1.

North Sea Continental Shelf Cases

FACTS
Both Denmark and the Netherlands submitted an individual dispute with
Germany to the ICJ involving claims to the North Sea Continental Shelf. These
two separate claims were joined by the ICJ, and decided as one case. The
parties sought a method by which the Continental Shelf could be fairly
delimited.
Denmark and Netherlands drawn partial boundary lines through the
equidistance principle.This is that each State claimed all areas that are closer
to itself than any other state.
Germany was of the view that, together, these two boundaries would produce
an inequitable result for her. Germany stated that due to its concave coastline,
such a line would result in her loosing out on her share of the continental shelf
based on proportionality to the length of its North Sea coastline.

Issues:
Whether or not the equidistance principle is applicable in this delimitation?
Whether or not such principle is binding on all parties involved.

RULING:
The Court rejected the contention of Denmark and the Netherlands to the
effect that the delimitations in question had to be carried out in accordance
with the principle of equidistance as defined in Article 6 of the 1958 Geneva
Convention on the Continental Shelf, holding:
- that the equidistance principle was not a necessary consequence of the
general concept of continental shelf rights, and was not a rule of customary
international law.
The Court found that the boundary lines in question were to be drawn by
agreement between the Parties and in accordance with equitable principles,
and it indicated certain factors to be taken into consideration for that purpose.
It was now for the Parties to negotiate on the basis of such principles, as they
have agreed to do.
In addition, the principle as stated in the Geneva Convention is not binding on
Germany, as it did not ratify it.