the Libyan pleadings. This
@ point could readily have been ascertained from the map annexed Io Concession

SeeAnnex V hereto.
2 Annex1,para.7.
Annex 1para.8 (0). OBSERVATIONS 61

No. 137 and attached asAnnex 7 to the Libyan Counter-Memorial'. It is not
convincing, therefore, for Tunisia, some four years after the filing of the Memo-
rials, to complain in the Application that it "has never known what it signifies"
(para. 18). The "fact" of 33'55' N; 12'E was known: and whether Tunisia

realized its significances a quite diffcrent question.
35. Annex 3 to the Concession Agreement adds only some details as 10 the
boundaw CO-ordinatesof Concession No. 137 to the facts alreadv set forth in
p~ragraih 36 of the Libyan Mcmorial. As subsequeni paragraphs will show,
this Concession was ponrayed by boih Parties in thcir written and oral pleadings
on small-scale maps. Neithcr Party showed any interest in thc dctails as IO the
precise course of thc boundary of Concession No. 137or, indeed, of Tunisia's
1966Concession, and ncithcr Party furnished large-scale. dctailcd maps in this

regard. Libya's descriptions of its concessions, therefore, were not intended to
he detailed, but to give the general setting which was accurate given the scale of
the maps presented. Nor were there any statements made by Libya as 10 a
precise relationship of Libyan Concession No. 137to Tunisia's 1966Concession.
-~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~e~er~llv,common boundaw between these Concessions. fol-
lowing a direction of approximately 26'as Ciewed from Ras Ajdir, w& the
extent of the descriptive detail given to the Court hy Libya and portrayed on its
small-scale maps and, assuch, &ascorrect. Moreover, as~discussëdin paragraph

42 below, the fact that there was some small amount of overlap between the
1966Tunisian Concession and Libyan Concession No. 137was depicted on Map
@ No. 4 in the Libyan Counter-Memorial. Thus, there can be no question of Libya
c~~~~~~ine a misleadine ~icture of the course of its concessions before the Court.
36. id ~unisia kn& of the CO-ordinatcscontaincd in thc document aitachcd
as Annex II to ihe Application? Ir appears thai the answer to this quebtion is
thai Tunisia musr have known. for it is not crcdible rhai the deiails of Libvan
Concession No. 137were unknown to Tunisia. The very same parent company, .

Elf Aquitaine, held the adjoining concessions of the Parties, that is, the 1966
Tunisian Concession, the eastern boundary of which followed the slepped line,
and Libyan Concession No. 137.So the CO-ordinatesof these concessions were
hardly secret. They had been easily obtained by Petroconsultants. No doubt
Tunisia could just as easily have obtained this information from the NOC, from
the concession holders or from Petroconsultants. and it would be astonishina if-
some dcpanmcnt of the Tunisian Govcrnment had failed to do so.
37. Other sources show thc lack of credibility in Tunisia's assertion ihat the

CO-ordinatesof Concession No. 137wcre not known to Tunisia until within six
months of the filing of the Application'. Paragraphs 1.05 and 1.19 of the
Tunisian Memorial(1) made heavy weather out of the fact that, unlike Tunisia,
Libya never published details of its concessions. The way in which this point
was made is interesting. For example, paragraph 1.05of the Tunisian Memorial
contains the following admission :

".. .it is only indirectly, and often belatedly, that the Tunisian Government
has been able to learn of encroachments on its continental shelf resulting

1Both thc point of originand thc south-westerncorner of ConccrsionNo. 137arc
includcdintheinformationprovidcdbythcNOCto Pctroconsultants in 1976and 1977.Sec
paragraph 25 abovcand Anncx IV hcreto.
2Thc matter of rcasonablcdiligcnccor 'negligence"willbe delencd to a subscquent
subscctian as willbe adiscussionof the requirementthat thc fact in questionmustbe a
"dccisivcfactor". Howevcr,thescquestionsand the discovcryof a "ncwfact" allegedly
unknoyn to the Court and to Tunisia areso intcrrelatcdas no1to bc capableof total
separatian.62 APPLICATION FORREVISlON ANDINTERPRETATION

from some of these licences - in oractice. it had done so on account of
prospecting operations by the conccssionaj companics.
It was in this way that thc Tunisian Govcrnmcnt Icarncd. for cxamplc,
that Liccncc No. 137lhcld by thc samc comoanics as thc adioinina Tunisian
concession to the wesi]...encroachcd upoi the continentai shelfof Tunisia
or, at the veryleast, was being used [to undertake exploratory operations]
in areas located on that shelf."

1s this not an admission by Tunisia that information regarding Libyan Con-
cession No. 137had heen or could readily be obtained - as has heen shown in
paragraph 36 ahove? 1
38. The footnote to this same paragraph is also of interest:

"This concession, apparently granted in 1968,has never, to the knowledge
of theTunisian Government, been officially puhlicized by Libya. The onlv
information eiven to Tunisia bv the ~ibva~Government Ïeeardine the ar&
to which it hates is contained in a ~ote Verbale of 30 Mirch-1976 (see
para. 1.19helow)."
A simiiar statement appears in paragraph 1.19of the Tunisian Memorial. These
statements evidently were made to counter an anticipated argument hy Libya

that Tunisia had never protested Concession 137.Tunisia's defence wasthat it
had no officia1knowledge of it. Tunisia never stated in its pleadings that it had
no knowledge ofthis fact 2.As said in paragraph 1.19of the Tunisian Mcmorial:
"The note of 30 March does not itseü contain any precise indication of the line
of delimitation claimed by Libya and was not accompanied by a map." In
footnotes 3 and 4 Io paragraph 1.19it is obsewed that the Libyan Note Verbale
of 30 March 1976(Annex 26 to the Tunisian Memorial) implicitly recognized
this absence of detail. But what is more important is the comment that appears
in footnote 3. First,t quotes fromthe Note -
"... the Libyan Arab side has expressed the willingness of the Libyan
Arab Republic to assis1 the Tunisian High Representative in Tripoli to
obtain maos of the area under the sovereiantv of the Libvan Arab Reoublic:
these mais have already been published,-registered and-distrihuted and aré

available to all, assuming that the Tunisian High Representation has not
already had cognizancc of this]".
The footnote adds: "It would have been simpler for the Libyan Government
itself to transmit the maps in question Io Tunisia; this has never been done."
39. What stands out from these excerpts is the constant qualification of Tuni-
sia's alleged lack of knowledge regarding Lihyan Concession No. 137 by the
word "official" - connotine the absence of anv official communication hv
Libya. They reveal Tunisia's cnnccrn ovcr a possibl e.ibyan argumcnt barcd on
acquiescenceor estoppcl on thc grounds that Tunisia ncvcr protcsicd the granting

Resolution,whichwaspublishedinthe Qljjciis GazerrewouldhavcalcrtedTunisiata thecil
factthat foretailsasto ConcessionNo. 137furtherinquirywauldbencccssary.Forthc
Resbiutioncxpresslyrcfcrsto a "ConcessionContract",whichwasnot anncxcdto the
Resalution.Sec Annexes IIand IIIhexto.
The availabilityof this informationfrom theNOC,fromthe concessionholdcrsand
from PetroconsultantsmakesTunisia'sfailureIodcnvactualknowlcdg- - aso..oscdto
ofricialcommunicaiion- quitcundcrstandablc
,ianIM~morial)tthaithc maproffercd10bbecprovidedroniainedinformation asiohI.ibyan
roncesslons 64 APPLICATION FOR REVISION AND INTERPRETA~ON

42. The Libvan Counter-Memoral contained an illustration of considerable
@ significance inihis regard. This was Map No. 4. It is a small-scale map showing
the Tunisian concessions with the Lihyan "concession - E.P.S.A. Line" super-
imposed hy means of an overlay. What this map reveals is the lack of precise
alignment of the Lihyan concession line - including the western bonndary of
Concession No. 137 - with the zig-zag eastern bonndary of Tunisia's 1966
Concession. The Lihyan line clearly overlaps the Tunisian Concession Io a small

exteut. Thus, the fact that there was no precise ahgnment was a fact known hoth
to the Court and to Tunisia upon receipt of Lihya's Counter-Memorial. The
discussion of the concessions history in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the Lihyan
Counter-Memorial can only he read as indicating in a general way thefact that
the boundaries of the two Concessions followedthe same direction. No allegation
of precise alignment can be found in Libya's pleadings; indeed, Map No. 4
referred to above shows the contrary. Moreover, the "E.P.S.A. Line" depicted
on Map No. 4 of the Libyan Counter-Memonal followed the western houndary
of four Libyan concessions - NC 76, 137, NC 41, NC 53 - al1of which are
mentioned in paragraph 133.C(2) of the dispositifof the Court's Judgmeut.

4.1. The cumulative effect of these references is to cast serious doubt on any
claim that Tunisia was not aware of the overlap hetween it and Tnnisia's own
Concession and the lack of any precise alignment. Map No. 4 of the Libyan
Counter-Memorial brought this fact to the attention of both the Court and
Tunisia.
44. The Court's description of the hearing of this line was also stated as
approximate. As indicated by the Court in paragraph 121of the Judgment :"On
the information available to the Court, that angle appears to he 26" ".Thus,
what follows in the disposirifas to the bearing of this line and its relationship to
the concessions of the Parties can only be regarded as generally descriptive,
although it is of significance that the line of approximately 26'was noted by the
Court as "corresponding" not to the Tunisian 1966Concession but to the north-

Westboundary of the Libyan Concessions 1.Neither of the Parties provided the
Court with the data from which any exact calculation could have been made. In
this context. footnote 2 to naraeraoh 1.05 of the Tunisian Reol.<.IV) ,s of
relevance. ~here it is admittéd that ihe eastern houndary of the Tnnisian 1966
Concession followed an angle ofabout 26'as measured from Ras Aidir? There-
fore, it is unacceptable for Tunisia now to complain in the ~pplicaiion that this
Concession really followed a 28'or 29'line.
@ 45. Such small-scale maps as Map No. 3 in the Libyan Memorial and Map
@ No. 5 in the Lihyan Counter-Memorial, referred to in paragraphs 25 and 31 (a)
of the Application, were, similarly, intended to he illustrations of the general

situation of "virtually a common boundary". They cannot he characterized as
"an inexact representation of reality". Indeed, on so small a scale tbey could not
have been other than general illustrations even though, within this scale, Libya
made every effort to be accurate. This fact is further illnstrated by the fact that

and as 1have iust said. not onlydoesit showthat Tunisiawasfully =*.areofthe

..
iIt isnoteworthvthat theCaurt wasrefcrringherenotmerelvto ConcessionNo. 137,
hutin theucstcrn boundar) of al1foar Libyan-Con;cs,ions--NC 76, 137.SC 41 and
SC 53 Marcovcr. asnotcd inparagraph 63 belou.the Cu~nindicated inparagraph 121
ofil<Juderncnithai "Thc 26'Iinethçrclurcreflcctsal1a~ordnriatcfacto.."
2See aïsaBen Achour, op.cil.at p.250,wherethe sime &sertionappean. OBSERVATIONS 65

the end point of Lihyan Concession No. 137 - which was stated in Libya's
pleadings as lying approximately one mile offshore - would not have been
revealed at al1on a man of this scale. A line from Ras Aidir to the seaward
point dcsignatcd hy the toun would on such a small scalc civer up this offshore

point even though ttin fact lay one nautical mileeasi of Ras Aidir.
46. The secnid issue raised by the Application with regard io the concessions
of the Parties concerns the significance of point 33'55'N; 12' E.As obsewed in
paragraph 34 above, the Application's numerous references to Tunisia's lack of
knowledge concerning the significance of point 33'55' N; 12'E are not con-
vincing. The fact is that the point was specificallyidentified in paragraph 36 of
the Libyan Memorial, so Tunisia certainly knew of it. The deduction which is
made in paragraph 21 of the Application that this point must be a corner point
determinine the nerimeter of Concession No. 137could have been made at anv
time by ~;nisia'without asking either Libya or Elf-Aquitaine for details and
without "discovenng" the "new fact" - the Council Resolution, or more perti-

nently, the co-ordinites of Concession No. 137.
47. The line so precisely prescribed by the Court evidently followed neither
the boundary of the Libyan Concessions whose origin did not lie at Ras Ajdir,
nor the Tunisian Concession, whose configuration - as Tunisia well kuew -
precluded any boundary along a straight line and which did not pass through
33'55' N; 12'E in any event. Moreover, Tunisia indicates in paragraph 27 of
the Application that it knew that the Court's precise line overlapped with its
1966Concession. So. alleeed-, "as a last resort". Tunisia turned to an exDeri.
And the allcged "new fact" rurned up by the expert had no rclationrhip at ill to
cithcr of the difficulties meniioned in paragraph 27 of the Applsation - that 15,
ihe overla~ of the Court's Iine with ihe Tunirian 1966 Concession and the

impossibili'tyof a straight line forming the south-eastern boundary of the Tuni-
sian permit, - for this "new fact" (whether the Council Resolution or the co-
ordinates of Concession No. 137)related only to the boundanes of Concession
No. 137and not to a line between Ras Ajdir and the point 33' 55'N; 12"E, nor
to the boundary of the Tunisian permit, nor even to the boundary of the other
Lihyan concessions mentioned in the Court's disposirij.
48. In summary, it has been shown that no "new fact" unknown to the Court
or to Tunisia, within the meaning of Article 61 of the Statute, has been dis-
covered by Tunisia on which this Application can be deemed admissible. Evenif
the Tunisian Agent and delegation were unaware of the co-ordinates of Libyan

Concession No. ~37.~. is hieh-. ,nl~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~norance to have been shared
hy other depanments of the Tunisian ~overnmenï, cspcciaiiy in the light of the
fact that one of the concessionaires held both thc Libyan and Tunisian conco-
sions. Moreover, other sources of this information were available as amply
discussed in Section III ahnve. It is appropriate, therefore, to turn to the next
requirement of Article 61, the absence of "negligence" on the part of the appli-
cant. For in the light of the ease with whichinformation regarding the details of
Concession No. 137could have been obtained, it is evident that Tunisia fails to
satisfy this requirement as well.

B. TUNISIASFAILURE TO EXERCISEREASONABLD EILIGENCE TOOBTAIN
THIS"NEWFACT"

49. As indicated above, it is not enough for a Party claiming rcvision merely
io point Io thc discovery of a "new fact" for an applicaiion for rcvi~ionIo hc
admissible. Undcr paragraph 1 of Article 61 of the Statuie, the claimant musi66 APPLICATION FOR REVISION AND INTERPRETATION

aiso nrove that it was not ienorant of the fact "due to neelinence".Thiscondition
of ~Riclc 61 was not rcqkrcd under the vanous mod; ïcxts for revision that
the Advisory Committcc of Jurists first considcrcd in iheir dclibcrations on the
draftine of ihc Siatute of thc Court in 1920.Aniclc 55 of the 1899Convention
for thegacific Settlement of International Disputes and Article 83 of the Con-
vention of 1907, for cxample, contained no such provision. Hence, it is an
important new addition to the conditions of admissibility under Article 61.
50. The irovouxpréporaroires of the Court's Statute indicate that the concept
of a party's negligence inknowing of a particular fact was considered in a
number of ways. On the one hand, it was suggested that the new fact "must he
of such a nature that the narlv in auestion could no1have knowledee of il". As
the records of thesc proceidin& staie: "The lusticc of this was fully r~cognized"ll

For his part, Lord Phillimore introduccd ihc idca of "due diligcncc"on the part
of ihc oanv claimina revision This. in turn. led to thc stioulation that "such
ignoraice mus1 notbe due to a fahure onthe part of the party IO use due
diligence inthe conduct of the case"2.
51. Thc question is, therefore, whether Tunisia - even if it was ignorant of
the alleged "new fact" - exercised due diligence inthe conduct of ils case in this
respect. Clearly this question mus1 be answered in the negativc. For the infor-
mation which Tunisia now alleges to constitute a newly discovered fact of
"decisive" importance was readily available as been pointed out above. As the
record shows, Lihya offered to supply Tunisia with the relevant mapsl. In its
written and oral pleadings, Libya repeatedly asserted that Tunisia obviously was
informed as 10 Concession No. 137.With these offers and this assertion, what
did Tunisia do? Nothing. Why did Tunisia no1 turn to the NOC for this infor-
mation as Petroconsultants had successfully done? Or for that matter, why did
Tunisia itself no1 ask Petroconsultants for this information since other infor-

mation orovided hv Petroconsultants was referred 10 durine the nroceedines?
Yet duri& thc peri&dbcfore the submission of writtcn plcadiRgs.aid dunngïhe
writtcn and oral stagc of the pleadings. and evcn beiwccn the rendcnng of thc
Judament and thc submission of thc Aoolication. Tunisia fatlcd to ask Libva.
eithër directly or through the Court, for'the details regarding Concession NO:
137that it now regards 10be so "decisive".
52. 11surely is not enough, in order to satisfy the requirements of Article 61,
10 relv on a statemcnt such as that found in oaraeraoh 19of the Aoolication:
"~eitker . did Libya sec fii to producc thc'textif ihis conc~sston'dunn~ the
procccdings beforc the Coun". or mcrely to complatn that Libya'swrittcn plcad-
inas did not includc the texi of thc Council Kesolution sdid IO contain the co-
oainates of Concession No. 137 (para. 50).Has Tunisia forgotten the position
il look in its written and oral pleadings regarding the concessions of the Parties?
It increasingly played down the significance of concessions. Moreover, Tunisia
chose 10 show little interest in the western boundary line of Libyan Concession

No. 137.Ils interests lay farto the east.
53. Tunisia would apparently dispute the statement in the previous paragraph
that never once did il request the details regarding Conccssion No. 137let alone

PermanentCourI of InternationalJustice.Adnsory Committccof Jurists: F'rocès-
Verboux of the Procecdingrof the Committcc; 28th Mccting.20 July 1920,'~.592.
(Emphasisaddcd.)
rrovouxindicate,the words"no134ducMto ncgligcnce"wercconsidcredsufficicntand were
adoptcdintotheprcscntAnicle61.
Qçec para.38abovc. OBSERVATIONS 67

the text of the Council Resolution. It does so only once in the Application -in
paragraph 52where there appears the following statement:

"The Tunisian Government cannot be held negligent in any way, as ils

representatives have vainly requested their Libyan counterparts to commu-
nicate rhis rexr ta them during the meetings between the Iwo sides ever
since 1968."(Emphasis added.)

