Memorial of Malta

MEMORIALOF MALTA

MEMOIR EEMALTE VOLUME1

INTRODUCTION

1. This is the Mernorial of the Governrnent of the Republic of hialta
(hereinalier called Malta) filedpursuant to the Order of the Court
made on 27July 1982.
2. The present proceedings are being conducted on the basis of the
Special Agreement concluded between Malta and the Socialisi Peoplc's

Libyan Arab Jarnahiriya (hereiriafter called Libya) concliided o23 May
1976. Ratifications were exchanged on 20 March 1982 and the
Agreement was notified to the Court jointly by the Parties oii 26 JiiIy
1982 by a letter dated19 July 1982.
3. The English text of the Special Agreement is as follo~s:-

"The Government of the Rt:public of mal taand the Government of
the 1,ibyan Arab Republic agree to recoiirse to the International

Court of Justice as follows:
Article1

The Court isrquesced todecidethe following question :

What principles and rules of international law are applicable ta the
dclimitation of the area of the continental shelf which appertains to

the Republic of Matta and the area of contineiital shelf which
appertains to the Libyan Arab Republic, and how in practice such
principles and rules can be applied by the two Parties iii this
particular case in order that they may without difficulty delimit such
areas by an agreement as provided in Article 111.

Article II

(1) The proceedings shall consist of written pleadings aiid oral
hearings.
(2) \Vithout prejudice to any question of the burderi of proof, the
written pleadings shall consist of the following documents:

(a) hlemorials to be submitted simultaneously to the Court hy
each Party and exchanged with one another within a

period of niiie moiithç from the date of the notification of
this Agreement to the Registrar of the Court.
(b) Replies to be similarly submitted to the Court by cach
Party and exchanged with one anoiher withiti four months CONTINENTALSHELF 121

after the date of the submissions of the A*iemorials to the
Registrar.

(c) Additional written pleadings may be presented and ex-
changed in the sarne manner within periods which shall be
fixed tiy the Court at the request of one of the Parties, or if
the Court so decides after consultation ~viththetwo Parties.

(3) The question of the order of speaking at the oral hearing shall
be decided by rnutual agreement between the parties but in al1

cases the order of speaking adopted shall be without prejudice
to any question of the burden of proof.

Article III

Foltowing the final decision of the International Court of Justice,
the Governrnent of the Republic of Malta and the Government of the
Libyan Arab Republic shall enter into negotiations for determining

the area of tlieir respective continental shelves and for concluding an
agreement for thai purpose in accordance with the decision of the
Court.

This Agreement shall enter into force on the date of exchange of'
instruments of ratification by the two Governments, and shall be
notified jointfyIO the Registrar of the Court.

Donc in two originals at Valletta, Malta this 23rd day of May,
1976 corresponding to 24th 1396 H in the English and Arabic
languages both tests being equally auihentic." IMPORTANCE TO MALTA
OF THE PRESENT CASE

4. At the very outset, it is right that Malta should emphasize the

particular importance which this case has for her. Though some of the
details will be repeated later within the framework of the systernatic
exposition of the geographical, econornic and geological circurnstanceof
the Parties, it must be stated without deiay that the present case is really
about access to resources. For Malta, such access is vital. Within her

limited territory (less than 320sq. kms.), supporting a population of
320,000 persons, there are no natural resources whatever. Surveys and
explorations indicated that there is no prospect of finding such resources
onshore. Accordingly, it is to the sea that Malta rnust turn. And in terrns
of significant econornic support,it iswith the minera1 resources of the

continental shelf that Malta rnust be conccrned. The investigationso far
carried out suggest that the most promising areas for the discovery and
production of oit lie in or near the regions of Malta's southern equidis-
tance line. Although there are also other cogent reasons, this is the
fundarnental reality which underlies Malta's opposition to Libya's asser-

tion of rights north of that equidistance line.
5.This aspect of the matter rnight be lessstriking if Libya were a State
in the sarne econornic position as Malta. But this is evidently not so. It
rnay be helpful to bear in rnind in this connection (to take but one
relevant econornic indicator) that in 1980 the revenue of Libya from oif
production was some US$ 23 billion.

6. The members of the United Nations have given frequent and
explicit recognition to the status of Malta as an "island developing
country". The concept has aspecific content which has been repeatedly
and unanimously recognised in resolutions of the UN General Assernbly
and of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Developrnent. The

concept stands for acknowledgrncnt by the international community that
there exists a substantial group of island States whose condition of
economic development is such that, at the very least, nothing rnust be
done which would contribute to worsening it. PART 1

THE TASK OF THE COURT THE TASK OF THE COURT

7. Article 1 of the Special Agreement requests the Court

"to decide the following question:

[il'What principles and riiles of international law are applicable to
the delimitation of the area of the continental shelf which appertains

to the Republic of Malta and the area of continental shelf which
appertains to the Libyan Arab Republic, and [ii]'how in practice
such principles and rules can be applied by the two Parties in this
particular case in order that they rnay without dimculty delimit such

areas by an agreement as provided in Article III".

8. Article III provides that following the final decision of the Court the
Parties.

"shall enter into negotiations for determining the area of their
respective continental shelves and for concluding an agreement for
that purpose in accordance with the decision of the Court".

9. It willat the outset be necessary for the Court to determine in the
light of these provisions what task the Parties have asked it to perform;

and it is to this matter that Malta wil1direct its first submissions.
10. The Court has recently, in the ContinenlaS l helf(Tunisia-LzbyanArab
j'amahi*~) casee, had occasion to interpret and apply a special agree-

ment similar to the Special Agreement in the present case. It is true that
the Special Agreement in the Tunisia-Libya case was concluded on 10
June 1977, that is, just over a year after the Special Agreement in this
case. Accordingly, there can be no suggestion that the draftsmen of the

Special Agreement in the present case could in any way have had in mind
the Special Agreement in the Tunisiu-Libyacase. But the fact that the
Court has now interpreted a niimber of closely similar provisions in the
Twhia-libya Special Agreement rneans that special attention must be

given to that interpretation in the present case.
11. Article 1of the Tutzkia-LibyaSpecial Agreement, in the translation
used by the Court3, requested the Court to state:

"What principles and rules of international 1aw may be applied for
the delimitation of the area of the continental shelf appertaining to
the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and [ofI4 the area of

1. The numbersin square brackershave been insericforease ofrerercnclater.
2. I.C,J,Rtfirts1982, p. 18 (hcrejnafter caUcd "theTu~rXo-Liba cars" or "the
Tuniria-Lioyjudgment", ascircumsiancesmay require)..
3. Ibid.,p37, para.22.
4. 'I'heEiiglish tofthe Agreement as printed inI.C.Reports1982,at p. 2hcrcuses
the word "to"-which seems likclyroha misprini (cthe Frenchtext"de'').406 CONTINENTALSHELF [al

the continental shelf appertaining to the Republic of Tunisi,a, and
the Court shall take its decisioii according to equitable principles:
and the re!evant circumstaiices which characterize the area? as lvell

as the new accepted trends in the Third Conference on the La\\. of
the Sea.
"Also, the Court is further requested to clarify the practical

method for the application of these principles aiid rules in tliis
specific situation, so as to eiiablc the experts of the two countries to
delimit these areas withnut any dificulties."

12. In addition: Article 2 provided that:

"Follo~~ing the delivery of the Judgrneiit of the Court, the two
Parties shall rneet to apply these principles and riiles in order to
determine the linc of delimitation of the area of the coritinerital shelf

appertaining to each of the two counlries: with a view to the
conclusion of a treaty in this respect."

13. Point [ilL of Article 1 of the Lityu-il*laltnSpécial tlgreenicnt caii
thus be seen to be almost the same as the first paragrapti of Article 1 of
the Tunisia-Libye Special Agreernciit with the esception thai the latter

agreement contairis an additional element, namely, the request to the
Court that ittake its decision

"according to equitable principlcs, and the relcvaiit circuiristances
which characterize the area, as well as the new accepted trends in thc
Third Conference on the Law of the Sea".

14. It is appropriate therefore to note the manner in whicli the Co~irt
in the Tuniria-Libja judgment interpreted the first paragraph of Article 1.

On this topic the Cotirt said2:

"The Coiirt isspecifically called upon, in rendcritig its decisioii, tn
take account of the foIlowing tliree factors: exprcssly mentioried in
the Special Agreernerit: (a) equitable principles; (b) the relevaiit
circumstarices which characterize the area; aiid (c) the riew accepted

trends in thc l'hird United Nations Conferencc oii the Laiv of the '
Sea. \Vhile the Court is, of'counc, bound to have rcçard to al1 the
legal sources specified in Articlc 38> paragraph 1 of'the Statute of'the
Court in deterrnining the relevant principles arici rules applicable tu

the delimiiatioii, it is also bound: in accnrdaiice with paragraph 1 (a)
of that Article: to apply the pioiisions of thc Special Agreenieiit.
Two of the three factors refcrr-cd to are, ho~vcvcr: in conipletc
harrnony tvith the jurisprudcncc of thc Court: as ;ippcars from its

Jitdgment iiithe ~i'orfhSea Co~firitnlal hevcases in wtiich it hetd that
iiiternatiorial Ia\v required delimitation to he efI'ectccl'in accordaiice

1. Seabove,para.7.
2. I.C.JRtpupurls982;p. 3para.23. 191 MEMORlALOF MALTA 407

with equitable principles, and taking accourit of al1 the relevant
circumstances' (Z.C.J. Reports1969, p. 53, para. 101 (c) (1)) - With
regard (O the third, the 'new accepted trends' ille Court would recall

what ithad to Say on the subject of the work of the Third Uiiited
Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in tlie FkheriesJurkdic~ion
cases (I.C.J. Reports1974, p. 23, para. 53, and p. 192, para. 45) '. 1t
rnust however note that the law rnaking process in this respect has

now progressed much further."
With regard to the thirci factor, the Court further observed tliaty

". ..il does not appear that it was their (the Parties') intention to go

so far as to impose additional or supplernentary rules on themselves
in this way in the context of this case".

15. From the passages just cited, Malta derives the follotving
conclusions:

(1) The requirement of recotirse to "principles and rules of inter-
national law" applicable to the delimitation of the continental

shelf in the Tunisia-LibyaSpecial Agreement was coiistrued by the
Court as a reference to the Court's own decision in the ~Vorrh Sea
Can~irlenta She'h elfes to the effect that international law req~iired
delimitation to be effectcd in accordance with equitable principles

and taking accourit of al1 the relevant circiimstances. This con-
clusion is confirrned by the later statement of the Court in the
Tunisia-Libyacaseg:

"The Court fias tlius exarniiied the question of equitable principles
which, besides being mentioried in iheSpecial Agreement asthe firstof'
the rhree factors to be taken into account, are, as the Court has

emphasized, of primordial importance in the delimitation of the
continental shelf".

(2) The sarne interpretation should be attached to point [ilin Article Iof'
tlie Libya--MaltaSpecial Agreement.
16. In general, though subject to some significant qualification, the 1aw
applied in the Tunisia-Libja case is applicable in the present case. The

reference in the Tunisin-LibyaSpt:cial Agreement to the three additiorial
factors does iiot really set that Agreement apart because, as indicated
above, the Court considered that the first two factors are in any evciit
part of the relevant international law and the third (thc reference to "new

trends") w;is riot interpreted Iiy the Parties as requiring the Court to

1. l'hese paragraphs concludwith ihrstatenient: "lthecircurnstancctheCotirt. a:i
court of lawcannotrenderjudgmenr sub spricIfgisfcrrndar,anticipatthe lawbçîore rhc
legislaiohas laid ir down".
2. I.CJ.Heprir lm, p.38, para. '14.
.Y.Ibid.,p60,para. 72.408 COKnNENTALSHELF Clol

apply any rules or concepts that were not already part of international

law.
17. Malta will presently examine in more detail the meaning of
"equitable principles" and of "relevant circurnstances" as they are to he
applied to the present case.
18. The other respect in which the interpretation and application by

ihe Court of the Tunisia-Libu Special Agreement has a direct bearing on
the Libya-Multa Special Agreement is that of the practical application of
the principles and rules which the Court identifies as applicable to the
substantive problem. As sel out more fully in paragrapli 11 above. the

Tunisia-Libja Special Agreement requested the Court "to clarify the
practical method for the applicatiori of principles and rules in this specific
situation": while the Libja-ikfalla Special Agreement requests the Court to
decide "how in practice such principles and rules can be applied by the

two Parties in this particular case". ln both Agreements the purpose of
tliis clarification or decisioii is also expressed in almost parallel language:
"so as to enable the experts of the two countries to delimit these areas
without any difficulties" (Tunisia-Libya) and "in order that they [the

Parties] ma). without dificulty delimii such areas hy an agreement as
providcd inArticle III" (Libja-:i,lnila).
19. As to this aspect of the Turiisia-Libja case, the Court, after noting
some dilference olvietv bettveen the Parties, said:'

"The Court- iherefore, corisiders the whole controversy as of minor

iniportance, sirice ithas in nry case fabe preciseas 10 whal il decides,and
canricit agree with tlie repeated reference of Libya to 'guidaiice' as
defiriii-tgthe requiremeiit of whai the Court should specifji".

20. Mrith reference to the provision in Article 2 of the Tutiisiu-l.iba
Special Agreement, of which the corresponding part uf the Libja-itlolia
Spccial Agreement isArticle 111,the Couri saidz2

".I.hc Court's vie\\, is thai, at thai stage, there will lie rio riecd for

~icgotiation betsvcen experts of the Parties regarding the factors to be
taken into account in iheir c:ilc~ilatioris, siiice lie Court will have
deterniiried ttiai matter. 'l'hc oiily task remaining will be the techni-
cal one making possible thc cirafting of the treaty ilicorpoi-ating the

res~iltof the work by the espcrts .. .".

21. 'I'heCourt addcd to this es~i1;iiiationthat3:
" ... the fact thar the Parties have resei,\led for tliçriisel\~es the

determination, by trcaty, of the boutidary delimitiiig the two con-
tincnial shelf areas, dcies iioi prcvenr the Court from indicating ihe

1.Ibid.O.40. para. 29 (rm(iha%i*~uplilircl).
2.Ibid.p. 40. para.30.
3.Ibid.p. 78. para.iOR.Ilil MEMORIALOF MALTA 409

boundary which, in its view, wouId result frorn the application of
such method as the Court rnay choose for the Parties to achieve the
relevant determination".

22. Malta concludes that in the present case the task of the Court is to
identify the principles and rules of international law applicable to the
delimitation of the continental shelves of the two Parties with effectivety
the same degree of particularity as those principles were identified in the
Tunifia-Libya judgrnent. The Court should indicate the boundary which,

in its view, would result frorn the applicationof such method as the Court
may choose for the Parties to achieve the relevant determination. PART II
THE FACTS CEOGRAPHICAL,ECONOMIC AND GEOLOGICAL

BACKGROUND

(1) Guneraland Economzl.
23. As an island State, Malta is one of some thirty-eight such States. In

an international community consisting of some one hundred and fiftyfour
States, island States thus represent constituent element amounting to
virtually 25Ok.1In addition there is a considerable number of islands or
group of islands which have the status of associated States or are more or

less self-governing dependencies, and of which many may in the future
become independent.-
24. Every one of these island States possesses a continental shelf and
exclusive economic zone rights and many are in a situation in which they

rnay have delimitation problerns with opposite or adjacent States. Thus
the position of Malta as island State, as opposed to being merely an
island, is neither unique nor even rare.
25. Malta is an archipelago consisting of three main islands: Malta,
Comino and Gozo. They are aligned on a NW - SE axis. The NW tip of

Gozo lies approximate!y 43 nautical miles (79 kms) south of the nearest
point on the coast of Sicily. The SE tip of Malta lies approximately 183
nautical miles (340 kms) north of the nearest point on the coast of Libya.
The superficial area of the three islands is 316 sq. kms. The population of

the three islands totals 320,000.
26. The economy of Malta is basedupon rnanufacturing, ship repair,
agriculture, fisheries and tourism.
27. There are no natural resources in Malta. Minera1 surveys and oil
exploration have been carried out, bot nothing has been found. Offshore

Malta, exploration has been carried out in the area of continental shelf. "
No traces of oil or gas have been found. Exploration at a potentially
promising point,3 was forcibly prevented by Libya in 1980.'
28. It may be noted in passing that Malta's lack of resources is neither

"variable" nor "unpredictable" (tiuse the words of the Court's judgment

1. While thcrmay be dcbateasto the prccisedcfinition islanState, the following
arc States which occasannisland situation:
Antigua andBarbuda,Bahamas,Bahrain,Barbados, Cape Verdc, Cornoros,Cuba, Cypms,
Dominica, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Crcnada, Haiti, Iccland, Indoncsia, Ireland,Jamaiça,
Rcpublic of Kiribati, Madagascar, Maldives, Malta, Mauriiius: Nah'cw Zcaland,
Papua Ncw Guinca, the Philippin-, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Crcnadincs, Sao Tome,
Scychclles, Singapore, SoloIslands, SLanka,Tonga, Tnnidad and Tobago, Tuvalu,
Vanuatu, Western Samoa.
2. See Volume III Map 1.
3. The point is marked on Map 1.
4.See below,para.104.414 CONnNENTAL SHELF 1161

in the Tunisia-Libya case when referring to the relevance of economic

considerations.' Every aitempt has bcen made to seek valuable economic
resources on Malta's rerritory and none has been successful. Withotit
access to the poSsible oil deposits in the sea-bed, there is no bais for aiiy

suggestioii ihat Malta inay "become rich tomorr~w".~
29. In the context of the interest of the United Nations in "developing
island States", Malta has been placed within this category, where it is
classified as "small" in terms of arca and "very small" in terms of size of

p~pulation.~

(2) E.ricnof the TcrrilorialSea

(i) Width
30. Prior to 1971, Malta claimed a 3-mile limil for the territorial sea.

By Act No. XXXVI of 1971 (the 1971 Act): Malta extended itsclaim 10
territorial sea to six iiaulical miles. In 1978this claim was extended to 12
nautical miles.

(ii) Base-lines

31. The 1971 Act provided in section 3(1) that the limits of the
territorial sea should be "measured from low-water mark on the method

of straight base-lines joining appropriate points". These straight lines
link 26 points and enclose as interna1 waters the waters lying
between the islands of Malta, Comino and Gozo.'
32. These lines were notified to Iibya in July 1972 and were used when

Malta set out the boundary for exploration licerices in 1973."
33. Malta has not as yet established an exclusive economic zone; but, of
course, ii has aright under international latv to doso at aiiy tiine.

(3) Thesubmarineareasapperlainingto iMnlla

34. On 19 ,May 1966 Malta became a party to the Geneva

Convention on the Continental Shelf of 1958 and to the Optional
Protocol on the Settlement of Disputes. In the exercise of her right under
the Convention and urider customary international law Malta then asser-
ted her claim to fier continental shelf in the îorm of the Continental Shelf

Act, 1966."The continental shelf was defined in section 2 as meaning

"the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the Coast
of Malta but outside territorial waters, to a depth of two hundred

1.I.C.J.Rrporls1g8p. 77,para.107.
2. 1bid.
3.See belowpara. 228 (i).
4. See Volume IIIMap2.
5.See bclowpara. 35 ai63l
6.Act.No. XXXV, IcSGt 28July, 1966(Annex 1). metres or, beyond that liniit, to where the depth of the superjacent
waters admits of the exploitation of ihe natural resources of the said
areas; so however that where in relation to states of rvhich the Coast is

opposite thai of Malta it is necessary to determine the bo~indaries of
the respective continental shelves: the boundary of the cntitinental
shelf shall be that determined by agreement between Malta and such
other state or states or, in the absence of agreement, the rncdian line,

namely a line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest
points of the baseline from which the breadth of territorial waters of
Malta arid of such other States is measured".

35. On 24 April 1973a supplement to the Malta Coï~ernn~ciitGazette
contained a Notice' inviting applicatioris for production licences in the
ofshore area souih of Malta. The area open to applications (lrhich were

to be 61ed by 2 August 1973) was ideniified on a rnnp2 referred to in the
Notice and stated to be deposited at the Oii Ilivision! Ministry of
Developrnent, Vafletta and to he open to inspection there. This Notice,
after listing the coordinates of thesixteen blocks opened for applications,
stated that

"The areas of Blocks 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are subject to alterations
in the light of any agreement on the Median Line betwceii Malta

and the Libyan Arah Republic".

36. The southern boundaries of these blocks were laid down io coincide
with the equidistance line between Malta and Libya. Those concession
areas are set out in Volumt: II 1Map 3. Concessions were granted as follows:

Conccssionr Da& oJ Gran1 Oil Company

Blocks 2, 3,4 31 May 1974 Texaco Malta 1tic.

and 9
Blocks 10: 11 31 October 1974 Joc Oil Ltd.
and 14
Block 16 19 November 1974 Aquitaine Malte
S.A. et al.

Notices of the grant of these concessions were given shortly after they were
made. The main facts concernin~ the- were conveyed ro the XQaltese
Parliament by the Governhent of Malta in Statements made, respec-
tively,on 3 June 1974, 4 Novcmber 1974 and 25 November 1974. The

concessions were also given publicity in the petroleuin industry press.
37. As will be seen from Volume III 'lap 3 and ihe description of the
concessions believed to have been granted by Libya, Blocks 2, 4, 9, 10, 11,
14 and 16,al1of which lay north of the equidistance line, were overlapped

-
1. Annex2.
2.See Map atiachcdioAnnex 2.416 CONTINENTALSHELF Il81

by Libyan concession EL-NC 35A, granted by Libya to Exxon (Esso) in
September 1974. It is believed that this concession was surrendered by
Exxon in 1981. Libyan Concession EL-NC 35B, granted to Exxon in

September 1974, while not overlapping with any existing Maltese
concession, projects north of the equidistance line and, in its northwesterly
corner, overlaps with Maitese Block 6, ungranted. This concession is also
believed to have been surrendered by Exxon in 198 1.
38. Additional concessions were granted by Malta to a consortium led

by Reading and Bates Petroleurn Co. in April 1981. These lie closer
inshore, just to the West and south of Malta and Gozo.'
39. The whole area OFMalta's continental shelf as encompassed by an
equidistance line is approximately 60,000 sq. kms.
40. No territory lies due east of Malta until one reaches the Greek

islands. The point may, therefore, be made straightaway that Malta's
principal interest in the continental shelf lies in the area which Falls for
delimitation between it and Libya. Echoing the language of the Tribunal
in the AngleFrenchConlinenta 1helfArbitralion,and unlike the situation of
the United Kingdom and France in that arbitration, there is no room to

compensate Matta elsewhere for any adverse consequences of the de-
limitation with Libya. It is evident that no similar consideratioapplies to
Libya.

41. Some of the rnethods of fishing employed by Maltese fishermen
have a bearing on the present case. The first is the method known as
Kannizzati. Although it is used principally in relation to two species,
lampuki and fanfri, which are migratory in habit and seasonal

(JulylAugust-DecemberIJanu inatyeir appearance in the relevant
waters, it is nonetheless the source of asmuch as 40% of the Maltese catch.
42. The method depends upon the inclination of the relevant species to
gather in the shade of any object floating in the sea. Accordingly, the
fishermen have developed a system of laying individual fioats (kanni<rati)

to provide such shade. These used to be made of cork and would be held
in place by a line tethered to a Stone anchor resting on the sea-bottom.
More recently, because of the cost and fragility of cork, the floats have
corne to be made of bundies of palm leaves. The fish collect in the shade
of each kannizzotaand are caught by a seine net which is thrown round

the float.
43. In order to keep the series of kannyzati of one fisherman separate
from those of others, the kannizzatiare laid not at random but along
predetermined lines at variable intervals. Kannizzatifishing is licensed and
each licencestates the "ground" within which the licence holder may set

his line of floats. In practical terms, the "ground" is identifiedby the

1. SeeVolurnc 1Map 3. il91 MEMORIAL OF MALTA 417

point at which the series of kanniuati begins. The licence holder is then
entitLed to run his series of floats as far seaward from that point as he
cares to go.The end result is a pattern of lines comparable to the spokof
a wheel.

44. The relevance of the existence of this method of fishing is that
individual series okunniz~ar miay stretch over an extended distance and
many of them have for some years stretched as far as the cquidistance line
between Malta and Libya, and even beyond.
.45.The method is one of considerable antiquity. Its existence was

recognized in the firstfishery ri:gulations adopted by the Government of
Malta in 1909. At that time the band within which each series of floats
might be set was fixed at a-width of three miles and the nurnber of floats
in each series was lirnited to twenty. Now the bands are not so wide. They
are established by the fixing of a starting point and an indication of the

bearing on which the series should run seaward. Map 4 in Volume IIIis a
copy of the chart on which the starting points and bearings of the licensed
Kannzuati lines have been marked by the licensing authority, the Director
of Agriculture and Fisheries. Map 5 in Volume III isa cliart showing the
overall area within which kannirtatifishing has now developed with the

advent of modern fishing boats. The outer limits of some lineof kanniz~ati
are as much as 150 miles from their starting points. These lines remain in
place throughout the season Uuly/August-December/January).
46. In addition, Maltese fishermen have used longline fishing for
swordfish and tuna; and bottom longlining and trawling for bottom fish.
Although the location of fishing banks is a closely guarded secret of

individual fishermen,it is known that longlining has been going on in the
Medina Bank and beyond, and that trawling grounds on the 100 and 200
fathom line in the south attracta sizeable number of craft in the winter
months. Map 5 in Volume IIIalso indicates the area within which trawIing
by Maltese fishermen takes place. '

(1) Centraland Etonornie

47. The general and economic position of Libya is strikingly diqèrent
frorn thatof Malta.
48. Libya is one of the largest States in Africa, as can be seen from
@ Map No. 1 in the Libyan Memorial (30 May 1980) in the Tzmisia-libya

case. The area of this territory is 1.8 million sq. kms. (compared to
Malta's 316 sq. kms.). Its Coast stretches from Ras Ajdir, in the West, to
near Port Bardia, in the east, a distance along a directwest-east line of
apprnxirnately 1280 kms. and of actual coastline of about 1850 kms.
49. The population of Libya is 3.13 million (compared to Malta's

320,000).
50. The dominating feature of Libya's economy is the production and418 CONTINENTAL SHELF [201

sale of mineral products, mainly oil. The export value of this commodity
in the years, 1976-1980 was (in U.S. dollars) as foliowsl:

1976 3 8.3 billion
1977 S 9.75 billion
1978 3 9.5 billion

1979 $15.2 billion
1980 $22.5 billion

With these figures may be compared Malta's tohlcxports (in U.S. dollars)
in each of the same yearsg:
1976 $228.3 million

1977 8308.7 million
1978 $362.7 million
1979 $442.3 million
1980 $470.7 million

51. The areas which Libya claims ascontinental shelf will no doubt be
described in the Libyan Memorial in the prescnt case.
52. Malta at this point restricts itself to noting that the area of Libya's
continental shelf, calculateà by reference to the Tunisin-Libyajudgment,
as between Libya and Tunisia, and by reference to the equidistance
principle elsewhere, and constructcd on the low water mark, is appro-
ximately 400,000 sq. kms. This is about seven times the size of the entire

continental shelfclaimed by Malta vlr-à-uial1her neighbours on the basis
of equidistance.
53. Libya has granted a numbcr of concessionsin the continental shelf
north of the Libyan coast. Two of these, EL-NC 35A and EL-NC 35B,
have already been mentioned as projecting north of the equidistance line
and overlapping with concessions granted by Malta. A third EL-NC 87
was granted to Exxon in july 1977. This area iies south of the equidis-
tance line, but touches it aitsnortheastern corner. These concessions are .

marked on Map 3in Volume III.

54. Malta lies about 340km. (183 nautical miles) north of the Libyan
mainland and approximately 80 km. (43 nautical miles) south of Sicily.
To the west of Malta lies Tunisia at a distance of about 370km.

(200 nautical miles). Closer to the west, however, lie the Italian islands of
Linosa, Lampedusa, Lampione and Pantclleria, at distances of 119 km.

1. InlmialwFinancialSta~irfiu,I.M.F.,1982.,
2. ORlciaSrarisiiThe figuregivcninclude rc-exporu.121] MEMORIAL OF MALTA 419

(64 n. miles), 152 km. (82 n. miles), 177 km. (96 n. miles) and 205 km.
(111 n. miles), respectively, from the nearest point in Gozo.
55. The islands constituting hiIalta are emergent parts of the Maltese
plateau (sometimes called Ibleo-Malta Plateau) which extends over a

much greater submarine area than that suggested by their position.
56. The seafloor between Malta and Libya exhibits a generally
eaçt-west or northwestsoutheast trending relief. Broadly to the south of
Malta are a series of deep troughs reaching over 1000m. in depth known
geologically as the Pantelleria and Linosa graben (also known as"Fosse

de Malte", "Fosse de Linosa" and 'Chenal de Medina"). Mid-way be-
tween Malta and Libya is a broad shallow region, mostly less than 400 m.
deep cal1ed the.Plateaux of Melita and Medina. Geologically this isan
elevated region bounded to the north and south by fault systems. ON the

coast of Libya isafurrow running east-wesl called the Tripolitanian Furrow.
In the Libyo-Tunisia Conlinenln1 Shrlf case the Coiirt took the viewl that
this "submarine valley does not display any really marked relief until it has
run considerably further to thc east than the area relevant to the
delimitation".

57. The entire region south of Malta as far as the Libyan coast relevant
to this case forms a continuous continental shelf. In the geological
terminology of continental margins, no continental slopes descending to
abyssal depths are found in this area.

1. 1.C.J. Rtpr1982,p.57, para66. CWAPTER n

MALTA'SNEUTRALITY

58. In order to complete what the Court of Arbitratioii in the
Anglo-French ContinenlalShelfArbitrationhas called "the legal framework
within which the Court must decide the course of the boundaryH1 it is

appropriate to bring to the notice of the Court that since 15 May 1981
Malta is a Keutral State. On that date a Declaration concerning the
Neutrality of Malta made by the Government of Malta was approved by
the Maltese Parliament. The Declaration defines the status of iietitrality
with regard, inlerah, to non-alignment: to foreign military bases, military

facilities to foreign forces, the presence of foreign military personnel on
Maltese territory and the use of the shipyards of Malta for the repair of
military vessels.
59. This status of neutrality has been afirmatively received and re-

cognized, or even guaranteed, in a variety of forrns by Algeria, Bulgaria,
China. the Commonwealth, the European Community, France, Greece,
Guinea, Italy, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Libya, hloroc-
CO,the Non-Aligned Movement, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Turiisia,

the USSR and Yugoslavia.
60. Although Malta's geographical position in the Mediterranean Sea
issuch that access to her territory for military purposes could be of great
importance toany one of a number of States, Malta's declared2 and widely

recognized status of neutrality now excludes this possibility. Under this
status Malta is barred fi.oni acquiescing in the preseiice of any foreign
military base on Maltese territory or the provision of military facilities to
any foreign forces Save where necessary for the defence of Malta or in
piirsuance of measures decided by the Security Council of the United

Nations. The use of the shipyards in Malta is limited to civil commercial
purposes, 10 the repairof military vesselswhich have been put in a state of
non-combat, and to the construction of vessels; and the use of the Maltese
shipyards is completely denied to the military vessels of the two

superpowers.
61. In economic terms this means that Malta cannot derive the
considerable financial benefit that might otherwise accrue to it from
payments connected with the use of her territory for or in connection with

rnilitary bases.

1. Decision of30Junc 19IntcnialioLawReports,ol.54, p6,para. 187.
2.Anncx 3. HISTORY OF RELEVANT lSIATIONS
BETWEEN THE PARTLES

62. The question of the delimitation of the continental shelf between
the Parties appears first to have been discussed in July 1972.

63. At the meeting held in Maita between Libyan and ait te se
delegations, Malta presented a draft agreement, accompanied by a map,'
setting out in specific detail MaIta's proposais for a boundary based on

equidistance. The line was constructed on the basis of Malta's straight
base-lines,P includinthe use of the island of Filfla as a base point, and of
Libya's low-water mark line.
64. The Libyan delegation did not reject the principle of an equi-
distance line but questioned the usof Filfla as a base-point and indicated
that they wanted the CO-ordinaieschecked by their experts.

65. On 23 April 1973 a further visit was paid to Malta by a delegation
from Libya. The position of the Libyan deiegation on this occasion was
rnaterially different from that adopted previously. Libya now came

forward with a draft agreement proposing a line which paid no regard to
equidistance but lay well to the north of hlalta's proposed equidistance
fine? Libya explained that this line had regardo the respective lengths of
coastline of Libya and MaIta, the length of the former being taken as
extending from the Tunisian border to Misurata: in other words the

distance between the two coastlines was divided in the same proportions
that the two shorelines bore to each other.

Messagefrom thePrimeMinirter ofMalta !Othe Chairmanof IheRcuolutionary
CommandCouncil Libya, 23April 1973

66. The terrns of Libya's proposa1 led the Prime Minister of Malta
immediately to communicate its unacceptability to Col. Gaddafi. At the
same time, the Prime Minister of Malta proposed an urgent meeting
between himself and the Prime Minister of Libya and concluded by
indicating that

"Meantime, itis now impossible for us to evade the commitments we
have made with international oil companies and tenders are bcing
called for with a provision;il Medi'an Line identical with the one

which was submitted to your Government over a year ago."

1. Annex 4.
2.Sm abovc,para. 31,
3.Annex 5. CONTINENïAL SHELF

Mttfing of26 April 1973

67. A meeting was rapidly arranged in Tripoli between representatives
of Malta and the Prime Minister of Libya at which each side restated its

position- Malta, that of equidistance; Libya, that of proportionality.
Meetingof 3 July 1973

68. The next meeting, on 3 July 1973, was unproductive, with neither
side biinging forward new proposals, each having expected the other to

corne with fresh suggestions.nthe ensuing but inconsequential discussion
Malta emphasized the full entitlement of sovereign island States.

Communication of ltgal rnmorandumby Mal& foLibya,27 Novernber1973
69. On 27 November 1973 Malta sent to Libya a rnernorandurn to

the effect that the use of a line of equidistance had been supported by
Dr Rouhani and Dr Pachachi (both of whom had been Secretaries-
General of OPEC) and had been confirmed in a legal opinion rendered
by a firm of Norwegian lawyers.

Menwrandum from Malta, 1 Januoy 1974

70.On 1January 1974 Malta sent Libya a memorandum recalling the
urgency of Malta's need fora settlement of the continental shelf boundary
and stressed Malta's economic needs. Libya did not respond.

Mrssage from Malta, 25 March 1974

71. The urgency of the situation was again stated by the Prime
Minister of Malta in a message to the Chairman of the Revolutionary .
Cornmand Council on 25 March 1974.

Talks betweenMalta and Libya, IOApril 1974

72.A meeting took place between the Prime Minister of Malta and
Mr Ben Amer, a Libyan Minister, on 10 April 1974 in which the Prime
Minister again referred to the need not to lose time and recalled an earlier
proposal that independent advice should be sought. Mr Ben Amer said
that Libya had not accepted such a proposal and, in his turn, suggested
that each side should abandon its position in favour of a coinpromise

proposai. The Prime Minister replied that this was not acceptable. Both
sides accepted the idea that a draftsubmission to arbitration should be
prepareà, including tirne limitsso that the rnatter might be resolved
promptly.

Agrctmcnt bctwtm Maltn and Ttxaco Malta Inc.,31 May 1974

73. Eventually, Maita found itself in a position in which it could no
longer delay the conclusion with Texaco Malta Inc. of an agreement for
offshore oil exploration. On 31ay 1974Texaco was granted exploration
rights in Blocks 2, 3, 4 and 9 shown on Map 3 in Volume III. This 1251 MEMORlAL OF MALTA 423

agreement was announced by the Prime Minister of Malta in Parliament
on 3 June 1974. On 25 June 1974 the Embassy of Libya in Malta officially
requested acopy of the Agreement. The request was refused on 27 Juiie
1974, but a copy of the Prime Minister's summary of the agreement was

sent to Libya. Libya subsequently reserved its position in general terms by
a Note Verbale of 30 June 1974.
74. On 14July 1974 Libya enquired as to the accuracy of a news item
in the Time s/Molto to the effect thaa çurvey ship would be carrying out
seismic tests for the next two months at a distance of 40 miles south of

Malta. On 17July 1974 Libya asked for a map showing the areas over
which Texaco Matta was permitted to carry out exploration activities.

