DENMARK V.

NORWAY

Denmark submits: that Greenland is entitled to a full 200 mile fishery zone and continental
shelf area vis--vis the island of Jan Mayen; and for the Court to draw a single line of
delimitation of the fishing zone and continental shelf area of Greenland in the waters between
Greenland and Jan Mayen at a distance of 200 nautical miles measured from Greenlands

baseline
Norway submits: that the median line constitutes the boundary for the purpose of

delimitation of the relevant areas of the continental shelf and the fisheries zones
Area: Part of the Atlantic Ocean lying between the east coast of Greenland and Jan Mayen,

north of Iceland and the Denmark Strait between Greenland and Iceland
1976 the Danish Parliament enacted legislation empowering the Prime Minister to extend the
existing Danish fishery zone so as to comprise waters "along the coasts of the Kingdom of

Denmark' delimited by a fishing limit 200 miles from the relevant baselines.
Norwegian Parliament in 1976 enacted legislation empowering the Norwegian Government to
establish 200-mile "economic zones" around its coasts, and such a zone was established
round mainland Norway with effect from 8 January 1977. By a Royal Decree taking effect on
29 May 1980, the Norwegian Government established a 200-mile fishery zone around Jan

Mayen.
3 maritime areas between Greenland and Jan Mayen.
- Area of overlapping claims = AD-AB
- Area of overlapping potential entitlements = AB-AI

Area relevant to the delimitation dispute = ABGH

STEP 1: On the existence of delimitation based on the following: 1965 Agreement, Geneva
Convention, Conduct of the Parties, Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.
1965 AGREEMENT
Denmark: It is not an Agreement of a general
Norway: A general one to treat the median line
application, but one relating exclusively to the

as the line of delimitation of all continental shelf

Skagerrak and part of the North Sea.

boundaries between them and that the

Agreement is accordingly unrestricted in its area

of operation; No special circumstances`

COURT: The object and purpose of the 1965 Agreement was to provide simply for the question of
the delimitation in the Skagerrak and part of the North Sea
1958 GENEVA CONVENTION
Article 6, par. 1
Norway: Delimitation of the continental shelf
boundary is already "in place" as result of the
effect of this Article of the 1958 Convention.
COURT: This argument rests on the contention, already rejected by the Court, that the 1965
Agreement was intended to apply generally, to delimitation other than that specifically provided for,
in the Skagerrak and part of the North Sea. Thus, the 1965 delimitation Agreement does not
constitute an agreement that there were no special circumstances, and therefore does not have the
result that, pursuant to Article 6, paragraph 1, of the 1958 Convention, the median line would be
the boundary.
CONDUCT OF PARTIES
Denmark: Special circumstances had in fact
Norway: Parties by their "conjoint conduct" had
been under contemplation in 1963, but were not

long recognized the applicability of median line

mentioned specifically, the intention being that

delimitation in their mutual relations.

they were comprised in the reference to the 1958

- Royal Decree Concerning the Exercise of

Convention.

Danish Sovereignty over the Continental Shelf.

- Danish Act of 17 December 1976

COURT: As Denmarks indications, the Court is not persuaded that the Decree of 7 June 1963
supports the argument of Norway seeks to base on conduct. The 1976 provision is explained by the
Parties' concern not to aggravate the situation pending a definitive settlement of the boundary. The
Court does not therefore consider that the terms of the Danish legislation of 1976 imply recognition
of the appropriateness of a median line vis--vis Jan Mayen.
UNCLOS
NORWAY: Positions expressed by the Parties on
the question of maritime delimitation during the
Third United Nations Conference on the Law of
the Sea.
The delimitation method subscribed to in the context of the Conference by Denmark, among other
States, including Norway, was a rule of equidistance combined with special circumstances.

The Court does not consider that a median line boundary is already "in place", either as the
continental shelf boundary, or as that of the fishery zone.

The applicable law: The effect of article 6 of the 1958 Convention if applied at the present time to
the delimitation of the continental shelf boundary, and then the effect of the application of the
customary law which governs the fishery zone.
GOAL: EQUITABLE RESULT
STEP 2: Process of Delimitation

Provisional Median Line

Presence of Special circumstances for adjustment
Special circumstances are those circumstances which might distort the result produced by

an unqualified application of the equidistance principle.

Relevant circumstances are facts necessary to be taken into account, in the delimitation
process, to the extent that it affects the rights of the Parties over certain maritime areas.

DISPARITY OF LENGTH OF COASTS

Denmark: Proportionality in the lengths of
Norway: Differences in the length of coasts
coasts is a "relevant circumstance or factor to

have never qualified as special circumstances

be taken into consideration together with other

for the purposes of Article 6 of the 1958

criteria in order to adopt a method appropriate

Convention.

for an equitable delimitation line".

COURT: The disparity being so striking between the lengths of coasts thus constitutes a special
circumstance. Neither the median line nor the 200-mile line should be adopted as the boundary
of the continental shelf or of the fishery zone.
ACCESS TO RESOURCES AND PRESENCE OF ICE
Denmark and Norway: Parties are essentially in conflict over access to fishery resources, the
principal exploited fishery resource being capelin.
COURT: No delimitation could guarantee to each Party the presence in every year of fishable
quantities of capelin in the zone allotted to it by the line. However, the median line is too far to
the west for Denmark to be assured of an equitable access to the capelin stock, since it would
attribute to Norway the whole of the area of overlapping claims. For this reason also the median
line thus requires to be adjusted or shifted eastwards.
While ice constitutes a considerable seasonal restriction of access to the waters, it does not
materially affect access to migratory fishery resources in the southern part of the area of
overlapping claims.
POPULATION AND ECONOMY
The total population of Greenland is about
Jan Mayen has no settled population it is
55,000 of whom about 6 per cent live in East

inhabited solely by technical and other staff in

Greenland.
its meteorological station.
COURT: No reason to consider either the limited nature of the population of Jan Mayen or socioeconomic factors as circumstances to be taken into account.

SECURITY
The Court was satisfied that the delimitation which will result from the application of the
present Judgment is not so near to the Coast of either Party as to make questions of security a
particular consideration in the present case
CONDUCT OF PARTIES
International law does not prescribe, with a view to reaching an equitable solution, the adoption
of a single method for the delimitation of the maritime spaces on all sides of an island, or for the
whole of the coastal front of a particular State, rather than, if desired, varying systems of
delimitation for the various parts of the coast. The conduct of the parties will in many cases
therefore have no influence on such a delimitation. Thus, the conduct of the Parties does not
constitute an element which could influence the operation of delimitation in this case.
The Court has come to the conclusion that the median line, adopted provisionally for both as
first stage in the delimitation, should be adjusted or shifted to become a line such as to attribute
a larger area of maritime space to Denmark than would the median line. The line drawn by
Denmark 200 nautical miles from the baselines of eastern Greenland would, however, be
excessive as an adjustment, and would be inequitable in its effects. The delimitation line must
therefore be drawn within the area of overlapping claims, between the lines proposed by each
Party.