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
7/29/2019 LOS Presentation North Sea Final3
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
7/29/2019 LOS Presentation North Sea Final3
3/23
Federal Republic Denmark and
of Germany vs. the Netherlands
Parties
7/29/2019 LOS Presentation North Sea Final3
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
7/29/2019 LOS Presentation North Sea Final3
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)
7/29/2019 LOS Presentation North Sea Final3
6/23
Continental shelf:
extended perimeter of each continent and associated coastal plain.
7/29/2019 LOS Presentation North Sea Final3
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.
7/29/2019 LOS Presentation North Sea Final3
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.
7/29/2019 LOS Presentation North Sea Final3
9/23
DisputeSource: Common Wadden Sea Secretariat
Delimitation of the Continental Shelf
7/29/2019 LOS Presentation North Sea Final3
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)
7/29/2019 LOS Presentation North Sea Final3
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.
7/29/2019 LOS Presentation North Sea Final3
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.
7/29/2019 LOS Presentation North Sea Final3
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.
7/29/2019 LOS Presentation North Sea Final3
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 ?
7/29/2019 LOS Presentation North Sea Final3
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.
7/29/2019 LOS Presentation North Sea Final3
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.
7/29/2019 LOS Presentation North Sea Final3
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).
7/29/2019 LOS Presentation North Sea Final3
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.
7/29/2019 LOS Presentation North Sea Final3
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)),
7/29/2019 LOS Presentation North Sea Final3
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
7/29/2019 LOS Presentation North Sea Final3
21/23
Southern NorthSea
Source:
repository.tudelft.
nl/assets/uuid:ee
5cf5d5.../NorthS
eaCoast93-
01.pdf
7/29/2019 LOS Presentation North Sea Final3
22/23
Side by Side Comparison
7/29/2019 LOS Presentation North Sea Final3
23/23
Source: http://www.acls-aatc.ca/node/304