~Maba's~Votc , August1974
75. Malta replied to the Libyan Note Verbale of 14 July 1974 on 8
August 1974, indicating where the seismic vesse1 had been operating,

stating that the area was north of the equidistance line and explaining
that this was why Malta could not accept the reservation made by Libya
in its Note of30 June 1974. Attached to the Note was a copy 01'Malta's
Notice of 24 April 1973 inviting applicationsfor exploration permits and
of the map attached thereto.'

76. In this Note the Maltese Government also took the opportunity of
recording that Malta could not accept or recognize Libya's claim to the
Gulf of Sirte made in the previous September.

Libya'sWarning Llkrs, 8 Jun~1975
77. For the next ten months little happened on either side: Malta's

licensees conducted seismic surveys in their areas and Libya granted the
concessions referred to in paragraph 37 above.
78. Then, on 8 june 1975 Libya addressed letters to the licensees of
Malta stating that the areas granted to them fel1within Libyan con-
tinental shelf, that no activities might be carried on there withoLibya's

permission and that unauthorized activities would jusiify "the adoption of
any measures deemed necessary to safeguard Our legitimate rights"'.

Mulla's WurningLelttr~,17and23June 1975
79. At about the same time Malta learned of the grant of concessians
by Libya to Compagnie Des Pétroles Total (Libya) and to Exxoii

Corporation. On 17 and 23June 1975 Malta sent warning letterszto these
concessionaires requesting an assurance that operations would not be
carried on in the area of Maltais continental shelf. As far as Malta is
aware - and this is confirmeci by the replies received from the Libyan
concessionaires - no activities were carried out by them nortli of the

equidistance line.

1. Scc Annc2.
2. Annexcs 6, 7 a8.
3. Annexes 9and 10. CONTINENTAL SHELF [261

The conclusionof theSpecialAgrtemenl

80. 'I'owards the end ol' 1975, I.,ibya intimated to Malta that it
would look favourably on Malta's suggestion that the dispute should be
siihmitted to the International Court of Justice. Malta ihereupon pre-

pared a draft special agreernerit of which the principal feature was a
request to the Court to draw the dividing line separatiiig the cr)riiiriental'
shelf areas lying between Malta and Libya.1 This draft was handed by the
l'rime Minister of Malta to Minister Ben Amer of I,iliya ai a meeting iri

'I'ripoli on3January 1976.
81. On 27Jaiiiiary 1976 Libya foi\\~arded ta klalta the texi ol'a 1,ibyaii
drafi.' This differed frorn the h*ialtese drafr in limiting the task of the
Court to a statement of the principles of international law to tie applied to
the determiiiation of the continental shelf areas lving tietweeii the two

couiitries aiid in rcqiiiring thc statenierii rit'principles to çovei tlie exclusive
ecoriornic zoric. ~licr the decision of'theCourt, ihe Parties wirentcr into
discussioris to conclude ari agr-eenicrit to determirie the reslicctivc arcas OS
iiiiisdiction.
82. A meeting then took place between the two sides oii 5 Febrriary

1976 at which it was iridicated gribehalf of klalia rhar the cekrences to
thc cconomic zone should be deleted as al that time therc was no
international law or con\~e~itioroii the matter but it was a legal concept
in evolution. There was also discussion about the order and timing of

pleadings and the sources d' law to be applied by the Coiirt. On 11
March 1976, at a meeting betwçen Mr Camilleri (Malta) arid Minister
Bçri Amer (Libya) it was agreed tliat the periods for pleadings con-
ternplated in thc Libyaii draft shtruld be sliorteried.
83. This was followed by a visit to Libya on 7 and 8 April 1976 of'the

Attorney-General of Malta, wlio met Minister Ben Amer, at which tlie
remaining diflèrences were narrowed - in particular as regards the role of
the Court.
84, A further meeting was then held betweeri the Prime hlinister of

hlaltri and hIr Ben Amer oii 14 April 1976 at'which liirther progress rvas
made and on 23 May 1936 thcSpecial Agreement was sigricd at Valletta.
85. 1t urasalso agreed by an cscharige of letiers on that day ttiat the
representatives of Malta would speak first in the oral hearings.

Katijicaiia(i tJrS~tcialAgrtpmrrit

8fj. Malia ratified the Special Agreement withiii [ive days, oii 28 May
197b.:i
87. I.ibya, on the other hand, delayed its ratification for nearly six

),cars. iintil 19 hlarch1982. Several rimes betivecn May and December 1271 MEMORIAL OF MALTA 425

1976 Malta called the attention of Libya to the importance of prompt
ratification of the Agreement. Eventually, on 3 Decernber 1976,the Prime

Minister of Malta was obliged to draw to the attention of Colonel
Gaddafi the economic need for Malta to proceed with exploratioii in the
continental shelf area south of Malta. The Prime Minister went on to say:
"1 am ready to interpret your silence following receipt of this letter as

implying your approval that Libp, as a friendlygesture towards Malta,
will let Malta drill in the area up to the Median Line that is exactly
equidistant between our two countries.
"Therefore: if by the first day of the new year? we will not receive a

reply other than an acknowledgment of oui- lettcr, 1 will assume that this
is indeed your wish."'
88. When the Prime Minister of Malta met the Minister of Labour and
Public Services of Libya on 14 Decernber 1976:the Prime &linister again
stressed the need for a favourable answer frorn Libya.

89. Five days later, on 19 Becernber 1976, Major Jalloud, Prime
Minister of Libya, sent a letter to the Prime Minister of Malta, which
represented a significant set-back in the move towards judicial settlement
and the prospect of economic dcvelopment by Malta of the continental

shelf area pertaining to it. Major Jalloud observed that the subject was
not an easy one and that "it cannot be settled quickly because the
International Laws in this regard did not establish fixed basis yet". He
then went on to veto further unilateral exploration activity by Malta by

saying, albeit in diplornatic language:
"No doubt: accordingly, that you share with me the opinion that it is

in the interest of oiir two friendly people not to take quick decisions
from one side. Instructions have been issued to the appropriatc
experts in the Libyan Arab Republic to give priority to this subject
in their researches and studies in order to reach a definite opitiion in

the nearest time. Such studies would, naturally, include the
agreement signed last May which you referred to in your letter."

90. No doubi one factor in the situation was the decision which Libya
had taken in August 1976 also to submit the continental shelf bouridary
dispute with Tunisia to the International Court ofJu~tice.~ This decision
was implemented by the signature on 10 June 1977 of the Special

Agreement between Tunisia and Libya and an exchange of ratifications
on 27 February 1978.
91. But when on 20June 1977 the Prime Ministers of Libya and Malta
met in Malta the Prime Minister of Libya said that the document signed

between Malta and Libya had to be revised on the basis of the conditions
agreed with Tunisia; the two agreements could then be ratified together

1. Anncx 14.
2. See Tunirio-Li6jointCommuniqué, 24 August 1976, conccrninthe Continental
ShelC(Tunisia-Likya,I.C.J. Plcadings, Libyan Mcmorial, 1-11).426 CONTINENTAL SHELF 1281

and the matter referred to The Hague in early January 1978. The Primc
Minister of Malta took exception to this, saying that the ratification of the
Libya-Matta agreement should proceed on the basis of'the text already
agreed. The Prime Minister of Libya said that he could not guarantee

that the People's Committee would consent to ratification of the text as
agreed.
92. No further step was taken on the Libyan side. So, seven months
later, on 14 January 1978, the Prime Minister of Malta .yet again
addressed a letter to Colonel Gaddafi, referring to the delay in ratifi-
cation, expressing his lack of understanding of the causes for it, and saying

that "the people of Malta are anxious for exploration work to start:
because if oii is found by 1979 our Island would be able to face its future
as a neutral country with greater courage".'
93. In March 1978 Libya proposed further talks on the subject and on
3-5 May 1978 a Libyan representative went to Malta with a proposal to

re-open the negotiations which had led to the agreement of May 1976. As .
the Prime Minister of Malta said in a letter to ColoneGaddafi of 12 May
1978,

"the Libyan proposal puts the clock back at least six years and
expects the Government of Malta to start again from ~cratch".~

94. There was then silence on both sides for a full year until 4 May
1979 when Malta, on seeing a reference to the problem in a book
published by the Information and Membership Secretariat of Libya,
suggested that thisclearly meant that Libya had found a solution to the

problern and asked what the solution might be. There was no reply.
95. On 16October 1979, during a visit to Libya, the Prime Minister of
Malta raised with the Prime Minister of Libya the possibility of establish-
ing a margin extending five miles wide on each side of the equidistance
line within which neither country would conduct exploration activities
until the boundary was finally established. The Prime Minister of Libya

countered with a proposal to reconsider the 1976 Agreement, in parti-
cular by deleting the Iast four lines of the English text of Article 1 and
providing for consecutive, instead of sirnultaneous,itten pleadings, with
Malta to start. It was then agreed that the experts of the two countries
should rneet ai the beginning of Novernber.

96. On 21 November 1979 Malta found itnecessary to complain to
Libya that the latterhad not fulfilled the undertaking foa meeting early
in November and expressed anxiety that proceedings were not moving
quickly enough to secure ratification of the agreement during the current
year's session of the Popular Congresses. Malta said that any new
proposals which Libya might make should be ones which had first been

authorized by the Popular Congresses and could be implemented without

1. Annex 15.
2. Anncx 16: [291 MEMoRIAL OF MALTA 427

the need for reference back to the Congresses for ratificatioii. For its part,
Malta was prepared to modify its own proposa1 regarding the identifi-
cation of the disputed area by extending the margin on each sidc of the
equidistance line from five to fifteen miles in width. Malta emphasized

that it could not postpone any longer the exploitation of that part of the
continental shelf appertaining to Malta.'
97. This note was promptly foflowed by a visit to IAibya by the
Attorney-General of Malta and the Secretary of the Ministry of'Foreign
Affairs of Malta on 26-29 November 1979. Malta indicated that itcould

not postpone drilling any longer. Libya sought to re-open the 1976
Agreement by proposing that the agreement would be riotified to the
Court within six months of the exchange of ratificationsthat Malta
would submit its memorial first arid that the Court should not he given
jurisdiction to enter into practical matters of drawing the line.

98. When the Maltese delegation indicated that it saw the Libyan
proposais as an attempt to delay matters, the Libyan representative
indicated, for the first time, that Libya could not cope with two
International Court proceedings sirnultaneously. Libyaoltéredno explana-
tion of why the proceedings with Tunisia should be taken before those

with Maita. Malta said that it could only accept the proposa1 that the
Court should not go into the practical methods of drawing the dividing
line if there werea provision that if the Parties could not agree on a line
within three months of the Coiirt's decision, either could go back to the
Court for clarifications with a view to facilitating theconclusion of the

Agreement. Libya resisted this.
99. The representatives of Malta repeated that Malta had decided to
go ahead with drilling operations. Libya replied that this would endanger
relations between the two countries. It was agreed that a further meeting
should take place sufficiently çoon to leave enough time for Libya to

submit the matter to the Popular Congresses for ratification in January
1980.
100. When the Prime Minister of Malta next visited Tripoli on 23
April 1980 he again notified 1,ibya of Malta's intention to commence
drilling up to fifteen miles from the equidistance line. The Prime Minister
of Libya replied that Libya would protest against and resist such an

action. At the end of the meeting the'Prirne Minister of Libya said that
the 1976 Agreement would be ratified and that the two sides wouldgo to
the Court in June (1980).
101. On 10 May 1980 Libya addressed a Note Verbale2 to Maita

informing Maita that Libya had corne to know about the grant of
concessions by Malta in what Libya claimed to be Libya's continental
shelf, denounced this violation of its rights and declared its non-
recognition of acts which would aKect its sovereignty. This was Libya's

1. Anncx 17.
2. Anncx 18.428 CONTINENTAL SHELF i301

first diplornatic protest in respect of the concessions granted by Malta in
1974.
102. At a meeting between a Libyan and a Maltese dclegation on 12

Ma): 1980, the rcpreseiita~iv~ of 1,ibya again promiscd ihat the questioii
oi'deliniitation would be subinitleci to the l'eoplc's Çongrcsscs laier in the
niont h.
103. On 21 Xlay 1980 ihc Ministry of Foreign Anairs of Malta replied

Ily a Norc Verbale' ro thc 1,ibyati communication oi' II)May 1980,
rejectiiig as unf'ounded and inadmissible I..iliya's clairntriareas of
continental shcll'civer which )Malta had granted ccincessions. 'l'he Maliesc
Note recalled that none tifthe concessioiis had been grantcd later thaii
iVovcrnbcr 1'374.It alsn drew attention ro itsowii protests of' 17 and 23

June 1975 against 1-ibya's grants of concessions falling within the area 01'
Malta's continental shclf.
104. On 20 August 1980, an Italian rig in use by l'exaco Malta Inc.
for the purposc of drilling in Block 3 in the region of'the Mediiia Bank"

was approached by Libyan warships and, despite protests by the
Government of Malta and by the licensees and their contractors, was
forced to stop drilling and wirhdraw from the site. On 30 August, 1980
the rnatter was referred by Malta to the Security Council of the United

Nations as one which was of poteiitial danger to peace and security in the
region.On 17 October, 1980 the Secretary-Ceneral of theUnited Nations
wrote to the Security Council informing the Council that with the
agreement of the parties he intended to appoint a Special Representative

to help in the search for a mutually acceptable solution" The proposa1
was accepted by the Council and the Secretary-General was so informed
on 22 October, 1980" The Secretary-Ceneral then appointed Mr. Diego
Cordovez as his Special Kcprcsentative and on 13 November, 1980 he

reported to the Council on Mr. Cordovez's mission to Mafia and the
Libyan Arah Jamahiriya5. In due course, in part as a result of the
activities of the Special Representative, 1,ibya ratificd the Special
Agreement on the basis of which the present proceedings have
commenced.

1.Annex tg.
2. SeeVolume III Map 1.
3. U.3. Diiç.S/14228.
4. U.N. Diic.. S(14229.
5. U.N.Dy., S/14256.PART III

THE LAW 105. Malta's legal rights in respect of appurtenant areas of continental
shelf were confirmed and regulated by means of the Continental Shelf Act

adopted in 1966'. The provisions of the Act established a median line
delimitation. This delimitation was in accordance with the principles and
rules of customary international iaw existing in 1966; and legal develop-

ments since then, and State practice in particular, have provided further
confirmation of the validity of Malta's median line boundary.
106. The delimitation of 1966 was subject to any agreement which
rnight be concluded with States "of which the Coast is opposite that of

Maltans, a condition which merely reflected the possibility of aiterations
derived [rom the necessary adjustrnents of a negotiated settlement. The
position of Malta in this respect was like that of any other coastal State
which, by unilateral rneasures, satisfies the need to confirrn-and regulate

its cornplement of legal rights over adjacent shelf areas. It is normal
experience to find that a delimitation effected in accordance with Iegal
principles is, at some subsequent period, and in greater or lesser degree,

the subject of diplomatic controversy. The contingency of the negotiated
settlement of such a controversy cannot be said to impugn the legal
validity of the median line as constituting the statu quo.
107. In accordance with her views on the relevant principles and rules

of international law, Malta in April 1973 invited applications for .
Production Licences in the area of continental shelf to the ou th.^ The
area open for applications consisted of sixteen blocks4. The licensing
arrangements were based upon the principle of equidistance in the form of

a median lines. This development involved the implementation of the
rnedian line delimitation establishcd in Malta's legislation of 1966.
108. The equidistance line estaldished and consistently maintained by
Malta is based upon the appropriate method for achieving an equitable

solution in accordance with the principles and rules of international law
applicable to the delimitation of areas of continental shelf as between
opposite States.

1. 2July 1966, Annex 1.
2. Sec Section 2 of the Act of 1966; and sec theNotice of24 April 1973, Anncx 2,
which siated chat"Thc arcaof Blocks12,13, 14, 1and 16 arcsubjcctto alttrations in ihc
lightolany agreementon the Median Linc bctwccn Malta and the Libyan ArabRcpublic".
3. For thedocumcniaiion see above para.35.
4. Sce thehiap auached toAnnex 2.
5. See above para. 36. CONTINENTALSHELF

109. The legal justification for the equidistance line in the present case
lies in the equitable nature of the delimitation in accordance with the

principles and rules ofcustomary international law. The statement of the
basic principle - that the delimitation musc be in accordance with
equitable principles which lead to an equitable result - is to be derived
frorn judicial exposition of the law. On the other hand, as the word
"equitable" is not in al1 respects definite, the determination of what it

means in the specific context of continental shelf delimitation must, ifit is
not to be arbitrary but objectively justifiable, take due account of the
practice of States. As will be shown in Chapter VI1 of this Mernorial, this
practice provides ample confirmation that in the present case the method
which is equitable is that of equidistance. The equitable nature of the

equidistance line receives further confirmation in the form of the practice
of the States of the Mediterranean regionl and the conduct of the partiesa.

1. Scebclow, paras. 196-200.
2. Secbclow, paras.Ml-207. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL FACTS

1. THEPRINCIPL EHE EQUITABR I-ESUL MUST REFLECï'THE
GEOGRAPHIF CACLTS

110. The delimitation of the continental shelf rnust start from the

geographical facts in each particiilar case. This principlwas formulated
in the Decision of the Court in theAngleFrench ContinentalSheifArbitration
as followsl: "the validity of the equidistance method, or of'any other
rnethod, as a means of achieving an equitable delimitation of the con-

tinental shelf is always relative to the particular geographical situation".
The Court reiterated this principle in several important passages of the
Decision in which the importance ofthe "geographical facts" was stressed.
The following passageZ provides an example ofthis insistence:

"In short, this Court considers that the appropriateness of the
equidistance method or of any other method for the purpose of

effecting an equitable delimitation is a function or refiection of the
geographical and other relevant circumstances of each particular
case."

111. At the sarne time in the passage just quoted the Court of
Arbitration was careful to relate the appropriateness of the method of

delimitation to the geographical and other relevantn'rcums~anteosf each
particular case.

112. In the light of the principle that the vahdity of any method of
delimitation is always related to the particular geographical situatioit is
necessary to review the significant geographical facts in the present case.

113. Malta is an island State and the entire group of islands has a total
length of about 28 miles.The principal island in its southern aspects is in
every sense opposite the Coast of Libya. Moreover, both the island of
Malta and the Libyan coastline have a certain tilt, at an attitude

northwest to southeast. The entire Libyan coastline is not less than 180
nautical miles from Malta and in some sectors the distance is greater.
There are no intervening islands and the seabed is a continuum in
geological terms.

1. Decision30Junc 1977,infrrmtionafLRrporr,ol. 54p. 6, para. 84.
2. Ibid.,para. 97. ForsireferencinthiDccisionseeparagraph95, 103, 181-183,
191, 194199,201,233-242.434 CONTINENTAL SHELF i361

114. These are the facts which constitute the geographical framework
of the delimitation to be effected. There are no incidental or unusual

geographical features. No Maltese islands exist near the Libyan shore. No
peninsulas complicate the picture. There are simply certain large-scale
geographical data: the island State of Malta standing at a considerable
distance from the coastline of Libya. Two coastal States thus face one

another in a very simple setting, in the absence of narrow seas or other
special circumstances.
115. This setting is such that any revision of the shtu quo - the
equidistance Line which is the established boundary - would be incon-
sistent with the principles enunciated so clearly by the Court in the Norlh

SeaConlinenta S1helfCasesl :

"Equit): does not necessarily imply equality. There can never be
any question of compietely refashioning nature, and equity does not
require that a State without access to the sea should be allotted an
area of continental shelf, any more than there could be a question of
rendering the situation of a State with an extensive coastline similar

to that of a State with a restricted coastline. Equality is to be
reckoned within the sarne plane, and it is not such natural in-
equalities as these that equity could remedy."

116. These basic principles were reiterated by the Court in the
Anglo-Fremh Continenta lhelfArbitrafion.In particular, the following pas-
sage occurs in the Court's Decision:'

"The equitable delimitation of the continental shelf is not ... .a

question of apportioning - sharing out - the continental shelf
amongst the States abutting upon it. Nor is it a question of sirnply
assigning them areas of the shelf in proportion to their coastlines; for
to do this would be to substitute for the delimitation of boundaries a
distributive apportionment of shares."

117. In the circumstances of the presen tcase the equidistance method
is entirely appropriate since it produces an equitable result. Libya obtains

an impressive longitudinal spread of continental shelf, a fact which is
illustrated in Figures A and BS. In accordance with the equidistance
method, Libya obtains an area of approximately 400,000 square kilo-
metres and Malta an area of 60,000 square kilornetres. In this sense
geography has bestowed considerable benefits upon Libya.

118. Similarly, given Malta's position at distances of 180 miles and
more from Libya, together with the natural reach of controlling base-
points even on a modest coastal frontage, Malta receives a certain area

1. I.C.JRcporis1969p. 49, para. 91.
2.InkrnntwnnLQW RLporl, ol. 54,p. 6, para. 191.
3.Se below,withrcfcrcnctoparas.43-247. PI MEMORIAL OF MALTA 435

of shelf, the size and distribution of which reflect Malta's existence and
location. Consequently, geography has also srniled upon Malta, though

not in the same way as it has on Libya.
119. It may be noted that, cin the hypothesis that Malta did not exist,
an equidistance line as between Libya and Italy would leave Libya with
an area certainly not greater than the area which in the past Libya

claimed against Malta1. This fact provides a striking confirmation of the
inequity of any solution which avoids affording full effect to al1 coastal
States in this region of the Mediterranean. As a perusal of the map2 will
reveal, the position adopted in the Libyan proposal of 1973 could
presumably be advanced also against Italy (on the samc hypothesis, that

no effect is given to Malta), since the island of Sicily in its southern
aspects does not have the same longitudinal extension as Libya. The point
is, of course, that opposite coastal States are often of different con-

figurations, but thisdoes not necessarily aKect the delimitation of the shelf
areas dividing them.
120. In the context of delimitation geographical facts have significance
prirnarily in relation to base-points and construction lines. Each type of

feature and circumstance has its own benefits and drawbacks. An exten-
sive coastline generates a longitudinally extensive area of shelf rights and
yet, at thesame time, given the way in which alignrnents are constructed,
many potential base-points on a long, more or less regular, coastline are

in a sense wasted or redundant. In the same way, a centrally placed,
regularly shaped, island or peninsula wjll support a smaller number of
basepoints which will, nonetheiess, generate an appropriately ampl: area
of appurtenant continental shelf. There is no absolute correlation between

the extent of a shelf area and the nurnber of basepoints which generate it.

121. Thus it foilows that any Coast whichabutsupon lieshrqarea to bc

drlimited has considerable significance, even though the actual frontage
involved is more or less modest in extent. The Decision of the Court in the
AngleFrench ContinentalShclfArbilraliongives emphasis to this feature of
delimitation. In certain geographical contexts relatively short sectors of

"relevant" or, in other words, abutting or controlling coasts, may provide
the basis for delimitation by rneans of the equidistance rnethod. The
overriding factors are twofold: First, the existence of a relevant frontage
and, secondly, a relationski#between the abutting coasts and the appur-

tenant areas of shelf?
122. The matter can be expressed in the proposition that, aparlfrom
unusual gsogrophica llemrnts,any coastafleature counh equnllyand musi be

1. Forthe Libyan clairnsabovc,para. 65Sccalsothemap atAnncx 5.
2. SccAnncx 5.
3. In~r~tionalLw Reporb,Vol. 54p.6, para.240-243,248. 436 CONTINENTAL SHELF 138-391

giuen ihe approprialecontrollingcffect. This important factor lies behind
the conclusion of the Court in the An~fo-FrenchArbitrationin favour. of
applying the equidistance principle to ihe Atlantic region.
123. The conclusion of the Court's reasoning is to be found in para-

graph 248 of the Decision:
"The Courtconsidersthat the method of delitnilalionwhuhilhad0ptfor the

Aflanficregionmusl beonelhathasrelation &Othecoasfsof ihe Partiesactualiy
abuttingohthecontinentas lheifof that region'.Essentially, these are the
coasts of Finistère and Ushant on the French side and the coasts of
Cornwall and the Scilly Isles on the United Kingdom side. ...Both

Ushant and the Scilly Isles are ... islands of a certain size and
populated; and, in the view of the Court, they both constitute
natural geographical facw of the Atlantic region which cannot be
disregarded in delimiting the continental shelf boundary without

'refashioning geography'. . . ."
124. The significance of the Angla-FrenchArbitrationcalls for proper

emphasis. It is not suggested that the coastal relationshipsin the Atlantic
region are sirnilar in al1 respects to the relationships in the present case.
The parallel lies in the fact that,becawetheareasinvoivedwerenot in narrow
seas,shelf areas extended for long distances from the abutting or controll-

ing coastal features. In such circumstances the equidistance method was
applied to give the same effect in principle both to the very attenuated
feature of the Cornish peninsula and to the outlying Scilly IslesZas in the
case of the considerably more substantial mainland of Finistère.
125. The significance of short abutting coasts is illustrated in the

practice of States. In the Agreement signed on behalf of the Governments
of Denmark and Norway on 15June 197g3 the boundary beiween the
Norwegian coasts and the Faroes is expressly stated to be the median iine.
Thus, in a situation of opposite coasts, the relatively small feature

constituted by the Faroes generates as much appurtenant shelf as the
mainland of Norway. The delimitation between Bahrain and Iran pro-
vides a further example and the State practice set forth in Chapter VI1
indudes several dozen examples4.
126. The evidence both of principle and practice leads to the con-

clusion that, in the absence of unusual geographical features, the coasts of
Malta and Libya must play their proper and normal rôle in producing an
equitable delimitation of appurtenant areas of continental shelf.

1,Emphasissupplicd.
2.Subjmtto uimcadjustmcntinihc lattcase:Decision,paras.245251.

3. Tcxt supplicd otficially through diplornaticcandntranslated- Annex 20 and
mapoppasirc.
4. For the subsiantial State practice,see below, para. 185et scq, [al MEMORIAL OF MALTA 437

127. In seeking an equitable solution the geographical facts are to be
considered in the context of legal pnnciple. The relevance of coasts must
be weighed with necessary care and finesse. Thus the geographical

configuration relevant to the determination of an equiiable rnethod of
delimitation consists not rnerely of 'coasts', of whatever length, but to a
considera ble exten t of the ~elationshipsf coasts. The locationand relationof
coastlinesare the overriding factors.Itis thepositioof Malta at a dis~ancfrom
theLibyancous&a,nd theabsence of inknieningislands,whichare as importantas

anyothcr mkct of th geography.
128. The geographical picture contains two elements which are of
particular relevance to the issue of delimitation and which make the
"refashioning of geography" completely inapposite even if such refashion-

ing were allowed by legal principle. These two elements are as follows:

(a) The fact that a restricted coastal sector may produce a nurnber of
very influential controlling points by reason of its location and
character: and such is the case of Malta.
(b) The fact that the effect of the ditference between the west-east or
lateral reach of the Maltese and Libysn coastlines leaves Libya with a

very large part of the shelf area dividing Malta and Libya.

129. From these elements - the nature of the coastal relationships in
the present case - it follows that the criterion of proportionalit; (by
reference to the length of the respective coastlines) cannot be applied if an
equitable solution is to be achieved. The differences in the geographical
identity of the two States are so rnarked that the requirement of equity

that "like should be compared with likeY'-'the only absolute requirement of
equity'l - is not applicable.
+ -130. Any atteGt to make the delimitation reflect the direrence in
coastal lengths as between Malta and Libya would be inconsistent with

legal principle, since it would involve a simple apportionment of the
continental shelf. Moreover, such an apportionment of the area of shelf
between the two States would be in conflict with the basic notion that the
shelf constitutes the natural prolongation of the coastal State's land

territory and thus appertairis to that State ipsofacto and ab inifa'o. s the
Court observed in the North Sea Contintrital ShelJcasesa:-

"19. More important is the fact that the doctrine of the just and
equitableshare appears to be wholly at variance with what the Court
entertains no doubt is the most fundamental of al1 the rules of law

1. Tunisia-LityuContinenliuvcasc,I.C.JRrporls1982p. 76, para. 104.

2. bCJ.Reportr 1969,p.22.para.19. CONTINENTAL SHELF 1411

relating to the continental shelf, enshrined in Article 2 of the 1958

Ceneva Convention, though quite independent of it - namely that
the rights of the coastal State in respect of the area of continental
shelf that constitutes a natural prolongation of its land territory into
and under the sea exist ip~o Jacio and ob initio, by virtue of its

sovereignty over the land, and as an extension of it in an exercise of
sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring the seabed and exploit-
ing its natural resources. In short, there is here an inherent right".

131. The crucial and incontrovertible fact is that the legal framework
of the present case consists of the essentially very simple Malta-Libya

coastal relationships. The two States face one another at a considerable
distance and in the absence of unusual features. It is this entirely normal
setting which forrns "the geographical and legal frarnework" for an adju-

dication concerning the basis of continental shelf delimitation'.
132. The geographical facts must be placed in the context of legal
reasoning and equitable principles. Malta and Libya are opposite States
abutting upon continental shelf areas which form a geological continuum.

In this type of situation it is only the equidistance method of delimitation
that can lead to an equitable solution.
133. In the light of the coastal relationships of Malta and Libya any
departure frorn equidistance would involve substantial breaches of two

cardinal principles of equitable delimitation:

(a) The principle that, in the case of a continental shelf dividing opposite
States, the delimitation is normally by means of a median line2; and
(b) The principle of non-encroachmenta.

These principles will be accorded further staternent and elaboration in
later sections of this Mernoriai. The median line principle is esamined in

Chapter VII, paras. 181-184, and the role of the principle of non-
encroachrnent is explained more fully in Chapter IX, paras. 240-247.
134. The principle of non-encroachment can only be applied in the
present case on the basis of equidistance. The locationof Malta as a coastal

State dùtant from the Libyan coastline necessitates the use of a median
line. The two equitable principles of non-enroachment and opposite State
equality reflect the idea that the shelf is a prolongation of the land

1.Cf.TheAngle-Frenc hontinentdSbelArbitration,InremdiomlLw Reports,Vol. 54,
p.6,paras.181, 187,133.
2. No& Sed cases,I.CJ. Repofis 1969, p36, para. 57;Anglo-FrenchArbitracion,
IntemtiodLaw Repo#s, Vol54,p.6,para.85.
3. NorshSed casesLCJ. Reporzr1969,p. 53,para. 101and se also ibd..,p. 47. para.
85(c);Anglo-Fra>cbArbirrdtion,lntemtioml LawReports,Vol. 54,p.para85.' [421 MEMORIAL OF MALTA 439

territory under the sea. It is for the same reason that the factor of
proportionality can only be meaningful in the case ofadjacent States and

cannot produce an equitable solution in the geographical situation of
opposite States such as Malta and Libyal.

1. See the vicw cxpressed by Professor BowettQ.C., inhis work TheLgal Riginte of
IslandifInfernatioiolw, (1978)p. 164;quotcd below atpara.258. CHAPTER VI

MALTA'S ENTITLEMENT AS AN ISLAND STATE

135. The position adoptcd during negotiations by the Libyan

Goverriment and the position which, ii caii be assumed, rvill be reflected
in the Libynii argumeiits in ihcse prciceedings. involves a Iùiidarncntal
refusal to accorcl ro hlalta hcr lawliil rights as a coasial State. The
consequence is rhai klalta finds itiiecessary, ai the risk of stressing what is

obvious. to iiiclude in hei siibniissiotls argumciits on certain basic issues of
principle.
136. Malia contends ihat as a coasial State she has a legal entitlement
to the area of continental shclfwhich appertains to the territory ol'hilalta in

accordance with equitable priiiciples? and thiis to a shelf area detimited
on the basis of the equidisiance mcitiod. 'l'his entitlernent resis upon the
following legal elements:-

(1) the geiiei.ally recogiiised significance of islands in maritime
delimitatiori;
(2) the irnportaiice of the exercise of political authority as a central

elernent in ttie legal conceptioii of shclr rights;
(3) the principle of equality of States;
(4) the eniitlemeni of islatid States and Dependencies to appur-
ienarit shelf areas in custornary international law as other

coastai States;
(5) the recognition of the erititlement of island States in doctrine;
and
(6) the Conventions of 1958 and 1982.

Malta will now develop its positioii relating to these elements of entitle-
ment seriaiim.

(I) The GeneraEb RecognisedSigniJicaric orfIslrir~disn MarilimeDelimilalion

137. The dictates of comrnon seiise aiid considerations of legal principle
insisi upon the sigiiificance of islarids in the contcxt of maritime de-

limitation.' It is'obvious thai islands norrnally have a political rôle and in
the rccetit past everi ihe status of rocks has tieeti the subject of consider-
abLecontroversy. klany bilateral agreemerits on delimitation illustrate the
significance of groups of islands'.

1, Cf.the Separace Opinion ofJudge Schwebel, Tunirk-Libp ContinentalShelf case,LCJ.
Mdyen Continental SAelf.19-20 Mayt1981;Intemarionul Law Reports, Vol. 62p.108arn

p. 126.
2. See Chapter VI1of this Mernorialtheenumcracionof treaties. PW MEMORIALOF MALTA 441

138. In the Decision of the Court in the AngleFrenchContinenta lhelf

Arbitrafion the reasoning strongly indicates the political elements in
approaching the evaluation of the pertinent geographical facts. Thüs in
respect of the Channel Islands their political status was carefully weighed

in a substantial section of the Decision1. In particular the Court examined
"their political relation to the United Kingdom"2, their constitutional
status3, the degree of autonomy vis-à-vis the United Kingdom4, "th.e
question whether the Channel Islands are to be considered as political

units distinct from the United Kingdorn"5, and the question of "re-
sponsibitity for the foreign relationsof the Channe! I~lands"~. The Court
concluded7 that it "must treat the Channel Islands only as islands of the
United Kingdom, not as semi-independent States entitled in their own

right to their own continental shelf vis-à-vis France".
139. In the same connection the weight given by the Court to the
Scilly Islands (in the delimitation of the Atlantic region) depended upon

the Court's view that they constituted "the projection of the United
Kingdom land mass further into the AtIantic regionma. In contrast, the
Court emphasised the geographical detachment of the Channel Islands
frorn the mainland of the United Kingdomg.

140. The case of the isiand State is necessarily afortiori. The island (or
group of islands) constitutes the rnainland both in the political and in the
geographical sense. The island State is the homeland and benefits, like
other coastal States, from the principle that'the land dominates the sea.

The island State is a geographical and political fact: it is not a "special
ci;cumstance" or "an incidenta) special feature", the eKectsof which may
be reducedlO.

141. Malta, as a coastal State, has coptinental 'shelf rights as "an
emanation from and an automatic adjunct of the territorial sovereignty of
the coastal State"ll.Such rights exist whether the coastal State consists of
one or more of'the following features:-

(a) an island Statenear a "mainland" of another State;

(b) an island State isolated in mid-ocean or otherwise distant frorn other
coastal States;
. ,

1.Dccisionof30Junc 1977I,nkrnnfiomlw Rtfifb,Vol.54, p.6,paras. 183-187.
2.Ibd. para. 183.
3.Ibid.para.1û4.
4.Ibid.
5.Ibid.para. 185.
6. Ibid. para. 186.
7.Ibid.
8.Ibid para. 244.
9. lbidpara. 19andsee aLoparas. 183,187.
10. Se theJudgmentin the NortSeo casesLCJ.Repom 1969,pp. 49-50,para.91.
11. AegerrSe4 ConZinenidSheifcase,LCJ.Reportr 1978,p.36,para. 86, quoted in the
T~nirk-LibyaConrinentulbelfcaseLC.]R.eportr1982,p. 61,1para.73. CONTINENTALSHELF

(E) a peninsula State;
(d) a group of islands as in (a);

(e) a group of islands as in (b).
142. The position would remain the same if one State had only a short

coastat frontage abutting upon the continental shelf areas concerned. It
wouid also remain the sarne if one coastal State had a frontage based
upon a very exiguous tranche or strip of land territory, either adjacent to
a neighbouring Statel, or in the form of a narrow peninsula.

