los presentation north sea final3

7/29/2019 LOS Presentation North Sea Final3

1/23

The North Sea Continental Shelf

Cases Submitted to the ICJ: February 20, 1967

Cases Joined by the ICJ: April 26, 1968

Judgment Rendered by the ICJ: February 20, 196


2/23

Two joined cases: Germany v The

Netherlands and Germany v Denmark.

The cases involved the delimitation of the

continental shelf between these countries.

The cases were joined as they involved

the same issue.

Introduction


3/23

Federal Republic Denmark and

of Germany vs. the Netherlands

Parties


4/23

Composition of ICJ

17 judges heard the case.

Germany entitled to appoint an adhocjudge to hearthe case.

The Netherlands and Denmark agreed that, becausethey were parties in the same interest (for thepurposes of Art 31 of the ICJ Statute) they wouldappoint one ad hocjudge between them


5/23

Continental Shelf

By definition, the continental shelf extends beyond the

territorial seas throughout the natural prolongation of a

coastal states land territory (Art 76 UNCLOS)


6/23

Continental shelf:

extended perimeter of each continent and associated coastal plain.


7/23

Background

The North Sea is rich in natural resources (particularly oil & gas).

All three countries are bordering the North Sea.

How was the boundary in respect of the continental shelf to be

determined between these countries? Article 6 Geneva Convention of 1958 says that if there are two

countries separated by a sea, the boundary between then should

be calculated as the point equidistant from both coastlines.

This is known as the equidistance principle. It is important to know where the boundary is because a country

can drill for oil in the seabed within their territory.


8/23

Background cont.

Germany lies between the Netherlands and Denmark.

Germanys coastline is concave, whereas the Dutch andDanish coastlines are convex.

Concave coastline: equidistance method would pullboundary lines inward causing the equidistance linesto meet at relatively short distance from the coastline

Convex coastline: have the opposite affect and would

tend to widen the area of the continental shelf

Therefore, a boundary which was perpendicular to the

coastline would lead to Germanys continental shelf

being enclosed.


9/23

DisputeSource: Common Wadden Sea Secretariat

Delimitation of the Continental Shelf


10/23

Article 6

1. Where the same continental shelf is adjacent to the territories of two or more States

whose coasts are opposite each other, the boundary of the continental shelf

appertaining to such States shall be determined by agreement between them. In the

absence of agreement, and unless another boundary line justified by special

circumstances, the boundary is the median line, every point of which is equidistant

from the nearest points of the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea

of each State is measured.

2. Where the same continental shelf is adjacent to the territories of two adjacent

States, the boundary of the continental shelf shall be determined by agreement

between them. In the absence of agreement, and unless another boundary line

is justified by special circumstances, the boundary shall be determined by

application of the principle of equidistance from the nearest points of the

baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea of each State ismeasured.

3. In delimiting the boundaries of the continental shelf, any lines which are drawn in

accordance with the principles set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article should be

defined with reference to charts and geographical features as they exist at a

particular date, and reference should be made to fixed permanent identifiable points

on the land.

Geneva Convention - Continental Shelf (1958)


11/23

The Contentions

In 1964 and 1965, the parties had agreed to partial

boundaries of the continental shelf, but were unable to

agree on the prolongation of the boundaries

The parties asked the ICJ to determine the relevant

international law applicable to determine their dispute.

The parties did not ask the ICJ to determine the relevantboundaries, rather the parties agreed to follow the

principles laid down by the ICJ in agreeing such

boundaries.


12/23

The Danish and Dutch contentions

This principle stated that a coastal state was entitled to each part

of the continental shelf that was closer to its territory than any

other states territory.

Both states argued that Art 6 formed part of customary

international law.

Both states argued that the

principle of equidistance (in

accordance with Art 6 of the

Geneva Convention of 1958 on

the Continental Shelf) should

apply to determine the

boundaries.


13/23

The German contentions

Germany had not ratified the 1958 Convention, and

Art 6 does not form part of customary international

law.

The governing principle should be that each coastal

state is entitled to a just and equitable share of the

continental shelf.

Even if Art 6 were customary international law, then

special circumstances existed for not applying the

equidistance principle.


14/23

The Legal Questions:

Is Article 6 of Geneva Conventionon the

Continental Shelf (1958) binding for all the parties in

the case ?

Is customary international law applicable ?


15/23

ICJ decision

Decided the case 11-6.

Found that Germany was not bound by Art 6 as it had

not ratified it.

Moreover, the equidistance principle did not form part

of customary international law.


16/23

ICJ decision cont.

However, the ICJ did not accept that each state was

entitled to a just and equitable share of the continental

shelf (as argued for by Germany).

There was no rule of law which allowed the ICJ to

carry out an equitable apportionment of the continental

shelf between coastal states.

To do so would go against the principle that the shelf

was a natural extension of the coastal states land,

which the coastal state had a natural right to.


17/23

ICJ decision cont.

The ICJ therefore held that the parties were obligated to try

to agree the division of the continental shelf based on

equitable principles.

Insofar as was possible, each state was entitled to the

continental shelf which was a natural prolongation of its

land.

To the extent that this led to overlapping claims to part ofthe continental shelf, then the parties should agree as to

how those parts should be delimited (and failing

agreement, they should be divided equally).


18/23

ICJ decision cont

The ICJ held that the relevant equitable principles to

be taken into account by the parties were:

The configuration of the coastline (including any special

or unusual features);

The natural resources, and physical structure, of the

continental shelf; and

The delimitation should have a reasonable degree of

proportionality as between the states.


19/23

Aftermath of decision

The parties agreed the delimitation of the continental shelf

in accordance with the equitable principles discussed by

the ICJ.

The result was largely in favor of Germany, as the agreedcontinental shelf largely reflected its original position.

This case stands for the proposition that countries do not

need to follow the equidistance principle if it was inequitable.

Later, this theory of equity was codified in Article 83 of the

Convention on the Law of the Sea (1833 U.N.T.S. 3

(1982)),


20/23

North Sea Continental Shelf

Inequitable Result

(Using Equidistant)

Agreed Boundaries:

C-D and A-B

Denmark: B-E

Netherlands: D-E

Germany: D-F and B-F


21/23

Southern NorthSea

Source:

repository.tudelft.

nl/assets/uuid:ee

5cf5d5.../NorthS

eaCoast93-

01.pdf


22/23

Side by Side Comparison


23/23

Source: http://www.acls-aatc.ca/node/304

los presentation north sea final3

Documents