Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:33:23.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interim Measures Pending Maritime Delimitation Agreements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Rainer Lagoni
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since President Truman claimed zones of extended coastal jurisdiction for the United States in September 1945, the delimitation of zones of national jurisdiction between states with opposite or adjacent coasts has become a major legal and political issue in international relations. The development of the concept of the continental shelf during the 1950s and 1960s, as well as the claim to extended fisheries zones or exclusive economic zones by nearly all coastal states under the sway of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea since the mid-1970s, gave rise to delimitation problems all over the world. Similar problems may arise if more states extend their territorial seas to 12 nautical miles, which they may do under the new United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention) of 1982. By now, a considerable number of delimitation agreements have been concluded on the continental shelf and/or the territorial sea, and even agreements on the delimitation of fisheries zones have been reported.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 78 , Issue 2 , April 1984 , pp. 345 - 368
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Proclamation No. 2667, Policy of the United States with Respect to the Natural Resources of the Subsoil and Sea Bed of the Continental Shelf, 3 C.F.R. 67 (1943–48), 13 Dep’t St. Bull. 485 (1945). A similar declaration was made on the same date with respect to coastal fisheries in certain areas of the high seas, but it was never enforced and almost immediately became a dead letter.

2 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, done at Montego Bay, Dec. 10, 1982, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/122 (1982), reprinted in 21 ILM 1261 (1982).

3 See, e.g., the list of 75 agreements on maritime boundaries in Jagota, Maritime Boundary, 171 Recueil des Cours 81, 202 (1981 II). Most agreements are published with maps and analyses in U.S. Dep’t of State, Office of the Geographer, International Boundary Study, Series A, Limits in the Seas.

4 See the Venezuela and Trinidad/Tobago fishing agreement of Dec. 12, 1977, analyzed by Nweihed, , EZ (Uneasy) Delimitation in the Semi-enclosed Caribbean Sea: Recent Agreements between Venezuela and Her Neighbors, 8 Ocean Dev. & Int’l L. 1, 14 Google Scholar et seq. (1980).

5 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (W. Ger./Den.; W. Ger./Neth.), 1969 ICJ Rep. 3 (Judgment of Feb. 20).

6 Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), 1982 ICJ Rep. 18 (Judgment of Feb. 24).

7 Case concerning the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the French Republic, Decisions of 30 June 1977 and 14 March 1978, 18 R. Int’l Arb. Awards 3, 18 ILM 397 (1979).

8 20 ILM 797 (1981).

9 See Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Can./U.S.), Constitution of Chamber, 1982 ICJ Rep. 3 (Order of Jan. 20); and id. at 15 (Order of Feb. 1).

10 After Malta’s request to intervene in the dispute between Tunisia and Libya was refused (Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Application of Malta for Permission to Intervene, 1981 ICJ Rep. 3 (Judgment of April 14)), its dispute with Libya was separately submitted to the ICJ (Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/ Malta), 1983 ICJ Rep. 3 (Order of April 26)).

11 Greece unsuccessfully requested interim measures of protection and the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Greek application. See Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turk.), Interim Protection, 1976 ICJ Rep. 3 (Order of Sept. 11); and 1978 ICJ Rep. 3 (Judgment of Dec. 19).

12 See Traavik, & Østreng, , Security and Ocean Law: Norway and the Soviet Union in the Barents Sea, 4 Ocean Dev. & Int’l L. 343 (1977)Google Scholar; Fleischer, , The Northern Waters and the New Maritime Zones, 22 Ger. Y.B. Int’l L. 100 (1979)Google Scholar; Østreng, , The Continental Shelf–Issues in the “Eastern” Arctic Ocean, in Law of the Sea: Neglected Issues 165 (Gamble, J. K. Jr., ed. 1979)Google Scholar.

13 See von, Münch, Die gegenwärtige Situation der Ostsee und die Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Anliegerstaaten, 103 Archiv Öffentlichen Rechts 522, 556 et seq. (1978)Google Scholar; Boczek, , The Baltic Sea: A Study in Marine Regionalism, 23 Ger. Y.B. Int’l L. 196, 227 et seq. (1980)Google Scholar.