Libva flatlv denie~ t~ ~ ~ ~ertion. The burden of oroof is on Tunisia to orove ils
acc;racy. lince itis for Tunisia to prove that th; condiiions of ~rticle'6l have
been met. Moreover. paragraph 52revcals a serious fiaw in the Application: the
Council Resoluiion was officiallv oublishcd and. hence. rcadilv availahlc io
Tunisia Rut the texi itsclf providésRo"new fact" rele\ant to the case which the
Application trics to make lhe shove-quottd passage is intcrcsting in another
resocct as well 11rcvcals ihai Tunisia aooarenilv was aware ever since 1968of

the~ouncil Resolution. This is not surPrhg since its text had been published
in the Official Gazerre of Libya on 4 May 1968 and was publicly available
elsewhere 1.Assuming that Tunisia had not been able to obtain this information
from other sources. ~.v d,d Tunisia never ask Libva for this text? There would
have been no reluctance - indeed no reason for reluctance - on Libya'spart to
su..ly.it .romptly. Evenhad Tunisia requested thisdocument, it would havebeen
incumbent up-on-it IO pursue this request during the proceedings hefore the
Court if the document had not been obtained. Not todo so would surely be a
"negligent" act. Had it obtained the tcxt, il would have constituted "negligence"
not to seek the further details regarding Concession No. 137which Tunisia now

regards to be so "decisive"2.

54. Rcvening to Article 61 of thc Statute, it is a rcquirement of that Article
that the "ncw facl". which forms the basis for thc spplicaiion for revision, bc "of
such a nature as tb he a decisive factor". The mèanine of this is clear: Io be
"decisivc"thc fact murt havc a significant bcaring on thç casc so that. if known

io ihc Court prior io the rendering of its judgment, that fact would havc led the
Court to a dffferent result than the one reached. A revision under Article 61 is
aimed at bringing this "new fact" to the Coun's attention so that it may revise
its judgment accordingly. As will be shown in the following paragraphs, the
Application fails to sustain the burden of showing that the "new fact", even in
isolation, could have been a "decisive" factor. Moreover, the argument that this
"fact" was "decisive" is quite untenable when one considers that !he Court
evidently took account of a wide range of factors as relevant to ils decision.
55. Tunisia bases the alleged decisiveness of the "fact" in question on the

claim that neither the Court nor Tunisia were aware that the western boundary
of Concession No. 137was not precisely aligned on the zigzag boundary of the
1966Tunisian Concession and that, had the Court been aware of this Tact,it
would have arrived a1a diffcrent result. The first point Io be made in response is
that the real basis of Tunisia's complaint lies not in the western boundary of

Sccpara. 25abovcandAnnexerIIandIII hercto.
Il would also bc of intcrestta know why the expcrt consultedby Tunisia in the
prc ararionof the Applicationapparentlyhad no difliculiy in acquiringtheCO-ordinates
of PoncesrionNo. 137. 68 APPLICATION FOR REVISION AND INTERPRETATION

Concession No. 137,but in the configuration of ils own Concession. The simple
fact is that due to the peculiar stepped-like boundary to Tunisia's 1966 Con-
cession, no straight line- no1 even the houndary of Concession No. 137 -
could have "aligned" itself with this Concession. "Alignment" in this sense was
physically impossible, as Tunisia knew. So also was the Court aware of this fact
@ since it had been depicted by Map No. 4 in the Libyan Counter-Memorial.
Indeed, this fact is expressly recognized bythe Expert Report annexed to the
Application where it is stated th-t

"it is difficult to determine the alignment of the boundary of the Tunisian
permit, precisely because the south-eastern corner points of this boundary
are not in line(any more than the north-western corner points, moreover)1".

56. It is also of relevance that bv the lime the Judement was rendered. the
question of alignment beiweenthe ~ib~anand ~unisian-conccssionr had bccomc
moot. As revealed hy the maph prcpared hy Petroconsultantr and attachcd ai
Annex 9 <ifthe Technical Anncxcs to ihc I.ibvan Counter-Mernorial. the Tuni-
sian 1966Concessionwasrelinquished during i978. It thus appears that through-
out the proceedings before the Court leading up to the Judgment, there was no
Tunisian concession in this area which could be "encroached" upon, or which
could be aliened with Libvan Concession No. 137.or with which a delimitation

line could be aligned. ~h&e is, therefore, no validity in Tunisia's argument that
the Court's Judgment must be revisedbecause there was no perfect alignment of
the concessions. Since no such alignment was possible, the "discoveÏy" of the
precise CO-ordinatesof the Libyan Concession No. 137does not justify Tunisia's
attempts to replace the delimitation decided by the Court with a new line
passing through new CO-ordinates.The relinquishment of Tunisia's Concession
in 1978supports this conclusion afortiori,
57. As noted above, throughout the case Libya dealt with the adjoining con-
cessions of the Parties in generally descriptive terms, pointing to a "generally
common boundary" following a line of approximately 26'. But suddenly, two
years and five months after the rendering of the Judgment, Tunisia has pounced
on a detail which it claims to be "decisive" inthe case in order to open up the
substance of the Judgment. Even within the context of the concessions of the
Parties, this detail is of no great moment. The important fact was that there

existed a de factoworking arrangement which began in the period 1966-1968
and lasted over severalyears. The arrangement assumed an "approximate" boun-
dary along the 26'line. A precise boundary between the 1966Tunisian Conces-
sion and Libyan Concession No. 137was never alleged and never at issue and
was no1possible, as Tunisia knew. Indeed, there could be no precise houndary,
for overlap or gaps wereinevitahle.
58. This leads to the second element related to the concessions which is
significant in determining whether the "new fact" discovered byTunisia could
amount 10a "decisive factor". Ashas been pointed out above, the north-western
limit of Concession No. 137was identified in the Libvan Memorialz. However.
it appears from paragraph 31 (a) of the Tunisian Application that it is thé
location of the south-western point of this Concessionwhich allegedlycame as a
surprise to Tunisia and whichapparently, therefore,constitute airitccal element
in the claim for revision. And yet this point lies a mere one nantical mile east of

Annex. 1,para.8(d).
2 Seepara.34 above. OBSERVATIONS 69

Ras Ajdir and east of the line linking Ras Ajdir with 33'55'N; 12'E 1.It simply
is not possible that a matter of such a small magnitude could be considered
"decisive" particularly since, regardless of where this point fell, a straight line
linking it with the point 33'55' N; 12'E could not have been exactly aligned
with the boundary of Tunisia's Concession any more than could a straight line
from Ras Ajdir to that point. The Court had no need Io rely on the south-
western point of the Libyan Concession since it determined the line as from Ras

Ajdir in order to find the point at the outer edge of the territorial sea from
which the delimitation would start.
59. There is a third aspect of Tunisia's contention that calls for a response.
Under the guise of haviug discovered a "new fact" justifying revision of the
Judgment - a revision which necessarily would be based on that particular
"fact" - Tunisiahas orooosed a totally new linefor the first sector : a line based
on what il claims to be ihc correct alignmeni 10ils 1966Concession. t'rom this,
Tunisia has suggcrtcd a new point through whichthe line from Ras Ajdir should
pas (last paragraph of the first Submission).
60. Such a suggestion represents an entirely new approach to delimitation in
the first sector fromthat employed by the Court in the Judgment. The reasoning
behind it is based on the "chronological priority of the Tunisian permit over

Libyan concession No. 137" (para. 39). Hence, it is said, "the boundary to be
taken into consideration for the establishment of a delimitation line can only be
the south-eastern boundary of the Tunisian permit of 1966" (para. 39). The
solution which the Application proposes in paragraph 40, therefore, is to draw
the line in the first sector from the frontier point at Ras Ajdir through the point
having the co-ordinates 33'50' 17" N; 11'59' 53" E, which is said to be "the
most easterly point on the Tunisian permit"(Point 5 on the annexed plates').
61. Herein liesa senous problem for Tunisia. Eventhis new line whichTunisia
now proposes overlaps in places withTunisia's 1966Concession. These areas of
overlap occur in the territorial sea and beyond. This can readily be perceived
from Plate 7 included in Annex 1to the Application. The "new fact" relating to

Libyan Concession No. 137 isin reality totally irrelevant to the construction of
the new first sector of the delimitation which Tunisia has proposed in its Sub-
missions. There is nothing about the "new fact" that relates Io Point 5 of the
Tunisian permit; Point 5 was known to the Court and to the Parties pnor to the
Judgment. So also was the point 33'55'N; 12' E since it had been identified in
paragraph 36 of the Libyan Mernorial and recognized by the Court in para-
graphs 121 and 133.C (2) of its Judgment. The only alleged unknown "fact"
arising{romTunisia'signorance was the element ofthe lack of precisealignment,
resulting in a very slight overlapping of the Tunisian 1966 Concession and
Concession No. 137. Given the fact that overlap was inevitable in view of the
configuration of the Tunisian zig-zag boundary and that this overlap was re-
@ vealed on Map No. 4 of the Libyan Counter-Mernorial, where is the "decisive"
element in the failure to produce "officially" the Libyan Council Resolution

which, in any event, does not provide the co-ordinates? Does such failure to
produce the document justify redrawing the line so as Io pas through a point

' The LibvanMemorialdidnotethat this pointlay one mileoffshore,and no1at Ras
Ajdir. Itw& alro noicdinparagraph 45 above ihaion a rmall-<calmap a Iinrdraun
from Kas Ajdirto 33' 55'S. 12' Ewould covcrupihr south-westernpointofConcrsrion
NOC 13did. ofcourse. set6rth theco-ordinatesof thissouth-iesternpoint.SeeAnnexIV
hereto.
2 It isnotewarthythat theExpertReport(Annex 1)neveridentifiedtheco-ordinatesof
thispoint andsuggestedotherlinesinorderto illustratevanouspossible "alignments".70 APPLICATION FOR REVISION AND INTERPRETATION

on the Tunisian Concession as to which full facts have always heen available
and which had. in anv event. been relinauished? And what would this modified
Iinc achieve in any eient.1 It would still 'overlap- albeit in diffcrent areas than
the Court's Iine - with both the 1966Concessionand Concession No. 137.
62. Thus far. the auestion whether the "new fact" is a decisivefactor has onlv
been considercd in rilalion to the characterirtics uf Libyan Concession No. 137
and thc 1966Tunisian Concession. A, has been observcd above, Concession No.
137 was not the onlv Lihvan concession referred to in the Court's Judement.

Moreover. ii is evidcfitthai the conduct of the Parties rcflectedin the conc~ssions
history was only one of many rclevant factors that the Court took into account
in renderine its Judement. The concessions of the Parties by no means consti-
tuted the soie circumitance that led the Court to arrive at a line of approximately
26' from Ras Ajdir as the line of delimitation in the first sector.
63. As mentioned in paragraph 4 above, the Court was requested by the
Parties in the Soecial Aereement to take its decision accordinn to eauitahle
principlcs and the relevait circumstances which characterile thcarea. itis ap-
parent that the Court did jus! that. As the Judgment reveals, a broad range of
circumstances were examined and weighed. In addition to the concessions his-
tom. other factors and circumstances referred to hv the Court as relevant to its
de&ion and specified ;n the disposiiifof thc ~udgmeni includcd: thc general
configuration of the coasts of the Parties; the existence and position of thc
Kerkennah Islands: thc land frontier between thc Parties: the Iine oeroendicular
to the Coast at the iand frontier which had, in the past,been oh&r<ed as a de

facto limit; and the element of proportionality 1.The 26'line was the result of
the halancing up of al1these factors; the Court's solution did not Testsolely or
decisively upon a precise alignment of concession boundaries. As was stated in
paragraph 121 of the Judgment: "The 26' linetherefore reflects al1appropriate
factors .. .2"
64. In addition. the Court was faced with the orohlem that the Parties had
no1 delimitcd iheh territorial sea boundary. but had only fixed a common 12-
mile outer limit. A starting point for the contincntal shclf delimitation had to bc
found at the outer edee of the territorial sea in these circumstances. It was this
which wasonc of the iey factors relating to the first sector and no1the question
whether any exact alignment of concession boundarics or small areas of overlap
existed. The startiny point for determining thc line necessarily had 10 bc thc land
frontier at RasAid&.-It.in turn. had to bëconnected with a voint at sea in order
to determine thé poin~ un theouter edge of the tcrritoriai sea of the Parties
whcrc the dclimitation would begin. The point a1sea selected by the Court was

33' 55'S :12'E. Thc second oart of oaraeraoh 133.C(2) of the Court's dis~osi-
tif- whéreit is stated that the line Ofdesm'itation "fiom the intersection point
so determined . . . is to run north-east through the point 33'55' N, 12'E"
- defines exactly the course of this line without descriptive language.
65. It fnllows that even if there were a "new fact" as alleged by Tunisia, il
cannot be regarded as a fact of such a nature "as to be a decisive factor" as is
required under Article 61 of the Statute. On the purely factual plane, it has been
demonstrated that the Achilles heelof Tunisia'sclaim for revision is the configur-
ation of Tunisia's Concession, since Libyan Concession No. 137could not have

ConrinenrnS lhelf(Tunisio1LibyonArab~ornohiriyo),'JudgmenIt..C.J.Rcporrs1982,
p.93,paras. 133.B(Z),(3),(4)and (S),dispoririThesefactorsand circumstance srealso
discusscdinparagraph121 of theJudgment.
para. 112. this regard,Anglo-FrenchArbirrarion,Decisionof 14 March1978, p. 193, OBSERVATIONS 71

been perfectly aligned with the Tunisian Concession in any event. Of course, by
the time of the Judgmcnt the question of alignment was of no interest due to the
relinquishment of Tunisia's Concession. In the light of al1the other factors that
the Coun considercd relevant in applying equitable principles to the delimitation,
the text of the Council Resolution of 1968 regarded as the newly discovered
"fact" cannot be regardcd as "decisive".

