Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 61 views

    Name: Alishba Ali Roll No: F2017117068 Assignment North Sea Continental Shelf Cases Facts

    Uploaded by

    ALISHBA ALI
    The case involved disputes between Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands over their continental shelf boundaries in the North Sea. Denmark and the Netherlands argued the boundaries should be determined by the principle of equidistance, while Germany claimed this was unfair. The International Court of Justice ruled that the principle of equidistance was not a binding rule of international law and that continental shelf boundaries must be determined based on equitable principles taking into account all relevant circumstances to achieve a fair outcome for all states involved.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Name: Alishba Ali Roll No: F2017117068 Assignment North Sea Continental Shelf Cases Facts

    Uploaded by

    ALISHBA ALI
    61 views3 pages
    The case involved disputes between Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands over their continental shelf boundaries in the North Sea. Denmark and the Netherlands argued the boundaries should be determined by the principle of equidistance, while Germany claimed this was unfair. The International Court of Justice ruled that the principle of equidistance was not a binding rule of international law and that continental shelf boundaries must be determined based on equitable principles taking into account all relevant circumstances to achieve a fair outcome for all states involved.

    Original Title

    firac

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved disputes between Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands over their continental shelf boundaries in the North Sea. Denmark and the Netherlands argued the boundaries should be determined by the principle of equidistance, while Germany claimed this was unfair. The International Court of Justice ruled that the principle of equidistance was not a binding rule of international law and that continental shelf boundaries must be determined based on equitable principles taking into account all relevant circumstances to achieve a fair outcome for all states involved.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    61 views3 pages

    Name: Alishba Ali Roll No: F2017117068 Assignment North Sea Continental Shelf Cases Facts

    Uploaded by

    ALISHBA ALI
    The case involved disputes between Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands over their continental shelf boundaries in the North Sea. Denmark and the Netherlands argued the boundaries should be determined by the principle of equidistance, while Germany claimed this was unfair. The International Court of Justice ruled that the principle of equidistance was not a binding rule of international law and that continental shelf boundaries must be determined based on equitable principles taking into account all relevant circumstances to achieve a fair outcome for all states involved.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Name : Alishba ali

    Roll no : F2017117068
    Assignment
    North Sea Continental Shelf Cases
    Facts
    a. The International Court of Justice delivered judgment, by 11 votes to 6.
    b. Both Denmark and the Netherlands submitted an individual dispute with
    Germany to the ICJ involving claims to the North Sea Continental Shelf. These two
    separate claims were joined by the ICJ, and decided as one case. The parties
    sought a method by which the Continental Shelf could be fairly delimited. All
    parties agreed the Court was not to physically apportion claims, but merely
    prescribe a method of delimitation for the parties to follow.
    c. Denmark and the Netherlands argued that the method of equidistance should
    be implemented. This is that each State claimed all areas that are closer to itself
    than any other state. They claimed that the Geneva Convention supported this
    method. Moreover, it was alleged to have been an a priori rule of law, a rule of
    customary international law, and a general rule of conventional practicality.
    d. Germany, who had not ratified the Geneva Convention, claimed that the rule
    of equidistance was unfair. The State also argued for an apportionment of the
    shelf that was proportional to the size of each state’s adjacent land.

    Issues
    a. Is the Geneva Convention binding on a State that has not ratified it?
    b. Is the equidistance rule international law?

    Decisions
    a. The Court found that the Geneva Convention is not binding on German, as it
    did not ratify it.
    b. While the Geneva Convention does call for the rule of equidistance, the Court
    found that the Geneva Convention was not binding upon Germany. Moreover,
    the stipulations outlined in the Geneva Convention would have allowed Germany
    to opt out in this area, so its membership in the treaty is a moot point. Upon
    inspection of the language of both the Geneva Convention and the Truman
    Proclamation, equidistance was found to be a last resort rather than an a priori
    rule. Also looking to these sources, the Court rejected claims which included
    equidistance in customary international law. Theses texts which originally
    included the rule of equidistance only did so for secondary purposes, and the
    utilization of it was insufficient to prove it to be either customary international
    law, or a general law of practicality. The Court also pointed out mathematical
    problems of contradiction under the rule.
    The Court rejected Germany’s claim of proportional apportionment because
    doing so would intrude upon the natural claims due to States based on natural
    prolongations of land. Also, the Court’s role was to outline a mechanism of
    delimitation only.
    The Court found, therefore, that the two parties must draw up an agreement
    taking both the maximization of area and proportionality into account. These
    were to be based upon “equitable principles.” The holding here is somewhat
    inconclusive, but the opinion is significant to international law, regardless.

    Principles
    a. The international law elements of the case are the power of treaties, customary
    international law, and the principle of equidistance in claims to sea territory.
    b. The rule of law upheld in this case is the Geneva Convention.
    c. There are several principles in this case manifested in the Geneva Convention.
    The court rejected the principle of equidistance. It upheld, rather, the idea of
    “equitable principles,” which is only defined as those which maximizes land claims
    based on several cooperative factors. The Court also upholds the principle of
    customary international law by using the text of the Geneva Convention and its
    purpose to exclude the mechanism of equidistance.

    Conclusion
    The Court’s ruling has a terminal impact on the principle of equidistance and its
    utilization through the Geneva Convention. The Court does not proscribe its use,
    but eliminates its legal credibility. This, of course, has no impact on the rest of the
    Geneva Convention. As the holding does not prescribe any specific remedy, this
    case does not significantly aid in any future decisions, other than for the purpose
    of denying the equidistance principle legal weight. If this case were used as
    precedent otherwise, it would merely direct the disputing states to look to
    customary international law and cooperative action.

    You might also like