The Importanceof the Exerciseof PoliticalAuthorigas a CentralElernentin
(2) the Legal Conceptionof Shelf Rights

143. The legal relevance of the political status of islands has been

stressed sufficiently already in this Mernorial, but the position of the island
Stak calls for appreciation of a particular facet of fundamental legal
doctrine. The legal conception of continental shelf rights contains a
political element: the inherent right of the coastal State to regulate activity

in the adjacent and appurtenant submarine areas. Thus the exercise of
poiitical authority is central to the legal conception'of shelf rights.
144. The connection between the sovereignty of the coastal State over
its land territory and its rights in respect of the shelf is explained with
clarity and emphasis in the Judgment of the Court in the Tuniria-Libya

ContinentalShslfcase. In the words of the Court2:

"73. It should first be recalled that exclusive rights over subrnarine
areas belong to the coastal State. The geographic correlation
between coast and submerged areas offthe coast is the basis of the
coastal State's legal title. As the Court explained in the North Sea

ContinentalSheycases the continental shelf is a legal concept in which
'the principle is applied that the Jand dominates the sea' (I.C.J.
&ports 1969, p. 51, para. 96). In the AegcanSeoContinentalShifcase
the Court emphasised chat

'it isolelyby virtue of the coastalState'ssovercigntyover the land that .
rights of exploration and exploitation in the continental shcan attach
to it, ipsojure,under international law. In short, continental shelfrights

arc 1cgaHyboth an-cmanation from and an automatic adjunct of the
territorial sovereignty of the coastal Statc.' (I.C.J. Reports1978,p. 36,
para. 86).

As has been explained in connection with the concept of natural
prolongation, the coast of the territory of the State is the decisive
factor for title to submarine areas adjacent to it. Adjacency of the

1.Examples :U.S territoryin GulofAlaska; the Argentinecoastalsrripon the easrern
sideof IslaGrande,TierradelFuego;thThai coaston rhcwesternsideof theGulfof Siam.
2. 1.CJ.Reportr1982,p.61, para.7Seealmibid.,paras.74and75.1461 MEMORIALOF MALTA 443

çea-bed to the territory of the coastal State has been the paramount

criterion for determining the legal status of the submerged areas. as
distinct from their delimitation, without regard to the various elements
which have become significant for the extension of these areas in the
process of the legal evolution of the rules of international law,"

145. It will be recalled that the Court in the AegeanSea ConfinentaS 1helJ'

Case decided the crucial question of interpretation (of the Greek re-
servation (b)) on the basis that a dispute as to shelf rights related to the
"territorial status" of the coastal State'.
146. In the Rann of KutchArbitralionJudge Ale5 Bebler2 observed that

"an island State is normally prornpted to control the sea around ii and
would not like this sea to be controlled by others, because in the latter
case the island State would be at the mercv of the master or masters of the
surrounding sea." The good sense of this statement undoubtedly applies to

the regime of the continental shelf.
147. The position of the island State is one of particillar sensitivity in
view of the fact that it has a homeland or "mainland" which consists oi'an
island or group of islands, togetiier with the appurtenance of the con-

tinental shelf in accordance with thé ~rinci~le that "the land dominates
the seaU3.The legal interaction of land territory and sovereign rights over
submarine areas is much more critical than it is for most other coastal

States. Moreover, the relationship wirh the appurtenant shelf areas has an
enhanced significance in cases like that of Malta, that is to say, when
land-based resources are minimal and the shelf is the only possible
location of the resources.

148. There is an obvious parallel between the dependence of certain
coastal States on fish stocks in adjacent waters and the strong and abiding
interest which Malta has in the prospect of petroleum resources of' the
appurtenarit shelf areas. To describe this interest as "economic" would be

inadequate. Such an interst, in the present condition of the world, cannot
be exclusively economic bul embraces political and security elements. On
two occasions the jurisprudence of the International Court has given

recognition of the legal interest which a coastal State may have, given
certain conditions, in economic resources of adjacent maritime areas. Iii
the FisheriesCase of 1951 the Jiidgment of the Court referred to the
consideration of "certain econornic interests peculiar to a region, the

reality and importance of which are clearly evidenced by a long usagen4.
In the FisheriesJurisdictionCase (IJnited Kingdom v. Iceland) the Court
recogriised "the concept of preferential rights of fishing in adjacent waters

1. 1.C..eports1978,p. 36,para.86infine.
2. IntrrndionLaw ReportsVol. 50,p387alp. 392 (DissentiOpinion).
3. NorthStaContinentSlhalfcasesI.C.J. Reports1969,p1, para. 96.
4.I.C.J.Rtporls1951,p. 116atp. 133.444 CONTINENTAL SHELF id71

in favour of the coastal State in a situation of special dependence on its
coastal fisheries" l.
149. In this litigation hlalta is seeking the legal affirmation and

protection of important aspects of her national patrimony and in parti-
cular the sovereign rights to govern, manage, exploit and conserve the
resources of appurtenant shelf areas. The method of equidistance provides
a delimitation which gives appropriate recognition of the need for an

adequate political control, both as to the quality and extent of such
control, by the island State of Malta iri respect of adjacent submarine
areas. The Coast of any State generates appurtenant zones of maritime

jurisdiction. The distance criterion, which is prominent in recent sources
of the law of maritime delimitation, is a reflection of the rule that al1
coastal States have a lateral reach of jurisdiction. Such an apron of
jurisdiction is a necessary attribute of national security. The equidistance

method thus gives effect to the logic that Malta's need for security is no
less than that of Libya. Malta will reler to this aspect of the matter again
later in this Memoria12.

ThePrin+le.of EqunliIyof Sfales
(3)
150. The fegal validity of the median line as the delirnilation of
appurtenant shelf areas in the present case is supported both by the

equitable principles which constitute the law of shelf delimitation and also
by the principle of the equality of States (as a general principle of
international la^)^. Given the simple coastal relatio~iships of Malta and

Libya, an encroachment northward of the median line would involve an
affront to the principle of the equality of States and, in particular, of
coastal States.
151. It is a striking fact that the well-established principles of con-

tinental shelf law give a specific and practical application of the principle
of equality in the case of opposite States. Thus in the North Sea Continmtal
Shelfcases the Judgrnent states the following important legal principle4:

"The continental shelf off, and dividing, opposite States, can be

claimed by each of them to be a natural prolongation of its territory.
These prolongations meet and overlap, and can therefore only be
delirnited by means of a median line; . . . "

In the disposififof the Judgment the Court states that if "the delimitation

1.LCJ.Reports 1974,p. 3 arp. 23, para.5;and secaIsoparas.55-68.SecalsoFisbsries
lurisdictioncase(FederalRepublicof Germanyv. Icclandibid.,p. 17atpp. 191-192,para.
44 ;andsee alsoparas.45-60.
2. See below, para. 232.
3. Standard referencesinclude the Charol'rhUnited Nations, Article2paragraph2,
and the Declaration on Principlesof InternationalLaw Concerning FriendlyRclatands
Co-opcration Among States of 1970 (U.N. Gtneral Assembly Rcsol. 2625jXXV) adopted
without vote on24October 1970).
4. 1.C.j. Rcporis1969,36,para. 57.1481 MEMORIAL OF MALTA 445

leaves to the Parties areas that overlap, these are to be divided between
them in agreed proportions or, failing agreement, equally ..."'.

152. In the AngleFrenchContinentaS l helfArbitrntionthe Court made tw4
affirmations of the same principle:

"Whereas in the case of 'opposite' States a median line will norrnally
effect a broadly equitable delimitation, a lateral equidistance Iine
extending outwards frorn the coasts of adjacent States for long
distances may not infrequently result in an inequitable delimitation

by reason of the distorting effectof individual geographical feature"2
"In a situation where the coasts of the two States are opposite each
other, the median line will norrnally effect a broadly equal and

equitable delimitati~n."~
153. In the present case, the rnedian line "must effect an equal

division" of the area involved. Malta and Libya are opposite States and
there are no complicating features of the type envisaged by the Court in
the NorthSeacases. In this context island States are on the same footing as
other coastal States.

(4) The EntitlemcntofIsland Stabs andDependenclctso AbpurtenantShelfAreas
in CurtomaryInternaliona lnw

154. Malta's entitlement to a delimitation based upon a median line is
fimly based on the principles of customary law asthey have evolved since

1945. The evolution contains three related elements as follows:

(a) The law recognised from very early on that coastal States were
entitled to appurtenant shelf areas without discrimination: indeed,
the State practice was related to island States and island dependen-
cies from 1948 onward.

(b) En due course both the practice of States and the jurisprudence of
international tribunal5 accepted that the appropriate method of
delimiting the shel frea dividing opposite States was norrnally by
means of a median line.
(c) Both as a rnatter of logical necessity and the practice of States in

delimitation it was recognised that island States and island de-
pendencies were entitled to a mcdian line delirnitation whenever the
situation was that of opposite States.

155. It is necessary to draw the attention of the Court to the relevant
aspects of the evolution of the custornary law concerning the entitlement
of States and dependencies to rights over adjacent shetf areas. In the
remainder of the present Chapter the general aspects of State practice

[. Ibid.,53, para. 101.
2.Decision o30June 1977InlcmtioioLaulirporlVol.54,para.95.
3. Ibidpara. 239.446 CONTINENTAL SHELF id91

concerning entitlement will be examined. In Chapter VI1 the link
between entitlement gross o odoand the appropriateness of the equidis-
tance method of delimitation will be elucidated; and in that context it will

be demonstrated that State practice indicates the equitableness of the
equidistance method in the case of island States opposite distant
mainlands.

156. 1t is universally recognised that the development of the concept of
the continental shelf in customary international 1aw began substantially
with the Truman Proclamation of 28 September 1945 and the Mexican

Presidential Declaration of 29 October 1945'. Within a short period a
pattern of claims was evident and it is a striking fact that frorn the
beginning isiand States and island dependencies were prominent in the

State practice. The chronology of practice relating to'island States and
dependencies is as follows8:

Bahamas: Bahamas (Alteration of Boundaries) Order in Council
(No. 2574), 26 November 1948=.
Jamaica: Jamaica (Alteration of Boundaries) Order in Council (No.

2575), 26 November 1948'.
Bahrain: Proclamation with respect to the seabed and the subsoil of
the high seas of the Persian Gulf, 5 June 1949'.

Philippines: Petroleum Act of 1949, enacted by Republic Act NO.
387, 18 June 1949'.
Falkland Islands: Falkland Islands (Continental ShelT) Order in

Council (no. 2100), 21 December 1950'.
Dominican Republic: Law No. 3342, dated 13July 1952, concerning
the extent of the Territorial Waters of the Republic (see Article 5

thereofj8
Sri Lanka: Proclamation of 19 December 1957 by the Governor-
General on the Rights over the Continental Shelf and Conservation

Zones0.

1.Thcscinstruments atobc roundintheU.N. LcgislativcScricsST/LEG/SER.B/l, Laws
and Rigduhm antheRi~UncoLhrHighSem,Vol.1,New York,1951,pp. 13(McxicanDcclara-
tion), 38 (U.S. Proclamation).
2. For convcnicncc'sakc thc terminalis1972.
3. Ibid., p. 31. Sec also the Continental SheIAct, 1970, U.N. Legis. Ser.,
ST/LEG/SER.B/16,1974, p. 172.
4. Ibidp.33.
5. 1bid'p24.
6.Ibid.o.19. Sec also ProclamationNo. 370 of 20 March1by8the Prcsidenofthe
,L
PhilippineU.N. Lcgis. Scr., NationalLrgirlafionand TRtlatïniutheT'rilori<Seo,
ST/LEG/SER.B/ New York,1974p,. 422.
7.Ibid.,p. 305.
8.iuws and Rcgulatwon ik Qinu of& Tmihd Sca,STfLEC[SER.B/6, New York,
1957 ,.Il.Secalso LawNo. 186,promulgatcdan 13Scptcmber1967U,.S. Dcpt. of State,
The Gcographcr,Linilin tSem,No. 5.
9. U.N. Legis. Scr., NatiunaI hgirlaand TrctitiesRclaftngtheLw of theSca,
ST/LEC/SER.B/IG,New York,1974 ,. 164. 150] MEMORlALOF MALTA 447

Haiti: Decree dated 22 December 1959'.
Seychelles: Minerals Ordinance, No. 14 of 1962, 15 October 19622

New Zealand (and the Cook Islands): Continental Shelf Act, 1964,
No. 28 of 1964, 3 November 19643.
Malta: Continental Shelf Act, 1966; 28 July 1966'.

Ireland: Continental Shelf Act, 1968; 11June 196lI5.
Barbados: Petroleum Act 1950 (Amendment) Act, 1968; 15 February
1968%.

Iceland: Act of 24 March 1969 regarding the sovereign rights of the
Icelandic State over the continental shelf around Iceland7.
Trinidad and Tobago: Continental Shelf Act, 1969; 22 December

1969s.
Cayrnan Islands: Petroleurn (Production) (Amendment) Law, 1969;
Law 16 of 1969; 1 January 19709.

Mauritius: Continental Shelf Act, 1970; 16 April 197010.
Solomon Islands: Continental Shelf Ordinance, No. 4 of 1970; 28
July 19701'.
Tonga: Continental Shelf Act, 1970; Act No. 6 of 1970; 1 December

197012.
Fiji Continental Sheff Act, 1970; Act No. 9 of 1970; 30 December
1970L3.

Cyprus: Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 31 May 197214.

1. LcMonittur,Ko.113, 28 Dec. 1959 (unverified reference). Sethe Decree of 6 Apr.
1972; U.S. Dept.ofState, The Geographer, Limitsin de Sta, No. p.,6.

2. U.N. Legis.Ser., flational Legislafionand Treaties Relating to the TerrSca,ial
ST/LEG/SER.B/15, New York, 1970, p. 460. See alstheMining (Mineral Oit) Ordinance,
No. 7 of1963, 6 May 1963, ibid., p. 461; and the Control of the Natural Resources of the
Seabed and Subsoil Ordinance,No. 16 of 1967, 24 November 1967.
3. Ibid., p. 389. Sect9oapplies the Actinthe Cook Islands,withcertain exceptions
which are not material.
4. U.N. Legis. Ser., National Legirlutionand Trcatits Rcla60the Lnw of the Sen,
ST/LEG/SER.B/16, New York, 1974, p. 156.
5. U.N. Legis. Ser., National Legisfationand Treatics Rclating to the Law oSpa,e
ST/LEG/SER.B/lB, New York, 1976,p. 157.
6. Suppl. to Official Gazette, dared 15 February 1968.
7. U.N. Legis. Ser., JVationafLegislafionand Treatier Relattogthc Territorial Sea,
ST/LEG/SER.B/IS, New York,1970, p. 364.
8. Act No. 43of 1969.

9. flotionalLegidationand TreafiesRelatingta theLawof de Sca,ST/LEG/SER.B/ 16, New
York, 1974,p. 114.
10. ActNo. 5 of 1970.
II. n vat ionLaglislaldonand TreatiesRelihenLawojthe Sea, ST/LEG/SER.B/LG, New
York, 1974, p. 175.
12. U.N. Legis. Ser., National Lcgislationand Treaties Relating to thc Low of the Sra,
ST/LEG/SER.B/18, New York, 1976, p. 165.
13. U.N. Legis.Ser., National Llislation and Trraritr Relaiuthe Lam oJ fhe Sea,
ST/LEG/SER.B/lG, New York, 1974, p. 141.
14. Ibid., p. 136.448 CONTINENTAL SHELF

157. With two exceptions1, the twenty-one precedents recorded above
relate either to independent States or to Protected States or to de-

pendencies which subsequently achieved full independence. At no time
has any State expressed a doubt or reservation in the face of the persistent
pattern of practice on the part of island States and States acting on behalf
of island dependencies, most of which have become independent since the
original legislation was made. The evidence of the silence and acquies-

cence of non-islanS dtates in the vierv that island States have a normal
entitlement of sheif rights has particular cogency. The earliest claims -
and especiaiiy those in respect ofJamaica, the Bahamas and Bahrain, in
the years 1948 and 1949 - received the greatest possible publicity and

were widely commented upon. The concept of shelf rights was regarded as
both radical in legal terms and of great practical importance.

(5) Recognitionof theEnlitlementof IslandStatesin Doctrine

158. The early claims and State legislation received the widest possible
notice both in government circles and in the literacure of the law. The
shelf claims relating to Jamaica, the Bahamas and Bahrain were subjected
to examination in rnany sources in the period 1948 to 1955: and the
follo\ving items provide a substantial sample of the material (in chro-

noiogical order) :

(a) Young, 'Further claims to areas beneath the high seas', American
Journalof Internationalhm, Vol. 43 (1949), pp. 790-792.
(b) Azcarraga, 'Los Derechos sobre la plataforma submarina', Reuista
e.rpa6oladt derechinternacionalVol. 2 (1949), pp. 47-99.'
(c) U.N. Secretariat Memorandum, 14 July 1950; Tearbook of the

Internationalaw CQmmission1 ,950, Vol. II?p. 67 at pp. 87-1 13.
(4 Lauterpacht, 'Sovereignty over submarine areas', British YearBook of
InternationalLaw,Vol. 27 (1950): pp. 376433.
(e) Angio-florwegzan Firheries case: Pleadings of the Norwegian

Government: Pleadings, Vol. II, pp. 249-262 (Annexes to the
Norwegian Counter-Mernorial); ibid., Vol. III, pp. 647453
(Norwegian Reply) .
(f) Young, 'Delimitation of seaward areas under national jui-isdiction',
AmeiicanJournalof InternationalLaw, Vol. 45 (1951) ,pp. 225-239; (and

see, in particular, at p. 236).
(g) Award in the case of PetroleurnDeuelopmenL t td.v.Sheikh oS Abu Dhabi,
September 1951; International Law Reports:Vol. 18, p. 144 at p. 153.
(hj Azcarraga, La piataformasubmarinay el derechointernacional,Madrid,

1952.

1.Namely: the Falkland IslandrantheCayman Islands,asdependenciesof thUnited
Kingdom.
2.This writerdoesnor refer to thprecedents involving Jamaica, the Bahamas and
Bahrain,utconsidersLatin-Americanpractice:inctudingthereinCuban proposaof1946
and 1947. [521 MEMORIAL OF MALTA 449

(2) Gidel, Le PlateauContinenbl,International Bar Association, Madrid,

July 1952; Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.
Ij) Mouton, The Continental Sheif, The Hague, 1952 (see, in particular,
pp. 250-260.
(k) Anninos, The ContinenfalSheif and Public itlte~~tio~l hw, The

Hague, 1953, pp. 30-39, 150-151.
(i) Rousseau, Droi internationaplublic, Paris, 1953, paragraph 567.
(m) Colombes, TheInfernafionaIlAWof theSea,3rd edition, London, 1954,
pp. 58-63.

(n) Goldie, 'Australia's Continental Shelf: Legislation and
Proclamations', Intematio~l und ComparativeLaw QuarteTb, Vol. 3
(1954), pp. 535-575.
(O) Oppenheim, InternationalLaw, 8th edition, by H. Lauterpacht,

London, 1955,Vol. 1,pp. 63 1635.

159. This mass of rnaterials iricludes the work of sorne of the leading
publicists of the period, and represents a variety of nationalities. In
responding to and participating in the development of continental shelf
doctrine the writers rnake not a single critical observation concerning the

shelf claims relating to Jamaica, the Bahamas, Bahrain or the Falkland
Islands.
160. The literature of the law and, indeed, al1 the available sources,
indicate with absolute certainty that the State practice of coastal States

whose homeland consisted of one or more islands, faiied to evoke a single
protest or reservation. The acquiescence and recognition of other States
was the general rule and there were no exceptions. Moreover, it may be
recalled that in this period States did not fail to protest developments in

maritime matters of which they disapprovedl. The acceptance of the
international community is evidenced also in Digests of State practice.
Thus the officiai Department of State publication, Digest of Intemtioml
Law, edited by Dr. Whiteman, chronicles the practice in detail2 and

records no United States reservation concerning the shelf rights of island
States and island dependencies.

(6) The Convention osf1958 and1982

161. As a matter of legal principle the modern law of the sea assimilates
islands and island-coasts to mainland territory in respect of continental
shelf entitlement and nghtsand for al1purposes of delimitation. The legal
position is fully reflected in the1958 Conventions. Thus the Convention

on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone makes provision as foHowsin
Article 10:

1. SecAuguste,Tk ContinrtrShrifCtneva and Paris,1960,p. 1(note 137)referring
to protuts on thparioftheUnited Kingdom and othcrsinrsponsc COSouth Amencan
clainu.For U.S.protest notttovarious SouthAmcrican Governmcnts,set Whiteman,
Digt~ojJnLmiationaw, Vol.IV, pp. 79242.
2. Vol. IVrcleascdApri1965,pp.789414. CONTINENTAL SHELF is31

"1. An island is a naturally-forrned area of land, surrounded by
water, which is above water at high tide.

2. The territorial sea of an island is rneasured in accordance with
the provisions of these articles."

In the provisions relating to delimitation (Article 12 and Article 24,
paragraph 3) the same Convention makes no reference to island States or
the coasts of island States as a legally distinct category.

162. The Convention on the Continental Shelf of 1958defines the term
"continental shelf' by reference to "the coast" (in general) and afso to
"the coasts of islands" (Article 1). In defining the legal quality of
continental shelf rights, Article 2 refers cornprehensively to "the coastal

State" without further distinction.
163. At the First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea,
the Fourth Committee adopted a Philippine proposal to add an
additional paragraph to the draft Article 67l. As adopted by the

Commitlee, the text of Article 67 included a second paragraph as follows:
"For the purpose of these articles the terrn "continental shelf' shall be
deerned atso to refer to the seabed and subsoil of similar submarine areas
adiacent to the coasts of islands."Vn the final textof the Convention on

the Continental Shelf the two paragraphs were merged into a single text
(Article 1) as follows:

"For the purpose of these articles, the terrn 'continental shelf is
used as referring (a) to the seabed and subsoil of the submàrine areas
adjacent to the coast ... ; (b) to the seabed and subsoil of simiiar

subrnarine areas adjacent to the coasts of islands."

164. Another facet of State practice of reievance in the present con-
nection is the rnanner in which Parties to the 1958 Convention did or did
not make reservations thereto relating to the effect upon delimitation of
the preçence of islands. It will be recalled that the 1958 Convention

contains, in Article 12, provisions permitting reservations to be made to,
inkr alia, Article 6, which is the delimitation article. The only Parties to
make reservations relating in any way to islands were the Republic of
China (which stated that in determining the boundary of the continental

shelf exposed rocks and islets shall not be taken into account), France
(which rejected the application of equidistance in those areas where, in
the Government's opinion, special circumstances exist, including in parti-
cular the Bay of Granville) and Venezuela (which declared that there are

special circumstances to be taken into account in the area between the
coast of Venezuela and the island of Ar~ba).~

1. UnitedJlralironfircnon ~htLaw ojthcSca,Ofici arcordr,VolVI, pp.3147, 133.
2. Ibrd.p.143.

3. Asrecordcdin theU.N. publicationMullila~rrl rcatVsircspcifwhichtheSccrtlny-
Cmtralpcrfomu&fisir<i~/unctwn, ew York, 1980. 1541 MEMORlAL OF MALTA 451

I65. The practice of States in the matter of reservations to the 1958
Convention is entirely compatible with, and provides confirmation of?the

practice of States generally concerning the entitlernent of island States.
Only three reservations touched on the question of islands in anyform and
no reservation related to island States. The significancc of the abserice of
any reservation concerning delimitation in respect of island States is

enhanced by the fact that six of the States signing, ratifying or acceding to
the 1958 Convention had coasts opposite io island States. The pertinent
cases of juxtaposition were as follows:

Colornbia (ratified 8 Januaiy 1962) ais-ri-visDominican Repüblic
and Haiti.
Iran (signed 28 ,May 1958) ais-à-visBahrain.

Malaysia (acceded 21 December 1960) air-à-virSingapore.
Mexico (acceded 2 August 1966) vis-ri-giCuba.
United Kingdorn (ratified 11 May 1964) vis-&vis Republic of

1reland.
United States (ratifid 12 April 1961) vis-à-visCuba and the
Bahamas.

166. The practice in the matter of reservations to the Coiiverition is
consistent with the text of the Articles of the Convention itself. Island
States were regarded as having a normal entitlement to shelf rights.

167. In connection with the Law of the Sea Conference of 1958 the
attention of the Court is respectfully drawn to a document (included in
the "Preparatory Documents" of that Conference) which is of relevance,
"Preparatory Document No. 2"' consists of a memorandurn tiy the

UNESCO Secretariat entitled "Scientific considerations relatitigto the
continental shelf'. The contents of this item show that without ariy doubt
the concept of continental shelfincluded both "the zone around an island
or island groupn2 and the "shallow? seas between islands andlor

continent^"^. Of the latter the R4emoraridum States that "thcse areas
incontestably form parts of the continental shelf'. The examples given
include the Gulf of Paria (het\.i.t:en Venezuela and 'I'rinidad) and the
Arabian (or Persian) Gulf.

168. The various drafts produced by the l'hird United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea contain a special part relatiiig to the
"Régime of Islands", but the enèct is emphatically the same: island States
are not tlie subject of any special provision. The provision in the

Convention on the Law of the Si:a signed in Jamaica on Dcccnibcr 10,
1982 is identical with the provision (Article 132) fortnulated in the

1.UnilcNdatiomConfcrrocnctuLw oflhtScaOgiciR alcordro,l1.p.39(Doc. A/Conf:
1312and Add 1).
2.Ibid.para.6; andsecalso paraIl.
3. Ibid, par12.452 CONTlNENlAL SHELF [55]

Informa1 Single Ncgotiating Text dated 7 May 1975l. The relevant text is
as follows:

"PART VI11

REGIME OF ISLANDS

Article121

Régime ofislands

1. An island is a naturally formed area of land. surrounded by
water, which is above water at high tide.

2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the
contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental
shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions

of this Convention applicable to other land territory.
3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life
of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental
shelf."

169. There can be little doubt that these formulations consritute

evidence of the state of general or customary international law in the last
thirty years or so in respect of the legal status of islands. On the peneral
issue there is a consistency in the position adopted both in the
Conventions of 1958 and in the drafts, and the Convention, produced in

the period 1975 to 1982 by the Third United Nations Conference: in
rnatters of maritime delimitation no legal disability attaches to coastal
States which are isiands or consist of a group of islands. In this connection
il is to be recalled that of Article 121 Judge Oda has remarked: "No

suggestion was ever made, and no idea ever presented, to imply that an
island State should be distinguished from other coastal States or frorn any
non-independent islands or &oups of islands"'. Indeed, the terms of the

third paragraph of Article 121 present an a fortiori arguments. Only very
insignificant features are to be denied a normal rôle in the process of
delimitation.
170. The consistency of the doctrine lhat island States are under no

legal disability in relation to the entitlernent to, or delimitation of, areas of
appurtenant continental shelf is confirmed by the literature in the period
after the conclusion of the Continental Shelf Convention of 1958. The

1.Dac. A/CONF.62/WP.S/PartII; Third UnitedNations Conferenceon the Law of the
SeaOfficiaRecords,VolIV,p. 152.
2. Dissenting Opinion,Tuniria-tibyseLCJ.Reportr 1982,pp.251-252,paras.149-150
(atp.252,para.150).
3.Seethe Dissenting Opinioof Judge Evensen,Tunis&-Libycase,I.CJ. Reports1982,
p.283.1561 MEMORIALOF MALTA 453

items which follow are representative of the publications in the relevant
period:

Whiternan, Digest of InternationalLaw, Vol. IV, U.S.G.P.O.,

Washington, 1965, pp. 808-8 10.
Barabolya et al., Manualof Infernalional maritimeLaw, Moscow, 1966
(translation, Dept. of the Navy, Washington, D.C., 1968),
pp. 101-102.

De Visscher, fis problhes de conJiru en droit inlernationulubli1 c,69,
pp. 148-157.
Verzijl, Inte~mtiona l aw in HistoricalPerspective, ol. III, Paris, 1970,
pp. 77-94.

171. The practice of States in affirming the normal entitlement of

island States, as coastsl States, for purposes of shelf delimitation is
complemented by other evidence of the law.
172. In the Anglo-French Conlinenta1Shelf Arbilrution the Court
considered the evidence of the relationship of the Channel Islands and the

United Kingdom and concluded that "in matters relating to the
continental shelf, it is the United Kingdom Government which is the
responsible authority, both internally and externally"'. The Court then
expressed the following legally significant conclusion2:

"It follows that, as between the United Kingdom and the French

Republic, the Court must treat the Channel Islands only as islands of
the United Kingdom, notas a semi-independen Sthtes entitledin fheirown
righfto thcirowncontinentaslhelfvis-u-vislhe FrenchRepublic."

173. This statement involves the finding that the Channel Islands "are
separate islands of the United Kingdom, not separate Statesm4. It also
constitutes an acceptance of the principle that island States do not suffer

reduction of shelf rights. In the words of a recent writers: "The
implication lying behind this finding is that had the Channel Islands
constituted independentaisland States, their effect as continental shelf
basepoints would have been different." In the same general connection,

Professor Bowett7 has observed that: "In practice States, whether parties

1. Decisioof30 June 1977,fnlcrna~iomLlaw Reports,Volp.6, para. 186; aseealso
para.172.
2. Ibid.
3. Emphasissupplicd.
4.Ibid.para. 190injne.
5. Dr. ClivR. Symmons, Thc MaritimeZomrof I~landri/nkninLi~~Law, The Hague,

1979,p. 177.
6. Ëmphasis in the original.
7.ThcLrgalRcgimc oJIs/andsin IntcmntiLaw, New York,1979,p. 140.454 CONTINENTAL SHELF 1571

to the 1958 Convention or not, and whether 'island-States' or continental

States with off-shore islands, have asserted nghts to continental shelf for
their islands."
174. A former Geographer of the United States Department of State

adopted the view that, as a matter of principle, an island State should be
given full effect for purposes of continental shelf delimitation':

"A fifth situation also calls for the full effect of islands, aithough
care must be exercised in the application. An independent state, or

perhaps even an autonomous insular state, should possess territory
that warrants treatment as mainiand. While it was stressed earlier
that political status should not exercise a negative effect on the value
of islands as basepoints, justice would appear to demand that the

status of independence or near-independence should entitle a small
island state toal1 the attributes of mainland. It is difficult to conceive
of such a small state being deprived justiiïably of shelf andlor seabed

merely on the basis of size. While few independent and small insular
states are situated in close proximity to other states, the potential
exists.With the increasing trend for independence on the part of

small areas, the world may well see in the near future many of these
entities, which will be limited in territory. Equity should logically
demand a maritime domain undiminished by the special circum-
stance of small-area insularity."

175. By 1981 fourteen island States had claimed exclusive economic

zoneswith the dimension of 200 nautical miles from the pertinent
baselines2.Nurnerous other States have in re,cent years established either
exclusive econornic zones or exclusive fishery zones of 200 miles in respect

of island dependencies3.

176. The practice of island States both in relation to the continental
shelf and the exclusive economic zone has the features of generality and
consistency with reference to the critical point of law: namely, that island

States have the same entitlement to shelf rights and economic zones as
other coastal States. There is the clearest possible evidence of the absence
of any disability in the context of general international law.

177. There is here an analogy with the issues presented to the Court
in the Angio-~Vorwegiun Fisheriescase. No record has been found of any

1. RobertD. Hodgson, in Garnbleand Pontecorvo (cd.)Law oftheSeo: Th Emcrging

R&im ofIL Occam,Cambridge, Mass., 1973,p. 137ar p. 186.For other expressions of this
vicw secPadwa, lntcrnn~ioal dCOmparatieoruQuarftrh,Vol. 9(19601p..62 t8p. 650
andRarl, Amcrica~OUTM! o/Jnfermfionaw, Vol. 71(977),p.642 (fmtrioic 3).
2.Sce Anncx 21.
3. SeeAnnex 2 1.P81 MEMORlAL OF MALTA 455

diplomatic protest or reservation of position in face of the practice of
island States - a practicewhichbeginsin 1948 (with reference to rights over
continental shelf). To the positive practice of island States since 1948 must

be added the general toleration of the international community. In the
Anglo-Nomegian Fisheries case the reasoning of the Judgment placed
emphasis on "the generaI toleration of foreign States with regard to the
Norwegian practice"', and "tht: general toleration of the international

communit~"~.
178. The evidence is thus overwhelmingly in support of the proposition
that island States have a normal entitlement to continental shelf rights. It
follows that the position of Malta in these matters is a part of a well-

established pattern of practice and a legal tradition, widely accepted
within the international cornmunity. Moreover, in due course it was
recognised in the practice of States that in the case of opposite States
aburting upon the same shelf, the appropriate method of delimitation is
by means of a median line. CWAPTER VI1

THE PRINCIPLES AMI RULES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

APPLICABLE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PRESENT
DELIMITATION

1. IKTRODC~C.I.IO 'S
179. This Chaprer sets out rhe judicial esposition of the key aspects of

the law applicable to the present delimicatiori and examines the State
practice relatirigtadclirnitatioii of shelr areas dividing island States [rom
opposite mainlands aiid CO other comparable situations.In addition the

relevance of the practicc of other States in the Mediterranean region and
the conduct of the parties bi~ibe indicarcd.
180. At this poirii in the exposition itisappropriate to rrotice the
intirnate conriection between entitlement and delimitation on the basis of

equidistance in the case of opposite States: whethei- or not orle or both of
the States irivolved are island States. II isimportairi to rccall that two
delimitations on ttic hasis of agreement, \vhich took place iiear the

beginning of the sequence of practice in the matter, involved a division of
the seahed, either on the basis of equidistance or of equal shares. and
involved islands. The first was the Agreement hetween the United

Kingdom and Venezuela relating to ~hcGulf of Paria iri1942l and the
second was the ilgrecment beiween Bahrain and Saudi Arabia in 195B2.
The conclusion of thcse agreerneiits ctroked rio hint of criticismhy States
or in the legal literature in respect of the basis of delimitacion. h.loreover,

the background ro ttie detin~itatiori agreement I~etwecn Bahiain and
Saudi Arabia should be recalled. The pcrtinent legislatioii of [Lielittoral
States of the Gulf had, [rom the earliest appearance of coiiririental shclf
clairns, made expiicit rcferencc to the deterrnination of seabed boundaries

iii accordance with equiial~le pririciptes? rllic rele17;iiit Royal
Pronouncenient concerning the Pulicy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
dated 28 May I94g4, states that "the boundaries .. . \vil1be determined iii

accordance with eq~iitable principleh". The Proclamaiiori made in ilic case
of Bahrain, dated 5 Jurie 1949, refers to the need For determination {.)f
boundaries "on jusr principles"". Siill' subject to minor variations, the
dividing liiie betweeri thesetwo States is the median IineG.

2. 'L'HECASE OF OPPOSIT STATET S:HE~IEDIAL SINEEFFECT AS
EQUI'I'AH DLEEI.II'I'iZ.I.IOS

181. The principle that ~vhere the coasts of tiuo States are oppojitc to
one anoiher the rnedian line will iiorrnally briiig about ail equitable result

1.Set beliiwpara.IH7(;i).
2. See Iieliirr. para. IH7(ti).
3. The legislarion i\ collcU.E.iLegi4aiive SeneLaulandKrgnlci/i011flrtgisc
oj'rhHighSta,S'I'/LEC/St:RB/1 .951pp.22-30.
4. Ibidp..22.
5. Ibid., p. 24.
6.See below, para. 187(h) MEMORIAL OF MALTA 457

has been explicitly recognised in al1 three delimitation cases so far decided
by international tribunals. Thus in the .NorthSea Continenta Slheifcases the

Court made the following observations on the case of opposite States1:
"57. Before going further it will be convenient to deal brieflywith two

subsidiary matters. Mostof the dificulties felt in the International
Law Commission related, ashere, to the case of the lateral boundary
between adjacent States. Less dificulty was felt over that of the
median line boundary between opposite States, although it too is an

equidistance line. For this there seerns to the Court to be good
reason. The continentaslhelf area01, anddividing,opporibStates,caabe
cluimed ty eachofrhcmta be a naturalprolongationof ifs tern'toy. These
prolongationms eetandouerlap,andcantherefo~o enlybedelimi~ed by meansof

a medianline; and, ignoring.thepresence of isiets, rocksand minorcoastal
projections,thedispropor!ional~divstortingeflectof whichcanbeeliminatedby
other meonr, sucha line musteffectan egualdivisionof the particulararea
invollied."

