Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Submitted to the ICJ: February 20, 1967 Cases Joined by the ICJ: April 26, 1968 Judgment Rendered by the ICJ: February 20, 196
Introduction
Two joined cases: Germany v The Netherlands and Germany v Denmark. The cases involved the delimitation of the continental shelf between these countries.
Parties
Federal Republic
Denmark and
of Germany
vs.
the Netherlands
Composition of ICJ
17 judges heard the case. Germany entitled to appoint an ad hoc judge to hear the case.
The Netherlands and Denmark agreed that, because they were parties in the same interest (for the purposes of Art 31 of the ICJ Statute) they would appoint one ad hoc judge between them
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)
Continental shelf: extended perimeter of each continent and associated coastal plain.
Background
The North Sea is rich in natural resources (particularly oil & gas).
It is important to know where the boundary is because a country can drill for oil in the seabed within their territory.
Background cont.
Germany lies between the Netherlands and Denmark. Germanys coastline is concave, whereas the Dutch and Danish coastlines are convex. Concave coastline: equidistance method would pull boundary lines inward causing the equidistance lines to 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.
Dispute
Source: Common Wadden Sea Secretariat
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 relevant boundaries, rather the parties agreed to follow the principles laid down by the ICJ in agreeing such boundaries.
Even if Art 6 were customary international law, then special circumstances existed for not applying the equidistance principle.
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.
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.
The delimitation should have a reasonable degree of proportionality as between the states.
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 agreed continental 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)),
Source: http://www.acls-aatc.ca/node/304