DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY
VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

S. PRATHYUSHA

G. NAGA LAHARI
ROLL NO: 2013048
V SEMESTER

PLAGARISM

CERTIFICATE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I consider myself lucky that I got the chance to do a work on this topic that was to case
concerning the continental shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya).
I thank the subject teacher, S. Prathyusha, for letting me choose the topic.

Abstract
A continental shelf is a term that refers to the ledges which protrude from the land of
continental mass into an ocean. This is which enveloped with a comparatively shallow zone
of water (app. 150- 200 metres depth). This especially after a long delay mixes into the
depths of the ocean which is situated about thousands of metres deep. These shelves occupy
about eight percent of the total area of oceanic water and their size also varies relatively
from place to place. It is extended boundaries of each continent and also the adjoining
coastal plain. This was a component of the continent during glacial periods, but remains
below the sea during interglacial periods. The continental shelves are loaded with plenty of
oils and natural gas resources and quite frequently are a host to extreme scale grounds for
fishing.
The continental shelf case between Tunisia and Libya, the principles and the rules of the
International law which are applicable to delimitation of the areas of the continental shelf
appertaining respectively to the Tunisia and Libya in the region, concerned in dispute. It also
enumerates the relevant circumstances to be considered into account for the purpose of an
arriving at equitable delimitation and also specified the practical method, which is used for
the delimitation itself.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE
PLAGARISM
CERTIFICATE
ABSTRACT
1. OBJECTIVES
2. INTRODUCTION
3. HYPOTHESIS
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
5. CONTINENTAL SHELF IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
6. INDIAN POSITION IN CONTINENTAL SHELF
7. CONVENTIONS OF CONTINENTAL SHELF
8. FACTS & DISPUTE
9. SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES
10. THE PARTIES: DELIMITATION METHOD
11. DECISIONS BY ICJ
12. PRINCIPLES
13. JUDICIAL APPROACH OF CONTINENTAL SHELF
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY

PAGE NO
02
03
04
08
08
09
09
09
11
11
12
13
13
14
16
16
17
18

List of cases:
1. Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), ICJ
Reports, 1982
2. Aegan sea continental shelf( Greece v Turkey), judgement of 19 December 1978, ICJ
Reports 1978, 3, at 36
3. North Sea Continental Shelf case, ICJ Reports 1969
6

1. OBJECTIVES
The paper deals with the interpretation of case concerns the Continental shelf of
Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and regarding the conventions of continental shelf.
2. INTRODUCTION
In ancient times, the navigation and fishing were the primary sources of the seas. As the man
progressed, pulled by the technology in some instances and pushing that technology at the
7

other times in order to satisfy his/ her needs, a rich bounty of other resources and those uses
were found underneath the waves and under the ocean floor like minerals, natural gas, oil,
sand and gravel, diamonds and gold etc,.
A continental shelf is the term that refers to ledges that protrude from the continental land
mass into an ocean/sea. This is enveloped with a comparative shallow zone of water (app.
150-200 meters deep). This eventually mixes into the depths of an ocean which is around
thousands of kilometres deep. These shelves occupy around 8% of the total area of ocean
water and the size varies relatively from place to place. It is an extended boundary of every
continent and also the adjoining coastal plain. This was a component of the continent during
glacial periods, but those remains below the sea level during interglacial periods. The
continental shelves are loaded with plenty of oil and natural gas resources and they are quite
frequently a host to the huge scale grounds for fishing.1
There are many rights and liabilities upon the coastal states and their extent .Further various
conventions like Geneva convention of 1958 and the convention on the law of sea, 1982 have
made the acceptance of the continental shelf rights by the states within less than 13 years and
is very important for the regulation of exploration and the exploitation of resources of the
continental shelf.2
The submarine areas concerned may be deemed to be actually part of the territory over which
the coastal state already has dominion in the sense that although covered with water, they are
a prolongation or continuation of that territory, an extension of it under the sea.3
3. HYPOTHESIS
The continental shelf case between Tunisia and Libya, the principles and the rules of the
International law which are applicable to delimitation of the areas of the continental shelf
appertaining respectively to the Tunisia and Libya in the region, concerned in dispute. It also
1 Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, Oxford University Press, 6th edn., 2003, p.
206
2 Convention on the Continental Shelf 1958,
http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_continental_shelf.pdf>, last
visited on 12th October, 2015 at 8 PM
3 ICJ Reports, 1969, pp.3, 39; 41 ILR, PP. 29, 68
8

enumerates the relevant circumstances to be considered into account for the purpose of an
arriving at equitable delimitation and also specified the practical method, which is used for
the delimitation itself.
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

4.1.
Research Questions
What is the nature of continental shelf under International law and why it is included?
What are the conventions of continental shelf?
What sources are applied to the case by the court of law?
What are the applicable principles and rules of International law?
What is the practical method that should be applied to the delimitation zone to settle
the dispute between the two nations?
4.2.
Sources of Data

The primary sources of data are internet source and books.