D. THETIME OF THE ALLEGED DISCOVERY OF THE"NEWFACT-

66. This last requirement of Article 61 calls for little discussion. The question
is oreciselv when. how..and hv whom the text of the Council's Resolution was
dilcoverei, p&ticularly in thiiight of the fa; that it is not the actual tcxt of the
Resolution that Tunisia has attached to the Application but rather a description
of Concession No. 137 as set forth in annei j to the Concession ~ereeÏment
itself. The same questions must be posed as to the "discovery" of thisannex 3.
Obviously, it is to be expected that Tunisia would make available to the Court
these details in order to sustain its hurden of proof that the requirement of
Article 61 (4) has been met: "The application for revision must be made at latest
within six months of the discovery of the new fact."
67. Only vague references to the time at which this text was ohtained are
contained in the Application. For example, paragraph 4 States:

"Quite recently, furthermore, a fact of such a nature as to be a decisive
factor, which fact was, when the Judgment was given, unknown to the
Court and also to Tunisia, has come to the knowledge of the Tunisian
Government."

This sort of statement is not enough to estahlish that this element of Article 61
has been satisfied. For example, "quite recently" does not Say when. On what
date was this "fact" discovered? It is interesting to note in this regard that the
covering letter of 15March 1984sent by Tunisia's expert to the Tunisian Agent,
and included withthe annexes orieinallv filed with the Court bv Tunisia. sueeests
that previous drafü of hisrepon Ld h&n prepared dnd excha&cd with repÏësen-
tativcs of Tunisia1 2A copy of ihis Ietter has been attached as Anncx VI hereto
It indicaies that the aucstion of documents relatine to Concession No 137had

also been previously discussed. Based on this scan6 information, il can only be
surmised when Tunisia actually learned of the "new fact" fmm its expert. It is
evident, however, that the expert would have had only slightly over Iwo months
to work on this project pnor to his 15March letter. These factsfurther emphasize
the necessity for Tunisia to specify the date the "new fact" was discovered since,
on its face, it appears most improbable that the six-month requirement of
Article 61 has been met. It may be that disclosing the specific circumstances in
which this "new fact" was discovered. alleeedlv for the first time. mav Dose
certain problems for Tunisia. It is possibG, for example, that aihough the
Agent and his delegation may not have had this information - because they
had not sought it - it was available to some other authority or agency of the
Tunisian Government. Certainly, Tunisian officials interestcd in the oil sector

1 Thislcttcrhasnot kcn includedin the officialversiof thc Applicationprintcby
ihr Coun. alihoughilwas filcby TunisiawiihilsongtnalApplicaiion.
Thclcttcrinqucsiion.subscqucnilyincorporaicdInthcscparatcprintcd cdiiiof thc
Application by way of an erratum. now appcarr an pagc 19. rupro [Noie b) rhe
Re,eisrr]72 APPLICATIOF NORREVISION AND INTERPRETATION

must be well acquainted with the services of Petroconsultants and of the Middle
EusrEconomic Survev. Or it mav reveal how easilv ohtainahle this information
was, if onlyTunisia had exercised reasonable diligLnceto find it -a point bear-
ingdirectly on the lack of "negligence*requirement of Article 61 discussedabove.

V. The Lsck of Justilicstion for an lnterpretation of the Judgment
or for the Correction of an Error

68. Having requested the Court to rule that ils Application for revision is
admissible in the first two paragraphs of its first Submission, Tunisia goes on Io
request the Court Io "construe" its Judgment of 24 Febmary 1982 and "Io
correct an error" in the third paragraph. These requests, however, are made
"altogether subsidiarily" to the primary request for revision and need to he
examined separately.
69. It will be perceived that in fact two auite distinct reauests are involved in
this subsidiary &bmission. The first - "toconstruc the ~id~meni" - involves
a demand for thc Court IO interprct ils Judgmcnt and is based on Aniclc 60 of
ihe Statutc and Article 98 of thc Rulrs of Court 1.The lcnal basis for the second
reauest - "10 correct an error" - is far less clear. as ihese Observations will
explain below. However, it is necessary first of al1 to examine the question

whether Tunisia's requcst to construe the Judgment is admissible as a genuine
reauest for interpretation in accordance withthe Statute and Rules of Court
and In ihe light of thc provisions of the Special Agrcemeni beiweenthc Panics.
70. 11willbc rccallcd that thc hasis on which ihe Partics brought their dispute
IO ihe Court was thc Special Aprecment signcd on 10Junc 1977,and ihai it waî
the Soecial ~ereemeni which orovided the hasis of the Court's iurisdiction in
the case. In th& Special ~~reekent, the Parties included a specif;c provision -
Article 3 - which dealt with the procedures Io be followed in the event thev
were unable to reach agreement onthe delimitation following the Court's ~udg-
ment. Article 3 States:

"ln case the agreement mentioned in Article 2 is not reached within a
penod of three months, rcnewable by mutual agreement from the date of
delivery of the Court's judgement, theIwo Panies shall together go back to
the Court and reauest anv exolanations or clarifications which would faci-
Iitate the task of the two delc~ations to arrive at ihc Iincseparaiing the two
arcas of ihe contincnlal shelf, and the two Panies shall comply with the
judgement of thc Coun and with its explanaiions and clarifications"

71. Libya considers that the provisions of Article3 of the Special Agreement
should be respected by hoth Parties, and that if explanations and clarifications

' Article60ofthcStatuteprovidcs:
"The judgmcntisfinaland withoutappeal.Inthecvcntofdisputeasto the mean-
ing or scopeof thc judgmcnt,the Caurt shallconstruc itupon thc rcqucstof any
pany."

Paragraphs 1 and 2ofArticle98 ofthe Rulesprovidc:
"1. Inthe cvcntofdisputc asto themcaningor scaecofajudgmcnt anypany may
make a reaucstfor itsintemretation.whetherthe orimnalorocetd-n~wercbe-. bv
anaoolicaiion orby thcnoiificatioofa swcialam&mcn<
tion.orby ihcinoiificaiionoatspcciîl agrccmcniIoihatdcffccibctuccnthe parties;
ihc prrciscpointor pointsindispuicasIOihcmraning orrcopcofthc judgmcntshall
beindicaicd" OBSERVATIONS 73

are required of the Court, the Parties should go back "together". Such a return,
however, presupposes that the experts of the Parties would have made a good
faith effort to implement the Court's Judgment and that, if they were not
successful, they would have been ohligated to indicate the precise points of
difference to be included inthe referenceto the Court.

72. As pointed out ahove, it was for this reason that when Tunisia suggested
tbat it found the Court's Judgment unclear and ambiguous, Libya put ils own
oosition as to the course of the delimitation line - which it considered was set
forth clearly in the Court's disposirif- in precise terms and requested Tunisia
to do the same. In Libya's view,this was the only way to identify preciselywhat
points, if any, it would be appropriate to refer to the Court under Article 3.

Tunisia, however, refused to specifythe difficulties it had with the way in which
Libya had indicated the Judgment should he implemented 1.Although Tunisia
had at one lime threatened to go back 10 the Court unilaterally, it postponed
this proposal in its Note Verbale of28Apnl 1983.As a result, Tunisia's Applica-
tion came as a complete surprise to Libya which has always been of the view
that the proper course to follow was under the provisions of the Special Agree-

ment provided that a bonofide and identifiable dispute between the Parties
reallv existed. Whv~~i,~ ~nis~ ~felt it had discovered a "new fact" of "decisive"
importance did it not bring it to Libya's attention and discuss what Tunisia
regarded as the implications of this "new fact" rather than filing a unilateral
request 10revisethë~ud~ment without any prior notification to Libya?

73. The arguments contained in paragraph 57 of the Application are not at
al1relevant.The point is not whether Article3of the Special Agreementoverrides
Article 103of the United Nations Charter. The point is that Article 3 requires
the Parties to follow a certain procedure: that is, the evident obligation for them
first to exhaust the remedy of seeking explanations and clarifications under
Article 3 of the Special Agreement. For this reason, Libya considers that the
Court does not oossess the reauisite iurisdiction to admit the Tunisian reauest
= ~ ~~
for inierpretation. Quite apart irom the issue of jurisdiction, however, iheréis a
separaie point, and that is that Tunisia's requcst is not really a requcst for
"inter~retation" in anv event. The leaal precedents suppor..the view ihat l'uni-
sia'srlquest is not a t~e request for &teÏpretation.
74. Both this Court and its predecessor, the Permanent Court, have had the
opportunity to address the question of interpretation in previous cases2. The

decisions in these cases make it clear that the fundamental orinciole relatine to
judgments of thc Court is, as Article 60of the Statute state;, ihat'thcy arc final
and without appeal. II follows, thcrcfore, thai a requcsi for intcrpretaiion is not
admissible if it violatcs this basic principle. In its Judgrnent in theInrerpr~rarion
of rhe Judzmenr in rhe Asyluni Cosp. the Coun indicated that Anicle 60 lays
down IWO conditions for thc admissibility of such a rcquest. These arc:

"(1) The real purpose of the request mus1be 10obtain an interpretation of the
judgment. This signifies that its object mus1 br solely 10 obtain clarifica-

tion of the meaning and the scope of what the Coun has dccidcd with
binding force, and noi 10obtain an answer io questions not so decided.

1 In thisrrrpru. tt ir ironicathatitwas Tunirsa uhwh accuxd Libya ul re)cn<ngihc
icrrnrof Aniclr 3of theSpccialAgrccmcni in11sNoicVcrbalcof 28Fcbruary 1983
Reuuerrfor Inreroreiarionof rheJudzmenlof 20 Noivrnher1950 tntheAsylumCase.
~udzrn~nl.li'.~ ~eborrr1950.é.395; rie also,>nrerprerortono/Judgmeni Nu. 3.7 ond 8
ment Nu. 4. 1925. P.C.I.J..SC~PS A. No. 4. hl~rprelortonufJudgmrnir Nus
(Farlury or Chorzci~,,JudxrnmrNo. 11.1927,PC1.J.. SeriesA. No 13. 74 APPLICATION FOR REVISION AND INTERPRETATION

Any other construction of Article 60 of the Statute would nullify the
provision of the article that the judgment is final and without appeal.
(2) In addition, it is necessary that there should exist a dispute as to the
meaning or scope of the judgment 1."

75. Since both of thcse conditions mus1bc satisficd by an applicant Staie in
order for its request 10 be admitted. a close look at thc Application is neccssary
to determine whcther Tunisia has mei ihis burden. Tunisia's reaucst for intervie-
tation a~ t~ t~ ~first sector of the delimitation is couched in --ncuaee ,eaueGine
the court to specify 1hekhicrarchy" which Tunisia claims cxists as to ihc crite":
which apply to the determination of the delimitation line in this sector]. Libya
considcrs that thcrc is no such "hicrarchv" in the Court'r Judnmcnt. The dir~osi-
tifstated in clear terms that in the firsisector the starting Gint for the délimi-
tation lineis the point where the outer limit of the territorial sea of the Parties
"is intersected by a straight line drawn fromthe land frontier point at Ras Ajdir
through the point 33'55' N; 12'E". The language which follows in the dispositif
- "which line runs at a hearing of approximately 26'east of north" - is
necessarily approximate as the Expert Report attached to the Application itself
acknowledges. So also isthe language,

"corresponding to the angle followed by the north-western houndary of
Libyan petroleum Concessions Numbers NC 76, 137, NC 41 and NC 53,
which was aligned on the south-eastern houndary of Tunisian pctroleum
concession 'Permis complémentaireoffshore du Golfe de Gabès"',

since it describes no1 the line from Ras Ajdir to the point 33'55' N; 12'E but
the approximate beanng of 26'. That the point 33'55'N; 12'E is controlling is
confirmed by the following part of paragraph 133.C(2) of the disposirifwhere
the Court statcs, "... from the intersection point so determined, the line of
delimitation hetwecn the Iwo continental shelves is to run north-east through
the point 33'55' N, 12'E, thus on that same beanng".
76. From this it can he seen that the essence of the Tunisian request is not
interpretation, but something quite different. For it is Tunisia's position, as
expressed in paragraphs 38 to 40 of the Application, that the Court should
totally disregard the point which it designated in its Judgment as the point
through which the delimitation line should pass - namely, 33'55' N; 12' E -.
and take in10 consideration the southeastern bnundaw of the 1966 Tunisian
' Concession insiead. As the Application contends, "th; boundary to be taken
in10 consideration for the establishment of a delimitation line can only he the
south-castcrn boundaw of the Tunisian ~crmit of 19663". Such a rcaucst is
nothing more than a hald plea for a revision of the Court's Judgment and for
the elimination of a key part of paragraph 133.C (2) of the Court's dispositif

where it was clearly indicated that, in the first sector, the delimitation lin"IOs
run through the point 33'55' N, 12'E". In this manner, Tunisia attempts to
alter what the Court has already decided with binding force. Such a request goes
far beyond the permissible scope of interpretation, and thus violatcs the first
condition set forth by the Court in its Judgment in the Inierpretaiion of the
Judgmeni in the Asylum Case4.

1 Requesrfor hrerpreroiionofihe Judgmenrof20 November 195i0ntheAsylumCa
I.C.J.Reporis1950,p. 402.
2 Application,para.36.
Application, ara.39(cm hasisadded).
Secalso~ngt-~rench ~r!irrarion,Decisionof14Mnrch 1978, articularlyp 161,para
28;pp. 165-166p.ara.37;pp.182-183p,ara.85;pp. 192-193p.ara1f0:andp. 193;~ara.112: OBSERVATIONS 75

77. As forthe second condition mentioned above -the existence of a dispute

- this point has already been alluded to in connection with the discussion of
Tunisia's conduct following the rendering of the Court's Judgment in 1982.
Stated briefly, Tunisia failed to specify precisely what differences it had with
Lihya's position on the implementation of the Judgment as that position had
been set forth in Lihva's Note of 10Auaust 1982.Tunisia neither responded to
this Note nor specifiédin writing the exact points and differences it wanted to

refer back to the Court. It is not enough that Tunisia claims to find theJudgment
ambiauous. As the Court stated in its decision on the request for interpretation
in thë~sylum case:

"Ohviously, one cannot treat as a dispute, in the sense of that provision
lArticle 60 of the Statutel, the mere fact that one Party finds the Judgment

obscure when the other considers it to be perfecily clear 1."

It follows, therefore, that Tunisia has failed to meet the second condition of
Article 60as well.
78. That revision is Tunisia's design is made even more apparent by its se-
condary request "to correct an error" in the Judgment. According to paragraph

40 of the Application, the error to he corrected is the point indicated hy the
Court in ils Judgment having the CO-ordinates33'55' N; 12'E, the key point
known to all. Tunisia would have the Court substitute these CO-ordinatesby new
ones (33'50' 17" N; 11'59' 53" E) which are said to correspond to the CO-
ordinates of Point No. 5 on the 1966 Tunisian Concession. As noted above,

however, the 1966Concession was relinquished in 1978so that it did not exist
at the time the Judgment was rendered.
79. It makes no difference that the Tunisian Application refers to this request
as one "to correct an error". The plain truth is that this is nothing more than
another attempt to revise the Court's Judgment. Thus, il is no1 surpnsing that
the Application has made only a minimum attempt 10justify this request on

legalgrounds.
80. Tunisia~ ~~~~ ~ts ca~ ~ ~~ ~ the correction of an error on a orovision that
no~longereven appears in the Rules of Court, baving been drop6d in the 1936
version. Tunisia's argument is that up until 1931 the Rules provided that the
Court. or the ~residënt if the Court was not sittine. w-. entided "10correct an
error in any order, judgment or opinion, arising from a slip or accidental omis-

sion". According to the Application: "lt cannot be tenably argued that the
deletion of that Article in 1935has deprived the Court of a power that naturally
belongs to any judicial body 2."
81. The main point to make in response to these contentions is that the
orieinal rule to which Tunisia refers never had as ils Durpose the alteration of

th&uhsrance of a decirion hythe Court or by thc résidén acniig alone The
provision was drafted io cuver "a slip or accidental omission" and noi to rci,i\e
a iudament. Indeed. ii would have becn whully inappropriate..or a~provision
përm'iting the alteration of a substantive pointin a judgment to appear in the
Rules and not in the Court's Statute. Moreover, the rravauxprépararoires of the
Rules make it ahundantly clear that the original discussion of the rule which

f RequesrforInlerpreroiiono/the Judgmenr0/20 November1930 in rheAsylum Cose,
Judgmeni,I.C.J. Reports1950,
2 Application,para. 61.The \:'in qucstionhad bcen Rule 75 in the 1931 versionof
the RulesofCourt.76 APPLICATION FOR REVISION AND INTERPRETATION

Tunisia cites focused on clerical errors 1.The travaux also indicate that the mle
in question had never been applied and was considered superiluous. For that
reason, it was suppressed in 19352.
82. In summary, it may be seen that Tunisia's subsidiary requests to interpret

the Judement of 24 Februarv 1982and Io correct an alleeed enor arnount. in
rffcci, iganother attempt to ievisc thai samc Judgment A; such, these requests
~re incompaiible with the pro\.isions of Article 60 of ihe Statutc sincc thcy go
beyond requesting an interpretation of what the Court has already decided wzh
binding force.

