INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

PLEADINGS. ORAL ARGUMENTS. DOCUhlENTS

CASE CONCERNING THE

CONTINENTAL SHELF

VOLUME V

COUR INTERNATIOFYA 1.E DE 1USTICE

MMOIRES. PLAIDOIRIES ET DOCUMENTS

AFFAIRE
DU PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
<TUNISIE/JAk.IAHIRIYA A R A B E LIBYENNE]
 CONTENTS . TABLE DES MATIERES

Pugr
.Plaidoiries (suite t.1 jinl
Oral arguments ~con~+Iuderll
S'TA'TEMENT OF H.E. M R. EL h l ~ G t i U R(LIBI'ANA R A BJ A M ~ I H I R I Y A ). 3
Background io the Special Arreement . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Parties now look Io Ihe Cour1 to establish a framework for
ncgoriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Thc Tunisian translation of the sccond parapraph of Arricle I of thc
Spcaal Agreement is inaccurate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The continental shelf boundary line proposcd hy Libya . . . . . . IO
Common ause beiwe.cn i h c Parties that equidistancc unsuitable . . II
Thc maririme houndaries in Libya's 1955 Law aiid RcguIaiioii No . I . 1I
TheTunisianLawsofI953andI973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2
History oftheParties'off~shoreoiIconcessioiis. . . . . . . . . . 13
History of Tunisia's off-shore territor~alclairns slncc 1968 . . . . . IG
Tunisia'sfishingagreeinentswithltaly . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7
The 1973 Tunisian baselincs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Sumniary of Tunisia's conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
[Rcservarion by Professor Jennings concerning certain Lihyan docu-
metitsj . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Parts orthe Tunisiati and Libyan toasts reIevani to the delirnltaiion . .
The Tiinisian claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Li bya's econoinic sitiiatlon piri in perspective . . . . . . . . . .
Nccd for and purpose of studies in Libyan Countcr.kIernorial .
Volume I I I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Incompleteness and i~iadequacy of Ttinisiafi documentation and
translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Continental shelf a leeal institution not a scienlific one . . . . . . .
Geoloeic data relating io remote ares are relevant to the case . . . .
Devices ernployed by Tirnisia in ils plcadings . . . . . . . . . .
Data relied on by Libya similar io ihose relied on hy Tunisia . . . .
Diiferences belwecn the Partics somerirnes rentIt of exaereration of
minor fcatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tunrsian coasi does not face cast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
North Arrican coast faces nonh . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lihya no! iry ing to reopcn question of land houndaries setrled in 19 1 O .
Tunisia has iiself often referred to rcmote geoIoeica1 periods . . . .
Tunisia has attempted to marry hisioric-rights and narural proIonga-
tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 . Method and style ofTunisia's written plesdings . . . . . . . . 33

2 . DipIomatic history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3. Petroleum legisIation and grants orconcessions . . . . . . . . 41
4 . The Special Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Article 1 of the Special Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
S CONTINEN'I'AL SHELF . I'LATEAU CON'fINENTAL

L ~ h y adoes not accept lht: Tutiisian insertion of the words "avec

prccision" in paragraph 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thc CourtS prirnary iask i s io sraie what principles aiid rules of
inrernaiionai law may he appjied . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AriicIe I is not conccrned with asccrtainine which areas appertaiii
e Slates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 ~ h two
The reference to "new accepted trends in the Third Con fcrcnce on
rhe Law of rhe Sea" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thc reference to "ihc relevaiir circt1mstai1ccs w hich characrerizc
thc area" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The scope of paraeraph 2 of Articlc I . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Noiili SM Giriiiircirrril Sliclf cases and the Anglo-Fretich
Arbitration distingiiished . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 . PrincipIes and rules of inierna~ionaIlaw . . . . . . . . . . .
DcvcIoprneiil of ihc concept of llie "conlinenta1 shclf" . . . . . . .
The Truman Proclamation . . ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Made n o provision for a n outcr Iimit. bur 100-fathom limii
contaitied in a IV hite 1-Iousepress reIease . . . . . . . . .
The doctrine soon no1 confined Io land wilh a true contineniI
inarein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The 200-ineire line adopted i i i the 1958 Gcneva Conventioii . .

The meanin? of "geology'. in paragraph 95 o f the Court's 1969

J~idgmeii t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Court was refcrrine to subsurface geology. no1 bath y metry
or eeornorpholoey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
No guidance on true naiure or continci.iia1 sheIf in 1958 Conven-
tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A State's continental shclf naturaI proIongation of its land lerritory
into and under the sea ( 1969 Judgment) . . . . . . . . . .
Work of Third United Nations Conference on Law of the Sea . . .
ReIaiionship bclwccn fishery righrs. exclusive cconornic zonc and
continental shelf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Natural prolongaiion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
No such thine as notional narural proloneation through access or
fishine praclices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Both 1 969 Judgrnenr and 1 97 7 Decision treat narural prolonearion
a s matier of physical facl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Farayaph 19 of 1969 Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Paragraph 39 of 1969 Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Paragraph 43 of 1969 Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rragraph 95 OF 1969 Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Paraeraph 77 01 1977 Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
GeologicaI facrors dealt with in 1977 Decision bu1 no1 in 1469
Judement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Role of geoIogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Geoloey runs like thread through 1977 Decision . . . . . . . .
Paragraph 2 of 1 977 Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Paraeraph 4 of 1977 Wcision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 Parapraph 9 0 f 1977 Dccision . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Paraeraph I I of 1977 Decision . . . . . . . . . . . .
Paragraph 12 of 1977 Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Paragraphs 1 OS-106 of 1977 Decision . . . . . . . . . . .
Paragraph 107 of 1977 Uecisioii . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bathymcrry often used ro measure outer lirnil of continenra1 shelf but
no! its ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Delimitat ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Not object ordelimitation to secure distributivejusticc . . . . . . .
Purposc of equitable principles to avoid cxagecralcd distort ion as
result ofunusual physicaI featurcs . . . . . . . . . . . .
Specific siluaiioii in instant case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Delirniiation and equitable principles . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Parieraph 43 of 1969 Judgrnent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Priragraph 85 of 1969 Jridgmenr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Court rccognized there could 4ie overlap of naiural prolongation of
t wo States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wherc such ati overlap delimitatioii 10 hc effccted by applyine
cquitabIe principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~ E Ir1. M ALIHTO'OPPI(IAMAFIIRIYA
P L A I D O I R DE A R A B E LIBYENNE) . . .

Gncralits sur les dlimitations latrales dcs juridictions respectives

de la Libye et de Ia Tunisie ; rapports enlre la dlimitation rerrestre
ei la dlimltation rnar~t~rne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Plan de I x p o ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Le point tcrrninal de la frontiere terrestre sur Ia mer . . . . . . . .
Priode snti.rieure au traite de Tripoli de 19 10 . . . . . . .
Traite de Tripoli de 1 9 1 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
L'instruction de 1904 et la pretenduc ligne de 45" . . . . . . .
La guerre iialo-turquc de 19 1 I .191 2 : le blocus de la cote . . . .
L'incidcnt des bateaux grecs de 19 1 3 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Note verbale franaise. 9 seprenibre 1913 . .
Note verbale italienne . 2 wtobre 19 13 . . .
La soIution provisoire suegre par I'Italic . . . . . . . . . .
L'acquiescement franco-tunisien . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Leiire adresse par Ie rsideni gnral de France i Tunis a u
prsident d u conseil. 2 fvrier 1 9 14 . . . . . . . . . . . .
LettrcpcrsonneIIedu rsidentgenral.29janvier 1914 . . . . .
Note pour le directeur eeneral des travaux publics de la Rgence a
Tunis. 12 fevrlcr 1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Relations iialo-tunisiennes pendant l'entre-deux-guerres . . . . .
L e s (< instructions i i italiennes de 1919 et de 193 1 : les annes trente
Anne trente el suivantes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PLAIDOIRIE DE M . COLLIARD ( J A ~ ~ A H I R I Y AA R A B E LIBYENNE). . . .

Les droits historiques de la Tunisie. leur sens. Ieur vaIcur. leur porte .
1 . La prrendue unit de Ia zone des droits histor~ques . . . . . .
 I . La thorie artificieIIe dc I'unit d'une ir zone des droits
historiques ii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 . La rkaliik des activ~tcs humaines en matiere de pkhcries . . .
r r l L zone des hauis-fonds . . . . . . . . . .
1)) 1xs bancs d'ponges et la p k h e des eponecs . . . . . . .
3 . Le golfc d e Gabis et la rgion du golre de Gabs . . . . . .
r i l Les travaux des hydroeraphcs . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Id Notationsg~o~raphiquesetcartographiques. . . . . .
4 . Analyse juridique dcs droirs hisioriqites ii . . . .
<(

I I ) L'utilisation dc pcherics ixcs . . . . . . . .

hl La pche des p o n ~ e s . . . . . . . . . . .
Il. La lisnc de 50 metrcs. son Stablisscmcnt et sa valcur internatio-
MIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

r r l Ligne nouvellc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1)) LC sens des lieties : surveillance . caracrere administratif .

rrl L'absence de procdure internaliotialc dans I'iabIissemcni

de la liene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
hl La non-rcconnaissance inlernaiionle de la Iigne . . . .
il L'absence de prcisions . . . . . . . . . .
ii) L'absence de reconnaissance formelle . . .
iii) Les con tesrations formelles des lig~ies. . . .
111 . Des ddriis tr historiques ii aux rCeIementarions modernes : les
co~itradictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A . 1..es testes inlcrncs tunisiens . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I . Lc dkcret d u 26 juillet 195 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 . La Ioi 62-35 du 16 octobre 1962 . . . . . . . . . .
3 . La loi dix 6 dcccmbre I 963 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 . La Ioidir 7aoi 1 9 7 3 ~ ledcretdu
1 3 novembre 1973 . .
B . Ixsaccords intcrtiationaux dc p i ~ h crlxenrs . . . . . . . .
Conlusion gnrale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Le rgime juridique des i( droits historiques et les principes
fondamentaux de l'instirution (i plarcau continental i ) . . . . . .
Droits historiques et dlimitation du pIateau continc~ital . . . . .
A . Les mcanismes de I'insti1~1iondu plateau continental . . .
1 . Le determinisrne physique
Le droit inhkrent . . . . . . .
Le prolongement naluret . . . .
La rnaximc la terre domine la mer ii
((

2 . La base non volorilariste de la thorie du plateau coiiti-

nental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B . Le role des droils historiques
 Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Value of sciciitific evidcnce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
View of continenia1 sliclf as ~eoniorphoIo~ical reaiurc ~ i o wwholl y
discreditcd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ReIevant area of the ontiiictital shcIf in lhis case part of PcIagian
Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Origins of Pclaeian Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nature of Pelaeian Block today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Balhymeiric evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1s shelf a proloiigatio~ieaslwards o r I'tinisia or iiorth wards of Tunisia
andtibya
TIic 'Tunisiail case rcsts IargeIy on bath y met rical atid ~eomorphoIo-
gicaI evidcnce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sincc dispule about oil resources . &cologicaIevidcnce importani . .
RcIationship o r shcIf to laiidniass to he deduced rrom geology
(itiduding plaie lcctonics) and ph ysiograph y . . . . . . . .
The Tunisisir argumenl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thc Libyati scierirific areurnerit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tunisian criticisms of Libyan scicntific argunieiit . . . . . . .
Thc geographical position

Thc rccent ~eoIoeical developrnent or rhe arca contradicts rhc

Tuiiisian "iratisvcrsals" argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Original Mesozoic coiilinenra1 m a g i n of North Africa norlh-facing . .

African and Europcan plares coIIidcd east of -linc Gulf of Gabes-
Western Sicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Grabens In Pelagian Sca closely relatcd to those of Sirt regiori . . . .
EVIOENCE OF DR FABKICIUS (LIBYANA R A B J A M A H I R I Y A ) . . . . .
Examinatioii of Dr . Fabricius by I'rofasor Boweii . . . . . . . .
Origin and evolution of Mediterranean Sea . . . . . . . . . .
CoIIision of ihe Europcan and African Plates upjiftcd Tutiisia . . .
Pclagian Block rctnained almosr unchanged . . . . . . . .
Libyan descriptions of Norrh African shoreIine in remote apes IIOL
spcculativebuiaccurate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
North African shorel~ne'sproIonplion is northward . . . . . .
No geoIogicaI juslificatiori for regardlng Pclagian Sea as an
extension to the east . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Prtsent Tunisian shoreline produccd by iiplift of African Plate to
rorm Atlas Mouritaiiis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A rca of interferencc of Ailasian and African tectonics . . . . . .
North-south axis from near Tunis almosi to Gabes rhe westerii
.. boundary of Pelapian Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 unisian "transversaIs" argumenl oronIy Iitnited vaIue . . . . .
~helfareaoneoffiindamenraI~colo~icalcontinuity . . . . . . .
X I \' CONTINENTAL SHELF . PLATEAU CONTINENT A I.

Thc bloc diagrarns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sitlr~ir7Ti~~oii~niir0f~#particuIar~ignificance . . . . . . . . .
i i ~ ~ x sicep. nor an crosiorial featurc
The .fiilrrisrs s t ~ ~ i s - i ~ i r i r ineither
nor an ancien1 shorcline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ridc.(IeZi r-(1 nota truc ridge but rather a bank . . . . . . . . .
Salt domes off the Libyn Coast of differcnt oripin and strucliire
from Atlasian domcs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tttnisian argument that bath y metry of contiiiental shclf represeiits
a series of "terraces" wilhout meril . . . . . . . . . . . .
Relarionship between lonian Abyssal Plain and conlinenta1 shelf
withoui scientilic merit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conlinenta1 shelf not an eastward prolongarion orTunisia . . . .
Conl~ncntalshelf a prolongation of landniass ro the south . .
Cross-cxaminationoTDr.Fabriciusby ProfessorVirally . . . . . .
Legal and peological notions of the coiilinei~taI rnargiii do not
coincide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Expert's uiidersiandingof natural prolongation . . . . . . . .
A R A B JAMAHIRIYA) . . .
ARGU~ZENTOF PROFESSORBRIGGS(LIBYAN
Application orequitable principles in circumstances of casc . . . . .
Parties agreed on importance of equirablc principlcs in this case . . .
Relationship hetwecn law and equily according to 1969 Judgment . .
Relation of the conccpt of natural proIongation to cquitahle principles .
Equitsbleprinciplesand~relevaiiicircumstances. . . . . . . . .
Proportionality as an equitable principlc . . . . . . . . . . . .
N e w accepred trends in Third United Nations Con ference on Law of
the Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ARGUMENTOF MR. HIGHETILIBYANARAB J A M A H I R I I ' . ~ . . .
I . [ ntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Libyan i~iter~retation of what Court asked to do by SpeciaI
Agreement differs from Tunisian . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 . The roIe of the Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cour! not askcd lo set out a specifrc rncthod of deIirnitation . . . .
In ternational law recognizes on1y lirniied nurn ber of possible
rncthods ordelimitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 . The roIe of the Parties and experts . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Libyan view of whai Parties and their experts have 10 do a f ~ c r
Judgmenl differs from Tunisian . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tunisia conslders rolc of experts minimal . . . . . . . . . .
Significance of Article 3 orSpecial Agreement . . . . . . . . .
The guidance Court should give experts in its Judgrnent . . . .
Practical method Tor application or principles and rules of
inrernational Iaw in this case . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 . Narural prolongation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Direction of "1iaiura1prolongation" in this casc . . . . . . .
How 10 deterrninc cxact line of delimitation ~hcrcfrom . . .
Principle or non.cncroachinent . . . . . . . . . . . .
 5 Rclevri~it circunisiaiiccs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Siaics involved adjacent Siaies . . . . . . . . . . . .
Coiilincntal shelf in qiiestion honiogcniwiis 111 characrer . . . . .
"Gciicral conliguraiioii of the coasts of ihc Parlics" . . . . . .
Prcscnce o f oihcr Srarcs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LcgisIat ive eiiacrtiictirs of the Pariics . . . . . . . . . . . .
ExistcnceoToil ficIdsatidwcIIswiihit~a~eaofconcern. . . . .
Iriipomtice OC wesicrn boundary of Libyaii PetroIciinl Zone No. I .
Northivard projcctioii rrom Ras Ajdir iiccords with maritinle
jurisdiction cxcrciscd by Parties in thc area . . . . . . . . .
Northward projection does noi dcpriuc 'fuiiisia or ils shclf iii
rclcvanl rca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Such projeciioii rvouId no1 place #il fields drillcd tindcr coiiccssioiis
granted by onc Parry i t i sheIfarca of the orher . . . . . . . .
Such projectioti woirld probably Ievc the two scdiincnt basi~isto
Tunisia. consisteril with "unily of dcposits" (parii . 97 of 1969
Judgmeni) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Such projcctioii coiisistcnr wiih lasr directional trend or laiid
boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Such projection respccis Ihe natioiil security of ihc i w o Parties . .
Libyari practical nicthod not a forniula or pre~cripiion . . . . .
6 . Tunisia's distortiori of out- case
Ras Yonga approxiinatc point whcre Tunisian cwasiliiic turns . .
"Areii of concern" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kolc of the 197 1 ItaIo-'ruiiisian dclimitatioii . . . . . . . .
Thc rerritoriaI sca bou~idary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tuiiisiaii liiie would pass in front oTTripoIi . . . . . . . . .
Libyan litie would no1 encroach upon Kerkciiiiah shoals and banks
or spoiige fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Northward Iine subsianlially perpendicular to coasls concerned? .
Tunisian "shearor liiics" miich Iess perpendicular . . . . . . .
7 . TunisiaS casc . .
RcIcvanr circ~iiiistanccs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bathymctry . geomorphology and thc configiiration of rhc coasrs
cmphasized by Tunista . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tcctonics a n d the conlincntal drift rejccicd by Tiinisia . . . . . .
Tirnisia's "historie r~ghts". . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thc 1969 Jrrdgmcnt did not cvcn rcfer io fishing priictices .
Libya's sponge grounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Existing oil weIIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
QUESTIONS PUT BY JUDGES . MOSLER
GROS . Ot)r\ AND SCHWEBEL

.. borderland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The
1 hc concepts of a succession of constituent eIemcnts of the
continental margin . and of the direction of ihc continental
margin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tiinisia's gcncral bathymetric casc . . . . . . . . . . . .
h b1 CON-TINENTA1. SkIEI-F .PLATIiAU CONTINENTAL

Actual or poietitial dctiniitatiotis with orhcr States . . . .

-I'i~nisiri's cxclusivc ccononiic zone of 200 inilcs musr Iic in
direction of Ioniari Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
KcIationship o f abovc to iiaiural prolongaiion . . . . .
Rciiiorcncss of certain ph ysical fcaiurcs rclicd on by Tunisia
8. Siiiiiriiary arid coi-icIrisioi~s
STATEMEN'I'BY H.E. i\4 R . I:L MAGHURILIBYANA R A B J A X ! , ~H I R I Y A )
Submissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[-escinq questions siir Icsqiiclles porteront les pjaidoirics tuiiisiennes .

Volontf d c la Tirnisie de voir trancher Ic difftrcnd ct qilesrion des
riegociariotis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kepotisc i I'accirsa~ioti d'cxpatisionnisnic vcrs l'est sur icrre cl eii
111cr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
REPLY OF I'ROFESSOH JENNINGS (TUNISIA). . . . . . . . . . . .
Lai\pgovcrning dclimitaiioii of continental sheIf boiitidartcs . . . . .
Rclvanc.orscientificcvidence and niatcrials . . . . . . . . .
Development of legaI institution of continenial shelf . . . . . . .
Judgc Mosler's firsi quesiioti . relationship between tiaiural pro-
Iongaiion aiid 200-mile lirnii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rclaiiotiship to deliniiiaiion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gcolsgy and Gcography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Equitable priticiples and relcvatit crrcumstanccs . . . . . . . . .
Libya's relevant circunlstanccs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 . "Thc laiid rronricr" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 . "Continuous shclf" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 . Thc"generaI"configi~rationorthecaastsofihcParrics . .
Tuntsian coast from Ras Ajdir ro Gabcs . . . . . . . . .
Tunisian tsIand of Jerba . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tiriiisian Coast frotii Gabes to Ras Yonga . . . . . . . . .
T~~nisiati coasi froni Ras Yonga to Ras Kapoirdia . . . . . .
I>cveIopinciil of Libyan "praciical rncthod" . . . . .
Kerkennah archipelago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The GulroTGabcs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
lrrclcvancc or saiting directions to baselines indicaiiiig
sovcreignty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 . Third-Statc dclimiiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 . Legislaiion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 . 011 fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7 . Naiional securiiy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tiiiiisiari rclcvan t circi~n~sri-iiices. . . . . . . . . . .
The coasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Historic righrs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 Mcaning of Spccial Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
'TransIaiion or Arabic original . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LegaI cffcct of rcference in Article 1 . paragraph 1 , Io cquitable
principles and relevant circumslances which characterizc lhe area .
"New scceptcd trends in the Third Coiifcrencc on the Law of the Sea" .
Meaning of Article I . paragraph 2. of Spccial Agreement . . . . . .
Libyan criticism of Tuiiisian interpretation of Article 1. paragraph 2 .
Libyan interpretatioii of Article 1 , paragraph 2, not supporied by
Ariiclc 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . .
PROJECTIONOF FI LM THETUNISIAIV
SHELF A N D THE GULF01.' GARES
THE RI' TUNISIA. . . .
Low- DE ELE~ATIO,\IS . . . . . . . .
Non-periincnce en I'especc de l'histoire d e la froniiere terrestre . . .
Titres historiques de la Tunisie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rapports enlrc la thorie des titres historiques e i celle dii plateaii
conlincnlaI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Refuiation de la prescntalion des fairs par la Partit adverse . . . .
Existence des titres historiqires . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
La dclimitation a biifici de la tolrance internalionale . . . .
Attitude itaIiennc a IYgard de l'isobathe des 50 mtres . . . . .
Aiiitude iiallennc a IYgard dc la ligne nord-est 45' pcndani la
pcriode 1904- 19 I 1 . . . . . . . . . . .,. . .

Attitude ilallennc a l'6gard de la Iigne nord-cst 45" pendaiil

In lre-deux-guerres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Attitude italienne a I'gard dc la Iignc nord-est 45' du dobut des
annecscinquanleri nosjours. . . . . . . . . . . . .
I . 1-a legislaiion tunisienne et I'abscncc d'opposition de la
Libye. . . . . . , . . . , . . . . . . . . .
2. La Igislation Iibycnne . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 . Les accords dc pE hc itliIo-tunisiens dc 1 45 3. 1 97 1 et 1975 .
Conclusion

Remarques genraIes sur Ies points de dsaccord el les maIcniciidus

subsisiani cnire les Parties quani aux donnkes ph)'si'qucs . . . . .
DonnPes gographiques. . . . . . . .
Donnes gcoIogiques . . . . . . . . .
iVouhirarird t111.1isret thoric de Ia formation gologique des
marges continentales de type atlantique. . . . . . . . . .
Arricle 76 du projet de convention sur Ie droit de la mer . . . .
Approche continentale el importance des rivages fossiles .
Gricf adresse a la Tunisie d'avoir cart Ia geoIogie et notamment
Ia goIogie ancienne . . . . . - . . . - - - . . - - .
EcheIIedepertinence~idcsdonnesphysiques . . . . . . .
<(

Contradict~onentre la thorie juridique iiouveIle fondc sur 11s

prsence de rserves d'hydrocarbures et la notion de prolonge-
ment naturel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
XVIII CONINENTAI- SHELF .I'LATEAU COKI'INENTAL

IReservat~onby Sir Francis VaIlat conccrning Tunisian docutnenrs]. . .

Faits spcc~fiquessur lesquels il y a accord ou dEsaccord cntre les

Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Situation geoIogique transitoire privilgie par la Libye . . . . .
RaIits geomorphologique de la rgion . . . . . . . . . .
Mthodes libyennes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mlhode fonde sur Ia Iigne pur nord . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mthode correctricc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mrhode des petits pas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mthodes tunisiennes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Crit iqucs adresses ii L'ensemble des mithades tunisiciiiies . . . .
a Faisceau de lignes i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Omission de circonstances hautement perrinenks . . . . . . .
Affirmations de juridiction rsultani de la Ieg~slarionIibyenne sur
Ics ponges ei les permis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Giscmen ts et forages ptroliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Configuration des cotes des deux Erats : inequit dc la mthode
de l'cquidistance et pertinence dt la mthode dc la bissectrice
transIate, en t'espce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cririques adresses a chacune des mthodes tunisiennes . . . . .
iMel hode de la ligne des crtcs . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mthode physiographique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Les deux mthodes gomtriques . . . . . . . . . . . .

REPLY 01:PROFESSOR JENNINGS (TUNISIA) . . . . . . .

PrincipaI remaining differences between Parties . . . . . . . .
So-caIIed areas orconcern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Relations hip of coast and sea-bed . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ConcIusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rponse a la question de M. Gros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
REJO~NDEROF SIRFRANCISVALLAT (LIBYANA R A B J A M A H I R I Y A ~. .
The Speciat Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RoIe of the Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Meariing of "relevanr circumstances" . . . . . . . . . . . .
Meaning of "new accepied trends" . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Article 3 of Special Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
Meaning of terrn "area"or "areas" in Articles 1 2 and 3 of Special
Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The question of "the crilicaI date" . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Principles and rules of international Iaw . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nature of "naturaI proiongation" . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 CONI-I3NTS . TABLE DES MATICRES

The qucstion of "the criticaI date" . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Principlcs and rules of internarional law . . . . . . . . . . .
Nature of "natiiral prolongation" . . . . . . . . . . . . .
REPLIQUE DE M. ~IALINTOPPI (JAMAHIRIYAA R A B E LIBYENNE) . . .
Les cinq points de la thke tibyenne reIarive aux dlimilations Iaterales
des juridictions tunisienne et libyenne . . . . . . . . . .
1. Frontiere terrestre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11 . Ligne de 45' de I904 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 II . Blocus des cotes de la Libye dkcrr par I'ltalie cn 1 9 1 I . . . .
I V . SoIuiionprovisoiresuggereparI'l~alieenI9I3 . . . . . .
SiIcrice des autorits franaises . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Situarion de Intre-deux-guerrcs ct instruciions l~byennespour
la surveillance de la pche maritime . . . . . . . . . .
Ligne de 20' a 2 2 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
V . Situaiion depuis la scconde guerrc mondiale . . . . . . . .

Recul de la thSorie tunisienne des droits historrques . . . . . .

I. La thorie d'une prtendue zone de droits historiques . . . .
Thsc de l'unile de la zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A . L'ariifice ou la technique de l'amalgame . . . . . . . .
IRcservation by Professor Jcrinings conccrning a Li byan document1
R E P L ~ Q U EDE M . COLLIARD (JAMAHIRIYAA R A B E LIBYENNE)( b l i i l r ~ )
B . t'artifice du pscudo ecosysternc i i
(<

111 Lc plan gographique . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

hl Le pIan conomique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11. Les variations du rgime d'une prtendue zone historique . .
Variations des Iignes marquant les Iimites des prtentions mari-
times tunisiennes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Variations des rgimes juridiques . . . . . . . . . . .
1 . La prerniere . la plus longue : 1904- 195 1 . . . . . . . . .
2 . La zone de pCchc rservee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 . La mer territoriale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 . La zone con~igua la mer territoriale . . . . . . . . . .
5 . L'cxtcnsion territoriale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Loi ct dcret tunisiens de 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Carre prsente a Ia Cour par la Tunisie . . . . . . . . . .
ProbIrne des lignes de base droircs . . . . . . . . . . . .
jusrification de cemines Iignes par I'exislcnce de pcheries fixes

Essential difference beiween Parties over scientific evidence conccrns

direction of natural prolongation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tunisian ihesis on narural prolorigaiion . . . . . . . . . . . .
Libyan thesis on natural proiongarion . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Tunisian assertion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
XX CONTINENTAL SHELF .P L A T E A U CONTINENTAI.
P ~ I ~ c ~
The Libyan thcsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
Tunisian thesis contradicted by a11 geologicaI cvidcncc . . . . . . . 401
Tunisiail bathymetric argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401
Tunisian geographica1 argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401
REJOINDER OF M R . HICHE-r(LIBYAN A R A SJAM~I~~IRIYA). . . . . . 409
1 . The Tunisian "inethods" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
Lines one i a time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
Coasilines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411
Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412
2 . The Libyan practical inethod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 5
3 . Tunisia's attacks on ottr case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 8
Thc brown li~iein Figure 3.0 I of the Tunisian Co~itiier-MeinoriaI .
AlIcged Libyan faiIure lo givc exainples of Srare pracricc
prolonging laiid boundary seaward aloiig its gcncrnl dircc~ioii .
Encroachnicn t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AIIcged Libyan falsification of F A 0 tnap orspoiigc-llshirig in Libya .
'fhc L~byan"marginal area of divcrgctice"(diagrani i t i para . 502 or
Libyan Countcr-MetnoriaI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Libyan and Tunisian oiI wcIIs thal wouId be affccted by Tunisian
and Libyan proposais respectivcly . . . . . . . . . . . .
AlIcged drilling pcrmiited by Libya iii disputed arca after signaturc
ofSpeciaI Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Libyan Petrolcum Law or 1955 and Hegulatroii issued pursuant
thereto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Atleged Libyan argument thal access to oil dctermincs narural
prolongation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RUOINIIER OF SIR FRANCISV A L L A T(LIBYANA R A RJAMAHIRIYA) . . 426
RoIc of Court undcr Spccial Agreemeni . . . . . . . . . . . 426
Balhyrnctry not an appropriatc criferion for coniirrenta1 shelf
dclimiiatioii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426
Consisiency or oihcrwise or Libyan and Tunisian cases . . . . . . 427

READING OF THE JUDGMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432

Documents submitted io the Court after the closure of the rvritten

prweedings .Documents prbsents Ia Cour a p r h Ia cIture de Ia
procbdure &rite
DEPOSCS P A U L ' A G ~ ~DE
A . DOCUMENTS ~ TLA TUNISIE . . . . . . 437
I . Note du Secrtaire gnral des Nations Unies sur I'enregislremcnt
de l'accord cntrc la 'Tunisie et I'ltalie relatif a la dlimitation du
plateau continenlal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 7
 COWEN-TS - TABLE I>F! M A ' T I ~ R E S SS1

Fug<,
2. Extract froni the procccdings of i h c Italian Chainbcr of Depiitics
tWritten repliesio qucstbns):silringor3 August 1948 . . . . . 438
B DOCUMENTS I'ltED BI' TlIE AGENT 01' 'fHE LIBYANA R A B J,~MAI-II-
RIYA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439
1 . Defiiiition of 1he GuIfofGabes in hydrographie pubIicalions. . . 439
7. Argentiiia-ChiIc Frontier Case. Report of rhe Courr of Arbitration.
24 Rlarch 1966 IHMSO. 19G6,pp. 68-69) . . . . . . . . . . 44 1
3 . Dcrci di] 1 5 avril 1906 sur la pche mar~rimecbliere. Cricle
iiiiiioic; de ICI Titriisic. 'iii/?p1;(11011fiJc 1904. 1907. 1908. kl, Born-
pard. Nancy. 1909. no 3009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442

Correspondence - Correspondance. . . . . . . . . . . . 44 5

hlaps and Illustrations in this ~olumc - Cartes ct illustrations

contenues dans le prbscnt ~ n l u m c
L~giieIibycnnc dc 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
Zone du blocus italien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
Effcts des prolongemetits natrtrels dc deux cotes aiigle droil
Figures A a D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
Figure 1:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
 ORAL ARGUMENTS (Concludedl

MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC SITTINGS

PLAIDOIRIES {Srrite et jin)

DES AUDIENCES PUBLIQUES

PROCS-VERBAUX

s de iu Paix, a La Haye.
~ e ~ i i wUsI pu1lrlai.
~
dlc 29 srp~rt?rbre rric 2 1 ucfubrc 1981 ri lu 24 f k v r i ~ r1982.
SOIIS Iu pt.e>idc~t~ce de M .Elfus, Prgside~ri W I C J X C J ~ C ~ C P
 SIXTEENTH
PUBLIC SITI'ING i29 Ir; 8 1 . I O a.m.!

Presetrt : Acritig Presidcttr ELIAS: Judges FORSTER. GROS.LACHS.MOKO-

ZOV. NACENDHA SINGH.MOSLER. OUA. AGO. EL-ERIAN. SETTE-C,IAIARA.
SCH~VEBEL.EL-KHANI : Jirdgcs ad hoc E ~ ~ E N EJIA,IFINEZ
H. IIE ARECIIAG.~:
Regisrrar TORRES BERN~RDEZ.

STATEMENT O F MR. EL MAGHUR

AGENT FOR THE GOVEHNMEN'F OF l'HE LIBY-\N A K A B J A M A H I R I Y A

The ACTING PRESIDENT : The Cour1 wili loday begjn to hear rhe oral
argument on behalf of the Govertirnent of the Socialist People's Libyan t\rab
Jarnahiriya.
Mr. EL M A G H U R : I i i the name of Cod the MercifuI and Misericordous.
Mr. Presidenf atid Members of the Couri : il is a great honour and privilege
t o appear again berore this eniineni Court aftcr such a short interval.
I should like Io state at the outset whar you will perceive to be a major theme
running through my rernarks today. It is thal Libya is here before the Court to
ask for no more than what l t is legally cntitled 10. And whai Libya iseniiiled to
is not based on accusarions and criticisrns bu! on facts as lhey really are. As 1hc
Agent of Libya it wiII be rny duty to comment on a number of aspects of lhe
case that should never have arisen. But it ralls on me as Agent to do rhis so as
to lighten the Ioad of detail for counscl who follow me JO that lhey can gel a n
with the main elements o r the case. There are many things - many detaiIs -
ihat 1 could deaI with today. but I have tried to be quite seIective in order ihat
niy rernarks may be brief.
1 must conress tha! I and rny colleagues are a little hesitant about being brier.
Cfaving been so in the 1-ibyan Mernorial. we stood accused in the Tunisian
Countcr-h4ernorial of faiIing to inforrn the Court properly and ofoversimplifi-
cation. Sur wheii we sought 10 rcpIy adequately to the T u n ~ s i a nMenioriaI in
the Libyan Counter-Mernorial we were accirsed of attempling to swarnp the
Court with detaiIs to confuse and overcornpIicate lhe issues.
This theme sccms to be important to the Tunisian case since counsel for
Tunisia have persisted in it during the oral phase of this case as weil. For
examplc. Professor Jennings suggesied that the Libyan wriiien plcadings
onipriscd - ro use his words -
"a mass of scicnrific material so voluminous and wide-ranging thai il
must have raiscd acutely aIready in the minds of Members of the Court
the question of the Iegal criteria orrelevance or irrelevance that should bc
applied to ihis mass of rnaierial to make it manageable for purposes of
aclual decision on this question su bmirted lo the Courl".
Professor ViraIl y made sure the point was made again.
We shaIl not be thrown off rhe track by this sort of statenient. A n d further
along in my remarks 1 shaIl rcview the iechnical annexes and documcn-
tation furnished wiih the Libyan Counter-Mernorial and RepIy io show how
rnernorandum of 1976 11 8 M a y ) was circuIated by Tunisia. rhe tex1 of which is
reproduced in paragraph 4 1 of the I-ibyan Mcniorial. This charged aimosphere
led to resort oiice again to i he poIiiical IeveI and to a meeiing of minisiers of the
iwo coutiiries. Of the many joint problems solved betwcen the IWO couniries,
the continental-shelf marter was the only one to be settled. These consiiItaiions
Ied to issuance of the joint communiqu of 24 Augtit 1976, the iext of rvhich
is set forth in A n n e x I-I I to the Libyan Mernorial ( 1 . p. 529).
Froni this point uniil iioiification of ihe SpeciaI Agreenient IO ihis Court, the
coniaci beiween the Parties consisied of for mulaiing the Special Agreement,
and the Issues did not at al1 relate to negotiations reIating to the dispuie.
The Iasi contact at the polirical Ievet before notification to the Court of the
Special Agreement occurred when the Foreign Secretary of Libya atid the
Mitiisier of Foreign Afrairs of Tunisia signed ihe Special Agreemeni in ihe
preseiice of the Secretary-Ceneral o f the Arab League.
W hat does rhis history of contacts between the Parties corne down 10 ? 11 is
quiie cIear. There were only rIve meetings ai the poliiical level : the 1972
mecting of heads of Staie ; the two 1973 meetings of the Supreme Committee
presided over by rhe Prime M inisters which disposed of al1 rhe various issues
k t w e e n the two couniries excepi ihe continental shcIf which il sent back to
Ihe rechnical level for filrther work on ihe by-laws orthc single cntiry forjaiiii
esploitation ; the ministerial+Ievel meeting in Airgust 1976 from which the
joini communique to go to the Coitrl issued ; and rhe meeting in ~ h presencee
or rhc Secretary of the Arab Lcagiie.
There were scven meetings al the expert Ievel. Four were to work on the
draft by-laws of an entxty to conduct joini esploration and exploitation ; tIiree
invoived drafting and agreeing upon the Special Agreement 10 go lo the Courr.
None of rhese meetings of any joint groiip. {vas for ihe purpose or
negotiating a deliniiration of the continental shelf. Although such questions
and olher questions such as fishing and lhc territorial sea did corne up at the
expcri-level meetings. aiid views as IO thc respective positions of each
dekgaiion wcrc cxchaiigcd, i i was ncithcr wtthin ihe assignnient of the
con~miiieeilor the coinpetence of i h e delegates 10 negotiate such questions. No
agrecd upon olfrcial minutes were kept of ihose meetings.
The Tunisian altitude during this period was dear. For a period of 12 yers
between 1968 and 1980 : a Iitie of 4S0 from Ras Ajdir 10 the 50-metre isobath.
Beyoiid ihai poii~iTunisi clain~eda line of equidisrance.
Thus it is apparent that over a period of nine years of contacts beiween the
delegations of Tunisia and Libya to one cornmittee or ariorher there were no
rcal iiegotlatioiis o n delimitation between the two Parties, as ihat lerrn is
referred to in paragraph 87 of the Noi-111St~aCorltiiic.itfuiSl~cdfcases.11 is no1
truc that the dispute iii this case arose because of Libya's iniransigcnt altirude.
It was Tunisia rhal adhered 10 its preconceived posilion which it refused IO
rnoderate or even discuss. But the point of ail of this is not to Tix ihe bIame for
the lack of negotiations bu1 10 underline thc act that such negoliatioiis have
yet to occur. it is to rhe Court that the Parties look to esrablish the framework
for these negoiiations. jus1 as in paragraph 87 of the iVor~liScu Con~i~ic.~ilul
SIi<drdecision the Court said ihai "whatever the derails of the negoiiations
carried o n . . . ihcy failed of iheir purpose", and thai "fresh negotiations are to
takc pIace on the basis of ihe present Judgmcnt".
li is notewor~h y that during this same period the Parlies were able through
negotiations to sohe a large nurnber of other mattes and issues rvhich re-
sulted in agreements be~wcenthe iwo co~intries II will be recalIed ihat ihe
Libyan Counier-Mernorial {II)ar paragraphs 45 to 47 referred to 24 of such
8 CONTIHENTAL SHELF

two countries necessarily aflected everything that Libya did. a point to which I
shaII come to again a IiltIe furiher on.
Thus. to summarize ihis history of contacts beiwccn the Iwo States in
respect to the continental shelf. the following is appareni. First. the context in
which ihc contacts occurred. a1 leasl after 1972. was joint exploration and
exploitation and the formation of an entity to carry this out and not
deIimitation of the continental shelf. Second. ihe detaiIed discussions occurred
in meetings between experts and not at the po~itical~levc1. The focus of these
expcris was always qulte narrow. In one case. to draft the by-laws of an
entity ; in the othcr case. to draft a SpeciaI Agreement. The Iimited scope of the
experts can be seen. for exampIe. in the document anncxed to the Tunisian
Mernorial (l), Annex 23. with particular reference to the !hird to last
paragraph. appearing on page 54. TIiird. at the few poliriml-IeveI meetings
tha! did occur. agreement was reached - as Io joint exploration and
exploiiaiion. the details to be worked out by the experts. as to referring the
matter to this Court. and as io the terms of the Special Agreement. Fourrli.
when the subjcct of delimitation did corne up at the various meetings. Tunisia
deaIi with the subjcct by staiing and restating ils position. Thcre was no effort
a! compromise. except in rhc context of ihe very significant effort a i com-
promise made by Libya.
Nor was the Libyan aitiiude of compromise restricted to the proposa] for the
joini expIoration and expIoitation of the continental shetf. Another example.
mentioned in the Libyan Mernoria1 and Counler-Mernorial. is tibya's restraint
after the granting of a concession by Tunisia in 1966. I t wilI be recaIIed thai
below the 3 4 O paralle1 lhis concession moved easiward from the due norih Iine
rrom Ras Ajdir ihai formed a part of the eastern boundary of Tunisia's initlal
concession of 1965 to a line of 26" from Ras Ajdlr. Libya's first concession in
1968. inslead of adopting as its western boundnry a due north tinc from Ras
Ajdir - as its t 955 Petroleum Law and Regulations would have warranted -
avoided the possibility or conflici by adopring the same line. Libya has never
granled a conce.sion IO the wcsi of this 2a0 Iinc. net becausc ii saw iis
sovcreign rights ascnding at that line - atid in ihis regard Libya agrees with
Tunisia that a concession boundary is not a line of delimiiarion (see I V ,
Tunisian RepIy. para. 1.03)- but because its whole poiicy was Iinked to the
aim of uniiy and joint exploration a n d espIoitation. Withiii ihe context of
efforts !o agrec on the tcrms of joint exploration and cxploi!aiioii of the area.
the 26" Iine \vas a purel y provisional accommodation io avoid disputes.
A more dramatic effort at compromise occurred with Colone! GhadaiTi's
statement of 2 l u n e 1977. The full tex[ of this siatement and its EngIish
translation appcars as A n ~ i e x17 of the Libyan Counter-Mernoriat ( I I ) . To
quote briefly from this staternent. Colonel Ghadatrt said :
"Let Tunisia come to unily with Libya lomorrow. a unity that cnsurcs
equality of Tunisia and Libya insharing the oil. from the contincnta1 shelf
to the field of As-Sarir This is the correct h~sioricalsolulion."
N o w the oil fieId of As-Sarir is on the land territory of Libya sourheast of the
Gulf of Siri. I t is one or thc largcst oiI fields in the world.
What about ihe oiher Party in rhis case ? What were thcy up to during lhis
rime ? Asserting historic righu to a 4S0 line from Ras Ajdir lo the 50-metre
isobath - historic tights claimed to stem from a 1904 Instruction. Claiming
ihe right to delimitatioii after thai point on the 50-metre isobath along a Iine of
equidisiance. Granting a concession in 1972 that lunged IO the east of the
26" Iine to a poiiit roitghIy where an equidistaticc litie woriId have put thern.
Hardl y what can bc termed compromise !
And what eIse was the oiher Party in this case iip to during this period ?
Eive years aRer the Tirs1 contacts io discuss "maritime bouiidaries". in 1973
Tunisia amended a11 its earlier IegisIatioti. 1t closes the Gulf of Gabes - a girlf
never closed before. Ii invenr? new baseIiries fo esterid its terrirorial seas way
to the east arid discovcrs rocks around the Kerkennah Islands that were never
before recognized as appropriate for I he drawing of baselines.
\i7hal is the piciurc today as we conie beforc lhis Court in the oral
pleadings '! Whai are ihc positions of lhe Parties as reveaIed by their written
pleadirigs ?
Li bya's IegaI pairion is what it t w s in 1 968. VeIimitation sho~tldprocecd
norlhward. This position of Libya dales back toits 1955 PetroIeurn Law and
Regulalion. The map attached to that Regulation cIearl y indicates the inlcriia-
iional marilime bouiidary k t w e e n Tuiiisia aiid Libya w hich LIbya cIaimcd. I I
is indicaied by dors, it is tnie. Mr. Presideni, but this is the way international
boundaries xre shown on maps.
1 must lake a niorncnt here to mention a niatter dealt with iii some derail in
t h e Libyan Repl y. It relates to the Tunisian accusation on page 1 5, footnote
IS. of the Tunisian Counter-Mernorial (11) to ~ h effeci e ihat Libya had erro-
neousIy translated Reguialioii No. I iinplement ing the Libyaii 1 9 5 5 Petro-
Ieum Law and heiice had falsifieci ils meaiiing. The authors of t h e Tunisian
Counter-Mcmorial trit~sthave thoughi thcy had struck goId - gold rather
than oit apparently. Rut if this was ari effort to divert atteniion frorn thc main
point ii did not succeed.
To sumrnarize nwhat was said i i i the Libyati Reply, ~ h facl e rhat the Arabic
and EngIish lexls diverge, as qiiite correctly noted in the Tunisian Coutiter.
hlemorial, is of no significance whatever. The original test was prepared in
English back in 1955 for reasonsgolie inro i n the L-ibyan RepIy. The techtiicat
error occurred i i i piitting the Ei~gIishlexi inIo Arabic and not the reverse, so
i he Tiinisiaii acc~isationo f a deliberarc ralsiftcation by Libya of a docunien t
subm~ttedi o the Cour1 evaporiites into thin air. The fact that Arabic was alid
is ihe officia1Ianguage of Libya does nor aIler in aiiy way this fact. The Libyan
RepIy provided eslerisive doctinientatioti to set the record straight. but Tunisia
seenis beni on trying to keep the issue alive. lt was brortght up again duririg
the oraI hearings. 1 can undersland Tiinisia coiicern over this Law. Regu-
Iatioii atid hdap. 11 IS a n.iajor elemeni i r i ihc case and a relevalit circ~iin-
siaiice of the first order of iniporiaiice. R u t 1 shouId add, A4 r. President, thar
neitIier 1 iior the ~nernbersof the Libyaii delegation are acct1stomed to being
accuscd of deliberate falsification. It is oiit of respect for the Court thai otir
respoiise has b e n so resrrained.
1 shalI return again to the subjeci of lhis 1955 Iegislaiioii iii a few minutes. In
lhe nieaiitime. we shall place oii the easel an eiiIarged copy of Map No. 1 '.
which is in rhe roIder of each Judgc. This Map was of'cially published in the
Liloioti G(IIL#II~. 1 cal1 your attention to i he clcarIy marked in ternaiioiial mari-
time boundary indicated on this map.
There are I W O addirional points I wish lo nole at rhis stage. First, L.ibya had
allaincd iiidependence in 195 2 jus1 ihree years prior io the enactmeni of lhis
IegisIaiion and its publication aloiig witli Map No. 1 i i i the Qficicrl G(ize/rc3.
Sccotid. ii is significant to note lhar the Tunisiari Reply ( I V , para. 1.05) coii-

' Not rcproduced. (Sm1 . p. 467.)

SECilifm. Correspondencc. Na. 1 08. and I V . p. 5 1 2 , foornaie.
@ A bIue do[ has b e n pIaced o n ihc map 10~ndicaletlris well. Howeuer, the Isis
welI was driIled in rhat yeaI- and fonnd to be produclive. This i s s h o w ~ by
i the
yeIIow dot. U~iforlunately,a prodr~ctiveweII is ~ i o newsarily
t a co1nmercia1
weII, and at the f i ~ n elhat proved lo be thecase with Isis. Irrla~lyevenl, as the
Court can see fmrn Map 2 in IIie fo1de1-of each Judge, the weI1 was east of the
16" Ii~ie,and Libya contacred tIie French cornpariy conducti~igthe ope~'alions,
Total, and irrfor~nedit Ilrat the welI was Iocated o n Ihe Libyan concesion areas
and s h w I d be cIosed d o w ~ i .The cvmpany compIied wi1Ii rhis request, and the
Isis matier was dealt witIr w i l h w t pubIicify or propaga~ida.
I shaIl tu1-II~ r o wto the period aRer IheSpecial Agreerne~llwas not~fiedto Ihe
Court.
Unforiu~iately. lhe protesls of Tunisia co~rtinuedbut a new format was
adoptai, consisling of depositing IIie proiesrs with {Ire Registr-y of 1Iie Court,
certainiy a curious pmcedure. Libya o n the #Iller h a ~ i drefrained f r o n ~protast
bu1 instead reserved its right wilIr regard 10 protesls of Tunisia as to activities
. o n w hat Libya regardeci a s clearIy ils coritirrental sheI f. Libya did riai address
ilseIf tu iIre Regis11-ar. During Iliis period it did not rcquest that Tunjsia~i
activities hait o r that pIatfvrms be removed at once. But again, there was aIi
effort tv make incidents, to pretend tIiat Libya \vas stealing so~neoneeIse's oiI
Not onIy did Tu~iisiase~rdto the Registry its own protests, but it aIso se111the
Liby an Iespoilses and reservatio~rsof posiiion - eveIy piece of paper !
Naw there was one raervatio~iby Libya which Tu~risiasingled out and
na de a great fuss over in the Tunisian Counrer-Mernoriai. This was a prolesi
i11voIvi1rg activit ies of the Doirg/~sCarvw at coordinates w hich w Iien plotted
pIaced rhe activities to the west o f a due norlh Ii~ieand due east of rIre GuIf of
@ I l a ~ n n i a ~ n e tP~I-agraphs
. 8. IO and 8.1 1 and Figure 8-01 of the Tunisian
Counter-Mernoria1 III > make the most of rhis dipIo~naticnote fro~nLibya. But
it strains credulity ta suggest tlral Tunisia was nd aware 1Iiat this dipIo~nalic
note of IO July 1980 containeci an obviorrs error. 1 need 110s take up the
Caurt's lime witIi lhe deta11s. The maIrCr is fuIIy discussed and docu~nentedi ~ i
the Libyan RepIy, paragraphs 15 to 20, which 1 respectfuIIy inuiie fhe
MenTbers of the Court tu exainine.
The DuligItrs Carvu. matter is another iIIustration of Irow incide~iishave
b e n created or attempted to be created to d~screditthe position of Libya. N o
one couId Iravt seriousIy beIieved thai Libya c1ai1nd areas of continental sl~eif
in the GuIf of H a m ~ n a ~ nwest e t of a due north Iine. TIie Libyan view of how
Ille law shouId ~ n o s practicaIIy
t be app11edin tI-resecircumstances, set forth in
the Libga11Counter-MeinoriaI, i ~ ~ s t e aEnds d Libya veering tv tIie northeast to
reflect relevanr circumstances reIating to the gmgraphy of Tunisia - and the
geology of tIie PeIagia~rBIock - and this veeri~igwas propmed to occur way
down south rougiri y at the paraIIel of Ras Yunga. And yet during the orai
hea~.ingsthe Trrnisian counsel pe1-sisted i11 projecting a due rrorth Iine up past
lhe Gulf of Hammamet.
Libya is rot inte~estedin playing gaines before IIre Court. Ils posilio~rsare
adva~icedserionsIy. And il takes iIie case seriousIy as the weaIrh d d o c u n ~ e n t s
and dala. furnished Io the Coufi ind~cares. It is rror suggesti~~g some extreme
claims Io the w-1 of due ~rorthto better it? negotialing posiiiw. It R a s not
fou~idan "abyss-saI plain" to wh~cIrit Fan direct aIr orrlrageous Iine fIial wouId
cIearIy infringe on the sovereign righls of Tu~risia.
To express 1Iie way we feeI about al1 these ~natters1 shouId Iike 10 invite the
attention of IIle Members of rhe Court to tIic Libyan RepIy, paragaph 20.
If Ihe case befoi-e iIie Court invclIved a partage rather than a qrrestion
concerni~lgdeIi~nilation.then the Tunisian IaciIc of exaggerated c1ai1ns and
16 CONTINENTAL SHELF

i~icide~rts:~nightbc bet1e1- unde~stood. I t w0111d be lo stake out a sort of

extreme ~ i e g o t i a ~ ipasitio~r.
~ig Brrt here w e are deaIing wilh the application of
the principIes and ruIes to the 'true fach. The Parlies Irave a duty Io assist the
Court. no1 to co~ifusea ~ r dcomplicate tire picture.
Le1 Ine co~icludethis unpleasan[ cIiapte1-by saying thal it is no1 m y purpose
here to revive these aIIeged inciderits and su-caIIed disputes. The Libyan
Me~noriaIcavered ~ h i era s very bi-iefly. However. Libya has been forced lo set
rhe record straiglrt as a I-esuIlof aIIegalions made in the Tunisitr~iMe~noriaIa ~ r d
Corrnrer-MernoriaI. T o parapirrase a weII-known remark frorn Shakespeare's
play. fulilis Caescir: 1 have conle to bury our differences rot lo prase iIie~n.
1 have already mentioned thal lhe principal characferistics of Libya's actions
and alrirudes since 1952. w hen Libya achieved its independence. W ~ I resf - e rai111
and I-esponsibility. I t is ioo bad Ihat Tunisia has 1101bee~iwiIIing to recog~~ize
the fact of ratraint and Ihat the authors of the Tunisian Repljr at page 1 8 have
agai~iqncs~ioiiedLibya's motives in This respec1. W e are content ta IeI the facts
speak for thernseIves-
B y 1968 - tlre year of Libya's firsl off-shore co~icessio~r and IIre year
discussio~~s between the Parties conin~enced- "funisia's niai-iti~ne clairris were
to be fou~rdin its 1963 Law. This fullowed o n the heeIs of a Iaw enacted in
1962 which Tu11isia had repeaIed, and failed tu mention the text in their
pIeadi~igso r during the oraI hearings. The 1 962 Law cIaimed a territorial sea
out to the 50-metre isobath frorn Ike paraIIeI o f Ras Kaboudia to the point of
interseclion wilh a li~ie4SQ from Ras Ajdir. This assertion. which mer with
objection f1-51nother ma^-ihe powers, is geographicaIIy depicted on Map
No. 1 1 appeariIrg opposite page 50 of the Libyan Counler-MernoriaI. togetIier
with the territorial sea cIairns of the 1952 and I 953 Tunisian Laws. The 1 962
Law was the Ers1 Turrisian legisIation to purport to deaI with lateral ~ n a r i t i ~ n e
Iirnib. because the 1904 Ins11-uclionand thc 195 1 D ~ r e invoIved
e o1i1y fIsIi11rg
zones and areas of surve11Iance. Su aIso did the 1968 Tunisian fishing
IegisIation. Yel lhe Iaw of 1 473. wlriclr abrogated tlje 1962 Law. faiIed to deaI
wilh IaleraI bonndaries and onIy mentioned a 11neof 4S0 from Ras Ajdir in the
distrnctIy d~fferenrcoIirexr of a contiguous Iishirrg zone beyond the six-miIe
territorial sea as praclaimed by the Law. This. of course, is in contrast to the
1955 Libyrin PetroIeum Law and Regulalion and Map No. 1 . the Map
depicting Libya's pasitio~ias to such bou~idaries. Thus when the 1968
discussions between Tunisia and Libya cornme~iced.Tunisia had taken no
IegisIalive step to state iIs cIainl a s lo IateraI boundaries and Libya did.
MOI-wver.lhe eastern Iimits of the 1955 Tunisia~ico~icessionsfoIIowed a due
no^-th Iine Tor a distance of some 5 7 -7nautical rniIes. start~nga few nil les off
Ras Ajdir. apparently respecting rhe Libyan claim.
In 1968. Tui~isiahad ils coasts. its grrIfs (one cloSed. others 1101:. ils fishi~rg
waters. ils ba~rks arou11d tlre Kerkennah IsIands. and its isIands I s o ~ n e
do~ni~raied by agricuItri~e.otirers by tuurisrn:. In 1968 T u ~ i i awas guided by
onIy mie 1ne1Iiodi ~ rI-espectto delimitarion - the nlcthod of equid~sta~rce. AI I ~
i ~ rsubseque~rt years il no1 onIy s o informed Libya repeatedIy. but aIso
Aquitai~ie.the French oil concc.rsionnaire with adjoi~ii~ig concessio~rsfrom
buth Libya and Tunisia. a ~ r dthe worId a l Iarge including ultirnateIy the
Secretary-GeneraI. the Security CuunciI. the OAU. rhe League of Arab Stales
and every fureign mission accredited to Tun~sra.
c e been in 1958 from the slandpoint a i
What wouId ~ q u i d i s t a ~ ~have
Trrnisia ? I t wouId have been ~neasuredf1'onr tIie normal Iow-water mark;
tirere werc no baselines tha1 cIosed tIie Gulf of Gabes. Nor were there
baseIines encIosing the banks around 1Ire Kerkennah IsIands and EI Biban-
 STATEMENT OF MR. EL M A G H U R 17

There was no 45' line. and no 50-metre isobath. so far as territorial waters or
maritime sovereignly were concerned : thesc had been Iegislatively erased in
the 1963 repudiarion of the 1962 Law. There was no Tunisian protest to the
1955 Libyan Pelroleurn Law. There were no previous activities or concessions
east of the 2 6 O Iine. And the "Ionian Abyssal Plain" and the ligties de creres
had yet to be conjured up.
Then a Libyan onShore concession was granled. Tunisia iniriated the first
meeting between the Pariies. and Libya was informed that in view of Tunisian
"historic rights" Ihere was nothing to discuss untiI one arrived at the
intersection of a 4S0 line from Ras Ajdir with the Sa-metre isobath. Everything
to t hc West of such a line was beyond discussion.
1 have already mentioned that a line or equidistance starting at Ras Ajdir
presented problems for Tunisia. II ran to the wesi of due norih for a whiIe. So
4SQ to the 50-metre isobath became a non-discussable position. But this was
not good enough. The oit was further io the east. and to the south of a n y
equidistance Iine. 50 in 1975 a new Tunisian law and decree proclairning new
baselines and, in particular. closing the Gulf of Gabes is enacled. A lready in
1972 a new concession had k e n granted lunging far to lhe east to
approximately where an equidislance line from the ncw 1973 baseIines would
corne.
I should digress here to mention that in the Tunisian Reply at paragraph
3.37 ~ h impression
e is given that the Libyan proposais would allocate to Libya
a large part of the offshore petroIeum resources of Tunisia. But none of the oiI
wells Iisted as Iying east of any Iine of direction which we would consider as
bcing appropriate and consistent w it h the legal principles and ruIes applicable
are productive oil weIls - and ihere are no productive gas fields among thern
either. They haire been abandoned by Tunisia.
Now whar was the object of ihis rernarkable piece or legislation in I973? II
was to atrernpt to remove frorn consideration a huge chunk of the confinenla1
sheli. A n area termed the "GuIf of Gabes" but bearing no resemblance to its
proper geographic lirnits is closed off by a baseline running from a base-point
that does not even appear on French maritime charts to Ras Turgueness on the
Island of Jerba. I respeclfuIIy ihvite the attention of the Members of the Court
to a map in the foIder of each Judge to illuslrate what 1 am saying. To this
enormous area is added a I 2-mite territorial sea. Thc resuIt in certain areas is
to exceed even the area covered by the 50-metre isobath. Base-points around
the Kerkennah Islands are also selected. many of them invalid under
internaiional standards. To this area is also added a 12-mile territorial sea.
However, the 1973 Tunisian Law and Decree did no1 mention lateral
boundaries. A n attempt to f i I l this gap was started in 1968 by the Tunisian
daim of a 4S0 line out frorn Ras Ajdir to the 50-meire isobath. a claim based on
alleged "historic rights" and citing in support the 1904 Instruciion - an
interna1 circular thai relates only to "zones de surveillance". not maritime
boundaries and in any even! daes no! specify a line of 4S0.
During this period Tunisia entered into a ,series of fishing agreements with
Italy. It also sought a basis for claiming intcrnationat acquiescence in a lateral
baundary with Libya o f 4S0 out to the 50-metre isobath. The fact that this
boundary is mentioned in fishing agreements with IiaIy is or no legal
signifieance. ItaIy can no longer decide Libya's boundaries. Of course. Ilaly
had no coricern over the Iaterat boundary with Libya. It had no interest as to
its locatton. The fishing agreements were unrelated to deIimitation between
Libya and Tunisia of the territorial waters or the continentat shclf.
The delimitation agreement reached berween Tunisia and ItaIy in 197 1
 18 CONTINENTAL SHELF

serval serveral useful purposes for Tunisa. It secured for Tunisia a defined
continenral shelf between Ras K a h u d i a and Cap Bon and on io Lhe north. The
equidistance line was caIcriIated giving lsmited effect to the Italian Pelagian
Islands. But the agreement also affected parts of the continentaI shelf
appertaining to Libya and to Malla. The Iine on the southeast side of the
delirni~aiionhas the effect of blocking Libya and MaIb from areas of the
@ ,conlinerilal shelf. This Iine was greatly extended by Tunisia in its figure 1.01
in the Tunisian Memorial so far as even to hook up with an equidistance line
between Libya and Tunisia. The extent to which the Iine was extended so far
@ into areas appertaining to MaIia and ro Libya is shown in Figure 3 of the
Libyan Counter-Mernorial. Ii is not surprising that MaIw, in the intervention
, it necessary to inform the Court that it did not recognize the
p r ~ e e d i n g s felt
agreement between Italy and Tunisia.
This completes a chapter of this brief history. The part of the continenta1
shelf norrh of Ras Kaboudia is already deIimited in the ItaIian-Tunisian Treaty .
An enormous area caIIed the "GuIf of Gabes" is swallowed up by a cIosing
basetine to which an additiona1 1 2-mile territoria1 sea is added. A 4S0 Iine
from Ras Ajdir ro the 50-metre isobath is claimed on the bais of "historic
rights". New Tunisian concessions are granied far to the east. The southeast
part of the line of deIimitation with ItaIy is quite improperIy extended so as to
block off Libya and Malta and conneci up with an quidistance line between
Libya and Tunisia. While this is happening, the world is being given the
impression that Libya is obsrinateiy refusing to negotiate with Tunisia and
exploiting Tunisia's naiurat resources.
The Tunisian written ptestdings have made much of the fact t hat no forma1
protest of the 1973 Tunisian baseIines was made untif 1979, afieter the SpeciaI
Agreement had b e n notified to the Court. This is a very superficiai and
erroneous reading of the situaiion. In faci, throughou t its negotiations with
Tunisia, Libya has always rejected the baselines in the same breath that it
rejected equidistance, once the guiding principIe of Tunisia. Tlic. Declarufio~iof
Jerlirr of 1 2 January 1973 quite evidentty made inappropriale any noIion of
forma1 protwt as to the interna1 Iegislaiion of either State in view of iheir
agreement to unite.
An aspect of the 1973 baselines not heretoiore discussed relates to the
principIe recognized internationally that the baselines of a State should t x put
on maps and pubtished. Tunisia has produced neither the implementing
Decree nor any maps showing the baseIjnes, even ihough Article 2 of the 1973
Decree itseif, which appears in Annex 1- 1 7 of the Libyan Memorial, expressly
contemplates the preparaiion of such maps. Are there such maps in existence ?
We have been unable to find ihem. If they exist, why have they not been
furnished to the Court ?
There is a further aspect io the 1973 basetines. il is apparent that from the
moment Tunisia thoughi that it had a dispute with Libya over the continental
shelf it began to enact laws and regulations changing the sratus qtio in order to
attempt to better its position, and thus, when it became apparent that the 1963
baselines were insuficient to achieve a line of deIimitation by virtue of
equidislance ihat would bring Tunisia to where the oil was or was most IikeIy
to be, these baselines were changed by a new law, the 1973 Law and Decree.
Surely international relations cannot be based on the following kind of
scenario : a friendly, adjacent State suggests amicabte negotiations leading to
agreement on deIimitation of the continental shelf appertaining to each. In the
mantirne, ii claims pan of the continentai sheIf on the basis of fiaional
historic rights such as a bay which it now claims to be an historic bay but
 STATEMENT OF MR. EL MAGHUR 19

which onty ten years berore was not in any sense regarded as constituting
internal waters of the State in its own internal Iegislation. I t asserts historic
rights to justify a non-negotiable stance as to the maritime boundary between
the territorial waters of each State and for the first Ieg of any conlinenlal shelf
delimitation. It exrends petroleum concessions far across in front of the coast of
the other State. I I reaches an agreement with a third State and extends the
resulting Iine of delimitation so as to block off iis neighbour and still another
Siaie. It relies on the principIe of equidistance based on a f 963 Law providing
for certain baselines. Ten years Iater ii completely changes the baselines 10
improve the equidistance line. Seven years Iater it abandons equidistance and
invents a new set of lines.
M. BENGI-IAZI : Avec votre permission, Monsieur Ie Prsident, M. Jen-
nings va faire quelques remarques de prwedure au sujet de certains d w u -
menis qui nous sont prsents par la deIgation libyenne.
Professor JENNINGS : MT. President and Members of the Court : 1 shaI1
make it very brief indeed, and 1 apologize first for interrupting at atI the
statement of the distinguished Agent for Libya. This rnorning, when we
arrived in Court, we were presented with five copies ' of this rascicuIe 8f
documents and obviously we have not had tirne 10 study them and we feel,
therefore, that following the example of o u r Libyan friends we ought Io make
a quite general reservation of our position pending that study. At the same
time, ! am instruffed to add that in the view of Tunisia, provided reasonable
notice is given to the other Party, it is important that the Couri should be put in
possession of a11 material that rnight assisr it to make a proper decision in rhe
case.

MT.EL MAGHUR : Mr. President and Members of the Court : 1 shouId Iike
to illustrate certain points 1 now intend to make wit h the use of a Iarge map.
This is an enIarged version of one of the standard maps of the area used by
Libya in its Counter-Mernorial. By means of an overlay to this map 1 should
iike now to trace the porlions of Libyan coad relevant to Tunisia and those
relevant only io a possibIe deIimitation with other States, in particular Malta.
@ F r the convenience of the Court, Ibis same information is depicred o n a rnap
rn the foider of each Judge.
Now let us examine this map and see which coasts of Tunisia and Libya are
relevant to which Staie. 1 shall start not at Cape Bon or at Ras Kaboudia or ar
rhe point on the Libyan coasi east of the frontier, but at the frontier itselr, Ras
Ajdir. This is because any method of deIimitation mus1 begin a l this point, or
more correctly at the point where the Iine of delimitation of the territorial sea
from Ras Ajdir rneets the edge of the 12-mile territorial sea.
The Tunisian coast from Ras Ajdir to Gabes and from Gabes to Ras
Kaboudia is relevant as between Tunisia and Libya. The Tunisian mas1
between Ras Kaboudia and Cape Bon is quite clearly the coast relevant to rhe
PeIagian Islands and MaIta. The coast from Cape Bon to the Algerian border
requires no commeni here except 10 note that it is o n ~ h i Coast
s that Tunisia's
two principal cities are located. No potential encroachment by Libya is
remotety at issue. Contrasl ihis faci with the critical coastline of Libya north of
its capital of TripoIi across which the proposed Tunisian sheaf of lines cut.

' See inira, Correspondence, No. 108.

22 COKTlNENTAL SHEi.F

assistance with Tutiisia, agreements which apparent1 y our iieighbours wouId

prefer not lo bring to the Coun's attention. as 1 have observed earIier.
Libya does ntll appear k f o r e ihis Court as powerful and rich, o r weak and
poor. It is here wilh its neighbour oii equaI terms 10 rcquest guidance and that
justice be done. I f it appears to defend itself a bit ioo vigorousIy it is on1y out of
pride. Its position is no1 "brural".as MT. Jennings has suggested. A n d as for "la
demeure du grand vide". a description resurrected at these oral hearings. we
are ready !O share u u r wide open spaces wiih our neighbours as well.
I shall now come ro a matter discussed at the start of m y statement. It is
prvvuked by the rernarks iti paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Iiitroduction to the
Tuiiisian Reply . remarks taken up again repeatedl y in Tutiisia's oral pIeading.
Libya is accused of submitting with its Cuunter-Mernoria1 a pIethora of
documents. aiinexes. maps atid figures in order tu overwhelni atid confuse the
Fourt. I must deal with ihis subject in some detail because in some wa ys it goes
lo the heart of thc case before the Court.
Libya from the otset of its written pIeadings has lried to roIIow the Ietter
and spirit of Article 50 of the Rules of Court. Original documents and compIete
trandations have been furnished. If a document was published in the Official
Gazclre. a cupy OT the Gazette version has beeii furiiished. Our friends have
now said ihat this effort at cornpleteness aiid accuracy was motivated by a
desirc to obscure the iss-ues - to overcompIicate the facts.
A s to the aIleged mass of scietiiifrc data coiilaineci in the Libyan atiiiexes. let
us take a doser look. The target of the Tuiiisian RepIy in ihis respeci was the
Libyaii Counter-Mernorial. 1 shall iioi Iingcr over rhe Cuunter-Memorial itself
nor over the docurnentary annexes. The special d a p anncx needs no
justification. It was prepared for the converlience of the Court. So Iet us turn lo
i he technicat annexes to the Counter-Mernoria1 (III).
Airiiex 1 - Annex 1 15 a broad geographica1 study of the area of the Gu!fof
Gabes and the Jeffara PIain. I t was occasioned by the very distoried piciure
given by Tunisia of the entire region from the Kerkennah Islands to Ras Ajdir
being some sort of economic or ecoiogical irnii. I d e r in particular to
paragraphs 4.19 to4.45 or 1heTunisiati hlemorial(I1. This study. in addilion 10
refutiiig Tunisia's claim. points out the importance of the Jeffara Nain and ils
basic unity. II points up the geographica1 importance of ihe Tunisiaii coast
between Gabes and Ras Ajdir and irs close relation to the Libyan coast lying tu
the east of the froiitier. 1 s h ~ u l dobserve t hat therc is little i f ail y reaI geoIogic
content io this report- It is rnostly geugraphy in ils broadest serise includirig
economic aiid ecologica1 racrors, itidusrry. natural resorces. etc.
Aitnex 2 2s almusi siraight geography. It is a study by Drs. Blake aiid
Atidersun, two experts very familiar with the region. Professur Pierre-Marie
Dupuy seemed to have IittIe LOcriticize in their repuri except that thcy included
a description of the entire North A frican coasi from hlorocco to Egypt. 1 am
afraid he gave the erroneous impression Ihat mosr of this reporr deaIi with
irrelevancies. which it did not. Again. lhis is iiui geoIogic daia with which
Libya has been said to have swamped the Court. This gcographical study was
necessitated in iight of Chapter I I I of the Tuiiisian hleniorial (11 and in
particular By paragraphs 3.1 2 ro 3.1 5 purporting to describe the coasrs of
Libya and Tunisia and by paragraphs 3.17 and 3.31 dealing wiih various
geographic detaiIs. Page 1 of this study by DE.Blake and Andersoti suris off
with some inierestiiig language in light of Professor Dupuy's discussion of
geography :
"Beiore considering the coastIines aiid coastal zones of easiern Tunisia
1 ST:\TFAIEXT OF MK. EL hlAGHUR 23
! arid wester-rr Libya, it is irecessary to view Ihis particuIar S~I-etch
irr Ihe
co1itex1 of Iheentire NorIh Airica~icoastIi~ie. .'*
A ~ i drhey c ~ t eas one of the I-easons fur rIris Ihe fact that the Cape Borr-Ras
Zarr-uq cvasrlii~eo c c u ~ at s a zone of rnajur cha~rge- a perIiaps mure scie~rlific
way of sayi~igthar it is aIi anu~naIy- The report goes o n lu say thar the uveraII
trend of tlris Nor th A fricail cuasrliile is east-west and that o ~ i l ytlre cvastIi~iesuf
, Turrisia and Lbya dispIay any ~najvrdeparriire frwn this. Therefure. rhey say
tira1 rhe Nortlr African coastl~neis b1-vadly orienled riorthwards.
A ~ r dwIiat does this geograpliicai siudy 111Annex 2 say abou1 the Libyan a ~ i d
T u ~ r i s i acoasis
~i ? I t says - a ~ r d1 qule fr-urn page 9 : "iYhiIe lhe Libyaa cvasl
o i ~ a l .nurth. IIie coast o f TuIr isia exhibits a wide
is virtuaIly i ~ ~ u ~ i o d i r e c ~ i facing
1-ange of orientations with t h e basic compu~ieritweII rtvrth of easr." A ~ i d
further aloi-rg at page I 5 :
"The Tu11isia11cvasl is domi~latedby a ~ionheasternand sou1heaste1-11
urientat~onwith oniy the GuIiof Ha~nrnametfacirig due easl. TIle Libyan
oastIine is IargeIy facing due 11vr1h exsept fur the easiern sector which s
angled sIghtIy tv the east of 1iortIi."
These points can be seen 011 the Inap 011 the easeI. o ~ i eof tfie entire North
African masr. This map<mapNo. I uf the Libyan Counter-Me~noriaI(1111is i ~ i
each Judge's fuIder. A11d I urge the Me1nbe1-sof the hvnourabIe Court 10
examine the geogi-aphjcal study of .4naex 2 tv the Libyan Cuurrter-Me~nuriaI
the Tunisian presentatiun of geography. the cvasl
a ~ i dthe figu1-es in il. DUI-i~ig
of Libya was s a ~ dto run ~lortIiwest/southeast. whlch i l dves nbt. In the a1-ea
of interes! tv us the directio~i of the Libyan coasl is wesr-no~thwes!/
east-soutiieasl. 1 irivite the Corirt Io look at ~Iiismap on the easel sliowi~ig
the coastIi11es. F I - o ~ Ras
n Rjdi1- ta TripoIi is a11nost exactly east-west 113 direc-
tion.
T o retur~ito my rectatiur1 - and I ;rpuIogize, Mr. .Preside~~t. if this is
deraiIed but it is esse1iIia1 tu make these points - Anncx -3 tu Ihe Libyar-r
Cuirrsrtr-hleinuria1 is a study by Drs. BIake and Andersuii uf the Libyan fishi~ig
i~iduslry.It was instigated by ,yarag~-aphs 4.32 to 4.35 and lhe coinpleinentary
rlok No. 4 of the Turrisjari Mernorial (1) which i~icorrectlyrried tu sIiow the
Region of the Gulf of Gabes as an eco~ivrnicand ecuIogica1 nriit. These texts
corivey tlse false impression tfiar Turrisia f ~ a saIways had a rno~~opuly uf the
cxpbitation. especially 1h1-oughfishing. uf the entire ares of what is caIIed i i i
these 1~x1stfie "Region of the Gr11f of Gabes".
Aitnex 4 study of Drs. Blake a ~ r dAndersoir un t I ~ eGreco Bank was direcled
a i the Trr~iisiand a i m of a maritime fruirtier-aIvng the 4S0 Iine from Ras Ajdir- I
refe1- to Figrire 4.06 and paragrapIis 4 -75to 4 88 tif the Tunisian Mernorial and
@ Submisskii 1.2. Pieare note again thai Annexes 3 and 4 du iwt relaie to
geuIcigy .
Atrnrxes 5 A and 53 concern the inode1 and the bIock diagsa~nsprepared tu
expuhe the fariIty descriprion given by Tunisia uf the geurnorphulogy uf the
regiu~r.Tlrey iilvoIue geomorphology. Irot gwIvgy as such. 1 shaIi ~ i o Iake t rIie
Court's tinle tu cite al1 the purlions of the Tunisiair pleadiilgs to which this
@ work ,was directed. This figure un tIie easeI, bIown up rronl Figure 5 07 of the
Tunrsia~iMeinoriaI shorrIcI suffice - this is fhe figure purpvrtirrg tu show
falaises with teeth-like markings.
The rather long but veI,y inte~esfingArlr~ex6 - which cuncerns histury not
gevIogy - covers the historia1 background in o1der to refute strtferrleills
aIIegi~igthe cunsta11I exercise ofTuilisia11 su~lereignty#ver-rhe ar-ea of the Gulf
 STATEMENT OF M U . EL MAGHUR 25
FinalIy. for the sake of completeness. A t i i r o x ~ 11-4.
'~ 11-5. II- 7 and 11-8of the
Libyan Reply (IV1 may aIso be ciied. . 4 l l l i ~11-4,~ Iike Annexes SA and Bof the
Counter-Mernorial. coniains additional block diagrams covering a much
smaller area of rhe continental sheIf. focusing on the area of Ras Ajdir.
A i i r i c i r 11-5 answers the iI1-founded Tunisian cIaim that the sali features
round in the Pelagian Block esiablishes a connection between it and the Atlas
mountain area of Tunisia where salt is also round.
A n d as to Aitnc,,~e.sII-7and 11-8,il is enough to read their riIIes 10 show their
object : the first is a "critical cvaluation and cornparison of some srrucrural
maps of ihe Tunisian Counrer-Mernorial", and the second a "critique of the
easll wesr transversals o r axes claimed by Tunisia : the Gafsa-Gabes Axis".
So where is ihis mass of geologic data with which the Cour1 has supposedly
been flaoded ? 1 urge the Members of the Court no! 10 bc misled by such
statements by our Tunisian friends. None of us should k scared away from
considering the geologic evidence - it is essential to t his case. Bui W C agree
with Professor Jennings - lhis is not dispute about geology. The Cour1 is not
being asked to choose between rival theories of geologisis aboui geology as
Professor Jennings suggesled. In Fact, the scientific points made by Libya.
which will be taken up by Professor Bowett arid Professor Fabricius, and
covered by brief statemen ts from other experts of the Libyan deIegatipn, can be
put forward in quite simple terms. The scientilic data o n which they are bascd
is not really in lhis dispule. The scieniific theories are welI accepted -
aIthough geologists Iike lawyers can aIways find points to disagree over. These
points do not go io the essentiais of this case. The Members of this Court do no1
nesd to take a crash course in geology to understand the propositions advanced
by Libya-
W ith regard to documentacion. as footnote 2 on page I 2 of the Libyan RepIy
( I V ) observeci, the incomptetenws and inadequacy of the Tunisian documenta-
tion and translations have been unfortunate. No one is perfect. We al1 make
mjsrakes. Yet some of the Tunisian omissions are quite revealing. Enough has
been said of the Tunisian 1962 Law, mention of which was 1otalIy omitted
from the Tunisian wriiren pleadings. In fact, a stony siIence continues during
the oral pleadings as welI. But with regard to other documents, the Tunisian
annexes providc translations - often on1y partiai translations that leave out
important provisions - but no1 !fie original documents. Annex 1-9 to the
Libyan Reply contairis a Iist of examples of discrepancics and gaps in the
documents furnished. Perhaps 1he most glaring example of deficiency of
documentation relates io Annex 89 to the Tunisian Memorial relating to
vessels' arrests. This of course leaves aside whar if any importance these
arrests, even if proved. would have had for this case.
To show what I mean, 1 mus1 go into some detaiI - but 1 shall try to be
brief. These vesse1 arrests have been presented by Tunisia as proof that the
exercise by Tunisia of regulation and control over fareign fishing ships in i he
niarilime a r a out to the 50-metre isobaih constituied the exercise of
sovereignty. in paragraphs I IO to t 23 of the Libyan Counier-Mernorial this
characterization of such limited jurisdiction and surveiIIance as an assertion of
sovereignty has already been refu ted.
But quite aside from the faulty legal conclusions drawn in the Tunisian
pleadings from these vesse1 arrests, what 'about the evidence itself ? Beiween
1948 and 1977.59 proc0.s-ilcrhax are cited against fishing vasels said mainly
to be ItaIian but aIso Greek and Tripolitanian. In paragraphs 122 and 123 and
@ Map N o 1 2 of the Libyan Counler-Mernorial (II) the exaggerations contained
In the Tunisian Mernorial are revealed. For example, onIy one Tripolitanian
 26 CONTINENTAL SHELF

vesse1 was mentioned in the Iist contained in ihe Tunisian Annex 89. Its
position when seized was plotted to be 16 miles north-norlheasi of Ras Ajdir.
outside Libyan terrilorial waters and on the high seas. However, a signed copy
of the settlement (the "transaction"! is not provided. It is only mentioned in the
margi n of the procs- verbol.
The Iisl of 69 alleged procs-verbaux was contained in Annex 89 to the
Tunisian Memorial and hence was first made available for scrutiny on 30 M a y
1980. The documentary proof, however. was not Furnished until i 5 july 198 1 .
more than 13 months later, so that Libya was not able to comment on this
dacumentary proof in i f s RepIy and must take up the Coun's iime now to do so.
Of the procks+ivrbairx mentioned in Annex 89. 23 were no1 furnished by
Tunisia. As far as Libya is mncerned, the numkr of 69 alIeged arrests
thereupon became reduced to 46 through faiIure of proof.
Of rhe 46 prcic*@s-r~erbcixfurnished - apparenlly pholompies of the
originaI documents - 14 present other kinds of problems. Some are iIlegibIe
eiIher as lo ihe coord~nales,ihe name of the vesse1 or the naturc of the
violation. Others do no1 correspond lo their identification in Annex 89. I t is a
mystery how the auihors of the Tunisian Memorial wcre abIe to compile the
lis1 from such faulty documentation.
@ To take a concrete exampIe. on the Map No. I 2 prepared on the basis of
Annex 89, the arresis Nos. I and 2 are located 20 nauticaI miles apart. W hen
one reads the procs-verbaux one can see that the IWO Greek ships were
arrested 500 metres from each other - on the same day. at the same hour.
Now it is necessary to see the settlements a s welI as rhe procs-verbaux to
understand the nature of the arrest. Of 47 setdemenis aIleged. however. only 5
were produced by Tunisia. Of 5 judgments alleged. only one was produced.
and 17 procs-verbaux were not accornpanied by further documents leaving
us in the dark as to w hat resuIted from these arrests.
What ii cornes down 10 is this. Only about ten of the alleged cases are
properly documenred and a n be accepted as validly proved. How can legal
claims of exercise of sovereignty be advanced on the basis of such nimsy
evidence?
1 mentioned at the outset of rny statement to the Court thal ! have served on
bolh sides of the bar. This makes me more aware !han I rnight otherwise have
been that truth alone serves the case. The Pariies cannot fabricate the facts.
Nature cannot be refashioned to accommodate a position or a claim. Science
cannot be invented o r falsifted.
The issue before this Court is a IegaI issue : the tegal principtes and ruIes to
be appiied in deIirniting the coniinenia1 shelf between Tunisia and Libya. The
continental shelf in this coniext - in the coniext of ihe Special Agreement
between the Parties - is a IegaI institution no[ a scieniific one - not a
geological or geographic institution, w hatever the overlapping and confusion
in terminoIogy may be. W hatever Tunisia might sugges!, the Libyan case is a
Iegal case - no[ a scieniific one - not a geologic one.The role of evidence is
to contribute to the Court eIements of the factura1 basis on which the Court
may build its legat principIes. I do not mean by this to diminish the importance
and role of science in this ca?. It suppIies some of the essential raw materiats
- the facis with scientific inierpremtion. But it is misleading to describe the
Libyan case as a monolithic geoIogic case, although I was raken by the choice
o f "monolithic" as an adjective - a term that cornes irom the Greek meaning
"one stone". Well. geology is not just about stones - o r as Professor Jennings
mentioned "the structure of ingradieni rocks", whatever they are. And i l we
are a11 !O acl as if we are living in the closing years of the 201h ceniury we must
28 CONTINENTAL SHELF

cor~juredup io derend one thesrs o r a~iolher.Libya has 11-iedtu puI forwa1-d I h e

scieilrific evidence in Ihis spirit.
In lliis respecl. 1 shonId Iikc caIl Ihe Court's a l l e ~ i t ~ o10
n certain deviccs
en~pIvyed by 1he an [hors of [Re l'ri~iisian pleadi~igs. and parIicuIarIy
higlrlighled by ihe Tunisian RepIy, rhar are used to [ r y Io djscrcdit Ihe Libyan
case and advailce Tu~iisiaScIaims. T h e x saIne devices, soinew lrat muted,
werc used ~ U I - i ~Tu~iisia's
ig oral prese~itarion a s weII. First, ihere is the
rechniquc or ouli-ight insuIt. For exa~npIe.i ~ pa~-agraph
i 2.59 of t h e Tunisian
Kepiy (IV). L~byais accused of bcndi~rgscienrific iact lo s u ~ ipre-esrabIis1ied
conciusio~is.TIie JIne suggestion, ph rascd Inore poIitely perhaps. was made
orally severaI Iimm by Tunisian cou1ise1. Frmn the writteli pIeadings lo date
urrd rrom ihc PI-esenrationof rhe sciartific factors du ring the oraI PI-oceedings,1
beIievc lhe Cour1 may draw quile a drffere~rtconcIusion.
1 have aIready deaIi wilh the seco~ld,and sornewhat rehted technique
employcd in rire Tu~iisianpleadi~rgs- accusi~igLibya of havi~rgswaniped lhc
Court in ils Cou~rler-Mernoria1with docuinerrrs a ~ i dannexes of a11 kt~idsin a
deliberate effort ru m n f i ~ s eand blur the Issrres. 1 do no1 choose io beIieve that
the Couri wiII doubi the sincerily of Libya's efforts to put b ~ f o r e[lie Court a11
[Ire docume~ilsa ~ i dfacrs releva~irtu Ilris importani casc.
Third, Libya is conslantIy accused of inconsiste~iciesas ~f Libya keeps
i own arguments. Bu1 whea 'Libya has advanced facluaI
II-apping ilseIr i ~ ils
data it has ~ i o lbee~ito engage 111 taciirs - in gaIne pIayirrg. And lhese
supposed incons~stencies,if ~ h c yexist at aII, arise oiiIy as a resuli of sevcraI
otIier Tunisian techniques. One is lo g~.ossIydisto1-t the positio~iof Libya - for
exampIe to suggesl IIral Libya rnainuim tIrat r11e African PIale has moved
north W ~ I - dthus
, supportiirg tIie supposed norihrua~xl t Ir 1-ust argument of
Libya. This Iiarve asseriion was Iiever made by Libya, but hrivi~~g distorted the
Libya11 position T u ~ i ~ proceeds
s~a IOridjcr11e llic disrortion. IL was asto~rishing
how Inarry limes this san-re statemenr about the A f r ~ c a ~Rate i niovi~rgto Ihe
aorth was made during rhc orai heari~rgs by members of the Tunisia~i
deIegation. Appa~anlIyt h e ~rolionseeins tu fit i r i their mi~idswit h ihe p h r a ~ e
"nortlliuard thrusi" which they love to repeat. This sorl of technique is Ioo
o b v ~ o u to
s reqtiire fuither comment untiI hler orr i ~ tlrei specifrc co~itcxto r IIre
scieirrific discussion.
Then Tunisra has r-esorted to a ralher simiIar device - to divide Libya frum
ils experts. To succed i11 this device. the expert is ~nisqnoiedo r quoted ou1 d
conlexl and rhen a n inconsiste~~cy between the expeIt and the writle1-r
pIeadings of Libya 1s triu~nphantIyreveaied. Lei Ine just rne~rtio~l one example.
perhps IIre most bIaia~itatte~npi.Parag1-aph 2.09 of tI-reTunisian RepIy quotes
fr-om Annex I2B (III), of Ihe Libyan Cou~lier-Men-ioriaI - containing a
sc~eniilcstudy by Dr A11kaieII of tlre Univers~lyof Manchester, E~rgla~id. a
geoIogisr w h o knows weII this area of IIre WUI-Id. This study is cited in support
of rhe hrnor~sRides de Zira et de Zouara. Bu1 the "bulge" referred to in the
AnkaLeII piece is relaied to a bulge i ~ an i ancient shoreIi~reand has nothirrg tr,
do with Ihis aIIeged morpoIogica1 feature
Perlraps Ihe eye was cauglit by a refe1-ence to saIr waIls in the AnkateII piece,
and since saIl walIs inay Irave caused tlre rather 1iegIigibIe bump #II the ocean
il001 Ihal Tunisia Iikes to cal1 a "ride" some connect~onbetwee~rIhe AnkateII
reference and lhis su-caIIed ride must have been made by Ihe Tunisian authors.
IncidentaIly, Mr. Presidenl, did you rratice tht Ihe Ride d e Zouara seerns to
have disappeared. W here has it go~ie?But I Ieave this point to a Iater phase of
our presentation.
Now. L~byahas made no effori ro currrrol o r ceIrsor- ils experts. No doubt
30 CONTINENTAL SHELF

cap~taIsare ranged alo11g !Ire nortIr coast. Tl115 is abviousIy a n easi-wesr

expalse of coast k i n g nortli. It is as obvious a s the rrvse o n irry face. If was
also obvious to Drs. BIake and A n d e r s o ~ SQ ~ . why sucfi a ~ U S S? And why suclr
a f u s about Iooking at the eritire contirlent, or at Ieast irs nortliern part. f r o ~ n
time to Lime. The case before IIie Court reIates ro so~nethingcaIIed the
sheI f. This terIn iiseI f suggesis a conli~ierrtaIapproach.
mr~lijrettf.rilal
We North Africans have aIways Iooked nortIi with pride No sn~allsection
of t he coast. wlrether il be the irreguIar Gulf of Sirt QI- t h e abei-rationa1coast of
Trrnisia arorrnd the Gulf of Gabes up to Cape Bon. can change lhis. W e North
A f ~ l ~ looka n ~nurth. and w e aiways wilI b a r r i ~ i g ~ s o dramatic
~ne event of plate
tectonics.
How could an objective geographic presentatiun 10 this Court so ignore
aspects of hunian and eco~rornicgeography ot her than fishing l Tunisia's
omissio~iof ils boo~irirrgtourist indristry is puzz1i11g. What about Tunisian
agriculture, handicrafrs alrci other ilatural reswrces srrch a s phosphale :> This
inaccurate. inconipIelc pictu1-e in ihe Turris~a~i Me1no1-ialforced Lrbya in ils
Cau~iier-MernorialIo annex maicriais Ihat would otherw ise ~ i o rhave beerr
comidered relcvarrr. II has burdened [lie Court w il I i Ihis inatei-NIt o correcl rhe
picIu1.e given iIie Court.
If rhe T u ~ t ~ s i arheary
n of hisiory is to be appIied lo Ihe institu~io~r of lhe
contine1rta1 slreIi, the i~rsritr~iion wiI1 cease Io exisl. Tlie travcls of UIysscs
a1-ou11dtlre shores of Djerba in his diaIogue witll Ille lolus-eaiers and tlie
~nermirids w iII estabIish irrefutabIe d a i m s of G~-eece.va11d siilce rime
irnmenrurra1. During a w r t a i i ~period of Iristory.. ~ I Irhe reig~ror Septinlus
Severus. [Ire Libya~i-bor~i E m p t r o ~of Rome, rvould iurnish IIre basis for
Libyan c1ai1ns over the Adi-iatic. Goi~igfrom rhe sub111nero t h e rid~criIous.
Syria a* Iraq ~nightIay c1a11nro the co1rt11renta1shclf of Spain, Grrat BI-ilain
Io tirat of tlre U~iiled Slales and India. and the piraIes to the wIroIe
hfed11e1-ranean
Libya has viewcd 11i1sro1-y i ~ ai different rvay. a ~ r dif jt has verrru~-edafieId ir
has bee~iunly I o sel the lecerd 511-aighi.Libya'a docunientation has bct1c.11fi-om
rhe archives of gvve1-~i~nents. sornetinles irot casy io obU111. 1101 from the
I-ecordsof oId famiIies or orspecial courts. It has 11ic1udedsomc male1-iaI a s to
tIie rnaritinrc bori~rdariesw h ~ c his higlrIy per-tinei~t II is unfortunale IIial 1Iie
T u ~ i i s ~ aCounter-Me~norial
n accuses Libya o r try irig ru Ieopen in thcsc
procecdi~~gs the queslions settIed 111 1 9 I O a s lo Ifle la~rdbouildaries. Tir is we
fiatIy deny If fa1ni1y histories couId affecl detimitatio~~, [lien t h e SiaIa fa1n11y.
ciled in tlre Tunisia~ipIeadings as o w ~ i i n gparl or the sea, wouId give rise io
L~byanclai~ns#ver Tunisia~iwaters si11cepar1 of t his fa~niIyin habited and slill
inhabils Libya. In facl, MI.. Presidc~rt,1 wonder if their T u ~ i i s i a ~kin i stiII
recognize rheir portion of 1111smaritime heritage '3 It wvr11d certai111y s ~ ~ n p l i f y
tIie task of Ille Couri if dcli~nikitioncvuId be delermined on the basis of tlre
reIative proporrio~rsof rhis fan-riIy Iiviiig in Tu~iisiaand i ~ rLibya
Bur tu i-eturn ro 1-eality lhe i ~ l ~ i ~ i r i t iof
o nthe continet~lalslreli dates onIy
fram 1 949 - Hcrodotus. the Fali~-ri~ds, private famiIies, su11k e ~ imonaslcries
reaIIy have no releva~ice.
1 have ro admit - ;irrd 1 ain surc some Members o f the Cour1 lrad thc sanre
I-eactio~r- that svIne of the storics arrd o f the Iiisrory piese1rIed by Tu11isia
werc as inleresring as ihey wcre cliar~ning.1 aIn h i d ou1 lrislorical aIiIiexes
wIiich we TeII obliged ta fur~risli may Iiave appcared a bil srodgy in
co~nparison.F I F ~ ~ O isImore
I readabIe than faci : docu~nenraryevide~iced e n
gels iw:r, b)rif3g.
As for fishing - and 1 have to admit a serious weak~ressfor the sport ~ O I -
tliere is fis1ii11goffLibya - 1 d ~ a w your aitention to Map Nu. 13 of the Libjlan
Counte1--1h4eino1-iaIwhich 1s based on a 1352 F A 0 Report. This shows the
spo~ige-fistringgrou~idsoff of Libya. AII enlarged copy of this inap has been
put up o n the easeI. 1t appears i11 each Judge's uIder. Note incideniaIIy that t lie
wesleril bo~rridaryindicated an iIiis F A 0 map runs due ~ i o n hfronl Ras Ajdir.
1 aIn about to concIudc. But I feeI 1 s h w l d direct a few remarks to certain
poi~risillat stood out iii Iny nlind af~erhearing t lie Tun1sia11oral PI-ese~ilatio~i.
Thex inroIved wlrat see~nedto be a shift of enrphasis. and in sonle cases
aImaxt a Iiew freme.
First. rvIiiIe de~ror~ncing Libya's use of gedogy and espousing balhynletry
and geo~norphdogyas the pertinent factors, Tunisia seenled itseIf ta be
rnoving toward geoIogy. as if Ihey knew IRat a case rcsting u~rIyor7 Ihe surface
of the seabed rvoriId 11ot sta~idup. 1 even sIarred to count tlie number of tinles
refwence was na de by the Tuilisia~rexperts tu geologic periods hundreds of
nriIIiorls of years ago. This kept cornirrg up al1 !Ire time.
Second. 1 rrded the atlenlpt to rnarry hisloric 1-igirts and 1iatr11.aI PI-O-
Iongatio~i.reaIIjr a new tlieme. Historic riglils seem to Ilave beeri s~ieaked
undel if~escjeniificmaniIe of narrr1-a1prolongaiion. 1 d o not know wherher t l i ~ s
deveIopment 1-esesnIIed f1-01na fee1i1rg rhat tire Tunisia~iIiistoric 1-igIirscase
wouId 1101 stand up o r that ils cIaim tllat narural pro101rgation is to [Ire east is
fragiIe and i~eedsboIsteri~ig,but 1 shalI not specr11ate further.
, ai-ea of con ce^'^^ in the Trr~iisianrni~idseerns io be defined by the
T ~ I I - dIlle
coastIines abutting tIle PeIagian BIock, which would exte~idt lie area to the
north a11 tIic way io Cape Bon. 1 have atready d i s c u ~ e dwhat coasts are
reIevant io this case. and cd11 onIy speculate that Tirnisia feeis il needs air
additia1ra1,substa1itia1Iengtlr of coast io suppoit its extreme c1ai1n. 1 f this is w t
a1ac1-O-ge0g1-aphy. what is it I
Four{h. aItirouglr we fiave heard a gr-ear deal about the i111erpenet1-at ion of
Inarr and water in an ecosystern siirce tiine 11n1ne1noria1,aiid about fishes arrd
fis11 t~-apsand sponges, why Irave we heard not hi~igaboui oi1 weIIs a ~ i dgas
weIIs and concessions and w Iiat the Court iri pa~-agraph1O 1 ID1 ( 2 ) of its I969
1lfs~7osiijfidentifieda s be111g "ilatura1 resriur~esof the c c l ~ rinenta1 t sIleIf areas
i~rvolved" - a factor io be taken into accou~it? W l ~ yrIiis sirence i ~ the i oraI
prese~rtationd Tri~lisia? WIiy ign01-esuch an i~nportanrfactor : the factor
which essenIiaIly has brought the Parties together in this Hal1 of Justice i ~ the i
first pIace ? 1 sugges1 I11c answer Iies in the fact that there arr. 13r~pruc!~tcri~r
T~trrisicrir( J ~orI gas vlc,llsof rirejuf' sigiiilir-rrircv - alrd t r i ) iiiniuir,/ic.lds ol~cai-trfcd
rrridc~~- Tirriisitlir cu>ic.r.ssirrrrs - nliricit iiuirld fit. #fficlc,d ITJ~ roirut nTc wc~nld
propiscp. itilrci-cusn grc911firIuru7 Lii<virir 1r~c3IIsiiuirld hc urt?plr~ufczdrri~da~rrrr~xtt~i
arr2vf Tirriisitr S slrca/'i)f liirc-5.
1 should retum agairr Io Iny opel-ring rernarks regal-di~lga major lherl~eof 1Iie
Libya~rcase. OUI-prophet once said and 1 shall I-epeat what he said i ~ rArabic '
and tlleii paraplirase the statemeni i ~ Ei~giislr i .

"Thou corne to ine witIi your dispules. Some ainong you may be Inore
eIriquenr in Iris defence - i i ~provi~ighis case - and 1 adjud~calei11 his
arrour un iIie hasis of what 1 have heard from him. But if I give to hirn
whai bebngs to his h~.oiIrel-.Ile shoirldn't take it because 1 have given h i ~ n
a piece of HelI."
W e do not doubt tirai ihe Tunis~ancase is put furwarcl in all honesty. As to
32 CONTINENTAL SHELF

Libya. I T is asking for no Inore ilrarr 11 bel~evesIegaIIy belo~lgsto Libya. Libya

seeks iioI a piece of HelI. It asks onIy ~ U IwIrat
- il is e ~ l t i t t ~under
d Iaw as applied
to Ihc reaI facts. Ir ~irakcsno extrenie daims - Ir does~r'lexaggerizte - dislorl
- or ~nis-slateihe lach - with the hope or geIlirrg a 11rlIepiece of HelI.
Mr. Prcsidcill. now it gives me great pIesu~eIo in11-oduwcounseI w ho are
Io assist in pulliilg the case of tibya lo Ihe COUI-t.
Sir Francis VaIlai-wiII fuIIow Ine Iiext a ~ i dse1 fortIr IIre 1n;ii11 I11ies of tire
Libyan case. Pm1ess01-A nro~iioMa1111loppiwiII dcaI w iih Ialeral deIimitaIions
a ~ i dProfesso1-Clride Co1lia1-dwiIl thc~rIake rip the matter of TnnisiaS clairned
1r1sto1-icriglrts. Professor Herberi Briggs wiII discuss equilabIe principles and
Ihe Irew accepred trc~idsar the Thjrd Confere~iceon [he LAW of [Ire Se.
Prolcssor Der& Bowcrt with ihe heIp of ille expe1-1s of Iny &Ie~aIio~rwiII
preseIit Ihc scieniific case or Libya. FinaIIy. MI-. Ke111rHigheI wilI dei1 witIi tIse
Libyan praclical merhod for applyi~rgrl~epr'i~icipicsir~idruIm of Iaw t< Ihe
circunisiances of r hc area.
 It does nor rest witlr me to puisue tirese ri~ipleasant aspecrs of Ihe
preseniation of the case lo the Court Save s o kir as ihey mighr have a bearing
on the altitude of tIic C'oui-t Iowards the ~nerirsof tlre case ilseIf. In the firsi
five paragraphs or t11e Tunisian wriltcn RepIy - that is IO say in the
~ntroducrion - a11 atiempt is rilade by Ia~rguagewhich 1 regret I can onIy
d e s c ~ibe as insulting lo aIry respo~isiblecounsel, to brus11 asidc Ille wlrole of rhe
Libya~icase as presenred in the Mernorial and Ille Con~irer-Mernorial.The
accusat~onis made IIIat rhe Mernoria1 of Libya distorted t h e truth by beiiig
VY~I--simple and Ilrat aIr attempr is na de irr IIic Cou111cr-MernorialIo distort the
IruIIl Iry over-co~npIicat111gil. apparently wit h the purpose. accordi~igto rhc
T u ~ i ~ s i pIeadi11g
a~i of slr~undingthe facis in a nlass of words.
So far a s the Me~noriaI1s co~icerned.ii speaks ~ Q I -itself. There is 110 1 1 4 ro
apologize Tor its comparative breviry and simpIicily. But Libga Ilas been
accused of a cha~rgeof laclics as betwee~rthe Merno1-iaI and ~ I I F COUIIIFT-
MernoriaI, whicli is appa1-eniIy supposed in some way ta delraci frum the
solidity of Ihe case pu1 forward by Libya. But the wisdom of the course
fvIIorved b y Libya is a1np1y dernons11-aied by the co~npIetechange in IRe very
nature of ihe claini pui forward by Trr~risiaa s beIween [Ire m e i n o r a ~ ~ d uof~ n
May 1476. which was so rv1de1y distributed to tlre WVI-id,and tlie Turr~sia~r
Memoi-iaI. Of course. T u n ~ s ~isa enI~IIed Io change ils grou~rd I. as
u11doubtedIy is Ille case. Ihe ground fr~srchose11 is unsound. Brrt lhis is nut a
reason for inviliilg rlie CO~II-t Io pui aside ai1 tlre marerial and a11 [Ire arguments
C~I-efulIy and correcrIy pur furward in Ihe Libyrr~rCoui~ler-Mc~norial.
Of course. w e regret rhe necewary bulk of the L~bynCounter-Me~norial.III
priircipIe, we wouId not Iiave Irosen to prese~llsuc11 a Inass of materia1 to Ihe
Couri There were, however, Iwo goad reawns for doing so. TIie irst was. a s
1 Iiave said, Ihc ileed 10 counler the rvholly one-sided picture of lhe dip101nalic
exclianges presenlcd by Tu~r~sra. irr 11s M e ~ n o r ~ a-l marrer which Libya Iis
a1ways regarded a s irreIeva~rtIo the questio~im11ce1-11i1ig deIinlilatio11 of [Ire
co~irine~itaI shelf which is 11ow b ~ f o r ethe Courl. The second reason was the
nced to provide the Court with I I ~ ~ C P F I I EY ~ ~~I ~I C~ I I CsC~ p p o ~ l i nIhe
g Libyan
scie~ilificcase - Ihat is ID say the casc 011tlie facts perli~-rei.rt to the quesr ion of
delimiialio~r. 1 wiII not waste t h e tirile of the Court by going aga111 IIrro Ihe
reasoirs for the alrachme~irof orlie1 an1-rcxes. bul, as expIai~redby Ambassacior
Maghur. each of Ilrem has a purpose either in responsc to the ?'u~iis~an
hfemorial o r in support of lile posilio~iof Libya ~ I I C ~ I - I I the ~ I Iqriestion
~ of
deIirnitarion. Thcrc 1s ~ i o qriestion. no quesrion, as suggested in the Tunisian
RcpIy of 1ne1e1y addi~rgto the Inass a11d 1naki11gi l more ilr-rpus~~~g. ?'liese
awrisatians made in the Introduc~ionto the Tunisian Reply are, 1 regrei.
characteristic of lhc T u ~ i ~ s r amethad
n in ilic rvritten pleadings and Inay
perlraps suggesr it themseIves. C O I ~ ~ I -to ~ It h
- ~e insinuation of those pIeadings.
rIie weaknem and Ieuiry o f the casc put iorward on behaIf of Tunisia.
The main point that 1 wish 10 nlake i ~ tIiis i corrtext is that, in the view of
Libya. the Tacts and the scientific e v i d e ~ r ~inetiiis case are crucia1. Both Parties,
t hough for differenl reasons, Ilave q ~ile i rightI y djscarded the melhod of
quidislance, which is whoIIy unsuited to tlre circumsrances of Ihe present
case. BoIIi Parties Iiave appeaIed to facis arrd to scientific evide~~ce. We thirrk
that the case put forwa1-d by Tunisia, based IargeIy on wIiat we can unIy
regard as exaggeralions or distortions of the facts, is extremeIy weak. Fur
exa~nple.tu re-name certain Iow-Iying ban ks as ndt~sdoes riothirrg to increa~e
their phys1ca1i ~ n p o ~ t a nasc e features III contine11ta1sheIf deIimitat~on. Nor, as
we shaII show, in due course. does ~ramingother features asfaloises or cl~ffs
nlake these features significant ~ O Itlrat - purpose.
 A R G U M ENI' OF SIR FRhA'CIS \'ALI-AT 35
The altempt to brush aside as trivia1 and irreIevant the facls put forwa1-d i ~ r
the Libyaii writle~ipIeadings. and in particular the scient~ficfacts. simpIy wiII
nol do- We arc now concerned wilh the questio~ias to wliich areas of
co11111re11tal shelf as belwccn Trinisia and L~byaare Io be regarded as 1Ire
natrii-a1PI-oIongationof rhose Iwo States. This is not a questio~iwhich. in OUI-
submission. can be answercd by con1pa1-at~vely trivial variatio1-r~iir batlryme-
I I y brrt ~ n u s ltu1-II011l hc physica1. if you Iike the geoIogica1. structure of IIre
sIieIf i ~ ireIatio11 lo thc adjoining Iand~nasses. 1 shaII be reluriiing tu 1111s
queslion silortly whetr exarnirrrrig The IegaI principles arid rules applicabIc in
the preseIit cIrcunlsmnces. Rrrt. at the moment. 1 wisIi tv srress tlre weighl
w hic11 we attach 10 the scie~llificevidence as showing. in our vIew. beyond
question thar lIre part of the Pelagian BIock wilh w hich we are concerned is in
facr a proIonga1io11 riorthward of rhe co~itirientalmass to the soulh. And may 1
stress here tI~atit is with a pal-t of tIie PeIagan BIuck tIrat we are concerned. I t
is t ~ - u etllat the evide~rce111 support o r Ihis view is technicaI and i~iev~labty
depends on conlplicated &ara but rhat does no1 aIter lhe essential cliaracler of
tlre conlinenta1 slielf and the corresponding value of tlre scientifi evide~ice.
It wiII be w r pu1-posethroughwt Ihis oraI hearing to ti-y a s far as possible to
avoid wIiat might be described as persona1 attacks o n the rnethod of the
presenlarion of the case on beIraIf of Tunisia and to concentrate on trying tu
assist rhe Court i ~ cIarifying
i the issues and the facls before il. With lhis end
in view, it is our i~itentionthrvugh one of o u r counsel. Professor Bowett,
to explain ~ V I -sirnpIy e the upshot and impact of the scie~~tific evidence
a11d. having regard to the generaI accrrsations of leviry made by Tunisia, w e
wiII aIso ask t h e Court IO hear directIy from that great expert, Professor
Fabricius, who. with Ihe Ieave of the Court. wiI1 PI-esentexpert evidence in
accordance with the notice which Iras been duly give~i. Again. of cour-se we
regret havi11g to trouble Ihe Courr with such oraI evidence, if 1 rnay caII it
that, but, Iiaving regard 10 the attitude taken by Tunisia which seeks to cast
aside witIi a singIe puff of w i ~ i drhe whole of the Libyan case arrd to dispute
tIie scie~irificvalidity of ~ I I F bIock diagrarns which Professor Fabricius has
prepared for submissio~r10 the Coui-t, we have on casefuI reflecrion corne 10
the concIusion tlrat x e have n o other course than t~ t e ~ ~ d him e r a s an expert
before the Court.
t I I i s iny w islr Io pass froin this disrastefu1 task of refuting same of t he moi-e
b1ata11taccusatio~~s made by Tunisia. but. before doing so, lhere is one 0the1-
1 accusation made in the Tunisian wrrtten Repljl which cannat be overIooked.
The accrrsarroli is bot11 renra1,kabIe ln cliaracter and unsubsra~iliatedin fact.
Yet. it is the kind of accusation that. I suggest. shouId never be made by oiie
Srare agai~istanother i ~ jud1cia1
i proceedings un1ess i1 can be fuIly proved and
suppo1-ted. 1 refer 10 the statement IIr parag1-aph 3.39 of the Tr11risia11RepIy
(IV) whiclr in EngIisIr reiids as foliows . "As for the orhe1- co~isrderarionsput
iorward tsy Libya i ~ rjuslificatian of ils n~ethod.they are such pe1-versions of
thc truth that they d o no1 ner rit any dera11ed refutation."
TIiis is. I fear. rhe second "first" i ~ these
i proceed~~igs. 1 do not 1eca1Iever. in
any i~iternatio~iaIproceeding or indeed III an y other judicial proceeding.
h a v i ~ ~beeng accuscd of a perversio~io f t l ~ truth.
e Moreover. if one Iooks a1 1he
RepIy. the1-e is i ~ serioi~s
o arle~nprin lhar document itseIf to substanriate This
accusalion. I t is sirnpIy said lhal the cwsiderativns "do no1 merit any delailed
refutation". a ~ i d1 am quori~igfrom tlre E~igIishlext. Trr~iisiadoes. Irowever.
offer. in a Foatnoie. some scanty and 1 suggest iII-aduised cornmenti; on the
conssdei-at~onsput for-wa~dby Libya i ~ paragraph i 524 and foIIowing of ils
Cwnter-MeinoriaI (II) in support of ils suggested pradical rnethod.
 36 CONTINEWTI L S H ELF
I t wiII. in due course. be nwessary to deal in deiiI with the ootnole 6
w h ~ c happears oii Fige 65 of the Tunisian RepIy (IV), But. as 1Iiis is a niatte1-
tira1 will have ro be examiiied by Mr. Highet i i ~hi3 exposirbn of Libyan vicws
011tlre praclica1 met hod. 1 wiII Ieave t h e main c o ~ n m e ~ro i i hini. Nevert heless 1
feeI tIrat I have lo Iake one example as an illustratioii of 111egenemI I-ejectionor
the charge rvhich 1 aIrr making ai IIiis srage.
1 ~ h i n kit is ilecessary tu iIIuslraIe rny rejectio~iof IIie charge. The example 1
rake is paragraph 2 o r foatnote 5. This paragraph Erst misquotes paragraph
525 or the 1-ibya~iCou~iter-MP~OI-iI (11) and then. 011 tlre basis of rhis
niisguorat ion. appare~itly prirporls by means of two casuaI reniarks ro
substiintiate a chargc of perversiorr of the trrith. According ta the EngI~sIi
lra11sIation Libya is supposed to have said in paragraph 525 : "The 11oriIierIy
projeciion wuuId respect boih Slates' historic riglrts of maritime jurisdiclion."
In tlre face of t h t~-uncarion a ~ i ddistortion of w ha1 1s said in paragraph 515
~f the Libya~iCounter-Mernorial. it is necessary to r a d into the record lhe
wholc of that paragraph. aiid with your Ieave. M r. President. 1 wiII d o so :
"'Second. this 1101-therIyprojeclion is in accord rv~tIr the reIared Iiislory
o f lhc 1na1.11i1ne jurisdiclion exercised by rhe P~I-ties in this generaI area.
incIuding specifically the Iocation of vesse1 a r ~ e s t sand - Io the exte~ll
relevant iif al alI> - file fislring practices of bolh Stares as well as of third
parljl States."
End of IIiaI Parr of the quoratioii.
The more per~inentsentence is the secvad one whiclr is whoIIjl om11red from
t Ire Tunisian conment. narnely .
" Alil~ouglr nat IegaIIy reIevant to quesIions of sheIf deIi~nitation, il

i
1
shouId be ~ioiedI h a ~the al-easwithin w hich iIie acIuaI. es~ablishedfishing
rights of Tu~iisiahave becn exercised would bc on Ihe Tunisia~iside of
any Iine coi~siste~-r~ rvirh these two segrnenls of ge1icra1di1-ection.'.
The first cv~ninentis that pa1-agraph 525 of r h e L.ibyan Counler-M~IIIUI iaI is
referring to the pracIicaI n~ctlrodsnggested by Libya wlrich suggcsts IIiat. for
seasuns that have bee~rand will be expIained. t h e direclion of tI-re deIiniitat1011
uIlimareIy ag~-eedbetwee~iilie Parties shou Id veeI- so~newhateast of north.
TIie words used arc no1 as in the Turlisian Reply "the nortIlerIy projection"
bu: "this 11orthe1-lyprojection" rv hich is obv~ouslyand cIearIy referri~igIo the
11ortherIy p r o j e c ~ i oco~-rte~nplared
~~ by [Ire Libyan praclicaI n~etliod.That the1-e
is a misinterpi.-etationof the t ~ b y a npIeading is na de apparent by the reference
@ i ~ prrrag1-aph
r 2 of the2Tu~-risian r ethe Figure 3.0 I faci~igpage 37 of the
f o o t ~ ~ oto
T u n ~ d r iCounter-Mernorial. That figure, it wiII be recalled, witIiout any
jristifiation from the Libyan case, shows a tI11ck brown Iine goiirg due north of
Ras AjdiI- past the Kerken~iaI~Island, past Ras Kaboudia a ~ i drrorth of
Panbelleria. No srrch Iine has ever k e n suggesled o r m111e1npIaiedby Libjra. This
in itself shows Iiow ilI-founded a ~ i dilI-advised is tIie Tunisian accusatiorr of
perversio~rof t11e tnrth. so far at Imst as it refates to ilre second co~isideration.
I shalI turIr irr a rnonie~itro rile queslion of vesse1 arrests. oi fishirrg vesscIs.
bu[ the1-e is another point that 1 waIrt to make first. It is this. The Tun~sian
pIeading asserls : " l h ~ sI11ie cuts across t Iie area of Tu~iisia~r Iiistoric riglils."
Remember pIcase. Mr. P1-a5idenland Mernbers of the Court. that this is a n
assertion by Tunisia of perversion of lIie truth. l ' h e ~ eis no merit in IIiis
asserti01-r. I t is iil-fou11dedIII so far as it appears Io refer to a Iirre - the bi-own
line - which is ~ i o tthe subject-matter of iIie Libjran pIeadings. I I is aIso III-
founded and iII-advised because it is based on the assuniption t hat Tu11isi;i is
 ARGUMEWI' DI; SIX FRANCIS \'ALI,AT 37

righi aiid 1,ibya whoIIy M ~ I ' O I Iregarding

~ IIie question of the naturc and extent
of Turlisian fisher y 1-ighIs. I i i fact. as the Cour1 weII k~rows.these aIe bath
dispr~tedby Libya in the present pi'oceedings. L.~byadoes no1 accepr that the
actuaI sporlgc bar-rksfished by Turr~siaextend Io the 50-1ne11-eisobath. II Inay
be rislpaIatabIe io Tunisia bui. in tIie vjew of Libya. ii 1s iiideed true to Say thar
irrry eslablished fishery r~ghtsorTr111isiaare Iricated to the west of the kind of
Ii~ieconte~npIaledin the Libyan pract ka1 rnethod-
Wow let me 1rrr11 br~eflyto ilie quest~oirof vesse1 a1,rests. This is ;r niatte~'
witIi which tlie Ageni Ras aIrfady deait SV ras. as Ifie docurnentary snpp01-1 is
mricerned. NevertheIess. I would like tv caH attentioii IO 1Iie insribstanIia1
characre1- as evidence against Libya of the Iist referred ro in pa1-agraph 2 of
1outnuIe 7 IO paragraph 3.39 of theTririiGan RepIy (IV) - tIiat is to bay the Iist
wIricR is set orrr i ~ Annex
i 89 tu the -Tunisiaii Memoriiil(1).
III the firsl pIace. the accusario11 of peruersio~iof tIie iruth is particuIarly iI1-
@ fouiided in this ccinlext because it is perfect Iy cIear from Map WD. 12 of the
Libyan Counter-Mernoria! (III. thal Libya no1 onIy has takci~tIie l~.oublelo
plot the locat~onof the aIIeged vesse1 arresrs to the best of its abiIity but has also
pIaced rhe re5uIts of its labours befor e f he C-oust.
SecondIy. !Ire perli~ientquest~onis not simpIy the number of a r ~ - a tlhat s
have take~iplace here or there. The reI questio~iis rIic c>ueIatIeffect of rIie
a~-restsand the area to rvhicl~they reIate.
Ir is quite appar-eiit tfiai. eveii Ieavirlg oril ofaccouf~rthe qriesi~onof L~byaii
practice and giving ihe fuIIest poss~bIeweight IO each and every alIeged a~'rcst
by Tu~risia.a Iine dsawn i ~ accorda~icc
i wrth Ihe suggested Libyari praclical
rnetliod wouId in fact Ieave by fai tlre greaier part of the a1-ea in which
Trinisian arrests arc said ru have faken place tu Ille West of a possibIe Iine. But
even as a rilatte1 of detaiI, leari~igon o ~ i eside ihe ar1-ats that are c b i ~ n e dto
have been effected by Trirtisia Io tfie artIi of tlie Iatirude of Ras Yoriga. a Forint
shows that the nrirnber of arresis ta iIre easl of a iiortherIy Ii~reis not grCate1
but less tiian the 11urnbarto tfir wesr of that Iine. According to my corrrlt using
the Iist III Annex 89. ai its face value. ~ I this
I region II-rere were 1 1 a ~ - r e sIo
b tire
east of 1Iic Iine aiid 14 to the west. 50 that as regal-ds the area wlrer-ethe Iirie
drawn in a no1 therIy direc~io~i wouId apply eveii the Trr~iisia~rs. il seems lu me.
have got it W I - O I -when
~~ lhey say (hat m e r half of the vcsseIs arrested by the
T u ~ ~ i s i aaulhorities
n were heized to rhe east of t his Iine 1t is. of cou1-se. nui
possible lo be so speifrc about the arrests to the north of the latitude of Ras
Yo~igabecause. according Io the Libyan suggesred practicuI merhod. eveIr the
genera1 direction of the 111iehas ycl Io be delermirsed.
The 1-eaIpoi~rthowever is. ]lot the numbe1- of a1-restst ha1 have beeii made
here o r there. but fIie cvide~itialvalue of tlte arrests oii which Tunisia relies. A s
was poinred out i ~ the i L~byanCou~iler-Memorid.onIy one of chme arI,esrs
affected a Tripaiitania~io r Libya~iboat. This was the ar rest said to have takeri
pIace i ~ Ma~-ch
i 1952 about 15 inilles dans 1c 90 dr la bo~rc'c.de Ras Zirn. III
paragraph 123 of tire Libya~iCoun~r-Mernorialf I X the approxi~nateposition of
that arres! was given as 33- 27' 30'-N. 1 I Q 39'E. But, as aiso poi~itedout in
tIiat paragrapfr. this location was auhide Libyart 1er1-irorialwirtcrs alid on IIre
Iiigh seas and no ~iotificarionwas ever 111adeby lhe ItaIian owner 10 iIie Libya~i
arrIIioritier. Sv. narurally . t here was no protest by Libya. Thele uJas no reasorr
w hy rhere should have bee~i.This siilgIe i~icide~lt is worthless as aIiy ev~deiice
of the exisle~rceof Tunisia~-rhisloric rights. or of Libya's acquiescerice irr SUCI~
@ righis. Moreover. as is shawii by Map No. 12 io wliich I have reie1-red. no
vesse1 was ever s e ~ ~ ebyd Tunisia in Libyan territuria! waters withi~ithe area
between the due norlh Iine f~-oinRas Ajdir and tlre alIeged 45' bearing.
38 COPTINENTAL SHELF

