North Sea Continental Shelf Case PDF
North Sea Continental Shelf Case PDF
North Sea Continental Shelf Case PDF
FACTS:
• On December 1, 1964, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands concluded an
agreement for the partial delimitation of the boundary near the coast.
• On June 9, 1965, the Federal Republic of Germany and Denmark concluded a similar agreement.
• The Three States failed to reach an agreement on the boundaries beyond the limits of the partial
delimitations, since, Denmark and Netherlands wanted this prolongation to take place based on the
equidistance principle and that they claimed that the Geneva Convention supported this method,
whereas Germany who had not ratified the Geneva Convention was of the view that, together, these
two boundaries would produce an inequitable result for her due to its concave coastline, such a line
would result in her losing out on her share of the continental shelf based on proportionality to the
length of its North Sea coastline.
• On February 2, 1967, the Federal Republic of Germany and Denmark and Federal Republic of
Germany and the Netherlands signed two special agreements for the submission of the disputes
between them concerning the delimitation of their continental shelf boundaries in the North Sea to the
International Court of Justice (ICJ).
• The Special Agreements further stated that the respective Governments "should delimit he continental
shelf in the North Sea between their countries by agreement in pursuance of the decision requested
from the ICJ.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Germany is under a legal obligation to accept the equidistance-special circumstances
principle, contained in Article 6 of the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf of 1958, either as a
customary international law rule or on the basis of the Geneva Convention.
HELD:
Further, for a customary rule to emerge the Court held that it needed:
1. very widespread and representative participation in the Convention, including States whose interests
were specially affected (in this case, they were coastal States); and
2. virtually uniform practice undertaken in a manner that demonstrates;
3. a general recognition of the rule of law or legal obligation.
Consequently, the first criteria was not met. The number of ratifications and accessions to the Convention
were not adequately representative or widespread.
Hence, the Court concluded that the equidistance principle was not binding on Germany by way of treaty or
customary international law.