Continental Shelf Case

Libya Arab Jamahiraya vs Malta

ICJ Rep 13 [1985]

Case digest by: Orland Luminarias

Facts:
In 1976, Malta and Libya entered into a Special Agreement allowing the
Court (ICJ) to settle a dispute concerning the delimitation of continental shelf
between the two countries. The Court was asked to decide what rules of
international law were applicable and how these can be applied specifically to
the case.

Malta argued that the “Equidistance” Rule must be applied.

Equidistance Rule - drawing a median line in every point equidistant
from the nearest point of the baseline of Malta, and the low water mark
of the coast of Libya.

On the other hand, Libya forwarded the “Rift Zone” argument.

Rift Zone Rule - The natural prolongation of the respective land
territories of the parties is the basis of the title to the areas of continental
shelf which appertains to each of them.

Relationship between Custom and Treaty law

[26] The Parties are broadly in agreement as to the sources of the law
applicable in this case. xxx Both Parties have signed the 1982 United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), but that Convention has not yet
entered into force, and is therefore not operative as treaty-law.xxx The Parties
thus agree that the dispute is to be governed by customary international law.
This is not at al1 to say, however, that the 1982 Convention (UNCLOS) was
regarded by the Parties as irrelevant : the Parties are again in accord in
considering that some of its provisions constitute, to a certain extent, the
expression of customary international law in the matter.

[27] It is of course axiomatic that the material of customary international

law is to be looked for primarily in the actual practice and opinio juris of
States, even though multilateral conventions may have an important
role to play in recording and defining rules deriving from custom,
or indeed in developing them.

Requirement of State Practice

[44] In this connection, something may be said on the subject of the

practice of States in the field of continental shelf delimitation ; the Parties
have in fact discussed the significance of such practice, as expressed in
published delimitation agreements, primarily in the context of the status of
equidistance in present international law. Over 70 such agreements have been
identified and produced to the Court and have been subjected to various
interpretations. xxx The Court for its part has no doubt about the
importance of State practice in this matter. Yet that practice, however
interpreted, falls short of proving the existence of a rule prescribing the use of
equidistance.

Ruling:

The Court formulated its own rule specific to the case.

[79] xxx Equitable result may be arrived at by drawing, as a first stage in

the process, a median line every point of which is equidistant from the
low-water mark of the relevant coast of Malta (excluding the islet of Filfla),
and the low-water mark of the relevant coast of Libya, that initial line being
then subject to adjustment in the light of the above-mentioned circumstances
and factors.

[78] Having drawn the initial median line, the Court has found that that
line requires to be adjusted in view of the relevant circumstances of the area,
namely the considerable disparity between the lengths of the coasts of the
Parties here under consideration, the distance between those coasts, the
placing of the basepoints governing any equidistance line, and the general
geographical context.