PIL INTERIM SUBMISSION

AYUSH KUMAR
2011-16
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Malta, 1985 I.C.J. 13.
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine the issues involved in the case of Libya
vs. Malta and the principles on which the International Court of Justice relied, to
decide the case. Moreover, this study also examines how this case is related to
International Law. The International Court of Justice in this case looked at the
1982 United Nations Convention on the Law and Sea because both States agreed
to it and signed it. The court in this case decided against Libyas claim of a riftzone because the law (coming from the 1982 United Nations Convention of Law
and Sea) allows a State to claim continental shelf up to as far as 200 nautical
miles from its coast. The court in this case decided against Maltas proposition of
the method of equidistance when determining the delimitation line.
Introduction
Libya vs. Malta was decided on June 3, 1985. The Libyan Arab Republic and the
Republic of Malta were involved in a dispute regarding the delimitation of the area
of continental shelf between them. Libya believes that the continental shelf
belongs to them because of natural prolongation of the land into the Sea, and
Malta believes the continental shelf belongs to them because of its location from
their coast. To settle the dispute, they decided on a Special Agreement, which
would allow the International Court of Justice to come up with a resolution.
Although both parties agree that the ICJ should decide on what principles and
rules of international law are applicable in this case, Malta believes that the ICJ
should be able to implement the rules by drawing a median line (to figure out the
delimitation of the continental shelf). Libya holds that it is not the courts job to
draw the delimitation line; however, the court agrees with Malta and determines
that the Special Agreement does not suspend them from indicating a median line.
Main body
The ICJ used the principle of the distance and the idea of an economic zone when
deciding the delimitation of the continental shelf. The court uses Article 76 of the
1982 United Nations Convention on the Law and Sea. This article states that
distance does matter and the continental shelf cannot exceed a certain amount of
nautical miles from the territorial sea. Even though the Convention has not yet
entered into force, both States signed it. This Convention also gave the court
discretion to determine a way to draw the median line and end the dispute (1982
Convention). The 1982 Convention does not mention any other way to determine
the delimitation of continental shelves other than distance. A rift-zone was not
mentioned. Equidistance was not used because the 1982 Convention gives the
court the right to use discretion and apply principles and rules to determine the
median line. The court decided that the method of equidistance would not be fair
and adjusted the median line based on coast length, continental shelf distance,
etc.
Conclusion
This case relates to international law because Libya and Malta decided to come to
a Special Agreement, allowing the ICJ to use principles and rules of international
law to resolve the dispute.