Written answers of Libya to the questions posed by Judges Mosler, Oda and Schwebel

502 COSTtNEhTAL SHELF

128. THE AGENT OF THE LIBYAN ARAB JAXlAHIRII'A. TO THE REGI-RAR

1have the honour to enclose the response or Libya to the questions posed by
Judges Mosler, Oda and Schwcbcl.

Noting that Judge Mosler'squestion refers only to paragraph I of Article 76
of the draR convention. the Libyan Jamahiriya regard the first par{ of this
paragraph as representing existing. customary law. This is for the reason that.

oiithe basis of the Court's own judgrnenr, in 1969. it isctear that a coastal State
is already entitled. dr ,jt~ro.to its natural prolongation, in accordance with
customary international law. So far as the extension to the edge of the
continental margin is concerned, iiis arguable that a coastal Statc's tlc>,jt/rc
entitlement to its natural prolongation extends to the edge of the continental
margin.
The same would not be true for an area which lies beyond the edge of a
continental margin. but within 200 mites from the baseline. Therefore the
second part is not customary law so far as it deiines the outer limit of the

continental shelf. Given that the majority of States in the conference do no1
raise objection on this point at the present tirne.itmay be regarded as a new
accepted trend. especially iti light of the fact that this paragraph has becri
introduced in the draR convention according to the procedure provided in the
document A/CONF.62/62 adopted by the Conference on 13 April 1978.
Ii is no1likely ihatthe application to adjacent States ofthe two parts of the
definition in Article 76. paragraph 1.would lead to inconsistent results :in any
event, thiç possibility of inconsistcncy is rcmovcd by Article 76 (10). which
cffectively distinguishes Article 76 alid the question of the outer-liiiii/)ciss
from questions of delimitation between States.

AfisiitriIoJ~td~cO . du

1. The process by which new trends were accepted in the Conference was
the "consensus method" - which may or may not represent the position of
each State on the point. "Coiisensus" is a device to permit an appearance of
agreement where voting would not. "Consensus" may be influential in
development of a rule of customary international law, but adoption of a

provision by "consensus" ai an ititernational conference does not by itxlf
create such a rule.
II. New'accepted trends. within the nieaning of Article I of the Special
Agreement. fa11within the purview of the principles and rulcs or international
law for the purposes of that Article only if and so far as the Court concludes
that they are generally accepted by States so as to have bccome principlcs and
rules of customary international law. Otherwise. it is for the Court to decide
what weighi should be given to any "new accepted trends".
II1(1). The present tex1of Article 82 (11.draft convention. has dropped the

'See pp. 244-245. ruprri.
Secpp. 245-246. supru. CORRESPOSDENCE 503

reference to eqiiidistance and represents the prcscnt compromise between
conflicting views in the Third Law of the SeaConference. The new text also

places the emphasis on the achievement of an cquitable solution. though il
would seem thai this should in any evcnt follow [rom the application of
equitable principlcs in accordance with priiiciples of international law.
(2) Libya regards the applicable principlcs and rtilcs of international law
referred to iii Article I of the Special Agreement of !O June 1977 as iioi
equivalent to but comprised within the term "interiiütioiial law" iised in

Article38 of the Court's Statute.
(3) No general answer can be given to the lasi part of this question since il
depends upon which particular trend is refcrred 10. In any specific case it will
be for the Court io decide what weight should be givcn to the trend in
question.

IV (1). Libya considers that, as between States with opposite or adjacent
coasts. the delimitation of their respective continental shelf areas and of thcir
economic zones ought not, in the majority of cases. to be differeiit.
Nevertheless. there may be factors relevant to fishing. such as established
fishing praciices. which have no relevance to shelf resources : arid. conversely.
there may bc factors relevant ioshelf resourccs - such as geological feat~ires

controlling the extent of a natural prolongation - of no relevance to lishing. It
therefore follows that the two boundaries iiecd riot riecessarily coincide. For
example, it isbelievedthat Norway and Iceland have been recommended by a
Conciliation Commission to contemplate boundarp arrangements between
lceland and Jan Mayen Island which will involve different boundaries for
fishing. and for shelrexploration purposes.
(2) The relevant circumstances could have beendifferent. asindicated in the

prevjous answer.

The answcr is yes. for the following reasons.