182. In the Anglo-French Corr~inenfSahle/fArbifruliothe Court made two
significant statements of principle:

(i)"Whereas in the case of 'opposite' States a median line will nor-
mally effect a broadly equitable delimitation, a lateral equidis-
tance line extendingoutwards from the coasts of adjacent States
for long distances may not infrequently result in an inequitable
delimitation by reason of the distorting effect of individual

geographical feat~res."~
(ii) "In a situation where the coasts of the two States are opposite
each other, the rnedian line will normally effect a broadly equal
and equitable delimitation. "3

183. The parties in the Tunisia-LibyaConfinentaS lhelfcase did not rely
upon the method of equidistance, and the Court did not employ that

method of establishing the basis of an alignment. However, in regard to
the second sector of the iine adopted by the Court in that case, the Court
gave clear recognition to the normal applicability of the equidistance
method to the case of opposite coasts. The relevant passage is as follows4:

"While, as the Court has already explained (paragraphs log1 10),

there is no mandatory rule of customary international law requiring
delimitation to be on an equidistance basis, itshould be recognised
that it is the virtue - though it rnay also be the weakness - of the
equidistance method to take full account of almost al1 variations in

11 LCJ.Rcportr1969,p.36,para.57.EmphasissuppfitdSce alstheJudgmcnt arp.53.
2. Deci~ionof 30Junc1977Intemationalbw Reportr,Vol. 54,p6,para.95.
3 Ibid.para.239
4. 1.C.. epord1982,p.88,para.126.458 CONTINENTAL SHELF [611

the relevant coast-lines. Furtherrnore, the Court in it1969 Judgment
recognised that there was much less difficulty entailed in a general
application of the equidistance method in the case of coasts opposite

to one another, when the equidistance line becomes a median line,
than in the case of adjacent States (I.C.J.Reports 1969, pp. 36-37,
para. 57). The majorchangein directionundergoneby the coastof Tunisia
seems 10 the Court to go some way, though not the whol weay, towards
transformingtherelationshiof libyn and Tunisinfrom ihat of adjacenlStates

ta thal of oppositeStates,and thioproducea situationin which thsposition
ofan equidistanclinebecomes afactortobegivcnmorewcight inthebalancing
of equitableconsiderationtshanwouldothenuirbethecase."'

(1) The relevanceof StatePractice

184. By way of preface to the presentarion which follows of State
practice in the form of delimitation agreements between States, itis

pertinent to recall the observations ofJudge Padilla Nervo inhis Separate
Opinion in the North Sea ContinentalSheEfcasesZ:

"The fact that the equidistance method has been followed in several
bilateral agreements between neighbounng States does not mean at
al1 that those States were cornpelled by the Convention to use the
equidistance rnethod. It only means that there was agreementbetween
them becausethy consideredsuch methodiatiifactory,fair, equitableand

con~enicnf."~

There isan evident value in recourse to the practice of States in like and
comparable situations as an objective refiection of the application of
equitable principles leading to an equitable result.

(2) The Caseof Island Sfaks OppositeDDlsfanM t ainlands

185. The State practice provides an unequivocal demonstration of the
persistence of the equidistance method of delimitation in the case of
opposite States. It is not the purpose to present al1 such delimitation
practice. The most relevant practice for present purposes concerns island
States facing distant mainlands and abutting upon the same shelf. So far

as Malta has been able to ascertain there have been seven relevant
delimitations on the basis of agreement. These are (in chronological
order) described below. The texts of the Agreements appear asAnnexes
(Annexes 22 to 28). Maps illustrating each of these Agreements, and the
Agreements listed later, are also presented in this Mernorial.

1.Emphasissupplicd.
2. I.CJ.Reports1969,p.98.
3. Emphasissupplicd. MEMORIAL OF MALTA

(a) Bahrain-Iran,Agreemens lignedon 17June 1971'

This instrument establishes the continental shelf delimitation. A glance at

the alignment on the map shows that Bahrain did not siiffer any reduction
of shelf area. In his commentary on the Agreement the Geographer of the
U.S. Department of State rnakcs the follorving remarks:

"The Bahrain-Iran continental shelf boundary is not based solely or1

the equidistance principle. Points 1 and 4 were determined by
existing continental shelf boundary agreements; the remaining two
points are nearly the same distance from Bahrain and Iran, so the
assumption can be made that Points 2 and 3 are in fact equidistant

points. The continental shelf boundary agreement does not specify
that the principle of equidistance was utilised, but rather that the
boundary divides the shelf'in a 'just, equitable and precise rnanner'.""

"The limits of the Bahrain-Iran continental shelf boundary werc
constrained by two terminal points which were part of existing

continental shelf boundary agreements. The intervening turning
points, Points 2 and 3, aie apparently based on the principle of
equidistance, although the agreement does not state that the eqiiidis-
tance principle was utilised."3

This delimitation is based substantially upon equidistance and is an

excellent example of a division of shelîareas between an island State and
a distant mainfand: the distance between the two sets of basepoints
averages a little over 100 nautical miles. The United States Departmerit of
State Geographer expresses no criticism of the treatment of Bahrain in his

papers published in 1974"nd 19815.

(b) Cuba-Mexico,Agreemens tignedon 26 Jub 1976

The Agreement establishes an equidistance line of 350 miles. In the
Exchange of Notes the two Governments agreed that the dividing line
aflècting both the exclusive economic zones and the continental shelf

areas of the Parties should be esiablished "on the basis of the principle of
equidistance".

(c) india-Maldives,Agreernensligntdon28 December1976'

The delimitation concerns both continental shelf and exclusive economic
zone. The Ceographer of the U.S. Department of State states in his

1.U.S . cpt.ofStatc,TheGcographc'irntlrinfhtNo.58.Ra~ificarionswereexcharigd
and the agreemententerinto k~rceon May 1972.
2. Ibid..,3.
3. Ibid.,5.Scc alsokits intheSCU.~,o.93. pp. 2-3.
4.Ibid.No.58:Bohrain-Iran.
5.Ibid .,.94:Tk PcrsinGui/.
6.Tcxt obiained officially through diplomaiic channcls and translarcd.
7.U.S. Dept. of Siaie, LimitsSrii.No. 78. 460 CONTINENTAL SHELF [66-701

nnalysisl: "The boundary closely approximates an equidistance line".
Much of the Maldives group lies at considerable distance frorn the Coastof
India.

(d) Cuba-UnitedStaies,Agreemenstignedon16 Dccemder 1977'.

The maritime boundary resulting is an equidistance line with certain
minor adjustments. The purpose is to create a dividing line between the

maritime jurisdictions of the two States; and in practice this involves
division of exclusive economic zones.

(e) Colombin-DominicaR nepublic,Agreemenstignedon13 January 197B3.

Article I ofthe Agreement provides as follows:

"The delineation of the marine and submarine areas that cor-
respond to each of the two countries shall be effected, in general
practice, by using the principle of the rnedian line whose points are
al1 equidistant from the closest points of the baselines whence the

extension of the territorial sea of each State is measured."

(f) Colombia-Haiti,Agreemenstigned on 17 Februay197a4.
Article Iof the agreement provides as follows:

"The delirnitation of the marine and subrnarine areas of the

Republic of Coiombia, and of the exclusive economic zone and
continental shelf of the Republic of Haiti. It is a median line al1 the
points of which are equidistant frorn the nearest points of the base-
lines from which the breadth of the territorial sea of each State is

measured."
(g) DominicanRepublic- VenezueA lag,reemenstigneon 3 March197g5.

The maritime boundary created is in two segments. Both the western and

eastern segments are equidistance lines, the former 108 miles in length.
(3) Casesof lslandSlatesOppositeNon-dislantMainlands

186. The precedents referred to in the previous section concern de-

limitationsas between island States and dktant "mainlands" abutting upon
the sarne continental shelf. This relationship obviously bars a very close
analogy with the relationship of Malta and Libya. However, there are
other examples of State practice which provide strong evidence of the

propriety of the equidistance method of delirnitation in the case where an

1. Ibid.,p7.
2. InlcrnarioiiIc.iclgulMatzriXVllVo(1978),p110.
3. Norâquist, Lay and Simmands,Ntw DirtctionrthcLow oftht SenVIII, p.78.
4. Ibid.p.76.
5. Ibidp. 80. island State lies off-shore (though not at a considerable distance from)
a "mainland" coastal State.

187. The relevant precedents of thistype are as followsl:

(a) UnitedKingdom( Trinidad) - Venezueiag
On 26 February 1942, the Governments of the United Kingdom

and of Venezuela signed an Agreement relating to the delimitation of
the subrnarine areas of the Gulf of Paria3. The validity of the
delimitation has at no time been challenged and the now inde-

pendent State of Trinidad and Tobago has accepted the alignment.
The delimitation concerns areas between opposite coasts abutting
upon the same continental shelf. The boundary was not based upon
the equidistance principle as such, but the resulting delimitation

affords equal areas of seabed to each of the parties. Professor Bowett4
has observed that the boundary is "an excellent example of a median
line adjusted for administrative convenience since areas accruing to
one party as a result of a deviation from the strict median line exactly

balance areas accruing to the other". The significant feature is that
the island of Trinidad as suh was not considered to be under any
legal disability and this assumption was made both in 1942 and in

the practice of the two coastal States subsequent to the independence
of Trinidad and Tobago. Both Venezuela and Trinidad and Tobago
have become parties to the Continental Shelf Convention of 1958.
In the case of Venezuela the following reservation was made on

signat ure5:

"In signing the present Convention, the Republic of
Venezuela declares with reference to Article 6 that there are
spécial circumstances to be taken into consideration in the
following areas: the Gulf of Paria, in soJar as the boundaryiF nof

dekrminedby exisfingagreemenls6a ,nd in zones adjacent thereto;
the area between the coast of Venezuela and the coast ofAruba;
and the Gulf of Venezuela."

(b) Bahrain-SaudiArabia,Agreementsignedon 22 February195g7

This instrument establishes a median line -for such itis in principle,

1. The texts of the Agrccmenrsare reproduccdin Annexes 29 to 34.
2. U.S. Dcpt.of Statc, Limitsintlu Sco.r,No. 11.
3. Thc Agreement entercdinto forcon 22 Scptcmber 1942.
4. TheLgal Rcgirncof Islandsin IntcmaliLaw, New York, 1978, p. 170.
5. UnitedNations,MultilahrafTrtatits Dtpositcdwilh th Sccrt&y-C(Statu as a!31
Dccmbcr 1981), ST/LEC/SER.E/l, p. 606. At rhc time of ratificati(asopposcd to
signature)a rcservatiowas made as follows'.. with express rcscrvatiinrespect of
articl6 of rhcsaid Convention'.
6. Ernphasissupplicd.
7. U.S.Dept. of State, LimitsinthcStas,No. 12.The Agreement enteredinto forceon 26
February 1958. CONTINENTAL SHELF

subject only to certain minor variations - as the continental sheif

boundary, and this extends for a distance of 98.5 nautical miles. In
his 'Analysis" of the Agreement the Department of State Geographer
expresses no surprise or reservation of any kind on the application of
the equidistance method. It is worth noting that this approach was
consistent wjth the policy of the Agreement of 1971 governing the

delimitation as between Bahrain and Iran2. Both agreements show
conformity in two significant respects: the application of the equi-
distance method in the context of opposite States abutting upon the
same continental shelf; and the giving of the same weight to Bahrain

as to the other coastal States of the region.

(c) Australin-Indonesia, Agrcments signed 18May 1971, 9 Oclober 1972
and 12 February 1973

These instruments effect a seabed boundary in the area between
Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Australia. On achieving inde-
pendence on 16 September 1975: the Government of the latter
accepted the validity of the Agreements. The Australian sector of the

boundary lies between the trijunction point A3 and extends west-
ward to point A16. Between points A3 and A12 the line is in
accordance with equidistance. Westward of point A12 the alignment
is a negotiated boundary.

(d) Indonesia-Singapore,Agreementsigned on 25 May 1973'.

Whilst this Agreement is concerned to establish a territorial sea
boundary, the outcome is, given the geographical circumstances, a

maritime boundary for al1 purposes, involving the shelf-locked island
State of Singapore. A study of the text of the Agreement and of the
analysis produced by the Geographer of the United States
Department of State makcs ciear the fact that Singapore was not

legally disadvantaged in the process ofdelimitation.In his "summary"
of the arrangements agreed upon, the Geographer states the
followings:

"The Indonesian-Singapore territorial sea boundary utilises
both the equidistant principle (3 turning points) and negotiated
positions (3 turning points). Five of the six turning points lie on

the lndonesia side of an Indonesia-Singapore median line. Of
particular inrerest is the location of Poi2.This turning point is
located inside the Indonesian straight base-line systern and is

1. Ibidpp. 3-5.
2. Sceabovc; para. 185(a).

3. U.S.Dept.ofStatc,Limi&in ihe Sm, No, 87, iînncxcs 1II.d
4.Ibid,ND. 60.
5. Ibidpp. 4-5. 1781 MEMORIAL OF MALTA 463

therefore in lndonesian interna1 waters. Islands were utilised as
basepoints for the construction of the territorial sea boundary."

(e) India-Sri Lanka,.4greemens tignedon 23 March 1?76l

This instrument is additional to the previous Agreement of 1974'
establishing an historic watt:rs boundary, which involved thc appli-
cation of the equidistance rnethod ririthrniiiorrnodifications3. The

Agreement of 1976 provides for an equidistance line (with certain
rninor modifications) both iii the Gulf of Manaar and in the Bay of
Bengal. The combined maritime boundaries created by the two

Agreements total approximately 604 nautical miles.

( f) Bohamos-UniledSiales

The delimitation of the continental shelf areas between tfic Bahamas
and the coasts of Florida has not been régulateci hy agreement

between the IWO States. However, the positiori of the United States in
respect of the areas within the Florida Straits: where the relevant
coasts are opposite each other, is, it is reported: based on the

equidistance method4.

(4) Equidistancein theKrtional Legislaiionof IslandStale~

188. A considerable number of islaiid States specify in their legislation
the rnethod of delimitation on the basis of a median line in relation either
to the continental shelf, or to the exclusive econornic zone: or to borh legal

interests: or to an exclusive fishery zone. The pattern of recent legislation
shows an ever-increasing tendency for the shelf tcibe assirnilated to the
exclusive econornic zone for maiiy purposes.

189. The pertinent legislation is as follows (in alphabetical order)>:

Bahamas: Fisheries Resourci:~ (Jurisdiction arid Conservation) Act:
1977" (fishery resources of the seabed and siibsoil).

Barbados: Maririe Boundarics and Jurisdiction Act, 1978' (esclusi\~
economic zone).
Comoros: Ordinance No. TG-938/CE: 15 .lune 197G8(exclusi\.e

economic zone).

1. Ibid.,No. 77.The Agreement entered inrForce un 10 Xlay 1976.
2. Ibid.No. 66.
3. Ibid.p. 6.
4. Scc Feldam andColson, AmtriconJournolof lnkrmlioriloul.Vol. 73 (1981).p.729 at
pp.750-1.
5, The rexrol the legislariisreproducedin Annexes 34 to 45 and iii 11riri1.
6..Section 11;U.N. Legis. SerNalion ~glislatiandTrcal i catin10dr law oflirSra'
ST/I,EC;/SER.B/19,New York, 1980, p. 179.
7. Section 3.Act 3,1978.
8. Article 3Nordquisr, Lay and Simrnondh, ,V>wDirrcliuruilhrIAW qffhrSra.VII, p.

372. 464 CONTINENTAL SHELF 1791

Fiji: Marine Spaces Act- 1977' (continental shelf and exclusive
economic zone).

Grenada: Marine Boundaries Act, 1978' (exclusive econornic zone).
Iceland: Law No. 41 of 1June 19793 (continental shelf and exclusive
economic zone).

Kiribati: Procalmation of 10 hlarch 19784 (fishery limits).
Malta: Continental Shelf Act, 1966$ (continental shelf).
Nauru: Marine Resources Act: 19786 (fishery lirnitsj .

New Zealand: Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone Act,
1977' (exclusive economic zone).
Solomon Islands: Delimitation of Maritime Waters Act, 1978*(con-

tinental shelf and exclusive economic zone).
Tuvalu: Proclamaiion of 26 October 1978' (fishery limits).
Western Samoa: Excluçive Economic Zone Act, 1977'"exclusive

economic zone).

(5) Equidistancein Nolionai LegislafionR .elatingto lsiand Depcndencies

i'90. In addition: several States have produced sirnilar provisions in
relation to island dependencies, as follows:ll

Denmark (Faroe Islands): Order No. 598 of 21 December 1976"
(fishery limits)

New Zealand (Cook Islands): Territorial Sea and Exclusive
Economic Zone Act, 197713(exclusive economic zone)
New Zealand (Tokelau): Tokelau (Territorial Sea and Exclusi\~e

Economic Zone) Act, 1977 " (exclusive economic zone).
United Kingdom (Turksand Caicos Islands): Proclamation No. 4 of
197815(fishery limits) .

1. Sections 6 and 7, ibip.,391.
2. Section 3;Act No. 20 of 1978.
3. Articlc 7; U.N. Legis. Ser., NatiLcgislatioand Trtaiic~RtlatingfofLow of thrSta,

ST/LEGISER.B/IS, Xew York.1980, p. 43.
4. Xordguiat, Lav and Simmonds. op.cil.VI],p. 110.Kiribati bccame independen1un 12
July, 1979.
5. Section 2; U.N. I.egiScr..hilional Iqidation anTreatio Relati10thrfnr~foffheSrn,
STI.EGIS.R.BI16. Ne% York, 1974. p. 156.
6. Sections2 and 3; Nordquist, Lay'andSirnrniiriop.cil..VII,p.429.
7. Section 9; Nordquisr, Lay and Simmonds, op.ritp. 440.
8.Sections 6and 7;Act NO.32. 1978.
Y. Xordquist, Lay and Simmonds. op. cil.p. 197.
10.Section 9; Nordquist, Lay and Simmonds. op.cil., VII1p. 38.
II. 'I'hetcxts of the legislatireproduccd in Annexes 46 ro 49.
12.;îrtic lcNordquist. Lay and Simrnonds. op.cil.V. p. 1Il.

13. Sections 2 and 8; Nordquist, Lay and Simmonds, op. cil.! VII. p. 374; sce also
Conrinenial ShelfAmencirnciii 12ct.1977.
14. Sections2 and 7;Bordquisil Lay and Simmonds, op.cit.VII. p. 468.
15.24th November 1978; L.S. 14/1978. [SO-831 MEMORIAL OF MALTA 465

(6) Certain Olher DelimitationrInvolvingMajor Island DependenciesOMosile
mainl lands

191. These include the fol1owing:l

(a) Norwq-United Kïngdorn(Shetland Islands)

Ori 10 March 1965 the Governrnents of the Kingdom of Norway

and the United Kingdom signed an agreement for the delimitation of
the continental shelf boundary between the two countriesz. Article I
of the Agreement specifies that the dividing line is based upoii

equidistance "with certain minor divergencies for administrative
convenience". In his 'Analy~is'~ the Geographer of the U.S.
Department of State observes that "the equidistance principle was
employed for the entire length of the C.S.B." [continental shelf

boundary].
The northern sector of the equidistance line lies between the
mainland of Norway and the Shetland Islands and involves turning

points 5, 6 and 7, and terminal point 8. This sector is 150 nautical
miles in length. The distances between the four points and the land
are, respectively, 98, 90, 82 and 87 miles.

(b) India (Nicobar Islands)-1ndonesia(Sumatra)

The delimitation of continental shelf areas dividing the Nicobar
Islands and the large island of Sumatra lying opposite was effected

by an Agreement on 8 August 19744. The shelf boundary is based
upon equidistance with certain practical and unimportant modifi-
cations5. The boundary was extended both northeastward and south-
westward by an agreement signed on 14January 1977@O . nce again

the equidistance method was employed. In substance these two
delimitations accord full weight to the Nicobar Islands and provide
strong evidence for the appropriateness of equidistance in compara-

ble situations elsewhere. It will be noted that the Nicobar Islands do
not have the status of an island State.

(c) UnitedStates (I'uertoRico)- Venezuela

On 28 March 1978 the Governments of the United States and the
Republic of Venezuela signed an agreement establishing 'the mari-

1: The texiofthe Agreements isrcprcduccin Annexes50 to 54 andAnncx 20.
2. U.S.Dept. ofState, Limiin fhSeu,No.10(Reviscd), p.2.The Agreement cntered
into forcon 29June 1965.
3. Ibid.p.4.
4. U.S. Dcpiof StateLimik inthSeas,No. 62. The Agreemencntcred intforceon 17
Dcccmber 1974.
5. Ibid., p. 3.
6. IbidNo. 93,pp.5,14; aiso iIndiaJournalof In&rmtioLw, Vol. 19(l979) p.295.

The Agreemententered in10forccon 15Dcccmbcr 1978.466 CONTINENTAL SHELF [84-851

time boundary' between thernl. The boundary divides the waters
and seabed areas lying between Puerto Rico and Venezuela. The

delimitation is based closely upon equidistance and creates segments
which are, respectively, median lines between Puerto Rico and
certain groups of islands lying offthe Coast of Venezuela, and median
lines between St. Croix Island (United States) and Aves Island

(Venezuela)*. In so Far as the boundary as belwccnPuerto Ric o ndthe
Vcne~uclamnainlandis not a median line, this is due to the presence of
Venezuelan islands. The significance, for purposes of delimitation,
accorded to these relatively small Venezuelan islands is consistent

with the policy giving appropriate weight to Puerto Rico, subject
only to the influence OF the intervening Venezuelan islands.

(d) lndia (Nicoba~ Islana!s)-Thailand

This continental shelf delirnitation of the areas lying between the
Nicobar Islands and Thailand was effected by an agreement signed
on 22June 197a3 .he atignment issubstantially based upon equidis-

tance. Consequently, as in the two delimitations between India and
Indonesia, the Nicobar Islands have been given full weight in a
delimitation vis-à- hiesdistant mainland. The Thailand coasts lie
approximately 230 or 240 miles (in different sectors) away from the

baselines and basepoints on the Nicobar Islands.

(e) Denmark(Faroe~)-~~orway
On 15 June 1979 the Governments of Denmark and Norway

signed an agreement for the delimitation of the continental shelf
between the Faroes and Norway4. Article 1 of the Agreement
provided as Follows:

"The line of demarcation between the section of the con-
tinental shelf in the waters between the Faroes and Norway over

which the Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of Norway,
respectively,txercise sovereignty in sfaras prospecting for, and
exploitation of, natural resources are concerned, shall be the
median line which is equidistant on every point from the closest

points on the base lines whence the ividth of the outer territorial
waters of the contracting parties is measured."

The Faroe Islands are some 310 miles distant from Norway.

1. IbidNo.91. Thc Agrccmcntcntcrcd into forceon 24 Novcmbcr 1980.
2. Scthe analysby RoberW. Smith, Crogrophilcoic, ol.17(1981), p. 395 and pp.
406-7. Itmay be recallcd that the authwas the omcial Gcographcr of thU.S.
Department of Statc.
3. Limitsin SeasNo. 93, pp. 514;also in IndianJouof InicnroiiomlLVol. 19
(1979), p. 295. The Agrccmcnt cntcrcdinto force on 15Dccembcr 1978.
4. The Agreemenwas ratificdo3Junc 1980.The text of ihc Agrccwastobtaincd
otficiallythrough diplochannclsSce rcduccdmapatpage 38. [86-941 MEMORIAL OF MALTA 467

(f) Ausiralia-France (New Caledonia)

On 4 January 1982 the Governments of Australia and France

signed an agreement which etrected a major delimitation betwee~ithe
~"stralian fishin" zone and the French Ëconomic Zone and betweeri
their respective areas of continental shelfL. With respect to New
Caledonia, the resulting boundary is an equidistance line more ttian

1200 miles in length which gives full effect to New Caledonia aiid,
additionally, utilisesa number of uninhabited reefs as basepoints.

192. The view of the United Kingdom Government on the issue of
principle emerges clearly in a written answer2 frorn the Secretary of State
for Foreign and Commonwealth AFlàirsin response to a question relatitig

to advertisements for tenders to drill for oil by the Argentine State
petroleum Company in relation to areas appurtenant to the Falklaiid
Islands. The Secretary of State expressed the Covernment's view thus:

"No agreement has been reached between the U.K. and Argentine
Governments on the delimitation of the continental shelf as between

the Falkland Islands and Argentina. In the absence of an açreed
boundary, neither Party, in Her Majesty's Government's view, would
be entitled to exercise continental shelf rights beyond the median line
between the Falkland Islands and Argentina. We have protested to

the Argentines about the YPF tender which does indeed go beyond
the rnedian line."

(7) Equidistancein theDelimitation of SheEfArearDividingIslandGrotlp~

193. The rôle of equidistance in the delimitatioti of areas dividing
islands and island groups at some distance from each other is prominent
in a number ofrecent delimitation agreernent~.~The relevant agreements

are as follows (in alphabetical order):

(a) Cuba-Haiti, Agreement signed on 27 October 1977 (equidistance
line dividing exclusive econoinic zones and continental shelf area~)~.
(6) France (Wallis and Futuna Islands)-Tonga: Agreement signed on 11
January 1980 (median line dividing the economic zones)5.

(c) France (Reunion)-Mauritius, Agreement signed on 2 April 1980
(median line dividing the economic zones)

1. Texr obtaincd officially through diplchanneb.
2. SecPa~liamcnidDcbah, Housc of I,ords, Vol. 415, cols. 9715Decembcr 1980;
alsoinU.K. Materiohonfnfemutio~lLaw,19m;BritirrcarBookofInttrnalioLW, Vol. 51
(1980), p. 458.
3. The tcxt of tAgrccmcnts is rcprduccdas Annexes54 to60.
4. Nordquist, Lay and Simmonds, NCWDirectionsin tht Law of fhcSm, VIII, p. 69.
5. Ibid., Vo84 (1980)p. 968.
6. U.S.Dept. of Sratc, LimiOintSeasNo. 95.In force: 2 Apr1980.468 CONTINENTAL SHELF 1951

(d) New Zealand (Cook Islands)-United States (American Samoa),
Agreement signed on I I June 1980 (establishes a maritime boundary
which is an equidistance line)'.

(t) New Zealand (Toke1au)-United States (American Samoa),
Agreement signed on 2 December 1980 (establishes a maritime
boundary which is an equidistance line).'
(f) France (Martinique)-St. 1,ucia. Agreement signed on 4 Blarch 1981

(equidistance line dividing the "respecti\ve maritime areas in which
the two States exercise sovereign rightsw)".
(g) Australia (Heard arid McDonald Islands)-France (Kerguelen
Islands), Agreement signed on 4 January 1982 (median line dividing

the Australian fishing zone and the French Economic Zone, and the
respective areas of continental shelr)."

194. In the context of delimitaiion of shelf areas dividing island groups
the relations of the New Hebrides (in the period immediately before

Independence) and the independent island group of Fiji are of consider-
able relevance. On 22nd January 1980 the British High Commission and
ihe French Embaçsy in Suva: Fiji, presented a joint diplornatic Note to
the Government of Fiji, tirhich read in part as follo~vss:

"The Governrnent of'the French Repiiblic and the Governrnent of

the United Kingdom have taken note of the intention of the
Goverilment of Fiji to estriblish a maritime zone of 200 miles from the
baselines from which the breadth of the ierritorial waters of Fiji is

measured.
in view of the forthcorning independence of the New Hebrides and
the permanent character which an eventual delimitation of Fiji and
New Hehridean 100-mile zones would have, the two Governments

consider that any definitive delimitation should be effected after the
Condominium régime has ceased to exist by direct agreement be-
tween the New Hebridean and Fiji authorities.

Hoivever, even in the absence of a definitive delimitation, the
establishment by the Government of Fjjiof a 200-mile zone does not
give rise to any objection on the part of the two Governments,
provided that the rights and powers exercised by the Government of

Fiji in the zone conform with established international law.

1. Text ohtaincd rifficiallythrough diplornaticchannels.
2. Text obtaincd officially thrdiplomaiic channels.
3. RevueginiraIfdroilintrrnaliplublic,Vol. 85 (1981), p. 654. In4fhlarch, 1981.
Anoiher Agreement relating to ihe delimitation of the Continental Shelf betweeo
Xlartiniquc (and Guadeloupe) othe one hand and ihc \'enezuelari IofAves bearsno
cornparisonwirh the situation hcre csamined, because the geopraphical siissigni-
ficanilpdifferent.
4. The Agreement is the samasthat referredto in para. 191(J) ab'ThisAgreement
elfectetwo separaiedelimiiations.
5. Prinied in BrilirhreBookofInlrrnaliL oon,Vol, 51 (1980),p.461. [96-1001 MEMORIAL OF MALTA 469

It is understood that the median or equidistarit line, detined in
the Department's Note of27 Decernber 1978,will serXreprovisionally to
delirnit the cornpetences exercised respectively in the New Hebrides
zone and in the Fiji zone in respect of the sovereign rights recognised

by international law for the purposes of exploration and exploitation
of natural resources.
In the view of the two C;overnments, this provisional delimitation
is expressly subject to a definitive delimitation which should be

undertaken, as set out above, by negotiation between the repre-
sentatives of the two Governments of the New Hebrides and Fiji,"

4. STATE PRACTIC ESTABLISHES THE EQUITABL CEHARACTE OFRTHE
EQUIDISTANCE METHOD IN THE PRESËNT CASE

195. In the light of the material set out above it is evident that the

practice of States in situations which are legally comparable with the
coastal relationships of Malta and Libya gives the strongest possible
indication of the appropriateness- the equitable nature- of the method of
equidistance in delimitation of the areas of continental shelf which

appertain to Malta and Libya respectively. In considering the volume
and significance of the State practice, as evidence of the position in
accordance with customary or general international law, two factors cal1
for ernphasis. First, given the total of sufficiently comparable situations in

the world at large, the practice set forth by the Covernment of Malta
constitutes as complete a rehearsal of such material as possible. Secondly,
there is a conspicuous absence of practice adverse to the application of the

equidistance method in the case of opposite states abutting upon the same
continental shelf.

196. The practice ofthe coastal States of the Mediterraneanhas general
relevance in so far asitindicates the approach of the States of the region
toward the problem of achieving an equitable solution in the setting of

semi-enclosed seas of which the Mediterranean basin is composed. The
evidence consists of four delimiiation agreements, a provisional delirni-
tation, and of course the legislation of Malta, relating to the continental
shelf. Thus in surn the practice of six states is involved.

197. The relevant items of priictice are as follc~ws:~

(a) Iiuly- YugoslavA igreemenlsignedon 8 Januay 196g2

This delimitation involves the application of the mcthod of equidis-
tance with certain modifications to avoid giving too much efléct to

1. ThetexioftheAgreementsisreproduceas Annexes 61ro64.
2. U.SDept. ofStaceLimils theSeasNo.9.470 CONTINENTAL SHELF [Io1]

"the presence of small islands focated many miles from the mainland
near the middle of the ses".'The United States Department of State
Geographer remarks that "this Agreement is an example of what has

been achieved through negotiation when strict application of the
equidistance' principle results in a disproportionate division of the
shelf between two countries as a consequence of the random location

of small islandsM2
(b) Italy-Tunisia, Agreemenlsignedon 20 Augl~st1971'

Article 1 provides as fo1lows:-

"The boundary of the continental shelf between the two count-

ries shall be the median line ... taking into account islands,
islets, and low-tide elevations with exception of Lampione,
Lampedusa, Linosa and Pantelleria."

Of this delimitation the United States Department of State
Geographer remarks: "Italy and Tunisia have agreed that the Italian

islands of Pantelleria, Linosa, Lampedusa, and Larnpione, al1situated
near the Tunisian mninland4,constitute a special circumstance."

(c) Ilaly-Spain, Agreementsignedon 19 Fcbruary 1974 5

This Agreement ais0 bases the shelf delimitation explicitly upon
"the criterion of equidistance" (Article l), and the boundary is thus
the median line between Sardinia and Minorca. It is to be noted that
Minorca is small compared with the mainland of Sardinia.

(d) Gretce-ltab, Agreementsignedon 24 May 1977'

The continental shelf division effected by this agreement is ex-

pressly based upon "the principle of the median line", as stated in the
prearnble and in Article 1.

(e) Malta: ContinentalShelfAct,1966 '

Section 2 of the Act provides that, in the absence of agreement, in
the case of States "of which the Coast is opposite thatof Malta", the
boundary of the respective shelf areas shall be the median line.

1. Ibid..,7.
2.Ibid.
3.Rid., No.89.
4. Emphasis supplied.
5.Ibid . ,.90.
6.U.S. Depr. of Stare, the GeograpLmib inIheSta~No. 96.
7. Anncx 1. (f) Ifaly-Malta provisionaldemarcalionon fhe basis of a Median Line
bcfuieenfheoppositecoasts of Sici&and iMaltaeslablishtd1965-70

The seabed dividing the opposite coasts of Sicily and Malta has
been subject to a median line demarcation in practice since the years

1965-70, in the form of a provisional line of delimitation of the
continental shelf. The Notes Verbales which constitute the basis of
this line of division are as frrllows: the Note Verbale No. 143164 bg
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malta to the Italian Embassy dated

31 December 1965l; and the Note Verbale by the ltalian Ministry of
Foreign Affairs to the Embassy of Malta on 29 April 1970'. The
existence of the provisional line was confirmed by the Italian
Government in a Note Verbale dated 16 March 19813,in which the

position isstated as follo\vs:-

"As is well known, as Far back as the years 1965-1970, since it
was not possible - for contingent technical reasons - to proceed
to a negotiated delimitatioii of the continental shelf between
Malta and Italy, it had been agreed that the median line
between the aforesaid coasts be considered a5 the provisional

line of demarcation of the said shelf."

Whilst the dividing line adopted at the insistence of the italian
Government was "provisional", the ambit of adjustment envisagcd
was clearly limited. 'l'hus in the Note Verbale of 29 April 1970 the
Italian Government expresses itself in the follouing nianner: ,

". .... the Italian Government, pending a definiti\.e agreement
on the matter, considers that a provisional solution is necessary

for the area of more inimediate inierest, narnely that betrveen
Malta and Sicily, which is not affecied by particiilar problems."

198. The practice set forth exhibits certain common fearures. Thc frve
delimitations al1 concern opposite staies on the same shelf and any
adjustment of the equidistance line results from the existence of small

islands substantially displaced from the mainland of the State concerned,
andin some cases4nearer the Coast of the other State. The iiormality and
prominence of the equidistance rnethod is consistently ejvidcnt.
199. Two of the delimitations have a special reievance to the preseni
case. The delimications between Italy and Spain, and Crcece and Iraly,

both involve the use of a median line as between coasts - and islands - ai
considerable distances from each other: in the case of Italy and Spain
between 180 and 200 miles: aiid in the case of Greece and Italy between

1. Annex 65.
2.Annex 66.
3.Annex 67.
4.See ihe Italy-Tunisia delimitatipara. 197(h)sbo\fr.472 CONTINENTA SLHELF il031

42 and 332 miles. Moreover: in the division between Italy and Spain
equal value is given both to Sardinia and to Minorca in the constitution

of the median line boundary.
200. In the subrnission of the Covernment of iMalta, the practice of
coastal States of the region provides significant indicators as to the proper
basis of an equitable solution in the present proceedings.