14 There are seven specific areas of dispute covered in a recent special bibliography on delimitation. See McDorman, T., Beauchamp, K. & Johnston, D., Maritime Boundary Delimitation 113 et seq. (1983)Google Scholar.

15 The Federal Republic concluded treaties on the lateral delimitation of the continental shelf in the vicinity of the coast with the Netherlands on Dec. I, 1964, 550 UNTS 123, and with Denmark on June 9, 1965, 570 UNTS 98. After the ICJ rendered its Judgment of Feb. 20, 1969, supra note 5, the final delimitation agreements were concluded on Jan. 28, 1971, 10 ILM 600 (1971).

16 See 1982 ICJ Rep. at 37, para. 21.

17 The Arbitration Agreement was signed at Paris on July 10, 1975, and the decision was rendered on Mar. 14, 1978. See 18 ILM at 400 and 462.

18 See 1978 ICJ Rep. at 8, para. 16.

19 See the statement of the Court in the case concerning Tunisia and Libya, 1982 ICJ Rep. at 73, para. 100.

20 E.g., Rockall. See Symmons, , Legal Aspects of the Anglo-Irish Dispute over Rockall, 26 N. Ir. Legal Q. 65 (1975)Google Scholar; Symmons, C., The Maritime Zones of Islands in International Law 162 et seq. & 184 et seq. (1979)Google Scholar; Brown, , Rockall and the Limits of National Jurisdiction of the UK, 2 Marine Pol’y 181, 275 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. With regard to the Eddystone Rock, see the observation of the tribunal in the Anglo-French case (1st decision), 18 ILM at 430 et seq., paras. 121–144.

21 For the dispute concerning the archipelagoes of the Paracel Islands held by China and Vietnam and the Spratly Islands held by Vietnam, the Philippines and Taiwan in the South China Sea, see Cheng, Tao , The Dispute over the South China Sea Islands, 10 Tex. Int’l L.J. 265 (1975)Google Scholar; Chiu, & Park, , Legal Status of the Paracel and Spratly Islands, 3 Ocean Dev. & Int’l L. 1 (1975)Google Scholar; Valencia, , The South China Sea: Prospects for Marine Regionalism, 2 Marine Pol’y 87 (1978)Google Scholar; Park, , The South China Sea Dispute: Who Owns the Islands and the Natural Resources?, 5 Ocean Dev. & Int’l L. 27 (1978)Google Scholar; Park, , China and Maritime Jurisdiction: Some Boundary Issues, 22 Ger. Y.B. Int’l L. 119 (1979)Google Scholar; see generally Prescott, J., Maritime Jurisdiction in Southeast Asia: A Commentary and Map (1981)Google Scholar.

There is a similar dispute about the Senkaku Islands (Tiao-yu-tai) in the East China Sea between Japan and China. See Park, , Oil under Troubled Waters: The Northeast Asia Seabed Controversy, 14 Harv. Int’l L.J. 212 (1973)Google Scholar; Ragland, , A Harbinger: The Senkaku Islands, 10 San Diego L. Rev. 664 (1973)Google Scholar; Cheng, Tao, The Sino-Japanese Dispute over the Tiao-yu-tai (Senkaku) Islands and the Law of Territorial Acquisition, 14 Va. J. Int’l L. 221 (1974)Google Scholar; Li, , China and Off-Shore Oil: The Tiao-Yu-Tai Dispute, 10 Stan. J. Int’l Stud. 143 (1975)Google Scholar.

22 See the Beagle Channel Arbitration: Report and Decision of the Court of 18 February 1977, 17 ILM 634 (1978); the Declaration of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on the Decision of 18 April 1977, id. at 632; the Agreement of Argentina and Chile to accept Papal Mediation, done at Montevideo on Jan. 8, 1979, 18 id. at 1 (1979).

23 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, 1969 ICJ Rep. at 22, para. 20.