VI. The Most Westerly Point ofthe Gulf of Gabes

83. The amhiguity of this portion of the Application is readily apparent. The
second of the Submissions in the Application does not specify what there is for
the Court to clarify. On the one hand, it seems to add nothing to paragraph 124
of the Court's Judgment where the Court said :". . .the precise co-ordinates of
this point [the most westerly point] will be for the experts to determine. . .".On
the other hand, the Application and Annex 1,read as a whole, fnggest that the
location of the most westerly point lies as much as five minutes - over nine

kilometres - south of the location indicated bv the Court. This kind of ambi-
guity is unacceptable in a request to the Court, Lhether for revision under Arti-
cle 61 of the Statute, for interpretation under Article M) thereof, or for "expla-
nations and clarifications" under Article 3 of the Snecial Aereement. II w& to
nvoid this on of confusion that Libya insistcd. wiihout avaicthai Tunisia make
precise ils position hcfore the Panies rcturncd j0intly to ihe Coun.
84. One strikine aspect of this portion of the Apulicution is ihat the course of
~he ~e~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~n the secondsector is auite Ünielated Io the "new fact" that
gave rise to the ~~~licationfor revision. It &ms Io be Tunisia's theorythat if il

can hring into question one pan of the Judgment for revisionthe wholeJudgment
becomes-fair eame for re-ixamination. ~ëhind the beeuiline innocence of the
request in ~uaisia'\ 5econd Submission - on the surface seekingly only a reaf-
firmation of what ihe Court instructcd the Partics io do - liesa potenrial threat
to the whole stmctnre of the solution provided by the Court in the second sector.
85. In being as precise as possible while stopping short of the technical task
of drawing the actual delimitation line, the Court left to the experts the narrow
and technical task of determining "the preciseco-ordinates" of the most westerly

point on the shoreline (low-water mark) of the Gulf of Gabesl. In this regard,
the Court said: "Again the precise co-ordinates of this point will be for the
experts to determine, but it appears to the Court that it will be approximately
34' 10'30" north.3" (Em~hasis added.) The use of the word "laleain" in the
second sentence of pàra&aph 124 of the Judgment is relling. lÏ iran obvious
rcfcrenceback to paragraph 121of the Judgmcni whcre ihe anglc of the linc in the
first sector (Le.. from Ras Aidir to 33' 55'hi: IZ' E) was discussed in the follow-
ingierms :'On thc information availablcIo the COU ha,t angleappears Io be 26';

ii will,houcver. be for the cxperts of the Panics Io dcicrmine itwith cxactness."

1Sce, SeriesD, Acrsand Documenis Concerningthe Orgonizarionofrhe Courr, No.2,
Prcparationof the Rulesof Court, 37th Mccting.21 March 1922,p. 22.Seealso, ibid..
Ex lonotoryNoie ConcerningrheDrafrRulesofCourr. submittcd on8 March1922,p.452.
f~eries D, Acrs and Documenrr Conccrnin rhc Or onizorion of the Court, Third
Rc onduofItheSecondCornmittee,12March1934,p.763.t of1 iMarch1936,Supplemcntary
P~ontinenro, ShelffTunisiolLibyan Arob Jomahiriyo),ludgment. 1.C.J.Reports 1982,
p. 87,para. 124. 86. Ouite evidentlv. therefore. the task ennsaged for the exocrts in locatinn
was simhar to that ernp16~edfor the fiÏst sector. It w<
the moi1 westerly
not only technical but of a very narrow scope since the Court had already made
its own preliminary, yet very precise, calculation. It was only the plotting of that
ooint that was left to the exnerts- a matter verhaos of seconds. no1minutes or
degrees. It is unrealistic to argue that an adjuitme; of over ninc kilometres was
envisagcd. Othewise. ihc Coun could not have prescribcd the angle of 52'as
the bisector on which the second sector of the delimitation was bascd. For if the
latitude of the most westerly point deviates appreciably from 34' 10'30"N, the
whole rationale on which the 52'angle is based becomes undermined 1. Thus,
iust as in the first sector the Court Drescribed the ~recise course of the delimi-
iation. lcaving only the plotting of tiie line to the expcns. so also in the second
scctor was the iask of the experts narrow and specific.
87. Thc scaward point in ihc first sector was noi arbitrarily sclectcd. Seiiher
were the co-ordinates in the second sector. If French nautical chart No. 4240.
claimed by Tunisia in the Application as the most appropriate map - or;
indeed, other nautical charts of the area of large enough scale -are consulted,
it is aooarent that there is an inlet at this point in the shoreline where. accordine
to th; markings on the French chan. seawater remains ai low tidc. A nonixpcn
can rcadiiy determinc that this is the point furthcstIO the west on thc shorcline
of the Gulf of Gabcs based on the tidal criterion of "low-water mark". Dctcrmi-
ning the "precise co-ordinales" is not a task for the layman, however, but rather
one for the expert. Merely because the Court used the form of words in para-
graph 124 of its Judgment that "il appean to the Court that it [the most
westerly point] will be approximately 34'10'30"north" - a co-ordinale expres-
sed in seconds - it does not follow that this point can be ignored by the Parties
as a random guess. The Court's caiculation of the hearing of the line in the

second scctor depended upon a rather exact location of the most westerly point.
Nor can it be ignored, as would seem 10 he implied by paragraphs 42 to 44 of
the Application, because there might be some difference of opinion as 10whether
or not the shoreline changed direction at this point, as the Expert Report
suggests, or bccause this point is no1 pan of the shoreline since it lies in the
"mouth of a wadi".
88. As to the argument in the Application based on the "mouth of a wadi':
Libya has two comments. Whether or not the point on the shoreline correspon-
ding to 34' 10'30"N lies in the "mouth of a wadi" does not vitiate this point as
the most westerly point; it is the tidal factor- the presence of the sea at low
tide - which controls. There is no support for the view that such a feature -
an inlet on the shoreline - ceases 10be part of the shoreline as determined by
the low-water mark because it is in the "mouth of a wadi", and no support for
this proposition is offered by Tunisia. The second point is that this inlet at
approximately 34'10' 30" N on the Gulf of Gabes shoreline cannot in any
event, on the hasis of the French nautical chart or of any other chart known to
Libya, be said to lie in the "mouth of a wadi" as a matter of fact. The only
nearby wadi idcntified on that chart - the Oued Oum el Kram - ends more
than two kilometres to the Westof the most westerly portion of the inlet. The
"mouth" of this wadi can be seen on French nautical chan 4240 as opening
onto a sebka and to have no relationship to the inlet lying al approximately
34' 10'30" N. The Gazerreer of the OfficiaiStandard Names approved by the U.S.
Board on Geographic Names and prepared in the Office of Geography, Depart-

Sec. in this regardparagraph129 of the Courr'sJudgmcntwhercit dcxnbcd the
manncrinwhichthc 52' angle was detcrmined.80 APPLICATION FOR REVISION AND INTERPRETATION

Unojficial Tramloiion

SOClALlST PEOPLES LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHlRlYA

THE PEOPLES COMMITIEE
FOR THE PEOPLES BURFAU FOR FOREIGN LIAISOS

Ref. No. 1/7/10/501.
Date: 3.7.1391
6May 1982

Note Verbale

The People's Committee of the People's Bureaufor Foreign Liaison presents
its hest compliments to the General Commissariat of the sisterly Republic of
Tunisia in Tripoli, and has the honour to request it to communicate the content
of this Note to the competent Authorities in the Republic of Tunisia.
With referenceto the Note Verbale of the Peoole'sBureau for Foreien Liaison

diltcd 12 March 1982and the vcrbal mcssagc <onvcycdfrom the ~uiisian Mi-
nister for National Economy by ihc director of the Tunisian Oil Company Io
the Under-Sccretarv of the Libvan Secrctariai of Oil du-ing the mee-ing held
between them in Tripoli on 18March 1982;and
In cylmination of the discussions held between the two sides during the visit
made by the Tunisian Minister for Foreign Affairs Io Lihya on 29 Apnl 1982
concerning the contents of the above-mentioned Note, and our sincere desire to
implement the Special Agreement for the Submission of the Question of the
Continental Shelf hetween the Two Couutries to the International Court of
Justice si~ned on 10 June 1977 which ~rovides in its Article 2 for holding a

meeting Gtwccn the IWO Parties with a ;iew to the conclusion of a delimitat~on
con\,eniion following the deliveq of the Coun's dccision which took place on 24
Febmary 1982.
The Socialist People'sLibyan Arab Jamahiriya invitesthe Republic of Tunisia
to the meeting stipulated therein in order to achieve the aforementioned objec-
tive, in Tripoli on Wednesday 12May 1982.
The Peonle's Committee for the Peonle's Bureau for Foreien Liaison avails
itselfof thi; opponunity to express to th; General commissariat of the Republic
of Tunisia in Tripoli the assurances of its highest considerations.

TO: THE GENERAL COMMISSARIAT OF THE
REPUBLIC OF TUNISIA. TRIPOLI.

Unofficial Translation

No. 94/82

Tripoli, 12May 1982.

The General Commissariat of the Republic of Tunisia presents its best compli-
ments to the People's Committee of the People's Bureaufor Foreign Liaison of
the Socialist People's Lihyan Arah Jamahiriya and has the honour Io inform it

that, in pursuance of the Committee's Note Verbale No. 1/7110/501 o6 May
1982regardingitsdesireto convenea meetingfor the delimitation of the continen- ANNEXES TO THE OBSERVATIONS 81

ta1sheü between Tunisiaand Libya in the light of the Judgment of the Inter-
national Court of Justice, a Tunisian delegation belarriving in Tripoli for
thispurpose in the eveningof this 12thday of May 1982on the LibyanAirlines*
flight arrivingfrom Tunis. The delegationiscomposedof twn memben:
- Mr. Al Habib Al-Azraq, Director General of the Tunisian Corporation for

Oil Activities.
- Mr. Al Mauloudi Marsit, Director of the Legal Department of the Prime
Ministerb Office.
Thc General Commisranat avails itself of ihis opponunitIOconvey to the
People'sCornmitteethe assurancesof ils highcstconsidcrationand rcrpect.

Unofleial Translation

SOClALlST PEOPLES LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHlRlYA
THE PEOPLES COMMITTE FOR THE PEOPLE5 BUREAU FOR FOREIGN LIAISON

VeryUrgent

Ref. No. 4/8/3220
Date: 26.7.1391
20 May 1982

TO: THE INFORMATION OFFICE

The General Commissanat of the Socialisi People'sLibyan Arab Jamahiriya
inTunis hastodas receivedthe followi-~Note from the Tunisian Govcrnmen:
"Pursuant to the provisionsof Article3 of the Special Agreementfor the
Submissionof the Questionof the Continental Shelf betweenthe Republic
of Tunisia and the SocialistPeople'sLibyan Arab Jamahiriya to the Inter-
national Court of Justice signed inTunis on 10June 1977; and
Whereas the Court had rendered its decision on the delimitation of the

continental shelf on 24 Febmary 1982,and with referenceto the contacts
that hadtakenplace betweenresponsiblesof the two countriesregardingthe
conveningof a meeting ofexperts to implementthe Court'secisionduring
the official visits 10 Tripoli by Mr. Mohammed Al-Nassir, Minister of
Social Affairs, from 17 to 19 April 1982 and Mr. AI-Baji Qaed Sibsi,
Minister of Foreign Affairs, on 28 and 29 April 1982,and due to the fact
that the work of the experts of both countries, who met in Tripoling
the period from 13 to 17 May 1982,may require more time in order to
complete the talks and conclude the convention concerning the imple-
mentation of the International Court of Justice's decision.
The Government of theRepublic of Tunisia suggests to the Socialist
People's LibyanArab Jamahiriya Authonlies to renewthe period provided
for in Article3 of theove-mentionedAgreement asstarting from 24 May
1982for three months."

(Signed) ABDEL-AT AILEBEIBY,
Secretary,People'sCommittee
for the People's Bureaufor Foreign Liaison82 APPLICATION FOR REVISION AND INTERPRETA~ON

cc to: - Secretary, People'sGeneral Committee
- Director, Department of Legal Affairs
- Committee of thc Continenial Shclf.

Unoffiial Translation

SOClALlST PEOPLE5 LlBYAN ARAB JAMAHlRlYA

THE PEOPLE5 COMMI'ITEEFOR THE PEOPLE5 BUREAU FOR FOREIGN LIAISON

Date: 28.7.1391 Ref. No. 1/7110/509.
22 May 1982

Nore Verbale
The People's Bureau for Foreign Liaison in the Socialist People's Libyan
Arab Jamahinya presents its best compliments to the General Commissariat of
the sisterly Republic of Tunisia and has the honour to request it to communicate
the contents of this Note to the competent Tunisian Authonties.

The People's Bureau refers to the International Court of Justice's Judgment
issued in the case of the continental shelf between the two countnes, on 24
February 1982, to Article 94 (2) of the Rules of Court which provides that
the Judgment becomes binding on the two Parties on the day of its reading, and
to Article 2 of the Soecial Anreement concluded betweenthe two couniries on
10June 1977providifngthe meeting of the two Parties following the delivery of
the Court'sJudgment in order to implemcnt the said Judgment.
The Pcoole's Bureau recalls the Libvan Arab Jamahiriva's current oositions
as expresse'dai the political meetings aid in the Notes verbales addresieIOthe
Republic of Tunisia following thc delivery of the Courtb Judgment in which it
expressed ils willto execute and apply thejudgmcnt and to sigi an agreement in
this respcct. Thc Bureau funhcr recalls thc mccting held in Tnpoli from 13to 17

.May 1982 bctween the delcgations of the IWO countrics at the request of the
Libyan Arah Jamahiriya and its endeavours to implement the above-mentioned
Judgment.
And with referenceto the proposal made in the Tunisian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs' Note dated 20 May 1982 and addressed to the People's Bureau for
Foreign Liaison,concerning the renewal of the penod for the meetingsstipulated
in the aforementioned Special Agreement.
The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya expresses ils consent to renew the mentioned
period with a viewto enabling the experts during thc first ten days of June 1982
to accomplish their technical task, making possible the drafting of a convention
applying the Court's Judgment with the points and the delimitation lines indi-
cating the longitudinal and latitudinal co-ordinates, their beanngs and angles.

The People's Bureau for Foreign Liaison avails itself of this opportunity to
express to the General Commissariat of the sisterly Republic of Tunisia the
assurances of its highest consideration and respect.

TO: THE GENERALCOMMISSARIATOF THE
REPUBLICOF TUNISIA,TRIPOLI. ANNEXES TO THE OBSERVATIONS

Unofficial Translation

SOClALlSTPEOPLES LIBYANARAB JAMAHIRIYA
THE PEOPLES COMMITiEE FOR THE PEOPLES BUREAU FOR FOREIGN LIAISON

Date: 5June 1982 Ref. No. 1/7/14/522.

Note Verbale

The People'sBureau for Foreign Liaison presents its best compliments to the
General Commissariat of the sisterly Republic of Tunisia, and with reference to
its Note dated 22 May 1982expressing the consent of the Libyan Arab Jamahi-
nya to extend the period of meetings provided for in Article 2 of the Special
Agreement signed between the two countries on 10June 1977with a view to
enabling the experts of both countries Io accomplish, during the first ten days of

June 1982, their technical task making possible the drafting of a convention
applying the International Court of Justice'sJudgment with the points and the
delimitation lines indicating the longitudinal and latitudinal co-ordinates, their
bearings and angles, the Bureau would be pleased if this invitation would be
conveyed to the competent Tunisian Authonties, and would be grateful if it
were accepted.
The People's Bureau for Foreign Liaison has the pleasure to welcome a
Tunisian deleeation in Trinolion 8June in order Io accom~iishthis task.
The ~eo~le'sBureau avails itself of this opportunity Io convey to the Ceneral
Commissariat of the sisterly Republic of Tunisia the assurances of its highest

considerations and respect

TO: THE GENERAL COMMISSARIA OF THE
REPUBLIC OFTUNISIA.