6.THE COSDL~C TF THE PARTIES THE COSSISTESCY OF ALTA TA'S
Cos~uc~

201. In the Tunisia-Ld Cyenlin~nlalh'ihPVCa see Court gave emphasis
to the conduci of the Parties as being "highl~, relevant to the de-

termination of the method of delirnitationfl.l In this context the Court
niade the following staternent: "the history of the enacrrnent of petroleum
licensing legislation by each Part).and the çrant of successive petroleum
concessions, during the periad frorn 1955 iip to the signing of the Special

Agreement, shows that .. . the phenornenon of actual overlapping of
claims did not appear until 1974". The Court gave weight to the conduct
of the parties: the line which the Parties acted upon, as a reletvant
circumstance.' hloreover: il may be recalted that Judge Jessup in a

Separate Opinion in the ~VorthSta Contiri~nia l h~lfCasesreferred to the
need to take account of existing patterns of exploitation of seabed oil
under licences or conce~sions.~
202. In the relations of A-Ialta and Libya the conduct of the parties
constitutes weighty evidence of the relevant equities to be taken inro

account in these proceedings. klalta adopted her Continerital Shelf Act in
19663 on 28 July, and tliis was published in the normal way. 'l'he
provisions of the Act (in secrion 2) stated unambiguously that: in the
absence of agreement, the continental shelf boundary "in relation to states
of which the Coast is opposite that of X*lalta ... shall be.. .the median

line . .". The adoption of this lcgislation on the part of Malta evoked no
proiest or reservation of rights frorn the Libyan Government, and no
dissenting opiiiioii was indicated by Libyan oMcials prior to a meeting of
delegations in April 1973.'.

203. On 24 April 1973 the Malta Gorzrnrnent Gazette published a
Notice inviting applications for Production Licences in the offshore area
south of hlalta and, in due course: concessions rvere granted in the period
May to Novcmber 1974.9he concessions granted by Malta naturally
observed the median liiie as n southern lirnit.' The first Libyan con-

1. LCJ.Reports1982,p. 18 andp. 83,para.117.
2.Ibd., p84,para118.
3.1.C.J.Reportr 19pp.79-81.
4. Annen 1.
5. See abovepara.65.
6. See above, par36.
7. See klap 3. 11041 MEMoRIAL OF MALTA 473

cessions in the area which infringed the median line were granted in
September 1974.' Thus the first disturbance of the statusquoconstituted

by Malta's legislation of July 1966 took place in September 1974, and
resulted from a Libyan initiative. The conduct of lMalta has remained
consistent throughout the material period.

204. The grant of concessions which impugned the median line on the
part of the Libyan Government forced the Governrnent of Malta to take
the steps necessary to protect her legal rights. The corporations licensed
by Libya to undertake exploration activities in areas north of the median

line were informed of Malta's rights in the relevant areas of continental
shelf in letters couched in the clearest possible terms2.
205. At al1 stages of the matter Malta has maintairied her position

based on the legality of the equidistance delimitation and reserved her
rights3. In contrast to theconsistency of the conduct of Malta, which after
al1 has reflected a position based upon legal principle and given due
publicity in her legislation of 1966, the Libyan Covernment has failed to

clarify its position on delimitation in the form of any legislation or
administrative act. This lack of a public and definitive stance appears to
reflect the absence of confidence on its part in any solution, based on legal

principle, which differs from that propounded by Malta. This assessment
is given strong confirmation by the terms of the letter sent by the Prime
Minister of Libya to the Prime Minister of Malta on 19 December 19764.
In particular the Libyan Prime Minister adopts the view that no rule of

international law on the subject of delimitation had emerged thus far.
206. As the Court indicated in itsJudgment in the Tunzsia-Libya
the conduct of the Parties provides evidence of the position in equity as

they conceive it to be. In this connection the attention of the Court is
respectfully drawn to the Declaration of the Organization of Afncan
Unity on the Issues of the Law of the Sea of 19 July 1974.6 This
Declaration includes the following important point of principle:

" Regirneof Islands

5. That the African States recognize the need for a proper de-
termination of the nature of maritime spaces of islands and recom-
mend that such determination should be made according to equit-

able principles taking accountof al1 relevantfactors and specialcircum-
stances7including:

1. Ibid.
2. Annexes 9 and 10.
3. See, for cxample, (p75aabove), thtcrms of the diplomarNote dated8 Augusr
1974, l'rotheGovernrnentof Maltato the Libyan Minisrryof Foreign Affairs.
4. Sce abovepara.89.
5. I.J. Rtporu1982p,.84, para118.
6. ThirdUnite~dationConferc nthr Lawof theScoOJiciaRecordIs1,p.63,U.K. Doc.
A/CONF.62/33.
7. Emphasiasupplieci.474 CONTINENTAL SHELF

(a) The size of the islands
(6) Their population or the absence thereof
(c) Their contiguity to the principal territory

(d) Their geological configuration
(t) The specialinterestof islandstates'and archipelagic states."

207. Libya, which was and remains a Member ofthe Organisation of
African Unity, did not oppose this Declaration or place any reservation
on record in respect of the staternent concerning the regirne of islands.

208. The practice of States examined in this Chapter of the Mernorial
provides clear evidence of the important and widespread role of equidis-

tance as a method for producing an equitable solution in the case of
delirnitations between island States and distant "mainlands" and in other
comparable cases of opposite States. That sarne practice carries an impli-
cation of great political and legal significance. Given the number of island

States in the world and the high incidence of delimitation agreements
involving such States which are based upon equidistance, any solution not
predicated upon equidistance would be very likely to lead to a real sense

of unease in the international comrnunity.
209. It is worth recaHing the words of the Court in the Tmple case
(Merits)':

"In general, when two countries establish a frontier between them,

one of the primary objects is to achieve stability and finality. This is
impossible if the line so established can, at any moment, and on the
basis of a continuously available process, be called in question . . ."
14
210. The issues in the Tnnpk case were not related to the law of the sea
but the principle enunciated issurely of general application. Indeed, in

his work The Developmcnrof Intemiional Low by th InternationalCourt3,
Judge Sir Hersch Lauterpacht refèrred to "those principïes of finality,
stability, and effectiveness of international relations, which have charac-

1.Emphasissupplied.
2. LCJ. Report, 1962,p. 6 and p. 34; anseealso ibid.,p. 60, the Çeparatc Opinion of
JudgeSir GeraldFitzrnauricSec also the Rann of Kuch ArbitratioAward, Inrsrnutional
Lw Reportr (cd. E. LautcrpachtQ.C.) Vol.50, p. 2,and pp. 475, 520 (Opinon of the
Chairman),pp. 409-10(DisscntingOpinionofJudgeAle: Bebler). ,
3. London, 1958,p. 241. The importanceof the achievcmentofstabiland finality has
becnrecognised by variouswritcrs:set Jcnnings, Th Arquisi&ofTrm'totyinInlminiwml
Imw, Manchcster, 1963,p. 70;Cukwurah, Th Sculmuniof Bmdaq Dirpuks in Inlmintiannl
Lw, Manchester, 1967,p. 121;Anand, Shulie~inItzttriurtildjudcah.on,Delhi1969, p.
238; Sharma, Intcrnulio~lBomdar).Disjmtesand In&mtiotidl LAW (Forcword by Judge
Nagendra Singh), Bombay, 1976,pp. 2-3.[Io61 MEMORIAL OF MALTA 475

terised the work of the Court". These I~roadconsideratioiis niilitate stroiigly
iii favour of rnaintaining a reginie of delimitation in respect oi'shclf right!:

tvhich is already firmly established in the practice ol' States iii \,arious
regioiis of the world.

211. The key elemerits iri the position of hialta relatiiig to thc applic-
able principles and rules of interiiational law in the context of'ihe Spccial

Agreement are ihese:

(a) In the case of opposite States ahiiiting on the samc coiitinental shclf:
the median lirie will iiormally give ail cquitable rcs~ilt.
(6) 'The practice of States in situations legally comparable with cciastal
relationships of Malta and Liliya establislies the ecl~iital->lriaturc of'
the method of'equidistance in dividing the pertinent shelf'areas iri th(:

present case.
(6) The appropriateness of the equidisiance method is criiifirmedtiy the
practice of other States in the 'fediterranean region.

(d) The conduct of the Parties in the present case and, in particular, {lie
consistency of Malta's conduct, is a relevant considcraiioii in deciding
upun the balance of equities.
(e) A sigiiificaiit number of dclimita~ions involving islaiicl States rcly

upon the equidistance method and the stability ol' such existirig
settlemeiits is an equitable consideration to he giveii appropriaie
weight. THE PREMISES OF CONTINENTAL SHELF
DELIMITATION

212. The principles of international law which have relevance to the
delimitation of shelf areas dividing the coasts of Malta and Libya will now

be examined in two phases. In the first phase the general prernisewjllbe
set forth and in the second phase attention is given to the equitable
principles of particular relevance to the present case.

(a) The equitableresultmusfrgect thegeographicaflacts in eachpariicularcase

213. This principle has already been developed in Chapter V of this

Mernorial.

(b) MThertehe coasts oJ two Statesare opposileeach othefhemedianline will
normalbbringaboutan equifableressull

214. The key statement of this equitable principle occurs in the
judgmeni of the Court in the North Sea ContinentaSl heifCases' thus:

"The continental shelf area off, and dividing, opposite States, can be
clairned by each of them to be a natural prolongation of its territory.

These prolongations rneet and overlap, and can therefore only be
delirnitedby means of a mcdian line; and, ignoring the presence of
islets, rocks and minor coastal projections, the disproportionally
distorting effect of whichcan be eliminated by other meanç, such a
line must effect an equal division of the particulaarea involved."

215. The applicability of this principle to the uncomplicated relation-
ship of the Maltese and Libyan coasts is obvious. The principle involved

was of particular prominence in theJudgrnent in the North Seacases and
was restated in the dispositif*as follows:

"if.. . the delimitationleaves to the Parties areas that overlap, these
are to be divided between them in agreed proportions or, failing
agreement, equally . . . "

216. This principie, which is very similar to the provision which
appears in Malta's Continental Shelf Act of 1966, is part of the Court's
statement of "the principles and rules of international law applicable to

the delimitation" and is one of the two major principles ïorrnulated in the

1.I.C.J.Reportr1969,p.36,para.57.
2. Ibid.53.C(2). [1081 MEMORIALOF MALTA 477

Judgment. The principle was to be reiterated by the Court in the Angle

FrenchContinentaS lhelfArbit~ationin these words:'

"In a situation where the coasts of the two States are opposite each
other, the median line will norrnally effect a broadly equal and
equitable delimitation."

(c) Equiljidoesnot necessarilyimpb lheelinaination ofgeographicad l zfferences
&y legalmeom

217. The task of equity in delimitation of shelf areas cannot involve the
geopolitical role of refashioning geography. The principle was stated by
the Court in the North Sca cases thus:*

"It is therefore not a question of totally refashioning geography

whatever the facts of the situation, but, given a geographical si-
tuation of quasi-equality asbetween a number of States, of abating
the effects of an incidental special feature from which an unjustified
difference of treatment could result."

218. It is clear that the geographical identity of a normal feature such

as an island State cannot constitute an "incidental special feature" either in
legal principle or as a matter of political common sense. After all, out of
154 independent States, 38 are island States, a proportion of 25 per cent.

(d) Euen uihen itLF applicablein fimine,ihe conceptof naturalprolongation ir
subordinale tothesotisfnctionof equilablepritlciples

219. The concept of natural prolongation related to the notion of shelf

as "a species of platform"g has no relevance to the present case, since the
geographical circumstances are not appropriate. It is only in rare cases
that the concept of natural prolongation provides an indication of an
alignment deriving from the facts of geoIogy.4 In any case the effect to be

given to the concept is dependent not only on the geographical circum-
stances but also on any relevant circurnstances of law and equity.' The
satisfaction of equitable principles is of cardinal importance, and the
identification of the natural prolcingation of less importance, in defining

an equitable delirnitation.6
220. As this Mernorial has indicated earlier?, the framework within
which an equitable solution isto be sought is not one of geography assuch

1. Dcciiionof 30June 1977, InicrnafiLlou Rrporis,para239.Sec ülçopara. 95 of'rhc
Dccisioand Vol. 54, p6, para. 183othis Mernorial.
2. i.C.j'. &Por1969,p. 50, para91.
3. Tuniria-Lilya Continend SbeCase,LCJ.Reporsr1982,p.48,para.47.
4. tbid., p4-7, para.44;p. 92,para. 133.
5. Anglo-FrencContirunhShclArbitralioDccision, 1977para. 194injnc.
6. Tunisia-LibyContirunhShrljCase,I.C.J. Kcporls198pp. 46-47,para. 44.
7. Abovc,Chapter V.478 COMlNENTAL SHELF [log]

and in the abstract. Consequently, it is the rrlafionshipsof coasts which
really count and such relationships have to be weighed in terms of the

relevant political facts, which include the status of Malta as an island
State.

(e) The generalcode of delimitationconsists of equifableprinczples

221. In the Tuni~ia-li CbontintniaShev case the Court appljed the
law in a manner consonant with the formulations in the North Sea cases1
and, indeed, remarked that it was "bound to decide the case on the basis
of equitable principlesn2. In the same paragraph the Court observed:

"The equitableness of a principle rnust be assessed in the light of its

usefulness for the purpose of arriving at an equitable result.It is not
every such principle which is itself equitable; it rnay acquire this
quality by reference to the equitableness of the solution. The prin-
ciples to be indicated by the Court have to be selected according to
their appropriateness for reaching an equitable result. From this

consideration it follows that the term 'equitable principles' cannot
be interpreted in the abstract; itrefers back to the principles and rules
which may be appropriate in order to achieve an equitable result."

222. It is generally recognised that there is no legal limit to the
equitable considerations and factors which may be taken into account in

achieving an equitable delimitation in each particular case3. The juris-
prudence of international tribunals rnakes it abundantly clear that weight
may be given to non-geographical elements in achieving an equitable
solution. In the Anglo-hnch ContintnlalShey Casethe Court of Arbitration

recognised the significance of the economic, as well as the political, status
of the Channel Islands4:

"Possessing a considerable population and a substantial agricultural
and commercial economy, they are clearly territorial and political
units which have their own separate existence and which are of a
certain importance in their own right separately frorn the United

Kingdorn . .. The political status of the Channel Islands, vis-A-vis
France for the purpose of the delimitation of the continental shelf is,
therefore, a matter to be appraised by this Court itself."

1.I.C.J. Reporîs p.53, para. 101.
2. I.C.J. Reports19p.59, para. 70.
3. ~VorfScaCanfinmioiShrgCascs, I.C.J. Rep19@,p. 50,para. 93.
4. Decisioor30June 1977,InlcrnationlawReportVol.54, p6, paras. 184-185.ri101 MEMORIAL OF MALTA 479

Later in the same Award the Tribunal said':

" ... the appropriateness of the equidistance or any other method for
the purpose of effecting an equitable delimitation in any given case is
always a function or reflection of the geographical and other~eleüant

circurnstantesf theparticularcase".
223. In the same Award the Court referred to "the legal framework

within which the Court must decide the course of the boundaryM2. Within
the legal framework the Court accorded relevance to "the size and
importance" of the Channel Islands3and stated further4:

"Other elements in the framework are the various equitable con-
siderations invoked by the Parties regarding their respective navi-
gational defence and security interests in the region".

(a) The Absenceof land-bascd Encre Resources

224. The importance to Malta of the petroleum resources of the seabed
in the region delirnited by her equidistance line cannot be emphasized too
rnuch. Thereare no indications of the existence of any energy resources on

the mainland of Malta and this absence of oil, coal and hydro-electric
sources is not speculative but is a fact, a permanent state of deprivation.
225. At this point it is tbe recalled that in theFkheries Jurisdictioncase
(United Kingdom v. Iceland)' the Court gave legal effect to the concept
of preferential rights of fishing in favour of a coastal State "in a situation
of special dependence on its coastal fisheries". The arialogy with the

dependence of Malta upon sea-bed energy resources is obvious and it is
equally obvious that Malta cannot in future change her energy prospects.
This permanent jack of land-based energy resources, especially bearing in
mind the abundance of Lihya's petroleum and gas resources, is, without
doubt, an equitable consideration or factor relevant to the delimitation of

the shelf areas dividing the two Parties. The lack of energy resources on
Matta's mainland isnot a matter of "unpredictable national fort~ne"~.

(b) The Requiremento sf Malta as an IslandDeuelopingCountry

226. The text of the Law of the Sea Convention of 1982is inspired by a
concern foi the well-being of developing countries and for "the realization
of a just and equitable international economic order which takes into

account ... in particular, the special interests and needs of developing

1.Ibid.,para.239.Emphasissupplied.
2. Ibid.,para.187.
3. Ibd
4.Ibid.para. 188.
5. I.CJ.Reports 1974,3and p.23,para.a52ansec alsoparas55-68.
6. Tuniria-LibaContinentlhelJ&se,1.CJ.Repods 1982,p. 77,paras.106-107.480 CONTINENTALSBELF II111

countries, whether coastal or land-locked"'. The overall concern of the
international comrnunity with the developrnent requirements of develop-
ing countries is, itis submitted, a relevant consideration or factor which
must be given proper weight in achieving an equitable solution in the

present case.
227. The significance of this particular equitable consideration is cvid-
enced and confirmed by the fact that over the last decade the in-
ternational community bas given explicit and persistent recognirion of the

caiegory of "island developing countries". Moreover, Malta has been
classified as an "island developing country" in a number of pertinent
United Nations documents2,

228. Within the broad framework of the Second UN Development
Decade and the work of the UN Conference on Trade and Developmeni
(UNCTAD), the idea began to surface in 1972 that island developing
countries constituted a special.category of States eniitled to assistance from

more fortunate countries. International recognition of this concept and its
implications may be dernonstrated hy a chronological description of
some of the earlier stages of this development.

(i) In 1972 the UNCTAD conference promoted an expert study of the
problems of developing island couniries (Resolution 65 (III)). Mrithiii the

range of population categories of large and medium, srnall and Xrerysrnall,
this study identified Malta as smail in territory and very small in terms of
population3.

(ii) The Declaraiion on the Establishment of the New Econornic Order

adopted by the UN General Assembly in Resolution 3201 (S-VII) on
1 May 1974 contained in Article 4 a staternent of the principles on ~vhich
the iiew international econornic order should be founded. This included:

1. See the preambte; and see also the incorporation in Pari II of the Convention of the
concept of the 'common hcriiage.oï mankind'.
2. Scc Table 23 appcndcd ro the 1976 Repoofthe USC'I'ADSccrerariat on Aciiotion
spiici1rnfasurcsinfarour of ihr lmst deseloplhrdrcelnpingcounirirslihr drrdopingidand
counirinnd thedtuclopingland-locouniri:oli9 irsursandnconinirndafi.raceedings of
ihc U.N. Confèrence on .l'rade and Devrlopmcnr, Fourrh Session,111,p. 188). 'I'his
'l'able, whichis reproducin Annex 68.classifies developing island counbyipopu-
lation, income levels, land area and disiarrum rhc nearesi continent. it'ithin this
classilication Malta appcars as-"amall" in populaiion and "very srnall" in terriiory. InJune
1977. the Secretary-Gencral of the US reported, in IOlisland àeveloping coutirries,

that the operations undcr tUX Developmcni Programme for Malta
"ii,ere sevcrely curtailed for lack of resources and an exrra year was required to
çiimplete the projects included in it. Somc of ihe projecrs current and planned relate to
the irland situation of hialta and, in parricular, to the trarisitseconornyf
with respect to civilian activitiea in the Malia5dwell as to the development of'
fiaheries and to olfshore drilling".Doc.A(321126,para. 37). 11121 MEMORlAL OF MALTA 481

"(c) Full and effective participation on the basis of equality of ail
countries in the solving of bvorld ecoriomic problems in the common
interest of al1 countries, beariin mind the necessity to ensure the
accelerated development of al1the developing countries, while devot-

ing particular attention to the adoption of special measures in favour
of the least developed, land-locked and islund developingcounirieas
well as those developing countries most seriously affected by econ-
omic,crises and natural calamities, without tosing sight of the in-
terests of other developing countries."

(iii) Again, in the Programme of Action on the establishment of the
New International Ecoiiomic Order by the UN General Assembly on the

same day as the previous resolution (Resolution 3202 (S-VI)), the section
on "Food" proposed that "All efforts should be made", inkr alia,

"(0 To ensure that developing countries can import the necessary
quantity of food without undue strain on their foreign exchange
resources and without unpredictable deterioration in their balance of
payrnents, and, in this context, thatspecial mcasures are taken in
respect of the leasr developed, land-locked and islandeuelopincouni-
ries as well as those developing countriesmost seriously arected by

economic crises and natural calamities";
(iv) Later in the same year, the Charter of Economic Rights and

Duties, contained in UN General Assembly Resolution 3281 (XXIX), 12
December 1974, included a reference to island developing countries in
Article25:

"In furtherance of world economic developrneni, the international

community, especially its developed members, shall pay special
attention tothe particulac needs and problems of the least developed
among the developing countries, of land-locked developing countries
and also island developing countries,ith a view to helping them to
overcome, their particular difficulties and thuç contribute totheir
economic and social development".

(v) On 17 Decernber 1974 the UN General Assembly adopted
Resolution 3338 (XXIX) in the following terms:

"The General Assembly,
Recalling resolution 65 (III) of 19 May 1972of the United Nations
Coderence on Trade and Development and Tradeand Development
Board resolutions 101 (XIII) of8 Septernber 1973 and 108 (XIV) of
12 September 1974.
Recalling further General. Assembly resolution 3202 (S-V) of

1 'May 1974, containing the Programme of Action on the
Establishment of a New International Economic Order, in which the482 CONTINENTAL SHELF il131

Assembly, interalia, called upon the internationalcommunity to assist
the developing countries while devoting particular attention to the
least developed, land-locked and islanddcvelopingcountricshand those
developing countries most seriously affected by econornic crises and
natural calarnities leading to serious retardation of development

processes.
Recalting also Economic and Social Council decision 28 (LVII)
of 2 August 1974 on the special economic problems and deveiop-
ment needs of geographically disadvantaged developing island coun-

tries.
1. Invites the executive heads of the organizations concerned

within the United Nations system, particularly those of the United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the United
Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Industrial
Development Organization, the International Labour Organisation,
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the

International Civil Aviation Organization, the World Meteorological
Organization, the Inter-Governrnental Maritime Consultative Or-
ganization, international financial institutions,regional development
banks and the regional commissions, to intensify their efforts with
respect to deuelopingislandcountrieslwithin their fields of cornpetence,

bearing in mind the aforementioned resolutions;
2. Calls upon the Secretary-General to take effective rneasures
towards meeting the needs of the deuelopingislandcorrnlriesiln accor-
dance with the Programme of Action on the Establishment of a New

International ~conomic Order;
3. Urges al1 Governrnents, in particular those of the developed
countries, within the context of their assistance programmes, to
consider extending appropriate financial and technical assistance to
deuelopingislandcountrir~'e,specially for the expansion of their trans-

portation and communication facilities and the deutlopmentof their
marineresofirctls:
4. Requests the executive heads of the United Nations organi-
zatjons concerned to report on the implernentatjon of the present
resolution to the Economic and Social Council at its fifty-ninth

session, through the Cornrnittee on Review and Appraisai at its 1975
session, within the context of their reporting in relation to the mid-
term review and appraisal of the International Development Decade
and in preparation'for the special session of the ~e&ral Assernbly
devoted to development and international economic CO-operation, to

be held in September 1975".

1.Emphasis supplicd. il141 MEMORIAL OF MALTA 483

229. l'liis process of re-affirmation aiid application of the concept of
"developing island countries" continued undiminished in the t'ollowitig

years. The gears 1976 to 1982 saw a flow of UNC'TAII stiidics! United
Nations General Assembly resolutions, and other items, dealiiig \vit11the
subject; and the relevant rnaterial is annexed to ihe preseiit Mcn~<iri;il'.
230. :I'hc concept of "islaiid developiiig countries" ilas wiclc iniplica-

tions but hr present plirposes its significance lies in the international aiid
universally accepted certificatioi~ which it provides for the dcvcloliinent
needs of Malta. In the context of continciital shelf delimitation, the

absence of land-hased rcsoiirces, coiipled wiih thc prcsence of pciroleuin
in the area in issue, provides substantial justification for-ttie vicw tliat tlie
development requirements or hlalta constitutc aii cquitakile corisidcration
or factor to be given weight in the dekimitation of'the shelf areas dividing

Malta and Lihya. The Governmcnt of ,Malta is corifiderit that the Court,
as the principal judicial nrgari of the United Nations, \vil1 readily
recognize the relevance of the prrictice of the organs of the United Xations

and of'the hlembcr States iri relation to islarid developiiig couritrics.

(c) The Geugraphi(,a Rlange of 1;ishirrg cliui~
231. In view especially of' the close link existing in modern iriter-

national law between continentzil shelves and exclusive ecoriomic zones.
factors which are relevant to the exploitation of biological rcsources must
be given weight as an equitablc consideration. Some reference has already

been made2 to the established patterns of Maltese fisherics stretching
southwards to the equidistance liiie and even beyond it.

(d) The Nementof JlrationaS l tcurzQinConfrolofAdjacenlSubmarinrArtas

232. The apron of jurisdiction which a coastal State has over adjacent
siibmarine areas constitu tes a necessary attribiite of national security. The
importance of the exercisc of political authority by the coastnl State has

been ernphasized already in this Mern~riat:~aiid itonly remains for Malta
to point out that security inrcrests form a relevant consideration for
purposes of an equitable delimitation of appiirtenant shelf areas4. For

purposes of control and the maintenance of security, hetalta has a need for
a lateral reach of control frorn its coastline rvhich cannot be less than that
of Libya. hloreover, the importance of this coiisideration is increased
substantially as a consequcrice tifMalta's statiis of neutrality5. It is, of

course, obvious that the need fbr security, reflected in the lateral reach of'
jurisdiction, hears no relation to the lengfhol'the coasis of'the particiilar
State.

1. Annex 68.

2. See above,paras.41-45.
3. See atxtvc, para143- t49.
4. See Noie 3tu para. 223 abuvc.
5. The faciualbackground haa becnouilinedabuvc. ti:ir:58-Fi 484 CONTINENTAL SHELF [llfi]

233. In accordance with the precept stated by the Court in the Tunisia-

Libja case that the test of the applicability of a given principle is its
appropriateness for reaching an equitable result, and in the light of the
previous jurisprudence of the Court, the Government of Malta will

formulate the equitable principles (and the relevant circumstances) of
particular relevance in the present case. Such principles constitute a part
of the "principles and rules of international Iaw" which are applicable to
the delimitation of the seabed areas dividing the coasts of Malta and

Libyn.
234. The equitable principles and relevant circurnstances of particular
relevance are as fo1lows:-

(a) The area relevant for the delimiiation constitutes a single continental

she1fas the natural prolongation of the land territory of both Parties,
so that in the present case, no criterion for deliinitation of shelf areas
can be derived [rom the concept of natural pr~longation.~
(b) The general configuration of the coasts of the Parties involves a

coastal relationship of opposite coasts set at a considerable distance
from each other, and the absence of any special or unusual feature~.~'
(c) ln the presence of opposite coasts and the absence of displaced islands

or iher unusual features, the equitable solution must be based upon
the rnethod of equidi~tance.~
(4 Matta is a State and its status as an island State is not a justification
for discrimination in matters of delirnitation.4

(e) The conduct of the Parties is a relevant circumstance in determining
the method of delimitation.5
(f) Economic considerations are 10 be taken into account with particular

reference to the absence of land-based energy sources in Ma1ta.6
(g) A further relevant consideration, related to the absence of land-based
energy resources in Malta, especially in view of the abundance of
such resources available to Libya, lies in the development needs of

Malta (evidenced, inter aliu, by her status as a developing island
~ountry)~.

1.Cf. thcTuiiisia-LibContinrnidShcICase,I.C.J.Rcporb1982,p.92; and xc the North
ScnCases,I.C.J.Rcpor~r969,pp. 53-54, whichrcfersto "thephysicalandgcologicstucture
and naruralresourcesof thccontinentalrhelfartasinvolved".
2. Sec above, para.114.
3. Scc above,paras. 181-183,forthe judicial authoritics.
4. This aspect of thproblcrn icxpoundcd abovc, ChapierVI.
5. This aspccrof the casiscxamined abovc, Chaptcr VII, paras.201-207.
6. This aspectofthe cascisexamincd above in Chapter VlII paras. 224-225.
7. SCC above,paras.226-230. 161 MEMORIAL OF MALTA 485

(h) The patterns and range of established fishing activity are to be given

weight as a relevant equitahle consideration.'
(i) The element of national security involved in control of the adjacent

submarine areas also constitutes a relevant consideration.'
(j) The stability of existing settlements based upon equidistance is an
equitable consideration in the present case, and in any case itis the

general policy of international law to achieve stability and finality in
matters of delirnitati~n.~
(k) In the geographical circumstances presented by the present case, a

departure from the equidiscance methad would involve a massive
breach,of the principle of non-encroachment.4

i .Si.[;itio\fpara. 4t .15aritl para.23 1.
2. Sçc aliuve.parah. 1.13-1.19aiid232.
3. 'I'hcpoiiiis cxpriundçd tniirrTiillinpaiiii.20H.'LIO.a)io\.r.
.+.'l'hr1~3iiiiiï rxpound~f rniirilly irliar:i\2~1ii.-2.1:I{,.i.low. THE APPROPRIATE METHOD OF DELIMITATION

235. The exposition of the principal elernents of equity, the relevant
equitable principles in this caseisundertaken elsewherc in this ~emorial!
The purpose of this chapter is to give a more detailed articulation of the
legal justification for the median line delimitation adopted by Malta in

the Continental Shelf Act enacted in 1966.The baselines and basepoints
employed in the construction of the median line boundary have been
described in Chapter 1 above.

236. The appropriateness of the given method of delimitation depends
upon the result, and the delimitation must lead to an equitable solution.

The primary guide to equity is the geographical configuration and in the
case of opposite coasts the normally applicable method is that of equidis-
tance and the drawing of the median line.
237. In the words of the International Court in the NorthSeoContinental

Shclfcasex2

"The continental shelf off, and dividing, opposite States, can be
claimed by each of them to be a natural prolongation of its territory.
These prolongations meet and overlap, and can therefore only be
delimited by rneans of a median line; and, ignoring the presence of

islets, rocks and minor coastal projections, the disproportionally
distorting effect of which can be eliminated by other means, such a
line rnust effect an equal division of the particular area involved .. ."

238. In the circurnstances of the present case, no intervening islands or
other minor and casual features of the geography of the area create any
complications. No distorting eKect needs to be eliminated or abated. No

Maltese islands lie near the Libyan coast and no outlying Libyan islands
are to be found. Thus in the Anglo-Frenc h ontinentalhelfCase3 the Court
adopted the following position:

"In the English Channel, leaving aside the particular situation
resulting from the Channel Islands being located off the French

coast, the geographical and the legal frame of reference for determin-
ing the course of the boundary of the continental shelf is patently
that of a delimitation between 'opposite' States."

1, Secin particularChaptcrVIIandtheothcrpartofthe Mernoriareferrctothcrein.
2.I.C.3.Rrporfs196p. 36para.57.
3. Decision 30Junc 1977,lnfrrnaliLaw RrporhVol. 54p.6,para. 103. [119-1201 MEMORIALOF MALTA 487

239. In the Dispositif in the North Sea Cases Judgrnent' the Court
stated, as one of "the principles and rules of international law" applic-

able, the principle that, when areas of the shelf "overlap", these are "to
be divided ... equally" in the absence of agreement between the Parties.
This important judicial pronouncement, which was made in the context
of customary international law, provides an emphatic confirmation of the

legality of the median line constituted by Malta's Continental Shelf Act of
1966.

3. THE PRIKCIPL OFENON-ENCROACHN LIECNESSITAT UESEOF THE

EQUIDISTAS ME THOD

240. In the NorthSea cases the Court statedZ that "delimitation was to
be effected . . . in sacway as to leave as rnuch as possible to each Party

al1 those parts of the continental shelf that constitute a nalural pro-
longation of its land territory into and under the sea, without en-
croachment on the natural proloiigation of the land territory of the other".
Moreover, in several passages theJudgment refers to the efrect of"cut-off'

which results from the use of equidistance in certain geographical
situations3,especially when the equidistance line swings laterally across the
"coastal front" of oneState..
241. The principle of non-encroachment was reaffirmed in the Anglo-

FrenchContinentalShelJArbifrafion4,and again in the Judgment in the
Tunisia-Liba case,5 though in the form of an obilerdicfum,and remailis a
fundamental aspect of'the law relating to continental shelf delirnitation.
242. In the geographical circumstances presented by the present case, a

departure from the equidistance rnethod of delimitation rvould involve a
massive breach of the principle of non-encroachrnent. Xlalta's coasts
count as much as the cnasts 01'other opposiie States in lerms of the
generation of continental shelf entitlement. The concept of' non-

encroachrnenl directly reflects-the idea that the shelfisa prolongation of
the land territory under the sea. Moreover, it isthe locationof îvlalta as an
island State distantfrom the Libyan coastline which justifies and, indeed.
necessitates the use of equidistance.

243. The position is betrer understood by a perusal of the sketch map
@ (Figure A), which clarifies the coasral relationshipsof R*laltaand Lihya
inlerse. The hatched areas, 1 and II, indicate the areas of shelf which,
according to the judicial metaphor in the Norlh SeaCases, may besaid ro
4'overlap". These are areas forming part of a single geological continuum

1.I.C.J. Repo1969,p. 53, par101.
2. Ibid.p. 53para. 101and also p. 47, pa85(c).
3. Ibid.,p. 17, pa8, p31, para44, p.37, para. 58.
4. Inftrnaiioml Reports,Vol54, p6,para85.
5. I.C.1. Rtfirl~ 19862.para.76.Sce alrtlic SeparOpinioiiofJudgcJiméiiede
Aréchaga,ibidpp. 116-117paras.57-59: pp118-122. paras.65-;. 132para. 103. 488 CONTINENTAL SHELF (1211

and, apart from the baselines and coasts of the Parties, the western and
@ eastern lirnits (shown on FiguA) are notional indications of the simple
idea that the hatched areas divide the coasts of the two Parties. In other
words the areas eitherface Malta or Libya and constitute shelf areas "off,
and dividing, opposite States". In this situation the problem of en-

croachrnent met with in the case of lateral&adjacentStates cannot arise. In
the case of oppositeStates the median line provides the logical and
equitable response to the need to avoid encroachment on the natural
prolongation of the land territoof each Party.

4. THE TRAPEZIU ASMTHE EQUITAB RLEFLECTI OOFTHE EQU~D~STASCE

METHOD

244. The attention of the Court is respectfull y drawn to FBgin the
text of this Chapter. The illustrative sketch there displayed is formed on
the basis of a quadrilateralhaving only one pair of its opposite sides

parallel, in other words, on the basis of a trapezium. This figure provides
a means of understanding the equitable solution resulting from the use of
a median line in the division of the areas of shelf lying between Malta and
Libya. In the trapeziurn figure the two parallel sides represent the coast of
opposite States.

245. The equitable solution which the law calls for is the product of the
coastal configurationand the other relevant circumsrances. The key
elements in the coastal relationships of Malta and Libya are as fo1lows:-

(a) The distancebetween Malta and the Libyan coastline; and since it is
relafionshwhich is the keyitis precisely the distance, in conjunction
with the location of Malta and the loitg regular coast of Libya, which
is the significant factor.