24 As constantly held by the Court. See id. at 30, para. 40; 1978 id. at 36, para. 86; 1982 id. at 43, para. 36; see also the tribunal in the Anglo-French arbitration, 18 ILM at 443, para. 191. This phrase became part of the definition of the continental shelf. See Art. 76(1) of the LOS Convention.

25 Part V of the Convention does not contain any provision on the exclusive economic zone parallel to Article 77, paragraphs 2 and 3 on the rights of the coastal state over the continental shelf.

26 See the statement of the Court in this regard in the case between Tunisia and Libya, 1982 ICJ Rep. at 49, para. 50.

27 See Oxtnan, , The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea: The Seventh Session (1978), 73 AJIL 1, 22 et seq. (1979)Google Scholar; Adede, , Toward the Formulation of the Ride of Delimitation of the Sea Boundaries between States with Adjacent or Opposite Coasts, 19 Va. J. Int’l L. 207, 222 et seq., 244 et seq. (1979)Google Scholar.

28 Statement of activities of the Conference during its first and second sessions (17 October 1974), App. I, Working paper of the Second Committee: Main Trends, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/ L.8/Rev.1 (1974), in 3 Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records [hereinafter cited as UNCLOS III OR] 93, 107 et seq.

29 Netherlands: Draft article on delimitation between States with opposite or adjacent coasts, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/C.2/L.14 (1974).

30 Ireland: Draft article on delimitation of areas of continental shelf between neighbouring States, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/C.2/L.43 (1974).

31 Informal Single Negotiating Text, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/WP.8/Pt. II (1975), 4 UNCLOS III OR 137, 163.

32 Id. at 162.

33 Revised Single Negotiating Text, Part Two, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/WP.8/Rev.1/Pt. II, Arts. 62, para. 3 and 71, para. 3 (1976).

34 UN Doc. A/CONF.62/WP.10 (1977), 8 UNCLOS III OR.

35 UN Doc. A/CONF.62/WP.10/Rev.1, Arts. 74, para. 3 and 83, para. 3 (1979), reprinted in 18 ILM 686 (1979).

36 See note 34 supra.

37 Organization of work: Decisions taken by the Conference at its 90th meeting on the report of the General Committee, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/62 (1978), 10 UNCLOS III OR 6, 8 (item 7).

38 According to the report of the Chairman of Negotiating Group 7 (hereinafter referred to as NG 7), some one hundred delegations participated in the negotiations of the group. See Report by the Chairman of Negotiating Group 7 on the Work of the Group, Conf. Doc. NG7/21 (May 17, 1978). All materials of the group are informal and lack any documentary character.

39 Informal suggestion relating to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of articles 74 and 84, Conf. Doc. NG7/2 (April 20, 1978). It was sponsored by the Bahamas, Barbados, Canada, Colombia, Cyprus, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, the Gambia, Greece, Guyana, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Malta, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia.

40 Conf. Docs. NG7/2/Rev.1 (March 25, 1980); NG7/2/Rev.2 (March 28, 1980).

41 Informal suggestion by Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Benin, Burundi, Congo, France, Iraq, Ireland, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Romania, Senegal, Syrian Arab Republic, Somalia, Suriname, Turkey, Venezuela and Vietnam, Conf. Doc. NG7/10, Arts. 74 and 84 (May 1, 1978). It was maintained until 1980; see Conf. Doc. NG7/10/Rev.2 (March 28, 1980).

42 Informal suggestions by Morocco, Conf. Doc. NG7/3 (April 21, 1978).

43 Statement made by the Chairman of Negotiating Group 7 on 12 September 1978, Conf. Doc. NG7/23 (Sept. 12, 1978).

44 Informal suggestion by Papua New Guinea, Conf. Doc. NG7/15, Arts. 74 and 83 (May 9, 1978). Paragraph 3 should read: “ 3 . Pending agreement or settlement, the States concerned shall, either (a) make provisional arrangements, taking into account the provisions of paragraph 1, or (b) establish a moratorium against economic activities within the area under dispute.” Some delegations supported the idea of a moratorium, whereas others found it unacceptable, considering the very concept ambiguous. See Statement made by the Chairman, supra note 43.