Olherwise. the alIeged arresis are such fii~nsyevidence d Iristoric ~'iglitst I1a1
tliey can and slrould be disreparded as evidence in supporl of IIre established
EsIii~rgrights of Trrnisia reierred to in paragraph 525 of the tibyan C O U I I ~ I . -
Me~nmial.
A p a ~ frorn
t the one Tripdita~i~anincident. acc01-dingiv m y caIcu tatio~is.of
the I-enraining58 incide~its.5 rclaied io Greek vessels and 63 lu Italian vessels.
~ Xto ihc Tu11isian Memaria1 (1) but 110
The po11i1is ngt made c1ea1-in A I I I - ~89
doubl the ar1--1s of ItaIia~r ve~5.selswere in accordance wirh a biIate1-a1
ag1-eerneilt between Tunisia arrd Italy. Thel-e is. of coursc. 110I-eason - n o
reahon at al1 - why Italy should 1101 agree to the arresr of its vesseIs a11lhe
Iligh 3eas by Tunisia but such arresis Irave no perline~iceas evide~iceof Iiistoric
righls as agai~tstLibya.
The legal authorily under whicIi IIie proceedirrgs were taken aIso leads tv a
sin1iIa1' concIrision. According Io Annex 89 (if nljl reckoning is COI-I-ecr}. thc
proceedi~igsin the 68 or 69 incide~risIisted in Annex 54 were as foIIows ;
DB 1951 15
Loi 16 oc!. 1962 2
Lai 1963 14
Loi I973 27
Only five of these refer 10 earlier rneasn1-es. There is one. Item 59. related 10the
circuIar of 3 I DeceInber I 904 and five i-elaled to the Dec1.e of 1 7 JuIy I 906.
includi~igIteIir 40 where the1-e is ail appareI-II sIip givi~igt lie date as 27. nul 17.
July Ibul fhat IS triviaIl.
W he~ro ~ r eadds iv these facts the dates of the procs-wrb~ux.the earIiest of
which was 1950 and most of which were more r c c e ~ ~iIl. is apparent Iiow
~~~~~y is the tabIe of alIeged vesse1 arresis as evider~ceof histwic or weII-
estabIished rights. 1 am 1101raking the t i ~ n eof tlre Court lo detail the date of Ihe
proc.r-vc~bucrlrxi1-r each case but it is obvious Ihat proceedings brouglrt. for
exampIe. u1rde1-the 1953. and 1971 Iaws. Inust Irave bee~isubsequei-rt ta tlre
effective date of those Iirws. A s I have jus1 said. 1heie were 1 9 iilc~dc~rts under
the Law of 1963 and 27 under tIie Law o f 197 3 . I f IIiese arrcsls are evideace
of anything. tlley arc evidence of the efforts of -fu~iisia.especially i ~ the i last
two decades. to press ils marilime jurisdictio~ieastwa1-d.
1 an-r SOI-ryIhis has iken qnile a Iong time bul the iacts and aIIegntions
i~rvolvcdare 1101 without pe~-linencein the case itself. and 1 hope lhat in the
Iighr of Ilris rejponse we shaIl no1 be faced with aIry further accusations of
perversio~iof the Iruth.
Tliere. 1 hope. so far as 1 aIn concerned. 1 caIi Ieave bnried forever the
Tunisial1 accusation of pe1.ve1-sionof the tx-uth. and. so far as oIher aspccts of
the seven consideratio~rsare con-1-ned. Ieave t h e ~ nto nly colIeagries. These
conside~aIionsare. o i cou1-se. those set out in paragraphs 524 -530 of the
Libyan Co~lnter-Memo1-iaI(II), to whiclr I wouId like to refer. because they
support the practical 1ne1Iiod for the applicariori of tIre pri~~cipies and ruIes of
inler~iatiunalIaw suggesied by Libya. and I am in facl very g1alefu1 to o u r
oppo1ie11Lsfor having di^-ected atte~iriorrto those consideratio~rs.

H ISTORY
2. DIPLO~~.I,ITIC
1 shaII o n I y refer to pa1-ticular aspects thal seem lo be reIativeIy irnporlant
and 1 shaII 1ry Io deaI as briefly as possible with tire dip101natic history. May I
1-efer.in that cn~-r~~ection tu parag1-aphs 1 .O I and 1 -02 o f the Tunisian RepIy
 A RGURI ENT OF SIR FRANCIS l'A L L A T 39

(IV). Unce mare we Iiave an atternpt to brush aside a11 the maleria1 and
considerations set oril u~ider1he general titIe "The Historical Backgro~id"111
rhe Libyan Counter-Mernorial- It ~'eaIIyis cxrraordinary ta t ~ - yIo sweep aside
al1 tlre facts and argnmenls which Iiave bee~ipresenred by -the cornplaint thar
111eeIe1ne111sare under the convenienr tit le "TIle His~oricaIBackground". or
IIiat it 1s a "hclerogeneous assemblage" a ~ i dolIetio~iof -'disparale tupics".
This Inay or nlay nut be a vaIid crilicis~nof the 1it1e chmen but il dues nol
begiri Io rouch lhe force and effect of Ihe va~'iorrsparls of the case set forth by
Libya under that IirIe. 1 feeI confident. MI-.Preside~itand Membcrs of the
Courl. that yuu rviII 1101 be i ~ aIiy
i way dcterred by such an irreIevan1 1neIhod
of attempli~rgo ~ i c emore to bIow aside Ihe substance of tlre 1,ibyan case by a
sii~gIep i ~ f f o fwind as if it were so muc11 casrral r11atIedown. One can only
regard such a merliod of dealing wilIi con~eteconsiderations as virtuaIIy a n
impIied ad~nissio~-r of 1Iie p e r t ~ ~ l c ~ iof
c e thc facts put forward and the
effecliveness or tIie XI-gr~nients preserired.
I I is ~ioticeable,for example, that the1-e 1s a con~pIetefa11ure IO cornIllen1 on
the Libyan Counrer-iMemoria1 (II), Part 1. Chapter 1, Seclion 4, entitIed
"KeIevance of t h e DipIomaric Hisrory - perliaps Ihis iilIe is ~ i oquitc
" l righl, ir
n-righl better be caIIed "The Non-relevance of 1he DipIo~nalicHISIOI'~". bul that
is anoIher Inauer. Thai chaprer is designcd ro restcre rlie balince of Ilie one-
sided and slarrled pic1u1.e of discussions a ~ r dwritten exchanges belwee~iIIie
Parr~esPI-ese~ried111 tIre Turrisiir~r Mernorial. Arnbassador EI Maghur has
a11-eadydi-aw~iattenrio~rio a ~ i u ~ n b of c r facts which fi11 out and correct the
one-sided picru~epracnted by Tunisia and 1he1-eis no need for Ine ru coInIneIir
further.
Ili any eveIx. as 1 have just staied. tlre d~pIomaI~c exclia~rgesare to a 1a1-ge
extenl 1rre1evantto the questio~iof shelf d e l i ~ n i ~ a t TIiere
~ o ~ ~a1-e,
. howeve1-.oIre
o r two aspecis [ha[ Irave per111-re1rce cit her 10 rhal qucstion or ro t lie sig~i~ficance
or thc posiiions taken by [Ire Parlies duri~rglhe praent procmdirrgs. 01resuch
point which is WOI-~II e~nphasizi~ig is lhe initia1 rejecrion of Tnnisia's cIainis in
JuIy 1968 a ~ r dLibya's reIiance. cven at that stage, on a nwrherIy Iine. This
posi11011is substa~itiared by rhe Tuntsian Mernoria1 itseIi ihrough its unilale1-al
l.ecord of rhe discussio~isin JuIy 1 958 set out in Annex 8B to the MemoriaI.
Parr B or Annex 8 pui'porls lo slate the position of the Libyan delcgativn. It is
tlrere staled ha1 for the Libyan d~Iegationthe point of deparrure for the
deIirnirar~onof the continenla1 sheIf should be the pornt of rneering of rhe 1 2-
mile Iin~irI11ieextent of tlre ter1-ilo1.1a1 sea as esIab11shed by rhe Libjra~iLaw of
1 8 Fcbrua1-y I 959) wi11i a Iine starting ar Ras Ajdir aixi rr~nniiigrowards the
rrorth - ilut of c o u ~ s etowal-ds the ~iorllieasr.
As r h ~ 11rcomp1erc
s starement of t he position of ihe Libyan deIegarion clearly
shows, that dekgalion h n I y ~ e ~ e c t eany d c1ai1n by Tu~iiiisiabased UII a IIIIF
runiiIIig noi ~iorlhward bur Iowards the i~orrh-easr. I n facl. the 1,ibyan
delegat turi a150 I-ejecredtire cIaim of Tu~iisiato a del~~n~rarion or tIie cont~ne~llal
sheIf based upo11 ib ctai~nto a rishery zone deIimited b y Iine north-east ZV 45-
from Ras Ajdir and the 50-rnetre isobatlr. 111t h ~ respecI, s lIle u11ilateraI record
of Tunisia is defrcjenr bur, in spire of tlrar. rIie pos~tionof rhe Libyan delegation
1s cIear by Iiccessary i~nplicarionfrvm w hat is stated 111 t lie u11iIateraI Tunisian
reco1-d concerning rhe Iine running torvards rhe 11ortIi-east.
TIiaf Libya was nui prepar-ed io accept Ille Trrn isia~icontentions regardi~rg
tIie delimitation o f ierrit01-iaIwaters and the extent of its fishery zones i also
apparent from the fact that Libya was insisling un an agenda incIudi11g

i "ter~.i~oriaI waters", "frshi~rgzones" and "continental sheIf '. T1r1s position

adopted by Libya is made c1ea1-by the Tunisia~iMemoriaI, paragraphs 1 .I 1
and Annex 15 [O tIie -I'u~r~s~an Mernoria1 (1). The A nnex is a note of 19 Julie
1972 f r o ~ n!lie Libya~iMi1-ris11-y Io the Tunisian Ambassadur
of Foreign Aff-ai~-s
in TripoIi. whic1-r does have pe1-tine~icei ~ irhis connection. According to the
II~ird subparag~aphof Ihe note, Libya was saying thar the forlhcoming
11egotiaiio~rsshouId be m1ice1-ned w it h three matters : deIimitation of (il
leri-1101-ka1waters. I I ~[he ) fishery zones. and (iii) the continenta1 sheIf. The
obvious i~nplica~ion is tliar. i ~ r1 972. Libya wax st1I11101 a c c e p ~ i ~IIre
l g Tr1nisia11
positio~ron arry of these 1natte1-S.
60 that tlre poirrt rr-ray 11ot be forgul~en. wlren I colne to examme the
questio11of petroIerr~nlegilatio~iand g~.a~-rls of co~icessio~rs. Inay 1 obse1-vetirai
tlie Libya11note of 19 Jrr11e 1972 aiso staIed lhat tlre riew Tu~iisianexpIo1.atio11
permit No. 1 7 was the carIse of tlie rrciuaI difficriIiy and thal the 1najo1-pa1-t of
IIie XI-eac01rce1-1iedin rlris permit was situaied inside the Libya~icontinenta1
slielf. Howeve1-. !lie point IIiat 1 wisli to stress at the moment is t ha1 at no stage
did Libya accept The Tunisian contentions rega1-ding Ihe delimitation of Ihe
territoria1 sea. Ihe fisherjr zones o r the contii~enralsheIf.
A~ioflieraspect of the dip101natic exchii~igesw Iiicli is of sigii~fica~rce is the
"May me~norandurn".f lia1 is the ~ n e n ~ o r a ~ r dofu May ~ n 1976 to wli~li1 have
referrcd This sraled the posirion of Tunisia based 011aIIeged Iiistoric fisliing
I-ightsand the method of equidistancc tu wliicl~Tu~iisiaobst i1i;iIeIy lidhe1-ed -
obstinateIy and wrongly adhered - r1nti1 Ihe fiIing of its Me~noriaIiir Ihe
presenf case- Indeed. as we al1 know. in an altempl: to cxtend its cIain1 eveIi
~LII-t.Iier eusi and furilrer wrrtli. Trrnisia has abandoned lhe equidistance nlethod
i11 tIrese PI-oceedings. This is ~ i o wcornmon ground between the Parties.
NevertlreIess, it would not be r1gh1 for me 10 pass over in siIence. forgive Ihe
word but ir applies. the i~npiarisibleexpIa~iationof the change in policy given
by Professor Je~i~iings. 1 aIn rcferring 10the record [IV. pp. 412-4231. 1 ignore
the sarcastic thrust at the Libyari writte~ipIeadings and pass tu the point of
substa~ice. Professor Je1111ingsexpkairred the clia~igeby saying t h a ~the SpeciaI
Agreen~ent refers specificalIy to re-111 ferrde~rciesof [Ire Iaw and thal. if I
u~ide~.stood hirn co~rec-tIy.in the Iight of t l r Iaw as it is deveIvpi~~g. it was
rcaso~rabIyto bc cxpectcd tl-rat tlrc Ti11risia11case rvvuid take fui1 uccount o f
equitabIe PI-i13cipIesas they have mminifestly deveIoped within the Iaw sincc ihe
quesi ion Ers1 arme. 1 a m nor quile sure of 1I1edate io which he was rererring.
but preu~nabIyh e meant JuIy 1968. Mr. PresidenI. w e have Iistened in vain
for an cxpIa~iatiorrof Irow equitabIe principies are srrpposed tu !rave deveIoped
s i r r c e rhat rime.
In any eve~rt.rvIiat seeIns to be pe1-rIIieII1011 the b a s ~ sof iIie par1 of Ihe
S p w ~ a IAgreement. Io which h e was apparentIy referring. are the words "as
weII as the Iiew acceptcd tre~idsi ~ 1Iie i Third Conference on tlie Law of Ihe
Sea". Nu dou bt we have a11 looked al the drafts tIlat Irave bee~rprepa~edby the
Third Conference. In the Iight of the various drafls c o ~ i c e r ~ ~deIimitation ing of
the conti~ientatsheIf. ArticIe 70 in 1 975, and Art~cIe83 in 1Ire cirafis of 1 377.
1979 and 1480. ii is impossibIe Io fInd a n excuse for the Tunisian change in the
basis of iis c1ai1n '. EacIi and eXTeryoIieof those texts refers tu the possibility of
usii~g"wherc appropriate" rlie ned di an 01'equidisla~lce11ne. Unless my reading
is fauIty. it is o1r1y i ~ the '.
i current ArticIe 83. paragraph 1 that we End the

' IiifoirnaI Si~rgIeNegoiiati~rgTexrs - 1975. A ICOVF.62iWP.8 1975. A /CONF..

6Z/WP.8. Rev. 1 : Informa1Cornpaxire Negoiiati~rgTexts . 1977. AlCONF.62/WP. 1 O
and Add.1 : 1979. A/CUNF.b2/R~P.IO/Kev.I : 1980. A/CONF62/WP.IO/Rev 2
and Kev 3 : Dnfr Gnve~rtio~r 011 tlrt: Law of ihe Sca : 1981. AICONF.62IL. 78.
 AKGUkjEKT OF SIR FRANCIS V A L L A T 41

express refere~rce to equidista~iceo~nitted. TV Irave based Ihe Tunisian

Mernoria1 on thjs lext wouId have been far-sighted indeed.
If it was considered by Tunisia that tire equidisrance ~nelhod was
appropriate in 1968 or 1976. why was it not considered tu be appropriale at
t Iie tirne when the Turrisian hleniorial was fiIed ? The Y ~ I -weakness
y of t h e
excuse for the change Inust raise questio~rsand duubls as lo the reasons for
Tunjsia pulling forward a compIeleIy new case sn tire MenloriaI. Did Trrnisia
Iiupe by this frrrther step eastward a l once Io enIarge the area of Tunisian
d a i m s and Ihe area to which A rticIe 1 of Ihe SpeciaI Agreement refers. At IIie
dale of rhe Special Agree~nent.so fa1- a s Libya knew. the dispute bet ween t Iie
Parries concerned a conflicl betwee~ithe Libya~ic1ai1nstarting with a northerIy
Iine in accordance wirh the 1955 Law a ~ i dReguIatio~rand the nrosr exrreme
e q u i d i s ~ n c de a i m put forward by Tunisia. W hat equitable principle has Ied ta
Ihe extension of the area of Trrnisia's daims cansiderabIy furrher ta rhe east
than even Tunisia cIairned in 1 975 ? T h e ~ eInay be othe1- poinrs i ~ iIIie
dipIomaIic excha~igcs1 ha1 Inay have ~narginalreIeva13ce. briI 1 t h i ~ ~thar k rhe
o ~ i e slhat I have mentioned are rhe nlost importanl. 1 would ~ i o t of . course.
wish to over-e~nphasizethat iinporta~icesince. as has aIready b e e ~ isaid on
more than OIIF occasion, the dipIomalic hislory in a way has IIO di~.ectbeari~ig
on rhe question of sheIf deIirnilation.

3 . PETRULEUM A N D G RANTS OF CONCESSIONS

LEGISLATIOW

It is a subjecl which is much closer to the Ireart of tire ~natterbefore the

Court. I t is a 1natte1 o ~ which
i Ihe Tu~iisianwritten pIeadings have shown
remarkSbIe sensi~ivity.Paragraphs 1 .O3 a ~ r d1 .O4 of the Tunisian RepIy (IV)
seeIn [O try tu drive a wedge. as it were. belween the Libyan Pet1-o1eu1nLaw
No. 25 of 1955 and ReguIation No. 1 of the s a ~ n year.e This in ilself is a furiIe
efforl because il is plain that the L a w a ~ i dthe Regulalio~r.as is 1iorma1in such
circurnstances Irave to be read iogethe~'. T h e h w withonr rhe ReguIativn
wonId no1 operaIe and the ReguIation withour the Law wouId have no
authority.
Having regard lo the Tunisian RepIy. ir is agai~inecessary io try Io cIarify
riic Libyan view of the nalure and effect of the Law arid the ReguIntion in the
cvntexl of the present proceedings. Libya does ~ i opreseIrt t the 1955 Law 3s
"a11 act of deIi~ni~a~ion" of the c u ~ i l i ~ i e ~sheIf.
i ~ a I As we al1 know. in the srrict
seme. it courd ~ i obe t a n act of deIin~iration.It muid only arnounr to a clainr Io
sovereig~irighrs in certain areas. On this i do ~ i o tIi11ik t lha? IIiere ISaIry reaI
di fier-ence betwee~rTunisia a ~ i dLibya ~fone reads carefrrIIy what is said in the
secorrd subparagraph of paragraph 1.03 of the Tunisian RepIy.
W hiIe it is true IIiaI tire Libyan Pefroleunr Law does not. 1s ~ i oand t does no1
purport 10 be. "air act of deIimilatio11". it does indicate i11 gcneral terms the
areas to which it 1s i~rle~ided to appIy. It is cIearIy intended Io appIy nor onIy to
areas of Ia~rdbut also to maritime areas. This seerns Io have been uverboked
in IIre last sentence of paragraph 1.03. which Say?;: "What is more ArticIe 3 of
the Law expressIy conce1-11s110other areas but areas on land."
Mr. Praidenl, Iet me refer io paragraph 33 of the Libyan MemwiaI (IL
which, quoting the pertirient passage from paragraph 1 uf AricIe 4 of the
PetroIeu~nh w . expressly says that the Law -
! "shaII cxtend ta the sea-bed and snbsoiI which Iie benealh the terrilorial
 42 COKTIKENTAL SHELF

ju1,isdiction of Libya. A ~ r ysuch sea-bed and subsoiI adjacent to any zone

slrall fur the purposes of 1Iris Law be deerned ta be pari o f t h a t zone."
Trrnisia. in d~afiingifs RepIy. seems ro have overIooked that provisioii.
TIie text of the Law in Arabic is set out in Annex 1-9A to the 1,ibyan
Mernorial and an EngIish rransIation of what are beIieved Io be the I-eIeva~rt
a~-ticles in A~inex1-9B. If 1 rnay. 1 shouId now Iike to refer to the provisions of
A rticIes 1 to 4 as tIiey are fourrd in the Englislr translalion. The reason is that it
is Iiecessary to put the regularion into iIie context of the law.
By ArticIc 1, a11 petroleunl in Libya i ~ 11s is decIared to
i natural state ~ I st~-ata
I
be tlre property of the Libyan Slate. The excIusiveharacler of ihe ~'ightsof the
L~byanState are empliasized by paragraph 2. w hich prohibils any person from
expIori~rgo r prvspecti~~g for. InIIiIng o r PI-oducingan y pelroIenm in a n y part
of Libya unIess authorited bjr a permit o r concession issued under the 1955
Law. These provisions might give tIie impression that the Law was Iinlited to
the Ia~idterritory of Libya. TIIIS wouId be a false impression as appears from
a n examination of the articIes that foIIow.
Article 2 provides for the estabIisIi~nentof a Peti-#leu111Com~nission. 1 am
surry ta have to do this. but 1 have to d o this because an attack has been na de
on the status of the pelroleun~regularion. 1 repeat. ArricIe 2, provides for 1Ire
establisir~nentof a Pet1-oIenm Commission. 1 d o not need to troubIe the CO~II-1
with a11 the PI-ouisiorisof ArticIe 2 but. by paragraph 3 . the Comrr~issio~r is
na de responsibIe ~ V I tlre
- impIementation o f the provisions of the Law u11de1-
the supe1-vision of the M i~iiste~.. I t is responsibIe for the gra~rta ~ r dso fo1.111of
per~nitsarrd co~icessio~is urrder tlre Iaw. TIris articIe has to be rmd with ArticIe
24 of tire Iarv. whicIi PI-ovides:

'*The Comn~ix~ion siral1 pi-epare srich ReguIatiorrs as may be Ilccessary

TOI- the impIemeiitation of tlris Law, incIuding ReguIatio~isfor the safe
d under this Law. and
and efficient performance of operations S ~ I - r i eout
for the conse1-uaiioi-rof the petroIeum resonrces of Libya. a ~ i d
&a11 subnlit
such Regulations to the Milrister for approvaI and prornuIga!ion provi-
ded that 110 ReguIatioi~o r alteration the1-eof sIiaII be contrary to or
incomistent with [Ire provisions of 1111s Law or adverseIy affect the
contractua1 rights expressIy g~-antedn~iderany germir o r concession i11
existence a1 IIie tirne tIie ReguIation is made o r alte1-ed."
Now. RegriIation No. 1 of 1955 was made in a c c o r d a ~ ~with
c e these provisions
and it was pronlulgated acc01-dingIy. Il cIearIy has the authority of Iaw. I
shaII. however. return 10 rhis poii~tin a nmmenl.
Continuirrg with the provisions of iIie Law ilseIf. may 1 refer to ArticIe 3
which is 1ne11tio11edin the sentence whicIi 1 Iiave quoted from the Tunisia~i
Reply. The iritent of Article 3 , as its titIe i~idica~es. is the division of the
territory of Libjra for the purposes of the Law i ~ i t ofour PetroIeum Zo~res.The
relevant one is. of course, lhe First Zone which co~isistsof the Province of
Tripditania. For so;oinereasoil. which is difficult io expIai~i.the Tunisian RepIy
(IV) in paragrapli 1 .OJ. has stopped at Art icIe 3 and faiIed tv pass over to
Article 4. If there were any doubt about the meaning of the expression "the
territory of Libya" as used in ArticIe 3 . any doribl is removed by the pi-ovisio~ls
' of paragrapli 1 of Art~cle4 which 1 have already quoted. In connection with
the boundaries of IIie Zo~ies.it is expressIy provided tlrat Lire Law shaII ex tend
to the sea-bed and subsoiI which Iie beyond rhe terri101-iaIwaters and the higIi
seas cvrrliguor~stherelo. I t is aIso expressIy provided that aIry such sea-bed
 2nd subsoiI adjacent ta any Zone shaII fo~'llic purposes of Ihe Law be dee~ned
10 be part of that Zo~ie. Paragraph Z of ArticIe 4 gives power 10 the
Coin~nissionin case of doubt to deterilii~ietlre houndary of any Z o ~ i efor rhe
purposes of tlre Law. 1 n l l ~ elight of Ihe provisio~isof paragraph 1 . there can be
no doubt wl~areverthat this refers lo sea al-eas as wcII as land a1-eas.
1 f 1 mai. IIOW p a s o n tv t h e aIIegation in paragraphs t 3 4 and 1 -05 of tIre
Tunisian RepIy. II musc by now be perfectIy pIa11r that Pe~roIeumReguIatiorr
No. 1 of 1 955 was IIVI a mere circuIar. The t~ a1isIa1ion point has aIready bee~i
disposed of by Ambasador 1 Maghur. a ~ i din the end event it has notlring
wha~everto do with the boundary wiIIi w111cIi we are concerned. I t re~nains
ror me to S ~ I - elhats the ReguIarion was 11ideedgiven the farce of Law. As
stated in paragraph 3 1 of IIie 1,ibyan Me~r~orial. Petroleum ReguIation No 1
was prornuIgaied on 16 June 1955 and pubIisIied. logerher with an oficial
Iirap of Libya entitIed "klap No. 1 ". i ~ Gazclle
r No. 7 of 30 A ugust 1 955- A
mpy of the niap. a s published. appeai-s opposite page 15 of tlre Libya~i
Mernorial (11 a ~ i dcIcarIy shows a norrIle1'1y Iine f r o ~ nRas Ajdi1- - a li~ie.11
s h w I d be noleci. which does not run i~idefiniteIynorth but for a distance of
sonie 63 nautica1 1ni1esfrom ihe Coast. Reyo~id1I ~ adisrance.
t the bounda1-ies of
Zone 1 . aiid acco1-di~iglyof IIie Libyan d a i m ta excIrisive rights Io expIore and
expioil the p e t r d e u ~ nI-esourcesof the continental shelf. we1.e Ieft u~idefined.
iMay 1 add just a few words further cv~icerningthe starus of PetrvIeunl
Regu!arion No. 1 - As 1 have jus1 said. it was d n I y pro1nrrIga1ed b y the Minister
of Nariona1 Economics i ~ accoi.da~ice
i with Article 24 of the PerrvIcum Law
No. 25. If one Iooks a1 AIIIIFX1-9D 10 the 1,ibyan Me~noriaI,it wiII be seen
i preamble lo Ihe ReguIa1101-rand that rhe M iniste1-
that this fact is 1-ecited i ~ the
1 aIso recites rIral he was acling on wIiat had been submilted to him by the
i Pelrolei~~n Co~nniission.This procedu~'ewas in conformily with AI-t~le 24 of
IIie Law. ArticIe 1 of the RegriIatio~ideaIs with tlre map.
l betIer. for prcsenl purposes. rIrn read the words of the
1 c a ~ i ~ i oda
Regdalion itseIf. A rticIe 1 says :
"There shaII be a11 official map of Libya TOI- !lie purposes of the
PeIroleum Law 1355 to a scale or I : 2-000.000 caIled Map No. 1, which
is atIacIied a s the First ScIiedule hereto. On this map. the i~irernalionaI
fronticrs. Pe11-oIeu111Zones. and the grid shalI be indicated."
Then Arlicle 2 defiiles the PerroIeuIn zoiiw TOI- al1 purpose5 of the
PeIroleu~nLaw. TIre Firsr Z m e 1s Ihc onIy m e that COI-~S~I'IIS us here. 1 wiII
not read i h e w IioIe of the text, which is set out ~ I AiInex
I I.9D ta the Libya~r
Me~noriaI. It is sufficien1 to quote t11e first part of the definitio~i.which is as
t iolIows .
"The First Zone - consists of tlre P r o v i ~ ~ of
c e Tripolibnia bounded o n
h the Iirnils of krritoriai waters a ~ r dhigIi seas contigrious
the ~ O I - tby
therelo under the controI arrd inrisdiction of the United Ki~igdomof
Libya. arrd 011the a t by 1 go 50' Iongilride u1rti1 it i~lterseclsthe mas1
Iine . . ."
The 1-eferencesin A1'ticIes 1 and Z to "the internat ion31 f~untiers"and "the Iiiglr
seas contiguous ro rhe Iimils of terrilorla1 waters under lhe coi-111-01 a ~ r d
ju1-isd~ct~onor the United Kingdo~nof Libya" makes it absoIuteIy clear rhat tlre
ReguIatio11 is dealing, nor onIy wiiIi Iirnd territory for pu^-eIy iriternaI purposes.
but is also deaii~igwith lhe international fronliers cIaimed by L~byaexlending
to the mntiguous high seas under the controI and jurisdict~o~i of Libya. The
t
northern bori1rda1.y of the Zone is not utIre~.wisedefrned. but tlre western
 44 CON TI NEkTAL S H ELF

bou~idaryis defined by reference to the border of Tunisia. From llle point

where tI-re I1ne of 31" Iatitude reaches the border uf Tuiiisia the wesrern
b o u ~ ~ d a rd y the Zone runs "i~i a generaI 1rortIrer1y di~ectionaIong the
internatio1ia1 baundary" If o n e reads this definilion Iogether with ArticIe 1
and Map No. 1 of the PetroIeun~Regdation, the inipiica~io~i of conlinuation of
the general northe1-Iy directioi~of the iriternalional bou~ldary1s made clear for
a11 the world to see. This is the boundary Ii~iethat 1,ibya was cIaiming in 1955
a ~ i dit is the bais, in part, of the practicaI method submitted l o IIie G U I - t in the
present pruceedings. Il is the Iine which Libya. for sound reasons. be11eves is
the proper oIie tuday
Having regard to the provisio~isof [Ire Peiroieum Law and the ReguIation
I-eadtogelIier. tlie northerIy Iine ca1111o1be I-egardedotherwise tlran as a cIa1n1
to a contine111aI sIreI bwndary, at least a s far West and as far north as
i~rdicatedon tlie Irap. 111that sense. the Law and the ReguIatio~r,ofcourse.did
1101 c ~ e a t an
e "inter~~atio~ial boundary". becarrse such a bou~idarycouId not be
created by a singIe unilateraI act. As paragraph 1 .O5 of the T u ~ i ~ s i aRepIy n
(IV}says ' T h e only 'i11te1-1iationa1boundary' existing al the t i ~ n ewas of course
the Ialrd f~-onlier". And. in the sense of a defI~iedand agreed bori1ida1-ythis is
quile dearly so.
As no dou bt IIie Courr wiII assume, 1 a m making no "irnporta~rtadnlissioils"
witrr respect to the pdragraphs of the Tu~~isiarr RepIy that 1 a m discussing at the
t , for rhe sake of safety perhaps 1 shouId mention that the
~ n o ~ n e n but
significa~~ce of the internationa1 boundary, thar is IO s a y the Iand b o u ~ ~ d a r y ,
and the ge11e1,aIIy nur~h-southdirectio~rof that boundary as described in The
Boundary Treaty of 1 9 1 O. wiII be e x a ~ n i ~ i eIater, d by my coIlague, Professor
MaIintoppi
Now,if 1 may turIi to anoiher aspect of tire situation. we do 110t naturalIy
accept the conclusion stared in paragraph 1 .O6 of the Tunisian Reply, con-
cerning the factual alrd IegaI posi~ion01. the motives attributed to Libya. It is
c1ea1-that the Libyair view of the 1955 Libyan petroIeu~nIegisIation is the
correct one and ii is also cIcar IIiat f he Tunisiail purpose 1111-oughouthas bee~i
to try lu push ~ t co111roI s and jurisdic~ion further and furthe1- eastward and
sourliward either tlirough the grant of petroIeum concessions or ot1re1-wise.
In pa1-agr-aphs1 .O6 to 1 1O of ifs RepIy, Tu~iisiatries tu bIur the cIear picture
of its eastward {and soutlrwardl push TIie grirnt of petroIenm c o ~ ~ c e s s ~ is ons
on1y one eIement of this progression. 1-Iowever. the atte~nptof Tunisia. even irr
~ , biur the picture can e a i I y be seen tu be conrrary Io tire reaI
this c a n n e c t i o ~to
pos~ion .
1 do i ~ o twaIi1 to pIace loo much e~nphasiso n the quesrion of the grant of
pet1-oIeum conc=io~~s. This, again, is, in a seilse, a niatter of s e c o ~ ~ d a ~ - y
irnportarre. The history is a IittIe complica~ed,and 1 w w l d refer i11 IIiis
con~rectionto the Libyan Cou~rier-Memarial.p a r a g ~ a p h3~1 tu 37. where it is
indicated. NevertheIess i t is Irmssary and desirabIe ihat the Court shouId be
give~ias cIear and correct a piciu1-eas possibIe. For tIris purpose. 1 shouId Iike
to II-yto indicate chro~toIogicaiIjlthe srory of lhe grant of concessions with the
aid of a map which 1 slialI have put OITrhe easeI.

Mr. PI-esident. before the interva1 1 was about io t ~ - yto put into very cIear
and si~ripleform the story of the gra nt of oil co~icessiorrsand for t his pu rpme I
now have on the easeI behind Ine a rnap which is the basic Inap that has been
@ used by Libya for the purpose of the written pleadings and which is in the niap
 46 CONTINENTAL SEIELF ,

large areas wlrilr are shown by the overIay in blue. The wwte1-n boundary
was an exie~isionof the 2 6 O rvestern boundary of Concessio~iNo. 137. Of
course, rIie obvious result was tIlat concessions were gra111ed by Tunisia and
Iry Libya coverirrg the same area. This is shown by the da1-ke1-a1-ea both 011t lie
@ Iarge map and w i t h e srnaII map in 1Iie foIder 011the Inap i ~ the i foIder the
darker area c a n e s out in a sort of green coIour. The overlap 1s In a way much
clearer on the ove1-Iay,but it -is in e i t h e ~case the darker area tliat 1s the area of
overlap.
'NeII. if tliis was the concessio~isituation as it existed i1-r 1977 at the date of
the sig~ratureof the S~reciaIAgreemerrt. it shows the clea~estpossible eastward
thrust by Tu~risiaIn the grant of ils concessions and it sIiows the seIf-resiraint
of Libya irr foIIowing the 2Sv Ii~refrum Ras Ajdi1-. It certainIy did net IneaIi
thaI Libya was in any way abandoning its c l a i ~ nIo a Iine which. ai airy sale.
went frum Ras A j d i ~northerly in accorda~icewith the map wli~cli was
pnbIiJred with Regutatiorr No. 1 (1. p. 4673.
TIrere might be a te~nptationto say tlial tliis does not matter, because in the
paragraphs of the RepIy fo which 1 have refe1-red, Tunisia has tried to pIay
down ils ~esponsibilityfor the grant of coircessions and ar the sanre rime to
painl a p~ctureof a kind of self-righleousness in grarltirrg tliem. There are
various cornInents that might be na de on this approdch. Thare coinme~ilsare
perhaps so~newlratdive1-sebut, haviirg regard to the positio~lstake~iby Tunisia
in paragraphs 106 to 1 IO of the RepI y, some comments have Io be made.
First. ii wiII be seen that the initial g r a ~ lof
t a co~rcessionmade by Turrisia, as
sliown on this map, Map I I , was bon~lded011the east by the Iirre ru~iningin a
direction i ~ o r t hf r o ~ nRas Ajdir. Thar Tu~iisiawas aware of the sig~rificanceof
tlie gram of concessio~rsand the risk of co~lfliciin this connectio~iwit Ir Libya is
exposed by the uniIatera1 record of the discussions iri JuIy 1968. wIiicIi is set
out in Annex 8 t o rhe Tunisian Mernorial. The passage iir questiorr is the first
parag1-aph in rhat reco1-d u13der the heading "A - Position de I ddgation
tunisienne" (p.23 of A~rnexesta the Tunisian Mernoria1 (1)). I apdog~zethat 1
have I O read tlre passage in French bu1 I o ~ i l yI~aveth iext in French and
therefure. in spite of rny te^-rible accent. I shaII Irave Io inilict it o n the Court.
"La dIegaIion t u n i s i e ~ ~a~ iprcis
e qumeIIentait pas venrie en Libye
pour discuter des fro~ltii-esmaritimes Iuniso-Iibyen~ies,niais pIutGt de
mordinat ion pour IxpIoitation des richesses rninei-aIes sous-marines.
situes en haute mer, c'est--dii-e de Ia dIimitation du pIatean cantinenta1,
du fair qri'une socit tra~igerea sign avec nos deux pays des wnven-
tions ayant pour c h a ~ n pd'activit des rgions maritimes voisi~ies."
@ That is a cIear refere~iceto the two corrce\;sions Ired and jreIIow) on [lie Inap
of the grant of c o ~ ~ c e s s i oarrd
~ i s s11reIy shorvs out of the very record of Turrisia
irseIf the significance wIiicIr Tunisia sttached to the grant of those co~icessio~rs.
Both these co~~cessio~rs, it nlay be ~ioled, were ta the French ca~npany.
Aquilaine, and as I have just said. not orrly dues it show rlial Tr~nisiawas fuIIjr
aware of IIie grarrt of tlre concessioi~by L.ibya. bur it also slrows thar Tunisia
was fuiIy arva1-e of the significairce in connection with Ille p~oblenrof the
deli~nitationof rhe contine1rta1 sheIf of the gran1 of co~-rcessiuns.
The appIication by Aquitaine was naturally na de i ~ accordancc i rvith IIie
Pet1-oIeum Law of 1955 ItRat is Ihe app1icatioi.i to Libya] and the ReguIation
inade iliererr~ider. There be n o doubt thar Aquitaine had made itself
fa~niiiarwith the requireinerrts of the law under which il made ils appIicatio11.
In Iliese circumstances, as Ilas aIready been stated i ~ the i written pIeadings, it
seeIns incredible that Tunisia was no[, if indeed this is alleged Io be the case.
 ARGUMENT OF SIR FRANCIS VALLAT 47

fuIIy aware of the Libyan Ieg~sIatio~i i~rcludingrhe RcguIation and that meais
fulIy aware of t he Libya~icIai~nto a co1iIi1ie11ta1 sheIf boundary running ro the
no~th.
A11otIrer poinr IRat eInerges is that the appIications by Aqr~ita~ne W ~ I made
-e
by the Co~npailyto Tunisia and 1,ibya re\;pectiveIjr. a ~ i d of , coursc, na de in
accordance with iheir respecrive Ia ws. Turrrsia I-rasrried to ~ n a k eplay with the
provision of its law under whicfr applicaf ions were made by companies wirh
I-espect to ce1-ta1nareas. It has referred i11 t his connection to AI-ticIe37 of the
T u ~ r i s ~ aDecree
n of 1 January 1953. which incidenlaIIy is II#[ i~icludedirr the
exlract f~.ointhc Decree i11 Prnnex 1 to the Tunrsia~iReply. However. il
appears rliat a11 that the article does is Io defi11e Ihe grid system. and that the
artick is not in iiseIi of any signifrca~ice. Bur. just as appIicatio~is for
concessions a1-e made by oiI comprrnias [oTunisia. s o are t hey made by oiI
companies to Libya. If 1 Inay agiiir refer to Annex 1-90 to the Libyan
Memo1-raI(11 it wiII be seen f r o ~ nArticies 5 and 6 of the 1955 Petroleurn Law
thaT appl~cai~ons Inay onIy be sub~nittedby eligiIe appIicanrs, and that the
appirca~irIras ro sub~nitthe ppIicatioa to ihe Commission making separate
appl~cal~ons In r-=pect of wch petroleu~nzone: IncidentaIIy speciaI attention is
thereby caIIed lo the boundaries of the ~ - e s p ~ t pet~oIeum~ve zones. Paragraph
2 of ArticIe 6 requires t hat the ap~>lications shaIl show the a1-ea the appIicant
desires to work Thus. there does not seem tn be arrg 1nate1'ialdiffere~~ce in t his
respect between the Iaw and PI-aaice 111 Tunisia and Libya. 1 suggest that
ir is pointIess fur Tunisia to t ~ - yto brrisli off responsibiIity for the grant of
concessions by saying that the app1icatio11sc;rIne f r o ~ nthe oiI co~npanies.and
tliat it was Ieft io tIie oil cornpa~iiesto deE11ethe Iimits of the concession areas
i11 i1iei1-appIicatio~is.
TIie fact is tliaI. rvhether the areas are initiaIly designaiecl irr [Ire appI1ca11on
of the conlpanies or nor. the grant of a concession is an act of the S t a ~ eby
which 11 asserrs Ifle righr Io grant a concession for the expIorat~on and
expIoitatio~iof t h e resources of rhe continenta1 sheif to rhe Company Io wIric11
the c o ~ i c e s s ~ is
o ~gi-anted.
i This is the significance of the g~-antof co~icessiwis
which is appl~cabIeboth to T~r~lisia and ro Libya. A concession, of course, 1s
nut a rrni1ate1-a1act of deIi~nitatio~i of the internariona1 boundary of the
continenta1 shelf. It does, Irvwever a1nou11Iro a c1ai1n by the State granting ihe
concession ro the right to do so i11 tiie aIca 10 wiiicir t 1 1 ~COIICESS~OTI appiies. It
is i n this sense an assertion of sovereIgIr I-ights. It does not Ii~nitihe c1ai1n of
the State io t lie bourrdaries i~ldicatedi i l rhe concession but if does a r n w n t to a
c1ai1n up to the Ii~nitsof the boundariax of the concession. So wliatevei- t 1 - r ~
source of [Ile iippIicat io1-r. the grant of concessions by Tunisia. w hich are well
iIIustrated on ihis map. does estabIish the ever-i~~creasi~ig easrward si~etcliof
its daims. Be that as it I n a y , - r u ~ r ~ sca111io1
~a deny ruII rmpomibility for the
eveil 1no1.eextrc~necIaim put fvrward for the first time in its Mernoria1 ta a
boundary as indicaied by the slreaf of 1i1-ressliow~r.for exa~npIe.on tIle Inap
@ (Tunisian Memo1-iaI. Fig. 9.14) a ~ i d1 aIn refer~.i~-rg tu tlie Fre~ichversion.
T h a t perhaps is IIie crux of the niatter.
Now c o m a . i ~connec~ion
i with I he granted concessiom. what 1 a m ternpted
TOa11 the CI-ow~r of ar~.ogjnce.III the paragraphs of the RepIy to which 1 Iiave
~-eferred,Tunisia says tlial it onIy gra~itedco~icessio~is i11 areas which were
indisputabIy Tunisian. even io tlie exienr. ~ I Ifle I case of co~icessionsfurther tu
the east. ofdefining the bounda1-y by 1-efere~~ce to an equidista~iceIi~ie.and,
~ratrr~-aIIy, w Iraiever bau~idaryrn~glitr11tinlaIeIy be agrced with Libya. There
1s. of course, aIi e l e ~ n e ~of
i t self-co~~iradicrion in Illest: assertio~rsbecause they
refer partIy la rhe so-caIIed indispuTabIe righls of Tu~risiaand ot tIre same lime
to a b o u ~ ~ d a to r y be agreed witIi Libya. UItirnateIy, it 1s SUI-eIythe 1atte1-tliat
mus1 gover~i. However that Inay be. f lie p o i ~ rthat ~ 1 wisli to make a1 the
moment is that the concessions themseIves, in spite of he position taken by
Libya. extended. aIbeit w a provisiona1 basis. to a so-caIled equidistance Iine
Now Tunisia is trying T o push even further eastward and southward o n
g r o u ~ ~ pu1
d s forward OI- the first time in the Tunisian MemoriaI.
1 c a ~ i ~ iao~t i dwiII 11011 1 s to u111-aveI[Ire Tu111sia1imotives ~ O Iadvancing
- this
claim for the hrsr IIme In ils Mernorial. Bu1 Turrisia has characierized the
Libyan c1ai1n as a ~ n o u ~ i t ito ~ io~re-way
g equity. The saIne can certai~ilybe said
of the Trr~lisians h e d of Iines. excep1 t Irat it Ieaves virtrraIly n o 1-oorn for- the
appIicatio11of equilable principles - o1i1y the pri~rcipleof rraiu1-a1prolongatio~r
for rel~anceon which Libya lias beerr so heaviIy and 11Iogic-aIIycritici7.ed by
Tr~nisia.It is a Y ~ I odd - y situarion that thisaccusation has ineffect been lurned
rrpside down by the very argument put forward by Trinisia. Of course. Libya
wholIy rejects rhe exagge~atedand UI~I-easunabIe d a i m by Tunisia and reIies o n
the case a s presented in a positive fashion as objectiveIjr as possibIe in the
Libyan w ritten pIeadings. a s ex plained and amplified during the present oraI
hea1-i~ig.
This b~-ingsme Io [Ire end of my observations on the facts. or what might
yeneraIIj7 be wIIed tlre Ii~storical backginund. and 1 now turn to a con-
side1-ationof the IegaI questions wlr iclr co~istitute the matter directIy before the
Court.

4. THESPECIAI-
AGREEMENT
TIie SpeciaI Agi-ee~ne~rt submiii~ngthe maifer io the Court is the basis of Ihe
CouriS jurrsdict~onin rlre present case. 1nte1-pretationof the Agreement has
been examined in the written pIeadings of both Parties and 1 wouId res-
pectfuIIy refer !Ire Court to rhe I-elevant paris of rlre Libyan pIeadings [Lib-
yaIr Me~noriaI(1 ). paras. 2-8 ; Libyan Connter-Mernoria1 <III, paras. 4 1 6-
4 35 ; Libyan RepIy (IV). paras. 99-1 031. NevertIreIess. as the question of
i~rterpreta~ion has b e n discr~ssedat some length in the Tunisian oraI argu-
ment. pariicuIarIy by P ~ a f m rA~I-Saab.1 shouId Iike I o Iake a fresh l o o k
at it in Ihe Iight of factors w hich have ernerged in the course of the wrillen and
oraI pIeadings. I do this not su ~ n u c hf r o ~ ntlie goi1i1of view d e11he1Part y . I
do t h ~ s~ n o r eto t ~ - yto asceriain as objectiveIy as possibIe Ihe nature of Ihe
matter submitted tu the Court and ils rrue sig~iificance.I t h111kthat t l ~ i s1s very
i~nporta~rt. The1-e is IIO i~rtentio~iwhatsoever either tu Iimit or to expand the
rule of the C o u n My intentio~iis si1np1yl o Iry to ass~stt lie Court i ~ arrIvIIrg
r a[
a proper interpl-eIaiion. This objective is of prime importance bol11 f r o n ~tlie
point of view of iIre Court and rorn the point of view of the Parties It is
obviousIy vital f Ira1 the Court shaII carry out the roIe duIy assigned 10 it by the
Agreement : it is equaIIy vira1 thar tlie Parties shaII both be satisfied that the
Cou1.t has d o ~ i ethis. 1t is Trot in the interests of the Court o r ofeither Party Ihat
W E S I I O U I ~II-y[Ope~suadethe Cour1 to adopt a distorted or one-sided view of
the ~ n e a ~ i i nofg the PI-ovisionsof the Agreemenl.
FOI-tlris 1-caso11.1 think thai it is desirabIe at lhis stage to start from first
principIes and Io Iook carefuIly at the language of the Agreement itself.
UnderI yi~igthe whole qrrestio~~ of delimitatiorr of the co1itinenta1 sheIf are
certain basic principIes whicIi Ilave bee~iw1de1y acceptai by States batlr in
PI-acticeand as principies of Iaw. ProbabIy the ~nostfundame111aI of thase
prirrcipIes is that deIirniration is to be settIed by agree~ne~it. TIiis pri~rcipIehas
been expressed both in ArticIe 6 of the Ge~ievaCo~ive~irion o ~the
i C o ~ ii1re1ita1
t
50 CONTINENI~ALSHELF

cIoseIy as possibIe ro the words of the Agreement itseIf. 1 aIn assuniing that the
E~iglishtram1atio1-ris a raithfui reflectio~iof the original Arabic i1-l the furni in
w hich it was sub1n11Tedto the Court rr1rde1-cover of the IeIIer of 14 February
1979 fronl the Secreta~yof Foreign Affairs of 1,jbya. If tliere are stiII any
questions of IransIafion outstanding. these can n o doubt be disposed of by
II~oseamong the Members of the Court and the deIegations of 1Ie Parties
w l r o e rnother Ioirgue is Arabic. Lel Ine make ir cIear. however. tliai we do
not accept the inserliori o f the wards rrv4.c pi-kcisiur~ which the Turi~siarr
deIega1Ion has tried to revive.
WeII, turning to ArticIe 1 of the Agreement, the Court is reqriested Io ~.errder-
ils Jridgment in a dehied "matkr". It Inay ~iotbe at first sigl~tof much
significance that it is a single matter and no1 two separate quesliorrs that is
sub~nrttedlo the Corrrt for its Judgme~rt. If are adheres ta the WOI-d"matter",
WIIIEIT is used in the text, one sees the two parag1-aphs lhat folIow i ~ rproper
perspective. The iirst is I-eIaled tu the principles and I-uIesof inlernatio~ralIaw,
and the secaird is. as it were, an extension whicli asks IIre Court. as a furfiler
request, 10 cIarify the practica1 rnethod for the appIicaIio11of rhese principles
arid ruIes ia tl~isspecific situatio~i.May 1 in this coiinection i~llerjectthat when
COI- convenience 1 Iiave been using the exp1-ession "practical ~netlrod"1 have
bee~iusing that in t l ~ seIlse
e in which it is used III the SpeciaI Agree~ne~rt i ~ rthe
Ianguage to which 1 have jus1 refe1-red. 1 d o this so t11at tlrere shou Id be II#
~nisunderstanding.. I am not talking about a rnethod of deIirnitatiorr or any-
tliing Iike tlial.
The prinlary task TOT the Court under ArricIe I is tu staie what principles
and i-uIesof inter~iatiurraIIaw may be appIied for the deIimitation of tlre area of
t Ire continenla1 shelf iippertaining to Libya 2nd the a1-eaof the conti~re~riaI sheIf
apperiaining to Tunisia. This is pur cirrc~IIc~~icc~a judiciaI task purely i11tlie IegaI
fieId. The Court is asked Io state for lhe benefrt of IIre Parties the pri~icipIesarrd
ruIes of international Iaw that nlay be appIjed by them. The ruIes aIe then to
be appIied by the Parries for tlre deIimitation of tlre aIeas of contii~enlalslielf
already appertaining tu Libya and to Tu~risiarespectiveiy. TIlere ciln be IiiiIe
rooin for doubt 1I1at this part of the firsr subparagsaph of Article 1 was drafted
wit n one eye 011t h e submirjsioir to the Court in the Nurflr S m Corrriic.irrrrl SIIP({
cases and to the Judgn~entof iIle Cou17in those cases. A~I-dingIy , Article 1 is
rrot concer~iedwitir the question of ascei-taining which aseas apyertain tu the
two Slates. 1 wouId Iike to repeat that. ArticIe 1 is not concerneci with IIie
questio~rof ascertaining which areas appenain to the two Stares. StiII Iess is it
mncerned with rhe division of the area i ~ i l oequitabIe shares. TIiis is, I tlri~ik,
c a n m u n ground belween the Parties AIthough 1 thought 1 detected sume
shades of ca~ifrisionin the speech of Professor Jerrnirrgs irr this connection. 1
feeI sure tIia1 lie does ag1-ee that the SpeciaI Agreement is concer~rednot with
sharii~go ~ai basis of equity, but wiIIi del~rnitationin a ~ c o r d a ~with
l ~ e equitabIe
principIes.
This point is made cIea1. by the second part of tlie first subparagraph w h ~ c h
asks the Court 10 ta ke its decision "according to equitabIe principles and the
relevant circumstances wIiicIi clraracterize Ihe area as weII as Ihe new accepted
II-endsin the Third Conference on the Law of the Sea". In niy sub~nissio~i, rliis
provisiun does not. and indeed could not. bi~rdthe Court as to the pri~iciples
and rules of internationa1 Iaw which it is asked Io sBie "may be applied for t Ire
deIin11tation". Ils fu11cti011is to caII the allention of the Court lo certain matters
which the Parties desired tIie Court to take into account in taking its decision,
arrd bg "decision" in Ihe context 1 assume that the Agreement means Jdg-
ment, as in the introductory WOI-dsof ~ h ArlicIe.
e
 AXGUM ENT OF SIR FR A NCIS V A LLAT 51
This is Iny generaI appruach to the secorrd part of IIIF first subparagraph.
However. 1 d o not believe rhat the p1actiw1 effeci is the sanle with respecr tu
eacIr of the factors merrtioned. FirsI Ihe Court is asked ro take ils d a i s ~ o n
according to "eqriitable principIes". As 1 have just r-IIed, the Courl itseIf. in
the Klr.lb SC'LICo!ifN3~,11ftll SIic3If cases. paragraph 85 , staied that agreement In
acc01-dance with equitabIe pri11cipIes was amvng the basic priricipIes
c o n c e i . ~ ~deIimitation.
i~~g Therefore. it must be the case tIial tIle Court wouId
r a c h a decision according to equitabIe priniples wIretlre~'lhis provision was
conlained in Article 1 of the SpeciaI Agreernenf. o r not. I t is not for me tu
discuss 1re1-etlte I-oIeof equiiabIe p~.incipIesin lhe present case : this is a rnatter
which is 10 be dealt with by niy distinguished coIIeagrie. Professor Briggs. If
the fu~ictio~i of the reference to "eqriilable principIes" is co~nparativeIyeasy ta
discern, the saine is not necessariIy II-ue of the reference io the reIevant
circu~nstancesw hich characterize the area. These words need io be examined
a IittIe Inore thoroughIy .
TIierefore, I shouId Iike to Ieave rhal o n one side and say a few WVI-dsabout
the fina1 phrase, which is "as weII as tIie 11ew awepled tre~ids~ I tIie I TIiird
Conference on the Law of the Sea".
The reference in itseIf is quite cIear. 1 1Iii11k I Iial it is equaIIy clear I Iiat the
Court c a ~ r ~ r be o t bou~rd10 rega1-d as priaciples and ruIes of internariona1 Iaw
new trends 1nere1ybecause llrey lrave e~nergeddu~'ingthe Third Conference m
the Law of the Sea. To be effeclive for this purpose. rhey mrist be, in the wurds
of the arIicIe. "new accepted rrends", but 1 think oiie has to go a step furthe1- Tor
the purposes of t h e establishment of new 1-uIesof cuslornary internationa1 Iaw.
Bo that in rhis cvntext, 1 wouId ask the C u u ~ tIO read IIiis as meaning
"generaIIy accepted" in lhe sense rhat the trerrds have beco~ne part of
custornary international law. The mere fact that a 1rew1y staled ruIe o r
principle is contained in the Iatest draft PI-oducedby 1Iie T11i1.d United Nations
Co~iferenceon lhe Law of the Sea is not. I suggest, irr ilseIf suficie~itto co~ivert
that rr~leo r [rend into a ruIe of cusioma~-yi1riernationa1 Iaw. 1 IIiink tIlat IRis is
eIementary and 1 th111k it must be righi. Agai~i.it is not for Ine, al t his ~ n o ~ n e n t ,
to ernbark o n an e x a ~ n i n a ~ i oofn the fruits (ripe or unripe) of the Third United
Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.
1 wiIi leave the sIightIy diffkuIt point that 1 have jnst b e n discussi~igand
[rlrn io tIr big~~ifrcan<'e of ifle w o ~ - d s"the reIeva11t circurr-rsta~rceswhicf~
characlerize tire a~-ea".TIrese arc tIre wo'rds wI11cIi i~rvitctIie Court, i ~ stating
i
the pri11cip1esand ruIes thal may be appIied, tu examine the tactua1 aspects. Bu[
s comprised within the wo1.d~wIiicIi I have just quoted :' This is
w hat f a c ~ are
1101an easy qualion to answer. It would be difticuIt tu define in Ihe abs11-act
w hat are "the reIeva~rtii-curnsta~rces wIiicIi cI1a1-acrerizethe area". Neverthe-
lm. il Inay be observed lhat the words d o not refer to any "circurnstance". but
onIy Io Ihe reIevanr C~I-crrrnstarrces.that is to say tlrose reIeva~rt l o tIie
delirn~ratiorr.
1 suppose in a Ioose sense, it rnay be tlrouglrt tIrat what is i.elevan1 is a
question of degree. I t would, howeve1-, be rnore accurate to say thaf a facl is
either relevant o r it is irreIevant ; but if f a ~ are f ~ regardeci as relevant, the
weight or importance to be atlached to tIie~nrnay Vary and t I ~ i srnay be a
significant distinction in lhe cvnlext of the present case. The Court Inay weI1
take the view thar a numbei- of facis 01-ci1-curnsta~icesare reIwa~itbut f Iiat the
same weight or irnporlance dues not attach to a11 of theni.
As e~piainedwith precision irr paragraph 59 of the Libyan RepIy < I V ) we do
~ i o accjepf
t tire ki~idof scale of relevance w h ~ c his suggested by the Turiisia~i
scientific experis on page 14 of Annex 1 to the Tunisian Counier-Mernoria1
 ARGUlrlEhT OF SIR FRANCIS V*LI,AT 53
tire Court su helpiuI in assistirrg the Parties 10 arrive at aIi agreed settIement
without aIiy difficuIties.
TIie i~nportanceof the reIeva1r1circumstan~eswhich cliaraaerize the area in
rhis pa~ticular case is underlined by tiie obvious Iink with the seco11d
subpa1-agrapli of Artide 1 , whicIr asks Ihe Court "to cIarify Ille practica1
method for the appIication of illese piinciples and 1-uIes irr lhis specific
situatio~r". The specific situation mus1 conrprise the reIevant circurnstances
and be related to the area i ~ques1ion.
i It is the circumstarices of this particular
rt context of the practica1 rneclrod. and I submii
case which are i m p o ~ t a i~~~the
rhal. in the circumsta~icesof rIic present case. the geoIogical factors a r e of
grime importance. They cannot therefore be rgnored either by the Parties o r
by the Court and must be take~iinto account i ~ the i deIirnitation in this specific
situation. 1 a m happy Io nole that in the l'rin~sianoral pIeadings the refe1-ences
to geology have tended to expa~id.
However, that is ~ i o tthe main point thar 1 would Iike to make on
subparagraph 2. Tire view has already been expr-essedon behalf of Libya that
there is here une questiorr rarher than two. {In this respect I refer the Court to
the wrillen pIeadi~igs- Ihe Tunisian position as stated i ~ ~Iieir i Mernoria1 II),
paras. 2.03-2.27, and the response in the Libyan Corr~iler-Mernoria1(II),
paras. 433-4351. A quick grance at ~ h aciuaI e Ianguage used wili reveaI why.
TIie SpeciaI Agreement says, in the second subparagraph of Aflicle 1, "the
Court is further requested Io clarify the praclica1 method for the applicatio~rof
the principles and ruIes i ~ rthis specific situation".
Why do 1 si~-ess "for the application d t h e princ~plesand rules" ? 1t is, q u ~ i e
simpIy, becarrse iIie "pracrica1 rnethod" Io be cIarifred is sot. in the Grms of the
SpeciaI Agreerne~rt,a practicaI method of deIi~nitatio~i, as persistentIy ~ppeared
by rnernbers of the Tunisian delegatio~i. It is a practical method TOI applying
IegaI pr~nciplesailci ruies in tlris spec~ficsituation SV that a deIirn~tationInay
tIierr resuit. as being agreed 011by the Parties and their experts.
The difference is no1 without a disti~~ction.I t may be IIiat in any
deIi~nitationof sheIf areas betwee~ropposile o r adjacent Staies aIi a11nost
infinite nlimber of inethods of deIimitatio11 couId be devised. But tlrey wouId
nor necarrariIy bear a relarionship io 01. steni from a n appIication of the IegaI
principIes a13d rules relevani to coniinerrta1 sIreIf deliinitation.
1 f we Iook b~-icfly at the nature of the request.5 put Io tliis Court in the i\rorfli
Sm Coirrir~~~~ml Sl~cpffcases and the C o n ~ tof Arbirration in the Channe1
arbitration. the distirict rralure of Ihe Speial Agreement in tiris case becornes
apparent. For the Parties here agree that 1Iie Special Agreement has asked [Ire
Court to g o furtlier than to indicare tire appIicabIe priiiciples and 1u1esaIone as
i / W h Sm Cf~frriri~iiral
i ~ IIie Sk4fcases. SirniIarIy, the Parties share the view
that the Court has nor been asked to d ~ - a w the actual delimitation Iine - which
wouId in effect be the same a s Io indicare tire precise met hod of deIirnitation -
as was the case in the ArrgIo-Fre~icIiarbitratiw, althougli. as we shaII see Iater.
Tunisia wouId have the Court conlc very cIose to doi11gjust this.
III a sense. the SpeciaI Agreement in this case faIIs IraIf-way between those in
the ~Vorfh St.a Coririirc.irru1 SIrc~jfcasesand the Arbiti-atiorr Agreement in the
AngIo-FI-ench arbirration. For, i ~ cIarifying
i the practical 1net11od for the
appIication of the principIes and ruIes. tIie Court has beerr invired to indicate
the additio~ialconsiderations a ~ r dfadors which sholrId be take~iin10 account
and weighed and baIanced, so that the experts can "delimil these areas withou t
any dificl~ies". But the C o i r ~ thas 1101 been invited to et out Ifle specific
1ne1Irodof deIimilation itseIf.
It is not necessary for Ine at the moment to examine the remaining
54 CON1'INEhTAL S H ELF

provisio~-rsof the SpeciaI Agreement. The point that ernerges f1.011-r the
exami~lationof ArticIe 1 is 1liaI the Courl is corrcer-ned essentialIy wirli tlie
Iaw. aiid is concerned wit h lhem for the
principles arrd rules of i~iter~iatio~ial
purposes of a deIimilation by the Parties in the specific situatio~iof the present
case. This natu~.aIIyIeads Ine ro an exa~ni~ration of the principla and rrrIes of
i~~fei.~iationaI
Iaw. 11ot irr gene1-a1and in tlre abstract. but 111timaleIyas they Inay
be appIied by the Parries in the speci fic situatio~iof the pIeseIit case.

1t is rny i~i~ention.in due course. to do this botfi ge~ierallyand haviiig regard

tu their appl~cationin this specific situalion. 1 sliorrId Iike to observe at the
o u s a . howwer, that it is diRcuIt 10 divideone's rernarks intv neat and Iogical
comparI~nentsbecause the various aspects of the question of the continenta1
sheIf a ~ r dits deIirnilation are so i~rtirnately inter-co1111ected. Kut rherc are
differe~rtaspects which ~ieedto be distingi~ishedqquite c1ea1-ly.
First. the1.e is the chamcter of t lie continental shelf. of whili the essential
.
characteristic is natu raI prolongaiior~. SecondIjr there is Ihe question of the
outer Iin~itof the coritirrental sheIf, which is a different questio~r. ThirdIy,
fIiere js lhe quesiion of deIimitation whiclr, iri the present i~~sfance, is a
deIirniration of a d j o i ~ i ~ ~conliiiei~raI
ig sIieIf areas as betwee~i States witir
adjacent coasts. In I lie PI-ese~iration of t he Trrn~siancase, there Iras bee~rsome
corifusion between Ille nature of the contiitentaI shel f as such and the ci.ilerion.
01-criteria. es1abIished for ils olrrer liinit. Ir seeIns tu me that this co~rftrsionhas
ied Professor Je~i~ri~lgs, for exan~pIe.iirto a sIight tangIe between tlie 1-oIeof fact
and Iaw in the co11ceptof natural proIo~igationIwhat he seerned to regard as a
niixed question of fact and Iaw - 1 refer tu IV, p. 4 1 5 and pp. 4 1 6-4 1 7. I l aIso
seenrs to have led to sorne rnisunderstanding about the relative importarice of
batIiy metry . I wouId, horvever, subscribe ro his stalernerit Ihat the 'JuridicaI
continental shelf is pri~nariIybased upon physicaI fact". {That appears at I V .
p. 4 16.) But thal pRysica1 fact is. of course. "natura1 proIongation".

1 t hi~ikil is ~ r o wrre~essa1-yIo examine tIie deveIopmenl of the concepl of the

conlinenta1 shelf. 1 wiII do II-ris V ~ I briefi
- y y.
As we a11 ki~ow.the in11-oductionof IIie Iegal I-egimeof the co111i1-re1-rtaIsIieIf
virtrralIy began witl~IIie TI-u~nan ProcIan~atio~iof 18 September 1 945 !t was
I-eIatedto a cent IIreIrt w hich unquesliorrabIjr had a continenla1 InargIIi. There
was, so far as tlre United States and theTrurnan ProcIamatio~iwe1.e co~rcerned,
IIO need tu go into Ille qi~estionof coi~tinuityor naturaI proiongatio~i. The fact
of the conlinenta1 sireIf was easy to see a ~ i deveIi self-evident.
Howwer, as the clairn Io exercise jurisdictiorr and c0nt1-01with respect to [lie
resources of the sea-bed and subsoiI beyond the territorial sea i~revilably
i~ivolvedsome interfere~rcewith lhe old coIrcep1 of the freedon~of tIie high
seas. it was necessary Io dev~sesome Iirnit to 1Ire exfent of the conlinenta1 slielf.
The PI-ocIarnatiun itseIf nrade no provision for an outeI- Iirnit. However. a
White House press reIease i s u e d on the sanle day said tlrat sirbnierged Ia~id
contiguous Io 1he contineiil and covered by no more t han 100 fathunis of
water was co~isideredas cvntin~1i1aIsireif. No reason was giverr TOI- this
sornewhat arbitrary Iirnit. aIthough the Proc1arnatio1-lwas made in the co~ilext
of praspective oiI and allier minera! resources irr the continenta1 slieIf.
The pi-ess reIease made IIiis interesting corn~ne~rt : "It is quite possibl~,
 ARGUMENT OF SIR FRANCIS I'ALLAT 55

geologists say. that the oiI deposits e x t e ~ ~beyond

d tlris IraditionaI (lhi-ee rnik!
Iimit of 1iationa1jurisdiction". A hint as 10 the reasun for the choice of the 100-
fathoni Iine was given by a refere~iceto the pwibiIities of deveIoping
tec hndogy .
The mairrspring of the Proclaniation was the ~ieedfor new Tesources of
petroleum a ~ r dolher minerais. From t h e beginni~ig.the practicaI queslion was
o n e of recovering oil a ~ r dgas resources f r a n the subsui1 of the continental
sheIf. These we1-e resources found in the subsoil and nut 011 rhe surface. TIiere
was 110question whalever of Ihe nature of rhe sheIf being made depende111011
a gentIe dope as indicated by bathymelry. T h e practical quesrion was what
was regarded as the reasonable ~naxiinumdeplh al which Ihe subsoi1 of the
continental sheIf could be expIored and expIoited. This was a question no1 of
nalural proIongalion but a questio~rof outer Iimit.
TheTruman Proclamatiorr caused a good deaI of heart-searciring irr rnany of
the capilaIs of the worId. Ir posed what was foi- most internariona1 Iawyers a
novei theary with correspo~rdirrgIynoveI pruble~ns. Tt did not frf rreatly into
aIry existing concepts of sovereignty a ~ r dthe acquisiiio~iof sovereignly o r in10
concepls reIati~igto the law of the sea. Neve~-tIreIess.it was scion recognized
thal the doctr-irre had corne to sIay.
InitiaIIy. Inany peopIe thonght thar lhe doctrine couId uniy have appIication
to a contine~itwith a conli~ie~rlaI margin in IIie strict or t e c h n i 4 sense. But it
was soon accepted lhat the dmtrine rreed i ~ o be t confined Io cases where there
was a continenk1 margin in lhai sense. For exa~nple.il Inay be said that. in rhe
technical sense of a shelf. a dope and a rise. there is n o conrinental sheIf
between the United Kingdorn and Fra~icein tlre EngIish Channel. 1t may aIso
j be said h i . in lhat sense. the sea-bed and subsoiI of rhe N w l h Sea bet ween rhe
United Kingdo~nand Norway a ~ r dother couniries is ~ i oat conlinenta1 sIrejf. Su
it was inevirabie thac the doclririe shouId be exterrded so a s tu appIy in such
areas. aIthougk 1Iiere ~nightnot be a co~iri~ientaI shelf irr the sanle phjrsical
I sense in which physically there is a contine1ita1shelf aIong the seaboard of the
east coast of the United States.
TIre Trnrnan Prodamatiorr wa followed by a ~iuniberof countries which
cIaimed rights over cunti~rentalshelf areas. I t wiII be recaI1ed that in the earIy
days 1Ire1-ewere differences of view a s to wlrether SIates should have fuII
sovereignty over Ihe sea-bed and subsoil of the corrti~ientalsheIf or whether
rhey shouId sin~plyhave jurisdictio~ior controI o r excIusive righis for rhe
expIoration and exploilation of the confinenfa1 shelf. As is so weII k ~ i o w n lhe .
resuIt was no1 i ~ favouri of sovereignty or of mere excIrisive 1-ightsto resvrirces.
The coastaI State was. according to Arlide 2, paragraph 1. of tIre 1958 Geneva
Convention #II the Contine~ltaIShelf, io have sovereign rights over IIre conti-
nental shelf for Ihe purpose of explor~ngit and exploiti~rgils: naturai resources.
Different views aIso emerged as to the crileria for dekrmining lhe oriter
Iimit of the carrti~ientaIshdf. 11 was in the context of this queslion lhat,
foI1ow ing the work of the Internalional Law Co~nniissioi~. a 100-metre li~ie
ernerged irr Article 1 of iIre 1958 Geneva Conve~ilion. However. rhis Iin~ilwas
a n arbilra1-y oIre : as wiiIi the 100-fathom Ii~iein the United States d a i m of
1945. lhe rarionaie of the Iimit was iIie current state of tecIi~roIogy. not
bathymetry as such. The 200-merre Iimit was moreover qualified by rhe
exploitability test provided in ArticIe 1 . Thus. bathymetry. i ~ ithe sense in
which Tunisia tries to rrse it. never has been a characteristic of the 'JuridicaI
conrinental sheIf ".
1f o u r t i ~ n ewere unIi~nited.1 wouId 1ike io go fuI1y into the deveIopn~en1of
rIie concept of [Ire continenta1 slielf i ~ interaatio~ial
i Iaw This wor11d obviousIy
55 CONTI NEhTA L SHELF

indude. as a major portion, the story of IIie preparation of the draft articles o n
the cont1nenta1 sheIf by tlre InternationaI Law Conirnission. But IU teII this
story would create a major diversion and I stralI onIy address rnyseIf io the
short reference that was made by Professor Jenriings (IV, p. 407). He rised the
reference 10 page 13 1 of VoIurne 1 of the Ymrhnoii qfrhc ir~ferr~afior~al Lafit
Colrir~iissio~z for 1956. which was ~nadcin paragraph 95 of the 1969 Judg~nen!.
as 1mp1ying that t Ire Court undcrstood. or rather misu1rde1-stood.the inm~ring
of geoIogy as refe1-ring lu the "degree of declivity or sIope o r deplh beIow sea
IeveI" 1t is true that the definiliorrs adopted by the 11riernationaICornmittee of
Sc~entificExperts of 1952 had been rn such terms. But it is equaIIy cIear that
tliese d e f i ~ ~ i l i o ~were
is not actuaIIy adopted by tlre Internato~iaI Law
Conimissio~r Tor the purposes of its draft ariicIes. In ils draft ArticIe 1,
paragrapll 1. the Cornmissio~~ was, in any everrt. defining "sub~nar-ineareas"
and doi~igtlris so as to appl y to the soi1 and strbsoi1 of "the sub~narinesheIf,
cwtine~ilaland insrilar terrace. or- other submari~ieai-eas". These terms only
correspond ~ I par1 I to the terrils used Iry the Cornn~ilreeof Experts.
The Com~nissionwas not i11 the least concerned with s b p e o r decIivity. I t
was concerned wilIi esiablishing a n outer Iimit ta the "su brnar~neareas". usi11g
the 200-metre and explai~ability t e s . The expression "subrnarine areas".
correspo~idedto the I F ~ I I I "conlinenla1 sheIr " used in the Conve~iriw.May I
aIso caII attention to the fact that the draft articIe was c o n c e r ~ ~ ewith
d the soi1
and subsoiI. nut just the surface. and it was aIso particularly concerned with
the natrrral resorirces referring to "lhe nii~ieralriches of the soi1 and subsoil of
rhe sub1na1-i~ie area, as weII as to the Iivi~igresources which irre perrnane~~tiy
attached io the bottom".
Of couIse in ArticIe I of the 1 958 Co~ivention,the expressIorr "conIi11e1i1aI
sheIf " was restored io the definitio~i.but the reference to "the submarine sI~eIf,
corrtinentaI aird iiisulai- terrace and other subrnari~ieareas" was o~nitted.a ~ i d
we airived at the ge~ieraIconcepl of the juridical "continental s h d f " as ~ - e k r -
ring 10 the w - k d ard subsoil of ille srrbmarine arm. The expression "sub-
niari~ieareas" was clearly used willrout any refcrc~icc1 0 any question of dwli-
v11y or slop~or deptli k I o w sea IeveI, except witli ~ a p e c tto the outer li~nit.
If 1 may nuw relilrn to the apparc~iicriticisni of the Couri in its mis-
understandi~rgof the lerm "geoIogica1" in paragraplr 95, Ithink that it is cIear
e ~ w n g hlhat the refererrce made by the Court was o111yto the care which tlie
Inter~iationaILaw Co~n~nission touk to acquire infurmarion : ir was rrol reaIIy
suggeni~lgIIiat geology was 10 be Iimited by the ~Iiaracterof the defi~r~tions
drawn up by the Co~nmilteeof ScientifIc Experts
If tliere were any doubt o n that point, it is renioved by the fina1 sentence of
paragraph 95 of the Judg~nent,which says :
'The appurterra~lw:of the sheIf tu the couritries irr front of wliose
coastIines it lies. is therefore a facr, and it cal1 be usefuI to consider tlre
geoIagy of IIiat shelf in order io find out wIiethe1' the direct ion take~iby
certain configurationa1 fealures should infl ue~icedeIrnitatioii becarise, In
certain IwIities. they poinf-rrp the whoIe ~ ~ o r iof i appurie~ranceof
o ~the
Ihe continenia1 shelf ro Ihe Sfak whme territory it does in facc proIong."
WeII, 1 suggest i t is abui~da~rtl r in this sente1ic-e the Court s 1-eferrii~g
y I ~that
to subsurface geolugy rallier tiran what ~night mure properly be caIIed,
bat11yrnetry o r geomorphology .
T h Courr nisr (21 12.55 17 I I ? .
sea-bed alid the subsoiI, aiid from the beginning. as 1 have b e n saying, what
lias reaIIy matiered has ~ F F I It h e subsoiI. But lIle fact renlairred thal IegaIIy
"expIoitabiIity" was tIie conlroIIing factor with respect io the oulei- Iirnil of rIle
continenIa1 shelf.
The discovery and possibilily of expioitatron of new resource on Ihe ocean
floor- coinbi~red wifii other factors gave rise, as we kiiow, to grave
dissatisfactio~i arnoIig sonle States abou[ the p m i b I e effecls of the
expl~itabilitytest in AI-ticIe I of the 1958 Conventio~i.There is II# need. ~ O I -
presenl prrrposes, to go into this aspect i11 any detail, but it wiII be recaiied that,
on the i~ii~iative of MaIta in pa~ricular.an item was pIaced 011 tire agenda of the
United Nations GeneraI Assernbly. In due course. the Ge~reraIAsse~nbly
converred the Third United Nations Confere~icr:un the Law of the Sea. This
Co~iferencewas caIIed to review tIie Iarv of the sea as a whole. 1iatura1Iy
incIuding the problern of 1Ite extent of the co~ili~re~rtal slielf.
i argument, I feel particuIarIy deeply file Ioss and absence
At tIris point i ~ my
of OUI.dear frieiid PI-ofessor Yasseen. He was i111i1nateIy acquainted witlr the
proceedings and resr11ts of rire Third Co~rferenceorr the Law of the Sea. and 1
wouId Iiaue greatly welcorned the assislance that lie wuuld hase given. I shalI
Iiave to deaI myseIf with sonle aspects of this matter and Pmfessor Briggs wiI1
aIso have a mntribution tu nlake on this aspect of the case. So t t ~ e r are e one 01.
two aspects on which 1 think tItat it is necessary for Ine io t w c h at ihis stage.
At tire nlonle~lt,IeI me conce~rtraleOII the t h e ~ n eof the nature of tlre
contine~italsheIf ilseIf. Contrary to what has bee~isrrggested by Professor
Jenni~rgs(IV. pp. 4D9 f.1. there is rru more irr the draft convei~tionprepared Iry
the Third Conference QI? the Law of lhe Sea 10 confirrn a geiltle s b p e o r
periodiccharrges in bathy~neiryas a ciraracteristic d t h e "co~itinenIaIsireIf ", in
ils juridical sense. than tei'e was ~ I preceding
I SOUI-ces. TIie terrn "irreIevantq
has beerr used so freque~itly and so loosely ia tllese p r o c d i ~ i g thaI
s I rat her
Imitate io use it again. Yel. if ever there were an example of irrelevance it is to
be forrnd in Ihe Iack of bearing on this poi~iiof Article 76,paragraplr 1. of rIie
d r a f ~conventioil on the Iaw of the sea. The icxf which we ~iorvhave is (and 1
tii~nkit usefi11 10 give tire refere~~ce herd in A/Conf./L.78 of 28 Augusr 198 1 .
That is cIearly tiie Iatest text or1 which we shall want io rely. The deinition in
paragraph I of ArticIe 76 unce more defines tire contine11ta1shelf in ternis of
narural proIongatio~i.Ii rnakes IIU refere~iceto a gentIe dope. No reference CO
decIivily. The unIy poi~iiwhere geomorphology enters is for the purpose of
defining the outcr Ii~nitat the outer edge of the co~lti~iental nlargi~rwhere [Iris
lies beyond 200 naut ical ni les. Now what becornes of tiie concept of the gent le
dope where yorr have a very narrow conti1ielrta1 niargi11 and a hu~idredU r
nlore nauticaI lailes beyond that whicli is beyo~ldthe contiiie~italn ~ a r g i ?~ i
This is stiIl part of tIie conline1ita1sheIf of the coastal State. Un wirat dues that
righl depend ? It depends oii natural p~.oIongation. 11vt o n gelIlle dope or
decIiviIy.
As a clai-ificatiun of the position, paragraph I of Article 76 of the draft wn-
vention is very illuminaling. and I k g Ieave to I - a dit to lire G u r t a l this point.
"The conlinenta1 shelf of a coastal Siale cornprisa the sea-bed arrd
subsoil of tire srrbrnarine areas tliat extend beyond its terriCoria1 sea
throughout the 1iaturaI prolongation of its Iand twritory . . ."
That is IIie definitio~id tire continerrta1 sheIf as such, botfi in substa~iceand in
law. The characteristics of the shelf are tiiat it comprises the sea-bed and
subsoiI of the subniaririe areas ; that the areas exte~idbeyond the State's
ierritoriai sea ;and tI~atit exlends throughout the natural prolo~igatiunof ils
50 CONKlNEPUAL SHELF

rhe area of conlinenta1 sheIf, however the outer Iirnil is delermined and
whatever its topog1-aphy, is the "naturaI prolongation" of the coastaI Siate. If
anylhing were requi1-ed to show that a gentb d o p e is not one of ihe
characterislia of the continental sheIf, w itiri~iits IegaI and basically ils pliysical
~neaning.sureIy ArticIe 75 js concIusive.
Tunisia has reIied on the dewIopnlent in IIie ihi1-d conference to sbow tire
i~nportanceof bat hy~netryespeciaIIy in connection, 1 suspect. w ith deli~nita-
tion. In fact, it pr11-poitstu base two of ils prvposed rnethods of deli~nitationo n
bathyirietry. But, even if Article 76 did show that bathymelry co~istitutesa n
esseritia1 cliar-acteristicof the co~rti~ierrtal sheIf - which it does 1101 - it wauld
have no bezring o n lhe probIe~nof deIirnitation for Ihe simple ~.easonthat
paragrapk IO of Arlicle 76 expressIy provides, as Professo~-ViraIly recaIIed.
tliat the provisions of this article are without prejudice Io the question of
deIirn~tationof rhe co~iri~ierrtaI sheIf between Slates w it h opposite o r adjace~it
coasts.
N o doubt, counseI advising Turrisia will have somc further explanat~onIo
offer, but 1 aIn at a 10s at the 1no1ne11tto know what il could be. 1 wouId
submit that, if anything, Arricle 76 of the new draft conwnlion o n the Iaw of
t h e sea is destructive of Tunjsia's case, which purports to be based on
bathyrnelry or geomarphoIogy. Bathymetry cannut be a subslitute for tIie trne
naturaI pro1011galion of the land mass of the coastal State.
W hile 1 arn referrirrg lu the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of
the Bea, 1 tIii~ikit would be convenient lo interject one or two poirrts which
have been raised i11 1I1at conneetion. Towa1-& the end of his speeclr (IV. pp.
420-42 I ). Professor knnings made two poinls corrcerning "recerrt tendencies
of the Iaw". If 1 u ~ i d e ~ s i o ohdi ~ ncorrectly, the first was that the use of tlre new
LOO-niiIe distance I i n ~can~roi
i~ of itself be of definitive significance witIi respect
to the boundaries of the contiriental shdf belween opposite and adjacent Stala.
If tirai is a correct represen~tionof his view. 1 wouId ~ i o wish t to disagree. But
he added a cornmenl. somewhat ou1 of contexl, in wRicIi Re said :
"AIthough. as the Coun. said in 1969, proximrly 1s a factor rt is orle
alnoirg InaIry olIier faclors arrd reIeva11t ci~urnstances.incIuding 1iatura1
prolongation, historic righls and the mst are also factors."
Of course, 1 arn reading frwn Ihe uncorrected version #f the record. 1 find this
observation. in this for~n. rernarkabIe, because I cannot find aIiy suh
statement in the I 959 Judgmenr of the Courl. PerIiaps it mag be PI-ouidedIater.
And also because it refers in a haphazard fashion to "many other faaurs and
reIevant circumstances". Iuniped togflher with "natural probngation, historic
rights and the rest" as also beirig factor-S. SrrreIy P~ofessorJennings is no1
tryirrg io put "naluraI proIongation, historic rights and Ille res1" orr an equaI
fooli~ig.
As 1 understand the case now put forward by Tunisia, i l ISessentiaIIy based
or1 what they regard as natural proIongatio~i which is, according to Ihenl,
determined by bathymeby. No doubl, again, we s h d I have a clearer exph-
iiation of this statement during the Tunisian repIy.
The second point made by Professor Jenniiigs reIaIed ro fishery rights and
the exciusive economic zone. Here, of COUI-se, w e are in the fieId of developing
Iaw and the problerns are iar frorn cIear. The Iaw OII the excIusive ecunomic
zone is stiII in p r e s s of developmenl and 1 suspect has a Iorrg way to go.
However, my first impression, but ii is no more than tIiat, is the same a s that
of Professor Jennings. I t is that, perhaps in the ~najorily of cases, the
determination of the continenta1 sheIf boundary as between States, having
 ARGUhJEN'T OF SIR FRANCIS V-ALLAT 61

opposite or adjamnt coasts wiII, for practica1 pr~rposes. determine tIre

limitation of the respective exclusive e c o ~ i o n ~zones.
ic There is no need to go
into the reasons for ilris ~ e n k t i v econcIusion. However, 1 do 11olfoIIow the
argument that t h ~ snew sitriatiu~i is OIIE that must necessariiy affect the
eqnities. It was said Ihat. where aIry part of the zone Iras f r o ~ nii~m
imme1noria1bee11 exclusive to oIie of IRe coastaI States, the equities ~ n u ssureIy
t
d e ~ n a ~ tIial
r d il reinains su. Ignorirrg for Ihe moment the o b v ~ o ujuir~p
s frorn an
exclusive right in respect of iIie spo~igefishery in rIie case of Tunisia, which
perhaps exists in certain areas, to tIie Inore genera1 p~-oposiIio~i of the zone
ciairned by Tunisia, having bee~rf r o ~ nt i n ~ cirnmemo1-iaIexcIusive lo Tunisia, 1
d o ~ i o foIIow
l the conclusion. The co~rclusionis that,
" I t is unthin kabIe thar an area whicIr has fronl time immemuria1 bee~i
excIusive to one State should as a aesult of the determination of the
borrnda~yof sea-bed a ~ i dsubsviI righis, rrow and henceforward becume
the excIusive fishery of IIic other State."
This 15a result which certainIy does ~ r ofoIIow
l necessariIy f ~ o mr 11e provisioris
concerning the excIusive e c o ~ ~ o ~zone
n i c contained i11 !Ire d~'aRco~iventio~i an
the Iaw of ihe sea, Io whicIi 1 Iiave referred.
Indeed. 1 very niuch doribt whelher that is the irrlended effect of the
provjsions orr the exdusive econo~niczone. Article 56 of rhe draft conventio~i
deaIs with the rights. jurjsdictio~rand drrties of the cvasraI State in the exdusive
econornic zo~reand. by paragraph 2. il is provided that in exercising its riglrts
and performing its duties under the co~ivenlionin the zoIre. "the coastal Btate
shaII have due rega1-d to the rights and duties of other States". Ir is true that
A I-ticIeSB of the draft conventio~isays that : '*this part" - that is the part on
the excIusive eco~ioniiczone - "does not appIy to sedentary species a s defirred
in Article 77. paragraph 4". But. if there were to b e a ~ r yIms of hisroric rights. il
wouId be by virtrre of the deIimitation of the continenia1 shelf. to which
AriicIe 77 applies. It wouId no1 reaiIy foiIow fronl the provisions concerning
fisheries in regard tu the excIusive econo~niczone.
Now, apart f1o1n lhe question of sedentary species I have made smne
enquiries and IIie conclusio~iI reach 1s that the mrrtter is a r e t11aI sIrouId be
settled by agreement betwee~itlre twv Stares concerned, in the context of an
agreement o n tlre delimitation of fhe exclusive ecorranric zurre liecause the
deIimibtion of the zoiie is tu be y agreenient and clearIy in that contex1 an
agreement o n speciaI fisIrery rights wouId obviously be an equitabIe rvay of
deaIing with the situat~on I am af~-aidthat whal I have becn sayi~igis very
involved but 1 11ii1rkthat the qriestio~iis vcry involved. The reference tu tIie
excIusive econornIc zone in my view or11y cornplicates tlie argumenr and reaIIy
adds nathirrg. 1 would simply revert to the proposition that IIie rigIiI lo uke
sedeniary species Inay nor~naIlyfollosv the deli~nitationof the co~iLi~ie~rtaI shelf
but this does not mean. corrverseIy, thar a corr~i~ie~itaI sheIf de1irnitatiun has Io
be gove1-ncd by the right of a State to iake sede~itaryspecies i11an area w hich is
the nalural prolongation of the Iandrnass of the neighbouring Slate. The ar-
grr~ne~irs bas@ on tlre pi'ovisions of the excIusive economic zone in rhe Iatest
draft corrvention o n the Iaw of the sea do not e s ~ b l i s hthe coIrtrary. Nor is the
Tunisian argument srrengrlrened by reIiarice on whar I can v1i1y regard as a
t whoIIy spurious grourrd lhat such a right of fishep is tantarnou~itto naturaI
prvIorrgation of the Iand~nassof the State pmessing that right.
1 hope it was convenient to add those comrne~iisOII the draft conventio~iorr
t lie law of the sea and, having cIeared those two poi~ilsout of the way I now
corne io the ~rexlstage in the consrderarion of the basic questions.
 ARGUMEKT OF SIR FRANCIS VrlLL4T 63
particular tu paragraphs 19. 39, 43 and 95. With the ir~duIge~ice
of the Courl
may 1 now l u r ~ to
i l h w passages.
Irr paragraph 19. the COUI-tmade its (ii 1 Inay use the word without
disrespect1 farnws state~nentbased o n and derived from AI-t~cle
2 of Ihe 1958
Ge~ievaConve~itio~i, which reads a s foIlows :
"More imporlant is Ihe facI that the doctrine of tlre just and equilabk
share appears to be wIroIIy at variance with what the Court entertains no
doubt as tIie most fundamenta1 of a11 the ruIes of Iaw I-eIating to the
continenla1 sheIf, errshri~iedin ArticIe 2 of the 1958 Geneva Co~ivention.
tharrgh quite independent of it, - namely that rhe righrs of the masta1
%te in respect of the area of co11tinenta1sIreIf that constitutes a naInraI
proIo~rgationof I ~ SIand lerritory into and under the sea exist ipsuJc~
and ab irfirin, by v i ~ t u eof its sove1-eig~ilyover the Iand . . ."
In otlrer words, tlie righls of !fie coastal Staie depend o n tfie fact o f the narural
prolo~~gation of its Iand ter1-iio1-y.Of course. the delerrni~rationof whal 1s i~
land territory depends oIr IegaI factors but. having delermined tIie Iand
rcrritory, whaI is rhe "natural prolongatio~i"is esserrtiaIIy a question of fact.
The thread is picked up again in paragiaph 39, irr wIiich the Curr1'1says :
'The u pr.ioi7 argument starts from the position described in para-
grrrpli 19. accordi~ig to whicIi the righl of the coastal %te io ils
conlii~entalsheIf areas is based o n its sovereignly oveI- tIie Iand dornairt, of
which the sheIf arca is the narural PI-olongalio~iinto a ~ r dunder ihe s a . "
I-Iere. agairi. t11e Court is clearly referrirrg to the Ia~rdas such and is using the
expression "natirral proIorrgztiot~"in a faciual sense a ~ r dnot wilh a rlreaning of .
m ~ x e dfact and Iaw.
T1ie1-r.in paragrapli 43. the Court said :
"More funda~ne~rlaI lhan the rrolion of proximily appears to be the
PI-r~rcipIe- conslailtly reIied upon by a11 tIie Parties - of the narnraI
PI-o101igatiw or co~rtiiiuatio~i of the land territory 01' domain. o r land
sovereignly of t11e coastal Siate. into aiid under the Iiigh seas, via the bed
of irs lerr-itorial sea whidi is urider the full sovereigrrty of that State."

I Now. those statements were aciuaIiy reflect~~rg

the Pal-tics. The Court c o ~ ~ i ~ n:r ~ e d
and referri~lgIo the views of

"There are various ways of forriruIaring this grinciple. bu1 the

underIying idea. 1ia1ncIyof an exte~rsionof so~nethingalrendy possessed.
is the saIne. and it is tiris id= of exie~rsionwhich is. in the Courl's
opirrro11,determi11ant.-

I The whoIe of this paragraph is, olcourse, very weII k ~ ~ o wand.

sI1aI1 omit pari of it and colne 10 tIie pIace wIiere the Court said -
n if I Inay, 1

"What confers lhe i/)so jrire litIe whicIi inlernatiorra1 Iaw attributes i o
the coastal Stak in 1-espect of its co~irinentalsheIf. is lhe fact that the
s u b m a r ~ n ea r a s c o ~ r c e r ~ ~inay
e d be deen~edto be anuaIIy part of the
territory over whicli the coastaI State aIready has dominion. - in the
sense thar. althoirgh covered witir water, they are a prdongation w
continuation of that territvry. an exlensio~iof it under lhe sea "

1 III Iny submission, that passage is c1ea1i y t realing natural prolongation or

coiiiinuaiion or exiension as a facl and not as a question of rnined lan and law.
The rest of paragraph 43 is aIso iinporta11I but 1 sIiaII returIi to t11ar Iater in
55 C O ~ T I N E ~ T A SHELF
L

su brnar~ne areas faIIing w ilIrin the arbitration area and concIuded the
paragrapli w ith the foIbw i ~ i glatement :
"The conti~rerrraisheIf of this area, a s Ihe i~rformationbefore the Court
cIearIy sIiows a ~ r dboth Parties have stressed in their pIeadi~igs, is
characrerized by rhe essenlia1 ~ 0 1 l l i 1 l ~ of
l t yils ge010gicaI strrict UI-e."
TIie stage is lhus set by a geagraphicaL descriptiori of the area and the
~IraracIerizationof it by "the esseiitial conti~iuiiyof its geoIogica1 sf 1-ucture"
Before co~rtinuirrgwilh this trai~iof IIrought, may 1 aIso caII atIe~rtionto the
refere~iceto geoIugjr in paragrapIi 4 of rhe Decision. One tIiere Ends this
I-eveaIingslatement ;
"rt 13conirnon grou~idbetween the Parries that. alrlrough somc disiance
f1o1n the mainIand, Ihe Sc111y Isles are geaIogicaIIy a naturd prolo~igalio~i
of [Ire Cornish peilinsuIa and an integraI parI of Ihe Iandmass of [Ire
U~ritedKingdom".
This is a most sig1iifIca111starernent : it coni71.1nsthai natural proIongariorr, i ~ r
ils actuaI sense, can be deter~nr~ied geoIogicaIly, as i~rdeedit Irad to be in IIie
case of the SciIIy IsIes bccause tIiey were separaled Srmn the mainIa11d by some
2 1 ~rautiwlrniIes of watcr. I aIn nor suggestjng IhaI the Cour1 of Arbirrarion
was the1-ereferring to 1iaIu1-a1proIongation of the continental sheIf a s SUEII. bu[
tIre irnporlant point is thar the Cvun recognized IIit geology was decisive in
detei~nirringthat the ScilIy Ides were a 11atura1prolongation of Ihe Cornish
pe~ri~isula and an integra1 pari of the Iandmass of iIie United Kingdom. 1 do
suggest tIrat no amouIr1 of playirig with words can avoid the cIear impIicatio11
t har the same rise of gedogy does appIy to natural prolongalio~iIII the case of
submarine areas extending f r o ~ nthe Iand Ierrilory of a Blaie, which a1-e to be
regarded as aIi inlegra1 part of the Iand~nass- 1 use the latest ternl iil the d~-aft
convention - of the Ia~rdrnawof the terriIoria1 Siaie.
GeoIogy appeais again in paragraph 9 of the Decision of the Court of
Arbi11-ationwlrich reads as foIIows :
"GcoIogicaIIy. the Chanire1 IsIarrds a~-chipeIagoand the seabed and
subsoiI of the GoIfe breton-normand f o r ~ npar1 of the same armoricair
strutuIx as t h e laiidniass of Nor~nandy and Britlany. TIIIS griIT is
characterized bl- Ihe same essential geoIogica1 wntinnity as the rest of the
E~iglishChanneI, but IIie geornarphoIogy of the CIiir~r1ie1is here marked
by a distinct fauIt, know~ras !lie HUI-dDeep (Fosse CentraIeL Situated a
Tew nauricaI 1n11es to Ihe north and nortlr-west of Ihe AIderney and
Guernsey groups, tIiat fauIt o r series of fauIIs extends in a south-wesierIy
direction for a distance of some 80 nautica1 iniIes, with a width of
between one and three ~rarrticalmiles and a deplIr of #ver 100 metres."
T h e frrst sentence 1s tire one to which 1 particular-Iy wish 10 cal1 atreiition
here. 1 have incIuded the resI of the paragraph becarise 1 shaII be referrilrg I o
the Hrird Deep again i ~ ra moment.
Reiurning tv the theme of the geulogical co~rtinuityof the contine~rtalsheIf,
we End that 1Ii1sisagain mentioned in 1Iie skile~nentof facts 111paragraph 1 1 of
rhe Decision. Then, the &un of Arbitratiorr prissed on to a discussion of
certain geoIogica1 featrrres in paragraph 12. I think that an exarni~rationof
paragraph 1 2 is rrnIy necessary, thorrgh 1 need nol read IIie whoIe of it. At lhe
beginning of the paragraph, the Court drew attention ta the presence in the
A tIantic region of certain geoIogica1 faults o r groups of farrIts in the struaure of
the coritinental shelf to the wesl of the Ushant-GciIIies Iirre. Again, fortunately.
 ARGUMEN-r OF SIRFRAXCISVALLAT 67

the Parties rvere in accord as to the existerice of the geologica1 faults in the
st1-uc~ure of iIie regiun a ~ r das Io [lie generaIl y southwcslerIy t ~ e n dof ilie fauIts
The Court said Ipa~-a.1 2 1 .
'?Irey {~IieParties) are also al OIE in considering tIlaI 11ic fauIIs do not
deiracl f ~ m nthe asentia1 geokgicaI cont inriity of IIie continenta1 sheIT.
TI-rey are not, horvever. iir agreement as 10 [Ire sufficiency or the sre~rtific
information 1-ega1-di11g the geoIogica1 fealu1.e~in qua~tiono r as to ils
correct interpretalion : nor al-e Ihey agreed as io tlie sig11iEca1ice of the
farills i ~ reIario~i
i tv the geuIogy a ~ i dgconiorphoIogy of 1Ire sIielf "

l of the total irrcieva~iceof geology. Quite the

TIie question here was ~ i ooIie
conI1-XI-y.Ihe Courr of AI birration was cIea11y acmpli~igthe I-e1eva11ceof
geoIogy and. much as il1 the present case, was cv~~fronied wilir q u a l i o n s
concerning Ifle sufficiency of rhc scientific i~rfor~natio~i (in a n r case we are laid
by the othe1- side Iflat there is Ioo 1nuCR1. bul we are c o ~ ~ c e r n ewith d the
sigriificance U IIieIfauIts in relat~onro rhe geoIogy a ~ i dthe geomorphoIogy of
[Ire sIiel f.
Wlrat IIie Court said towards rhe end of paragraph 12 is of particuIar
iilterest. The Couri sajd :
"These diife1.ences between the Parries reIate lo rhe al te1-~ial~vc and
subsidiary Subn~issionprit forward by the United KingdoIn that if a
cunti~ruous niedian Iine slrould not be adopted as the bounda1-y
throughorrr tlie arbjtration a m , Ihe Hnrd Deep and Hurd Deep FauIi
Zone provide [Ire onIy approp1-iaIe dividing Iine belrveen the naturaI
proIongations of Ihe contine1rta1 sIieIva of each c o u ~ i r ~TIie
y . Court. for
reasons given laier i ~ IIiis
i Decisio~i,does nol find it necessary to resoIve
IIie differences beiwcen the Parties co~iccrningthe cha~aclera ~ i dthe
sigrrificance oof the geological faults of tfie co~ilinentaIshelf."
If we then continue with our examinafi011 of the Decision, w e fi~idthal the
United Kingdom Sub~nissioi~ regxding the Hurd Deep and IIie Hurd Deep
FauIr Zone is put OII one side, not because of the i~-releva~~ce of gevIogy but
because of ils relcva~~ce. The esse~rtial pain1 was LIial Ihe Hurd Deep
Submission was rejected e n u s e as a mattel- of geoIogy, the Hurd Deep was
noi regarded by the Court as a featu1-e whish ~narked a fundamenla1
discontinusty 111 the sheIf area. One may here refa 10 pa~-agrapi-rs105-106.
In paragrapfr 107. rhe Cuurl said that it hared the view repealedly
cxp1-csscdby borh Parties tlrat t h e #nt i1ienta1sheIf throughout tlre A~'b~I~'ation
area was characrerized by its essential geoIogical continuiry, a ~ i dcv~icluded:
"The geoIogicaI faulb which constirure rhe Hurd Deep and the so-
caIIed Hurd Decp FauII Zone. even if they be ccir>sidercd as distinct
features in the geomorpIioIogy of the sheIf. are stiII dixontinnities 311 IIie
bea-bcd and sribsoi1 wIiich do no1 disrupl the eszentiaI unity of rIie
conti~ientalsileIf either in rhe Clra~i~ieI
o r the Atla~rticregioi~."
TIie re~narkthat fullows is perfraps nct without significa~lcein the prese~if
case. The Court added : "I~ideed, in cornparis011 with the deep NVI-wegian
Trough in the North Sea. tliey can onIy be regarded as rnino1- fauIts in the
geologica1 structur-e of the sIielf :. . ." Su the Court of Arbitration d~sposedof
the geoIogia1 argu~nenls,not on the ground that geoIogy was ifrelevant or
uiiirnportant, but OII Ihe ground that was itseif geoIugica1, ~ianielyIIie essent iaI
geoIogica1 continuity of lhe wntinerrtal sheIf in that case.
1 suggest, therefore, that it is clear on the basis of 1Ire autliorities tu whidr
70 CONTINENTAL SHELF

Let me put the point si1np1y in the ternls of the fxls in liie PI-esentcase.
Accordi~igto Libya, the question of deIimitation faIIs within tIre area of the
PeIagia~iBIok, t h w g h not extendi~igto the w h d e of it. The Pelagran Rluck is,
w e believe. u~idoubtedIypart of tlie stable Afr-icn pIatforin to the south. It is,
accordingIy, a s a whoIe. geoIogicaIIy paIt of the Iandinass to tlie south rather
than to tlie wesr. This. we Say, is the deterrnining faclor' iri rratural pro-
Iongatio~rin t his case. WIiet lier one speaks of the "directio~i"of the natural
prolo~igation,o r the rcIatio~islripbetween the coiltine~iiallandmass and the
adjoining sheIf, does not matter. TIie point 15 that the area of sheIf Iies to the
~ i w l hof t he Iand~nassto the south : and as a facl of geoIogica1 history, lias been
stretched, o r puIIed, orit of it. So the relaIio~iship - or direction - is cIear.
This is the i~nporta~it factor. But. it is a factor which is cornmon to the
1101-th ward-facirig coast of Tunisia. w hich continues westward from the
nort 1irva1-d-faci~ig coast of Libya. III this co~itext,the exacr di1.ectio11of the
coast is noi of nuc ch significai~ce.The po11rt that 1 a m making is IIlat the
geoIogica1 facls IniIiiate in favvur of the ~lorthward-facingcoast of Tunisia just
as nuc ch as the? do i ~ ifauour of 1,ibya. and. coupIed with the corn~non
geog1-aphy. prov ide a c o ~ In~ O I Ibasis for the 11atura1 PI-o1011gatiunof bot11
Slales. Now this is cIearIy the piciure, but il is a picture which Trinisia has tried
to discar-d.
What is unusual o r ano~nalousin this case is tliat, cont1-ary to t h e physicaI
reIatio~ishipberrveen the PeIagian Block to the ilorth and the Iandmass of
Tu~risiaand Libya ro [lie south, tIie coast of Tunisia irr the I-egiunof the Gulf of
Gabes ~ U I - at n s right angIes to itself. This does not a1te1-the gealogicaI situalion.
b i ~ tit does introduce a new geographka1 consideration. As tire Corirt knows. it
is the Fase of Libya that [Ris geographicai consideratio~icannoI begiri to have
any effect o n the deIimitatio~iuntiI svmewhere about the Iatitude of Ras
Y onga. N o r ~ hof thar latilude. aIthough geoIogicaIIy the sea-bed and subsoil
continue to be pa1-t of the Pelagian BIock, ~ie~~erlheIess geographically il rnay be
said that the sheIf areas in front of rIie Coast - say betweeii Ras Yoriga and
Ras Kaboudia - do conslilule in Ihar sense pari of t h e ~ ~ a r u rp1.0101igarion
al of
TuIlisia. In olher words, the acluaI pIrysica1 situation produces a pictu1-ew h ~ c h
is, as ir were. bIurred by the cornbined effect of tlie I-eIevant facts.
TIiis. it rnay be thouglit. produces an area of overIap or a 1na1-ginaIarea. as
iIIuslraied in the Libyan RepIy by Diagram 2, in which delin~itatio~i shw11d be
deter~ni~red in accordance wilh equitabIe PI-incipIes.
Let Ine i~ireriectat this point. Mr. Preside~ir.that if is astonishing to hear
Tunisia accuse Libya of b~-uraIityin applyi~ig the principIe of naruraI
PI-~Iongationwhe11 it seeIns, at tlris oraI hearing. it is Libya and rrot Tunisia
t hat recognizes the possibiliiy of the application of eqrrilable pri~iciplesin Ihese
circrimstances. We Iiave been Iaoking and Iistening for the eIement of equitabIe
principles ro be applied in the Tunisian case, but really in vain. TIie onIy
allenlpted use of srrcIi pi-inciples, and 1 sIiaII be corrected if 1 have
~nisunderstoodthe case, but as I understand it t Ire 01i1y attempted use of such
principles seerns to be (il to boIster the cIai~n,wliicIr we I-eject,based OB aIIeged
fisliery rights. which ~ a n n o t ,cannot, deter~ninesIrelf deIirnitation : o r (id
pmsibIy in the rcmote "borderland" which, accordi~lg lo tlre Tunisia~i
argumerrt. Iies beyond rhe sheIf properIjr so-caIIed
At this stage, and 1 am corning irear the end of Iny long address, I shouId Iike
tu tur1-r b~-ieflytu whaI ris horrourable Court has said about deIimitation and
Ille appIication of equitabIe PI-inciples. As 1 have said, t Ire deveIupment of r Iiis
coircept wiII be Ieft to Professor HI-iggs
There is rio need for me to reve1-t again ro a discussion of tire rgection by
 ARGVMEWI OF SIR FRANCIS X;AU.AT 71
rhe Court in 1969 of the ~ i o t i o ~ofi the jrist a ~ i deqrriIabIe share. II folIows
clearly f r a n the Jr~dgrne~it of 1Iie Courr Ihat, if appurrenance is established
beyond doubt by the facl of natural prolongalion. thar shoi11d be an end
of Ihe Inalter. I t is ubviousIy eqriitabIe IIial a State should, as a resuI1 of a
deIi~nitatio~-r,be lefl witIr Ifle areas #ver rirhicli it has continenta1 shelf righls
itrso k~r-rr~a ~ r dut7 juijiu by reason of the natural prolongation of ifs land
territory. The Parties seen1 to bc in agreement on this proposition. and 1 accept
e111i1,eIyProfessor ViraIIy's state~nent:
"Il serait, eIr effet, p~rticrr1i1-eme~rt inquitable. sous pretexIe de
ddimitation. d e priver- r r ~ E
i ~ ac6i1er
t d'u~rele~iduede plareau c o ~ l l i n e ~ ~ t a l
laqueile il a droir. sr--di1-ed'une partie de son proIonge1ne1111iatu1'el."
(IV. Ir. 492 1
TIiat statement accords rulIy with Libyan Subrnissio~~ No. 9. The quesr ion of
[Ire appIicatio11 of equ11abIe pri~icipIesarises where, for solne reaso~i.~iatural
proIongation dues not give a c1ea1-aIrswer. For example, a s we say i ~ r1Iie
PI-ese~rt case, [Iris siiuatio~rInay arise at o r aboul tire larilude of Ras Yonga
Earlier I pro~nisedto reverl Io parag~aphs43 aiid 85 (clof the Court's 1969
Judg~nent.and this is t h e proper point at which to do so. 1 then qrioted the
passage from paragrapli 43. in which 1Rc Court said that what conierred the
ijrsr~jrii-r. ri1 Ie of the coaslal State is the fact that the subn~arineareas crincerned
may be dmmed to be actuaIIy part of the territory over w hic11 the coasraI Srate
aIready has dominion. W itliout repealing that qriotation, may 1 quote the next
sente~iceof the paragraph :
"Fron~rhis it wouId fuIlow that w herieve1- a giue~isubmari~leares does
nor consliture a natumI - or lhe mosl natu1-al - exie~isiono f the Iand
territor y of a coastaI Srate. eveil though that area rnay be cIoser to it than
it is Io Ihe territory of aIiy other State. it cannot be regarded as
appcrraii~ingto that State, - or at least it cannot be so regarded in the
face of a competing d a i m by a S ~ a t eof wIrose Ia~rd te1-1-ito1-ythe
submarine area co1ice1-~ied is tu Ire I-egardedas a 1raturrr1extei-rsiorr.eue11 if
i~ 1s Iess dose to it." (l.C.J. I . q i w i . ~1969. p. 3 I .)
Now befor~c o m ~ n e ~ r t i~UI-iller,
~ig 1 wouId 1-efe1-tu tlie wIroIe of pirragrapli 85
of the Ji~dgment.but. for imined~atepurposes. Ii~nit~njrselfto part of il. It wilI
be i-ecailed that the C O ~ Isaid - t in co~inectioriwith the appIicatio11 of equitaMe
PI-i11cipIes:
"it is no1 a question of applying eqirity simpIy as a matte1- of abstracl
justie, bu[ of appl ying a ~ u l of e Iaw which itseIf requires t11e appIicatio~i
of equitabIe principles. ~ I accordance
I w ith the ideas which have aIways.
und.erlain the dev<i~pn7entof the IegaI rgime of rhe cu~rt~ne~rtaI slreIf in
Ihis field, na~nely;".
TIien oIIow subpa~.:rgraphs61.(!da~-rd Id.and subparagraph k;11,eads.
''for the 1-easo~is give~ri ~ rwragraphs 43 and 44, the continenta1 shelf of
any SIaIe Inust be tIie iratural proIongation of its Iand lerrilorji and must
11ot e~icroachupon what is rhe natura1 prolongation of rhe territory of
another State" I1.C.I. Rcpvi-fs j11.59, p. 47).
The ideas exp1-essed i ~ paragraplis
i 43 and 85 of the Judginent are reffected
i1-r the dispositive in parag~.aplrI O 1. 1 d o not ~Iiinklhat il is necessary tu inflict
on the CWI-ta readi~igof tlie pariigraph, but 1 suggest that the upshot is that
the Cor41-t1-ecog1iized Ihat i ~ isoIne situations there ~nightbe an apparent
72 CONTINENTAL SHELF

cvnfiict o r overIap of the naturaI pro1ongatioi-1of t wo Stares. Indeed. the Cour1

of Arbitotion in 1 477 s e m a i tu view the EngIish Channel in this very Iight.
1 n rnany situations. this wvuld have no signifieance, but in a situatio~rsuch as
the une that exisis in this case. where Ihe coasls of une of twu States wilh
adjacent coasts cunsisr of twu Ienglhs w hich are at right angIes to each oiher. il
seeIns Ihai there must e some area of uverIap a ~ r din that area deIirnitatiun has
to be delerrni~red.n o Ionger y lhe appIicatio~rof the principIe of naturaI
proIongalion. bul by the application of equitabIe principIm.
1 aIn riul here snggest~ng,o ~IIie i otl-rer Irand. 1Iiat naluraI proIo~igat~on can
auIo~nuticaIIyd e i e r ~ n i ~iIie~ eexact li~ieof deIirnitalio~r,bu[ it caIi ~ n d ~ c a tiIre
e
ge1re1-aIdirectio~i!Ira1 tIie Ii11e sIlould take ; and tIre &rties. recogniting [Ire
facls of p11ysicaI 1ratura1p1.0101-rgarion. sIiouId then be ble io ag1-eereadiIy 011a
Iine of deli~nitalion.In doing so. Ihey wiII obviousIy have lo take inlo account
faclors such as the Iand boundary. the IateraI boundary of the terrjtoria1 sea,
and passibly the outer Iimils of the ierritoria1 sea. There may be olhe1-
circrrmstances t hat have io be [ake~rin10 account brii. a s has been expIained in
the wriIIen pIeadings and as wilI be na de cIerer by subseque~ilspeakers,
Liby doax no1 accept thai de1irnilalio1-r of its c o ~ ii~ientalt sheI shouId be
affected by [Ire fishery cIainls of Tunisia o r by baseIines a ~ i dexteilded IerritoriaI
sea 1i1nitscIai~neds recentIy a s 1973 - Io~iga f k r tIie dispule abouI ~ n a r i t i ~ n e
boundaries arosc bclrueen the Partics and which have been rcjectcd expressljr
and by i~npIicatio~i by Libya by virtue of lhe 1955 Libya~iPelroIeu~nLaw and
ReguIatio~rand Map No. 1 II. p. 467)and otherwise.
The Libyan case Inay be technicaIIy dificuIt, bnr il is so11dIy based. a ~ r dw e
shall do our bcst during the prese~ilatio~i of our oraI pleadi~igsIo si~npIifya ~ r d
~ I a r i f yit for rhe benefit of Members of lhe Court.
1 have Ied rny remarks up ro lhe point of consideration of the practicaI
appIicalion of iIie principIes and rutes of internationa1 Iaw and aIso indicaled
that this aspect of rhe case wilI be deaIl with by Mr. I-I~gIiel.As aIso staied by
Ambassador El Maghur. the Agent, al the end of his speecli. 1 sIial1 ~ i o wbe
foIIowed by xvcraI speakers w h o wilI deveIop the hrslor1ca1, sc~enl~fic and
IegaI aspects of Ihe case Tor Libya. However. wrth the Ieave of the C;ourr. 1
ahould Iike [aslop my prese~rIationat this pai~ita ~ r dco111inneIaler with a short
stalenlenr desig~iedto provide a Iirrk between other aspects of the case and ihe
contribution io be na de by Mr. Highet. 1 bcIicvc thal this con~-se is ~0n~enie11t
and 1 hope Ihat it wiIl be acceplabIe tu you. Mr Presidci~l.and to IIie Mernbers
of [Ire Court.
 P1,AIDOIRIE DE M. MALINTOPPI
CONSEIL DU GOUVERNEMENT DE LA JAMAHIRIYA ARABE LIBYEhUE

M. MALINTOPPI : Monsieur le Prsident, Messie~lrsles juges, ma tache ici

est simple et rretterner-rt dfinie. I I m'appartient de vous prhenter certaines
considrations qui concernent les dlimitarions IatraIes des juridictions
I-espectivesde la Libye et de Ia Tunisie. Mon expos sera donc Iirnit dais
I'espam, puisque ces dlimitations y seront considerk i partir de Ia fro~itire
terrestre et jusqu'a Ia Iigne bathyrntrique de 50 mtres. Iaissant ainsi a mon
coIIgue, Ie doyen CoIIiard, le min de prciser notre position dans Ie cadre de Ia
question des droits Iristoriques. quant aux Iirnites de Ia zone de piche vers
I'extrieur. Ma IacIie sera aussi Ii~nitedans Ie ternps, prrisque I'agent du
Gouvernemenl Iibyen nous a dj prsente le point de vue de son gouve1--
nement pour ce qui concerne Ia priode qui suit I'i~idpenda~ice du pays.
Mon expose se situe donc s u r le plan de ce qu'on appeIIe Ies considratio~is
Iiistoriqrres. Or. s'iI est vrai que d'aprs SchIegel l'hislorien est. en quelque
sorte. Ie propIite du passe, il irrcornbe au juriste, brsqu'il se penche sur des
faits et des situations d'antarr, de veiIIer tabli1- Ia prsence du passe. En
d'autres termes, il appartient au juristede montrer l'influence que les fails et Ies
rapports drr temps pass exercent sur les faits el Ies rapports juridiques du
fernps prsent. PareiIIe influence peut se manifester sous des formes diffrentes
et de maintes faons. Pour ma part. je tacherai de concenrrer mes efforts sur les
points essentieIs mais surtout sur certaines cpnsidrationsqui font appararre la
toiIe de fond de Ia prsente affaire Assurment. si l'on regarde de pr&s celte
toiIe de fond, on pourra s'apercevoir que cenains des Iiinents qui Ia
composent ne constituent pas un simpIe dcor. Bien au contraire. ils se situerrt
au milieu de l'action et - rrve de mtaphores - dans la recherche des rgIes
et des prirrcipes susceptibIes de favoriser un rsuItat equitabIe dans Ia prsente
affaire. Pour atteindre ce but, que la Cour se rassure, je n'ai nuiiernent
I'intentrun de ~~rnonter trop loin. Si elle Ie dsire, la Cour pourra aisment
Irotiuer iouies Ics do~inesncessaires dans de dossier de M. Joffe et de son
quipe de l'Universit de Lond1-es {III, corrtre-mmoire libyen. annexe
technique 6 : I V , rphque libyenne, annexe technique 11-21. Je me propose.
quant moi, de vous illustrer cerlains fails et cerlaines co~is~drations qui ont
trait Ia formation des Iirnites latrales entre lesdits pays. L'histoire des limites
en Iner commence en 1904. Cst ce moment, en effet, qu'aux dires de la
Partie adverse elle-mnie, une Iigrre se serait forme qui. panant d u point
terminal de la frontire terrestre, aurait dlimite, en direction du nord-est 45".
et jusqua la Iigrre baihyrntrique de 50 mlres, une zone de pche souniise Ia
juridiction tunisienne. Bien e~rlendu.I'hisloire de la question des limites
marilimes n'a fait que commencer en 1904 et I'un de ses chapirres se drouIe
actueIIemenl devant vous.
Quant & la frontire rerreslre, son histoire a t close par le trait de Tripoli
du 19 mai 1910 qui fixa dfrniIive~ne~~t la section terminale de cette frontire
sur Ia mer. Si je sorrIigne ici Ie caractre dfinitif de la frontire terrestre, cst
en raison du fait que Ies ractions de Ia Partie adverse aux sections de nos
critures consacres a Ia formation de la frontire terrestre, ces ractio~is-
disais-je - nous ont paru queIque peu hors de proportion. Je pense ~iotam-
ment aux pages I 1 et 12 du contre-mmoire tunisien {II) et Iannexe II- 1
 74 PLATEAU CQNTIWENTAL

a celle pike et je prends ~iolequ'ara corr1.s de Ia procdure oraIe on sst born a

qualifier Ie problme de InaIieuvre de dive~siori.Je ne souscris pas, bien
errtendu, a une teIIe apprciation, je Ie rpte, mais je co~istateavec satisfaction
qu'au cours des discussions oraIes Ia quesliorr semble avoir eti. ramene a ses
vriabIes PI-oportions.En realil? n w s sommes ici co~rfront\; une simple
divergence d'opinion entre Ies Panies sur Ie poi~ltde sawii. quelles sont les
questions pertinentes dans Ie cadre de la preseilte affaire. La Partie adverse
estirne que tour ce qui se rapporle la formation de Ia fro~rt~ere Ierrestre devrait
tre cart du PI-toire.I I n'y aurait la rien de perti~ient.Csl 1.111 argument
auque1 iI serait dfei~dude toucher. Beaucoup plus rnodaFtement, nous
estimons, de ce c6t de Ia barre, qu'il y a dans ces faits historiques pIusieurs
lrnents utiles qui peuvent iaciIiter Ia Gche de Ia Cour et Iui per1nett1-ede saisir
Ies racirres des diEcuIts auxqueIIes Ies deux pays se sso~ilheurts, de dgager Ia
parie exacte des carrsque~ices jur-idiques des faits historiques, de parvenir
des soIutions qui liennent compte de tous Ies Iments err jeu.
Err particuIier, la Partie adverse oubIie une considration qui possde par
contre une i~npo~urice capilaIe. Si Ibn examine Ies circo~istaricesdans
lesqueIIeso ~ai fix Ia froritire terreslre aux abords de la mer, on est en mesure
de mieux comprendre cornment et pourquoi Ibn est arriv invoquer ici urre
instrudio~~ ad~ninist~.ativede service mise Tunis en 1904 pour irive~ilerpetit
a petit, peu peu, pas pas, une Iigne de dmarcalion en mer de 4 5 O et pour
prtendre que, depuis celte date, elle aurait t internationale~nenttablie et
accepte. Ainsi donc, Ia ractio~rde la Parrie adverse a u cours de la procdure
k i t e apparait sous sa lumire vritabIe. Cetait de toute vidence un prtexte
pour dtourner Iattention du fond de Ia questio~ret pou1-6uite1-que Iexamen
de Ia formation de Ia frontire terrestre n'expose au g~-and jor11-Ies procds
empIoys dans I'efforr tunisien pour fabriquer Ia Iigne de 45".
LRs connexions erilre Ia dIirniiatio~iterrestre et Ia deIirnitatiun maritime
deviennent ainsi particuIiremeiit viderries. Les diff1-entsproblmes snche-
vetrent et s'infegrent Ies uns dans les anlres. Mais ce sont surtout Ies
paralilismes qui sont parfois frappants II s'agit, ainsi qu'on le verra pIus Ioin,
de parall1i s m dtxion
~ poiitique, de met hodoIogie diplomatique. de moyens
pratiques employs, de lacriques juridiques qui caractrisent les vicissitudes de
t
I'Iiistoi~-e.Mais laissons donc parIer les fairs.
! Cesr donc dans le but de conlribuw lucider en tous points Ies diffrents
aspects et Ies Iie~iscomplexes d u problme dorrt Ia Cour est actuellement saisie
i que Ia Libye a juge opportun dIncIure dans les pices de Ia procdui-ecrite des
exposes et des considrariuns {rs succincts qui concernent l'histoire relative
aux dlirnilatior~s- tout auta~rt,bien errtendu, qu'aux non-dIin~itations-
entre Ia Libye et la Tunisie. Ceries, ces faits et ces #nsid~-atiunsne sont pas
torrs d'une irnportan~&galedans Ie contexte de Ia prseiite affaire. Na~irnoirrs,
il tait opportun que Ia Cour fut renseignee quant au cadre Iiistorique dans
IeqneI il convient de situer Ia recherche des principes appIicabIes la
dlimitation du pIateau continental appamnant chacuile des Parties eri cause.
Airisi Ie mmoire (p. I2 14 et annexes 1-3 1-8, Il et Ie co~~tre-mmoire
Ip. 32 35 et annexa I 3 20,111wntiennent mrlaines remargues sur l'histoire
de Ia frontire terrestre. L'histoire des relations entre Ies juridictions maritimes
de I'IMie et de la Tunisie est pIus particuIirement traite dans le coritre-
ni~noire(p. 56 52 et annexes 37 a 4 5 ) et dans Ia rphque (p. 20 et suiv., el
annexes I- 18 el suiv., IV) qui revient eIIe aussi, brivernent, sur la question de
Ia frontire terrestre (p. 1 Z 14 et annexes 1-1 1 et 1-1 21. II va de soi, mais ii faut
peut-are le prciser pour autant que de besoin, que j'emploie ici le terme
juridicfion au sens large, c'est$-dire dans Ie sens de I'exercice de pouvoirs

. --. - .--. -- -.
 PLAIDOIRIE DE M. MALIhTOPPI 75

tatiques en gerr~.aIet sans prjudice du caraclre souverain ou 1151s des

porivoirs en question. De meme Ie mot ddit~~ilulioir se1-atoujours utiiise ici au
sens large. sans prjudice de Ia nature et de la porle juridique des #rifins
Ii~nitaritdans Ispace I'exercice des pouvoirs dont il sgit.

En prmrirr Iieii. j'exa~nineraibrivement le processus de formation de la

frontire terrestre aux aboi-ds de Ia nier a partir de Ibccupation franaise et
jusqu'au trait de 1910. D'arrtres parties de la frontire terrestre ont fait I'objet
d'accords posterieurs et le traite du 10 aoCt 1955, qui suit I'iiidpendance de Ia
Libye, a confirm I'ense~nbIede ces deIimitat~ons.Mais puisque c'est le trait de
I 9 1 O qrri fixa Ras Ajdir le poirit terniinal de Ia frorrtiere terrestre sur Ia cote,
c'at nota~nment ce traite qu'il convient de se reporier si, dans la prsente
affaire, Ibn.devait juger ncessaire, convenabIe ou opportun de prendre eIi
co~isidrationIe poirrt o la frontiere lerrestre dbouche sur Ia mer.
ER deuxic;firc lieu, il faudra prendr-e eri considration les farneuses
instructions tnisierrrres sur le service de Ia ~iavigationet Ies p k h e s ~nariti~nes
qui datent du 3 1 dcembre 1904. Ces instruaions, on nous I'a maintes fois
oppose. auraient i~itroduit,selon Ia Parrie adverse, la ligne de 45? Il s'agit donc
d'u~iequeslion ce11traIedans Ie cadre de Ia presente affaire.
Ejr sruisilrie fieri, I b n devra considrer cerrai~waspects de la guerre de 1 9 1 1-
191 2 entre I'IlaIie et I'Empire ottoman. parce que cette guerre constitue, notre
avis, le vritable dbut de I'histoire de la dIirnilation Iatrale des juridictioiis
maritimes respectives de la Libye et de la Turrisie. En effet, c'est Ibuverlure
1n1ne des hostiIites qu'il y a une premire prise de position sur Ia mer
r la dclaration de bIocus des Pitres otto~nanesen Afrique rrolifike
1 ' ~ s i o r de
par l'Italie aux autres Etals.
En quarrit'lne I ~ P I j'essaierai
~, de montrer co~nment,irnmdiaterner-rraprs la
fin de la grrerre ilalo-oltomane,un irrciderrt issu de I'a1-restarionde trois bateaux
d e pktre par Ies autorits italien~ies placera Ia question des Iimiles IalraIes des
juridictions niaritirna sur ri11 plan frk mncrel et aboutira Ia recherche de
soIutions provisoires, transitoires, dr jacro. mais nanmoins respectees plus
d'un quarl dc sikIe durant. Ces soIutons, bien entendu, restent ce qu'eIIes
sont. EIIes ne constitue~~t nuIIement nI Ia soIution juridique arr-te par Ies
Parties, ni un fail juridiqrre co~rsoIidepar Ia pratiqrre er par 1e temps. EIIes
reprsentent pourtant des lignes, des directio~is,des tendances issues de
i'histoire I w I e qui monrrent aussi, et eI1 tout cas, combien les prte~rtions
actuelles du Gouvernement turiisien sont loignks des ralits.
FinaIemenl et err ciflquikiirelier<,Ibn ver1-aqrie cette situarion n'a pas charrg
pendant la priode suivante e! que, par coiisquent, route dmarcation
maritime reste encore faire errtre Ia Libye et ta Tunisie.

l LE POINT TERMINAL DE LA FRONIRE TERRESTaE SUR iA MER

Monsieur Ie Prsiderrt, avec votre permission je passe imrnediaterne~ila

I'examen de la questioii qui concxrne la drer~ninationdu point ou Ia frontikre
terrestre touche Ia cote. C'est la questio~iqui se pIace en premier, du point de
vue du temps. car il faut remorrter u n quart de sicle avant le trait de I 9 IO
pour en cueiilir les antcdenls. A cet gard, il me suffira d'tabIir trois choses :
primo, que le rra& de cette section de la frontire et nolmment Ie choix de son
76 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

point terminal sur la mer n'avait pas de fondement ni nature1 ni historique ;

secundo. que des considrations d'ordre pu rement militaire ont conduit Ia
soIution dfinitive ; et rerfio, que pareiIIe solution tait ceIIe arrtk par I'une
des Parties, et, plus prcisment, par la puissance europenne qui grait
I'epoque, se1011I'esprit poIitique et Ies rgles juridiques du temps, les relations
inlernativ~iaIesde Ia Tunisie.
Nous savons tous ici fort bien qrre Ia dIirnitation des frontires eIr Afrique
- je songe iiotarnment ce1gard l'excellente &de du professeur Boutros-
GhaIi sur tes colflirs Je fionfi& PJI Afrique (Paris, 19721 - a t errcore
moins rigide qu'en Europe. Les confins enfr-eIes peuples de I'Afrique orrt eu dcs
contours incertains. Assez souve~rt,c'est pIutt une ({zone grise qui
caractrise la sparation entre entits dont Ia plupart sont ethniqueme111
pluraIisles. Dam ces conditions, 1'011 coniprend et I'on apprcie d n e manire
encore pIus nette la sagesse des E t a s de I'Afrique 1rouve1Iequi ont dcid de
conserver Ies dlimiialionsadoptes par Ies puissances coIoriiaIes, et ce dans un
contexte qui, dans la plupart des cas, n'avait que ires peu a voir avec la
situation reIIe du territoire et de son miIleu humain.
Cependant, et mme dans I'i~rce~-titude qui pIanait sur les frorrti1-esdans
I'Afrique de jadis, certains faits peuve~itetre tablis gr5ce aux InoyeIrs propres
a des recherches de ce genre. Ainsi, et quelle que soit I'etendue de Ia zone grise
interpose eIitre les popuIations de la Libye et ceIIes de Ia Tunisie d'aujourd'lirri,
une chose semble a r e certaine : c'est urr fait que Ies cartes antrieures a 1887
- et je ne me rfre ici qu'aux cartes publies par des imprimeurs europens
- situaient la partie fi~ralede la frontire terrestre le long du Wadi Fessi et son
