Public International Law

NISHITA ARORA
B.A. LLB. (SELF-FINANCE) II YEAR
ROLL NO. 40
 CONTENTS

WHAT IS CONTINENTAL SHELF? 2

FORMATION OF CONTINENTAL SHELF. 4
WHY CONTINENTAL SHELF IS INCLUDED IN INTERNATIONAL LAW? 5
REASON FOR NOT TAKING A FIXED LIMIT OF CONTINENTAL SHELF. 5
RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF COASTAL STATES. 6
INDIAN POSITION ON CONTINENTAL SHELF. 7
IMPORTANCE OF CONTINENTAL SHELF. 8
CASES CONCERNING THE CONTINENTAL SHELF. 9
CONCLUSION. 18
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 19

1|P a ge
WHAT IS CONTINENTAL SHELF?

GEOGRAPHICAL DEFINITION:

The Continental Shelf is the gently sloping undersea plain between a continent and the deep
ocean. The continental shelf is an extension of the continent's landmass under the ocean.
Much of the continental shelf was exposed dry land during glacial periods. During
interglacial periods, like today, the shelf is submerged under relatively shallow waters. The
waters of the continental shelf are rarely more than 500 feet deep, compared to the open
ocean which can be miles deep. The continental shelf extends outward to the continental
slope and continental rise, where the deep ocean truly begins, ultimately leading to
the abyssal plain.

LEGAL DEFINITION:

1. GENEVA CONVENTION 1958:

In 1958, the first United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea accepted a
definition adopted by the International Law Commission, which defined the
continental shelf to include “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 meters, or,
beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the
exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas”.

2|P a ge
 2. CONVENTION OF THE LAW OF THE SEA:

It has defined continental shelf under Para I Article 76, the seabed and subsoil of the
submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea to the outer edge
of continental margin, to a depth of 200 meters, where the depth of the superjacent waters
admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas where the outer edge of the
continental margin.

Para 4 of the convention states that, the coastal State shall establish the outer edge of the
continental margin wherever the margin extends beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines
from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, by either:

 a line delineated in accordance with paragraph 7 by reference to the outermost fixed

points at each of which the thickness of sedimentary rocks is at least 1 per cent of the
shortest distance from such point to the foot of the continental slope; or
 A line delineated in accordance with paragraph 7 by reference to fixed points not more
than 60 nautical miles from the foot of the continental slope.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the foot of the continental slope shall be determined
as the point of maximum change in the gradient at its base.

Para 5 of Article 76, states that the fixed points comprising the line of the outer limits of the
continental shelf on the seabed, drawn in accordance with paragraph 4 (a)(i) and (ii), either
shall not exceed 350 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial
sea is measured or shall not exceed 100 nautical miles from the 2,500 meter isobaths, which is
a line connecting the depth of 2,500 meters.

Para 8 of Article 76 states that information on the limits of the continental shelf beyond 200
nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured shall
be submitted by the coastal State to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf set
up under Annex II on the basis of equitable geographical representation. The Commission shall
make recommendations to coastal States on matters related to the establishment of the outer
limits of their continental shelf. The limits of the shelf established by a coastal State on the
basis of these recommendations shall be final and binding.

Article 82 states that the payments and contributions shall be made annually with respect to all
production at a site after the first five years of production at that site. Article 256 Paragraph
6, qualifies the consent regime obtaining within 200 miles.

Article 6(1) of the Geneva Convention of 1958 had provided that where the same continental
shelf is adjacent to the territories of two or more States whose coasts are opposite each other,
the boundary of the continental shelf appertaining to such States shall be determined by
agreement between them. In the absence of agreement, and unless another boundary line is
justified by special circumstances, the boundary is the median line, every point of which is

3|P a ge
equidistant from the nearest points of the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea
of each State is measured.

In the case concerning the Continental Shelf Libya, Arab the International Court of Justice has
not recognized the principle of equi-distance. 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 Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice,
in order to achieve an equitable solution.