Unofficial Translation

SOClALlSTPEOPLES LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA
THE PEOPLES COMMlTïEE FOR THE PEOPLE5 BUREAU FOR FOREIGN LIAISON

Date: 20.8.1391 Ref. No. 4/3/5/50.
12June 1982

TO:THESECRETARY C,OMMITTE OEFTHE CONTINENTAL SHELF

The Dircctor of ihc Departmcnt for Arab Affairs al lhc Tunisian ~iiisiry
Forcign Affairs handrd owr to the ChargCd'Affairesof OurCeneral Commissa-
riat inTunis a Sote No. 502125,the tcxt of which rcads asfollous:

"Please inform the appropnate Authorities in the Jamahiriya of the fol-
lowing:

According to the Agreement concluded between the Iwo countries on the
renewal of the period provided for in Article 3 of the Special Agreement,
signed i~iTunis on 10June 1977,as from 24 May 1982for three months;84 APPLICATIONFOR REVISION AND INTERPRETATION

and in view ofthe prciious commitments assumed by somc members of the
Tunisian delegaiion which would not allow themIO participate in the uorks
of the experts of the two countries on the date suggested by the Libyan
competent Authonties,the Republicof Tunisiawouldsuggestto the Authonties
of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya that the work of the
experts be resumed from 25 June 1982in Tunis in order to implement the
decision of the International Court of Justice."

In addition, theDirector of the Department for Arab Affairs at the Tunisian
Ministry for Foreign Affairs indicated the following:
1. The im~lernentationof the Court's decision should not be based exclusivelv
on the exp&ts, but should procced from the new spirit aimed at developing
the iraternal relations hetwecn IWO peoples.

2. Thc rcuuest to postaone the meetinp.of the Joint Technical Committec is
due to circumstanc& e6lained in the Gote, and no1 to any il1 intention to
procrastinate or to gain lime.
3. During the bnef visit made by Mr. Abdul-Ati-El-Obeidi, Mr. Al-Baii and
Mr. Al-v sr amrequested Io meet-with him and with any other person;, and
said that they are ready 10 go to Tripoli in order to discuss the question of
implementingthe Decision on the continental shelf and are awaiting a reply.

cc to: Director,egal Department

Unofficial Translation

SOClALlST PEOPLES LlBYAN ARAB JAMAHlRlYA
THEPEOPLES COMMIlTEE FOR THE PEOPLES BUREAU FOR FOREIGN LIAISON

Date: 24.8.1391 Ref. No. 1/7/10/535.
16June 1982

Note Verbale
The People's Bureau for Foreign Liaison of the Socialist People's Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya presents ils best compliments to the General Commissariat of

the sisterly Republic of Tunisia, and has the honour to request it to convey the
content of this Note to the competent Tunisian Authorities.
The People's Bureau would like to recall the Notes Verbalesit has addressed
to the Republic of Tunisia since 13March 1982and ils latest Note date5June
1982in which it expressed the desire of the Libyan Arah Jamahinya to welcome
a Tunisian delegation in Tripoli on 8 June 1982 with a view to enable the
experts from both Our countries within the first ten days of June 1982 to
accomplish their technical task making possible the drafting of a Convention
applying the Judgment issued by the International Court of Justice on the
continental shelf case between the two countries, in accordance with what the
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya expressed inits Note Verbaledated 22 May 1982.
In view of the commitments referred to in the latest Tunisian Note, No. ANNEXESTO THEOBSERVATIONS 85

502125, whichhad prcvcntcd the arrivai of ihc Tunisian dclcgation in Tripoli on
the date suggcstcd by the compeicnt Libyan Authorities. the Peoplcb Bureau for

Foreign Liaison, bcarinp;in mind ihc political coniacts made bctwecn the Iwo
counlries during the 1s few days, h& the pleasure to welcome in Tripoli a
Tunisian ministerial delegation during the first week of July with a view to
complete the task referred to ahove and to conclude a convention applying the
Judement of the International Court of Justice.
~ie Pcoplc's Bureau for Foreign Liaison avails itself of this opportunity to
convey to the Generai Commissariat of the sisterly Republic of Tunisia the
assurances of its highest considerations and respect.

TO: THE GENERAL COMMISSARIAO TF THE
REPUBLICOF TUNISIA,TRIPOLI.

Unofficial Transiarion

SOClALlSTPEOPLE3LlBYANARABJAMAHlRlYA
THE PEOPLE'SCOMMITTEEFORTHE PEOPLE5BUREAUFOR FOREIGN LIAISON

Date: 20.10.1391
10August 1982

Noie Verbale

The Peo~lc'sCommittee for the People'sForeign Liaison Bureau of the Socia-
list ~eo~le'sLibyan Arab Jamahiriya prescnis iicbest compliments to the Gcnc-

ral Commissariat of the Tunisian Republic, and would likc the contents of this
Note to bc transmitied 10the competent Tunisian Authorities.
Although the two Parties have had discussions and have held meetings, no
progress has been achievedtowards the conclusion of the Convention provided
for in Article 2 of the Special Agreement concluded betweenthe Iwo countries
on 23rd Jumada Athania, 1397,corresponding to 10June 1977.
It is~-bv~ ~~ that the Judement of the International Court of Justice issued on
1stJumada Al-Oula 1391,corresponding to 24 February 1982,on the Continen-

tal Shelf case between the two countnes has enough clarity and details to enable
the two Partics todraw the delimitation line without any difficulty.
The position of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya on the way of
drawing such line with a view to implcment the above-mentioned Judgment,
previously expressed orally to the Tunisian side, is as follows:

In rhe Firsr Secror

The starting point for the line is the point where the outer limit of the
Territorial Sea of the Two Countries is intersected by a straight line drawn from
the Land Frontier point of Ras Ajdir (having the CO-ordinales33' 10'N, Il' 33'
E), through the point 33'55'N, 12'E. From this starting point the line of
delimitation runs through the point 33'55'N, 12'E to the point of intersection

with 34' 10'30 N, such parallel being the parallel which passes through the
most westerly point of the Tunisian coastline between Ras Kabudia and Ras
Ajdir, that is to Say,the most westerlypoint of the Gulf of Gabes.86 APPLICATIONFOR REVISION AND IKTERPRETATION

This point of intersection has the co-ordinates 34' 10' 30" N, 12'9' 12" E
which marks the end of the first sector.

In rhe Second Secror

The line of delimitation starts from the point indicated above with the co-
ordinates 34' 10'30" N, 12'9' 12" E and runs al an angle of 52'N until the
point of its intersection with the line of longitude that passes through Ras
Tajoura at a point whose co-ordinates are:

34'57' 51" N, 13'23'45" E.

An arrow would be placed at this point bearing in mind that the extension of
this line north-east depends on delimitation agreed upon with other concerned
States.
The Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya hopes, in implementing the

Court's Judemeut. as mentioned above. that the Tunisian Reoublic would he ~- ~~
ready to agr& on the delimitation linese; out above, and accord;ngly. to procccd
towards the conclusion of the convention providcd for in Aniclc 2 of the Special
Agreement.
The People's Committee for the People's Foreign Liaison Bureau avails itself

of this opportunity to express to the General Commissariat of the Tunisian
Republic its highestconsideration and respect.

TO: THE CENERALCOMMISSARIATOF THE
TUNISIAN REPUBLIC, TRIPOLI.

Tripoli, 20 Shawal 1391
10August 1982.

Unofficial Translation

No. 207182

Tripoli, 15August 1982.

THE GENERAL COMMISSARIAT OF THE REPUBLICOF TUNlSlA IN TRIPOLI

The General Commissariat of the Republic of Tunisia presents itscompliments
to the People'sCommittee for the People's Bureaufor Foreign Liaison, and has
the honour of transmitting herewith a copy of the Note No. 502 844dated 14

August 1982,which was deliveredon the same date by the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs to the General Commissariat of the Socialist Peoole's L~rvan~ ~, ~----
Jamabiriya in Tunis.
The General Commissariat of the Republic of Tunisia hopes that the People's
Commitee for the People's Bureau for Foreign Liaison will please inform it of

the views of the competent Authorities in the sisterly Libyan Jamahiriya about
the contents of this Note as soon as possible.
The General Commissariat of the Republic of Tunisia avails itself of this ANNEXESTO THE OBSERVATIONS 87

opportunity to express to the People's Committee for the People's Bureau for
Foreign Liaison its highest consideration and respect.

TO: THE PEOPLE3 COMMITTEEFOR THE PEOPLE3

BUREAUFOR FOREIGN LIAISON. TRIPOLI.

Unofficiul Trunslarion

THE REPUBLICOF TUNISIA, MlNlSTRY OF FOREIGNAFFAIRS

No. 502 844 14August 1982.

The Ministn, of Foreim Affairs of the Reoublic of Tunisia oresents its comoli-
ments to ,General &mmissariat of the sisterly sociaii;t People's ~ihian

Arah Jamahiriva, and would like the following to be .onveyed to the competent
Authorities in ihe Jamahiriya:

The Tunisian Govemment :
- Wishing to consolidate the hrotherly and good neighbourhood relations

between the two countries; and
- Having a sincere willingness to settle definitively the dispute between the
two countries on the Continental Shelf at the earliest opportunity ; and
- Out of its firm determination to implement the Judgment of the Interna-
tional Court of Justice issued on 24 Fehruary 1982on the question of delimita-
tion of theContinental Shelf; and

- In consideration of the hindrauces to the experts in concluding their task
and in carrying out the Court's Judgment; and the differing views of the Iwo
Parties on this issue, in spite of the several attempts by the two sides on both
technical and political levelsto overcome such difficulties;and
- By reference to the agreement reached by the Parties to renew the period
fixed for the implementation of the Judgment issued hy the International Court

of Justice according to the Tunisian Note dated 20 May 1982and the Lihyan
Note delivered to the Tunisian Authorities on 22 Mav 1982:and
- Considering that the above-mentioned penod willsoon expire without the
two countries implementing the Judgment and drafting a convention in this
respect ; and
- Accordine to Article 3 of the Soecial Aereement relatine to the delimita-

tion of the conhental shelf betweenChetwo &untries which Govides for going
back to the International Court of Justice to request interpretations and clari-
fications in order to overcome the difficulties facing the experts in the imple-
mentation of.. ....urt'sdecis-~n: and
- Wiih reference to the 1.ihyani'oie No. 43-1-6-986dated 10August 1982
on the delimitation of the Cuiirincnial Sheli which was handed over to ihç

Gcncral Commissariat of the Kepublic of Tunisia in Tripoli on 12August 1982.
Firsr: 1s of the view that it would be better to go hack jointly to the Inter-

national Court of Justice to be enlightened by its opinion and to resolve the
r~o~~ ~ ~ -.... ~~.,-,
Second: Invites the competent Authorities in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to
participate with it in preparing the request to go hack to the Court. For this88 APPLICATIONFOR REVISIONAND INTERPRETATION

purpose the Tunisian Government is glad to welcome a Libyan delegation in
Tunis on Friday 20 August 1982;
Third: Suggests that the request to go back to the Court be filed on Monday
23 August, at the latest.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Tunisia avails itself of this
opportunity tn express Io the General Commissariat of the sisterly Socialist
People'sLibyan Arab Jamahiriya its highest consideration and respect.

TO: THEGENERALCOMMISSARIATOF THE
SOClALlSTPEOPLE5 LIBYANARAB
JAMAHlRlYA IN TUNIS.

UnofjiciulTranslarion

SWALIST PEOPLE5 LIBYANARABJAMAHIRIYA
THE PEOPLE5 COMMllTEE FOR THE PEOPLE5 BUREAUFOR FOREIGNLIAISON

Date: 3.11.1391 Ref. 4311/6-1006.
22 August 1982

Nore Verbale

The People's Bureau for Foreign Liaison of the Socidist People's Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya presents its compliments to the General Commissariat of the
Renuhlic of Tunisia in Trinoli. and hones that it will convev this Note to the
coApetent~unisian ~uthohties.
The People's Bureau for Foreign Liaison refers to its Note Verbale addressed
to the Republic of Tunisia on 20 Shawal 1391, corresponding to 10 August
1982;to the Note of the Tunisian Foreign Ministry addressed Io the Jamahiriya
on 14August 1982,and would like to reaffirm what was previously expressed,
that the Judgment of the International Court of Justice issued in the case of the
Continental Shelf betweenthe two countnes, on 1Jumada Al-Oulla 1391,corres-

ponding to 24 February 1982,has, in the view of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,
enough clanty and details to permit its implementation without any difficulty.
The Socialist People's LibyanArab Jamahiriya also considers that the delimita-
tion line set forth in its Note Verbale addressedto the Republic of Tunisia on 20
Shawal 1391,corresponding to 10August 1982, bylongitudinal and latitudinal
CO-ordioates,bearings and angles, conforms with the Judgment of the Court
and renresents a correct imolementatioo of il. The Socialist Peonle's Libvan
Arab famahiriya notes wiih'rcgret that thc abotr-mentioned ~uniiian ~otc of
14August 1982refrained from responding to the specified points contained in
ihat Note.
The Socialist People's LibyanArab Jamahiriya does not find use inholding a
mecting of the Pariies ro formulate any rcfcrral io thc Court 10 rcquesr any
inter~retations or clarilications. bcfore rhc Rc~ublic of Tunisia has determincd

its siecific position in writing on the delimitatLonline and the details rclating Io
it as set forth in the Libyan Note of 10August 1982.
The Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahinya considers it fundamcntal 10
know such position in writing beforeany other procedures. ANNEXES TO THE OBSERVATIONS 89

The Socialist People's Lihyan Arab Jamahiriya hopes that the Rcpublic of
Tunisia will find, after furthcr examination of the points speciiied in the Libyan
Note referred to above, what could achieve the correct implementation of~the
Judement and secure the conclusion of a convention in this resoect in the near
~ ~~ . ~ ~
fut&. The expiration of the three-month period as renewed according Io the
Special Agreement, does not preclude the Iwo Parties from reaching this-end
and conclüding a convention implementing the Court's Judgment.
The People's Bureau for Foreign Liaison of the Socialist People's Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya avails itself of this opportunity to express to the General
Commissariat of the Republic of Tunisia its highest considerationsand respect.

TO: THE GENERAL COMMISSARIAT OF THE
REPUBLICOF TUNISIA,TRIPOLI.

Tripoli, 22 August 1982.

Unofficial Translarion

SOClALlST PEOPLES LIBYANARAB JAMAHlRlYA

THE PEOPLES COMMllTEE FOR THE PEOPLESBUREAUFOR FOREIGN LIAISON

Date: 23.12.1391 Ref. No. 1/7/10/589.
II October 1982

Nofe Verbale

The People's Bureaufor the Foreign Liaison of the Socialist People's Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya presents its best compliments to the General Commissariat of
the sisterly Republic of Tunisia in Tripoli and hopes that this Note will be

conveyed to the competent Tunisian Authorities.
On 30 Shawal 1391,corresponding to 10August 1982,the Socialist People's
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya addressed a Note Verbale to the Republic of Tunisia
indicating the details concerning the delimitation line of the continental shelf
between the two countries, in implementation of the Judgment issued by the
International Court of Justice on 24 Febmary 1982.
On 14Aueust 1982.the Reoublic of Tunisia addressed its Note Verbale No.
502844to th~~ocialis~~eo~le<Libyan Arab Jamahinya which avoided replying
to the substance of the mentioned Libyan Note and suggcsted that "II would be

beiier to no back ioinilv to the International Court of Justice to be enliehtencd
by its o$nion.. .". In'view of this reply. thc Socialist Pcoplc'r ~ib~6 Arab
Jamahiriya, by its Note daied 22 August 1982.indicaied ihc need to know the
Tunisian oosition on the delimitation line and rclatcd details as s~ccifiedin thc
Libyan ~'otcof 10August 1982before discussing any formula ofgoing back to
the Court to request any interpretations or clarifications.
Up IO this date, and although seven weeks have now elapsed, the Socialist
People's LibyanArab Jamahiriya has not receiveda Tunisian reply to ils Note.
The Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, while maintaining the views

expressed in its previous Notes, invites the Republic of Tunisia, if il still main-
tains its opinion "Io go back to the Court to be enlightened by its opinion", as
indicated in its Note No. 502844 of 14 August 1982, to provide Libya with a90 APPLICATIONFOR REVISIONAND INTERPRETATION

draft request to go back to the International Court of Justice specifying
the point or points in the viewof the Republic ofTunisia that need interpretation
or clarification from the Court so that the Socialist People's LibyanArab Jamabi-
riya mayconsider the draft and decide what could be done in this matter.
The Peoole's Bureau for Foreien Liaison of the Socialist Peoole's Libvan
Arab ~ama'hiri~aavails itself of ihis opportunity to express 10ihe Genéral
Commissariat of the Republic of Tunisia its highest considerations and respcct.