(b) The locationof the Malta group of islands and the opposite re-
lationship thereof to the Libyan coastline produces a particular effect:
a critically locared Maltese group of islands supports asufficient
number of control points.
(c) The extensive wtst-easl reachof the Libyan coastline, in conjunction
with the "set back" locationof Malta, results in a trapezoidal figure:

that is to say, the Libyan coastaltent is appropriatelreflected in
@ the southern segment OCthe trapezium (Figure B, Zone 2),and the
equidistance method of delimitation places equitable limits upon the
Iatitudinaland southerly reach of the Maltese continental shelf
entitlement (Figure8,Zone 2).The median line constitutes a natural

northern boundary to the southern segment of the trapezium.
246.'The relationship of the two sets of coastlines is, generally speaking,

trapezoidai, since the rvest-east extension of the Libyan coaprovides
a broad wedge of shelf which is the base of the trapezium, and the
Maltese entitlement (so Far asirhas a relationship withLibjan coasts)
provides the upper segment of the trapezium. The natural limitsofthe 11221 MEMORIAL OF MALTA 489

Maltese relationship with the LiOrtancoasts create a "drawing in" of the-
western and eastern sides of the trapezium. The consequence is that the

principle of appurtenance is observed and the differeiit areas of shelf relaie
in the legally appropriate way io the relevant coasts ofLibya and klalta
respectively.
247. The result is in complete conformity with the principle of non-

encroachment. If Libya were to be allowed shelf rights north of ihe
equidistance linc, such a delimitation ~.ould involve massive encroach-
ment on seabed areas lying off'Malia but not lying off'Libya. In ihis
situation the problern ~vould net be a minor "cut or' effect but a Iarge-

scale overtaking or excision of continental shelf not related to Libyan
coasts.Tt follows both as a matter of equitable principles and cifordinary
logic that wifhin fhe zonesbelween the twocoastlinrsonly equidisiance can
produce an equitable solution.

248. The areas of continental shelf between the coasp of Malta and
Libya form part of a geological continuum and the principle of natural
prolongation thus does not provide a criterion of delimitation. Moreover,
the coasts and coasta1 relationships are essentiatiy simple and the two

States are opposite each other at a considerable distance. AS a result the
coastal configurations have a direct effect on the delimitation and this
efFectis confirmed and reflected by the principle ofdistance, i.e. the concept
that continental shelf riglits are generated up to a certain distance from

the Coastirrespective of the geology, geomorphology and bathymetry of'the
submarine area.
249. The increase in the r6le of a distance criterion, or principle of
distance, in general internati0n;il law is evidenced by the large number of

States which have established an exclusive economic zone of 200 miles
extension from the baselines. It is evidenced also by the draft articles
produced in the course of the Third United Nations Conference on the
Law of the Seak.

250. In Articles 76 and 83 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea,
clear recognition js given to the criterion of distance. Thus, Article 76,
paragraph 1, contains the following formulation:

"The continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the sea-bed and
subsoil of the submarine,areas that extend beyond its territorial sea

throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer

1.Sce the firssuchdraft:Informal Single NegotiariTexi, 7 May 1975, Articl46
(exclusiveeconomiczone): Article62 (continentalshelf)UnitrdAkfioConferr e Ihere
Iaw ofthe.YeuOJcialRecordr1'01IV, p.137,Doc. AICONF.62IWP.8.490 CONTINENTAL SHELF [1233

edge of the continental rnargin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles
from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is
measured where the outer edge of the continental margin does not

extend up to that distance."
251. In the Tunisia-Liûya ContinenhlShelfcase,' the International Court

noted that the criterion of natural prolongation had been modified (in the
provisions concerned) by the "criterion" of "the distance of 200 nautical
miles". It is evident that in that case the Court held the view that the
"distance principle" - the terminology used by the Court - was an aspect

of the recent trends in general international law. It is equally clear that
the Cou. considered the principle of distance to be relevant in a situation
in which the principle of natural prolongation did not provide criteria of
delirnitati~n.~ The principle was set aside simply because the Parties in
that case had not relied upon any argument relating to the distance

principle. Of the existence of the "trend" towards the principle, however,
the Court had no doubts. In his Separate Opinion in the 7-unisia-Libya
Case Judge Jiménez de Aréchaga expressed the view that "the distance
test of 200 miles" had "already crystaIlised as a rule of custornary

international lawM.3
252. In his Dissenting Opinion in the Tunzsia-Libya Case Judge Oda
adopted the same view of "the criterion of the 200 mile distance". In his
conclusion to a consideration of "new trends in the concept of the
continentalshelf', Judge Oda stated4:

"Thus in the upshot'the actual regime of the continental shelf is

represented as remaining in 1981 exactly the sarne as in 1958. Yet it
cannot be over-ernphasized that, in parallel with the change in the
outer limit of the continental shelf, the notion of natural prolongation
by which the concept of the continental shelf was embellished in the
1969Judgment has greatly lost its significance, particularly with the

introduction of the criterion of the 200-mile distance under the strong
influence of the concept of the exclusive econornic zone ... not to
mention the parallelism between that zone and a possible inner-con-
tinental shelf of 200 miles, coupled with the possibility of a different

regime applying to the continental rnargin beyond that distance. In
spite of the provision of Article77 relevant to the rights of the coastal
State (which is essentially identical to that of the 1958 Convention),
as rnentioned above, the concept of the continental shelfcannot have
escaped change as a result of the fading-away of the geomorphologi-

1. 1.CJReportr1982,p.48. para.47.
2. Ibd.para.48.
3. Ibid.,pp114-115paras.51-53(para.52,inpamicular).
4, Ibidpp. 211-222,paras89-107,at p222.para. 107andsecalsotht passagarp.253,
para.151. i1241 MEMORIAL OF MALTA 491

cal notion of natural prolongation. 'l'his notion rnay be said io have
remained in the case where the (gcomorphological) contiiicntal shelf
or slope extends farrher thnn 200 milcs, yet it must be snid that the

concept of the continental shelf. wtiich had bcen silstaiiieci by
scliolarly views and the imperious necessiries of tlie 1950s, has, eürly
in the 1980s, changcd."

253. In their Opinions Jiidge Jimkriex de Aréc:k~aga.J~ udgc Oda,' and
Judge Evensen,3 stress thc strong infliience or] shclf delirnitatiori of the

concept of the exclusive econoniic zone. In this çoniicctioii Jiidgc 1:vcnseri
rnakes the following ohservati~n:~

"LYhen iieighbouring States daim functional sovereigii riglits up to
200 miles - be they opposite States or adjacent Staies - tticir claims

are based on a dislancecrit~~iT nnis~very fact sccms to sircng!licn rtie
cqi~idistance/mediaii lirie principle as an cquiiable approach for
delimiting overlapping areas."

254. 'I'he dominarit clement in recent State practice is the rclaiioii of
coasial gcography and the 200 mile criteriori of disrance. X*liichrecerir

legislation6 assirnilates ihc reginie of shclf rights arid the cscliisi\~e econ-
omic zone. The conscqlierice is that, as bct\vccn opposite States ai ri
distarice of less than 400 miles, an island State rcceives the apliiirteriatit
areas, sub.ject only io division on the basis UTmedian line, in açcordaiice

with the normal nperatioii oi'lcg-nlprinciple risdcmonstrated earlii:r in this
hlemorial.
255. The last proposition calls for sornc ainpliftcaiion. 1 L'iiIICsiipl)osed

that hiaita were an islatiti State in thc Ailantic Occan Iying ntorflha? 400
miles ofTPortugal, and not abtitting iipoti tlie samc contiricrital slictf;ii
woiild bt: nbvious thrit hrlalta would ttien have a 200-rnilc coritineiital

shelf'(or exclusi\.e economic ï.orie, if such a zotic wcre claiinccl), tiigcilicr
rvith riny natural proloiigatioti heyond iIi:ilirnit. Ifit bc riow sii~iliost.d
that the hypo!hetically displacecl h4altn wcrc l~. liari400 miles fi.oni tlic
Portiigiirse coastlirie, accordine; to tlic distaiice critcrion (aiid eitticr vira

continental shelf or qua esclusive economic zonc) hlrilta u.oiild Iiiivc a liill
complcment of pertinent Ii:gal rights (measurecl ofneccssiiy iii aci.ordaiic,c
with equidistancej. Moreover, this woiild hç so I~I~PIIIorI.io/I~Pg~olt~qic111
.rhty loasconiinuouj beiü!~uri !j/mlhr. l~icialcitri'o~iugcrl.

1. Ibid.,p. 115.paras.54-56.
2. ~bid.,p.222-267,paras.107-176;andp.270, para.182.
3. Ibid.,pp.283-288. paras.7-10. .
4. Ibid.,p. 296,para.15.
5. Emphasisin theoriginal.
6. Setabove,paras.189and190. CONTlNENTAL SHELF

256. As Malta has already expiainedl, the factor or criterion of pro-
portionality isnot applicable in the case of opposite States, and in any
case the factor can only operate within the general context of equitable

principles and in relation to the goal of achieving an equitable soluti~n.~
The major relevant circumstance, and one which must far outweigh the
consideration of proportionality, is the status ofMalta as an island State
opposite Libya and, consequently, as an abutting coast with full con-

tinental shelf entitlement. The vie~ of the Government of Malta is that
the factor of proportionality is irrelevant in the circumstances of the
present case.
257. The Judgrnent of the International Court in the Tunisio-Libyu

Continental ~hel fase ernphasises, more than once, that in the context of
proportionality, "the only absolute requirement of equity is that one
should compare iike with like"? The riile of proportionality varies con-
siderably from case to case, just as the geographical and other relevant

circumstances of each case are necessarily specialised. The legulapproach
involves the abatement of minor causes of distortion in the alignment
dictated by the major geographical data of the case, but "there can never
be any question of completely refashioning naturev4. Equity cannot

remedy natural differences. In fact the effect of the difference between the
west-east reach of the Maltese and Libyan coasrlines leaves Libya u~it ah
uery forgepart of thesheifareasbetween the IWO oppositccoasts.
258. As a matter both of legal principle and the legal policy of

promoting stability in delimitation, the factor of proportionality is in-
applicable in the case of opposite States. This view is supported both by
the practice of States and by doctrine. Thus an authoritative writer on the
law of the sea, Professor Bowett, has expressed the view that the "pro-

portionality factor" does not appfy to the case of "opposite" States.
With reference to the "factors" set forth by the Court in the North Sen
ContineniaS l helfCases$, Professor Bowett expressed himself as follows6:

"The relevance of the proportionality factor is more difficult to assess.
Clearly, itis entirely subservient to the primary criterion of 'natural

prolongation', so there can be no justification for ignoring the
geological evidence and simply dividing the shelf according to coastal
ratios. Nor, indeed, are such ratios to be calculated on actual coastal

1. Secakvc, paras.128-130.
2. Anglu-FrencGntinrntalShclf ArbitralDccision or 30June 1977, In~rrnafionlaw
RrportrVol. 54, p. 6, paras. 98-101.
3. I.CJ. ILpork1982,p. 76,para. 104; andsealsoibid.,p.91,para.130.
4. .MerthScaCases,I.C.J. Rrport~19pp. 49-50,para.91.
5. Ibid., pp. 53-54.
6. The I~galRrgimrof I~landsin Inlcr~tiLaw, (1978)p. 164. 11241 MEMoRlALOF MALTA 493

length, for the Court envisaged a 'coastal front', a line of general
direction to the Coast rather than a line following its sinuosities (so

that islands rnay count for this purpose, as part of such 'front').
Indecd,it wouldssm lhat 9e propo~tionali~facto might onlybeapplied,or be
meaningful,in the caseofadjnccntStates(mol 'opposite')whrre theexistenceof
o mnrkedlyconcave 07 conuexcoastline will producea cut-off eflecIf the

equidisianccprincipleis upplied:' that is to Say, will allocate to one State
shelf areas which in fact lie in front of, and are a prolongation of, the
land territory of another."

259. The State practice is significant and provides cogent evidence of
the views of States on the application of equitable principles in de-

limitation. Twelve agreements2 involving an island State opposite a
mainland were concluded in the period subsequent to3 the decision of the
International Court in the .North Sea ContinentalSheffcases in 1969, and
these al1 involve either express reliance upon the equidistance method or

substantiai application of a median Iine solution in practice. These
agreements constitute compelling evidence that island States are not
subject to reduction of their continental shelf entitlement on the ground
that the equidistance method is incompatible either with equitable prin-
ciples (as a whole) or with the factor of proportionality (in particularj.

260. In Chapter VI1 of the present Memorial the relevant State
practice was surveyed. In particular, reference was made to bilateral
delimitations concerning island States facing distant "rnainlands" and
abutting upon the same shelf. The delimitation agreements listed involve

eleven diKerent coastal States of various regions of the world: Western
Europe, the Indian Ocean, the: Arabian (or Persian) Gulf, and the
Caribbean Sea. Naturally, the cases listed are ex hypothesi limited in
number, since the situations which are comparable are restricted. In

addition, if regard is had to agreements inv8Iving both distant and non-
distant rnainlands, then it will be found that seventeen different coastal
States are involved.

261. In accordance with international law and the equitable principles
and relevant circumstances pertinent to this case, the appropriate method
of delimitation is the median line between the pertinent baselines. This

1.Emphasissupplied.
2. Sec above,paras. 185and 187.
3. With the exception the Bahrain-SaudiArabiaAgreement of1958.494 CONTINENTAL SHELF U27I

solution involves an equitahle division in the light of the geographical and
other legally relevant circurnstances of the case. As the figure of the
equitable trapezium demonstrates, the division by rneans ofa median line
takes into-account the length of Libya's coastline and allows Libya a very
generous part of the shelf areas dividing Malta and Libya. The equitahle

character of the equidistance method isconfirmed by the delimitation
practice of States relating to comparable situations, and alsiiby the
prominence of the distance principle in contemporary international law. THE EQUITABLE SOLUTION

262. The application of the legal principles governing delimitation of
the continental shelf to the circumstances of the Malta-Libya geographi-

cal and geological relationships leads ineluctably to an equitable solution
on the basis of equidistance. The geographical circumstances require the
use of equidistance. The coasts of the Parties are opposite, and in the case
of opposite coasts the normal means of achieving an equitable result is the

use of a median line. This is particularly so when there are no intervening
islands or other abnormal geographical features.
263. There is in legal terms a complete absence of abnormal geographi-
cal features in the present case. 'There is nothing unusual in the existence
of an island State; and the Mediterranean and Caribbean Seas and the

Indian and Pacific Oceans encornpass a good ,number of island States1.
Nor is there anything unusual about the Libyan coastline, which is
obviously free from abnormalities. Moreover, the ~elationshipof the
Maltese and Libyan coastlines is quite unremarkable. As a matter of

principle, only unusual features, which involve serious departures from
the primary elements in the geographical framework, can be subjected to
the process of abatement on equitable grounds. l'o resort to adjustmerits
where nothing in the geographical situation justifies it would be to
refashion geography and would involve a crude process of apportionment.

264. The key elernents in the geographical configuration are the
relationchiposfthe coasts concerned, including the dislanceand locationof
the respective coastal fronts. In the present case the length of coastlines is
of little orno consequence 'for the law of delirnitation. In the context of
the continental shelf in an area of relatively open sea - such as that

between Malta and Libya - modest sectors of abutting coast may have an
extensive controlling effect. Given the coastal and sea relationships, only
the method of equidistance produces an equitable solution.

265. international law recognises that al1 coastal States have the sarne
entitlernent to continental shelf rights. The island State is not placed
under any legal disability. Geography cannot be reordered. Moreover, in

the context of delimitation the political geography is a part of' the
"geographical configurations" which count for legal purposes. Thus coast-

1. As alrcady show(para.23, bclow) thcre are somc 38 island Stor25% OPihc
internationalcommuniry.496 CONTINENTAL SHELF [1291

lines and islands must be evaluated in terms of the placing of land
boundaries, the location of islands in relation to coasts of a different

sovereignty, and the political status of the islands in question as inde-
pendent (or nearly sol or as mere dependencies.
266. It musi follow that the existence of a homeland, even consisting
exclusively of a single island or a compact island group, draws in its train
certain legal corisequences. After all, "the land dominates the sea" in the

legal philosophy of the continental shelf. The coasts of the islatid State,
like most of any other State, support basepoints which control an
appropriate area of shelf. These efiects are the consequence of what is in
legal terms perfectly normal geography and of the prirnary political and

geographical elerncrits there present. Ivlalta! as an island State set at a
considerable distance from the North African Coast, has its appurtenant
shelf and Libya tins the shelf areas corresponding io its own coastline. The
political geography is clear. No claim is made to deprive Libva of her

appurtenant rights: and the fact that Malta is on island cannot justify the
~indoing of the Liontier of equidistance.
267. The difference in the geographical identity of the two States
prodttces iieither a privilege nor a disability in relation to the enritlement

of Malta.

268. One of the major priiiciples of the lan. of delimitation is the

principle of non-encroachrneiit, aittl the concept of non-encroachment is
another forrn of the principle of natural prolongarion and rests on the
prernise that the land dominaies the sea1. In the case of adjacent States on
a concave coastline - as in the florfhSeu CorifinentaS[helJcases- there is a

need to avoid a cul-afeflecl whjch wotild resiili frona rigid application
of the method of equidisrarice. 1 iithe circurnstances of the present case the
cut-off enèct \\,ould result not from the application of the equidistance
rnethod but [rom its rejection or moditîcarion of the kirid that would result

frorn the 1,ibyan position as it has appeared to be in the course of the
-
269. In gerilogical terms there is a continuiim and thus in legal terms
the natural prolongations of .the rcspcctive territories rnect and "overlap".

As the Court stated in the ~$'orlhSeocases2: "The continental shelf area off.
and dividing, opposite States, can be claimed by cach of them to be a
natural prolongation of its territory. These prolongations rneet and
overlap, and can therefore, only be delinlitcd by means of a median line;
.. .".In its fitidings the Court formulated "the principies and rules of

international law" applicatile to the delimitation cif'theareas of continental

1. Sethe ScparareOpinion oJudge Jiménez deAréchaga,Tuniiia-L$FUGniintnhlShrfJ
case,I.C.J. Repor1982.p.118,paras.65-66.
2. 1.L:.Rrports/9m, p.36,para. 57. i1301 MEMORIAL OF MALTA 497

shelf concerned. The second of these "principles and rules" was as follows:'

"if.. .the delimitation leaves to the Parties areas that overlap, these
are to be divided betweeri them in agreed proportions or, failing
agreement, equaliy ..."

270. There is no indication whatsoever in the practice of States that
island States should suffer an artificial reduction of continental shelf

entitlement. There has been no suggestion that island States are geo-
graphically disadvantaged and this rnust be equally true of island Statesin
serni-enclosed seas and of island States in or abutting upon the oceans. Any
tendencv to the artificial reduction of the sheff entiiement of island tat tes

would have serious repercussions.
271. In positive terms, non-island neighbours of island States have
recognised the normal entitlement of their island State neighbours. In an
earlier Chapterg, the following bilateral delimitations were recorded:
Bahrain-Iran; Cuba-Mexico; India-Maldives; Cuba-United States;

Colombia-Dorninican Republic; Colombia-Haiti ; Dominican
Republic-Venezuela; U.K.-Venezuela; Bahrain-SaudiArabia;
Australia-Indonesia; Indonesia-Singapore and India-Sri Lanka. In ad-
dition other bilateral delimitation agreements3 involved an equal division
of seabed areas dividing mainland; and major island dependencies op-

posite mainlands vir. N:orway-United Kirigdorn (Shetland Islands);
India (Nicobar Islands)-Indonesia (Sumatra); United States (Puerto
Rico)-Venezuela; India (Nicobar Islands)-Thailand; Denmark
'(Fames)-Norway and Australia-France (New Caledonia). These two sets

of delimitations involve twenty-one different States: the total of the
delirnitations, taking into consideration the inclusion of States from a
variety of regions, represents a substantial and significant proportion of
the practice telating to existing iielimitations which involve island States
and major island dependencies.

272. It is useful if certain principal considerations are set forth as a
series of propositions. These propositions are intended to link the legal
principles concerning delimitation of the continental shelf to general

considerations of law and good policy.
(a) Island States enjoy the same cornplernent of legally appurtenant

rights over the continental shelf as do other coastal States.

1. Ibtdp. 53, para101.
2.Sec above,paras. 185and 187.
3.Sc abovc,para.191.498 CONTINENTAL sHELF il311

(6) In the case of opposite States abutting on the same continental
shelf, the established normal method of equitable delimitation isthat of
equidistance.
(c) The geography of the Malta-Libya relationship is simple and there

is no legal basis for "abatement" of the normal effect of coastal features.
(d) The dominant geographical circumstances consist of the position of
Malta at a considerable distance from the Libyan Coast, and the absence
of any intervening islands.
(e) Virtually every relevant instance of State practice aflirms the

equitable character of the method of equidistance in comparable
geographical situations.
(f) International tribunals should avoid any disturbance of generally
accepted principles on which the stability of existing delimitations
depends.

(g) The governing conception both in the context of continental shelf
and the exclusive economiczone isthe relation afcoastal geography and
the 200-mile criterion of distance: and the logical consequence is that, in
an "opposite" States situation of less than 400 miles, each State receives
a normal complement of appurtenant rights, subject only to the

equidistance division uir-à-visthe "opposite" coastline.
(h) Recent developments in the law of the sea give added importance
to islands and there is no basis for any suggestion that an island State
should suffer any discrimination in the law.
(i)The normal entitlement of island States to sheIf ïights and exclusive

economic zones has received the general approbation of the international
community; and the use of the equidistance method between opposite
States is more widely recognised than (for example) was the system of
straight baselines at the time (1951) when the legality of that system was
accepted by the Court in the Anglo-NorwegianFisheïiescase1.

Cj) The appropnateness of the equidistance method is indicated by the
practice of coastal States of the Mediterranean.
(k) The conduct of the Parties is a relevant circurnstance in
determining what is the equitable solution: Malta's position has always
been consistent, and the first Libyan action incompatible with the status

quo constituted by Malta's legislation of July 1966 twk place in
September 1974.
(1) The median line established by Malta in her legislation of 1966 is
justified by equitable principles and other relevant considerations.

(m) The relevant equitable considerations include the absence of
energy resources on the rnainland of Malta, the requirements of Malta
as an island developing country, the range of established fishing activity,
and the element of national security in maintaining control of

1.LCJ. ~oportr1951p. 116andpp. 138,139. 11321 MEMORIALOF MALTA 499

adjacent submarinç areas, a consideration the importarice of which is eri-

hanced by mal ta'sstatus of neutrality.
(n) bialta's line conspicuously lacks any element of ineqiiity and Libya
receives a generous part of the shelf areas dividing the two States by

virtue of a combination of the equidistance method and the corisiderable
longitudinal extension of the Libyan coastline.
(O) Equidistance is the only means of delimitation which, in the present
geographical situation, produces an outcorne compatible with the

fundamental principle of non-encroachrnent in the law of the continental
shelf.
@) It is widely recognised that islands belonging to a State and lying in

the vicinity of ils coasts are ordinarily given full weight for delimitation
purposes. It is obvious that the island State is an a fortioricase.
(q) Professor Sorensen has observed1 that "it must be kept iiirnind that
the legal concept of the continerital shelf owes its origin to the generally

recognised need of giving the coastal State an exclusive right to
exploitation", and Judge Sir Robert Jennings2, as he now is, has pointed
out that "the notion of exploitation itself is quaffied by the notion of

appurtenance" and, in consequence, "the exploitation meant in this
context is thar exploitation which is 'contingent upon cooperation and
protection from the shore'." This consideration was set out in the Truman
Proclamation of 1945 and forrns a major raison d'êtreof the legal

conception of the continental shelf and of the exclusive economic zone.
The shelf areas south of Malta and bounded by the median line clearly
conform to this conception in practical terrns, and Malta is anxious to

obtain the full benefit of the petroleum resources of the appurtenant shelf
areas.

1, CarnegieEndowrnent,IntcrmlionnlConcilial,o.r520,Novembcr 1958,p. 19and p.
228.
2. Xtrwil&$ Courdr I'dcadtmudt DroitlnttrnotdcLnHajt, Vol. 121(1967,Il),p.323
and p. 394.SUBMISSIONS SUBMISSIONS

273. Having regard to the considerations set out above,
May itpleasethe Courtto adjudgr and declare that

(i) the principles and rules of international law applicable io the

delimitation of the areas of the continental shelf which
appertain to Malta ancl Libya are that the delimitation shall be
effected on the basis of international law in order to achieve an
equitable solution;
(ii) in practice the above principles and rules are applied by rneans

or a median line every point of which is equidistant from the
nearest points on the baselines of Malta, and the low-water
mark of the Coast of Libya. VOLUME II

ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL OF MALTA

An Act to make provision as ta the explorationand exploitation of the
continentalshelfandforrnaitersconnectedwith thosepurposes.
Be it enacted by the Queen'smost excellent Majesty,by and with the advice
and consent of the House of Representatives ofMalta, in this present Parlia-
ment assembled,and by the authonty of the same,asfollows:

1. This Act maybe cited as the Continental ShelfAct, 1966.
2.In this Act, unlessthe contcxt otherwiserequires-

"the continental shelP'means the sea bed and subsoil of the submarine areas
adjacent to the coast of Malta but outside territorial waters, to a depth of two
hundred metres or, beyond that limit, to where the dcpth of the superjacent
waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said arcas; so
howcvcr that whcrc in relation to States of which the coast is opposite that of
Malta it is necessary to determine the boundaries of the respectivecontinental
shelves, the boundary of the continental shelf shall be that determined by
agreement between Mdta and such other State or States or, in the absence of
agreement, the median line, namely a line every point of which is equidistant
from the nearest pointsof the baselinesfrom whichthe breadth of the territorial
waters ofMalta and of such other State or States is measured;
"Malta" has the same meaning as is assigncd to it by section 126 of the
Constitution of Malta;
"natural rcsources" mcansthe mineral and othtr non-living resourcesof the
sea bed and subsoil as well as the living organisms belonging to sedentary
species.

3. (1) Any rights txercisable by Malta with respectta the continental shelf
and its natural resourcesare by this Act vestedin thernmentof Malta.
(2) In relation to any petroleum with respectto whichthe nghts mentionedin
subsection (1) of this section are exerciseablesubstc(2)of section3(which
prohibits any person from searching or boring for or getting petroleurn without
a licence),section 4 (which relatesto the granting of licencesto search and bore
for, and get, petroleum) and sectio5 (which relates to the making of regula-
tions with respectto the exploration, prospccting and mining for petroleum) of
the Petroleum (Production) Act, 1958,shall applyas they apply in relation to
petroleum inMalta.
(3) The Prime Minister may from time to time by order published in the506 CONTINENTAL SHELF 12-31

Government Gazette designate any area as an area within which the rights men-
tioned in subsection (1) of this section are exercisable, and any area so designa-
ted is in this Act referred asa designated area.
(4) In this section "petroleum" has the same rneaning as in the Petroleum
(Production) Act, 1958.

4. (1) The Prime Minister may for the purpose of protecting any installation
or other device in a designated area by order published in the Government
Gazette prohibit ships, subject to any exceptions provided by the order, from
entering without his consent such part of that area as may be specified in the
order.
(2) If any shipenters any part of a designatedarea in contravention ofan order
under this section its owner or master shail be liabie, on sumrnary conviction, to
a fine (multa) not exceeding one thousand pounds or to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding thrce months, or to both, unless he proves that the prohibi-
tion imposed by the order was not, and would not on reasonable inquiry have
becorne,known to the master.

5. Any order under this Act may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order.
6. (1) Anyact or omission which-

(a) takes place on, under or above an installation or other device in a
designated area or any waters within fivehundred metres of such an instal-
lation or device,and
(3) would, if taking place in any part of Malta, constitute an offence
under the law in force iMalta,

shall bc treated for the purposes of that law and of any other iaw in force in
Malta astaking place in the island of Malta.
(2) For the purposes of section 743 of the Code of Organisation and Civil
Procedure (which relates tojurisdiction)any installation or devicein a designa-
ted area and any waters within fivc hundred metres of such an installation or
dcviceshall be treatedas if they weresituated in the island of Malta.
7. (1) If any oil or any mixture containing not less than one hundred parts of
any oil in a million parts of the mixture is discharged or escapesinto any part of
the sea-

(a) from a pipe-line,or
(bl as a result of any operations for the exploration of the sea bed and
subsoil or the exploitation of their natural resources in a designated area,
the owner of the pipe-line or, as the case may be, the person carrying on the
operations shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves, in the case of a
discharge from a place in his occupation, that it was duc to the act of a person
who was there without his permission (express or implied) or, in the case of an
escape, that he took al1reasonabb care to prevent it and that as soon as practi-
cable after it was discovercd al1 masonable steps were taken for stopping or
rcducing it.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on sum-
mary conviction, to a fine (mulra)not exceeding one thousand pounds.
8. (1) No person shall lay or maintain any submarine cable or pipe-lineunder
the high scas in a designated area without a licencein that behalf granted by the
Prime Minister or in contravention of any requirement or condition contained
in any such licence as to the route of any such cable or pipe-line or as to any13-41 ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIALOF MALTA 507
other rnatter intended to ensure non-interference with the exploration or exploi-
tation of the continental shelf or its natural resources.

(2) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this section shall be
liable, on surnrnary conviction, to a fine (mulra)not exceeding fifiy pounds for
each day during whichthe offencecontinues.
9. (1) Wherc an offence under this Act (including an offence under another
Act as applied by this Act and anything that is an offence by virtue of subsec-
tion (1)ofsection6 of this Actiscommitted by an association of persons, every
person who, at the time of the commission of the offence, was a director,
manager, secretary or other similar officerof such association or was purporting

to act in any such capacity shall be deernedto be guilty of that offenceunless he
proves that the offencewas comrnitted without his knowledge and that he exer-
cised al1due diligenceto prevent the commissionof the offence.
(2) A rnernber of the Police Force shall on any installation or device in a
designated area have al1the powers, protection and privilegeswhich he has in
Maha.
10. The enactment specifiedin the First Column of the Schedule hereto shall
have effect subject to the amendments specified in the Second Column of that

Schedule.

SCHEDULE

Section 10

First Column Second Column

EnactrnenrAmended Extenr of Amendmenrs

Petroleum (Production) Act, 1958 In section 2-

(a) the definition of "the continental
shelf'shall be delete;
(bl in the definition of "Malta" for
the words "the land underlying tem-
torial waters and the continental shelf"
there shall be substituted the words
"and the land underlying territorial
waters". CONTINENTALSHELF

NOTIC INVlTlNG APPLICATIOF NORPRODUCTIO LNICENCES

PETROLEUM(PRODUCTIONA )CT,1958
CONTlNENTAL SHELF ACT.1966

Perruleum{Boduction) Regulations,1969
Noticefor the Purposesof Regularion4

For the purposes of regulation 4 of the Petrolcum (Production) Regulations,
1969, the Prime Minister hereby notifiesthat he is prepared to receivebetween
10.00a.rn. on May 2nd 1973and 1.00p.m, on August 2nd 1973applications in
accordance withthe said Regulations for Production Licenceinrespect of the
area offshore South ofalta, consistingof sixteen blocks to which the numbers
specifiein the Schedule10 thiNotice have beenassigned,descnbed in thesaid
Schedule and shown on a map deposited at the Oil Division, Ministry oDe-
velopment, Merchants Street, Valletta, Malta. The Map may be inspected on
requtst between the haurs of 9.30 a.m. and 12.30p.m. except on Saturdays,
Sundays and Public Holidays. In considering any applicationthe Prime Minis-
ter willnot take into account the day on whichit was receivtd.
Applications can be submitted for any number of blocks. To assist the Prime
Minister in considering the applications, applicants are, however, invitedto
indicate the degree of preferenccwhich they attach to each blockto which their
application relates.
Following isa summary of the basicconsiderations whichthe Prime Minister
has decidedto require in respectof licencesgranted in responseto applica:ions

(i)An annual rental:
(a)on signature calculated at the rate of four Malta pounds (£M4) per
square kilometre;and
(b) upon each anniversary of the date of commencement of the licenceand
during the continuance thereof in respect of the ptriods herein undermen-
tioned calculated per square kilometre of the area retained as set out
hertundtr :

Years Rate
2 to3 £M4 per sq. kilomeire
4 to6 £M8 persq.kilometre
7to 10 fMl6 per sq. kilomttre
11to 13 fM32 per sq.kilomctre
14to 16 £M64 per sq.kilometre
17to 19 £M96 per sq. kiiometre
20to 22 £M128pcr sq. kilomttre
fM 160pcrsq. irilometrt
23 to 25
26to 30 fM 192per sq. kilometre
Afte30 yearsandupto 30 years
aftcrthedateonwhichtheoption
under clause 6 of the Second
Schedulcofthe Petroleum(Pro-
duction) Regulations,1969,was
exercised. f M200 per sq. kilometre.16-71 ANNEXES TO THE MEMORlAL OF MALTA 509
(ii)A minimum royalty equal tn 12%per cent of the posted prices of crude
oil produced and savedin the concessionarea.

Applicantsarc cxpectedto indicatc
(a)the minimumamounts thcy are willingand ableto spend on prospcc-
ting, exploration,drillingor development of the petroleum resources in
their concession arca during the ten years rcferred toinclause 3 of thc
Second Scheduleof the Petroleum(Production) Regulations,1969 ;
(3) the number and dcpth or the aggregatedepth of wellsto be drilled
dunng the exploration period;
(c) the time within whichthey are wiilingand able to commencedrilling
a first test well,suchperiod not to exceedtwenty-four(24)months from the
date of the grantof the licence;
(4 the amount of signature andlor production bonusesto bepaid to the
Governmcntof Maita; and
(e)specialfinancialforrnulaeproviding escalatingscalesof camed inter-
est applicableat various stagesof production.