45 Statement by the Chairman made at the 28th meeting of NG 7, prepared for the last series of negotiations of the group, Conf. Doc. NG7/26 (March 26, 1979).

46 Conf. Doc. NG7/21, supra note 38.

47 Statement by the Chairman, supra note 45. Moreover, there was an informal working paper by Israel, suggesting the omission of Article 74, paragraphs 2 and 3, which, however, was not necessarily related to Article 83. Conf. Doc. NG7/28 (March 28, 1979).

48 India, Iraq, and Morocco: Informal Proposal, Articles 74(3) and 83(3), Conf. Doc. NG7/ 32 (April 5, 1979).

49 Suggested Compromise Formula for Articles 74(3) and 83(3), prepared by a private group convened by the Chairman of NG 7:

Pending agreement as provided for in paragraph 1, the States concerned, in a spirit of understanding and co-operation, shall make every effort with a view to entering into provisional arrangements. Accordingly, during this transitory period, they shall refrain from activities or measures which may aggravate the situation and thus hamper in any way the reaching of the final agreement. Such arrangements shall be without prejudice to the final delimitation.

Conf. Doc. NG7/38 (April 17, 1979). See also the Report of the Chairman on the Work of Negotiating Group 7, Conf. Doc. NG7/39 (April 20, 1979). A similar informal proposal by Mexico and Peru was withdrawn. Conf. Doc. NG7/36/Rev. 1 (April 18, 1979) and Corr.1 (April 19, 1979).

50 UN Doc. A/CONF.62/WP.10/Rev.2, Arts. 74, para. 3 and 83, para. 3 (1980).

51 Draft Convention on the Law of the Sea, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/L.78 (1981).

52 See Statement by the Chairman, supra note 45; Oxman, supra note 27, at 23; Adede, supra note 27, at 223 el seq.

53 Chairman Manner of NG 7 reported at the conference that “[t]here did not seem to be consensus to the effect that States should be obliged to make provisional arrangements. On the other hand, no opposition appeared to be expressed as to the encouragement of States to enter interim measures, as appropriate.” See Conf. Doc. NG7/23, supra note 43 (emphasis in original).

54 Restating “the opinio juris in the matter of delimitation,” the Court observed in the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases “that delimitation must be the object of agreement between the States concerned.” 1969 ICJ Rep. at 46, para. 85.

The Court would therefore observe at the outset that an attempt by a unilateral act to establish international maritime boundary lines regardless of the legal position of other States is contrary to recognized principles of international law, . . . which provide that maritime boundaries should be determined by agreement between the Parties.

Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libya), 1982 ICJ Rep. at 66 et seq., para. 87. Even the unilateral establishment of an outer limit “has always an international aspect.” See the Fisheries Case (UK v. Nor.), 1951 ICJ Rep. 116, 132 (Judgment of Dec. 18).

55 Observations of the Government of Turkey on the Request by the Government of Greece for Provisional Measures of Protection, ICJ Pleadings (Aegean Sea Continental Shelf) 69, 70, para. 10 (Observations submitted in 1976).

56 See Schwebel, Second report on the law of the non-navigational uses of international watercourses, UN Doc. A/CN.4/3S2 and Add.1 (1980), [1980] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, pt. 1, at 159, 170 el seq., UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1980/Add.1.

57 See Onorato, , Apportionment of an International Common Petroleum Deposit, 17 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 85, 93 (1968)Google Scholar; Lagoni, , Oil and Gas Deposits across National Frontiers, 73 AJIL 215, 233 et seq. (1979)Google Scholar.

58 See, e.g., GA Res. 3129 (XXVIII) (1973).

59 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, 1969 ICJ Rep. at 47, para. 86.

60 19 AJIL 393, 398 (1925).

61 1931 PCIJ, ser. A/B, No. 42, at 108, 116.

62 12 R. Int’l Arb. Awards 285 (1956).