FORMATION OF CONTINENTAL SHELF

Continental shelves were formed in several ways. As rivers flow into the ocean, they deposit
both inorganic and organic material. This includes sediment, as well as animal and plant
remains. This deposition builds up over time to create continental shelves. Many continental
shelves were created by the most recent Ice Age and were originally dry land. As the ice
began to melt, and the sea level began to rise, parts of continents were submerged
underwater, creating continental shelves.

The Ice Age also created many of the fjords and channels found on continental shelves. As
glaciers began to melt and slide down slopes, they created valleys in the land. Once that land
was submerged, the valleys filled with seawater, creating fjords and channels. Ships use
channels to navigate safely through shallow water.

Because the average depth of water over a continental shelf is around 200 feet, these shallow
waters are well-lit and warm, creating the perfect environment for plant life to flourish. In
fact, all of the ocean’s plants are found on these shelves, as well as copious amounts of algae.
This rich plant life attracts all types of sea creatures, and while only 10 percent of the ocean is
found on continental shelves, these warm waters house most of the ecosystems.

Continental shelves are also home to some of the least-explored parts of continents. Often,
the mouths of rivers cut deep submarine canyons into these shelves. Very little light reaches
the depths of these canyons. In Africa, the Congo River has cut a canyon that is almost 500
miles long and over 3000 feet deep, known as the Congo Canyon. Many of these canyons go
largely untouched, leaving much to explore and discover

4|P a ge
WHY CONTINENTAL SHELF IS INCLUDED IN
INTERNATIONAL LAW?

The continental shelf, in its geological sense, is very un-equally distributed around the
continent. The importance of the continental shelf and the necessity for a special legal regime
applicable to it, did not, however, become apparent until the question of the nature and extent
of the coastal state’s rights to explore and exploit the natural resources of the continental
shelf was given a new urgency by the discovery in the subsoil of the sea-bed of a mineral
source of wealth, namely petroleum. Furthermore, through advances in engineering and
scientific research, the submarine oil bearing strata became capable of exploitation and
exploration by means of devices operating from the sea-bed of the high seas. As the
importance of continental shelf was of national importance in arena of legal, geographical,
social and economical, it was included in the international law.

REASON FOR NOT TAKING A FIXED LIMIT OF

CONTINENTAL SHELF:

International Law Commission stating that the reason for its not adopting a fixed limit for the
continental shelf (this limit being determined by the depth of the superjacent waters or, to be
more exact, by a depth of two hundred meters) “coincides exactly with that at which the
continental shelf, in the geological sense, generally comes to an end” is that “such a limit would
have the disadvantage of instability.” “Technical developments in the near future,” the
Commission continued, “might make it possible to exploit the resources of the seabed at a
depth of over two hundred meters.” Therefore, the extent is not limited to 200km nautical miles.

5|P a ge
RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF COASTAL STATES
The waters above the continental shelves are of great importance for navigation and fisheries.
Maritime shipping must of necessity use these waters. Because of the shallowness of the water
fish are abundant and accessible. Submarine cables for communications might be laid on the
sea-bed.

International law, both through treaty and customary usage, confirms each coastal state’s right
to explore and exploit the natural resources of its continental shelf. The concept of the
continental shelf is a datum of nature presented as a medium for juridical technique; it tends to
justify State jurisdiction over the exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of the
bed and the subsoil of certain areas of the high seas. It is, however, incontestable that the right
to exploit certain natural resources of the sea-bed and subsoil, such as pearls, corals, sponges,
amber and chank, did come to be regarded as the monopoly of the coastal state if it chose to
exploit them.

Proper characterization of continental shelf rights acquired under international law will also
assist in treaty negotiations and in resolution of disputes among nations. Petroleum reservoirs
straddling international boundaries provide perhaps the best illustration. Whether one coastal
state can legitimately complain if an adjacent state extracts all the oil or gas from a reservoir
which extends to its continental shelf depends upon the nature and extent of the rights of that
state under international law.

