FOR Intervene: Application Permission To
FOR Intervene: Application Permission To
The Registrar
International Coiirt of Justice
The Hague
5. ~ t t e n t i o nis drawn in the first place to a general fact. namely thai Malta
is a srnall island State. with virtually no natural resources. and dependent for
its viability on imports. including imports of oil. In consequence the question
o f the extent and iimits of ils continental slielf. and of the resources of that
shelf. is a matter of vital concern to Malta.
6 . Although the nature of Malta's legal interest that may be affected by the
Court's decision in the Libj>a/Turrisia case should be evident, hlalta has had to
rely entirety on the indication of the character of the case provided by the
ternis of the Libya/Tunisia Special Agreement or Cornpromis of 10 June 1977.
as published - since X,lalta's request. dated 18 August 1980. to be furnished
with copies of the written pleadings in the case was not granted (see letter from a
20. Next. paragraph 2 of Rule 8 1 provides that the application shall set out
'Yb) the precise object of the intervention". The precise object of Malta's
intervention in the LibyalTi~iiisiocase would be to enable Malta to sribmit its
views to the Cotirt on the issues raised in the pending case, before the Court
has given its decision in that case. I t follows that the purpose of the interven-
tion is to give the Court an opportunity to hear the submission of Malta, whose
specific legal interests are likely to be affected by its decision. In the absence of
such an intervention, Malta's parlicular views as to the manner in which such
points as those mentioned in paragraphs 10- 14 above are to be resolved. would
remain unheard by the Court. The perrnissibility of an intervention of this kind
is irnplicit in the whole character of Article 62 and no other object appears to
be contemplated by it.
2 1. For this reason the basis of the present application for permission to
intervene would not Iapse, or become otiose or "moot". merely because Malta
was or became a party to principal proceedings of a similar kind - whenever
the decision in those proceedings was to be given later than in the proceedings
which are the subject of the intervention. Eqiially, the prospect, indicated in
paragraph 5 of the Report to the Security Council by the Secretary-Ceneral of
the United Nations on the hlission of his Special Representative to Malta and
the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya ( S I 14256. 13 November 1980). of an early ratifi-
cation of the agreement with Malta siibmitting to the Court questions relating
to the delimitation of the continental shelf between the two States. does not
diminish the justification for the present application. Indeed, the similarity
between, if not the identical character or. some of the important issues in the
Lihj~u/T~iiiisia case and the prospective Libya/Malta case, and therefore the
APPLICATION TO INTERVENE 26 1
likely impact of the Court's decision in the pending case upon a subsequent
decision in a LibyaIMalta case - as well as the circumstance that direct
Libyan/Maltese proceeding~may be probable - serve rather to strengtheo the
need for the present application.
22. At the same time it must be stressed that it is not Malta's object, by way,
or in the course,of intervention in the Lib~~a/T~~tiisiu.case,to obtain any form
of ruling or decision from the Cotirt concerning its continental shelf boun-
daries with either or both of those countries.
SuhpurugvupJ~(c)r$Poragraph 2 of Rule 81 :~lirQtrestioil of " A i ~ yBusis of
Jiirisdictiori "
23. This subparagraph, which requires the Application to set out 'Tc) any
basis o f jurisdiction which is claimed to exist as between the State applying to
intervene and the parties to the case", did not figure in any form in previous
versions of the Rules, and it therefore embodies a new presentational require-
ment for a request for permission to intervene. lt cannot of course have created
a new substantive condition of the grant of such permission ; for that would
have been to ernploy the Court's rule-making power for the purpose of
introducing a requirement not expressed, and not to be found by any process
of necessary implication, in Article 62 of the Statute which must govern and
prevail. It ha therefore to be assumed that the statement for which subpara-
graph (c) provides is required as a matter of information for the Court regar-
ding the jurisdictional relaiionship (if any) of the States concerned. lndeed the
use of the word "any" in relation to "basis of jurisdiction" instead of "the"
basis. confirms this interpretation and implies lhat intervention, as such, is not
dependent on the existence of a basis of jurisdiction as between the State
seeking to intervene and the parties Co the case.
24. Paragraph 22 above contains a declaration by Mslta that il is not the
object of the intervention sought by the present application, to obtain from the
Court any riiling or decision concerning h~lalta'scontinental shelf boundaries.
Since, therefore. the intervention would not seek any substantive o r operative
decision against either party. it would appear that no question ofjurisdiction in
the strict sense of the word could arise as between Malta and the parties to the
Libil~lTiiiiisiacase - for where relevant at al1 in the context of intervention,
jurisdictional questions coiild be so only in different circumstances.
25. Siibject to these observations, Malta's position is as follows :
(a) She has made a Declaration (dated 6 December 1966) under Article 36,
paragraph 2. of the Court's Statute (the so-called "Optional Clause"), accep-
ting the Court's obligatory jurisdiction in terms which are already on
record.
(b) Malta has subsequently, with a view to assiting the initiative taken by the
Secretary-Generai of the United Nations - as referred to in paragraph 2 1
above - communicated to him a second Declaration, dated 2 January
1981, enlarging the scope of iu acceptance of the Court's compulsory
jurisdiction for a certain category of disputes, in terms which will have
been brought to the knowledge of the Court.
(CI It follows from this second Declaration that any State can at any time start
proceedings against Malta before the Court in regard to any dispute concer-
ning the question of what principles and rules of international law are
applicable or may be applied. and/or how they are to be applied, to the
delimitation of areas of the continental shelf in the Mediterranean Sea
appertaining respectively to Malta and to such other State.
262 CONTlNEhTAL SHELF
IV. CONCLUSION
26. In the light of the foregoing observations, Malta respectfully requests
permission to intervene in the present LibyaITunisia proceedings.
27. It is not considered necessary to make any further observations at the
present stage. If need be, Malta will ask to be heard orally in due course, and
accordingly reserves al1 additional argument for the present.
28 January 1981 .
(Sigtred) Dom MINTOFF
Prime Minister and Minister
of Foreign Affairs of the
Republic of Malta.