63 1969 ICJ Rep. at 46, para. 86; see also the Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (UK v. Ice.), Merits, 1974 ICJ Rep. 3, 32, para. 75; and the parallel case (W. Ger. v. Ice.), Merits, 1974 ICJ Rep. 175, 201, para. 67.

64 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, 1969 ICJ Rep. at 47, para. 85(a). See also the corresponding statement of the tribunal in the Lac Lanoux arbitration, supra note 61.

65 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, 1969 ICJ Rep. at 47, para. 85(a).

66 Id. at 48, para. 87.

67 See text accompanying notes 29 and 31 supra.

68 1969 ICJ Rep. at 79 (Sep. Op. Jessup, J.).

69 See the proposal made by Ireland, text at note 30 supra; the informal suggestion by Morocco, text at note 42 supra.

70 1969 ICJ Rep. at 22, para. 20.

71 1982 ICJ Rep. at 42, para. 34; id. at 35, para. 21; see also map 2 at p. 81 of the Judgment.

72 1976 ICJ Rep. at 6, para. 15 et seq. See also the Application Instituting Proceedings Submitted by the Government of Greece, with Ann. I and attached map, ICJ Pleadings (Aegean Sea Continental Shelf) 3, 21 (Application submitted in 1974).

73 1969 ICJ Rep. at 14, para. 5 and 16, map 3.

74 1982 ICJ Rep. at 42, para. 35 and 81, map 2.

75 See the observation of the tribunal that the Channel Islands are “on the wrong side” of the mid-Channel median line. 18 ILM at 434 et seq., paras. 145–201.

76 As referred to by Libya, 1982 ICJ Rep. at 42, para. 35.

77 Art. 2(1 )(a), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, UN Doc. A/CONF. 39/27 (1969).

78 Id., Art. 3.

79 As already noted by Oxman, supra note 27, at 23.

80 See Art. 56(l)(b) of the Vienna Convention, supra note 77, which provides that there is a right of denunciation or withdrawal from a treaty containing no provision regarding termination, denunciation or withdrawal, if “(b) a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty.”

81 The provision reads:

Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the negotiating States have otherwise agreed, the provisional application of a treaty or a part of a treaty with respect to a State shall be terminated if that State notifies the other States between which the treaty is being applied provisionally of its intention not to become a party to the treaty.

82 Article 18 reads:

A State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when:

(a) it has signed the treaty or has exchanged instruments constituting the treaty subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty; or

(b) it has expressed its consent to be bound by the treaty, pending the entry into force of the treaty and provided that such entry into force is not unduly delayed.

85 According to the Statement by the Chairman of NG 7, “there seemed to be general agreement to the effect that any provisional arrangement should be without prejudice to the final delimitation.” See Conf. Doc. NG7/23, supra note 43.

84 The delegation of Norway tentatively addressed this point at the negotiations of NG 7. See its informal paper on paragraph 3 of Articles 74 and 83 of the ICNT, Conf. Doc. NG7/16 (May 9, 1978).

85 As referred to by Chairman Manner of NG 7 as possible examples of state practice concerning provisional measures, Conf. Doc. NG7/23, supra note 43.

86 See Fleischer, supra note 12, at 112; see also Østreng and Traavik & Østreng, supra note 12.

87 Fleischer, supra note 12, at 112 n.38.

88 See 1969 ICJ Rep. at 83.

89 See id. at 53, para. 101(C)(2).

90 509 UNTS 140. For a discussion of the Agreement, see Lagoni, supra note 57, at 223 et seq.

91 Limits in the Seas, supra note 3, No. 75 (1977). See Kim, Dong Hi, Accord entre la Corée du Sud et le Japon sur le développement commun de la partie sud du plateau continental adjacent aux deux pays, 2 Korean J. Comp. L. 103 (1974)Google Scholar; 1 Oda, S., The Law of the Sea in our Time: New Developments, 1966–1975, at 249 et seq. (1977)Google Scholar; Park, 22 Ger. Y.B. Int’l L., supra note 21, at 134 etseq.

