North Sea Continental Shelf Cases Fernandez (Federal Republic of Germany v Denmark)(Federal Republic of Germany v Netherlands) Facts: The

e case is about the delimitation of the continental shelf between Germany and Denmark, and betweenGermany and Netherlands. (The determination of a States continental shelf, particularly in adjacentcoastal States, is important in ascertaining jurisdiction over the waters that is bordering them incommon)If you look at the map of this region, Germanys coastline on the north (that which faces the North Sea) isgoing inwards the mainland (basically its a concave figure). Netherlands is on one side of Germany,while Denmark is on the other. It is also noticeable that the coastlines of Denmark and Netherlands (theones facing the North Sea) are outwardly curving.The case was submitted to the ICJ to determine the principles or rules of international law, applicable, incarrying out the delimitation of the continental shelf Netherlands and Denmark argue that the equidistance principle in Article 6 of the Geneva Conventionis applicable. Such principle essentially entails that your countrys continental shelf will be drawn up to acertain distance from your shorelines--following the contours and indentations.Clearly the equidistance principle is to the disadvantage of Germanyit having an inward shoreline. If said principle is to be applied to Germany, then it would necessarily lose jurisdiction over certain portionsof the North Sea. While Denmark and Netherlands would benefit from a widening tendency on the area of continental shelf off that coast.Germany contends that all the parties should be given a just and equitable share in proportion to thelength of its sea-frontage (essentially following the area facing the North sea without regard to inward or outward indentations). In addition, Germany prays that the States involved be entitled to a continentalshelf area up to a central point as its median line. Netherlands and Denmark argue that Germany is bound by Art 6 of the Geneva Convention, despite thelatters non-ratification of said treaty, because that provision has formed part of international custom andcan even be considered to be a general principle of law. Germany argues otherwise. Moreover, it arguesthat even if the provision has gained the status of custom, the configuration of Germanys coastconstituted a special circumstance (this is similarly provided in the provision) which would justify adeparture from the equidistance principle. Issue: How should the delimitation of the North Sea continental shelf be carried out?

Held: It should be carried out by agreement between the States taking into account geographical equitableconsiderations including general and special features of the coasts. The Court decided the case based onequity considerations. Since neither treaty nor custom is

governing, the Court tried to reach an equitableconclusion.(On apportioning the continental shelf area into just and equitable shares)The Court is not tasked to apportion the areas concerned, but merely to delimit it. The continental shelf isa natural prolongation of a States land territory. Since a State has sovereignty over its land territory, itnaturally has a right over the prolongation of its landi.e. the continental shelf. For the court to apportionthe areas is inconsistent with the basic concept of continental shelf entitlement.(On the argument of custom)Article 6 of the Geneva Convention does not embody an existing customary norm. The provision cannot be said to have crystallized into a rule of customary international law for several reasons: First, Article 6was framed to be purely contractual (Suffice it to state that the Convention was not a treaty of codification but purely de lege ferenda [creating new rules between the contracting States]); Second, the number of ratifications and accessions to the treaty was hardly sufficient to constitute a general rule of internationallaw; Third, state practice was neither extensive enough nor virtually uniform to show a generalrecognition of an evolving norm; And fourth, the treaty itself allows for reservations (in effect,contracting States may practice or not practice the equidistance principle)(On the argument of treaty)Germany was not legally bound by Article 6. Though it signed the Geneva Convention, it has not ratifiedsaid treaty.Why is this case important on the topic of territory of States?The case illustrates a mode of settling disputes on overlapping maritime areas. It has been observed that International courts and arbitration bodies have applied equitable principles instead of traditional medianline or middle lines. UNCLOS III has also recognized such manner of settling overlapping maritimeareas.