4.3.

Method of Writing

The research paper is in theoretical in nature.

4.4.

Mode of Citation

The mode of citation used in this paper is Harvard Blue Book Citation.
5. CONTINENTAL SHELF IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
The meaning of Continental Shelf, where the Shelf seas occupy nearly 7% of the area of the
worlds ocean but their economic importance is significantly wider.4 Continental shelf is the
edge of the continent that which lies under the ocean. It extends from the coastline of a
continent to a drop-off point, which is called as shelf break. From the break, the shelf
descends towards the deep ocean floor in which, it is called as continental slope. The
continental shelf is an vital maritime zone, one, which holds many resources and vital
habitats for the marine life. The majority of the worlds continental shelf is not known and
unmapped.5 The term Continental Shelf was first used in the year 1887 by Hugh Robert Mill.
It is the gently sloping undersea plain between the continent and the deep ocean. The
continental shelf is an extension of the continents landmass under the ocean.6
4 Available at : http://noc.ac.uk/science-technology/earth-ocean-system/coastal-seas/shelf-seas, last
seen on 14th September, 2015
5 Available at : http://www.state.gov/e/oes/continentalshelf/, last seen on 14th September, 2015
9

The formation of Continental shelf, over millions of years, organic (which are remains of
plants and animals) and inorganic (the sediments) materials are formed as continental shelves
and its external link were formed in between the glacial periods as the ocean flowed over the
continents forming a shallow areas along the coasts. Nearly, 18,000 years ago, during the
height of the Pleistocene ice ages, the external link, much of what is now known as
continental shelf was actually above water level.7During the interglacial periods, like today,
the continental shelf is submerged under shallow waters. The waters of the continental shelf
are rarely more than the 500 feet depth, compared to an open ocean which can be about miles
deep. Most of the continental shelf was exposed as dry land during glacial periods.
The definition of continental shelf, Article 1 of the Convention on Continental Shelf, 1958
defined that the shelf based on its exploitability instead of depending upon the conventional
geological definition, which referred to be seabed and subsoil of the submarine zones next to
coast but not within the territorial sea, that which extends to a depth of 200 meters or beyond
that limit to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural
resources of the said areas. It is the submarine prolongation of a coastal state landmass to the
outer edge of the continental margin. The continental shelf, which falls under the coastal
states jurisdiction areas are beyond the continental margin are, however, the part of
international seabed area.8
The continental shelf is included in the International Law, The continental shelf, in its
geological sense, is very un-equally distributed around the continents. The importance of the
continental shelf, the necessity for the special legal regime applicable to it, however, become
apparent until the question of nature and the extent of coastal states rights to explore and also
exploit the natural resources of continental shelf, which was given a new urgency by the
discovery in subsoil of the sea-bed of a mineral sources of wealth, namely the petroleum.
Furthermore, through the advances in engineering and the scientific research, the submarine
oil bearing strata became capable of the exploitation and exploration by means of devices
6 Charles D. Hounshell And L Hugh Kemp,The Continental Shelf: A Study In National Interest And
International Law
7 Available at : http://marinebio.org/oceans/continental-shelves.asp, last seen on 14th September, 2014
8 Available at : http://www.spilmumbai.com/uploads/article/pdf/principle-of-delimitation-ofcontinental-shelf-areas-between-states-23.pdf, last seen on 14th September, 2014
10