TO: THEGENERAL COMMISSARIAO TF THE
REPUBLICOF TUNISIA.TRIPOLI.

13Zul-Heja 1391.
II October 1982.

Unoffieial Translaiion

Date: 24 October 1982

TO: THE PEOPLE3BUREAUFOR FOREIGN LIAISON
25110.82 - 10.30hrs. a.m.

Arrn: Liaison wiih Arab Nation Depr.
VERY VERY URGENT

1 wish to refer 10 you the Note we received yesterday from the Tunisian
Ministry for Foreign Afiairs, which reads as follows:

"ln pursuance of the content of the Note of the Ministry for Foreign
Affairs of thc Republic of Tunisia, No. 502844dated 14/8/ 1982,and with
reference to both Libyan Notes No. 1006/6/ 1/43 of 22 August 1982and
No. 5891.0~,1..dated II ~ ~ober 1982.and in confirmation of ils sincere
dcsircIO setlle the continental shcif cas; bctwccn the two countries ai the
carliest time as it has exprcsscd in a manner not likely to raisc anv ambi-
guity on previous occasions, and in particular in the Note referred to above,
dated 14/8/1982;
Therefore the Government of Tunisia:

First, expresses ils regret at the decline by the Libyan Authorities of the
invitation for a meeting of the two Parties at the dates fixed in the above-
mentioned Note, dated 14 August 1982, to go back jointly to the Inter-
national Court of Justice and to request a clarification of some subjens
showing ambiguity or requiring rcfercnceto the Court;
Second. is astonished at the Jamahiriva's insistence that it reiterate what
ilhad prcv~ouslycxprcsscd in ils c~car~~osiiionlhroughout the numerous
contacts and on frcqucnt occasions. on some points and rcrms contained in
the Judament on which the Parties did not amec as 10 the same meaninp;
and int&pretation and which necessitale the Go Parties to go back 10thé
Court to be enlightened with its opinion.
Such contacts look place between the Iwo countries on the occasion of
the official visit 10Tripoli by the Minister for Social Affairs from 17to 21
March 1982 and by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 28 and 29 April ANNEXET SOTHE OBSERVATIONS 91

1982as well as at the meeting of the expcrts of the Iwo countries in Tripoli
from 13to 17May 1982,and, last, on the occasion of the Tunisian-Libyan
working session held in Tripoli on 19 July 1982 hetween both countries'
delegations, led by the Tunisian Minister for Social Affairs and the Secre-
tary of the People's Committee of the People's Bureau for Foreign Liaison
of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
Third, in view of the insistence of the Jamahinya to state the positions
and to express them in writing, and if this will help the negotiations for-
ward, reference may be made, in particular, Io the following points:

(a) The CO-ordinates related to the most westerly point on the Gulf of
Gabes need verification and correction, if necessary,in accordance with
what the Coun itself requested.
fi)The angle of the first sector of the delimitation line and the point with
the CO-ordinates33'55' 12'which controls it, raises interpretations and
needs to be clarified and fixed so as to conform with al1 facts upon
which they will be based.

Fourth. while affirmine its continued readiness to aursue its efforts to
reach a delimitaiion ~gr&ment in the context of the ~uurt'r Judgment, is
still of the opinion that it uould be more advantageous to go back io thc
Court to have thc dispute dcfinitclvsetilcd betwcenIWOecountrics
Therefore the uni si aGovernment renews its invitation to host a dele-
gation from thc Jamahiriys to panicipaic in the prcparatinn of thc request
to go back to the Coun ai a date suitahle Io the Libyan Auihon"ies

Unofficial Translation

SOClALlST PEOPLE5 LIBYANARAB JAMAHIRIYA

THE PEOPLE5 COMMllTEE FOR THEPEOPLES BUREAU FOR FOREIGN LIAISON

Regist. No. 4311/6-1278 Date 30October 1982.

Note Verbale

The Peonle's Bureau for Foreien Liaison in the Socialist Peonle's Libvan
Arab ~amaiiri~a presents 11scompliments Io the Gcneral ~"mmis;ariat of'the
sisterly Republic ofTunisia in Tripoli and has the honour to requcst transmission
of this Noie to the competent Auihorities in the Tunisian Government.
With reference to the Note of the Tunisian Ministry of Foreign Affairs ad-

dressed to the People's Bureau for Foreign Liaison in the Socialist People's
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya on 24 October 1982,the Socialist People'sLibyan Arab
Jamahiriva isstill of the viewthat the International Court of Justice'sJudement.
issued on the Continental Shelf case bctween thc iwo couniries on 24 ~cbruaj
1982, is sufficiently clear and spccific io cnablc both Parties to draw ihc Iine
without difficulty.92 APPLICATIONFOR REVISIONAND INTERPRETATION

If it appears - contrary 10 this view - that there are points requiring
explanations, hoth Panies would have to, in conformity with Art. 3 of the
Special Agreement, go back jointly to the Court and "request any explanations
or clarifications which would facilitate the task of the two delegations".
This oresunnoses the existence of difficulties actuallv oreventinn the exoens
of the tho co;ntrics from carrying out thcir technical i&k in impkmcnting the
Court'r Judgment in good faith. difficulties which afier a bona fide effoonthcy
were no1able Io resolie. this before it could become a~~r..riatc for the Panies
to formulate a reaues- to~-- h--k to the Court.
In this respect ihe above-mentioned Tunisian Note contains Iwo points which
require, in the viewof the Tunisian Government, explanation or clarification:

The first point relates to the co-ordinates of the most westerly point in the
Gulf of Gabes. In this connection, the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahi-
riya's view is that, although this matter was taken up in the course of the
meeting of the experts of the two countries, held in Tripoli, from 13to 17 May
1982.it was not dealt with within the limits of the technical task entrusted uoon
[hem in conformity wiih the Court's Judgment io make possiblethe draftini of
an agreement applyingthe aiorrmentioned Judgment Consequently, the Socialist
Peonle's I.ibvan Arab Jamahiriva does not knou exactlv the differenccs relaied
Io th poiniand other elemencsin the Court's ~ud~mënt, or the nature of the
issue or issuesthat would needthe Court's clarifications.
The second point raised in the foregoing Tunisian Note relates to the angle of
the first sector of the line and its controlling point delimited by the co-ordinates:
33'- 55'N and IZ'E. In this regard the above-mentioned Note gives no
indications what are the issues in respect of which explanations or clarifications
are sought.
The Court's Judgment was ahsolutely clear that the line of the first sector is to
be drawn from the point where the outer iimit of the territorial sea of the Parties
is intersected by a straight line drawn from the frontier point of Ras Ajdir
through the point 33' 55'North, and 12' East. Thus once the line and its course

are determined, there is no possibility of technical problems arising with regard
to the resulting angle itself.
In the light of these observations, it appears that the mere mention of a point
or points is not sufficient to indicate what are the difficulties in respectof which
explanations or clarifications are needed.
In these circumstanccs, the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya can
only renew ils request that the sisterly Republic of Tunisia set forth the

following:
First: All the points with respect to which the Republic of Tunisia deems it
necessary Io go back to the Court provided that al1such points are suhmitted
and not merelyinter alia.
Second: The precise questions with respect to each of those points which in
the Republic of Tunisia's view have not been resolved by the Court's Judgment

or cannot be resolved through the technical tasks of the experts of the Iwo
countries applying the Judgment, and consequently require to go back to the
Court.
The Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has consistently shown - as
the sisterly Republic of Tunisia is well aware -, and still shows its desire and
readiness to apply promptly the Coun's Judgment.
The People's Bureau for Foreign Liaison of the Socialist People's Libyan ANNEXESTO THE OBSERVATIONS 93

Arab Jamahiriya avails itself of the opportunity to express to the General Com-
missariat of the sisterly Republic of Tunisia in Tripoli its highest consideration
and respect.

TO: GENERAL COMMISSARIAO TF THE SISTERLY
REPUBLICOF TUNISIA.

Tripoli, 13Moharram 1392 -as from P.D Corresp. to 30October 1982.

Unoffcial Translation

REPUBLICOF TUNISIA

MlNlSTRYOF FOREIGNAFFAIRS

28 February 1983 No. 41 500793.

Note Verbale

The Tunisian Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the
Generai Commissariat of the Sociaiist People's LibyanArabJamahinya in Tunis,
and hopes that it will convey the following to the competent Authorities in the
Jamahinya.
With reference to the Note of the Tunisian Ministry of Foreign Affairs No.

502844dated 14August 1982,and in particular its content regarding the deadline
to file togethea request to the International Court of Justice.
And with reference to the Note of the Tunisian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
No. 503537dated 23 Octoher 1982which renewed the invitation to the Libyan
Authorities to prepare "jointly" a request to go back to the Court and even after
the expiration of the three months provided for in the Special Agreement that
wererenewedfor another period by the agreement of the two Parties.
And due to the non response of the Libyan Authorities to the Tunisian
invitation, and their condition to know in advance, in writing, the details of the
points that require the going back to the Court, in spite of their acknowledge-
ment of the Tunisian views in ail aspects and in precise details during the
negotiations of the experts.
And based on a sincere and confirmed desire to settle the question of delimi-
tation of the Continental Shelf between the two countries definitely and in the
nearest time;
The Tunisian Government :

First: is astonished at the Jamahiriya's insistence to know in advance and in
writing the details of ail the points that require the going back to Court, without
any reference to the possibility to respond to the Tunisian invitation, or the
promise to do so, while the Libyan Authorities are wellaware of the points that
raise questions to the Tunisian experts and need in their view, interpretation and
clarification, in confirming that these points do not affect the pnnciples and
rules decided by the Court in its Judgment ;
Second: expresses once again its regret that the Libyan Authorities did not
respond to the invitation for the meeting of the two Parties at the first time
suggested or at any other time chosen by the Jamahiriya, as stated in the last94 APPLICATIONFOR REVlSlONAND INTERPRETAITON

above-mentioncd Note of the Tunisian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to formulate
a request Io go back to the 1nlemational.Court of Justice;
Third: considers tbat the Jarnahiriva's oosition as 10 that invitation is a
rejection of the provisioris of Article-3 of the Special Agreement concludcd
between the Iwo countries on 10June 1977regarding the going back jointly 10
the Court to reauest an ex~lanation and clarifiiation:
Fourrh: infgrms ihc compctcnt Auihorities in the Jamahiriya that ithas
decided to go back IO ihc Court unilatcrally in the near future to request

intemreiaiion and clarificstion Io facilitatc ihc difficultieswhich facethe cxpcrts
in implementingthe Judgment of the Court.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opponunity to express to
the General Commissariat of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in
Tunis its highcst respectand consideration.

THE GENERAL COMMISSARIAO TF THE
SOCIALISTPEOPLE5LIBYANARABJAMAHIRIYA,
TUNIS.

Unofjirial Translation

THE SOClALlSTPEOPLE5LIBYANARABJAMAHIRIYA
THE PEOPLE%COMMITTEEFORTHE PEOPLE5BUREAU FOR FOREIGN LIAISON

16March 1983 Ref.: 1/7/10-117.

Noie Verbale
The Peo~le's Bureau for Foreim Liaison of the Socialist Peoole's Libvan

Arab ~amahiri~a prescnis ils compliments IOthe Gencral ~ommi;sariai ofihc
sisterly Rcpublic of Tunisia in Tnpoli and would apprcciatc that this Note bc
transmitted 10the competent Authorities in the Tunisian Government.
With reference 10 the Note No. 41400793 dated 28 Febman, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Tunisian Minisiry of Foreign Affairs addrisscd to the Genera~~&nmissariat of
the Socialist Pcoplc.i Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in Tunis, and thc Notcs Verbales
addrcsscd 10the Re~ublic of Tunisia from 18Jumada AI-Ula 1391corrcs~ond-
ing IO 13 March 1982to 13 Muharan 1392,corresponding to 30 0ctobcr'1982.
ihe People'sBureau for Foreign Liaison wouldliketo indicate the following:

Firsi: The Socialisi People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has at no timc rejccied
ihe application of the Spccial Agrcemcnt or any pan of it. To the conlrary. it
has repcated, since the rendcring of the Court's Judnment. efforts aimed at
applying this Agreement, and coniequently, at secunngtbe implementation and
the application of the Judgment at the earliest lime. But these efforts from 13
March Io 30 October 1982 have not met with a response from the Tunisian
Authorities.
Second: The refercnceback to the Court must, in accordance with Article 3 of

the Special Agreement, be made '3ointly" by the two Parties. This clearly means ANNEXES TO THE OBSERVATIONS 95

that the two Parties have Io agree on the ooints or questions which reauire
interpretation or clarification bithe Coun in orIOrfacilitatc the task oi the
IWO Parties in implcmcnting the Judgment. Sincc the Socialist People's Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya considen that the above-mentioned Judgment bas enough
clarity and specificity to enable the Iwo Parties to draw the delimitation line
without any difficulty, and while the Republic of Tunisia is of the view Io go
back to the International Court of Justice to request interpretation and clari-

fication. it is natural that the Socialist Peoole'sLihvan Arab Jamahiriva reauests
al1qucsiions or points that requirc, in thèview ofthe Tunisian ~uthoriti;~. the
interpretation or clarification by the Court. especially since the Jamahiriya has
indicatcd. bvits Notc of 30 Shawal 1391corrcspondinIO 10Aumsi 1982,how
to draw the delimitation line with a viewto impiementihe Judgmënt.
Third: The SocialistPeople's LibyanArab Jamahiriya regretsthat the Tunisian
Authorities did not respond to the specific points contained in the ahove-men-
tioned Note of the Bureau for Foreien Liaison. The subseauent Tunisian Notes
have not contained al1points and cq;estions that require the intcrpretation and
clarification by the Coun. After the sistcrly Republic of Tunisia rcfrained from
providing the Socialist Pcople's Libyan Arah Jamahiriya with a drafi requot to

go back to the Court. according to its Notc of 23 Zul-Haja 1391.corrcsponding
to II October 1982.it did not indicate al1points or questions thrt require the
refercncc to the Court, as was requested by the Bureau'sNote of 13 Muharram
1392,corresponding to 30Octob& 1982;and
Fourih: Notwithstanding the lapse of lime, the Socialist People's Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya is still willingto giveany Tunisian suggestion that leads to the
irnplementation of the Court's Judgment in good faith its complete care and
attention. But, it does not recognize the right of the Republic of Tunisia to go
back unilaterally to the Court under the Special Agreement, especiallyon ques-
tions which havenot heen spccifiedor formulated. The Socialist People'sLihyan

Arab Jamahiriya reserves ils position regarding any unilateral procedure taken
by the Republic of Tunisia before the Court.
The People's Bureau for Foreign Liaison of the Socialist People's Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya avails itself of this oppofiunity to express Io the General
Commissariat of the Sisterly Republic of Tunisia in Tripoli its highest consi-
deration and respect.

TO THE GENERAL COMMISSARIA OTFTHESISTERLY
REPUBLIC OF TUNISIA.

Tripoli, 1Jumada Al-Akhera 1392
16March 1983.

