NORTH SEA CONTINENTAL SHELF
CASES
(Federal Republic of Germany v.
Denmark;
Federal Republic of Germany v.
Netherlands)
International Court of Justice
1969 I.C.J. 3
The case involved the delimitation of the
continental shelf areas in the North Sea
between Germany and Denmark and
Germany and Netherlands beyond the
partial boundaries previously agreed upon
by these States. The parties requested
the ICJ to decide the principles and rules
of international law that are applicable to
the above delimitation. The parties
disagreed on the applicable principles or
rules of delimitation – Netherlands and
Denmark relied on the principle of
equidistance (the method of determining
the boundaries in such a way that every
point in the boundary is equidistant from
the nearest points of the baselines from
which the breath of the territorial sea of
each State is measured). Germany
sought to get a decision in favor of the
notion that the delimitation of the
relevant continental shelf is governed by
the principle that each coastal state is
entitled to a just and equitable share
(hereinafter called just and equitable
principle/method). Contrary to Denmark
and Netherlands, Germany argued that
the principle of equidistance was neither
a mandatory rule in delimitation of the
continental shelf nor a rule of customary
international law that was not binding on
Germany. The court was not asked to
delimit – the parties agreed to delimit the
continental shelf as between their
countries, by agreement, after the
determination of the ICJ on the applicable
principles.
FACTS:
Denmark, the Netherlands, and Germany
all had a dispute over the boundaries of a
shared continental shelf. Denmark and
the Netherlands both argued that the
dispute should be resolved according to
principles of Article 6 of the Geneva
Convention of 1958 on the Continental
Shelf, which provided that in the absence
of agreement or special circumstances, a
boundary line should be determined by
application of the “principle of
equidistance.” Germany was not a party
to this Convention, but Denmark and the
Netherlands argued that the principle of
equidistance still applied because it was
part of general international law, and
particularly customary international law.
ISSUE:
WON the delimitation be the object of an
equitable agreement between the states
involved?
HELD:
Yes. The delimitation is the object of an
equitable agreement between the states
involved.
As stipulated in Article 6 of the Geneva
Convention equidistance principle is not
part of Customary International Law.
Article 6 makes the obligation to use the
equidistance method a secondary one
which comes into play when agreements
between the parties are absent. Although
the principle of equidistance is not given
a fundamental norm-creating charter by
Article 6, which is necessary to the
formation of a general rule of law.
Premises considered, after taking into
consideration all relevant circumstances,
the delimitation here is to be excused by
equitable agreement.