1. To allow an cxisting fishery for sedcntary spcciesto set the geographicul
liniits of the continental shelf boundary for al1purposes would be iinrealistic
and perhaps highly inequitable. It would be tantamourit to allowing prior

rights. acquired by a form of occupation. to ovcrride the inherent. dc,,jlrr.c~
rights of ü coastal State based upon naiurül prolongation (see Jennings,
p. 276. sripru. for the same view). And. in the preseiit case. it would allow
fishing practices of trivial economic significance to dctermine the sovereignty
over mineral rcsources of great value (Libyan Counter-klcmorial. paras. 144-
150).

2. There is no basiç for assuming thai it is inipractiçal for two dilferent
Stares to cxercise sovereign rights over difirent resources il?//lcSUIJIL<II-L,L~.
What may be termed a "vertical superimposition" of rights is not unknown,
For example. coiitincntal shclf rights in the sea-hcd and siibsoil have long
CO-existedwith the rights of other States to navigation and fishing above thc
shclf. Safeguards for the rights of orher States cxistcd in the 1958 Geneva

Convention and arc provided for in Article 78(2) of the drafi convcntion.
State practice confirms this approach (secthc rcfcrcnce to the recommenda-
tions of the Icclaiid/Nor~~ay Conciliat~on Cornmission in the reply to Judgt:

' Sec p. 246..iii/)ru.504 CONTINENTAL SHELF

Oda). And, cvcii in relation to a sedentary species. a shelf resource. there is no
reason to siipposc that iiiiitiial accoininodalion on the basis or reasonable
regard for the rights of othcrs cannot be reached. For example, the sedentary

rishcries wcrc accoiniiiodated by a "Protected Zone" in the 1978 ~ustralia/
Pap~ia New Giiiriea Agreeiiieiit. without affecting the delitnitation of the
coiitinental shclf bo~iiidary(sec Libyan Coiinter-Aletnorial. para. 164).
3. Thc inutLialinconipatibility betweeii fishing for sedencary species and oil
drilliiig inight never occur, or inight be avoidedby directional drilling. Even if
iinavoidablc. the rights of the one Party could be respected by abstention. from
oil drilling. or by compensation for the loss of catch if needs be : the
iiiechanisins of adjustinent are wcll known to international law. And thc
resiilts wotild bc inore corlsistcnt with an equitable result thari allowing a
sedentary species to predeterininc the shelf bouridary.

129. L'AGEhT 1113I.,\ TUNISIE AU GREFFIER

2l octobre 198 1

J'ai I'hoiineur de votis traiisinettre ci-joint les testes des rkponses dii
Gouverneinent tunisien aiis q~iestioiis posies respeciivcnieiit par XIbl. Ics
juges Xloslcr.Oda et Schwebel.

Rc;liotr.d, Itytres~irii~posL;uiis ~IPII.ut.li~?s
put. S. ESC. I~,.jiih4oslrr '

1. Le Go~ivernement tunisien considére que l'article76. paragraphe 1.
reprt~ente une des tendances rkccmmcnt admisesa la troisième confkrcnce sur
le droit de la iner. Le texte de l'article76 tout entier est le résultat d'une
négociation longue et ardue. qui a port6 sur chaque paragraphe et chaque
phrase dcs divers paragraphes qui le coiiipost'nt. Soii inclusion dans Ic projet
de conventioii s'est operee après un long débat en séance pléniérede la
coriftircncc et conîorinCrnent ailx paragraphes 10 et 1 I dii documeilt

A/CONF.62/62 (Organisation des travaux :décisions prisespar la conférence
a sa quatre-vingt-dixiéineséaiiccconcernant lerapport du bureau). La pratiqiic
des Etats tend. d'autre part. a s'yconformer et ne tient plus cotnptc des limites
poskcs par l'article I de la convcntion dc 1958.qiie la Coiir avait coi~sidéréen
1969conimc I'cxprcssiond~idroit coutumier.
2. La liinite des 200 milles mcntionnke à L'article76,paragraphe 1. n'esl
detcrrninarirc que dans l'hypothèse oii le rebord externe de la inarge
continentale sc troiivc cn dcçi de cette litnite. De l'avis dii Go~ivernemcnt
tiiiiisicla inciition de cette limite de 200 inilles n'a pas polir cons~qiicncc
d'imposer iiné mtthode particulière de délimitation pour la partie de la
délimitationqui coiicernc la marge continentale jusqu'a son rebord externe. II
en resulte que I'applicatioii des deux ilémei~tsdc la definition nc peut pas

aboutir à des rksultats mutucllemerit incompatibtes.

' Ci-dessus p.244-245.