A. Rights of Coastal States

The area of continental shelf cannot be appropriated by the States, and therefore, States cannot
exercise sovereignty over this state. They may exercise sovereignty rights to explore and
exploit mineral, non-living resources of the sea-bed and subsoil and they are required to make
payments or contributions annually with respect to all production at a site after the first–five
years of production at that site. The rate shall increase by 1 per cent of the value for each
subsequent year until twelfth year and shall remain at 7 percent thereafter. If coastal states does
not explore or exploit shelf resources no other state may undertake these activities without its
express consent. However, “The rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not

6|P a ge
affect the regime of freedom of navigation on the high seas or that of the airspace above the
superjacent waters or the Epicontinental Sea.”

B. Rights of Other States in The Continental Shelf

Other states have been given a few rights over the continental shelf. They are entitled to lay
submarine cables and pipelines on the continental shelf with the consent of continental shelf.
The coastal state may impose conditions for cables or pipelines.

INDIAN POSITION ON CONTINENTAL SHELF

Indian position on continental shelf has been made clear under Section 6 of the Maritime Zones
Act of 1976.Part 1 of the section lays down that, “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 meters, or,
beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the
natural resources of the said areas”. The Act also lay down under section 6, Para 3 that “the
Union has:

1. Sovereign rights for exploration, exploitation, conservation, and management of all

resources;
2. Exclusive rights and jurisdiction for the construction, maintenance or operation of
artificial Islands, off-shore terminals, installations and other structures and devices
necessary for the continental shelf or for convenience of shipping or for any other
purpose.
3. Exclusive jurisdiction to authorize, regulate and control scientific research
4. Exclusive jurisdiction to preserve and protect the marine environment and to prevent
and control marine pollution”.

7|P a ge
IMPORTANCE OF CONTINENTAL SHELF
Continental shelves provide sunny, warm domains for sea creatures and aquatic plant life
alike. Created by both deposition and rising sea levels, these shelves are essential to the
survival of these organisms, and also provide many natural resources as well. The United
States alone produces 25 percent of its combined oil and natural gas through offshore drilling,
and many other nations do the same. These shelves also house many wonders yet to be
explored, such as submarine canyons as well as fjords and channels. Many of these have
never even been explored and house many secrets and wonders waiting to be uncovered.
Continental shelves give clues to help determine how the earth has changed and shifted over
time, as well. They are an invaluable resource in many ways, and a wonder to behold.

8|P a ge
CASES CONCERNING THE CONTINENTAL SHELF

In the North Sea Continental Shelf case, the International Court of Justice declared the issues
relating to the Continental Shelf in a different way. In the case, a precise limit of the
continental shelf was not laid down. It was held that “the rights of the coastal State in respect
of the area of the Continental Shelf that constitutes a natural prolongation of its land territory
into and under the sea ipso facto and ab initio, by virtue of its sovereignty over the land, and
as an extension of it, as an exercise of sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring the sea-
bed and exploiting its natural resources. In short, there id here an inherent right.”

Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal Republic of

Germany v. Netherlands1 (The North Sea Continental Shelf Cases)

Principle: Ratification after signature is required to consequently make that party liable to
obey the treaty.

Facts: On 1 December 1964, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands concluded
an agreement for the partial delimitation of the boundary near the coast. On 9 June 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.
Denmark and the Netherlands both contended that the boundaries should be determined in
accordance with the principle of equidistance. The delimitation of the boundaries near the coast
had been made on the basis of this principle, but the Federal Republic of Germany considered
that the prolongation of these boundaries would result in an inequitable delimitation for the
Federal Republic of Germany. On 31 March 1966, Denmark and the Netherlands concluded an
agreement on the delimitation of the boundary between the other parts of what they regarded
as their respective continental shelves on the basis of ―the principle of equidistance.
This delimitation assumed that the areas claimed by the Netherlands and Denmark were
conterminous and, in particular, that the agreed boundaries between the Federal Republic
of Germany and Denmark, and the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands were

1
ICJ Reports (1969).

9|P a ge
necessarily delimited on the basis of the principle of equidistance. On 2 February 1967, the
Federal Republic of Germany and Denmark, and the 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. The Special Agreements further stated that the
respective Governments should delimit the continental shelf in the North Sea between their
countries by Agreement in pursuance of the decision requested from the International Court of
Justice.