Applications willonly be considered if applicants purchase thdata from a
recent seismicsurvey conducted on the area on behalf of the Government of
Malta.
The attention of applicantsis particularlydrawn to thc followingfacts:

(a) For the purpose of calculating royaltiesand incomc tax, values will
bcasscssedaccordingto applicablc "PostedPrices*;
@) Royalties will be cxpensed but not be regarded as payment on
account of tax ;
(c) For incometax purposes, aCompanyto whichmore than one licence
is granted shall be deemedto constituteasmany personssubjectto tax as
the number of licencesit enjoys

SCHEDULE

Open for Applicationfor ProductionLicences510 CONTTNENTASHELF

BLOCK2

DGFE

BLOCK3

GHIJ

BLOCK5
HMLK18-91 ANNEXESTo THE MEMoRIOFMALTA

BLOCK7
QTSR

BLOCK9
UXWV CONTiNENT AHELF [91O]

BLOCK 10

XYZW

Y: 34'43'4N
1S42'7E

AA: 34"43'4N
16 07'4E
AB: 34'27'2N
1559'5E

R: 34"27'2N
14'07'5E
S: 34'27'2N
1427'1E
AD: 34'15'5N
14"271E

AC: 34"17'1N
14'07'5 E

S: 34'27'2N
14'27'1E
AF: 34"27'2N
14'56'1 E

AE: 34'13'2N
1456'1 E
AD: 34'15'5N
14'27'E [Io-121 ANNEXESTO THEMEMORIALOF MALTA

AF: 34'27'2N
14561 E
AG: 34'27'2N
lS13' E
AH: 3412'2N
1s13' E
AE: 3413'2N
14561 E

AG: 34'27'2N
1S13' E
AJ: 34-27'2N
IS30' E

AI: 34IS30'NE

AH: 34'12'2N
lS 13' E

AJ: 34'27'2N
lS30' E

AB: 34'27'2N
IS 59'5 E
AK: 34'14'2N
15'52'9 E
AI: 34-12' N
15'30'E

TheareaofBlock12,1314,15and16arsubjcctoaiteratiothelight
ofany agreementon tMedianline betweMaltaand the Libyan Arab
Republic. CONTINENTA SLHELF

Annex 3

DECLARATIO BYTHE GOVERNMEN O F THE REPUBLIC OFMALTA CONCERNING
THE NEUTRALIN OF MALTA

The Government of the Republic of Malta
Faithful to the decision of the People of the Republic of Malta to eliminate
ail foreign military bases after March 31, 1979,and to contribute to peace and
stability in the Mediterranean region by changing their country's unnatural role
of a fortress into a centre of peace and a bridge of friendship between the
Peoples of Europe and of North Africa;
Conscious of the special contribution the Republic of Maita can make
towards that end by assuminga status of neutrality strictly founded on the prin-
ciplesof non-alignment;
Aware of the support which ncighbouring European and Arab Mediterranean

States willgiveto Maita'snew rolc and to such a status of neutrality :
1. Solemnly declares that the Republic of Malta is a neutral Slate actively
pursuing peace, securityand social progress among al1nations by adhering to a
policy of non-alignment and refusingto participate in any military al;iance
2. Affirmsthat such a status will,in particular, implythat :

(a) no foreign military base willbe permitted on Maltese territory ;
0 no military facilities in Malta will be allowed to be used by any foreign
forces exccpt at the request of the Government of Malta, and only in the
followingcases:
(i) in the exercise of the inherent right of selfdefence in the cvent of any
armtd violation of the area over which the Republic of Malta has sov-
ereignty, or in pursuance of measures or actions decided by the Security
Council ofthe United Nations; or

(ii) whenever there exists a threto the sovereignty, independence, neutra-
Iity,unifyor territorid integrity of the Republic of Maita;
but the Governmcnt of Malta will immediately inform thc nieghbounng
Meditcrranean States whichhave made like Declarations welcomingthe present
Declaration and giving appropriate undertakings of the stcps taken under this
paragraph ;
(c) exceptas aforesaid, no other faciliticsin Malia will be allowed to be used
in such manner or txtent as will amount to the presence in Malta of a concen-
tration of foreign forces;
(d) exceptas aforesaid, no foreign military personnelwillbe allowed on Mal-
tese territory, other than military personnel performing, or assisting in the per-
formance of, civil works or activities, and other taareasonable number of
military technical personnelassistingin the defenceof the Republic of Malta;

(e) the shipyards of the Rcpublic of Malta wiii be used for civil commercial
purposes, but may also be used, within reasonable limits oftime and quantity,
for the rcpair of militaryvesselswhich havebetn put in a state of non-combat or
for the construction of vessels; and in accordance with the principles of non-
alignment the said shipyards will be denied to the military vessels of the two
superpowers.i141 ANNEXES TO THEMEMORIAL OF MALTA 515

3. Expresses its hope that, with the concurrence of the Government of the
Republic of Malta, neighbouring Mediterranean States will make like Declara-
tions welcoming the prcsent Declaration and giving such undertakings as may
be appropriate. The Government ofthe Republic of Malta will inform each of

such States of the Declarations madeby other States. CONTINENTALSHELF

Annex4

DRAFT DELIMITATI AGNREEMENT
PROPOSE BDYMALT AN 12-13JULY1972

AGREEMENTBETWEENTHEGOVERNMENTOFMALTAANDTHEGOVERNMENT OF
THELIBYANARABREPUBLICRELATlNGTOTHEDELIMITATIONOF
THECONTINENTAL SHELFBETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES

The Governrnent of Malta and the Govemment of the Libyan Arab Re-
publi;
Desiring to establish the boundary between the respectiveparts of the Conti-
nental Shelf on the basis of a line evofywhich is equidistant frorn the
nearest points of the baselines frorn which the territorial sea of tach country is

at present measu:ed
Have agreeas follow:

Article 1

(1)The dividinlin eetweenthepart ofthContinentalShelf whichapper-
tains to Malta and that part which aptathe Libyan Arab Republic shall
be arcs of Great Circles between the following points, in the sequence given
below:[15-17 ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIALOF MALTA 517

The positions of the points in this Articleare definedby latitude and longitude
on the basisof the Greenwich Meridian,

(2) The dividing linehas beendrawn on the chart annexcd to this Agreement.

Article2

Subsequent changes in the conformation or charting of the coastline or base-
lines of Malta or the Libyan Arab Republic due to naturalor other causesshaii
not alter the dividingline.

Article3

If at any tirne it is determincd taasinglepetroleum fieldextcnds across the
dividing linethcn the Contracting Parties shaii consult with a vicwto reaching
agreementupon a plan forthe exploitation of thefidd in question.

Article4

Should any dispute arisc concerning the position of any installation or other
devicein relation to the dividing linc,the Contracting Parties shall in consulta-
tion determine on which side of the dividing linethe installation or other device
issituated.

ArticleS

The present Agreement shall enterinto force upon signature.

In witness whercof the undersigncd, being duly authorized thcreto by their
respectiveGovernmtnts, have signedthe present Agreement.

Done in duplicate at ............................
the .................. in the Englishand Arabic languages,
both texts beingequally authontative.

For the Govemment of Malta. For the Government ofthe Libyan
Arab Republic. COKTlNENïASHELF

Annex 5

DRAFT DELIMITAT AGONEEMEMPROPOSEDBY LIBY AN23APRIL1973
[EnglishTcxt]

[SeMernoriaofthe LibyanArab Jamahiriya.
DocumentaryAnnex39, supra] ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIALOF MALTA

Annex 6

The Government of the Libyan Arab Republichas leamt that your Company
iscarrying ouexplorationactivitiaimin gtthe extractioof oil in off-shore
areas in the Mediterranean, the locations of which are descnbed by the co-
ordinates shown in the attached data. Theid areas constitute a continental
shelfupon whichthe Libyan Arab Republicmaintains full sovereignty.
AccordingIy,the Government of the Libyan Arab Republic hereby demanas
firm assurance from your Company confirming that no such exploration or
dnlling activities are being carried out witsaidareas. Your performance
of such activitieswithout obtaining a prior permit or authority from the Libyan
Arab Republic shall be considered an infringement upon its rights, thus justi-
fying the adoption of any measures deemed necessary to safeguard Our legi-
timate rights.

(Signed) M. M. ZREGH,
Undersecretary
Ministry Of Petroleum.

Encl: Detaileddata on the locations referredto in this letter.

TEXACO

(1) Area comprised between points:

A 34'54' Latitude
14'49'Longitude
B 34' 54'Latitude
1P 11'Longitude

C 34' 43'Latitude
15.11'Longitude
D 34' 43'Latitude
14'49'Longitude

(2) Area comprisedbetweenpoints:

A 34' 54'Latitude
iS 32'Longitude
B 34'43'Latitude
15'32'Longitude
C 34"43'Latitude
15' 11'Longitude

D 34"54' Latitude
1s 11'Longitude CONTiNEKTALSHELF

(3) Areacomprisedbetweenpoints:

A 34'43'Latitude
lS 03'Longitude
B 34'43'Latitude
S 22'Longitude
C 34'26'Latitude
1522'Longitude

D 34'26'Latitude
-!Y03'Longitude[23-241 ANNEXESTO THE MEMORIAL OF MALTA

Annex7

LETTER SENT BYLIBY AOJOC OILLTD.

The Governrnent of the Libyan Arab Republic haslearnt that your Company
is carrying out exploration activitiesaiming at the extraction of oil in off-shore
areas in the Mediterranean, the locations of which are describeciby the co-
ordinates shown in the attached data. The said areas constitute a continental
shelfupon whichthe Libyan Arab Republicmaintainsfull sovcrcignty.
Accordingly,the Governmcnt ofthe Libyan Arab Republic herebydemands a
firm assurance from your Company confirmingthat no such exploration or
drillinactivitiesare being carried out within the said arcas. Your performance
of such activities without obtaaprior permit or authority from the Libyan
Arab Republic shalbc considered an infringement upon its rights, thus justi-
fying the adoption of any measures deemed necessaryto safeguard our legi-
timate rights.
(Signed) M.M. ZRECH,

Undersecretary,
MinistryOf Petroleum.

Encl: Detailed data on the locations refeinthis letter.

JOCOIL EXPLORATION CO. INC.

(1) Area comprised betweenpoint:

A 34'43'Latitude
lY 22'Longitude
B 34'43'Latitude
15'41'Longitude

C 34'26'Latitude
IF 22'Longitude
D 34'26'Latitude
1Y 41'Longitude

Area comprised betweenpoint:
(2)
A 34'43'Latitude
1S 41'Longitude
B 34'43'Latitude
16'06'Longitude

C 34'26'Latitude
IS 58'Longitude
D 34'26'Latitude
15'41'Longitude CONTINENTALSHELF

(3) Areacornprisebetween points:
A 34'26'Latitude
14'54'Longitude

B 34'26'Latitude
IS 12'Longitude
C 34"11'Latitude
15'12'Longitude
D 34'12'Latitude
1454'Longitude[25-261 ANNEXESTO THE MEMORIAL OF MALTA

Annex8

L~ER SENT BYLIBYA TOSNPA

The Government of the Libyan Arab Republic has learnt that your Company
iscarrying out exploration activities aimingat the extraction of oil in off-shore
areas in the Mediterranean, the locations of which are described by the co-
ordinates shown in the attached data. Thed areas constitute a continental
shelfupon which the Libyan Arab Republic maintains full sovereignty.
Accordingly,the Governmentof the Libyan Arab Republic herebydcmanas
firm assurance from your Company confirming that no such exploration or
drilling activities arebcing carried out within the said areas. Your performance
of such activitieswithout obtaining a priororeauthority from the Libyan
Arab Republic shalbeconsidered an infringement upon its rights, thus justi-
fying the adoption of any measures deemed necessary to safcguard our legi-
timate rights.

(Signed) M. M. ZREGH.

Understcretary,
MinistryOf Petrolcum.

Encl:Detailcddata on the locations referredto in this Ictter.

AQUITAINE

Area compnsed betweenpoints:

A 34'26'Latitude
15'28'Longitude
B 34'26'Latitude
15'58'Longitude

C 34'13'Latitude
15'51'Longitude
D 34' 11'Latitude
IS 28'Longitude CONTINENTAL SHELF

Annex9

LEITER SENTBY MALTA TO CFP

17June 1975.

The Government of the Republof Malta is informed that your Compais
carrying out oil exploration activitiesin the offshore area in the Mediterranean
north of a Linedefincdby the followingCO-ordinates

(a) 3427'ON
13'27'4E

(d) 34'162N
14'162E

(i) 34'14'8N
1600'OE

This area constitutes a continental shelf upon which the Republic of Malta
maintains full sovereignrights and any exploration or drilling activitiestherein
without a licence issued to yotheyGovernment of the RcpubliofMaita,
constitutes an infringement of Malta's sovereignty, justifying the adoption
of measures necessary to safeguard the lcgitimate rights of the Republic of
Malta.[281 ANNEXESTO THE MEMORIAL OF MALTA 525

The Govcmmcntof the Republicof Malta hcreby requestsa categoras-
surancefromyourCompany thatnosuchexplorationordrillingactivitiesare
bcingorwillb chcd out in anypartof theabovearca.

{Signed)M. ABELA,

ChairmanOil Cornmittee.
Chairman,
Compagnie Françaisdee Pétroles,
49, quai André-Citroën,
75739Pans. CONTiNENTAL SHELF [29-301

23June 1975.

The Government ofthe Republic of Malta is informed that your company is
carrying out oil exploration acinvthe off-shorearea in the Mediterranean
north of a linedefinedby the following CO-ordinate:s

Degs. Secs.
34 O
13 4
34 3
13 3
2
34 3
14
34 2
14 2
34 O
14 8
34 3
1s 5
34 O
1s O
34 8
15 O
34 8
16 O
34 3
16 5
34 5
17 O

This area constitutes a continental shelf upon which the Republic of Malta
maintains full sovereignrights and any exploration or drilling activitiestherein
without a licence issucd to you by the Government of the Republic of Malta,
constitutean infnngement of Malta's sovereignty,justifying the adoption of
measuresnecessarytosafeguarthe legitimate rightsof the Republicof Malta.
The Govemment of the Repubficof Malta hereby requests a categoric assur-
ance from your company that no such exploration or drilling activities arc
beingor wiibe canicd out in any pari of the above area.
This letter replaces thc one dated 11975,which contained a technical
error.

(Signed)C.V. VELLA,

Chargéd'Affairesa.i. ANNEXESTO THEMEMORlALOF MALTA

SPECIALAGREEMENTFORTHE SUBMISSION TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURTOF
JUSTICE OF A DIFFERENCEBETWEENTHE GOVERNMENTOF THE REPUBLICOF
MALTAAND THEGOVERNMENT OFTHELIBYANARABREPUBLICREGARDINGTHE
DELlMITATlOO NFTHECONTINENTAL SHELFINTHEMEDITERRANEAN SEA

The Government of the Republic of Malta and the Governmentof the Libyan
Arab Republic ;

Conrideringthat the area of the sea-bedand subsoilin the Mediterrancan Sea
between Malta and Libya forms a continental sheif over which the two States
exercisesovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natu-
ral resources; and that it is desirable to lay down the exact continental shelf
boundary betweenthem;
Conridering that in the course of the negotiations that have taken place be-
tweenthe Parties somedifferencesof opinion have becomeapparent in regard to
therules and principlesto be appIiedin layingdown sucha boundary;

Consideringthe close andfriendly relations existingbetween the two Nations
and their Govemments ;
Intending to settle the differences which have thus arisen in the spirit of the
friendlyand good neighbourlyrelations existingbetweenthem;
Bearingin mind that for the purpose of settling differences betweenStates

whichcannot be solved by means of diplornatic negotiations,judicial settlcment
isbest in harmony with the basicprinciplesof international lawand the Charter
of the United Nations to whichthe Partiesmlyadhere;
Have decided to submit the differencesthat have arisen between them to the
International Court of Justice, and for thisse have agreedas follow:

Article 1

(1) The Court is requested-

(a)to decide what, according to the applicable principles and rules of
international law, is the dividing line separating, as between the Parties, the
continental shelfareas lyingbetweenMalta and Libya;
(6) to delimit the said dividing fine and cause such partasstretches in
the west-east direction from the [14th to the 18th]degrees oflongitude east of
Greenwich, to be marked oui on a chart or charts of scale not less than
[1:1,000,000al lat. 3PI ToJb, attached to and form an integral part of the
finaldecision of the Court.

(2) The choice of the [14th to the Igtti] degrees of longitude east of Green-
wich is withoutprejudice to the rights of the Parties beyond those points in
conforrnitywith the decisionof the Court.528 CONïINENTAL SHELF [32]

Ariicle2

(1) The proceedingsshall consist of written pleadingsand oral hearings.
(2) Without prejudice to any question of the burden of proof, the written
pleadingsshall consist of the followingdocuments :
(a) Memorialsto be subrnitted simultaneously to the Court by each Party and
exchanged with one another [four months] after the date of the communi-
cation of the present Agreementto the Registrar of the Court;
(b) Replies to be similarly submitted and exchanged [three months] after the
date of the submission of the Memorials;

(c) If either Partysorequests and the Court so decides after consultation with
the other Party, Rejodrs to be subrnittedand exchangedon suchdate asthe
Court may direct.
(3) The question af the order of speaking at the oral hearing shall be decided
by mutual agreement between the Parties, or, failing such agreement, by the
Court after consultation with the Parties, or, if necessary, after hearing them.
Whatever the order of speaking adopted it shall be without prejudice to any

question of the burden of proof.

Article3

Following upon the final decision of the Court, the Governments of the
Republic of Malta and of the Libyan Arab Repubiic shall respectivelyproclairn
the continental shelf boundary between their two countries in conformity with
that decision.

Article 4

The present Agreement shall enter into force on the day of its signature and
shall be immediately communicated to the Registrar ofthe Court bythe Parties
jointly, or failingthat by either of them. ANNEXESTO THE MEMORIALOF MALTA

Annex12

DRAFT SPECIA ALGREEMEN PRTESENTE BDLIBYA TOMALTA
ON 27JANUAR Y976(EnglishText)

SPECIALAGREEMENT FOR REFERRINGTHEDIFFERENCES
BETWEENTHE LlBYANARABREPUBLICAND THEREPUBLIC OF
MALTA TOTHEINTERNATIONAL COURO TFJUSTICE

The Government of the Libyan Arab Republic and the Government of the
Republic of Malta have decided to have recourseto the I.C.J. for its decisionon
the foliowingquesti:n
Article 1. Requestedfrom the Court: to indicate which rules and pnnciples
of the international law should be apptied for the demarcation of the continental

shelf areas and the economic zone areas belonging to each of the Libyan Arab
Republic and the Republic of Malta.
Article 2. The Governrnent of the Libyan Arab Republic and the Govern-
ment of Malta will enter into consultatooestablish the dividing line of the
continental shelf and the economic zone belonging to each State in accordance
with the decision of the Court.
Article3. (i)The processesshould comprise both written and oralpleadings.
(ii) without prejudice to any evidencethat may be produced in the course of
the written proceedings,the latter shall include:

(a)Memaranda presented by both Parties. Malta shall subrnit its memo-
randum to the Court within a year from the date of presentation of this
protocol to the Court. TL.A.R.shall in turn subrnit its rnemorandum to
the Court within a year from the date of the presentation of Maitese
rnemorandum.
(ô)Replies or answers shall be exchanged in sirnilar sequence within a
period of six months from the date of delivery of the memoranda to the
Registrar.

(c) SupplemenraryAide-Memoiresshall be presented and exchanged on
dates fixed by the Court upon request frorn one of the Parties or, if the
Court so decides,after consuItingthe other Party.
(iii) The order of speeches during the oral pleadings shall be established by
agreement between the two Parties, through the Court, and upon consultation
of the two Parties if the hearings so necessitate. However, the agreed order of

statements shall not be contravened in the case of evidence,proof or new bases
of concepts regarding the dispute decided byInternational Conferences.
Article 4. Following the final decision of the Court, both Parties shall enter
into negotiations to conclude an agreement on the demarcation of the Continen-
tal Shelf and the Econornic Zone pertaining to each, in accordance with the
principlesand bases decibydthe Court.
Article5.The said Agreement shall corne into force from the date of signa-
ture and shaiIbe referred by both Parties to the Registrar of the Court.

For the Governrnent of the For the Government of the
Libyan Arab Republic. Republic of Malta. CONTINENTASHELF

AnnexW

RATIF~CAT IFSPECIAAGREEMEN BTMALTA,28MAY1976

[SeSpecialAgreement,p. 14,supra] ANNEXESTO THE MEMORIA LF MALTA

Annex 14

LEITER FROMTHE PRIME MINlSTEROF MALTA OF 3 DECEMBER 1976

[Maltesetextnot reproduced]

(Translation)

You are aware that the most delicate problem we have had to face in the
relations betweenMalta and Libyü was the share of the sea-bedin the explora-
tion and exploitation of oiIappertaining to each side.
We both spent years racking our brains on how to come to an understanding
which would do justice to both Libya and Malta. Frorn the very beginning we
agreed on one thing: that we shaH not let this problem disrupt the friendship
existing between our two peoples.
In January of this year we both agreed ta leavethe decision on the principles
and their application in the hands of the InternationCourt of Justice at The
Hague.

On the 23rd May 1976during your memorable visit to Malta, Minister Ben
Amer and Minister Abela signed a special agreement giving official confirma-
tion by both Governments to what you and 1had agreedupon in January.
1regret to inform you thatup to the present day this agreement has not yet
been ratifiedby the Libyan Arab RepubEc.
At first this delay was due to Prime Minister lalloud's mediation mission in
Lebanon. When he retumed to Tripoli we were informed that there was a back-
log of other agreements which were concluded before ours, awaiting rati-
fication.
But now it has come to Our knowledge that the Libyan Arab Republic has
ratified agreements with other countries which had been signed at a later date
than ours.
This lack of ratification is causing us great trouble. The Opposition in Par-
liament is accusing usthat in spite of Ourclose friendly relations we have been
unable to agree on sucha simple matter. It is also worth remembering that the
two countries- Maita and Libya - are bound by a commitment that they will
change Malta's economy frorn one dependent on the foreign military base to
one of development based on peaceful relations with our neighbours, by March

1979.
1need to explain to you thatifwe succeed in finding oil before 1979we will
make a great stride fonvard in elirninating the need for a military base. For this
reason this delay is also weighing on our conscience and 1am certain that you
will agree with us that there is now no reason why this issueshould still stand
betweenus.
If my impression is correct that it is your wish for us to work quietly and
without publicity on the lines that Malta had indicated prior to Ouragreement
to go to the International Court1am ready to interpret your silence following
receipt of this letter as irnplyingyour approval that Libya,friendIygesture
towards Malta, will let Malta drill in the area up to the median line that is
exactly equidistant betweenOurcountries.
Therefore, if by the first day of the new year, wewillnot receivea reply other
than an acknowledgementof Ourletter, 1willassumethat this is indeedyour wish.532 CONTINENTAL SHELF 1391

In another letter, or as sooaswe meet again, 1will give you usefulinfor-
mation on what is happeningwith Gemany, France, Italy, Spainand Yugoslavia
regarding Ouraspiration that afterMarch 197Malta willbe a neutral State.
My colleaguesand 1send out best regards to you, your colleaguesand family
and augur prosperity to the Libyan people.

H.E. Col. Muammar Gaddafi,

President of the Arab Republic of Libya. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL OF MALTA

Annex 15

LEITER FROM THE PRIME MINISTE RF MALTA OF14 JANUAR 1Y978

[Moltesetex!nor reproduced]

You are aware of al1thetrouble wehave beenthrough until, finallyon the 23rd
May 1976we reached an agreement, signedby Minister Ben Amer on behalf of
the Libyan Jamahiriya and Minister Wistin Abelaon behalf of the Republic of

Malta, to submit the dispute on the division of the sea-bed betweenMalta and
Libya to the International Court of Justice at The Hague.
In December 1976Major Jalloud promised me in writing that Libyan experts
would leave no Stoneunturned to ensure the ratification of the agreement in the
shortest possible time.
In June of last year, when Major Jalloud insMalta, he prornisedme that
the agreement signedin May 1976would be presentedto the People'sCongress
for the necessary approval. Thwas again confirmed to me in Malta by the
Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Ali Treki, last September.
Now that the People'sCongress have not only met but have approved al1that
the Administration has done, there appears to be oothing to prevent the
Government of the Libyan Jarnahiriya from formally communicatingto us rati-
fications agreed.
I cannot understand what is preventing the friendly Government of the
Libyan Jamahiriya from carrying out a mere formality in order that the May
1976Agreement may come into force. Of one thing 1am sure : this is not being
done capriciously or through carelessness because 1am fully aware how hard
both ofus have worked to strengthen the friendship and brotherly ties between
. our two countries. This sarne bond of friendship makes it encumbent on me to

inforrn you that the non-ratification of the May 1976Agreement is seriously
demolishingal1that we have succeededto build together.
I know, Mr. Secretary General, that you will appreciate that the people of
Malta are anxiousfor exploration work to start, because if oil isfound by 1979
Our Island would beable to face its futuas a neutral country with greater
courage. This notwithstanding, unless the Agreement is ratified, 1am not only
unable to giveserious information to Parliament, amt also being prevented
from warding off the great damage that is being inflictedto the good relations
that exist betweenus.
Only our enemies are benefiting from this situation. 1am enclosing with this
letter a translation of the leading article of the reactionary and pro-West news-
paper Time of Malia of the 12thJanuary 1978.
For this reason 1 am confident that you will fully understand this situation
and the need for both sides that the Mal976Agreement be ratified pnor to
the forma1discussions scheduled for the 30th of this month in connection with
Malta'sstatus after March 1979.

H.E. Col. Muammar Gaddafi,

Secretary General,
Socialist People'sLibyan Arab Jamahiriya. CONïINENTAL SHELF

Annex 16

LETTER FROM THEPRIME MINISTE OFRMALTA OF 12MAY1978

Like you 1still feelthe shock of the death by accident of Taha Sharif Ben
Amer and Ahmed Abushagur. Sharif Ben Amer we al1loved as a brother. He
has not had the opportunity to collect from the hands of our President the
decoration bestowed upon him by the Republic of Malta - Midalja ghall-Qadi
tar-Repubblika. We would feel honoured ifyou could arrange for his widow,
with heryoung son, to cometo Malta and accept the rnedalon behalf of her late
husband.
On May3-5 of this year His ExceUencyMansour M. Badr has come to Malta
to make some proposals about two major issues: (a)the dividing line of the

Continental Shelf between our two countnes; and (b) the concessionary oil
agreement.
On the first issue the Libyan proposal seemsto be that Malta should forget a11
the years of discussion which finally ended with your personal intervention
enabiing an agreement to be reached between Our two governments on the
23 May 197610refer the dispute for arbitration by the International Court of
Justice. The Libyan proposa1puts the clock back at least six years and expects
the Government of Malta to start again from scratch.
The second proposa1 brings to an end the concessionary terms of the oil
agreement which you, personally, generously and publicly offered to the people
of Malta during one of your visits. It also hints vaguely at the setting up of a
joint MalteselLibyan Committee of Experts which woiild discuss in what way
the Maltese economy might be helped as a substitution in total or in part for the
loss of the concession.
On Our side the Deputy Prime Minister tried to raise the point - vital to
both countries - concerning the urgency for a formal agreement to be publicly
made between Ourtwo countnes to enable Malta to have a guaranteed status of
neutrality after March, 1979.Minister Badr was repeatedly told of the urgency
of this issue especially nowthat there are hardly any British Forces left on the

Island and we want to make sure to have the ability to resist sudden attacks of
the Entebbe type. Much to Our surprise His Excellency Mansour M. Badr
regretted he had no authority to discuss thisissue.
From what 1 have briefly stated- if you wish my friend Joe Camilleri will
give you more details orall- 1am sure you willgather how necessaryis again
your persona1intervention to clear up this messfor which 1feel certain only the
bureaucrats are responsible.
Our country ispassing throügh one of its most dangerous and critical periods.
If, with your help, we are able to steer a course which willultimately enable us
to reach the goal of a lasting and stable neutral Malta in a Mediterranean free
of domination by the two super powers, your name in history will shine for
many generations.

H.E. Muarnmar El-Ghaddafi,

Secretary Gencral of the Socialist People's Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya,
Tripoli, Libya. ANNEXE SO THE MEMORlALOF MALTA

Annex17

MALTA'N SOTE TO LIBYA OF21 NOVEMBE1 979

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Malta presents its compli-
ments to the Popular Office of the Socialist People'sLibyan Arab Jamahiriya
and has the honour to refer to the long-outstanding question of the delimitation
of the continental shelvesof the two countries.
The Ministry reca1lswith satisfaction the understandings reached recentlyin
Tripoli, and later confirmed in Malta, on current and future CO-operatbe-
tweenthe Jamahiriya and Malta.
The Ministry must, however,again express its regret that no real progress
was madeon the question of delimitation. Indeed the Ministry cannot but recall
with concern the various abortive attempts at reaching an agreeed solution, in
particular the fact that the Special Agreement signed, after years of negotia-
tions, in May 1976,has, notwithstanding the promise of an early ratification,
remained unratified by the Libyan sideuntil this day.

Even a simple agreement that the experts of the two sides should meet in
Malta in the very early days of this month has not been kept. This meetingwas
intended to pave the way for a last-minute attempt to be made at the highest
level not later than mid-November in order that, should an agreement be
reached,this couldberatifiedby the Popular Congressesduringthis year'ssession.
There seems to bc now little time left for the two sides to reach a final agree-
ment capable of being ratified by the Congresses thisyear unlessboth sideswere
to act quickly and with the necessary determination to reach an agreement in
time.
While, therefore, the Maltese Government will honour its latest commitment
to send its experts to Tripoli on November 26, it haslittle confidence that this
missionwillbe successfulunless both sidestake a more flexibleapproach.
Thus, as regards the proposal made by the Jamahiriya during the meeting of
October 16, 1979,and which is recorded in the agreed minutes of that meeting,
it would notbe possible for the Maltese Government-for reasons alreadygiven
verbally-to consider its acceptance, even with modifications,unless the pro-
posai is authorized by the Popular Congressesand could be implemented with-
out the need of a referenceback to the Congressesfor ratification.
To show its own good will, and ina further effort to reach a working agree-

ment that would give the two sides more time and a better opportunity for a
wider and final agreement, the Maltese Government declares its readiness to
modify its own proposa1put forward at the Tripoli meetingjust referred to. The
Maltese Government would be prepared to extend from 5 to 15miles the area
on its side of the median line which would be declared to be in dispute, if the
Jamahiriya made a similar extension on its side. The two countries could then
exploit the remainder of the areas without any further delay.
At the same time, the Government of the Republic of Malta has no option
but to confîrm that it cannot postpone any further the exploitation of the area
of the continental shelf between thtwo countries which it firmly believes to
appertain to the Maltese people. Th Maltese Government has commitments
which it must honour and drilling must therefore start in the near future in the
area north of the lineBAshown in the attached map.536 CONTINENTAL SHELF [48]

TheMinistryof Foreign Affairsof the Republic oMaltaavails itseifof this
opportunityto rencwto the Popular Officeof the SocialistPeople's Libyan
ArabJamahinyathe assurances ofithighestconsideration.

PopularOfficeof the
SocialistPeople's Libyan

Arab Jamahiriya. ANNEXES TOTHE MEMORIALOF MALTA

Annex18

[SeeMemoriulofthe LibyanArubJamahiriya,
DocumenturyAnnex66,supra] CONnNENTAL SHELF

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Malta presents its com-
pliments to the Popular Committee of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya and has the honour to refer to the Note Verbale of May 10, 1980,
addressedby the Secretariat of the Socialist People'sLibyan ArabJamahiriya to
the Embassy ofthe Republic of Malta.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairsrejects and refutcsas complettly unfounded

and inadmissible in international law,al1claims by the the Socialist Peoplt's
Libyan Arab Jamahinya over areas of the continental shcii in respect of which
the Republic ofMalta has granted exploration and production licences.
Al1licencesgrantcd for that purpose by the Govcrnrnent of the Republic of
Malta-none of which, incidentaily,was granted recently, sincc the last licence
is datcd 19 Novcmber 1974-were granted in artaswhich unquestionably fa11
within the continental shelf which appertains exclusively to the Republic of
Malta.
Indeed, it was the Republic of Maita that was aggneved by the grant of
licences made by the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jarnahiriya, against al1
rules and principles of international law, in respect of areas falling within the
exclusive sovereignty of the Republic of Malta. So much so that the Govern-
ment of Malta protested stronglyagainst this illegalmost unfricndlyact by let-
ters dafed17 June 1975and 23 June 1975.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Malta thereforc, while it
denounces as completelyunfounded in law and in fact al1claims and allegations
contained in the Libyan Note Verbale undcr reply, calls on the Socialist
People'sLibyan Arab Jamahiriya to refrain frornany further acts of unfriend-
liness against the Republic of Malta and places responsibility for anyadverse
effecton the friendly relations betweenthc two countrics squarely on the Socia-
list People'sLibyan Arab Jamahiriya.

Popular Committee of
the SocialistPeople's
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,
Popular Office,
Sliema.[51-69] ANNEXESTO THEMEMORIALOF MALTA

Annex20

AGREEMENBTTWEENDENMAR AND NORWA CONCERNING
. THEFAROEISLANDS

[Norreproduced]

Annex21

CLAMS TOA MILE EXCLUSIVECONOM ICNEASLISTEBYTHE
UNITEDSTATE SEPARTME OFSTATE

[Nol reproduced]

Annex22

AGREEMEN BTWEENBABRAI NNDIRAN.7JUNE1971

[Nol reproduced]

Amex 23

AGREEMEN TETWEECUBAAND MEXICO26JULY1976

[Nol reproduced] CONTINENTASHELF

Anncx24

AGREEME NTTWEEINDIAANDMALDIVE S8DECEMBE 1R76

[NUIreproduced]

Annex25

AGREEMEN TETWEENCUBAANDTHEUNITESDTATEOFAMERICA,
16DECEMBE 1977

[Nor reproduced]

Annex26

AGREEMEN BTTWEENCOLOMB IADTHEDOMINICR ANPUBLIC,
13JANUAR 1978

[Not reproduced]

Anntx21

AGREEMEN BTTWEENCOLOMB AND HAITI,FEBRUARY1978

[Not reproduced][79-961 ANNEXESTO THE MEMORIALOF MALTA

AGREEMENTBETWEENTHEDOM~NICR ANPUBL AND VENEZUELA,
3MARCH 1979

[Nutreproduced]

Annex29

AGREEMENTBETWEEN THEUNITEKDINGDO MNDVENEZUELA
CONCERNINGTRINIDAD26FEBRUAR Y42

[Noireproduced]

Annex30

AGREEMEN BTTWEENBAHRAIFAINDSAUD IRABIA22 FEBRUAR1Y958

[Norreproduced]

Annex 31

AGREEMENB TESTWEAUSTRALIAAND INDONESIA

(1)AGREEMENTOF18MAY 1971
(2)AGREEMENTOF9OCTOBER1972
SUPPLEMENTARYTOTHEAGREEMENT OF18MAY 1971

(3)AGREEMENT CONCERNING CERTABNUNDARIESBETWEEN
INDONESIAANDAPUANEWGUINEA,12FEBRUARY1973

[Notreproduced] CONTiNENTALSHELF 197-1221

Annex 32

AGREEMEN BETTWEENINDONESIAAND SINGAPOR 5 MAY1973

[Not reproduced]

Annex 33

AGREEMEN BTTWEENINDIAAND SRILANKA 2,MARCH 1976

[Nor reproduced)

Annex 34

(1)ORDERIN COUNCIL NO.2574

(2)ACTNO. 17OF 1970
(3)FiSHERIESRESOURCES(JURISDICTIOANDCONSERVATION) ACT 1,77

[Nofreproduced]

Annex 35

(1)ACTOF 1968AMENDING THE PBTROLEUM ACT 1950

(2)ACTOF 1978ESTABLISHINOMARINEBOUNDARIES

[Not reproduced][123-1351 ANNEXESTO THE MEMORIALOF MALTA

Annex36

ORDONNANCENa76-038/C~ DU 15 JUI1976
PRÉCISANTLESLIMITESDESEAUXTERRITORIALESCOMORIENNES
ET ÉTABLISSANTUNEZONEÉCONOMIQUEEXCLUSIVE

[Nor reproduced]

Annex37

NATIONA LEG~SLAT IOFIJI

(1)CONTINENTALSHELFACT,1970
(2) MARINESPACESACT,1977

[Nor reproduced]

Annex38

NATIONA LEGISIATIO -GRENADA

ACTNO. 20OF 1978

[Notreproduced] CONTINENTALSHELF

Annex39

(1)LAW NO.44,CONCERNINGTHESCIENTlFlCCONSERVATIONOFTHECONTlNENTAL
SHELFFISHERIES,5APRIL 1948"STJ~RNART~DTIND~".948,a.4P.147

(2)ACTOF 24MARCH 1969REGARDlNGTHE SOVEREIGNRIGHTS OFTHE
ICELANDICSTATEOVERTHECONTINENTALSHELFAROUNDlCELAND
(3)LAW NO.41 OP1 JUNE1979CONCERNINGTHETERRITORIALSEA,
THEECONOMICZONEANDTHECONTINENTALSHELF

[Not reproduced]

Annex40

NATIONAL LEGISLATIO -NKIRIBATI

PROCLAMATION OF 10 MARCH 1978

[Not reproduced]

Annex41

LEGISLATIONESTABLISHINGANEXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE:
MARINERESOURCES ACT 1978

[Nor reproduced] ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIALOF MALTA

Annex 42

(1) THECONTINENTAL SHELFACT. 1964
(2)THETERRITORIAL SEAANDEXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZO NE T1977

[Noi reproduced]

Annex 43

(1)CONTlNENTAL SHELFORDINANCE, 1970
(2)FISHINGLIMlTSORDINANCE, 1977

(3)DELIMITATION OFMARINEWATERS ACT ,978

[M?i reproduced]

Annex44

(1)PROCLAMATION

(2) FISHERIESORDINANCE

(3)PROCLAMATION OFFISHERYLIMITS UNDER SECTION2
OFTHEFISHERIESORDINANCE

[Nol reproduced] CONTINENTASHELF

Annex45

NATIONA LEGISLAflO-WESTERS NAMOA

ACTNO.3OF1977

[Norreproduced]

Annex46

LEGISLATIOYDENMAR CONCERNINTHE FAROEISLANDS

ORDERNO.598OF21DECEMBER1976
ONTHE FISHINGTERRITOOPTHEFAROES

[Nor reproduced]

Annex47

NATIONA LEGISLAT BYNNEWZEALAN CONCERNINGCOOKISLANDS

ACT N16OF 1977

[Noi reproduced]

Annex48

LEGISLATIBYNEW ZEALAN CONCERNINGTOKELAU

ACTNO.125OF1977

[hbr reproduced][194-20] ANNEXESTOTHE MEMORIALOF MALTA

Annex49

LEGISLATIBYTHEUNITEDKINGDO MONCERNING
TURK SNDCAICO SLANDS

PROCLAMATION 4OOF1978

[Not reproduced]

Annex50

AGREEMEN BETWEENNORWA AND THEUNITEKDINGDO MOVERINGALSO
THESHETLANDS10MARCH 1965

[Nor reproduced]

Annex51

AGREEMEN BETWEENINDIAAND INDONESIA CONCERNNICOBARISLANDS
ANDSUMATR8 A, UGUST974

[Nor reproduced]

AGREEMEN BTTWEENTHEUNITEDSTATESOAMERIC ANDVENEZUELA
CONCERNINPUERTORICO,28 MARCH1978

[Nor reproduced] CONTINENTALSHELF

AGREEMEN TETWEENINDIAND THAILAN CONCERNlNGNICOBA RSLANDS,
22JUNE1978

[Nor reproduced]

Annex54

AGREEMEN BTTWEENAUSTRALIAND FRANC EONCERNING

(1)NEWCALEDON AAD(IIKERGUEL ILANDS,4JANUAR 1982

[Not reproduced]

Annex55

AGREEMENTBETWEENCUBAAND HAITI2,OCTOBE 1977

[Nol reproduced]

Annex 56

AGREEME BETWEENFRANC ENDTONGA CONCERNINWALLI SND FUTUNA
ISLANDS11JANUAR 1980 '

[Norreproduced] ANNEXESTO THEMEMORIALOF MALTA

Annex57

AGREEMENYBETWEEFRANC ANDMAURITI CONCERNINREUNION,
2 APRI1980

[Notreproduced]

Annex58

AGREEME NTWEENNEW ZEALAN DNDTHEUNITESDTATESFAMERICA
CONCERNINCOOK ISLANDSANAMERICA NAMOA .JUNE1980

[Noreproduced]

Annex59

AGREEMEN BTTWEENEW ZEALAN DNDTHEUNITESTATE SFAMERICA
CONCERNINTOKELA ANDAMERICA SAMOA 2DECEMBE R980

[Nureproduced]

AGREEME ETWEENFRANC ENDST.LUCIAONCERNINMARTINIQUE.
4MARCH1981

[Nol reproduced] CONTiNENTALSHELF

Annex61

AGREEMEN BETWEENITAL YNDYUGOSLAV 8IJ,NUAR 1968

[Not reproduced]

Anncx62

AGREEME NETWEENITALYANDTUNISIA20AUGUST1971

[Not reproduced]

Annex63

AGREEME NETWEENITALAND SPAIN,9BEBRUA1 R974

[Nor reproduced]

Annex64

AGREEMEN BETWEENGREEC AND ITALY2,MAY 1977

[Not reproduced] ANNEXESTO THE MEMORIALOF MALTA

Annex 65

NOTE VERBAL FROM MALTA TO ITALY31,DECEMBE 1R965

The Ministry of Commonwealthand Foreign Affairs presentsits compliments
to the Embassy of Italy andas the honour to inform the Embassy that the
Government of Malta intends.to carry out, in the near ausurvey of the
continental shelffor thepose of exploration and the eventuai exploftation
its natural resources.
The survey will be carried out without any unjustifiable interference with
navigation,ishingor the conservation of the living resourcesof the sea.
In the absence of an agreed boundary line for the continental shelf to the
northof Malta,thebouridarwillbe provisionallydtemed to be the mcdian lint
between Malta and Italy. This provisionai arrangisking made without
prejudictofuture discussions onthe demarcation of this boundary line.