point terminal a El Biban, au mdiw de la Iagune partant Ie mme nom.
Ce fait ressort d'une manire cornpI&e - et, permettez-moi d'ajouter, non
suspecre - d'un ouvrage fort intressant. II s'agit du Iivre en deux tomes du
professeur Andr Martel sur t e s confirrs sizharcl-fripoIi~uiptsde la Tuizisie
{1683-191l), publie par Ies Presses universitaires de France en 1965. Ce n'est
pas au surpIs un ouvrage isole, mais c'est Ie volunle V de la 4' srie (Histoire)
des Pirblicaiions de I'Universir de T~ciris.II s'agit donc de G= que, dans Ie
langage si caractristique du prtoire, I'on devrait considrer de notre #t de
Ia barre cornIrle un tmoignage hostiIe. Nannroins, Ia Cour voudra bien
apprcier que les thses de la Libye, dans ia prsente affaire, s'y trouvent
beaucorip mieux refiechies que ceIIes de la Tunisie. Un exenipIaire de cet
ouvrage peut tre consuIte ici Ia bibliothque du paiais.
Or Ie professeur Marie1 Ia page 374 du tome premier est formeI. Et les
deux carles allemandes du ne moire libyen (annexe 1-61 co~ifirrnentque Ia
fro~il~re,err 1830 et en 1867, se terininait sur Ia mer Ila Iagune d'El Biba~i,au
rnilieu de la lagune, au fort d'El Biban, c'est--dire considrablement plus
I'ouest de la fro~itireactuelle. SeIon un calcul qui ~i'eslpas difficile faire, Ia
distance en ligne directe entre El Biban et R a Ajdir est de 26.2 kilomtra. Ce
n'est qu'aprk 1883 que, du cot franais, on conmence a agir ccirnme si la
section fmaIe de Ia frontire terrestre ari I~VI-dne suivait pIus le Wadi Fessi pour
dboucher sur Ia mer a El Biban, mais suivait pIut6t Ie Wadi Mokta pour
atteindre Ia mer Ras Ajdir. Noris avons, bien entendu, rassernbI dans Ie
dossier de Ia procdure crite les documents essentieIs lires des ciifferentes
archives. Ces d ~ u n ~ e nd'aiIleurs,
ts qui viennent des archives franaisa p w r la
pIupart, sont aussi Ia base de l'expose de Martel a cet gard It. 1, p. 372-3741.
Le premier document est coiistitu par rrne note sur Ia froritiere entre Ia
Tunisie et Ia Tripolitairie tablie par le rniriistre de Ia guerre franais en
~rovernbre 1886. La note s'ouvre par U I I ~consblatiun qui confime Ies
considrations que je viens d'exposer :
 PLAIDOIRIE DE M. MALINTOPPI 79
d'u~iIiser pour fixe1- la frontiere au point vouIu et qu'on lachera errsuite
d'ritiiiser sur ia Iner :
(< Il jsernble que noirs devrio~is profirer de cette occasion pour wcuper
dsormais dne manire FI-cise ~iotre frontire d u Mokla. Votre
departement ayant dans ses attributions I'i:tabIisse~nentet la publicatio~i
des carles de la Tunisie II y aurai1 nlon avis grand avantage a ce qrre
disormais les feuilles ou la rgi011srrd se trorrue figure portassenr, de la
maniere Ia pIus apparente, I'indicarion au point dont il s'agi1 de Ia ligne de
di.rnarwt~o~i entre Ie ViIayet et la Rge~ice.
A vrai dire lstat-rnajor n'avait pas teIIemerr1 tort dans son appeI Ia
prriden~een raison de Ia carence des litres juridiques. L'i~rvitaiion la revisiorr
des carres - cette revisio~ique le conrie-mmoire libyen a appele la
campagne des carles >i, mups cor~ipaigir - fut condu ire par le ~ni~ristre de Ia
guerre. ainsi que le tmoignent Ies documenrs canlenris dans Ia~i~iexe 1- 1 1 la
rpIique Iibyenne. Mais on alIa trop Ioin. Lorr finit. en d'autres termes. par
susciter Ies reactio~isilaliennes - wiI qrie I'Ita11eest entre pour la p~-ern~re
fois dans celte histoire - ce qui devait retarder d'un quarf de sicle la fixalion
de Ia frunti1-eterreslie au point vouIu. La question est reIate a la page 34 du
contre-mmoire libyen (II). Lepisode cIe est constitu par Ie zkle d'une socit
savanle. La Socit de geographie de Paris publia dans le nu~nrodu premier
trimestre 1 887 de son Briik~irr une note affirmant qu'urre convention S~I-ail
i~iterve~iue entre la Tunis~eet la Turquie au sujet de la frontire terrestre et
q u ~ iconsequence Ies cartographes seront obIigs reporter I'ancie~r~le
((

fro~iiirede 31 kiIornt1-esdans I'est 1i (texte du Br~lkfliirreproduit par MarteI.

op. ri[., t. 1.p. 3771.
Sur quoi, Ie p~.ofesseurMarteI comIneIire :
la nouveile ditiori des cartes de l'ktat-major franais
<( Effect~verne~lt
indique Ia frontire sur Ie Muq~a.S'appuyant s u r cette docurne~rtation.Ia
maisoir allenlande Perthes. dans sa 2e edition de Ia carte de Habenicht :
Spezia1 Karte von Af~rika,>, croit devoir faire de mme. Alors que le
trac frontalier srrivait, dans les Iivraiso~isprcdentes, I'vued EI Adjered
jusqu'au Nefousa et bifurquait vers I'ouest. Ia nou\~eIiepublicai ion Ie
reporte sur l'oued Moqta incIua1i1Ouezzen. i1
Mais la I-+action itaIienne est vIimente. L'on en arrive 2 aIerter Ies
principaIes puissances europennes. L'ase~itieI de Ia quereIIe ressort de
dcicumenIs diplo~natlquesitalieris qui figul-ent dans Ic contre-mn1oi1-eIibye~i
(11. aIrIrexe 201 L'opi-ation franco-tunisienne se solde par U I ~chec et Ie
professeur Marre1 ~-&n~ne d'une maniere parlante Ielat de Ia question i
I'gpoqne Iop cir., t. I, p. 382) :
a La Grierre est rlicente, Ies Affai1-es ~ra~igeres, plus resoIues.
manquent de docunteffts pour appuyer les prtentions tunis~ennes.Pour
forcer Ies Ottomans a dcouvrir Ies Ieurs, dcr opratio~isdiverses se
succdent sans Iien apparent ; les sondages du Liiiiis. Ixpulsion des
T~.ipoIiIains.les (< maladresses ii du Birllcrir~de la Sr~:-it;ikdc. g&gtapI~ic'.
Ies indiscretions du TP~nj)s. IFS proteslatio~rsdipIo~natiques.La Purte n'y
oppose pas de pl-euva mais des contre-rnanauvres >>
Ce qu'iI faut ajouter a ce rcit, cst nI1 tout petit cornrnir~iiqude presse du
ministre des affaires irang1-es de France, M. FIourem, aux journaux
parisiens. dat du 20 dcenlbre 1887. I I est publie dans Ie recueil des
docume~iIsdig101natiqrresitaliens. II se Iit coInnle suit r
80 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

Nous somnies autoriss a dmentir tous Ies bruits Iances par les
jwrnaux italiens au sujet de ngociations qui auraient Iieu entre Ia France
et Ia Porte pour Ia recrification des frontires de Ia Tripolitaine. >>
En ralit, c'es1 pIut6t a u BulIe~inde lo SociU~r'gk~graj~f~ique de P~oris.que le
dmenti ministrie1 aurait d s'adresser ...
Quoi qu'il eri soit, I'on comprend saris diffrcuIt pourquoi, Iorsqu'on arriva
finalement convoquer en mars 1893 a Zwara une confrence pour des
conversatio~rstunisu-turques. I'on assista en raIit a un daIogue de sourds.
tes Ot~ornans - et Martel aussi Ie confirme (1. 1, p. 554) - pouvaient
dsormais compter sur Ies reactio~~s suscites par I'ItaIie et n'avaient donc pas
Ia moindre raison d'accder aux prtentions tunisiennes en souscriva~it u~r
acte forrneI. Pour Ia Porte, la seule politique possibIe tait ceIIe du wrrir aird s m .
Lavanmg d'u~ieteIIe poIitique tait videni. Son inconverrient majeur tait
*pendant que Ia Porte nvait pas les moyens de s'opposer la raIsation Jt.
facro des prete~itionsfranco-tunisiennes.
Nous savons donc que Ia presence ottomane a t repousse d e f i . aprs
la confrence de Zouara, a I'est du Wadi Fessi et jusquu Wadi Mokta. Une
fuis de plus, Ie professeur Marte1 relate et cornmente ces S n e ~ n e n tavecs une
objeclivite qui lui fait Ironner~r,en souIigna111~iotarnmentque (< Ies conditions
internatio~raIes et Ia faibIesse de la Porte ont favoriscette prise de possession ii
(clp. cil., t.I,p. 5971.
Et Ie piofesseur Martel d'ajouter :
<( Trois facteurs ont assure ce suc& : cIaire dfmition et permanence de
Ibbjectif fix, continuit d'effort sur Ie terrairr, cohsion entre Ia pression
IocaIe et l'action diplo~natiquequi ne se ressenle~itjamais des rensions
passagres entre autorits civiIes et militaires. Mais IveuiUez bien
remarquer ceci, niessieurs1 ces lmenfs dpendent en dfinitive du sens
du Ira& rcIani. (lbirf.,p. 598.1
L'observation est trs juste. II faut qu'urr trac de frontire ait u n sens.
Seulement. II faut que ce trace ait un sens pour IouIes Ies parlies irrter&e5.
Dans ce cas, par contre, c'est toujours d'un seuI cbt qu'on veut fixer Ia
frorrtikre la oU on Sa dcid. Mais 1-evenansau professeur Martel, qui nous
donne son expIication sur Ie sens du trace >> rclam :
((

<( AIors que chacun s'accordait reconnatre la ncessit d'une fro~ltikre

satisfaisa~itles deux parties. e ~ radmettant des concessions, Ie cornman-
dant RebiIlet. en 1889-1890, a (< perrse >i Ia frontiere eii fontion de
I'errsembIe des impratifs qui devaient en assurer I'tabIissenient et Ia
dure. >i {ihid.)
El Ia concIusion frnaIe du professeur Marte1 n'appelle pas de coninientaires
(sauf un, peut-trd r N La Iig~reRas Ajdir, Moqta, Khaou, Smeda, Oued
Souaregue, donne satisfaction aux Tunisiens sans trop lser Ies Tripdilains.
Sans trop Ies Iser, donc. Mais on les lse.
Nous en arrivons ainsi au dernier acte : le trait de 191O. Je m'excuse d'avoir
t un peu long, mais iI faIIait, face a la position prise par Ia Pa~tieadverse dans
la procdure crite, rtablir ceriaines ralits fistoriques. II Ine reste, pour
cornpIter celte partie de mon expos, vous montrer que Ia conclusion finaIe
a bel et bien t la co~isquence invitable d'une situation de fait et certes pas Ie
((prix de concessivrrs i~nportantes>> dans Ia section meridio~iaIe de la frontire.
ainsi que le contre-~nernoiretunisien s'efforce de I'ccrediler {II, annexe 11-1.
p. 111.
 Nous avons reproduit, l'annexe 1- 12 la rplique (IV), Ies procs-vei-baux
de certairres sancw de la comrni3-sjor.ide dlimitation de Ia TI-ontiretuniso-
tripolitaine runie i Tripoli eIi avriI-mai 19 1 O. A u cours de la premire seance.
Ibppositiun e~ilreIes tIrses des pai-ties ae saurait tre plus nette en ce qui
coricerIre la section septe~itrionalede Ia frontiere terrestre partir de Ia rner
Le dbat est acharne, de part et d'autre. II ns1 pas necessaire d'y insister i ~ i ,
puisque ce genre de palemique est bien connu dans I'histoire des nkgoc~a-
tions dip101natiques reIarives a la dIiniilatian de frontires. t e s Ottomans
produisent nombre de caries de Ia rgion rnontr-a111que Ia frontiere touclre la
Iner EI Biba~i,y compris - c'est un petit d e i d intressarit - Ia carte:
jointe au Iivre jaune sur les aiTaires tunisiennes publie Ividem~lient Paris]
en 188 1 - carte sur IaqueIIe El Biban est dsign cumrne point de dpart 11 ;a
a quoi Ibn rpond de I'autre c61e. aussi froidement que possible, ({ que cette
carte est errone et que son insertion au Iivre jaune n'a pu a r e que le rsullat
d'une erreur matrielle i>, cri feignant ainsi d'ignorer que, comme on Ia vu,
c'est seulement 8 partir de 1886. donc cinq ans aprs, que la frontire avait t
transfre sur le Mokta par les carles miiiiaires franajses.
Quoi qu'iI en soir, Ia pr~errtiondu ciit tunisien est prsente d'une ~nanire
constituer un vritable ~ro& prosequi. Le prcics-verbal de la deuxirne
sa~ice,mIIe du 14 avril, est rvlateur. Du cot ottvma~ion propose de passe1-
l'examen des titres de proprit sur Ia rgion co~rteste,toute rkerve faite
quant au trac de la frontire. Mais la proposition est nettement repoussk, Ia ((

Trrnisie ne pouvant consentir recuIw Ia frontire actueIIe, sur laquene SQIII

tablies des postes mirilaira (deuxime pice, ibid.1. La deuxime sance,
d'ailleurs, ne dure qu'une hwre et Ia troisi~nen'aura Iieu que quatre jours pi ras
lard, Iorsque Ies dkIgus de Ia Purfe proposeril de passer I'exameri du trac
dans Ies zones suivantes, en d&Iarant ne pas considrer Ia frontire
septenIrionde Gomme <r indiscutable >i.
Mais, prir Ie wt tunisien, eue l'est. L'on fair tal du cGti:trrrrisien, au cours
de la troisime sance de TripoIi, d'une Iettre du 1" juin 1893 dans IaqueIIe
PauI Cambon, ambassadeur de France Constantinople, relate son ministre,
DvveIIe, une wnversation avec Ie rninislre ottoman des affaires trangres.
Dans cetle conversation, Cambon aurait reproch Ia Porte que ses dlgus
la corifrence de Zouara de 1893. aprs avoir <( tout cctmpliqu , avaient
abandonn Ia confrence. Et M. Cambon en co~icIrrt,dans des termes qu'il
affirme avoir employ a 1-garddu ministre ottornari des affaires trangres :
(<Celanous est indiffrent ; nous n'avons pas besoin de vous pour
savoir ou sont Ies limites de Ia Tunisie, nous les corrriaissons. Nous avons
bien wulu, par une condesceridance que je trouve regretbble, n e pas
uccuper le lerritoire tunisien jusqu' ses extrema Iirnitw : nous
I'occuperons dkor~nais.. . I> (Tsoisi~nepice de I'annexe I - I 2 la rpIique
libyenne, I V 1
Mais ii y a plus. L'un des reprsentants Ies plus clbres de Ia graride
diplomatie de son poque s'empresse de dort~rerdes bons coriseils a Paris quant
a la mtIiode pour poursuivre ce qu'i1 appeIIe sans enpIrmisrne << I'occupation
progressive du pays jusqn'au Wadi Muqta i,. Ainsi s'exp1-i~ne PauI Cambon :
Cette occupation devrait tre prcde de deux o u trois promenades
miiitaires sans importa~i~e, o p r h par de Igers dtachernenrs qui de
mois en mois s'avanceraient au-del de Foum Tatahouine, en poussant
chaque fuis leurs recorrrraissances urr peu plus loin, puis ces petits
demhements mniperaient d'une faqon permanente, et enfin iIs tabli-
raierit des bordjs Ides fortins] sur ieur Iieu de campement.
 82 PLATEAU CONnNEWAL

De deux choses I'une, ou Ia Porte acceptera sans mut dire cette marche
en aaanr, et Ia question serait tranche Jr.facfo,ou eue nous demandera
des explications, et alors je crois pouvoir amr~nerque mes explications
seront telles que le Sultan se hElera de faire reprendre les ~igociationset
de presc1-ire aux autorits civiles et miIitai~.esde Tripoli de Ies mener
rapidement i bonne fia. >i
II convient de s'arreter ici. Que I ~ sOttomans, face des arguments pareiIs,
aient fini par a e r , ce n'est que l'issue invitable d'un processus ayant son
origine les promenades militaires sans irnportanw ii prconises par Paul
Cambon. Dans les procs-verbaux de la commission de 1910 o n ne revient
pIus sur Ia prenzire section de la frontire sauf Ia fin des nogociations et sans
discussions. II n'y a aucrzn do ur des, aucun cornpromis. C'est la capitnIation
d'un empire qui ne pouvait plus tre sauve, qui tait dsormais, seIon
I'ex pression &Ibre de Iord Salisbury, he,yond salvnliorr .
Dans ces conditions, o n voit ma1 co~nznentIa Partie adverse a cru pouvoir
affirn~ersrieusement que la zone de pche de Ia Tunisie aurait t dfinie ds
1904 par une ligne Ialrale de 45" et que cette Iigne n'aurait rencontre aucune
protestation de la part
rt de I'E~npireottoman, qui aurait eu pourtant une exceIIente occasion
d'en PI-knterune Iorsqu'e~i1410 fut ngocie el concIu entre Iui et la
Tunisie le trait de dlimitation de la frontiere rerrestre de 1910 >i [IV,
1
t
p. 4651.
Cornnie iI s'agit d'une ciatio~i,la premiere extraite de la pIaidoirie du
professeur Dupuy, je voudrais vous demander Ia permission de Ie fliciter a
derrx titres. Dabord pour son admirable expos et en deuxime Iieu pour Ia joie
qu'ii a dU &prouverpour les dbuts de son EIs qui a t a tout point digrre de son
pre, et cst tout dire. Je revie~rsa ma pIaidvirie et remercie mon horrorabIe
contradicteur d'avoir bien voulu adrneltre, par cette affirmation, qurI faur Iier
err queIque sorte Ia Iigne de 45O au trait de TripoIi et, avant de passer Ia 1ne1-,
je veux bien lui donner une rpanse sur ce poirrt.
J'avuue que cet argument ne in'avait pas particu1ieremeiit frapp, d'autant
qu'en gnkral, l'poque, la pratique kndait dairement considrer que les
traillv en matire de frontires terrestra sarrbient err principe a la mer et
qu'en aucun cas iIs n'aIIaient au-ddE des eaux territoriaIes, ainsi qu'on aurait
d Ie faire ici pour arriver jusqu'a la ligne bathymtrique des 50 mtres. Mais
Iorsqu'on a faire avec des arguments dorlt Ie fondement est queIque peu
douteux, iI arrive souvent que trop de repvnses vie~rnenten mme temps
L'esprit pour que Ie choix en soit aise. Finalement, l'ai eu l'agrable surprise
de trouver nra rponse deji faik dans Ixpos d ~ iautre conseil du Gou-
vernement lunisien. Permetkz-moi donc de Iaisser au p r o f a u r Ben AcIiriur
le soin de rpondre au professeur Dupuy pkre dans Ies terms suivants:
L'objet unique de la converrtion [de 19101 ... tait de deIiniiter Ie
te1-rjtoireIerrestre eIme Ia Tripolitaine ouornane et la Tunisie depuis Ras
Ajdir jusqu' Ghadames, qui se trouve en pIein sud. Jamais. dans
I'intention des signataires de cette co~ive~rlioniI n a ti: question d'etabIir
urie frontire maritime ni d'une ~nanireexpresse ni d'urre manire
impIicite. (IV, p. 5841
Je retiens de cw rnols, cependant, qu'il n'a jamais tk question d2tabIir des
frontieres maritimes el je Ie souligne parce que Ie professeur Ben Achuur se
nrprend dans ce qu'il suppose que Ie mmoire Iibyen (1, p. 481) pretend
84 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

cherch faire orrbIier. L ' i n s ~ r u c t i oreIve

~~ d'une circuIaire admi~iistrative.
L'c< instrrictio~i>i n e contient, justemerrt, que des instrucliuns. ElIe ne prterid
cerles pas tre Ia IgjsIatio~i reIa11ve aux pkhes marilimes I'kpoque.
D'aiIIeurs, le paragraphe 40 de I'instructiun elle-mme contieiil Ia Iiste des
dcrets beylicaux appIicables a la pche maritime. Ce qui est important, cst
q u e cette I i s ~ap1-s
. avd1- knumr, entre autres, UII dcret drr 28 aot 1897
sur la pcIie cotire et Ia pche des espces nrigratrices, prcise claire~nentIe
sens et Ia poi-te des circuIaires. EIle le fait darrs les termes suivanrs, propos
d'une CII-culairereIative audil dcrct de 1897 :
u La circulaire no 7 3, du di1-ecteur gnra1 des travaux publics. du 25 w-
tobre 1897. comrneIire C ~ I - l a i narticIes
s du dcrer du 28 aofit, dont
I'appIicativ~i pourrait soukver queIques difficuIls : eIIe donne itr f i r ~ eIa
nomencIature des principaux poissons, 1no1Iusqueset crustacs pkIies sur
les c b t a ~d e Ia Rgence. )> (1, ~nenioiretunisien, annexe 77.)
D'aiIleurs. IF but de I'iiistruction dans le cas d'espce est confirm par le
libell du paragraphe qui concerne Ia prtendue Iig~iede 4 5 O . Dans notre cas. il
sagil de Ia sous-sect~onC I Instruction pour Ie se~vicedes chaIoupes garde-
pche charges de Ia surveillance d e Ia pche des ponges et des pouIpes >))de Ia
seclion VI ( Peclres maritimes d,qui co~istitueIe chapitre IV de I'instruclion.
Dans cette sous-secrion, Ie paragraphe 62 porte s u r Ies garde-pche affectes Ia
surveilla~ite.qui, pour la partie du Houmt Souk Ras Ajdir, est confie au
Gi-oiidiir Ce sont donc des inslructions de se~vice,cancernanl des a prome-
nades militaires i)suggres par I'ambassadeur Ca~nbon.
Observons tout de s u ~ t eque, s'agissant d'instructio~ls de service, Ion
cornprend pourquoi Ia furmuIc adopGe est t~-&gnrique. EIIe manque de Ia
precisio~incessai1-ea Ia 1-kg1cjuridique. L'i~idication de Ia Iigne partant d e R a s
Ajdir est vers Ie nord-est , nais, on l'a vu, l'angle d'inclinaison n'est .pas
dtermin. I I y a donc lieu de se demander pourquoi une affa~reaussi
iniportarrte que la ddirnitation IatraIe d'une zoIie d e surveilIance sur la pkhe,
qui de toute vidence pourrait aIIcr I'ericontre des dispositions de I'EUI
vujsin, ne figure pas dans Ia IgisIatio~ielle-inelne. En daurres termes, on a
l'impression que dc cetk fao~ion a voIontairen~ente~nprunlIa voie queIqrie
peu dtonrn& de l'instruction de service, cornme si on vwlait en faire ua
ballon dssai pw1- sonder les radions de TripoIi et d e la Porte. Monsieur Ie
Prsident, une fois de pIus orr a une impression de a dji vu i).d'un procd qrri
rappeIIe singulierement ce qui se passait en mme temps sur Ia terre et qui
devait aboutir au Irail de 19 IO.
Sur Ia mer, les choses se passeront autrement. Sur Ia cete t~-ipoIitaine,il y
aura bie~itbt l'Italie, IIa place de I'E~npire ottoman. Du c6te tunisien. la
prudence sera teIIe qu'iI faudra attendre jusqu'en 195 I pour qu'rrne Iigne a 45'
apparaisse dans un texte lgislatif runisien. Jusqu'en 195 1 Ies Turrisiens ont
vit Ia soIution IkgisIative. Dutre part, ce n'est pas srir Ia vaIelrr juridique
d'une instruction - efeclivement assez discutable. et cst Ie rnoins qu'on
puisse dire. quant a sa port internationale - que Ia Partie adverse prtend
fonder son argu~nenatiorr.La Partie adverse voudrait plulot sappuyer sur le
prtendu acquiescement etlou la prtendue reco~rrraissance Iegard de la Iigne
de 45' de Ia part de l'Empire ottoman, de I'ItaIie, de Ia Libye eIIe-mme. Pour
ce qui est d e Ia Libye, I'agenr du gouvernement a dj rfute cette afirmatiorr.
Quant I'Enipke ottoma~i,orr a vu que I'argrrment est aussi dnu d e tout
fondement. Resle I'IkIie. Un dment fondamenta1 dans noue histoire. Mais
son comportement ~iapporiepas Ie moindre soulageme~itaux soucis de la
Parlie adverse.
 PLAIDOIXIE DE M. F.IALINTOPPI 85
A cet gard, il convient d'observes torrt dkbord que sous le prtexte de
<( meure un peu dbrdre dans cette tude des ractions itaIiennes >)(IV,p. 467).
ainsi que le dit le professeui-Dupuy, Ia Partie adverse cherche a faire fIeche de
Iour bois en plaant I'altitude italienne toujours a u 1n61neniveau, qri'il skgrsse
des titres hjstoriques, de I'isobathe des 50 niires ou de Ia Iimite IarraIe que
I'on voudrait 45.
Je suis heureux de laisser entre Ies nains si expertes de InoIi coIlegue le
doyen Colliard Ie soin de prcise^. Ia verilable attitude ilalienne quarrt aux deux
pi-ernierspoints. Je me bornerai pour ma part observer qu'en ce qui concerne
la question de Ia Iirnife Ialrale, qui esf l'objet de InoIi i~rlervenlion,celle-ci ne
saurait se poser pwi1-I'ItaIie qu'a pa~tirde Ibccupatiori des c&es tripolitaines, a
savoir, apres Ia fin septembre 191 1 et donc seize mois aprs que la questior~de
la frontire terrestre eut t rgle entre les Franco-Tunisienset Ies Ottoilians.
Cst pourql~oij'ar de Ia peine suivre mon savant contradiaeur, Iorsqu'il
affirme que :
<( II faut, pour lrrdier l'attitude de I'ltaIie I'egard de cette ligne.
disli~~guer Ia priode antrieur-e Ia guerre itaio-turque et Ia priode
posirieure cette guerre. ii (IV,p. 469.1
Je Ie repele : c'est partir du 29 septembre 191 1 que 1'1 taIie aura Ie droit de
dire queIgue chose au sujet de rr'i~nporie qlrelIe limite IatraIe entre la
Tripoliraine et Ia Tunisie. EIIe le fera dqaiIIeursIe jour ~nine,ainsi que nous Ie
verrons sous peu. Mais il y a plus. M~nesi Ibn rega1.de cette priode non
pertinente, on ~iotequ'un seuI incident s'est produir dans celle partie de Ia
rner. La Partie adverse n'a pu eIi citer d'autres. El c'est piquant que nos hono-
rables contradicteurs aient di8 prriser dans nolre dossier pour sortir ce cas.
~ ~ tIa Partie adverse, ap1-stout, aurait
Effectivement, II s'agit d'un d o a i ~ n eque
prfr Iie pas connatre. La Cour pourra aiserne~rrconstater qu'il s'agit d'une
note irrtrieure pour Ie directen1-ge~~ral des travaux pubIics de Ia Rgence de
Tunis en date du 12 fev1-ier 1914 - reprodriile l'annexe 1-27 i Ia replique
libyenne (IV) - qui donne Ia repense sriiva~ire Ja question de savoir si Ia
Iigne de 4s0 avait t invoque par la Tunisie dans des litiges irrte1-~ratio~raux :
R le service des p k h e s a eu une seuIe fois IseuIement depuis 18921
Ibccasiw de verbalise^ aux aboi-ds de la frontire nar ri lime tuniso-
tripolita~ne.
LE 8 novembre 1910. Ie baliseur Eugk~zeR k s d surprenait deux
sacoIvcs grecqua d une sacoIve itaIie11ne pkIra111, sans patente. ;i
18 miIIes da~rsle N 20 E de Ras Ashdir [si,%
Sur I'intervention des consuls generaux heIIeniques el ilaliens qui n e
discutaient pas la IegaIite de Ia captrrre w la grande distance de terre
IaqueIIe la saisie des bateaux dIinqua11tsaval t opre, Ie Gouverne-
ment turrisien admit que Ies capitaines avaient pu de bonne foi se croire
plus dans I ' a t qu'iIs ne Itaknt eIi raIit, et Ies reI5cha des fins de Ia
plainte. ii
Ce document est 1'emarquabIe pIusieurs poinls de vue et on y reviendra par
Ia suite. Pour I'instant iI suffit de rappeler que jusqu'en 1914 la seule tentative
d'assurer Ie respecl d'une Iigne prktendument dji affirme se ter~ni~ia par un
retrait stratgique lunisien et se solda donc praiiquement par un chec.
 D I X - N E U V I ~ M EAUDIENCE PUBLIQUE (2 X 8 1 , 1 O hl

Pr&eirr.r : I ~ o i audience
r du 29 IX 8 1 .]

LA GUERRE ITALO-TURQUE DE 19 1- 19 12 : LE B E U S DE LA COTE

M. MALINTOPPI : Monsieur Ie Prksident, Messieurs les membres de la
Cour, seize mois aprs le !rail de Tripoli de 191 O, le 29 septenibre 191 1, Ie
Gouver~rementitaIien communiqua Ia Porte Ia dclaration de guerre. Le
trait de Tripoli de 191 O avait t vidernrnent soIIicit par Ia Tunisie dans Ie
souci de regkr Ia question des frvntires terrestres en pr-enanten co~rsidration
la dkadence irrversibIe de l'Empire ottoman el les irltentions irrk-vocablesdu
nouveau Gouvernement italien, bien connues d'aiIIeurs des autorits fran-
aises. LR preside~itdu conseiI italien, M. Giolitti, ne cache d'ailfeurs pas dans
ses nm moires que son gouvernement n'avait plus rien craindre du 6 t e
tunisien et que I'at titude de la Franw fut <r pleinement cordide IMrrimrie della
niia viln, MiIarr. 1927, p. 225). Or, Ia dcIaratiun de guerre fut accanipagne, Ie
jour mme, par Ia dkIaration d u - b I ~ udu s IittoraI de la TripoIitaiiie et de Ia
Cyrnaque. Cette decIaratiorr, qui fit I'objet de notes verbah adresses
toutes Ies niissims dipIomatiqlies axreditw Rome, est reproduite la
page 557 de Ia Rivisra di dirirra ifrlervnziorrule ( ~ 1 VI. . 19121. revue qu'un
rnaitre qui a honore vuwe Cour tout auiant que Ia science du droit interna-
tio~ial,Dionisio AmiIotri, avait fo~idcinq ans auparavant. Pour la parlie qui
nous irrte1-wse, la dklaration tait IibelIe de Ia fawn suivante :
<< i pyaitir- du 23 couraiil Ie Iittoral de Ia Tripolitaine et de la Cyi-naque.
s'kte~ida~rt de Ia frontire lunisienne jnsqu' Ia frontire de I'Egypte. avec
ses ports, havres, rad-, criq~les,etc.. co~nprisentre les degrs 1 1.32 ci
27.54 de Io~rgitudeorientaIe de Greenwich, sera te~iue n tat de blocus
effectif par tes forces navales du Royaume 1d'Italie].
taissorrs pour l'instant la questiorr de la Iimile de la zone de blocus In, c'sr-
a-dire, vers I'Egypte. Nous y revierrdrons sous peu, mais considrons
maintenant Ia ii~niieoccidentale, c'est-i-dire,=lie v e s Ia Tunisie. La directiorr
donne dans la dclaration ifalienne doit vide~nment- tre dtermine en
reIariun avec Ies mridiens i~idiqrrs,a savoir : 1 1 32- de Iongitude orientaie de
Greenwich.
Ces donnes - on peut aisrnent Ie constater sur Ia carte - correspondent
sur terre au point 06 la frontire Iuuche la mer. Mais il convient de ne pas
oublier que I'objet de la dclaration italienrie est k blocus de cotes et que le
bIocus, si je nt rae trompe pas, est en gnra1 effectu par les for= iiavaIes.
Par consquent, Ia Iimile IateraIe du bIocus n'a de sens que si eIIe est
dtermine en fonction de Ia mw,d'autant plus qu'iI s'agissait de bloquer non
pas un port, mais un IittoraI tout entier et qu'il faIIait, partant, effectuer des
croisires pour surveiIIer I'appIi~tiondu blocus. En d'autres termes, il faudrait
tre dou d'urre imaginaf ion particulirement re~narquabIepour penser qu'aux
yeux du Gouverr~e~nent itaIien le blocus devait tre limite 1 IV 32' sur le
IitturaI. mais que ses forces navaIes auraient du se maintenir a Ist d'une
diagonaIe parta111de 1 I o 32' sur Ia cote et suivant sur Ia mer I'incIinaiso~i
tunisienne de 45" en direclion du nord-est. Poirrt n'est besoin de souIigirer que,
 PLAIDOIRIE DE M MALIKTOPPI 87
s'il en avait t ainsi, la dciaration de bIocus aurait d lre forrnuI6e dans des
termes fort diffrents.
Cette constatation a encore bien pIus de poids si Ion considre qua I'epoque
Ie blocus navd devait avoir deja Ie caraclre de I'effectivitk. Des lors, les navires
devaient se terrir tout prs de Ia c6le. Dans ces cortditions, Ia cori~iaissance
d'une prtendue liniile IatraIe de la zone bloque, forte inclinaison, devenait
esse~ilielle.En d'autres ternres, il tait essentiel pour I'Etat qui effectuait le
blocus de savoir si ses navires risquaient d'empiter- par des actes de grrerre sur
des eaux sur IesqueIIes un pays neutre revendiquait des prtendus pouvoirs de
surveirIance.
II est normai que, sagissant de bIoquer une &te dont Ia direclion ggnrale va
approximativenient dans Ie sens ouest-esfisud-est, I'indication des points
extrma du IittoraI par des coordondes gographiques n'ait un sens au point
de vue des Iimites de croisire des ~iaviresque si ces deux points se proIongent
Ie Iong de Ieur mridien. En d'autres termes, et le IittoraI fant ce qu'il est, toute
devialion par rapport au proionge~nentraisonrrable et rationrre1 sur Ia mer des
poins terminaux du IiioraI bloqu aurait dfi etre indique d'une ~naniretrs
precise.
En ralite, la dcIaration itaiienne dmontre, k la fois dans ses termes et dans
son contexte, que Ia situatiorr des frontieres maritimes entre la Tun~sieet la
Tripolitaine tait Ipoque absolument ouverte et qu'en tout a s Ia dclaration
de biocus, bien que dnrerit riotifik I'arnbassade de France Rome, ne fit
l'objet &aucune prolestation ou mme d'aucurre remarque du cet frarrco-
tunisien. Et je voudrais poser ici une question de pure rhtorique. Si la Iigne de
4 5 O . si clrre fa Partie adverse. ta~tds 1904 aussi irrfutabIe et effective que
la rphque tunisienne Ie prtend P Ia page 25,I'ori est en droit de se demander
pourquoi, en 191 1, du ciite fra~ico-tunisien,011n'a pas cru devoir s'elever tout
de suite, et de la manire Ia plus nelte, contre I'intentio~id'un autre Eiat
d'exercer Ia pI~iitudede sa puissance navaIe dans des eaux que l'on afirme
are irrfutabIement et effectivemerit tunisiennes. Or, il n n est rien. La
ractio~ifranco-tunisienne,c'est le siIe~ice.Un siIence totalement irrjustifi, que
Ibn ne saurait certesjusfifier posteriori en affirniant que Ia dlimitation d'une
zone de blocus e ~autre t chme que la deIimitatjoi~d'une zone de surveiIlancede
la pche. La guerre itaI0-turqrre provoqua pIusieurs incidents maritimes entre
I'ItaIie et la France. La Cour se souvie~idrasans doute que des questions furent
souniises ici. La Haye, Ia C o u r pernianente d'arbiirage. Ds Iors, si Ia
France avait voulu r&IIernerrt exerxr l'poque un pouvoir de juridiction
queiconque jusqu'a une ligne aussi anormale que ceIIe de 459 eIIe aurait d
preciser sa position en tout cas et sans Ie ~~ioindre dlai. Le moyen Ie plus
sirnpIe pour le faire tait sa dispositio~~ : la France ~r'avaitqu' rpondre a Ia
rote italienne ndifia~ilIa decIarato~ide bIocus.
UaiIIeurs, de Iautre ciir de la zone bIoque, c'est-A-dire du cot de Ia
frontiei-egyptienne, les choses se passrent bien arrtrement. Toujours dans la
Rivisru cri diriffo irrlc~r~azionale. la page suiva~~le du meme YoIume, l'on
trouve le texte d'une nouveIIe note verbaie itaIienne, date du 19 octobre 19 1 1,
qui rectifie Ia dedaratiorr du 29 septe~nbreen signifiant aux missions
accrdites Rome : que Ia liniite orierrtaIe de Ia &te terrue en lat de bIocus
erectif par les forces navaIes du Royaume a l modifie et fixe Ia Iongitude
de 25O I 1' est de Greenwich a. (C'est hors de Ia carre ' vidernmenr. car iI s'agit
de Ia frontire eIrrre Ia Libye et I'Egypte.1

' voir ci-aprk. correspondance,nQ 1 1 1.

 88 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

En ralit. j'ajoute que le texte publi dans la Rivisra contierrt urre erreur
materieIle d'i~npression,puisqu'iI indique Ia Iongitude de 5" I I ' . Lrreur est
nianifestemen1 vidente ex I'indication exacte se trouve fr Ia page 182 du
voIume de l'anne suivante (1 9 131 de Ia Rivisfa. En tout cas, ce qui importe ici.
c'est que Ia r~tificationful provoque par une dmarche anglo-gyptienneau
sujer de Ia position exacte de Ia frontire entre la Cyrnaique et T'Egypte. t?
prtention angIo-egyptienne, decoulant de Ia question de Ia baie du SoIum
fRivisrn, 1913. p. 182. note Il, fut admise par I'ItaIie qui rectifia Ia limite ~ I I
bIocus.
II ns1 pas sais irrt1-t - n'est-ce-pas ? - de comparer les attitudes anglo-
gyptiennes et franco-tunisiennes. Les voisins du chl est de Ia Libye
s'Ievrent sans dIai contr-e une dcIaration de blocus qu'iIs considraient
comme exorbitante. L'IaIie, quant eIIe, ~r'opposapas la moiridre difficult
rduire I'ktendue de son bIocus. Et les wisins du col ouest ? Rien signaler
sur Ie front occidenta1.

L'INCIDENT DES BATEAUX GRECS DE 1913

Llat de guerre entre I'ItaIie et I'Empire ottornan prit fin avec I'accord
prIirninaire de Lausa~i~ie du 1 5 octobre 191 2, suivi par Ie {.raitede paix
d'Ouchy signe trois jours aprs. Ds Iorset jusqu'a Ia seconde guerre mondiale.
Ies &es Iibyennes demeurrent soumises I'occupafion italienire. C'est au
cours de &te priode que I'orr commena s'int1,esserau probIrne des Iimites
respectives des juridiclions des deux Etais au xqueIs appartenaierrt II'poque
Ies &tes dont il est questiorr aujourd'hui.
k 25 aot 1913. soit donc dix Inois aprk Ia fin des hostilits avec I'E~npire
ottoman, le torpiIIeur italien Oi-feuarrta trois bateaux de p2.che de nationaIit
heIInique. La saisie eut Iieu a un point situ 1 1.7 miIIes de la #le. Ce eoirrt,
d'aprs Ie rapport du commandant d u torpiIIeur (annexe 44 au contre-mmoire
libyen. III. corrcsporrdait aux c o o r d o n n k 3 3 O 19' de Iatitude nord et 9" 22' de
longitude est de Paris, les cartes du navire ilalien tant de toute v~derrcebasees
s u r Ie mridien de Par~set non pas sur ceIui de Greenwich. Pour Ia prcision. la
Iongitirde correspondante sur Ie ~nr~dien de Greenw~chest 1 Io 42' 14'-. Ce
@ po!nt est indiqu sur Ia carte I de la rplique libyenne. 011peut constaler quecc
po111tse trouve en de de Ia ligne bathynitrique des 50 mtres qui dans celle
zone arrive jusqua 25 miIles de Ia &te. Bref, Ies trois bateaux - Palruiu,
Agltivs Cor~slarz~Irroset Taxiarchi - ava~e~il t saisis un point qui. d'aprs Ia
Partie adverse. aurait t reve~rdiqripar la Tun~sredans Ia fanleuse irrst1-uctiori
de 1904.
Telle n'tait videmment pas l'opinion du capitai~iedu torpiIleur italien. Il se
borna constater - et a Ie signaler dans son rapport - que Ies trois bateaux se
corisacraient a Ia pche des ponges sans etre munis du perniis exig par
I'articIe 19 du dcret itaIien du 27 mars 1913 parlant Ie rgIement pour
I'exercice de la pkhe rnaritime en Libye, qui concernait I'exercice de la pche
dans toute I'exlensiorr des bancs spo~igifresdu pays Icorrtre-mmoire Iibyen,
II, annexes docu~nentaires,nu 4 1). A I'poque Ia comptence pour wnnaitre
des contravenlions audit rgIement revenait aux autorits portuaires. Cst
donc au commandant du port de Zuuara, territoridement compelent, que Ie
pro& fut cvnfI&.C'est ce n~niecommandant qui, le 2 seplernbre 1913,
reconnut que I'un des trois capitai~iesavait t surpris alors que son bateau se
Iivrait a Ia pche des ponges. II fut dirment co~idarnn.Les autres furerit
acquitts, Ieur faure n'ayant pas t prouve. Le juge, bien entendu. ne nianqua
 PLAIDOIRIE DE M. MALlKTClPPI 89
pas d'afir~nerque I'arresiation avait eu Iieu dans une zorre de mer soumise Ia
juridiction itaIienne. Ce considrant du jugement merite d6tre retenu, mais
avant de Ie faire iI w~ivientplut61 de signaler que I'arrestation des trois bateaux
grecs frt l'objet d'une note verbale de 1'ambassade fra~iaisea Rome.
Passons I'examen de cette note verbale.
La note verbaIe - datk du 9 septembre 1 9 1 3, mais ignorant de toute
vidence le jugement rendu Zouara une semaine avant - justifiait
I'i~iterventionfranaise par Ie fait que les pkheurs grecs taient porteurs de
patentes de pkhe tunisienrres, et poursuivait en les termes suivants :
t e s scapfiandriers grea ~r'ayantpas l'habitude de faire le point. iI
serait saris doute dificile de prkser I'ernpIace~nentexact o sst produite
I'arresiatiorr. II parail ioutefois hors de doute que Ie banc deponges o les
barques grecques se Iivraient Ieur irrdustrie appartient I'e~isembIedes
bancs sur Iesqueb le service des p k h e s de Trr~iisieexerce sa surveillance
(IV,rplique libyenne, aIiIiexe 1-25).
L'affirmationest sche. Aucurie preuve nsf apporte quant I'emplace-
merrt exact du poirit ou Iarrestation aurait eu Iieu. Aucurie disposition
lgislative, aucune instruction n'est invoque. Aucune rfrerrce nst faite ni
la distan- de la cele, ni la longitude par rapport au point ou Ia fronlire
terrestre touche la mer. te muci de la note verbaIe est surtout celui de
souligner un niire gnrique a I'expIoitation des bancs d'kponges que 1'011
suppose tunisiens :
((Un usage irnrn~noriaIattribue Ia Rgence de Tunis l'exploita-
tion des bancs d-pongessitus sur son Iittoral. Ce droit d'usage. {out dif-
frent des droits qui s'appIiquent la mer territoriaIe ne porte aucune
atteinic au principe de Ia Iiben des mers et aux droits de Ia navigation.
Avant Ibccrrpatio~i fra~raise~ e t kindus11-ie maritime faisait l'objet
d'une concession et te ferniage des ponges et poulpes a ete explicilement
inscril parmi les revenus sur lesquels tait base Ia garantle du passif
rserve a la Regence dans la conventio~idu 23 rnars 1870 IaquelIe le
Gouvernement italie~itai1 partie contractanle. i> {IV, rplique Iibyerine,
annexe 1-25.]
Mais, veuiIIez bien, Messieurs, I-eniarquerceci : la note verbaIe ne saurait
viter de faire une aifusion discrte B Ia diimitation latrale de la zone de
pche :
Depuis Ion [c'al-a-dire depuis 1870], Ies seuIes dificuIts qui se
soient produites avec Ie Gouvernement royaI en ce qui concerIie ce droit
d'usage ont eu trait a Ia deIimitation de Ia zone de surveiirance. &?id..)
L'allusion al discrte, rnais dirnporlance. Faute de docrrmentation dans Ies
archives, on ne peut faire que des hypothktses. Un a d e i vu, et l'on verra a
iivuveau pIus Ioirr, que d'aprs une note irilerne I'administratiun franaise Ies
antcdents se rduisent i un seul qrri est d'aillerrrs dpourvu de toute vaieur,
mais cetk nole administrative porte ert tout cas une date - ceIIe du 12 fvrier
1914 - qui SI posrrieure a la date de la note verbale de 19 1 3. Puisque Ies
instructio~rstunisiennes, gui prtendent adopter Ia Ligne de 45co~nnieIa Iimik
aidenlale de la zone de pkhe, daknt de 1904, il es1 possible, mais nuIIemenr
prouv, que Ies aulorits itaIiennes en aienr eu wn~iaissance.Mais jusqu'
septembre 191 1 la question des .limites occidentales de Ia zone de pche
n'auraient pu inrresser que SEmpire ottoman. A Ipoque de Ia guerre, I'Italie
90 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

dcIara le bIwus des cotes sans songer Ir moiris du nionde se maintenir In

de celte prtendue Iimite rnariti~nede 45O. L'or1 arrive ainsi finaIemenl au mois
d'octobre de 19 12 (fin des hastiIits entre I'ItaIie et I'Empire ottomanf et 011voil
ma1 comment une question aurait pu surgir au cours des dix Inois qui vont du
trait d'Ouchy I'arrestation des trois bateaux grecs. Bien au conlraire, si te1
avail t Ie cas et si la question des Iimiks latrales des zorres de pkhe d e deux
pays avait t debatlue pendant cette si courte priode, la note verbale du
9 septembre n'aurait pas ~nanqud'y faire une rfrence prcise. En d'autres
ternies, Ies dificultes qui <(onteu t~-ait Ia deIirnitatio11 de Ia zone de
(<

surveiIIanx - selon Ia for~nuIede Ia Ilote prcite - n'avaient rien voir

avec les Iimites Iatrales. Ii est beaucoup PIUS probabIe que Ia note en question
entendait se rfrer aux probI~nesrelatifs la Iimile extrieure des bancs
tunisiens vers Ia haute mer, qui sans doute avaient t dbattus entre les
Italiens et les Franco-Tunisiens. Mais, et surtout, quoi qu'iI err soit, une chose
est certai~ie: si, eIi septe~nbre1913. Ia ~ioiefranaise faisait allusion a des
de la zone de surveillance, ceIa veut dire
difficults ayant trait !a dIin~i~tlriorr
qu' cette date aucune Iiniite n'avait encore l arrete entre les parties et
d'aucune manire. Et voil un dimenti de Iepoque Ia valeur que 1.011 prtend
attribuer aujourd'hui I'instructio~ide 1904.
Mais revenoris i Ia note verbaIe franaise. Sa partie E~iaIeest aoii moins
intressante. Bon IibeIIe est extrmement prudent, et ses conclusions ne sont
nullement I'expression d'une protestation fornielIe :
({ LR guuverne~nent du protectoral ne peut dans ces conditions que
maintenir I'afifir~nationde ses droits auxquels Ia capture de barques
pkhant avec une palerite tunisie~inesur un banc I-kptco~nrnetunisierr
porterait une atteinte directe.
L'ambassade de France, eii faisant en consquence Toutes rserves eri ce
qui concerne Ie Iibre exercice des droits dridit gouvernement, serait
reconrraissante au Gouvernenierrt royal de la renseig~ier sur Ies
circonstances et Ies motifs de cette ar1-estation. (IV, rpIiqne libyenne,
annexe 1-25.]
Mais, en Ispce. Ies renseig~rernenrs n'taient pas dificiles donner. La
((

dcisi011 du comrna~idaritdu port de Zouara - laquelle il convient

maintenant de revenir - avait t formeIIe quant I'empIacement o
l'arrestation des trois bateaux grecs s'etait produite. Le juge avait carr~nent
aiKrme que le point en question :
alors qu'iI est en de de la ligne normaIe la pIage passant par Ras-
Ashyir (sic). q u i marque le confr~ieritre La Tripditaine et la Tunisie, se
trouve compris dans Ia dislance des bancs dponges de la TripoIitaine ...
Iesquels s'terrtient dans cetE IocaIit jusqu'a pIus de 25 miiles de Ia
pLage (II, ca~rire-mmoire libyen, annexe 44).
En d'autres termes, Ie commandant du port de Zouara prit soin d'indiquer que
I'emplacernent de I'arrestatiun to~nbaitmus sa juridiction tant au poirit de we
de la limite IateraIe qu' mIui de la distance de Ia d e .
Lejugernent de Zouara, on I'a vu, tait date du 2 septembre. La note verbale
franaise. probablement remise sans connaissance du jugement, datait quant a
eIIe du 9. Moins d'un mois plus tard, Ie ministre iiaIien rpo~rd,le 2 mobre, et
sa note est transmise Paris la semaine suivante par I'ambassade de France
Rame. Messieurs, ce= note verbale italienne est rine pike fondamentale,
cause de son contenu d'abord, mais aussi en reIatio~iavec I'attilude prise par le
92 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

a Cette I~gne,orient& a peu prs nord-nord-est, semble rsoudre

provisoi1-emerrtTa question de la fapn la plus naturelIe et quitable sans
compromettre, mme au large, les droits des deux gouvernements sur les
bancs d'ponges qui Ieur appartiennent respectivement. i1
Et la concIusion, quant au cas d'espce, est simple et prcise :
(< Or Ie point o Ie torpiIIeur a arrr Ies trois barques grecques se
trouve l'est de la Iigne de dklimitation, face Ia #te de TripoIitaine et par
C O ~ I S ~ ~ sur I I ~bancs appaITenant Ia coIo11ie.i)
U ~ Ies

Ainsi I'incident est rgI. Mais c'est I'averrir qu'il importait aussi, et surtout,
de I-gIw.On rie corrrrat &idemment pas encore a Rome Ia reactiori franaise,
mais iI faut qu'il soit c1ai1-- la priode de grandes tensions italo-franaises du
tournant du siecle n'est pas tdIement Ioi~i- que la position ifaIiennecomporle
toute la souplesse ~icessake:
Le niinistre royal des affaires lra~igrescroit devoir ajouter que
confor~n~nent aux instructio~isdu miistre royal des coIonies, le
gouverneur de Ia TripoIjraine a dcrel que Ia surveiIlance dans Ies eaux
frontires soit exerce avec Ia 10161-anceque requiert une deIimitation non
prcise eet difficiIe cvntr6ler.
La partie adverse a t singuIirement dixrte, et poui- cause, a u sujet de ces
deux noles verbaIes. Mon hoaorable contradicieur n a parI cet gard que de
ractions pisodiques D de Ia part des autorits itaIierrnes face ce qu'iI
aimerait prserrter comme une Iigne internationaIerne~rtaccepte, a savoir,
celte fameuse Iigne de 45-. II a donc cru pwvoir glisser Ia fois srrr la note
verbale franaise el sur Ia note verbaIe iialienne. Je comprends fort bien ce
siIe~re,car iI aurait t fort en peine de vous expIiquer pourquoi, si Ia Iigne de
45O tait aussi tablie et irrternationaIement accepte qu'iI Ie prte~id.Ie
Gouvernement frangais a cru opportun de ne pas eIi faire mention dans sa note
verbaie du 9 septembre. Les deux ndes verbales sorrt kvidemment nos yeux
et, j'ose bren Isprer, aux y w x de la Cour, des documents ayanl Ia nm me
impurlance capiiak. Mais, un certain point de vue, c'est surtout Ia note
verbaie franaise qui, du fait de son silence torrrramment discrel au sujet de Ia
Iig~rede 45' oppose un dmerrti forme1 a Ia Partie adverse.
La 11ok ver-baIe itaIienne, quant a eIIe, enfonce le mgme clou, puisqu'elle
Ignore une Iigne que Ia note franaise n'avait d'ailleurs nuIIenient merrtionnee
et puisqu7eIIesuggre au surplus, cornrne soIution provisoire, une tout autre
Iigne n'ayanl rien voir avec la Iigne de 45'.
Diso~istuut de suite que nulle part dans Ies archives, soit italiennes, soir
franaises, nous n'avoris Irouv de rponse a la note verbaIe itaIie~ine.Aprs de
Iorlgues recherches, nous avons Enalenlent trouv, dans Ies archives, rron pas
Ia rpo~ise,mais deux docu~nenlsqui nous expliquent pourquoi du cete franco.
tunisien On a prfr ne pas rpondre 5 Ia noLe verbaIe italienne. Nous verrons
rrotammerrt pourquoi du cot frarrco-tunisien I'on finit par considrer la pro-
position itaiierrne wmnie une solntiorr i la fois rationr~eIIeet convenable. Pour
ce faire, il convient d'exami~ierles documents qui figurent aux annexes 1-26
el 1-27 la rpIique Iibyenne (IV). Mon honorable conlradickrrr 11% pas pu
viter de sbccuper de I'un des documenis reproduits Iannexe 1-26 (IV, p. 469
et suiv.1. alors qu'iI avait wignerrsement esquive Ies notes verbales et qu'il aIIait
aussi srupuIeuseinent ig~iorerles autres documents franais. J'ai dj comble la
premire Iacu-. Avec la permission de Ia Cour, je veux bien m'occuper
mai~iterrantde la seco~ide.
 PLAIDOIRIE DE M MALINTOPPI 93

Laiinexe dwumentair-e1-26 la rpIique Iibyeilne co~nprend deux

documents. Ces deux documents so~itr prirrrn, une Iettr-eeIi date du 2 fvrier
I9 14 adresse par Ie rside111ginral de France a Tunis au prsideni du corrseil,
des affaires trangres ; scciiirdo, I'appui de la pre~nire.une lettre
~~ii~iistre
personnelle du rsident g61iraIen date un 29 janvier 1 414. L'occasion de cette
corresp~ndarrcees1 prcisement I'arrestation par Ie torpilleur italien des
bateaux de pkhe grecs dorit nous avons dj5 parl. Deux questions sorrt
souIeves drt~rsIes d~cume~its franais : d'abord ceIIe de la distailce par rapport
Ia terre de I'endroit oii la saisie a effectue ; e~isuire,ceIIe de la positiorr du
poinr de saisie par rapport a Ia Iimite des eaux tu~iiso-tripoIitaiiies.
Sur Ie premie1-point. Ie rsident gnral, cv~istatantqrre Ia saisie a t opre
12 milles rnarirrs. n'entend suggrer arrcrrrre protestatiorr dans la mesure ou il
es1 conside1-eque cette ar1-eslation ildienne est la mise en pratique du principe
de Ia surveillance au-deIa des eaux territoriales, principe au sujet duque1 Ie
meme ~Gside~it gnkral i~idiquequ'iI avait t :
(< soutenu depuis de nornb1-eusesannes par Sadrnirrisiration tunisierr~re et
accepl sous certaines rserves en 1902 par le Gouvernement royal, que
les nations intrases ont le droit strict d'exercer Urie surveiIIance sur Ies
bancs d'parrges situb bien au-del des limites de Ieurs eaux 1er1-ito-
1-iaIesi>. <IV, repIique libyenne, annexe 1-26, p. 291).
Sur Ie second point, au corriraire. Ia Ielrre du rsident gk11ra1sorrIigne Ie
desaccord existarrr entre le Gonvernemerrt tu nisien et Ie Gouvernement itaIien.
La M I - edu r&iderrt gnra1 rappeIIe que :
rtI'adrninislratiw tu~iisiennea considri: que Ia Iirniie des eaux tuniso-
tripolitainescorrespondait une Iigrle pariant virtuellemen1 de la borne de
Ia frontire terrestre et se dirigeant approxi~nativementvers le N 4 5 O E >>.
Cette affirmation semble forcer un peu Ies choses, d'abord parce que la noIe
verbale franpise du 9 septembre -19 13 ne faisait aucune merrtiori de Ia Iigne
de 4 5 O , et ensuite parce que Ia Iigne en question est Ia Iim~led'une mne de
surveiIIa~raet non pas uIte frontire internationaIe~nenttablie. Mais Ie point
fondanlental est que la Iettre du rsident gknra1 fait le point s u r Ia riaIite
internationale existant ce moment-II.
II remmiait expressment que Ie Gouvernemen1 itaIie~in'admet pas Ia ligne
nord 45" est, car ce dernier esti~neque Ia question de la fi-ontiremaritime
devra tre rgle entre Ies deux goriver~renlents.En atrendant il adopte une
Iimite for! diffrenle, et Ie rkide~itgneraI, en cornmenlant Ia position
iUIienne, signaIe en effet :
Par sa note verbale du 2 octobre 1913, ie ministgre royai a fait
co~i~iaiire
que la Iimite adopte par Ies aritorils itaIiennes, en attendant
que la quartiorr soit reg1i.e entre les deux gouvernemerrts, correspondait
une ligne partant de Ia frorrtire tunisienne d se prolorigeant en mer vers
le NNE. nor~nalernenta la direction de Ia c6le en ce point. v
La Iettre du rsident signale aussi, qu'entre Ia Iigne de 45O et Ia soIrrrion
propose par I'ItaIie iI y aurai1 un ecart de 23'. ce qui fait que, d'aprs ce caIcuI,
Ia dlimitalion italienne aurait une inclinaison de ZZO vers Ie nord-est. Nous
avons marqu sur Ia carte ce calcul du rkidenl gnera1 par une Iigne rouge
qui es! parliellemeril cache par la Iigne ja~ir~e. Pour ma part, je crois que
94 PLATEAU CDNTINEErfAL

Ia dli~nitatiunsuggre par I'ltaIie avair plutt une i~rclinaisonde ZOQ envi-

ron qui correspond effectivement ceIIe d'une Iigne perpendicuIaire i Ia ciite.
Vorli pourquoi ~iousavons Inarqu en jaune, ici. Ia Iigne de 20" qui serait
d'apres nos caIcuIs Ia Iigne normaIe a Ia direction de la cote, seIon Ia formule
suggi.r& par Ie Gouvernement itaIien. Mais le point est relativement secon-
daire. Revenons pIul6t la lettre du resident g11raI. Elle ajoute aussi que
cette soIution e~igendraitcr des i~iconvnientsau poi~itde vue itaIien corrime au
point de vue tunisien >> en ce qui concerne I'accs Ia fosse de Ras Ajdir. Cc
SOII? donc des observations qui ont trait la navigation. Et Ie rside111 e n
concIut que :
II y aurait donc u n i~ilrtvident cc que Ie Gouverneme~irfranais
pt amener Ie Gouverne~nentroyal accepter comme Iimite des eaux
~niso-tripolitaines partant de Ia pyramide fruntiere. et oriente
une Iig~~e
vers Ie N E. i >
Mais veuiIIez bien remarquer ceci, Messieurs : Ie rivident n'insiste pas pour
autant sur celle concIusiorr, iI se montre assez saupIe et iI donne deux raisons
cet te soupIesse. Exami~~orrs-Ies brievernent. Daprs le rsidenf:
rtla question n'a pas un importance assez grande pour que nous
insistions pour Ie rnaintkn d'u~iepossessio~iqui n'est pas &y& par des
signes tangibIes .
Donc, je constaie que Ia question nst pas, aux yeux du reside~itgnral.
d'une iinpoi-tance assez grande pour en faire urr diffrend d'wdre international.
D'aula~itpIus, et voiI la deuxirne raison, que Ia possessiorr TI-anco-turrisienne
n'aurait pas t &ay& par des sig~iestangibles. Le professeur Dupuy a reIev ce
membre de phrase pour Iui doniler uIre expIicatio11qui a d Iui paraitre simple
mais qui es1 err ralir trop simpIe. II s'inkrroge sui- I'interprtatiun yu'iI farrt
donner la IeNre drr resident, et voila Ia repo~rsede mon honorabIe contra-
dicteur :
t la zoIie d'exploitation des ponges n'est
<< II Ile rsident gnra11 d ~ que
pas ~ a r q u e epar des signes tangibles. Cela siglrifIe non pas. comme
Ivance la Libye, que Ies Iimites de Ia zone so~itconteslabIes. cela signifie
tout simpIrmcnt gu'eIIes I I sont ~ pas niatrialises. Et si dIes Ile sont pas
nat t ria lise es. nor~ssavons pour quo^.
Souverrons-nous que celte rnatriaIisation es1 t~lrrriquementirnpos-
siblc, que Ia cornrnissiorr franco-itaIienne de 1902 et de 1903 avait eIIe- -
mme co~iciua son irnpossibiIii et que c'klait pour ceIa qu'on avait trouv
d'autres critres. (IV, p. 469-470.)
Pour ma part, jvorre que Rtte explication me parait insuffisante. Les
vicissitudes de Ia cornmission fia-nco-ital~enne de 1902 et de 1903 montrent
I'i~npossibiIitde marquer par des signes QngibIcs une Iigne bathyme11.iqueau
Iarge de Ia cote, c'est-i-dire Ia Iigne vers Ia haute mer. Mais ici iI est question
d'une Iig11equi part de Ia cote et IaqueIIe rie11 ~r'ernpcliaitde donner des
signes tangibles 11 ne ft-ce qu'i proximit du IitIoraI. Mais, Messieurs les
membres de Ia Cour, il faIlai!, apres tout, indiquer simpIe~nentune di1-ectionet
deux baIjses d'dignement auraient Iargemei~tsuffi.
Or cst plutt u Ire considration de ce genre qui tait prsente I'asprit du
rside~itgnrai. La prte~~due <( possession >> - a non pas t( zone i> comme
I'indique Ie prnfesseu1- Dupuy - n'&tait pas taye par des signes tangibles
aiors qu'eIIe aurait pu I'etre. Et c'est cette carence qrri sendail ses yeux bien
 PLAIDOIRIE DE M MALIPITOPPI 95
diffrEiIe que Ie Gouvernement franpis put amener ceiui de I'ltaIie 1i accepter la
Iigne err qnslion.
Dans ces conditions, Ie rsident genral dcIirre Ia responsabiIit de suggrer
crue I'on o~wsea la note verbaIe italienne urre fin de non-recevoir. Bien au
&traire, ;Ipenche pour la position oppoke. U iI Iaisse apercevoir saris lrop de
diffrcuIte sa pense vribbIe Iorsqu'iI conclut de Ia manire suivante :
(( n w s ne pouvons que nous err rapporter Votre ExceIIence du soin de
juge^. s'iI n'y a pas Iieu d'accepier comme frun1i1-ede Iner Ia ligne norrnaIe a
Ia direction generaIe de la cote, indiqutk paI- 1-Mie. coInIne une solution
ration~ieIIed'un diffrend qu'iI irnpone de rsoudre et pour IequeI Ia
6I1nerrlsd'apprciation Iie son1 pas d'une prkisio~isuisa~~te ii IrepIiqrre

Iibyei~ne.annexe 1-16, IV. p. 29 1).

Cette suggestion nws parat, aprs tout, sur le plan historique, assez
raisonnable. II ne s'agissait que d7ktab1irun inodus 11ivePrdijusqu' ce qu'une
dlimitation forrneIIe puisse etre effectue. C'est pourquoi, peut-tre, Ie rsident
gnral aIIa jrrsqu' suggrer qu'on accepte Ia Iigne rrormale Ia cfite comme
frontih de mer W . k souIigire cette expression, parce qu'eiIe va mme au-
deI de I'objet de Ia propositiorr itaIienne qui proposail de dIimiter Ia
juridiction seulane~it{< en ce qui touche Ia pche . II est do~icinconkstabIe
que Ia Iigne de 45- nst aux yeux du rsident gnral franqais Tunis ni une
Iigne inlernationaIernent reconnue ni urre Iigne accepte en particu1ie1-par Ie
Gouvernenient italien.
On peul se demander pour qlrelIes raisons Ia propositio~iitalienne a dfi
apparaiire i Ia Rgence turiisienne comme - c'at l'expression exacte qrr'orr a
employk - << une sdution rationnelle W . Derrx expIications au moins nous
viennent du dossier et notamment du groupe de docu~nentsqui comprerid la
Iettre du rsident gnra1 au prsident du conseil dont iI a t question iI y a un
instant. A l'annexe 1-26 de Ia repIique Iibycnne, iI y a un docu~nenldal du
29 janvier 1914 et portant I'indicatiorr (( Ietrre personneIIe du R. G. P. c'est-
a-dire du rsident gknrl. EIIe est aussi de loute videne a d r e au pprsident
du corrsei1. Ce qui est irnporia~it,cst que Ie rsident gnra1 dciare avoir
exanii~ile matin mrne Ia question pose par Ia note verbale itaIienne avec,
errtre autres, Ie capifaine Le Buf, qui avait ti:I'un des princlcipau~artisaris de
Ia frontire terrestre et du t~-ait
t~r~riso-oito~na~ide 1910. Que nous dit-on donc
aprs cette petite runion ?
Le resident genrai s'exprime de Ia faon suivante :
(( Nous avons examin ce matin ... la question de noire fru~rlire de mer
[expression qui revient toirjoursl et nous avons reconnu qu'il y avait Iieu
de modifier la conciusion du rapport qui va vous tre adresse et qui, en
minrrte, vous demandait d'insister pour faire prkvaloir nore trac sur Ie
trac ifaIien. Not1-e trac tait a peu prs Ie prolongement de notre
frontire de terre. Mais quand cerk frontire a ti: rnodifik par Ie trait de
TripoIi nous n'avons pas prolong en mer Ia nouveIIe Iigne. Si Ies ItaIierrs
serait pIus avantageux pour eux que Ia nurrnaIe I Ia
Ie faisaient, le t~-ac
direcrion grrraIe de la cote. >> {IV, p. 240, I P 1 .)
Une fois de plus, le rsident gnral a prsen1 I'esprit une frontire de mer.
Ceux qui ont participi Ia runion semblent convaincus : Il que cette frontire
de mer devait correspondre peu prs au proIo~igementde la frontire de
terre ; 21 que Ie trait de Tripoli de 191O n'a pas pro101ige en mer la nouveIIe
Iigne - ce qui donne, soit dit en passant, urr riouveau dmenti aux
intwpri!iatians fantaisistes relatives de preiendns acquiescements ottomans
90 PLATEAU CUNTINEWAL

Iurs de la concIusion du trair de 19 I O ; 3 ) que Ie prolorigement en mer de Ia

frantiere terrestre aurait t phrs avantageux pour la Libye que Ia ligne
nor~naIe Ia direction de la cote prmni*e par Ies ItaIiens. 11 n'y a pas uri mot
qua111a Ia Iigne de 45'.
L'autre docurnerit - qui est contei~u l'annexe 1-27 de la mme piece -
~istpas moins i~itressant.II s'agit d'une note pour Ie direcleur gen6raI des
travaux pubIics de la Rgence, qui est date de Tunis. le 1 Z fvrier 19 14.
docurnerrt est intressant parce qu'iI quaIifie de (< rationneIIe ii Ia Iig~iede 4s0,
dors que Ia Iettre du rsidenl gnra1 qualik kgalement de t( rationneIIe ii Ia
Iigrie de dlimitalion provisoire qui avail t propos& par I'ItaIie et qui devair
se situer. seIun les calcuIs du I-&identgnral. tout au plus aux aIentours des
2Lu puisqubn evaIuait 23" I'kcarl entre Ies lignes itaIienne et lunisienne. Or,
I'utilisation du mnie nlot rt rationneiie >i I'kgard de deux lignes aussi
diffrents tmoigne une foisde pIus que toule soIutiorr aboutissant a un modus
viveridi tait raisonnabIe et donc acceptabIe aux yeux du rsident genraI. En
mme temps, II es1 aussi viderrt que Ia posilion frarrco-tunisienne~i'glaitpas si
crisiaIIisee que toute autre soIution devienne incor~cevablepour Ia Regme.
D'aiIIeurs, ce mnie document nous fournit une preuve supplmentaire du
caractre indtermin des Iinites entre l a deux pays. et cela notamment en
matire de pche. II s'agi1 d'un petit calcul, qui n'est pas lrop difficiIe a faire. h
nole en question rappeIIe qu'une seuIe fois le service de pche avait eu. jusque-
I, l'occasion de verbaIiser aux abords de la frontire maritime tuniso-
tripolilaine il. Cetait en nove~nbre19 1 O, donc avant Ia guerre iiaio-turque,
Iorsque trois sacoIves, dont l'une italie~i~ie, avaient t surprises pkhant a
18 miIIes dans Ia direction N 10' E. I'observe aussitbt que. si i b n s n lient aux
evaluations franco-lunisiennes de Iepoque, w poirrt est situ du #t
prtend~nenttunisien noIl seuIement par rapport Ia Iigne N 4 5 O E, nais
aussi par rappon a Ia iig~ienord/nord-al que les ItaIie~isaIIaient proposer en
1913 et qui avait, selon I'interpretation de Ia Rgence. un angle de 22'. Les
sacoIves ont t arrtes sur Ia Iigne de 20. La Iigne propose par Ies ItaIiens
tait, sdon les caIcuIs de la Regcirce, Ia Iigne de 22". Mais j'observe gaiement
q u a cette distance du IilIoraI I'karl entre un point situ a 20 et la Iigne de 4 5 O
est sirflsarnment grand pour exclure la possibiIite d'urre erreur des capiiai~ies
des trois bateaux. Or. nous sawns gr& au document prccil que la Rgence
de Tunis admit, par- contre, que Ies capitaines des sa#Ives auraient pu se
trornper, ainsi qu'11sle prtendaienl, et se croire, de bonne foi, plus a I'est qu'ils
ne Ietaient en ralit. Si Ia Regence accepb une teIle justification c'est bien
plut61 qu'elle a prfkri: ne pas aller plus loin. En dutres termes, iIest vident
que Ia Regerrce de Tunis ne devait pas s'estimer Ire sur un terrain trop solide.
II est donc pIus vrai~mbIabIequIIe ail prfr se soustraire a une confro~r-
ration sur des limites maritimes quelques mois aprir avoir corrclu, Ia suite
d'une vingtaine d ' a ~ ~ ~ ~de epetites
s pro~nenadesmilitaires sans impor-
tance , Ia ngociation sur la frontire terrestre.
Il est temps de co~rcIurecette partie ce~itralede mon expose. Je crois avoir
etabIi &une manire qui me parait difficile a contester que la Iigne de 45O
n'avail nuIIe~nentt reconnue la veiIIe de la prernire guerre morrdiaIe, pas
pIus d'ailleurs qu'eIIe Iie devait I'tre par Ia suite. Je crois avoir gaIernent bbIi
que I'Italie, quant elle, avait suggr Ia so)ution provisoire et que cette
solution provisoire avait t tacitement accepte par les Franco-Tunisiens.
L'ensenibIe de ces dmumenls cornpi-errdvidemn~entdes actes d'une valeur
diffrente. Le professeur Dupuy, qui rie retient que Ia Iettre du rsident gnral
au prsident du conseil, reproche ce doarment d'avoir un caractre interne
stricternerrt adminislralif (IV, p. 469) sans se rendre conipte que ce document
48 PLATEAU CONTINENThL

accepl en fait la dIirnitation IateraIe dcoula111de Ia fameuse Iigne de 4S0.

II y a un point sur lequel nous sommes d'accord, nlon minent caiIgue et
moi. Une certai~iepriode dura~rt,une soIution provisoire s'est tabIie e11t1-e
I'ItaIie d Ia France en ce qui ccirrcerne Ia deIimitatio~ides mnes de pkhe
respectives. Mais I ori le professeui- Dupuy se trompe, c'est iorsqu'ii voudrait
vous amener croire qu'un ~?rudlisvivcvrdi se soit tabli aumur de Ia Iigne de
du dossier nous munlrent exactement Ie contraire. EIIes n w s
4 5 O . Les do~i~ies
montrent, en d'autres termes, que si un ~nodi<s vivefrdi sst tabIi, c'est dans Ia
mesure QG, autour de la Iigne perpendiculaire a !a diredion de La cote - la
Iigne de 20 approximativement - une soIution provisoire, Iransitoirc a e1 en
fait accepte.
Tout d'abord, iI faut souIigrrer qu'un point ne sembIe pas a r e cvntr#verse
entre les Parties : pIus aucurr incident ulfrieur ne s'es1 produit entre eIIes aux
abords de la zorre Iitigiwse Icompter de I'affaire des trois bateaux grecs et
jusqu'a Ia seco~ideguerre mo~idiab.
Ayant fait celte ~nsiatation,il convient aussit6t d'ajouter qu'apra la note
verbaIe de 19 13 I'ItaIie a officieIIement coni1'1n6
sa position dans Ie m~nesens
en 1919 et en 1931 . Ces don~iesressorten1 eIIer; aussi du dossier. Esan~inuns-
les.
Le premier document figure au d 4 3 du voIume II, annexes documentaires,
du corrtre-mmoireIibyen (III. II s'agit des instructions pour Ia surveillancesur
Ia pche maritime dans les eaux de Ia TripoIitai~ieel de Ia Cyrrraqui; du
i 6 avril 1919, dont le texte original italien est aw~npagnpar une traductio~i
en a~iglaisa I'intentio~ide la Cour. Au point 3 de ces inslruciions, on peut Iire
Ia phrase suivante que je me suis efforc de traduire en fra~lais:
cc En ce qui ancerne le anfin de mer entre Ia Tripditaine el Ia Tunisie,
iI a ti: convenu d'adopler, coInIne ligne de dIirnitation, Ia normaIe Ia
&te au poi~if drr confin, c'es--dire, dans le prsent cas, le relev
approximalif rrord-nord-est de Kas Ajdir.
De toute vidence. de teIIes instructioi~sco~rstituentIapplicaIiun concrIe
d k pr~nciyesnorrcs par la dcision du cornrnilndant du pur1 de Zouara, que
le ministre italien des affaires etrangeres avait fait siens dans sa nole verbale
du 2 octobre 1913. Avec Ia fin de la premire gu-erre mondiale, I'ItaIic avait
raffirmeson mupa?ionde Ia Libye le Iong de tout Ie IiItoraI et le moment tait
manifestement venu dxercer une surveiIIance sur Ia p&Iie et de dIimiter Ies
extremils de cette surveiIIa~ice.C'?t ainsi, d'aiIIeurs, que 1-indicati011de Ia
Iig~rede drnarcatio~iavec Ia Tunisie s'accon~pagne,dans Ie mme paragraphe
des instrucfiorrs de 1919, d'une indication anaIugue a propos de Ia fronti1-e
gyptienne, qui se lit comme suit :
entre Ia CyrnaYque et I'Egypte, on co~isidrera
<( Prs du corrfi~r comme
limite, aux fins de la pkhe, Ia Iigne partant eri direction est-nord-est du
cap kacon dans le golfe de Salum.
ta Cour remarquera que le texte du paragraphe datif a la Iiniite du c6t
tunisien wt IibeII d'une facon diffkrente que ~ I udu i paragraphe concernant Ia
limite du #t gyptien. 'est nota~nmenlle membre de phrase destin
qualifier l'origine de la Ii~nitequ'iI faut prendre err consideration. Le IibeII
couvrant le cte tunisien affirme qu'il fut wIivenu Ifu convenuro)
d:~adopter ,)(di diaduifarc)comme Iigne de diimitatioii Ia Iigne normaIe a Ia
wte. Par coritre, Ie Iibell relatif au c61 gyptien indique qu'il <( sera consi-
dr (sur&m i ~ . ~ f d m sC oO~I ~ I ~Iimite
E Ia ligne partant du cap Beacorr. Or, Ia
for~nuIeernpIoye porrr Ia limite occidentale fait cIairement aIIusion a quelque
 PLAIDOIRIE DE M. MALINTOPPI 99
chose qui avait t convenu hnveiruru) d'une f a p i videmment biIatraIe,
dors que Ia liniite orientaIe se1nb1een revanche avoir t dtermiri& d'une
manire unilateraIe. En d'autres ter~nes,b texte utiIise pour Ia frontire du
cot Iibyen est tout B fait corrfor~ne Ia sitiral~onqui setait cre 1 la suite de la
note verbaIe itaIienne de 1913 et du silerice gard par les Franco-Tunisiens.
Aucun arrarigenient n'avait t provoqu du cet gyptien, ce qui explique Ie
Iibell diffrent de I'i~~slruction relative Ila frontire orientale.
II faut ajouter qrre Ies instructions itaIiennes avaient rrne vaIeur et une porte
en tout cas non infrieures ceIIes de l'instruction fra~ico-tunisiennede 1904,
ainsi que leur dnomination nrrrre le tmoigne. Et puisque les instructiorrs
italiennes avaient fait l'objet d'une pribiicit en tout cas non infrieure ceIIe de
I'i~istruction de Ia R g e n ~de Trr~iis,l'on voit mai pourquoi Ies Franco-
Tunisiens, qui ne pouvaient pas Ire pas suivre avec atte~itionIes dispositions
maritimes adoptes de Ialrtre #t, auraient mainte~niun silence total cet
gard, si ce rr'eiait parce qu'ils taient raisonnable~nenlsatisfaits de la soIution
provisoire applique dcfacfo.
Le derrxi~nedocument, qui est galement reproduir dans Ies annexes au
contre-memoire Iibyen (II), au numro 45, antient Ies instructions pour Ia
(< vigiIance >i srrr la pche maritime dans Ies eaux de Ia Tripolitaine du 25 juin
193 1 . A I'articIe 3, alina 2, les instruaions de 193 1 raffrr~nent,reprenant Ia
formuie de 19 1 3 et de 19 19, que : k con fin de mer entre Ia Tripolitaine et Ia
(<

Tunisie est &bIi par le relev approxi~natifnord-nord-est de Ras Ajdir. v

Ainsi Ia preuve est faite que Iattitude de I'ItaIie n'a jamais chang. Je crois ne
rien devoir ajouter quant a la valeur et Ia porte de ces docurnenls, qui ne
sauraient w torrt cas tre infrieures i celIes de cette fameuse instructio~i
franco-turrisienne de 1904 qui est si chre Ia Partie adverse.
Ne pouvant rien dire sur Ie pIan des documents, Inon minent corrtradicteur
a cru pouvoir faire confiarrce des souvenirs Iristoriques des annes tre~ik.II a
fait preuve cet gard d'une certaine farrtaisie. Je crois que queIques mots
suffisent pour rtablir Ies raIites historiques. Mais voyons d'abord Sargrrmen-
tation du professeur Duprry :
<( En fait, il faut voir pour expIiquer cette attitude de I'Ilaiie, et qui
s'assouplit avec le iemps, que les pkheurs italie~iscontinuaient
bnficier de Ia convention du commerce et de la navigation italo-
tunisienne de 1 895. 11s conl~nuaientdo~ica benefrcier des mmes drois
que Ies pkheurs tunisiens dans Ia zone territoride de Ia Rgence.
Or, cette convention, rious nous trouvons dans Ies annes trente, devair
arriver dix arrnes plus tard expiralion et I'ItaIie tait preoccupke
d'obtenir alors des concessions semblables a celles que ses pcheurs
tiraient de Ia canverrtion qui venait mainlenant expiration. Ceci explique
[c'est toujours man contradickur qui parIe1, que Ie Gouvernement Mien
ait accept en fait Ia delimitation 1at1,aIe.>> (IV, p. 470.)
Jai cru rver. Ce qu'o~inous suggre ici cst un bou1eversement &OUIde
I'histoire. No11seuIement Ies ari~iestrente ont t, Iilas, Sun des moments Ies
plus difficiles des relations entre I'ItaIie er la France, mais c'est surtout cause
de la Tunisie que les reIations s'taient dtriores. Je remercie cependant mon
honorabIe contradicteur de m'avoir raieu~ii;de rn'avui~rarnea aux annes de
mon enfarrce, lorsque mon pre maintenait intacte, au milieu des persicutions,
l'intransigeance anlifascisie de notre famirle. Mais c'etait, ii faut bien Ie dire,
I'epoque de I'ivrme coloniale du fucisme : I'poque o les chemises noires en
dlire exigeaient Bizerte et Tunis ; I'epoque ou Mussolini, dans Ie paroxisme de
sa foIie, qualifiait la Tunisie tout entire de pistolet dans Ies reins de I'ItaIie.
100 PLATEAU CONnNEhTAL

Au cours de I'entre-deux-guerres.c'etait plut61 la France qui tenail a apaiser

le rnconte~ilernerrtitaIien contre Ies Iraits de paix de VersaiIIes. Err 1924, iI est
vrai, Ie prksident Poincar songea UII iristant dnoncer Ies co~iventiunsavec
SliaIie. Mais iI n'en fit rien et a partir de 1926 Ia presse ikiierrrie dclencha une
campagrre furieuse au sujet de Ia Turiisie. La Tunisie aIIait rester Ie point de
friction entre Ie deux pays jusqu' la dtente de 1433 et aux accords Laval-
MussoIini du 7 janvier 1935. Mais, Messieurs, c'est Ia premire fois que
j'entends suggrer irnpIicitement que, darrs le duo Laval-MussoIini, c'etait
MussoIini qui cherchait apaiser LavaI. DiIIeurs, I'anne suivante est ceIIe
des sanctions contre I'ItaIie Cause de I'agressio~tcorrtre I'Ethiopie et MussoIini
repre~idsa poIitique a~itifranaisequi durera jirsq'a la dnonciation des
accords de 1935, a Ia veiiIe du dra~nede 1939. Et c'esi darrs ces conditions -
que Ia Cour, si eIIe le dsire, pourra aisment vrifier l'aide de queiques
publications que Ibn trouve ici Ia bibliothque du PaIais, et riotarnrnent du
Iiv re de Morrchicourt sur t r s Irnlims de Trir~isieef l accord Lavol-Mussolini dr
1935 (Paris, 19381, aussi bien que de trois articles de CIarrde LangIade parus
dans I'EIJTQ~F riauvelle de 1338 (p. 1364, 1389 et 14 1 Pl - , c'est dans ces
cundilions. disais-je, que I'un prtend vous presenler ici une ItaIie toute pr&e
faire aux Franco-Tunisiensune concession d'une irnportan- aussi capitale que
I'acceplation pure el sin~pIed'u~ielimite maritime dont Ia Tunisie aurait t Ia
seule bnficier.
Mori estim contradicteu~.a dE se rendre cornpie que son argument Ire
nia~iguaitpas d'imagination. Voil pourquoi iIa jug ncessaire de I'tayer par
des co~isidrationsqui, celte fois, vous transporte~itd'un seul coup dans I e s
annes soixante et soixante-dix, en passant par-dessus Ies annes quarante et
cinquante.
Bon raisonnement esl Ie suivant :
(( DiIIeurs, o n ne relve pIus d'incidents nptables a partir de cette
poque et, aprs Ia seconde guerre rnondiaIe, I'ItaIie a reconnu, mais alors
cette fois expiiciterne~il.Ias Iirnstes de Ia zone de p k h e aussi bien celle des
50 mtres de profondeur que la Iigne de 4 9 EIIe Ies avait reconnues
expressment da~isIes accords de p k h e qu'elle a currclus en 1964, en
197 I ..en 1 976 el qrri tous reprennent cet gard Ies disposilions du dcret
beyIica1 du 26 jniIIet 1951 qui se rapporterit la mme ligne ZV 4 5 O . i>
(IV,p. 478.1
J'aurais beaucoup de choses a dire quant au fond de ces accords qui n'ont
pas Ia porte qri'on pretend Ierrr attribuer-.Mon coIIgue, le doye~rColliard, Ie
fera &ailleurs, pour aulant qrre de besoin. Mais iI s'agit ici de Ies apprcier par
rappor-t Iun Iement qui Ine parait prirnurdia1 au dbut des annes cinquante,
csl--dire l'accession de Ia Libye I'independance. Da~rsces conditions,
l'argument subtil de mon horlorabie contradicteur se traduit par une nouveiie,
et aIiurissante, theorie de I'acquiescement rtrospectif. Effectivernenr, cet
argument se ramne Q ceci : que I'Itaiie, qui avait wnstamment veiII rie
prjuger en rien de la dIirnitation des confi~ismaritimes entre Ia Libye et Ia
Tunisie, aurait dkcid tout d'un coup, pariir de 1964, de jeter I'eau un quart
de s i 4 e de co~nportemeniscohrents pour admettre que, oui, api-5tout, les
Franco-T~r~iisieris avaien~ raison, que la dcision de Zouara devait tre
considre comme iruIIe et non avenue, la note verbale de 19 13 comme non
remise a Ia France, Ies instruclions italiennes de 1919, tout autant que eIIes de
1931, comme non dictes aux autorits navaIes. Et ~nernesi, ad nbsardum, I'on
devait admettre tour cela, je ne vois pas coInment Ies droits d'un pays
souverai11 te1 que Ia Libye, une fois parvenu iI'ndpendanoe, pourraient tre
 PLAIDOIRIE DE M. MALINTOPPI 101
aiecfs par les manifestations ou Ies faits d'un Etat tiers. ainsi q u e I'Itaiie Iehit
devenue, ds 1942, I'kgard de Ia Libye. En d'aulres termes, je n e vois ~ i i
conime~it,ni pourquoi I'ancienne puissance coIurriaIe devrait maintenrr uIre
sorte de d~oitde disposition retroactive I'kgard d e territoires qui taient
naguere soumis i son occupation.
Monsieur Ie Prsident, Messieurs de Ia Cour, je constate que cette dernire
e inon expose m'a a ~ n e n jusqu'a
p a ~ t i de une priode postrieure ceIIe do111iI
m'incombait d e vous par1e1-.CeIIe-ci, o n s'en souv ierrdra, devait s'achever avec
Ia seco~ideguerre morrdiale. J a i cependant prfr complter moi-meme
l'examen des questions qui se rapportent I'accuparion italienne de Ia Libye.
Cst eri effet aulour de cette priode que Ia plus grande partie de n ~ o nexpose a
t axe. La Cour me permettra de dire, en concIua~itpour Ie momwr mon
intervention, que je puis considrer en twte srnit. et nem me avec un poirrte
d'orguei1, ce que mon pays a fait pour prse~verIes droits d u peupIe libyen sur
son pIateau continenta1.
J'espre avoir ainsi mo~ilrea la Cour qri'aucu~re Iigne partant du poirrt
terminal de Ia frontire terrestre en directiorr nord 45O est n'a jamais dfini
lalraiement, du c6l Iibyen, Ia zone sur IaqueIIe Ie Gouvernement tunisien
affirme possder des droits historiques bien tabIis.
 PLAIDOIRIE DE M. COLLIARD
CONSEIL DU GOUVERNEMEN DE 1,A JAMAHIRIYA ARABE LIBYENNE

M. COLLIARD : Mes premiers mois seront pour dire trs sirnpIement

I'honneur que je resserrs, Monsieur Ie Prsident, Messieurs Ies membres de Ia
Cour, dtre aujourd'hui appel a me prsenter devant vous dans I'aiTaire qui
oppose la Janiahiriya a ~ - a b Iibyenne
e HIas, ce
et Ia Rpublique tunisie~i~ie.
sentiment de fieR et de privilge doit se meIer Ia tristesse car notre ami
Mustapha Yassee~i~i'estpIus la et je nbrrbIie pas qu'iI m'avait demand d e
parsciper IIOS travaux.

LES DROrrS HISTORIQUES DE LA TUNISIE.

LEUR SENS.
LEUR VALEUR. LEUR PORTEE

L'UII des thmes principarrx de Ia thse lu~iisienneest l'affirmation que la

Trrnisie possde des titres hisloriques trs anciens dont Ia vaIidit bnficierait
d'urre tolrance u~ianime, dlimitarrt une zom niarilime dfinie dont
Ibpration de dIiniitalion, objet de Ia prsenie affaire, ne saurait remettre en
cause I'appartenance Ia Tunisie.
Les pages 124 et 125 du mmoire trrnisien (Il, plus prcisment aux
paragraphes 4.1 O 1 , 4.1 OZ, 4.103 et 4.104. 1,srirnent tres iiette~nerrtIa position
tunisie~i~ie SUI- ce point.
On trouve egaIement I'afir~nationde cette position formule dans Ie pain1 2
des conclusio~isdposes par Ia Tunisie, dema~idaritqu'il pIaise Ia G u i - d e
dire et juger ;
<(La ddiniitation ne doit, en aucuIi point, empiter sur Ia zoIre
I'inter~eurde IaqueIIe Ia Tun~srepossede des dr0ik historiques bien tablis
et qui es1 definie Iatraleme~it,du cote libyen, par la ligne ZV-45' et,
vers Ie large. par I'isabalhe d e 50 mtres. i)(1, p. 101.)
Ces diverses affi1- nations marquent Ia thse t u ~ ~ i s i e ~-i ~ ceIIe
i e d'une zone
uiqrie - cetle thse peut 5tre rsumee de Ia ~ n a ~ r i suivante
re :

II existe une zorre de droits hisfoi-iques tunisiens. Elle a bnficie d'une

recon~iaissance internatio~raIe. Elle doit chapper a toute opration de
deIirnitaliun.
Ces points doivent tre tudis.
Conime il s'agit d droits historiques, il in'apparait que se pose urr problme
de met hode 'scientifique de I'tirde entreprendre.
Avec votre permission, Monsieur Ie Prsident, j'utiliserai Ia mthode
hatarique, me rfrant aux textes et docu~nenls,aux pieces d'archives que je
voudrais tudier d'une manire prcise, nre gardant de toute grrralisarion
hasardeuse.
Mon expos distinguera trois probIntes :
- tout d'abord celui de I'existe~icede cette zone unique et homogne de droils
historiques ;
- ensuite, celui d e Ia reconnaissa~rceo u de la non-reconnaissance internatio-
1ra1ede celte zone et de ses Ijmites ;
- errfin, celui de 1-ivoIution qui a conduit aux rgIeme~ilsmodernes.
 PLAIDOIRIE DE M. COLLIARD 103

Dans urre conclusion. je ~n'efforceraide prsenler Ia question gnrale des

reIations pouvarrt exister entre des droits historiques et Ies principes
forrdamerrtarix du rgime juridique du pIateau continental te1 qu'iI existe
aujourd'hui.

Sur ce thme, mon expos sera conduit en distinguant quatre points

successifs.
Je prsenterai [out d'abord Ies raisons porir IesqrieIIes ;i iG i~nagi~ike Ia
Ihwie. a mon seIis ~ I [ I ~ ~ c I F I I c . dc I'unite de Ia zorre des d~-011s
historiqucs-
-
Je confronterai ensuite cette th60rie abstraite aux ralil& vritabIes teIIes
qrr'eIIes apparaissent avec Ies activits humaines. Ie cadre gographique, Ies
rgimes ju1-idiquesdiffrerrts.

Ainsi qu'iI a ~ ereIevi: dans le contre-mmoire Iibyen ( I I ) . tout partsu-

Iirement dans ses paragraphes 96 a 93, Ia thse tunisienne affirme I'unit
d'une zone de droits historiques.
Cetle prsentation s'at rnar-rifeste d'une rnanire constante dans les &ri-
~UI-a tunisienna. On la trouve daris le rnmaire tunisien (1). paragraphes 4.14
a 4-18, gaieme~itdans Ies paragraphes 8.03 8.05. EIIe apparat d'rrne manire
@ %ppanle dans Ia figure 4.05 du mmoire tunisien, (< Zo~iedes droiIs IrisIo-
rrques de Ia Tunisie .
On comprend parfaitement I'intrt de cette prsentation unitaire.
En prsentant une zone maritime dont eIIe affirme l'unit. Ia Tunisie entend
utiI iser un argument d'arraIogie avec I'affai1-e des Pflreri~snorvgiennes et
invoquer symtr~quement I'arrt de la Cour de dce~nbre1951 le 1-apport
inti~nequi existe entre certaines tendues de nier et Ies forrnatior~rter~'est~-es qui
Ies sparent et qui Ies entourent, invoquer aussi des Iiens conomiques {C.I.J.
Ri.cric.il1951. p. 1 3 3 ;1, mmoire tunisien. par. 4.07).
La thorie de Ia zone unique ne correspond pas Ia raIit gographique, ni
Ia rkaIite huniaine des activits de pche.
Bon caracire artificie1 se manifeste essenfieIIement au plan juridique.
EIIe aniaIgame deux rgi~nesjuridiques tout a fait differe~rb.
Dans la zone des pcheries fixes, dont la profondeur en infrieure
3 mtres, Ies rapparis sont troits entre Ia terre et Ia mer, mais Ies poissons
pkIikr sont des espces qui ne dpende111pas du Iit de la mer. Ce sont des
swiin?iriirgfisirs.Ie produil de ces pcheries nst pas des ressources du plateau
continenta1 mais des ressources des eaux surjacentes, menle si ceIIes-cisont peu
proforrdes.
Sur Ies bancs deponges avec des profondeurs plus grandes, en particuIier
Iorsqu'iI s'agit de Ia pclre a u scapiiandre ou avec Ia drague pa~~iculire qubn
appeIIe Ia gangave, les espces pches sont fixes s u r le Iit de Ia mer. EIIes sont
bien effectivenient des ressources du plateau co1itinenta1,mais Ies pcheurs qui
expIoitent ces ressources ne sauraient are confondus avec ceux gui exploitent
les picireries fixes. Ce sont des ~narirrsel pour une trs grairde part, du rnoirrs
antrieurerne~ita 1951, iIs 1itaie111 pas de ~ialiorraIittu~risierrne.
@ La thkoi-ie de I'unik de la zone hisioi-ique q u e inaiiialise la figure 4.06,
figurant dans Ie memoire tunisien. ne correspond pas aux ralits.
EIIe mIe les procds de pche. tas personneIs de pche. Ies profondeurs, Ies
produits pches.
 IO4 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

EIIe efface les difierences, elle ne lient pas compte des conditions
d'exploitat ion.
En utilisant Ia notion d'accessibilit qui n'est vraie que pour Ies pcherles
fixes. en Ia dissociant de son contexte gographique naturel, en I'extrapoIant
sur des bancs d'iponges un rdise un vritable amalgame juridique qui n'est
pas exacl.
La thorie de I'unite est une coi~structio~i
artifrcieIIe mais qui vide~n~ne~rt
est
ncessaire pour affirmer Ie Iien entre Ies ressources marines et une popuIation
c6tire.
Prcis~ne~it le ~nernoiretunisien, aprs avoir imagine I'unite de Ia zone,
uti11se cette co~istrucrion par une affirmation anaIogiq11e. que j'ai dejl
rne~rt~o~i~ie.avec Ia situation des pcheurs norrgiens dans I'affaii-e des
FkcI~~ries en 1951. On reIeve celte affirmation la page 87 et au para-
graphe 4.15 du mmoire lunisien II) :
<( II est permis de dire propos de Ia zone des titres historiques ce que ia
Cour internationale de Justice observait en 1951 pour la region cotire de
Ia Norvge : dans ces rgions arides. Ic'est] dans Ia pche que Ies habitants
de Ia zone cbtiere trouverit la base esserrtieIIe de leur subsislance. i)
- On ne peut qutre un peu surpris par ces affrrrnations. ia Tunisie invoque
les ressources de pche, mais iI s'agit de Ia pche des poriges, et saIrs vou-
loir entre1-dans des statistiques compIexes. je vwdrais simpIernent faire obser-
ver que Ia valeur iotaIe annueIIe des prises d'eponges en i 971 etait
de 271 000 dinars; que I'anne prcderrte Ia valeur du lourisrne tait de
1 I5 1ni1Iiorrsde dinars ; que la productio~iindustrielle tai1 en 1969 vaIue a
463 miIIions de dinars : et Ia simple exporlation des dattes 2.4 miIIions de
dinars. Ainsi apparaissen1 des chiffres : 0.23 pour cent du torrrisme, 9.05 de Ia
production industrieIIe, 1 1.29 pour Ies dattes. II rne semble exagr d'affirmer
que Ia pche des ponges est Ia base essentieIIe de Ia subsistarrce des
populations cet ires. Laissons cela.
La thse de I'c< unit de zune i > est habiIe, elle permet dttnuer les
diffrences qui existent rkiie~nent quant aux rnodaIits d'exerci~e des
diffrents droits historiques et de confrer des espaces maritimes fort tendus
les qualits pariicu1i1-esqui ne concernent. en fait, qu'une partie de ces
espaces.
Cst qu'en reaIite iI n'y a pas une wne de droits historiques, iI y a des zones
gographiques ~rette~ne~lt diffre~iles.
Mais je vwdrais formuler ici une observation prdiminaire.
II Ire s'agit pas d'opposer une affir~nation,SI j'ose dire Iibye~i~ie,
de dualit de
zones une affirmalion tunisienne. d'unile de zones.
La dualit de zones est aifurne et prsenle dans les textes tunisiens eux-
mmes.
Le rexte essentiel en Ia marire est cette fanleuse insiruclion sur Ie service
de Ia navigation es des p c h a maritimes d u 3 1 dcembre 1904 qui a t si
frquemment utiIisee au cours de Iim dbats.
LarticIe 29 de ce texte expose Ie I-egirnede I'expIoiiat~orrmaritime. Aprs
avoir ~nentiorrrreau paragrapire 3 la c ceirrture de bancs orr hauts-fonds sur
Iesquels 0111 ~ instaIlk
e u ~ nombre
i crinsidrable de p k h w ies... i>, aprs les
avorr dcrits au paragraphe 4, I'arlicle 29 poursuit en son paragraphe 5 dans
Ies 1er1nessuhanls : N Au-deI de cette zone. setend une autre zune beaucurip
pIus vasle et beaucoup pius profonde ... >i (1, p. 343.)
LR texte officie1 Iui-~nrnewrrsacre donc Ia dnaIit des zones.
 PLAIDOIRIE DE M. COLLIARD 105

La mme classification se 1-etrouvemot pour niot, darrs le docu~nent1i0 3 3 ' ,

depos par Ia Tunisie le 15 juiIIet 1981. II s'agit d'un ouvrage in~ituILa
Tunisic : Igislafior~,gouvernerneuf. udnri?rislrarin3rparu en 1 9 10 ef dont les
auteurs sont MM. Gaudiani et Thiaucourt, et Ie caractkre officie1 de cet
ouvrage est marqu par la prface qu'il comporte, crite par M. AIapetite,
rsident gnra1 de Ia Rpublique franaise en Tunisie a cette poque.
Ainsi, Ies docun~entstunisiens eux-rnernes prsenlent Ies deux zorres. Le
contre-mmoireIibyen (11) en son paragraphe 45 avait dj marqu l'absence
d'unit des espaces maritimes sur 1esqueIs la Tunisie invoquait des << droits
hisloriques >) et nole : <r it will be seeri that, in fact, the fisheries concerned are
very different and operate at different depths and in different areas .
La rplique tunisienne. a u paragraphe 1.1 3 {IV), virait cette observation en
rneritionna~ifque le contre-mmoirelibyen. invoquait dans le paragraphe 96 de
<( prtendues diffren~s .
Ces diffrences ne sont aucrrIiement prtendues, eIIes correspondent a la
realil des choses, eIIes sorit rer;oIiIiues par Ies textes tunisiens officiels.
De mme Ia rplique tunisie~i~ie en ce paragraphe 1.13 aprs avoir afirm
qu'il s'agit de prtendues diffre~rces indique ensuite qu'iI s'agit si~nplement
>)

de la disiinclion fort simple entre Ies deux types de pkheries :

r< Ies pkheries fixes, raison d& instaIIations fixes dans Ie sol sous-marin
et destines a capturer le poisson et le poulpe d'urre part, et les pcheries
d'espces sde~iiaires,autrement dit Ies pkheries dponges d'autre par! D.
En ralite, la repIique tunisie~me.tout en voquant de prtendue di%-
rentes )) forrnulk dans Ies crilures Iibye~ines.est obiigk de reconnailre I'exis-
w~rcede deux types de eheries. Giikri Gide1 dans son trai~c l a i q u e Le
itrrvrrrorio~ralp1rHic de lu irrer dkrit dans la premi1-e pa~irede so11monumen-
la1 ouvrage intitulk La haute Iner B. au chapitre prenlier du livre VI1 : (x tes p-
cheris sdeiilaira aux pagr 491 eI 492, Ier Pheria sedeniaires de Tunisie ii.
>),

II classe ces pkheriw en rrois catgories. Comme Ia t~-oisime a rapport aux

{( fonds corraligns exislant sur Ia cete nord i ) qui Iie concernent point nos

problmes, ii convient d'examiner les deux premiers si~npIernent.

Gide1 Ies distingue rrertement I'une de I'autre drr poi~itde w e geographique
el dislingue aussi Ie rgime juridique different de chaque catgorie.
Ln mnloire tunisien (11. dans Ia section II du chapitre IV,a bien distingu, en
deux paragraphes, d'une part ce quii appelle : L'exercice de Ia souverairret
tunisierrne sur Ies pcheries de~itaires raison dnslaIIations fures (par. 11,
et, d'aulre part, ce qu'iI appeIIe : <( Lxercice de Ia souveraine& lunisienne sur
Ies e h w i e s sede~itaires raison des espces cliptures {par. 21
>)

Le mmoire tunisieri est bien oblig de distinguer Ies deux Iypes de

pkheries, niais ii s'efforce de minimiser Ia distinction en affirmarrt l'unit de la
zone, en prociarna~itque sur Ies diverses pcheries sde~ilaires<( Ia Turrisie
exerce une gale souverainet >> (par. 4.97).
A Ia page 93, le mmoire tunisien cite Gide1 et la page 492. Mais la
prhentation de la citation wt assez curieuse, Ie dbut de la citation apparat en
note de bas de page (note 531, et la fin de la citation apparait, au contraire, au
texte lui-mme avec sirnpIement en bas de page une mie de rfrence [note 64).
Or, une partie de Ia page 492 de ibuvrage de Gide1suit de trs prs et parfois
reproduit Igrticle 29 prcit de la circulaire tunisienne de 1904 qui distingue les
hauts-fonds, et au-deIa de cette zone ... une autre zone beaucoup plus vaste et
ou Ies profondeurs dau sont beaucoup plus profondes ... B.

Non reproduit. Voir ci-aprs, correspo~rdance.no 80.

1 06 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

Un rerrouvera donc Ia distinction ci-dessus indique et Ia dualite de zones.

CeIa n'a rien d'to~~rrantpuisque ia duaIit de zones correspond a Ia realite des
choes.
L'existence de deux zvrres distinctes tant ainsi rappeIe, iI convient de
do~i~rerpour chacune des zonesdes prcisions sur Ieur situation g6og1-aphique
d'une part et sur leur regime juridique d'arrtr-epart.

Lm activits traditio~i~ielIesde pkhe sur les cotes tu~iisienriesair sud de Ras

Kapoudia se dveIoppent selon deux types tout fait diffrents, ceIui, d'une
part, des gcheries fixes, permettant de capturer des poissons qui nagent dans
Ies eaux suriacentes peu profondes, ceIiri, d'antre part. des pkheries
sdentaires, permettant Ia rcolte d'espces sdentaires. tres vivants fixs sur Ie
Iit de Ia mer, en I s p k les parrges.
Cette distinction bien connue apparait i Ividence dans se .Exte de droit
inkrne tunisien, I'instruction d u 3 1 dcembre 1904 (1, p. 325-372). Ce texre qui
dans la ~Iassificationhirarchique des notes ~UI-idiques-mrrespond. au sens d u
droit administratif franais, la notion de circulairv. tait signe du directeur
des travaux pubIics. Ce texte apparait comnie ayarrt jou un r6Ie fondamenta1
err matire de droils spciaux de p k h e dans ce qui tait aIars Ie protectorat.
Pour Ia rglemenlation des activits de pkhe, Ie texte tabIit un rginie qui
distingue les domaines gkographiques dans Iesquels s'exercent ces activil&
particrrIires, Ies cIassant en deux catgories ciifferentes: la zone des hauts-
fonds et Ies barra d'eponges.

S'agissant de la zone des Ira~lls-fonds,I'article 29 de la cil-cdairede 1904 ~ I I

son paragraphe 3 dcrit de Ia manire suiva~iteIa c6te tunisienne de R a
Kapoudia la froritire tripolitaine :
Touie cette rgioi~, qui comprend Ia grande ile de Djer-baet b groupe
important des Kerkennah offre u n dveloppement d'environ 250 miIIes
marins (450 kiIomtres) de cotes basses se proIongeant fort avant dans Ia
nier par une dclivit insensibIe...i>(1, p. 343.)
Le paragraphe 4 de Ia circuIake prcise que ces bancs en pIeine exploitation
setendent parfois jusqu' une distance de IO 12 miIIes, c'est--dire 18 a
2 1 kiio~ntres,et que ces hauls-fonds soIir A peine recouverts de 2 mtres d'eau
basse mer.
Dans sorr tude classique ta Tur~isieorieiifnle :Saiiel er busse srr,pp~(p.4 551,
Ie professeur Despois dkrit Ies pcheries fixes IocaIises sur- des fonds qu'il
estme une profo~ideurde 1.50 mtre 2 mtres d'eau mare haute.
On en trouve gale~nentune description dans l'ouvrage de Servunnet et
Lafilte sur le goIfe de Gabk, paru en 1888 ftr gogr de Galrk.~rit i888, p. 334-
3363.
Le principe gnral qui permet dVanaIyserce que sont les pcheries fmes peut
ire ainsi prisent : circorrscrire a mare haute une ceriaine etendue de mer par
des doisons artificielles. Je voudrais, Monsieur le Prsident, empIoyer queIques
Inots de Iangue arabe qui dsignent ces ins&IIatio~rs et je prsente 5 la Cour, et
tout particulirement aux ~nernbresde Ia Gour dont la Iangue arabe est la
Iangue rnaterneIIe et aussi tous ceux qui dans cette saIIe ont Ia Iangue arabe
# m e iangue rnaterneIIe, mes excuses pour une prorronciat~ongui est
certaineme111trs horrible. Ces cloisons artificieIIes dsignes en arabe sous le
 PLAIDOIRIE DE M. COLLIAKD 107
nom de hosira. pIurieI hasor, sont tablies de manire qu'au renvasement de
Ia mer le poissori, e~itrainpa~- le courant de reflux, vienne se prerrd1.e de Iui-
menle dans des piges. en arabe driitu. a u pl11rieI drryrr. judicieuse~nent
disposs arilour de ces cloiso~is.
Ces divers engins sont carrfxtionns avec des branches de pa11nierset Ibn
trouve sur les hauts-fonds d'intermi11abIesalignements de paImes fiches dans
le sable et la vase, d'une hauteur de l'ordre de 2,50 mtres au maximrrm.
Les poissons entrains pal- le courant de refirrx voient se dresse1-deva111eux
I'obstacIe des ifasor, iIs pre~i~ient pour une issue l'ouverture pIns so~nbredes
dreyri et demeurent finalerne~itcaptifs de ces nasses.
Ces pclieries fixes appeles cl~e~JTjlcr sorrt trs ~~orrlbreuses
et Despois en
I-wnse sur Ie plateau sous-marin des Kerkeri~iahpIus de deux mille (Lu
7iiirisie uriwrrtrlv - Sahel ej h s s e s r c y p ~p.. 4561

En face de ces exploitations, se prse~irentalors d'a11t1-espkherles : les bancs

d'eporrges. La circulaire tuilisienne de 1904 traite dans son article 29, au
paragraphe 5 , des bancs d'&ponges.
La zone dite des bancs spongifkres s'kknd air-deI de Ia zoIie des p?cheries
fixes mais avec vidern~ne~lt une so1utiorr de continuit. En effet, Ies bancs
d'po~~ges ne se rencontrent pas partout et Ibn ne peul corisidrer, comme le
fail Ia thse tunisienne, que la zone spo~rgiferesuccde i~nnldiaternerrt Ia
zone des pcheries fixes.
Nous nolerons aussi I'exp1-essi011bancs. Ge son1 les bancs spongifres. A
Ieur gard se posent Ies probl~nesde Ieur dlimitation et celrii de Ieur rgime
juridique bien videmment.
ta d1inlitatioi-i est une operation juridique mais ii est vident que la
dlimilation des zorres de pkhe portant sur des espces sdentaires est Iie a la
possibilite meme de pche, donc des techniques de p k h e que je voudrais
voquer en qrielques mots.
Les tech~iiquesde p k h e aux ponges sorrt diverses et certai~ressont
apparues seulement l'extrrne fin du XIXc ou au dbut d u XXCs i d e .
Servo~i~ietet Lafitte, atriva~ifje le repte en 1888, noterit :
(< Bien que Ieponge puisse vivre aux profondeurs I e s pIus diverses, on
n a pas encore trouv le mujreIi utiIe, pratique et surtout conomique de
les pcher au-del de 35 4 5 mtres. Qe gofi de Gab& t . ~ i1388. p. 373.)
Le gog1-apheJean Despois dans son 1ivre L a Tiiiiisicr urierrrale ; Saliel c.r
busse sreppc, seco~idedition de 1955. crit (p. 46 11 que les herbiers
Posidonies, Halimedes et- CarrIerpes forment uIr nliiieu tres favorable la
croissan~edes eparrges qui se fixerrt sur Ies rhizomes des algues. II four~iit
d'intressantes prcisions sur Ies profo~~deurs, il indique ainsi que les ponges
existent surtout enlre 12 et 25 intres de profondeur.
Un voit donc que Ies b a ~ mspongiferes sont situs une profondeur
relativemerrt faible. Une Iettre du rsident gnra1 de France Tunis, adresse
au ministre franais des affaires trangx-es le 4 juiIIet 1902, contient une
prcision sur la rpartition des bancs :
r< L'exprience a dmontre que la pkhe des ponges ne donne gure de
rsuItats pratiques dans des fonds suprieurs 50 mtres; Ies bararics
d'ponges les pIus riches de la &le tunisienne sont presque tous en de
de cette profo~ideur.>I (Voir page 225 du rnrnoire Lunisieri, 1, annexe 801.
108 PLATEAU CONI'INENTAL

Gide1 dans son Iivre cIassique i~rdique(t 1, p. 49 11 que :

((De vastes bancs d'po~igessont attena~ilsau IittoraI tu~risienjusqua
environ 15 1n111esdes d e s et ne surit pas, cette distance, recouverts de
pIus de 30 mlres d'earr. i >

Les moyens t~chniqriesernpIoyks pour la cueiIIette des po~igesmarquent Ies

Iimites effectives de ce ramassage. On distirrgue en effet la p k h e a pied. qui ne
peut s'oprer que par de trs faibies profondeurs, le pcheur tata~rtIe fond avec
ses pieds et ramassant Ies ponges qu'iI a touches ;puis ensuite vient Ia p k h e
au harpon avec Ies kamaki, pkhe qui se faiI en barque, en u1iIisairt des
foui-ches a pIusieurs dents.
Se1011 rrn spciaIiste, M. Marchis, darrs son Iivre La &fie des nlgues
n?u~i~res, d ~ sprrges r f des cwirrix (p. 521, figurant pour partie dans les
documents deposs par ia Tunisie Ie I 5 juiIlet 1 PX 1 , on Iit : <c ces e~rgi~is sont
~rtiIsspour pkher par des fo~idsde 14 a 15 n~tresa. Le professeur F r r i ~ i ~ i s ,
darrs son rapport Ia Commission du druil internationai, note : << !a pcIle des
po~igesau trident Iie peut s'exercer au-deI de 18 a 20 ~ntr es... i > (p. 971. Le
professeur Despois dans son Iivre cit ci-dessus indique que la cueiIIette au
ka~nakiv perme1 de pre11dredes ponges jusqua IO 1 2 ~nt~-es, trks rarement
pIus ii (p. 4623. II faut ~loter,en effet, que Ie harpon est ~nanceuvrkpar un
ho~nrne,que son ~narrchene peul pas tre d'une trop grande Iongueur. II y a
aussi Ie probIme de Ia visibiIit sous l'eau. Le procd dit du miroir i i , qui
((

corresporrd ce qu'on appeIait dans Ia construction navaIe en bois Ia lunette du

caIfat et qui es1 tout sirnpIernerrt un seau fond vitr que I'on enfonce ua peu
dans I'ean, ce qui permet une ~neiIIeurevisibilit, car ceIa libre du phnomne
de la rfraaion, nst apparrr, d'apres Despois, q u n 1876 sur Ies bancs
tunisiens.
La pclie a u scaphandre permet Ie ramassage des ponges d'urre ~nanir-e trs
active. EIle est apparue seuIernent en 1866 et n'tait pratiquk, sebn les
iridicatio~isde M. Marchis, qrre par Ies Gr-ecs(p. 53). Le professeur Despois
indique qrre ces scaphandriers grecs oprent sur Ies fonds situs ent1-e20 et
30 mtres ;beaucoup refuerrt de descendre pIus bas n.
Quant a u rapport Franqois il rne~~tiorrrreque Io pche air scaphandre et Ia
gangave s'est exercee par des profoneurs Iie dpassant pas 50 mtres.
Ce dernier procd, ceIui de la gairgave , qui correspo~~d une sorte de
chalut, est trs destructeur puisqu'iI corrsiste a racIer Ie forrd par une drague.
Despois prcise que la drague a t introduite par les Grecs des CycIades en
1875 d que ce procd permet de draguer Ies fonds jusqu'i rrne cinqua~ilaine
de ~ntres( t a Titirisiv urieirfale: Sahd cf busse sreppc. p. 4511. Dai1Ieu1-s
IrnpIoi de Ia garrgave a t inter-dit par les textes tunisiens ; d'abord par- un
dcret du 17 jiIIet 1906 en de d'une Iigne des fonds de 10 mtres puis par un
dcret du 1 7 novernbre 1922 eIi dea des foilds de 20 rntres. Ii en va de mme
pour Ie scaphandre. La pche avec ces procds es1 d7aiIIeursinterdite, tait
interdite, d u 1 avrii au 3 1 mai, et eIIe tait prnliibee en tout temps dans Ia mer
de Bou-GI-araet dans Ie cana1 d'Adjirn.
Les indications prse~rtesci-dessus per~nettentde situer Ies limites de
profondeur des proceds de pkhe des ponges.
On remaIque, en particuIier. que Ia pkhe 50 mtres n'es1 apparue qu'
partir de 1876 avec Ia gangave grecque {Senonnet et hfrtte, Le goIfe dp Gabs
~ 1 . 1 1 1888. p. 3801, que le scaphandre n'est apparu qu'en 1866, utiIis egaIement
par Ies Grecs.
II faut noter que pendant Iongtemps I'uliIisation du scaphandre fut rduite
 en raison du cot des quipements. Marchis indique (p. 56) qu'il a tC pch en
1920 dix lonnes avec scaphandre et 160 tonnes avec les autres procds.
Senionnet et Lafitte dans leur Iivre Le golfe de Gubks, publie en 1888,
donnent aussi quelques indications statistiques. L'annk n ' a t pas prcise mais
il s'agit d'une priode tris proche de la publication du livre.
II est indique une rcolte de 55 a 65 tonnes au trident, de 20 tonnes a Ia
gangave, avec une flotilIe de cinquanie sacoleves grecques. Quant a la pche au
trident, elle tait pratique par un ensemble d o r s de l'ordre d'un miIIier de
pcheurs avec un peu plus de Ia moiti de Tunisiens et les autres Europens,
essentiellement des Italiens (quatre-vingts Grecs, trois cents Siciliens, dix
Maitais, p. 398).
Ayant ainsi dcrit, rappel, quels taient les procdCss de pche, je voudrais
maintenan! prsenter quelques observations dbrdre gographique sous le
titre :

La thse tunisienne, formuIe d'une manire constante, parfois sous la forme

potique du mariage de Ia rerre et de la mer, est ceIIe de l'existence d'espaces
maritimes -soumis a l'exercice de titres historiques, ces espaces maritimes
constituant, d'aprs les critures tunisiennes, le golfe de Ga*.
Le mmoire tunisien (1). au chapitre IV, h s droits hisioriques de la
Tunisie >i, page 7 1, au paragraphe 4.01. voque la symbiose de la terre et de la
mer, la communion intrieure des populations avec les zones maritimes
s'etendant au-del5 de leurs cotes et le mmoire affirme que cette union se
manifeste : Dans la rgion du golfe de Gabs, teIIe que cette expression est
gnralemeni comprise par les gkographes,c'est--dire, de Ras Kapoudia 8 Ras
1 Ajdir. )i

i
I
II se trouve que le mmoire libyen (1) traite videmment du golfe de Gabs.
11 le fait dans son paragraphe 78 et il emprunte la dfinition spatiaIe de ce
golfe aux instructions nautiques franaises e! au Medi~erraileurrPi101 britan-
nique.
Le contre-mmoire tunisien (II) a critique avec beaucoup de vigueur les
dfinitions auxquelles se refrait le mmoire libyen, il l'a fait en ses
paragraphes 5.29 et 5.30 ainsi que dans l'annexe 11-6 au contre-mmoire.
Le contre-mmoire libyen (11) reprend dans soli paragraphe 82 les
dfinitions dj utilises cl traite dc l'ensemble du problme dans ses
paragraphes 8 1 a 90.D'ou une rpitque tunisienne aux paragraphes 1 1 2 et
suivants (IV).
La question n'est pas sans importance. Et on peut dplorer que les critures
! tunisiennes emploient a ce propos des termes assez vifs.
Le contre-mmoire iunisien croit relever r< des inexactitudes graves ii
(par. 5.29), I'annexe a ce contre-mmoire note (< une dlimitation arbitraire ii
(11, annexe 11-6, p. 33).
Les critures tunisiennes ont fait grief aux critures Iibyennes de ne pas
utiliser de definitions fournies par les gographes mais d'utiliser au contraire
des dfinitions marines.
Ce reproche a t repris dans sa plaidoirie orale, par mon minent coIIgue,
le professeur Pierre-Marie Dupuy (IV, p. 454-4551,
Me gardant, quant a moi, de toute poIrnique je voudrais simplement
reprendre la question.
Et il me semble, du point de vue mthodologique, correspondre a une
entreprise scientifique que de faire un recensement et de cIasser Ies opinions ou
 PLAIDOIRIE DE hl. CULLIARD III
'
avec des reprsentations graphiques corresporrdantes qrri sonl empruntes
des caltes offrcieIIes.
ia repiique tunisienne (IV). au paragraphe 1. i 2, tente de co~ilesteria
dfinition d u goIfe de GabS (paragraphe 7 8 du mmoire Iibyen. 1, et
paragraphe 82 du contre-mmoire Iibyen, III par les fi~srrrtcfi<)as irauriques
franaises et Ie h4~diIerru~rc"arr Pikli eIi citant des instructio~isitalien~res: ie
Purrolorro de/ Medi~errcrn~o. La citatio~itunisienne est Ia suivante : Le golfe de
Gabs. anciennement appel de la Petite Syrte, est conipris entre I'iIe
Kerkennah au nord et I'2e Gerbah au sud. .,
Cesi I une deiinition peu prcise mais qui est beaucoup plus ~roiteque les
affirmations - que je citais tout a I'heu1-e - seIon IesqueIIes Ie goIfe de Gabs
s'etendrait de Ras Kaporidia a Ras Ajdir. Par aiIIeurs. qu'iI me soit permis de
faire remarquer que Ie texte utilis par les crinires tunisienries est une dition
de 18118.
I I est bien vident que depuis cette date de 11ouveI1esditions d u Porfvlrrrrtr
ont paru. J'ai eu la curiosit de m'y reporter et je prendr-aila dernire en date,
ditiorr 197 1. page 325, GoIfe de Gabs >i : (< Le gdfe de Gabs, I'arrcienne
((

Petite Syrie, s-OUYI-e entre Ie Ras Yonga et Ixrrmit nord-ouest de I'ie

Djerba. )>
Gtte definilion et cetle reprsentation que vous trouverez. Monsierrr le
Prsident, dans ce que jqappeIIerai Ie dossier, est luut fait analogue celle
indique dans les ici-11nresIibye~r~~es.
~raufiqliesfranaises. II y a, et ceci
CeIIes-ci citent en effet les ir~.srriicIiur~s
sxplique aisement, u ~ igrand 11on1bre d'instructions nautiques franqaises
traita111de celte question. EIIes sont inrervenues au cou1.s d'une priode de
l'ordre de prs d'un sicle eritre 1876 et 1 968, date de )a derniere ir~structio~~
concer~lantIa Tu~risie.
Jamais ces inslruclions n'o~rtdfini le goIfe de Gabs comme s'kte~idantde
Ras Kapoudia Ras Ajdir.
L'dition de 1 875.qui do1111ela dfinit1011Ia plus Iarge, donne uIie ouverture
de 42 miIIes de Iargeur I'entre.
Dans toutes Ies edilions suivantes, Ies irrsfrricrlorrs ~~crririqn~s franaises
adoptent une dfinition pius prcise et font mention, corrime errtre du golfe,
du ent1-eRas Yonga et Ia poink ouest de I'iIe de Djerba.
Cette prcision appa1-ai1 pour ia prernire fois en 1890. a Ia suite de Ia
mission Irgdrographique ~ n e r ~ i ebord du LN~oisqu'evoquait mon minent
collgue Ie professeur MaIintoppi. La description du golfe est faite au
chapitre VI1 <a De Ras Yorrga a Ras Ajd~rid, aIors que celIe des Kerkennah est
faite au chapitre VI Ia De Ras Kaporidia IR a s Yonga : Ies iles et bancs
Kerkennah
Dans Ia section cvIicer~iantIes mares et eurants dans Ie golfe, on peut Iire :
(( Le fiot ve~iantde l'est Ionge la cote nord de Djerba avec une vitesse
qui dpasse un neud devant Humt Suk,qui, en penetrarit daris le goife.
i t deux branches principaIes, I'urre dirigee vers la baie
~ ' ~ ~ i oetufor~ne
des Surkennis, Iaurre Iongeant Ia cote ouest de Djerba. >>
r~auriqiiesde 1849, on lit : (< Le golfe de Gabes occupe
Dans les Iurfrucliurr.~
retendue de 40 miIIes e~~viron, qui spare le Ras Uagha de Ia grande iie de
Djerba. ii
Cette dfinition es1 repi-iseen I91 1, 19 19 et 1932.
La definit~onIa plus I-ce~iteest foui-niepar les ins11.uctionsd e 1968 : c< te

' Non reprodirjies

112 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

goIfe de Gab& I'ancie~i~ie Petik Byrte. s'ouvre entre le Ras Yunga {Ungha)el
I'extrmiti. N.W. de I'ile de Djerba ( 3 3 O 53' N - IO0 5 1- Eb >> (1, mmoire
libyen. annexe 1-19.)
On retrouve. et cst curieux. une dfinilionidentique dans Ie M c d i ~ c ~ i ~ r t r a r ~
P&r. do111Iedition de 1951 indique : <( Gulf of Gabs is entered bet weeri Ras
Yonga and IIe of Djerba. ii (1. ~nernoirelibyen, annexe I- 18.)
Ces diverses dfirritions, et vous remarquerez Ia convergence - instructio~is
~iarrtiquesfranaises, irrstructions nautiques britanniques, instructions riau-
tiques italiennes - confrrre~rtIe goIfe de Gabs E Ia partie Ia pIus interne du
re~itra~itde Ia cote tunisie~i~ie.
i.e fait qu'une aulorii comme celle du Mc,di~crr~iiear~ filor adopte cette
for~nuIemrite d'tre note.
Et c'est la raison pour IaquelIe Ies instructions ~iautiqrresde diffrents pays
son1 idenriques, sans aucune contradiction enire elles et sans que d'autres
dfinitio~isIeur soient opposees.
II pa1-ait difficile d'igrro1-er ces docun~errts.N'oublions pas que le golfe de
Gabs est ouvert Ia navigation maritime. que Ie port de Gabs reoit des
navires, que son trafic est Ii i'expa~isiw du co~npIexeindustriel de
Gharnouche et qu'iI se dveloppe et que I'klabIisseme~iIde cartes marines rIve
tout naturelIerne~itdes Irydrographa. Cette identit se ~na~rifest~te videnlnlent
dans les cartes nlarines qrri ont t souInrses ou sont soumises Ia Cour, et qui
sont mentio~i~ies dans Ie dossier {car~efra~iaise43 16 utiIisee par Ia Tunisie Ie
24 sepie~nbre1 98 1 ' et carte angiaise 33171.
Je voudrais mainte~larrt,abandonna111 1- docrrmenls des hydrographes.
exanli~ierIe problme suivant :
t.i rurrngrapI~iyrr~~s
bj Narclriuris gkog~api~iqrfcs
Les critures tunisiennes. au paragraphe 5.29 du contre-mmoire et aux
paragraphes 1 . I 2 a 1.27 de la rplique. invoquelit une srie de definitions de
caractre gographique pour antrebattre les ~ioiiorrsdgagees u~ra~iirnement
par Ies h yd1-og~-aphes.
Je voudrais rrtiIiser, par co~rsqrrent,le doss~efqire j'ai constitue et signaIer
tout particulireme~rta l'attention de la CU~II- certains aspects: caractristiques.
Je voudrais pIus sp~ciale~nentdistinguer Ies caries eIIes-~rirnes et la
transcription des mots di, ( . d i s .
On doit noter que Ia thse tunisienne d'une co~iceptiontres largie du golfe
de Gabs a Gi pr&enIe dans Ia rphque lunisienne (IV} au paragraphe 1.1 5 ,
noie de bas de page nq 18, en s'abritant derrire l'autorit du professeur Jean
Despois.
La cilatio~iutiIIsee gaIement lors des pIaidoiries oraIes est emprunte
I'ouv rage La Titirisic. oricirrnlt. ; Sair~i'er bossv srepp.~(Paris, Presses univer-
s France. Ze d., 1955, page 455). BIe se Iit :
s i ~ i r ede
<< Dans tout le golfe de Gabs. du Ras Kaboudia et Ras Achdir, a la
frorrtire tripoIitaine. la navigation des barques, sur les hauis-fonds, esl
gne presque partout par d?ntern~inabIes aIig~rernentsde palmes fiches
dans la vase...i>
On a voulu voir dans cette phrase rrne dfinirion du goIfe de Gabs,
dkfinitio11extensive.
Je voudrais sirnple~nentfaire rernarqrrer que IQuvrage cit n'a pas po111-titi-e
(< Le goIfe de Gabs >>. g nais s'appeIIe Sahc4 illissc, s f ~ ~On
~ remarquera
p ~ .

Voir IV. p. 588. er ci-apres. coriespondance. no 98

 PLAIDDIRIE DE M. CC~LLIARD II3
galement q u e cet ouvrage ne contient pas d e carte qui, d'une ~nrtnikrenon
quivoque. merrtionne, o u exprime pIutGt, une extensIo~idu goIfe de Ia sorte. A
l'inverse. puisque l'on invoque I'auloril du professeur Despuis, je voudrais
noter que pIusieurs cartes etabIies par ce spcialiste consacrent une
r e p r k n l a t i o n normde du golfe de Gabs dans son acception habitueIIe. 011
trouve, dans Ie dossier que j'ai tabli, pIusieurs de ces artes dessines par Ie
professeru Despuis.
Cst, par exempie, dans Ia srie des cartes prsentes dans Ia critures
@ tunisie~i~ies, Ia figure 5 . I 3 d u mmoire tunisien.
C'est galement Ie cas d'une carte du dossier qui est extraite de Ibrrvrage de
Jean Despois, Ln Tin~isie,1930.
C'est aussi Ie cas de la carte dir dossier qui est Ia figur-e 2 d e I'ouvrage de J e a ~ i
Despois, Ln Trit~isi~, ddexi6rne dition. 1 96 1.
L'aurorile du professeur Despois s'attache ces cartes et nous reievorrs que
I'expression go,fe de Gabs n'est pas ici utiIi& extensivement.
Bien des cartes du dossier comportent d'aiIIeurs ia mrne reprsentatio~i.
et je peux dire que, sauf de rares exceptions que je vais prsenter dans queI-
q u a insfans, iI sagit d e routes Ies cartes, qu'eIIes soient de caractre stric-
temerrt scientifique. qu'eIIes aient t utiIises devant Ia Cour, o u qu'des soient
des cartes desti~reesa n grand prrbIic et que j'ai fait figurer dans Ia dernire
srie.
Sagissant de canes scientifiques, on notera qu'elles ont t souvent utiI is&s
dans Ies critures ou Ies plaidoiries tunisie~i~ies Qe n'ai pas utiIis de cartes
uniquement preserrtes par la Libye). et j'ai prsenl cela dans Ie dossier avec
les figures cIasses sous Ia rubrique C 1 et portant Ies numeros 4.02 ', 5.12,
5.1 3,5.20, 5.15. 5.24, 5.28. 5.29, 5.30el 5.3 1 dans Ie ~nrnoiretunisien, ainsi
que mmoire Iibyen, annexe II, pIa~rche5 ), et contre-mmoire libyen, vol. II,
annexe 107'.
Airrsi ~iole-t-onune grande convergence et o n I-etrouveune urrit qui rejoi~ir
I'unite dja signaIe pour les Iravaux des hydrograpIies. Cette rrriiti. comporte
toutefois une limite. En edet, parmi Ies cartes spcialement tablies par Ia
Tunisie pour tre presentes a Ia Cour, o n trouve des cartes qui co~istituentune
exception a I'harmonie que j'voqne et ainsi apparat une distorsion.
Mais iI convie~itde distinguer. Tout d'abord les cartes utiIises par Ia Tunisie,
mais e m p r u n f k par ses conseiIs des ouvrages ou 2 des travaux priablis.
correspondant parfaitement arrx donnes gnraIes ci-dessus rappeIes, et irous
riotons donc Ia convergence.
S'agissant de cartes spcialement tablies pour Ia prsente affaire, nous
avons alors une dislorsion, mais qui, je Ie rpte, est partieile. .Les cartes
prpares spciaIemenr par la Tunisie pour Ia prsente affaire se trouvent sous
la rubrique C II de mon dossier. On. peur distinguer sous cette rubriqrie deux
series de cartes. Je repte, elles ont t speciaIement prepares. Mais, il me pIat
de le dire, Ies unes ont une transcription nor~naIeel rejoignent CIOIIF Ies cartes
que j'ai voques prkcedernrnent et je saIue cette unit. II s'agit des iigures
@ portarrt Ies numros 3.03 ' dans Ie mnidre lu~iisiene! 1.O 1 et 1.02 ' dans le
contre-mmoire tunisien.
3@@ A u coniraire, 13ous trouvoi~spour d'autres carles spMalernent prepares,
@@ pour-les cartes nm 1 , 2 et 9' du niemaire tunisien et 2.04 de la rplique
tun~sienne,Ies figures 5.07,5.09, 5.1 O. 5.I4 ' et 5.22 du mmoire tunisie~r.une
@ trairscrip~iontrks particulikrc et exagCi&e.
Dj Ie contre-mmoire Iibyai (II), dans ses paragrapIies 86 90, avait
' Non reproduik.
II4 PLATEAU C O ~ N E N T A L

mentionn ces trangets cartographiques destines matrialiser d'u~ie

manire visueIIe Ixtension prtendue du golfe de Gabes au-del drr sens
habitue1 de cette expression.
Cette tendance se niartifeste avec la transcription de la mention garf~dc>
Cn1i3~.avec I'utiIisation de caractres de plus en pi u s gros, avec I'aIIongeme~it
d u titre. On releve avec rin cerlairr tonnement les pIus curieuses de ces cartes
sur lesquelles ie S d u mot Gabs apparait con-rmese plaarrt Iargenie~lt l'est de
Ia frontire Iibyenrre, 50 ou qudquefois pr& de IO0 kdomtres.
Pourquoi ces outrances ? C'est la qrrestio~ique 1.011 peut se poser. Je Iie
reviendrai pas sur ce probline, il a t trait dans le contre-mmoire libyen
aux paragraphes 88 et 89 : iI s'agit par cetfe reprsentarion graphique
dformante d'accrditer Ia thme artificieIIe que le goIfe de Gabk est rrn
cosysteme s'&tendantau moins jusqu' I3O est de Io~igitude.
Mais ces etranges reprsentatio~~s, qui ii'apparaissent, je Ie rpte, que dans
certains des dwunients spciaIernent srabIis pour Ia prse~iteaffaire et Ieur
prsentaiion devant la Cour et, j'i~isiste,simplement dans certains d'entre eux,
contrasterrt avec Ies autres et ainsi disparait la crdibilite de Ia these qu'eIles
laient dest i~ies iIIusi~.er.
J'en arrive maintenant au dernier point de cette premire partie. Je voudrais