Issue: Whether the Geneva Convention (Article 6 of the 1958 Continental Shelf Convention)
is binding on a state which has not ratified it?

Decision: The Court found that the Geneva Convention is not binding on Germany, as it did
not ratify it

Reasoning: Under the formal provisions of the Convention, it was in force for any individual
State that had signed it within the time-limit provided, only if that State had also subsequently
ratified it. Denmark and the Netherlands had both signed and ratified the Convention and were
parties to it, but the Federal Republic, although one of the signatories of the Convention, had
never ratified it, and was consequently not a party.

Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey)2

Facts:

a. The International Court of Justice addressed the case concerning the delimitation of the
continental shelf between Greece and Turkey on 19 December 1978.
b. On August 10, 1976, Greece sent a message to the UN Security Council concerning the
“recent repeated flagrant violations by Turkey” in the continental shelf in the Aegean.”
On the same day, Greece instituted proceedings against Turkey in the International
Court of Justice in “a dispute concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf

2
ICJ Reports (1978).

10 | P a g e
 appertaining to Greece and Turkey in the Aegean Sea and concerning the respective
legal rights of those States to explore and exploit the continental shelf of the Aegean.”
c. Plaintiff, Greece, maintains that the continental shelf area in question is within Greek
territorial waters and therefore all Turkish activity, including the Turkish State
Petroleum Company (TPAO) and scientific testing with the vessel Sismik-I,
“encroached upon the continental shelf” controlled by Greece. Further, Greece claims
that an injunction handed down by either the UN Security Council or the ICJ is
necessary in order to preserve peace between the two states because a disruption of
peace is eminent. Greece therefore requested that both Greece and Turkey be prevented
from (a) “conducting further exploration or research in the contested areas and (b) from
taking measures likely to endanger their peaceful relations.”
d. Turkey argues that the islands in question in the Aegean continental shelf should not be
considered part of the Greek continental shelf because they have historically been part
of the Turkish shelf. Defendants added that though the Greeks take issue with the
Turkish vessel Sismik-I, they have no problem with their own vessel, the Nautilus,
conducting similar scientific tests in the same region. Turkey maintained that Greece
possessed “no delimited sovereign rights in the Aegean beyond its own territorial
waters,” and has no claim over the Aegean shelf.

Questions:

a. Whether the reliance on Article 41 in the UN resolution passed by the UN Security

Council is justified.
b. Whether the ICJ has jurisdiction to grant or decline the interim measures described in
Article 41 as per the request made by the Greek government.

Decision:

a. The Court held, albeit with much dissent, that it is “not necessary to decide the question
of jurisdiction to entertain the Greek request for interim measures for the purpose of
indicating provisional measures of protection under Article 41 of the Statute of the
Court.” Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction to examine the issue of whether Turkey
threatened an “irreparable prejudice” to Greece through its seismic explorations in the
Aegean Sea. Ultimately, the Court found that “there was no threat of irreparable injury,
and therefore no need or justification for Applying Article 41.”

11 | P a g e
Principles:

a. Article 41 of the Statute initiates interim measures to preserve peace between two states if
damage caused is found to be potentially “irreparable” or incapable of reparation through
monetary or other appropriate means.
b. Jurisdiction of the Court is essential in determining whether a legal question will be
addressed.
c. States should bring issues to the UN Security Council or International Court of Justice if
problems seem to be escalating into larger issues in order to preserve peace.

Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya3

Facts:

a. This case was decided on by the ICJ in 1982 with a vote of 10-4.

b. Tunisia and Libya petitioned the ICJ to apply international law to their border dispute
regarding the overlapping area for both countries of the continental shelf area. In a
special agreement signed by both states, they asked the court to use key principles to
define and divide the delimitation area between the two states without violating any
natural prolongations of territory for either state if possible.

c. Tunisia argues that the special agreement between the states gives the Court the
jurisdiction to not only rule on the principles that may apply to this case, but also apply
them to the delimitation area.

d. Libya asserts that the Court was only given the authority to rule on what principles
should apply in this case but leave it to the states to apply them. They assert that the

3
ICJ Reports (1982).

12 | P a g e
 special agreement between the two states does not give Court the jurisdiction to apply a
practical method to the delimitation area that they advise should be used.

e. There is no defendant or plaintiff in this case because both parties petitioned the Court to
arbitrate this issue under a special agreement decided on by the two states.

Issues:

a. Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to hear this case?

b. Does the Court have the jurisdiction to apply the principles in a practical method it
asserts applies to this case to the delimitation zone?

c. What area should be considered for the delimitation zone?

d. What is the practical method that should be applied to the delimitation zone to settle
the dispute between the two nations?

Decision:

a. The Court does have jurisdiction in this case because both States submitted copies of the
Special Agreement they decided on in order to petition the Court to arbitrate this dispute.
Since both parties petitioned the Court to hear this case, they both gave their consent to
have the Court hear it.

b. The Court ruled that it did have the jurisdiction to apply the practical method based on
the principles and circumstances that applied to this case to the delimitation zone
contrary to the assertion of Libya. Because the states only gave themselves 4 months to
put the Court’s decision into play after the ICJ made its ruling, the Court decided that the
intent of this time was not for negotiation, but for putting the practical method designed
by the Court into effect.

13 | P a g e
c. The Court held that the only area it could rule on was the area of the continental shelf
that was not affected by the jurisdiction of another state unless a treaty or agreement was
already in place between the non-included state and either Tunisia or Libya. For
example, because there was already an existing treaty between Tunisia and Italy
concerning their sea boundaries, the Court did not need to take into account the
jurisdiction of Italy when deciding the delimitation area because that area was already
decided. On the other hand, there was no former agreement with Malta between either
State concerning the jurisdiction of shared sea area. Therefore, the Court ruled that it
could not take into account any area that was shared between Libya and Tunisia that was
also affected by the jurisdiction of Malta because Malta had not given its consent to have
matters concerning itself arbitrated.

d. The Court concluded there was no way to arbitrate this dispute using only the natural
prolongations of the states’ natural territory based on the natural baseline of the two
states because of the position of the two baselines. Therefore, the Court decided that
because it was one continental shelf, the only equitable solution was to divide the zone
into two sectors and then divide those sectors in different way. The first zone was
decided on based on a historical boundary of Libyan petroleum concessions. Thus, from
Ras Ajdir to the point 33 degrees 55’ N, 12 Degrees E the line of delimitation will be
marked by a 26 degree angle. The second sector uses the Kerkennah Islands as a marking
point to divide this sector.

Principles:

a. Continental shelf is important in this case because it marks the area in question
between the two states and what rights the states have within this sea zone.

b. Jurisdiction is important in this case because the Court could only decide on a zone
that was not considered part of the territory of another uninvolved state. (i.e. Malta)

c. Relevant past circumstances were useful in this case because they helped the Court
decide how the delimitation zone should be divided. The Court used previous Libyan

14 | P a g e
 petroleum concessions made to Tunisia to decide which area should be under whose
control.

d. Determining the baseline of the states was extremely important in this cause because
the Court found there was no way to decide this cause using the tradition method of
prolonging natural territorial jurisdiction.

e. Equity Principle was important because the delimitation zone needed to be divided as
equally between the two states as possible taking into account the natural resources
found there in order to assure that one states jurisdiction over a certain area of
territory was not arbitrarily taken away.

Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Malta)4

Facts:

a. Decided June 3, 1985

b. The Libyan Arab Republic and the Republic of Malta were involved in a dispute
regarding the delimitation of the area of continental shelf between them. Libya believes
that the continental shelf belongs to the them because of natural prolongation of the
land into the Sea, and Malta believes the continental shelf belongs to them because of
its location from their coast. To settle the dispute, they decided on a Special Agreement
which would allow the International Court of Justice to come up with a resolution.
Although both parties agree that the ICJ should decide on what principles and rules of
international law are applicable in this case, Malta believes that the ICJ should be able
to implement the rules by drawing a median line (to figure out the delimitation of the
continental shelf). Libya holds that it is not the court’s job to draw the delimitation line;
however, the court agrees with Malta and determines that the Special Agreement does
not suspend them from indicating a median line.