The Embassy ofItaly,
Ta' Xbiex. CONTINENTAL SHELF

Annex 66

NOTE VERBAL FROM ~TALYTO MALTA2,9APRIL1970

[kalian lext no1reproduced]

(Translation)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy of
Malta and has the honour to communicate what follows.
With Note Verbale of 24 January 1970 (CF A 1624168)addressed to the
Italian Embassy in Malta, the Maltese Ministry of Commonwealth and Foreign
Affairs confirmed the impossibility, for the Governrnent of Malta, to start early
negotiations with Italy aimed at the delimitation of the continental shclf.
On the part of Italy, while account is taken of the technical difficulties which
prevcnt the Maltese Government from giving an early start to the negotiations,

one cannot but confirm the interest in a rapid resolution of the problem,inlso
viewof the laws which regulatethese mattersinItaly.
In these circumstances the ItaIian Government, pending a definitive agree-
ment on the matter, considers that a provisional solution is ntcessary for the
area of more immediate interest, namcly that between Malta and Sicily whichis
not affected by particular problems. In this respect, the Italian Government,
recalling what at one time had been proposed by the Maltese Government by a
Note Verbale of 31 December 1965,considers as opportune that, limitedlyto the
above-mentioned area, the median line between the northcrn coasts of Malta
and the opposite Sicilian coasts could be considereas the provisional line of
demarcation, and this of course without prejudiceto future discussions and with
reservations, particularly as regards the aforesaid line, for eventual corrections
- which would presumably be of a mere technical nature - in relation to the
definitiveagreementswhichcould be made during the negotiations.
Such a provisional solution would enable the two Governments to procecd
without furthcr delays with the publication of the data concerning the areas in
question and with the granting of licencesfor exploration. ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL OF MALTA

NOTE VERBAL FROM ITALY M MALTA6, MARCH1981

[I~aliuntexrnot reproùuced]

The Ministry of Foreign Affaira prcsents its compliments to the Embassy of
Malta and refers to the problem of the delimitation of the continental shelf in
the Mediterranean.
As iswellknown, as farback as the years 1965-1970,sinceitwas not possible
- for contingent technicalrcason- to proceedto a negotiated delimitation of
the continental shelfbetwcen Malta and Italy, it had bten agrçd that the
median line bctweenthe aforesaid coasts be considereas the provisionallineof
demarcation of the saidshclf.
The Note Vcrbaie No. 143164by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malta to
the ltalian Embassy on 31 Dccember 1965 and that fonvarded by this Ministry
to the Embassy of Malta on 29 April, 1970,are widcncc of the provisional
character of the agreements reached.. .without prejudiceto future discussions
and reservationsfor eventual corrections with respectto aforesaidfine".
Rcccntly information has been received that the Maltese Authoritics have
issueda cal1for tenders with the object of canying out prospecting and explora-
tions for hydrocarbons incight areas of the continental shelf situated largelyin
betweenMalta and Sicily.
the zone comprised
nie itaiian Authoritits, having regard to the understandings rcached in the
years 1965-70and to the provisional character of the same, resente the right ta
ascertain, by an indentification of the aforesaid exploration areas,whether the
samc are actually situated in the area of the continental shcif recognizeas
belongingto Malta by the aforcsaidundcrstandings.
The Itaiian Authorities in any casefeelthatisadvisable- in ordcr to avoid
situationswhich could prejudiuItalian interests on thcontinentalshelfin the
Mediterranean - to proceed to a definitivcdelimitation of the respectiveareas
of the continental shelfthrough the appropnate negotiations.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs wouldbegrateful to the Embassy ofMalta if
itcould be adviscd of the views of the Maitese Government on the above
matters. CONTINENTAL SHELF

Annex 68

ADDITIONAL MATERIA RELLATING TOISLAND DEVELOPIN S TATES

(i) In 1975 the resolution of the UN General Assembly on develop-

ment and international economic CO-operation adopted on 16 September
(Resolution 3362 (S-VII)) contained two referenccs to island developing
countries: First, under heading 1, "International Trade", paragraph II
provides:

" II. Special measures shouldbe underfaken by developedcouniriesand by
developingcountries ina posifionto doso fo assisfin thestrucluraltransfor-

mationof the economyof the hast developed,landfockedand islonddeueloping
counti~es.

Second, under heading II,"Transfer of real resources for finandng and
development of developing countries and international rnonetary re-
forrns", paragraph 12 provides:

" 12. Deuelopedcounfriesshouldimp~ovetennsandcondifionsof lhei~assisfance
JOas to indudeaprepondermtgrant elernenf~r iheIeasidevelopedl,andlock~d

andislonddevelopingcountries."

(ii) InJanuary 1976 the secretariat ofUNCTAD produced a study
entitled Action onspecialmeasures in fauour of tha least deuelopedamong the
deuelopingcounfries,~hedevelopingislandcoun!riesand thedevelopingland-locked
tountries: policy issues and recommendations.'Chapcer IIi is devoted to
"Special measures in favour of geographically disadvantaged developing

countries". ILSopening paragraphs read as follows:

" 97. The problems of developing island countries were initially
raised in Conference resolution 65 (III) of 19 May 1972, which
requested the convening of a srnall panel of experts tu identify them
and make recommendations for consideration by the Trade and

Development Board. The report of this panel? srressed the fàct that
developing island coiintries had many problems similar to those
facing developirig coiintries as whole. However, itidentified certain
issues as being of particular concern to island countries. First,
although the majority of the inhabitants of developing island count-

ries live in large countries such as Indoriesia, the Yhilippiiies and Sri
Lanka, most developing island countries and territorics are in fact

1. Doc.TD/I91; Proceedings of UNe Conferenceon Tradeand Devolopment, Fonrth
SessionvolIII,188.
Developingis.4andcounrriPs(Nations publication,No.E.71.II.D.6). 12411 ANNEXESTO THE MEMORIAL OF MALTA 555

small, and some of them very small indeed. Thus, problems as-
sociated with small territorial size are likely to be of special concern.
Secondly, small islands are heavily dependent on cxternal transport,

and in particular on shipping. Thus, the nature and cost of shipping
services need special consideration. Thirdly, rnany such islands lie in
the path of tropical storrns, and need to plan tci meet disasters.
Fourthly, they have a particular interest in questions relating to the

control of marine resources. Finally, in view of their small size and
the limitations which this places on their prospects, for economic
development, they have a particular interest in regional co-
operation.

98. In its decision 28 (LVII) of 2 August 1974, the Economic

and Social Council requesied the Secretary-Ceneral of the United
Nations, in consultation with the Secretary-General of UNCTAD
and the executive heads of the specialized agencies and other in-
ternational institutions,10:

(a) Prepare a report outlining the special economic problems
and development needs of the geographically mcire disadvaiitaged

developing island countries;

(6) Make concrete proposais concerning any measures required
to overcome or minimize the eKects of the special problems of the
countries referred to in subparagraph (a) above;

(c) Present this report to the Committee on Review and
Appraisal within the context of the mid-term review of the
International Development Strategv for the Second United Nations

Developmen t Decade.

In the report prepared by the UNCTAD secretariac in pur-
suance of this decision,* the special problems stemming from peri-
pheraI locatioii, inadequatt: resource base and small size were exam-
ined in greater detail, and the possible measures which might help to
offset these handicaps were studied.

99. Measures need to be taken in the following areas in order to

alleviate the most acute of the particular disabilities iàcing geo-
graphically disadvantaged island developing countries."

(iii T)he position of developing island countries (in conjunctiori with
the least developed aniong developing countrics and developirig laiid-
locked countries) was considcred ar the Third Ministerial kleeting of'the
Croup of 77 held at Xlanila iri 1976.' Section six of the prograninie of

1.See Proceedingsof the UN Conferenceon TrtandDevelopmenr. FourthSerriovol.1,
ReportandAnnexes(UN publication,SaNo.E.76.1I.D.andcorrigcndurn),Anncx V.

*"Special ecori<irnicprirl,li:miiintl dcvelopnieiit needs nt'the geogr:ililiiçally niurctlibad-'
v:tiiiaged developihlüiiciiiiiiirii,.hy iiir Srrreiary-Ccricral" (t~j5ti~I7). 556 CONTINENTAL SHELF Pl

action contains a reaffirmation of the conviction of the meeting concern-
ing the need to agree upon effective internationa1 action to contribute to

the solution of the specific and permanent problems of, inte alia,develop-
ing island countries. It was recognized that these measures should be in
addition to the measures to be adopted in general for al1 developing
countries in the spirit of the UN resolution concerning the establishment

of the new international economic order.'
In relation to developing island countries, the areas in which action

was called for were identified under such heads as shipping, air services,
telecommunicahons, etc. Heading E was "Marine and undersea re-
sources". This provided:

"46. The sovereignty ofdeveloping island countries, and parti-
cularly the archipelagic States, over their marine and sub-marine
resources should be recognized and affirmed. The multilateral finan-

cial institutions and technical assistance agencies should provide
effective assistance to these countries to enable them to exploit fully
those resources ....2"

(iv) The fourth session of UNCTAD held in May 1976 adopted
resolution 98 (IV) of 31 May 1976,3in which the part dealing with the

particular nceds and problems of developing island countries recom-
mended action on, intearlia, assistance in expioiting marine and sub-
marine resources; intensification of efforts to help small islands plan
rationally in order to deal with the peculiar problems of human geog-
raphy and ecology; and intensification of efforts to increase the flow of

resources to island developing countries.

Prior to the Conference the socialist countrieshirculated within
UNCTAD a position paper which, though referring specifically only to
the needs of the economically least developed among developing countries
and the land-locked countries, was printed in the records under the

heading: "Least developed among developing countries, developing island
countries and developing land-locked c~untries"~. In th?s paper, mention
was made of the "serious difficulties [of the least developed countries] in
overcoming the backwardness inherited from the colonial era and in
achieving their economic independence, and especially of the infla-

tionary rise in prices of goods on the world capitalist market"."
The significance of the utilisation of national resources was em-
phasized by the inclusion in the list of matters on which the socialist

1. Ibip.122.
2. Ibip.126.
3. Ibd, 22.
4.ListedasBulgaria,ByelomssianSR,CzechoslovaG,ermanDemocraticRepublicHungary,
MongoliaPolandUkrainianSSR,andtheUSSR.
5.TD (VI)/GC/4;ibd.,p.150.
6. Ibid. [243] ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL OF MALTA 557

countries would be prepared tcicooperate with developingcountries of the
item: "Organizing and carrying out geological exploratory and prospect-

ing work for the discovery, evaluation and exploitation of mineralç".'

(v)The UNCTAD meeting was followed on 21 ~ecernber 1976 by a

UN General Assembly resolution (311156) on "Action programme in
favour of developing island countries". After recalling earlier indications
of General Assernbly interest in the subject (which have been set out
above), the resolution continues:

"The GerieralAssembly,
......

Recognitingthe particular impediments hampering the economic
development of rnany developing island countries, especially their '
difficulties in respect of transpoand communication, the smallness
of their economies and markets, their low resource endowment and

their heavy dependence on a few commodities for Foreign exchange
earnings,

1. Invites the executive heads of the organizations concerned
within the United Nations systern and in particular of the United
Nations Developmcnt Programme, in the continuation of their efforts
with respect to developing island countries to incorporate in their
regional and interregional programmes the relevant recommen-

dations contained in resolution 98 (IV) of the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development;

2. Urgesal1 Governments, in particular those of the developed
countries, to lend their support, in the context of their assistance
programmesf,or theimplementation of the specifiaction envisaged in
favour of developing island countries within the framework of their

development plans and priorities;

3. Calk upon the Secretary-General to submit to the General
Assembly at its thirty-second session, through the Econoniic and
Social Council, a progress report on the irnplernentation of specific
action in favour of developing island countries."

(vi) In a later resolutionat the sarnesession, the General Assembly
endorsed the resolution of UNCTAD recommending a series of special
measures and specific action in favour of, inter alia, island developing

countries and requested al1 organizations connected with the UX systems
to incorporate the relevant recornmendations in their activities and
irnplement them as a matter of urgency. (Resolution 311159, para. 10).558 CONTINENTAL SHELF [2441

(vii) The General Assembly at its thirty-second session again re-
verted to the subject of developing island countries. On 19 December
1977 it adopted a resolution which stated, inter alio:

"The GeneralAssembb,
. . . . . .

MindfuE that the particular impediments hampering the econ-
omic deve!opment of man y developing island countries, especially
their difficulties in respect of transport and communications, their
distance from market centres, the smallness of their economies and
markets, their low resource endowment and their heavy dependence

on a few commodities for Foreign exchange earnings, cal1 for the
continued attention of Governments and of organizations of the
United Nations system.

Convinced that specific action in favour of developing island
countries, supplementary to the general measures applicable to al1
developing countries, is required to meet these particular
impedirnents,

1. Tukes noteof the report of the Secretary-General on progress

in the implementation of specific action in favour of developing
istand countries* and welcomes the initiation of the rneasures
specified therein;

2. Welcomesin particular the activities undertaken by the
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, including
the establishment of a unit in its secretariat devotedto the problerns
of least developed, land-locked and island developing countries;

3. Also ruelcornetshe progress achieved by the United Nations
Industrial Development Organization in its implementation of the

special technical assistance programme for developing island
countries;

4. U~ges atl organizations in the United Nations system to
continue to identify and implement, within their respective spheres of
competence, appropriate specific action in favour of developing
island countries, in accordance with the recommendations of re-

solution 98 (IV) of the United Nations Conference. on Trade and
Development, in particular those concerning the fields of transport
and communications, trade and commercial policies, industrializ-
ation, tourism, the transfer of technology, marine and submarine
resources development, the flow of external resources, environment

protection and response 10 natural disasters;
5. Furlherurgesthe United Nations organizations concerned, in

A/32/126andAd. 1.E2451 ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL OF MALTA 559

particular the United Nations Developrnent Programme and the
regional commissions, to give attention to programmes of regional
and subregional CO-operation in respect of developing island

coun tries;
6. Calls uponGovernments, in particular those of the developed

countries, to take fully into account, in their bilateral and regional
development efforts and in relevant negotiations towards the attain-
ment of the objectives of the new international economic order, the
special problems of developing island countries;

7. Decidesto keep under review al1 progress in the implemen-
tation ofthe present resolution and requests the Secretary-General to
subrnit for the considerativn of the General Assembly at its thirty-
fourth session a sectoral arialysis of action undertaken in favour of

developing island countries and proposais for further consideration,
taking into account the corisideration of this question by the United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development atits fifth session".

(viii)Two ways Iater the fifth session of UNCTAD in 1979.returned
to the subject and adopted Resolution 11 1 (V), "Specific action related to

the particular needs and problems of island developing countries", the full
text of which is set out below:

" II 1 (V). Specific action related to the particular needs and problerns
of island cleveloping countries

The Uniled Notio n snferencen Tradeand Deuelopment,

Reiteraiingthe specific actions related to the particular needs and
problems of island developing countries as contained in Conference
' resolution 98 (IV) of31 May 1976, section III, and in the relevant
General Assembly resolutions and urging fut1 cornpliance with them
by the international community and,

Takzngnotewilh appreciationof the report of the Group ofExperts

on Feeder and Inter-island Services by Air or Sea for Developing
Island Countries,*

1. Agrees that further specific action is needed in the case of
island developing countries to assist thern to oK5et their major
handicaps, in particular those which suffer handicaps due especially
to smallness, remoteness, constraints in transport and communi-

OffiiRneaonloftheTradeanDewelop.mmtBoa7d,EigbteenSessio,nncxer,agendaitem
6,docurncnïD/B/B87.560 CONTINENTAL SHELF 12461

cations, great distances From market centres, highly limited interna]
markets, lack of marketing expertise, low resources endowment, lack
of riatural resources, heavy dependence on a few commodities for
their Foreignexchange earnings,shortage of administrative personnel,

and heavy financial burdens. The international community should
he ready to lake action to ensure that the full benefit of general
measures in favour of developing countries is shared by island
developing coiintries;

2. Urges that specilic action in the following areas in favour or
island developing countries should be undertaken within the frame-
work of their developrncnt plans and priorities and in accordatice

with accepted development criteria and technical and financial
assistance prnvided by developed countries and multilateral financial
and aid institutio~is, takirig itito accourit over-al1 prospects for, as well
as existing levels of, development:

(a) 111order to lower their vulnerability to economic instability,
every effort should Liemade to diversify their econornies by, intedia,
developmeiit of infrastructure and implementation of over-al1 na-

tional development programmes;

(6) Island econornies, particularly those with limited dornestic
markets, rely heavily on exports for their Foreign exchange earnings.
Access to markets should be facilitated bu:

(i) Assistance in trade promotion efforts;

(ii) Simplification of preference procedures rvhere appropriate,
so that small administrations and enterprises can take
advalitage of preferential access to markets where it isin
principle available;

(c) Many of these countries are actively seeking foreign invest-
ment for export processing industries, other industries, tourism, etc.

Such efforts should be supported by assistance from the international
commutiity, including:

7. Ren$rms that the criteria, terms and conditions governing the

How of tiilater;ll and miiltilateral financial and technical assistance to
the island developirig couiitries should be geared to the special needs
aiid problcms 01'the coii~itries concerned;

8. Kequeslsthe Trade and Development Board, in car~ing out irs
tasks, tot;ikeiiito consideratio~i the special neeof island developing
counrries as identified, inleniia,by the regional commissioiis and to

co-operate with thern and other competent organizarionç in carrying
out tasks in favour of these countries; P47] ANNEXESTO THEMEMORlAL OF MALTA 561

9. Recognizingthe importance of tourism as a major source of
incorne, employment and foreign exchange for some isIand develop-
ing countries, and therefore the importance for them of international

air passenger transport, invites the International Civil Aviation
Organization, with assistance from UNCTAD and the appropriate
regional institutions, to study the policy issues involved in the
development of air transport services and to give support to the
efforts of these countries in concluding mutually satisfactory air

service agreements in respect of both scheduled and non-scheduled
servicesby airlines of national designation;

10. Having noted the report of the Group of Experts on Feeder
and Inter-island Services by Air or Sea for Island Deveioping
Countries, invites the Secretary-General of UNCTAD to consult
States members and the appropriate bilateral, regional and multila-

teral development institutions about the recornmendations they con-
sider most useful and the measures needed to have these
implemented. "

lix)This was followed by (General Assembly Resolution 34/205 of19

December 1979 which stated:
"The Gaeral Assembiy,

Mindfvl that further spcicificaction isneeded in the caseof develop-
ing island countries to assist them in offsetting their major handi-
caps, in particular those developing island countries which suffer
handicaps due especially to smaIlness, remoteness, constraints in

transport and communication, great distances from market centres,
highly limited interna1 markets, lack of marketing expertise, low re-
source endowrnent, lack of natural resources, heavy dependence on a
few commodities for theii foreign exchange earnings, shortage of
administrative personnel alidheavy financial buidens,

Emphasizing the need for a more effective response by the inter-

nationalcommunity to the various resolutions adopted by the GeneraI
Assembly and itsrelated organsin favour ofdevelopingisland countries,

1. Welcomes resolution1 11(VI of3June 1979oftheUnited Nations
Conference on Trade and Development, lgsentitled-"Specific action
related to the particular needs and problems of island developing
countries" ;

2. Takes note of the report of the Secretary-GeneraI entitled

"Action programme in favour of developing island countries" ;'96

195Sec'I'D/268,paonesectA.
1%.A/34/54 and Add.1. CONTlNENïAL SHELF [148]

3. C& upon rhe international cornmunity to implement urgently
the specific actions related to the particular needs and problems of
developing island countries as agreed upon in Development;

4. Furth? calhupm theinternational community to ensure that the
criteria, terms and conditions governingthe flowof bilateral and multi-

lateral financial and technical assistance to the island developing
countries shou1d be geared to the special needs and problems of the
countries concerned:

5. Invites the competent organs of the United Nations system to
consider taking effective steps to enhance their capacity to respond

positiveiy to the specific needs of developing island countries at the
national, regional and interregional levels, including strengthening
their technical and advisory services on behalf of these countries;

6. Furtherinvilesthe Preparatory Cornmittee for the New Inter-
national Development Strategy to take fully into account, in the

formulation of the strategy for the third United Nations development
decade, the particular needs and problems of developing island coun-
tries;

7. Requesl~the United Nations Development Programme, and
invites international development institutions and bilateral institu-
tions, toconsider increasingtheir assistance to developing island coun-

tries;

8. Invitesthe United Nations DeveIopment Programme andother
competent institutions to CO-operate with the United Nations Con-
ference on Trade and Development in the programme of activities
envisaged in paragraphs 4 and 5 of resolution 111 (V) of the Con-
ference ;

9. Recommendrthat developed countries, international develop-

ment institutions and those developing countries which are elabora-
ting programmes of assistance in favour of other developingcountries
should give particular attention to requests for assistance from deve-
loping island countries;

10. Calls upon the regional commissions urgently io identify

appropriate action in favour of the developing island countries in
their respective regions;

11. Reque~tsrhe Secretary-Geiieral to include, in his aiialytical
report to the General Assembly at its special session in 1980 on the
establishment of the new international economic order called for in

Assernbly resolurion 33/ 198 of 29Janua1-y 1979, an assessrnent of rhe
situatiori inthe developirig islaridcountries."12491 ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL OF MALTA 563

(X In 5 December 1980 the UN General Assernbly adopted

without a vote two resolutions. One was on the International
Development Strategy for the Third UN Development Decade
(Resolution 35/56). In the section dealing with developing island count-
ries, this resolution provided:

"3.Developing islancounlries
148. During the Decade, further specific action will be taken to

assist dweloping island countries in offsetting major handicaps dueto
geographical and other constraints. In order to. lower their vulner-
ability to economic instability, every effort will be made by the inter-
national community to assist them in diversifying their economies,
takinginto account over-al1prospects for, as weIl as existing levels of,
development.

149. Efforts of developing island countries in actively seeking
foreign investment will be supported by the internationalcommunity,
including investment in tlieir infrastructural projects, especially in

the sectors of water, electricity, industrial estates and transport. The
establishment of joint ventures and assistance in strengthening the
, capacity of developing island countries to negotiate with foreign
investors should also be explored during the Decade. Their access to
foreign markets will be facilitated by assistance, both technical and
financial, in their trade promotion efforts andby the simplification of

preference procedures, where appropriate, so that small administra-
tions and entreprises can take full advantage of preferential accessto
markets where it is in principle availabIe. Assistance will be given in
the establishment of appropriate technical education and training
programmes, including the areas of marketing and management.

150. Financiai and other assistance to developing island coun-
tries by multilateral and bilateral institutions will be augmented as
appropriate. Assistarice procedures should be sirnplified to the extent
possible.

151. The developed countries and international organizations
should be ready to take action to ensure that the full benefit ofgeneral

measures in favour of devi:loping countries is shared by developing
island count~ies."

The other resolution was 35/61, dealing specifically with developing
island countries.It provided:

" The Genercll4sszmb14.,
. . . .. , , .
iMin@il that fiirther spscifiaction isneeded to assistdevelopirig564 CONTINENTAL SHELF C2501

island countries-in particular those which suffer handicaps due
especially to smallness, remoteness. constraints in transport and
communications, great distances from market centres, highly limited

interna1 markets, lack of marketing expertise, low resource endow-
ment, lack of natural resources, heavy dependence on a few com-
modities for their Foreign exchange earnings, shortage of adminis-
trative personnel and heavy financial burdens-in offsetting the
major handicaps that they face in their development process.

Bearingin mind the goals and objectives of the International
Development Strategy for the Third United Nations Development

Decade,
1. Noteswithconcernthat very few significant initiativeshave so

far been taken for the implementation of the specificactions en-
visaged in resolutions 98 (IV) and III (V) of the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development;

2. Appeals to al1 States, international organizations and financial
institutions to take urgent and effective steps to implement specific
actions in favour of developing island countries, as envisaged in

resolutions 98 (IV) and Il 1(V) of the United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development as weli as in other resolutions on this
subject;

3. fnviks the competent organizaiions of the United Nations
system to take further measures as necessary to enhance their ca-
pacity to respond positively to the specific needs of developing island
countries during the Third United Nations Development Decade;

4. Decides to undertake at its thirty-seventh sessiona compre-
hensive review of the implementation of the measures taken by the

international cornmunity in favour of the specific needs of the
developing island countries, as called for in the relevant resolutions
the General Assembly and other resolutions on this subject.

(xi) Concern with the problem of island developing countries con-
tinues. In 1982 the Secrctary-General of the UN prduced a report
entitled: UNCTAD-Progress in theimplementatioo nfspec$cactioninfauourof

islanddevelopincuuntries.The "Sumrnary and Conclusions" of ihis Report
includes the followirig:

"79. Energyisa world-wideproblm; nonethelessi, zJrequentlymen-
tionedin ~hc contexloJ kland deuelopingcountrieszvherespecljSsolutions
mny be appropriate:Apartfrom energy-savingmeasures,subrnarineprospecf-
ingand sftenerrgayreamongthe issueraised.

''80 . arine resourcesreceiuedue attention in Ihe replies, in uiew i2511 ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIAL OF MALTA 565

especinllyqf the oppo~tunitiesthe declarationofExclusiveEconomicZones
oJer~to island developing countnes. These zones have greaily expanded

many island developingcounrries'resmrce base. Thu incldes resourCeJ of
the sea itself, sucas fuh, or o/the sea-bedand benedh, suchas mrnerals
orail. Thesecountnesare nowfmd with the challengof integratingthese
resourcesinto their nationadleuelopmt strdegies"

(xii) Most recently, on 20 Decernber 1982,the General Assembly, in
Resolution 371206, restated its concern as follows:

"The GeneralA~sembEy,

......
Mindfulof the fact that additional effortsare needed to implement
the specific measures required to assist island developingcountrie*
in particular those which sufferhandicaps owing especially to small-

ness, renioteness, frequent natural disasters, discontinuity and
scattering of territor?, constraints in transport and communications,
great distances from market centres, limited interna1markets, lack of
marketing expertise, low resource endowment, lack of natural re-

sources, heavy dependence on a few commodities for their foreign
exchange earnings, shortage of administrative expertise and heavy
debt burdens-in offsetting the major handicaps which retard their
development process.

Welcoming the analysis of the problems facing smaller island

countries undertaken at the meeting on the special problerns of those
countries, held at Alofi, Niue, frorn 9 to 12Febt-uary 1982;

Recognii?ing that appropriate industrial development can be
vital to the economic development of small island counties.
.........,

4. Calls upon al1States, international organizations and financial
institutions to intensify efforts to implement specificactions in favour
of island developing counrries as envisaged in resolutions 98 (IV)"
and 111 (v)~ of the United Nations Conference onTradeand Develop-

ment as well as inother relevant resolutions;
5. Requesls the competent organizations of the United Nations

system to take adequate measures to enhance their ability to respond
posicivelyto the particular needsofisland devedopingcountries during
the Third United Nations Development Decade, in particular the

1.SeeAl37119 6ndCorr.1, anriex.
2.SeeProcetdinof thcUnitcd~VatironftrtnceTradeand Dccelopmtn, ourthSes~iol.
1,&prt andAnnrxrs(United Nations publicatiSaleNo. E.76.II.D. a10 corrigendum),
partone, secA.
3.ibid., FiJh St~svol.1,Ktportand Annrxcs(UnitedKations publicatioSales No.
E.79.II.D.1 part,one, secA.566 CONTINENTAL SHELF [2521

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the United

Nations Dwelopment Programme, the United Nations Industrial
Developrnent Organization and the United Nations Capital Develop-
ment Fund and ;

6. Repests the United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development, at its sixth session, to review the progress made in this
area and to consider the measuresneeded to facilitatethe irnplementa-
tion of the resolutions adopted so far in favour of island developing
countries;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Cenerai
Assembly atitsthirty-nintsessio on the measure aken by the inter-
national community to respond to the specificneedsofisland develop-
ing countries, as called for in the relevant United Nations resoIutions,

and to recommend further appropriate actions to permit the General
Assembly to undertake a comprehensive review of the problems and
needs of the island developing countries at that session." 12531 ANNEXES TO THE MEMORIALOF MALTA 567

IncornIeucl: DirlonccJrom neaitsconlincnl

Popdalion pcr capita GJVP
cotc.cor~ in 1973 bss thon iw-I,ml Mort fhafi
1973

Large and medium Under 250 Indoticsia(L) Madagascar (L)
(ovcr I million Sri Lanka %,i Haiti (Mi
inhabitants) ~hili~iina (L)
250 ro 399
Papua Ncw Guiiiea (L)
400 to 1000 Cuba (L)
Jamaica (M)
Dominican Republic (L)

Ovcr 1000 Hong Kong (S) Pucrto Rico (hl)
Singaporc (VS)
Trinidad and

Tobago (M)
Srnall (150.000 Under 250 East Timor (M)
to I niillion Comoros (S)
inhabitanis)

250 IO 399 Macao (VS) Capc Vcrdc (M) Mauritius (S)
BritishSolomon
Islands (M)
Wcsicrn Samoa (S)

400 to 1000 Barbados (VS) Fiji (M)
Bahrain (VS)

Ovcr 1000 Cyprua (M) Riunion (S)
Martinique (S)
Guadcloupc (S)
Mila (VS)
Ncihcrlands Antilles (S)
Bahamah (M)

Vcry srnall (undcr Undcr 250 hlaldivm (VS) Tonga (VS)
150,000 St. Vincent (VS)
inhabitants)

250 to 399 St. Lucia (VS) Gilbert Islands (VS)
Grcnada (VS) Tuvalu (VS)
Dominica (VS)
Si,Kitts-Sevis-

Anguilla (VS)
Aniigua (VS)
Scychelleh(VS)
400 to 1000 Sa0 Tome and Ncw Hebridc!, (M)
Principe (S) Pacific Islands (S)

Ovcr 1000 US Virgin Islands (VS) American Samoa (VS)
Brunci (M)
French Polyncsia (M)

Ncw Caledonia (VS)
Guam (VS)
Bermuda (.S).

kcs: L'HCTAD Hdm& nj blminhmat Tm& md hnrlopnrilS~aiirÙ~, 1976 (UnSuion\ publiniionSalm Nu.
E.F.76.11.0.1nd Ikrrf~+ngfdud Gwbir(Unitcd Nation- publicaSale.So.E.74.II.D.6).
NOTE. bnd irra inliidiw~YS -vtrysmall(undcr1,mq km).
5 =%ma11(1.W3.999 q Lm).
M -medium (4,-39.999 q km).
L -1argc (40,00 km and ovcr). CONTINENTAL SHELF

Annexes1-68

1,the undersigned, Edgar Mizzi, Agent of the Republic of Malta, hercby cer-
tify thatthecopies of the documents attached as Annexes 1to 68 (both inclu-
sive) ofthe Mernorialsubmitted by the Republicof Malta are accuratc copiesof
the documents they purportto reproduce and that where a translation of such
document is attached that translation is an accurate translation of such
document.

, This 26th day of April, 1983.

(Signed) Edgar Mini,
Agent of the Republicof Malta. The publications ofthe INTERNATIONAL COURTOFJUSTICE maybe ordered
frorn any bookseller. For information regarding ofethe Court's publications
pleasewrite to the Distribufionand Sales SeOfficofthe UniredNations. 1211
Grneva 10 tSwitzerland).or the Sales Section, UnitedNoNewnsYork.NY 10017
(USA).
The publications of the PERMANENTCOURTOF 1NTERNATIONALJUSTICE
(1920-1946)are obtainable rrom Kraus RepriCo..Kraus-Thomson Organization
Limited, Route 100, MillwoodNY 10546 (USA), to whical1requests should be
addressed.

On peut acquérirles publicatdelaCOUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
auprès des librairies spécialiséesdu monde entier. Pour tous renseignements, prière
de s'adresser a la Section de la disrriburionel des ventes, Offie dUnies.ions
1211Genève10(Suisse)ou Ala Secriodes ventes, NationsUnies.New YoNY.IO017
(Etats-Unis).
On peut acquérirles publicaiions de la COUR PERMANENTE DE JUSTICE
INTERNATIONALE (1920-1946) auprès de Kraus Reprint Co., Kraus-Thomson
Organization Limited, Route 100, MillwoodNY 10546 (Etats-Unis). Pour tous
renseignements, prièrede s'adresser à cette société.