trailer d'un point tout fait capilal :

La Tunisie fait porter l'essentiel de son argumentation de caractre juridique

sur I'irrvocation de droits hisloriques dont I'exislence commanderait Ia s~hrtiori
d u prsent Iitige.
Ce Iitige, tant port devant une cour de jrrstlce, iI est primordia1 de procder
l'analyse juridique des droits historiques.
Ii apparait I'kvidence que, du poi1i1de vue d u droit interne tunisien, Ies
droits historiques se classe~rten deux catgories diffrentes qui corresponde~it
videmment aux no des d'exploitation des peclieries et iI est bon doric de
prse~rterici, avant detudier dans une seco~rdepartie Ie probI~neinternatio~iaI
lui-mme, le rgime juridique concer-nantces pcheries.
Nous distinguerons les pkheries Exes et Ia p k h e des ponges.

Daas soli ouvrage ~Iassiqrre,Ie professeur Jean Despois [dont on parle

dcidment beaucoup), dans Ie chapitre VI1 intilu I La pche. Les Kerkena
:Sdrd ~f fiasse stepj~e.
de La Tirr~isiroi.ic.~~lalr aprs avoir dcrit les procds et
types de pche, analyse ce qu'iI appeile, bien qrr'iI ne soit pas juriste, (( tes
druils d'usage . RappeIant que la trs faible profondeur des bancs a souvenl
impose une forrne originale aux procds de pkhe, il ajoule que cette faibIe
profondeur est aussi E I'origine des droits que Ies riverains prtendent exercer
sur Ia mer, rrotamment cerrx qui utiIke1tt Ies pkheries fixes ii (p. 4651.
Dja en 1 888, dans leur ouvrage LP golfe de G~nbks,Servurrnet et Lafitte
indiquaient (p. 362) que les pkheries apparaissaient conime des proprits
prives, que les cr propritaires se sont toujours crus autoriss en disposer
leur gr, se les transmettre titre gratuit o u onreux, a en trafiquer, en un
mot, comme s'il s'agissait de proprits terrestres ordinaires . Ils merrtion-
naierit q u e Ies propritaires avaient des titres de propriete sous forme d'actes
dresses err bonne et due forme, revtus du sceau beyIlcd et coritresigns par Ie
~ninistrecomptent.
 PLAIDOIRIE DE iL1 COLLIAKD 115
Je note au passage que In Partte tunisienne, da11ssa pIaidoirie. a oute~iuqu'il
s'agissait la de droit de caraclre public (IV, p. 4521
Les auteurs. je veux dire Sewurr~retet Lafitte, exprimaie~rtleur tonrrernenr
et leur irrqui~irdedevant cette multiplicalion dapprop1-rationsprives et ils
exprimaient le souIrait que SOI! porte remde ii la situntio~rpar le 1-ece~isen~ent,
I'adoptio~i dn rgime ~UI-idique nouveau reposa~rt sur la domanialite
pubIique. cette notion qui est si chi-e aux fonctionnaires frairais. et la
prcarit de I'uliIisation privative de pa1-ceIIesde ce do~naine.
Ih voulaient ainsi procla~nerIa supriorit de I'intrt genkral et restaurer
I'arrforil de I'Uat. Ce sont des proccuparions arraIogues q u e 1.011 refrouve
dans 1nst1-uctiondu 31 dcembre 1904, notam~ne~it dans ses paragraphes 29
a 36.
k paragraphe 30 pose Ie principe direcreur. II rappelt qrre des auto~.isaficns
de pkheries ont tk donnes a diverses poques. distirrgue plusseurs cas et Ia
circuIaire de 1904 se proccupait. co~nrnele souhaitaient une vingtaine
d'annks auparavant Servonnet et iafitte. du recensernerrt des pkheries, du
contr6Ie d& titres. EIIe posait aussi le principe d'une redeva~rcefinancire sous
Ia forme d'une taxe.
La conception privative des pcheu1-s sst manifestee avec force. ElIe
s3e>prirnedans cette expression (< notre mer >> qui dsigne les fonds infrieurs a
deux rntres ou ils irrstaIIent Ierrrs pcheries.
Despois prsente un raccourci de Ia Io~igueluire eIrrre les picheurs et
Iadmiaistraiion (p.463.
Cst en eet une Iongue histoi1-e. U n ar~eidu 30 novembre 1925 a
constitu urre commissio~i(donc vi11g ans aprs l'instruction) et. finaIement.
c'est un dcret du 5 fvrier 1931 qui a I-egIle probI51ne au point de vue
juridique.
La co~n~nission a relev que I'usage d u do~naii~e pubIic, dfini pal- Ie dcret
du 25 septembre 1885. avait prockd jusqrr'aIors, pour une grande pari, de
coutri~nesqui a r t ei~gendrdes droits cu~nplexes,confus et non dfirris par Ies
Iois i>. EIIe a co~isidrqu'iI i~nportaitcr d'abolir celte situation arrarchiqueet de
Iui srrbstituer uri rgime positif conciIiabIe avec Ies disposi~ionsdes lois et avec
les inire~Iegiti~nesdes usagers B.
La rguiarisation a et accepre par Ies reprse~ifantsdes usagers el Ie
I-crnpIacen~ent des titres jugs vaIabIes a re e~rtrepris.Et Ie dcret du 5 fvrier
1931 , q u ~a oper cette remise eIr ordre, a permis que Ies dtenteurs des titres
vaIabIes reoivent en &hange des permis d'occupation temporaire Iong terme
du doma111eprrbIic.
Selon qu'iI s'agit des barics des Kerkennah ou des bancs du co~itinentde la
rgion de Sfax, compris entre Ia Chebba et Ia viIIe de La SkIrirra, les rnodaIitks
sont diffrentes qua111a Ia dur& de la joriissance gratuite et irrkvocabIe.
Mais le rgime juridique est assez cornrnun. I I a t finaleme~rt tabIi un droit
d'usage d'une certaine dure, rrn droit d'o~upationtemporaire Iorrg terme.
Ce te1- ne est de soixante ans pour les bancs des Ker-kennahet de qrratre-vingt-
.dix-rreuf ans potir les bancs de Sfax.
LR juriste ne Inanque pas dtre intress par Ie regirne juridiqne, en effet la
jouissance est accorde soirs I-servede I'exploitatiorr norrnaie de ces pkheries
et de 1eu1-maintien eirtre les mains d'habitants, soit des iIes Kerkennah Iorsqu'iI
sagit d'elies, soit de ia rgion cotire contine1rtaIe C O ~ S I ~ ~ T & .
1 Nousso~nn~es en prsence d'un droir rrs singulier. trs diffrent d u droit de
proprit, puisqu'il sleint par le non-usage et qu'il s'kleint galeme~itsi Ie
titulaire n'a pas un lien territorial troit avec la rgion maritime. Bimr sur ces
droits ne concernerrt que des espaces pa~riculiers,ces pkheries fixes, el
nbubIiorrs pas que la pche ~istpas reservtie au-deIa de 500 1n11.aa partir
des *lieries fixes.
Je voudrais maintenant prsenter-Ie regime 11011 pIus des pcheries fixes mais
ceiui de la pche des ponges.
bl La pecI~edes ~ I I U ~ I ~ P . T
Le rgime juridique de la p&he des ponges a toujours t trs diffrent de
celui des piclieries fixes.
Il a revtrr des aspects successifs err ce sens que I'orr peut distinguer, je CI-vis,
six phases :
1 . Au dbut du XIXc siecIe, d'aprs Bervonnet et lafitte (Legofi clr Gabis,
p. 4251, toute persoIrIre voulant pcher des po~igesdevait obtenir une
au101-isationdonnee par le cad de Djerba. Un mainelouk tait embarqu a
bord du bateau, il prlevait au nom du bey une di~ned'rrn taux variabIe et le
reste tait vendu au profit du pcheur.
2. Vers 1840, un ~~gociant grec obti~ttd'Ahmed-Bey, aIors sur-le tronc, Ie
n~onopoled'expIoitatio~ides bancs, rnoyenrrant Ie verse~ne~lt Ia casselle
prive du bey d'une somme de 20 piastres par quintal et demi d'ponges
apport sur le niai-clr.
L'exploitation fut conduite par le bnficiaire de I'expIoilation sur une
grande chelIe. Coni~neiI la~tgrec ii fit venir ses co~npatrioleset c'est une
fIvliIIe d'une centaine de barques montes par plus de cirrq cents marins grecs
qui expIoita Ies ponges.
CeIa ne dura que peu car en 1846 des dificuIts nlrgirerit entre Ie sieur
CoutouIuiima et un important ngociant d'ponges agissant pour des maisons
austro-Irongruiseset iaIie~rnes,Ie sieur Georges Tapia.
Ce dernier intervint auprs du ministre d'Ahrned-Bey, le tout-puissant Ben
A d , et celui-ci obti~ttpour son propre mrnpte Ia co~icesionqu'iI fit par
prudence pIacer au noln d'un frere de Tapia, il Ia fit rkguIariser par des d&rets
forinels qu'il eut la prcarrtion de communiquer aux co~rsuIst~-angers.
La I-edevanceannueIIe tait de 30 000 piastres, la co~icessionnetant pas
d'ailieurs f rs neilenlent deIimite territoriaie~nent.
Senonnet el Lafitte (p.427) i~idiquentque la maison Coutaulouma ainsi
vi~rce,par ce fait du prince,
protesta knergique~nent,mais sans succs, par Ibrga~iedes consuIs
genraux de France et de Grce, auprh dlAhrr~ed-Beyqui, pour toute
explicatian, invoqua Ia raison d'Eut. Elle intenta alors, Ben-Aied, un
procis eIr rparation du dommage que Iui causait I'oMigatation daba~ido~i-
rrer ses importarrts EtabIissements de pkhe.
Ce proes dura Iet je Iaisse Ia resporrsabilit aux auterirs du propos],ce
que dure tout procs en Tunisie. Cornmen& en 1848, il n'tait pas tranch
en 1855, poque a IaquelIe, rnaIgr Ia puissante i~rterventionde M. =on
Ruches, I'IIustre consul gnral de France, Ies ~naisorisCoutouIouina et
Rouchon-Tardieu [Rouchun-Tardieusont des acheteurs d'kponges] durerrt
renoncer Ieurs prtentions qu'elIes jugrent sans issue.
Ainsi Ben-Aied ou ses reprsenlants conservrerrt le monopoIe de la pche
aux gponges jusqu'en 1869.
3. En 1869 s'ouvre Ia troisime priode, la situation financire de la
Rgence devint si grave qu'un arra~igernenlfinancier fut tabli par Ies
cranciers, approuv par Ie comit interaativnai de conrrole & signe par Ie
premier ministre du bey. Nous reviendrons par Ia suite sur cet arrangement.
 PLAIDOIRIE DE M. COLLIARD 117
Ici je me bor~rei indiquer que Ie bey consentit la cession d'urr ensembIe de
revenus que Ia co~nrnissio~i allait utiIiser pour le service de Ia dette et
fi~~arrciere
son a~nortisserne~it.
L'ensembIe des revenus s'klve 5 505 000 francs et parmi eux figr11-epour
un montarrt d ' a i k u r ~modeste, de 5 5 000 f r a ~ i a le, PI-odui1du fermage des
poulpes et des ponges.
Avec Ia cess~onde ses droits par Ie bey, une transformation juridique
importante apparaissait, cornine le noient exactement Servonnet et Lafitia : (< Ie
fe~-magedes ponges qui n'avait t jusque-I qu'un revenu particulrer du
Souverain, devin1 u n revenu pubIic, et Ies d~-oitsde Ben-Aed tvrnbrent du
mme cvrrp en dsrrtude .
4. Airrsi apparait Ie fermage, ce fermage eIi tant que regime jrrridique peut
tre dfini wrnnie la co~icession de la pche des ponges par voie
d'adjudication pubIique. ce fermage comportait des soInmes qrii sont allies
croissant.
Dprs Servorrrret et Lafitte : 70 000 piasrres de 1870 a 1870, 150 000 pias-
tres de 1 875 I 882, 250 000 piastres de 1882 a 1 885 et 255 000 piastres de
1885 1888. Et bien enlendu Ie Iivre s'arrte cette date.
ta situation du fer~nierest curieuse, iI existe un cahier des charges, mais iI
n'avait qu'un caractre forniel. Le concessionnaire d1iv1.e a rout pklieur un
permis de p k h e seIon IequeI le pcheur paieentre les mains du fermier et de Ia
douane les redevances prescrites.
k syslrne du fermage dura qudques anna. Letendire el Ies limites de la
concessio~ine sont pas fixes de manire pr-cise. On sait toutefois par les
indications qui sont contenues darrs I'instruction du 31 dcembre 1904 que Ia
Iimite orie~rtaki b i t la Iigne p a m n t de Ras Kapoudia, contournant au Iarge Ies
bancs des Kerkenna11 et de l se dirigeant eri Iigne droite vers la frontire
tripditaine (article 29. paragraphe 6, de I'irrstruct~on~, rrous retrouverons ce
poinr par Ia suite.
Le syslrne du fermage ne dura qu'rrne vingtaine d'annes car iI fut
abarrdonn en 1892.
5 . Alors apparat le rgime de Ia Iiberte d'exploitation sous co~iditionel
charges.
Avec le dcret du 16 juin 1892 apparat un nouveau rgime qui subira
diverses Iransfor-mations avec Ies dcrets successifs dri 1 1 janvier 1895. du
28 aot 1897, du 16jrriIIet 1906, qui Iui es1 reIatif 5 la pche des pouIpes.
te rgime est u ~ iregirne de libert assorti de certaines conditions, le
pa~ementd'une taxe auquer es1 subordorrrree Ia deIivrance d'une paterrie.
Le rgime est un r-gi~nede ilberte eil ce ser-lsque quiconque acguilte la taxe
est habiI it pcher, que Ia dlivra~rcen'est pas refuse. C'est, s'ii m ' e t permis
d'empIoyer une expressioil du droit administratif fra~iais,une formuIe de
(< comptence Iie .
Le rgime est gaIenient ;rs Iibrai en ce sens que Ies pclreurs rrangers
sorrt Iraits cornme Ies nationaux. les uns et les autres paya111patente.
Enfin, dans ce rgime de pche des ponges, subordonn a l'acquittement
d'une taxe, un w ~ i l r d este rrecessaire. II est exerc par des garde-pche durit la
mission est prcise par les articles 62 et suivants de I'instruction du
31 dcembre 1904. La limite d'action vers Ie large ou Iimire de la zone de
srtrveiilance est la fa~neuseIigrie des 50 mtres de proforrdeur.
5. Ce regime avec Ies modifications que j'ai dj i ~ r d i q u k sdevair subsister
jusqu'au rgime bu decret du 25 juiIIe1 I95 1, qui a trarrsform Ie rgime de la
pcIre des ponges en inerne Temps qu'iI tra~isformaiiIe rgime pIus giiral de
la p k h e , cette fois de Ia pche dans les eaux suriacentes.
Il8 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

Le dcret de 1951 interdit aux trangers. Iorsqrrbn se [trouve dans 1s zone

rserve, Ia pche des ponges.
En rsum, on voit donc que les droits IraditionneIs appartierrnent a deux
catgories trs diffrentes :
- La premire est celle des pkheries fixes, I'utiiisatiorr privative du
doniaine prrbIic avec un rgime juridique dfini en 1931 er drivant des notions
du dkret du 25 seplernbre 1885 qui se substituaient aux notiom traditionneIIes.
Les espcw p k h & dans ces pkheries sont des espices mobiles capturees
daris des piges fixes.
II s'agit d'une capture d'animaux sauvages et non pas comme iI a t indiqu
2 deux reprises par les conseiIs de Ia Tunisie d'urie c aquaculture , qui se
diirrit somme I'eIevage d'espces mariljes , ou d'une a piscicirIture n, qui se
dfinit d'aprs Ie Rubrrr comme I'ensernbie des techniques de production et
delevage des poissons ii. LRS pkheries fixes ne sont pas ces ferme<marines qui
sont exprinientes depuis quelque temps, dans divers pays, par exemple au
Japon et pIus rcemment en France.
Ces poissons, rnaIgre la trs faible profo~ideur.reivent d a eaux surjacenks
et aucunement du plateau co~itinental.
- La seconde calgorie est celle des ponges, c'est--dire. dspces f i x k
sur Ie sol de Ia mer. Jusqrr'en 195 1, I'expIoitation pouvait etre entreprise par
quiconque acquittait Ia patente, dans le cadre donc d'un rgime correspondant
au rgime trs libra1qu'gvuque dans son livre, d'une nia~iiregnrale, Gilbert
GideI.
 A-&e;irs - Itroir audience du 29 1X 8 1 .]
M. COLLIARD . Morrsieur Ie Prsideni, $vais consacre ma prcdente
inierventiv~i,au cours de Ia matinee de vendredi, I'etude du rgime juridique
de ces espaces maritimes en IesqueIs la Tunisie voil une zone Iiistorique >>. Je
ne revierrs pas sur cette drno~istratio~i.
fi. La I i g m de 50 znkfra.swr i;fab/isscmeru
.TC IJ<Z/PAVi >j~~r~m~io~~ul~
La carte ci-dessus projete et qui est emprunte aux kcritures tu~iisierr~ies
@ nous rnontre Ia zone revendique et eIIe nous montre Ia Iiini~evers le Iarge, Ia
ligiie de Ia profondeur de 50 mtres qui a t tabIie uriilateraIeinent lion pas
depuis des temps imrnmor-iaux,norr pas meme au XIXesicIe, rnais seulemen1
au dbut du XXesicIe paI- la fameuse insrruction du 3 1 dcembre 1904. C'est
sur celte Iig~reque la Tunisie voit Ia Iimite exti-ieurevers le Iarge de ce qu'elle
appeIIe Ia zone des droits historiques et que l'instruction eIIe-rnhe appeiIe
zone de surveillance.
Le probIme que je voudrais tudier aujourd'hui tout d'abord est double.
Je vwidrais eIi effet consacrer Ies dveloppemen&q u i suivent Itude de Ia
Iigne de 50 mtres et a son tabIissernent et ensuite examirrer si cette Iigne a fait
ou norr Iobjet d'une ~'econrraissanceinternationaIe.
Je signaIe qu'une autre Iigne ou je 1-appeIIepIutirt qu'une autre Iigile est
egaIement rne~itionnedans I'inst~~uctiorr de 1904 ;cst la Iigne partant de Ras
Ajdir et se dirigeant sons un arrgIe de 45" jusqua son iirlersection avec Ia iig~ie
des 50 rnlres. C s t ia limite IatraIe de la surveiiiance.
Je ne traiterai pas ici du problrne de cette Iigne IatraIe qui a t examin.si
brillamment par mai mirlent cdIgue et ami, le professeur MaIintoppi, avec
les concIusions de qui je suis, bien vide~nn~erir, d'accord.
Le champ de 171ontude tant ainsi delimit. iI m'apparait ncessaire avant
d'examirrer Ie p~oblmede Ia PI-etenduer-nnaissane internationde de cette
Iigne, de rappeler ses ~nuhlitsd5tabIissemerit et ses cara~&ristiquagnrais.

!. Les nrodalifc's d >inblisserna~r

Le inemoire trrisien, en son paragraphe 4.75, indique: <( En Turiisie, la
prkisiorr des f~-o11tie1-es
maritimes s'est faite prog1-essiverne~it.
i)
Cetk expi-essim sigiiifie que les delirnitations opres unilatralement on1
vari dans le temps. Les formules souvent enipIvyes, du type de tous (<

lemps ou encore depuis un temps imrnniorial i>pour caractriser Urie

souverainet tunisienne ii rnasqueiit en ralit une situation particuIireme~it
changeante.
La circulaire du 3 1 dcembi-e 1904 (1. p. 325-3741, souvent i~lvoqueeen Ia
matire. co~ilienttout d'abord dans son artide 29 une irrdicatiorr intressante.
Le paragraphe 5 abordant Ie-problnie de Ia m ~ i espongifre indique que
dans cette zone
<< gisent Ies bancs deponges lui~isierrs qui, bien que n'ayant jamais fait
1 20 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

i'objet d'une d1i~nitatiunprcise rgulire~nentnotifie aux puissa~rces,

oIir t de tous te~npsconsidrs comme depe~idarrcede la Rgence...i>
Un. prernier trait apparait donc pariicuIirement important : Ie Gouve1-ne-
Inent tuaisierr reconnaissail. la fin de l'anne 1304. aprs prs d'un quart de
sicle de protectorat que Ies bancs n'avaient jamais fait l'objet dlu~ie
dIrmitation prcise el qu'aucune notification ~i'avaitt rgulirement faite
aux puissances.
Poursuivani SQII anaIyse IarticIe 29 dans SOII paragraphe 5 rappeIle :
rr Du temps du fer~nageIpoque qui est cIose en 18921, la portion de
mer soumise Idjudication lait Iirnitk par I'usage, d'un cet par le
rivage. de l'autre par une Iigne parlant de Ras Kapoudia. contournant au
large Ies bancs des Kerkerrrrah et de II se dirigea111ert Iigne droite vers la
f~-ontiretripolitaine. i>
Ainsi est voque une premire deIirnitatioil qui aurait t uti1is-k au temps
du fermage.
Ainsi que I'i~rdiquele COII~I-e-memoire Iibyen (11) err son paragraphe II3
cette dlimitation aurait t dfirrie par une ligne droite joignant Ia Iimite Ia glus
orie11laIedes ba~icsdes Kerkennah. c'est--di1-eRas eI Mzebla, a Ixtrrnit du
banc d'EI Atiaya, et Ia frontire avec la Tripolitaine.
Cette frontire terrestre Iie fera I'objer. on Ie sait, d'une delimitation prcise
qu'avec Ia co~iventiunde 19 1 O. C'esl-i-dire qu'ava~it1892 et A la priode du
fermage Ia frorriire nsi pas dfinie d'une manire prcise et se trouve, en tout
cas, a Ibuest de Ras Ajdir.
Cette Iig~redont IrticIe 29 de Iir c~rcuIairede 1904 dit qu'eIIe aurait t
co~isacrepar I'usage est trs proclie d'une Iigne nord-sud. En effet si Ibn
adople Ras Ajdir cornrne poi~it frontire encore que ce ne fiit pas la
circo~~stance, si pour des raisv~isde simplificatio~run Iadopte, la Iigne Ras el
MzebIa/ Ras Ajdir a rine inclinaison de z0 1 5'.
Cette Iigne Ii~nitantvers le Iargc Ia portion de Ia inel-obiel du fer~nagea I
maintenue aprs Ia suppression du fe1-mage; eIIe nvait cerlainement pas fait
I'objet d'une notifrcatiorr ; elle ne se trouve pas rneritionnie sur I e s permis de
p&Ire dlivrs par iadministraton du fer~nage.EIIe rsultait de l'usage.
Servonnet et Lafille, dans Ieur ouvrage sur Ie goIfe de Gabs (p. 394Ln'ont
pas manqu de reIever, eIi s'en tunna111.l'imprcision du cahier des cllarges du
fermier quant Itendue et aux limites de Ia concessioii.
Quoi qu71 en soit, le paragraphe 7 de I'articIe 29 de Ia circuIaire de 1904.
propos de Ia Iigrre prcile. indique : {< Cette ddi~nitation toute fictive, et
qu'aucun signa1 exlrieur n'indiquait Ittention des intresses, continua Ftre
mise en wguerrr apres la supp1-essiondu fermage.
Ainsi que le reniaque Ia suite de I'articIe 29 iI ne pouvait rsulter de cette
situation que des incidents. Les pcheurs pris en contrave~ltionpar les pniches
garde-pkhe affirniaient qu'ils pchaient plus au Iarge que ne I'i~idiquaitIe
procs-verbaI.
La rrcesit d'urre so1utio1iprkise n'allait pas tarder a se faire sentir. U~ie
Iettre du rsident g~iral.au mirristre franais des affaires tra~igeres,en date
du 4 juiIIet 1902, es1 pa~ticulire~nent intressante cet ggard. on la trouve a
l'annexe 80 du i~~rnoire tunisic11(1).
La Iettre du rkident g~iralest eri effet une rponse une dpclre du
mi11ist1-e, portant le numero 242 et date du 9 mai 1902. Dans cette dpche. le
rnii~islrefaisait carirtaitre au rsident qu'ayant d saisi de protestations
italierrrres, en ce qui concerIie la dIirnitation de Ia zone de surveiIIance de Ia
 PLAIDOIRIE DE M. COLLIARD 121
pkhe des ponges dans Ie goIfe de Gabs, il avait propose au Gouverneme~rt
italien qu'une conimission mixte procde une reconnaissance des bancs.
Aprs Gette reconnaissance, Ie Gouvernement tunisien devrait procder aux
oprations de bahsage ncessaires et en notifier I'execrrtion aux gouvernemerrts
intresss.
Le rsident gnral, dans sa Iettre au rn~nistre.rnet Iccent sur Ies ciiffi-
F U I I ~ Spratiques de I'operation de balisage sur une Iigne brise longue de
470 kilometres. sur Ie nombre wnsidrable de boues et batiss qui serait
ncessaire, sur Les risques de ce balisage et sur Ia faibIe visibiiii&des b r i k Ia nuit
par Iemps de brri~ne.
Le rsident gnra1 suggrait une autre suIirtion ti-ssimple, pernlettant de
dterminer un critrium infaiIIible pour qrie les pcheurs sachent s'ils se
trouvent ou non dans la zone soumise Ia pate~ile.
Cette solution cst une Iigne de fo~ids.Une Iigne de fonds de 50 mtr-es
puisque, comme il a t indique plus Iraul. les bancs dponges les pIus riclles
de Ia cote tunisierr~resont presque tom en dec de cette profondeur >).
Cette formule avait videmment I'avantage de la sirnplicir. II existe une
sonde a bord de chaque bateau de pche, iI est donc facile d e vkrifier quelle
profonderrr on se trouve el par consquent si 1.011 est I'inlrieur ou
I'exterieur de la zone dans IaqueIIe Ie Gouver~iement tunisien exige Ia
posess~ond'une patente.
h Iettre du rsident gnrai et sa propmitiorr devaient tre suivies d'effet.
L'articie 29 de Ia circu1air-e de 1904 dispose darrs son paragraphe 8 que, pour
couper court aux diffrcirlrs rencorrtrks : <( jusqu' nocive1 ordre, le service des
p k h e s devra n'exercer sa surveiIIa~i~e que sur la portion de nier du goIfe de
Gabs comprise en d e de la Iigne des fonds de 50 mtres . (1, p. 344.1
Dans ses articles 52 et suivanls, Ia circuIaire parie <( Inslructiori pour Ie
servi= des chaIoups garde-pche charges de la surveiIIa~icede Ta pche des
ponges et des porripes a.
La zone surveiII# est dfinie par I'articIe 52 et dfinit quatre zones, ou quatre
sous-mnessi Ibn prfre, dont Insernble mnstitue la zone de surveillance.
LR men~oiretunisien (1) reproduit, page I I dans son paragraphe 4.75, les
diverses zones de surveillance. telles qu'elles sont dfinies par I'articIe 62 de la
cil-cuIaire.
Ainsi apparat I'ktabIissement. Un second probieme se pose, celui du
caractre de cette Iigne.

La circulaire du 3 1 dcembre 1904, texte de droit interne tunisien, a defrni la

ligne prcite de 50 mtres.
II convierrt d'en apprcier le caractre. car tracer une Iigrle ou adopter une
Iigne exislant dans Ia nature est une vperatiw juridique qu'iI corivient
d'ana1yser. L'dirde de Ia Iigrre fait appar-aitreun double caractere. 11 s'agit d'une
Iigne nouveile, i1 s'agit d'une Iigne de surveiIIance.
a) ti g ~lcluveJle
~
Ainsi qu'iI a ti!indique pIus haut a I'poque du fermage, c'est--dire en 1892
encore, et pIus Iongtemps ertsuite, la ligne extrieure de contr6Ie par Ie ferrnie1-
tait une Iigne Ras MzebIa-frontiret~-ipoiitane, Ia frontire je le rpte, ne se
Trouvant pas dors 5 Ras Ajdir mais pIus l'ouest.
La Iigne des 50 mtres de fond apparal d'une manire nouveIIe en 1904.
Un reIvera que dans I'ouvrage de Servonnet et Lafrtte, qui date de 1888.
122 PLATEAU COhTNEhTAL

existe une carte qui deiinit Ia Lirnite des bancs actueIImient, c'est--dire en
1888, expIoits, et que celte limite est tres en de d'une Iigne que Ies auteurs
proposent comme limite et qui est une Iigne non pas de 51) mtres mais bien
i~ifrieu~~. On lrouvera cette carfe dans Ie contre- nm moire I~bjren,c'est une
carle qui est place entre la page 42 et 43 (II, p. 1851. <( Carte d'ensenibIe du
golfe de Gabs. >1
Cette carte est prcieuse ca~- eIIe ~nonrreque Ies fv~idsexploifs en 1888
sont de ires faible profondeur et en tout cas Ir& en de de I'isobathe des
50 mtres, ce qui corespond a Ia redite de la cueilietk. Chle carte, pubIiee
Tunis, rduit ainsi ~iantI'affrrrnatio~ise1011Iaquelle Ia Iigne des fonds de
50 mtres et tk choisie en retrait par rapport aux pratiques antrieures
1 904.
Cette affirmation se prsenle sous deux formes.
Au paragraphe 4.77 du mmoire tunisien (11 iI est indiqu :
rt On pourraif, priori, seto~i~rer du cIioix de l'isobathe de 50 mtres
comme limite exlwne, si I'on co~isidreque. de Io~iguedate, Ies pcIrerrrs
turrisiens exeraie~itIeur i~idustriejusqu'a des profondeurs souvent bien
suprieures. >.
Cetle affirmation ne parait pas exacIe car la Iigne Ras MzebIa-frontire
tripolitai~recoupe parfois des fonds de 50 rnetres mais pas de fonds pIus
profonds.
Au paragraphe 4.78, I'afirmation est reprise d'une ~nanirediffere~ite:
(< It est trs impo~fantde rivler que Ia Iigne de 50 mtres. Ioin de
constituer un nouveI empilernent sur la haute mer, comme tant de
natio~rsy procderont dans I'ax~enir,apparai? au ~01111-aire comme en
retrait par rapport aux zoIies anterieurement concdes par IPS beys.
II a i not plus haut, a partir d'observations forrnuIes par Servorrnet et
Lafitle (p. 3941, que Ia zone coiicede n'tait pas dfinie avec pr&cision el la
circulaire de 1904, dans son article 29, paragraphe 5. Ioin d'i~rdiquer ce
prtendu retrait n~entio~rne co~nrneIini~leantkrieure cette ligne que j'ai dkj5
indique, Ia ligne Ras Mzebla-front~retripolilaine
En reaIrt la Iig~iedes 50 ~ntrescarrstitue uire Iigne avance, par rapport aux
usages antrieurs.
ta nouveaut >> de Ia Iigne des 50 mtres s'expIique car eIIe s'inscrit
parfaitement darrs Ie inorivenient que prsentait, vendredi, propos de Ia
frontiere terrestre, Ie professeur MaIintoppi. et qu'avant Iui ava~entinvoqu
I'agent de Ia Jarnahiriya arabe Iibyen~iepuis six Francis VaIIat.
Airrsi Ia Iig~reest nouveIIe, eIIe est gaIe~nentune Iigne dorit Ie sens doit etre
note, cst une Iigne de surveiIIance, de caractere adini~rrstratif.

Faisant alIusion au rgime du fermage, I'ariicle 29, je I'ai dj indiqu,

me~ilionnaitque :
Du temps du fermage, Ia pori~onde mer soumise a I'adjudicatio~i&lait
limite par I'rrsage. d'un #t par le rivage, de l'autre par une Iigne partant
de Ras Kapwdia, contournant au Iarge les bancs des Kerkennah et de I
se dirigea~rten Iigne droite vers la frontire tripoIitaine. >)

La (< Care des fonds spongifres de Ia Rgence , reproduite dans Ie contre-

memoire Iibyen (II, p. L841, reproduite-figure1.O1 de la rplique tunisieiine,
 PLAIDOIRIE DE h,l. COLLIARD 123
puisque la Tunisie n'avait pas cite cette carte auparavant. et qui comme
l'observe tres justement cette rplique a t tablie par Ia direction des travaux
publics suite a la.circulaireede 1904 et ultrieurement reproduite dans l'dition
de.1908 de l'ouvrage de De-,Fagesei Ponzevera sur Les pcic-lies ir~uritii~irs de lu
T i r i l i s i ~utilise
, comme Igendes juste accoles la ligne isobaihe des 50 mtres,
({ Limite des fonds de 50 metres ii el << Limite de Ia zone d'action des bateaux

garde-&he tunisiens 1). ta Iigne des 50 mtres dfinie dans u n texte de droit
interne qui n'al d'ailleurs qu'une circulaire, cette ligne est une ligne adminis-
trative dlimitant la zone d'action des baieaux garde-pche.
Et je voudrais maintenant passer a l'tude du second probIrne, la
reconnaissance internaiionale. Existe-1-11 OU non une reconnaissance inter-
nationale de cette ligne ?

Mes observations seront prsentes a partir de la remarque suivante :

La Iigne indique ci-dessus n'a pas t tabIie interrialionaIernent, eIIe a u n
caractre uniIateraI et eIIe n'a pas fait l'objet d'une reconnaissance non
quivoque de la communaut internationale, bien au contraire elle a t
formeIlernent conteste.
Reprenons ces poinrs.

L'adoption d'une dlimitation des bancs d'ponge a t faite par une

procedure purement interne, de caractre administratif et qui est celle de la
circulaire de I904.
Certes il eut t normal de concevoir une p r d d u r e de caractre
international dans la mesure oii Ia deIimimtion concerne se plaait dans des
espaces maritimes de haute mer, c'est-&dire au-del d e limites habituelles de la
mer territoriale.
Et d'ailleurs la formule de l'tablissement d'une ligne de dIirnitation par une
commission internationale a t envisage.
Au dbut du XXc sicIe on la trouve dans la lettre du ministre des affaires
trangres franais au rsident gEnEraI e n date du 9 mai 1902 et dans la
rponse de ceIui-ci en dare du 4 juiilel 1902. que j'ai cvoquees iI y a queIques
instants.
C'si prcikment dans cette rpone que le rsidenr gnral, pour des raisons
de commodit, propose a son ministre la Iigne des 50 mtres (voir 1 , mmoire
tunisien, annexe 80).
Le dbut et Ia fin de cette rponse du rsident gnral sont fort intressants
quant a la solution internationale de dIimiiation des b a n a .
Au dbut on y Iit :
<( Dans sa dpche no 242 du 9 mai dernier relative a la dlimitation de

la zone de surveiIlance de la pche des ponges dans le golfe de Gabs,

Votre ExceIlence me faisait connatre qu'elle avait propose au Gouverne-
ment royal d'Italie qu'une commission compose d'un dlgu ilalien,
d'un deIgue du Gouvernement franais et des reprsentanb de Ia Rgence
prenne passage sur u n navire et procde une reconnaissance des bancs.
-.-.------
I l- annartiendrait ensuite au Gouvernement tunisien d'effectuer les o k r a -
tiens de balisage necessaires et d'en notifier l'excution aux,gouvernements
intras&. i)
124 PLATEAU COXi-INENTAL

Ainsi apparait-il nettement que le Gouvernement franais envisageait une

opration de dIimitation de type cIassique avec une commission internatio-
nale, le Gouvernement tunisien se bornant effectuer uItrieurement Ies
oprations de balisage dont il en notifierait l'excution.
En proposant, dans le corps de sa Iettre, Ia soIution de Ia Iigne des 50 mtres,
le rsident gnral inventait une formule qui devait devenir celle de la circutaire
de t904 mais on doit noter, et ceIa apparait la lecrure des deux derniers
paragraphes de sa lettre, que le rsident gnral nnvisageait pas pour autan1
une dcision uriiIatraIe pour Ia Iigne qu'il proposait. Il proposail au contraire
que sa suggestion soit adopte internationalement. On y lit en effet : << Si cette
solution est adopte, la commission pourra discuter a Tunis,d'abord cartes en
mains et ensuite sur place, tous Ies detaiIs de la question. ii
Et il reprenait :
i< Si Votre ExceIIence veut bien, comme je I'espre, adopter Ies
suggestions qui prcdent, il conviendrait de prier le Gouvernement
italien de vouloir bien dsigner, sans pIus larder, le dlgu qui devra Ie
reprsenter dans la commission projete. Ce dlgu s'entendrait sur pIace
avec les autrs membres dj dsigns pour fixer I'epoque des runions et
la marche des travaux de la commission. i i
Ainsi, apparait-iI 5 Ividence que la Iigne des 50 mtres consiitue une
proposition que recommande la simpIicit et qui permet de mettre en uvre,
pour chaque bateau, Ia technique de la sonde. maisc'est II une solution qui doit
tre adopte en tani que principe de dlimitalion de la zone de surveillance, par
une commission, selon une procdure internationale.
Finalement, pour Ia ligne des 50 mtres, Ia sotuiion internationaIe ne fut pas
retentie. On ne trouveaucune mention dans Ies archives de la constitution et de
Ia runion d'une telle commission. Les indications contenuw dans la plaidoirie
orale (IV, p. 468) du 18 septembre concernant les travaux de cette commission
ne sont pas fondes. C'est selon une procdure purement unilateraIe que l'on
agira.
Ainsi s'explique tes dificuIts de reconnaissance de ces lignes par des Etats
trangers, L'atiitude italienne mrite d'tre examin& tout particuIikrement.

b} La i1o11-rrcoitiiaissaticeiri~ertiaiiorialede lu ligtie
La ligne qui n'avait pas t etabIie iriiernationaIemeni ne va pas tre t'objet,
et c'est I mon second point. d'une reconnaissance internationale. Dans les
paragraphes 4.89, 4.90, 4.91 et 4.92, le mmoire tunisien (1) insiste sur Ia
toIerance internationale de la souverainet tunisienne sur certains espaces
maritimes que le mmoire appelle <( golfe de Gabw i ) . Lw affirmations sont
souvent emphatiques.
Ainsi, trouve-t-on la formule dans le paragraphe 4.90 : A I'anciennete de
I'occupation tunisienne correspond au contraire le caractere immmoria1 de
l'acquiescement des autres puissances. ii
Faire remonter a des temps immmoriaux une deIimitation unilatrale
tablie en 1904 semble quelque peu exagr. Aflirmer Ie caractre immmorial
de l'acquiescement cette Iirnite, au demeurant reIativement raente, relve
d'une mthode analogue et constitue d7aiIleursune aIIgation inexacte comme
nous de dmontrerons plus loin.
Afirrner, toujours dans Ie mme paragraphe :
(< Depuis la haute Antiquit, il est accepte par tous que Ies picheries
 PLAIDOIRIE DE M. COLLIARD 125
fixes et Ies bancs d'epo~igeset de pouIpes qui s'avance~itbien au-deI des
Kerkennah font partie des eaux iunisiennes i1
est une formuIe qui a~neneIformuIer Ies observations suivantes :
- eIIe crie une confusion vdo~rtaireentre pcheries fixes et bancs d'Gpo~iges,
Ies premieres seules lant caracterisees, 011 I'a vu. par de trs faibIes
profondeurs ;
- eIIe cornpo1- une errerII-zooiogique sans i~nportanceeIi visant dei << bancs
de pwIpes i> alors qrre chacun sail que ce cpIiaIopode est uri anima1
mobiIe qui ~r'estpas lie au fond de Ia mer.
Le rnn~oireturrisien insiste sur Ia reconnaissance unani~ne,au paragra-
phe 4.91. alinka 2. sui- I'absence de toute opposition en IaqueIIe voqua111
1'arr-t de la Cour sur les PkcI~eries norvgiennes de 195 1 , il voit cetle
tolera~ice g~lraIe.forrdernenr d'une consoIidation historique (par. 4-89].
Ur-re tude raliste des probIrnes fait apparaitre I'irnprcision ou I'irrexacti-
tude de ces formuIes. On constate en effer I'absence de prcisions, I'absence de
recunrraissance for~neIIe,enfin Ia co~iteslationeIIe-rnme.

La thse tunisienne ne dfiriit pas Ies espaces dlimits ajors qu'il s'agit
videni~nentdes Ii~niksfixes par la circrrIaire de 1904.
EIIe ne pr-kisepas qu'iI s'agit d'une surveiIIance des neth ho des de p k h e et
rion pas d'une souve1-ainel,elle ne prcise pas que Ies conditions de pkhe
s'appIique111aussi bien aux Tunisiens qukux trarigers et q u e donc le probIme
est totaIe~nenldiffre~irde celui pose dans I'affai1-e des P k c i ~ e r~rorvgiennes.
~.~
Ces irnprkisions peuvent crer une confusiorr eIilre Ies espaces de pkheries
fixes et Ies bancs d'epongs, comme eiIes crent une confusio~ientre les Iirnites
de 1904 et des Iirnites antrieures situes f o ~eI1i de, Iorsqu'iI s'agissait de
bancs d'kponges.
ii f L Rlrsc.irc~de recuiriraissni~cv
JoI.I~~IIQ
Dans les paragraphes 4.97.4.98 et 4.99, le mmoire tunisien (1) me~ilionne
certains docunients en IaqueIs iI p~.itendtrorrver les preuva d'une rmrr-
naissance formeIIe des droits de Ia Tunisie.
Quatre textes i~iternationauxrious sont cits par Ia Trr~iisie,iIs sont PI-&ents
comme comportant reco~inaissancedes droits de Ia Tunisie SUI- des espaces
rnarilirnes.
On ne peut quetre fvrl tonn de c e affirmations. Tout d'aboi-d, s'agissant
des Irvis conventions, eIIes sont fort espaces dans Ie temps et on conslale
qu'eIIes ne concernent absoIu~nentpas Ie probIme dont il s'agit. Quant au
quatrime texse, il n'est pas une convention et c'est un puint qrre irous ailuns
voir. Err ce qui concerne Ies trois conventions. tout dlabo1-d. Bi on Iit Ia
wrrverrtion de dIi~nitatiundes frontires entre la Tunisie el Ia Tripditaine, du
1 9 rnai 191O, texte que le paragraphe 4.99 d u mmoire tunisien appelleaccord,
et qui est Ie p~.eniiertexte i~ivoqu,011constate qu'iI s'agit de Ia frontire
lerrestre teIie qu'elie s'tend de Ras Ajdir 2 Ghadams, dans la directiorr nord-
sud.
Ce texte ne peut et1.e invoqu paI- la Tunisie 2 l'appui de ses PI-ie~itions sur
des espaces maritimes. En efTet, I'interprtalion normaIe de ce lexte est qu'iI
s'agit d'une frontikre terrestre. II n'a aucune incidence sur le problme des
fruntiE1-es~naritin~es entre Ia Tunisie et Ia TripoIitaine, c'at--dire actuellement
Ia Libye. D'aiIieurs Ie professeur Ben Achour I'a affirme (IV,p. 5871 et Ies
125 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

&I-iturestu~iisierrnes,avant lui, I'avaient re~narqu.Donc. voici un premier

texte que Ibn ne saurait invoquer.
Le second trait, invoqu par la Tunisie. est Ie Irait de fraternil et de boii
voisinage concIu entre Ie Royaurne de Libye et Ie Royaunie de Tunis Ie
7 janvier 1957. Ce texte comporte dix arcIes.
J'en ai fait Ia Iecture la pIus attentive, nu11seuIenient des arlicles du trait,
mais aussi du prianibule, et je n'y ai pas trouv Ia moir.rd~'emention d'urie
ddimibtion territuriaie. La citation de ce t~ait,que 1.011 trouvera d'ailleurs
I'annexe PZ au in~noiretunisien !I), n'a do~icaucun rapport avec notre
prubIme et ne fournit aucun argument pour urre prtendue reconnaissance.
Troisime texte : la convention d'kiaMissernent du 14 juin 1961 entre le
Gouvernement de Ia RepubIique tunisienne et Ie Gouverneme~ildu Ruyaume-
Uni de Libye. Ici encore, Ia lecture attentive de la convention ne per-metpas de
trouwr la nioindre aIIusion a des deIimitations ~naritimes.
L'ensemble des trois textes n'apporte donc arrcun argument i la thse
tunisienne.
AIors, iI faut aborder Itude du quatrime texte invoqu par Ia Tunisie et
qui, d'aiIIeurs, chronvIugiqueme~itse trouve tre Ie pIus ancien. II est reproduit
a I'anrrexe 83 au mmoire tunisie~i0) sous I'intitu1 Texte de ia corrvention
du 23 rnars 1870 reIatif a la dette trangere de Ia Rgene i>.
Je dois signaIer que Ie titre officiel de ce ducume~it~r'estpas convenliun >i.
11 s'agit d'un arrangein~itcanclu et sigrr par les nienibi-esd'une coininision
excutive tenant ses pouvoirs d'un dcret beylical du 5 juiIIet 869.
Dans le Rccitrii De CIerq, au tome XV, supplernerrt 17 13-1885. et a Ia
page 5'40 de ce recueil, dont Ie texte est reproduit dans I'annexe 32 au contre-
rnrnoire libyen sous son nom vriiable : Arrange~ne~it d6finitif de Ia dette
gnraIe turrisienne, arrt le 23 mars 1870, par Ia c#inrnissoii fr~rancire
insritue par Ie dcret de 1869 i>, il est i~idiqula prkisio~isuivante par I'auteur
du recueiI : Le docu~nentest sign par tous Ies membres de Ia cvrnniission,
avec Ie sceau du bey et la signature du premier ministre. ii Cet arrangement,
Monsieur Ie Prsident, doii tre I-epIa&dans soi] co~rlexlepropre.
La poIitique financire genraIe des beys de Tunis avait t au milieu du
XIXrsiecIe fort peu rigoureuse, de teIIe soIie que I'endetteme~itde la Rgenm
vis-a-vis des rmriissants de diversa puissances europenns devint #mi-
drabIe.
Une commission financiere internatiunaIe fut constitue, compose de
reprse~itanlsde la France. de Ia Grande-Bretagne et de I'ItaIie, intervenant
porrr Ies creanciers du bey des trois nationaIits. Ses travaux aboutirent urr
arrangernent fmancier, rduisant quelque peu Ia dette du bey qui, en klrange,
s'engageait arecter divers i r n p 8 ~et revenus au service de la dette et son
amortissement porrr un montant total de 6 505 000 francs.
%Ion l'arrangement le bey cde spontarrement, Iibre~ne~rt
(< et dans Ie plein
exercice de ses pouvoirs souverains... ii divers revenus. Ces revenus sont
numrs dans une Iiste qui comporte urre trentaine de rub1-iques,pour le Iota1
que je viens d'indiquer.
Parmi ces I-evenus, cete des droih de douane, du tinib1-e,du droit srIr Ies
vins, etc., figurent les produits des fer~nages: fermage des tabacs, fermage du
plaire, fer~nagedu sei, fermage du poisson et fermage des poulpes et des
ponges.
La these tunisienne es1 que le texte de 1870 a un caraclre fondamenta1 et
consacre d'une ~narrireirrefutabIe Ies droiis de Ia Tunisie. On Iit, en effet. au
paragraphe 4.98, la note 127 11, p. 1091: r. 11 s'agit d'une reconnaissance
internatronale d'une impona~icecapi&Ie et d'urre grande vri1eu1-probante. )>
Et se trouve ajout le curieux argument : D8iIIeurs celte convention a t
({

cite par un trs grand nombre d'auteurs. On trouve dans Ia suite de la note la
reference A trois auteurs, et en mme temps que Ia rfrence, pour l'un des
trois auteurs seulement, le texte de celui-ci.
La premire citation mane de Gilbert Gidel. qui indique a la note 2 de la
page 492 (et non 49 1 comme l'indique le mmoire tunisien) :
i( Cet arrangement. approuv par dcret beyIical du 25 mars 1870, et
place, quant a son excution sous Ia sauvegarde des trois gouvernements
europens susindiquk, intresse la matire des pcheries sdentaires en ce
que les puissances signataires de la convention avaient formellement
reconnu la solidit et la validit des imp6ts et revenus sur IesqueIs etait
base Ia garantie du passif rserv el que parmi ces revenus figure
prcisment le fermage des ponges et des pouIpes qui est explicitement
inscrit dans l'arrangement pour une somme annuelle de francs 55 000. H
Cette citation est clairante car elIe fait apparatre une confusion qui consiste
voquer une convention du 23 mars 1 870. Cette confusion es1 celle qui a t
commise. comme je I'ai indiqu plus haut, par le mmoire tunisien dont
l'annexe 83 fournit Ie .(( Texte de la convention du 23 mars I 870 reIatif la
dette etrangere de la Rgence i i .
Comme je I'ai deja indiqu, l'intitul exact es1 tout diffrent : {( Arrangement
dfinitif de la dette gnrale tunisienne, arret le 23 mars 1870. par la
commission financire instituk par le dcret de 1869. Cet arrangement est
>)

tabli par le comit exkutif pour mettre'a excution un projet d'arrangement

deji approuv par Ie comit de contrIe de la deiie et signe par Ie bey. Cet
arrangement est u n texte purement financier.
Je rappelLerai en effer que, dans le R~>cireiiDe CLerq (p. 537-5391, iI est
indique que le comit excutif que je viens de mentionner est compos de la
manire suivante - c'est un texte manant du bey - (( de deux fonctionnaires
de notre gouvernement nommes par nous-mme et un inspecteur des finances
franpis, galement nomme par nous-mmeet pralablement dsign par Ie
gouvernement de S. M. I'Empereur i r (i1 s'agit de Napolon III).
Quant au comit de contrble, article IO du dcret, it est indiqu qu'iI est
compose de la manire suivante :
<( deux membres franais reprsentant les porteurs d'obligations des
emprunts (ce sont des personnes prives) de l'anne 1 863 et de I'anne
1865 ;de deux membres anglais el de deux membres italiens reprisentant
les porrenrs de titres de la dette intrieure. Chacun de ces dlgus recevra
directement son mandat des porteurs de titres des deux emprunts et des
porteurs de titres des conversions de notre royaume. ils en recevront avis
de nous par les soins du comit excutif. ii
Le caractre purement financier de cet arrangement est vident. Cet
arrangement, si je puis me permettre, Monsieur le Prsident, pour employer
une expression famitire, fait (( f l k h e de tout bois D. II mentionne des revenus
qui vont garantir le service de la dette.
Seules existent dans ce texte des proccupations financires.
IsoIer le fermage des p o u l p s et des ponges ii de l'ensemble des revenus
pour y voir la conscr~tjonformelle de drojis particuliers sur des espaces
maritimes constitue une interprtation des plus audacieuses el des pIus
artificielles.
J'ai deja indiqu que le fermage porte sur (ipouIpes et ponges er que Ies
))

poulpes ne sont pas une espce sdentaire. On notera aussi que, parmi les
128 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

revenus alimentant le service de Ia dette, et sous une autre rubrique, ligure Ia

{(ferme du poisson )i.Tirerait-on argument de ta prsence de cette ferme sur la
liste des revenus s'iI s'agit d'une reconnaissance de droits tunisiens sous Ies
eaux eIIes-mrnes ? On peut galement remarquer que figure parmi les revenus
une rubrique Droit sur la pche du corail >i.Or, par une convention relative a
<(

la pche du corail concIue le 24 octobre 1832 enire Ia France et la Rgence de

Tunis. Ia *he du corail est exerce par les Franais qui, selon I'article 1,
s'engagent a payer pour la ferme du corail 1 3 500 piastres de Tunis (voir Ie
texte de celte convention dans Ie nouveau recueiI de De Martens, Nortvcari
rc.citr4 de !miirr'J-.t. XIV. texte no 9).
En reaIiie, Ia ferme des ponges est une source de revenus q u i , autrefois (je
veux dire immdiatement encore avant l'arrangement), relevait du domaine
prive du bey et elle a t porte dans la Iiste de l'arrangement pour accrotre les
ressources de cette ferme qui comportait un aspect purement financier.
Au demeurant, Ie produit de cetle ferme. te1 qu'iI est mentionne sur Ia Iiste de
I'arrangement, parmi Ies trente rubriques, est faibIe. I I s'agit de 55 000 francs
sur u n total de 6 500 000. soit moins de un pour cent, comme l'a relev le
contre-mmoire libyen(1l)en son paragraphe 126, alina VI.
On notera au passage que cette somme de 55 000 francs est un errnage tres
faible, car le fermage du tabac est compt pour 220 000 francs, celui du sel
pour t IO 000. celui du pIatre pour 60 000 (cst te plus voisin) el ceIui du
poisson pour IO0 000.
II apparat vraiment difficile de sourenir que, par Ia simple menrion d'un
revenu financier aussi modeste sur une liste de ressources affectes tablie par
un comit financier ait pu tre ralise une reconnaissance formelle de droits
sur des espaces maricimes dont, au demeurant, IEpoque. aucune dlimitation
n'existait.
II est vident que l'arrangement n'est pas une convention internationale et
qu'iI ne contient aucune reconnaissance internationaIe de droits souverains de
Ia Tunisie. J'avoue que, affrrmer Ie contraire, me parait absolumeni impossibIe.
Et en outre, si, pour un inslant, nous supposions que ce texte est ce qu'il nst
pas, une convention internationale, il serair singulier que ce texte signifie Ia
reconnaissance formellc des droits de la Tunisie sur ce que la Partie adverse
appeIIe Ia zone spongifre, et ceci pour Ies raisons suivantes r premirernent, le
revenu des ponges est, en 1869, un revenu patrimonia1 du bey.
S'agissant d'une mesure financire, le bey peut la prendre ei faire glisser, si
jose dire, ce revenu de son patrimoine dans les caisses de I'Eiat mais faire
prsenter ce glissement comme une reconnaissance de souverainet et exige
une mention formelle.
Deuximement, ta reconnaissance d'une prtendue souverainet sur des
espaces maritimes, ft-ce le fond de la mer, n'aurait pu se faire sans une
indication gographique de ces espaces : il et fallu viser ces espaces, ils ne sont
pas vies, ou le problme n'est pas abord ;annexer une carte, il n'y en a pas.
Mais, troisimement, mme si Ibn admet, toujours pour la simple poursuite
d'un raisonnement, qu'il y ait eu une reconnaissance, comment peu t-on
imaginer qu'elle aurait porte sur la ligne des 50 mtres ? La pseudo-convention
- ie vritable arrangement financier - est de 1870. Comment pouvait-on
reconnatre l'avance en I 870 une ligne qui ne sera adopte unilaleralement
que trente-quatre ans plus lard ? Par quelle admirable primonition imagine-
rait-on en I 870 une ligne qu'ont simplement envisage au dbut du X X Csicle
des fonctionnaires franais au service de la Rgence ?
Comme en tmoigne la lettre du rsident gnral de 1902, n'oublions pas
que !a limite du fermage vers L'ouest. d'apres la circulaire de tg04 etle-mme,
 PLAIDOIRIE DE M. CULLIARD 129
est cette ligne droite tire entre l'extrmit du banc des Kerkennah et Ia
frontire tripolitaine. Et cette ligne, qui sera utilise pendant la priode du
fermage (et mme aprsl, nst en aucune maniere la ligne des 50 metres.
Peut-on raisonnablement, et c'ai Ie quatrime point, penser que Ies
signataires de I'arrangement eussent t si peu soucieux des interis de leur
pays pour reconnatre des droits de souverainetk sarla Ie dit-c expressment,
alors que leur dbiteur, le bey, tait dans une situation financire dsespre et
absoIument a leur merci ? Comment. d'ailleurs. imaginer que Ies signataires
auraient eu le pouvoir pour le faire ?Je vous ai indiqu, Monsieur le Prkident,
Messieurs les membres de la Cour, qu'ils taient Ies reprsentants des porreurs,
qu'il y avait parmi eux un inspecteur des finances, et qu'ils garantissaient des
dispositions financires.
Enfiil, derniere remarque, il ne Taui pas oublier que, lorsque le protectorat
sera institu, les fonctionnaires franais au service de Ia Rgence souiiennenl
une politique d'expansion vers Ist ; iIs imaginent prcisment de revendiquer
des limites pour fa pkhe des ponges. Or, quelques annes aprk t'etabtisse-
ment du protectorat, its sont loin de songer a la ligne des 50 mtres. Ce ne sera
que pour leurs successeurs, une quinzaine d'annes plus tard.
En 1888, en effet. Servonnei et Lafine deainenr la carte des revendica-
tions. EtIe figure dans les critures libyennes (contre-mmoire libyen, entre Ies
pages 42 et 43 [ I I , p. 1851) ;j'ai cit cette carte tout a l'heure (ci-dessusp. 1 2 1 -
122!. La revendication porte sur ta Iigne des fonds de 20 mtres. Comment.
lorsau'on a revendique 20 metres en 1 888, aurait-on pu imaginer 50 mtres
en 1870?
Mais d'aiIIeurs, vrai dire, et je vous en demande pardon, Monsieur le
Prsident, Messieurs les membres de la Cour, mon imagination tait en
mouvement, car j'imaginais l'hypothse OU iI se fut agi d'une vritable
convention, .mais ce ne l'est pas. L'arrangement de 1870 n'est pas une
convention, c'est un texte purement financier, ne comportant aucune allusion a
des espaces maritimes ; il n'est pas complt par une carte ; il ne peut tre
i n v q u comme impIiquant de quejque manire P Ia reconnaimnce interna-
tionaIe d'une Iigne.
Telle est donc la situation. En rsume, les trois conventions mentionnes
sont totalement muettes sur le problme des froniieres maritimes. Et Ie
quatrime texte invoque, qui n k t pas une convention, ne fournit pas
d'argument.
En raIit, la pratique internationale, ioin de faire apparatre une
reconnaissance ou une tolrane gnrales, fait apparatre des contatations
non quivoques, telles les lignes de la circuIaire de 1904, et ce sont ces
contestations que je voudrais p r k n t e r maintenant.
iii} Les ccoii~es~-rurioii~
JornreIIes d ~ /s{ ~ J I ~ S
II a t indiqu plus haut que le Gouvernement italien levait des protes-
tations a l'encontre de l'attitude tunisienne.
La rponse du rsident du 4 juitIet 1902 a la lettre du ministre du 9 mai
contient des indications prcises sur Ies rserves ilaliennes.
Toutefois, la circuIaire du 3 1 dcembre 1904 ne prend plus en considration
les observations italiennes et adopte uniIateraiement [es soIutions que I b n sait.
Quelques annes plus tard, l'attitude italienne se manifeste a nouveau. EIle
s'analyse, a la lecture des documents ci-dessous mentionns, en une double
contestation, Ia contestation de la ligne des fonds de 50 mlres, Ia contestation
de Ia ligne partant de Ras Ajdir en direction du nord-nordest.
Je ne parlerai pas de cette derniere ligne puisque le professeur MaIintoppi a
130 PLATEAU C O ~ I N E ~ A L

traite trs briIlamrnent dc cette question. l e me bornerai a Ia Iigne des

50 mtres.
Ce sont Ies diverses pices figurant comme annexe a la rplique libyenne
(IV), du 1 5 juillet 1 98 1 , volume 1, annexe 1- 1 5, qui kIairent Ie problme de la
Iigne des fonds de 50 metres.
Des recherches d'archive que nous avons enireprises ont permis de trouver
cette pice. ElIe est fondamentale.
Une note du ministre franais des affaires trangres, en date du 1 aot
19 1 1 (lV, rplique libyenne, annexe 1-1 5, no 51, rappelle Ies lments essentiels
de I'attitude italienne en 1902 et en 1 903 et les ngociations entreprises par Ie
Gouvernement franais, avec le Gouvernement italien, par l'intermdiaire de
I'ambassadeur de France a Rome, M.Barrre.
Il est prcis en particulier que le Gouvernement italien avait propos la
runion d'une confrence internationaIe, que le Gouvernement franais avait
propos Ia fixation des limites de [a zone par des dlegus techniques du
Gouvernement iialien et d u Gouvernement tunisien.
Puis, finalement :
({ on a demand au Gouvernement italien d'admettre que le droit de poIice

du Gouvernement tunisien s'tiendrait a Ia Iimite des fonds de ciiiqirarrre

inktres, fonds qu'il a t facile de dterminer sur la carte et aussi dans la
pratique, s'il y a une contetation entre les contrevenants et les gardes-
pche, par u n coup de sonde.
LR Gouvernement itaIien n'a pas oppose un <( non possumus i i cette
nouvelIe proposition mais il a cherche a la rduire quant ses
consquences et il s'est dclar prt a reconnaitre au Gouvernement
tunisien les droits de poIice dans l'tendue des fonds de frrrrre trrir~s.
A ce moment les pourparlers on1 t interrompus et la question est
reste en suspens. )>
Ainsi, le Gouvernement itaIien a contest la ligne des 50 mtres.
Le probIme est galement expos dans Ia lettre, en date du 15 mai 191 1 ,
adrese par le rsident gnra1 de France Tunis au ministre franais des
affaires trangers (IV, annexe 1- I 5 prcite figurant a Ia rplique Iibyenne,
nu 4, p. 262-2651, On lit dans cette Iettre, concernant la proposition de la Iigne
des 50 mtres :
<iCes propositions furent soumises au Gouvernement M i e n qui se
dclara dispose accepter Ic principe de la dlimitation suggre par Ie
Gouvernement tunisien pour la dtermination des bancs de pche, a
condition que l'on admit la profondeur de 30 mtres. i i (P. 264.)
Ainsi se trouve, une noi!\?elle fois, confirme I'opposition italienne a Ia
rorrnule des 50 mtres.
Cette contestauon est formutee galement dans I'aide-mmoire italien du
3 mai 191 1 que, Monsieur Ie Prsident, Messieurs les membres de Ia Cour,
vous trouverez l'annexe 1- 1 5 de Ia rplique libyenne (IV, p. 259-2601. Je cite,
a propos de la capture de deux bateaux italiens, I'Uitioiie et le Toriiio. par les
autorits tunisieiiiies :
Cette question a forme l'objet d'un examen approfondi de la part du
Gouvernement royal, qui a t amen rechercher 1 s traces de
conventions ou wtres actes fixant les limites de Ia zone de *he des
ponges sur les a i t a tunisienna.
Des recherches efectuks il rsulte que non seulement aucun document
international n'a t signe par l'Italie en ce q u i concerne la question de Ia
 PLIII W I R I E IIE M. COLLlARD 131
deiimitation de pche tunisienne mais qu'aussi les droits de proprit de Ia
Rgence de Tunis sur cette partie de mer ne peuvent trouver u n appui
quelconque sur un trait international signe par le gouvernement du Roi.
En effet, les seuls documents officiels Ia connaissance du dpartement
royaI des affaires trangres, traitant la question dont il s'agit. sont des
dcrets, arrts, elc., acta unilatraux d'administration intrieure n'enga-
geant que Ia partie qui le a mis, et ne pouvani mme pas, par reconnais-
sance tacite, constituer un rapport juridique dbbiigation internationaie. ii
Le ministre franais des affaires trangres fut tris sensible a l'attitude de
contestation du Gouvernement royal.
II Ia signale au rsident gnral de France a Tunis, par un teIegramme du
5 mai 191 1, dans les termes suivants :
i( Le Couver ncrnenr ilalien ayaiit mani reste I'intcnrion de conrcster

theoriqucmeni les droits du ~ o u v e r t i e m e n trunisicn a rgIetncntcr la

p k h e dcs ponges sur Ies bancs situes su-deli de la limite des eaux
territoriales. je vous prie de m'adresser ... ai (IV. p. 260.no 2.1
Le ministre ajoute qu'on pourrai! menacer le Gouvernement itaIien de la
dnonciation du trait de 1896 comportani des faciIiis de pche s'iI s'obstinait
contester les droits du Gouvernement tunisien {jbid.),ce q u i monire que Ie
ministre ne considre pas ia situation juridique des preten~ionsde Ia Rgence
comme ires solides puisqu'il y imagine une mesure ou I'empIoi eventueI d'une
mesure de rtorsion.
Ce mme embarras est exprime dans la lettre envoye Ie 8 mai 19 1 1 par le
ministre franais des affaires trangres a l'ambassadeur de France Rome,
M. Barrere.
On lit, en effet (voir annexe 1 - I 5 , IV, p. 2621, aprs quut t rappeIe la
formule de la Iigne des 50 metres :
i<Sans doute, le Gouvernement italien n'a jamais reconnu express-
ment cet tat de fait q u i profite pour une si large part a ses nationaux.
Sans doute, dans Ia rigueur du droit et des principes, peut-il dclarer que
cette situation <( mme par reconnaissance tacite ii ne constitue pas u n
rapport juridique dVobIigationinternationaie. i i
Le ministre recorinut ainsi ta faiblesse juridique de la position. II amorce
aIors une double manuvre dont il prcise Ies lignes a l'ambassadeur. Il
conviendra de stonner a Igard du Gouvernement italien d'une attitude
inamicale, il convient de rappeler au Gouvernement M i e n que la convention
de commerce et de navigation iiaIo-tunisienne pourrait devenir caduque dans
Ie dlai d'un an, et de conclure : <( Le Gouvernement italien comprendrait alors
qu'il s'est bnvolement expos a un srieux risque. >i (Ibid.)
Mais les mesures de rtorsion envisages montrent prcisment qu'une
argumentation juridique directe n'est pas possible.
Le Gouvernement italien n'a pas reconnu !a Iigne des 50 metres.
La Iigne des 50 metres a t conteste de Ia manire Ia plus formelle dans les
annes qui ont suivi la m e u r e unilatrale I'ayant dicte.
En 1 9 I 1 [a Iigne n'est pas accepte. Dans la note du ICraout 1 9 1 1 du
ministre des affaires trangres (annexe 1-1 5, I V , p. 265) on peut lire ces
rorrnules significatives : il importe absolument, si l'on recourt a une nouvelle
((

ngociation, de rklamer trs nergiquement l'adhsion du Gouvernement

italien a Ia limite des fonds de cir~quarrlenri'Ires i>.
Rclamer trs nergiquement son adhsion, c'est la preuve qu'il n'avait pas
adhr.
132 PLATEAU C O M I N E M A L

Et une autre phrase, terminate, en conclusion de la dpche : II parait donc

((

que nous devons arriver i convaincre Ie Gouvernement italien de Ia Iegimite de

notre proposition en ce qui concerne Ies fonds de cinquante mtres. i i
I I e s ainsi manifeste que cette fameuse ligne n'est au plan internaiional
qu'une proposition i i .
<(

La thse tunisienne d'une reconnaissance traditionnelle et manifeste est une

affirmation mais Ia ralit dipIornatique ainsi qu'en tmoignent les pices
d'archives, que je m'excuse, Monsieur Ie Prsident, Messieurs Ies membres de
Ia Cour, d'avoir cites si frquemment et si longuement mais elles sont
dcisives et le prouvent, est tout autre.
La conscration de l'histoire i>(IV, p. 465) invoque par la Partie adverse,
<(

ne joue pas dans le sens qui a t suggr.

Il!. Dtir droi~sil /risioriqzies .ii, aux t-~~.leittrnrurioi~s

i~rodr~ic.s
:
1 ~ cui~~rudctioris
s
Le troisime point que je voudrais aborder est Ie point des rglementations
modernes, des rglementations unilatrales modernes, concernant tes espaces
maritimes et ce n'est pas sans un certain sentiment d'inquitude que j'aborde
cette partie qui au demeuranr ne sera pas ta plus longue de mon expos.
Ce sentiment d'inquitude trouve son origine dans la formule tres svre de
mon exceIIent ami, Ie savani professeur Ren-Jean Dupuy, qui, dans sa
plaidoirie orale, a dclar que l'lude des regIemen1ations modernes prouve
{( que la Libye n'a rien compris i i .

J'encours donc son reproche si je poursuis cette tude avec toutefois

quelques sentiments qui me rassurent. D'une part, parce que lorsqu'il disait que
Ia Libye n'avait rien compris, il visait des critures &rites Iibyennes et iI se
trouve que ce passage n'avait pas t crit. D'autre parl, je me sens rassur dans
la m a u r e o i ~
le mmoire tunisien (1) dans son chapitre IV, consacr aux droits
historiques, tudie sous la rubrique (( La fixation des frontires maritimes u,
pour une priode qu'il appeIIe <iIpoque coloniale et post-coloniale i i , non
seuIement la fameuse instruction de I904 mais aussi des textes pIus rkcents, le
dcret beylicaI de 1 95 1 . les lois de 1963 et de 1 973.
I I me semble qu'en reprenant une tude qui est amorce dans les critures
tunisiennes, j'chappe la svre condamnation que je rappelais.
Bien videmment je comblerai en outre une lacune puisque jludierai la loi
du 6 octobre 1962 curieusement absente des critures tunisiennes, mais ce
faisant je resterai dans Ie domaine du lit de la mer et de la souverainet puisqu'it
s'agit de la mer territoriale et peut-tre mme ai-je le sentiment d'tre plus fidle
a Ia notion de tir de la mer que les critures tunisiennes elles-rnrnes qui sous
le titre gnral (( Exercice de la souverainet tunisienne sur les pkheries
sdentaires a raison des especes caplures i) traitent de textes qui portent
egalemenl sur la pche dans les eaux suriacentes de sit~iintiii~rgjislirrirs~
J'affronterai donc Ie risque de paratre n'avoir rien compris en procdant a
l'examen des nouvelles rglementations.
Je le ferai en distinguant deux probImes differents. Le premier est celui des
textes tunisiens, le second es! celui des accords de piches interdites.

Le rgime de l'instruction du 3 1 dcembre 1904 considr comme Ie rgime

(i historique )) a subi bien des modifications depuis trois quarts de sicle.
Et on pourrai! montrer tes variations des textes tunisiens puisqu'iIs ont er
 PLAIDDIRIE DE hj COLLIARD 133

rnultrples en une tre~ilained'annes : dcret di: 195 1, Iui de 1952 trs

kmporaire. loi de 1953 relativement temporaire. elle a dur dix ans, et enfin Ies
textes plus rcenis de 1973.
L'exarne~rde ces textes s'iI est entrepris minutieusement est videmment UII
lravaiI tres long et trs Iourd, aussi je CI-oisqu'iI faut se borner a qrreIques
poinis principaux.

Le dcret de 1951 chappe B Ia condamnatio~rdans Ia m c w r e o iI est situ

et dveloppe dans Ies critures tunisienrres et d'autre part il ne corrcerne pas
simplement Ies eaux suriacentes bien qu'il s'agisse d'un texte portant sur Ia
pkhe car son chapitre III traite de la pche des ponges.

C'est un texte fondamental. POUI-des raisons que nous aurons exposer, il

est [ofalement absent des critures tunisie~ines.TouIefois son tude n'est pas
corrdamnab1e puisqrr'il cree une zone de meI- te^-ritoriaIe et que donc il traite d u
fond de ia Iner.

3. Lir loi dji 6 dkrembm 1953

Ce texte est important, et doubIe~nent,dans Ia inesure o il abroge le texte
qui Ig prcd et o iI marque un retrait des prete~itionstnnisieri~ressur les
espaces maritimes.

4. La loi du 2 aorir 1973 CS IL= dcc~rrdu 3 rri~~wnbrr

197.3
Les textes de 1973. la Ioi et le dcret, crent une trs large zone de mer
territoriale tunisienne.
195 1 , 1962. 1 953, 1973. cela fait beaucoup de textes. Mais les notio~isaussi
ont subi des nod di fi cations en ce sens que le rgime des espaces maritimes esf
appa1-uco~nrnecomplexe dans sorr evoIution.
On a utilis toutes les nolions q u e le droit international utiIise sur desespaces
~nariti~nes. On a ainsi adopt Ia notio~rde r< zone de pklie >i.On a <( zone de
pkhe ~serve>> ( 19511puis mer territoriale I 1962)puis o n est reveIru a une
zorre de pche suus le nom de zorre contigue >i 1963)et puis on a de nouveau
territorialis pIrrs Iarge~neiltavec les textes de 1973.
Dans cet e~rsen~bIe de textes divei-s,je voudrais indiquer qu'iI y a un dernent
reIativenient fixe, la prtentio~~ Ia zone des 50 nrrres et aussi la Ii~nite
lateraie dont mon coIIgue el professeur Maii~itoppia parIi: et dmontr Ia non-
reconnaissance i~iternationale.
Par aiIIeurs, au nord c'est sur le parallle de Ras Kapoudia que I'on v a jouer
pour allei~idreIa Iigne des 50 ~ntresavec des variations qui tia111e111 a un
Irnent q u i est normaI, c'est que la Iargeur de Ia mer territoriaIe, iI y a quelques
annes encore, tait Ibbjet de rnir&tions territoriales
Ce n'est p a ce problrire qui me proccupa Ilrais celui des dr.r)its qui vont
tre non reconnus dans cette zone qui est ta11161une zone de pkIre rserve,
ta1ir2rt une zone de mer territoriale, tant& rine zone contigue Iqrii es1 une
variarrte de Ia zone de pche rservk), et qui ta11161est incIuse pou1-partie dans
une autre regIe~nentationde Ia mer territaide.
Rrnii les textes les plus importants, nous avorrs d'abord le dcret du
1 34 PLATEAU COPITINENAL

26 juiIIet 1951. II est trait dans Ie inemoire tunisien, pages I 13 et 1 14. Son
texle figure a l'annexe 84 (1). II dcrivait une zone de pkhe rserve dans
IaqueIIe seuIs pourront pkher les Tunisie~rset Ies FI-anqais.Nous somnies en
195 1 , c'est encore Ie protectorat.
Ce lexre va tre remplak par Ia Ioi 62-35 du 16 uctobre 1962. Je voudrais,
Monsieur Ie Prsident, Messieurs Ies membres de ia Cour, altirer votre
alterition sur ce texle.
II abroge IrlicIe 3 du dcret du 26 jriiIIet 1951 et Ie rempIace par des
disposi~ionsseIon IesqueIIes iI est insfaur un rgirne t 1 . h diffr~ntde mer
territoriale suivarrt que nous nous trouvons ou Iion dans uIre certaine latitude.
De Ia frontire tuniso-aIgerienne Ras Kapoudia, il y a uri 1-gimeparticulier
de Iner teri-itoriale. On le trouvera dans Ies critures rernises au Greffe. Mais il
est i~iutiIeque je Iasse Ia patience de Ia Cour sur ce point qrii n'a pas de rapport
direcr avec rrorre question.
Ensuite, de Ras Kapoudia Ia frontire tuniso-Iibyenne, la mer rerritoriale
est celte partie de la mer Iimite par une Iigne qui, partant du po111t
d'aboutissement de la Iigne des 12 rniIks dcrite ci-dessus, rejoi~iisur Ie
paraUeIe de Ras Kapoudia I'isobathedes 50 ~nlreset sui1celle isobathe jrrsqu'i
son point de renconrre avec une Iigne partant de Ras Ajdir en direction du
nord-est - Z V = 4 5 O . .
On voit ainsi que Ia loi de 1962 uliIise Ia notiori de mer territoriale avec une
distirrction ggographique importante.
Un se trouve donc I en prgsence d'Lr~ierevendication tunisienne absolument
~iouvelk.A la pIace de terre zone de haute mer sur IaquelIe s'exercent Ies droits
de sumeiI1ance ou de riserve de p d i e , rrous passons maintenant a Ia mer
lerritoriale.
Le memoire tunisien est parfaiteme~itdiscret. II ne cire pas Ia Ioi de 1961.
L'annexe ducurneniaire co~ilie~it, comme document 84, le dcret beyIicaI de
195 I et coinnie docurne~rt85 Ia Ioi de 1 953 (no53-49 du 30 dce1nb1.e1 9531.
Celle omissi011 esr pariicu11erernent-regrettabIe. EUe est compense dans Ies
6c1'ituresIibyerr~iespar Ia citarion de ce l e x i e (a~r~rcxe
1-1 5 a u ~nn-roireIibyt.11,
I , p. 533, contenant Ia Ioi tunisie~inede 1962 teIIe qu'elle apparaa au .ioiin~trl
r<ff;ciefde Ia Rpublique tunisienne - no 53 d u 15 octobre 1962,publiant la loi
nu 62-35 du mme jour).
Certes. la loi tu~~isie~i~ie
de 1962 a t abroge par une Ioi de dcembre 1963
et iI ne s'agit, en effet, que d'un texte de caractre te~nporaire.Mais prcisement
ce caractre temporaire, cette substitution si rapide d'un texte un autre, n'est
pas queIque chose de fortuit.
~ Ie texte de 1962 a d erre retiri devant Ies PI-otwtations,devant
E I effet
I'ampleur des protestatiorrs principaIement italiennes. La Tunisie a t arne~ik
a conclure avec I'ItaIie un accord de p k h e le le' fvrier 1963. que nous
tudierons plus loi11et qui adoptait une soIu1io1r co~itraire la loi d'ocIobre
1962.
La concIusion de cet accord avec I'ItaIie devait e~ilrai~ier I'adoption de
1iouve1Iesdispasitions de droit inkrne, ainsi s7expGquele rempIace~nentde Ia
Ioi du 15 octobre I 962 par une loi nouveIIe no 63-49 du 30 dcembre 1963.

Monsieur Ie Prside~it,Messieurs les membres de la Cour, Ia loi du

30 decembre 1963 s'es1 substituk la Ioi du 16 octobre 1952. Le mmoire
tunisien (1) qui, je Ie rpkte, ne cite pas la loi de 1 962, cite, au contraire, Ia loi de
 PLAIDOIRIE DE M COLLIARD 135
1963. au paragraphe 4.82. en nientio~inantqu'eIIe poire nod di fi cation du dcret
du 25 juillet 1951 et en mentionnant que (( ce texte perrnet dsormais aux seuls
navires batlant pavilIon tunisien de pl-atiquer la pcI.ie dans une zone dfinie
par IricIe premier .
Le caractre de la formule est particuIirement eIIiptique en r;e serrs que
certes le titre de Ia Ioi de 1963 est bien : Loi nQ 63-49 du 30 dcembre 1953
portant modification du dcret d u 26 jrriIIet 1951 portant refonte de la
IgisIation de Ia poIice de Ia pkhe i,, mais tout de meme iI rre Faut pas oublier. et
IarlicIe premier de cette nouveIle loi ne manque pas de donner la precision,
que : LrticIe 3 du dcret dri 25 juilIet 1951 ..., te1 qu'iI a t modifi par Ia Iui
na 52-35 du 16 wtub1-e 1962, es1 abrog et re~npIacepar Ies dispositions
suivarrtes... i> (1, mmoire tu~iisien,aIiIiexe 85.)
Aulrenient dit ce qui est modifi ce n'est pas seulenient Ie dicret de 1951.
c'est Ia modification par rapport 1962 qui est particuIire~nenlirnporlante.
La loi de 1962, avais-je fait remarquer. instaurait rrIre rner krritoriale dans la
fameuse zone. Au contraire, en 1963 on revient une forrnuIe qui a te ceIIe du
dcrel de 1951 en empIoyant Ia notion de <c zorre co~itigue Ia nier
territoriale ;cst une variante Igere par rapport la for~nrrIede 1951 qui
empIoyait If X~I-ession (i zone de p k h e rserve .
VoiIH par consquent la transformation. L'articIe 3 devient :
Est ddnomrnk mer territoriale tunisie~~ne . de Ia frontire runiso-
algrienne Ia frontiire tuniso-libyenne et aulour des iIes adjace~~tes, la
partie de Ia mer comprise entre Ia laisse de basse mer et une Iigne paraIIE1e
trace 6 miIIes au large, Ixception du goIfe de Tunis qui, l'intrieur
de Ia Iigne cap Farina. ile Plant. ile Ze~nbraet cap Bon. est entierenlent
co~nprisdans Iadite mer.
Une zoIre co~ltigu Ia mer territoriaIe tu~iisien~ie teIIe qu'eIIe est dfi-
nie ci-dessus al rserve, dans IaqueIIe seuls des navires bartant paviIIon
tunisie~i[e~i1951 il y avait aussi des navires batta111paviIlon rranaisl
pourront tre autoriss pratiquer Ia p k h e .
Cette zone es1 dfinie [on retrouve les dcux zones de latitudej :
hl de Ras Kapoudia a la fro~iliretuniso-Iibyenne : par la partie de Ia
IneI-Ii~nitepar une ligne qui. parla111dri point dboutisseme~irde Ia Iigne
des 1 2 miIIes marins....rejoint sur IF pa1-aIleIe,[etc , nous retrouvons les
~n~nes fornluIesJ.v
Je voudrais m'arrter queIques inslants sur ia loi de 1963. Dbord par ce
que si on Iil Ie texte t r k attentivenlent on s'aperoit que la rferencc la
fa~neuseIigne de 45' se trouve pIacee non pas dans Ie premier paragraphe qui
dfinit Ia Iner lerr1101'iaIeturrisienne de Ia f~n'riretuniso-aIgerienne la
f ~ ~ n t i rtuniso-libyenne,
e cette rfrence se trouve pIace dans Ia partie
eoncer~iantla zone contigue d c'est evide~nrnerrtune formuIe assez curieuse
qui mrite d'tre note ei qu'or1 n e trouvait pas de Ia 1ne1nernarrire dans Ie
dcret de 1951.
Ilautre part, le rexte de 1963, qui est demeur en vigueirr pendant une
dizaine d a n i i k , a t appliqu. Les critures Iunisierr~res~nentio~inent
en effeI,
page 25 de Ia rpIique tunisienne {IV). un jugement du tribuna1 de Sfax du
25 amit 1955 qui est reproduit en annexe 11-7 Ia rplique turrisienne.
Je voudrais ce propos signaIer quelques trangets pou^. I'application de la
Ioi dans cette affaire.
LE bateau italien a t apprliend pIus de 30 miIles des cetes. La
conda~nnationprcise qu'iI pkhait dans Ies eaux ter-rituriales,ce qui est faux
130 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

d'aprs Ia loi eIle-nime. A cetle trangete judiciaire correspond l'tranget des

critures lunisiennes qui au sujet du prublkme drr banc spongifre Farwah ou
ba~icGreco cite~~t Ie jugement ci-dessus mentionn coInrne faisant justice des
prtentio~rslibyennes sur ce banc. Ce qui me parait elrange c'est qu'on utiIise
propos des droits sur Ies ponges un juge~nentnatioiial intervenu Ipropos
d'une pkhe de srilN~ii?ririg.firherics. Si on Iil Ie j~lgernenl on le voir
immdiatemen1 puisqu'il est questiorr de 527 kiIogrammes de poisson el qu'iI
est question aussi des fiIets du navire ildien. On Iie p k h e pas Ies po~igesaux
fiIets.
Sur Ie problme du banc Greco en tant que banc spongifkre. sur Ies droits
Iibyens, au stade actueI, on se reportera aux critures Iibyennes (contre-
mmoire libyen III). par! 127-143. et QII), annexes rechniques 3 et 4 audit
contre-m~noireldarrs IesqueIIes on trouve d s rSfre~icesk diverses rgIeme11-
tations 11byen1iesconcer~ra~rl Ies po~rge.
VoiI donc Ies queIqries observations que je voulais faire sur Ia Ioi de 1953 et
Ie dveloppement historique rkenr amene a evoqrrer rnaintenanl les Iuis et
dec1-etsde 1973 puisque aussi bien. je Ie rpte, Ia Ioi de 1963. pour tre moi~is
ph1n1.eque la Ioi de 1962, et il n'y avait pas Ies nimes I-aisonspuisqu'elIe
n'eiablissair pas une mer territoriaIe extraordinairement te~idue,a dur une
dizaine dannes et elIe a t re~npIa&epar deux textes w pIut6t par un texte de
1 973 cornpIete Iui- nn nie par un dcret.
ta loi 73-49 d u 2 aoGl 1 973 et Ie dcret nv 73-527 du 3 novembre 1973 sont
pleins d'intrt et d'enseignemenls mais je CI-ainsde Iasser Ia patience de la
Cour et je me rserve, s'iI en est besoin, urre phase u11rieure de la procdure
de traiter de ces Textes de 197 3 aprs rn'etre bor~i les mentionner simpIement
aujourd'hui comme &ape 1rouve1Iedarrs Ies variations de textes internes.

II est vident que des accords 1111ernationauxcomportant une recarrrrais-

sance internationale de dIinritat~onsterritoriaIes mai-itimw sont ~~nporlants.
O n comprend donc que Ie paragraphe 1 .O7 du mmoire Iunisie~r(1) me~itionne
Ies accords i~rterve~ius emre Ia Tunisie el I'ItaIie, successive~nc~itIe Icr fYrier
1963. Ie 20 aout 197 1. Ie 14 jrrin 1975. MaIheureusement cetle mention d'u~re
confirmation des rontiCres maritimes tunisiennes pal- l'accord de 1963
<< reprise constamnlent dans Ies acco1-ds subsequei~ts de 197 1 et de 1976.
r~ est fa~tcd'une ~na~iire
Iire Ies e c r i t i ~ h~nisienrres. qui ne correspo~idpas tout
fait a la rka11Ii:juridique.
Une tude precise doit tre faite, eIIe est dutant pIus ncessaire que les
accords du 20 aot 197 1 et du 19juin I976 ne sont reproduits dans ies annexes
au nm moire tunisien que par des exlrai~rqui ne pe1-mettentpas dn apprcier
foute Ia porte et tout Ie sens.
Ces trois accords interve~iussuc~essive~nent au cours d'une breve priode de
temps de rnoirrs de vingt annes prsentent des traits comrnrrIis, chacurr ayant
toutefois des aspects particuIiers.
k tra~tcommun principal, q$iI arrvient de souIigna-tout parlicuIiGrernent,
est qu'il s'agit d'accords de pche relatifs I'exercice de Ia pche par des
nationaux itaIiens w I'interdictlon de la p k h e faile aux pcheurs italiens
darrs ces eaux rserves.
II ne sgit pas d'aCco1-ds SUI- des rurrtieres maritirnes, ce qui serait d'aiiieurs
trange. s'agissant de pays qui Ile so~itpas Iirnitrophes.
La forrnuIe du mmoire tunisien, en su11paragraphe 1.07, se1011IaqueIIe Ia
fro~itiremarili~lieest co~lfirniep a ~Ies accords irr~riso-itaiierrs rrsi pas exacte
 PLAIDOIRIE DE M. COLLIARD 137
car on voit mal comment I'ItaIie pourrail confirmer une dliniitatio~ientre la
Tunisie et Ia Libye, Etats souveraim.
Le second trait est que ces accords ont eu un caractre temporaire, ce qui ne
correspond pas non pIus un accord de deIimitation.
k dernier trait est que ces accords ne consacrent pas Ia riotion de mer
territor-iaIeteIIe qu'eile avait t utdise par Ia Ioi d'octobre 1962.
Prcisrne~itle premier accord, celui de 1963, 1 "'fvrier 1963, est desfin a
remplacer les dispositions de la loi de 1962.
1. L'accord du 1'-fvrier 1953 dans son articIe 1 abandonne Ia nut~orrde
nier terriloriaie pour ceIIe de zone de pche rserve aux ~iaviresbattant
<(

paviIIo11tunisien a.
Cst donc une prfiguration de ce qui sera Ia soIrrtion interne funisienne de
dcembre 1963.
La pretenlion tunisienne exprime paI- Ia Ioi de 1962 de faire de cette partie
de Ia mer une mer IerritoriaIe est abandv~ine.
Au fond Ia Ioi de 1952 avait t une des tentatives, Ia plus recente, de
I'extension dspaces maritimes sur IesqueIs ia Tunisie entendait asseoir une
souverainet. Lechec a t enregistr dans l'accord internatronal du I fvrier
1963.
El Iaccord tuniso-itaIien de 1963 n'est pas denieure en vigueur pendant t r k
ivngtemps, son article 4 prvoyait que Ies autorisations de pche aCC0rdk
dans des espaces maritims, qui ne sont pas ceux dont nous nous occporis
particuIirement, situs a u riord de Ia Tunisie, portaient s u r uIre priode
s'tendant simplement jusqu'au 3 1 dcembre 1970.
2. Ainsi s'explique dorrc qu'il y ait eu un trccurd du 70 aorir 1971 qui reprend
exactement dans son a~ticle1 la forniuIe de ia zone de pkhe ~.serv&teIIe
qu'elle tait utiIisee par l'accord de 1963.
f'abandon par la Tunisie de sa revendicarion sur Ia mer territoriale est
niairrterru er corrfirme.
Cet accord etait lui aussi d'une dure d'appIication limite, son artide 13
prvoyant qu'il tait corrclu pour une periode de deux ans a darer du 1"' janvier
147 I et renouvelable par tacite reconduction pour des priodes analogues. I I
fut rapidement remplac par un troisierne accord.
3. tccurd du i9juilr 1975 corrtient un article 12 qui traite toujours de Ia
mnie zone de R a s Kapoudia Ras Ajdir et par lequel l'Italie rxonnait Ie
caractre de zone de p k h e rserve aux seuIs navires tunisiens, #Inme eIIe
I'avai t fait d'ailleurs dans Ies accords preeden ts, s'agisarr t de celte zone, les
baleaux italiens bnficiant, toujours d'aiIIeurs, d'urr droit de passage inofferrsif
se materidisant par Ie fait que Ies bateaux de pche circuIent avec les panneaux
bord et Ies fieis relirs.
i2encore iI n'est pius questio~ide Iner territoriab. et accord ~01nportait lui
aussi urre dure limite. Son article 18 prvoyait qu'il tait cuncIu pour urre
priode de trois ans a dater de sa signalure.
4. Les fexfes uprihreraux ilnliej~s.Ainsi depuis le I 9 juin 1 979 iI n'existe pIus
d'accord de pche entre la Tunisie et l'Italie. Un.rgime undatera1 particulier a
t tabIi par l'Italie Igard des bitiments de pkhe italiens. Ce sont des textes
que, Monsieur le Prsident, Messieurs les membres de Ia Cour, nous avons
reproduits dans Ie w~itre-mmoireIibyen err son paragraphe 139 (III Ce sont
des dispositions destin& a wnxner ce qu'on appeIIe Ies ressourm bioIo-
giques darrs une zone qui est une zone de Irarrle mer.
J'ai ainsi achev I'lude queIque peu rapide d'ailleurs de ces probIkmes
rcents de rgIerneiitation Iant interne qu'inter~ratiurraleco~icernantIes espaces
maritimes et plus exactement Ies activits qui sorrt des aclivits de pkhe.
 PLr\IIIOIRIE DE M COLLIARD 139
ution lerritoriaIe, dspams ~naritinieset PI-oposdesquels diverses consid-
rations orit tk faiies co~icer 11a1itdes dmnes cono~niqucs.
Da~isla presente affaire csr la dlimitation et eIIe seuIe do111iI s'agit. A cet
gard, si 1'011se tourne vers le passe, l'analogie Ia plus grande est entre Ia
presente affaire el I'ari-t de 1969 II s'agit dans les deux cas de la delimilation
d'espaces ~naritimesparlicuIiers, le plateau continental. II s'agit Iion pas
d'apprcier Ia validit d'une dIirn~tationnatio~ialenorvegienrre ou isIandaise,
au regard d u d~'oilinlernational, dans Ie siIlage de Ia formure au regar-d du
droit inte1-~iationalles luis stationales ne sont que de sirnpis faits ,>.
II s'agit ici de prparer I'ktablisse~nentinternatio11aI de la dlimitation en
fvur~rissantaux partieales regIes et principes du droit inrernatio1ra1appIicabIes
et aussi. dans Ia prsente afiai~e,eIi dgageant des neth ho des PI-atiqes.
Voici donc les quelques observalions que je voulais faire rne tournant vers Ie
passe et rnai~itenantje voudrais aIors aboi-der Ic dernier th~rie.
L'affaire, Monsieur le PI-kident,Messieurs Ies membres de Ia Cour, qui est
porte devant vous est une dliinitatiun du plateau conti~ie~ilal. Des droits
histuriqr~es&tarit ~nvoqrrs, il convient d'examine~-Ia combinaison cies
PI-obIrneset des thories en prsence. Une IeIle tude Ine sembie utile porrr en
faciIite1-Ia solurion.
Je vorrdrais Ia conduire. avec votre per~nission.en derix temps successifs. Je
1-appeIIeraid'abord Ies ~necanisrnesde Ia tho~'iedu pIateau corrti~rentaI.
Ensuite, compte te~mde cetle irrtitution ~UI-idique j'examinerai Ie rde que
peuvent jouer Ies droits his101-iques.Donc deux sries de dveloppe~nentet tout
d'abord :

Parmi ies tra~rsforniatio~rs qu'a apporles au syst~nejuridique a~iierieur

I'evoIutivrr du droit internationai dans la seconde moili du XXesiecIe, II
cvnv ient de placer Ia thorie du plateau continentaI. Celle institution du droil
internationa1 occupe aujourd'hui une pIace fondamentale. EiIe est rgie par la
corivention de Ge~ivede 1958 dont Ia p o ~ t juridique
e dpasse d'aiIIeurs ceIIe
de la technique conventio~i~ie~Ie et qui apparait aussi coInIne une 1g1e
coutumire Les principes fo~idarnsntarixde cette institution ont r dgages
par I'arrt de la Cour de 1959 et confirms par la sentence arbitrale de 1977.
Je voudrais reprendre pour son appIication la PI-esenteaffaire I'esse~itieIde
cette conslruction juridique. Bien Gvidem~ne~ri. Monsieur le Prsident, je
rr'arrrais pas Ibutrecriida~icede prsenler une tireorie genrale devarrt vous-
n eies m e m b r a de Ia Cour. II s'agit simpIe1ne111
~ n ~ et pour ma part de recouper-
queIques observations et si je me perrnes de le faire d'urie rnaniere uri peu
systmalique c'est paI- u11 sinipIe souci de clart d'exposition.
II faut dire aussi que j'ai t eIi quelque sore encourag p w r prsenfer ces
observations par Ies remarques formuIs% dans un a1tic1eparu il y a pIus de
vingt ans dj, en 1958. Je cite cet articIe avec niutio~iet respect, car il a pour
auteur Ie grarrd internationaliste franais, spciaIiste dn droit de la mer, que fut
GiIbefl Gidel, qui FUI mori rnnitre, de qui j'ai suivi. ici ni5me. un enseigrremerir
il y a bien longtemps et do111je saIue la nimoire. De cer anicle intituI a A
propos des bases juridiques des prklentio~isdes Etats riverains sur Ie pIateau
continenta1 : les doctrirres du droit inhrent >i, paru en aot 1958 darrs Ia
<(

Ze;~.scl~rif, Jr attsia~?discItesutrd i & f ~ ~ l r k h ~ . R? j~ c f i r iiud Yulkel?-efln. je

voudrais citer quelques passages particuIiereme1i1sigiiifrcalifs aux pages 92, 95
el 93 en souIignant Ies expressions et mois esse~itiels.
140 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

Page 92 :
La doctrine du pIateau continental a prcisrneni cet avantage que,
sainenlerrt e~itendue,eIIe porte en eIIsrnme u11 frein de I'GventuaIit
d'une appIication abusive de Ia notion qui lui sert de base. C ~ . FkI
~nPcff?~is*?rr dv rQg~dlarior?ir~lernepi-over~utrrde ron&iotrs pJrysiques
indkj~e~rdarrres dtt h vofoni des iirrresre.~qui constitue notre avis le
mrite esseritie1 de la doctrine de IRftriburiorl aiirot?rarique iEmr
3-ivrrairrdes droi~sdnrrr I e pfurt.aii cor~riqc~~rrnl
esf srtscepfiide.>i
Page 95 :
(< La CD1 a vii tout grief possible de revenir par un biais a u systme
de I'occupatio~r, fictive ou effective, qrr'eIIe venait de condamner en
dcIarant trs rretiement au chiffre 5 d u commentaire sur I'articIe 2 du
<( Projet 1) que, aux termes de cet articIe, ;<ledroit de I'Etat riverain est
CgaIement Ice mot fail aIIusio~i I'accupatiorrl indpendanr de toute
afirmation forrneIIe de ce droit par Iedit E u t i1. I I rr'est certes pas interdit
I'Etat riverai11 de proclanler ses droits et I'ktendue spaiiaIe dans IaquelIe iI
a Ia vpIont de Ies exercer. Mais Ies droits eux-menles de I'Etat riverain ne
dpendent pas de la procIamation ; iIs lui soIrt prexistants conirne
inhrenls i I'Etar riverain, comme lui appartenant ipso i~trr.
Non seuIe~nentils ne dpende~rtpas du fait 1n61nede I'krnission d'une
procIamatio~r, mais encore iIs ne dpendent pas du contenu de Ia
proclamatio~r. >>
Page 93
(( t Srrei~ar~cc el /es ddrns i31hkrenrsqui ur rt;sulf.rirau pr@ dv I'Ewr
i-ivei'aitrs u 7 ~donc coi~dirionilc's
par des cntzdi~iorisphysiques chapparrr au
port voir dr volifio~ide I'Erar riverniir :I I en profite ou il Ies subit.
Aucune doctrine tenda~it attribuer des cornpetences a I'Etat riverain
au-del de la Iirnite extrieure de ses eaux IerritoriaIes ne peut ouvrir
mains de Ialitude a I'Etar riverain que Ia d o c t r ~ ~drr
i e pIateau contine1iia1si
on la dfinit exactement et si on Ia dgage de toule roti ion indue de
re~npIacement.>1
Ainsi se dessinent les grandes Iignes d'un syslernejuridique auquel Sarre1 de
Ia Cour de 1959 et ensuite et pour une part la sente~icede 1977 devaierrt
donner urre forme pIus mrnpIte et pIus majestueuse. Deux notions
fondamenlales apparaissent corrcernant Ies droits de I'Etat riverain sur son
plateau continental : 1) iIs so11t etabIn dans Ie cadre d'un dterminisme
physique ; 2 ) ils s o ~ i tde caractre objectif el IE reposent par sur une base
voluntarisle.

Ce dtermirrisrne physique, base fondarnen~alede Ia t h b r i e juridique du

pIateau co1iti1ieaia1rsulte de Ia combi~iaisonde trois principes, qu'a dgages
I'arrl de 1969 : droits inirrents, proIongement naturel, enfin la rnaxirne la ((

terre domine Ia mer 1).

ia prexisience du droit inhrent, I'inutiIile d'actes qrreIw~iquessont

prsentees aux paragraphes 19, 39, 43 de I'arrEl de 1959. Le professeur sir
Fr-ancis VaIIat, avec l'autorit qui s'attache sa Iongue carrire iriternationale, a
 PLAIDOIRIE DE M. CULLIARV 141
1 trait de ces points. Je me permettrai sirnpIe~nentde rappeIer que ces droits
existent ip'o facro et ail jpliliu, paragraphe 14, paragraphe 39, et que le droit
internationaI attribue ~IISCIjure. paragraphe 43 de votre arrt de 1969, a 1'Etat
riverain des droits sur Ie pIateau conlinerrtal.
Et, iI convient de rappeIer dqaiIIeursIrticle 2, paragraphe 1, de Ia conven-
I tion de Ge~reve:
! Les droits de I'Etat riverain sur le plateau co111inentaI sont
irrdpe~idaatsde I'occupation effective ou fictive aussi bien que de toute
proclaniation expresse. i >
Gide1 en 1958, dans l'article ci-dessrrs mentionne, analysant le cornreniaire
de Ia Comniission du droit internatiorra1 sur son projet d'a~ricieen 1955,
notait :
<(il demeure ~erlainque la Comniission du droit international a enter-lfiu
rerrd1-e Ie droil de contr6Ie de juridiction de I'Etat riverain, sur son
pIateau continental, indpenda~itde toute exigence dbccupatlon >>.
Noto~rspariicuIikrernent dans le paragraphe 39 que I~isfencedu drciil peut
tre conslate mais qu'elle ne suppose aucun acte constitutif. Ainsi se manifeste
I'irrcompatibilir absolue entre Ia thhrie d u droit inhkrent et Ia thorie des
droits historiques qui est une variante de Ia thorie de ~bccupation.Ce droii
preexiste. II. est au cornrnencemerir. II ne rsulte pas cumn~ele i-appelle
diIIeurs Ires exactement Ie professeur ViraIIy (IV, p. 4881 d'urre activil
humaine qui saurait cre, ~nai~ilenu et qui serait utilise pour Ie drnont1-er.
I~ihrenr.ce droit n'a pas i a r e dmontr. Sur son pIatearr corrti1ienm1,I'Etar
n'a pas a dmontrer son droit, c'est inutile. Sur ce qui n'est pas son plateau
continental, I'Etat n'a pas a demontrer son droit. b dernonstratio~iest
impossible, parce qu'iI 1i.a pas de droit, ri'ta111pas s u r SVII plateau contine1ria1.

Le proIon~einet?lt~arurd
RappeIe au paragraphe 19 de I'arrl de 1959, Ia rhevrie d u proIongemenl
naturel est une IIiorie fondamentale : <r Ia zone de pIa1eau continental qui
constitue ie proIongement 1ratrr1e1de son territoire 11. L'argument est repris au
paragraphe 39 :
v le droit de I'Etat riverain sur son pIateau continenta1 a pour fondernent
la souverainet qu'iI exerce sur le territoire dont ce plateau cuntirieri~alest
Ie prolongeme111nature1 sous Ia mer >i.
II est dveIoppe avec ampIeur dans k pa~-agraphe 43. Ces trois paragraphes
ont une amprion de gographie physique. Ils correspondent parfaitemeilt a ce
principe que j'ai appeI Ie N d k ~ ~ r m i n i splvsique
m~ )>.
C'est en vain que I'on clrercherait dans ces paragraphes une alIusion
queIconque des activits humaines. On trouve des expressions qui reIve~itde
la gographie physique telles que << au-del d u lit de la mer territoriale ou
encore r< zone sous-marine i i , ou encore proximiti: >>, ou encore (( proIonge-
~nent,cantinuatiurr, exiension d u lerriluire sous Ia mer , extension rraturelle
ou Ia pIus natureIIe du domaine terrestre .
Le passage du pIrysique a l'humain a t prsent lors des plaidoiries
tunisienna.
k professeur Jerrrri~igsa indiqu a propos de i'activit des popuiations
cbtires : <( iI est raisonnabIe d'y voir 1st preuve de ce que Ie pIateau appartierrt,
y compris physiquemart, au pays co~isidri,. II fait a1Isio1iiIa concorda~~~e
142 PLATEAU COWINEWAL

entre moyeIis d'existence el fait physique du prulongerne~lt rralure1, car

I'lromme doit ncessairement s'adapter a sun milieu .
Cette argume~itationnst pas sans valeur, concer~la~it les pclieries fixes,
mais eIIe ne peur tre exrrapoiee.
Ln nroxirrrc~ Iu ferw dutuiii~yIci nier
(( )J

Le paragraplre 96 de I'arrt de 1969 replace Ia doctrine du pIaleau

coiilinenta1 parmi Ies cas d'empiternerrt sur des espaces rnariti~nes qui
aut~efvisne relevaie~itde personne.
II note que {( zone co~itiguet pIalearr continental son1 cet gard du mme
ordre i ) . Il affirme enfin que dans Ies deux hypot hsas o n appIique Ie PI-i~icipe
que Ia terre domine Ia mer . Ce principe procIam par Ia Cour est vide~nrne~it
indpe~rdantde Ia volo~itehumaine.
k parag~aphe96 de I'a1-ret de 1969 est a cet gard non quivoque. Le
vwabu1ai1.e q'iI co~nporteest pure~nent un vocabulaire de gographie
pirysique avec des mots teIs que configuration gographique des cetes , ou
bien prolo~igementmaritinle i>, ou encore (< zones aquatiques errfin SOI et
sons-sol , et la CUUI- note,a inots qui k v o q u e ~ Ia
~ t ter1-eet non la Inel- >>.
Mon ~ninentami. Ie professeur Ren-Jean Dupuy a eslime que ce qu'iI
appeIIe le fameux diclicln Ia terre d o n ~ i ~ Ia i e mer 11 n'a jamais trouvi une
iIIuslration plus frappante nulle p a ~ rairtant que dans Ies titres his101-iques
tunisiens (IV,p. 4771. Il a consacr bien des developpe~nentsau thme des
activils humaines et de I'expIoitation des ressoures de la mer.
De teIIes activits son1 videmment respectabIes et je ~'eviendraitoul B
I'heure sur ce point, mais eIIes ne soiil pas des critres ni des 1meiiIs des
thories du plateau conti~ie~iiaI.
L'institution du plaieau cvnline~ilaI,les droits de I'Etat riverain demeurent
dfinis pa1- 1s principe du dtern~inisnreplrysique. Gographie, gologie, voil
les dterminants. Ce principe du dterminisme physique se combine avec un
principe symtrique que je voudrais maintenant prse~rter,celui du caracire
objectif de la thorie du pIateau continental qui repose sur une base noII
vo101rlariste. Cst 15 Ie second poi~it.

Gilbert GideI, dans son articIe prcit a afirrn que I'attenai~ceet Ies d~-oits
qui en rksulte~lta u profit de 1'Etat riverain sont -..condilionnes par des
((

canditio~~s ck i'Em iiiwrairr i>et il

physiques PcIiapprrnr ulr polorrvrrir rir r~oIiTiv~l
tel-mine par une formule frappke :enIrne une nd da il le : <c II e n profite ou il les
subit. W .
Le pouvoir de voIitio11de I'Etat ne jouant pas, il en rsuIte qu'on doit faire
reposer Ia. thorie drr plateau co~rti~rentaI sur une base non voIonlariste. La
volonti: &nt lie l'activit hu~naine.il apparat Q J'evidence que seules
interviennent dans Ia thorie du pIaleau corrtirrenta1 les conditions physiques.
Lspect non volo~rtai-istede Ia thorie du pIareau contirrenral est rnanifate. On
peut eIi dgager trois.
Premirement Ia notion de droit inhrent exista~lt. afr irririo et ipso .jure au
corninencement suppose cette excInsion de Ia voIoiit humaine.
Le pa1-agraphe 19 de I'arret de 1969 indique ainsi aprs avoir affirme
I'exislence d'un droit i~ilirent:
(< Point n'est besoin pour l'exercice de suivre u ~ processus
i jurid~que
particu1ie1-ni daccornpli~-des actes ju1'idiques spciaux, son existe~~ce ne
suppose arrcun acte constitutif. v
 PLAIDOIRIE DE RI. COLLIARD 143
Derrximemeni. I'arlicle 2, paragraphe 3 , de la convention de Genve de
I 958,stipuIe que Ies droils de I'EM rive1-ai11sont indpendarrts de I'occrrpatio~i
effective o u fict~ve,ainsi que de toute procIaniation expresse.
sont excIusifs. Cst ce
Enfiri, troisimernerrt, les droits de I'Etat I-ivera111
qu'indique Iartick 2, paragraphe 2, de Ia corrve~rtionde Genve :
<< Les droits vissau paragraphe 1 du prsent articIe sont excIusifs en ce
sens que. si I'Etat riverain n'expIore pas Ie pIateau corrtine~itaI ou
~i'exploitepas ses ressources 11atureIIes.nu1 ne peut entreprendre de teIIes
acrivits ni 1,evendiquer de droits SUI- Ie pIateau contineiiial sans Ie
consentement exprs de 1'E:tat riverain. >i
Ce caraclre de droir exciusif est reIev par Ie parag1-apire 1 9 de I'arrt de 1969 :
<r Qui pIrrs est, ce droit est indpe~idantde son exercice effectif. Pour
rep1-endre Ie ternie de la co~rve~ition de Genve, il est R excIusif >, eIi ce
sens que, si un Etat riverain choisit de ne pas explorer ou de Ire pas
expIoiter Ies mnes de pIateau contirreiita1 Iui revenant. cela ne concerne
qrre Iui et nu1 ne peut le faire sans sv~rconsentement exprks. {C.I.J.
R~ciieii'1969. p. 22.1
Ainsi apparail Ie caraclere non voIon1a1'1ste.Ck dro~tes1 totaIe~nentdislinct de
I'occupation. sur IaqrreIIe iI ne se fonde pas.
II est galement indpendant de son exerIce, iI ne seteint pas par le non-
usage. Ainsi se nianifeste une absence tuhIe de correspondance enrre le droit
de I'Elat riverain et Ies droits Iris101-iques qui exigent usage rpt et
occupation.
On pourrail peut-tre se de~nandertoutefois si un retour du pouvoi1-
humain, du voIonta1-isrne~ i se e Inanifeste pas avec la I-gIede I'exploitabilii.
Un sait q~l'elkfigrrr-e titre de critre allernatif dans I'articIe 1 de Ia
convention de Gerrue, aprs avoir et&un critere principai dans les t1-avarrxde
Ia Coinmission du droit irrter~iatio~iaI en I951. aprs avoir kt abandonne en
1953. I~cxploitabiIiti:a fait urre ~.&pparition.
011 a dit lous Ies dange1-sde cette 11otio11et 1.011 sait que IrticIe 75 du projet
de convenrion SUI- Ie droit de Ia mer, exprimant les nouveIIes lendances, excIut
Ia 11otio11 dxpIoi1abiIil.
Mais rn~rre;rclueIIe~ne~-rl, on ne saurait v o i ~dans Ia rgIe aIter11ativede
I'expIoitabiIit une sorte d'uItirne PI-euuede la ~na~iifestalion de Iactivit des
habita~itsdes pays riverains.
I I y a en effet une observation u n peu margiriaIe qu'iI iorrvie~itde faire. La
~najoritde Ia doctri~ieestime en effet que ce n'est pa Ia capacile d'expIoitato~i
de I'Etat riverain qui est eri cause mais Ia capacit de 1'Etat disposan1 des
inoymis techniques Ies plus avances. En ce sens, ds 1958. RicIiard You~ig.
The Geneva Convention or1 the Contirlental SI-reIf. First Impression x i , dans
I'A~rrericanJ ( ~ i i u i a lof iiilerirtrfiwitrl Luit! ( 1958. p. 7 3 51, et tout rcemment
Lucius CafIish, Les zones ~nariti ~ n sous a juridiction nationak, Ieurs Ii~nites et
1eu1-d1i~nitatio~i i i , dans Ia Rrrl~it. ( 1 980,
gc;lrkrcrit. riv druif irrfc~rt~alinrial~~~ifilic
p. 871.1-eprerra~ri des travaux a~itrieurset en particuIier un cours li l'Acadmie
de droit 1nternatio1iaI don~ren 1969. On remarquera que I'exploitabilii se
t~-ouvesribordo~ineei I'Etat riverai~i.La technique, Irnerrt dr~vou10i1'
humain, est subordonne a la sitiralion gographique.
SeuI I'Etat riverain qui possde un droit exdusif peut ne pas expIoiter et ne
perd pas ses droits, iI peut exp1oite1'oir per~nettrea autrui d'exploiter et dors Ia
Ii~nikdu pIateau se trouve defi~iiepar Ia technoiogie Ia pIrrs avance, 11lais
ceIIe-ci nst p a dterminante. eIIe est subordonne a Ia riverai~iet, Ia
gographie physique.
Ainsi s'affirme plus encore Ispect non vdontariste de Ia thorie du pIateau
mntinenta1 fonde non sur I'aclivit humaine mais sur des conditions
pIr piques.
Je viens d'exposer Ies prirrcipes sur IesqueIs repose I'i~rstitutionjuridique
nouveIIe, apparue iI y a urr qrrart de siele, Ie pIa1eau corrti~ierrtaI.
L'incvrnpatibiIitSde ces principes avec la ;fibrie des droits historiques est
certaine. VoiI pou1-qrroi Ipropos de Ia PI-kerrteaffaire. s'agissant de Ia
dlirnitatiorr du pIateau contirrental. les droits histor~quessorrt d'urr faibIe
secours.
Est-ce pour autant Ies hii-e disparatre ? Que non pas.

Je voudrais tout d'abord signaler que je ne mprise pas Ies droils historiques.
Lxpm de la doctrine du determinis~nephysique et I'abandon de lout
syslme voiorr~risteconstituent l'affi1- nal lion de Ia primaut des condilions
physiques. Primaut qui est a Ia base de Ia thorie du plateau co~itinentaI.Mais
je ne voudrais pas que cela conduise I'inhumanite. Les droits historiques
reposent, Iorsqu'ils sont fonds, brsqu'ils sont reeIs. sur I'activit, sur le travaiI
des Irommes. Ce t~-avaiIest respeclable, a je tiens dire Ici mon opinion
personneIIe. Et partir de ce travai1. au Iong des jours, un doit examiner Ies
droits historiques. Je n'enrends pas carter en totaIit Ies drois historiques,
j'eslime qu'iI faut IFS prendre eIi co~isideratiurrdans Ia mesure o Ieur existence
est exacre er o Ieur port est prcis&. CeIa me conduit t~-ois observations.
La premiere est que Ies droits historiques rre peuvent 6t1-e pris en
considration que s'iIs 0111 existe rellement. et c'est tout Ie problme. par
exempie. de Ia prkr~nduerecorrrraissance d'une prdendue frontire maritime.
Cst Ie probIme d'une prte~lduezone de droits histoi-iques.zone homogne
Mais dans Ieur assiette geograpliique exacte, dans Ia r&Iit de Ieur fait humain
sccioIogique, iis son1 u n dment. lorsque, du moins. ces raIits existeni.
prendre eIi conside~.at~on porrr autant qu'iIs ne sont pas prsentes avec quelque
exagratio~i.
Deuxikme observation. Les droils historiques de Ia pr-eserrte affaire ne
peuvent tre uti11ss pour soustraire une partie du pialeau conti~ie~rtaI Ia
dlirniialiorr. 11s Ire perrvent prvaIoir contre Ies thories du pIateau. La
caractristique esse~itiellede Ia t h h i e no der ne es1ceIIe du droit inlrererit, ij7.w
j f t w . ah abiziirio.
Ainsi que Ie nolait GiIbert GideI, iI y a prs d'un quart de siecle, cette thorie
du droit inhrent contient une vertu simplificatrice. car elle vite Ies diversas
discussions s u r Ibccupation et ses rnodaIits. Cette tliorie correspond
parfailenlent i I'ide de dlimitation du plateau co~iti~ierrtaI. La deIirnitation,
ainsi que l'a relev Ia Cour eIi 1969, n'est pas un partage, c'est Ia constatation
de droits orexisiants.
C s t une IeIIe notio~rque se rf1-e, d'aiIIerrrs de Ia rnanire Ia pIs expIi-
cite. Ie cornproinis II) intervenu dans la prse~ileaffaire. L'article pre~nier
mentionne Ia dIi~nita~ion de Ia zone du pklwu m1iIi1re1rta1 relevant de Ia
Jarnahiriya arabe Iibyenne et de Ia zone du plateau contirrenta1 relevant de Ia
RepubIique tunisienne-
L'a~ficIe2 vise de mkme la zone du pIateau continental de chacun des deux
pays et I'articIe 3 se rfrant a une phase ultrieure voque Ia ligne sparant les
deux zones du pIateau continenlaI.
145 PLATEAU COWINEhrTAL

Da~isIe cliapilre III du contre-ine~noire11byen(II), aux paragraplies I 50

170. nous avons expose que nous ~i'avionspas tmuve dans Ies accords de
dlimitation de pIateau continenta1conciirs entre les EMS, daiis la pratique des
Eiats, Ia prise eIi co~~sidration, pour Ia deIimitation eIIe-menie, des droits
Iiistoriques.
Mais Ies droils historiques r&Is peuvent etre pris en conside~'atioiid'u~ie
autre manire. Cst ce point de vue que I'accor-d du I 8 dcembre 1978 entre
I'AuslraIie et Ia Papouasie-Nouvelle-Gui~ie ~rousa sernbl de queIque intrt
coilime I'i~idiquele paragraphe 154 du contre-rnrnoire Iibyerr (II >, nais iI Ile
semble pas que nos observatio~is aierit t bien cornprises.
Monsieur Ie PrFsident, Messieurs les n ~ e ~ n b rde a la Cour, je voudrais
rnainte~iairtconclure en quelques phrases. Auparavant je voudrais rn'excuser
auprs de vous d'avoir par16 si Ionguernent a deux reprises a~joir~d'flui et de@
arrte1-ieure~nentvendredi. Je voudrais vous remercier trs sincre~nentde
l'attention que vorrs avez bien voulu me prter, ainsi que de votre Iongue
patience car je sais que Ines exposs n'etaient point faciIes, point faciIes
enlendre. da~rsla niesure o iIs co~nporfaie~rt beaucoup de citatio~ispuisque je
vwIais suivre pas pas Ies documenrs ou Ies iextes. Je vous reniercie donc et je
ne vous demande plus qu'un instant de patience.
Je voud1-aisconcIure cette Iongue tude des droits historiques dans Ie pr&ent
litige par Ias affirmations ou Ies ngations suivantes :
1. Les droits historiques ne concernent pas d'une manire abstraite et
g~rraleune zone unique qui serait la zone des droits historiques.
2. LRS Iirnites maritimes de ce qui est prsente comme une zone n'ont jamais
fait I'objet d'une reconnaissance internationaIe. les documents tabIissent
I'inverse.
3. Le problme soumis Ia Cour est ceIui de Ia dIiniitation partir du droit
i~rh&rentde chacun des Etais sur son pIateau continental. Le compromis
i'indique fvrrndlement et r ~ o n n a i tles d~oitsinhrents, et je demande la
perrnissio~rde relire I'articIc I .
la dlimitation d e , la zone du pIateau continenta1 relevant de Ia
Jamahiriya arabe Iibyeniie, popuIaire et socialisle et de Ia zorre du pIateau
corrtirrentaI reIevant de Ia RpubIique tunisienne )>,
larticIe 2 , << Ia zone du plateau contirrental de clracurr des deux pays , et
I'article 3, se I-kf1-ant une phase uItrieure, voque << la ligne sparant les
deux zones du plaleau conti1ienia1ii.
 TWENTY-FIRST PUBLIC SITTING (6 X 8 1. IO a.m.1

P i - e s :~[See ~ ~ of 29 1 rC 8 1.]
~ ~ sitting

ARGUMENT OF PROFESSUR BOWEIT

COUNSEL FOR THE GOVEKWMENT OF 'THE LIBY A N A R A B JAMAHIRIYA

PI-ofessor BOWETT : Mr. President, may 1 begin by expressing tIie sense of

privilege which 1 feeI in add1-essing this Court. My task this m o r ~ ~ i nisg tu
discuss t h e scienti fic arguments, a Iask 1 approach w ith soIne trepidation. but
in my sribrnission, a rask which is absoIuteIy essentia1.

SCIENLE
At the #rigin of the Conlinenta1 SheIf doctrine iies the physicai fact that the
Iand e x t e ~ ~ dinto
s and under the sea. And, as the Court has noted ~ I its I 1 959
Jr~dgment,the coastal State's IegaI entitIernent to a sub~narinearea I-estson the
V ~ E W rhat the SmIe is e~rtitIed,de ,jrwt.. to that area whidr is the naturd
proIongatiwi or extension of its Ia~rdrerritory.
Now,it is self-eviderrt that scie~ice,in particular geoIogy and geugraphy, and
ncIuding. where appropriale, physiograpIiy and geornorphoIogy, Fan assist in
identi fyi~igwhicIr slieif areas are the proIo~igationof w Iiich Iand te~.ritory.The
~ t 1969 attested to IIie vaIne of scientific evidence. and
Court's own J u d g r n e ~ in
in this case both Parries have expended co~isiderabIeeffort in assernbli~igsrrch
evide~icefor subrnission to the Court.
This evidence is in iarge m a s u r e consistent. The evolution of tlris particular
a r a of shelf. ils physicaI ~Iraracteristicsaiid ils reIatiomhip to the adjacent
Iandmass are a11 Inatters of scie~ilifrck~iowledgewhich is. in Iarge measu1-e,
non-controversial. The cont1-oversies which appear irr tire pleadings OF the r wu
Parties arise f r o n ~the inlerprelatio~rof that evidence by the Rrlies, and fom
the differe~~t Iegai sig~rificancewh~cIithey artaclr to it.
TIius, the Court faces the task of lrav~rrgtu draw its own concIusions as 1 0
the reIiabiIity, the reievance and 1Iie correct interpretatiorr of al1 this evide~ice.
1 do ~ i o beliwe
t Ihis task poses any great difficulty. given the facts invoIved
i ~ this
i case. My mai11 i~~tenrion is t o try to s i s t the Coui-1 by highlighti~rg
the points of disagreement betwee~ithe Partis. And if I appear tu oversim-
pIify matters, 1 d o so o1i1y in the inierest of cIarity a ~ i dbecause I know
that the Grid has ai iis disposal, 111 rvritten and iIlustrative f o r ~ n a, whoie
mass of deta11ed evidence which it wiII aIready Irave examiried and wiII not
wisb to have repeated in VI-a1argument by counsel. The Parties are in agree-
ment that the scjerrtific evidence is basic to tliis case, and each Pany lias deve-
Ioped its wrilten pIeading reIyi~rgheaviIy oIr that eviderrce. The Parties there-
fore have the obligation tu assist the G u ~ irrt evaIuati~rgthis key elerne~irin
the case.
So far as the sc~e~rtific evidenm is concerned, the task befure !Ire Court
w w I d seeIn to lie In answeri~igthree essential questir>~;s
148 CONTINENTAL SHELF

First. wIiicIi is tire sheIf area within which the delirnitatiorr has to be
effected ?
Second, what does the scientific eviderrce tel1 us about Ihe nalure of tItis
sheIf area ?
Third, to what extent can the sIieIf be identified with o n e part or another of
the adjoining Iandinass as a natural prolongation of that Iandrnass ?
T h e Parlies have presented the Court with an abundance of scientific
evidence and argume~ildirecied to these three fundamerrta1 q~lestions.My o w n
task this morning is to try to assist the Cou17by examinirrg these questions,
each in turn, and. in reIation to each questio~i,bringing ou1 the issues of fact
and interpretation on which the Parties fernain divided. In so d o ~ n g ,1 shaI1
suggesf to the Court the answe1-s tu those three questions wIiich are most
consistent with the buIk of the evidence.
Therc is. however, a preIiminary point 1 ~ n u s rnake.
t In his ope~ringaddress
Prufessor Jennirrgs really invited the &urt to return Io and reIy o n the
scientific notions about tlie continenla1 sheIf current in 1 952 and 1 957. Now,
he did this because those definitions viewed the sheIf as a geomorphoIogica1
feature. And because the definitions then CUI-rentused balhymetry to define
the outer-edge of the sheIf, his conciusidr was that it is the bathymetric
ev idence wliicIi is crucial in tlris case and the geoIogica1 evidence reIative1y
inco~rsequential.Sir Francis ValIat has aIready explai~iedthat this conclusion
was not in any way adopted by the I~rlernationalLaw Grnrnission or by tlris
Court. Yet the Court is 1reverthe1ess iirviled to adopl it now,irr thjs case.
I trusr the Court wilI reject the invitatio~~, wiihout hesitation. And This, frrst,
for the reason that those earIy definit ~OIISwere atternpts to define the outer
Iimit of the sheIf arrd were no1 corrce~-nedwith deIimitation belween
~reighbouringSlales. Second, for the reason lhat Professor Senai~igscannot
really mean wIiat he said. I R 1964, he wrate arr exceIlent article on the
irnpIications of the Court's Judginen t in the Norlii Sm C O ~ ~ ~ ~Skcjf ~ I ~cases.
PIIRI
You wiII find the a1ric1e in VoIu~neI 3 of the inrerrrarioiral arrd Corirptlrarivc.
i,criu Q u a r f ~ rforb 1969, page 8 19, and al page 629. he ihere says, in arguing
that the sIope is part of the shelf : "For it is rot just a questiorr of sea-bedbut a
question also of subsoiI, viz., of the underIyi11g rock structure . . ." Third,
havirrg Iisiened tu Professor MoreIIi, Profesor Lamtle and Professor ViralIy, it
is clear that the Tunisian case ilself, relies, in very Iarge nleasure, on geology,
as weII as bathymetry. The necessity to resori tu geoIogy tu explaiil the
superficiaI inorplrokgy was explained with great clarity by Professor MoreIIi.
He said :
"Geography ke., actuaI superficia1 morphology) is not a n accident. but
ff physica1 causes. It is the corisequence of the tecionic evolu-
the ~ - a u l o
lion of an a r a and of the gwIogicaI structures below it." <IV,p. 518.)
But, ~nostof aII, 1 hope the Court wiil decIirie Professor Jennings' invitation
for the reasDn that Our understandi~igof how the sIieIf was for~nedhas
deveIoped very rapidIy since those earIy days. The oId idea of a subrnerged
landrnass, with a gradua1 slope carrsed by the process of wave-erosiun and
changes in sea-IeveI is now known to be wrong. It is not a matter of "rivai"
theuries - to use Professor Jennings' words - but of art dd idea which is
now tolaIIy discredited, arrd a more rece~itscientific expianation of the
ev01ulion of the shelf whicIr is now generally accepted as wrrect by moder~i
science the worId over.
It is, frankly, inconceivabIe lhat this Court wiII, in giving judgmerit in 1981,
base its approach to t he scientific evidence 011 ideas known to be faIlacious for
 ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR BOWETT 149

nearly two decades. Indeed, to accept Professor Jennings' advice would be for
the Court to forfeit the respect of the en tire scientific wortd : and that is a r s u l t
I a m confident he wouId deplore as much as 1. There is, as 1 am sure the Court
wiII have observed, a remarkable inconsistency between asking the Court to
observe the recent trends of the taw - and at the same !ime asking them to
ignore the vast increase in our scientific knowledge about the creation of the
shelf, acquired over the past 25 years.
So, inevitably. the Court will need to look at the best availabie scientific
evidence to explain the nature of this particular area of sheIf. Libya h a gone to
a great deaI of troubIe to provide the Cour1 with such evidence, and to assist it
in its task. 1 detected a strong hint of criticism on that score, from Professor
Jennings and Professor Virally, as if we had somehow burdened the Court
with a mass of irrelevant material. The material is highiy relevant and we have
every confidence in the Court's ability to master this material.
Now let me turn lo the first of the three questions 1 posed.
The first question is lo define the sheIf area which concerns us.
There is, quite obviousIy, a large rneasure of disagreement between the
Parties on the question of what is the relevant area of sheIf and, more par-
ticuIarIy, the area within which the Iine of delimitation must lie. In due course,
my colleague Mr. Highet wiI1 deai with this in quiie specific terms. 1 believe
thar for the purpose of evaIuating the scieniific evidence, 1 need go n o further,
and need be n o more precise, than to say that the shelf area we are concerned
with is part of the Pelagian BIock, and on fhat at teast the Parties are agreed.
Incidentally , the terrns "Petagian Block" and "Pelagian Basin" are interchan-
geable but I will use "BlockW to avoid any confusion.
Now the PeIagian Block can be seen on this map here. This is Professor
BurolIet's map. It was produced in the Libyan RepIy (IV), TechnicaI Annex
@ 11-8, Figure I , and 1 think it is in the foIderl which each Judge has before hirn
now. It is an area bounded on the West by the north-south axis, in the south by
the Jeffara Flexure, in the east by the Misratah-Malta Escarpment, and in the
north albng the Pantelleria Trough. Some scien~istswould pIace the boundary
even further north through SiciIy, but, as Dr. Lazreg quite properly said, it is
ouiside our area of concern. so it really does no1 matter. Now the PeIagian
Block is a shaljow deprwsion, rather like a saucer, comprising 60th land and
sea. And the area for delimitation is only in the south-west section of the Block,
but it is necessary lo look at the BIock as a whole to form a clear impression of
its relationship with the adjoining landmass.
We need to identify the nature of this BIock, so let us turn to the second
fundamental question.
What does the scientific evidence tell us about the nature of this Pelagian
Block ?
Now the narure of the Pelagian Block is best explained by Iooking at how i!
originared. The detaiIed scientific description is fuIIy set out in Annex II to the
Libyan MemoriaI II) ; in Professor Fabricius' paper given as Annex- I I to the
Libyan Counter-Mernorial (II); in Annex I2B to the Libyan Courtter-