Unofficial Translation

THE REPUBLIC OFTUNlSlA

MlNlSTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

28 April 1983 No. 501 853.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic ofTunisia presents ils compli-
ments to the General Commissariat of the sisterly Socialist People's Libyan96 APPLICATIONFOR REVISIONAND INTERPRETATION

Arab Jamahiriya in Tunis, and hopes that the following betransmitted to the
competent Libyan Authorities:
With reference to the Tunisian Note No. 500793dated 28 Feb. 1983,and in
view of the content of the Libvan Note No. 611-524dated 16th of Mach 1983.
the Tunisian Government :

First: Shares the Libyan desire to reach an agreement which secures the
implementation of the Judgment of the Court in good faith, having hoped that
no differences would have emerged between the two Parties concerning the
application of the Judgment, differences which up to this date have delayed the
conclusion of the delimitation agreement provided for in Article 2 of the Special
Agreement of 10thof June 1977.

Second: Expresses ils rejection of the interpretation of Article 3 of the Special
Agreement contained in the Libyan Note of 16 March 1983, although it still
wishes that the recourse to the Court, regarding the points that have raised
differences between them, would be made by a requcst prcpared by the Iwo
Parties.
Third: Records with satisfaction the readiness of Jamahiriya in its last Note to
give "any Tunisian suggestion that leads to the implementation of the Court's
Judgment in good faith complete care and attention".
Takine this oosition into consideration. the Tunisian Govcrnment has decided
to postp'onerccourrc to the Court unilaterally in order to seck. for a last time
with the Jamahiriya the possibility of a breakihrough in the dcadlock which the
discussions between the Parties have reached.
Fourth: For this purpose, suggests to the Jamahiriya the convening of a
meeting of experts in Tunis in the nearest time to consider the following points
on which the Iwo Parties were not able to reach an agreement at the previous

meetings:
1. The determination of the most westerly point of the coastline (low tide
mark) in the Gulf of Gabes;
2. The delimitaiion of "the straieht line drawn from the land frontier noint of
Ras Ajdir" which represents from its intersection with the outer limii of the

territorial waters of the Iwocountries, the delimitation Linein its first sector;
3. Moreover. to exchanae views reaardina the ooints of imoortance raised
during the previous negotiaiion$ betuccn the Iwo pinies rclatingto the contcnts
of thc Judgment regarding the delimitation of maritime areas other than the
continental shelf.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to express to
the General Commissariat of the sisterly Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jama-
hiriya in Tunis ils highest respectand consideration.

TO: THE GENERAL COMMISSARIAT OF THE
SOClALlSTPEOPLE3LIBYANARABJAMAHIRIYA.
TUNIS. ANNEXET SOTHE OBSERVATIONS

Unofficial Translarion

THE REPUBLIC OF TUNlSlA

MlNlSTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

No. 502013 11May 1983.

The Ministrv of Foreien Affairs of the Reoublic of Tunisia oresents its comoli-
ments to the .Gcncral Eommissariat of thé sisterly ~ocialiit People's ~ibian
Arab Jamahiriya in Tunis, and asks it io transmit thc followingto the competent
Authorities of thc Socialist People'sLibyan Arab Jamahiriya:

The Tunisian Govemkent has come to know that the National Oil Company
in thc Socialist Peoolc'sLibvan Arab Jamahiriva has sent a circulation to the oil
companies working in iliniorming them thatlt considers that the dclimitation
line, provided for by the Judgment of the lntcrnational Court of Justice issucd
on 24 Fcbruary 1982in the Continental Shelf case beiu,een IWO couniries,as
"a definitive line whichmust be givenal1its effects".
Although this circulation was not issued by official sources, the Tunisian
Governmcnt considers it necessary to inform the concerned Authorities in the
Jamahiriya of the following:

Firsr: theunisian Govemment recalls that the Special Agreement of 10June
1977 did no1 request the Court to give a dclimitation line between the two
countries.
Second: The delimitation of the line remains, according to this Agreement,
within the competence of the two Parties according to the principles and niles
and the practical method decided by the Court, and provided for by the Judg-

ment rendered by il.
Third: On that basis, the Tunisian Govcrnment has confirmed, in its previous
Notes and contacts with the Jamahiriya, that the definitivedelimitation line is
the line on which the two Parties reach an agreement in their implementation of
theJudgment and for this purpose conclude an officialdelimitation agreement.
Fourrh: The Tunisian side has made every effort it could to reach this line and
conclude an agreement for this purpose, but in vain to this time.
Fqrh: Consequently, the Tunisian Government still awaits the Jamahiriya's
responsc Io ils las1Note No. 501853dafed 28 April 1983. and still considers it
necessary to go back to the Court to requcst clarification and interprctation of
the Judgment if the two Parties do not reach a solution, and rejects a unilateral
application of the Judgment, and reservcs al1its rights as 10implications of such
action.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairsavails itsclf of this opponunity 10cxpr10s
the Gcneral Commissariat of the sisterly Socialist People's I.ibyan Arab Jama-
hiriya in Tunis ils highest consideration and respect.

TO:THE GENERA CLOMMISSARIAT OF THE
SOClALlST PEOPLE3 LlBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA,

TUNIS.98 APPLICATION FOR REVISIONAND INTERPRETATION

Unofjcial Translation

THE SOClALlSTPEOPLE5LIBYANARABJAMAHlRlYA
THE PEOPLE5COMMI'ITEEFORTHE PEOPLE5BUREAU FOR FOREIGL NIAISON

Nore Verbale

The People's Bureau for Foreign Liaison of the Socialist People's Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya presents its compliments to the General Commissariat of the
sisterly Republic of Tunisia in Tripoli, and hopes that this Note will betrans-
mitted to the Tunisian competent Authorities :

With reference to the Note No. 41-501853of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of the Republicof Tunisia addressed to the General Commissariat of the Socialist
People's LibyanArab Jamahiriya in Tunis on 28 April 1983;
With referenceto the Judgment of the International Court of Justice issued in
the Continental Shelf case between the two countries on 1Jumada al-Oula 1391,
corresponding to 24 February 1982,and to the Libyan Notes Verbales addressed
to the Republic of Tunisia from 18Jumada ai-Oula 1391,corresponding to 13
March 1982, which aimed at securing the execution and the application of the
Court's Judgment, the People'sBureau for Foreign Liaison would like to clarify

the following:
First: The Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, which has sought and
still seeks to implement the Judgment of the International Court of Justice in
good faith and in the nearest time, welcomes any step or meeting of the experts
of the two countries that aims to achieve the said end and secures the carrvina
out of their technical task making possible the drafting of an agreemcn<imI
plementing the Court's Judgment.
Second: The Socialist People's Libyan Arah Jamahiriya, which confirms its
oosition contained in the second naramanh of its Note Verbale dated 1stJumada

al-0ula 1392,corresponding to '16MaAh 1983,is of the view that the Court's
Judgment has facilitated the task of the experts of the two countries and has put
an end to difficulties which minht iustifv a delav in the technical task which will
sccure the drafting of an agre;mcit implcmenhng the Judgment in accordancc
with the Spccial Agreement concluded betweenthe two countries. In this regard,
thc Sociaiist Peo~le'sLibyan Arab Jamahiriya would likc Io clarify the followina
matters concern:ng the three points contained in paragraph FoÜrth of the lasÏ
Tunisian Note Verbale.

1. The method of drawing the delimitation line in its first sector according 10
the Court's Judgment - relating to points (1) and(2) in paragraph Fourth of
the said Tunisian Note Verbale was indicated precisely and in detail in the Note
Verbale addressed by the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the
Republic of Tunisia on the 20th of Shawal 1391, corresponding to 10th of
August 1982;
2. While the Socialist People's Libyan Arah Jamahiriya is ready to listen
carefully to the point of view of the sisterly Republic of Tunisia concerning
matters mentioned in point (3) of paragraph Fourth, it is of the view that these
matters appear to fall beyond the technical task delegated to the experts as
defined in the Spccial Agreement.

The People's Bureau for Foreign Liaison of the Socialist People's Lihyan
Arab Jamahiriya avails itself of this opportunity to express to the Gcneral ANNEXEST0 THE OBSERVATIONS 99

Commissariat of the sisterly Republic of Tunisia in Tripoli its highest consider-
ation and respect.

TO: THE GENERALCOMMISSARIATOF THE
SISTERLYREPUBLICOF TUNISIA,

TRIPOLI.

Tripoli, 2 Shaahan 1392
15May 1983

Unofficial Translation

THESOClALlSTPEOPLESLIBYANARABJAMAHIRIYA
THEPEOPLESCOMMI'ITEE FORTHE PEOPLESBUREAU FOR FOREIGN LIAISON

Re: 1/7/10-223

The People'sBureau for Foreign Liaison in the Socialist People'sLibyan Arab
Jamahiriya presents its compliments Io the General Commissariat of the sisterly
Repuhlic of Tunisia in Tripoli and hopes that this Note will be transmitted to
the competent Tunisian Authorities :

With reference to the Note of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Repuhlic
of Tunisia No. 502013dated II May 1983addressed to the General Commis-
sariat of the Socialist People'sLibyan Arah Jamahiriya in Tunis;
And with reference to the Judgment of the International Court of Justice
issued in the Continental Shelf case between the two countries on 1 Jumada

Al-Oula 1391,corresponding to 24 February 1982; and the Libyan Notes Ver-
bales addressed to the Republic of Tunisia from 18Jumada Al-Oula 1391,cor-
respondingto 13March 1982,the People'sBureau for Foreign Liaisonwould like
to clarify the following:
Firsr: The Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has clarified its obli-

gation to execute and apply the Judgment of the Court with the precision and
clari,v that it ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~-eh a number of Notes which have not met a direct
and specilic response from the sisterly Republic ol'runi$ia. And, conirary IO the
general and vague information referrcd Io in the last 'lunisian Noie No. 502013
dated II Mav 1983. noihine h- heen issucd bv the Socialisi Pcouleb Lihvan
Arab Jamahiriya, its Corporations or companies whichcontradicts the previous
indicaied position, or prejudiccs arcas of continental shclf which, inaccordance
uith the Court's Judnmeni. arc no1considcred IO fall under thc sovereign rights
of the Socialist ~eook's ~ibvan Arab Jarnahiriva:
second: ~he~ibiin~oté dated 20 Shawal i391, corresponding to 10August
1982,indicated precisely what the Judgment specified as a practical method to

delimit areas of the continental shelf betweën the two countries. a method
which. in the viewof Libya, nceds nothing from the expens but IO carry out the
iechnical iask making possible the drafting of an Agrecment implementing the
Coun's Judnmeni. The Socialist People's Libyÿn Arab Jamahiriya expres5esils
regret forth; delay in rcaching this cnd, sincéit has repcatcd ils effonIO avoid
ii and il does not see in the Tunisian Notes, dcspiie iis repeated response Io
ihem, anything but an aiiempi IO impedc the execution and the implemeniaiion100 APPLICATIONFOR REVISIONAND INTERPRETATION

of a binding Judgment on the Iwo Parties sincethe day of its reading, more than
~ne~,~~~~~~--.
Third: Dcspitc the frequcnt rcqucsis of ihe Socialisi People's Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya to thc Rcpublic of Tunisia to clarify the dctails of whai ilclaimcd
as ooints that nccd interorctation or clarification. the Reoublic of Tunisia has
rcfrained from indicaring ihem. exccpi in general and unspccificdierms.
Fourrh Thc Socialist People's LihyanArab Jamahiriya was and siill is ready

to have a meetine of the ex~erts of the Iwo countnes to carrv out the task
delegated to thcmas meniio&d abovc. But itcannot accept ihaiihc mcciing of
thc experts or othcrs would involve mattcrs relaiing to a stagc prior to thc
Court's Judgmcnt, or a discussion of the foundatinn of thai Judgment.
The People's Bureau for Foreign Liaison of the Socialist People's Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya avails itself of this opportunity Io express Io the General

Commissariat of the sisterly Republic of Tunisia in Tripoli its highest consider-
ation and respect.

TO: THE GENERAL COMMISSARIAO TF THE SISTERLY
REPUBLICOF TUNISIA.
TRIPOLI.

Tripoli: 25 Shaban 1392
7 June 1983.

[Arobic rexrnor reproduced]

Unofficial Translation

THE REPUBLICOF NNlSlA

THE PRIMEMlNlSTER

Tunis, 23 January 1984

Honourable Brother Jadalla Azzous al-Talhi

Greetings,

In imolementation of Our Ieadershio's intention to carrv out our fraternal
relationSand the sole destiny which uniiies Ourtwo countrie; towards its highest
level of clarity and trust; also, according to what we agreed upon on the neces-
sityfor a new~meetingof the experts of the two countnes regardingthe problem of
the continental shelf, 1have the honour to inform you of the following:

The experts already met, as previously decided, in Tunis on 14and 15Decem-
ber 1983, in order to reach an agreement on the implementation of the Court's
Judgment, or to present to the High Commission for its upcoming meeting
in Tunis, a report on points of agreement and disagreement between the two Par-
ties.

According IO my information, those experts neither reacbed an agreement on
the implementation of the Judgment, nor drafted a report on points of agreement ANNEXESTO THE OBSERVATIONS 101

and disagreement. The difference in the position of the two delegations is as
follows:

- The Libyan delegation is of the view that the task of the experts in confined
to the imnlementation of the Judement as it is. without checkine the orecision
or maki& sure of the figures coitained in the Judgment, due thexfactthat
the Judgment is clear enouah to enable the experts to implement it easily and
withouithe need to go b&k to the Court ta request cianfication or inter-
pretation in this regard. We have been aware of ths position since the
beginning of the negotiations in May 1982.
- The Tunisian delegation is of the view that there is ambiguity and contra-
diction (concerningthe Court'sdefinition of the fint sector of the delimitation
line), and imprecision (relating to the co-ordinates of the most westerlypoint
of the Gulf of Gabes). This is a matter which necessitates either a return to
the Court to reauest clarification or intemretation fa oossibilitv orovided for
in the Special Âgreement of 1977).or an-effort to behade by'tie experts of

the two sides to pave the way for reaching an agreement in this regard.
You have also been aware of this position since the contacts between the
~ ~--~~. .~~h~. .o. ....nes.
But the ncw element in this regard is the praclical suggestion presented by ihe
Tunisian deleeation aimed at facilitatina the nccrotiationsin order to open the

way for an agreement. These suggestions-wereprësented in the followingbay:
(a) In pnnciple level, the delegation expressed its readiness to take al1required
steps to reach an agreement between the two countries if the other side
shows the same readiness.

(b) The limiting of differences to two points: namely the fixing of the most
westerly point on the Gulf of Gabes, and adjnsting the angle of the fint
sector of the delimitation line.

With regard 10 the first point, the Tunisian delegation snggested examining
the maos to make sure of its co-ordinates. as reauested bv the Court itself. The
delega60n explained that this point is loc'atedsÔuthof thépoint marked by the
Court by a difference not exceeding 5 minutes. The Tunisian delegation also
sueeested visitine in loco if examinsion of the maos is not determinative. The
reg11 of snch ai in loco examination would be âccepted in advance by the
Tunisian delegation.
With regard to the angle of the first sector of the delimitation line provided
for in the Judwent. the Tunisian deleeation sueeested that what was orovided
for by the colrt, nakely ihat the line ZelerminiG this angle correspo~ds tn the
eastern boundary of Tunisian petroleum permit grantcd by Tunisia in this arca.
be acceoted. On~thisbasis. theoractical suaaestion is to draw the eastern boun-
daries 8f this permit on in ag;eed-upon &a pnd to adopt the angle of these
bonndanes. The Tunisian side made this drawing which showed the possibility
of reaching a compromise; and

,C, The nresentation of a draft aereement in this reeard. But. the insistence of
the hyan delegation to maintain its initial poszion ma& it impossible to
enter into a dialogue or a discussion which could narrow the gap between
the two Parties. ~insequently, agreement was reached neither onthe agenda,
nor on a map to be adopted in the Agreement, nor on the drafting of

minutes to be referred to the High Commission.
Accordingly, and due to the necessityto reach an agreement between the two 102 APPLICATIONFOR REVISIONAND INTERPRETAïïON

countries on this apparently complicated, but resolvable, question, 1would like
to present two suggestionsin this regard:
Firsi: To take into consideration the new sueeestions oresented bv the Tuni-
rian dclcgation and ro enter into a discussion inordeIO icach an ag&emcnt;
Secund: If ihis proves impossible,you agrccwith us, explicitlyor implicitly.to
go back IO the Court to clarify and interprct what sccms to be ambiguous or
contradictory in the Judgment. so that together we may overcome points of
difference and concludc a dclimitation agreement in the nearest future.

