Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T22:54:10.664Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

North Sea Continental Shelf Cases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Geoffrey Marston
Geoffrey Marston*
Affiliation:
School of General Studies, Australian National University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case Notes
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , June 1969 , pp. 283 - 292
Copyright
Copyright © 1969 The Australian National University

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 Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v. Netherlands. International Court of Justice; President Bustamante y Rivero; Vice President Koretsky; Judges Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, Tanaka, Jessup, Morelli, Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, Padilla Nervo, Forster, Gros, Ammoun, Bengzon, Petren, Lachs, Onyeama; Judges ad hoc Mosler, Sørensen. Page references are to a mimeographed report issued by the Registry of the Court. The judgment has been reproduced in (1969) 8 International Legal Materials 340.

2 The full text of the Special Agreement between Denmark and the Federal Republic is reproduced in (1967) 6 International Legal Materials 391.

3 Article 1 of the Convention on the Continental Shelf, 1958, uses the term as referring “(a) to the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea, to a depth of 200 metres or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas ; (b) to the sea-bed and subsoil of similar submarine areas adjacent to the coasts of islands”. (1964) 499 United Nations Treaty Series 311, 312.

4 Judge Jessup's Separate Opinion contains factual material on the economic importance of the shelf and an insight into the political background to the dispute. See also Young, “Offshore Claims and Problems in the North Sea” (1965) 59 American Journal of International Law 505; Morris, “The North Sea Continental Shelf: Oil and Gas Legal Problems”, (1968) 2 International Lawyer 191.

5 570 United Nations Treaty Series 91.

6 550 United Nations Treaty Series 123.

7 By the equidistance method of delimiting the shelf between adjacent States (Art. 6 (2) of the Convention) and the median line method of delimiting the shelf between opposite States (Art. 6 (1)) the United Kingdom would have 46% of the North Sea Shelf, Norway 27%, the Netherlands 11%, Denmark 10%, the Federal Republic of Germany 5%, Belgium 1/2% and France 1/2%: Young, op. cit. 517

8 Not as yet published in the United Nations Treaty Series. A German translation is given in Münch, “Neue Akte über den Festlandsockel in Nord-und Ostsee”, (1966) 26 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 761, 778.

9 Judgment §30, 30.

10 (1969) 8 International Legal Materials 679, 693.

11 Schwarzenberger, A Manual of International Law (5th ed. 1967) 69.

12 Judgment §33, 31.

13 Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Merits, 1962 I.C.J. Reports 6.

14 The Law of Treaties (1961) 487.

15 Award of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II for the Arbitration of a Controversy between the Argentine Republic and the Republic of Chile concerning certain parts of the boundary between their territories, (1966) 66.

16 See Whiteman, , “Conference on the Law of the Sea: Convention on the Continental Shelf”, (1958) 52Google Scholar American Journal of International Law 629, 650-654; Padwa, , “Submarine Boundaries”, (1960) 9Google Scholar International and Comparative Law Quarterly 628.

17 France, for example, has made such a reservation to overcome geographical problems similar to those of the Federal Republic. For its text see (1965) 11 Annuaire Français de Droit International 733.

18 Judgment § 71, 47. Baxter, , “Multilateral Treaties as Evidence of Customary International Law”, (1965-1966) 41Google Scholar British Year Book of International Law 274-300.

19 Judgment §73, 48.

20 Lauterpacht (8th ed. 1955) 17.

21 Lachs, Dissenting Opinion, 17.

22 Sørensen, Dissenting Opinion, 12.

23 Judgment §77, 49.

24 Judgment §85, 52.

25 Judgment §99, 58.

26 Judge Ammoun, in his Separate Opinion, delivered a lengthy attack on the inclusion of this adjective in the Statute.

27 Judgment §20, 26.

28 Petroleum Development Ltd v. Sheikh of Abu Dhabi (1951) 18 International Law Reports 144, 155.

29 The text of the Proclamation is reproduced in (1946) 40 American Journal of International Law, Supplement, 45.

30 Judgment, particularly §47, 37 and §66, 45.

31 The legal regime of the North Sea shelf is at present so haphazard, consisting as it does of bilateral median line agreements, that only a convention among all the littoral states would, it is submitted, reduce it to order. For references to the agreements see Weissberg, “International Law Meets the Short-term National Interest: The Maltese Proposal on the Sea-Bed and Ocean Floor—Its Fate in Two Cities” (1969) 18 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 41, 85-87, footnotes 219-223; Münch, supra n. 8; Oda, “Boundary of the Continental Shelf” (1968) 12 Japanese Annual of International Law 264.

32 Delimitation of the shelf adjacent to the Australian States and to some of the Australian territories has been carried out municipally by means of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 (Cth). The delimitation details are set out in the Second Schedule to the Act. The Act purports to delimit the shelf between West Irian and Papua-New Guinea although such a delimitation would generally have no effect in international law without the consent of the territorial sovereign of West Irian. Maps showing the delimitations are annexed to the text of an Agreement made on 16 October 1967 between the Commonwealth government and the State governments.

33 Tanaka, Dissenting Opinion, 46.