Mernorial, that is Dr. AnkateIl's repon ; and in the Study of the Evolution of
the Libyan Margin prepared by Columbia University, which you will find in
Annex 11-6 10 the Libyan Repty (IV). But let me summarize in simple ierms
without, 1 hope, distorting the picture.

' Filed 5 Ociober 198 1. (See IV. p. 5 1 2, footnoie.)

 150 CONTINENTAL SHELF
lrnsgine two vast continental masses, Eurasia and A frica - two enormous
plates ffoating on the mobile Iayer beneath the earth's crust. These pIates. or
conIinents, began to drift apart, and you have in your foIder diagrammaiic
illustration of this procws - it is Figure 14 in Annex I 2 A to the Libyan
Counter-MemoriaI (1 II). Now this process, known as "rifting", strerches the
conLinenta1 crusr - the uppermost layer of the earth's surface - so that at the
edges of the pIates, 1he Iayer thins out rather Iike a slab of soft, treacIe t o k or
nougat which wouId stretch and thin out as you pull it apart, until it frnally
snaps in lhe middIe, to leave a thin edge. And because, at the edges of the pIate,
the crusi is now thinner, it begins io drop or subside, and so, a i the edges of the
plate, depressions o r basins are formed. These graduall y fit1 up wi[h sediment
and form the typical continental shelf. The Pelagian BIock, for exarnpIe, has
receivcd between 5 and 6 kilometres of sediment, durnped on top of the
original crust or "basement" as it is soinetirnes caIIed. And there is a ciear,
inverse relationship between lhe thickness of the crust and the thickness of the
overlying, sedimentary strata. The thinner the crust, as you move towards t h e
edge of the pIate where il finally snaps off,the more it subsides, and the thicker
the sediments that eventuatIy overlie it. Thus, as you move to the edge of the
pIate or margin, away rrom the landmass, the crust gets thinner, and,
correspondingl y, the sedimene wiII get thicker. That is an important poinl and
the Court will s e , in due course, how crucial this is to a correct inierpretation
of the evidence.
In the Mediterranean, when this original rifting happened during the Iate
Triassic or early Jurassic era - about 200 miIIion years aga - !bis produced
an ocean, the Tethys Ocean, between the African and Eurasian Continents.
The coastline of the African Continent ran broadly east-west and slightly to the
1 south of the present tibyan coastline along the line shown on this map. That
@MapiiFigure6intheiibyanXeply;itislin~heJ~dg~fo!drr.Noxmasiaf
whal is now Tunisia Iay submerged under the sea. But the shelf was already
there, lying to the north of the continent. And it is imporiant 10 grasp the f a n
lh'at the shelf existed before most of Tunisia emerged as dry land. I beIieve ihat
a careful reading of Professor Laffitte's statement (IV, p. 540)and Dr. Stanley's
staiement (IV. p. 5241 wiII confirrn that there is rio disagrecment on this score.
Further rnovement of the two plates continued and, in the Tertiary era,
between 53 and 1 8 miIlion years ago, in the Western Mediterranean the plaies
closed, cutting off the Mediterranean from the Atlantic, and the Mediterranean
began to get shallower. As the two plates closed, rhe cnormous pressures
between the plates compressed the sedimentary and basement r w k s lying
under the former Tethys Sea. This Iiterally threw up the Atlas niountains, and
most of w hat is now northern and central Tunisia emerged from the sea. M uch
of the area of the Pelagian BIock was now above water, but onIy just ; the
Mediterranean was virtually a series of sali lakes. And to the extent lhat parts
of the Pelagian Blwk were then above sea Ievel, the situation was simply that.
For Tunisia to Say that Tunisia then extended further eastwards, al1 those
miIlions of years ago, is sheer wishful thin king. Parts of the BIock were above
water, that is aI1. You cannot, by that facr, assume it was part of Tunisia any
more than you can assume it was part of Libya. If you wish to ask the fuflher
question of w heiher, geologically, this Block was an ex tension or prolongation
of the land to the south - or the land to the west - then that is quite another
question, with which 1 shalt deal in a moment. But to assert that it was the
easterly extension of the Tunisian Coast is to induIge in a sheer flight of fanrasy.
Then, more recently, about 5 miIlion years ago, the Straits of Gibraltar
opened, allowing the waters from the Atlantic 10 Ilow into the Mediterranean
 A RGUM E M - OF PROFESSOR BOWE-M ISI
Sea, raising the sea level again and inundating most of the Pelagian Block. Save
for the Kerkennah Islands and the coastal plains of the Sahel in Tunisia and the
Jeffara on the Tunisian and Libyan coasts to the south. But the sea level did
not remain constant. During the lasi 5 million years, either by reason of
osciIIa~ionsin tlre IeveI of t h e oceans. so called "eustatic changes". o r because
of regiorra1 upIiffsof coastaI areas, tIie sea advanced and rerreated over p a ~ t of
s
the PeIagian Block. And thar is why one finds marine deposirs 011what is now
dry land. Let me add, iri parenthesis, that the Iast major change of sea IeveI
took place between 16,000 and 6,000 years ago as the result of the retreat of
gIacie1-s over the entire rnrther1-r hernispliere. TIiat was before hurnan
settlements were established, and nothing I have said gives support to rhe
Tunisian thesis of ancient cities being submerged by a general rise of sea level.
What is certain, however, is that, because of these changes, a large
sedimentary basin developed stretching rom the Siri Basin in the east to the
limil of the Pelagian Block in the west and you will see this described gra-
phically in Dr. Emery's study in the Libyan Reply (IV), Annex 11-9, Figure 1.
And thus a Ii~rkwas es~;ibfishedbefwen the Pelagian Block and the Sirt Basin
wlrich is stiIl apparent today, and which accounts for much of the area lraving
oiI and gas polentia1. This sedimentary basin did not extend into Tunisia
beyorrd ~ I i eno11h-south axis, ~ O Ithe - reason that. once the A t I a rnountains
we1-e forined, tiiey prod~rcedan uplifi which acted Iike a barrie1-, preventirig
any further deposition of marine sedirilents into what is ~ i o wcentral and
northern Tunisia. Of course. lhere were order sedjmenis, Iaid down on the
shelf before Tunisia emerged and the Atlas was formed, which can be found
West of the north-south axis : but not these recent sedjments. And even these
older sediments, West of the north-south axis, tend to be different. They are
essentially limestone, in contrast to the argilacious sediment, the muds and the
clays found east of the axis where the subsidence of the crusi was much
greater. Su the nosth-sorith axis forms the bo~indarybetween two different
geoIogicaI provinces and rhis differeilce iri sedirne~iwlionis orle aspect of the
i m p o ~ t a ~ iof
c e this north-soritli axis. But the north-soirth axis is d d e ~than
' the
Atlas Mountains and has another aspecl, alsa of importance. The movements
of tlrese plates set ttp eriarmws stresses and rhe plales no! oniy drifted apart os
caIIided but alsa rotated. The AfIican plare experienced both 1-ifiirig arid
rotation so that areas of s t t - a s developed, and no1 necassariIy coi~rcident.in
direction, with the direction of the main rifting. One such area of stress was the
area of faulting which ran - and still runs - from the Sin Basin right up into
rhe Pelagian Block. lt is this which is illustrated by Plate 5 attached to the
Report by Professors Hammuda and Missallati in Annex II to the Libyan
Mernorial. Thus you find the same lectonic trends stretching from the Sirt
Basin. rigirt up into the Pelagian Block. And you find virtually no evidence of
these t~-endsto the west of the no~ih-sourhaxn. And that is wIiy, in a
sirudura1 or tecronic sense. we say that Io the West of This noriIl-south axis.
Tunisia has 110real affinity wilh t11e PeIag~anBIock. In t ~ h n i c a rerins,
I we find
aIpine or co1npressiona1 tecta~iicsto the wesr of the axis. the 1.esu1tof prrshing
togethel-, and African or rihing tectonics, the resirlt of pulling apari. to the east.
Now that is a generalizatioti bu1 as a sbtenient of the broad picture 1 beIievt il
to be accurate.
Now of course the dividing line between these tectonic areas is not clear-cuf.
The evidence is not black and white, and particularly in the north of the
Pelagian Block, as one nears the north-south axis one iinds overlays and
intrusions - with the younger Alpine tectonics superimposed on (fie older,
A frican structrIres underneath. T need scarcely add, Mr. President, that Libya
 us, had some difficulty in detecting Ihese ffealur-es! l will nat %{y more about
!hem iiow, siiice 1 shalI be exrnining them i i i sonle detail wirh Professor
Fabricius.
It is, of course, true that in the Tunisian Counter-Memarial we have been
provided with additional evidence. Map ES-10 in the Scientific Annex to the
Tunisian Counter-Mernorial shows the present-day relief mode1 of ihe
Mediterranean Ocean iloor : and that shows nothing of eiiher the rides or the
/<IIu~sCS.
There is also evidence of a different kiild. that is to Say cvidence of thc
coniours of the sea-bed irr agcs past. Maps ES-L I and ES-12 represelit an
artenipr to reconsiiuct tI~eiopography of the sea-fioor #II the hasts of sersrnic
evidencc. Map ES-1 1 represents betwcen 7 and IO miIIion years ;igo and M a ~ r
ES-I 2 abotrr 75 inillion years ago. The Court wrII a11,eady be fiimiliar with
these maps - Professor MoreIIi ' seprodriced [hem i i l colo~rr. do rmt II-rink
they necd detain ris iiow, but sirnpIy Ier me subir-lilihal orle caii detect nothii~g
on either map of the ,~uluiscssarrs-iiraririr,~or the rides. The maps rnay well
show some siipport for the Tunisiiin "transversals" argument - the argument
that you have a low zone in the soulh and a high zone further north, with both
zones exteiiding into Tunisia. Yet, as 1 shall presently show in examining Ihe
Libyan evidence, this is in no way inconsistent wivh the unity of the Pelagian
Block as a geological formation, or with the ~ i e wihat ' the shelf is 21 proIon-
gsition nonhwar-d of the land~inissta Ihe south.
Before leairing the ?unisi;iri b ~hyrneirric
r o r ~nw-phologtcalevideilce. I
shoit Id Irke io say a word about ils Iegal sigrrificance. So far LIS concerns the
qrresrion whet her the Pe1agiar-r Blclck is. or is rlot. a cor-rtinuoussiiiglt shelf. t h t
Tunisian evidrnce has one essential aim. And tliat is Io show that it contains
featrires w hich trot 0111 y destroy its esseritial gcological unity bul also provide
potential boundaries. The rides of Ziiwrah and Zira have no other purpose.
As 1 have indicated, we have had some difficulty in even loatiiig these
features, and 1 am bound to say that we were not helped by the Tutiisian maps.
In a succession of rnaps we iYere shown either one or the other of the two
rides, rarely both. The location of these i-iclc,5.seemed to be constantly
@ changing. For exampIe. on Map No. 1 to the Tunisian Mernorial (11 tve firid the
z - l r k , of Zira. which couId c o ~ ~ i c i d
with
e Iitrle bends i ~tire
i isabarh. and running
o u t IOa depth of 300 ~netres(01- so we are to!d irr the Turrisian Repl y (IV 1, para.
2.061 Ztrwarah is aIso the1-e in words printed 011 1Iie map, bru Iying to the
south-zasr and nor, apW1-entIy.coinciding witll any isobat hic pecnliririties. 011

8 Map No. 2. rhc ,-idc~oiZuwarahhas disappeared . orrly Zi1.a is shown. birt tli~s
time apparently going out as far on1y as rhe I 00-metre isobath. On Figure 5.22
of the Tunisian Mernorial Zuwarah Iias reappeared ! But, instead of lying
parallel to Zira it is now a continuation of Zira, and trending virtually due
east : whereas previously both iRlps trended north-east. Figure 5 i 2 shows
neither ride.nor any prominence in the isobaths that might be identified with

8
.

@
00
them. Figure 9.0 1 shows both i- ide,^.
In the Reply stage. in Map 7.01, the two i-i(ie.5 are again paralle1 ro each
allier. w rth Zira trendirig easl. brit onIy out 10 the 1 I 5-metre isobath , and
Zuwarah trends nonh-east ou1 to the 100-metre isobaih. hlap 2.03 incIrrdes
iierther ri& by irame - but fronl Ihe isob?rhs orle caii detect a bank rurining out
ta the 150-mrtre isobath - Zira perhaps - but iiothing to suggtst a sxoirtl
@ ri&paraIIei to it and further to the sorith. On Map 2:04the r i d ~ oZuwaral3 f is

' See I V , pp. 5 18-5 19.

 rlHGUX1 ENI' OF PROFESSOR HO\\'ElT 155

stiII no1 depictcd, althougIi Zira is tliere, but this lime ruiiiiing nort h-east and
out ris far as the 200-inetrc isobath.
.4s 1 say. we had dific~iItyin locating these feaiures. and we werc not
irnprcssed by thc discrepancies in their description. Biit 1 will Ieave thc Court to
forni its ow n irnpressioi~.The rccent revision of the *I'iinisiaii subrnissions
coiifirms the i11cwthat the r i r h of Zuwarah has proved ioo clusive io be relied
ripon. and hence the emphasis is tlow placcd oii %Ira.
However. cven iakiiig thc most charilable vicw of these featiires it ~ n i n lbe
doiibted whciher they coilld scrve the purpose which Tunisia sceks. I s a y this
becirise, while it is by iio nieans clear whal type of inorphologrcal reature can
consliliite a fundameiital break in the continuity oTa shelf so as to have any
c f i c i i i i law on Ihc boundary, ivhat is cIear is lhat features of Tar greaier
prorniiience have b w n denied any srich effcct.
We Felt il inighl assisi the Coi~rlto havc some coniparison belweeti the
PeIagiaii Rlack and the two niorphological realures which have been
considered judicialIy . 1 refcr of course to the Norwegian Trough, referred to by
this Court in iis 1969 Judgmciit, and to the Hurd Deep. considered by the
Coiirt of Arbitration in 1977. Now yoii have this map in your folder. I t is also
@ to be foi~ndi i i the Libyan Counier-Mernorial as Figure I 2. Now you will see
thal we have here superiinposcd the Norwegiaii Trough on 1he Pelagian Block.
And as the Court will sec, in size and significance ii reduces the i-iri~sof Zira
and Zuwarah to insignificance. Let ine just givc IIie Court the figures. The
Norwegiaii Trough is 700 kilomeires loiig. up to 100 kilonletres wide, and has
an average depth or 250 to 300 metres below the surrounding sea-bed. The
Zira i-ide,, the larger orthe two i-idcs.is 100 kilometres long, 30 kilometres wide
ai its base. with a maximuin elevaiion abovc the sea-boitom oionIy 35 inetres :
1 lake those figurcs aboiit the i-irlc of Zira from Proressor Morelli's statetnenr.
And you rernernber Dr. Stanley's figures on the gradient of this ride of Zira.
Between 0.25 and I pet cent., Ihat is to Say a maximum gradient of 1 in 100.
Now neither the Unlted Kingdom nor Norway lrcated that Norwegian Trough
as a boundary. And yet this Court is being asked to treat the ricl<#of Zira as one,
@ apprrre~ilyin al1 seriousncss. Now Figure 1 3 of the Libyan Counter-Mernorial,
which i s also ln your foIdcr. shows ihc Hurd h e p . n feature whosc existence
is beyond, question. and a feature which is of far greaier significance thaii these
Iwo sirpposed ride.?. Its average depth, i i ~ ~ t J r ~
depth,
CIr:~isC1 1 5 melrcs - o r 45
metres bclow the sirrrounding sea-bed. Therefore even its avcrage depth is
greater tfr greater) than the niasim~tmeIevation of the rirlr. of Lira. And yei.
in the 1977 Award, the Court of Arbitration exprcssly rejected the submission
, by lhe Uiiitcd Kingdoin that ihe Hurd Decp could constituie a boundary. for

rcasons explained by Sir Francis i n his earlier nateiiient.

The concIusion I thereforc invite the Court ro reach is irvofoId. Firsi. that on
a11 the evidence the Pelagian BIock is a coniinuous single shelf. A n d , second.
that the katurcs reIied upon by Tunisia arc not such as 10 constitutc a break in
the fundamenta1 unity of the shelr so as to provide a boundary between the
two Parties.
1 turn now. Mr.President, to the third, and perhaps mosl diKcult question.
That question is : is rhe shelf area a prolongarion eastwards of Tunisia. as
Tunisia contends ? Or is ir a proIongriiion norlhwards rrom the Tuiiisian and
Libyan coasrs to the south ?
Let me firsr Say a word about the kind of evidence on which the t w o Parties
reIy.
Tunisia's case by and large resls on the evidence of bathymetry and
geomorphoIogy. That is to Say. Tunisia reIies upon what are basicaIly surface
156 CONTINEN'I'AL SNELF

or topographica1 features of both ihe sea-bed and the adjoining land. To rhe
extent that the Tunisian evidence goes to the subsoil. il is subsoiI o l a depth of
onIy several hundred metres, and wirh a hisiory of no more than 7 million
years. Indeed. Tunisia crit icized the Libyan evidence because. being more
geoIogical in character. ir relates to evenls w hich occurred up to 500 miIlion
years ago and which Tunisia suggesb depend for proof on sources which are
unreliable and irrelevant. There is some inconsistency in rhe Tunisian view
about reliability and relcvance, for Tunisia does not hesitate to stress the
importance of the Perrnian Hinge in an atternpt to show rhat the Block is
distinct from the main African PIate, even though the Hinge is a feature some
250 miIIion years #Id. Tunisia also makes much of ihc Kerkennah and
Kasserine uplifls : both features at least 75 million years old. So did Professor
MoreIIi in showing the seismic horizon at the top of the Mesozoic, also 75
miIIion years old. on his Map ES- 12. But Iet us set that aside and return 10 the
tnain criticism.
The answer to the crit~cisinis obvious enough.
Firsl, it is patentIy clear thar Ihis w hoIe dispute is about oiI resources. These
oiI resoiirces lie i n strata w hich are borh deep and old. And those strata are siiI1
there, even ihough they were laid down beiween 50 and 500 million years
ago : these strala are today what actualIy is the continenlal shelf. Ambassador
El Maghur, in his opening staternent, used some figures which I think are
highly relevant to the point I am now making, so it may be heipiuI to repeat
them. The Iikelihood of oiI occurring in rocks of difkrent ages can be
illustraled by the number of weIIs in Libya in which oi1 has been found in
rocks of a particuIar age. Let me give you the figures :
I n the receni, OIigwene, rocks (about 38 millioii years ago). only one weI1.
In the Eocene and Paleocene (between 37 and 65 million years ago), 48
wells.
In the Upper and Lower Cretaceous tbetween 65 and 135 miIIion years ago).
3 7 weIls.
ln Ihe Triassic (between 195 and 230 miIlion years agol. 20 wells.
In the Carboniferous and Devonian tbetween 280 and 355 million ycars
ago). 35 wells.
And in the Ordovician (from 435 to 500 million years ago), 24 wells.
So the Couri will see that in the recent, geoIogically young srrata with which
the Tunisian evidence is concerned, there is virtually no oiI. What, then, is its
relevance ? Naturai resources of interest in rhis case are the oiI and gas. How
then does ii heIp to concenlrate on evidence of sirara w hich contain neither oil
nor gas ? How can il be right lo eliminate from consideration the very straia
where the oil is ?
Second, and irrespective of the oil, the relationship between the shelf and the
adjoining land cannot be judged by bathy rnetric or topographical evidence
alone. This is rhe point Professor Morel ti made repeatedly. and it is obviousty
right. The relationship of the PeIagian BIwk to the adjacent landmass can only
be explained by taking in10 accoun! rhe whole origin of the BIock. I t was for
this reason that 1 gave to the Court a sirnpIified accouni of ils origins. And ihe
conclusion lhai the BIock is an extension nonhwards of the African landmass
10 the south is not one which can be deduced at al1 frorn the superficial
topographieal evidence of barhymetry and the like, but depends iipon tle far
more basic sciences of geoIogy. of PIate rectonia and physiography. Indeed,
rar from being irrelevant, it is to these sciences that one must turn 10 fuIIy
understand the relationship of shelf io Iandmass. For the study of geology, of
which plare tectonics is today an essentla1 element, d m no1 deal solely, or
 ARGUMIiNf OF PROFESSOR BOWEIT 157

1 even principaily, with the fate of one plate againni anoiher Ii explains the
interaction of plates and events. along with their boundarics. without in any
1 way assurning ihar neighbouring parts of, Say, Ihe Alricati Plate have identical
geological histories. It is equalIy the Libyan vicw that these same futidamental
sciences expIain the bathymerry : a view with which Professor MoreIli seemed
to be in eniire agreement. The whole point of ihe transpareni overlay of the
@ leclonic trends, over the barhymeiric map, in Figure 1 3 of ~ h Scientitlc
e Stud y
attached as Annex I I to the Libyan Memoriat (1) was to iIlustrate exacrIy that
view. For the Tunisian RepIy (IV), at paragraph 1 2, to accusc us of ignoring
the link between geology and geomorphology is, fran kly , beyond comprehcn-
sion.
And it shouId no! be assumed thal bathy meiry 1s somehow an exact scieiice
- whereas geoIogy is noi. Baihy metrics invoIves exactfy ihe same process of
iriterpretation of the evidence.
Therc is a separate Tunisian criticisrn of the Libyan scientific cvidencc
which meets with a simiIar answer. This is the criticism that Libya's evidence
has i o d o with macrogeology. geology on a large scale, and is divorced from
the specific area and the specific coasis in queslion. My answer 10 that is thitt
the events which accounied for this pariicuIar relaiionship of shelf to
landmass. and even shaped the coasts thernseIves, were great events, occurring
on a grand scaIe, h t h spatiaIIy and temporally. I t is no use trying to focus on
one smalj area and attempting to understand them. One rnust, in the task or
delimitation, turn to the arca under consideration, obviously. But only after
having underslood its origin in the larger scheme of lhings.
However, seliing aside ihese generaI Tunisian criiicisms of the 1-ibyan
scientific case, we niust now turn to 1he detaiIs of this !hi rd quesiion of the
reIationship between the sheIrand the Iandmass. 1 propose to examine first the
Tunisian argument, and 1 will s~immarizcthe Libyan comments oii that
argument. Then t will surnmarize the Libyan argument and examine the
Tuiiisian comments on that argument.

Let me take first the Tunisian argument. This is essetitially an argument to

show that the shclf is a projection eastwards of the Tunisian east-facing Coast.
Itscomponents are the following :
First. lhere i s the argument ihat the Pelagian Block is aii intermediate zone, a
prolongatioii of the Allas region to the easr and not part of the slabIe Afr~can
(or Sahara} PIatform. The argument seerns to be IwofoId. First that. 10 the
north or the African landmass, the crust is ihinner and more IlexibIe,
perrnitting substantial deformation. This is rrue. But al1 tIiat shows is that, as in
any other continental margin, once you get seaward of t he hingeline, the crust
gels thinner and is subjecr to iaulting as it subsides. Thai fits exaclly with the
descr~piion1 have given to you of how ihis sheIf originated. Then we are iold
that this thinner crust is identifiable with the Atlas Region, and no1 the African
Plalform. Now thai is the important assertion.
The basis for this important assertion lies first and forernost in what 1 may
describe as the transversals argument. That is to say, the argument that there
are east-west links between the BIock and Tunisia represented by three IeveIs
of predominant structural features. You wiII see them here on this map - Ihe
@ map is in your folder and is taken rrom rhe Tunisian Mernorial II), Figure 5.18.
, Now in the riorth a subsidence furrow is nid to extend from the Gulf of
Hammamet in the West to the Tunisian Furrow in the east ; in the centre you
have the aIIeged higli zonc from Kasserine in the west through the Agareb. tlie
Kerkcntiah Moles and througli to the Meiita arid Medina Banks in the east. In
the sou th you have the clairned Iitic of subsidence extending fro~nthe Chotls in
Ihc west ihrough the GuIf of Gabes aiid inlo the Triparitania11 Firrrow in rhe
easi.
Let us exaiiiine the apparent origin of this argument which i s rundan~ciital
to the Tunisiaii case. I t i so doing. let me ask the Court to bear in mind ihai
idenrily or coniiritiity betweeti one area and another inay bc proved. or
disproved. by differeiit types of evidence. I t may bc evidencc iiboin tlie
conlinuiry of sedimentary rocks. It may bc evidence about the continuiiy of
tectonic trends Or ii inay be evidcnce about i h e type of faulting ihat you find.
The Tunisian arguinerit scems to slcm roni Prorasor Rurollei's teclonic sketch
map in his standard work on Tunisian geology published in 1957. This is
reproduced as Figure I in the Libyan RepIy (IV), Annex 8, and it is also in
your foIder. Now, it is oiextrerne interest to compare the rnap in that work -
in Figure 1 - with Figures 5.14 and 5.1 5 of ihe Tunisian Memorial (l), which
you have in your folder. The Court wiII note that, on the earlier rnap (Fig. Il
there is little suggestion that ihese transversais extend westwards beyond ihe
north-sovth axis. It is only in ihe figures in the Tunisian Memorial that the
north-south asis disappears, to allow the ittipressiori or coniitiuiry. and its
significancc played doulri in the test. This is surprising for much of Proressor
BuroIlerS earIier work had stressed the importatice of the norrh-soi~th xis. I i i
1 956, in his classic stirdy of Central Tuiiisia. he wrote :
"Un axe NS . . . a reprseiite iine ligne majeure de la palkgkographie
depuis le jurassiqirc : il s'agit certainen~cntd'tine cassure du socIe . . . Le
caraciere original de la Tiinisie orientale est d a ce q~i'clleest isoIe de la
z o n t atlasrque proprenietit dite par cet a x e . . ."
'Thal vicw he repeated in a guidebook of the Peii-oIeum Exploratioii Sociei y of
.L.bya. wriiien in 1967 : "Thc North-So~ithAxis is of grcai significancc in itie
tectonic and paleogeographic history or Tii~iisia. Ii formed LIie easierri
boundary of the Atlas zones . . ." 'Thai sanie view has k e n repcaied by
Professor BuroIlet in receii t anicles in 1 974 and 1 978. I I was reasniriiig to fitid
that both Dr. Lazreg and Professor Ixifilte referred to the nort h-south axis as
the westcrti boundary of the Pelagiaii Block. so perhaps they share Professot-
Burollei's view of iis iinportance as a boriiidary. Bu! lhere is. apparciitly, a
conflia between Professor Burollet's publihed views and the Tunisian
Scienlific Study of which he is a CO-author.The conffict disappears, however.
when one grasps the siniple facr (ha1 BuroIlet was treating the north-soiitli asis
as a rc,crcitiic boundary. Of course, if you ignore the tectotiics, and concentrate
purely on the old, sedimentary slrata. you wiI1 find sotiie evidence of
continuity across the north-saulh asis. In cotitrasl. if you lake the ncwer
sediments, or even look a i the iype of the oIdcr sediments, there wiII be no ryal
continuity, because Lhe PeIagian Block was always a deeper basin thaii t hc area
10 the west - a deeper basin here thaii in Tuiiisia to the west. And IIiat is w hy
the BIock area has. Tor esample. the clays and inuds and Turiisia the Iinies~oiie.
You rviII reniember lhe distiiiction Professor Lafitte tiiade betrveen rhc hard
rocks IO the West of the nonh-saurh axis and the soR rocks to the easl (IV. p.
539). Thux if you take rectoiiics or new scdiinents or the type of older
sedimenrs. your iransversal argument is destroyed. Bi11 if yoii Lake the high
and ihe low aoiies, aiid riothing clse, you Iiave a pIausible argutrienr. Atid lhat
is esactly what Tunisia has dotie. I t is what one rn~ghtcri11 a "judicioiis"
seIectioti of the evideiicc. Now it rernains to cc esactly how tlrat j~rdiciorrs
seIecrioti has been donc.

Now the crucial transverse i n the Tritiisian argunicnt is the liiie of Choils -
for it is these thar are alleged to estetrd iii~olhe Gulf of Gabcs. Yer two of ~hese.
rhe Chotts Djerid and Rhassa. were vicwcd by BiiroIIet in an earlrer article. i r i
1956. which we have in the 1-itiyan Cotiriter-Mernorial III). Annes 84, as an
esiensioii of the souih-AurCs Trough in Algeria. So, in Professor BuroIIei's
erirIier vicw. rhe Tunisian Cholrs are ati exiension of ihe Algerian fcialiire -
fiirrher wesi. Now the Chott el Djerid is the Iargesi of these CIiolls and il
iliei-eforc nierits prirricriIar atteniiori. Thc 'I'iiriisian thesis. of coiii.se. is [Rat it
isari arc2 orsribsideiicc: hciice rtie litik with 1 h e G ~ i l f o f ' C a b I~t i faci. Libya
has subiiiirtcd 10 Ihc Couri iii t h c Libyaii KcpIy ( I V ) . !\iiiicx 11-8. a spccili
siirdy by k~lcssi-S.RIchards aiid Vira-Fiiizi \rlhIch shorvs iliat. oii tlic coii-
ir'ary. the Choit ws iir co~irriiuiiicatioii\viliili ihc se3 30.000 !cars rigo iirid
Iias siiicc bccn i~pIifiedby berwecit 48 aiid 90 iiiclrcs. So ihai it is now rio
Iorrgei- ~irhiding.But 1Iic conclrisio~iiilhich cmergcs fror~iid1 ilus is rciiIIy rciiwrk-
irbl y strargIiiforwnrd. Or coiirsc tlicrc arc soni siriiilarilics b~i\\~eeii ihc Clioits
i i i Algeria. :irid l'iiiiisia. arid thc Gulf of Gabcs. AI1 this sirip. riglit ;iIiitig rht.
Coast. righi aloiig the Norrli ATricaii coasi was i i i aiicieni iiiiics tlic srib-
iiiei-ged cotiiiticnial sIiclf. accriiiiiiIaiitig siiiirIar ~ediiiicnis.So. obvioirsly. ~ O L I
w i l 1 fitid sotnc evideiicc of coiit~tiuiry in rhese aircictir sediriiciiis. Hi11 tlie
coiitrnriity is coriviriciiig onIy if y o ~ isirnply ig~iorcthe lack orcontiiiiiity i ~ tlie i
icctonics. or thc ric\vcr scjc'd~i~ic~ils. 01' in thc q~icstioii of typc' of
oldcr sedirnciits.
Now . the transverse in the ceiilre. the high zones or "moIesMrroni Kasseriiie
to Kerkennah equally shoiv ati easl-wcsr trciid onIy i i i a very Iiniitcd sense,
being based 011 t h e oId scdinietiis. As Dr. AilkateII has shown (I,~byaii
Counier-MeinoriaI ( I II), Arit~.I 2A. Figs. 1-41. the dominan! ieclonic treiids
are, lo [lie west or the north-south axis. north-east to sortt h-west, aiid to thc
easl of the riorih-soirth asis, they arc norih-west to south-east. Thc Tunisiail
inlcrpreratiori o r these trcnds as east-wcst is siiiipIy not tenable oncc you look
ai liiiyrhing oil~crthan ihc old sedimcnts.
Second. WC have a Tutiisian argirrneIii that the facics maps - the inaps
showiiig [lie different sedi~nentarydeposiis - sirpport rhis east-west rrend.
The siiggestioii is ihat thc niarine facics in the PeIagian Rlock corrcspoiid with
those foutid in Cetitral Tunisi and have litrle affitiily with those on thc Libyan
laiidniasr or Ihc Africaii PIate. 'fhe point is pirrporied to be demonsirated on
Tunisiaii Map ES- 1 1 . 1t is esseirlially the sanle argumcnt as ihe fi mi. becausc il.
too. relies on t he coii tinuity of the old sediti~eiilarydeposits.
Atid ro bc accurate. the picture is na1 qi~iteso uniforrn as Tunisia suggests. If
the Court will rerer to Ur. Arlkalell's stridy {Libyan Cottnter-MetiioriaI {III).
A n n . 12Ak during Jurassic tinies the trends in thc sedimentarion are iiot
siricil y east-wew but rather iiort h-wcst to soulh-east.
Flowevcr. tlie essentfa1 poiiir 1s lhat t h e data oii which the wholc ']-unisirin
rguinciii about transversa1.s and facics is b:rsed reaIIy shows oiil y one i hing.
Aiid that is rhat the originaI coas1Iinc of the Africari Coritinetil ran roughIy
fast-wcst. with what is ~ O W Tiiriisia for the most pari subnierged by the sea.
The importance of the configuratioii of the original coastline can hardly be
cxaggeraled. For ~ h contiiienla1
e shelr was built ~ i pio lhe i~orihof il. with great
layes o r scd~nietitbciiig laid down pariillcl ro the coasrIine. i i i lhe saine way
 ARGUMENT OF PR0I:ESSOK BOWFIT 161
ihat ii was AtIasic faulting in Tunisia - quite different from the earIier fauIting
which altowed the break-through in the saIr in the Pelagian Blcck,and which
was part orthe Sirt Basin system.
But, says Tunisia, the age of the salt-walls is contemporaneou with the
Tunisian salt domes, no1 ihe Sirt tectonic system. This, 1 am afraid. is
speculation. The evidence reIied upon by Tunisia is drawn from surface
deposits. and if rhe geological dating of the salt-walls is faken from the deeper.
underlying straia, the agc can k argued to be the same as for the Sirt Basin
systern in Libya.
And then, iinaIly, we have the Tunisian bathymetric argumenl. This
appears to be the centra1 argument of the whole Tunisian scientific case. It is,
essentialIy. that the PeIagian BIock w a once par1 of Tunisia but is now
submerged. The bathymetric contours are said to foIlow the shape of the
Tunisian coast, representing "terraces", ancien! shoreIines, w hich the sea h a
reached at various stages of its invasion of Tunisia.
The picture is fanciful and very far removed liom the aciual evidence. So let
us look ar the evidence.
Borh Parries agree thai the barhy metry reaIIy has its origins in ihe geoIogical
history of the region. This emerges with extreme cIarity frorn the Tunisian
Scientific Study, rhat is Counter-Mernorial (1 Il, Annex 1, page 32, where the
Tunisian Study says this : "The reaI causes of the balhymgtric configuration of
the Pelagian BIock remain profoundly gwlogical and srruciural in characier."
In fact. as we have seen, Maps ES-1 l and ES- 1 2 of ihe Tunisian Annex I
show u s the deprhs, no1 of the present sea-bed but. on the basis of seismic
soundings, of deposits at the top of the Miocene and the top of the Mesozoic -
thai is to Say, ES-I I is betwecn 7 and IO miIIion years ago and ES-1 2 is about
75 million years ago.
So al leas1 we have got away from the preseni contours of the sea-bed ; and
ihese maps essentially abandon the argument tha! rhe preseni baihyrneiry is
the signifiant evidence. This is clearIy right. for the sea-bed's contours are
often very i m ~ r r n a n e n t ,being subject to movement by tidal currents, so it
could never be safe to deduce an afinity between a sheIf and a mainland by
such epherneral evidence.
But does this deeper. seismic evidence in facr support the Tunisian
bathy metric evidence ? In faci it does not. As we have already seen, ihose
Maps ES- 1 1 and ES- 1 2 go to support the lransversals argumenl 1 referred to
earlier, not the bathy metric argument. The Tunisian bathymetric argument
really appeaIs to the superficia1 similarity between some, not all, o l the
bathymetric contours and the general ou!line of the coast. But. as Dr. Vita-
Finzi wilI demonstraie to Ihe Court Iater. and as Dr. Fabricius wiIl aIso, these
echaes are not entirely faithful to the coast. Moreover the reaIIy significant
bathymetric feattires are tectonic in origin. It was io demonstrate that point
that in the Libyan Mernoria[ we reproduced that map of rhe teclonic trends
with the bath yrnetric contours superimposed on a transparent overlay. In fact.
the coastlines have, a! different tirnes, moved t heir location on the Pelagian
Block : but in no definiie pattern, and certainIy not aIways facing towards the
east. So this idea of a succession of terraces, facing eastwards and reflecring the
Tunisian caasts is not tenable. And rhe ,fuiaises, of which so much has k e n
made, is a lecionic and not an erosional feature, and it never was a true
coastline.
The lrurh of the matter is that Tunisia is realIy asking the Court to look at
the evolution of this area in the wrong sequence. Ii is no1 that Tunisia was
submerged in the east - as Tunisia says - but rather thar Tunisia rose in the
 W e s t . Perniit me to esplain in simple ternis with the heIp of ihis mode1 ( I I ,
p. 242. para. 1 3 3 ) .
OrigitiaIIy the coastliiie ran roughly east-wesi, so 1 havc ihe coast with me.
Ille land wiih inc, aiid the sheIf poiiitiiig towards the Court. Now al1 o r it was
part of the Africaii Plaie. At lhat stage there was no doubt thar t h e sheIr Iay to
the norlh of the landmass. Then. under the tremendous pressures of rhe
coIlision between the African and European Plarcs, the Africiin Plate buckled.
thrusring part of the shelf upwards ta form rvhat is now T'unisia. The shelf
lying norih of the origiiiaI coasiline was both cIevated in the wcst and
deprcsscd in the easi. And thai is wh y in the Pelagiaii BIock you now End it
shalIow in i h e wesi and deeper towards the east.
Nolhing has changed the esseritial relationship between the landmass and
the shelf. Or course. the upthrust Tunis~achanges. Plaie movctiienrs piIed up
the AtIas inountains, on top of the original shelf, here in ihc north. But the
Pelagian BIok - this area - remained as it aIwa ys had bwn : a shelf lo the
norlh of the niain landrnass Iying here io the south. And il did iioi somehow
becorne a prolongation to the east of this newly ettierged Iandmass which is
iiow Tunisia. It rernaincd, as it always had been, a prolongatioii of the main
Arican Iandmass to the south. And tlial. Members of the Courr, is essentiall y
why Libya maintains with co~ifidenceIhat the sheIf is - as i t has b e n since
ancien1 geologica1 limes - a prolongaiion to [he north of the adjacent African
landmass.
1 would now like to summarize very brieny the Libyan scieniific case, and
then essrnine ihe Tunisian criticisrns on that case. Now the delailed case is
explained in rhe wriiten pleadings, so 1 shall only restate Ihe basic propositions.
aiid 1 wiII confine my remarks to the propositions reIating ro the affrnity
betwecii tIie Pelagian BIock and thc landmass to the souih.
WC have, ,fiisr. the basic proposilion which 1 have describeci earlier : the
shelf area along the whole North African coast. a n d incIuding ihis parlicular
area, originalIy lay io the north of the landmass. The evidence for this can be
@ seen in Figure 6 of the Libyan Reply (IV). This is nol, 1 believe, seriousty
disputed by Tunisia despitc what Professor Jennings has said about irs
speculativc charactcr. In fact their own facies data coi~firni this basic
proposition, and Professor Laffitte was ab!e 10 date ihese shoreIines quite
precisely (IV. p. 533).
Sc.r*oiid.Libya says that the whole weight of the tcctonic evideiice shows
that Tnisia was Iifted up oiit of the sea and lhc Pelagian Block tilted very
slightly northeastwards withot disturbing the esseiitial relaiionship of ihe
Block as a projeclion to the nori h of the Iandmass to the south atid part o r the
African Plate.
Confirmatory evidence of this is plentiful enoiigh. In the Libyan Counter-
Mernorial (II). Annex I 2 A , you have Dr. Ankatell's study - it shows the
facies maps where the bands of shatIow water types are succeeded by bands of
deeper water t y p c s as one moves northwards from the caast. Sa the sea gets
deeper northwards, estabIishing ~ h i pattern
s of marine sedimeniation.
The evidence ihai the shelf was formed 10 the nonh of the main African
landmass is not however confined to th5 facies maps, and 1 wouId rerer the
Court to the study by CoIurnbia Universiry, a study by a group of scientists led
by Professors Pi!man and Ryan, which is Annex 11-6 to the Libyan RepIy.
Now this study appIies the science of plaie tecionics to the probIem of
determining how a continental shelf was created. In particular, it demonstrates
the application of a pariicular technique which shows in which direction the
Iithosphere - the earrh's surface or crust - was stretched during rifting. It
conclusion oii Professor Morelli's thesis lhat you will never End naturai
pi.oloiigation from landinass to shelf Now somcthing Is clearly wroiig. aiid so.
roo. with Professor Lafiille's views.
W hat is rvrong is no1 lheir science. Let me make i t absoIirteIy clcar - 1 do
not questiori the scientific knowlcdge or iritcgrity of rhcse iwo distingiiishcd
scholars. \I1hat is wrong is thai ihey have iiol understood. I'm arraid. the seiise
i i i whicIi iiaiitral proloiigaiiori has been used in the coniesi of thc legal
insrilution of the conIineiiiai shclf : or. iti oihei words. rvhar the I ~ i \ ~ y ehave
rs
iiieaii t by "nat ural prolonga~ioii".
Yoii will. naturally. find "continuiiy" aloiig oiie sedimentary slructure as
you go parallel Io the hiiigelinc rtnd thc edge of the sheIf. These structures,
rhese laycrs. ivere built up at ihe same iiinc. usually by ihe sanie sedimeriis.
Aiid. obviously, if one part of the shelf is Iater raised out of the sea - as
Trinisia was - rhecontinuitv will still be there. BLIIsilrcly lhat is rior what the
Colin meani by ihc nalural prolongarion of the landniass, iiito atid iitider the
sea ? That prolongatioii iinplies Ihal VOLI move. not parallel to the laildmass.
but at right aiigles to il, aiid ar right angles fron~the hiilgelriie. i t i csactly ihe
wro~igdircciioii in [crins of ,the analyis by Professors Morelli iid Idaffilie.
Now n~iichthe same difficulty arises wi~lithe frequently rfpeated Tuiiisian
proposirion thiit since Libya, Tun~siaatid the whoIe sliclf area are prirt of the
same pifrican Plaie. you caiinol havc a direction to ils natiiral prolongation.
You find lhis i i i Dr. I~zreg'ss~iemenl( I V . p. 503)aiid you lirid Ii p~ckedirp by
Professor \'iraIl y i r i his pict iiresque iniagery of everyonc beiiig in the sanie ship
aiid al1 going i r i ihe sarne direc~ion(IV. p. 555).
Now rhe coiitinental latidmass and tIie adjoining continental shelf are
rrlir:r~jbson the sanic pIaie. The sheIf is ihe slreiched part of ihe contiiicntal
crirst. And if you say thai. for ihis re~ison.yot~ciinno1 ralk of a dircctioii to the
natural proIoirgatioti. yoii arc realIy dcnyiiig ihat the Court's concepl of
natiiral prolongalion has ariy rneanriig ar ail. For I Iiave no doubt thai this
Coiiri did envisage a progression. a direciiori. 111 whicti thc contiiietital
laiidiiiass was coiiiii~uediiiio aiid iinder thc se:;.
Now. rvItIiot11 rcpealiiig what I said 11, relaiioii to iIic staleineiits of
Professor kIorelli and Professor Laffitte, Ict Inc simply s:iy that Dr. Stanley's
stiitetnci1t raises siniilar probIcnis. Cali it reaIIy bc thoughi that by "iiariirri1
prolongation" we mean no more thaii the direclion i t i which a shclrmay have
been tiItcd '? For tiIting. iodards [lie east - or niore acctiratelv norrh-cast - is
al1 thai ii is. And a11 ihose cornplex "drairiage" patlerns arc realIy nothing inore
ttiriii rhat. 1 refer of courLe. to. Che Trr nisian Folder Figirre 59 - pcrhaps besr
rccalted as ihc bathy meiric cIieri with a bad artack of vai.icose veiris. r\ nd tlie
Coiiri will note ihzit we are 1101 dealing with an arguincnt thal the Tiinisieii
laridinass drairied away inio ihc shelf. For I1roTessor h~lorelIiriiadc il quiie clcar
Ihai the transporl of Iand scdimeni lias been iiiIiiiina1 : sedirncntat~oii1x1 thc
shelT arar is iiiari~iciri origin 1IV. p. 507). So neirher Ttinisia nor Libya cari
rnzike oiit ail argixmenl Tot- the shclf sedirnetitary deposits beirig iheir landniass.
washcd out 10 sca.
UT coirrse. if rhe Tiiiiisiaii argurnenl was ihat the b1aIta-Misratah
Escarpment. t his feati~re,to Ihc east \vas t hc [rue dope. beyond the shelf, going
dowti ro rhe deep ocean bed. bcitig furthcr east in the loriiari AbyssaI Plain. rve
rnrglit have ;i more substantilif basi Tor the idea of naturat prolongatiori
iowards the cast. There is jusl a hinl of this arguineni. especially in the
Tunisiaii orai arguineiir. in the oral statenienis inade by 1he Tunisian scienrists.
Biit the scientific Faliacies iri such ail arguincnl wouId really be insurrnonra-
ble. For how coiiId WC theri explait1 rhe extraordinary phenoine~ionof the fdge
of the shelfai right angles to the hingeline ? O r disguise Ihe fact thai the MaIta-
Misratah Escarpment is no1 a dope at all. but a fault. or perhaps the result or
the riking process having ceased earlier in the east than in ihe west ? ln an y
event it is not a continental siope.
How could we expIain the faci that. whiIst cornplex. the area of the Ionian
Abyssal PIain is not m a n i c crust - the deep sea-bed - ii is coniinental
crust ? If the Court will examine Figure 28, produced by Professor MoreIli,
you wilt see quite pIainly that the Ionian Abyssal Plain is continentat crust.
And how could we explain away the fact that. as Professor Laffitte kept
reminding us, the sedimentary deposits gel thicker towards the north, as you
move aivay fram the hinge-zone - evidence no! conceivably consistent with
the edge of ihe shelf. and the slope. 1 ying to the easi ? Indeed, the argument is
exposed in atI iis error by Dr. Laareg. Listen to what he says of the MaIta-
Misralah Escarpment : .
A

''To rhe east of the flexure, the bowl of the Guif of Sirle is esseniiaIly a
conlinenla1 rise physiographically prolonging the Sirte Basin in the
direction of the Ionian AbyssaI Plain." (1V. p. 50 1 .)
Now. le1 me mark those Iast words well : "protonging the Sirte Basin in the
direction of the Ionian AbyssaI Plain". Ir rise there be, it prolongs the Sine
Basin in rhe direciion of the lonian Abyssal Plain. Now ihat is Libyan territory,
wiih a prolongation to the north. There is nothing there about the dope and
rise being a prolongation towards the east of the Tunisian landmass Iying far to
the west. The truth of the matter is that, if you want to argue that the Malta-
misr rai ah Escarpment is a slape you have insurrnountabIe problems. A n d yei
lhere are iewer problems if you look for the dope where the slope shouId be, ro
the nonh of the Pelagian Black.
I can perhaps now summarize by stating rhe Libyan answers to the three
questions J posed at the beginnina.
Firsi. we are conccrned with a dcIimitation within t h e aren of ihc Pelagian
Block.
Second. thc shelfarea within the Blmk is an area of fundamental coniinuity,
both geoIogicaIIy and geomorphologicaIIy.
Third, ir is the naturaI prolongation of the tandmass 10 the south.
Now, evidently, those answers d o not in themseIves resolve the problem
before the Court. For the Court is requated to guide the Parties on the
principles and rutes which should govern delimitation, and also on the method
to give effect to those principles and rules. 50. inevitably. we are bound 10 take
the use of the scienlilic evidence yet a stage further and ask : "does it help us to
determine t h e principles, or rules, or even the methods which wi!I provide t h e
correct deIirnitation in law ?"
Both Parties have answered lhis question artirmatively.
Lei us examine. first of alI, the Tunisian answers.
The first Tunisian method resis on what Tunisia regards a s important
geomorphologica1 features. We think they are triviaI. But let us set lhal aside
and try to rotIow the logic of the method. 1 have some dificulry with this but 1
hope ihe Court wiIl b a r with me.
We are toId by Professor MoreIli thai the Tripolitanian Frrrrow is one of the
two salient geomorphoIogica1 fcatures of the entire Pelagian BIock. Professor
Virally agrees. For him it is the truc naturaI ronrier. 1i is this fealure which
he compares with the Norwegian Trough and he says "the thatweg of this
valley . . . constitutes a true naturai subrnarine frontier"(IV, p. 560). N o w we
 There is, in addition. one fur1her eIetnctit ro support Libya's description of
the Coast north of Gabes as zi~ioniaIous.The geological history of thc coast
supports that view. As 1 described earlier, the ancien1 coasttine. at various
rimes did ruii broadly east-wat, through the area of Gabes. Tunisia to rhe
norih was subrnerged shelf. subsequently Iifted out of the sea by formidabIc
lectonic forces. Therefore it is not uiireasonabIe or unrcalisiic io describe tliis
part of Tunisia as anomalous, by coniparison with the Norrh Arican coast as a
whole.
Now, the tiiird reason is that, as we have explained in thc Libyan Counter-
Mernorial III). the Tunisian coasi around Gabes turns through alrnosl 90.
Now wiih a coastIine at right angles the two coasts necessariIy abut on Io the
same area of shelf : it s~mptycannoi be otherwise. So. if the shel rarea is viewcd
as the prolongation. in geographical ierms, of ihe coast, one is forced io ask the
question "which coast" ? I t cannot be horlt coasis if the concept of proIongaiio11
implies a seiise or direction, because the samc sIieIf cannot go in two direct ions.
II therefore makes sense to view the shelf as the geographica1 extensian of the
same Coast from which it is the geological extensiori. Parlicularly so when this
is the coast tvhere the land boundary lies. Now. this bring.5 nni 10 Ihe foirrth
and perhaps mmt cornpeIIing reason.
The fourth rcason is simpl y that, rvith ~ h Iand e boundary at Ras Ajdir, one
must necessaril y start the delimitation froni that coast. Whatever nicthod or
deIirnitation one uses, this is the coast from which one starts arid this is the
coast which is going to conlroi the delimitarion. And, if you start frorn Ras
Ajdir, moviiig wesi dong the Tunisian coast. aiid siiddenIy. at Gabes, turn
through 90, w hat eIse is thai but ail atiomaIy :'
What then, is the significance of the Tunisian coast nort h of Gabes ? Ler me
Say, to begin with. that it wouId be wrong to regard this as a simple nonh-
south coast, facing east. It is, in facl, rriutti-directional because of the concavity
or the GuIf and ihe thrust north-eastwards of the SaheI promontory. One can,
il is irue. conslruct a general north-south axis by looking al the general
direction of t hc entire Tunisian coast norih of Gabes : and Libya has done this.
in its Counter-Mernorial on page 200, simpIy for the purpose of ascertaining
the degrec Io which the SaheI promontory constitutes a change in the general
d~rectionof'the Tunisian coast. But to describe the actuaI coasr as north-south,
or east-facing. would be simply inaccurate.
Taking the coasi with al1 its complexities aiid directional changes, we see
little reason to take up the time of ihe a u r i with a deiaiIed comrnentary on rhe
concavjties of the Gulf o r the relationship between the Kerkennah Islands
and the Sahel formations or even the dislinclion Ttiisia sees between the
Kerkennah Islands and the ScilIy Islands. 1 say this because. in facl, none of
these feaiures really affects the deIimitation. Given that neither Party accepts
thal equidistancc as a meihod can produce an equitable result, these feaiures
no longer controI a n y line of deIimiiaiion. so lhere seerns IitiIe 10 be gained
from discussing them.
There is, however, one exception, and ihat is the Sahel promontory itseIf.
We gave very careful consideration to the whole configuration of the Tunisian
coast, and, in the result, we concluded lhat the Sahel promontory was a feature
large enough and important enough in the configuration as a whoie, to
warrant refiection in any scheme of delimitation. I t was a feature sufficiently
dominant to require refleclion. as part of the appIication of the geographica1
aspect of nafural prolongarion. And that is why, in the proposed Libyan
method, wc caused the direction of any Iine to change frorn north tu nonh-=si
- to v e r roughty at the parallel of Ras Yonga.
 172 CONTINENTAL SHELF

1t is in that way chat we see geography influencing the method. That method
wilI be explained in detaiI by my coIleague, Mr. Highet, so I need say no more.
But how does Tunisia see geography affecting the delimitation ? 1 confess I
do not find it easy Io answer that question. CIearly the two meihods 1 have
already described - the line of crests and the line or direction towards rhe
abyssaI plain - have their origins in geomorphology rather h a n geography.
There remain only rhe iwo variants of the so-caIled geometric method. These
do depend upon the actual. or more usually hypotherical, configuration of the
coasts, so 1 suppose one is entitled 10 consider these methods as ftowirig from
the Tunisian view of geographicaI natural proIongation.
tibya harj aIready submitted a detaiIed commentary on ihese methods as
Annex 8, of the Counter-Mernoria1 (Ill), and a summary commentary on
pages 183 to 188 of the Counter-Mernorial (II). I will spare the Court a
repetition of that, and Say onIy this, simpIy to emphasize what we beIieve io be
the fundamental. defects of those two extraordinary rnethods. They have, to
my knowledge, no basis in Iarv or Stale practice. They proceed on the basis of a
selection or coasis which is arbitrary and incorrect. They distort the direction
or those coasts. so that the ligures bear Iittle resemblance to reality. They
produce what purports to be an equitable allocation of sheIf areas by an
equaIIy arbitrary seIection of those areas - for example including areas
already delimited as between Italy and Tunisia, and areas which could onIy be
properly delimited as beiween Malta and Libya. Now in the Tunisian Repry
(IV), Annex 1 2, Tunisia has castigated the Libyan comments on the Tunisian
geometrical methods for iheir obsession with areas. Apparently, or so we are
toId, the methods are concerned with distances, , with coastaI Iengths. Yet
severaI of the diagrams - Figures 9.05, 9.06, 9.07, 9.09, for example - are
quite clearly concerned wiih areas. 1 ndeed, ir could scarcely be otherwise if we
are concerned to appIy the 1 s t of proportionality, as a guide to the equity of the
resuIt. For proportionaIiiy is a ratio of coastal Iengths to areas of shelf. So we
make no apology for our obsession with areas. We are also casiigated for
deforming the Tunisian diagrams by inserting parallelograms wherc none
were intendeci. But look ai the sequence of Figures 9.09 to 9.10. The first
justifies the translation of the bissectrice from the angle of the apex of the
triangle to the actuaI fronrier, by reference to areas endosed by paraIIeIograms.
Figure 9. IO appIies the same method - but withoul the paraIlelograms - Io
t h e actuaI coasts in this case. Al1 wehave done is to complete the sequence by
adding the paraIIeIograms - w i th the somewhat extraordinary results that
Our adaptation of Figure 9.I O reveals. The Tunisian RepIy h a done nothing to
cause US to revise our criticisrn of these met hods, nor has Professor Virally's
exposition. I have no wish to rake up the time of the Coukt with a repetition of
that criticisrn in detail.
Bui Iet me invite the Court to consider cerlain defects which, 1 subrnit,
invalidate the whoIe geometricaI exercise- Now, let us start with the simple
diagram used by Professor Virally (IV, p. 61 1). We start with a 'simple righl-
angIed coast, with two coastal Iengths A and B. Let us not concern our-
selves wilh whether they belong to one or two different States. Let us just
think of them as toasts, coasts w hich have a naturat prolongation - an area of
shelf which should apperbin to those coasts. Now, in ~ h area k it is agreed by
borh sides that an equidisbnce line, a b i s ~ t o r would
, produce an equitabIe
result. And, clearly, that must be so ; the two Iengths of coast face in10 the
same area of sheIf. They prolong into exactly the same area. They both cannot
, have the same a r a , they must share it. If they have equal coasts they share it

equaIIy.
 Now, Iet us take the exer-cise a stage furiher. If we extend the toasts and
place the frontier here, then we are ioId wlrat we mus1 nuw d o is to transfer
thar bissectrice from that point, the apex of the right-arigie, to here, Io produce
tlral lin<. Nuw, why is that ? What is tlie Iogic behind transferring that
b i ~ I r i c e The
. Court wiII see immediately what Iras been done. Whar has
been dune is that this Ie~igthof mat. if you Iike Gabes-Ras Ajdi~.,which
previousiy was equitabIjl satjsfied witIi this area, is now no Ionger satisfied but
denlands compensation, equitabie allocation fir~therto the east. Here.
What tliat metirod does, of course, is nolionalIy IO transfe1- tIie Tunisian
c o a t soIne 70 rniIes eastwards as if the actual Trinisian coast went Iike that.
Oiice again yorr would get something Iike Ihe situation i ~ which i the bissectrice
wouId be aIi equitable solurion. But that is only by dint of norionaIIy
triinsferring t11e Tunisian coast 70 miIes to the w t and of course excluding this
whoIe area frum any calculatio~isof proportio~iaIity This whoIe area is
deemed, as it were, to belong to Tunisia and not to be counled for questions of
propor~ionrtIity,ta the east of this ii~ie.
Of course, the probIem is what da you do with rhis lengtir of coast since a
good deaI of the shelf a r a in front of it has now, by this metliod, been
aIIocaIed io thjs coast. Of course lhe aIiswer is you co~npensatethis Iength of
coasl by sIa1iti11gthat a c r m and yorr give lo this Iength of coast a share of sheIf
in front of Ihe nent Iength of coast. So each IengtIi of coast gets ils equilable
a I I ~ a t i o onIy
~ i by dint of havirrg its area sIanied over and bei~igcoinpensated
by a n ai-eaof shelf iri front of the next coast a101ig. Aiid of course you can ca1-ry
un doing that fur quile svme time uiiti1 you corne Io a third State Ji.
And if there is another boundary here yuu c a ~ be i quite sure that the third
State wouId object vociferousIy to Iraving this Stare compensated i ~ relationi to
this acquisition by g i ~ i n gto Ihis State an area of sheIf which Iies in front of
Slate Xj: coast. You simply cannot compensale by shifting over the areas a11
the way aIong tlie coast.
And, of caurse, if there is yet a~rotherState somewhere in this al-eathen the
prublerns becorne even Inore acute and the o b j ~ t i o n stu this ~nethodbecorne
even Inore se1feviden t.
Now, I don't need tu comment on tIie second ge01neIrica1 methud. Tlie
second geo~nelrical method is simpIy a variafi011 of the first. The o ~ i l y
d i E r e n = is that this li~ieiiistead of being the bisseclrice, the equaI division of
that angIe. is a line which divides [Ire a1ig1e i n the 1-alioof the two Iengths of
coast. 80 that you take that coast over tlial coast, whicIr gives you ratio. and
then you divide that angIe in the same ratio. That is the unly differe~ice.
BasicaIIy, it is tlre same method and of course ii is sribjecr to exactIy Ihe same
objections as !Iris transfer of the bissect1-ie.
Irr co~~clusiun, 1 invite the Cour1 tu accept that the Libyan view of the
scientific evidence is basicaIIy correct. W e are deaIing w itIr a si~igIe.continuuus
sheIf ;and it is a sheIf which proIongs the Ia~idmassnorthwards. And, urr that
view, the Tu~iisian metliods of deIi~nitation are reaIIy quite untenable.
Canversely, that view of the matier does provide a sound baris f o devising ~ an
alter~rativeniethod, and that alternative rnethod wiII be explairied Io the Court
in detail by my coIIeague Mr. HigIiet.
The Cotir! rose ar I p.m.
 STATEMENT OF DR.\'!TA-FINZI
EXPERT FOK THE GOVERNXIENT OF THE L I R Y A N >\RAB JAh4AHIRII'A

Dr. VITA-FINZI : Mr. President, Members of the Court : it is an honour to

be atlowed 10 address you and a priviIege io spmk in t his case. My task is io
discuss certain matters that bear on the recenr geofogical evolut ion or the area.
For thls, we have to reIy on bathyrnetric charts, borehoIes. sedimeni saniples
and other dam sources a11 or which, as Professor Bowett has obscrved, require
some measure of interpreiation.
Ci'ithout ii body of iheory inrerpreiation is of corirse impossible. One needs
some kind of prcdictive or explanaiory skeleton on which io hang oiie's
findings and to know where and how io look for more information. A n d
w ithout new or at least revised theories. sciencc and technology stand still.
I take it no orle scoffs at iitorns theory because it is a theory, or at the theory
of relativity becausc it was bprn in the rnind rather than in a caIculat~ng
machine. And 1 take it no one denies ihat our understanding of nature has
beiiefited from the explanatory power and prcdictive power of ihese and
simiIar bodies o f theory.
Now plate tectonics is Iess ambiiious, and the ideas ii embodies have siil1 io
l x elaborated : but they have invigoraied geology beyond recognition. They
have also proved their practical vaIue IOeconomic geologists atid seisrnoIogists.
among others. And they are constantIy being adjusted in the light of field
observations, in ihc Mediterranean S a not leasi through the distinguished
work of Professor MoreIli and his associates.
Professor tafiire quoted From a report of the Internariona1 Uiiion of
GeoIogical Sciences aiid the 1 nternariona1 Union of Geadesy and Geuphysics
to the drect thar we cannoi explain how plates move. that phies are no!
invariabIy rigid, and that the links between field data and their explanation is
often either conjectural o r unclcar. I fear he did not quite convey the spirit or
the repori, which spoke highly o r the success of ihe theory in unifying the
interpreiation of previousl y ~inrelatedand diverse observations. I ndeed. the
questions surnmarized by Professor Lafiiie amoun ted io a research st rategy
designed to p h g some of lhc gaps. It is gratifying to note thal the two
iniertiationa1 bodics responsiblc for the rcport helped to sponsor the
symposiuni on the ~trucriira1history of the Mediterranean Basins held in Split
in 1976 an which the Libyan Counter-Mernorial drew for many of its
arguments.
More triviaI, perhaps. but still d~siurbing.is the misuiiderslanding displayed
by some of or distinguishcd 'Tunisian colleagues. in the Tunisian deIegat1on.
of the phrase "norihward thrust". To anyone famiIiar with colIoquial Eiiglish
it denotes direction not iiecessariIy Iinked to movemenr. The siairway of this
building thrusts into the garden witholrt actually sliding across the lawn. The
Arrican Plate points north and that, rather lhan its motions, is what the phrase
signifies.
Now, this brings me io ihe eastward thrust depicled by the Tunisian team in
the bathymerric and topographie evidence that uiiderlies much of iheir case.
In an atternpt to demonsirale the intimatc connection between Tunisia and
the sea to its east, grear piay has been made of the aIIeged paraIlelism between
the moderri coast and the isobaths, or contours. oifshore.
 @ A gIancc ai ivivlap 2.03 of the Tunisian Reply which we display here, s h o ~ s
t ha1 man y depih contours are i t i no way paraltel Io the coast. Take Tor exampIe
the LOO-metre isobath. wIiich here protrudcs. and here it moves towards the
wesr in direct opposilio~i10 the coan. Merc il moves eastward where the
Tuiiisian Coast is direcred towards the West. This isobath cIearIy reflecis the
grabens or subsiding blocks of the Fosse de Jarrafa and ihe Fosse de Zohra.
These depressions cari be traced in10 lhe so-alled Plateau Tunisien. The Fosse
de Jarrafa in particiiIar is prolonged by depressions which are clcarly visible on
the Tunisian map.
fn short. thc horst or ridgc iopography tht i v e see in this zone is a prod~icr
of processes operating hcrc - fatiliing processes - rather than a reflection or
an expression of the Tunisian mainland lo the wcsi.
Moreovcr cven wesl io thc 200-metrc isobaih. which 1 have pst folIowed,
we find thar rIiere arc bathyrncirlc trends that depart from an y east-west
projecriori Trom the land. Take. for example, the depression beiween the
Kerkennah Islands and rhe mainland which rutis north-cast-south-west and
which in facl 1s a rclection of recionic tre~idsthai are manifcsted on the islands
themselves.
Again. we were lold rhat ihe "draii~agcchanneIs" derived from sch
isobaths
-. lead iiiexorabl y to i he cas!. The char1 rcprodiiced as Figure 59 ' in the
1 tinisiirn foldcr and w hich is hcre on the board, siiggesis that some paris of the
sheIf are characterized by interna1 drainagc : for exampIc, here W C have a
closed deprcssioti irito which rhe drainagc Iiiics flow. Now. if we correct the
rnap by elirnitiating channels which couId be said, as depictcd there, to be
runiiing in IWO direcrions al the same tirne. we sec i hat the drainagc 10 the wcsI
of this point is infernal and the drainage to the east is restrictcd to the zone off
the Libyan coast. a1 and easl of Ras Ajdir.
ln addiiion to ihat. we mighi observc ihat the bulk of the area to ihe West of
the 200-metre isobath drains towards the north, towards the lincar depressions
that both sides accept as l y ing close 10 the northeasierri rnargin of the Pelagian
Sea
Now rhis leads on to rhc qucstion of former shorelines. Professor Laffitte
has said ihat ancien1 geographies are ranciful although hc himself made
brilIiant use of ancieni shoreIincs in his exposirioti. At a11 events his warniilg
came too larc. 1-lis colieagtic Dr. Stanley, and the aurhors of ihe Tuiiisian
Mernorial M o r e hini, bemoaned Tunis~a'sloss of laiid io the rise in sea lcvel
that marked the close of the las1 glacial episode. 'Tunisia. they claim. lost more
t h a n Libya and presurnabty they imply by thrs that it should be corres-
pondingly compensated.
@ The I'iinisiaii k!emoriaI presetired a rnap tFig. 5.08) which was in ihe
T u n ~ s i a rroldcr
~ and is in our new folder '. This allegedIy represeiits lhe
shoreline a1 ihc peak of the lst glaciation 1 5.000 ycirs ago. The sources on
which the shoreline map in rhc folio is bascd is rhai fine volume La ir1r.i-
1 pc;lu,yic~~iirc which was providenlialIy published by the University of Provence
in 1979. 1 n that voliime Ihe arithors indicate thc presence or s a ~ i d aiid
s gravels
a1 depths of betiveen IO0 2nd 250 niares. The airthors of those reports
suggesied rhar soine of the sedimcnis rnight have slipped down to t heir present
position and rhat others rnighi have accuini~latedd o n g ail ancieni shoreline
1 Let us nonflook ai the Tunisian folder. Figurc 6 I I , which is aIso in our new
folder. This shows shifis in the pasitioii of sea-level over the last iew miIIennia
'
ii Noi rcproduced. (See IV. p. 5 12, fooinote.)
FiIed 5 O c ~ o k r1981 . Not reproduced. ISee IV. p. 5 12, Footnoie.)
 STATEMEhT OF DR. V11'A-FINZI 177
on rhe basis of points each representing a dared sampIe for which we have a n
age, w hich is the x-axis. and a depth, w hich is rhe y-axis. Now. these points are
derived iiom aII pans of ihe world and they include areas which are active1y
subsiding. The presenr depth does not necessarily correspond to the depih ai
'which they formed. In other words. the graph and the envelope of depths
derived from il, will give an exaggerated impression of the maximum depth 10
which the sca fell I5,C)OO years ago. But. lei thar pass, whai is cIear from the
diagram is that even at the maximum it did not reach the 150.1nelres which is
alleged in sorne presentarions of this figure and in fact the sea-IeveI is given by
Che authors of the diagram as having lain sornewhere between 70 and 130. Let
u s accept 130. Even then rhe sands that lay between 1 30 and 250 beIow sea-
level escaped the waves. The Iine of cliffs or,Juluisc~swhich is present in Figure
@ 5.07 of the Tunisian Mernorial and shown here on the board would have lain
5U or more metres beIow the lowest position of sea-level.
The fact that these ,fula~scsare struct~lra1.as can be seen in the ,fosse. or
grabens of rhose iwo locations is clear and is endorsed by the fact that the
alignment o f the .faluise does not foIIow the contours as a coastIine would.
And, it is rcassuring to find this inference supported by the sea-IeveI evidence.
The.fi~luistacannot represent a coniinuous former shoreline.
But lei us se what the ancien1 topography was like.
The main scientific source drawn upon by the Turiisian spokesman for this
work is that same coIIection of papers, t r r i w r ~ ~ t ; i ( i y i ~ ~This
t i ~ r evolume
.
includes a series of radiocarbon dates on deposits in the offshore zone.
inciuding the so-called Gulf or Gabes. And w hat we have done in this figure,
@ which cornes from the Libyan Counter-Mernoriai. is ro ploi Lhe depth of ages
corresponding lo the boreholes and indrcate wheiher they are l a s rhan 16.000
years old o r more. so as to indicale w here the lopograph y of the sea floor lay
1 6,001)years ago. We have interpolaled this line between a g a which are Icss
than I 6,000 or more than I 6,000 ; and what this figure scems to dernonsrrate
is first that when the sea lcvel dropped to its maximym Iow level of 131)
metres, it did not expose this area, and therefore it demonstrates that that area
could not have been submerged again when the sea-level rose.
The second point which we derive from rhis informaiion is the topograph y
of t he sea fIoor now, which is this easiward sloping zotie here, which is very
dificrcnt from what ii was a! the time. which is perhaps tess unduIating than
shown here, but certainly has no general eastward slope. I f anything it has a
north-south grain. In short, the drawing of old shorelines on the basis of
bathymetric data relating to the present day begins to look distinctly
unconvincing.
Now what of coastal Tunisia ? In ihe Choii Jerid, where Iakc deposils and
lagoon deposits are alIegedly present, we recenlly found. in March of this
year. that the beds in qucslion are rich in the oysiers Iiving now in the
Mediterranean Sea. As Professor Bowett recailed yesterday. radiocarbon
dating of these oysters gave a result of between 25,001)and 35,000years ago.
The conclusion one must reach is tha! ihe Chott was. at thar tirne, linked to the
sea. In s h o r ~ its
, shoreline represented a return to the east-west alignment of
the coastline that ha typified the North African coasi for much of its hisiory.
Now these sites Iie a1 40 rnetres above sea-level. The sea 30,000 years ago
lay 40 metres or more beIow its present, IeveI. I t foltows that that pan of whar
the Tunisian side calls an axis of subsidence, and w hich it links to the Gulf or
Gabes in contradiction to what Dr. Pierre Burollet has been say ing Tor many
years, this axis of subsidence is seen to have risen by at least 80 metres in the
Iast 30;1)00years. That is a rate, an average rate, of 2 . 5 millirnetres a year. In
short. the Tunisian transversal argument, which is summarized in Map S. t 8 of
the Tunisian Mernorial II), is here seen to be directly opposed by the availabte
field evidence.
Doubtles lhe Chott did subside in earlier limes. jus1 as the HimaIayas
subsided before they were foIded. The fact that the Choit is a basin provides no
clue to its behaviour in the last 30.000 years. MorphoIogy on land, Iike the
baihy metry at sea, can give a misleading picture of geological history unless it
is supplemented and if necessary correcteci by other sources. 1 suspect that no
jury wouId decrde a case of human kinship on facial rcsemblance atone. I t
would turn 10 bIood groups, which nowadays use new immunological
techniques which though srill exploratory are beginning to yield unarnbiguous
answers. 1 iherefore h o p ihc Court is satisfied that Libya need make no
apoIogy for its use of geological data, however novel some of the techniques
and concepts reIied on in trying io resolve the problem before us.
 rnountiiin ranges was par1 of this north-facing continental iiiargin on an east-
west trending Coast. This regron was elevatcd out of rhe sea when the AtIss
mountains were formed. and now it constitutes par1 of lhe Atpine foIded belt.
Thereforc, we can say ihat thc north-acing continenta1 m a r g ~ nof North
Arrica wesi of a line extending roughly frotn ihe Gulf of Gabes to western
Sicily was invoIved in the collision between the Airican and 1h.e European
Plares during teniary timc with consequent overprinting of the margins.
creating a zone of overIap between fwo teetortic domains. An enlargemen! of
@ Figurc 2 of the Libyan Reply shows this zone. To the east of this Iine coiIisioii
belwcen Africa and Europe has not yet occurrcd and the original normal
sequence of the continental margin : faII-Ilne, hingeline and shelf. can slill be
recognized as is evident from the cross-sections included in the Libyan

88,,
47 48 Mernoria1 (11, Annex 11, plates 1 and 2, and the Libyan RepIy ([VI, Annex 11-6,
plaies 10 atid 1 1 . These cross-scctio~isare based on well data and seismic
renection profiIes, not t heory, and they a ~ s confirm
o Ihai we are dealing with a
sheIf Iying to the north o f the African mass. Progression in sedirnentary
thickness towards the north is also cvideni. Bolh Professor Morelli and
Proressor Lafitie arrived at the same conclusion in their oral plcadings ( I V ,
pp. 520-522, and 537-5381,
It is also clear from the cross-sections and as is described by the Columbia
University study (IV.Libyan RepIy. Ann. II-5). that :
"w hile the hinge zonc is a major slructural boundary. it does not mark the
cdge of the contincii~.Raiher it separates basically unaIiered continental
crust rrom originaIIy similar continental crust which was thinned,
extended and heared during the rifiing process."
I f you Iook at the cross section in the Libyan Mernorial (11, Annex II, PIate
@ 2. on which we have indicated the position of the presetir shoreIine Iit is this
figure and that is the posiiion of the present shoreline, and this towards the sea,
and thar towards the land : we ind~catedihat by a red arrow at the top of ihe
figure - ihis figure has been displayed and mounted on t h e easeIJ you wilI see
complete continuiry rom land to sea best rcflccted by Quaternary and Miocene
sediments dcpos~tedin thc interval between 25 and 5 niilIioti years ago. In
addition. older sediments are faulied, but present on both sides of thc hii~ge
zone.
Take. for cxample, one o f ihese bands here. I t is presenr here, on land, and
on the hinge zone. and it is preseni also ofi'shore here as being covered by the
normal fauliing in this area, coniingenr to the salt tectonics.
I now wish Io turn to the question of whether rhe northwest+southeast
rrending fault bounded depressions (or grabens) depicled so cIearIy in rhe
Pelagian Sea by the authors of lhe Tunisian Mernorial are, as we submit.
cIosely reIated to those of the Sirt region. The map pIaced on the board behind
ine is on plaie 5 , Annex I I , of lhe Libyan Mernorial (11 also Figures 15 and 19
of the Libyan Counter-Mernorial (II).You will recall that the suggestion was
subrnitted by the Tunisian Counter-Mernoria1 and Tunisian RepIy on the
grounds that the twosets of Taulis are ofdifferent age - that is to say the faults
in Ihe Siri basin and the fauIls in the Pelagian BIwk - and that they have
different orientations.
First, let me speak aboui the age of the two systems ; both areas (the
PeIagian Basin and the Sirt Basin) yield evidence of rifiing at least as far back as
mid-Tertiary tirne. The continuation of t hese movements into the Quaternary
in the PeIagian Sea has been demonstrated by W,innock and Bea in the
coIIect ion of papers edited in Lu mpr pc;I~~gi~~i~liiie University of Provence
 n A T E M E h T OF PROFESSOR HAMMUDA 18 1
Pu bIication, 1 979. AIso Conant and Goudarzi of the United States GeologicaI
Survey. and authors of the first modern geological map of Libya, suggesr that
movelnerlt in the Sirt Rasin siarted in i h c laie Cretaceous and continued at Icasl
interrnittenily to the ivliocene, and perhaps Io the present.
Second, 1 corne to the geomeiric reIationship between the Iwo sets of faults.
As the figure shows, the linearnents Iie on a curve rather than a straight Iine,
bui the continuity between them is cIear. In parts of the Sin area the aIignment
is closer io north-south than norih-west-souih-east. This alignment e c h m one
of the most ancient African tecionic trends and thus reinforces the case for
seeing the fauIt paiiern as a direct Iink between the PeIagian Sea and the
continental m a s to the south.
It has been clearly indicated in the Libyan wrilten pleadings that the North
African region is characterized by two main tectonic systerns ; the Atlas Fold
Belt west of the nonh-sou th axis and the Sin Basin Rift Sysiem. The Atlas Fold
Belt consisis of folding and overlhrusiing caused by compressional forces
which are iypicaI o i r h e AIpine domain. In contras[, the Sirt Basin RIR Syslern
consists of block faulting (horst and grabens) caused by extensional forces. This
system is the dominant structural trend in boih the PeIagian BIock and on the
Libyan landrnass.
 EVI DENCE OF PROFESSOR FABRICI US
EXPERT CALLEIS BY THE COVERNMENT OF THE L I B Y A N ARAB JAhl AHIRIYA

The ALTING PRESIDENT : The Agent of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has
indicated thar it is his intention ' to cal1 Dr. Frank Fabricius to appear as an
expert within 1he meaning of AdcIes 63 and 65 of the R u l a of Cour!. and has
furnished the information required by Article 57 of i h e Rules I . No objection
has been made under Article 63 of the RuIes by the Agent of Tunisia. The
Court will, rherefore, hear the expert witness and for the g u i d a n a of the
Agens and counseI of the two Parties, 1 propose to indicace the broad lines of
the procedure to be foIIowed for ihat purpose. CounseI for Libya has already
indicaied to the Couri this rnorning the points to which the expert evidence of
Dr. Fabricius will be directed and the particular issue or issues in the case in
which thal evidence is said 10 be relevant. Dr. Fabricius will take his place at
the speakers' desk and will make the dedaration laid down in Article 64 of the
RuIes of Cour!. He wiII then first be questioried by counsel for Libya. On
compIetion of that questioning, counsel for Tunisia wiII be entirled to cross-
examine. On completion of the crossexaminaiion, an opportunity will be
afforded counsel Tor Libya for a brief re-examination which should so far as
possible be limited to points arisirig out or Dr. Fabricius' answcrs lo counsel for
Tunisia. II wi!I probably be convenient for any questions which Members of
Che Couri may wish io ask lo be put to Dr. Fabricius between the cross-
examination by counseI for Tunisia and re-examination by counsel for Libya
but in this respect we shaII be guided by evenk. 1 shall in an y case ask that Dr.
Fabricius rernain available for possible further questions by the Court o r its
Mernbers following their siudy of his evidence in the verbalim record. I now
invite Dr. Fabricius to corne to the rostrum and address the Court.
Professor FABRICIUS : Mr. Presiderit. M e m k r s of the Court. I soIemn !y
decIare upon my honour and conscience thal 1 will speak the truth, the whole
truih and nothing but the truth and that my statemeni wilt be in accordance
with my sincere belief.
Professor BUWETT : Would you please teIl the Court your fult riame.
Professor FABRICIUS : Dr. Frank Fabricius.
Professor BOWETT : Now 1 a m gomg to r a d out the derails of your present
appointment and your professional background and 1 want you to interrupt
me if anyihing 1 say is incorrect.
I understand you are the Head of the Institute of GeoIogy and MineraIogy.
and acting hoIder of the Chair of GeoIogy at the Technical University of
Munich and Director of the Marine Geulogical and SedimentologicaI Division
of the Insiituie.
You are the Chief DeIegate of the FederaI Republic of Germany at the
"Commission InternaiionaIe de l'Exploration Scientifique de la Mditerrane"
and you are Vice-President of the Commission.
You are a member or the GeologicaI and Marine Geophysical Commiitee of
the same Commission, and a member of several international and national
geological and sedimmiological societies.

1 See itrfm. Correspondence, No. 86.

See irtfro. Correspondence. No. 1 1 3.
 EVIDENCE OF PROFESSOK FABRICIUS 183
You were a mernber of !he Scientifte Staff aboard i he US DriIling VesscI The
Glo~trrrrCliailet~gc~r (Leg. 4 2 A . Mediterranean Sea) in 1970 and have been on
other scientific cruises. And you have published a number of articies on topics
concerned with the geology of the Mediterranean area. You hold the dipIoma
in Geology from the Technical University or Munich. You are a Doctor of
Science of the same University and you possess the HabiIiiation from the
Technical University of Munich.
Now Dr. Fabricius. as a scientist. are you famiIiar with the Mediterranean ?
Professor FABRICIUS : Yes, 1 am.
Professor BOWET : More so than with other maritime areas ?
Professor FABRICIUS : Yes. indeed. 1 virlual ty spent rny enrire proies-
sionaI Iife as a scientisl in studying the Mediterranean Sea.
Professor BOMJE7T : WeIl now. could you describe to the Court the origin
and evolution of the continental shelf area in the general area of the central
Mediterranean - and by that I mean the area off the shores of both Tunisia
and Libya ?
Professor FABRJCIUS : Could J get a general map please ? - of ihe entire
Mediterranean ?
Of course, ihis evolution of the Mediterranean Sea is very complex and has
to be abbreviated here, but it goes as follows.
The general area covered by the present Mediterranean Sea was over a long
period replaced by another sea, an mean which we in geology caIl Tethys. This
m a n was much Iarger than the presenr Mediterranean Sea - it had a size
perhps comparabIe to the presenl Atlantic Ocean, o r part of il. A principa1
reature of this p t h y s Ocean il that is was a long west-east extendeci ocean and
I should say that a more detailed description of this history is contained in a
memorandum which 1 prepared and which is set forth as Annex 1 1 , Votume
Ill, to the Libyan Counter-Mernorial.
Between 60 and 20 miIIion years ago - what we. in geology. cal1 the
Tertiary lime - the Tethys Ocean began to experience a series of major
transformations uItimaieIy bemrning wha! is riow the Mediierranean Sea. This
process continues raday as evidenced by the many earthquakes in this a r a .
What one mus! visualize in,understanding the developmeni of this area of
the conlinenta1 shelf - whal we cal1 the PeIagian Sea in the centre of thc
Mediterranean Sea - is this. There were two huge continental masses -
Eurasia. a complex of Europe and Asia to the nonh. Africa to the souih -
both viriualIy noating separalely o n a mobiIe layer beIow the earth's crusl.
They were Iike two giant icebergs coIIidingand at different tirnes driiing apart.
I t was thcse forces that caused lhe transformation of the Tethys into the. what
we now caII, Mediterranean Sea. These forces formed the Atlas mountains
(here, in the Maghreb area) and also the Alpine mountain ranges, almost
surrounding the total Mediterranean Sea.
The African cantineri ta1 shelf dcveloped as a north-facing continental
margin somelime in the period of aboui 170 to 195 million years ago. The
nonhern limit of t he coastline at that time was Iocated generalIy to the north of
the African Continent and, ofcourse, i t was orienied to the south of the present
Libyan coastline, running about east-wet across Tunisia and Algeria in, as 1
said, a generalIy west-eastern direclion. Most of what is today Tunisia was pari
of the conlinenta1 sheIf to the iiorth of rhe Arrican landmass which trended
east-wesl. SimiIarIy, the present Jeffara Plain and most of ihe Pelagian Block
constiruled continental sheIf to the norih of the African Iandmass.
 186 CONTINENTAL SHELF

thc Libyan RepIy (IV). Annex 11-8 - the 1101th axis is slrown. Would you
ide~rtifyit and t he11 teII the Court whal is t h e ~rnporta~ice of that feature ?
Professor FABRICTUS : The so-calIed nortli-south axis is this axis wliicli is
1-nnningdown here f r o ~ na n area around Tunis down aIrnost Io Gabes It was
estsblislied by Professor Burollet. He showed tlrar the nature of [Iris axis is a
major geoIogica1 one although it is ~ i o ta feature as obvious as the MaIta-
Misurata Escarpment bur it is rnarkirrg the 1i11iit - Ihe wester~ili~nit- of the
PeIagia~rBIock. So this Pelagian BIock - and here both Parties are i ~ agree- i
ment - is bounded here 10 the west at this ilortli-sorrth axis.
Professor BOWETT : So tIiat is the wwtern boundary of the PeIagian BImk ?
Professor FABRTCIUS r Correct.
Professor BO'.\'ETT : Are you faniiliar with the scientific arguments in the
Tunisiari written pIeadings ?
Professor FABRICIUS : Yes. 1 aIn. 1 Irave read theIn several times witli
attention.
Professor BOWETT : Now 1 wani t o ask you about what 1 wuuld describe
as the Tunisian "transverals" argument. I th111k this is perhaps iIIustrated best
@ by tfIe map xve have rrow prrt ripoii Ilte board, that is Figur-e S. 18 of the
T u n ~ s i a MemoriaI
~i (1). By "rrarisversaIs" 1 Inean the T u ~ ~ i s i a~-gurnent
a~r that
thcre are a series of east-west liriks - in the non11 the Iow zone. fi.orn the West
1-unningthrough towards Malra ;irr the centre this Irigh zone f r o n ~the MoIe of
Kasserine tlirough the MoIe of Kerkennah and r u ~ ~ n i nthrougl~
g ta tlie PIateau
of iMeIita : a ~ r dthen in the soutli tliis Iow zone ru~rningthrougli f r o ~ nthe
CIrotts in the west 1-ight through rIie Gulf of Gabes intu the so-caIIed
TripoIitanian Furrow. TIlat is what 1 mean by tire "lrans~ersaIs"argument.
What I w a ~ i rtu ask you issinrply tliis : as a scientist, how d o you I-eacttu that
argument ?
Professor FABRICIUS r Well, 1 think this arguinenl is vaIid brrt o11Ty in a
vei-y Iimited sense. 1 cannot agree with the Tunisian d a i m tliat the west-east
tra~rsversalsreaII y estab11sh a 1i1rk between a continental sheIf and the
co~itinentitself except in a certain sense that the PeIagia~iBIock and cenIraI and
norlhern Tunisia had a unique - 1 wuuId say - !nitorni history bef01-etthey
were a sub~nergedcontinent, as part of that sheIf. This part slayed nrmtIy
sub~nerged,rising i ~ rat1re1-
i Young times af~erwards80, there are differences ;
there are srmiIarities. of course. But besides tlie sirniIarities as, for i~lsta~ice,
Professor Laffitte said, there are aIso reaI differences and tlre argument of the
tra~lsversalsthesis fails orr uther grolrnds as well.
For instance, the1-e is a depressio~i.as Dr. Vila-Fi~iziaIready toId us, in this
directi011 between the 1nai111andof Tunisia and the Kerkennah Islands. But
eveIi more important there are d e p r s i o m and !as we have bee~itold bjr
Professor MoreIli. rny distiiiguished colleague, we have a ralher importarit
depression going down to aImost 400-metres whlch separates the so-caIIed
Tu~tisianPlateau fronl the MeIita BIateau. So there are differences everi on a
Iarge scaIe, and on big S~I-uctures.
The pronounced ~iorttteastern-soutIiwgstern direction which 1 have pointed
out here wesr of Kerkennah is certa~nIynot in agreernerrt with the straight
rrrnning east-west axis of a major structura1 formation and tlre same is true for
this area.
 EVtDENCE OF PROFESSOR FABRlClUS 187
Professor BOWE'IT : Professor Fabricius let me now turn to what 1 wouId
describe as the Libyan thesis. Now, the Libyan pleadings describe this shelf
area as an a r a of Fundamental geoIogicaI continuity. Do you agree with that
view ?
Professor FABRICIUS : Yes, 1 do. This is consistent with a normal prolon-
gation, with a normal progression frorn a landmass acrms the hingeline
(landmass, hingeline, here) to the sheIf and 10 the deeper sea and out to the edge
o f a continental margin. I t is opposite to Ihe idea lhat the continental margin
wouId be at this area, and it is inconsistent with the continental margins at the
other areas of the African northern Coast. They are a reflection Ihingeline,
coastline, shelf) of the samc geoIogical feature and this is a feature which we
find al1 over the world where we are dealing with a conlinenla1 margin. We do
have a hingeline, we do have a shelf, sornetirnes having even these transversal
depressions or the basins and high zones. This depends on several geoIogicat
questions, such as sedimentation and so on. It is normal.
Professor BOWETT : Let me just deveIop this notion of continuity a bit
further. 1 want lo look at it in terms of the bathymetric evidence. 1s bathymetry
within your own fieId of expertise.
Professor FABRICIUS : 1 would say rny particular fields of expertise were
the branches of geoIogy and sedirnentology and especiaIIy marine gology.
This includes, for a Iarge part, geomorphology and also the topography of the
sea floor.
I am very famiIiar with ihe depiction of geomorphology and various means
of construction of maps and bIock diagrams, modeIs and so on.
Professor BOWET : Did you prepare this mode1 ' ?
Professor FABRICIUS : Yes 1 did
Professor BOWETT : CouId you explain briefly to the Court exactIy how
that model was prepared ?
Professor FABRICIUS : As I staied in the Annex 5 of the Counter-Mernorial
(111) this bIock mode1 is based mainly on a morphologica1, topographical map
of the Tunisian par! and, in addition, for the Iand side 1 look Tunisian maps
published by Tunisian agencies. For the Libyan part 1 took an American map.
Now, the contour Iines from this sea area were iaken Iiom one of the
published Tunisian maps placed exaciIy on a sheet of plastic of a certain
thickness, and by carbon paper these contour line were transferred on to a
sheet of pIastic. These sheets of plastic of a ceriain thickness, we used boih for
the intervat of 200 metres on the Iand, and in the deeper areas beIow 600
metres. The thickness of rhese pIasric sheets was about two-tenths of a
miltimetre. For the intervaIs of 1 00-metre depths which we used in this area
here (which is mainly Iight blue) we used sheeis of only half that thickness.
They were put one upon the other in the exact place $O they are a three-
dimensional reproduction of a map.
Professor BOWETT : Do you suggest that ihat is a faithfuI modeI, wi!hout
exaggeration ?
Professor FABRICIUS : YESespecially because it is without exaggeration,
that is vertical exaggeration. It is faithiu1, it is more faithful than a mode1
which is exaggerated vertically .

' See II. p. 242, para. 233

188 CONTINEh-rtiL SHELF

Professor BOWETT : Professor Jennings made a cornparison between what

he describeci as "the extended shallow area which is found off the Tunisian
coast" and the "narrow, quickly pIunging area off the Libyan mast" (IV,
p. 4261 Could 1 ask you, coutd you indentify on lhat mode1 this "narrow,
quickly plunging a r a " off the Libyan coast ?
Professar FABRICIUS : Well, 1 am afraid 1 can't. To my understanding of
this situation we actualIy do not have a quickIy plunging area ; i T we want to
deal with something like a quickly plunging area we shouId go further to the
easr. In rhis area which we are concerned with weactriaIly shouId not speak of
quickly plunging c o a s ~ areas.
l
Professor BOWETT : So in fact you are going to the Guif of Sirt before you
gel lo a quickly plunging area ?
Professor FABRICIUS : That is right.
Professor BOW E7T : Let me ask you about the two sets of bIock diagrarns
which are used in the Libyan pIeadings. The Ers1 set is Figure I 1 in the Libyan
Counrer-Mernoria1(II). The second sei,i Annex 11-4 of lhe Libyan Reply (1V).
Now the lirst block diagram, that is Figure 1 1 , has corne under criticisrn in
the Tunisian Repty. In brief, what the Tunisians say is that it is a distorsion.
That is because one single bathymetric point fed into the cornputer covers
several square kilometres, su that it is Iike looking at the PeIagian Block from
an altitude of 300,000 rnetres.
How wouId you respond to that criticism ?
Professor FABRIClUS : Wei1 1 hasten to say the diagrarn is not ai al1
distorted. The data we used are data from the same source as from the
Tunisian maps and these sources were indicated, for instance, in Annex 5B to
the Libyan Counter-Mernorial and the diagrams cannot be better than the
sources. Block diagrams are, of course, a welI-known, weII-ampied technique
for giving a realistic three dimensima1 view of a topographical fearure. tt may
assist the expert as weIl as the Iayman in understanding the same data that
appear on a map but which can easil y be misunderstood. The area concerned,
of course, is very large - it is roughIy the entire Pelagian BIock, incIuding land
-areas. NecessariIy, any bIock diagram, just Iike any rnap,mud omit srnaII-scale
irregularitie. On a map of a scale of I:2,000,q00 there is the same, so !O say,
smoothing effect as o n a bIock diagram of a comparable area. For example, a
IO-metre high feature wouId hardIy appear. A map, even a bathymetric rnap,
covering the same area as a bIock diagrarn woutd also be Iike looking down
from a sateIlite at an altitude, as you rnentioned, of about 300,000 rnetres. The
reduction of the scale is the same. However, a bIock diagram perrnits the
tayman to understand what a bathymetric rnap says by physicaIIy showing the
relief rather than reIying on someone's acquired skiIl in the inierpretation of
contours.
Professor BOWETT : So, if 1 understand you, that diagram contains no
more distortion than a bathymetric map of the same scale. Now, let me ask
you to turn to the second set of diagrams. We have one of them on the board
here, that is in the Libyan RepIy (IV), technical Annex 11-4 and it is, I think, in
the Judges' foIders. Now 1 rake it thar diagrarn covers a much smaIIer area than
the first set of diagrams. 1s that right ?
Professor FABRICIUS : That is correct.
Professor BOWETT : And it is, therefore, more detaiIed ?
Professor FABRICIUS : Yes we have used, as 1 have written in the annexes
 EVII>ENCE OF PROl'E%5OK FARRICIUS 189
- (he techiiical annexes - abolit 20,000 single points io construct these
diagrams. These diagrams are based on rhc data which was the besl avai1abIc
at this pnrticular timc, Ihat means we havc used manuyripi charts, data rroin
oil companies' aaivities. and those. 1 think. are at the momenl rhe besl ones.
They have been used as a base Tor lhese Unesco maps and, as I presunie, Tor
the Tunisian map too.
Professor BOWETT : 1s thcrcanything unusual in the way in which this has
been prepared ?
Professor FABRICIUS : No, noi at ail. Ofcourse, lhis diagrain has a vertica!
exaggeration of ien iimes but, as you may recalI, 1 also provided diagrams of
no vertical exaggeration atid of 25 times verrical exaggeratioii. They really do
give gmd inforniation on the rnorphology of the PeIagian area. And. 1 have Io
remind the Cotirt that eveti thc Trinisran side has provided somc quite good
block diagrams. Unfortunately they didn't show the veriical exaggeration
which changed somewhar and I have calculaled this. Some were about some
25 iirnes veriically exaggeraled arid oihers up to 62 ilines. Noiie of rhcsc
Tutiisian diagrams shows what exaggeratioii is used aiid lhis is rather
~mportantas you may know khat the area without vertical exaggeration just
Iooks like a plain, almost without a n y feature.
Professor BOWETI' : Do you siand by these bIock diagranis. as legiriiiialc
arid scientifically accurate ?
Professor FABRICI US : Yes, 1 do.
Professor BOWEIT . Now, let me turn to see what your mode1 and your
block diagrams tell us about various feaiures, feaiures which Tunisia has
suggesled are irnportanl, morphological or topographial features of ~ h shclf.
e 1
want to take first what is called ihe TripoIitanian Furrow, and it can, I think,
@ be seen on the Tunisian Mernoria1 (11, Figure 5.09, which is now here on the
board. It is in the Judges' folder.
Now, lei me ask you - do you recall in the Tunisran pleadings the
descriptio~iof the 'Tripolitaniari Furrow as an extensive Iow ZoIie, running
parallel to the Libyan Coast line, alid rorming a separate morphological entity
from the Tunisian shelf to the north ?
Professor FABRICIUS : Ycs, 1 do
Professor BOWEIT : Good. Ixt tne refresh youi metnory by quoting from
the Tunisian Scientilic Study - thac is in ilic Countcr-MeinoriaI. Annex 1 : "in
order to move from the Lsbyan coastline IO the Tunisian shelf it is nccessary Io
descend into ihe Furrow and theil climb u p its northern flank". Now, does
your own research suggesi ihar Ihai is a correct view. rhai tIiere are these two
distinct morphological regions - the Furrow and thcn the eievated shelf ?
Professor FABRICIUS : Well, not realIy. This is what we cal1 ihe
Tripolilanian Furrow, or Sillo~i~ i i / ~ o l i i i i i iThey
i. do exist. of course. bui the
names o r the icrms which are yiven io these areas of depress~onaiid the
adjaceni high arcas are nol adequate to describe the aciunI feature. They are
drarnatizing and, 1 would Say, as a niatter of fact to me they are of no particular
signilicance. There is a sort of zone of depression o r basin, which the Libyan
Mcmorial termed the Gabes-Sabratha Basin (which is a differeni term For the
same feature) but it is no1 a "furrow" and doesn'r show realIy a "lhalweg". nor
is it consistent with the definirion of a "vaIIeyM.These terms are used in the
Tunisian Reply and 1 should add that these feritures could perhaps better bc
 EVIDENCE OF PKOFESSOK FABRICIUS 19 1

over a distatice of 82 kilometres - quire a large distaiice. Here we agairi have a

slope. or ail inclination, of a tetiih of what 1 previously dcscribed, of only 0.06
per cenl. whjch actually is not important. I woriid say al1 these figures are
typical - really typical - of a plain. no!. of a vaIley or of a siIlon
Professor ROW E n : 1 F you describc il as a plain. could you give the Courr
any analogy in ierms of couniryside rvith w hich the Court mighi bc familiar ?
Professor FABRICIUS : Welt. you arc Wmiliar with the area Iierc in the
Netherlands and 1 do not exaggerate - you can look to the countryside
belween Amsterdam and The Hague (which actiiaIl y has been al sea-IeveI ai
some tirne ago) which i.c as y o ~ know
i flar - cornplctely flat. The inclinaiions
which you mighl find there are somc bumps and vcry. very gradml
incIinations and they are similar in this ordcr of magnitirde.
Professor BOlVEIT : WeII. Dr. Fabricius. Amsterdam 10 The Hague may be
quite a waIk. but it is scarceIy a climb.
Professor FABRICIUS : Wo sir, ii is noi.
Professor POWET : Now Ict me risk you io iiirii io a dimeren1 feature. 111
the Tutiisian pleadiiigs, therc was a dcpicliori on Iheir Figure 5.07 of whai
: and rhese, if I may reniiiid you. are
ivere caIlcd the ,/clloiscs srlirs-trrar?it~~s
supposed to mark the liniit of the shelf-propcr, before you m o v e itito the
oiJrrtz/-/>qs.sor the borderland beyond. Now we have that figure there on the
board. just to refresh your memory. Tunisia has also provided in its RepIy
some echographs. These arc pIates 7.01 a n d ' 7.02 and ihey are also on the
board here. TeIl me first. do you quarrel wirh ihe data which rhey have used ?
Professor FARRICIUS : No, 1 don't quarrel wirh the data. rhey are the saine
kind which we use i n constructing sea-boilom niorphology
Profcssor ROWETT : Fine. W ha1 do you Say abaut the intcrpretation or the
use of ihat data on thesc cchographs ?
Professor FA BR ICIUS : WeII. unIess you are no! sonicwhat fainiliar wilh
thcse feaiurcs. they can bc rarher rnisimding to you. They are normal
cchogrphs. 7'hey show the bottom rcflection and, as these echograms are
usually made, lhc scaIe, thc vertical scale, is quitc different from the horizontal
scaIe. 11 is, so to ka y . a compression or tinic. And the so-calIcd .litluisr. or these
slopes ( w hich aairally arc iior very high hcrc in this areal seem io an untrained
eye what 1 wouId cal1 rather steep. Bui actuaily rhey are noi. These horizontal
compressioiis, foi instance here in rhis area (1 have repeated this hcre. lhis bIue
paril if you caIctitate the saine vcrtical scale arid the samc horizontal scale il is
csactly the incl~nationyori have here on this brown wedge. Let nie make ir
qiiite clcar. we are deaiitig with an inclination here (lhis onc) thai is t h e same as
t his one herc ; and this is the wedge wiihou t exaggeration. The same is true Tor
lhrs arca hcre. Here I look as an esaiiipIc ihis a r a (repeatcd here) and this
wedge shows the two foriiis of the incIinatioir of 4" and 9". WelI, I won'i
repeat rhis Tor rhe enrire busi~iess.
Professor ROWETT : Let me niake i t quite clcar ro the Cotir! that the
coloured parts on this edge are not in lhe original Tunisian documents but they
arc provided by Professor Fabricius.
Now. lherc is acrually dcscriptioii or these,{i~Irlrrtscin the pIeadings - ihey
:Ire described as beiiig in places "aImost vertical". Do you sce aiiy evidence of
anything "aImosi vertica1" '!
Profcssor 1-ABRICI US : M'cil. t hese csrinip!es wliich have been givcn 10 us
 and i i i ridditioii ihc niaps. thc cfiarts (bath yiiietrical charts1 whicli were
prodttccd by borh sides do tiot i i i gencraI show a11ything vertical. There might
be vcry. very few stcep area. But if \ve know the iiaiure of these so-caIIed
/(iliii\c w c would 1101 find them reniarkable.
Proressor BOWE7-T : How ihen would yoir describc these feaiiircs ? II'hat
is iheir sigiiificaiice :' - thesc /11lrrisc :'
I'rokssor FA BK ICI US : These ,/irlrri.\c are noi as (to say il very rnodesrIy )
draniatic as it h a s bceii showti here oii lliis inap. They are very smsll in
daiatice and t Iiey are. for ihc large prir'i. iior larger than tIiis black Iine - ihe
"leerh" here or1 ihis diagrai11 ai-e an artisi's addition 1 would say, but certairily
1101 a sciei~iist'sone.
Pr.oTcssor ROM7E-IT: Wheii y011 say riot larger ttian the blak line. you
tncan iioi 1;irger i i i h ~ g t h01- i t i breadrf~:'
I'rofesor FARUICI US : 1 n breadth.
Pi.ofcssor ROWEIT : 1 see l aai sorry io Iiavc i~itcrrupled
ProTcssor FABKICIUS : Thcse jirlrrisc are cxiending, of course. for qiiite a
lorig distancc. They are quile iinportarit iti lengrh. bur iieverrheIess ihey arc tiot
as showri iii the Ttinisiaii McriioriaI. 'rlley arc nol ari erosioria1 fciit~ireand 1
think [Ir. Vita-Fixizi showed it qr~iteclearly tliar ihey catinor be.
Professor BO\IlETT : Can 1 ;rsk yotr, are you agrceitig wiili I k . 1;il:r-Fiirzi's
view ihai ihey cairnol be an aiicieni slioreline :'
ProTessor FABK ICI LlS : Yes, completely. Proressor.
Profcssor BOWETT : Lcl riie turn Io a thrrd rcature. Do yoir recaII the
'Tutiisirrri contc~iliontliat tlierc esln rwo iirlr:.; - ~hescarc the ~-irlc,.xof Zira and
Zurvarah - do y011 rccalI thal ?
Professor FARRICIUS : Ycs. 1 do.
Profcssor RO\\'FiT : Now. a s yoii iinderstaiid the Turiisiaii plcadiiigs.
where would yoii say those i.i<lr,~ Iic ori yotir rnodcl hcre ?
I'rorcssor FABKICIUS : Well. there ts a little ii~dentatronon this one
coiitour linc aiid I t hirik thc rirlc, rlc Zirir couId bc sitiialcd in Ihis arca hcre.
@ Professor B0WETT:'Now.on Map 2.01. which was annexed io the
Tunrsian Reply (IV), and that is the map on +e board here now. these features
~ J , io show ~ i prather clearl y - if I may jtisi
or ai teast ihe i.ii/r, r . 1 ~Z ~ I - appear
borrorv your poinlcr - thcre. Now ihat sliows iip ralhcrcIearly. W ha! do yoii
ssy about that part~ciilarchart theii :>
I
Professor FABKICIUS : WelI IIie scale of ihis chart is 1 :I00,000 : that
nieaiis quiie a big area. 1 do 1101 qi~arrclwith the data whicli :ire prcsenicd on
ihis charr. but iieveriliclcss ii is tioi USU~II ihat ori a chart of ihis scaIe to ind an
iiltervaI of 5-metre isolines : iisiiaIiy 1hcy are less demc. but tieverthelcss t hese
very deiisc isolines are certainty able to show a very faitit. even a very faini
feattire herc on the sea-botrom. Frorn Iooking at this chart. and acrrralIy I made
a cross-scclion here beIow therc frorn this point " A " Ifrom this point here) to
ihis poitit (cross-section here). I f I do no1 exaggeraie. lhis is deinonsiraled here.
bui yoii wouId iioi see ir at lhis deiance - I barely caii s e the diflcreiice in
sea-level rom where I stand. To explain furiher, rhese are thcse Iwo very thin
lines and there is oiily a very smaIi difference rrorn the rniddle to rhe etid. Thai
is froni thc crest of thts fcalure to thcse areas whore .ive C a l i sy WC have
nornial sea-bottom. Thar means 1 have tnade a slope of orle nietre herc. These
 E\'IDENCE OF PROFESSOR FARRICIUS 193
two Iines, which are very near to one another, they have a disiance here a! ~ h i s
point of onIy 2.7 miIlimetres. And that is the inclination in nature which w e
find when we are going up here and descending ihere or coming from this
area. So this is not a irnpomnt feature - it is not what we usually cal1 a ridge.
Professor BOWETT : So if you treat this as a bank. and you start walking up
the bank, are you saying thai 1he incline that you move up is as gradua1 as the
difference beiween those two Iines on the boiiorn ?
Professor FABRICIUS : Yes, that is exactly the inclinarion we End in
nature, as an average inclination.
Professor BOWETT : WeII now. as a geomorphologist, and accepting the
existence at leas1 of the ride of Zira. how would you describe that feature ?
Professor FABRICIUS : WeII as I jus1 rnentioned, 1 would not cal1 it a rirlc, ;
it is perhaps a bank. Its extensions are quite important. This is clear. The Iength
is somewhat about 60 to 100 kilornetres - it depends on where you start this
bank or where you end it. Ir the surrounding area is rather uniform, rather a
plain land just to describe this feature 1 could Say this is like a dune ridge on a
perfect, or aImost perfect, plain) ii is as we have here in our neighbourhood,
between Amsterdam and The Hague. A ridge which in the middle at ils cenire
here, is 35 metces above usual sea-level ; and the distance here is about 10-15
kitometres. That means from boih sides of this crest point. if 1 rnay say so, yori
are going almost 5 10 I O kilornetres horizontally tnot IiteralIy) but ai a very,
very low inclination. Seeing this in nature (or k i n g a fish, if you permit, on the
sea-flmr) you would no! hardly see it. I I is a very, very shallow feature.
Professor BOWETT : Dr. Fabricius, in the Tunisian Pleadings rhere is a
suggestion thal these ididescoincide wiih salt dornes. Do you think that Iikely ?
Professor FABRICIUS : Yes, that is right
Professor BOWETT : How observable, as rnorphological features, wouId
you expect these salt domes lo be ?
Professor FABRICIUS : I jus1 did not gel your correct queslion.
Professor BOWET : Let me ce-phrase it. How could you observe the sali
dome ?
Professor FABRICIUS : As we have been shown by Professor MorelIi, there
are means, especially geophysical ones, ta know that there is satt below. We
know these features quite well from the nonh of Germany, the North Sea and
from o!her areas. And if we drill in10 such a feature - 1 don't know whether
this was done here - we are hitting salt. They are well known and lheir
nature is weII known tao.
Professor BOWETT : 1 undersiand. So you jus! reIy upon driiling, on
geoIogy, and not bathymetry.
Professor FABRICIUS : No, that is right.
Professor BOWE'IT : Now, whai inference would you draw from the fact
that there are also salt domes on the Tunisian mainland ?
Professor FABRICIUS : There are, as Ihave made cIear in rny paper on Salt
Structures in Annex 11-5, which 1 have referred to earlier, these salt domes in
the area of Ras Ajdir. The salt features which are in the northern part of
Tunisia are quite different. 1 can compare it from rny own experience with the
saIt dornes which we do have as salt features in the Alps and with salt features
goiltg down 200 01.300 metrcs whicfi at that iirne was w l r 1oucIred by the sea-
Ievel.
Professor BOW E T : Ixt Ine ~ n a k esure 1 realIy u~idersiandyou. You are
Say 111gIItat rhe batliy~netrydoes 11ot reflect eiilier the PI-est.111:or eveIr pasi
shore11rre but is 1 - ~ I l ythc produci or the tectonic evolutio~iof rhe PeIagia~t
BIock ? 1s tliat whar you are saying 'I
P ~ o f e s s oFABR
~ ICIUS ; Yes. 1 rhink for a good part especiaIIy in this area
where Ilte so-caIIed .J'tlk1ivc3 arc. w e do have quite a bit of morphoIog~caI
t ~ a ~ i s f o r n ~ a t iof
v na f o r ~ n wlevel sea-boitu~n.If 1 recaII it right. one of The
Tunisian Maps (Counter-Mernoria1 {II). A1111 II. Map ES-II) slrowed o r
indicated tlrat a1 t I ~ eend of the Messinia11tiine, rhe sa-bottuni was ai~nostflat.
And now we fi~sdhere inde~~talio~r inio the BIock. TIiis is aIong the contour of
these liries. These contours are. where tirese.fulrtist~.saIc, i ~ ~ r r oway reflecrion
of [Iris coast. And tu my understanding tlie for'~nationof tliese high zones is due
[O a co~nplesof severaI features. 1 might perliaps take several colours to
iIIusr~ate.ii'e do have depmssio~iswithout grabens. depressions w hich are
going down These aIe Iower than the usrral sea-bdiom wI-ricR we have here,
on a rather fia[ area. You do have a depression h e ~ - e- llle extension of tlris
featrrre whicli is caIIcd t11e Fosse de Jirrraia ; and yorr d o Iiave these features
and they Inay exte11d below Ihe sea floor but w e iris1 cannor see it. You may
detect i[ by geophysics. TIiere are aIso depress~onsin this area here. We do find
rhar IIicse depressions here are running tawards the nortf-r-west. They a r e
reIated tv bIock tecto~ric.to fai~lring.In the sniddle of rhese deep features w e
have positive features wi~ichgo d o w ~ shere in a soutlreast direction. We have 11
here. So by careft11 stridy. you can divide tliis e11li1.epialeau into a S ~ I - i eofs
depressions, tecton ic depressions and h ighs.
WIial is very inieresling too. and 1 menlioncd it ai the Iiegi~i~tisrg of my
srale~nent.here we Irave a depressio~igoing paraIIeI tu the coiistIisre of Tunis~a
and the K~I-kennalr IsIa~ids We halle a~iotherdep~-essio~r wltich roughly goes
in this norrhwesi-southeast direclio11scparating the Plaleau de MeIita f~.ornthe
so-caIIed Tunisia~rPlateau. I t has depth of alrnosl400 rttetres. whih is ~ i oso t
rinimpartanl. A i Imst 1 .wouId sag it is n ~ o r ei~npo~.tanl than the depression
which we have off Ras Ajdir which is rnereIy 100 ~netres.perhaps. III addition
(1 musr make [Iiis ~01np1etdwe do have a n aIcvatio~rIrere o n rhe K e ~ - k ~ ~ i ~ i a l ~
Islands which rnight have solne reIation to the SaIicI area. e s p ~ i a I I yas the
direction of these Iows and highs are s111iiIar. We d o Iiave these fauIt li~res
running Irke this. We do have Ihese Iines here and. if you waIit. the
bathyn~etricIines are ~.eIIectingsomewhat the coast of the Kerkennah IsIands
which is show11 011the-geoIogicaI Inaps to be a recto~-ricaIIycontroIled cmst
TIie a ~ - g u m e ~ cilai i & ffie balhyrnetric lines are r'eflecting the croastIine are no1
valid. for insia~rce,in this area here where yorr have a prolongatiu~ir ~ i t o
anot1ie1-directioii, into nortlieast So. finaIIy. we elid up with a differentiation.
Of course. if in an area - for instance here at rhe K~I-kenrrah Iiigh - two Ii~res