operating from the sea-bed of high seas. As the importance of continental shelf was of
national importance in arena of legal sense, geographical, social and economical, it was
included in international law.9
6. INDIAN POSITION IN CONTINENTAL SHELF
Indian position on continental shelf has been made very clear that under Section 6 of
Maritime Zones Act of 1976.Part 1 of the section lays down that, the seabed and the subsoil
of submarine areas are adjacent to the coast but outside the area of territorial sea, to the depth
of 200 meters, or, beyond the limit, to where the depth of superjacent waters admits the
exploitation of natural resources of the said areas. The Act also lay down under section 6,
Para 3 that the Union has:
1. Sovereign rights for exploration, exploitation , conservation, and management of all
resources;
2. Exclusive rights and jurisdiction for the construction, maintenance or operation of
artificial Islands, off-shore terminals, installations and other structures and devices
necessary for the continental shelf or for convenience of shipping or for any other
purpose.
3. Exclusive jurisdiction to authorize, regulate and control scientific research
4. Exclusive jurisdiction to preserve and protect the marine environment and to prevent
and control marine pollution.10
7. CONVENTIONS OF CONTINENTAL SHELF
The concept of the continental shelf has acquired its importance when it was propounded by
the US President, True man on 28th September, 1945.While the nations over centuries have
alternatively made it expansive and narrow claims to the seas, beyond their coasts, the origin
of the modern doctrine is often said to be the Truman Proclamation of 1945, by which the
President Truman proclaimed:
9 F. V. W. Penick , Halifax & Nova Scotia,The Legal Character of the Right to Explore and Exploit
the Natural
10 Wolfgang Friedman, The Future of the Oceans,pg.9
11

Having the concern for urgency of conserving and the prudently utilizing its natural
resources, the Government of United States regards the natural resources of subsoil and the
seabed of continental shelf beneath the high seas but the contiguous to sea coasts of the
United States as appertaining to the United States, the subject to its jurisdiction and also
control.India claimed for the first time in 1955 and It took less than 13 years to accept
concept of the extension of sovereignty powers over the continental shelf. The conventions
are:11
1) Geneva Convention, 1958 and
2) Continental shelf under the convention on law of the sea, 1982
8. FACTS AND DISPUTE
The facts of the case, the Republic of Tunisia and the Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya are both situated on the northern coastline of the African Continent, fronting on
the Mediterranean Sea. While parties have not concluded any agreement delimiting any part
of continental shelf, has not prevented a certain amount of the exploration and exploitation.
Each party has granted concessions in respect of areas regarded by the party concerned as
appertaining to itself. Tunisia had an existing concession line. In 1974, Libya granted a
concession the boundary of which was a line drawn from Ras Ajdir at some 26

to the

meridian, further west than the equidistance line, so the result was an overlapping of claims
in an area some 50 miles from the coast. Following protests in 1976 by each Government at
the activities of the other, the parties signed a special agreement in 1977 by which the matter
was brought before the International Court of Justice.
The dispute, Libya and Tunisia requested the court to: determine what the principles and rules
of International Law may be applied for delimitation of the area of continental shelf
appertaining to each of the other and decide according to the equitable principles, and
relevant circumstances which should characterize the area, as well as new accepted trends in
the Third Conference on the law of the Sea, and should clarify the practical method for the
application of those principles to enable the experts to delimit these areas without any
difficulties.12

11 Central Law Publications , International Law and Human Rights, 139-141,18 th Edition.
12

9. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES13

LIBYA
A state is entitled ipso facto and ab intio

TUNISIA
The delimitation should be effected in such a

to the continental shelf which is the way, taking in to account the physical and the
natural prolongation of its land territory natural characteristics of the area, as to leave
into and also under the sea.

to each party all those parts of continental

shelf

that

should

constitute

natural

Any delimitation should leave as much prolongation of its land territory into and
as possible to each party all those parts under the sea, without any encroachment on
of continental shelf that constitute its the natural prolongation of the land territory
natural prolongation.
of the other.
The natural prolongation of the land The delimitation must not, at any point,
territory of a state into and under the sea encroach upon the area within Tunisia ahs
establishes

ipso

jure

title

to

the well established historic rights.

appurtenant the continental shelf.

For the purpose of achieving an equitable The

delimitation

must

be

effected

in

delimitation, the whole of the sea-bed conformity with equitable principles and
and sub-soil beyond the low-water mark taking

account

of

all

the

relevant

along the coast of each party is to be circumstances which characterize the case.
taken in to the account.
Given the particular of geographical The delimitation should lead to the drawing
configuration of the equidistance method of a line which would appreciably depart
would be inequitable, inappropriate and from lines which result from taking into
not in conformity with international law.

account the geomorphologic factors peculiar

to the region, in particular the existence of a
crestline determined by the Zira and Zuwarah
Ridges.