However, the second suggestion does not generate a great deal of enthusiasm
on Our part, because Our desire is to avoid the judicial atmosphere among
Brothers tied bybrotherly and good neighbourly relations.
In any event, 1 hope that the next meeting of the High Commission will
. provide a suitable body to adopt the final decision in this regard.
Awaiting your opinion which 1 have no doubt of its positiveness, and the
opportunity to meet you soon, Cod willing, accept, Honorable Brother, my
highest consideration. God blessyou.

Mohamed MZALI.

[Arabie iexi nui reproduced]

Unoffcial Translarion

THE SOClALlSTPEOPLE5LIBYANARABJAMAHIRIYA

Honourable Brother Mohamed Mzali

Greetings,

1 have seen your letter dated 23 January 1984 addressed to Brother Jadalla
Azzouz al-Tahli, and would like to express that I sharethe viewthat the streng-
thening of our fraternal relations and the sole destiny which unites our two
countries constitutethe cornerstone of the aims of Ourtwo political leaderships.
It is a duty which the executive organs should carry out with a viewto reach the
highest aim; the unity of our two countries and the unity of Ourdiverse Arab
nation.
With the same spirit of clarity which characterized your letter in treating the
question of the continental shelf betweenthe Jamahiriya and Tunisia, permit me
to clarify the reality of the situation, not as it was presented to you by the
experts, but as it should be looked ai.

Firsr: No douht you are aware that a Judgment was rendered by the Inter-
national Court of Justice. This Judgment is final and definitive and should be
implemented according to customary international law, the Statute, the Rules of
Court, and moreover, according to what the two Parties had accepted when
they had recourse to that Court. By the delivery of that Judgment, 1 never
thought that there could he a possibility of saying that there was a question ANNEXES TO THE OBSERVATIONS 103

which could be called a "dispute" on the continental shelf; this hecause it was
settled by the delivery of that Judgment.
Second: The Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 24 February
1982,is so clear and preciseto the extent that there is no place to get in10details
on its imnlementation. All that is reauired is the imolementation of the Juda-
ment with its CO-ordinalesand anglcs 8n agrecd-upon'maps. Any controversy rn
this regard, or any claim about ils interpretation would no1 bc acccptahle. If
thc rights of the two Partics wcrc to bc fixed according to !hc contents OCthe
Judgment. goodwill and international obligations require ils contents be put
into effect on a map implementing the Judgmcnt and concluding an agreement
in this regard.

By taking these two matters into consideration, it was hoped that at the
meeting of the experts it would be simple and easy to agree to carry out the
Judgment on a map implementing it and to prepare a draft agreement indicating
the CO-ordinates,showing the angles and lines according to their details in the
Judgment.
But, 1regret to say that the position of the experts ofthe sisterly Repuhlic of
Tunisia was disappointing and not what was expected from them. They had
ventured to say that tbere was unclarity in the Judgment which required discus-
sion and interpretation. Tbey tried to transfer the meetings devoted to the
implementation of the Judgment into meetings for negotiations as if there was
no Judgment given hy a court. It is regrettable that what was presented as a
draft of an agreement was only a draft containing general provisions with hlanks

to he filled up by the details of the dispositifof the Judgment. It is not a matter
of neeotiations or consideration of a "disoute". but it is a mater of imolementine
a judgment in a cattographic way with&t di'scussion,controversy o'rinterPr;
tation of this course of the line.
Dear Brother,

Since the delivery of the Judgment, the Jamahiriya has addressed notes ver-
baux and sent experts in order to implement the Judgment, but the position of
the Tunisian side has been to beg the question. The Tunisian side insisted on
negotiating the Judgment or on going hack to the Courtfor interpretation. This
situation required some of the Secretanes to explain 10 you the legal point of
view of the concept of the implementation, the clarity of the Judgment, the
oossibiiitv of ils im~lementation easilv and simolv and the non-existence of
bhat coAd bc consi'dcredas confusion or ambipuhy which requircd intcrpre-
tation. Even one of our Sccretaries carried out a detailcd explanation IO you
and your collcaguc, His Excellcncythe Ministcr of Foreign Affairs. From these
contacts and mectings. we had the impression that you had a good undcrstand-
ing of this objective point of view,and that the meetingof the expens uhich was
IO follow that explanation would take the same course. i.e., to implemcnt thc
judgment with itScontents without constituting any obstacles. Yet,the meeting
of the experts referred to in your letter showed something contrary to what

came to our mind. Rather, the impression could be inferred from your letter
that the experts on your side still maintain their previous arguments despite
their inaccuracy, and that they may delay your intention to implement the
Judgment with its contents.This is a matter which we cannot go along with since
it iscontrary to the Judgment and its binding force and to the Special Agreement
by which the question of the Continental Shelf was referred to the Court.
Moreover, it constitutes a real obstacle in the way of completing what is a
settled question.
Therefore, and in the light of what bas been explained above, we cannot agree104 APPLICATIOF NORREVISION AND INTERPRETATION

on the suggestionsstated in your mentioned letter, and instead, we consider the

following :
(1) The Judgment should bc implemented according IOilscontents without con-
trovcrsy and without going into dctail on the course of the Iine since itis
final. definitive and bindine with its contents: and
(2) The judgment is so precise-and clear 10the extent that onecannot Saythere
is controversy, interpretation or a need to go back 10the Court or any other
body in this regard

In conclusion, for two sisterly countries which accepted having recourseto the
highest international judicial body on a dispute betweenthem, which was settled
by the Court clearly and precisely after efforts from il and the Parties, there is
nothing in the view of any of their experts which could prevent them from
attainine the volitical desire to imolement the Judement with what it con-
tains. T& imbcding of the implem&tation may con;titute an obstacle to the

achie\,ement of our aims. The judicial dccision coincided with the political dc-
sire in overcoming this obstacle, and no one should raise any doubt about them.
This is what 1 would like to inform you of in responce to your letter. We
expect that your confirmation expresses the highestpolitical desire of the Repub-
lic of Tunisia to implement the Judgment in a manner which would pass over
an exnert's attemnts to imnede the imolementation of the Judement iust for the
sake of arguing O;seeking'interpretati'onwhich wasnot forese& by the issuance
of the Judgment with its binding force.

Accept, My Honourable Brother, the best of myregards and respect.

(Signed) Mohamed ZARROUC RAGEB,
Secretary of the General People'sCommittee of
the Socialist People'sLibyan Arab Jamahiriya.

Tripoli, 4 Rajab 1399
4 April 1984. ANNEXES TO THE OBSERVATIONS

Annex II

THE OFFICIALGALE~TE OF LIBYAV . OL.VI, No. 19,
4 MAY1968 (6 SAFAR1388 A.H.)
CONTAININ GHE RESOLUTION OF
THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF 28 MARCH1968

[Arabic rexr nor reproduced]

LAWS

Resolurion ojrhe Council of MinisrersApproving the Granr of a Perrokum
Concessionro Aquitaine Libye and Erap Company

The Council of Ministen,
Having seen Petroleum Law No. 25of 1955and its amending laws;
Acting upon the recommendation of the High Petroleum Council of January
1966,adopted by the Councilof Ministers,in whichil wasdecidedthat the Mitry

of Petroleum Affairs would offer blocks that are remaining from the offers to
exploit petroleum areas to companies obtaining concession contracts, and to
negotiate with these companies in order to grant to them the remaining blocks
in accordance with the provisions of the law;
Having regard to the negotiations that took place between the Ministry of
Petroleum Affairs and Aquitaine Libye and Erap Company to exploit some of
the hlocks in the western area, which the Ministry had offered for exploitation
in order 10develop the western areas of the country;
Whereas these blocks were offered for exploitation more than once without
heing accepted by any party ; and
The two companies submitted an offer dated 13.6.1967 to exploit some of
these blocks; and
Based upon what has been submitted hy the Minister of Petroleum Affairs:

Has decided :

Arricle 1
To approve the grant to Aquitaine Libye and Erap Company of a Petroleum
Exploitation Contract in the areas defined in the accompanying map thereto,
according to the conditions set forth in Ann2xof the Petroleum Law (Con-
cession Contract).

Arricle2

Aquitaine Libye and Erap Company shall be bound to expend the sum of two
million U.S. dollars as working obligations.This sum shail be in addition to the
working obligations specified in the Petroleum Law. The two companies shall
submit, free of charge, al1information they obtain from their operations to the
Ministry of Petroleum Affairs.106 APPLICATI ONR REVISIOANDINTERPRETATION

Articl3

TheMinisterof PetroleumAffairsshallimpthisresolutionwhichenten
intoforcasof thedateof itsissuance.

Issucdin Beidaon29ThuAl-Haja1387.
28March 1968.

(Signed)ABDEL-HAM EID-BACCOUSH,
Prime Minister. ANNEXES TOTHE OBSERVATIONS

Annex III

RESOLUTIOO NFTHELIBYAN COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF
28 MARCH1968 APPEARINC INMIDDLEEAST ECONOMIC
SURVEY, VOL.XI, No. 41, 9 AUCUST1968, PP. 12-13

CouncilO/ Ministers Decision

Approving the Award of an Oil Concession Contract
ro Aquitaine-Libye anERAP*

The Council of Ministers,
After reviewingPetroleum Law No. 25 of 1955and its amendments;

And pursuant to the recommendation of the Supreme Petroleum Council in
January 1966 as approved by the Council of Ministers stipulating that the
Ministry of Petroleum Affairs shouldoffer the blocks remaining after the finaliza-
tion of tenders for the exploitation of petroleum areas to those companies which
acquired concession contracts, and negotiate with such companies with a view
to awardine them the remainin- blocks in accordance with the conditions laid
down in thëlaw;
And on the basis of the negotiations held between the Ministry of Petroleum
Affairs and Aquitaine-Libye and ERAP for the exploitation of some of the
blocks in the western region, dunng which the Ministry proposed the exploita-
tion of some of the blocks inquestion with a viewto promoting the development

of the western areas of the country;
And considering that exploitation bids were invited for these blocks more
than once and no offers wereforthcorning;
And on the hasis of the offer submitted hy the two companies for the exploi-
tation of these blocks. dated 13June 1967:
And pursuant to the proposai of the Minister of Petroleum Affairs.
Hasdecided the following

Article 1
The award is herehv aooroved of an oil exoloitation contract to Aauitaine-
. ..
Libye and ERAP covcring lhc areas dcfined in the aitached map and under the
terms stipulaied in the Sccond Schedule of the Peiroleum Law (1hc Concession
Contract)

Article 2
Aquitaine-Libye and ERAP shall undertake to spend a sum of Two Million
United States Dollars as expenditure obligations. This sum shall be in addition
to the expenditure obligations stipulated in the Petroleum Law. The Iwo com-
panies shall submit to the Ministry of Petroleum Affairs, free of charge, al1
information they may acquire as a result of their operations.

MEES translationfromArabictcxt publishcdin LiqficiolGozerreon 4May
1968.108 APPLICATI OOR REVISIONAND INTERPRETATION

Article 3

TheMinisterof Petroleum Affairs illplementthisdccision,whichshall
become effectesof thedateof its issue.
lssuedinal-Baidaon9Dhual-Hijjah,orrespondito28 March 1968.

(Signed'ABDAL-HAMIA DL-BAKKUSH,
Prime Minister ANNEXESTO THE OBSERVATIONS

Annex IV

LET~ERS DATED30 MAY1976 AND 20 MARCH1977
FROMNATIONALOIL CORPORATION,
TRIPOLI, TO PETROCONSULTANS T.A., GENEVA

30 May 1976.

PETROLEUM CONCESSIONS.

Reference to your letter dated December 8th 75 received by nur office on

Febmary 10, 1976 cnncerning the g.-.raphical CO-ordinatesof al1 petroleum
exploraïion concessionsin ~ibya.
Please find enclosed the exact CO-ordinatesof each "corner" of every block of
the concessions held by the National Oil Corporation.
Concerning the same data of the companies working in Libya they are under
preparation and soon as completed we will supply them to you.

(Signed) Farag M. SAID,

Exploration & Prod. Manager,

ENCLS. 42

[Page 2 of21

COMPANN YAMEA : QUITAIN ElBYA - ELF LlBVA
CONCESSION No.:137
CRANTIV(i DATE OFCONCtSSlON 30 Apnl 1968
ORIGINAL CONCESSION AREA 6846 Km2
TOTALRETAINED AREA 51268 Km2

DESCRIPTION OF THE RETAINED BLOCK

Starting at the intersection of 12'00'Longitude and 33'55' Latitude

The"ce East till 12'20'Longitude
South till 33'10'Latitudc
" East till 13'00'I.oneitudc
" South till32' 55'~Zitude
" Wcst till 12'40' Longitude
" South till 32'53' Latitude

" Wcst 111112'25' Lonutude
" West till 12'20'Longitude

" North till33'03' Latitude
West till 12'15'Longitude
" North till33'05' Latitude110 APPLICATION FORREVlSlON ANDINTERPRETATION

Thence West till 12'10' Longitude
" North till33' 10'Latitude
" West till 12'05'Longitude
North till 33' 15'Latitude
" West till 12'00'Longitude
" North till33' 20'Latitude
" West till 11'55'1,oneitude
" North till33' 25'~agtude
" West till 11'50' Longitude
" North till33' 30'Latitude

Thence Westtill the intersection withthe straight line between
11'35'Longitude - 33'10'Latitude &
12'00'Longitude - 33' 55'Latitude
ThenceNorth-Eastward dong this straight Linetill the point of origin.

20 March 1977.

LIBYAN PETROLEUM CONCESSIONS

Reference to Our letter dated November 1st 1976 please find listed
helow the revisions held in petroleum concessions to date as per the
attached enclosures.

1. National Oil Corporation
(a) Concession No. NC 17rcviscd
IOConcessionNo. SC 17A.
/bJ Concession No. NC 72 revised IOConcession No. NC 72A.
(cj ConcessionNo. NC 76newconcession.
2. Arabian GuyExploration Company

(a) ConcessionNo. 81 revisedto ConcessionNos. XIAEAST & 81A WEST.
IbJConcession65 EAST revisedto ConcessionNo. 65A.
(cjConcession80 reviscdto Concession80A.
(d) Concession No. NC 75(ncwconcession).

3. Occidentalof Libya Inc.
(a) Concessionnumhers NC 33A - B - C - (surrendered).
(6) ConcessionNo. NC 74A - B - C - D - E - F (newconcession)

4. Elnerath Oil Co. Libya

(a) ConcessionNo. 97 Block 1(revised).

(Signed) Farag M. SAID,
Exploration & Production, Manager,
National Oil Corporation. ANNEXESTO THE OBSERVATIONS

NATIONALOIL CORPORATION

CONCESSIONNo. : PC76.ZONE1.

NATiONAL OIL CORPORATIONAREA: 1719.2Km2

DESCRIPTION:
Starting at the intersection of 33'30' latitude (On the straight line between
11'35'longitude - 33'10'latitude) and (12'00' longitude - 33' 55'latitude)
thence east till 11'50'loneitude

" east till 11'55' longitude

" south till33' 20' latitude
" east till--2~ ~l~ ~itude
south till33' 15'l&tude
east till 12'05'longitude
south till33' 10'latitude
east tiil 12'10'longitude
south till33' 05'latitude

east till 12'15'longitude
south till33'03' latitude
east till 1220' longitude
south till33'00' latitude
east til12'25' longitude
south till32' 53'latitude
east till 12'40'longitude
north till32' 55'latitude
east till 12'45'longitude

south till32' 50'latitude
Westtill 12' 20' longitude
" north till32' 55'latitude
Westtill 12'15'longitude
" north till33' 00'latitude
" Westtill 12'05'longitude
" north till 33' 05'latitude
" WesttiB 12'00'longitude
" north till 33' 10'latitude
" Westtill 11'35'longitude
" north east-ward in a straight line till point of origin112 APPLICATIONFOR REVISIONAND INTERPRETATlON

Annex V

ANNEX 3TO THE CONCESSION AGREEMEDATED
30 APRIL1968GRANTE DOAQUITAINELIBYE

AND ERAP (ANNEX ITO THEAPPLICATION)

[Seep. 47, supra]

Annex VI

LETTED RATED15 MARCH 1984FROM
THETUNISIANEXPERTTO THETUNISIANAGENT

[See Applicafi.19,supra]