of higlis are meeting we cenainIy do have an irnponant Iiigh area. wli11e in
ot1re1-S.wliere the lows are relatiueIy more i~nportant,the extension of such a
lligh is reduced. Su, if we Iook to the ~norphoIogy,with soine geoIogical
knowledge of course. we can irrd svme AtIaric directions rn this area which
are refIected eveit in the extension of the K~I-ke111iah. W e do krrow these
graben faulis wfiich are directed Io tlie Sirt Basrrr.
Professor BOWETT: What causeri the bathyrnetry Io decpen as you move
towards tIie east ?
 ProTcssor FABRICIUS : WeII, of course lkiere might be somc e~.mio~iaI
feature. espccially i ~ tiIre Quater~laryrime w h e ~pa~-ts i of lhis Fielagian arca Iiave
bee~iexposed ro the air. Therc ~nightRase been soIne erosIoIi. PI-ohabIy in the
sorrihern area. certainIy also in tlie 1io1.tlier11irrya. bui as Ihe 111vestigaIionsof
rile you~igsedi~nentshave show n. the erosional fcatu~.esw liiclr pe1-liaps have
Iieen Ihere ca111iotbe derected on the sea-bottuni today. o r not casiIy. 1 th111k
rhis incIination iowards [Re east is as well a 1esu1tof the upIifti~rgof t his area in
Ille norlhwest as perhaps also tlie dcscerrdi~-rgto tire bas111of Ihe Syrtis. So it
ce1.ta1111yis IIor only an erosionaI feature : ~norc'Iikely il is a textu11icaI fezrure.
PI-ofessurROtVETT - 1 see. Now, whaI abo~rlIhis ealirre which is caIIed the
lonia~iAbyssaI Pla~n? Do yuu recaII the Tuiiisign niet hod wl~icllpostr11ated a
direct1011for a boundary, which procceds froin Ras A j d i ~rowrrrds the centre of
tlie AbyssaI Plain ? Do you recaII that ?
PI-ofessor FA BR ICI US : Yes. I do.
PI-ofessor BOW E T : Ca11 we rega1.d this relr;t1oIrshIp hetween Ihe AbyssaI
PIain and the Shelf as a rneaiii~igfuIrclatiomliip I 1s it 11ormI?
Professor FABRICIUS . 111this pa1-t1u1a1- case here Ihe reIation belween tlle
a1-ea under co~isideratio~i a ~ i dthe Ioniir~iAbyssaI Plain Ilas 110scientific merit.
H ~ I -wee have the Ionian Abyssal PIaiii which is standing quite ar Ille side and
rsre are deaIing with this other area. Indeed therc is a IirrIe abyssal p1ai1i. t lie JO-
calIcd 5 1 - t AbyxaI PIai~r.which is a Iittle bit more to the sout h of the Ionian
Abyssal P1ai1-r.Buf IIlere are perhaps some othei- pIains - deep sea plairis -
slarting to desce~idIiere in 1111sgraben zone. reIaring ta a so-caIIed drainage
e [Irese IirtIe pIains might be even as welI related tv a succ~ssiori
1iatIer1-r.S v ~ n of
of coasrs ;rird tI1e sireIf and the abyssaI pIain. as in the stridy of Dr. Emery .was
qriite iiiccIy explaii~ed.
Prof=u~- BOWETT : Le[ me jus1 turn to a diKerei~tmalrer. 1 wanl to ask
yorr about ille study dune by the ieain of scie~lri~ts fronr CoIunlbia University.
F i ~ s nf
t al]. what is the i i ~ t e r ~ r a i i o ~eputatio~r
~~al of i l r i s train of S C ~ L ' ~ V I Iand,
I ~ S ~ In
S
particuIar. the rcputat ion of Professor Ryan ?
Pi.ufessor FABRICI U S : I k ~ i o wProkssor R y+ pcrsonaIIy and 1 know h i ~ n
for ~ u ~ aI while
E FIe is weII known in The internariona1 worId of science. The
group of t Ire Lamont-Doherty GeoIogicaI Observaiory Rave a very high
I-epuraIion in mariile geoIogy 2nd ocea11og1-aphyand. conTing back to Professor
Kya~i.h e has studjed most of his life i11 1Ire Medite1-ranea13Sea arrd k ~ i o w ait
very weII too. I
Professor BOWETT : kt Ine just rern~ndyori of rhe mn1us101i wIi1c1i the
Colu~nbiaStrrdy reached and that was {Rat. ~ i o t1ncre1y as a ~natferof iI1eu1-y
but aIso 011 tlie actual evidence laken f r v ~ nWFII driIIi~rgsand weII data <and
1I-rey took three weIls reinernber). the Tu~lisia~i Ihesis tIlat rhis is a sI-reIf b e ~ n g
pi.0101iged eastwa~dsis sirnpIy wro~ig.Now, do you agree with tliat con-
clusiorr or not ?
Professor FABRICIUS : Yes. Ii' you Inean by a proIongation the direction
fi-on1 the continent across IIie Ri~lgeli~le. ir feature k1row1-r i ~ every r contineiit
a11nosr. ro tlre sheIf down the dope and d o w ~ to i Ihe deep sea. 1 think ~t is in the
east -West di1-ection. it is not a 11atu1'aIp1.0101igatiq1-r. I t .is' Io Iny u~ide~standing
of this situation, the way from the south to t h e norI h and a way frorn rlie main
Iand~nasspe1-pe~idicriIarIyac1-oss the hingeIine across the slielf d o w ~ lto Ille
~iorth.So the sti~dyof Dr. Rya11, to Iny underst?~idirrg,quire cIeai-!y demon-
srrates that a n easrerIy , prvIongation dom ~ i o exist. t
 Professor BUWETT: Now the Libyan thesis is that tlie prolongation is of
land~nassacross the 1i11-rgeIine arld lhen in a nortI-rerIy direction ~ O W ~ Tthe~ S
or~teredge of the rnargIn In northerIv direction - wouId you agree w11Iitliat
r hesis :'
Profcssor FABRICIUS . Yes. as I have sa~dbeforc. To rny gealogica1
understanding d thrs a1.a 1 wouId say that this sheIf off I he Pelagian Sea 01.
PeIagian BIock is rr 1-ea1prolo~~gation of the rnaIn co1iii11e1iia1 land~nassto Ille
south.
PI-O~~SSOI'BOWETT : MI-. P1-aside111 lhat concIudes a11 [Ire qrreslions 1 w~sli
to put to this witr~ess.He is now avaiIabIe for cross-exam~na~ior-r.
The ACTING-PRESIDENI' : The Tunisiail counsel has ind~caIedthat he
will be ready to CI-uss-exa~nine Dr Fabriciris al 3 o'cIock. Professor V~raIly.do
you wish lu say somelhing diiferent ?
M. Y IRALLY : Oui. si vous Ie permettez. Monsieur Ie P~-&ide~rt. J'avais en
effet pens qu'ii se1-ai1ncessaire que je consulte les experts d u Gouver~ie~nenl
tu~risienavant la cross-rxurnijrnriorr mais, cci~npletenu de Ia faorr dont a t
co~iduitI'exercice auquel nous v e ~ ~ od'assisle1-,
~is je pense que cela n'es1 pas
ncessaire. Je puis imrndiaternerrt, si la Cour Ie souIraite. poser queIques
questions trs brves.
The ACTING-PR ESIDENT : Please go 011.Professnr ViralIy
M. VI R A LLY - M. Fabrsc~us,vous connaisse?.C~I-tai~ie~ne~il Ia definiiiun de
la rttitrgc continentale qui est do1111ecdarls l'article 76 du projet de converit~on
SUI- Ie droit de Ia me1-. qr~iI'a dfI~iie cornine tant Ia si~ccessioildu piarea~i.du
taIus er drr gIacis. Co~-rsid&rez-vous, en Iant que goIogr~e.que cette dfi~iilio~i
est correcte ?
Proicssor FAKRICIUS . Yes. 1 ti~inkSV. I t is correct. I t is of course a
definition wlr~clr1s pe1'11apsnot completeIy sta~i~ig {lieentire geology of such a
margin. I t is a par[ of it. I i is a IegaI. but it is certai111y11ott h e enti~eg#logicaI
ex~>lanatio~i of Ihe situatioil
M. VI RALLY : Mais eIIe est correcte votre seIn ?
P~.ofessorFABRICI US : 1 do11't Ilave it rlow befure Iny eyes but 1 think SV
M. VIRALLY : Er pe11st.z-vorrsque Ie fait que I'articIe 75 parIe du gIateau
continental d'un Etar colier ajoute quelque chose celte dfinition er a iin sens
du poinr de vue du gCuIvgi~e?
Professo~.FARRICIUS :To be frank. I do not understand this quesrion. TIiis
has arr importance ro tlie geoIvgisI '.! But we are not Iear~iirrgOUI' scie~iccfrom
[lie Court.
M VI R A LLY : Non. n-rais vous apparaissez devanr Ia Corr1- et vous faira
une dpos~tio~~ sur des faits goIogiques ~ U i~itercssent
I rin PI-obl~ne de
deIimitatim. Je pense que le droir dans ce cas a tour de ~ n ~ nUIIe certain irltrr
pou1- Ie goIogue.
Professor FABKICIUS : A p~.ofcssionaIinterest. probably. I t wouIdn't be a
scierrtific one.
M . VI RALLY . Je voudrais vvris pose1 LIIle der11i1-equation. qui est la
suivante : vous avez utiIis iplusieurs reprises au cours de vos rpo~~ses, de
votre expose, I'exp~essio~-r de proIoilgement ~ i a t r i ~Quei~tendez-vous
e. p a ~IR :'
P~.ofessorFABRICI US : Natural prolongaliurr 1s. as 1 staled before, tire
system of geoIogical and gcaphysicaI fi1-rdi11gs fronl ihe conrineni - fro~nthe
Iandrnass - ac1-ossseveraI features which are !eitIier reIated lo geoIogy w to
togograpliy suc11 as the coaslIine - features lypicaI for a sheIf - for instance.
the series of fauIts rrr~iningroughIy paraIIeI to t lie hi11geIi1ie.a Iine fram which
in most cases Ille shelf was extended into the oute1-ar-eas.
I
ur (1.55 p.m.
TJ3e Criirrl rrgjulrl-~wd
 In Deccmber 1980. thc Tutiisian Couriicr-Mernorial (II)seeks to soften this
harsh disregnrd of eqiiitable principIes by slipping into its Stibmissions a new
paragraph. paragraph 1-3. wI~ichhas bcen Irarlslated by the Couri's Registry as
foIIows .
"'l'he delii~~irarioii miisi also bc cffecied in coiirorm~tywiih eqiritable
priiiciples and rakiiig accoriilt of al1 the rclcvitit circumslanccs w hich
characterize khc case, it being iinderstood thai a bitlance niiist be
cstiiblished bcrweeri the va rious circumstances. i i i order to arrivc a1 an
equirabIe result. wii hout rcfashioiiirig natirre."
We iiow. ihererorc. have Tiiriisia askirig the Coi~rtto adjudge and declarc
ihat rhc deliiniialioii nirisi be effecied i i i coiirormity with cquitable principles
;inci shoiild iirrive ai a n equitable resrill. witIiori! refashiotiing naiiIrc.
tibya can agrec wilh this T~inisiari reqriest to the Court . but docs Ihe
Tiiriisiriii Goverrimenr ilseIr agrec w ith its ow n requesi '!
Escepl For the citatioris in pareniheses (and now 311 eriiphasis on rhe so-
callcd Tira t . i r 1 ~ ) .noi a siiigIe word of Trrnisian Subtnissioti 11. paragraphs I
iiiid 2. lias bceri changcd. In its Couiricr-Meiiiorial and Rcpl y and now orally
the l'iinisian Governmcnl is siill asking lhc Couri. in disregard of cquity and
eqiiitable principles. in disregard or the Special Agrccmen t between the Partles.
in disregard of its owri Subrnission iri paragraph 1-3. iii disregard of al1 of thrs
Turiisio is still asking ~ h Court e to recornniend to the Parties a Iine or sheaf of
lines which wouId Imd to a flagrantIy iriequilabIc resuIr. Indccd. afrer
discussing equikible principIes w ith soine eloqi~eiicc, Professor Jenniiigs
himselrconcIuded (IV. p. 426) his remarks wiih a plca for a conlinenta1 sheIf
boundary Iine bearirig roiighly 65" easi from Ras Ajdir withotir showing
awareiicss or the glaring iriconsisteticy of this Iine with his plca for the
applrcatioii of equitable principIes and noii-encroachnicnt on t hc iiattiral
proIongation or Libya.
Unhppily. the rvords of ihe iiew I'utiisiari Siibniission 1-3 appear Io bc jus1
that - words - \i,ords which apprtrenily should no! bc aIIowed to affect the
proposed Tiinisiaii deli~nilation Iines originalIy set rorth in the Submissions
withoiil reference io eqiiitable principIes. in flar contradiction wiih cqiiitable
priiiiplcs or a n cquitiiblc result, atid now nia~ntriinedwith orrl y Iip-service to
equiry.
Ii is trrre ihar in borh lhe Tir nisian tMeiiioria1 and in ils Cottriier-Meniorial
and iri oral argiinicili other words caii be fotiiid which ask thc Court io
considcr cqiiiiable principles and a n eqiiitable i-esriIt. I i is lhcrefore incurnbcnt
on rnc ro oulline for ~ h Court
e the differences which appear to cxist between
i he Pariies on concepis of equity . equitcible principles. eqiiitable resul ts.
proportionality and in pariicirlar t hc appIication in the circunistanccs of the
case of ihese concepts.
1 wIII riot extend my remarks lo crnbracx a theorctical discussion of the rela-
tion of Iaw and cquiiy. Much has been writieii on ihis relatroriship. as the emi-
ncni Members of rhis Court are FuIly aware. I t will sufice here to rcpei whal
the Libyan Mernorial 11) in paragraph 96 stated. in quoting ihe words or this
Court - the Nori11 SCOCoiirilic,~iirrlSlic!J'cases, paragraphs 85 arid 88 - t ha1
"it 1s not a question of spplying equity simpIy as a nialier of absfract
justice. but of appl yiiig a rrrle of law which ilself requires the application
of equiiable principles . . ." I1.C.J. Kc,prii.~vIYhY, p. 47)
and ihat it is precisely a rule of law lhat mlls Tor the appfication of the cquitablc
principles which govern thc delimitation oradjacrnt continental sheIvcs.
 ARGUMENT OF PKOFE.SSDR BRICGS 20 1

RELATION OF THE CONCEPT OF N ATURAL PROLONGATION

TO EQUITABLE
PRINCIPLES

1 turn first to IIie differe~icewhich appears 10 have arisen between [Ire

Parties during the wrrrse of tIiese pIeadings, the differene as to rhe
appIicabiIity of equitabIe principles 10 naTura1 prolongation. Chapter VI of tIie
Tunisian Mernoriai sets forth with clarity the evdution of the juridicaI concept
of the continental sheIf by which a State's JegaI title fo appurte~iantareas of
co~itinerrtalsheIf is based upon the physicai mntinirity irrto arrd u~ldertIie sea
of the Iandrnass of that Sfate. The Tunisian Mernoria1 (I), in paragrapli 6.32,
quotes witlr approvai, from paragraph 1 9. of the Nurrb Sea Corrrieenral SlwI{
Jridgment of this Corrrt, a m r d i n g to which "the mwt funda~nentaiof aII tlie
rrrIes of Iarv relating !O the coati1ienta1 sheIf" - quile indeperide~rtof any
t ~ e a t y- is the irrIrererrt right of a Slate 10 "the area of #rrtinerrtaI sheIf tirat
w~rstitrrtaa naturd prolongation of its land errilory intu and under the sea . . .
by virtue of ifs sovei~igntyover the land". The Tunisian Mernorial also q u o t a ,
in paragraph 6.33, with app~aval,frorn paragraph 95 of the sanie Opinion of
this Court, where siressing the geoIogy of the continental sheIf. this Court
observes that the juridical concept of the continental sheIf "has arisen out of
the recognition of a physical fact" and IIiat thjs Ii~ikbetween the Iaw and the
physicaI exterrsio~iof a Stnte's territory i~stoand under the sea "remains an
importa~rrelernent for the appIication of its legal rgime". Imust aIso rroIe IIiat
the Tunisian Mernorial quotes in paragraph 6.34 from p a ~ a g ~ a p4h3 of the
Court's Judgrnent of 1959,in which the Court, stressi~rgthe nofion. of:
"the naturaI proIongatiorr or continriation of tIie Ia~ldterritory or domai~i.
o r Ia~idsovereig~ilyof the coasiaI State, in10 and under the high seas. via
the bed of its territoria1 sea which is under the fu1I sova-eignty of that
State"
corrcIudes :
"What corrfers the ipso j u r ~titIe which internationa1 Iaw attributes to
the masta1 State in respect of its co1ilinenta1 sheIf, is rhe fact that the
submarine areas wncerned may be deerned to be actuaIIy part of the
territory over w hich the coastal State aIready has dominion, in the serrse
that, aIthough coue1-ed wwitir waler, they are a prolongation or
continuation of that territo~y,and extension of it under the sea." <i.C..t.
Rc~pnrj.~ 1949. p. 3 1 .)
These fundamerrta1 IioIdings of the InrernationaI Court of Jusrice. qnuted
with approvaI in the Tunisian Mernorial, are fuIIy accepled by Libya, i~rdeed,
they are basic to Our case. WIiat then. is the issue which Iias Ied me to repeat
t hem here ?
It is the unexpecfed change of position by Tunisia in her Counler-Mernorial
which points up t h e issue. AItIrougIi the Gonrts opinions which 1 have quoted
do not condition title ro appurknant continenta1 sheIf acquired throgh tire
natural prolongatiorr corlcept by any equiiable ansideration, it is now tire
co~npIai~it of Tunisia that Libya seeks to dissrniate equitabIe principies from
naturai p1~10ngation.1 refer to the Tunisiarr Counier-Memur-iaI QI), paragraph
2.07, Chapter VI, Section 1, paragraphs 6.03 and the foIIowing, entiiled
t a dissocit~lior~ enfreprr~/ongrrnetrli~aruidPI kquif6.
But lhe Tunisian positio~i is not consistent. In paragraph 2.06 of the
Tunisian &unter-Mernoria1 (II), Tunisia appears riot to object tu the Libyan
coiicIusion, which is staied in paragraph 80 of-the Libyan Mernorial : "There
can t h e ~ e f ~be
r e ~ i possible
o w hich 1s consistent with
i~iequityin a deIi~nitatio~i
the physicaI facts of naturaI proIo~iga~ion."
Profcssor viral1y appears expressly to Iiavci agreed with ~Iiisco~iclus~on.
when he slated (IV. p. 492) :
"II serait. en effet, particulire~nenr i n e q u i ~ b l c .sous prkIexle de
deiimitarion, de priver un Etat cotier d'une etendue d e pIaleau continen~al
a IaqueIIe iI a droit. c'est--dire dne panie de son proIongement ~iaturel."
I~icidentalIy,this idea reappears irr L~byanS u b ~ n i s i o nNo. 9.
However, in rhe same Counter-Memarial, paragraph 2.07, Tunisia
campIains that Libya is adopting a position contrary Io inrernationa1 Iaw as
defined in the Court\ 1969 Judgment, when it suggests that equitabIe prin-
cipIes corne into operation onIy where the physicaI facts of naTura1 proion-
galion no Ianger assist in defining the 1-especliveIimits of t h e two s h d f areas.
Developing this coiitention iii paragraph 6-03.the Tunisian Counter-
hlemoriaI cornplains that Libya accords a subsjdiary pIace ro equity in reIation
to natu ral pralmgarion. M y dislinguished and Iearned friend. Professor Ren-
Jean Dupuy, rnakes Ihe saIne charge. IV. page 6 1 7. "The f111-the1- asssrIiorr is
na de that Libya I-ega1-dsequitabIe pri~rcipIesas appIicabk 01i1y where the1-e
exist overIappirrg c1ai1ns lo na1ri1-a1p~~oIorrg;rtso~is or two Stara. or, w11ere
geoIugy alone 1s ~ ~ i s u f i c ~ elor r~ndicate
r an app1op1-ialedeIi~nitario~i. This Ialler
refers to a c1ia1-gewIr1c1i L~byahas never made. III tIie Tunisian Cou~iter-
Me~noriaI.paragrapl~6.05, the Tunisian cliarge agairrsl Libya goes to the
extrmne length of att ributi~igtu Libya the view that "equitable priticiples have
no roIe 10 pIay in tIie praeIit case". II is reaIIy i~icrediblethat suc11 a Ioose
asse~Tio~i sIio~11dbe na de after a r e a d i ~ ~ofg lhe. Submissions set fo~.tlrin the
L i b g a ~MemoriaI.
~ A~rd.of course. i1 is even l a s CI-edibIe~ i o wtar Tunisia has
had arr opportunity lo exarni~reille Libyarr Couri!er-Me~noriaI a ~ r dReply. It is
si~nplyrot 11'ue.
NevertheIess. rhis Tunisian charge requires somc cvm~rient.
Ir1 the passaga quoted above fro~nparagmphs 19. 95 and 4 3 of rlle Court3
J u d g ~ n e ~i1-r~ tthe Nur-th Siw CLJ~IIIIIC'I~IUI SIIC'!~ cases. the Court was Irot
discussing deli~nitationas suclr. II was sett~rrg~UI-th tIie rules of custo~nary
inlernational Iaw by which a Stale acqrii1-es titIe to appurtenant areris of
co1111ne1ibI sheIf. TIie Court did 1101 refe1- 10 equity or tv eqriitabIe
considerations in selring forth itr conclusibns o n ihe acquisitiori of a IegaI t itle.
TIie Tun isia~i p1ead111gs Iiave 11evertheIess q u o c d these passages witli
approvaI
Now, however, Turiisra appears to be contendhg (and this is rIr CIiap. VI of
the Counter-Mernorial (III, Sec Il that title tu any and ail areas of the
continenta1 sheIf invdved in a delimilation depends upon the applicat~onof
equitabIe principIes ta naturaI prulbngation. :
The same fallacy appears to underIy many of the rernarks tu rhe Court of Iny
Iearned friend, Professor Jennings. un 16 Septernber.
Now w e can vnIy agree wirh Professor Jennirigs rvhe~ihe said-(IV, p. 4 15 )
that "the Iink between naturaI prolongation . . . and equikible PI-i~rcipIesis
sureIy to be fo11nd.in . . . the principle of non-encroaclrrnent", I b t 1s. I r i Ieaving
to each Party those parts of the conrinerrta1 sheIT whic11 constitute a 1ra1uraI
prvlurrgation of ils owrr Iand leri-itory i;nde~-IIie sea witliout e~lcroach~nerrt on
the 1iatura1 p~.oIorrgatio~r of the land territory of the other. This principle of
non-e~icroachme~it is. a s Professor Je1111ingsadds, based upon the IegaI title
acquired ~ { I S Ifarln
J and a11 iriilir, by a State i ~ vinue
i of its sovereignry over ils
o w n - brrt onIy over i~ o w ~ i- rraturaI pro101igation.
 ARGUMEN'~ OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 203
At this point. however. we part Company wi!h Professor Jennings. We
cannot at al1 accept his statement ihat equity or equitable principIes have to be
considered "from the Lrst" (p. 417 of his remarks) o r "right from the com-
mencement" in the identification of natural proloiigation (that is o n p. 4 181,
ihat is, in the delcrminaiion of IegaI tille 10 appurtenanc continental shelf.
1 have just shown that the Court made no reference at al1 10 equitable
principles when it w s discussing the ruIe establishing the legal litle of a State
to its physical natural prolongation under the sea. EquitabIe principies played
no role iti identifying appurtenant continental shelf based upon the juridical
concept of natural prolongation.
The Libyan position i iherefore that in norrnaI circumstances the title of a
State to its appurtcnanl conlinenta1 shelf - that is io say, the natural
prolongation of the Iandmass extending beyond ils mas&under the sea - will
determined as the Court has stated in its 1Vorrli Srci Coiiiirrc.lrfcr1 Slicl[
Judgment : its rights will be inhereni and will exist ipso ,fuir,-loas a naturaI
prolongation of its land area without relrence to equity. Some States will have
larger appurtenant areas o f continenta1 shelf than others - but, as the courts
have observed. nature mus1 not be refashioned.
It is urther the Libyan view thal it is o n l y in disputed marginal areas
between States that titIe will be based upon natural prolongation as quaIified
by equitable principjes. This, of course, is what the Court hetd in paragraphs
19, 95,43, as related to ils dispositif in paragraph 101, in which it deals
specifrcaIIy with delimitation rather than iitle.
There is here no inconsistency between a title acquired by the juridical rule
which looks to the physical facts of natural prolongalion and the role of
equitable principles in a subsequent delimitation process with another Staie.
The Tunisian characterization of the Libyan thesis as "an eccentric view of
naturat proIongation" in defiance of equiuble principIes (ihid., p. 4 19) is thus
an arrow which falls quite wide of the mark.
Far from adopting a posirion contrary to international law as defrned in the
Court's 1969 Judgrnent (1 1, Tunisian Counler-Mernorial. para. 207).Libya is
basing its case on that Judgment.
Moreover, far from finding that equitabIe principles have no roIe to play in
the present proceedings, Libya is setting forth, not only in ber Submissions, but
also i n Part 111. Chapter 11. paragraphs 353 ff., of her Counter-Memorial (II),
specific conclusions as to the role of equitable principles in lhis case ; and in
Part IV on "The PracticaI Meihod for the Application of the Principles and
RuIes". the Libyan Counter-MenioriaI explicidy relates i t s proposais 10 the q u i -
table nature of the reirlts rhey would produce. We respectfur ly cal1 the attention
of the Court to these passages of the Libyan Counter-MemoriaI. in parricuiar
paragraphs 363 K., 51 9 K., and the Libyan Subrnlsslons (pp. 2 17-2 19).

A consideration which appears to have led the Tunisian pleadings to distort

the relation between quitable principIes and the concept of natural
prolongation may be found perhaps in the ernphasis placed by Tunisia on the
relation between equitable principles and relevant circumstances.
1 therefore turn io the relation between equitable principles and relevant
circumstancw which characterize the a r a - both of which are called to the
particular attention of the Court in Article I of the Special Agreement.
In the Norih Seo Coilrirreitrc~ISliercases, this Court observed in paragraph
92 that, although the Parties had resewed for themselves the application of the
204 CONTINENTAL SHEI.1:

principles and rules laid down by the Court. it would be insuficient simpIy to
rely or1 the rttle ofequity without indicating possible ways i i i which it might be a

appIied. The Cour! continued in paragraph 93 thar there was no legal Iimil to
co~isideraiionswhich might be relevairi in a baIancing desigiied to produce an
equiiabk result. I r is noleworthy, however, thai rhe Court relied more heavjly
o n geology and gcography than on othcr considerations. Stressing the notion
that the Iegal concepr o f the contineiital shelf has arisen as a recognition of a
physical fact, the Court concluded in paragraph 95 : "The appurtennce of the
sheIf to the countries in front of whose coastli~iesit lies . . ." Mr. President, I
emphasize rhose words "in froni oT" becausc of the disparaging remarks we
heard from Professor Jentiings and Professor ViraIly : ihis is the Couri 1tse1fi i i
paragraph 95 using ihai ierm "in front of". 1 wilI quote il now - paragraph
95 :
"'The appurtenance of the sheIf to the countries in front of whose
coasiIines it Iies is therefore a fact. and it can be useful to consider the
geoIogy of ihai shclf in order io find oirt whether rhe direction iaken by
certain configurariona1 featurcs should influence delimltation bccause, in
certain localities, lhey point-up the whole nolion of the appurtenance of
the continental shelf to the State whose rerrilory it does in fact prolong."
I/.C'.J. Rc,pons 19159.p. 5 1 .)
In the next paragraph, paragraph 95. the Court stresses geograph y ,
observing that pronounced coastal configuratio~isshould not be ignored "since
the Iand 1s ihc legal source of the power which a State may exercise over
territoria1 extensions to seaward".
M1hiIe the Court was deciding only the case before it, its treatment of the
relation between equitable principles and relevant circttmstances. with the
stress or? geology and geography, was expressed in general ierms. which we
beIieve are appIicabIe to the present praceediiigs.
We draw the sarne conclusion from a study of rhe 1977 Decision of the
United Kingdom/ Franci: Court of Arbitraiion o n deIiniitalion or the
continental shelr. Whilc the parties to that case advanced as equitabte
considerations ta be taken i n t o accourll various claims relaling 10 navigatiori.
security , military instaIIs~ions,ih e politica1 siatus of isIands. economics. coastaI
fisheries(cf.. paras. 161, 171, 184. 187, I88X the Court couid not regard Ihem
as enercising a decisive inllirence on thc delimitation of a contincnial shelf
boundary in a case whcre geology. natural prolongation and geographical
considerations played so important a role. You inay find the citations in
Command paper 7438 of Her Majesty's Stationery Ofice. paragraphs 161.
17 I . 184. 187. 188 of the arbitral coitn's opinion.
Admittedl y , circurnstances and their rdevance wilt Vary from case to case,
but in Ihe deIimitalion of a continental sheIf boundary il appears from Siate
practice that geoIogical and geographical considerations will play a primordial
role, if only becausc of the basic rule of internationa1 Iaw that titlc ta an
appurienant area of continentat sheIf derives rrom natural prolongation.
Certainly. in the present proceedings. Libya ktieves itself just~fiedin stressing
ihe geoiogy of natural prolongation as ternpered by relevant geographica1
consideralions.
The Tunisian pleadings ihemselves recognize 1he importance of geographi-
cal and geoIogical (e.g., I , Tunisian h~iemorial,para. 7.18) o r , more &en,
geomorphologica1, factors in a conlinental shelf delimitation. However, the
Tunisian Counter-Mernorial. paragraph 6.16 and the footnote 8 on page 70
cornplains that Libya reduces reIevant circumstanccs to purely physicaI
bound her clain-red area of historie rights by Ii~reswlrich are independe~~t of
both the acruaI Trrnisian coastaI co~-rligurationand of {lie S~I-aight baselines
p~.ornulgaiedby Ti~nisiain 1 97 3 Ia~idwlr ich. incidenkIIy . Libya chaIIenges1.
This Court wiIl Irave noted the ernpiiasis - i~ideed Ihe i~isistenceof
Professor Jeilnings UII [Ire reIation of coastaI configi~ratio~rs - aciual Coast-
Ii~iesw ~ t htheir sinuosilic~- to a deti~nitai~o~i of the continenta1 sileIf. Br~tone
nlust look again at IIie Tun~sianS,ubbinissio~is.
Tite bourrdary lines proposed by Tu~lisiai1-r Sr~b~nission 1-2 and set ru~tliin
Si~b~nissio~r I I are con~radic~ed by Tunisian Subqission 1-3. in whih Tunisia
staies t hat the deIimitatio~iof the contine1itaI sltelf Inrat be in confor~nitywith
equiIabIe principIes. laking account of a11 lhe I-eIevant circuntsta~ic'esof the
area "withont rciasliio~ii~igriature" - whicl? can onIy nrean, 111 the
circumstances, wif houl dis1-egarding o r refasliioning the Tu~iisiancoastIine.
Despite the efforrs of Professor ViraIIy 011 25 September to de~no~rsirate thar
the p ~ ~ p o s eTunisian
d bou~rtla~-y Iines arc in acc01-dwith equiraOIe principles
and would pi.-oducean equilabIe resuIt. the r ~ o r d , o the f Tunisian pleadr~igsis
singuIarI y 1ak11igin any credible evidencc to srrpport rhis asserlio~i.C a ~ ~ f u l
examinalion of the ci~cumstancesconsidered reIevant by Tunisia as Ieadi~rg[O
bathy metric. physiog1-apiric. or gc01net1-icIines rvhich c o ~ ~ s t i t uat esr~bsta~it ial
e i ~ c r ~ c l i ~ n one n ltlie con!inentai shelf of Libya, reveals tlial tlrey bear no
relaIiorr to eqr~itabiepri~icipIes.1s this wllat PI-ofessur Dupi~yIneaIii when he
observed [IV.p. 6 1 5 ) thal 1Ire ppIication of equiiabIe PI-incipIesrcquires [lie
g~-eatestrea1is1n ? The proposed T u ~ i ~ s i alines n go 1101 respect tlre na1r11'aI
PI-oIongarion of Libya ; nw d o tliey cnrrform to cquitable prrnci~ila.despire
Tr~~risian asser~ions~othe contrary. One must add ~ I i ttliese proposcd Ii~res
beai- no obscrvabte relalion to the Tr~nisiancoastlipe.
I t foIIows 1Irnt the Tunisian attenrpt to shifr 1iotio1ia1Iy easrward Ilte
geograghical aag1e wliich occuw excIusivcIy in Ttrnisia's coasllirie and ta base
their gcoinefricir1 argirmenr 011 IIre PI-etence rlial the angIe exists al IIre
boundary piIIar a[ Kas Ajciir is a bIata~rtatteinpr lo refaslrion nature and
geography.
Ca11 Tunisio the11 be heard tu cllarge I..ibya with refashioni~ignature and
w itli disregarding t h e sinuositiw of the Trrrr isiai? coastaI co11figu1-ationw heil
ihe seaward bonndaiy of Tunisian claims of I~istori 1itIe and the IIIICS
aduocatecl iri Ille Tunisian Submiss~oirsdo preciseIy that ? TI-re equitnble
pri1lc1pie i~lic~gc~ris c-viilr-urin riorr rrirdic.lrcltrs c.sI - uplield Iiy this Coirrt i ~ {Ire
i
A>-lrirr-rrlA ulc~rrliWf~dc.!?JI ihc KNig O/' Spilfiti ( H I 13 #IT-C~IIIIICJI' I 96% case [ f.C.J-
I S pp. 132. 207. 709, 21 3la11d irr [lie Tc,~rrpkcr![prr.irhVii~c,fii.case
K ~ ~ I I I 'I969.
I1.C.J. Rr.llrii-ls iY62. pp. 6. and 311. TIiis p~.i~icipIe wouId seeIn IO ~OI-ecIose
T i ~ ~ i i s ir-o~n
a 1-eIianceupon a n argument which is contradicted by her ow1-r
behaviour. The PI-1ncip1eis eIabo1,ateIy discussed by Ihe Iate Ji~dgeAIfaro i ~ Iiis i
separate opi11ion in the Tc.rrlj~k r!/ l'rc3frh vif?i,ui-cas? (lw.cil . PII 39 K.).
Tlre falfacious nature of the Tunisian charge that ir 1s 1,ibya whiclt seeks tu
diminate reIevant circurnsta~icc.~ and to refasliion the Ti~nisian coiasrIi~ie
appears even more vividIy w h e ~ one i turns to the L;ibya~iMemwiaI (1 1. w here
Libya expressIy expIicitIy stares in paragrapli F9 tIiat :
"The principle of naturaI PI-oIo~igat iorr nrust nccessar11y be a~rpIied,~ i o t
r abstract. but in relario~~
i ~ the ro !Ire geographica1, geoIogrca1 and otlier
I-elevant circu~nstancesof the part icular area" ,
and in pa~xgraph92 that .
"ii is the geograp11icaI fealiires of rhe coastiink of a Srale which provide
 the base points ernployed in deIiiniting the oute; lirnits of the rerritorial
sea, and. as proposed in [Article 76 of the draft convention oii the law of
the sea]. of ihe continental shelf as well".
The Libyan Mernorial continues by nolirig with approval lhe rejection by
rhe Anglo-French Court of .4rbitraiion of a Frcnch proposa1 becaiise it
"detaches the deIimitation alinost compleieIy froin the coasts which actually
abut o n ihe cotitinenta! shclf" (para. 93). Nor crin I.ibya bc faulted - as rhe
Tunisran Coi~nier-Meinori:iI atrempts to do (paras. 6 13. 5.17 arid ihe
rollowing, iiirci. aiici). Nor cari 1-ibya bc fatiltecl for concIuding in paragraph 94
of ihe Libyan Mei!ioriaf :
"lt is appareiit thal ihe geographical configiirat~on of a coast -
whether concave o r convex, whet her priiiiaril y regular. o r highly
irregular. containing griITs. promontories or offshore islaiids or isIers -
may dctermine decisivety i v helher. in particiiIar circii nisrarices. the
eqiiidistarice method is equiiable."
The rererence ro the cquidistsiice melhod in t h ~ spassage may now appear
irrelevanr in vicw of ?'iitiis~a's shifl of positioti frorn her May 1976
blemorandum. In an y case, il 1s redundanr ; as the Anglo-French Courr of
Arbitration ruriher observed in paragraph 84 :
"the validiiy of the eqi~idistaticcniethod. or of atiy oiher rnethod. as a
means of achieving an equ~tabledeIirniratioti of thc conlinenla1 shelf is
aIways rclaiive io the pariicuIar geographical situation".
That \vas the positioii scr Forth by L ~ b y a i i i her Meinorla1 ; and thai
cotititiues to be her position. The baseless nature of the 'Tunisian charge 011 ihis
poinr wiIl bc f~iriherdemonstrated by my learntd friend. Mr. Highet. ivhcri he
develops the Libyati conccpt of the practical method for applicaiion o r i h e laiv
to the racls o f the case and which does rake account of the Tunisian coastliiie.
1 shouId Iike io cal1 attcniion brieffy to a furlher point in this conneclion. In
paragraph 6.72 rhe Trinisian Coiinrer-54emorial iioics - appareiiily w ~ i h
approval - the fact i h a i the Iheii currerir vcrsioii or paragraph 1 of Article 83
of the diart converition (it~TorrnaIte.ut)ori the law of thc sea. in that paragraph.
the reqiirremeni tIiiit a delimiiation shaII take ;iccoiint "of atI the relcvant
circumsiancm" has been dropped and replaced with the requirement to take
accoiiiii "of al1 the circum~iaiicespreviling in ihe area conccrned".
I t caii ccriaiiily no1 havc been the intcnrion of the C o n ference to discard ihe
coiicept of relevaiicy aiid io proclaim ihar aII circi~mstaiiccs - wherher
relevant or irrelevant - tnrlst be laken i~itoaccouni. Nor does !tic Tunisian
Counier-klernorial go so far. I t contitilies to stress the relevance of hisroric,
economic and geographical circunistances uiidcr the new text.
The issue, ihereforc. continues to turii ripoil what, in thc circunistances
prevailing in ihc area conceriied. is relevant. Couiiscl Tor Libya have
dcinoiisiralcd that the Tunisian claiin of hisloric righis whaiever rnay be its
Iiniited justification itishore, can have no reIevancc to the delimitarioii or rhe
continental shelf with Libya. Nor i s Libya clainiirig the inshore areas off the
Tiinisian coast.
I t has been my purposc io show thal, although the Tunisian claim of hisroric
rights within rhe 50-melrc isobath - 4 5 O line effeciively reduces Ihe reIevance
of the Tunisiaii coasial configuration and rhe four Tunisian nieihods ignore il.
rieverihclcss. in the opinion of Libya, the Tunisiaii coastline remains a
circurnsta ne to be considered iri rhc delirniration of the coniinetiIal shel f
whercvcr it is relevant.
 1 rurn now to thc concepl of proportionality as an equitable principle. and
w iII examitie its reIcvnrice in the crirrenl proceedings.
Proportionaliiy is aIi eliisivc concepi which requircs careful anaIysis. A s the
Iaw on this point has cvolved in ihe decisioii of ihis Court in its Noi4iIi SPU
Slic,l[ Judgment atid the decision of the Atiglo-French Court of
Co~itirrr~irfrrl
Arbitralioti on thc Contincn~alShelf. it has become clcar that no principle of
proportionality confers a 1ilIe or provides a distributive apportionmeni of
shares of continental shelf oii a Slate. Proportionality has no place in
coiiiiectioii wit h ~ / c . , j r t i . i ,iippiiriciiancc i i pot1 which ii tle is fouiided.
Allhotigh i his Court ~ h r i sdecisivel y rejected the concepi of proportioiialiry
as requiring a n equai parlition of rhe large expaiiscs of continental shelf
adjoining Iwo or morc Statcs. il tieverl hetess held i i i paragraphs I 8. 20. 99 aiid
IO1 (Cl(2)thar in "a disputed niarginaI or fritige area. to which both Rrties are
Iaying claini" arr equitable delimi~aiionshould effcct a divisioii of lhai limited
disputed area "iii agreed proporiions or. railiiig agrcenien t. cquell y ".
In our pleadiiigs. we have aitenipled to keep clearly in mind this distinction
between proportionality as a partilion of large expanses of continental shelf -
w hich r he courts agree in rejecting because of rhe (lc.iiii-cappiirtenance of the
shclf to the coastaI Slate - and the permissibie proportionate partition of
linlirecl marginal a r a s to w hich cornpet ing daims are inade. The siaremeni
made in parrigraph 5 I O of the Libyan Counter-Mernorial that the concept of
proporiional~tyis applicable solely 10 iiiarginal areas ofcontinenta1 shelf where
the application of the principle of natural prolongation leads to conflicting
resulls - alihough this statement has unfortunately misled counscl for
Tiinisia. Ti~nisian Rcply (IV). piiragraptis 3.75 - and the followi~ig.thls
state~nenrwas clearly intended. as the coiitext of paragraphs 5 1O to 5 16 of the
Libyan Counrer-Mernorial II 1) show. to refer 10 a concept of proportionality as
:i perrnissible partition of dispured marginal areas in an cquiiable delirniiatioii
and not Io an impermissible partition of areas already appertaining tlc,,i~irc,.111
taking lhis posiiion. 1-ibya not only fotIows closcly the rcasoning of thc Couri
in the Noi?li .Sr,(r Coiirirrcirttil .Tltc~I/~cases but it follows the actual method
cmploycd by the Parties ro that case in their evcnr~talsetrlemenl after the
decision.
This. however. is noi the only coticept of proportionaliiy. Ai1 entirely
differei~iconcept appears in paragraphs 98 and IO1 (U)( 3 ) of the 1969
Decision of ihis Courr where Iooking to the resiilts of a delimitation in
accordance w il h equitabIe principIes, proportionality is regarded more as a
ratio betweeii the extent of the contincniat shelr appertaining to the States
concerned and the lengths of thcir respcciive coastIines (para. 98). This
conception of proportionality may appear io rest more on a faciual correIal~on
ihat. generally speaking. the lorrger ihe coasiline of a Slate, ihe greater rhe area
or its appurtenanr continental shelf, rather than on any working concept of
equitable partilion.
It is a third concept of proportionality ro which 1 \vouId now Iike to direct
the alleniion of Ihe Court - a concept which involves no acrive allocation of
sharcs but Iooks to the resirlts of a particular iine o r a proposed Iine of
delimitation. The Anglo-French Coi~rlof Arbitrarion clarified ihis concept i i i
ils 1977 l~ecisionwhen it staled in paragraph I O I :
"Theequitable delimilation of the continental shetris not . . . a questiori
o f apporiioning - sharing out - lheconlinental sheIf amongst the States
abrirting upon il. Nor is il a quesrion of sirnply assigning to t hem areas of
 ARGUMENT OF PROEFSSQR BKIGGS 209
Ihe sIieIf in p~oportionto the Ieilgth of their coast111res: for to do this
wouId be IO substiture for the deIim11alion of bou~idariesa distributive
apportionment of s1ia1.c~. Furthe1-~norc.the funda~neirtalPI-i1ic1p1ethat tIie
co~itinental sIielf appe1-ta111sto a cwdsraI Srare as bei11g Ihe ~latural
proImgarion of its territory pIaces definite Iimits on recourse Io the Fdclor
of PI-oportionaIity."
ProportiwraIity - crinIudes the Court of Arbitration {iI~id.J- is ralher "Io
be used a s a criterion o r fador relevant irr evalualing Ihe equities of certain
geograpIi~caIsituations. 11ot as a genera1 principle providi~iga n independe~it
source of righls [that is 10 say 1itIe1ro areas of c#nti~ierrtaIsheIf". III otirer
words. proportionaIity according io the Corirt of Arbitratio~~ is a CI-~ierio~r
"for
dete1-~nirri~ig the reasonabIe or unreaso~rable - the equitabIe 01-~rrequirable'.
effects in al1 Ille geogi-aphica1 circunrstances which nray 1esu1t from seIecti~iga
particuIar Iine of deIimitation (para 100). So we have enrbraced this
coilcIusion In Libyan Sulrrnissio11No. 12. Arid i l I undei-stood him coi-r-ectIy.
Professo1- ViralIy aIsa accepts t his view. IV. pages 60I -602.
AIthough the courts have Ierrned PI-oporIionaIity a "factor". o r "crite1-ion".
in ihis IIiird sense proporlionality Inay apprupriateIy be considerd a n
"eqri~tableprinciple" si~iceit serves bot11 Lo test and 10 pronlote a del~n-ritatioi~
which, a s this Couri has heId. mus[ be "'cquitabIjr e k t e d " ( A r ci!.. para. 201.
The balancing of equities which I-esuIrsfrom an appIication of this principle
of proportionality wiiI inevitaMy i~ivolvea comparative survey of areas w hich
wouId appertai11 Io each P a ~ t yfollowing a particuiar delimiialio~i.It shorrId be
ernphasized. Irowever, rhat tiris baIan~ngof equities irrvoIvcs in iiself n o
alIocarion of shares.
For tIie making of ihis compa1-alive survey. Libjran Submissio~isNos. I I
arrd 15 arc ofpart~cuIarreIevance. Libya~iSubmissio~iNo. 1 I reads : "For the
purpose of achieving a n cquilable deIi~nitation,rhe w hoIe of the sea-bed and
subsoil beyond the Iow-warcr mark a1o1rgIIrecoast of eacIi Parly is Io be taken
inro account." And Submission No. 15 reads : "The baselines promulgaled by
Tunis~airr 1973 are not opposabIe to Libya for the pri1-posesof the deIimi1ation
and the resuIts of givi~rgeffect Io tlrern would in ariy ertenl be iriappropriate
and 11requitabIe."
On 30 Decernber 1963, Tunisia~iLaw No 63-49. the tex1 of which is
reproduced in Annex 85 to the Tr~nisjanMeinorial (I), this Tunisian Law
PI-vvided rIiI iis te^-ritoriaI sea of s i x m11es should be rneasurcd frorn the low-
water mark aIorrg ils enti1-e coisr. incIuding isIa11ds. rrum the Tunisian-
Algerian f~-o~itier to the Tir~iisiarr-Libyanrrontie~.exept for Ihe GuIf of Tri~-ris
- but 11ot exceptirrg the GuIf or G a b s Ten yea1-s later in 1973. after
conversations Iiad conlmenced with Libya Iooking towards a deii~nitariunof
their cunt11re1ita1sheIves. Tunisia promulgated Law No. 73-49 of 2 Augirsi
1973. a ~ i dDecree No. 73527 of 3 Novernber 1973. according to wIric11 - for
the first tirne i ~ hislory
i - straiylit baseIines were enrpIoyed ro close 1Re GuIf of
Gabes and oiher areas as "inier~iaiwaters". The texts of boih Iaw and decr-ee
Inay be fvund i ~ iAn~iex1-1 7 10 the L.ibya11 Menlurial. 111 the Tunisian
Me~nvriaIand Couriter-Memor~aI. particuIa1-ly i11 Annex 11-5 to thc laller.
Tunisian prete~isionsru aIi exaggerated GuIf of Gabes 01'Io what is vagueIy
lermed "tIie Gulf of Gabes area" is extended from Kas Kaboudia to Ras Ajdir
- and or1 sunre rnaps, eveIi inore eaterIy across the Libyar~coast. The Courr
wrII have noted the searching exami~ralio~i of this subject by Dean CoII~ard.
By a process of dr;rlr~uhlc.n~cqrr(cf, aIso II, Tu 11isian Cou ~iter- Mernorial.
para. 1.311 alrnost the entire area north of :Ire Tunisian coastline f i m l Ras
 ARGUM NT OF M R. H IGHET
COUNSEL FOR THE W V E R N M E W OF UBYA

Mr. HTGHET : I

MI-.President and Menibers of the Court.1 am eroud a ~ r dpIeased tto be abIe

to appear before ou again. M a y it pIease the GUI? : it is 1nj7task and priviIege
to present Libya's views on the practical rnethod for tlie appIication of the
pri~tciplesand rules of international Iaw in this specific situatiorr.
Now 1 wiII begin at tire obvious beginning poi~it,which is the irrterpretatiorr
of the SpeciaI Agreement, since thal affects whal we rnean by the wurds, the
"practical niet hod".
1 shouId at the oulsel perhaps repeat the caulionary note wlrich was
sounded the other day by Sir Francis VaIIat : whenever the verbaI shurthand
of the "practica1 niethod" is nsed by us for conveiiierrce o r brevity, it is fuIIy
irrtended Io rnean the practical n ~ e t h o dfor the application of the prirrciples and
rrrIes in this spccific situation in the sense o f ' AricIe I of the SpeciaI
Agreerne~it;and it is ~iotintended to mean a practica1 rnethod of deIimitation
in, if 1 Inay say, the Tunisian selise. The words c e Iess important than the
ideas which they convey ;and I shaII m r n e to those ideas in a mirrute.
When I have deaIt with the question of inierpr-etation, I wiII next disclrss the
roIe of the Parties and of the experts of the Partie, folIowing the decision of
this honorirable Court.
Third, 1 shaII coiisider in sume dehi1 various aspects of o u r practica1
method, or suggeslron. as to how the principles and rrrIes niay b a t be applied
fo the f x i s of the present case.
In this part of rny address I wiII consider f~rstmatters reIating to natrrr-a1
proIonga~ion,and second the issue of 1~1evant circurnstai~ces.1 wiil probabIy
have to suspend Iny address fIiis afternoorr in the ~niddleof Ihe reIevant
circu~nstances,wliiclr may seem appropriale, Mr. Presiderrt. and resurne ayairr
at that stage on Friday morning, if IIie Court pIeasei

2. THERULE OF THE COURT

First. tlie ~natterof the interprelation of the SpeciaI Agreement. This has
aLready b e n discussed bg our Age~itand also by Sir Francis. 1 would Iike to
give the question a different fucus, in conneciion with the way in which the
practica1 rnethod shouId be viewed, evolved and furmulaled.
The SpeciaI Agreernerrt asks the Court to go further t h a ~ ijust indicating
principIes and rules aIorre. That was the siluatiwi in Che Noi.fl~Sctr Cixirirrefiral
Si1c,(f cases.
But tlre Court h a Irot been asked tu draw the actual 1i11eof deIiniiiatio~r.
That was rile position ~ I Ithe AngIo-French Arbitration. Here the Court Iras
'
indeed beerr invited Io iridicate the consideratio~rsand factors which should be
taken into account, so chat the experts of the Parties can "deIimit these areas
withorrt any difi~ulties".But stiII, the Court has nat b e n requested Io set out a
 ARGUMENT OF MR HIGHET 2 15
n as, for exampIe. equidislance. Tt cieasly
specific melhod of d e I i ~ n i ~ t i osuch
has 1101 been invited, in the ~vordsof my Iearned friend Profasos Abi-Saab. to
describe an "operational means of efecting delirnitatiun" {IV. p. 434).
Although it was true that in the Non11 Sea Coirrit~eriful Slie/fcases the word
"method was used in conjunciion with the word "delimitation" : that was
because the whole case was initially focused on the question whether the
equidistance method had to be applied.
III the present case, tIie context is diffe~znt.Moreover, ~fthe Parties to this
case Irad warited 10 say "~nethodof delimitation", they wouId have said it. But
what tIiey did say a b w t method was, w ~ t hrespect, very diflrent frarn what
Professor Abi-Saab referred to as a ter111ofart for deIirnitation. WIiat they in
fact said was "practical method for the application of these principles and rules
in this specific situation" and they even set this part of that sentence apart from
the reference CO the delimitation by the "experts of the two countries". In
addition. Article 2 of the SpeciaI Agreerne~itsays thai :
"FoIIowing the delivery of the judgment of the Corrri. the two Parties
shaII meet to appIy these principIes arid ruIes in 01-der to deterinine tIie
line of delimitation . . .."
1 stress the words "10 apply these principles and rules". This confirms our
analysis that when the Parties did not say that the Court was to dacide on a
rnelhod of delimitation. they meant what they said, or rather, what they did
rot Say.
Brrt to indiraie a very precise method of deliniitation - as Tunisia wuuid
have the Coirn do - is for al1 inrents and purposes, Mr. President, the same as
taking over the task of drawirig Che Iine. Once the method becornes so precise
that it only remains for the experts of the Parties to plot the co-ordinatesand
join thern together, the Court will, by indicating such a method, in effect, have
drawn the line. It ce-inly will not have confined ilself to indicating a method
for appIying principles and rt~ies. Tt wi1I have indicated a method of
de~imitation.
Now, of course. in the AngIo-French Arbitratiorr of 1977, the Court of
Arbitration djd just that. Althorigh it Ief~the mere piolring of CO-ordinatesand
the inscription of the line on the chart to its own expert, it could equalIy we1I
have done thai work itself. ln law. it was the Court's line.
Tunisia suggests an a l m s t identical role for this Court in this case ; the only
differeiic~being that the experrs here will belong to the Parties and not to the
Cor~rt.New tthis must be an erroIleorrs view of rhe ter-ms of OUI- Special
Agreemenr.
Moreover, apari from eqriidistance and one o r ;wu otIrer metiiads as suclr.
how many such valid methods car1 iir fact be identifred ? Orniand, rhere were
only four, 1 would remind the Court, that the cornmittee of experts considered
as worth mentioning to the International Law Commission in 1953.
Surely there has not been a multitude of methods thrust upon the world
since that lime. Our position is that Tunisia, in spite of her diligent efforrs, has
n d , in fact, succeeded in addirig to that nrrmber. None of the tech~~iques of
deIi~nitation sepresented by the Tunisian sheaf of Iines, or, to borrow a
feliciious word from Professor Jenrri~~gs, by the "fascicule" of Iins, rrot one of
these is methodical in the sense of being unarbitrary, of resting o n sound
premises, of applying general principles of law to particular circumstances of
fact, To the contrary, they are systerns o r devics which have obviously been
gcrserated by the need to attain a pre-determined result.
It is, in fact, possibIe to envisage an indeterminate number of rnethads of
216 CONTINENTAL SHEi,I:

delimitation. But they woiild al1 be - or mostly be - arbitrary. They would

riot correspond to the principles of law.
For example. biLarre or random fechniques cotrld be ernployed ro draw a
line. There is n o doubt that ariy sncli rando~nsysrem - no ~naiterhow
-
ciip1-icious coriId technically qualify as beirig a method of deIimitation. It
corrld even be irsed io draw a deIirnitation 1i11e.Btit m one would contend thaI
any such method would be an application of the principles and rules of
iiiternational law.
It is Our submission that each of the Iines of the Tunisian sheaf falls iiito this
category. There is something tvrong with each of them. and none of ihern is
consisIe~itwith internatio11a1Iaw of practice.
Moreouer. in Ihe prese~rtcase it can hardly be snpposed that, aftes the
judgme~it.the Partres would agree o n a metllod of deIimitation which wouId
he incorisrsterir with the prirrciples and rules which the Court had decided they
shou Id appl y .
As Sir Francis has already indicated. the Tunisian interpretation results iri
the practical method question becoming separaled from the principles and
r~ilesquestion. The rnethods have become o1i1y inerhods of del~rniraiion.and in
comequencc the tieed fur the praclicaI ~nethodro have evaivcd fram rhe
principles and rtrles and [Obe consistenr with thein a1 al1 rimes has been placed
ar one, or possrbly more. I-ernoves.
So what our learned opponents have done is to conjure up, with respect,
four coristructs. which they label "practical methods", to deal with whal they
perceive to be the geomorphological and geographic iacts of the case.
But Tunisia has rclated her methods or constrlicts to only a fcw
c h a r a c k ~istics of the area. TIiey do nor reIate tu a11 the releva~itcircumsrances.
Nor do They relate [o. 01-derive from. a11 th: principles and ruIes ot
intesnatiorral Iaw
For example, as Sir Francis said on I October, W C have strained Our ears
waiting for a statemenl by Tunisia of how equitable principles cdn be seen to
apply 10 her sheaf of lincs. And my learned friend Professor Briggs has spoken
to the Court on preciseIy that aspect of the problem. A n d we d o not recall
hearing any real discussion a i al1 about peIroleum depmits or producing weIIs.
Now. the1.e is no convinci~ig- if 1 rnay say credible - co~rneciionbetween
the principles and r~iIesof Iaw. on t h e one hand, and t h e foui- Ttinisian
method~.on the orher. Let Ine say t here are tliree aspecrs to this lacuna or Iack
of connection.
First, it is because the Tunisian sheaf appears to have been construcied after
the fact, in order to reach the su bstaniive results desired from the beginning.
Second. this process is facilitated by a st rained interprelation of ihe Special
Agree~nerrt.
Third. i ~ rour vrew rhis faIse dichoton-ry is a Iiecessary ingrcdienr of rhe
Turiisia~lcase. Ir is rnpossibIe tn recoricile 1 lie sheaf of Iines with rhe appltcablc
principles of Iaw. or to desci-ibe theni as being practical methods of applying
them.

Tunisia's view is that the 1o1tof the Court should be to prescribe a method
of de1imitatio11 to rhe Parties which their experts wiII then sil down arid
execute. This has been amply brought out in the comnients made by Professor
Abi-Saab. There can be no doubt whatever that in the Tunisian view Ihe role
 ARGUMENT OF MR. HIGHET 217
of the experts is correspondingiy rninima1. A n d how this squares with the
fundamenta1 concept that delimitation should be by agreement is beyond us.
But it is directly congruent with this position that Tunisia spares hardly,an y
time o r energy to consider the role of the experts of the Parties. It is most
revealing to note that neither Professor Abi-Saab nor any of the other counsel
for Tunisia considered rhe role of the experls as wonhy of any substantive
discussion, except to say that the experts should not have much to do because
three manths is a very short time.
This seems odd in view of the fact that the experts are rnenrioned repeatedly
in the Special Agreement. At Ieast three articles conCern the experts and
delegations of the Parties.
What reIationship is there, then, between the role of the experts in the post-
decision phase and the rerrns of the Special Agreement ?
ArticIe 3 contemplates returning 10 the Court, or a return to Ihe Court, after
three months foilowing the judgment if an agreement on deIirniiation has not
then yet been reached, unless that period is renewed once or more by the
Parties. There is no reason given for the failure to reach agreement.
In that instance the Court could rhen make things more c l a r and more
specific. if necessary, with Iess room for any further confusion or disagreement
for whatever reason. Such a step would constitute a IogicaI cIarification of the
matter which wouId be entirely appropriate at that stage.
The connection between the word "clarify", in the Iasi sentence of Article I
of the Special Agreement, and the word "clarifications",in Article 3, now
becornes obvious. Rather than a "judgment by instalments" - 1 use the words
attributed to us by Professor Abi-Saab (IV. p. 439) - the Special Agreement
contemplates a very praclical rnethod of ensuring the effectiveness of this
Cou ri's decision.
If the Parties have dificuIty in appIying the principles and rules in
accordance with the method clarified by the Court, the Court can then help
them 10 d o so - a11 within the jurisdiction already provided for by the Special
Ag-ment.
But Professor Abi-Saab says that any relurn to the Court wouId be
unjustifred, except "in cases of contingencies unforeseable at the time of the
judgment", and that return to the Court "is ttrvcr by prior design, as this would
contradict the finaliiy which is the essence of judgment" (IV, p. 4391.
The staternents have Ied us to r e - r a d the interpretative judgments in the
Iiirerprrratioii of Jtrdgiiieiii N o . 3 , Judgmettr No. 4 . 1 925, P.C.1 J., S r r i ~ sA .
No. 4 (Treaty of NeriiIly) ; theliiierpr~.iaiioiiofJudgt~rwr~s Nus. 7 aiid 8 {Facrory
al Chorzo'w). Judgnr~nrNo. 11. 1927. P.C.f.J.,,Series A . No. 13 ; and rhe Re-
quesr for Iiirerprerarioti US ijir Judgtnwir of 20 Novei~rbrr1950 iti ttie As,vlirr~i
Case. Judgmenl, I.C J. Reporis 1 9 5 0 , page 395.
'c<r
In 1925, in the Treufy Neuilly case ~liirerprelatio~ij the Permanent Court
declined the Greek request for interpretation on the ground - and this is very
pertinent here - that t h e question asked was "clearly based on a differerit
conception unknown 10 the speciaI agreement" (p. 7).
In 1927, in the Chorzow Faciorjl case ~It~~erpretofiotl} the Permanent Court
granted the German application, and it fwused closely on "the meaning of the
expression 'meaning o r scope of the judgment"' in Article 60 of the Statute
(p. I 1). lt was quite clear to the Court that the request for interpretation submitted
by the German Government was entirely twd on that article, AnicIe 60.
In 1950, the Asjilirm case also concerned the iriterpretation of Article 60 of
the Statute of the Court. In decIining the CoIornbian request for interpretation,
this Court stated that the purpose of a request under that Article :
218 CONTINE~TALSHELF

"must be to obtain an inrerpretation of the judgrnent . . . [andj to obtain

clarification of the meaning and scope of what the Cour1 has decided wirh
binding force, and not tu obtain a n ansrver to questions not so decided"
I1.C.J.Reporrs 19.50, p. 4021.
The Couri aIso said that : "Any other construction of Article 60 of the Statute
would nullify the provision or the article that the judgmen t is final and without
appeal ." (Ibid.)
With this, we can hardly quarreI. II is, of course, an authoriiative inter-
pretation of AriicIe 60. But whai mighi happen in the context of Article 3 of
the Special Agreement in lhis case does not depend on the use of Article 60 of
the Statute.
Now, Professor Abi-Saab said that Article 3 "does nothing more than
reiterare the general principle pravided for in Article 60 of the Statute" (IV,
p. 440). But if the Panies had intended to rely on Article 60, lhey woutd not
have necded to incfude Article 3.
Although this quwtion - which dms not arise al this tirne - is oicourse
one for the Court io decide, no procedure under Article 3 would have to be
based on a titIe of jurisdiction under ArticIe 60 of the Statute, since Article 3
provides for an independent and suppIementary title of jurisdiction under our
original SpeciaI Agreement.
Now, as a practica1 marter, of course, the Parties can always agree to
postpone any such return to the Couri, especiaIIy i f they are following the
guidelines for meaninglu1 negoiiations of the Nurrlr Sm Cuiirir~c~liirul Slic'~
cases, to which O u r Agent referred.
In conclusion : nothing that we have said or might Say about the post-
decision phase in this casc wouId contravene any of the principIes, including
that of the finaIity of judgment and the binding force thereof, expressed in the
jurisprudence of this Coun o r of its predecessor.
But the interpretation of this Article 3 does irnpinge upon the appropriate
inlerpretation of the SpeciaI Agreement with regard to that phase of the case.
and in particular upon the roIe of the Parties and their experts.
Who will the "experts" be? They will necessarily cover a broad range of
areas of cornpetence. I t would be IogicaI to expect that the "experts" wouId
include persons at the policy Ievel, with dipiornatic and legal backgrounds, in
addition to geoIogists and gwgraphers and cartographers and, as Dean
CoIIiard has recentIy reminded us, even perhaps hydrographers.
But the guidance ~iowto be given by the Court to the Parties and their
experts must, of course, include the IegaI principles and rules of international
Iaw thai are to be appIied, as weII as any that the Cour! considers no! to be
reIevant or appl icabIe. The reIevanl circurnstances to be considered by the
experts of the Parties couId aIso be indicated by the Coun, perhaps with some
indication of their relative importance and weight.
Now among those factors on which the Court's guidance wouId be
necessary would be the nature and extent of the continental shelf in question
and whether Lhar shelf may be said generally to be the extension or
prolonga[ion of the two States' coass in the vicinity of Ras Ajdir - that is the
Coast where one Ends the aciual political baundary between thern. ,
Of course. guidance as to the nature of the relevant sheIf areas suggests in
itself lhat the Couri couId also indicate the extent to which a given gsological
o r geornorphological feature can - or cannot - be considered as a fun-
damenial or basic discontinuiiy in the shetf a r a concerned, as well as the
actual nature and extent of the sheIf and any structural and geological features
 ARGUMENT OF MK. HIGHET 219
wfiicfi ~nightii~dicatethe exteilt tu which a girren geoIogicaI VI- geornorpl~o-
IogicaI feature can, or cailnot. be co~rsidered as a fundarnenia1 or basic
discon~inr~ity in Ifle shelf XI-eamnceri~ed.as weII as the actriai nature and
cxtent of the sheIf and any structural and geoIogrcaI fearures w hidi 1nigI1t
identify 11 Inorc cIoseIy witli one l a ~ ~ d n ~than
a s s wirh anotlre~..
And tlre Court might also i11dicate wlrich features. if aIry, of the coasiaI
co~rfigr~ration wouId i11 f a c ~influe~lcethe delimitation, and in w hat manner. o r
maIrners, IRE Parties sI10r~Idtake into account the I-eIeva11tcircun~stancesof
gmgrapliy. give11the positiorr and his~oryof the land boundary.
The Cor11.t ~vouldaIso wish to coasider the naru1-aI minera1 resources, and
the prasence or absence or exisi~ngoiI and ga weIIs. and fields. in the area.
ReIated io tliese ~nalters.undvribtedIy . are the re1eva1ii IegisIative enactments
of each Siate as they reIate specifIcaIIy to t h a e resuurces.
The Couit miglrt aIso suggest guidance as ro huw the Parties should take
accvrint of aber potential or existi~rgdeIimitations betwee~ione o r anothe1- of
the Pa~tiesand third States.
In acco1-dance with the Subrnissio~isrilade, the Corrrt wilI n o doubt aIso
wish to %Iveguida~iceto the Parries about other factors o r circurnstances - TOI-
exansple : the IegaI effect ru be attribuled lo an). Iristoric elemenls, a weII as
any means or pracIica1 inethod by which existing PI-acticesnlighr be taken into
account and acIequateIjr safeguarded.
Now, the Court's guidailce rnigirt have Io be quite 5 p e ~ i fin i ~some instances.
for exampIe : co~icerningthe Iegal eiTeci to be given tu ea~uressuch as the
a rd the bathy rnet1-ic and geomorphoIogial argu Ine~rtsof
ridc/.s or the ,/ffirkli.~~s
a . wvlrId accord wit h the issues f ~ . a n ~ eind her Subrnissio~is.
T a ~ ~ i s iThis
111particnlar, the Coui-t cor11d guide the Parires by indicaling whethe1- they
t hyinetric conlours as appropriate guidas for aIiy purpose of their
are tu t ~ e a bai
deIimitation.
FinaIIy. tlie Court might l ~ k eio consider whetIie1- to discuss practica1. and
technica1 ~natters.such as the chorce of a standard map ;t fie conventions for
cariog1-aphic projections ; Ihe use of con7puter-s ; a ~ r dthe Iike. Many of these
were discussed in w r wi-11tenpIeadings. And it 1s wilh respect to rhese many
questio~isthat guida1-r~~: of the Court to the Parties and their expeIts could be
addressed.
I shall now tri1-n to the "nracricaI metliod" ilseIf.

The articrrIation of the "praclica1 ~nethod"firsl appeared, expressecl i11

generaI terms, in o u r Mernoria1 (1, para. 178, arrd i ~ our
i Submission 51.
I aIso refer specifirially to the more detailed discussion w n m i ~ i e di ~ our
i
Counler-Mernoria1 {II, paras. 458-53 1. at pp. 189-21 1) a ~ r d in the new
Submission 7, which wari added at thal stage to suppIement and elaborate the
thorrght originaIIy expressecl III Submission 5 Iwhich by then Irad beconie
Submissio~i51.
The contents of Subrnissiun 7 are amplified and broken down in10 separate
subparagraphs i ~ ouri Counier-Mernoria1 III, para. 473. at p. 1901, to w hich I
specificaIIy invite the Court's atte~ition.
M1hen the pri11cipIes of Iaw, as expounded by Sir Francis. are appIied to the
factuai widence, as described arrd preseilted by Professor Bowett and Our
expeils, ioday. we say that tlrere cari be but one concIusion : that the "naturaI
prolongation" of that sectiorr of Iand~nassis to the norifi.
Since a sheIf de1imitat101r mus1 commence at the edge of the territoria1 seas
220 . CONTI NEN TA L SH ELF

concerned, rve conIude that the deIi~nitatio~!must PI-oceed o r conti~iue.

nvrthward of the 1ate1-a1houndary at theourer Iirnit of tl-re ter1-ito1-iaIsea, and in
a direction which reflects the naturaI proIo11gatio~r~rorilrwardof the land-
masses concer~ied.Tl115 1s how ir is stated in subparigraph i, on page 190 of
our Counte1.-Me~noriaI,and in our seve~it11 Subrnissiun-
Cons1de1-ation of the principIe of natu ral proIongalion in this corrrext.
howeve1-. raises two difficult questions. Our opponenls have rcpeared them
severaI times.
First. how cal1 one dete1-mine, fronl rhe "naiuraI prolongation" done. an
exact direct io11 for a precise Iine of deIimitatiu~i?
Second. if deli~nitation shouId proceed by recog~rizing the fact of a
northward naturaI proIo~igation,how do we expIai11t lie change in direction
- the v e e r i ~ ~-g whicIi occurs at the Iatitude of Ras Yorrga ?
Firsi. 1 shall deaI with iIre question of "directio~i"of natnral proIongat ion.
On the factuaI p1a1ie. as Sir Francis has anticipated and PI-ofessorBowett has
ccrncIuded. "natural prolo~igation"is found tu exist as a physical facr when the
scientific e v i d e ~ ~ cde~no~lsti-aies
e affinity o r appurie~ranceof the continental
sheIf to the co1ili11enta1Iaridmass.
However. after 11aturaI proIongariun has bee~i,fou~idro exist in fact on [lie
scientific evidence. the rules of Iaw take over. First then, UII the factual pIa~re,
the scientific euide~icewhich enabIishes Ille affinity or appurtenance of IIie
sheIf tu the Ia~rd~nass alsu determines the exisie~rceof rhe naturaI proIo~igatiorr
of the conti~rent,from dry Iand to the Ii~nitof 1117subme1-ged sheIf.
We would deiiy hcwever that natural proiongaiion in that sense can ever,
or hardIjr ever. be dete1-rnined simpIy by regardi~igthe bathymetric con1ou1-s
and foIIowi~igt h e i ~in& mrivenient or apparent sequence, frum sheIf to sIope
to rise. NaluraI proIongarion is no1 ru be forind in such an easy, o r indeed
superficia1, way.
As 1 hope Io point o u t on Friday, suc11 a way of proceedi~lgis aIso arbitrary.
I t can therefore ~iotbe. by definition. in app11caiiun of the principIes of
internalional law, Tor ll~eyca~inotbe arbitrary .
If it has been intended to be definable by ille tecll~liqueof exarnining
bat hy1net1.y or decIrvity. one wo~iIdI-rave thoughr rhat this Court wouId Ilave
said samethi~igtv that effect sornewhere in i~ Decrs~o~r in 1969. But it did w t .
O I ! wouId
~ aIso have thuughl that the Third Cvnferc~iceon the Law of the Sea
wor11d Iiave definecl it tIiat way. But il did ~iot.
What it did define was rIie sheIf ibeIf : not any fest 01- descriptiori 1e1ating to
the quesrion of whvse naturaI proIorrgation a given area of shelf 1nig11t be.
Tunisia confuses tliese ideas, via wIlat we have called. w are caIIing, the
"Article 76 FalIacy", which can be srated in a 11utsheII as follows ;
(il The area of continental margi~iis defined by ArticIe 76 as consisting of
the sheIf and t lie sIope and the rise
Iiil The sheIf is desc1-~bedas cornprisi~igthe sea-bed and srrbsoiI extending
beyond lhe terriIoria1 sea. tlrroughout the 1iatura1 prdongativn of the Iand
territory .
(iii) Thercloic. iia*uraI prolongation of lhe land territory ia tu be defined in
ierms of the sheIf and Ille sIope and the rise.
Tl115is a faIIacy bewuse there is a ~nissingmiddIe term, which is :
(iv) NaturaI probngation can be defi~iedor deiermined in the same manner
as the area of tIre contirrenta1 n ~ a r g i ~ i .
It is a Ieilmutiv ;it runs Iike a musicd rhen~ethiough the-Trrnisiarr case. W e
bou~rdarybefore its iermination. They cannot avoid incIudng the ge~ieraland
pariicuIar geographica1 confrguratiun of the coasts.
They shouId aIso 1nc1udeIIie practice of tIie Parties in aserling jurisdiction
over the sIieIf, 01-over substa11tia1sheIf reso~rr- - as weII a s aIiy substantia1
existing i~rslaIIaiiunsfor expIoitation of sheIf resources.
1 shaIl nut give a detailed Iist of irreIevant circumsta~ices,wilich couId be aIi
endIess catalogue. bu[ would simpIjr rernind the Members of the Court Ihat it 1s
our view that many if not most of the circu~nsfancesreIied QI> by Trrnisia as
"relevant" circu~nstancesare in fact not releva~~t. either ro tlie PI-ucess of
de11mitatio11ilseIf, or to the ares in whic11 tlie deIimitation is to OCCUI-. 1 shaII
specify these 1ate1-.
As Professor Bowett poi111ed out yesterday. ihe so-calIed ''ri&>de Zira" is
borh su insig~iificantand su elusive that it is 1101 a "relevant circu1ns1ance" for
deIimitatio~rof this area. A I I the ~ Ionian AbyssaI PIain is irreIevarit both in
scienrific fact and in geograpliic Iocalion. This relates to Tunisia~iSubmission
II- I Si~niIarlyir1-eIevantare rhe "historie riglrts" assefled in Sub~nission1-2.
Moreover. Ille use of any geometric, schematic o r diag~ammaticmethod of
constructing a Iirre of deIiniitation based o1i1y on geagraphy , and even the11
o n il. in a I~igliIysinipIified h m .is irreIevarrt. This was in substance conceded
in the oraI statements of PI-ofessor BeIa~dand Professor ViraIIy (IV, pp. 570 L
and 608 f., respectiveiyl.
To the exte~it therefure tliat these do ~ ? o t refIect a11 the reievant
circumstances o r i~ideedany circurnstances othe1- [Iran geograpl~ysi~npIified.
their use is iirconsisterrt with the co~rsideraliunof al1 those circurnsIances. Tliejr
becvine not r'eleva~i~.
I t Eannot iherefore be vaIid in the refi~ie~nent of the generaI line of direc~io~r
irrto a specific Ii~ie.Its use wouId be inequiiable pr.l- .se
This appIies to the two Tunisian gearndric conslructions representing t h e
"anti-arnpr~tationline" arrd the "anguIar biseetor"-Iine (the frisscaricd proposed
In Tunisian Submissioiis 11-2 M a n d (Id.
The facI tirai thc result whrch may bc obrairred by appIy111geiiher of these
geometric propmaIs is i-oughIy sirnilar Io the results which are obtained by the
arbilra1.y batliymetric 111iesdoes 1101 justify rbe oire by tlie other.
And s o Professor Je~rrri~rgs, with respect, erred VI, hen he concluded that "it is
aIso significant in the Tunisian Submission that a11 these rnethods . . . do Iead
indeed ta a sheaf of Iirres and not to disparate resuIIs" (IV. p. 421). And this
poirrt was reiterated by Professur ViraIIy on 25 Septernber (IV. p. 5931.
T o the contrary , we wouId say that tlie clusenerjs of this sheaf or fascicule is
enti1-eIy owing eit1ie1- tu criincide~ice,which s a m s ri~iIikeIjr,or - far Inore
IikeIy - owing Io the fact that Tunisia Ilas first d e t e r n ~ i ~ ~wliere
e d she wanred
to end up, arrd then fou~idY ~ I - i o reasons
us and arguments to support a slieaf of
Iines on the way to thaI ta^-get.
AIthough lhe Court did gay. i1-r 1 959, tIiat "other rnethods exisi and Iilay be
empIoyed. a1o1re o r in combi~iat~on, accordirig io the areas invoIved" (I.C.J.
Rcyor.rs 1959. para. 85 - ilris does aot 1nean:that the results produced by
two batliyrnetric niethods, w hich ignore the reIevant circu~nsrancesand
geoIogica1 ~eaIities.and incIrrde arbitra1.y techniques and irrelevant circumsla~?-
ces. car1 e ~ t h e rbe cured or confir~riedby {rhe resuIls produced by iwo orher
uiirelated geon~etric~netliods,wliicli ig~ioreevcr~Ilii~-rg except oversi~npIifred
and sornewhat dislorted geographicai outIines.
For exanipIe. if the resuit of appIying nlethod A, which is deficien1 for
reasoIrs 1 and 2. is sirniIar to tlte resuIt reached bjr appIying inethod B. which is
errorreaus for reasons 3 and 4. the c01-rect coiiclusio~ris not. in our subin~ssion.
 ARGUMENT OF MR. HIGHET 223
that rnelhod B has cured the deficiencies in method A, or vice versa. Two
wrong methods d o not make one right rault, simpIy by reason of paratIeIisrn.
It is not the same as if the methods had been right 10 begin with, and were
therefore confirmed by iheir resuIrs. 11 is as if, in Breughel's painting of "The
BIind Men h a d i n g the Blind". that the bIind men were a11 presumed to be
sighted. jus1 because they al1 ended up in the same ditch.
Although we listened most attentiveIy 10 w hat Professor Jennings had to say
on this subject, we were completely at a loss to understand how he could have
reached the conclusions he did. 1 refer to his sQtement in this regard, IV, at
page 422, where he stated t hat the sheaf of lines constiiuted rnethods :
"al1 of which refiect more or less what [Tunisial considers to be ihe
relevant circumsiances and factors, and al1 of which respect the physical
facis of the natural prolongation".
And yei it is cIear that ihey do no1 reflect al1 the relevant circumslancw :
they are in fact highIy seIective, and, with respect. they certainIy do not reflecr
natural prolongation.
1 now return to our 1ine of direction and its reftnernent. Coing seaward : the
further t h e proposed Iine of delimitation extends [rom the shore, the Iess
proximate - and the more tenuous - become the effects of shore-related
circumstances. such as the direction of the last segment of ihe land boundary,
and ihe stronger become ihe effects of other circumstances, such as the distant
change in direction of another coastline ; o r the I m r i o n of offshore producing
petroIeurn weIIs ; or the increasing geographicat proximity of other shorelines
which may have changed direction, and the like.
Now the strength with which these other influences are brought to bear is in
direct proponion to the distance which the line has progressed seawards from
the Coast.
AIthough the physical fact of Ihe enrire sheIf - ihe s p e ~ i e sof platform
referred to by this Courr in 1969 - although that rnay be deterrnined easily, in
the case of adjacent States - a fundamenta1 dilemma is aIways presented
concerning the precise direclion or azimuth which the sea frontier shouId
assume, starling either with the froniier point o r ar a point at the edge of the
ierritoria1 sea.
a
This w il1 be irue even to srnaII degree, no matter how cIear the geoIogicaI
evidence of rhe general direction of natural prolongaiion rnay be. Thus.
although appurtenance may be readity identified as long as there is onIy one
coastaI State. the moment that there are two, a ditemma of the frontier is
presented, relaling to the precise azimuih or direction to be taken by the shelf
boundary beiween them.
This diIemma of the frontier, in our submission. can only be resolved by
interpreting Jr ,jiirr appurtenance to incIude consideration of reIevant
circumstances, together with physical geoiogy, as part of the prNess of
establishing the conditions necessary for precise determination of d~ jrirr
entitlement in thai area.
I l is as if the process needed four stages, each of which is deemed io have
occurred sirnultaneousIy, o r to have sirnuItaneous effect.
Firsl, the examination of generaI direction as indicated by the facts of
physical natural prolongation.
Second, its refinement into a more precise line, commencing in the vicinity
of ihe land boundary, by reference io the relevant coaslal circums!ances such
as land boundary continuation and other elements.
 A R G U M E M ' OF MR. HIGHET 225

interets et de ce que I'observation de Ia nature alnene a conclure sur Ia position

exacte du prolongerne111 ~iaturelde la Tunis~een cet endroit" (ihid.1. We find
tha! language very sig~iificarrt.
In srnaII cornpass. I am le~nptedto say in a "rnicrogeogr-aphic" conrext,
Tunisia has ustensibIy dorie exactIy what w e have dune in reIation to the
geographical circurnsta~iceswhich beco~neso evidentIy altered at Ras Yonga.
To sum up. ihen : the physical evidence for a general direction of IIre
co11ti~iuationseaward of the continenta1 Ia~idmassis t hus r e f i ~ ~ eodn. rhe legal
pla~ie.into a specific direci1011 for the boundary whrch. by agree~nent,can the11
be rised to separate one State's shelf f r u ~ nIIie other's.
Brrt the precise boundary separating orje enlitlement from the other can only
be fi~raIIydete1-~ninedo n the IegaI plane by agreement arrd in conjundion with
tire ulher fundarrttnlal rule of delirnrlation . that it be accornplished iri
accordance with eqlr~iableprincipIes. Since equitabIe principles irnply IRe
co1iside1-arionof a11 reIeva1i1circumstances, we have conie fuII circle.
I shouid now Iike tu rurn tu the reverse of the coin of 1ialuraI proIorigation.
Tkat is tIie aspect of the principIe of natura1 prolongation w hich rnay be caIIed
"the principIe of rro~i-e~icroacii~ne~it".
TIie basic principle of "nori-encroachment". wllich was rreated in
irnperative terrns by rhe seminal paragraph 85 of the 1969 Judg~nent,in ~ts
subparagrapli [cl.is inext~.icabIyinterwoven witlr the basic PI-i11cipieof na1u1,aI
proIongatio~r.01ieis a I-eilectionof tIre other.
"Non-encroacli~nent"coInes into e f f s t i ~ the
i insta~iceof adjacent States and
of opposite States. but mure acutely and rnore quickly in the case of tlie former-,
si~ice - as 1 have discussed - the "biten~rna of the frontier." is then
in~~nediately posed as it 15 III a11 cases of adjace~irdeii~nitation.111this prese~rl
case it is of v11aI importance.
The principIe wiII pIace a very heavjr burderz uport either Stare crossing over
to the other side of the appropriate 11ne runnirrg seaward rorn ille terriio1-iaI
sea bori~rdary.It wiII in effect forbid it.
1t is for this Teason lfiat we take so se^-iously the exterrsiorr o f the land
borr~idaryno~thwards: ils IogicaI direct continuation. It is for this 1-eao1ithat
we take so seriousIy the 1955 PetroIeum Law and Regulation.
E~cI-oachment or no~i-encroaclr~nenf - Iike~raluraIprolangatiori itseIf - is
t o be determined i ~ the
i main by the f u ~ i d a n ~ e nevideiice
ul ofgeology. Yet as 1
have discrrssed. the rendering of a srrong directio1ia1 trend into a precIse li~ie
may reqire the consideration of otIier elements : the relevant circumstances of
geugrapliy and oiIier charactei-istics of the immediatc area. and then also of the
area beyond that.
III order to altain a proper refi~iemerrio f the line. lo refieci faithfuIIy the
naluraI pi-oIo~rgationd a State's land territory. and to avoid encroachmerrt on
the naiuraI proIungat~o~i of the other State. the Parties diouId be directed to
consider a11 the relevant circurnsta~iceswhicii characrerize the area.

As I Iiave aIready noied, ihe Spezia1 Agr&rlient refers ,specifica!Iy Io the

importa~rceof al1 tIre relevant circurnstances.
The Cour' has aIso ~ioted - and 1 qrrote f s o ~ niis 1369 Judgment - that
"tkere is no IegaI Iimrt to the considerations wlrich Sfates rnay take acconnl of"
(I.C.J. Rrprrs 1950, p. 50). The1.e is. however. a praaica1 Iimit. The
circurnstances must be reIevant. TIrey niust relate to the dcIi~nitation of this
shelf in this area.
WeII, what arc tliey I
First, we are deali~igwith adjacent Slates. It sliorrId came as 110SUI-prisethal
[lie Parties agree tIiat tlre positioii of ihe Iand fro~ilierurr the esse~iliallynorth-
k i n g Coast at Ras Ajdir is reIeva111. Moreover. it is aIso both i~idicativeand
reIevant that the Iand bou~idaryfollows a geneqal 170Tth-south direction behw
Ras Ajdir-.
It is f r o ~ n lhe outer lirniis of the territoria1 sea off RBs Ajdi1- that a
deIimitation wiII fix the weste1-n-mosI boundary of tire Libyan co~iti~re~itaI
sIieIf in the area of concern, and wiII Er: the easlern-mosl exlerrsion of the
Tu11isian sheIf. As 1 said a nioine~rtagv - tac11 side o r eacll Party siroriId bear a
heavy burden to justify ils crossirtg tu the other side of a ~iorthward
co~iri~iuation of the Iand bwndary line of directiori.
1 rnigIit add that this burden wnuld no1 bother us, for we Irave suggested 115
CI-ossingto the west of thar li11e.B L Ithe~ burde~idoes lie o n the slrouIders of OUI'
opponents. and very heaviIy 50. They are suggesting a sudden and dramatic
turn. at an angle of some 65' io the right a ~ r dthe east, creati~iga sliarp angIe at
Ras Ajdir.
This is a divergence 1101 of IO0. o r 20 or eveni30. It is ~ n o r ethan twice tliat.
Professor Virally i~~lroducedthe ariaIogy of a terrestria1 b o u ~ ~ d a ~ y
coinmission and he snid tliat, in the case of this delirnitat~un,an imaginar-y
submarirre boundary cornrnrssivn recognizi~igthe "Iigne des CI-etes"[crestline]
would "suivre, avec le pIus d e fidlit possible, Ia lig~redes points hauts qui
spare Ie proIongment nature1 des derix Etats" {IV. p. $061
Mow does that work in reference t o Ras Ajdir ?
W ha1 justrfies the bou~idarycommission. irr Professor ViralIy 's anaIogy.
suddenIy lu~igi~rg dramaticaIIy to une side : a11not two-thirds of tlre way tu a
riglrt angIe !' 1s ii perhaps,a dislant, submergeci. ~iiori~iiain peak which we have
not yet taken i111oaccount ?
Second. as Professor Rowett discussed yeste1-day a n d as Profess01-Fab1-icius
lias furtlier eIaborared in his evidencc tliis ~norning,we are deali11gIiere with a
sheif area wirich consrirr~tcsa part of the Pelagia~iBIock. It is a c o ~ ~ t i ~ r r ~ u u s
sheIi ai-ea.one of an essenriaIiy ho~nogeneouscharacter.
Now. tlie configurations and decIivities of tlie sea bottv~n~ I the I area with
which we are concer~iedare in no nramre1- abIe ta be used raiiunaIIy or
equilabIy as ~narkerso r deterrninanls for a'sheIf,boundary.
As Professor Bowett made cIear yesterday ,geo11iorphoIogica1features of far
greater significance. far greater importa~ice- namdy the Hurd Deep and the
Norwegian Trorigh - have 11ot been cvnsidered as factors which affect
deli~nitationin any way whatever.
A coroIIary of this. of course, is that Ille irnboaailce of bdthymetry as a
I-eIevanrcircurnslance has bee~rgreatIy diminished. if it can stiII be said tu have
any eflect at aII. T h e dope of the PeIagiarr BIock as a whoIe is virtuaIIy
irnpercepiible. whether viewed Trom south t o north o r from west to east. As
Dr. Fabrricius said rhis morni~rg,it is a s fIat as tIi poIders oulside TIre Hague.
Now the recent rrends in the Third Conference on the Law of rhe Bea are
aIso testimony to the diminished importance of bathyrnetry. We find it
pa~ricularlyiro~ric,in the Iighi of wlrat the Third Conference has actrrally dune
with bathy~netry.to hear the t h e ~ n eof The Article 76 faIIacy pIiy.ed over and
#ver again t lrroughout the Tunisian oraI presenfat~on: - defining tIie margin
and shelf i ~ ierms
i of bathyrnetry ; describing the slrelf in t e r ~ n sof natural
proIorrgation ; and the11defining naturai probngatio~rirr te1-msof bathymetry.
Staie PI-acticek ~ i o w n ruIe which wouId bas consideratio~iof [Ilese
s o 1.es11.1aive
coasts. And she cites tlre MOI-thSea dcliinitariqns a s evidence tlrat a State can
I-eferto the same coist Inore than onm. in cases of sepa1-aiedeiirnitations.
Bur the situatio~rhe1-e is not anaIogous 10 tlrat In the Nrrrrlt Swcases. There.
for exainple. tIie coast of the Netherlarlds couId h a v t been said to be relevant
for deIim11ation with both tlie U~iiiedKingdonl and the FederaI Repu bIic
becanse of its proxiniity - ils rekatio~isirip -! ro sheIf areas which actuaIIy
concer~iedboth of those other Stales.
The DutcI-r cuast was oppvsite to the coast of !lie United Kingdorn and iI was
adjacc111to the coasi of the FederaI RepubI~c.and a11 three coasts abrrtted on the
sanie area ofslieif. The Drilch Coast. Ilierefore. Iid to be vrewed in the coniext
of 11s entitlement to the sanle a1-ea of sheIf vis-;-vis bol11 the Fede~iiIReprrblic
and iIie United Kingdorn
But here, ii is diffe1-ent. The coas& of Tunisia and Libya which face third
Stares are wlrolIy removed fronl the area withirr w IiicIr the LibyaniTunisian
delimitation ~ n u s toccur - that is. the area 8K Ras Ajdir TI-orn where the
ulti~natedcIimiration must of couIse commence.
Tunisia seeks Io cons~del-her coasl north of Ras Kaborrdia twice r doubli~ig
the length of I I ~ I 'a p p a ~ e n coast
t Iine in respect pf areas - such a s the area of
concern in this case - as io which that section of mas1 Iras 110conceivable
relationship.
This cons ide ratio^^. Mr. Prcsident, of irrcIevailt coast Iine Iras the saine
effeci. but for different reasoIis, as counting both sides of IIie GuIf of Gabes -
wliicli was discussed in paragraph I I 3 of our RepIy. But the result is the
sanle. Tunisia 1nuItipIies the IengtIls of 1ie1-masts by irreIevancy or by
redundancy TRus Professo1- Ben Achour was b a r d to say that the Tunisian
coasts W ~ I -forire tinles - i ~ the i area he was discussing - four ti~nesthe
IengtIl of iIre Libyan cvasrs : weI1, rIiis ~ n u s thave reflected to a considerabIe
degree suc11 i~.reIeuantor redundant coasts (IV,p. 590).
Fiflli. w e Iiave the existence of a n u ~ n b e d r legislative enactnlents by both
Parties. As far as Tunisia is coitcerned, these dcal prirnal-iIy with interna1
reguIations governing srrrveiIIance of fishi~iga11d wiiIr various Iaws relaring to
Tunisia's cIainled territuria1 s a .
TIie sirnation regarding Libya is qrrite d1ffe1-ent Not rnereIy does t lrere exist
a s i ~ n i l apanopIy
~' of Iaws and regulaliorrs conerning fishing surveiIIanc~a ~ i d
the garliering of sponges. mentioned in ou r Counier-Mernorial : rhere ais# exist
1egisIation and regu1atioi.i~ which unequivocafly and direct@ i~rd~cate the
asse1-tion of sovereign rights #ver [Ire Inost inlportant resources of the a r a i ~ r
questio~i.rvIi1c1i express a d a i m of sovereig~irigirts corrce~-~iing the sheIf a s a
slrelf. and which cIearIy state tIre righi tu regulale exIraction of tIle pri~nary
sheIf raource, petrokum.
Fi~laIly.t1re1-eis a sixth criterion or facto1-whic'h we submit is of indispulabIe
rcIevance. This reIates ta the exisle~iceof per~aleunlfieIds aiid weIIs wit1ri11tIre
a r a of concern. The decision iri Ihe Nwdr Sm Curiiiii~*iifaiSIirlf cases
expIicitIy 11eId tIiat the factors tu be laken 11i1qaccount are tu include : the
pliysicaI a ~ r dgmIogica1 srruclure, arrd naturd i-sources. of the co1ili1le1ifa1
s h d f areas invoIued" (para. 1 O 1 ID1 (211
In oriI- view. Ihe existence of individua1 produclive weIIs wl-ricli w u l d be
affected by a deIirniratio~iIine mus1 be taken into accou~lti11 the course of
cIarifying the practicaI method for the appIication of tIie IegaI principles and
1-ules.
We Iiste~iedwith great artenlion to our l'unisiaii coIIeagues but w e did not
delect aIiy reaI argumenl addresscd to tliis IiigIily, reIevant circurnstance. Why
 ARGUMENT UF M X . IIIGFIFI 23 I
- al Ieast Ihose reIatrng to fixed fislleries - ~ n u s t have bec11 Iimiled
geograpIricaIIy ro areas 1yi11gi ~ ivery ciose proxi~nityto the Tunisian coast.
And t h a e areas wilI remaiil i~nafleciedby the resuIts of ap~~lying Ihe Libya~r
PI-acticaImethod.
As f01- the vesse1 arresis. tI-rih is a poi~it10 wllich we Ilave already addressed
ourseIues. Ir Inay be ~ioted~ i o wilrat ru Ieave every sirrgIe vesse1 arresi by
Trin~sia - no matter whe1-e it OCCUI-red, and n o ~nalterwhat vesse1 was
arr-esteci. and of wlral fIag - OII the rveslerIr side. if you WIII. of ari rrItirnare
Ii11eof deIimitatio11. would be IearIy i~iequiiableto Libya. It wouId aIso creale
a rrew furm of prescr-ip11onto c011111ierrta1 sheIf.
TIie 11111-dpo31it 1-a~sed i ~ iIre
i Libya~iCou11te1.-Me~no~'iirI i11 paragrap1-r 526
(11) was that Tunisia was 11or "deprived" (ilia~is the W O I - we ~ usal. "dep1-ived")
i releva111area. since IIie Tunisian coast rvesi of Ras Ajdir
or irs slreif i ~ tire
"would Iiave 11s projectio~ilo the 11or1R". This poi~iiws iIIus~ratedby si1np1e
diagra~ns. Ir stiII hoIds rrue.
It goes without saying Ihat rhc Tunisian mas1 north-east and north of Ras
Yonga is aIso not deprived of its sheIf. since our proposed Iine of direction
veers and reilec~saII the reIeva~itcircr~rnsta~iccs- incIudi~igthe pecuIiar
geograpIiica1 configuralion of [Rat coasr - Le.. of eastern Tunisia.
A ~ i di11 this c o ~ ~ ~ ~ e ciir t is
i onot
~ ~ justified
. for Tu~iisia10 say - as. rvith
respect. Dean BeIa~dlias d o ~ r e- tIiaI .
"Ia seuIe circonstance que Ia Libye a d ~ n e ien Fdir. s u r le pIan gko-
g~-aphique.est UII preteildu changement de ~ I I - e c ~ ide
o n In #te tuni-
sienne au ~iiveairde Ras Youilga" (IV,p. 5681.
Now we have not spoke~iat Ie~igthabau[ [Ire Kerke~r~lali Isla11dsa ~ r d111eir
but 1 shorrId 1ie1-eI - e m ~ ~our
htliirs.fiii~ilsdk<<iiri:rur~is, i d Tunisia~icolIeagues of a
foo11101eIo our Counte1--Me~nu~-iaI wIricIi they had perhaps hopcd to forget. on
page 20 I . T1re1-ethe exIsteIrce of the b r o w ~Ii11e ~ of Figure 3.0 1 of tlie Tunisian
Cor~nte~--Me~nor~id - IIre exaggerated north line arrributcd to us - ils
existe~rce was tliere a11Iicipa1ed by o r ~ r own Counter-Mernorial and
disqrralified by us brxause. anlongst other grounds. " i t w w I d pass close by rhe
Kerke1i11ah IsIailds".
TIius - as 1 said - we even specificaIIy ment ioned the Kerkennah before
ille brow~ilirie appcared 011Tunisia's Inaps. We need not 1nentio11then1 agaiir,
si~rcetl~eyare in any errent fulIy rapected by w r suggested Iine of direction.
TIic fourrh point was in paragraph 527. It very specificaIIy said rhat the
1iorrIier1y projectio~r"wouId resrrIt i ~ ai deIi~nitaIionw1-riI-rdoes ~ i o pIace
t tIie
#il fields driIIed r ~ n d eco~icessio~~s
~' granted by one Party in the sheIf area of IIie
other".
I stress !Ire words "011fieIds". This does 1101 1ne;in "oiI weIIs". Nor does II
inean "gas fields" or "gas weIls". And in no event dues it mean "exploration
r~gs"or "explo1-ar~onweIIs". and it cei'raiirIy does ~ i o Il n m i 'd1.y I ~ o l a " .
lt does nor inean "abandoned weIls". whelher o f oiI or of gas, which is
precisely w hat the Trinisian weIls east of Ihe generaI line are.
It means jus1 what it says : "uil fieIds driIIed". Now Tri~iis~a's footnote - i ~ i
thei1-Counte1--Me~noriaIcoInInents that "tliis is simpIy ~ i o true"
t (cf. pal a.3.371.
A ~ i dyet w h e ~pa1-agrapll
i 3.37 is co~-rsuIIed.one fi11dsIhat lhe refere~icethere is
tu individual "~oI-ehoIes a ~ i dwells". nut to "oil fieIds". The aci is iliat "prtifs
.lirii<sn are not oiI fieIds. Our contentions cvr-rcerIrrng uiI fields caIrIlot be
contradicteci by information concerning abandoned oil weIIs. Perhaps the
Tunisia~ial1irude concerning t hi5 point can be reIated to the ~~Iuctdrice of
 234 CONTINENTAL SHELI'

1 shal! now anaIyse the key disioflions of the Libyan ItgaI case which have
played such an important role in the Tunisian presentarion - both written and
oral.
The most imponanl single elcment of this distortion is, of course, in o u r
view, the artificial characterization of the Libyan case being comprised of a
~nnliodcdcc l base, a basic method, and a i)r&liod~crai.r~ctricr.a corrective
method. This Ialse dichotomy k a n i e tnost triurnphanlly asserted on 24 Scp-
tember in the speech of Professor Ben Achour ( I V , p. 578 ff.).
IVhy i s ihis a faIse dichotomy. I t is ialse because, with seerning perfect
Iogic, il rests on a major premise which is itself faIse. That is, lhat our
Mernoriai was setting forth a method of delimitation rvith the same degree of
specificity and "prkisiuri" as that with which the Tunisian Memortal had set
forth i& shed of lines.
But ihe act is ihat our Mernorial did not set forth a method of delim~tation
and did not ponray Iines or the drawing of lines. This difference in approach
has in the main arisen because of the divergence of the views of the Parties on
the interpretation of the Special Agreement and the role of the Court. which 1
discussed on Wednesday.
Ir was only naluraI iarid indeed appropriaiel that our suggested melhod Tor
application of principles of law 10 ihe acts should becorne elaborated atid
developed in the course of the wriilen pleadings. And. as has b e n said,
Tunisia's abandonment i n . her Mernorial of her former reliance on
equidistance, in essence required an extensive and orderly development or the
Libyan case, in response to Tunisia's two new bathymetric proposais and the
I w o new geornetric exercises.
But the reason why Professor Ben Achour is, wjlli greal respeci, cornplelely
misguided in his division or our case into two separate paris, is that there is
nothing for the corrective method to correct. There never was.
To postulate that it is a corrective method. one mus! believe in the expIicit
@ existence of sornething - such as preciseIy the brown tine of Figure 3.0 I of
the Tunisian Countcr-Mernorial - which is [O be correcled. And that can
only be true if thai positon has k e n advanced.
Now, we would vehemen~ly resist any accusation or distoriion which
would Say that we have advanced any'such line.
Thus the first and most important distortion by Tunisia is that she is
attackirig, and purporting to destroy, a case which has not been advanced in
ihese proceedjngs. I I is the weII-known laciic of setting up a "straw man" and
ihen destroying him with gusto. But ihis does not assisi the Court.
In the course of presenting his argument, P r o k s o r Ben Achour went so far
as to refer to the general principle set forth in our iMemoria1 as bejng "la
mthode du iior!hitwrd f ~ t v t i s r " ( I V , p. 579). Surcty this is indicative of a
perception which might properly he attribuled to the Tunisian case rather than
t o o u r own. Uihy would that be ?
Opened by Professor Jennings, supported by Profasor Abi-Saab. consistent
with Profenors Belad idand Ben Achour, and concIuded by Professor Virally,
~ h eTunisian oraI pleadings have proceeded by specifying Iines or specific
methods of detimitatlon, in the sense referred to by Profasor Abi-Saab as
"certain operationa1 means of effecting de1imitaiior-t" (IV, p. 434). Thus our
opponents discern o r perceive, albeir it faIIaciously, a specific method o f
delimiiation in our views of how Ihe law should be applied to the facrs.
Their vision has clouded our case as well as lheir own. Our case is
 change in direction "by the incidental o r accidenta1 direclion o f . . . [a] . . .
particuIar part of the coast".
Ofcourse there are other reasons why Our pr&osed generaI Ii~ieof direction
shouId veer more o r lm at that Iatitude. S o ~ n eof these I have aIready had
occasion io mention.
First? as Sir Francis has aIready discussed. th Libyan Iegislation enibodied
in the 1955 Pet1-oIeum Law and Regulation asseried sovereign righs over
the most sig~iificantshelf resource. The wester~iboundary of Zone No. 1
constituted a slraight northerIy prvIongativn of the Iand boundary t h ~ p u g hthe
territoria1 sea. It co~iti~iued norihward for a distance of sume 62.9 ~iautical
rniIes seaward froni Ras Ajdir. Now tlmt is vefy cIose to the Iatitude of Ras
Y 011ga.
@ 1 worild rernind the Corr~tthat, as shown so graphicaiiy in Map No. 4 of orrr
Cou~iter-MemoriaI,the earI y Tunisian co~~cessioris coinckied wit h t Iiat Iine and
indeed they give eve1-y a p p e a r a n e of Iiaving accepted il.
It is a highIy relevant circumsta~ice. The Libyan PetroIeurn Law was prv-
rnulgated soIne 26 years ago : 18 years before the baselines drawn around the
Kerkennah IsIarids and purparting # close the GuIf of Gabes ;21 years berore
Tunisia's 1976 Memorandurn which espoused equidislance but from whicIr
Tunisia has now resiIed ;and weII before any indication tirai Tunisia would i ~ r
her Mernoria1 aIlege su-called "I~~scoI-ic rights" m a circumstance reIeva111to
delimitation, arrd wouId contend for a "sheaf of lines" burgeoriing out at 5 5 O tv
the east, based whoIIy upon batIiymetry o r plane geonietry.
FinaIIy the 1ratura1 Iimits of the Jeffa1-a PIain - tlie prirrcipa1 on-shore
geugraphic feature - errd roughIy al Ras Tonga., And it may aIso pruperIy be
said that the pron~ontoryof the SaheI also begirrs approximateIy irt Ras Yonga.
1 turn to the "area of concern".
As the &un. wiI1 r-Il, the Iast Ieg of the practical method advarrced by
Libya for the appIication of the IegaI principles tu the facts, was tlie avuidance
of errcioachrnent And this was presented bot11 in Our Submissio~i7 and in
subparagraph iv o ~pagei IPO of our Counier-MeinoriaI.
The formuIatio~iof the "area of G O I I C ~ I - I ~operated
" in Iwo s e n e s - in two
senses : firsi under Ireading < 1 1 on Page 192 of the Counter-Mernoria1 the
state1ne1111Iiat '+The Extreme CIai~risof a Party 'Are Nol Necessarily Deter-
minative of the Conti~~entaI SheIf to Be DeIimited".
II was iIIustraied by a sinipIe reproduction of the Turrisian "sheaf of Iines"
@ fro~nFigure 9.14 of the Tunisian MernoriaI. I r i o'ur submjssion, tI~ats h e d of
Iines as I-eprwenled in that figure almost speaks for 11seIf. Tlrey couid no1
conceivably reprwe~ita reasonabie Iiniit to the trne area of corrcerrr.
Professor ViraIIy, in his atlack rrpon the "area'of con~grn",'jeems Io have
forgoilen this pri~icipaireason for its i~itroducli#n< i V , p. 598).
But it also operated i ~ ar second sense, expressecinaa heading o n page 193 of
the Corrter-Mernoria1 . Ihat was thal "The Court Should Nol Co~rte~npIate the
Division of an Area WIiich WouId in No Event FaII to Be DeIiniited between
the Parties".
Now the "ara of corice~-n"received some e~iergetichandiing in the Tunisian
RepIy, and 1 must therefore pause for a mornerit to deaI witli it. III paragraph
3.30 of ils RepIy (IV), Tunisia slated lhai :
"Accordi~rg io Libya; it would be 'appopriate for tire Court' to
determine the extent of the area of contirrerital sheIf within which the
Parties and their experts sholrId effect a deIimitation pursuant Io ils
decision". (Citation to para. 477 of our Couriter-Me1noriaI.1
I
 ARGUMENT OF LIR. FItCHET 237
Tunisia lhen went on to conclude - at the end of this same paragraph -
that "there cannot k any question of establishing, within lhe framework of the
present proceedings, a Tuniso-Libyan zone defined in reIation t a the rights of
third States".
1 hasten to reassure the Court ihar Libya never had any such "deter-
mination" in minci. And to the contrary, we have been seriously misquoted.
The Court will note that in !he quotation I read from paragraph 3.30, the
Tunisian Reply has lirnited the interna1 quotation marks to surround the
phrase "appropriate for the Court", but has not continued the quotation any
iurther.
But when you look back at the aclual wording of our paragraph 477 of the
Counter-Mernorial (1 I) - the hook from which hangs the runisian argument
- one sees !ha1 w ha1 we really said (and I invite the Court to review the exact
language, at p. 192 of the Counter-Mernorial) is fhat "it thus appears
appropriate for the Court to consider the extent of the area of continental
shelf". etc.
Tunisia misstates rhe Libyan pIeading by saying that we are asking the
Court to "determine" the area of concern ; yet Libya has only suggested that
the Court "consider"it.
It is an element of argument, not a submission.
A few more points were made by our Tunisiari colleagues in their oral
argument on this subject. Professor Viral1y criticized the "area of concern" by
saying : "clIe aboutit a diviser Ia mer PeIagienne en plusieurs parts" (IV.
p. 597).
Recailing that the suggestion is not that the Court is being asked to
determine anything, but onIy to consider it, what is wrong with this? One
may look in vain in the Special Agreement to find a reference to the Petagian
Sea, which o u r opponents assume cannot be divided into parts. 1s there
anyihing to sugges!, and I quote from the Special Agreement, that the "areas of
continenta1 shelf apperiaining to" the Parties must be delined as extending to
include a11 of the PeIagian Sea ?
Now. in our view the Tunisian daims are so Far-fetched, so extreme and
so inequitable that it must be ;i condition of their assertion that the area for
delimitation sornehow be visuaIIy enlarged and extended to a point sorne
130 kilometres to the e s t of Tripoli, 250 kilometres to the east of the
Iand botindary ! With an inappropriateIy Iarge or exiended a r a , the optical
efflct of the 65" Tunisian sheaf of lin= becornes slightly Iess asionishing.
And yet a mere glance at Figures I or 7 to our Counter-Mernorial wiII show
@@ how extreme and inappropriate is rhe claim by Tunisia. It would compietely
ernasculate any perfeclly justified clairn of Libya 10 shelf areas between itself
and MaIta.
If there is something wrong about our "area of concern". what a r a would
Tunisia suggest ? We have heard no counter-suggesrion from our opponents :
no doubt because they wouId have to indicate one which stretches a11 across
the PeIagian Sea past Malta atmost to the 15th meridian of longitude. They
cannot d o that withou t also exposing the excessiveness and the disproportiona-
Iity of Tunisia's demands.
The forgotten first pririciple which suggested the area of concern to us in the
frrst pIace - that the extreme daims of a party are not necessarily
determinative of the continenta1 shelf to be deIimited - has therefore been
confirmed, both in spirit and in substance.
This rnaiter is anaIogous to the question of "proportionaIity", to which I
shall now turn wirh the Court's permission. Tunisia advanced al1 sorts of
240 CONTINENTAL SHELF

of the case. our opponents come ctose to accusing us of ihinking up ways to

fruslrate 1he future decision of the Court.
Returning to the e k t . if I may. on the territorial sea boundary. il shouId be
noted lhat the Libyan view of the case would no1 have the exireme results
which the Tunisian Iines would have in the same context.
I t is our view that our practical method leading to a shetf delimitation wouId
not. in any event. prejudice a reasonabIe or a traditiona1 soIution of any
dificu11ies concerning 1he Tunisian-Libyan territorial sea. But Lhis would not
be [rue in the sIightest as to rhe Tunisian sheaf of Iines.
But then, in an attempt 10 escape from this double dilemma, ihe Tunlsian
Repl y said "There is nothin to prevent the two points Ithe shelf boundary and
ihe territorial rea boundaryfbeing difkrmt" (IV, para. 1.04). In ruch event, it
said "they wiII be joined by the Iine representing the ourer Iimit of the
territoria1 sea, which will aIso mark the Iirnit of the coniinental sheIf between
t h e m . . .".
Now, we reject this proposition out of hand as being compIetely contrary to
cornmon sense. Obviously there will be a problern i f the territorial sea
boundary ends in one place, and the continentat shetf boundary starts in
another. One would be presented with a sort of inadvertent zig-zag which
need only be visuaIized io be rejected. And it wilI no1 escape the notice of the
Court that Tunisia is quite unable to cite any example of SIate praciice of the
adoption of such a zig-mg boundary to support its curious contention.
FinaIly, there are several more points emerging rrom the Tunisian oral
pleadings which 1 wouId like to take up here.
The first emerges rrom Prokssor ViralIy's address. at I V . pagcs 599-600.
of lhe record of 25 Seplember. Hc questioned the sialemen! made in para-
graph 1 30 of our RcpIy. concerning rhc relisni of a n approch which woriid
p a s a linc of deIimiiatioii "in fronl of" i~ capiiaI ciiy. 1 refer generally io the dis-
cussion in pagcs 59 ihrough 64 of ihe Kcply and to paragraph 530 on page 2 1 I of
our Counter-Mernorial If 1).
We wcrc accused by Profcssor ViraIly of empIoying "Ia rgle du doubIe
standard, au dtriment dc la Tunisie" (IV, p. 600).
Examined closeIy. Professor ViraIIy's o w n words demonstrate the weakness
of his argument and, ironicalIy, they also confirm the essentials o f o u r practical
method or approach.
On page 600. Professor Virally said :
"aucune ligne de deIimitation oriente vers I'est ne peut satisfaire Ia Libye,
parce qulle passe devant ses &es, quelles que soient par aiIIeurs Ies
juslificaiions de droit ei de fait qui imposent de l'adopter".
Answer : not true. Libya wouId no1 then have made its suggestion of
veering the Iine of direction ror the delimitation - a Iine vccring to the
northeast, and passing "in front of" ils own coaststs a11 right, but al a reasonable
distance seaward.
The question is not oniy one of angIe, but also one of disiance from the Coast
and the overaII course of the line of delimitation. In this regard I would draw
the Court's attention to the fact that, even with Professor Virally's veer, the
Tunisian delimitation Iines proceed relentIessIy to the east-northeast, wit hout
substantiat change in direction.
Professor ViraIly continued by saying :
"En revanche, toute ligne tire vers le nord a partir de Ras Ajdir serait
 satisfaisante, bien qu'eIIe passe devant les &es de la Tunisie et s'en
approche mme en certains points de quelques miIles seulement."
Answer : not Lrue again. This is the main reason w hy we suggested the Iine
of veering at Ras Yonga. Afier Ras Yonga the Tunisian coast and our
proposed northward line of direction are no longer clearly divergent, they are
convergent. The coast is no longer fa1Iing away from the Iine projeclcd north
from it, it has turned around inside the Gu tf of Gabes. And by the tirne that
turn has been straightened out, the proposed Iine of direction wouId veer over
to accommodate and reflecl the promontory of the Sahel, and would leave on
the Tunisian side of a resulting delimitation ihe shoals and banks of the
Kerkennah IsIands and whatever else. The fixed fishery installations of the
Kerkennians would thus surety be preserved, far from being "liquidated", as
h a been suggested by Tunisia (IV, p. 454).
If Members of the Court will visualize a northerly Iine, folIowed by a
@ nqnheasterly veering, on Figure 3.01 of the Tunisian Counter-Mernorial, il
wlI1 read11y be seen that the IikeIy effect of the line of direction which wouId
result from application of our proposal would also be to comptetely avoid the
Tunisian territorial sea claims, even those greatly exaggerated claims based
upon the inappropriate baselines adopted in I 973.
IncidentaIIy. in conneclion particularly with t h e 1973 Iegislation, counsel
for Tunisia have referred several times to the doctrine of the "critical date". In
Our view this doctrine has no application in the present case. But,
nevertheless, and in any event, a delimitation line based upon the Libyan
meihod would no1 encroach upon 1he exterided territorial sea daimed by
@ Tunisia for the iirst tirne in 1973. A quick gIance at Map No. I 1 of our
Counter-Mernorial, wiI1 conficm this point. Nor wouId the result of the
proposed Libyan meihod affecl any areas in which Tunisia can vaIidty ctaim
any right io take sponges. or to construct fixed fishery insdlations. And 1
stress t h e e two points.
The next point that 1 must take up reIates lo the issue of "perpendiculars".
Professor Ben Achour addressed himself to this, at I V , page 583, of the record
of 24 September. In a nutshell : Tunisia says that a due north line is not
perpendicular, but at an angle, to the coasts concerned and that a
perpendicular to those mas& is at a northeasiern azimuth.
Now, obviously this is true to a degree, but what reat difference does it
make ? Are we no! talking about substantial eIements of difference,
substantial degrees of disparity ? What have we said about the matter ?
1 would refer the Court here to paragraph 496 of our Counter-Mernoria1
(II). We said rhere that the
"appropriateness . . . of the land boundary from its terminal point at Ras
,Ajdir is made clear by the geographic configuration of the coasts
concerned, and by the ract that a1 Ras Ajdir the land boundary runs north
and is roughty perpendicular lo the coasts at the point of i l s intersection as
welt as generally perpendicular to a more extensive Iength of ~ 0 a S b l
iront".
Now, we said "roughIyV, and we said "generaIlyV. Obviously it is no1
"precisely" or "exactty" perpendicular. That wouId defy the d i c ~ t e of
s nature.
But the point is a deeper one. The Tunisian sheaf of Iinw reaches out to
the east ai an angle of 6 5 O . A perpendicuIar at the appropriate spot is
approximately only one-third of that. -That is a huge discrepancy, even in the
general terms or the generaI context in which we had made the point.
 M N T I N E h T A L SHEIE

CASE
7. TUNISIAS
I now turn to an examination of the key elements or Tunisia's own case as
they ernerged over the course of the first round of oral pIeadings. 1 shalt first
consider Tunisia's disiorted view, in our a~bmission,of rhe elemeni of the
relevant circumstances.
On 24 September Professor Belad said that Tunisia's view of relevant
circumstances wou Id indude principally the "phnomnes de surface" (IV.
p. 565) 1"surface phenornena"]. Identifying geomorphoIogy and geology , he
also induded the "phnomnes de profondeur - c'est--dire la geoIogie"
I"depth phenornena - lhat is 10 Say, geology"]. And yet one then heard a
rejection of elements such as tectonic circumstances and continental drift (IV,
p. 565). And not much eIse appears io have k e n substituted except for the
refrain of bathymetry, geomorphoIogy and the configuration of the coasts.
Now we say thar these may. and certainIy some do, consiiiuie reIevant
circurnstances. They only bareIy include geoiogy. But they are Tar from
consiituting al1 the relevant circurnstances thar characierize the area, o r which
the Court had in mind in 1959.
Tunisia ihen of course iniroduces its "historic rights", its alleged historic
rights, as a highly relevant circumstance (IV. p. 570). Yei this is an element
w hich my colteagues Dean CotIiard and Professor Malintoppi have sureIy put
in its ptace : a largely irrelevant circuinstance. in this or any other case retating
to shelf delimitation.
It is notable that the Court in -1969 did not even d e r to fishsng practices as
being a factor which could assis1 in determining what constituted - what
would constitute - the natural prolongation of each State or in arriving a! an
equitable delimitation of contirtenta1 shelf. Yet the Court Iisted many other
elements in its. decision - such as the significant element of gmIogy - which
were iioi issues in the NoriIr Sea C~rrriircir~uiSlrcvcases as such.
One wouId have ihought that if fishing practices had b e n considered as
remoteIy relevant, they would have a! teast been mentioned in the Court's
Opinion, particutarly in view of the decision of this Court a few years earlier in
the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case. Having faiIed to find support for their
position in the North Scu Coriliiirinul SIzelfcases, our opponents have vainly
sought consotation in the Fislicrics case.
Moreover, Mr.President, it is abundanfly clear that even if there were any
vaIid Tunisian claims to sponges in the a r a , they wouId not be a f f ~ t e db y the
Libyan practical method. 1ts application would not affeci ariy sponge-ban ks
other than those validl y under Libyan regulation.
The Court wiII no doubt recall rhe discussion of Libyan sponge-grourids
contained in the Libyan Counter-Mernoria1 (11, paras. 127-1291 and in its
Technical Annexes 3 and 4. And it is not necessary for me to repeat here aII
that was said in ihose passages.
Suffice it ta say that Libyan Law No. 12 of t 959 was the culmination of a
su~cessionof Libyan regutations and laws governing sponge-fishing which
had existed since the Grsi decade of this century.
Now,pursuant 10 ihal Iaw, decisions of t h e Nazir of Communication were