12 Professor Gilbert Gidel for the 1952 Madrid Conference of the International Bar Association;
translated from the French text by L. F. E. Goldie, Lecturer in Law at Canberra University College,
The Continental Shelf
13 Charles D. Hounshell And L Hugh Kemp,The Continental Shelf: A Study In National Interest And
International Law
13

10. THE PARTIES: DELIMITATION METHOD

Libyan Method: Construct a line of delimitation which is consistent with the northward
direction of the natural prolongation
Tunisian Method: It has two kinds. Firstly, the first group consists in defining the natural
prolongation of the two states on the basis of geological, geophysical and bathymetric data,
secondly, the group is based on the configurations of the coasts of the two states, with a view
to implementing the concepts of the coastal front and of proportionality.14

11. DECISIONS
14 Mark B. Feldman, the American Journal of International Law, Vol. 77, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp.
219-238
14

1) The Court does have any jurisdiction in this case because both the States have
submitted copies of the Special Agreement they decided on in order to petition,
the Court to arbitrate on this dispute. Since, both the parties petitioned the Court to
hear this case and both gave their consent to have the Court hear it.
2) The Court ruled that it did have any jurisdiction to apply the practical method,
which is based on the principles and the circumstances that applied to this case to
the delimitation zone contrary to assertion of the Libya. Because the states only
gave themselves four months to put the Courts decision in to play after the ICJ 15
made its ruling, the Court also decided that the intent of this time was not for the
negotiation, but for putting the practical method designed by Court into effect.
3) The Court also held that the only area it could rule on was the area of the
continental shelf, which was not affected by the jurisdiction of another state unless
the treaty or an agreement was already in place between the non-included state
and either the Tunisia or the Libya. For example, because there was already an
existing treaty between the Tunisia and Italy, concerning their sea boundaries, the
Court need to take into account, that the jurisdiction of Italy when deciding the
delimitation area between Tunisia and Libya, because that area was already
decided. On the other hand, there was no former agreement with the Malta
between either States concerning the jurisdiction of shared sea level area.
Therefore, the Court ruled that it could not take into account any area that was
shared between Libya and Tunisia that was also affected by the jurisdiction of the
Malta because Malta had not given any of its consent to have matters concerning
itself arbitrated.
4) The Court also concluded there was no way to arbitrate this dispute using only the
natural prolongations of the states of natural territory based on the natural
baseline of two states because of position of the two baselines. Therefore, the
Court decided that because it was one continental shelf, the only equitable
solution, which was to divide the zone into two sectors and then divide those
sectors in the different way. The first zone was decided on basis of a historical
boundary of Libyan petroleum concessions. Thus, from Ras Ajdir to the point 33
degrees 55 N, 12 Degrees E the line of the delimitation will be marked by a 26

15 International Court of Justice

15

degree angle. The second sector uses the Kerkennah Islands as a marking point to
divide this sector.16

12. PRINCIPLES
a) Continental shelf is important in present case because it marks the area in
question between the both the states and what rights the states have within this sea
level zone.
b) Jurisdiction is also an important aspect because the Court could only decide on
the zone that was not considered as part of the territory of another uninvolved
state which is malta.
c) Relevant past circumstances were useful in the case because they help the Court
to decide how the delimitation zone should be divided. The Court also used
previous Libyan petroleum concessions made to Tunisia to decide which area
should be under whose control.
d) Determining the baseline of the states was extremely important in this case
because the Court found there was no way to decide this cause by using the
tradition method of prolonging natural territorial jurisdiction.
e) Equity Principle was a vital one because the delimitation zone needed to be
divided equally between the two states as possible taking into the account the
natural resources found there in order to assure that one states jurisdiction over the
certain area of territory was not arbitrarily taken away.17
13. JUDICIAL APPROACH OF CONTINENTAL SHELF CASES
In North Sea Continental Shelf case18, Germanys North Sea coast is concave, while the
Netherlands and Denmarks coasts are convex in shape. If the delimitation had been
determined by the equidistance rule19, Germany would have received a smaller portion of the
resource rich shelf relative to the two other states. Thus Germany argued that the length of the
coastlines be used to determine the delimitation. Germany wanted the ICJ to apportion the
16 Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), International Court of
Justice Reports, 1982.
17 Id
18 I.C.J. Reports 1969
19 Drawing a line each point of which is equally distant from each shore
16

