North Sea Continental Shelf Case
North Sea Continental Shelf Case
GARBANZOS
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
LLB-4
The Court also laid down the elements in order to consider a convention as
customary international law which are (1) very widespread and representative
participation in the convention, including States whose interests were specially
affected (i.e. generality); (2) virtually uniform practice (i.e. consistent and uniform
usage) and (3) a general recognition of the rule of law or legal obligation (i.e. opinio
juris).
In the present case, the 1958 Geneva Convention did not ripen into customary
international law. The number of ratifications and accessions to the convention (39
States) were not adequately representative (including of coastal States i.e. those
States whose rights are affected) or widespread. Also, there was no consistent and
uniform usage since there were only 15 cases where States had delimited their
boundaries using the equidistance method, after the Convention came into force.
Lastly, not a great number of States concerned agreed or did draw the boundaries
concerned according to the principle of equidistance. There is no evidence that they
so acted because they felt legally compelled to draw them by reason of a rule of
customary international law obliging them to do so which is the basis of the
principle of opinio juris sive necessitatis.
The court concluded that the equidistance principle was not binding on Germany by
way of treaty or customary international law because, in the case of the latter, the
principle had not attained a customary international law status.
2. No.
The Court ruled that there was no necessity for apportioning a just and equitable
share of the continental shelf to Germany since the rights of the coastal state in
respect to the area of the continental shelf that constitutes the natural prolongation
of its land territory into and under the sea exist ipso facto and ab initio, by virtue of
its sovereignty over the land, and as an extension of it.
No special legal process has to be gone through, nor have any special legal acts to
be performed.
3. The agreement of the states concerned according to just and equitable principles
should be followed.
The Court ruled that the matter of delimitation derived from the Truman
proclamation where that it must be the object of the agreement of the parties
concerned and that such agreement must be arrived at in accordance with
equitable principles. The parties were under the obligation to act in such a wa that
in the particular case, equitable principles were applied. The Courts decision was
made ex aqeuo et bono.