issued to regulate sponge-fishing. And examples of those decisions for 1960
and 1961 were included in Dwumentary Annex No. 47 to the Libyan
Counter-Memoriat and they entirety confirrn the extent of Libyan regulation ai
thal time.
In addition - as Arnbassador El Maghur has already n o t d - in 1952 the
Food and Agriculture Organization or the United Nations in faci prepared and
I
submitted a report to the Government of Libya, which i~iclrided a nlap
indicating the western Iimits to the sponge-grounds in Libya. And these were
coi-rectiy show11as extending due north of Ras Ajdir. TIiis Inap ap~rearedas
@ Ma? No. 1 3 in our Cou~iter-MemoriaI, and il lias no1 been contesteci by
Turrrs~a.
1 ivould also refer the Court i11 particular tu pa1-agraph 128 of our Counter-
Mernorial.
1 now refer the Court ta the inap whih is just appearing on the easel.
The information that appears on it is oriIy a combinatio~rof data whlch
appmred in o u r Cou~iter-MemoriaI,and I wiII expIain.
As can be seen, if the Court can see pas1 me. this pink area corresponds tu
@ the Libyan concessions which we1-e sIiown on Map No. 5 of our Counter-
MernoriaI. The Court wfil aIso note tIiat ille Libyan d~-iIIingaclivities w hic11
@ wereporii-ayed 011 Map No. h to the Coiiiirer-Mernoria1 Iiave been transferred
to t h ~ smap as weII. And of course. tire sIieaf of'iines has beerr superimposed
upon it. Now these solid dots, for exa11ipIe. here and there, rhese a r e prudir-
cing weIIs thar have been drilled unde1- vaIid Libyan concessions.
The s1naI1round c11-c1essuch a s we have goi11gacross here. I-epr-eserrtotIier
driIIing sites.
Now tllese star-Iike fean~res.h u e , - and there are quite a lot of t h e ~ n-
they sIiow where weIls have been spudded and dr11Ied. but where they Iiaue
bee~iabandoned.
As 1 said, we have alsu placeci o n this map rhe Tunisian sheaf of Iines or
nelhods". They c a ~ be i seen,
i seen in reIatiorr to the various weIIs. As c a ~ be
no Iess than eight L ~ b y a ~producing
i weIIs would be cut off b y the sheaf of
Iines.
The petrojeurn fields under1yi11g those weIls wouId aIso be appropriated by
the Trrnisian sheaf of Ii~ies. In our suhmission. it is tIiis fact, rather
d~amaticaIIy ponrayed o n tlris map, which goes a Io~ig way towards
expIaining why onI- oppments have chosen their ex traordinary sheaf of Iiries.
It nlost instructive to compare rhe effect produced by the s h e d of Ii~ies
here wilh the effect of t h e Tunisian c1ai1n irr 1975. and i11 that regard 1 wouId
@ refer the Courr to Map No. 6 in our Cuir~rter-Me~noriaI.
 QUESI'IONS BY JUDGES GROS,MOSLER,
oDn AND SCHWEBEL
TIie ACTING-PR ESIDENT : Irr accordance with the RuIes of Court some
Judges wisli to exercise IIieir rights to put questions Io bat11 Parties arrd 1 sliaII
e une. to I-ead tlieir questions to you Iief01-eca1li1rg
now caII upo11 i h e ~ no, ~ r by
OII Mr. 1-Iighet to continue.
M. GROS : Les agents des Parties pourraient-iIs pfeciser a Ia Cour Ia position
de 1eu1-gouuei-~iernentI-espectifs u r Ia question d e Ia force obligatoire de Iarret
qrre le compromis du 1 U juin 1977. dans son articIe premier [aussi art. 2 el 3).
demande a Ia Cour de rendre, pour ce qui concerne Ies poinIs suivanls :
uj Ies principes et rgles de droit r~rternationaIqui pleuvent tre indiqus par la
Cour pour Ia delinritatio~ide Ia mne drr pIateau continenta1 reIevant de Ia
Jarnahiriya arabe Iibyenne populaire et saciaIiste et de la zone du pIateau
co~rlinental-reIevant de Ia RpubIique tunisien~ie, ;
propres Ia rgion que la COUI'1iend1-aitpour pe1-t~ne~iies
I d Ies ci~.co~ista~rces
pour sa dcision ;
c-1 Ies principes quiiables que Ia Cour dcideraii ventueIIe1nen1de prendre en
considration pour re~rdres o ~ i I

La prsente quesrion porre a la fois sur Ie co~rienude Ia motivation et sur

ceIui du dispositif de I'i~r~-iqrri est demand a la cou^..
Judge MUSLER - 1 wouId Iike tto pnl a questioi~io both Parties.
III ArticIe 1. pa1-agraph 1. second part, of the SpeciaI Agreen~ent.the Panies
ask the Court tu take its decision according to. equi&bIe principles. and the
reIeva~rtcircir~nstzr~rceswlriclr c1raracte1-ize the area, as weII as "the new
rrccepted trends" 01-"the ~cccrittrc~rdsild~nitted"~ I Illre TIrird Cu~ifere~ice #II
tlie Law oi tire Sea.
The definition of the continental sheIf given in ArticIe 76, paragraph I of
t lie drafl corrverition 011the law of the sea, rhe ter-ms of which had aiready
.
furrned part of the successive preccding tex& of tire Irrfo1.1na1Composite
Negotia~ingTexts. co~isistsof two parts linked by the word "or". According to
the Ers1 part, 1Iic co~rline~iraI sheIf "cu~nprisesthe sea-bed arrd subsoiI of the
submarine areas that ex rend beyond ils lerriroria1 sea throughwt lhe naIrrra1
pro101rgat1orr of 11s Ia~rd1er1-ito1-yio the uuier edge of the mrrti11enta1margin".
while the second part of the sanre paragraph speaks of "a distance of 200
nautical miIes from the baseIina from which rhe breadth of the territoria1 sea
is measu red where Ille outer edge of t he contine1ila1~kargindoes ~ i oexte~rd
t up
tu that distance".
III their writlen pIeadi~igsand 01x1a~'guIneIiIsboth P~I-lies Irave argued 011
flre basis of the firsi part of this definition, according to which the natural
prolongation of the Iand rer1-itory of a coastal State is the decjsive criterion. In
the second part, lhe distance of 200 nautka1 miles is the decidve criterion in so
fa1- a s the outer edge of the continental rnargin does not extend up tu that
distance.
May I ask the Parties whether, and t o whar extent, in their view. ArlicIe 75,
pa1'agraph 1, represents one of the new accepied rrends, or the 1-ecenttrends
adrnitred. in the TIrird Co~rfere~ice on tIre LAW of tire Sea which the Court IS
asked 10 rake i ~ i t oaccourrt when renderi~igits decisiori ? Do the Pa~tiessee any
 QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE COURT 245

possibility that the application of the two parts of the definition in a given case
couId lead to inconsistent results ?
The second quesiion is put ta the representatives of Tunisia. In their
pleadings and argument the representatives of Libya have referred io whar has
been caIIed an " a r a of concern" which is, in Libya's view, relevant for the
indication of the principIes, rules and methods to be appIied to the future
deIimitation of the conlinenta1 shcif appertaining to Libya and Tunisia
respectiveiy .
Would the Tunisian representatives be good enough to explain how they
would defsne the region which is, in their view, relevant for ihat purpose?

Judge ODA : The Court is requested under the SpeciaI Agreement to render
its judgment as to "Quels sont Ies principes et rgla du droit international qui
peuvent tre appliqus pour Ia dlimiwtion '. . ."(according to the Tunisian textf
or "What principies and rules of international law may be applied for the
delimitation . . ."Iaccording lo the Libyan texil, and in rendering ils judgment,
the Court is requested "de tenir compte . . . des rendances rcentes admises"
Iaccording to the Tunisian lextjor "the Court shall i a k e 11sdecision accordjng
to . . . the riew accepted trends" taccording to the Libyan textl in the Third Law
of ttie Sea Conference. 1 used these French expressions in addition to the
EngIish expressions, because the translations made rrom the original Arabic
into French by Tunisia and into English by Libya respectiveiy are not identical.
1 would Iike 10 put the following four questions io boih Parties :
Qittdsrioii 1. How does each Party interpret t h e process i t i which "les
tendances" were recently "admises" or in which "new trends" were "accepted"
in the Third Law of the &a Conference,,particularIyif it does not think that the
actual provisions of the draft convention on the law of the sea prepared on
28 August 198 1 necessarily represent "les tendances rcentes admises" o r "the
new accepted trends" ?
II. Does each Party consider thal "Ies teildances rcenies admises"
Qirr~ssrir~~r
or "the new accepted trends" in the Third Law of ihe Sea Canfercnce fail
within the purview of the principles and ruIes of international Iaw the
appIicabiIity of whi* is to be considered by the Court under Article I of the
Spccial Agrecinent, or ihat Ihe Court is requested io take accaunt of these
lrends, or to take lis decisions according to these trends, despite the possibility
that ihey have not yet achieved the status of "principles and rules of
inrernationa1 Iaw".
Qttr~stii)irIll. Article 8 3 of the draft convention on the law of the sea
prepared on 28 August 1981 (A/Conf.62/L.78) reads :
"1. The delimitation of the continenkl shelf between States with
.opposite or adjacent coasts shalI be effected by agreement on the basis of
iniernational Iaw. as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the
InternationaI Cour1 of Justice, in order to achieve an equiiablc soIution."
This tcxt reptaces the previous text of 1 980, w hich read :
"1 .
'
The delimitation of the coniinental shelf between States with
opposite or adjacent coasts shalI be effecled by agreement in
conformity with inlernational law. Such an agreement sball be in
accordance w ith equitable principles, employirig the median or
equidistance line. where appropriate, and taking accourir of al1
circtimstances prevailing in the area concerneci."
 246 CONTINENTAL SHELF

The Submission presented by the distinguished Agent of Tunisia on

2 5 September 198 1 neither contains any reference to this new provision of
ArIicle 83. nor menlions the changing of ~ h rext e of Article 83 in Ihe course of
t he Iast session, in Augus!, of the Third LAW of the Sea Conference. Does each
party atlach any significance 10 the change in the text of Article 83 ? If it does.
does each Party consider that "internationat law, as referred to in Article 38 of
the Stature of the Internationai Court of Justice", as indicated in Article 83 of
the draft convention, wiII be equivaIenr Io principIes and rules of international
ta w as suggested in ArticIe 1 of the Special Agreemenl, atid that iniernational
law is properly reliected in "les tendances rcentes admises" or "the new
accepied trends" in the Third Law of the %a Conference ?
Qiri~sriotiIV. The draft convention on the law of the sca of 28 August 1 98 1 ,
. like its previous text of 1980 (AICONF.62IWP.IO1Rev.3) and the Informal
Composite Negotiating Text of 1977 (A/CONF/62/WPIQ) and its revised tex1
of 1979 tA/CONF.62/WP.lO/Rev.I) and of 1980 IA/CONF.6Z/WP.lO/
Rev.2) contains two separaie provisions for ihe delimitation of the continenta1
sheIf and the exclusive econornic zone, respectively, although the wordings of
each of these two provisions are practically identical. My question is divided
into two subquestions :
1. Does each Party consider that, within the 200 miles which wiII be the
Iitnit of the excIusive economic zone, the delimitations of these t wo areas may
well be differeni, or, on the contrary. ought not to be different ?
2. The refercnce to al1 "relevant" or "prevaiIing" circumstances is dropped
i i i the draft convention of this year. In interpreting the previous texts of the
Third Law of the Sea Conference, which cotitained such a reference. would
each Party have thought thar the circurnstances which rnight be taken itito
accounl in delimiting the continental shelf couId o r couId not have beeii
different frorn the circumstances to be taken into account in delimiting the
exclusive economic zone '!
Judge SCHWEBEL : For the Agent and counsel of Tunisia.
To w hat precise extent dms Tunisia claim to possess in the area which is the
objeci of the proceedings bcfore the Court ru) historic waters. and (1)) historic
fishing rights ? Please indicate any botindaries of cIaimed areas of hisioric
waters and of historic fishing rights, respectively.
And the second question for b a t h Parlies :
If, argi~eirdo,it is accepted that Tunisia ha5 historic fishing rights for
sedentary species in certain specilied waters, can Libya possess the exclusive
right 10 expIoit the continental shelT beIow those samc waters to the k d of
which the sedentary species in question is attacheri ?
 ARGUiMENT OF RIR. HIGHFT (cont.)
COUNSEI. FOR 'StlE GOVEKNbIENI'OF THE LIHY.4N A R A H J A M A I I I K I Y A

Thc ACrING PRESIDENT : UJc have now had a series orqiiesiions. the
icxts of \\,hich will bc made availabIc 10 both Parries by the Kegistry short1y .
Yoii tieed not answer naw. or before the end of the firsr round ioday. but we
shall apprcciate it if y o ~ iare :ibIe to ~ n a k ean y alternpt fo repIy. perhaps in the
course or the next round, iiext week or the week after.
Mr. IIIGHET . Mr. Presideni, Mernbers of the Court : the last of the relevaiil
circumstances rvhich Tunisia would have us consider was mentioncd at I V .
page 575. of the record of 24 Scptcmber. Firsr, they iiicluded ihe far-off
area known as rhc "borderland". Now, the reIevance of this feature has ai-
ways completeIy escaped us, but I shall have more to say about it in a minute.
The second circumstance is rnereIy a recapitulation in differcnt terrns of the
general bathy metric argument : and ir was referred to a1 IV. page 575. as
"la notion de succession des lments constitutifs de Ia marge coniinentaIe et
celle de la direction de la marge continentaIeW.
Now, ihis i t o f i o i t rk siicci~,s.sioriis clearly bascd on the Article 76 failacy
which 1 mentioned on Wedneday. I t presents nothing new ; it is no difrercnt
from the Turi~sianreliance upoii Oathyiiietry in general, escepi that it now
wears a ncw si~it- a rresh raiionalization for its pertinerice 10 this case - a ~ i d
orle which we eniphalicalIy reject as Wrorig. for reasoris which 1 have given
earlier.
I shoiild now like io make an iinportant fiirlher point conccrning Titnisia's
gencraI balh ymelric case.
Thar poini is : eveti ihough the appearance of the bathy nietry is exaggerared
by Tunisia, the res~ilr of consideriiig it for the purpose of providing, as
Professor Bowett said, a potenlial shelr boutidary is still qriiie arbitrary and
capricious. A deliniitation based upori this kind of bath y nietric a1121ysis couId
jiist a s well rake a diffcrent directio~ior a different azimitth.
Biii first lei me trcai the olenient of csaggeration brielly.
Tunisia has gone to the estent. for exaiiipIe. of drainarizing the oiherwise
relatively rnonototious shelf area involved - in o u r word a "pIainV - by
depicring the Zira ~-i(lr and the evanescent Zuwarah rirlc~by the cornmon
@ device of using an extrerneIy srnaII inrcrval between isobaths. Corrc No. 2.01
of the Tuiiisian Reply is at five-rneire ititervals. If oiie-meire intervals had
&en iised, ii would have looked like the Alps.
Now, the Court will no1 be inisled by this. and wiIl undoilbtedIy have noied
Ihis lechnique of exaggeralion. For exanipIe. on that map, No. 2.01 10 the
Reply. in the centre right foreground, the dcclivity is onIy one metre in every
kiIorneti-e. Professor Fabricius gave his expert cvatuation. on Wednesday , of
the distortion of the so-calIed ,filriisc.s w hich were show n. compIele with
@ menaciiig and draniatic teerh, in Figure 5 07 of 7'rinisia3sMemorial.
Now. this kind of distort ion and exaggeration, however. is also coupled
with a fundametita1 naw in reasoning. which is the faIIacy of Article 76
originally mentioncd by Sir Francis Irallat. and preseiits a realIy iwo-
dimensiona1 case. in spiic of the effort of bath ymetry to seek a ihird dimension
- which at first appe;irs striking by its honiogci~eityatid ils repetitivericss.
248 CONTINENTAL SHELF

But this case faIIs apafl when one stops to consider the arbiirary way in
which the resiilts of a drarnatized bathy metry are used to suggest a possible
shelf boundary . W hat standards are suggested to raiionalize a deIimiiaiion
effected solely by respecting the lineaments of the sea bottom ?
Tunisia has b e n again unable Io cite any instance of State praciice which
relies upon an element such as the eIusive "Zira Ridge" as a directional guide
for the line of delimitation.
Professor Jeniiings drew the Court's attention to the handsome coloured
map o f i h e Mediierranean. Figure 3.01 to the Tunisian Mernorial : that is the
one. which the Court will recall. al which the volume "opens autornatically".
He referred specifically to "the arca of concern for the Court", and thcn
Professor Jennings drerv the CourtS artenrion to the cIarity of the 200-mctre to
501)-metre conlours. He then askcd the Coi~rt
"as a preiirninary exercise . . . to ask rhemselves whether that extension of
sea-bed off the Tunisian coast w hich is clearIy subtended by thar coast -
should no1 have sorne effect upon the decision in this case" (IV. p. 4261
1 woutd draw the Court's attention to that same rnap and to Ihose two
isobat h lines. the NO-meire and the 500-metre contours. and 1 wouId ask the
Members of the Court to look at rhai map and note exactly where rhey begin.
The 200-metre isobath is almost a11 of the way to TripoIi ! The whoIe "area
al" coticern for the Court". in Profcssor Jennings' own phrase, is therefore
cIearIy within the 0-200-rnetre range, and is rhus subtended in the paIest bIue
area of that map.
Now il is true thal parts of the easlern edge of that area are,shaped roughly
Iike what is called rhe gencrall y eastward-facing coast of Tunisia, although -
as Professor Fabricius itIustrated for the Court on Wedn~day - baih y metric
features aIso cxist which destroy this similarity. Be that as it may. rhc
agreement enables Professor Jennings to claim t hat that extension of the sea-
bed of the Tunisian coast is "clearl y subtended" by that coast.
Bu1 if the Court will fix its eyes on the shape of t h e pale blue area on l h a l
inap em braced by the 200-metre isobath line, and look at the top of t he area -
as i t Xvere. directty en route to Sicily - it wiIl & seen thai the norihern edge of
the contoured area also resembles Ihe northward-fac~ngTrinisian and Libyan
coasrs to the south ! W hy, then. does onc go to the east on thar evidence any
more than one g m 10 ihe north on that evidence ?
M y second question : where do they go from the boundary point and why ?
Ii is hardly as ifthere were a dramatic fall-off ofcontours which can be readily
seen ciose by Ras Ajdir. And Ras Ajdir on thar map is in the rniddle of the pale
blue area. The obvious lhing there woutd be to go right tip to the middle of il
- to the middIe of the words "GuIf of Gabes" - and then you swing over in
some manner to the righr. if you try to draw a Iine, thus io effecr a fair and
equitabIe result. There is no conviction whatsoever in the proposiiion thai the
map. everi as a preliminary exercise. can convincingIy justify runriing,to the
east at an angle of 65".
I should again here stress to the Mernbers of rhe Court that, for ihc many
sound reasons given by Professor Boweti and our experts, we of course do not
espouse folIowing the bathymelry. But, it is no1 dificul1 io arrive at a
bathymetric pattern which can be adapted, with a Iittle energy and a little
work. in much the same manner as that in which Tunisia has depIoyed her
bathymerric arguments. But it is al1 quite arbitrary.
I I is thus our position thar the firsi Tunisian line, the one which runs out
along Ihe so-called "ridi, Zirri", is arbitrary. selective, it is noi based iipon
 ARGUMENT OF MR. HIGHET 249
s c i e ~ i t i kevide~icewhicir shouId be given 1egaI weight, either as a Iimit to tIie
1iatura1 proIongation of the Iandrnass lying irn~nediatelyto the south. o r as
some olher bi~idof guidepost or indicator for a sheif bounda1-y i r i IIie present
case.
Furtherrnore. a s Professo~-Bowett has expIained to rIie Court, DI-. Emery's
study in Anrrex 11-9 tu OUT RepIy has show11 that there is absoIuteIy no rationa1
or scienlific relationship between contirrental sheIves. naturaI proIongatioir.
and abyssaI pIains a s sucIi.
Thus both the Tunisian bathyrnetric o r geornorphologica1 ~nethodsare ~ i o t
mereIy forgetful of the principIe of natural p1~1ongation: tliey are positiueIy
inwnsistenl wilh it. These IWO propositions wouId prodrre results which are
aclrraIIy Fonlrary to the appIicabIe IegaI ruIes.
As Iny coIIeagrre Professor Bowett has aiso expIai11ed to the Coun. the
IogiciaI iiaws contai~redin both of the two geornetric propositions supporting
Tun~sianSubmjssion 11-2 also discredit [hem co~npIeteIy. Each depends upon
the assu~nptionthat the Tunisian coast runs 11orth from Ras Ajdir. Neirhcr.
~herefure,respecls reaIity.
Both utilize irreIevant sections of coasl. and neither depends upo11the actuaI
Tunisian coast - despite Professor Jennings' statement that Ihe law requires
that account be taken of the actuaI cvastIi~ie. Nor can any geometric ~nethod,
based o n geagraphy sirnplified, have arry true relationship with the funda-
inenial principle of natrrral p1'oIongation. Borh are therefore faIIacious. and
borh couId in n o Inanrrer briny about a n equitable resrrIt.
II is as if al1 the Tun~sianIines had been i~nposedupun the relevant
circumslances. It is a s if tIieir ending-poinis had been sefecied first. and t Iie
respective lines then worked backwai-d tu the begirrrii~ig. 70thecontrary. vire
started ar the Iand bondary. at Ras Ajdir, and worked our way out to sea.
taking accorrrrt of the r e i e v a ~ circumstances,
~t a s we went dong.
1 turn ~ i o wto the Tunisian response ta what w e have said about
delimitalions with olher States. We note here wifIi surprise tiral Professor
ViraIIy made the foIIow~ngqualifical~onto the four Tunisian Iines. He said
that the Iine of deIirnitation
"ou Ie dernier segment de cette ligne. est constitu par une Iigrre droite
dfinie rrniquen~entpar aIi angle, c'est--dire par urre directio~r. Des Iurs.
il est absoIument inutiIe d'en dete~mi11erle point ter1nina1, s'il y a une
raison de ne pas Ie faire" {IV, p. 5951.
F i r s ~: if this is true. how does Profess01- ViraIly justify seIecting a
geomurpIroIogim1 feature, such as the Io11ian Abyssal Plain, w hich is so far
orriside any conceivably relevant area 7 It is as if the FederaI RepubIic had
argued in 1959 that a feature sucIl as the Norwegian TrorigIi was one to wIiich
an appropriate delimitation Iine shorild Iiave k e n directed and at the same
t ~ m eargued tliat it was not asking the Court to ruIe in any way o n the outer
extenl of the line - that is, whelher o r ~ i o itt wouId ever reach tlre Trough ai
all.
Second : if orle dues nut seIect an outward poi1i1for the purp.ose of drarving
a Iirre, how dms one know the angle tu begirr wit h ? And why wouid one ever
seIect a point for a i e purpose arid fhen exclude it o r discard it for anulher ?
Third : we find that that response generaIIy lacks credibiIity o r persuasive-
r r a with respect. First we smrted in the Tunisian Mernorial when we read
that we started with very ciear Iines. TIien those Iines becarne Inere
iIIustra~ions. Now they have becorne rnereIy angIes. Orre is reminded of the
Chesliire Cat sIuwly disappeari~rgin his trw. u1iti1,~iothingjs Ieft bellincl but an
angIe exferrd~ngfrom Ras Ajdir.
Fourth : huw does this co~nportwith the SpeciaI Agreement ? How can Ihe
Court answe1- ilie question put 111 ArticIe 1 witliout irrdicating the pri11cipIes
and ruIes w I ~ ~ F I I wouId appIy to the deIimitatio1-r of the two arcas of
apprrItenant contirrenia1 sheIf? The Corri1 has nul bw11asked Io determine the
a1rg1eazi~nuthof the shelf bou~idary. Now cIearIy IIiere 15a balanciilg wl1icI1
Inusr be u~idertakenhere, brit in o u i view ir just yill i~otdo to say that a11 orle
is taIking about is arr angle, and the~.efo~-e theren is 110 II& IO d ~ - a gin third
Stares. This is yer anotIrer reasoIi for what we think is the vaIid~iyof our
suggestion that the C Q UconsiderI~ - but of coursc 1101 dele1mine - whal the
appi-opriate area of cwrcern in this case might be.,
However. Proiesso1- ReIad i~~dicated that a tliird eIernent of addiIio1ia1
reIevant circu~nstanceswouId be lu take into accourrt ac1ua1 or pote11tiaI
dcIi~n~r;itions with orhe~'Rrties - that was ar IV' pagc 575- - a propositio11
with which we ci111iu1-dIydisagrcc - bu[ one w hic11 111 Iiis expositiv~i.w itlr
rcspxr. Iwdr noxvhcrt. rit aII. He d m 1101 s p i f y how tIiey shoi11d k takea ;rc-
wu111of. and indwd I r is srartling ro s e I1i1s poinr bci~igrnade at a11 by T11nisi;r.
foi il 1s Trtnisia wliilr lias sriggesrcd a slreaf of wIiicIi wouId substa11-
tiaIIy reInovc thc Libyar sheIf k ~ w ktis ~+dir alrd N Kiir~msfrwn any pros-
pwt of a deIiniitalio~i wirh Malu. rhus I~niiting Libyii 10 a11 r1r11-ealisrically
sinaII portion of ils o w ~ sIreIf.
i
FinaIIy, the Iasi point made in tlris contexr is a; Ilew une, and one can see
why it had no1 bee~imade before, as it is. wiih great I-espect,qnite unrealistic.
I t occurs at IV, page 575.
Pr-ofessor BeIa~dsaid there that the Court, in taking i~rtoaccoirI-rt the recent
accepied Irends ai file Tlrird Confe~.enceon the taw of ihe Sea, wilI be aware
of tire excIusive ecoiloinic zone entitle~nentof 20U nauticai rniIes. Since the
unly direction in whicI1 Tunisia can gel that e~iriIIen~eni is in the di1-ection of
the Ionia~iAbyssaI PIain. Professor Relad argued [!rat ir folIows thal ilris rnrist
be the direction and exie~it~ O I "la - direction du proIongemrnr dc Ia 1na1-ge
conti~ie~rtak".
W d l , to state t h ~ arguilient
s is Io refriie it. How wouId lIrat argument have
applied i ~ thei N<lrilrSi~uCrirrriir~~rrui Slfc4fcases ? E v e ~rnure
i i n point is the ha
that Libya k aIso e~ititIedtu a LOU-1ni1e exclrisive ecviiomic zone :the question
of course then becomes one of IateraI deIimitatio~t.rrot mereIy one of asserting
arr extent A I I ~~noreover,
. what is ils rdationship-Io natura1 PI-obngation?
As 1 Irave already ~ne~rlioned, in severai otIier cpntexts, a furllier aspect of
Tunisia's reliance upon irreIeva11tC~I-curnstances is tIie dernent of reinotenexs.
A It huugh Libya is conshnt1y being accused of adopting a rnacrogeoIogical
scale by is oppone~it.it w w I d appmr that Tunisia assumes tIre r-eIevance of
physicaI ieatures rvIiicIr are far dista111 from the area. TIrey are, in rhe
colIoquial Arner~canism.bath EgurativeIy and IiteralIy "off the map".
To use round numbers : :lie aIIegedIy sig~rificant SiIIon Tripoliiairr onIy
begirrs ~ i o r t hof TripoIi, some 150 kifometres Io tIre,east of the Iand boundary.
The so-caIled IiorderIand is tir us twice as far away - that is 300 kiIornetres
away. The Ionian AbyssaI PIain is. agai~i.t w ~ c eas far away as [Ilat : 6UO
kiIornetres, welI past Malta, weII into areas of th Mediterranwr in which
wIroIIy new States might be interesred.
Now it is as if Libya had suggested a anlethod of'delimiration invoIving TOI-
exarnple the nortIi-mutIr aIignment of 5ardi11ia and Corsica. They a1-e aIrnost
the same distance from Ras Ajdir as is the Io~iiarrAbyssal PIain.
Ir is 13oi rnereIy the Tunis~arrbathyn~etric1netIio8s, Irowever, which suffe1-
 ARGUMENT OF SIR. HIGFIEI 25 1
f r o ~ ndepeildency upori features which are orrt of range a ~ r doff the map. Bo111
of rlie geomeiri ~netliodspresuppose the relevance of the section of -rurii-
s i a ~ iCoast 1101th of Ras Kaboudia. a11 tIre way tu Cipe Bon. And i ~ the i
first geometric methad. the miistal front is even onsrructed fram a point
on dry Iand. sauthwesr of Gabes al1 the way rip to Ras Musraplia. rrorth of the
GuIf of Hammamel. It thus presents. i1-r Ifle words of Professor Briggs. a
"ddoublemenl" of irreleva~ilci1-cu~nsta~ices1 wouId suggcst that Figure 9.10
of tIie Tunisian IvIemo1-iaI (1, pp. 243-2451 cvuId engage the Court's a t ~ e r r t i o ~ ~ .
The second geoaietric rnethod is the "bisst.crricc.". As lias been said, rhat
aIso relies upon arbitrary coast Iines. Figu1-es3. I 2 and P. 1 3 of the Mernoria1 II,
pp. 24 1-2451 illustrate rhar quite clearly.
1 slrould say something at tlris poi~it,Mr. PI-eside1i1.about a gene1-a1 poi11l.
t\re are conscious of !Ire fact thar because PI-ofessor Bowett and I fiave Ilad lo
deaI with the foui-T u ~ i i s i aconstructions,
~i the ~netlrodsrvhich a1-eproposcd by
Tunisia. in saIne detail. that ihis enri1-equesrion Inay have appeared to acquii-e
a yrealer specificity and more precision than we wouId Iike to have given to
Ihe question of tIie practical method.
That is a pi-oblem which is a probIe~nof pIeading and t 1s a~ialogousto chat
which Sir Francis referred Io earlier. TIiat problem ha\; a~-ise11 because of the
broad range of irreievant and trivial po111tsraised by tlie Tunisian pleadings.
and our own oral prese~ilationof the Libyan case has been obliged tu deal witIr
those irrelevancies. sometirnes al a Iength whili would not have been
necessary but for the amaunt of tin-reand spxce whicIt those points accupied i11
the GI-stplace.
We d o nor intend to give weight 10 TI-elevancies by having Io rcspond ta
the~n.aIiy more than we intend tv suggesl a precise Iine of delimiration by
having ro deaI with Tu11isia.s precise Iines.
O n tfre other haild. II is quile clear that we d o recogn1j.e the so-calted
Tunisian ~nelhodsas lines. I~rdeed.paragrapir 2.27 of the Tunisia~-rMe~norial
(1) said rIiat "the Court slrould carry . . . rhe defirrition of the elerne~ils. . . and
tIie practical nlethods a~-rdthe insrruments to be used. right up to the uItimate
point before the gureljr tecIr~-riri;rIwork . .".
Trin~siaalso insisted iri fier RepIy (IV). at paragraph 3.03. that
"one rreed onIy iead Chapte1 3 of the Tunisian Mernorial in order to
ascc1-tain t l ~ i i ti l confines ilseIf 10 dcscribi~~ginethods. the l i ~ ~ drawn
cs in
the rnaps i11serred in thnt chaptc~' being mere illustrations whose
approximative cliaracter rs perfectly clear froirl t h e text".
Professor ViralIy Ilad this to say :
"il ne s'agit jamais que d'une i1Iustrar1011deslin& i pe1-~neltrcde mieux
appr-cier ou de visuaIise1- les r&uIials auxquels coriduit Ia 1ntIiode
examine et d'u~ieillustration toujours approximative . . ."(IV, p 5941.
To the cont1-a~y.what has aIways been Ito quole the RepIyl "perfectIy clear"
are the Tu~irsia~i Iines of deIimitatio11 themseives, so carefuIIy drawn i ~ tIie i
Mernorial.
R7hat is "perfectly clear" is lhat these Iines have no approximative chai-acter
at aI1. If anyihing, IIiey are very carefuIIy pIorted and tIiey appear in tlre
figures to Chapter I X as d e a ~ -exacl, , and precise Ii~resof delimitation.
Far example, the Mernorial, in paragraph 9.08, said that the bathyrnetry
reIarng to rIie so-caIIed "rides" was "a factor rnaki~igil p m i b I e to d ~ - a wwith
, a
relaliveIy satisfaclwy degree of accuracy, the Iine deliniiting those areas".
As to the ''abyssal pla~n"Iine, paragraplr 9.1 1 nored that "lhe abyssal plain
 ARGUMENT OF MR. HICHET 253
relevant circumstances, the actual application of the Libyan practical rnethod
woujd have becn as exaggerated and as encroaching as the brown line shown
@ by Tu"isia in Figure 3.01 of its Counter-Memoriat.
It 1s our vlew that the significance of the Sahelian promontory - ending at
Ras Kaboudia - becomes increasingly important as one goes increasingIy IO
the north. II has no visibIe importance, or onIy rrivial relevance, at the
approximaie laliiude of Ras Yonga, but, further north in presence can begin to
be felt more and more cIearIy. Further norih again it becomes a rwI
consideration which must be taken into account.
But at the latitude of Ras Yonga, we assert, it begins to affect the line of
direction of an equitable dejimitation, and that tine should thecefore swing
around to the northeast [O accommodate it and to reilect it.
This would be consonant with equitable principles, iricluding the prin-
ciple of non-encroachment, since our proposed method of appIying the law to
the facts wouId baIance up a11 the relevan~circumstances w hich characterize
t h e area in this specifrc situation, and would - by veering to Ihe northeast -
take these circumstances into account and avoid encroachment as far as
possible.
In considerine the rundamental element of wuitable nrinci~les.the Court. in
its ludgrnent gf [969,referred to three sp&ific fctors'and these were
respectiveIy referred to in paragraphs 520, 52 I and 522 of our Counter-
Mernorial IlIl.
The first factor required that a delimitation effected in accordance with
equitable principles must take account of the "general configuration of the
coasts of the Parties". This is substantialIy flouted by Tunisia where the four
Iines suggesled by Tunisia priiceed wiih equal infIexibiIity, ignoring both
coasts ; whereas the one Libyan practica1 method a,ttempts very specificaIly to
take account of just that general configuration.
The second factor retated to the "physical and geological structure, and
natural resources, of the continental shelf a r a s invoIved". The Libyan
practical method is founded upon the very appurtenance of the "physical and
geological structure" of the sheli 10 that or the North African landmass. The
Tunisian Iines have nothing to d o with this idea since structural or
fundamental concerns do not even begin to be considered by the Iwo
geomorphologicat propositions any more than they are by the dry forrns and
releniless diagrams of geomctry. Thus the Tunisian proposif ions are, once
again, inconsisteni with and, once again, contrary to the very principles
required to be appIied 10 reach an equitable result.
As to the "natural resources", our opponents. as 1 have said, have not
discussed the mosi imporiant of the natural resources of the sheIf in their oral
p!eading. Although it is naturally impossible to take al1 of !hem in10 accounl, il
certainty is possibIe and indeed requisite for each side to take them into
account "as much as possibIe", within the rneaning of the North S m
C o t i i i f ~ ~ i ~Shdf
f u l dispusitiJ,
The proposed Libyan practical method would create minimum disruption, if
any. The Tunisian lines would create. as the Court has seen, maximum havoc.
Moreover, the iacr that, as shown by my colleagile Professor MaIintoppi,
Tunisia has historicaIl y pushed to the east by its paricuIar practices should not
aIter the basic direction which a permanent sherf deIimiiation shouId take - or
which it would take if thosc considerations were not present.
The Court's third factor in 1969 related to the "reasonabte degree of
proportionality , which a delimitation carried out in accordance with equilabIe
principles ought to bring aboul". My frierid, Professor Briggs, ha already
 STATEMENT BY MR.EL MAGHUR
AGEh? FURTtIEGOVERNMENTOF 'IHE LIRYAW ARABJAMAHIRIYA

MY. EL MAGHUR : MI-. Preside~itand Membe1.s of the Court : tire

staierne~irjusr made by MT.HigI~etco11c1udestire oral presentation of o u f case
al [Iris slage. As Agent for Ille SociaIist People's Libjlan Arab Jarnahiriya, 1
wislr t o cvnfirm and mai~rtainour Bubmissio~isas they were set forth i ~ the i
Libyan Counter-Memor-iaIof Z February 1381 a~tdthe Libyan Reply of 15
JuIy 1981.
The A n I N G PRESIRENT: 0 1 1 behaIf of the Corrrt, 1 tl~ankthe Agent.
counseI arrd olIier representatives of the Government of the Libyan Arab
Jarnahiriya for the m i s t a n c e tliejr Irave afforded the Court. I understand that a
copy of tIie Siib~nissionswhich tIie Agent has just indicated wilI, in accorda~ice
with A~ticIe50. paragraph 2, of tIie Rules ofCourt, be frled in the Registry '.
TIre Age~rtof the Republic of Tir~iisiawiII, 1 understand, be ready tu begin tire
secu~idround of oral argu~ne~rt OII behaIf of his Guvernmerrt OII Tuesday next.
 I

AUDIENCE PUBLIQUE(I3 X B I . 15 hl
VINGT-CINQUIME

Prt;sc~rs: [Voir audience du 29 IX 81.1

DECLARATION DE M. BENGHAZI
AGENT DU GOUVERNEMENT DE L A TUNISIE

M. BENGHAZI r Monsieur Ie Presidenl. messieurs de la Cour. Jai de

nouveau I'lronnenr et Ie plaisir de parai11-edevant votre Iiaute jrrridiction pour
ouvrir Ie deuxime tour de paroh de la Tunisie
Pour assister Ia Cour de notre mieux, les inlerventio~isde la P~I-tie
tunisiel~liesel-uniIes pIus breves possible. Elles se Iiiniteront donc l'tude des
poinls majeurs de divergence qui co~iti~iue~tt d'opposer IFS deux Parties.
La Partie turrisienne fera. ce sujet. avec votre perrnissio~i.les c1a1-ifications
finaIes quIIe juge indispensabIe de prsenter a Ia Cour.
f i s t ainsi que Ies exposs que Ies conseils lu~tisiensauront l'honneur de
vous prsenter penda~rtce tour de paroIe viseront prciser davantage Ies
points de vues et ies positiuns de Ia Partie tunisienne sur un certain no~nbrede
questions juges importantes.
La yrc.r~rikrr. <jrrc:siiinr se rapporte aux principes et regIes de droit
internationa1 appIicabIes Ia positio~rde la Tunisie concer~~ant les problmes
gnraux d'ordre juridique. partiarIiremenl cekx qui 0111 t tudis Iors des
premseres pIaidoiries.
La clc.irxic;l?zrz <ftrr:siiilrr a trait I'i~rterprtationde certaines cIauses du
cornpl-omis du IO juin 1977 et an r6le dvolu' la Cour pa~- ce compromis,
~eb11le point de vue tu~i~sien. Sur ce probI~neque noirs jrigeons essentie1, de
profo~rdesdive1-gencesoppose~itIes Parties et Ia Tunisie esti~neirrdispensable
de revenir a cette questi011- avec I'autorisaIion de la Cour - et de rpo~rdre
aux II-rsesIibyennes teIIes qu'exposee dans les preckdentes pIaidoiries.
poIte siIr Ies droits I!istoriques de Ia Tunisie. Les
Lu ~ ~ i i x i c ; l i ty~rcs?irrr~
c
conseiIs de Ia Tunisie s'attacheront 5 16tabIir un cerlain nombre de faits et a
1,ectifier certaines distorsioris introduites pal- Ia Partie Iibye~i~re dans cette
rnalire. I
La yl~aruik~rir~ qrrcs~iwi concerne Ie r6Ie de Ia goIogie et des donnes
scientifiques da~lsIa prsente affaire. La Tunisie s'en tiendra sur ce poinI aux
questions esse11tieIIes et eIIe cartera du dbat ies Ili&-esef Ies donnes lion
pe~tinentesutilises par la Partie advei-sedans Ia discussio~r.
Enfin. lcr cirryrri@uir cr clc.?->?it'r~ yircsrio~rportera sur Ies mthodes de
dlimitation.
La Tunisie. Morrsieur Ie Prsident, Messieurs de la Cour, s'est engage dans
I'affaire actuellernerrt devant votre Iiaute jrr1-idictiun non pas pour tre clair&
d'une faon abslraite sur Ies principes et rgIes juridiques appIicabIes a u cas de
I'espce, mais bien pousse par Ia ncessir et Ia vobnl de voir tra~ichun
diffrend dont Ia proIo~igations'est avre neliernerrt prjudiciabIe ses irrtrts
propres et a ses bon~iesreIations avec un pays frkre et voisin.
Avec votre aurorisation, Monsieur le Prkside~rt.je voudrais rappeIer ce que
j'ai drt I'oliverture du prernIw tour de parde trrnis~en. savoir :
I
 DECLAKATION DE M . BENGHAZI 257
(< I I est vital pour la Tunisie de connatre avec exactitude l'tendue des
zones du plateau continental qui Iui appartiennent selon Ie droit inter-
national dans Ia situation precise qui prvaut dans la rgion. ii
Monsieur le Prsident. Messieurs de la Cour, il y a toutefois un point sur
lequel je me crois oblige d'intervenir rapidement.
Les reprkentants de la Libye ont soutenu qu'il n'y avait pas eu. entre les
au sujel
Parties, de (( ngociations qui aient u n sens i i titr~~uiri~igfidiir.~cl~iufioizs~,
de Ia dlimitation du plateau continental avant le compromis de juin 1 977. Ils
ont mme dclar, avec une certaine insistance, que des ngociations doivent
avoir lieu aprks le prononc de I'arrt de Ia Cour.
Concernant Ia prtendue absence de negcciations, je me contenterai de
souligner que le Gouvernement tunisien a retrace avec dtails dans le chapitre
premier de son mmoire a la fois l'historique du diffrend et celui des
ngociations. II me senrble qu'il sufit de se reporter B ce documenr pour tre
difie a ce sujet.
Pour ce qui est des ngociations qui devraient intervenir apres I'arrt de la
Cour, le Gouvernement iunisien ne peut qu'exprimer son total dsaccord avec
une conception dont la Partie tunisienne n'arrive a saisir ni le bien-fond ni les
justifications juridiques.
Il nous sembIe en effet que Ies dispositions du compromis sont sufisamment
explicites a cet gard. Le cornpromis~I,p. 9)demande en effet la Cour, en son
article 1, deux choses essentielles :
1. L'indication des principes el regIes de droit internariona1 applicables au
cas d'espce.
2. L'indication de ta rnaniere pratique dont ces principes et rgles doivent
tre appliques dans cette situation prcise et ceIa pour permettre aux experts
des deux pays de dlimiter les zones sans difricutte aucune.
Par consquent, prtendre que des ngociations devront avoir lieu apres
l'arrt de Ia Cour quivaudrait tout simplement rduire indment et de faon
-grave la porte et l'effet de cet arrt. La Cour est, aux yeux du Gouvernement
tunisien, le dernier et ultime recours, I'instance suprme a IaqueIIe les deux
Parties ont confie en toute libert la mission de rgler dfinitivement leur
conflit. Les runions qiti doiveni avoir lieu! par la suite, apres Ie prononc de
l'arrt, ne peuvent, a notre sens, s'instaurer que pour l'excution technique de
l'arrt de la Cour.
I l n'y a pas lieu, iI me semble, de s'ieridre outre mesure sur ce point.
It y a gaiement un autre point sur IequeI je suis tenu d'apporter des
claircissements parce que sa prsentatiori par Ia Partie libyenne risque fofl
d'introduire, par son inexactitude et son caractre slectif, une confusion dans
les esprits qu'il faut. a notre sens, dissiper.
II s'agi! de I'accusation Iance contre Ia Tunisie d'expansionnisme vers l'est,
d'abord sur terre et ensuite sur mer, et cela tant durani Ie protectorat franais
quaprks l'indpendance du pays.
La Partie libyenne s'est Ionguernent appesantie sur ce point. non sans avoir
dclar au pralable que la question des frontieres terrestres tait dfinitive-
ment rgle entre Ies deux pays.
I l n'est pas besoin d'ajouter, par ailleurs, que cette question dfinitivement
rgle n'est nulkrnent implique dans le litige soumis votre haure juridiction.
Je ne voudrais pas a ce sujet entrer dans une controverse d'ordre historique
qui n'a pas lieu d'tre ici. Mais iI m e semble que l'expos Iibyen sur cette
question 'fiche par son caractere unilatral et partiel.
258 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

L'expose Iibyen, deveioppe avec beaucoup de talent et d'habiIet, a ignore

un fait que nous jugeons extrmement important, a savoir que depuis le
X VIc sicIe Tunisie et Tripolitaine o n l fait partie de la mme entit politique,
savoir I'Empire ottoman.
Cet empire au S I X c sikle er jusqu'a l'occupation franaise tait le suzerain
nominal de la Tunisie ; il exerai[ par ailleurs jusquien 191 2 - date de
l'occupation italienne - une souverainet efTwtive sur Ia Tripoliraine. C'est-
a-dire qu'a I'epoque - au X I X C sicIe - entre la Tun~sieet la Tripolitaine,
toutes deux provinces turques quoique avec des smiuts differents, il n'y avait
pas de frontikre erarique bien tablie - on parIait seulement des confins
tuniso-tripolitains.
Auire fait significatif, en 1835 la Sublime Porte mettait fin a la dynastie
locale des Caramanli qui gouvernait la Tripolitaine d'une manim p r a q u e
autonome et l'Empire ottoman instaurait un rigime d'administration directe en
Tripolitaine.
A partir de ce moment, et les lexies historiques Ie prouvent. la Turquie a
essaye de promouvoir le mme processus vis--vis de la Tunisie et de la
dynastie auionorne des beys hussainites, elle a tent d'itisiaurer le rnme rgime
d'administration directe en Tunisie. Cet aspect est bien connu de tous tes
historiens de cette poque.
La Porte a essay, par toui un jeu d'influences auprs des tribus et des
popuiations frontalieres tuniso-tripolitaines, de repousser le plus possible vers
I'ouest les limites administratives du vilayei de Tripoli soumis son
adminisiraiion directe.
La Tunisie q u i tait en position de faiblesse, moralement et matriellement,
vis--vis de son suzerain, a t oblige de profiter des rivaIits internationales
pour endiguer cette pousse turque et sauvegarder son rgime d'autonomie et
I'tendue de son territoire. L'histoire dipIomatique de cette priode est difiante
a ce sujet et elle prouve d'une faon certaine que Ia priode coIoniaIe n'a
nullement conduit a l'extension d u territoire tunisien dans une direciion
q~ielconque.bien a u contraire. Mais c'csi uiic qucsiioit, Moiisieur Ie Prsideni,
qui n'a rien a voir avec notre prsente affaire.
La Libye a galement accuse la Tunisie de mener en mer la mme poIitique
dxpansion vers Ist. Selon la Libye, [a Tunisie, limitant tout d'abord scs
revendications une limite de direction nord, les aurait pousses progressive-
men! de pIus en pliis loin vers l'est jusqu'i atteindre des pretenrions exiremes
en rclamani devant la Cour un faisceau de lignes se siruant aux alentours de
65'.
Cette accusation, Moiisieur le Prsident, n'est pas plus fonde que la
premiere. En ralit, IvoI$ion de l'octroi des concessions tunisiennes s'est
faire en concordance avec I'amIioration des techniques de forage ei avec les
demandes de concessions consquentes dposes par les compagnies petro-
Iires.
Cela, d'une part : d'autre part, l'argument invoqu par la Libye que ce pays a
procd. dans la zone que la Tunisie considre comme son proIongement, des
oprations de forage ne tui donne pas. a notre sens. ipso ,facro, de droit
irrcusable sur ladite zone.CeIa serait tout a fait contraire au principe du droit
inhrent si abandamment invoqu par Ie cot Iibyen. D'ailleurs. iI convient de
remarquer a ce sujet que Ia quasi-toialite des forages ont t effectus apres
1 977, date de la signature du compromis et par consquent a une priode ou
les Parties devaient s'abstenir de tout acte susceptible de faire obsracIe et par
avance a ['excution de l'arrt de la Cour ; les Parties devaient viter la
politique du fait accompli et se conformer au principe nonc par la Cour
 DCLARATTONDE h.1. BENGHAZI 259
permanente de Jus-tictiinternat ioilale dans lffaiie de la Coirrpngfzlcgdi;lcui-ici(<;
dr. Su& el dc. Uirlj,wi.ic* :'
Ies P~I- es en cause doivent s'abstenir de toute nlesure susceptible
d'avoir une rpercussion prjudiciabIe I'excution de Ia dcision
i~rierveniret, en gn1-al. Ile Iaissel- p1,ocder aucun acie, de quelque
nature qu'II soit, suscep11bIed'agg1-aver 011d'ete~rdreIe diffrend i> {C P j.1.
srkir A / B ~ r " 7Y).
La Tunisie de son ct, Monsieur le Prsiderrt. sst ioujorrrs conforme a ce
principe.
Enfin, iI faut sigriaIer qu'en kit aucrine insraIIation d'expIoitat~onne se
Irouve actue1Ieinent i~nplantedais Ia zone revendique par la Tunisie. SeuIs
des forages d'expIoraiiorr y ont t effectus.
 REPLY OF PROFES.WR JENNINGS 26 1
- thai was the basis of the legal institution, which is ai the basis of the
problem of delimitation.
taler on, and more recently, as techniques of exploitation developed. it
becarne a question of w hether first, the rights of the coasjal State might extend
beyond ihe physical continental shelf t o slow and even to rise. and, secondly.
there was the problem of where national jurisdiction should end, if this
extension accurred. There were, as we aIi know, many proposais - some
based on depth. some on distance, o r b t h - but coastaI States wanred to go
out to the edge of the continental margin, which they argued was their natural
proIongation in the sense in which this term had been used by the Court, and
their argument, - which seems to have won the day in the third United
Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea - was that accordingly. notonly
the physical continental sheIF but even the entire continenta1 margin was
incIuded in that naturaI proIongation of which this Court spoke in 1969. And
hence the ArticIe 76 compromise, which sets the Iimit of continental shelf
either at 2110 rniIes or at the edge of the continental rnargin, whichever is the
greater
Now this development of the law. familiar [O every Iawyer in this Court
today, wan inspired by the fact of the physical continuation of that originaI
species of pIatform in many coastal situations, through slopc and rise 10 the
Iimit of the continental margin
Now Professor Fabricius, in answer Lo the direct question put ta him by
Professor Virally, agreed that the definition of continental margin in ArTicIe 76
with its sequence of shelf, slow and rise. was as he said, "correct". I t would be
surprising if it were otherw ise, .considering rhat the United Nations
conference, in adopting this definition, had itseIf the benefit of the advice of
geologists aIso of distinction.
But after giving the answer "correct". Professor Fabricius hesitated. The
article, he said, was legal, and no1 entirely geoIogical. And of course he was
right. For both conlinenial shelf and natural prolongation are Lhere reIated not
to the continent bu1 io a coastaI Slate and its boundaries. But even so, if I've
understoood Professor Fabricius aright. the sequence of shelf. slope and rise,
he would accept as correct for a geologist.
At ihis point one encounters the question raised by Judge MosIer. about
Article 76, paragraph 1, ofthe draft convention. And although a fuIIer answer
will be given in due course, 1 must touch upon it, because it i s criicial to the
whoIe question of the law 10 be applied in this case.
Sir Francis raised the maller in his opening presentaiion and argued, if I
underslood hirn aright, that the physical naiure of the continental margin with
its sequence of sheIf, slope and rise. was relevant soleIy to the quesrion of the
outer timit of continental shelf rights where the edge of the continental margin
extended beyond 200 mites (pp. 59 ff. supra). And, in effect,thcrefore, that this
could be regardeci as disposing of a n y relevance for rnorphology. bath yrnetry ,
where an area o f Iess than 200 miles in exlent was concerned. WeII, if this is
true. the same argument also disposes, of course at the same lime, of geology.
But it is aIso true rhat if, for shelves not extending beyond 200 miles. the
only criterion of delimitation were a distance one, measured from the Coast,
then of course proximity - if not indeed absolute proxirnity - would have
returned as a governing principle, and much of the 1969 Jtidgment, upon
which both Parties have relicd in this case, would have become in effect a part
of legal hisiory.
This wouId be IogicaIIy. 1 think, a possible soIution. But il would constitute a
break - a comptete break - with the law of the continental shelf as hitheno
267 CONTINELTAI-SHELF
understood. Ir would be new law, no!, certainly, codificalion iior even
progressive developmeni assuming thai coniiiiuity i n t h 2 law as weIl as i t i the
conrinental shelf is itnportant.
The Tunisian submissioii is rhai. whethcr inside or ourside - inside o r
beyoiid - ihe 700-miIe limit. ihere is rooin tinder ArticIe 76 for thc
consideraiion br othcr criteria besides proxiinity, besides the question or
distance. The physical facts of continui ty aiid prolongaiion would: in 1he
Tunisian view, stiII coiitiiilie io play a determiriative role tinder the regime of
Article 76. I t is stiII right under Anicle 76 10 ask as a first consideration.
thercfore - it is still right to ask as a first consideraiioii - whether, on the
basis of the forination of the sea-bed, one part of it belongs naturally or mosi
naiuraily - again sing the 1969 Ianguage - 10 one State rather than the
oihcr. There seems to be nothing in the Article 76 ormiila which prevents this
qiicstion still being asked as a primary one and answered in accordance with
the law as it has hitherio developed. Mfere this otherwise, we would have to
say rhat the negoliators of the drai convention had reinovecl 1hc very legal
basis Tor a State's reach into and uiider ihe sea-bed beyotid iis territorial sea.
As to paragraph I U of ArticIe 75 of ihe drafi conventioii, the proviso. it iiecd
only be said that "without prejiidice" dms not mean without relcvance. I t is,
rnoreover, a proviso in respect of the enlire ariicle, and applies to the 101)-rnile
limit as weII as to the first part of paragraph I of the article. AccordiiigIy it
seems. in tract, acruaIIy to confirm thai neither of rhe rcsrs - 200 miIes or
naturaI prolongation - are to be misia keti for absoIure priiiciples goveriiiiig
delimitarion. They both deal in this sense with ouier Iimiis and ihe resi of the
body of coniitienial shelr law is lefr. in the Tuiiisian view, intact.
In short, the Tunisian position on this qualion is that Article 76 ( 1 ) is no1
intended to subvert the Iegal basis of coniinentsl shelf rights as hitherto
understood. bui is meant to deaI with two specific problerns which 1
men~ionedsome time ago, the d a i m of coasiat Stares to iiational ju risdiction
out to the edge of the conlinenta1 rnargiii : and of course the parallel
dcvclopment of righrq in respect of t h e c?tcIusive economic zone.
Now, Libya appears. i i i facl, to accepl lhat the nature of the physical
continental sheIf. the natural prolongation, would rernain, aiid is, reIevanl
because rheir whole argtinient really assuines thar. B ~ t t what the Libya~i
Iawyers, with respect, seem to be trying to establish is this. Thar jus! a s the
Article 76 notion o f na!uraI prolongatioii conrains w it hiii ilself eIemciiu of
conlinuity and someiimes. as in ihc preseni case we would say. a direclion by
reason of ihe sequence of sheIf. dope and rise ; s o according io a recenl theory
x possible by a quite different sequence of fall
o f plate tectonics, it appears ro t
line. hingetine, Coast, eic. - 1 rcfer of course to Professor Bowett's paraltet.
and apparentIy even. strips in his diagram - it appears to be possible to argue
for a difieren! kind ofconiinuity and possibly a different direclion.
But ihis 1 take it is offered as an aIiernative anaIysis - it is surely no1
siiggesred thai shelf. slope and rise iioi only have been adopted in Ariicle 76
bu1 are ou tmoded by modern scientific research.
And, after atI, natural proIongation is a legal ierm of art. tiot a scientific one.
11 would be odd indeed if this Court. applying recent tciidencics. rvere to assert
that the idea of natural prolongation as il is embodicd in draft Article 76 after
ten years of strenuous negotiation. is aiready outmoded, in effeci. by plaie
tectonics theory.
So we wouId invite the Couri io reject the aIlernative. however well
scientifically rounded - and on that 1 would not be quaIifted to offer any
opinion whatsoever - but it is not the one that is ernbodied in the law.
 REPL Y OF PROFESSOR JEhWINGS

TIie Irexi quasno~iis the ~nostdificu11. What is the reIevance of naIrrra1

proIongatio11 thus defined, we wouId say. to a delimitation between opposite
and adjacent States ? This is IIre point at whiclr one Inay say, with respect. the
Libyan geoJogica1 a~-gumentbeco~nesa IittIe coy. MereIy lo enabiish that both
States in question are p101onged i111oone geoIogicaI struclure gels one nowhere
with a delimitaiion. 01re is ~noreoversomewliat a1 a Ioss to undersrand how a
~roflhwarddirection is derived f r o ~ nthe norion of the African PIate which. said
Dr. Vik-Finzi. "points ~ ~ o r t h " ( p1 .75. siipru).T o disabuse us o n rhis side of the
bar, of any idea thal "northward tiirust" impIies ~ n o u e ~ n e ~lie r t . used the
anafogy of "the stairway of this buiIdi~ig". he said. which "thrusfs i ~ r t othe
gardcn wirliout actr~aIIysIiding across the lawn". No doribt ! But ilie slairway
is surely Inore analogous tu the shape of the sheIf - the plalfor-m - off The
Tunisia~icoast. where the paltern of contours does pWnt in a n easte1-ly
directio~r.TIie belter anaIugy of the African PIare, one would Irave thought,
might be the entire site of this city. and ir w o d d be difficulr tu say wlrich way
that pointed.
Ii is une thing ta draw s w e e p ~ ~ ico~iIusio~rs
g aboui the directions of
s t r u c ~ u ~of -a~ wiroIe co~iti~ie~itaI
1na1-gins,but quife a~iotlrerto harness rhat
i ~ l f o r ~ n a t i oin~ lsuc11 a way as to i ~ ~ d i c a which
te areas are the most naturaI
proiongations of which States, and what is the pruper course of the
delimitation between them. Now, as w e aIready know, rhis question of scaIe
was dealr with bj' the Court of Arbirratio~iin the AngIo-Frerrclr deli~nitatioriof
1977 and 1 slior11d like to quote again paragraph 19 1 of ?fial Award :
"TIie ques~ion for the Court to decide, howeve1-, 1s what areas of
c01iii11e1ita1shel f are to be considered as IegaII y the natril-a1 PI-vbngatiun
of Ihe CIranneI IsIands rather than of the mainIand of France. In
i1iiernatio11a1Iaw. as the United Kingdom en~phasizedin the pleadings,
tlie concept of the contiiienta1 sheIf is a juridical concept which c o n n o i a
the 11atura1prolo~igationunder the sea not of a co~itinerrto r geagraph1ca1
Iand~nassbut of the Iand territory of each State."
Even Professo1- Bowett, with ~-espect,fziled to help us at this poi~rt.After
posing the very relevai~tqucstioil :
"we ar-e bound to take the use of the scientific evide~iceyet a srage fri~ther
a11d ask : 'does it h e l ~us tu deternline the principIes, o r rules, o r evcn
the methods wIjicIi wiII PI-ovide the correct delimitaiion in Iaw' ?"
(p. 168- sitpraj.
And tIiis is the qualion o n which the vaIue of the scienrific evidence must
stand o r faII. And srrreIy the onIy way in which we can set about answeri~lg
Ihis question is to 1ry Io elai aie the scie~rtificnraleria1 to the geographica1
euidence. wh~cIr1s ilseIf fu~ida~ne~iIaI Io the u~iderstandingof the irarura1
prulongatiori.

AND GEOGR
GEOLOGY APHV

P~ofessorBowelr gave a very vaiuable poinler when he said :

"Now,Libya of course acceptr the view expressed both by Ihis Court

and by tIie Angio-French Arbitralion Tribuna1 that naturaI proIongaliun
I r a s its geog1.aphica1aspect." (P. 170. supro.)
 direcrion of a species of platforrn extending from and reflecting the
configuration of the Coast. In the presetit case. rt 1s - or scctns io be froni
Libya's scientific evidence (for exampIe, in Libyan Fig. 5.09 of lhe Tunisian
@ Mernoria1 which was rcproduced i i i thc foIder the Court was provided withl
(p. 186. s ~ i ~ r uit) seerns
, to be common ground thar the 250-nietre isobath
marks ihc outcr limii of ihe species of plat forni w hich Libya agrees is calleci the
Tunisian Plateau, and lhe map was provided in the folder to illustrate how it
extends from the Tunisian coasl. I t is meatiingful. Iherefor, lo trace the
relationship of different contours, because as soon as one rclates a plurality of
contours. one is taking account of three-dimensional features. One is no Ionger
working sirnpIy with ihe flat map but one has, as it ivere. a relief niodel.
Contours are meani lo be read iogether because lhev say sonicthing aboui ihe
progression from land IOsea. and the shape of ihe bed off the respective oasu.
Why shouId the Court not look at a pattern of contours, if onIy to see if it
helps ? And w h y did al1 the maps speciatIy prepared Tor the Court by L.ibya
throughout its writtcn arid oraI pleadings as illustrations, w h y did they omit a11
contours from the sea ? Bu! how can one omit a!I reference 10 the conlours of
an area if rvhat one is trying 10 d o is to avoid refashioning geography aiid Io
avoid encroachmenl on another Staie's natural prolongaiion ?

Now 1 turn to the qr~estionof eqriitable principles and relevant circurn-

stances because lhat is, as it were, the tiext in progression i i i the task of a
deliinitation.
Firsr, a word in general about the place of relevant circumstances and their
relation to the goal or a delimitation in accordance with equitable principles.
MT.Highet said (p. 223,slipra):
"This dilemma of the frontier, in our subrnission. can on1y be rasoIved
by iiilerpreling flc..jitrc.appurtenance to include consideration of reIevant
circurnsiances, togelher with physical geology, as pan of the process of
esiabIishing the conditions necessary for prscisc determination of rl</,jiii.c,
entitlement in lhat a r a . "
Do we. perhaps. hcre glimpsc a l Iast. for the first time, in the Libyan case.
the realization of the need for some bridge betwen naruraI proIongation and
equitable principIes, Ihe bridge which Tunisia has throughoul maintained must
be present in any delimitation ?
Tunisia sees no reason io resiIe from Ihe position clearly stated at the
commencement of these oraI proceedings, lhat iden ticcation of the natural
prolongation of a Siate. and ihe balancing of the equities by means of
evatuation of reIevant circumstances are successive etements in the one proccss
of deIirnitation.
The fact lhat Tunisia and Libya have offered the Court different lisis of
relevant circumstances illustraies very welI what is the meaning of equitable
principles in this coniext. It is necessary fIrs1, we wouId submit, to deierrnine
whar circumstances are relevant, and which are noi : then to decide, of the
relevant ones. which are the most important: and then to ,achieve a
delimitation giving a proper balance, whilst always rcspecting the primary
considerations, the basic ones of non-encroachrnent and not refashioning
geography. This is sureIy the meaning of equity i i i the sense of this part of the
Iaw. I t couId no! mean a subjective attempl to decide whal looks to be fair, but
a quite objective appraisa1 - rIie evaluatio~iaiid balancing of the various
aIIegedi y reIevant ci1-cumsta~ices.Of course there is iIie pain of rnaki~igsome
acruaI decisions i1-r tire end, bur tIie proces5 shouId be througlr an appraisa1 of
I-eIeva~itcircumstances and their baIa1ici11gin ta-msof an equitabIe 1-au1t.
With those pri11cipIes in m i ~ i dit wiII be useful firsl tu Iuok al Libya's Iist of
~'elevantcircumsia~rces.and then to approach Tuirissa's Iist. though t hat wiIl be
daIf with in derai1 by rny f~ciendProfessai- v11.aI1y.

In Mr. Highet's submission. reIevant circu~nstancesIiave to be considered

according to a sequelice begi~i~iing with first, he said, "tIie exa~niiiationof
ge1ieraI direction as indicated by Ille facts of pfrysical natul-a1 prolongation".
This, I take 11. is the ghost of tire "mondith" case with w111cIitIrejl began.
which seerns ~ i o w for
, practic;rI purposes, io be IillIe nrore t h a ~ a11
i eIaborate
way of maki~igt h e bare assert ion that the 11aturaIprobngatio~rIras a generaIIy
northward direciion.
But the11 Mr- HigIiet Ipp. 226 ff.. supra) answered t h e questio1-r of what are
the rekvairt circumsta~icesa s that ter rn is u~idersioodby Libya and he gave a
list of SIX. and a n u ~ n b e rseven whiclr was not quite caIIed a reIevant
circu~nsta~lce but came a i the errd of tire Iist.
They are :
1 . The Ia~idfrontie~..
2. The existence, in Libya's submission, of "a continuous sheIf area. we of
an esserrtiaIIy ho~nogeneouscharacter" (p. 226. suprtr).
3. The general co~rfiguration of the concer~iedcoasts of the Parties.
4. Tire presence of actual or pote11tiaI deIinritatiwis with third States.
5. Legislative enactrnents of each Party.
6. The existence of oilfieIds aiid weIIs.
And finally, though caIled a "specific consideration" rather than a relevant
~ i 232,
c ~ r c ~ ~ n s t a(p. c e siipru 1 :
7. Natio~iaIsecuritjr.
EacIi of these caIIs for svIne br~efcomment.

MI. Highet Ipp. 2 I 8-126, sirpru~sti-essed the significance for the d e I i m i ~ t i o n

of what he calIed "the posri~o~i and hisiory of the land bou~idary"(p. 2 19.
siipi-al. as for hirn, the frrst reIevant circu~nslancein 111s Iist .p. 226. s t i p ~ u j -
Professor Malintoppi, on the other Irand had a11-eadysaid that "ilse Iine of this
sector of the frontier, and i ~ rparticuIar rhe choice of ils ter~ninalpoinl on the
sea, was: no1 based or1 aIry naIuraI or historic foundatio~~" (pp. 75-76, s u p r ~:)
which would seern of ilself seriousIy to diminish, if not tv obliterale, ~ t cIaims
to be a reIevan! circurnstance for the delirnitatio~i of rhe corrti1ie111aIsheIf
boundary.
Furtl~er~nore.a principai evidence reIied o n by Professor MaIintoppi was a
French War Ministry note of Nove~nber 1886. He quoted this ilr exlrrrso
sta~zingwiih this :

"Before tIie occupatio~iof the Regency and up to 1 883. the maps kept
at the Ministry of W a r showed as tIie starting-poi~irof the frontier
158 CONTINENTAL SHELF

between Trrnisia and Tripolilania the fort &f Biban lakes, frorn which il
ran in a south-weslerly directiorr." {P.77, supra.)
That was the bourrdary which Libya apparenIIy feeIs was niore carrect. But
il is described as proceeding in a south-westerIy direction and if you projecc
this apparenlIy more correct boundary. it obviously wouId run north-east and
not north.
Mr. Highet would Itave the Cour1 believe that the 1 s t strelch of the Iand
f~untierwas in soIne way that was not entireiy explai~iedrelated to natural
prulongation. In fact, of course, the orrly possible relevance of tire Iand frontier
tu the task of IIiis G u r l s lhe point at which it reaches the Coast.
Nuw, incidentaIIy, t h w g h it is true that as Professor Malintoppi IoId us, the
mid-nineteenth-century maps mostly show the frontier al the pIace indicaled
by Professor Malintoppi, there is a reasori for this. It js not irrelevant in this
connection. Ir sceIns that the first cartographei- to map Ihis area in deta11 was
the Gel-manexpIorer, Dr. Barth. In 1849 he pubIished an accuunt of his rraveIs
i I I ~ ~ t r a t ebyd a rnap showing the boundary wIrer he understood il to be at the
nlouth of El-Biban. But he returned to the area and pubIished a second work
- e~itit Ied Travi4s atrd Discoverie'~Nr Norrir aird Cc~ifralAJrica, I849- 1855, in
which he desc1-ibes minutely his secorrd p u r n e y along the coasfaI area. At a
place cIearly just east of Ras Ajdir, he carne to "a sIig1rt dope which, accordirrg
tu the unanimous staternent of our guides and cornpanions, forn-is the rnagtta,
o r frontier between the two regencies". And i ~ a-footnote
i he adds :
"The poi~itis rot without importa~ice,as a great deal of dispute has
Iaken pIace about the frontier. Having o n my former journey kept close
aIo~ig the seashore, 1 have Iaid ii dowir erroneously i ~ rtIie rnap
accompanyirig the narrative o f tliat journef." (A copy ' of the reIevarrt
rext is avaiIabIe to tlre Court in the library.1,
But DI-.Barth did not publish a rnap with his second WOI-k:and it seenls that
European caflographers srnlpIy foIIowed his earIier niap witliout not icing the
correctio~r Ile had hirnself made i ~ iIris Iater txt a5 a result of his Iater
investigatio~iso n tIie spot.
Now, the study com~nissiorredby Libya frorn Mr. Jore and others at the
University of London (II, Libya~iCou1rte1- mern nu^-iaI, Ann. 6), nowhere
rnentions Dr. BartIr's WOI-kwhich is readiIy avaiIabIe in London and in The
Hague, nor indeed does it n~entionthe Br-itish Foreign Office study of the
questio~iin I 887 which is Io be found i i orre
~ of the PnbUc Record Office fiIes
not Iisted in the references given -non page 59 of that study.
Whatever Inay be the exact position of the frontier - ~reitherParty h g
dernunstrated sufficient research to justify a firm conclusiorr~- il a n by no
means be asserted that the fixing of the boundarl in I 9 1 O was arr Ottoman
capituIatio~r to Fre~rch territoria1 ainbitiorrs. The boundary defrned and
delimitd ~ I I191 O respected, at 1 s t in tIie coastal-area - and that is the une
that niatters - respected a most detailed desckiption made by a nerrtral
explorer, Dr. Barth, haif a r;entury earIier.
Norv that is a11 1 want Io say about the Iand frorrtier relevant circumsbnce of
Libya.

' Sre ir$ru. Correspondence. Wo I ZO

.-
I
 REPLY OF PROFESFOR JENNINGS

The alleged existence of a continuous sheIf has b e n much aired already and
it will be dealt with by Professor Virally and there is no need for me to
aniicipate that.

3. The " 'grneral" cotrfigt~rarioi~

of itie coasts of fhe Parfies
As a relevant circumstance this is, as 1 have tried to make clear in my
remarks so far in the Tunisian view, of great irnponance and so I want to
spend a little rime examining the Libyan view on generai configuration of the
@ coasis, epecially as il is set out in a map which was delivered to the Court in
the first foIder of maps by Libya. The map where the coast is shown in various
sections - the coast is shown in orange, green, red and blue.
I have already referred to the Tunisian view that the relationship of two
coasts as a whole is essential to the identification of a State's natural
prolongation - not merely No. 3 in a Iist of relevant circurnstances, but
wncerned with the prior fundamental question of natural prolongation.
Perhaps aware of this, Libya seems most anxious to limit consideration ro
what she caIIs "the genersiIIy east-west running coast - that is to say the
north-facing coast from roughly Ga& to somewhere wesl of Tripoji".
The extent of the Libyan part of this coast, the Libyan part of the coast that
she regards as important, is outlined in red on that Map No. 3. It is roughly
straight and iiniform, extending just over 100 kilomeires and "faces" out to
sea, no1 on a northward bearing but on a bearing of around 2E0 true.
The Libyan coast of which this is part, was described in the Libyan
Mernoria1 as having only one pronounced feature, namely - and 1 quote
again from the Libyan Memorial, paragraph 162, page 63 : the pronounced
feature was that, "it falts away to the east of Ras Ajdir in a south-easterly
direction over a distance of 125 nautical miles" which has "the effect of puIIing
back any strict equidistance line upon itself. CIearty, this operates to the
disadvantage of Libya." This is an astonishing passage. The coast, virtuaIly
straight and featureIess, does no! "put! back" an equidistance Iine, because
there is no concavity or other possibIy distorting feature. Perhaps the
subliminal message is that it would "pu11 back" a "northward thrust" Iine.
The Tunisian c o z t to be treated as a relevant circumstance in Libya's
analysis is shown on the map in green. Because of its complexity, L~byaseeks
Lo simplify it, by breaking it up into three components, the no doubt intentional
effect of which is to undermine the integrity of the Tunisian coast and thus to
refashion gMgraphy. The first part, betweeri Gabes and Ras Ajdir is said to be
"north-facing". In fact, a line from end to end would face on a bearing of
around 3Z0,that is roughly riorth-east.
But this breaking up of this part of the coast is to ignore the presence of the
important and heavily populated idand of Djerba and the even more extensive
territory to the south and West of Djerba, even ihough the entirety of this coast,
including Djerba, is outlined in green on the map. A Iine draw from Ras Ajdir
to Djerba wouId face on a bearing of around 5 8 O ZV. But Djerba was described
in the Libyan Memoriat as an "abrupt protuberance", the effect or which "is to
distort the equidistance tine even funher, by accentuating the easterIy swing of
the Iine across the front of the Libyan coast I I , Libyan Memorial, para. 164).
The fact is that Djerba, we would submit, on any reasonable view is part of
the coas!, being permanentIy Iinked to it by a causeway, and no line lhat has
pretensions to equity couId conceivably ignore it.
 270 CONTINEPITAL SHELF

The nexi chosen stretch of Tunisian coast lies between Gabes and Ras
Yonga. Although marked in green in Libya's map. it must, qccarding ro Libya,
be ignored for the purposes of delimitation. Why ? It must be ignored because
according to the Libyan RepIy this is "a right-angled coast". the two iengths of
which "nscessaril y abut on, or face the same shelf area" (IV. Libyan Repl y.
para. I 13). It is difficult to perceive the argument behind this assertion. but il is
an inreresting exercise to ask what the decision in the Nor111 Scu Coiirinetiiol
Slic.!cases WOUtd have been were this assertion welI-rounded in in ternational
Iaw.
We now p a s to t h e next stretch of the Tunisian coast.
Since its Counter-MemoriaI, Libya has been quite fIrm that the next siretch
of Tnisian Coast bel ween Ras Yonga and Ras Kapoudia is to be taken into
account. It ioo, therefore, is marked in green, and this coast has a significant
effect on what Libya caI1s its "practical method" of delimitation (IV, Libyan
RepIy, para. 1401. Now here 1 must pause to recall the three-stage deveIopmeni
of this practical method of Libya's.
In the Libyan MernoriaI, Submission 5 (1, p. 701,"the appropriate method of
delimitalion" was to reflect the alleged northward proIongation. There was no
qualification of this in the Mernorial. The boundary should be drawn due
nonh from Ras .;\jdir - although such a boundary would separate Tunisia not
only rrom substantial parts of its area of histaric rights, but also its territorial
sea and even a part or its internai waters. Now. whatever may be said in these
p r m d i n g s , this Iine was then ctearIy inlended to be more than just a general
direaion Tor the beginning of a delimitarion ; onIy six weeks after the receipt of
the Libyan Mernorial, Libya sent a diplornatic note protesting ai exploration by
ihe Doitglus Curver in the Gulf of Hammamet, several kilometres to the West of
a Iine drawn north irom Ras Ajdir. The position is iIIustrated on Maps 8.01
and 8.02 i n the Tunisian Counter-Mernorial. Na correction or reiraction of ~ h i s
note was made untiI the foIIowing year, when Libya tried to explain it away in
its pleadings.
II was the Libyan Counter-Mernorial that introduced the "veer" nonh-
eastwards north of the meridian of Ras Yonga ( I I , Libyan Counter-iMemorial,
pp. 202-2031, The result was the Iwo Iines : Line A and Line Z, which have
b e n suficiently describcd. But Line 2, the north-east I~nc,was stilI not to be
the boundary birt only the eastern Iimi~of the marginal zone stiII to be
deIirnited.
Finally, in this deveIopment, came the Libyan RepIy repealing Lines A and
2. but this time there was no marginal zone."The Libyan method would iake
account of the Tunisian SaheI area by causing any Iine of delirnitation to also
v e r to the iionheast" (IV, Libyan RepIy, para. I36k This further change of
position is said to be justified by the principle of non-encroachment. For a
footnote adds (p. 63) thar this practical melhod ovoids encroachinent even oti
the "irrelevant aspects" of which examples are given as "the GuIf of Gabes. the
Kerkennah IsIands and 50-metre isobath", although in fact the line does
@ encrpach substantially upon the 50-meire isobaih (sec Map 8.02 in the
Tunisian cou riter-Mernorial).
@ ,Looking back at the Libyan Map No. 3 in the FoIder, it,witl be nored that
thrs final stretch of concerneci Tunisian coast ornits aItogether the Kerkennah
archipeIago. There is no expIanation why these islands are treated as an
"irrelevant aspect". Perhaps it is because, according to the Libyan doctrine.
they and also their low-lide elevations are already ruIly accounted for in the
Delimitation Agreement of I97 1 between Italy alid Tuniia, which did respect
the island, its banks and the bw-tide elevariqns off it.

i
! REPLY OF PROFFSOR JENNING

WhiIe or1 the subject uf the cvasr. I wouId Iike to say just a WOI-d about the
GuIf of Gabes and tlre defI11itio11of it. and, in particular. about Ille question of
Ihe proper errtrance points of the GuIf - a natter upon wiriclr tlrere is
apparently stiIl disagreement betwee11 the Parties. TIie particular poirit I wish
ta deaI with is the reIevant;e, in t Iris regard. of saili~igdirections - 01s which
L.ibya heaviIy reiies - to this question of enira~rcepoints. And Iny concern is
wilh arr E~iglishcase whicir was cited in the Tunisian Corri-rter-Me~~ioriaI.
paragraph 5.29, and was refei-red to by my frie~idProfessor CoIIiard i ~ terms i
which cal1 for soIne eIucidation (p. 110,siipral.
TIie case of Posr Ufficc~ v. Esrritrcr Radir~( 1 967) ' is tire case in point and the
quesri011 - the substantia1 quesliun - was precisely what were the naIrrra1
e ~ r t r a ~ ipoints
ce of the T h a ~ n e Estuary.
s TIre defe~idantreIied upon The entrance
points rnentioned in Ihe Brirkh irisrrircriorr.r 10 iMuriifc31'i - the sailing
directions, the so-caIIed British "PiIot" - just as Libya sceks ta do iri relatio~ito
the GuIf of Gabes.
Professor CoiIiard, with grear respect, s e a n s to have misunderstood the
position here. It is true. as h e says. that the Postrnaster-GeneraI, wlro was
successiu1 bol11 in the coir~tof first instance and 011appeaI, had the assistance
of hydrograpliers - in fact th1.e of then1 of giml distinction gave evidence,
including the famous C o r n ~ n a ~ ~Kenned9 der whose name is weI1 k ~ i o w nto a11
students of the 1958 Confe1-ence, and aIso Cornrnarrder BeazIey wlro wiIl be
rernembe1-ed by al1 w ho participated in the A~iglo-French a~-bit1-atio~i. The
point that PI-ofessor CoIIiard appears to have ~nissedi11 his perusal of the
Report is that these distinguislied hydrographers - and their evidence \vas
preferred to the aIternative by the court - a11 said that snilii~gdirectioris are
wIioIIy irrelevant Io such an inquiry.
Perhaps. 1 might I-ead frein the judg~nentof Mr. Justice O'Connor in the
court below, where of course the evide~rcews taken - very short passages. 1
am reading irom 1967. 1 Wc.ck!i?Law Rcpurr3, at pages 855. 855 and 557.
First he said :
"kt me rurn first to conside1 as to wheiher the indentation is a bay
within tI.ie ~neaningof the Order in Council [the Order in CounciI h a v i ~ ~ g
in Tact inwrporated the tex! of tlie 1958 Conventio~i]1 ruiII firsl mrrsider
what is tIrc naluraI en11-a~ice point of the indentatio~ito the north. On this
question of the ~iaturalentrance points of t h e indentation 1 Ireirrd evidence
frorn a 11umber of wii~resses."
And the11 lie described C o m ~ n a ~ i d eBeazIey r and Iiis qualifications, and
C o ~ n n ~ a ~ Kennedy
~ d e r a ~ i dIhe d h e r Iiydrographer and we can pass quickly
over Ihat.
Then, at a Iater point. al page 857. he says Ihis :
"As I Iraile said. 1 return to the questiu~i: what is lIle northern ent1-a~ice
point ? The plai~itiffswitnesses were al1 agreed that The Naze was the
proper point io take : in particuIar Lieutenant-Com~na~ider BeazIey ,
Co~nmanderKe~r~iedy and Lieutenant-k1111nander MacKay. Lieutenant-
C o ~ ~ i m a n d BeazIey,
er who gave evide~icefirst. told me IIiat in his opiniori
the only comideraliun in dacrdi~rgwhat are the natu1-a1e ~ i t r a ~ i pointsce of
an i n d e n ~ t i w of
r the coast is tire corifiguratjon of the wast as delineated

No. 1 ?O
Scc. Nljl.tt. C~rrcspunde~rcc.
 by the Iow-wakr Iirre ;rramely, it was his opinion that o n e Iooked at the
charls and nothing else. and that one Iooked at the #nfiguration of the
coast in a two-dimensio1ia1 plane."
Arrd, furlher dvwn in the paragraph on the same page :
"He was supported in that view by the other witnesses for the plaintifi,
but in particuIar Corn~na~rder Kennedy and Lieuterrant-Commander
MacKay. He was ~iotprepared to accepf that arly other consideration
should be considered. A number of them were put tu him in cross-
exaniinatiorr, and they were considerations which the rival school, Ied by
Commander MacMillan, put forward. First of a11 atlention was drawn to
the saiiirrg directions contained in $e North Ses PiIot."
And #ver the page. at page 858 :
"Cornniander BeazIey was cross-exarnined about this, and he said that
these were directions intended for practica1 mariners, that they were IIie
recognized guide to saiIirrg directions, bu1 that the North Sea PiIoi was not
in any way concerneci with drawing baseIirres which bounded the sover-
eign territory of tlre Crown in this country." ,

4. T h i r f l - S ~DeIiir?Nalior~s
a~~ i
The next Libyan reIwant circumstan~e, No. 4 i n - the Iist given by MI..
Highet, is third-State deli~nitatiuns,which raises a question o f considerabIe
i~nportance.It is a coroIIary of the third, for Mr. HigIiet introduced it by
speaking of Ilrose parts of the coasts of the two Sfaies which, i ~ Iiis
r words, he
said "are cIearIy 1ro1 reIeGa111" (p. 227. slcpra). These a1-e soughl Io be
eIiminated by an appeaI to the praence of third %tes and the clairns of third
States, and of course by LibyaS extraordinary dmtriiie tlrat a strelch o f mat
Fan count in no inore tlran one delimitation - a sort of doctrine of exhaustion.
ReaIizing Ihat this doctrine wouId have made the N w h Srn cases irnpossibIe
because the NetherIands and Denmark had alreadjr used u p their entire coasts
oiice againsl the United Kingdom, MT.Highet subjected the doctrine to the
qualification tthat it did no1 apply to coasls "which abutted 011the same a r a of
sheIf" {p. 228, supra). But of course this, with respect, begs lhe very
question at issue here : what is the same area of sheI for thjs purpose - the
co~rsiderationof third S a l e s in relation t o a delimitation betweerr Trrnisia and
Libya ?
@ AppIying this noveI doctrine d exharrstion, Libya appropriates Trrnisia's
coast north of Ras Kapoudia (the orange coIvured coastl - appropriates this,
excIusiveIy to the agreement belween Italy and Tunisia of 1971, Libya
assurning that no other parts of the Tunisian coast were taken inlo account
incorrectIy.
On the other hand, Libya's coast east of the meridian parsing Ihrough
Lanpednsa (the H u e coast) is intended apparentIy to be used against MaIta in
the MaIta delimitation question, and for this reason.again, orle must suppose,
has likewise 10 be excluded f ~ o mthe a r a affected by this present matter.
T h e Court wiII 1-11 the detaiIed examination Iast March, in the MaIta
intervention p r a e d i n g s that was made by MT. Lauterpacht, in which he toId
ris o f the exchanges IIiat had taken place between Libya and MaIta. He
recounted the Libyan proposition of ApriI 1973, when a Libyan delegation
 REPLY OF PROFESSOR JENNI WGS i75
pp. 14 f.) and the Libyan Mernorial does iid suggest otherwise (1. Libyan
MemoriaI, para. 37. p. 1 71.
Now wIiy shouId the Libyan deiegates. who must have known of tIie
PetroIerrm Law, the regulations and The map, why sIrouId they have been so
I-etice~itabout using it to justify the cIai~ned bou~idaryif they had 1Iieri
sripposed that it was relevant ? The arrswer is io be found III tIre si~nilar
accorrnt of tIie next substantive meeting betiveen the Parlies tu discuss the
borrndaries. This was in 1372. after ove1-Iappingconcessions had ber1 grariled
by tire two Slates. Mr. Atiga, the then Direclor of Conventiorrs and LegaI
Affairs at the Ministry of Unity and Foreign Affairs and Preside~rlof the
Co~nrnissionresponsible for the negotiatiu~rof the continenla1 sheIf deIirnita-
tien between the Parties, is reported as sayirig (and here 1 am quoti~igf r o ~ n
AIInex 16 of the Trinisian Mernorial (I), at p. 35. second pa~-a.)
;

"Monsierr~-Atiga m'a dcIar que la proposition t e dli~nilatio~i faite

par- sori pays eri 1968 et consistant adopter Ia Iigne de direction nord
n'al ni constructive ni fonde. Elle s'expIique par une a b s e ~ i wiotale de
co~nprehensiondu problme a cette poque."
He weIit o n to explain that tIie Co~nrnissionhad now been co~~stiiuled and had
co~isuItedinternational speciaIisb. In consequerice of this consuItation he
proposcd a cornproInIse : if Libya were 10 abandon 11s u~~co~istructive and
unfounded Iine, it would be appropriate. he suggesred. for Tunisia to
relinquish its 4S0 t ~ - u Ii~re.
e . .

Tunisia having decIirled 10 d o so, Libya was Ieft having to prop u p its
norlhward Iine, a ~ r dIIie Iater discovery - for there was no mentiorr of tlie
petroIeu m IegkIation o r Inap ~Iiroughoutthe years of negotiation. in the record
- of the petroleum rnap and i l s northwards Iine was apparentiy Ihe onIy
support tv be found. Does Libya suppose tirat Trrnisia wouId have ignored
mention of tlre Inap in preparing is Mernorial Irad tIie niap been bruught up
during negotiations ? That. Mr. President, is Iny first comment.
i l the rnap arises frorn Ambassador EI Maghur's
~ v I ysecond c o r n ~ n c ~011
statements at page 1 2. sripra. He said : "Map No. I ItIrar is the petruIeum map,
Nu. 11 was i111ended to show internatio1ia1 boundaries, and as shawn sucIi
boundaries acquircd an officia1 status." Now.even quaIifying these remarks, as
Sir Francis VaIIai i~nrncdiateIydid (p. 41. sirprul when he spoke of the rnap
saying that "it corrId 01r1y amou111 to a cIairn to sovereign r ~ g h l sin certain
areas", even su it mrIst be supposcd tIiat this distinguished Agent's s1aternent is
signifiant.
Now,Tunisia is not aware, and i~ideed11ot coricerned, that any maritime
bou~idarieshave b e n d e h i t e c i between Libya and Egypt. But a gla~iceal that
map demonstrates that LibyaS asse~-tio~is in 1-espcctof the maritime boundaries
sIiowrr on the nlap couId prri, in due course. the questions of ddimilatio~rof a
sea boundary wiih Egypt in a very difficuIt position. The land boundary with
Egypt ends or1 the c o a t at the sorrlhern e ~ r dofan aInlmt due east facirrg stretch
of coast in the vicinity of AI Brrrdi. (The Iocalion can be confirrned uri Map No.
5 of the Libyari Memorial.~Now it would seem fronl the petrriIeurn rnap, if it
does i~ideedrepresent the Libyan view of internationa1 boundaries. it worrId
sezm that Libya offrciaIIy - to adopt the wurds of the distirrgukhed Agent -
thar Libya ofieiaIIy wnsiders lhat this east-fac~ngcoast, roughIy 35 kiiometres
Iong, nu! unIy has II# e~ilitIernenllo continenta1 sI~eIf,but in large part onIy -a
vestigia1 terri101'iaI sert. The explanation of murse is clear that it was never .-
1-aeally intended iu iIIustrale i1ilernationa1 borrndaries.
t 275 CONTINENTAL SHELF 1

5. OiI Ffefds
1 turIr now to No. 5 in the Iist of reIeva11t circ~irnsances,according to Mr.
Highet : "tIie exjsie~rceof individual productive weIIs which couId be affected
by a deIi~nitationIine" (p. 228, sulrrn). I ernphasize the word "productive"
b m u s e so far as Tunisia is aware, narre of the exploration sites driIIed by
Libyarr c~~icessionnaires and whicli migirt be affected by Ihe delimitalion Iine
propmed by Tunisia, is actually producing ail. Yet two sentences Iater Mr
Highet spoke of Tunisia's Iines which "cIearIy disrupt and amputate producing
Libyarr iristaIIations".
TIiis was o n Wednesday evening, but by Friday morning, Mr. HIghel was
speakirrg of oiI fields, by which 1 at Ieast understand the identification by
successive driIIirrgs of a total petroleuni reseruoir. Now it must be made
perfectIy CI-r tlrat the onIy fieId properIy so-caIled irr tire entire offshore area
invoIved is the Trr~iisianAshtart fieId, Iying jus1 to t h e west even oof Libya's
noflhwards 1i11e.
It ivas, of course, Libyas driliing activilies in these ai-eas, described in
Chapter 1 of the Tunisian MemoriaI, it was [Ire driIIing activities that provoked
the crises that Ied to the submission of This case to this Court. A nurnber o f oiI
wlIs pointed Io by MT.Highet, as Iyi~igto the west of tlre Iine iIIustraIing the
Trrrlisian rnethod. were the subject of specific and vigorous protesls. Yet o1he1.s
were driIIed by Libya, to Tu~iisia'sknowledge, after the SpeciaI Agreement
was signed :the irefutable criticai date.
Now,the reliance upon this I-eIevantcircurnstance by Libya is remarkabIe.
The meaning of natural proIongation has given some difficulty fo This case ;
but snreIy the one t h n g everybody is agreed about is that the continental shelf
belo~rgs~IJSOjcro and ub inirio. Is Libya reaIIy arguing that conlinenta1 shelf
rights caIi be acquired by some sort ofprior occupation ? TIiis is an astonishing ,,
contradiction i~ihererrtin Libya's case and hardly bears examination.
Li byaS inclusion o f pet roIeurn resvnrces as reIevan t circu msbnces has more
sinister echoes in the speeches of other Libyan advocates. There was tire cIear
asserlion the other dajr that il is only oiI that the Parties are reaIIy interaed in.
that lhe oiI Iies in the dder and deeper sfrata of the earh, wlrich is presumabIy
wh y the surface of the sea-bed is said tu be 1argeIy irreIevant. Furlhermore, to
support the link b e t w x n lhe GuIf of Siri, off cerrtraI Libya, and the Pelagian
BIQc~,we have been reminded o n a nurnber of occasions that tlre oiI-karing
strata sweep rvu~idin a greai cuwe off the Libyan wast, and seeni to peter out
~iortheastof Ras Ajdir. The suggestio~iseerns Io be that because Libya has mus1
of the oil already, tIie rest of it must aIso be in the Libyan 1iatura1 proIvn-
galion ;or perhaps that because Tunisia is p o o ~in oiI, il should stay that way .

Tfrat is the Ijst of reIevant circrrinstances, but the11 there is tIre qrrestion
which also mentiuned at the end of the Iist by Mr. Highet, nationaI securily ;
and it featured in the cornments of Ambassacior El Maghur when he s t r m e d
the iinpropriety of any Iine which m&ht swing in front of the IowIion of
Libya's capital city, Tripoli. facing ~iorthwards011 Io the sea tpp. 19 and 30,
supra). And it was accordingl y denorninared a "specik consideration" rat her
t h a ~ rreIevant circumstances by MT. Highet (pp. 232-233, supra).
Put Iike this, it is sureIy a distortion of the narure of a.State's righls in the
continenta1 shelf, and the significance and p m i b I e effects of the continenlai
sheIi boundary de1imit;ition.
 REPLY OF PROFE%WRJF-NNINGS 277
A Shte's rights over ils continental sheIf d l o w il simply to expIore and
exploit the rwources of the sea-kd and subsoii. They do not affect the nature
of the superjwnt waters as high seas. So that the sea beyond the limit of
territorial waters - 12 miles in the case of Libya - remains accessibte to the
vessets of ai1 nations, including foreign warships. Libya's attempt in 1973 to
define a restricted zone of airspace within a radius of 100 nautica1 miIes of
Tripoli has nothing whaiever lo do with the continental sheIf.
The possibility that nationaI security might be a relevant circumstance was
aiIowed by the Court of Arbitraiion in the AngIo-French arbitration of 1977,
but the award went an to say that such considerations
"may support and strengthen, but they cannot negaiive, an y conclusions
that are already indicated by the geographical, poIiticat and IegaI
circurnstances of the region which the Court has identified" (para. 1 88).
Mr. President, that completes my commenu on Libya's list of relevant
circumstances.

As I have mentioned already, the re!evant circurnstances on which Tunisia

reIies will k dealt with of course b Professor Viralty, but there are some
Y
generaI points I would Iike to make, i 1 may.
Tite coasts
n that in the Tunisian view the configuration of
First, it has already b ~ said
the coast of a Sute as a whole, and its morphological relationship to the sea-
bed off it, is not properly dealt with soleIy ,under the heading of relevant
circumstances, bu! is rather concerneci with the prior question of the
identification of the natural prolongation.
Certainly, geography, and that includes the configuration of coasts as a
primary element, is a Janus-Iike consideration. On the one hand, the
gwgraphy, incIuding the configuration of coasts. is a cruciaI element of the
prmess of identifying the natural proIongaiion, and identifying which parts of
the continentai sheIf beIong most naiurdIy to one or other of the States
concerned.
But on the other hand, geographical considerations, and even the exprwsion
"general configuration of the toasts", are dso used to denote one kind of
relevant consideration, for example, the effect of a particuIar geographicat
feature in relation io a particular method.
It may not always be easy to distinguish the two different aspects or
functions of geography, for, as we have seen, it often faces both ways. For
example, in the North Sea Contitirtr~aiSlre(fcases, the concavity of the three
toasts together involved was so major that il was relevant both to the question
of natural prolongation and its identification, and aiso to the effect relative to a
particular methcd, thai is to say. equidistance. But b t h aspects of geography,
it is submitted, have to be respected.

Hisioric rights
This double aspect, in relation to identification of natural prolongation and
the reIevant circumstances considered in relation to q u i t y , is also true of the
 REPLY OF PROFFSUR JENNINGS 279
granlmed conipute~-. Meanw hiIe, it is usuaI to apply a ~nethodand then if need
be adjust rhe resuItipg buundary i ~ some
i degree tu take some accvrr~ltor othw
of other corrsiderations or circumstarrces as is oflen doiie for exarnpIe with a
Iine of equidista~ice.But the point 1 waIit Io aiake is sirnpIjr this: there is
rrothing wrong i ~ using
i some ~'elevantcircnimtances as lests. r x posf .ftrcro.
r-atirer !Iran as vectors employed in the aciual constrr~ctio~i of a Iina III fact Mr.
Highet. in his discourse on Libya's relevant circumstances, realIy did precisely
this. Accordingly, tliere is notlii~igin the Ieast strange for exanipie in Tunisia's
testing its geometrical Iines by I-eferenceto its 1ratura1 Iirres. Tt is the serrsibIe
t hing to do.
The equiiable quality of any Iine of deiimitativ~iis. after ail, t o be tested by its
resuIls : it is the resuit which confers Iegitirnacy on Ihe rnethod, and not vice
versa. The quesiion is no1 the quality of the method but the equity of the resuIt.
Now, 1 have reached the stage where thss qriestio~iof I-eIevant circum-
stances, methods and so on cannd be taken mnch further untiI tlie Iask of the
Court as laid dowrr i ~ rthe Special Agreement is clarified.
 REPLY OF PROFESSOR ABI-SAAB 28 1
The same exercise is done al much greater Iength by Professor Briggs
(pp. 199-2 13, supra), and then finaIIy by Mr. Highet who, ater stating that
"The relevant circumstances to lx considered by the experts of the
Parties couid also be indicated by the Court, perhaps with some i n d i d o n
of their relative importance and weight" (p. 2 18, supra),
proceeds to the presentation of the Libyan version of the relevant
circurnstances and of their relative importance which was just discussed by
Professor Jennings.
I l can thus be concIuded on the basis of ihese express and clear slatements of
courtse1 for Libya, that it is now common ground among the Parties that the
Coun is invited by Article 1, paragraph 1, of the comproinis, not onty to
indicate the applicable iaw, but aIso to apply it to the facts of the case, at least to
the extent of identifying al1 the reIevant circumstances which characterize the
area and which have to be taken into account in the delimitation, and of
indicating their respective reIevant importance, or equitable weight in that
delimitation.
3. My next point concerns rhe third caiegory the Court js invited to take
in!^ consideration in it decision by the Iirst paragraph of Article 1 of the
comproinis, namdy "the new accepred trends in the Third Conference on the
Law of the Sea".
Here again the area of divergence between the Partia E m s to have
narrowed, and what remains of it may prove to be m m t .
Indeed, both Parties agree that if these new trends constitute new rules of
customary Iaw, they shouId be applied. But then the mention of this category
in the compronris would have added nothing to the principIes and rii1e.s of
internationai law.
Perhaps, 1 should expIain here v e r - brieny how we understand this
reference. The trends which are referred to are onIy those which are generally
"accepted" or "adniises" in the French translation, that is those over which
consensus obtains.
"This is because [as 1 explained in rny fast slatement, IV, p. 4031 these
are the soiutions which in %II probability wiI1 prevaiI with or without a
new convention on the law of the sea, as the generd consensus indicates
that they are in the procas of passing into general internationai law."
Some of these accepted trends rnay have already becorne cuslornary niIa if
they had inspired sufficient practice to be considered as such.But ctearly not aII
the provisions of the drafi convention on the Iaw of the sea can ix considered
as new accepte trends : some are not "new" in that they mereIy reiterate or
codilji existing ruIes ; others are not generally "accepted" ; and among those
which can be cuns~deredas new accepted trends, not aU would satisfy as yel
the t a t M customary iaw.
Thus each prqvision of the draft convention has to be examined individuaily
from the point of view of the sources of international Iaw to determine in
wh$h of .these categories o r sub-categories it falls.
But even if a new accepted trend does not qualify yet as a rule of customary
Iaw, it stiIl rnay have a bearing on the decision of the Court ; not as part of
applicabIe law, as both Parties agree that the reference 10 the new accepted
trends d m no1 empower the Cqurt to decide ex aeqtio ei borro; but as an
element in the interpretation of existing rules or as an indication of the
direction in which such niIw should be interpreted, in order to bridge. as far as
282 CONTINENTAL SHELF

possibIe, the gap between the existing and what in al1 probability will becorne
the fuiure Iaw.
Thus, to the exten! these new accepted trends shed new Iight on the exisiing
rules and chart the path of their future development, they can have a IegaI
significance and effct of their own.
In any case, this may prove to be a moot question, once we have identified
the trends or provisions which have a bearing on our case, and examined rhern
from the point of view of the sources of international law.
4. With my founh point 1 corne to the second question, or the second
paragraph of Article 1 of the c o ~ ~ ~ p r o n i i s .
Sir Francis ValIat would have us beIieve that the two paragraphs of Article I
of the Special Agreement contain one question and not two, simpIy because
the ciiaprair to the two paragraphs of this article requests the Coun "io render
ils judgment in the fotlowing matter" and not matters in the plural.
But, with a11 due respect, this argument confuses two completely different,
though related, concepts of international procedural law, namely "the subject
of the dispute" or "Ibbjet du diffrend" in the meaning of Article 40, paragraph
1 , of the Siatute, and Article 38, paragraph 1 , o f the RuIes of Court on the one
hand, and the questions put to the Court by the Parties in reIation 10 thal
subject, on the ot her.
T h e subject or subject-matter of the dispute, by logical necessity can onIy be
one, in any one case. For it is the basis of the unitary character of the case, and
it defines ra~iortrtrrarcriac the ~ L ' S w hich wiII be adjudicated by the-Court, or in
French, la cirose qtii sera jiig.4~~.
But if the subjezt-matter of t h e dispute is one by logical necessity, this does
not mean that ii has to be one dimensional. Far in relation t o this subject-
matter, the Parties can put to the Court one or several queslions, or requet the
Court to adjudicate one or severaI of its aspecrs ; the same as an applicant, in a
case brought before the Court by a unilateral application, can formulate a
clairn embracing one or several aspects of the subject of dispute and the
defendant in such a case can formulate a counter-cIaim in relation to the same
subject in the same case.
5. This brings me to the iifth point 1 want to make, which deals with the
meaning of the term "method" in the second question, or the second paragraph
of ArticIe 1 of the contproniis.
1 am happy to be abIe IO start this point bp agreeing with rny oId iriend Mr.
Highet ihat "words are less important than the ideas which they convey"
(p. -214, supra).
s the Court one or two ouestions is no mere semantic
That ArticIe I ~ u t ta
dispute. howiver: The purPo& of the Libyan contention that ArticIe 1 puis
only one question ta the Court is to interpret paragraph 2 of that Article in
such a restrictive manner as to empty it of mos! of its subsiarice, as I shall
expIain in a few minutes.
1 would no1 like to reiterate here in deiail the logicd, linguistic and extesnal
inference which clearly indicates that the second paragvph contains a
different, but not unreIated, proposition from the first : the fact that we have a
separate paragraph, the use of t h e adverbs "also"and "further", etc. 1 wouId
like to concentrate on the meaning and substance of the proposition.
How does the adverse Party interpret this proposition, and pa<icuIarly the
key word "method" which figures in it ? To Sir Francis and Mr. Highet it is
simpIy the praclical method of application of the principles and rutes of
international Iaw, which the Court would have indicated in pursuance of
paragraph 1, and it has nothing t o do with the method of delimitation.
 REPLY OF PROFESSOR ABI-SAAB 283
But Irere again, we have tu read the words in t h e ~ rco~itextand i o t in
isoIatioii, and tu Iaok at Ihe senlence as a whoIe, which is the onIy way to
understand Ihe IogicaI proposition or slate~nenlit is supposed 10 cvnvey.
Paragraph 2 reads a s foIIows, a ~ i d1 am using a s usria1 Ihe Libyan transIation .
"AIso, the Court is further requested tv cia1-ify the practical rnethod for
rIie applicalion of these pri~icipIesand r u I a iri tIiis specific situation, so a s
to enable the expert5 of 1I1e two countries Io deIimit these areas without
any difficulties."
The ~Iarificaliunof tlie practical rnethod wliich is requesled froni the Court
in this provision has clearly Iwo successive purposa, one intermediate and one
fina1 : the frrst is the application of the p r i n c i p k and ruIes of internaIiona1 Iaw
to IIie specific situation ; this applicatiorr is to be done nnd for ariy tIieoretica1
reason. but for a specific purpose, the specific purpose of rerrdering the actuaI
operation of deli~nitationfeasibIe wiihout any difficrrIties. That this ope1-ation is
to be undertake~rby the experls of Ifle Parti=, does not change o r effect the
close IogicaI a ~ r dcausal. Iink between the psactim1 ~riethod the Court is
supposed to cIarify and the actuai delirnita~io~~ this rnethod is supposed to
re11der feasibIe and withoul any difficuIties.
In other W ~ I - d s"method
, of de111nitation" is nothing but a convenient
shorthand lech~ricalterm for the Iorrgish and awkard plrrase "the practica1
~ ~ i e t h oofd the application of the principles and rules of iniernational Iaw to tlie
specific situation with a view to rendering rhe operation of deIirnitatiorr
feasibie".
Indeed, it is rather difficuIt to imagine wIiat other meaning caIi be attributed
to the practicaI method menliuned in ArLicIe 1, pa1-agrapIi 2, and what effect
this paragraph wouId have if it does not refer to the method of deIiniitation.
As 1 have nientio~iedeariier, it is now conlmon cause among the Parties that
paragraph 1 requests the Court not o~rlyta indicate the appIicabIe Iaw but aIso
IO identify the relevant circrimslances which characterize the area arrd Io
indicare their equitabIe weights in the deii~nitarion.
Now, if this 1s to be done wilhin the fra~neworkof paragraph 1 of Articb 1 ,
what is Iefi tto be done within tlre framework of paragraph 2 ? Or to put it
differeiltIy. what is the nexl logicaI step along the IegaI continrrrrrn which goes
f r o ~ ntlie generaI pi-i~rciplesand ruIes of international Iaw and Ieads ta the
specific line of deIi~nitatron,once we have idenrifial the pr~ndplesa ~ r druIes,
the relevant circumtances and t h e ~ requi~abIeweighls ? It is dearly the
indication of tlre ~nethodof deIirnitatio~r,which wouId refiect the equitable
baIance between ai1 iIle relevanl cil-curnstances of the area, and wI~ichwouId
thus be capable of producing a solution that takes irrto consideration, and is
cornpatibIe with, rhe require~ne~its of the generaI principles arrd rules of
internationa1 Iaw irr this specific situatio~i.
If, however, we consider al-g~r~odo that the practicaI ~nethodmentioned iri
paragraph 2 is different from the methoci of deiimifaliun. therr paragraph 2
1vou1d be compIeteIy ephemeral, adding nothing tu paragraph 1 ;with no rret
cffect, e#ej ufik o r value added at al]. Mureuver, we would be at a Ioss 10
identify what it reaIIy Ineans.
It is symptomatic in this respect thal irr spite of the valiant efforts of Mr.
Highet to disli~iguishin theory this a-caIIed PI-acticalmethod from tire rnethod
of delimitation, when it came 10 the actrraI appiicalion of tlre rnethod in
cvact-cm, he consistently co~ifusedthe Iwo and spoke exclusiveIy of rnelhods of
deIim&ition. This k n o fauIt of Mr. Highet, fur it is an impossible task t o
distinguish ssornethiig from itself.
284 COWNENTAL SHELF

In fact this so-caued distinction is relatively Few, for it has been expressly
furmulaled onIy during the oraI hearings. But if we examine the initiai
understanding of the Parties of what they meant by paragraph 2, no doubt cari.
persist as tu their intention tu refer to the melhod of deti~nitalion.
Tunjsia has aIways acted o n thal understandi~ig.But tire same is true of the
initial understandmg of Libya. This cornes out cIearIy from Iooking at the
Libyan written pIeadings. The most reveaIing in this respect js the Libyan
Memurial, as it cannot be said that it was infIuenced by, or was raponding to,
tire Tunisian pIeadings. For this is a case introduced by coriiprc~mis a ~ i dthe two
Mernorials were excharrged at the same time.
What do we End i i i Part III of tIre Libyarr Memurial which deals with this
question under the tilIe "AppIication of the Law to the Fach" ?
This part comprises two chapters : the frst, afler surnmarizing the Libyan
version of i he geoIogica~,geomorphoIogica1 and geograp hicaI feaiures of the
area. presents the Libya~iproposed method in four paragraphs under the titIe
"Land Boundary Projeciion". The firfl of these is very reIevant, and 1 ask your
forbeararrce tu read it. This is paragraph 1 15 of the Libyarr Mernoriai (1. p. 48) :
"Yet furlhkr support for a rnethod of deIimilation which refiects the
naturaI proIi3ngation northrvard of the North-African Iandmass is the fact
thal such deIimiation would represerrt a projection northward of the
termina1 point of the lerritorial Iand boundary . . ."
It then adds :
'The use of a Iine of Iongitude (or ~atitude~ drawn from the terminal
point of the Iand boundary of adjamnt States, and projeckd seaward as a
maritinle boundary, is weII estabIIshed bby Sute practice."
This is foIIowed by two paragraphs which describe the appIication of this
i s w i f i c cases. A n d the Iast paragmph -
precise method of de1in.ritatio1-i i ~Iwo
1 20 - ad& (p.5 2 ) : "It wouId be difficult tu find a morequitable process than
such a dwbly-based method of delimitation."
These paragraphs are very eIoque~itin reveaIing Libya's understanding of
Ihe method as o method of deIimitatiorr. And for being slrort, they 11vnet11eIess
describe the method with great precision, Io the degrez and to the minute,
which Indes it readiIy appIicabIe or rather SeIf-execuling if il were ex
. hypofhesi accepted by the Parties or designateci by the Court.
The fact that this methud is sin~pIistic,and thus simple lo describe, d m riof
~nakeit Iess pre~isethan other ~nethodswhich may be more eIaborately
constructed in. order to take a11 the reIwant circuinstances into account.
The second and longesr chapkr of t he same Par1 1II of the Li byarr Mernorial
is entitIed "Application VT the Equidistanse Methud wouId be inequitable and
inappropriate". It deals, as its titIe indicates, with the quidistance method,
which 1 hope nobody will contes1 that il is a "dehmitatlon method".
And the Submissio~isof the Mernoria1 repeat the same exercise. Out of 12
Submissions, n o Iess thari six deaI with methods of delimilation.
In bolh the above-mentioned chapters of the Libyan Mernarial, the process
or d e ~ ~ a r c hise Ihe same. Libya starts by stating what it considers as the
relevant circurnstanws and indicata their relative equitabIe weight as it sees i l
in one case,or refutes the reIevance and i r n p o r i a n ~of certain circumstanxs in
the other. Then, in a s a u n d stage, it draws a positive or a negative conclusion
on the method of delimitation to be foIIowed, and dwcribes that which it
proposes with great preision.
Now, whiIe we mnsider that the appIication .by Libya of this process or
 REPLY OF PROFESSOR ABI-SAAB 285
deinarche is erroneous, we consider the process or deniarche itself as the right
one,the one which the compromis requests the Couri to follow by identifying
a11 the reIevant circurnstances and t11eir equitable weights, and o n that basis,
the method of delimitation to be foIIowed.
This is the initial Libyan understanding of what is meant by practical
method in the co~npromis,as revealed by ils o w n Mernorial, an understanding
which coincides with that of Tunisia and which thus conslituta the initiai
common intention of the Parties to the Special Agreement. This understanding
was corroborated by the MernoriAs of the Parties, which constitute a clear
application of the principle of subsequent practice as a principle of inter-
pretation of treaties.
It is too late in the game now to try to alter, uniIateraIIy and retroactively this
common intention and understanding and go back on what was so cIearIy
agreed upon in the compromis.
6 . This brings me to my sixth and last point, which deals with some of the
criticisms addressed by the adverse Party ta this interpretation.
Both Sir Francis VaIIat, and Mr. Highet after him, repeated tirne and again
that if .the Coun choom the method of delimitation, this would in effect be
tantamount to. its drawing the line itself, and would be contrary Io the basic
principle of deIirnitation by agreement.
But bath these assertions, with ail-due respect, are wrong. In the frrst place,
the indication of the method of delimitation is not at al1 the equivdent of
encting the delimitation itseIf; providing the instrument or the means is
different rrom its use to achieve the end, though it is a necessary prerequisite
for it.
Indeed, as I said in my first presentation, once the Court would have
indicated the applicable law, identilied the relevant circumstances and their
equitable w e i g h ~and indicated the rnethod of deIimibtion, in other words,
once it would have resolved the outstanding substantive IegaI issues between
the Parties, the experts of the Partjes will be stiIl Ieft with a substantiai though
technicat task. For if the method of delimitation determines the range within
which the delimitation line must lie, the actuai path of this line has io be
determined by the experts themselves, according to what is technially feasible
