Judgment of 03 June 1985

Dispute:
The Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (Libya)

and the Republic of Malta submitted a dispute to the

International Court of Justice concerning the
delimitation of the continental shelf underlying the
Mediterranean Sea between the two states. They
sought to determine:
What principles and rules of international law are

applicable to the delimitation of the area of

continental shelf
How in practice such principles and rules can be
applied

What principles are

applicable?
Both parties agree that the dispute is to be
governed by customary international law.
Malta is a party to the Geneva Convention but

Libya is not
Both parties are parties to the UNCLOS but it
has not yet entered into force during the time
of dispute.
However, both parties agree that some of the
UNCLOS provision, while not yet into force
constitute customary law; but its upon the
court to determine which these provisions are.

Pertinent UNCLOS
Provisions:
Article 76
Definition of the continental shelf
The continental shelf of a coastal State comprises

the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas

that extend beyond its territorial sea throughout
the natural prolongation of its land territory to the
outer edge of the continental margin, or to a
distance of 200nautical miles from the baselines
from which the breadth of the territorial sea is
measured where the outer edge of the continental
margin does not extend up to that distance.

Pertinent UNCLOS
Provisions:
Article 83
Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Between
States with Opposite or Adjacent Coast
The delimitation of the continental shelf

between States with opposite or adjacent coasts

shall be effected by agreement on the basis of
international law, as referred to in Article38 of
the Statute of the International Court of Justice,
in order to achieve an equitable solution.

Court noted that

The UNCLOS provision sets the goal to be pursued

(i.e. to achieve an equitable solution) but does not say

the method to be followed to achieve it, other than it
should be by agreement.

Both parties in the dispute agrees that delimitation is

to be effected in accordance with equitable principles

and taking account all relevant circumstances.

But the parties had their own contentions on the legal

basis of these principles and what relevant

circumstances are.

Libyas Contention
Basis of Principle: Natural Prolongation
Rift Zone Argument - A deep canyon on the seabed
lying closer to Malta created the natural boundary
between two separate continental shelves and
thus served as an appropriate dividing line.
Relevant Circumstance: Landmass
Landmass Argument - That the landmass provides
the legal justification of entitlement to continental
shelf rights (i.e. Greater land mass = more intense
natural prolongation)

Maltas Contention
Basis of Principle: Equidistance
Primacy of Equidistance The new importance of the
idea of distance from the coast has conferred a
primacy on the method of equidistance for the
purposes of delimitation of the continental shelf.
Relevant Circumstances: Economic Position, Security,
Sovereign Equality of States
Economic Position - The absence of energy resources
on the island of Malta, its requirements as an island
developing country, and the range of its established
fishing activity.

Maltas Contention
Relevant Circumstances: Economic Position, Security,
Sovereign Equality of States
Security - Security and defence interests confirms the
equidistance method of delimitation, which gives each
party a comparable lateral control from its coasts.
Sovereign Equality of States - Since al1 States are

equal and equally sovereign, the maritime extensions

generated by the sovereignty of each State must be of
equal juridical value, whether or not the coasts of one
State are longer than those of the other.

Courts Ruling on
Contentions
On Principles of Natural Prolongation (Libya): Since

the law enables a State to claim continental shelf up

to as far as 200 miles from its coast, there is no
reason to ascribe any role to geological or geophysical
factors (i.e. Rift Zone) within that distance. (Libya and
Malta are less than 400 miles apart)

On Landmass as relevant circumstance (Libya):

Landmass has never been regarded as a basis of

entitlement to continental shelf rights, and such a
proposition finds no support in the practice of States,
in the jurisprudence, in doctrine, or even UNCLOS

Courts Ruling on
Contentions
On Primacy of Equidistance (Malta): That a coastal State

may be entitled to continental shelf rights by reason of

distance from the coast, does not entai1 that equidistance
is the only appropriate method of delimitation, even
between opposite or quasi-opposite coasts, nor even the
only permissible point of departure.
On Economic Position as relevant circumstance (Malta):

The natural resources of the continental shelf under

delimitation "so far as known or readily ascertainable"
might constitute relevant circumstances, however, the
Court has not been furnished by the Parties with any
indications of natural resources on this point.

Courts Ruling on
Contentions
On Security as relevant circumstance (Malta): 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.
On Sovereign Equality of States (Malta): The existence of

equal entitlement, ipso jure and ab initio, of coastal States,

does not imply an equality of extent of shelf, whatever the
circumstances of the area ; thus reference to the length of
coasts as a relevant circumstance cannot be excluded
apriori. The principle of equality of States has therefore no
particular role to play in the applicable law.

COURT HELD:
The delimitation is to be effected in

accordance with equitable principles and

taking account of all relevant circumstances
so as to arrive at an equitable result.
Relevant Circumstances Taken into Account:
General configuration of the coasts of the
parties (i.e. their oppositeness)
Disparity in the length of the relevant coasts
of the parties

Delimitation Process:
STEP
1
STEP 1:
Draw a provisional line between Libya and
Malta, every point of which is equidistant to
the low water-mark of Malta and Libya
Why Provisional Line? The line is subject to
adjustment in light of the relevant
circumstances mentioned

Delimitation Process:
STEP 1
34" 12' N

Libya

equidistant

Delimitation Process:
STEP
STEP 2: 2
Adjust the provisional line in light of the relevant
circumstances considered in the case.
Relevant Circumstance for Median Adjustment
Disparity in the lengths of relevant coasts of the
parties: Malta has a 24-mile long coast while Libya
has 192 miles. This is a relevant circumstance
which warrants adjustment of the median line to
attribute grater area of shelf to Libya

Delimitation Process:
STEP
STEP 2: 2
Adjust the provisional line in light of the relevant
circumstances considered in the case. Relevant
circumstances calls for adjustment towards Malta
How far towards Malta should adjustment be?
Court did not say; the test of proportionality
based on ratio of coast length and the shelf is
impractical according to court. Court deems that
it can make equity assessment without
attempting to express it in figures.

Delimitation Process:
STEP
STEP 2: 2
Adjust the provisional line in light of the relevant
circumstances considered in the case. Relevant
circumstances calls for adjustment towards Malta
How far towards Malta should adjustment be? It
can be farther North than the Median Line
between Italy and Libya. Malta, as an independent
State cannot have a smaller continental shelf
than it would have if it were a part of Italy.

Delimitation Process:
STEP 2
Median line between
Italy and Malta (34 36 N)

Delimitation 34" 30' N

Provisional Line (34" 12' N)

Thank you!