92 The agreement between Japan and South Korea remains in force for 50 years before it can be terminated after 3 years’ written notice (Art. 31), whereas the Supplementary Agreement is not limited in its time of application at all.

93 See generally Onorato, supra note 57; id., 26 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 324 (1977); Barberis, , Los Recursos minerales compartidos entre Estadosy el derecho internacional, 8 Derecho de la Integración 45 (1975)Google Scholar; Lagoni, supra note 57. With regard to single agreements, see Utton, , Institutional Arrangements for Developing North Sea Oil and Gas, 9 Va. J. Int’l L. 66 (1968)Google Scholar; Young, , Equitable Solutions for Off-shore Boundaries: The 1968 Arab-Iran Agreement, 64 AJIL 152 (1970)Google Scholar; Horigan, , Unitization of Petroleum Reservoirs Extending Across Sub–Sea Boundary Lines of Bordering States in the North Sea, 17 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 67 (1968)Google Scholar; id., 7 Nat. Resources Law. 67 (1974); Woodliffe, , International Unitization of an Offshore Gas Field, 26 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 338 (1977)Google Scholar; Manin, , Le Traitede Frigg, 1978 Annuaire Français Droit Int’l 792 Google Scholar; Gault, , The Frigg Gas Field, Exploitation of an International Crossboundary Petroleum Field, 3 Marine Pol’y 302 (1979)Google Scholar. Note also the papers on (Topic F) International Unitization: Current Developments, in 1 International Bar Association [IBA], Energy Law Seminar Proceedings (Cambridge, Sept. 29–Oct. 4, 1979): Miller, The Statfort and Murchison OH Fields, Paper 3; Outhit, The Frigg Gas Field Unit, Paper 1.

94 See supra note 93, especially the papers of the IBA Energy Law Seminar; Outhit, , Unitization. As between Companies of Fields between States, 2 IBA, Petroleum Law Seminar Proceedings (Cambridge, Jan. 8–13, 1978)Google Scholar, Topic K, Paper 26.

95 See, e.g., the proposal by Ireland, supra note 30.

96 Article 15 of the draft reads: “A State is obliged to refrain from acts tending to frustrate the object of a proposed treaty when: (a) It has agreed to enter into negotiations for the conclusion of the treaty, while these negotiations are in progress.” Draft articles on the law of treaties and Commentary, [1966] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 202, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1966/Add.1.

97 United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties, Official Records of the First Session, UN Doc. A/CONF.39/11, at 104, para. 26 (1968).

98 1939 PCIJ, ser. A/B, No. 79, at 199.

99 93 LNTS 342.

100 See Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, July 21, 1983, at 5; Der Grenzstreit um Erdöl im Kattegatt verschärft sich, id., Aug. 4, 1983, at 5.

101 See supra note 72.

102 See the statement of the Court in the Interhandel Case (Switz. v. U.S.), 1959 ICJ Rep. 6, 21 (Judgment of March 21).

103 See Art. 3, Optional Protocol of Signature applying to any one or more of the 1958 Geneva Law of the Sea Conventions.

104 According to the Application of Greece, in 1974 the Turkish hydrographic vessel Candarli was accompanied by 32 warships of the Turkish Navy while doing research in the area in dispute. See supra note 72, at 7, para. 24. After Greece requested that Turkey refrain from taking further military measures, Turkey stated in 1976 that its research vessel MTA Sismik, which was operating in the area, was not accompanied by warships. See Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Interim Protection, 1976 ICJ Rep. at 5, para. 2 and 7, para. 16.

105 1972 ICJ Rep 12, 17, para. 25 et Seq. and 34 et seq., para. 26 et seq.

106 1976 ICJ Rep. at 11, para. 32; see also 1972 ICJ Rep. at 16, para. 21.

107 1976 ICJ Rep. at 10, para. 30.

108 Id., para. 31.

109 Id. at 11, para. 33.

110 A suggestion by Morocco for a corresponding paragraph on the delimitation of the territorial sea was not approved. See Conf. Doc. NG7/3, supra note 42.

111 1969 ICJ Rep. at 42, para. 72.