continental shelf to the proportion of the size of the states adjacent land and not by the rule of
equity. The ICJ held that ultimately urged the parties to abate the effects of an incidental
special feature [Germanys concave coast] from which an unjustifiable difference of
treatment could result.In subsequent negotiations, the states granted to Germany most of the
additional shelf it sought. The cases are viewed as an example of equity praeter legem, that
is, equity beyond the law, when a judge supplements the law with equitable rules necessary
to decide the case at hand.20
The Aegean Sea and its islands have been at the heart of the ongoing historical dispute
between Greece and Turkey. The primary issues creating tension in the Aegean are the
extension of territorial waters, air space restrictions, sovereign juristiction of the island of
Imia, and the exploitation and delineation of the continental shelf region. In the Agean sea
continental shelf case if 1978, the court for instance noted that legally a coastal states rights
over the continental shelf rights are both appurtenant to and directly derived from the states
sovereignty over the territory abutting on that continental shelf and that continental shelf
rights are legally both an emanation from and an automatic adjunct of the territorial
sovereignty of the coastal state.21
CONCLUSION
Each of maritime boundary disputes is unique or monotypic and has the fundamental
importance in any consideration of law of the maritime boundary delimitation. The
emergence of various new states, with the consequent increase in the maritime boundaries,
has been served to highlight the significance of this idea. This has also rendered the
inadequate application of a global or a general rule which is embodied in the principle of the
equidistance (equity) as it is evident from the case laws as well. This fact has also militated
against the reception of principle of the equidistance in both conventional and the customary
law of the maritime boundary delimitation. A corrective role for the equity is thus effectively
ruled out. The Equity cannot be viewed as correcting to the application of the rule of law of
equidistance where that the rule would lead to the hardship on either of the parties. Emphasis
has to be laid down on achievement of an equitable solution in particular situation by
20 http://courses.kvasaheim.com/ps376/briefs/ojf38491brief4.pdf
21 Aegan sea continental shelf( Greece v Turkey), judgement of 19 December 1978, ICJ Reports
1978, 3, at 36
17

applying to all relevant principles. The variety of maritime situations also prevents the Third
United Nations Conference on the Law of Sea from producing any definitive rules on the
maritime boundary delimitation, investing the tribunals dealing with such disputes with wide
powers of the discretion. The task of the judge is to produce an equitable and should just
result in the particular case. To reach such a result, the judge has to take into consideration of
relevant circumstances and also the governing principles which would do justice to both the
parties. This can also be achieved not only by balancing the various circumstances, but also
by balancing the interests of conflicting parties so as to serve their cause.
This case is important because the both nations (Libya and Tunisia) are now bound by the
decisions made by the ICJ in this case. This case also affects their jurisdiction over the areas
of water which they may claim as their own and also assert certain rights and jurisdiction
over it.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
1) Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, Oxford University Press, 6th
edn., 2003,
2) Charles D. Hounshell And L Hugh Kemp,The Continental Shelf: A Study In National
Interest And International Law
3) F. V. W. Penick , Halifax & Nova Scotia,The Legal Character of the Right to Explore
and Exploit the Natural
4) H.O. AGGARWAL, INTERNATIONAL LAW & HUMAN RIGHTS , 17th Ed., Central Law
Publications, 2010.
5) ALINA KACZOROWSKA, PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW, Old Bailey Press, London,
2002.
6) OPPENHEIMS INTERNATIONAL LAW, Volume I, 9th Ed., Pearson Education Singapore,
Delhi, 2005.
7) MALCOLM N SHAW., INTERNATIONAL LAW, 6th Ed., Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2009.
8) Charles D. Hounshell And L Hugh Kemp,The Continental Shelf: A Study In National
Interest And International Law
Statutes

Charter of the United Nations

18

Statute of the International Court of Justice

The Maritime Zones Act, 1976

Reports
I.C.J. Reports 1969
ICJ Reports, 1969, pp.3, 39; 41 ILR, PP. 29, 68
Articles
1. Mark B. Feldman, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 77, No. 2 (Apr.,
1983)
2. Leanza, U., The Delimitation of the Continental Shelf of the Mediterranean Sea, 8
The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 373 at pp. 391-94 (1993).
3. Ortolland, D., The Greco-Turkish dispute over the Aegean Sea: a possible solution?,
Dfense nationale et scurit collective, February 2009, at p. 74.
4. Goldstone, A. B., The delimitation of the Continental Shelf between adjacent and
opposite states: Theory and Practice, Diploma dissertation, University of Dundee,
1984, at p. 40.
Websites
1. http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_continental
_shelf.pdf>,
2. http://noc.ac.uk/science-technology/earth-ocean-system/coastal-seas/shelf-seas
3. http://marinebio.org/oceans/continental-shelves.asp, last seen on 14th September, 2014
4. http://www.spilmumbai.com/uploads/article/pdf/principle-of-delimitation-ofcontinental-shelf-areas-between-states-23.pdf,
5. http://www.state.gov/e/oes/continentalshelf/
6. Professor Gilbert Gidel for the 1952 Madrid Conference of the International Bar
Association; translated from the French text by L. F. E. Goldie, Lecturer in Law at
Canberra University College, The Continental Shelf

19

20