Issues:

a. What principles and rules of international law are applicable in this dispute?

4
ICJ Reports (1985).

15 | P a g e
 b. Should the court examine the “rift-zone” of the continental shelf when deciding the
delimitation line?
c. Should the method of equidistance be used when deciding the delimitation line?

Decision:

a. The ICJ decided that they have the ability to determine what principles and rules to
uphold, and also have the right to establish the delimitation line. The court decides to
look at the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law and Sea because both States
agreed to it and signed it. Even though the Convention has not been put into force yet,
the ICJ comes to the conclusion that the main determining factor of the delimitation
line will be distance. The Convention allows the courts to use their discretion in
determining the median line.
b. The court decided against Libya’s claim of a “rift-zone” because the law (coming from
the 1982 United Nations Convention of Law and Sea) allows a State to claim
continental shelf up to as far as 200 miles from its coast. The “rift-zone” cannot be
considered a natural boundary.
c. The court decided against Malta’s proposition of the method of equidistance when
determining the delimitation line. The court decides to use a different method to draw
up the median line and takes into account the lengths of the Parties’ coasts. The court
decides not to take into account the Maltese island of Filfla to eliminate
disproportionate effects and adjusts the median line accordingly.

Principles:

a. The ICJ used the principle of the distance and the idea of an economic zone when
deciding the delimitation of the continental shelf. The court uses Article 76 of the 1982
United Nations Convention on the Law and Sea. This article states that distance does
matter and the continental shelf cannot exceed a certain amount of nautical miles from
the territorial sea. Even though the Convention has not yet entered into force, both
States signed it. This Convention also gave the court discretion to determine a way to
draw the median line and end the dispute (1982 Convention).
b. The 1982 Convention does not mention any other way to determine the delimitation of
continental shelves other than distance. A “rift-zone” was not mentioned.
c. Equidistance was not used because the 1982 Convention gives the court the right to use
discretion and apply principles and rules to determine the median line. The court

16 | P a g e
decided that the method of equidistance would not be fair and adjusted the median line
based on coast length, continental shelf distance, etc.

17 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION
Continental shelf seas – the marginal seas adjacent to the land – are the region where
humanity predominantly interacts with the sea. Shelf seas occupy about 7% of the area of the
world’s oceans but their economic importance is significantly greater and the social
importance of shelf seas complements their economic value because the seas provide the
main source for livelihood and a focus for many coastal communities. Development of
natural resources of the continental shelf without being detrimental to competing policies
should be made and its acceptance should be encouraged as a principle of international law.
One means of achieving this will be to keep constantly in mind the two guiding principles
formulated in 1950 by the International Law Commission of the United Nations: (1) to
encourage the exploitation of the natural resources which the continental shelf offers to
mankind, since it is estimated to constitute more than seven per cent of the world’s sea areas;
(2) to avoid the imprisonment of legal thought within a rigid and formalistic conception of
the doctrine of the freedom of the seas. Therefore, the characterization of the rights of a
coastal state to continental shelf natural resources as real property rights is a well-developed
doctrine. However, there have been a number of disputes between various states concerning
their rights over the continental shelf or for that matter, the limit of the Continental Shelf.
Some of those cases have been discussed above and the International Court of Justice has
proven to be an effective machinery of justice in solving the cases.

18 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
WEBSITES REFERRED

 www.lawctopus.com
 www.icj-cij.org
 www.casebriefs.com
 www.haguejusticeportal.net
 www.worldcourts.com
 definitions.usalegal.com
 www.geolimits.com
 www.lawteacher.net

BOOK REFERRED

 Dr. H.O. Agarwal, International Law and Human Rights, 21 st Edition.

19 | P a g e