and by relating it concretely to the physical characteristics and Iandrnarks of
the area. They thus undertakt the last step in the p r o c m of successive
approximations along the continuum going from the general principles and
rules and leading to the concrete line of delimitation. II is in this sense that they
would apply the principles and rules indicated by the Courl, which constitute
the starting point of t h continuum, in the process of constructing the Iine of
delimitation, which is its terminal point, in pursuance of Article 2 of the
Special Agreement.
This is no mean task, for it marks the attainment of the end of the whole
exercise. Still, Mr. Mighet considers that this role is "minimal", and exdaims :
"And how this squares with the fundamentai concept that deIirnitation should
be by agreement is beyond us" (p. 2 1 6, supra). But he cannot reatly mean that.
For what does the principle of deIimitation by agreement reaily mean ? I!
means basicaIly that delimitation shouId not be by unilateral act, by fait
accompfi and the like ; in other words, t ha! i! has to be based o n the consent of
the interested panie. It dms not and cannot mean, however, that the only
admissible procedure in this field is direct negotiations, and that every step in
the process of delimitation and every detail of an operatbn of delimitalion can
be underlaken or settled excIusiveIy by negotiations. The absurdity of such a
proposition is so maniiest as to need no elaboration. Yet the adverse Party
286 COhTINENTAL SHELF

consistently cultivates this confusion between "delirniklion by agreement" and

"delimitation by negotiation", and tries to convey the impression that it is, even
in its erroneous version of "delimitation by negotiation". an absolute principie
of iniernationaI Iaw. Do counsel for Libya want to Say that this so-calIed
principIe of "delimitation by negotiation" has jus cogciis character ? Does this
mean that the Parties cannot by agreement entrust a third party, such as an
independent expert commission, or an international judicial o r arbitral organ,
with the task of delimitaiion ? And does this m a n then that the decision of the
AngIo-French arbitra1 iribunaI of 1977 is nuII and void because the Special
Agreement which created it contravenes a ,jirs cogc.iis ruIe ? To put these
qustions is itself a sufficient answer.
Another variation o n the theme of negotiation is the curious argument
advanced by Ambassador EI Maghur (pp. 6-7. sttpru). aIIeging that no
"real negotiations" took place between the Parties before signing the coili-
promis, and that consequently they should take place after the judgment of t he
Court.
This argument aims at restricting the rote of the Court under the cot?iprutrris,
with a view to Ieaving the subslantive issues to be settled by the Parties
through direct negotiarions in the post-adjudicative phase.
Now, this aIlegation is sirnply wrong. The Tunisian Memorial (1, Chap. 1
and Anns. 8-24) and Counter-Memortai 111, Chap. 1, pp. 20-22, sec. 2) have
amply shown that from 1968 to 1977, nurnerous meetings and exchanges
have taken place in which the positions of the Panies as regards the question of
delimitation were defined and certain proposais were made ; some on the part
oTunisia in a spirit of conciliation and weII below its legal entitlernen t ; but a!
one point it becarne ctear that these negotialions and exchanges had reached a
deadIock ; and they were not facilitated by the poIicy of fui~s accon~plis
followed by Libya.
It was in these conditions, and thanks to the good offices of the Secretary-
GeneraI of the Arab bague, that the Parties reached agreement on the
coinpot?ris.
In other words, negotiations Look pIace. they did not succeed in bringing i h e
Parties to agree on a substanrive solution ro the d~spute,but they did, hawever.
agrce on the reference of the substantive legal part of the dispute to rhe Court.
In fact, the Special Agreement - of which 1 have the honotir of presenring the
Tunisian interpretation before you - is itseif an application of the principle of
delimitalion by agreement in the present case.
And even if no "real negotiations" had taken place before, which is not true
in the case at hand, this would have rio incidence on the interpretation of thc
roIe of the Coun under rhe Special Agreement. Indeed, rhe Parties couId have
even asked the Court 10 effect the deiirnilation itself, which they did not. No
argument can thus be drawn from the state of prior negotiations to impose a
restrictive interpretation on the coirtproi?iis which empties il of i& substance
and prevents the Court from undenaking the full lask which is enrrusted to it
by Ihis canrpronris.
Such a use or abuse of the principIe of delimitaiion by agreement, especially
in the erroneous version of delimitation by negotiation, as an argument
favouring a restrictive interpretation of the jurisdictionat title, is nothing but a
new version. or rather a revivaI, of that oId and discredited so-caIIed principIe
of interpretation in favour of sovereignty . And 1 need say no more.
Finally, the adverse Party has invoked once again Article 3 of the Special
Agreement in order to justify its restrictive interpretation. This article concerns
the post-adjudicative phase and deaIs w ith a hypothesis which we hope wiII
 REPLY OF PROFESSOR ABI-SAAB 287
nui arise. 1 only wanl to add trvo remarks to what 1 said i ~ iIny earIier
state~nenton this subject.
In the first pIace, Mr. HigheI stiII conlends that "what might happen in the
co~itextof Article 3 of the Special Agree~ne~rr in this case does ~ i o depend
t on
the use of ArticIe 50 of the Statute", before adding "if tlre Parties Iiad inrended
Io rely on Aflicle 60, they wo111d not have needed to incIude A~iicle3"Ip. 218.
suprul. In uther- words, he argues thar if w e consider Article 3 as a rnere
appIicatlon ofArticIe 60 of the S~atute,it wonId be ephemera1, witlrout aIry
effect of its o w ~ r .
But if rve read the article carefuiIy. we find that this is not the case Indeed,
Ariicle 3 compIerne~iIsArlicIe 60 by providirrg certain details which du not
figure in that articIe 01.in tIre corresponding Articles 98 and IO0 of the Rules :
it specifies, foi-exa~npIe,the period of three rno~ithsafter the judgment, beyond
which, failing agree~ne~lt, the Panies shaII go back ro the Corr~t; lhough il
mereIy reiterates the obIigatory character of the judgment of the Court.
My s w ~ i dren~ark in reIatlon io Article 3 is addr-as& to a Inore
fundamental aspect of the matter. It concerns the cornpatibiIitjr of the Libyan
interpretatio~irvitIi rhe judicial funtjon of the &un.
Indeed, tlre SpeciaI Agreement brouglil a contentious case before tlre Court.
in which the Cour1 is aked to decide tIie questions put tu it by a jrrdg~nent
which is fina[ on the subiect-matter and obligatory for the Parties. Tt is very
direrent in nature and effect from pmvisioiia1, interim or interlocutury
judgmenls w hich d a 1 onIy with procedurai matte13and Ineasures. The finaIity
of the judgment applies tu tlre Cour1 a s welI. Indeed, tlre Court ilseIf cannot
examine again the sanle subject-rnatter Iirr the present c a x the deIi~nitationof
the co1itinenta1sheIfl which is rrsjtcdicara betweerr the Parties and vis--vis tIre
Court, except in the case of the two unforeseen co~iti~igencies 1 mentioned
before, ~iarnelyreuisio~iand i~iterpretation.
If, Iiowever, afte1- giving ils judgment. the Cou1.t has ro examine and
c e again irr wharever form on Ihe Inatter of continenta1 sheIf
p r o ~ r o u ~ ~itseIf
deli~nitationbetween Libya and Tunisia, ,within Ilie fra~neworkof the same
questions pur tu it by the cuinyruii~is,and outside t Ire hy pot h a i s of rev isiori o r
inlerpretatiun, then this necessariIy mearrs that its first judgment o n the same
natter and between the same Parties 3s no more a rcs jrtdicrrrrr.
A n y additional pronounte~ne~lls which concern the saine three identities.
11arneIy : {al the same subject- natter of dispute ;6!1) the sanre questions pu1 to
the Court (01..i ~cases r brought by ni1ate1-a1appIication, the same clairns of the
parties) ; and WtIie same parties ;a n y a d d i t i o ~ ~prunouncenlenis
d by t h e c o u r t
can onIy be irr terms of interpretatrorr o r revision of the frrstjrrdgment. OrrIy if
orre of the three identities change -11 there be a new and separare judgment.
For exampIe, irr the present case. if the Parties. by a Iiew agreement, request
the Cour1 - fhey are the same Pairies, on the sanle subject-matter or dispure
of continental shelf deIimitarion, but if tIiey request from !he Court so~riething
different which is to effect the deIimitatiw itseIf, the11the Court can give a new
jndg~ne~it :and in thiscase il caIr d o that because one of tIie three identities has
cha~rged,which is the qrrestiorr o r the daim. But barri11g rhis. there is no
possibility of a new and separare judgment on the saIne matter belween the
saIne parties o n the saIne questiom o r daims.
Moreover, the iriterpretation which a n be 1-ques1edfronl the C o u n witlri~i
the frainework of ArticIe 60 of the Slatute, is rrot aIi additioi~atinterpretation of
tlie eleinents of Iaw arrd facts constituting the case : for it is of the essence for
the firraIity of the judgmerit and the respecl alrd autlrorily Io which ir is entitled.
that IRe Court decides the issues befvre it tu the fuIIest exte111possibIe. in the
288 CUNTINENTAL SHELF

Iight of as definitive and exhaustive an examination of the avaiIabIe and

foresemble eIemenls of Iaw and fact as possible at the lime of the deIivery of
judgment. The interprelation which can be reguated frorn the Court is of
what it has already said in ils o w n judgment. It is riot and cannot be another
i~istalrnentby the C o u n of its handling of, or deaiing with. the merits of the
case ; it is a ~Iarificationo r a n explanation of whal it had aiready said iri its
judgmen~and which was Iater diverseIy understood by the Parties.
This is a far cry from Libya's inlerpretation of the role of the Court under
ArficIe 3 of the SpeciaI Agreement, which wouId involve tire Court on a rather
continuous basis in the process of negolialions betweerr the Parties, and which
wouId Iead to its increasing involvernent and intervention in this p r m . I l s
roIe wouId no1 be too dissimilar 10 thal of a conciIiaiion commission which
wouid make some ge1rera1 recomrnendations to IIie Parties, but if they prove
not to be sufficie~itIo induce agreement, [Ire cornmissiun wouId make other
proposais perhaps Inore specific, but aIso perhaps a Iittfe different f r o n ~the first
ones. with a view Io bringing the Parties nearer tu agreement.
This, 1 respecifuIIy submit, js completely incompatible with the concept of
judiciai frrnction, whose fvrniuIation and safeguard is one of the towering
achievements of this Court arrd of its predecessor. the Permarrent Court of
Interrratiunal Jusfice. The Court is here t6 render judgment, and tv do so in as
exhaustive and definitive a Inarrner as humanly possibb. And the thmry of
judgment by instalmenis, whuse onIy purpose is 10 prevent the Court from
doing just that, does not withsiand even the sIigIitest Iegai scrutiny.
This concludes the poirrb 1 wanted Io make about the interpreiatio~iof the
SpeciaI Agreemenr and the r01e luith which it ortrlrsts the Court.
'
The ACTING PRESIDENT : In its wrirten RepIy the Governrnent of
Tnnisia announced the irrtention of showing to the Court during the oral
prcimzdings a f i m on the Iow-tide elevations of the GuIf of Gabes. O n 24
Septernber 198 1 the Corrrt decided that before the frIm was shown in the
Cou1-t the representatives of Libya should be afforded the opporturrity of
stndying a copy of it. Accordingly. a copy of this fiIm was, on 19 Seplember
'
198 1, supplied by tire Agent of Tunisia to the Registrar, and was the same
d a y deIivered by the Registrar on Ioan to the Agent of Libya. However, o n
exa~niningthe fdm, the Agent of Libya informed Ihe Couri by Ietter of 8
October 1981 ' that for the r a s o n s given in- that Ietter, he did not find il
necessary to object to the fdm being shbwn to the Court.
The Agent of Tunisia has suggested that tomorrow mvrning wouId be a
mnvenie111occasiorr to show the fdm. The Court has decided to sit al 9.30 am.
tornorruw, Wednesday, 14 October 1981. tv see the fi11n. The represeniatives
of both Parlies are invited to k present. The public silti~igwiII open with
Professur Dupuy's statenient as previously annoynced at 1O am., irnmediateIy
after the showing of the fiIrn.

' IV, p. 30.

l P.542.
'See iiifra, Correspondence, No. 1 17
.
' SBe ilrfrn Correspondence. No. 109.
 TW E W - S I X T H SITTING (INCAMERAI ( 14 X 8 1.9.30 a.m.1

The ACTING PRESIDENT : The Court mees this morning in closed sitting
in order to see the film on The Turtisiaii Stielfaild rhe Gtilfqf Gahrs :rite Low-
ride Elevariot~s,which Tunisia wishes to show to the Court. 1 note the presence
in Court of the representativa of both Parties, and 1 invite the Agent of Tunisia
to project his film.
lasritrg 22 rnilrures, wus prqjec~rd.wirh a cottlnrei rrurs iii EiigiisI~hy
(Th~fiilln.
Mr. Lazreg.)

The ACTING PRESIDENT : I thank the Agent of Tunisia for showing the
fitm to the Court and decIare this sitiing adjourned. The Court will reconvene
in .public sitting in ten minutes' time to hear the further argument of the
representatives of Tu nisia.
The Coirrr rose ar 9.55 a . n ~ .
 V~NGT-SEPTICME AUDIENCE PUBLIQUE ( 14 X 8 1, 10 h I 5)

Prkseitrs : [voir audience d u 29 IX 8 1 .]

CONSEIL DU GoUVERNEMEhT DE LA TUNISIE

M. DUPUY : Monsieur le Prsident, Messieurs de la Cour, l'expose qui me

vaut le grand honneur de paratre a nouveau a celte barre ne ponera que s u r
Ies points qu'il nous parait essentiel de rfuter parmi les assenions de nos
contradicteurs.
A cet gard nous devons, en exergue, b r t e r une fois pour toutes de ce
dbai, ou elle n'a que faire, la tenktive libyenne de remettre en question Ia
frontire terrestre entre Ies deux pays.
Nous ne relverons pas I'humour saris doute involontaire d'un conseiI de la
Libye q u i , lors de sa plaidoirie, voulait laisser accroire que la Tunisie avait,
dans ses crits, accorde beaucoup d'importance a la question de la liontire
terrestre.
Cette question n'a jamais t aborde par nous qu'en termes de rfulations
factueIles des dveloppements inaugures par la Libye dans son mmoire.
L'esseniieI de notre position a cet gard tient dans trois paragraphes, nos 1 -02,
1 .O3 et 1.04, de notre contre-mmoire, dont I'ensemble fait moins d'une page.
Le reste est rejet en annexe au contre-mmoire et a la rplique. La question de
['histoire de la frontire terrestre n'est d'aucune incidence dans la prsente
affaire. La frontire a t dliniite par la convention du 19 mai 19 1 0 (mmoire
tunisien, annexe 94, 1, p. 436). Cette conyention est regulierement enrre en
vigueur. Elle n'a jamais t denbncee. La frontire ainsi dlimite a t
confirme par les gouvernements successifs de Ia Libye indpendante, soit
explicitement, dans te traite d'amiti et de bon voisinage du I O aot t 955 ( I I ,
contre-mmoire tunisien, annexe 11-21, soit implicitemeril par le trait de
fraternit et de bon voisinage conclu le 7 janvier 1957 entre Ie Royaume de
Tunisie et le Royaume de Libye (mmoire tunisien, annexe 92, 1, p. 4311,
complt par la convention d'tablissement du 14 juin 196 1 (annexe 93, 1,
p. 4j3).
La Cour internationale de Justice n'tant pas saisie en revision pour juger
des prtendues injustices de l'histoire, la frontire terrestre et son point
d'aboutissement sur Ia d e est u n fait dont il faut prendre acte, sans autre
considration.
Cette mise au point tant effectue, venons-en au fond du dbat. b r s de la
phase orale, la Partie adverse a dclaie qu'u a propos de Ia prsente affaire,
s'agissant de la dlimitation du plateau continental, les droits historiques sont
d'un faible secours i>(ci-dessus, p. 144). I I est assez tonnant de lire cette
dclaration car cette affrmation premptoire intehient au terme de plaidoiries
s'talant sur prs de neuf heures.
En dfinitive, queIIe est vritabIernent la place qu'iI faut accorder aux titres
historiques dans la prsente affaire ? II convient en effet de ne pas se tromper,
de ne pas cder aux confusions dans lesqueIIes la Partie adverse tente
d'entraier Ia Cour. Le dbat SUI- les titres historiques doit tre d'abord
nettement circonscrit. Orr ne saurait faire croire qu'en dfendant ws titres
historiques Ia Turrisie dfe~iden ~'alitun proIongement naturel qui se
confv~idraitavec Ia zone sur IaqueIIe ces titres sont 1mp1arrts. Tout
speciaIeme~riorr Iie saurait tenter de faire croil-eque cette affaire se rduit un
chWx mpIicite offert Ia Cour entre Ia Iigne nord-est 4 5 O et une Iigne de 20, 2 1
ou 2 6 O dont Ies conseiIs de la Libye ne parviennent pas a dissimuIw Ie charme
qu'elIe exerce sur eux.
Co~nrnenous Savons dit a pIusieurs reprises, les titres hisloriques ont une
va1eu1-drnonslrative a Iegard du proIongement rrature1, Inais ceIIe-ci Ire
s'applique q u a nIle parlie initiale de ce pru1vngement.
Cst dire qu'o~ine saurait imaginer que ce prolongement rratrr~'eIpuisse se
Iirniter vei-sIe Iarge Ia Iigne de I'isobathe des 50 mtres, ri la Iirnile IateraIe
de 4s0 rrord-est.
Porirquoi aiors insistons-nous sur ces titres auxqueIs Iim adversaires ont
consacre tant de lernps. beaucoup pIus de temps que nous, I~iaIenlent?
Cest parce q~l'eux, comme nous, savent bien Ieur valeur. Ces titres
apportent Ia preuve vivante, Ie trno~griageIiu~naindu fait que Ia zone sur
IaqrreIIe ils sont irnpIants fait, en Ivut tat de cause. parlie du prdongement
rraturel de Ia Tunisie.
Et c'est ici Ie Iieu de rappeIer cornrnerrt se pose le probI11iedes rappom
entre Ia thorie des titres historiques. d'une paIt, et ceIIe du pIateau co1irine1ila1,
d'autre part (IV, p. 4753.
UII fait est ici essentiel, qui semble avoir chappe a la Partie adverse, c'est
que Ies titres Iiistoriques de Io Tunisie porle~rtsur des pcIieries sde~itaires, ce
qui veut dire qu'a I'origine ces droits hstoriques sorrt apparus a i r Ie fond.
tes titres procdenr du fond et c'est PI-ogressivernentqu'iIs 0111~nergeau
Iong de Ia colonne dau jusqua Ia surfase. AIors, Ies droits de p k h e sur Ies
eaux sont venus dvubIer les droits origiriaires sur Ie forid. Or, Ie fond, c'est Ie
plateau.
I I y a donc eu u ~ p~.oIorige~nent
i 1iature1des activits humaines qui se sont
exerces natrrreIIement sur Ie proIongement physique de Ia Tunisie. LRs
pkheries sdentaires tu~iisierr~ies sont portes par Ie sotie qui constitue le
plateau continental.
Et nous devorrs ici faire une obe~vatio~i fo~~da~ne~~taIe.
I I ne faut pas nous faire dire ce que nous rr'avo~isjamais dit. Nous ne
prlendons pas et ~iousn'avo~~s jamais prtendu que notre pl-~Iorrgement
nature1 est juridiqueme111issu de ces activits humaines. 11- ne sv~rtpas
corrstitrriives de Iim droit sur Ie proIongement naturel, elIes apparaissent
comme une superstructure humaine reposant sur urre ~-aIit physique. Ce ne
son1 pas Ies pkheries qui crknt Ie proIongement rrature1, c'est au contraire Ie
proIongement nature1 qui, du fait de la configuration physique de la zone, a
permis IxpIoiiation des pcheries sdentaires.
Cst ceIa que nous avons appel Ia f ~ n ~ t i odmonstrative
n des titres
historiques (IV, p. 475-479), dans nos prcidentes intervenlions cette barre.
Nous ~i'avo~is jamais conteste que Ies droits de I'Etat riverain sur son plateau
wntine1ria1 s'exerent ab iiriliu. Nous avons cit i11tgraIernent Ie para-
graphe 19 de votre dcision de 1969. Nous avons tout aussi bien rappeI que
ces droits de I'Etat riverain n'ont pas besoin d'etre exercs pour exister. Nous
n:avons non pIus jarnais prte~iduque Ie pIateau wntinenb1 de la Tunisie a t
acquis par dIe au murs des sicles. II est vident que ce plateau nous a t
donn par Ia nature comme tous les autres EtaB du nlonde qui ont un
eaux historiques de la Tunisie d'une part, et les titres historiques de p k h e sur
Ies bancs d'ponges d'autre part. La Tunisie a apport cet gard toutes Ies
prcisions ncessaires dans les paragraphes 1.18 a t . 3 t de son contre-mmoire
(II), dont nous rappeIIerons ici les points essentiels (fig. 1 .O 1).
Les Iignes de base droites de la Tunisie rattachent aux eaux intrieures
I'ensernble de la zone maritime qui couvre les p k h e r i a fixes. Elles opirent ce
rattachement en application directe des rgIes dfinies par la Cour internatio-
nale de Justice dans I'affaire des Pcheries norvgiennes de 1951. Ainsi que
l'indiquait alors votre Cour :
<( La vraie question que pose le choix du trac des lignes de bases est, en

effet, de savoir si certaines tendues de mer situes en de+ sont

sufisamment lies au domaine terrestre pour tre soumises au rgime d s
eaux intrieures. (C.I.J. Recueil 1951, p. 1 33.)
Dans le cas des eaux recouvrant les pkheries fixes tunisiennes, Ia rponse a
cette quation ne prsente aucune diflicu!te et ne peut erre qu'affirmative. Ainsi
que 1% d'ailleurs objectivement rappel Ie doyen ColIiard (ci-dessus, p. 1 14 et
suiv.)a Ia suite de nos critures et de nos pIaidoiries, les pcheries fixes ont fait
l'objet, depuis des temps trs recuIs, d'un rgime d'appropriation foncire
organise par ['autorit publique, rgime que le protectorat voudra ensuite
transcrire selon les rgles de la domanialit publique franaise. Nous avons au
demeurant suffrsamrnent &rit la quasi-identit que les populations riveraines
on1 toujours iablie entre la te-re emergtk et cette zone de p k h e s fixes faible-
ment irnmergk, pour qu'on nous pargne ici de riouveau une dmonstration.
La Cour se souviendra aussi que, depuis des temps immmoriaux, c'est de ces
pcheries sdentaires que ces populations ont tire le moyen d'une subsistance
que Ieur refusait l'ingratitude de la rgion lerrestre attenante (cf. 1 , mmoire
tunisien, par. 4.20 a 4.45 et 4.48 4.68).
I I s'agit bien II des <( intrts conomiques propres a Ia rgion considre, et
dont la ralir et l'importance sont cIairenient attestks par un long usage . Ces
intrts dont Ia Cour indiquait en 195 1 que la prise en considration justifie le
trac des ligna de base. Si, comme nous ['avons dit, t'affaire actuelle ne se
rduit pas entirement par eIIe-mme a I'affaire de 1951 (IV. p. 461 1, en
revanche, cette affaire de 195 1 est tout a fait pertinente en ce qui concerne Ies
critres dtablissemeni des Iignes de base. D'aiIIetirs l'accord de dlirnita!ion du
plateau continental entre la Tunisie et I'ItaIie avait, deux ans auparavant, en
1 97 1-, t tabli partir de la limite extrieure des hauts-fonds tunisiens.
L'intimit du lien physique, conomique et humain existant entre cette
rgion maritime et le domaine terrestre se vrifie sur l'ensemble de la zone des
hauts-fonds, tant autour des iles Kerkennah que dans la rgion d'El Biban et
dans le golfe de Ga&. ferm par une Iigne de base droite, dont on voit ma1
comment la Libye pourrait la contester alors qu'elle-mme a ferm Ie goIfe de
Syrte sur une longueur six fois plus grande, le long du parallle 3Z0 30' en
spculant sur des droits historiques dont l'existence avait jusque-la chapp a la
totalit de la communaut internationale.
Confronte ces lignes de base tunisiennes, la Libye n'a-jamais protest
jusqu' 1979,c'st-l-dire postrieurement a Ia <( date critique )r de la signature
du compromis sur la base duquel la Cour sige aujourd'hui.
Quant l'obligation qui incombait la Tunisie de pubIier des cartes a grande
echeIle de ses lignes de base, c'est i tort que notre adversaire nous fait grief de
ne pas les avoir publies. D'ailleurs ces caries, les voici ! (Dossier. no 1021.) '
Non reproduites. Voir ci-apres, correspondance, no 122
 294 PLATEAU CONTINE~TAL

Pour en finir sur ce point, Ia Tunisie, Ioin de nier l'existence des deux
catgories de pkheries dans la zone des titres, attache, au contrain. une grande
importance a cette distinction. Sur les p&heries fixes s'tendent des eaux
historiques, c'est-a-dire comme l'a dit la Cour en 1 95 1 . des eaux que I'on peut
assimiler a des eaux intrieures. Au-del, sur Ies pcheries d'ponge, jusqu'a
I'isobathe des 50 mtres, la Tunisie possede des titres historiques. q u i , d'abord
et avant [out appuy sur Ie fond. s'erendent a Ia coIonne d'eau surjacente.
Mais, et c'est la que I'on retrouve l'unit du systme, les droits souverains de la
Tunisie s'exercent tout aussi bien sur la seconde que sur Ia premire zone. Cela
veut dire que sur I'une comme sur I'auire la Tunisie a exerce des pouvoirs de
rglementation, des comptences fiscales, j u d i c i a i r ~et pnales. I I est vident
que l'existence des titres historiques ainsi dtenus srir I'une et sirr I'autre zone
ne saurait tre davantage discute. I I est vident aussi que cette existence est
totaIement indpendante de la deIirnitation de 1 904.
Ji convient de souligner ce dernier poini. Jusqu'a celle date, jusqu'en 1904, il
existait des criteres en fonction desquels on apprciait l'tendue de la zone des
titres. Ces criteres n'ont jamais varie pour w qui concerne les limites des
pkheries fixes. parce qu'un pieu ou une palme ne peuvent tre fiches dans Ie
sol au-del d'une profond-r de 3 mtres.
Pour ies ponges, le critre retenu primitivement tait eImentaire. L'article
premier du dkret beylical du 16 juin 1 892 dispose encore a cette poque : r( La
p k h e des ponge et des pouIpes est libre sur toute l'tendue des bancs
tunisiens aux conditions et charges ci-apres nonces. i>
Le texte n'en dit pas plus. Et ce qu'11 faut voir. c'est que cela suffisait
l'poque, en raison des lechniques d'exploiration alors utilises. Les techniques
cependant, a parrir de Ia fin du XIXe sicIe, von1 voluer. Certaines d'entre
eIIes, comme l'utilisation de Ia gangave, sont particulirement prjridiciables a
la gestion rationnelle d s espces.
Or, ce sont des pcheurs trangers, grecs et italiens. qui recourent a ces
techniques nouveIIes. et c'est pour se proteger de leurs incursions que
l'instruction de 1904 va procder a une oprarion dc bornage-
La raction tunisienne d'auroprotection prfigure ainsi celIe qui, sur irne
chelle infiniment pIus vaste, sera, soixaiitc-dix ans plus tard, l'origine de la
mer patrimoniale et de la zone conomique exclusive qui est ne eIle aussi de ce
besoin d'autoprotection.
Une dlimitation ptus prcise apparaissait celte poque ncessaire aussi
bien pour les tiers que pour les Tunisiens. Le souverain territorial avaic en effet
institue une nouveIIe rglementation et il faIlait savoir quel t a ~ exactement
t
son champ d'application.
Un incident apparait cet gard rvlateur : c'esi celui que provoqua en
@ I 899 l~rraisonnementdu voilier italien Lcqizicr, pchant P 14 milles des hauts.
fonds tunisiens, en deE des fonds de 50 mtres.
A p r k avoir, dans un premier temps, contest la lgalit de la saisie, I'JtaIie
accepta un an pIus tard de reconnatre Ia IegaIitc des droits historiques en vertu
desqueIs I'autorit tunisienne avait arraisonn son navire. rMais I'llalie
demandait que Ia zone soit dlimite de manire pIus prcise.
Ainsi, il est faux de dire, a I'inskar de la Partie advcrse. que la reconnaissance
des titres tait subordonne a Ieur dlimitation. Les deux questions ont
toujours t distingues dans le passe.
C'a1 exactemenr l'inverse qui etaii en train de se produire. C'est parce qu'iIs
reconnaissaient quc la Tun~sie,possedaitdes titres historiques sur ses hauts-
fonds et ses bancs, que les Etats tiers avaient aussi besoin de savoir a partir de
queltes limites ils pntraient sur leur aire
 Ma15c'est ici que reapparat aIors I'objectiw de Ia Libye qui PI-tendque
notre deIimilatiorr rr'a jamais I recvIiIiue.
Noris abordons ici Ie second poinr de cet expose.

11. LA DELIMITATION A EEWEFICIE DE LA TOLERANCE INTERNATIONALE

Dans Ie cadre de celte analyse de Ia dlirniutio~~ rnoderne des litres

Irisloriques, je voudrais br~wrnentrappeler a la Cour que. Iurs de la p1aidoii.i~
du 18 septembre der~iier, rious avions bien disti~igue,d'une part. Ia
reconnaissance pa1- Ies Etats tiers de I'existe~icedes titres tunisiens en eux-
rnmes. et. duti-e part, I'acceptation ou. suivant Ies cas. la tolrance de Ia
dlimiiatiorr for1neI1ede Ia zone.
La Cour sait bien notamnlent que Ies mutations successives d u rgime
dxpIoitatio~ides ponges [out au Iong du X I X Cside, ~nutationsque Ie doyen
CoIIiard a diligem~nentI-appeIesdwant vous. I'aut1-ejour. ont t effectries en
liaison troite avec les ca13suIsdes puissa~icestra~lgres.IesqueIs n'o~itjarnais
remis en cause Ia ~nanifestationde souverainei de I'ai~toritetunisienne qu'elles
exprimaient.
Cons3c1-ons-nousdo~icrnairrtenant a Iattitude des puissances tierces i i
I'ega1-d des Iimites fixees par I'i11st1-irctionde 1904. Cette attitude tair. suivant
Ies Elats, tributaire de I'utiIisatiori que Ies uns et Ies autresetaient appeIs faire
de la rgion marilinle eIr question
Ainsi. le Royaurne-Uni. grande puissance mai-itime par excelle~ice,tait-iI
d'abord irilresse au 1nai1iIien de Id I~bertde la navigalion i~~ternationale.
Celle-ci n'bit pas remise en cause par Ies Iimites de 1904, qui ne s'intressaient
qu'a I'expIoitatio~rdes fo~idset la pche. Ia Grande-BI-etagnenkpposa donc
pas de rticence- Pas pIus dqaiIIeurs,el cela mrite d'are riotk, quIIe n'iiilervi~it
pwr Ia dfense d a intrts des pcheurs maltais reIeva~irde sa co~npte~ice.
encoice que ces picheurs expIoilassent des ressousces du forrd.
La Grce, qui s'intressait eIIe aussi, on I'a vu. cette expioitation. ne
proiesu pas davantage.
II I-esteI'IlaIie. sur laquelle la Partie adverse a Ielle~ne~ir que Ibn se
~nsis~
serait parfois pris a pemer que Ie Iitige qui vous est aujor~rd'liuisoumis n a
ja~naisconcerne que tes rapports mitre I'ItaIie et Ia France.
Nous repre~ldrolrspourIant Ixarnen de sa position, puisque Iabondance
des pIaidoiries adverses a ce propos nous en fail obIigation. mais en ~lous
lena~itici aux points essentieIs du dossier, tant pour ce qui concerrre la Iimite de
I'isobaiIre des 50 mtres que celIe de Ia Iigne IalraIe Z V 45O.
En ce qui co~icerneIa premiere. I'acquiesce~nentde I'Italie Ia Iimite de
l'isobathe des 50 mtres 11.a pu tre dmentie par la Part~eIibyenne.
La Libye n'a pu occnIler ce fait cardirra1 : Ies hsitalions ita11e111res et Ia
fern~etedes autorits f~-anco-tunisiennes qui rr'ont jamais admis la contre-
proposilion itaIienne d'une profondeur de 30 mtres. IaqrreIIe constituait dj,
noto~is-le,paI-eIIe-n~nieune I'KUII ~raissanmde la wne des titres. Cette contre-
pi-#position ne fut d'aiiieurs pas maintenue par Ie Gouvernemeilt de Rorne.
@ $'incident de I'Uiri<irrret du Turiiiu, invoqu par Ia Parlie adverse. tourne en
reaIite a sa #II frision.
L'examen de cet incident rapporti I'annexe 1-I 5 de la I-epIiqueIibyenne
{IV)dmontre en effd trois poi~its:
1 . Aussi blen dans son tlgramme au r&ident gnral que dans sa Iettre a
I'ambassadeur de France a Rome, le ministre fr-anaisdes affaires trangres
reIve que cet i~icidentsrrrvenu en septembre 19I O esl Ie premier par Iequel le
295 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

Gouvernement itaIien conreste Ia possessiorr paisibIe runisienne et Ie droit du

protectorat a rgIementer la pclie e1.t dehors de Ia mer territoriale de la Tunisie.
2. k Gouvernement itaIien forrde sa contestation sur Ie fait qu'ii n'a pas
sign de trait fo~rneI.Mais la lecrure de son aide-mmoire ~norrtrequ'il ne va
par jrrsqu'i soutenir qu'iI 11.a pas jusque-15 donn une reconnaissance tacite,
c'est I'expression qu'iI utiIise lui-mme. aux actes urriIatraux de Ia Tu~iisie.
Aussi bien il n'affrrne pas ne pas avoir accorde cet acquiescement tacile et se
rrouve conduit seuIement nier qu'urie reconnaissance puisse mettre des
obIigations internationales Ia charge de I'Etal qui Ia accorde.
Or iI est bien vident que celle lhse est contiaire au d r ~ i t. Irt pratique e?
Ia doctrine inlernatio~iaux.
D'aiIIeurs le Gouver~iementitaIien n'a pas maintenu One position aussi faibIe
du point de vue juridique.
3. Au demeurant la trs ferme attitude de la France devait egaIemerr1 inciter
Ie Gouver~rementde Rome 8 modifier son altitudeet reconnaitre Ies droits de
Ia Tunisie dans Ies notes verbaIes du I O juin et du 23 septembre 191 1. On
observera en particulier que, daris Ia seconde de ces notes. SIlaIie s'engageait
ne pIus solwer Ia quqtion de principe de Ia Iibert de Ia pche en dehors des
eaux IerritoriaIes de Ia Rgence. De fait, ds lesiannes vingt, eile s'abstient de
protester contre I'isobathe des 50 mtres.
Orr reIvera notamment la dcIarationl du ministre itaIien des affaires
etrarrgres Sforza, devarrt Ie parlemenf italien en 1948. telle qnleIIe est
produite dans Ies Arri parlarnwrrcrri, qui sont videmment des docurnenfs
offcieIs dont Ia m1Iection se trouve ici mme Ia bibIiothque du paIais de Ia
Paix.
Rependant 5 u ~ dpute
i qui derna~idaitdes'c1aircissernents sur Ia saisie,
dans Ies eaux de pche tunisiennes, de quarante bateaux de pche ilaIiens, Ie
ministre Sforza fit une declaratio~r rnanifestanl qu'en I'occurrence si Ie
Gouvernemerrt italien n'avait oppose aucune protestation a regard de cette
saisie, c'est parce qu'il reconnaissait Ia Igalite internationaIe des eaux
turijsien~~es a I'intrieur desqueIIes elle avait eu lieu.
Cette IgaIii concernait d'aJIeurs toul aussi bien la ligne IatraIe de
dkIimitai~onet j'aborde ainsi Iattitude ifaIienne I'gard de Ia Iirnite nord-est
4s'.
Cette queslion a beaucoup reterrrr I'atte~iliqn de Ia Partie adverse. qui
cherchait a co~nbattre'Iffirmalion que nous aviorrs faite er que nous
formuIo~isa nouveau.
A cet gard, le conseiI de Ia partie adverse qui a traite de ce probime a
dcIare en exergue ces propos que Shisrorieri esl I t prophte du pass. Je
crains que qua111a Iui il en ait t pIutbt le romancier. Certes, I'histo~re
~ornanceest u n genre Iittraire non ngligeabIe et fort plaisant Iorsque,
a m m e ce fut Ie cas, il est men avec talent, mais I'agr~nentqu'on y rrouve
rkuIte des Iibefls que l'auteur prend avec Ies vne~nentset notamment Ia
chronobgie. MIas, Ie juriste est moins kiab.de.Souffrez, Monsieur Ie Prkide~it.
qu'iI revienne a I'histoire des historierrs, ce qui veut dire qu'iI passe de
l'imagination Ia raIite.
Li ralit, eIIe. sxprirne ainsi, I'ltaIie n'a jamais, depuis I904, oppos de
proteslation for~neIIe I'gard de Ia Iigne Ialraie de dliminatio~iZV 45'. Iigne
que Ia Tunisie a, quant a eIIe toujours naint tenue. A propos de celte Iigne
Z V 4s0.qu'il me soit permis d'ouvrir une pare~itIised'une relle i~nporbnce.
Cette Iigne ns1 pas Ie fruit de Irbitraire du directeur des travaux pubIis.
' Ci-aprs p. 438.
I
 EIle est, au contraire, la manifestation du souci du prorectorat de conserver a
la Tunisie la possession des bancs de Faroua qui se prolongent a I'&t de Ras
Ajdir.
L'appartenance de ces bancs Ia Rgence est note par Servonnet et Lafitte
dans leur ouvrage sur le golfe de Ga& pubIie en I 888, c'est--dire seize ans
avant 1904, et dans [quel on Iit, a Ia page 259 : <( Le Gouvernement tunisien
ne saurait abandonner sans compromettre une situation acquise ses droits sur
la possession du banc de la Faroua. )>
Cette parenthse tant ferme, nous distinguerons trois phases dans l'attitude
dc 1'Italic a I%garddc la ligne ZV 4S0 :
- cellequivade I 9 0 4 i 1913,
- celle qui w u p e l'entre-deux-guerres,
- enfin la priode qui va de Ia seconde guerre mondiale a nos jours.

L 'ariiiudr iialierrize li 1 Fgard de iu ligtie itord -c~sr4S0 daiis la priode 1904- 19 11

D'aprs un conseil de la Partie Iibyenne, l'attitude de l'Italie par rapport la
Iigne nord-est tablie en 1904 ne saurait tre prise en ~ n s i d e r a t i o navant le
29 septembre 191 1 , date de l'occupation italienne de la Libye (ci-dessus
p. 851. Cette affirmation est dnue de tout fondement.
L'Italie avait en eet un doubIe intrt a la dlimitation latrale effectue en
1904 par la Tunisie.
En premier lieu. il tait tr& important pour Ies picheurs itaIiens, donc pour
tes autorits itatiennes eltes-mmes, de a v o i r o se terminait la zone de pche
tunisienne et ou commenait la zone de pche de la Tripolitaine. Et cela, parce
que la Tunisie exigeait des pcheurs une patente pour pcher dans la zone
tunisienne des titres historiques, et que l'Empire ottoman soumettait la p k h e a
une autre taxe pour p k h e r dans les eaux territoriales tripoIitaines. II importait
donc de savoir o se terminaient Ies eaux d'un pays et ou commenaient ceIIes
de l'autre, afin de ne pas payer de taxes deux fois.
En second lieu, I'Iralie pouvait avoir un intert minent a contester la ligne
nord-est. Elle aurait trouv avantageux certainement de rclamer a sa place
une tigne moins incline vers l'est, et si une telle ligne moins incIink vers I'est
avait t adopte, une Iarge tendue de mer (comprise entre cette ligne et celle
de 4 5 O nord-est, aIlant jusqu'a l'isobathe des 30 o u des 50 mtres tout aussi
bien) aurait t considre pour une faibIe partie comme eaux territoriales de
l'Empire ottoman (figure ci-aprs p. 298) et, pour le reste, comme une zone de
haute mer. Ainsi, un redressement ventuel de la tigne latrale en faveur de
t'Empire ottoman aurait-il permis aux pcheurs italiens de ne pas avoir payer
de iaxes dans cette zone. Voyons aIors comment les autorits italiennes ont
ragi a I'instruction de 1904. A ce propos, iI faut retenir deux incidents : ceIui
du Torino et de I'Unioile de I 9 10, encore, et c e h i des trois sacoleves grecques et
italiennes, elles aussi arraisonnes par la France [a mme anne.
Sur ce quoi iI nous faut, a propos de la premire de ces affaires,insister, c'est
que l'Italie devant la fermet des positions franaises ne s'opposa nuIlement [a
limite latrale de Ia zone des titres historiques. En effet, elle aurait eu pourtant
la une occasion exceIlente de le faire. Mais si elle n'mit aucune objection ce
sujet, c'est tout simplement parce,que eIIe avait dj tacitement accepte la ligne
nord-est.
Examinons maintenant l'affaire des sacoIeves.
298 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL
REPLIQUE DE M. RENE-JEAN VUPUY 239
300 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

t'incident setait produit Ie 8 novembre 1916, 18 1ni1Iesdans Ie nord 20

est de Ras Ajdir, d w c sur Ia Iigne qui d'aprh Ia Partie adverse constituerait la
frontire IatraIe entre Ies deux pays (ci-dessus q. 45).
Vous vorrd1-ezbien noter, Monsieur Ie Prsident, que I'ltaIie et Ia Grce ne
protesterent pas contre cet arraisonnement : I'IlaIie et Ia Grce se bornrent
a soIIiciter Ia clmence des aulorits tunisiennes. Que
0 -
nous dise111Ies docu-
me~its?
La dpkhe du rsidenl gnra1 de France au ministre des affaires trangeres
du 1 5 mai 1 9 I i dclare :
la saisie ... n'a sonIev aucune protestatibn de principe de la part des
aulorils co~isulairesintressees. Les consuls gnraux de Grce et d'Iialie
a Tunis se sont borns a solIiciter I'appiicaiion d'une mesure de bien-
veiIIance err invoquant la bonne foi de leurs nalionaux el la proxi~nitd a
eaux tripolitairies dans IaquelIes ces derniers croyaient p&Irer.
Satisfaction a kt donne celte requk. ii (IV, p. 254, rplique Ii-
byerrrie, annexe 1- 1 5.1 I

La note pour le directeur gnra1 des travaux pubIics du 12 fvrier 1914

prcise mme que Ies consuls gnraux heIInigu et itaIien Iie discutaient pas
la IgaIi~de Ia capture i1 IrpIique Iibyen~ie,arrrrexe 1-27).
En coni~ne~itant ce dernier document, Ie conseil de Ia Libye a affirine que
jusqu'en 1 9 14 la seule teniative d'assurer Ie r e s p ~d'une
t Iigne prtendument
dja affirme se ternii~ia,seIon Son expression, par un reirair stratgique
tunisien et se soida donc pratiquement par un chec Ici-dessusp. 85X
Le moins que l'on puisse dire de cette affirnialion, c'est qu'eIIe est
surprenante. Ce qui se passa en raIit, c'est'que les autorits des pays
inleresss, c'est--dire la Grce et 1'Italie, ne protestrent pas parce qu'eIIes
enimrent que I'arraisonnement tait parfaitemejt Igitime. Comment, donc,
peut-011parler de retrait stratgique i > ou dechec ?
(<

U n aurre pisode, trs proclle dans Ie temps des vnements qui prcdent, a
t expIoit par Ia Partie adverse : iI s'agit d u bIocus des coies de Ia Libye
dclar par I'ItaIie, Ie 9 septembre 191 1. Daprs le wnseiI de Ia Partie libyenne,
cette dc1a1-atiorrserait la demonstration kIatante de I'inexistence de Ia Iigne
2x1 4s0,puisque le bIocus mconnaissait cette Iigne, el que les aulorits Inni-
siemes s'&aient pourtant abstenna de prolesler wnlre celte ma'onnaissanca
Celk thse est Ia fois furrde sur une extrapoIation fantaisiste et sur une
soIlicitationdes faits qrr'il appartierrdra Ia Cour de juger (figure ci-dasus p. 299).
Lisons tout dabord Ie texte de Ia dcIaration de bIocus ;
A partir du 29 coura~itIe IitloraI de Ia Tripolihirie et de Ia Cyrk-
naique, setendant de la frontire tunjsieiine jusqu'a la fro~ilirede
I'Egypte, avec ses ports, havres, rades, criques, etc., conipris entre les
degrs 1 I ,32 et 27,54 de Iongitude orientale de Greenwich, sera tenu e r ~
tat de bIocus e r s t i f par Ies forces navaIes du Royaume. >>
Trois observations i cet gard ; I

Premirement, Ie conseil de la Libye 1ie voit un sens dans cette dcIaration

que si Ies deux points quTeIIeindique se prolongent Ie Iong de Ieurs meridiens
respectifs Icildessus p. 87). Pour lui, c'est Ia seule manire d'e~lvisager,je cik
encore, le R proIongement raisonmbIe et rationnel sur la mer des points
terminaux du IittoraI bioque .
Mais pourquoi Ies prolonger ces poirrts, et pourquoi Ies' prolonger vers Ie
nord ? Rien, dans Ie IikIIe du lexte, n'inciine 4 une terle operation. II parie de
 points, dfinis par des degrks de Iongitude, mais non de longitudes elles-rnrnes
qui, eIIes, sont des lignes.
Ce blocus est cenes effectui: par des navires, mais il vise exclusivement Ie
littoral, (i avec ses ports, havres, rades et criques . Conformment au droit du
blocus d'ailleurs. Ainsi que l'admet tout aussi bien ce conseil. il es! effectu. par
des tinitbs qui, je le cite a nouveau, (( devraient se tenir tout prs de Ia cbte)>.

Par consquent, nul n'tait besoin pour eltes de s'gailler vers Ie nord. En
restant sur les cetes, ces navires demeuraient sous la ligne des 45'. Ne songeant
pas, a ce moment, p a ~ i ra la pche aux ponges, ces navires de guerre
n'avaient nullement a se proccuper d'une ligne de delimitation que, depuis
1904, leurs autorits n'avaient toujours pas conteste.
Deuximemept, et par voie de conshuence. s'il avait vraiment falIu
dIimiter Ia zone de blacus vers le Iarge, pourquoi choisir ta Iigne nord
totalement nouvelle, puisqu'a cette poque Ia marine royaIe italienne n e
connaissait pas encore l'irrsistible pousse vers le nord du proIongement
naturel libyen ? Ei pourquoi meconnajtre la Iigne nord-est de 4 5 O . IaqueIle,
encore une fois, n'avaii pas Et constat& depuis 1904 et n e nuisait en rien a
l'efficacit du bIocus italien ?
Troisimement, le conseil prcite a essaye de tirer argument du silence des
autorit& du protectorat, en l'opposant a la protestation angIo-gyptienne
contre la limite orientde de la zone bloque - protatation qui a t suivie par
une rectification de la position exacte de la ironiire entre la Cyrnaque et
1'Egypie. Et iI conclut :
<< Les voisins du ct est de Ia Libye s'levrent sans deIai contre une
dclaration de btocus qu'its considraient comme exorbitante. ... Et Ies
voisins du cote ouest ? Rien signaler sur le front occidental. ii (Ci-dessus
p. 88).
Eh bien ! il se trouve que nous, nous avons quelque chose a signaler. C'es1
que, ainsi que vous l'indique cette carte (voir ci-dessus p. 2991, si les angIo-
gyptiens ont proteste, iIs avaient quelques raisons de le faire. La Iimite
orientale du blgcus italien mconnaissait totalement leur frontire, puisqu'eIIe
mordait leur littoral sur plus de 2 O 43'- soit 300 kiIometres environ.
Devant un tel empieiemeni, il eUt cte surprenant qu'ils demeurassent muets.
Or, de l'autre cbt, Ia franiire tuniso-itaIienne tait parfaitement respecte, et
on ne voit donc pas pourquoi Ie protectorat aurait caIqu son attitude sur celle
de 1'Egypte par un mirnbtisrne inexplicabIe.
Continuons cet inventaire des faits rputes pertinents par la Partie adverse
pour suggerer a la Cour que la France ne maintenait Das ses revendications
juqu'h la Iigne ZV 4S0.
Dans la pkriocle qui couvre les a n n k 19 13 et 1914. la Partie Iibyenne. Iors
de sa pIaidoirie, n'a pas hsite a bousculer la chronologie pour accrditer l'ide
d'un siIence franais face a Ia proposition italienne d'une dlimitation IatraIe
fonde sur une ligne de nord-nord-est 2 2 O , silence que nos adversaires ont
vouIu faire passer pour un retrait des revendications franaises quant la
zv 45".
Or ce silence n'a jamais exisi. Ceci apparat bien si l'on restaure Ia
chronoIogie exacte des vknernents et des ractions auxquelles iIs ont donne
lieu du c6tk franpis. 11 y a eu trois moments successifs.
- En 19 1 3, se situe l'affaire de t'Orfco, torpilleur italien qui arraisonnait
trois bateaux de pche grecs porteurs de paienies tunisiennes, a proximit de la
@ Iigne 45O nord-est (rplique libyenne, carte 1). La raciion franqise a cette prise
l REPLIQUE DE M. REN~?JEAN DIJPUY

C'est a peu PI-sii cette poque que smorce Ia seco~~de plinse que je vous
avais a~~~ionce. Monsieur le Prsident, Messieurs de Ia Cour, quant
I'kvoIu~iondes rapporls italo-runisiens propos de la Iigne de delimilatro~i
I IatraIe.
Cette seconde phase alleint son poi~itcul~nina~it avec Ies instructions
italierr~iesde 19 19. reprises en 1931. sur Ia pche dans les eaux de Ia
TripoIitai~~e et de Ia Cyrenaque. Ces instrrictions fure~~l dictees par Ia fer~nete
des autorites frarraises et le dkir conscutif de I'ItaIie de trouver ce qu'elle
appeIait U I I ~ soIulion provisoire i1, el de co~npro~nis. Son but principal elait
dcviier dcq frictio~lset d a contestzlinns avec SOI? voisin. Les i~istruciionsde
I919et de 193I.apr&avoir retenu unedeIimitat~o~ie~itre Ia Libyeet IaTunisie
et suivant une ligne orient& approxirnative~ne~ll vers le nord-nord-est
slipuIaient qu'iI y aurait une zone lampon d'e~rviro~i 8 1nil1es~narinsface la
cbre Ras Ajdir-Ras Makabez. dv~icdu cOt de Ia Tripolitaiiie. ce que Ie conseil
de la Libye n'a pas juge utiIe de porter la connaissance de Ia Cour. Dans celte
@ o n e - -, qui est indique s u r Ia ca~-le- . Ies bateaux batlairi paviIIon tranger.
s 11scta~e~rt de~nun~s de Iaulorisation dlivre paI- I'adrni~~islrarioir iraliei~ne,ne
deva~e~it pas tre saisis, mais Eloignk?. sauf dans des cas exceptio~ir~eIs.
Or. si l'un, regarde de prs IOtendue de cette srone tampon. el qrr'on Ia
coinpare avec la ZV 4 5'. 011 co~islateque Ia zone eIi quest101-rreco~rvrait
presque toute l'aire de la mer adjace~ite2 la Iigrre ZV 45'. Seul un petit triangle
1,entrait dans les eaux au-dela de la zone. supposer ~ n ~ n qu'il
c exisdt elant
donni: I'irnp~-&~sio~r de Ia Iigne italienne
II est cIair que, dans Ie sorici dcviter des co~iffits avec Ia - r u ~ i ~ sI'ItaIie
~ e . avail
attribue la wne reveridique par son voisin u n caractre speciaI, u11caradre
diikrent de ceIrri des eaux srir IesqueIIes les arirorirks itaIie~rnese~itendaie~~l
exercer Ia plenitude de leur souverai~ietk.Dans cette zone, Ies navires itaIiens
ne pouvaient sqiresr~-e~- les bateaux de p k h e trangers.
On peur Jirer de Ia rkzct~orrde Ia Fra~iceface a la CI-kationde e t l e zoIre
tampon rine concIusio~ievidente : l'Italie prend acte de ce que Ia Tunisie. les
autorites franco-ru~iis~enrres ~intendaientpas renoncer i Ia lig~ieZV 45'
proclainee en 1904. ,
Celte zone tampon nait. en.d'aurres terrnes, de la conjo~ict~on de Ia ier~nete
tunisienne et de Ittitude co~iciliat~-ice, mais aussi qrreIque peu hes~lante,de
I'11aIic.
Bref, la creatio~ide Ia zone rampmi confirme 5 la fuis que Ia Tunisie ne
s'eIoig~tepas de son altitude de naint tien de la Iigne ZY 45" et que I'ItaIie ~it:
cci~ilestepas for~neIIeinentcette Z V 45'.
. Ce compromis incertain. mais frrictueux puisque 1iu1incident ile se produii
aIors, survivra jusqr~'ante1- ne de Ia seconde grierre mondiale.

Et rrous eIr 21-rivonsainsi Ia troisieme pliase qui s'ouvre au dbr~tdes

a1i1i5aci~rgua~ite et se poursuit jusqu'a nus jou~s.Elle ne co~~cer~ie a vrai dire
pius seuie~ne~it l'Italie. qui n'est plris puissa~rceterritoriale. eIi TripoIitai~le.
mais aussi Ia Libye. Et cst d'abord l'attitude de cette dernire que ~rous
0bserve1-onsavant de revenir sur l'incidence des acco1-ds de pklie tunisu-
italiens.
1 . DR le dkcrel du 25 iuillel 1951. la Tunisie confirrna~tIa Iig~ieZV 4 F . LA
Libye nbpposa aucurre prorasta~ion.
 I

PIATEAU CCP-TIWEMAL

2. En m ~ n erernps. Ia Libye s'abstint d'ddicter dIe-mme des mesures

IegisIatives pouvant entrer en contradiction avec Ia Iigne ZV 4S0.
3. rksuItatr arixqueIs o n aboutit sur Ia base de I'examen de I'attitude
tunisienne et Iibyenne en Ia marire s o ~ i co~ifir~ncs
l par les accords de pche.
Permettez-moi de marrter brieverne111sur clracun de ces 11-oispoints.

Le dcret beylia1 du 26 juiIIet 1951 n'apportait Ia IcgisIation turrisierr~re

prcdente qu'u~ieseuIe in~iovalion,a vrai dire importante : iI excluait de Ia
zone eIi question. que 1.011 appeIait daiIIeurs zone de p k h e I-serveei ) , tous
Ies pcheurs qui r-l'taient ni Trr~iisiens,ni F-ncais. Ainsi la dCIirnitation de
1951 , eIi rais011 mme de ses consquences negalives s u r Ia pche ktrangre,
non franaise. n e pouvait rnarrquer d'affecter directe~nentIes autres Elals.
En particu11er Ia Libye. qui Ctait ~narrifesternentcorrcer~iepar ce dcret : eIi
effet du tunisien de Ia Iigne nord-est issue d Ras Ajdir, les Libye~isne
pouvaient pIus pcher Si donc Ia Libye avait vouIu revendiquer les droits SUI-
Ia portiori co~npriseentre Ia Iig~ie nord-nord-es1 et Ia ZV 4 5 O . c'etait Ia
1nei1Ieure occasion de 1e.faire. Or pourta~it.eIIe !ie protesta pas, et eIIe ne
protesta pas davantage dans Ies annees srrivantes, Iorsque la consolidatio~rde
son independance Iui donna pourtant Ies moyens de defendre eIle-mme sas
interils au niveau internariona1.
La Libye ne proresta pas non pIus contre la Ioi tinisienne de 1953 qui, de ce
point de vue. confirmait les dispositions du dcret de juiIIet 195 1. EIIe n'avait
pas protest davanlage co~itreIa Ioi de 1962. dont la seule I-aison pour IaqeIIe
Ia Tunisie ne I'a pas cite daris ses crits est qu'eIIe Iie p~-&err!e qu'u~itat
transitoire et trS bref de sa IegisIation dans ce domaine. Nolons cependant qrte
cette Ioi de 1962. en affectant toure Ia zone des titres historiques a Ia mer
territoriaIe de Ia Tunisie, n'avait fait que se conformer aux observatioiis
formuIees par Ie professeur Franois dans son rapport a Ia Commission drr
droit internationa1.
On sait que Ton 1-evi11t des I'a11ni.e suivante sur celte Ioi. et pIus tard Ia
Tunisie promuIgua la Ioi no 73-49 du 2 aot 1973 portant deIimitation des
eaux territor~aIes.EIIe I-eprodrrisait teIIe quelle Ia dispositio~ide Ia loi de 1963
corrcernanl la deIirnitation de Ia zone de p k h e r6servi.e. Cetle loi fut .notifik
e s Ies ambassadeurs accredites a
offcieIIement par les autorits t u n i s i e ~ r ~ ~ Ious
Tunis, et eIIe fut notifik tout spciaIement E I'arnbassadenr de Libye. Cette fois
encore Ia Libye s'abstint de proteste1-. No11 pas parce que pIusieurs mois plus
tard 15pIiEmre dclaralion de Djerba invitera Ies deux Etais a I'unification,
mais parce que, pas pIus entre aot 1973 et janvier 1974 (date de cette
d 4 a r a l i o n ) quaprs. eIIe ne pouvail s'estimer Isie par Ies nouveIIes
dispositio~istunisie~i~res. I

Alors que Ia IgisIalion tunisienne rappeIait la frontire ~ n a i n t e ~ i entre

n e les
deux pays, la IGgisIat ion libyenne ne conlient en revanche aucune dispositio11
formeIIe a cet gard. Quand a la Ioi pEtroIirc et au, reglement de 1955. rrous
avons d@ demonlre dans nos Gcritures comnle dans nos plaidoiries que ces
textes n'ont pas pour objet Ia dfinition de Ia fra~itirernaritin~e.
 Monsieur le President, Messieurs les membres de la Cour. je reprends mes
expIications qui portaient, vous vous rappelez, sur les mesures libyennes et jn
tais parvenu a u n examen de Ia dcision de 1960 qui est la premiere par
IaquelIe la Libye dlimitait sa zone de Whe.
La decision de 1960, il est vrai Ephmere, faisait quant a elle partir Ia
delimitaiion latrale de la zone de pche plus de 18 kilomtres l'est du point
frontire de Ras Ajdir dans une direction nord-est, ce qui constituait une
reconnaissance de Ia ligne tunisienne. La dcision de 1 96 1 qui lui succida prit
bien Ras Ajdir comme point de repre littoral de la zone de pche, mais ne
prjuge pas de la Iigne ZV 4 5 O . En effet, son paragraphe premier n'tablit pas
une ligne en direction de Ia mer, Iorsqu'il indique que la pche des eponges es1
consentie aux pcheurs locaux cr a parrir de Ras Ajdir, au degre 1 I o 34' 30" de
longitude est jusqu'aux quais de ZIeiton Ia dmarcation des longitudes
14' 34' 00" est et des eaux adjacentes i>.
Ainsi qu'il apparat aisment mme aux cartographa Ies moins avertis, le
paragraphe en question se borne a fixer un point, situ sur le IittoraI a Ras
Ajdir, sans indiquer aucune ligne de projection de ce point vers le large.
On voit donc cIairement tout I'arbitraire des constructions de la Partie
adverse, consistant porter sur Ia carie no 14 du contre-mmoire Iibyen des
lignes orientks plein nord.
En ralit, la dirision de 1 96 1 a expressment voulu s'abstenir d'aborder Ia
question de Ia frontire maritime ruriiso-libyenne. La raison en es1 vidente : Ia
Libye avait dia accep~Ia tigne ZV 4 5 O du fait de ses silences antkrieurs.

Une autre preuve irrfutable de I'accepration libyenne de Ia ligne ZV 4S0 est

apporte par ces trois accords que je viens de mentionner.
Les trois accords stipulent expressment :
11 que I'ltalie reconnait la ligne Z V 45' ;
2) que dans Ia zone des droits historiqus, la pche est rserve et donc que
Ies pcheurs italiens ne peuvent y pcher ;
3) qu'enfrn dans cette zone ces m e m a pcheurs ont seuIement le <( droit de
passage inoffensif, c'est--dire Ies filets retirs el Ieurs panneaux bord i i .
En 'outre, iI ressort dairement du contexte des accords que les autorits
tunisiennes ont ainsi u n droit de surveitIance de la zone et prcisment, non
seuIement un droit de visite sur Ies bateaux de pche italiens. mais a u a i un
droit exclusif de (( constatation des infractions i i .
De l'examen de ces trois accords, on dduit donc que I'ltalie assumait, a
l'intrieur de la zone dfinie IateraIement par Ia Iigne ZV 45', l'obligation
d'interdire a ses pcheurs de pcher et cetIe de faire respecter certaines
modaIitcs a ses pcheurs iraliens Iorsqu'ils traversaient cette zone maritime.
En mme temps, les accords reconnaissaient la Tunisie des droits
souverains sur la portion de mer en question.
QueIle es! la valeur de cetle rEgIementation pour Ia Libye ? Le problme qui
se pose est ceIui de I'incidence sur la Libye d'une rglementation inierna!ionaIe
entre deux autres Etats concernant une zone maritime sur laqueile elle affirme
aujourd'hui avoir les mmw droits que ceux au nom desquels la Tunisie avait
p a s + ces ,accords.
En concluant de telles conventions, la Tunisie quant a elle faisait usage d'une
comptence - ~erritorialea l'gard de la zone maritime borde par Ia Iigne
ZV 4 5 O , que son voisin Iibyen ne songea d'aiIIeurs pas Iui contester.
306 PLATEAU CONTINEN~AI.

Sans,doute ces accords constituaient-ils p o u r la Libye une rcs N1ir.i- ulio:

uciu. Pourtant, et c'est ce qui est important, iIs mettaient directemeni en cause
l'emplacement de la frontire maritime enire eIIe-mme et la Tunisie. I I ne
s'agissait donc pas d'accords quelconques. mais de traits prken tan! un intrt
fondamenta1 pour Ia Libye. Celle-ci ne pouvait en mconnaitre I'existence,
puisque par ailIcurs iIs furent reguIirement pu bIics aux journaux oficiels des
deux contraciants. Ils sont de plus demeures en vigueur et iIs ont t appliqus
effectivement pendant seize ans.
Les autorits tunisiennes ont exerc Ies droits prvus par ces accords mme
dans Ia zone aujourd'hui contestce, sans souIever aucune proteslaiion de la part
de Ia Libye. Ceci est prouvi., entre autres, par un cas d'arraisonnement qui
atteste que les autorits tunisiennes exerqaient effectivement les pouvoirs
prvus par les accords italo-tunisiens (sans que la Libye s'y oppost) (voir le cas
du Muria Algcri, IV, rkpIique tunisienne, annexe 7-11).
Ainsi, au terme de lxamen de ces trois phases successives de I'attitude
italienne et libyenne a {'gard de Ia fronriere IatraIe. on peut conclure, des
donnes de fait et de droit qui vous ont t soumises, a l'acceptation de la ligne
ZV 4S0 par les Etats Ies plus directement concernes.
Et cst encore Ie moment. Monsieur Ie Prsident, Messieurs de Ia Cour, si
vous le permettez de se remcmorer ces propos de CharIes De Vischer dans son
ouvrage relatif aux elTectivitEs du droit international pubIic (Paris, Pedone,
1967, p. 51):
<( Le droit internationa1 requiert non un acquiescement positif des Etats

&rangers mais une toIrance prolongfe qui autorise I concIure 5 I'exercice

paisibIe et continu de la souverainel. Seuls Ies actes d'opposirion d'un
ceriain nombre d'Elats indresss peuvent entraver la consolidation des
titres historiques. ii
D'opposition I'cgard de Ia deIirnitation de cette zone. Messieurs de la Cour,
nous croyons vous avoir dmontre une nouveIIe fois qu'iI n'y en a jamais
vtritabIement eu. I I y a eu des reservcs de I'ItaIie, au tout dEbur du sikle, P
l'gard de l'isobathe des 50 mtres, mais elles n'oit pas t maintenues. 11 y a eu
des tentatives de la part du mme pays, pour amener Ia France et Ia Tunisie a
renoncer la ligne de 4S0. Mais Ia France et la Tunisie n'acceptant pas, n'ayant
jamais accepte, l'Italie ne s'opposant pas expIiciternent non plus, enire les deux
guerres, a Ia Iigne franaise, on a v k u u n certain temps sur un compromis
pacifique. A ce stade, il y avait au moins tolerance de la dIimitation IatraIe de
t 904 par le voisin tripolitain de Ia Tunisie.
Puis ce fut par une conclusion natureIIeVIa reconnaissance expiicite.

Nous voici parvenu a notre point final, sinon E notre concIusion. Elle sera
brve er devra dissiper dfinitivement les derniers confusions entretenues par
la Parlie opposk.
II n'est pas ici question, et c'es! ce que nous voudrions souligner avec force,
de la part de la Tunisie de demander a la Cour un partage comme on nou's l'a
ion reproch.
La prise en compte des titres historiques ne saurail, a aucun point de vue,
tre interprte comme une tentative de Ia Tunisie de ressusciter Ia thorie du
partage.
Pour la Tunisie la dlimitation n'est pas une opkration d'attribution, n'est pas
une opration de distribution, c'est une opration de constatation. Telle est bien
t

REPLIQUEDE M. RENE-JEAW DUPUY 307

Ia signification genkrale de Ia ~iotio~r
de droits inherenis ab ii~ilio.Celle nolion
de droits inhrents ah irrilio a pour effet de Iiberer les pays ctrers de
I'obIigation d'exercer effectivement leurs d19its et de ne pas rserver Ia
pmsessio~rdu plareau continenia1 aux seuIs EIais techniquement capabIes de
I'expIorer d'abord puis de l'exploiter. La ~ror~ne ainsi se rattache a une exigence
de non-discrimination de caractre universaIiste et drnoci-atique.
Mais voici que nos adversaires, Ire recuIanr devant aucune contradiction, se
mettent soutenir qu'en accordant des titres pelroIiers a des socitk Ia L~byea.
eIIe arzssi. dessin les contours de la zone du pIateau continenta1 qui doit Iui
revenir.
Cette dmarche qui tend a &taMir un paraIIde entre Ia possessiori de iif res
his1o1-iquessur des pkherles sedentaira et Ia diivrance des titi-es ptroliers
procde d'une mconnaissance fondamerrtalede Ia vaIeur de ces der~rierstitres.
II fauI bien voir qu'orr ne perit pas comparer Ies activits de populatio~is
expIoitant, conformment au droit inrernationa1 classique, des pcheries
sdentaires depuis des sicIes et celles de ptroliers de toute origine expIorant le
sous-SOIdu pIateau pour eIi exlraire du ptrole.
La recherche des Irydrocarbures est effectuke err effet par le recours a des
techndogies d'interve~ilionsur le milieu riatrire1, qui peuvent tre utiIisees aux
Caraibes, en mer du Nord ou eIi Indoi~sieet qui peuvent percer des forages a
6000 ~ntresde profondeur, comme I'ont montre ce-mes expriences.
Si I'orr acceptait que Ies Etats inroque~itde teIIes activits, on valoi-iseraitla
puissance effective, Ia puissance technoIogiqrie, ce que precisement la thbrie
des droits inhkrents air iirilk a pour objet d'kviter. Ces techniques d'interven-
tion qui en {out tat de cause ne peuvent avoir aucriIre valeur acquisitive a
I'egard d'un pIateau contine~ilalne peuvent non phus avoir de valeur dmons-
trative car n'importe qui peut les utiliser n'importe 05.
En re~a11Che ce qui donne aux p&Iieries sdentakes Ieur vaIeur illrrstrative.
et c'est bien de Ia valeur iIIustrative qrre je parle, c'est quIIes ont t exploites
depn~sdes sicIes. selon des techniques rudimentaires, or c'est ce caractre
rudimeniaire qui met en vide~rcel'accessibilit e~ceptionneIIedu Iit de la mer
en rais011c@ sa faibIe profondeur. C'est parce que Ies riuerairrs porivaient avec
des nasses el des harpons exploiter les ressources vivantes qui s'offraient eux.
que se trouve d~no~itrke I'extraordirrai~-eco~itinuiidu territoire terrwtre et de
son proIongemenl sous-rnarirr dans une certaine zone, qui est celle I-ecouverte
par les titres historiqus.
Ces titi-es qui ont I acquis dans le passe se so~itdposs sur u n pro-
Iongernent naturei que la Tunisie possde depuis ses origines. Ils err I-kvlent
une parlie iniriaIe qui Ies a reus coni~neles aIIuvions de Ilristoire.
 REPLIQUE DE M. VIRALLY
CONSEIL DU GOUVERNEMENT DE 1-h TUNISIE
1
M. Y IRALLY : Monsieur Ie PI-sident. Messieurs d e la Cour. il m'appartierrt
aujourd'hui de rpondre aux diffre~rtsdeveloppenients consacres par la Partie
adverse, au cours du premier tour de plaidoiries, apx donniw physiques.
A propos de ces donnees. iI me parait r1tiIe de commencer mon expose par
~ i tse situerrt Ies points d e dsaccord
qrieiques I-ernarques gnrales ~ n o ~ i i r aoir
! subsis~antent1-e Ies Parties a ce stade de Ia procdure et destines aussi
dissiper queIques rnaIentendus. Ces dsaccords so~itpeut-tre pIus Iarges qui1
i ne sembIait au premier abord. Ils ne lien~ientpas seuIement l'interprtation
de faits I-econnus par les deux Parties, o Ies dif1-ences entre eIIes portent
notamment s u r I'importance et la sig~rificationde% faits au point de vue du
droit, poi~irssur Iesquels cerlains experts en geoIogie ont pris pmiliori de Tavon
parfois sui-PI-enanteet peu cornpatibIe avec Ie degr de cornpl-hension des
probImes juridiques auxquels iIs taient parvenris. 11s viennent aussi de la
nc connaissance conipIre de cerfaines raIits par Ia Partie Iibyenne.
Ces remarques genrales serorrt suiv~esd'un rappel des d u n n k s geologiques
et gomorphoIogiqires fondamentales de Ia rgion que je ~n'efforcerai de
relabIir da115 leur raIitG queIque peu malmene au cours des pIaidoiries
Iibyennes. en ~n'en terrant, bien entendu, I'essearieI et eIi relevant Ies points
d'accord factrrel errtre Ies Parlies.
J'ajoute. pour eIr terrni~ieravec cette prsentation du pIan de mon expos.
q u e je ne parlerai pas de Ia gographie, me rservant seuIernent d'y revenir
Iorsque je Iraiterai des ~ntliodes. Mon savant yntradicteur, Ie professerrr
Boweit. qui s'est livr une anaIyse si approfondie des thories libyenrra en
matire goIogique, n'a presque pas louch Ia gbgraphie. Il n'a remarqu
que deux [rai& relalifs au IirIoraI tunisien : le premier est que la ciite lunisienne
cha~rgeraitde directiorr au paraIIe1e de Ras Yo~iga.pour ~ U I - m eIer promontoire
du SaheI. con si d^-5 cornrne une caractrislique assez importante pour justifier
un cliarrge~ne~it d'orie~itatiorrd e Ia ligne suggeree par la Libye. Cela apparait
@ sur Ia carte nu 2 du mmoire runisie~iqui se trouve dans le dossier ' remis la
Cour. Le second trait expos par Ie professeur Bowett est que, 101-squbnsuit la
cele tunisienne parti1- de Ras Ajdir, on conslate q-e, << soudain (ce sont Ies
mots qu'il a employs 1, Gab& n, cette cote q tourne 90ii (ce sont
toujours ses mots) (ci-dessus p. 17 1 ).
Evidemment, iI est cIair pour qui regarde Ia carte, comme nous Ie faisons
maintenant, que ces deux propositions se w n t r e d i s e ~ rnulueIIement
t (ci-dessus
p. 17 1- 1721. Bi Ia #te tourne a 90 a Gabs. o n ne peul pIus dire quqeIIechange
I
de direction Ras Yonga et que ce changement est la seule caractrjs-
tique prendre en mnsidration.
Si1 y a 1113 changement de direction, c'est bien ce1hi de I'arrgIe a 9IIu el si o n
doit Ie situer en un point prcis, ce Ire peut &re qu'au sommet de I'angIe. Or,
Ras Yonga, rnanifeste~nent,nst pas a u sommet de IngIe. M. HigheI a t
urr peu pIus prudent. I I a parl de Ras Yongalcomnle de Ia sitrration
<( approximative >> du point oh tourne Ia cote tunisienne <ci-dessusp. 2351 et a

mme admis que la d~errnirrationd e ce point pourrail Sire Iaisse aux experts,

' -Voir ci-aprs,correspo~rdance,no 122.

 REPLIQUE DE M . VIRALLY 309
ce qui rnonlre son embarras. 11 demeure que Ras: Yonga n'est pas a u sommet de
l'angle que forme la c6te tunisienne el qui Ia fait changer de direction.
Cet angle est pourtant la caracteraiique majeure de Ia cte. Le professeur
Bowett en a Iui-meme souligne i'irnportance en la mentionnant dans deux des
quatre raisons qu'il a donnes pour jusri fier que soit prise en considration la
configuration gographique dans l'opration de dlimitation Ici-dessus p. 1 7 j 1.
Et pounant, la Libye, comme nous le constaterons plus lard, lui dnie [oui
effet sur l'orientation de la dlimitation intervenir.
Mais passons. et revenons a la gologie.
Sur ce plan, les pIaidoiries ont apport des cIaircissenients considrables,
doni Ia Tunisie se rjouit. Le mystre du tior?hirur~lrlirirst et de ses relations
avec la tectonique des plaques. qui subsisrait encore aprs la rpIique. a t au
moins partieIIexnent lev, grce a Ia clart6 de I'expos du professeur Bowett.
Certaines obscurits, malheureusement, n e sont toujours pas dissipes et mme
des obscurits nouveIIes son1 apparues. Je le monrrerai sur quels points u n peu
plus tard. Cet etat de chose me met videmment dans une situation un peu
di ficile. au moment ou je parle pour la derniere fois sur ces questions devant Ia
Cour.
Dans u n sens, nous avons progress. Dans le mmoire Iibyen, iI apparaissait.
bien que ce ne fut pas parfaitement clair, que le ~iot+tirirwr~d rirrasf tait la
consquence de mouvements vers Ie nord de la pIaque africaine survenus entre
80 a 40 millions d'annes avant notre re. Aujourd'hui, un des dments
imponafils de la drnonstrarion libyenne es1 constitu par les chies fossiles du
rnsoz9ique, qui existaient entre 200 et 141)miIIions d'annes avaiil notre Ere.
On a donc progress. semble-t-il. dans la connaissance de l'histoire gologique
mais sans s'approcher de la priode gologique au cours de laquelle la presente
affaire est examin& par la Cour. ,

11 n'est pas sans intrl, a ce propos, de rapprocher Ies chiffres que je viens de
rappeIer d'une des aff~rmationsfigurant dans 1'Ctudc scicnlifiquc anncxCc a u
mmoire libyen d'aprks IaqueIIe :
tt Witbin the Mediterranean region lhe first event or which we have
satisfactory geological knowIedge is the evaporation of this area at the
end of the Upper Miocene period (Messinian time occurred about 7 io
5 million years ago. ii (1 ,.p. 555.1
On voit le progrs raIis depuis le 30 mai 1980 dans l'approfondissement de
nos connaissances.
Je crois pouvoir dire que les ecIaircisseinents apportes au cours de la
procidure orale par la Partie libyenne justifient eiirirement les apprciations
portes par les conseils de la Tunisie. Iorsqu'iIs avaient dit que ces thses taient
monoIithiquemenr gologiques, qu'elles taient fondes esctusivemen t sur des
t heories de macrogeoIogie ct qu'elles s'vadaient des raIits contemporaines de
la rgion.
Selon la Libye, en effet, Ia dellmitation doit ncessairenient reflter une
direction vers Ie nord parce que cette direction est impose par Ia gologie.
Dans sa dernire mouture. cette thse s'appuie essentiellement sur la thorie
de la for mation gologique des marges continen taIes de type atlantique. C'est
ce qui a t souligne dj par l'ambassadeur El Maghur. Ie distingu agent du
Gouvernemeni Iibyen, et longuement dveloppe par le professeur Boweit et les
experts dont iI s'est entoure, notamment M. Hammuda et, bien entendu, Ie
professeur Fabricius. Cst maintenant Ic cur dur de la thorie libyenne et j'y
reviendrai plus en dtail un peu plus tard.
L'appel fait a cette thorie n'est que la consquence de la dcouverte faiie par
Ic Gouverneinen1 libyen de la signification g6oIogique de Ia I ~ i t i g c ~ iqui i ~ ~ joue
e
u n roIc ceniral dans Ia thorie en quarion. La Cour n'aiira pas nia~iqucde
rcnlarquer les remerciemenl appuys de I'ageni libyen et dri professeur
Bowerr a I'adresse de Ia Tunisie. dont les remarques. nous a-[-il t dit. oiit
permis a la Libyc de faire cette dcouverte. La theoric SC trotive [out entierc
espose d a ~ i sletude des coIlaborateurs du lamoni-Doherty Geotogical Obser-
varory, a n n e x k a la rplique Iibyenne doni elle constitue l'annexe I l - 6 (IV).
Mais si le1 csi vra~menrIe rondemeiii de la the= libyenne, ce fondeincnt
rksultc d'une decouverte rcente. puisqu'elle figure seulenieni dans ta rplique
el qii'il a fallu les remarques de la Tuiiisic daris son contrc-mrnoire pour
quIIe soit faite. Nous coniprenons mieux niainieiiant t'intert qu'a marque Ia
Libye L prsenter une repliquc a p r h avoir deja prkseni u n contre-niemoire
aussi copieux.
Depuis cette dcouverte, nous le savons, pour Ia Panie Iibyetine et ses
espcrts. le prolongement riattire1 se definit comme une srie de faillcs
grossii.renient parallles la /iirigr,liric,. Mais alors, et c'cst l une dc obscuriis.
q u n est-iI des explieaiions prcdenres, qui ntaienr pas ncessaireineni
conipaiibIes avec celle-ci ? Pourrani, conime celle-ci, elles cotiduisa~ent
inluctablement a Ia mme conclusion : que le proIongemeni naturel de la
Libye taii rigidemetit orientc.vcrs le nord.
La Tunisie a t accuse. je crois par M. Higher et par sir Francis \'aIIat,
d'avoir plie les mthodes qlilIe propose la ralisation d'un objectif dfini a
l'avance. N'ai-ce pas patcni dails le cas de la Libye, oii les tkorics remplacent
les thories et ou la seule chose qui reste permanente el qui rsiste a toutes les
volulions est le irrir.rliir~iiidiliritsi '!
Et aussi. que1 extraorditiairc exemple de prvision ! Daprs la Partie
adverse. les auteurs de Ia loi libyenne de 1 955 ei. surtout. les niembres de la
cominission charge de rdiger les textes d'applicarion de cetre loi avaietit dejE
apert;u que Irudc dc la gcologie imposerait le trace d'une ligiie vers le nord, ce
que devait confirmer t'tude du Lamotit en juillet I 98 1.
N o t ~ne croyons pas que I loi dc 1955, pas plus qu'aiicr~rides icxtes qui
I'appIiquent er des canes qui I'accornpagneiit. iic coinportaienr l'indication
d'une prtention Iibyeiine a unc ligne de deIiniitaliori vers Ie irord. iiiais ceci
nous montre que si Ia Libye plic la gologie a ses objectifs, il lui arrivc de plier
aussi le droit.
La Ioi de 1 955 ii'a pas d'iniportancc. Le professeur Jcntiiiigs l'a montre de
favon dCfInilive hier. et je n l i pas bcsoin d'y revenir. Mais il en va
diffkremmeiit du droii internaiIona1 el. notainmeiit. du droit reIatif au pl:iterir~
coniinenial. Or. sir Francis VaIIat el le professeur 3oweii ont l'un et I'aiilrc
rejeie l'article 76 du projet de convention sur le droit de la mcr. dont on petit
dire potirlanl qu'iI constittie t'une des tendanca discutks a la confrerice sur Ic
ciroi1 de la mer parvenues la maturit d'une regIe universeIIemcnr accepte
comme lan1 Ie droit.
Le professeur Jenning a aussi abord ce point, cc qui me permettra de ii'y
revenir que sous u n angle particulier qui nous intresse directenienl ici.
L'article 7 6 cst rejet parce qu'it concernerait setiIeincnt la limite exterietire
du pIateau continental et serai1 donc sans porre en maticre de dklimitation.
Je soulignerai cependaiil que. dalis la mesure ou il indique cetic limite
extrieure, il indique en mme rcmps I'orientatioii dii prolongemenr naturel qiii
va jusqu'au rebord extrieur dc la marge contineiitale. Et ainsi Ie maillon
manquant dans cc que M . Highet a appel tr rhc ,f;~ll~icib r?/ Ariicll, 76 >, est
rtabli par une simpIe lecture de l'article Iui-meme.
Mais je ferai une seconde remarque. Carticle 76 ne dfini! pas sculemeni la
312 PLATEAU CONTI NEWTA 1.

Nsi-ce pas Id encore de Ia inacrogologie ? Daprs Ia thorie deveIoppe

par Ies canseiIs de Ia Libye. les d~-oits de I'Erat mtier. sur Ie pIateau conlinenla1
bordant ses cotes Ile dpendent plus des parlicularils de son IinoraI, ri des
reialions exista111en fait entre Ia Inasse de son terriioire terrestre et ces zoIres de
plateau continental. mais de Ia place qu'iI a occupe sur Ie co~ttine~lt. au CQUIS
des d~tatneset centaines de 1nilIio11sd'annes des iges gGoIogiqrres.
SI.a une priode quelco~ique- iI y a peut-tre 1UU ou 200 rniIIlocinsd'annees
et peul-etre dava~irage- son territoire a fait partie de la marge continentaIe du
continent (deprr~s1013compite~nenlre~nudelpar les vnemens gkiogiqlres
ultrier~rsl.iI a perdu tout droit a une partie de la ma1-geconlinenlaIe actueIIe.
Sauf si. par cha~ice.une petite partie de son 1e1-rituirese lrvuvail merge daris
ces tenips Ioi~r~ains. Ist resle et continue - border Ia mer Da115ce cas. 011Iui
concdera urr pelir Iot. Peur-on rver d ' u ~ ipIus total mpris des r@aIir&
physiques co11te1npo1-aines. geogra-phi q u e o u geo!ogiques ?
Si Ia Parl~eadverse allaclie. en Tait. peu d'irnporta~iceaux ca~.actris~iques
r&IIes de la cete acrueIle. el je soulrgne ce terme': << actueIIe i>. e l k eIr donne
une 11-sgrande. je I'ai dj I-appeI.aux rivages fossiIes du ~nsoloqrie.dont
les cartes ont t prese~llespIusieurs fois a Ia Cour et qui sont reproduites vIie
fois de pIus ici el co~isriruentla figure no 82 drr dogier remis Ia Cour. I I ~ i ' a t
pas sans i~nrtd'y jeter un coup d ' d urre fois dE plus. Que d6couv1.e-[-un?
D'abord que ces rivages sont hypothtiques. parfois sur la pIus grande pa~-tie de
Ieur Io11guerr1-comIne Ie montrent Ies {racks en pointiIIF qui orrt t adopts.
k t Ie cas. en particuIier. des rivages du jurassique et du cnumano-turonie11.
Ensuite. deuxime canslatatio~~, t o u t a les terres irord-africai~ies I'ouest du
goIfe de S ~ I - l eau , triasique et au jurassien. se trouve~ltari ~iurdde ces IIignes.
donc. d'aprs ce qrr~~ i o u est s dit. dans Ia Inarge continenlaIe. Y compris. bien
entendu. Ia TripoIitaine. avec Ia pIaine de Ia Djeifara La totalir de Ia Tunisie n
les rgio~iscblires de I'AIgrie et du M ~ I - ose c troukent dans la Iriarge. Ext-ce a
dire qu'aucurr de ces trois Etals n'a de d~-oits faire vaIoir sur Ie plateau
conlinenta1 qiri bo1-deaujourd'hui Ieurs &es ? D'apres Ia theorie. ce pIazeau ne
c o ~ r s t i t u epas Ieur p r o l o ~ i g e ~ n e1raturc1,
~~t priisque Ieurs terrItorres au nord de Ia
Iriirgc~ii~x,. qui les traverse a des c c ~ ~ l a i ~de r ekiIomires
s de Ierirs c8les. io~rterrx-
mnres pa1-tiede la marge conIine~riaIe.Ou bien faur-il compre~idrequ'iIs i~'oiil
de d~-oiisque dans Ia mesure ou Ies territoires sat~inisa Ieui- soirverainet
stendent aussi au sud de cette fairleuse kirigr,liric,Iqui se trouve reprse~iresur
Ia carte infrieure que vous avez sous Ies yeux) !
Le 1n61ne1-aisonnementne s'appIique-1-iI pas asi Ia Libye qui. elIe. est
galement reste da11.s la marge ? Et, ce propos, o se trouve donc la Pwlriirrr
hir1~<4i11e qui Ii~nitearI sud le bIoc pIagie11I Les cartes prsenles mo11t1-errt
i~ld~scutablenlent q u ' d e s'kte~~ci loin au nord dcs rivages ~nsozuiqrres,comme
vous pouvez Ie constater sur 1'i:nage que jai fait figurer SUI- Ia carie infrieure.
14101-sIa question se pose . qrreIIe est Ia reIation entre ces rivages fossiIes, que Ia
Libye nous morirre avec ta~rtd'insisrance. et la hjr~gc#lf~rt, supposee co~~stituer
une caractrislique essentieIIe de Ia Inarge continentaIe vers Ie no^-d. a
proximit i~nmdiatede Ia m t e :> Cst encore uneldes obscrrrits persistantes
des iheories Iibyen nes.
Fau t-iI. pour relrciuver cet te hir~gr~liiirg l sa vraie place. supposer encore
d'autres Iignes de I-ivage? Mais de qrrelk epoque gkologique ? 11 y a cornbien de
1ni1Iionsou de c c n ~ a i ~ de ~ e s1ni1lium dnn&s ? Et, pourquoi ne pas nous les
avoir montres ? Au deuxime lour de parole de Ia Libye, qui pariera Ia
de1-11ikre. il est absoIrrmerrr ~nconcevableet co11trai1-e toute rgle de procdir re
qu'uri docuinent ~iouvedusuit prsente. ie mystre restera do11centie1-.
Et pius encore . o donc se trouve aussi Ia ,luil INw, q u i constitue aussi,
I
d'aprs le professeur Bowett et ses conseiIs, une caractristique essentielle de Ia
formation des marges continenmles ? Nulle trace dans toute l'Afrique d u Nord.
EIle est introuvable. C s t encore un mystere.
Finalement, et je touche ici a une question dc fond - et fondamentale :
Existe-t-il une priode gologique critique, au cours de IaquelIe des droits a u
plateau continental auraient t acquis de lavon dfinitive au profit d'Etats qui
n'existeront que quelques millions ou centaines de miIIions d'annes plus tard ?
Ces droits subsisteraient-ils, a titre de droits rossiles en queIque sorte, quels que
soient Ies bouleversements goIogiques survenus par Ia suite - et nous savons
qu'ils ont t nombreux en Mditerrane :' Pourquoi telje ou telle periodc
gologique a-t-eiIe cette vertu de crer ces droits dfinitifs et pas les autres !'
Pourquoi I'emporle-t-elle s u r les priodes suivantes, noramineni celle du
quaternaire, qui est la noire. aprs toul ?
A ce propos. je ne puis viter d'voquer la Fause querelle qui a t faite A la
Tunisie a u sujei de la gologie. Mon savant contradicteur et ami, sir Francis
VaIIat. a laiss entendre que la Tunisie cartait la goIogie, bicn qu'il ait noi un
changerncnt cet gard dans Ics plaidoiries tunisienrics (ci-dessus p. 33-56).
LC professeur Bowc~t.de son c o ~ ea. estim que la Tunisic cartait la geologrc
ailcienne ei nc voulait coniisitrc que la goIogie recente (ci-dessus p 1 56). Lcs
deux reproches iie concident donc pas ct se contredisen1 dans une ceriaine
mesure. L'un et I'autrc ne semblent pas tenir compte des tudes gologiques
prisenlees en annexe du mmoire ei surtout du contre-memoire tunisiens, q u i
portaient aussi bien sur Ia gologie ancienne que sur la gologie rcente, pas
pIus que des exposs prsents par les experts de la Tunisie. notamment par le
professeur Laffitte.
Ces allgations, qui reprsentent certainement l'opinion sincre de la Partie
adverse, je n'en doute pas un instant, appeIlenl deux inises au min1 trs
srieuses, auxquelles la Tunisie attache u n e grande imporrance.
La premire concerne un malentendu hident. q u i est apparu dans lspos
de sir Francis Vallat. Celui-ci a indique qu'il ne pouvait pas accepter cc qu'il a
appeI l'chelle de pertinence hciilc. r!f rc4~i~lri1r-(4 prsente dans l'tude
scientifique annexe a u conlre-mmoire tunisien (1 1. contre-mmoire tunisien,
annexe 1, p. i 3- 14). Une telle echeIIe, pense sir Francis. cre la confusion en ce
qu'elle tend a distraire des vritables problmes.
Je voudrais ce sujet faire deux remarques. La premire est que les experls
auteurs de cette tude ont d'abord entendu etabIir une hirarchie des donnfes
physiques, ce qui est tout a fait diffrent (en ce compris blen entendu les
donnes geoIogiques), d'aprs le degre de certitude que nous pouvons avoir
dans la connaissance que nous en prenons. C'est I, je crois, une considration
capitale dans l'apprciation des donnes physiques a notre disposition er il fait
bon que les experis nous informent exactement sur ce qu'iI en est dans Ie
domaine de .leur cornplence scieniifique. Je pense que s ~ rFrancis est de la
mme opinion que moi sur ce point puisqu'iI n'a pas parl de cette premiere
chelle. Les experts ont ensuite examin en effet te degr de pertinence des
donnes considres, C'est la que git Ie malenlendu, qui attire une seconde
remarque. Le terme employ par les experts. parfaitement correct dans le
langage scientifique, risque en effet d'tre mat interprt par Ie juriste. qui
l'utilise dans son langage, en lui donnant un sens lgrement diffrent.
Pour les experts, il s'agissait simplement de prciser que toutes les donnes
physiques suscepiibles d'elre invoques n'avaient pas le meme degre de
proximit. dans le temps et dans lspace, avec Ie probIme pose, a savoir la
dlimitation du plateau continental. A leurs yeux, les donnies ayant le rapport
le plus troit, dans l'espace et dans le temps, avec ce problme ont plus
314 PLATEAU COhTINEhTtI~,

d'imporiance et de valcur que celles qui cntre~ieiinenravcc lui iiiie relalion plils
loirilaiiic.
Je rie stris pas certaiii qu'il faille ~ r 1111
e scientifique pour avanccr irnc idee de
ce genrc. Elle relve iout sinipIemcnt du boii seiis. Mais des scientrfiqiies aussi
ont le droit de I'esprimcr eii tant que scieiiiiftqries et i l iisi pas mauvais peiii-
etre qu'iis dfinotitrent aitisi qu'on peiit 6tre scic~itifiqiicet le bon setis
((

gardcr M. En roiii cas. je lie crois pas vrai~ncntque des reinaryiies de ce1 ordre
soiciir de na1ur.e iiitrodriire la coiifusion.
ta deuxime niise a u point quc je voudrais prfseiiler est beaiicoiip pItis
itnportaiite. El te cst tnine d'unc cstretne gravite et m'obligera I i r i cotis;icrer
plirs de ienips.
Pour dmontrer l'iniporiance de la gcoIogie ancienne. la Lrbyc avatice
I'argriiiieni qiie les couches geologiqtics dans lesquelles sc lrouvent les rcscrvcs
de pftrole sot~rsoiivent des couches ancie~ines(j~rsqu'a570 rn~llionsd'at~tikcsl
et souvcti t ;iiissi des couches profondes (jusqu'a 5000 mlres environ).
t l es[ aujourd'hui cvidenl que ceiie ide occupe dcsormais iine placc ceni rale
- sirategique devrai-jt dire - dans I'argii~nentatioii de la Partie adverse.
On !.a vtle dbja foriiirrle dans la rcplique (IV. par. 7 1 1, oii elle Crait illrisirke
par deus figiircs (fig. 7 et 8). t'irnporiance qu'y aiiache Ic Gouvcrtietneiir
libycii est mieux apparue encore, lorsqtie Ic disringu agent de la Libye a
dcvctoppi: ce rhbnie Iloisir. en cornnientani Ics deus niemes figiircs Ici-dessus
p. 27. dossier de cartes distribu aux juges par Ia Libyeb Le thme est revenu a
nouveau dans l'expose de sir Francis Vallai (ci-dessus p. 551, dans celui du
professeur Boweti (ci-dessus p. 1561 et dans celui de M . Wighet (ci-dessus
p. 23 t et 232). Cm1 dsormais un I~iiirroriv.
Or. i l nc s'agir pas d'un sitnplc argirmcnt de rail. coniinc oii aurait pi1 le
peiiser iiiitialemciit. C'est. iiiainicniini. iotirc irir i1iEorie jiiridiquc iiouvelle qui
s'csi elaborec a pariir de celte basc. ct c'est poiirqtioi je dois iii'y arrter.
Que nous dit-oii, eri effet !' Eri substaiicc ceci : I'iniportancc des couches
gbIogiques contenanl des rservoirs d'hydrocarbures vient de cc que, dcpir is le
dcbut. ds la proclamatioii Triiinaii, et constaminelil par la sriiie. le rgirnc
juridique dtt plareaii conti~ieiitaIn'a eu d'autre raison d'ktre qrte l'appropriation
des richesses en hydrocarbrit-equi se rror~venten soi1 seiti. Lorsque I'ariicle 77
du projet de conveniion. apres l'article 2 de la convenlion de Geneve de 1958.
parle de droits souverains sur le plaicau coniiiieiital aux fins dc son
((

csploration et de I'exploitaiion de ses ressources natir relies cst exalenien t

)).

cela qu'il vetit dire. Ei c'esr pourquoi, nous dit M. FIighet. I'csistence de ces
rservoirs de ptrole est une circotisiancc pertiiientc ei oii serait lente de
compretidre, en raisoii de I'acceni qu'il y inet : ta pliis irnportaiiie de toutes les
circonstances periinenres.
QiieI est le sens de cet argument ? II va. d'aprs la Partie adverse. a u ccriir
iiieine du problcnie. C'est plus que Ie rgime juridique du p l a l e a ~coiitineiila1
~
qui est en cause : c'est sa dlinitioii iiime. avec sa raison d'ire. Pourtaiii les
droits en question sont dClinis l'article 77 du projet de convention. qui ne
concerne pas la dfinition du pIaieau continenta1. Aprs ce qiri nous a ct dit de
l'autre c6i de la barrc propos de l'article 76 - qu'il ne faIIait pas utiliser en
matire de dlimitation bien qu'il contint une dfiniiioii - ce serait une
serieuse inconsequeiice, de la par! de la Partie adverse, de recburir soli profit
un argument tout a fait setttblable.
Mais l'argument va beaucoup plus loin ; il o'blige en effci poser la
question : quelles conscquences doivent-elles tre tires de Ia prsence de
reservoirs d'hydrccarbures dans telle ou telte couche gcologique du pjateau
continenta1 ?
 C'esi le fond du probleiiie. Ceiie prscnce ferait-eIle iiaitrc des droits ails
zoties dc plalcati coi~rii~ciital coiitcnaiit ccs c o u c h t ~au prolit de I'Eiat coiier
dans Ic territoire dtrqueI les iiimcs couchcs se relrott vent ? lloir-cIIe escIure
I'Etat cbtier oii. p:ir accident. ccs coiichcs iie se reiroiiveraietii pas ? La sojurion
doii-cIlc eire diffcrcnie si Ia coiiche esr ancientic ct profoiide ou si elle est
receiitc ou pliis siipcrficielle '! Qiie deduire dii T:iii qii'clle est plus inince ici cr
plus f paisse la :' Qu qile I'i~nces1 siabIc et l'autre plisse ou iccloiiisce :' Quirl
des raiIIes qiii peuvetii les scparer !'
4tt-del n-ime de ces dil'ficults d'ordre pratiqiie - tnais elles Iie sont pas
iiCgIigeobles. i l s'en Tau1 - c'csi i iitie distorsion complete de la iiotion de
proloiigc~neiit niiirircl er niSrne de cellc dc plateau conlinerital qiie nous
;thoui isorrs 1 r pIaie:rrr coiifiiierii;iI d'111iEtat clj~iertisi plttv ceiie zone des
fonds tiiarins siir iesqtiels s'creiid le prolotigeriient natiireI de sori territoire
ierresrrc et o il pourra csplorer et exploiter les i-cssouires natiirelles qui s'y
trouveril. 011 ne s'y trouvenl pas, siiivani les hasards des eveiiements
geoIogiqtics datis ceilc zone.
1.epkilcau coiiiiiie1ita1d'un Elal cotier csl desormais riiie zone de plarmt~q u i
lui apparriciit parcc qu'iI s'y trouve des ressources prrolieres ei qu'il a Ici
chatice d'avoir uii territoire lerrcstre gajemciit riche eii dc telles ressources
proveiiiinl des intnes couches gfologiques. En d'aitires termes : uii droit au
pcirolc ci nri gaz sitbsiiiu a u di.011a u plaieau cont~nentalei au pi.oloiigerneni
1iarrit.eI.
C'cst la ilnc iiotion juridique radicalenient diffcrerite de ce1te adnirse
jiisqii'alors. Notioii roiide sur la goIogie, je le reconnais, niais dorit je vois
iiial coinineiit ellc peui se concilier avcc la rhcorie priticipale e v o q u k
pt-fcdemiiiei~t- c'cst ia tiiie aritre des obscurirs dc Ia thorie libyenne -
rriais doil t je vois srlrtorit qu'elle cst absoluinent iticonipatible avec les rgIes di1
dt-o~titilcrriatiotia1 applicables arr plaieau cotitirieiilaI. Elle abourit d'arlletirs a
lin cerclc vicieus.
L'Eiiii' cijiier. erl cffc~.lie peut csplorer ci exploiter qtie les zones de plateau
coiitinenlal qui lui appartietiiicrit. Or. si ce qtr'oti nous di1 crail vrai, il ne
pourrait conri;iitrc les zotics qui I ~ r iappartietit~etitqiie par tes rfs~iItisde
I'expIoralion Et csr bien Iij la dificultc laquelle se heurte totite tentative
d'u tiIiscr Ics couches geologiques ancien tics et profondes pour utie opCralion de
dflimiiatioii drr platmu conrinen taI. IA iechnolog~e moderne perrnei dc
parvenir ri irne assez bonne connaissance de LYS C O L I C ~ E S ,coniine le rappelait
tout I'heiire le prorcsseur Dupuy. mais I condilion d'avoir etc ~itiIisc
inassivemen t par des canipagncs d'exploratioi~employant les rnoycns les plus
rnodcrties et les pIris coiitcris tels que releves sisniiqiies. rorages. etc. Ces
relcds sont effcctucs par les conipagnies. qrri nc peuveiii agir que dans le
prinitre des permis q u i leur soiir accordes par les Elats : et rious retrouvons
ici le cercle vicie~isqiie j'kvoquais i~ I'iiistari t.
Mais. la ihesc libyenne s'arrele-1-eIIc la ? Aprs avoir coute M. Highet. je
dois constater qirc ilon. Dans son esposc. marque par beaucoiip de clarie
apparente et un esprit trs anaIytiqiie, M . Highet indique. e n cffer, qu'ux yeux
de Ia Libye roiirc dlimitarion a ~ntervenirdevrait. en totit cas. respecter les
insta~laiionsdes forages actuellement en exploitatio~i(cst ce qu'il a dit ei qrti
csi reporte ci-dcssus p. 228-2291,
C'est l certainenieni uiic qucstion exrrEniernent serieuse ci que iious ne
pouvons pas considrer Igremeiii.
Le professeur Jennings a dkj montre hier quc te prrendu Driirig ii:icli Usrraii
de la Tunisie, qui est devenu aussi u n des I~irinoiiildes plaidoiries libyennes, est
u n argument de plaidoirie prcisment, dpourvu de toute substance. Je n'y
pktroliers i i et les puiis exploitables i i . I I n'es1 plus question d'installations.
<(

Nous pouvons donc les oublier. semble-t-iI.

Mais, au-del de ces points de fait, une question dc droit est pose ; eIfe est
d'une importance majeure : quel est le titre juridique invoqu par la Parrie
adverse pour affirmer un droit a des gisements et a des puits pelroIiei-s ? Est-cc
le droit a la dkouverte ? ou ceIui drivant de Ibccupalion effective ? Ce sont la
des titra qui nous rameneni fort loin en arrire dans l'histoire du droit
intertia~ional.a une periode dont les Etats qui ont rkernment acquis leur
independance rie se souviennent pas sans arnerturne. er qui paraissait revolue.
S'agit-il de cela ou de quelque chose d'auire ? Quel que puisse tre leur
rondement, de tels iiires se trouvent en tout cas Ecarles par la rkgle que la Cour.
en 1 969, a proclam& comme ceIIe rc qui constitue sans aucun douce p o ~ ~ i b.l. .c
la plus fondamenlale de toutcs les r6gIes de droit reiarives au plateau
continental )i : celte d'aprks laquelle
<( les droits de I'Etat riverain concernant la zonc dc plaleau continental qui

constiiue un prolongemeni naiurel de son territoire sous la mer exisient,

i/)so,fiir-ro et itrific~en vertu de la souverainete de I'Etat sur cc territoire
er par une extension de cette souverainet i i (C.1J K(.ci~cil1969. p. 22,
par. 19).
M . Highet rpondra sans doute qu'il n'a pas formellement afirmc un droit
de la Libye aux puits q u ' d e a fores, mme dans Ie cas o ils on1 rvel la
possibiIite d'une exploilatioti. Formellement, ceIa es1 vrai. Mais quelIe est
exactement la portee juridique de l'argument qu'il a prsent&? Nous nous
trouvons, ici encore. une nouvelle fois, dans l'obscurit. L'exislence de
gisements ptroliers ct de puits exploiiablcs esi mentionne par lui parmi les
circonstances pertinentes dont iI doit tre tenu compte dans la dIimiiation.
Fort bien. Je reviendrai d'ailleurs s u r cc point lorsque j'aborderai moi-mme Ia
question des circonsiances pertinentes. en relation avec celle des methodes de.
dlimitation. Mais. de favori pius prkcise, queiles conclusions doit-on lirer de la
prkence de ccs gisements et de ces puits ? De quelle favon cettc circonstance
doit-elle influer sur la dbliniitation ? Ccst ce qui reste t r k largement
indrerminf aprs Ics trois exposk de l'agent et du conseiI de la Partie adverse
sur ce point, qu'ils considerent pourtant comme capital.
Une prkision importante LI.cependant, cte donnec. que je me dois de relever
pour rcndre justice a I'lniervention ,de mon distitiguti coniradicterir. CeIu i-ci
sst ainsi cxprim :
(( We do not say that the Iine of delimitation should be zig-ragged so as
to avoid placing each such welI in lhe shelf area of that State under whose
concession grant it was driIled. Thai would bc inconsistent wirh the oihei
principles and ruIes. I t might even constitrlle an otherwise ienequilabic
solution. N (Ci-dessrts p. 219.)
Et il a encore ajoute :
But whai we do say is lhat somt provision can be made, if necessary.
10 accommodale exisiing producing nstalIatioris. The line 10 be agreed
upon mighr avoid direcrIy amputating certain wetIs. i i (Ilii(f.)
Laissons les insiallations qui n'ont jamais exist. et ne parlons que de puits
susceptibles d'erre exploits. Les phrases que je viens de citer, et surtout Ia
dernire, recIent encore beaucoup d'ambigut. Mais. bien que dans te
passage qui suil le disti~igueconseiI de la 1-ibye ait oppos la situation qui nous
occupe celle qui existait en mer du Nord. iI n ' a i pas impossible qu'iI ait voulu
Fairc aili~siona I'hypothcsc etivisagce par la Cour en 1969. Parmi les clf metits a
prcndre et1 cotisidcra~ioiidans la dt5Iiniiiaiion des 20-nesde plateau coiitiiienial
ciitre Ehts limitrophes. la Cour a mentionn I'~iniiEde gisenicni. Elle avait
envisagc que. lorsqu'tiri gisement sClend dcs deus c8is dc la liniiie du plateau
coniineiilal entre dcus Eiats. uii regime - je cite les termes qii'clle a employs
- de juridiction. d'utilisatioii ci dsploiiaiion coniinunes soir envisagi: potii
rsoudre je probleine ainsi posi (ilid..par. 97.99 ci 1 D I C 2). Si l'interpretaiioti
qiic je viens d'avciilurcr des propos de M. 1-lighet tait cxacre. les dificulles
aciiielles trouvcraicnt aiscmenl leur sotution. Atijourd'htii comnie hier. la
Tutiisie est prelc acceprer l'ide d'une exploitaiioii commune et ;i la realiser.
dans I'hy pothse o tiii gisei~icntse lrouvcraii de part et d'autrc de la filturc
dlimitatiori, des lors qu'iine icIle esploiialioii coniiiiir rie csi degagce dc touie
implicatioti poli tiqric.
Tellcs soiit les quelques considkrations par Iesqiiellcs il ni'a paru ~iccessaire
de coinrnenccr. avaiit d'aborder Ics poi~itsspecifiques reIarifs a la gkologie strr
lesquels Ies Pariies son1 cn dcsaccoi.d el c'est ilers eux que je voiidrais
inaiiiteiiaiit mc tourner.
 OBSERVATION BY SIR FRANCIS VAI.l.tI'1'

Sir IZr;iricis VALLAT : hzlr. Presideni : I assiire yoii I have rio iiirciition or
cr-et~ngariy difici~lt~es for the Co~irt.b11i ycstcrday. wheii WC ari.ived i i i
Co1ir.i. we f'outid oii tIie desk in frotit or 11s a foIder ' of inaps apparentIy
corning fkoni the 'I'uiiisiaii Dclegatioii. There was of course rio opporturiii y to
exiiniinc rhis riiitil lasi riighi but il has riow beeii exaniiiied III a preliiiiiiinry
way aiid it Is Coi~ndIO con~aiiin iitinibcr of iiew doctiilienis. Bi11 rio allcnipi
has been rnade to conipIy with the RtiIcs of Court conccrniiig ihc prociriciion
of iiew dwuriierits. Thet-eforc. the Libyan Uelcgation must nattirally resci've its
positiori in the ordiiiary \Clay oii thesc dociiinetits. R i i t 1 woiild like to tioie in
pai.ticulitr ihc iioveliy of the followiiig figures . F ~ g i ~O.r e Figiire 44. Figiire 45
aiid Figiire 46.
Now. we would bc grarefti1 for ihc assistaiice of the Tiitiisiari Dcicgatiori
iirid having regard io lhc Riiles of Court. we ask thar they should indicate in
\\>ha1pubIicaiion thesc iiew documeiits are readil y ava~lable.aiid If rhcy are
1101 rcadily vaiIabIe in aiiy ptrblication, would thcy pleasc, before usiiig the
dociinicnts. itidicate for 11siIie soirrce. the niaiiiier of productiori and t lie dat
or1 which thesc docrtnicnts are bascd.
This is the rcquest thai we would makc which 1 hope will facilitatc the
procedure of iIic Coriri. withoui raisiiig a forriial objeciioii. R u i we woiild.
wirh rcspecr ro wIia1 seetii cIcarly to us ro be iiew documeiits. ask whelhcr i t is
riitetidcd io intradiice ilicni as sircli in accordance with tlie Rtilcs or Court.
TIic .ACI-fNG I'KESIDEN'T : Would i h e Agciii of Triiiisia like to iiiake any
coiii1ircti ts oii i hc rescrvarioii ns ro i hose docirnicnis or givc sonie iiidicatioti
berore mme or thcin are uscd.
M. RENGIIA%I : Je ti'ai aiiciiiie observarion a foriniiler. Morisierir le
Pi-ksidciii.
Thc ACI'l NG PKESI DEN'I' : Thc rcsei.vaiioi.i is riotcd aiid ~ 1 1 bc 1 dei111with
i i diic
~ course
 R ~ P L I Q UDE
E M. VIRAI,I,Y {Suird
CONSEIL I>U GOUVEKNIIMENT 1)E 1.A TUNISIL:

M. V I R ALLY : Monsieur le Presidenr. Messieurs les inembres de Ia Cour. je

ni'c~aisa r r ~ hier en fiil de nialinCe au momeiit d'aborder les rails spkifiques
sur lesquels if y a accord ou dsaccord enlre les Parlies.
Le poiiit de desaccord essenlie1 est &idemment la direci ion dans IaqueIle se
dcveIoppe la marge contincntaIe. Le vice de la ihsc libyenne sur ce point. j'ai
dlja cil I'occasion de Ic soirligner. vietit de ce qiille se refi~seB considtrer Ies
rcalits conteniporaines de la geomorphologie, bien que celle-ci soi1 le point
d'aboti tisscment de louie l'histoire gologique anlbriciire. el ta recapituIe. e n
quelqrte sorte. EIIe SC refuse reconnaitrc que la margcconiiiieiiiale actuelle. el
je soiilignc aciuelle, partaiif des cetes des deux Elals. se continue par des fonds
marins peu profonds et se dirige. srijv:tiir uiic penic coiiliriue, vers Ia mer
profonde qui esi siruce a I'est. polir se [er~iiiriereiifiri dris la plaine abyssale
. - ionicn~ie.Afin de tenter d'imposer unc autre image que celle qiii es1 visible
pour Ie profane comme pour l'expert. la ihese libyenlie est oblige dshumer
uii pIaieau coni~rienlalenfoui sous des couches rkenies de passanl en cerlaiiis
poiiils 4000 mtres. par iine operation de dkhabillage chre a cerlaines ccoles
gEologiques et dciiomme Iit~cXsiril>/iiti,y.alin de le subst ititer a u pIaieau
conlemporain.
La ihfsc de la Tunisie esi qiic cciic oprarioti cotiipliquCc c s ~Ila rois inu-
tile et fallacieuse. qit'jI ne iaiit dotic pas s'y Iivrcr ci qai'on doii s'en tenir a u s
ralitfs cotiietnporaincs dc la gCologic tocale. Mais. paii~qrik110sconrradiclei~rs
en ont faii le caiur dur dc Icur thesc dans sa dcrnirc ditioii. qu'ils nous
afirrirciit. sans sourcillcr. q ~ i cIc bloc pdagicri csi coristituC par uiic 113iit-gc
contiiieritalc disiciisivc. dc i y p c ailaiiriquc, iourtitic vci-s lc nord er prolon-
gcaiii dans celle direction Ic coiirinctil arricaiii. rious nc rioiis dkrobcrons pas.
N o u s Ics suivrons sur Ic icrrain qu'ils ont choisi. niais air ils Toiit preuvc
d'une ccririiiie igtioranct: dc la yCoIogic ;i ici'rc. qui disposc. cepetidani. de
doriiics bcaticorip plus noiiibrcuss et siires quc cllcs di1 foiid dcs tilers.
utiIiscs par Ics h ydrographcs. Ct'ttc rf~ttatiori iiutis obligcr. malheurcusc-
rncnr. i itiie cscursron daiis le doiiiinc dc 12 ~ii;icrogkologic qiic j'airrliis
sotihaiik kvitcr. Je dois m'en cxcuscr auprs de la Corir. dei$ saturtie d'csposs
scieniiriqucs. Je rcrai ioui iiioii possibic pour que ceiic excursion soir atrssr
brve et siniple qric possiblc ci rcvietidrai ds quc je Ic pourrai ails siinplcs dori-
iiecs dc Iri rSgioti.
Pour jusri fier tcurs concltisions. Ic professeur Rowett ci scs experts ont du
privilegier uiic situation lransiloire appariie dans dcs remps gologiques lrs
anclens cl rempIace, depuis au moins 100 millions d'annes. par une
volutiori diftkente qui a conduii ta striicturc actueIIe. orientce vers I'est.
Afin de donner du poids leur argunient. ils ont eu recours. nous le savons a
une Lhorie construile pour la cte atlantique de I'ArnCrique dtr Nord et non
transposabIe a la MEdiierranee.
Sur une carte gi.nrale de la Mditerrane, cst--dire la figure 4 c de
@ I'annexe II a u memoire Iibycn. on voit aiscment I'opposition entre Ie systme
alpin et les plates-formes africaines. si longuement dcrite dans les kritures
libyennes. Ce syslkme alpin es1 Iui-mmc issu de sillons plus ou moins
 KEPLIQUE I>E hi. i'IKr\LLl' 321
profonds. qui stiraicnt etrtrc Ics niarges instabIes des deux grands blocs
contineniaux eurasien et africain.
Ces siIlons taient dus a une distension et a un kcarternent entre Eurasie et
Afrique. qui a dfbute il y a environ 300 millions d'annces, a la fin du
carboiiiferc, ei la fameuse hirixolir~cade la Dieffara, qui SC continue au sud de Ia
Tunisie occidenlale et de I'Algerie. est un des lmenls de rupture de ceire
poque. qui separait la pIate-forme stable africaine d'une pIate-forme instable et
subsidenie sous te Maghrcb et le bloc pelagien. Jusqu'ici. nous rcstons trs
proches du rkcit du professeur Bowett.
iMais il faut rappeler que I'ocan Tcihys, qui s'est forme de ceiic fqan entre
@ l'Eurasie el l'Afrique. n'ktaii pas une vaste Ctendue rgiilire, comme
I'AiIaii tique aciuel. A insi que Ie rnotitre bien Ia figure 1 4 de l'annexe 1 2 A. gui
es1 tiree du contrc-mrnoirc libyen. Iorsqu'on regarde Ie croquis no 2 de cette
figure, on voit que les sillons Etarent trs troits a l'ouest et s'largissaieni i t Iest
sous ce qui est devenu depuis la Mediterrane orientale. En outre. ils
oii iournaieiit Ic vaste proniontoire correspondant la incr Adriatiqiie ci a iine
pari importante de I'ltaIic. I I ne s'agissait donc et1 aucunc faon d'un ocean
dispose rEgulirement ds1 en orrest. mais d'un siIlon troit, au nord du bloc
pclagien. s'ouvrarit largetnent en Mcditcrrance orientale. or ienlf vers ls1 par
consequent.
Celle affirmation est corrobore par deux raits.
D'une part. Iars dm colIisions ultrieures. des fragments du plancher
oceanique ont t suuIevEs et aggIornEr dans Ies chanes de montagnes. Ce
son1 les roches ignkes, dites ophioliles i>par les gEoIogues. Leur abondance
((

pcrrnei d'cvaIuer Ia largeur de I'oc&an dtruit., Elles se rencontrent en traces

dans l'Allas aIgf rien ; elles sonl t r k frcquentes en Italie et dans Ie.5 Alpes
centrales et prennent un vaste developpement en Grce. Chypre ei en
Turquie - donc a I'est - pour devenir considerables cn Iran.
D'autre part, I'chelle du bIoc pIagien (ici sur la cartc ES-6de Innexe 1 au
conire-niemoire tunisien), on constate que, si I'ensembIe du Maghreb il y a 231)
a 175 millions d'annes. duratit I'epoqiie criasique, tait couvert de Iagunes qui
ont donne des dp8ts saIiferes. on passe progressivement a des dpts marins
en allant vers I'est ; c'est vrai non seulement en Sicile et dans Ies forages sous
Malte, mais aussi aux ameurcments d'Azizia et de Garian, au sud de Tripoli
Des celte poque trs ancienne, il existait donc dans le bIoc plagien une
composanre vers I'est, avec une progression de zones Iagunaires vers dcs facies
sous-marins dans cette direclion. La mer tait donc l'est.
C'est une des premires constatations. qui concerne les ges gologiques
anciens. sur lesquels s'appesan til la Pariie adverse. Une seconde constata1 ion.
qui concerne des iges moins anciens, mais encore eIoignk. es1 pIus intfres-
Sante encore.
La Partie adverse a defini la marge plagienne par un Etirenient dans le sens
nord-sud, qui n'auralt pris fin que lors de la collision entre l'Afrique et
I'ensernbIe alpin-eurasien, a laquelle elle attribue un age trs tardif a l'chelle
geologique - 10 millions d'annes environ.
Or. la gologie de terrain montre des raits qui conduiseni a des conclusions
nettement diffrentes. Je ciierai. en particulier, u n travaiI ' appuye par de
nombreuses mesures. effeciu par I'lnsiitut franais du petrole et pubIie par
Lelouzey er Trernolieres au congres mondial dc gblogic de 1 980 (colloque des
chaines alpines issues de la 'Terhys). Ce travail ftablit d e faon certaine que des

' Non reproduit. Voir ci-aprs, correspondance, no 12 1 .

 inotivcnients rccrotiiques se son1 produits dans la rgion occupe par la
MEditerranee ccritrale et orientale pariir du cenomanien. c'csi-8-dirc iI y a
1 UO rnillioiis d'aiinks enviroii, avec une compression oriente nord-oucst/siid-
est. Cette illustration (26th 111tern. Geol. Coiigress, BRGM. Park, I 980. fig. 5 ) '
le monire clairemeni. Toiri gcoIogue sail que si de teIles compressions affectent
Ia couverture sedimeniaire, c'est qu'il n'y avait plus de zoncs oceaniques et1
disiensioii vers Ie nord. En d'autres termes. le phnomne dc formation de la
niarge conrinentaIe vers le nord dcrit par Ie professeur Boweti iisisrail en
tout cas plus a cette priode. I I y a 1 IHO milIiotis d'annks.
Ces compressions ont eu u n triple elTel sirr la plaie-forme insiable d u
Maghreb el de la mer Pclagienne :
1 . ElIes ont d'abord cre dc vastes ondulations de ta croule, q u i sont a
I'origi tie des transversaIes hautes (Kasserine-Kerkennah-hdedinal et basses
IsiIloii tunisien-Hammamel, d'une pan : siIIon de Gafsa-golfe de Ga&s-si11011
tripolitain. dulre pari].
7. tes compressions ont, d'aulre part, bauch sur le plan local des
structures anticlitlates et sy~iclinalesau sein de la couverture flottant sur le
salifre. Cc sont les anctres des plis qui affleurent mainteiiant en Tunisie
ccntrale ou qui son1 dkeles par gophysique sotis Ic plareau contineiital.
3. Elles oiit crifin dcIenche Ics migrations du sel. qui a ainsi corninenci. son
asccnioii vers les domes et les rides. (Tous ces phnomnes sont bien
apparents sur la carte O qui se trouve dans le dossier des juges et IaqucIIc i l a
l fait atlusion toul a I'heurc par sir Fraiicis Vallat. Je ne citerai pas les autres
carres qu'iI a menlionnes.)
II y a 55 a 50 millions d'annees, c'est-a-dire IYwene inferieirr. la rotaiion
du bloc africain, signaIEe par Ie professeur Bowett ei illustrce par Ie croquis
no 4 de la figiirc 14 d e I'anries 12-A air cotitrc-tnmoirc libyen. orieriic les
@ contraintes au nord-nord-o~icsiisud-s~id-est. Cert te moment OU. au nord de la
Syrie, Ies forages indiquent un bascuteinent du platicher de Ia tner Ioriieniie.
qiii devient u n e mer profonde ri I'esi. Le long de lscarpement de Malte-
Misralah. s'opposenr des faci& dde plate-forme l'ouest cl des facis plus
profonds a I ' a t , comme Ic monrre la carte ES-2 de l'annese I au contre-
me moire tunisien.
Entrc 38 ei 20 miIIioiis d'annecs avant noirc ere (nousnous rapprochons), a
I'oIigocenc et au mimne infrieur. la rotation relative du bloc africain et de
I'ensernble eurasien a cree encore des compressioiis orient& celle fois nord-
estlsud-ouest ou nord-tiord-est/sud-sud-ouest (26th 1 ntern. Geol. Congress.
B R C M , Paris, 1980, fig. 91 C s i le moment o l'axe iiord-sud de Ia Tunisie
voii son compartiment oriental s'abaisser par rapport au chle occidenta1 et oii
s'accumulent d'cpaisses series de sdiments oligochnes et mio-ptiocenes sous les
pIsines du Sahel et dans tes siIIons de la mer Plagienne.
LRs paroxysmes du pIissement ailasique au miocne suprieur. il y a environ
1 2 millions d'annes (nous sommes presque au terme de notre excursion), puis
a u plio-quaternaire (2 millions d'annes) von1 faire apparaitre de nouveIlcs
compressiotis orieniks nord-oiiest /sud-es! qui se voient sur la figure 9. Ellcs
accuseni Ies plis deja ebauches depuis te cretace et I'eccene : etIes mettent en
place Ies nappes de charriage des zones teIIiennes et les arcs alpins qui

' Voir ci-aprcs. correspondance. no 1 2 1 .

Histoire gologique de la mer Plagienne. ,,
((
 Iniiiilisabje en tout cas pour une dclimitation. S'il en Eta~tencore besoin. iin
seul csemple suMirait a le demontrer. La rnethode preconisce par la Libye
applique datis la rgion du golfe arabo-persique, ou cerre marge fossile est
EgaIemenr enfouie. aurait les r&ulta!s siaivanis : le prolongement nature1 des
Emirals ne se situerait pas seulemenl dans la partie de la mer q u i esi au droit de
leurs celes, il s'erendrait sous lout le golfe. auquel les autres riverains n'atiraient
aucun droit. el sous Ic Zagros iranien, puisque la marge coritinentaIe en
quesrion s'approfondissait dans cette direction jusqu'a la grande co~lisionde la
@ fin du crtaa (figure 4 dc I'annexe I I a u memoire libyen). Ce rsultat, me
semb!c-t-il. se passe de cornmeniaire.
Parvenu au rerrne de cerre excursion rapidc dans Ies g s geoIogiques
anciens. ie voudrais. avant de conclure sur ce aoint revenir auelarres
- 7 >- - . . instants
aux Simples ralites ~omorphologiquesde Ia rcgion. q u i nous donnent, sur les
caracrcristiqucs de la marge contirien tale actueile, ioules les.inrorrnations utiles
au juriste.
Cela m'arnene a tine consratation deja faite lors de mes premieres
inlerveniions du premier tour de pIaidoiries : c'est que. sur ce terrain des faits
proches et pertinents. dificilenient coiitestables en raison de la qualit des
r e i e v k dont nous disposons, les experts des detis Parties ne sont pas trEs loin
les iins des autres, nime si les experts Iibyens se sont eflorces de minimiser les
a ~ t sinvoquk par la Tunisie, comme on poilvail videinnieni s'y atiendre. Ei
c'est d'ailleurs la raison pour laquelle le professeur Bowetc, apres sir Francis
\'alla1 et avec !'&ho de ses experts, a mene une philippique contre Ia
baihymetrie en lant que telle. Ceile-ci n'a pourtaiil pas d'aulre prhention que
de mesurer Ies profondeurs et de joindre les points de mme profondeur pour
permettre de connaitre les pcntes. C'est une science descriptive. il est un peu
vain de s'attaquer ainsi a cile parce qu'on ne peur contester I'exactitudc dcs
informations qu'elle nous fournil. En rarit, Ies Pariies sbpposcnt d'abord et
avani lout sur 1'1nierprlaiion qu'elles donnent aux raits qu'clles admettent
l'une et l'autre et sur l'importance qu'if convient de leur donner dans I'appli-
cation des p r i ~ i c i pet regles de droit internatioiial rcgissant Ia dfliniitatioti.
Cela es! bien iIIustrc par deux poinu.
h prcmier CQnCcrnE Ia Iigne dile de Ragusa-Gabs, ou Ailris /?il11 Fir,~ir
d'aprcs nos contradictcurs, reprsentke sur la figure no 4 du dcuxieme cIasseur
libyen. et qui a ct avancbe par Ia Libyc dans le seuI but d'etablir des diffcrenccs
entre la partie du bloc plagien englobant Ie territoire tunisien au nord de
Gabs ei la pari ie du bloc OU doit passer la dlim~tation.
Cette ligne n'a Evldernment aucune existence faauelle. Elle n'est qu'une
faon de reprkenter certains faits, savoir que les zones du bloc plagien les
pIus proches du pIissement atIasiquc on! Et vidernmeni davantage affcctees
par cclui-ci que le reste du bIoc. Son trace a CIE presentc comme une hypothse
dans des rravaux anciens, dont l'auteur ne disposait a l'poque d'aucune
information geophysique sous la mer Pdagienne et tnnie sous la Tunisie
orieritaIe.
txplorarion sysrfrnalique de la Tunisic orientale par sismique el par
forages et les progrs de la connaissance de la region a terre et en mer qui en
rcsultent ne permettent plus de maintenir aujoiird'hui le dessin de cette Iigne.
Le professeur Fabricius lui-mme a d admettre qu'il s'agissail d'une zone et
pas d'une ligne (ci-dessiis p. 1851. [ l a ajoulc qulle craii ires significative. inats
ne nous a pas dit de quoi. Il n'a pas repris son compte, en toui cas, le terme
de frontire que Iui suggcrait le professeur Bowett. En rcalit. compte tenu
des informations don1 on disposc aujourd'hui. et qui sant representecs sur
Ia ligure ES-3 de l'an~icxc1 au conire-rninoire iunisicn. une Iigne dlimi-
tani Ics plis atlasiques dans Ic bloc pClagien devrait envcloppcr tout Ic plateaii
liinisien.
Dans CC contexie, il est Important de noter que loirs Ie experts et conseils
libyens sans exception continuent de prsentcr l'axe nord-sud cotnme Ia limite
occidentale du bloc pclagien. A maintes reprises. ils ont rcconnu Ia continuit
geologique existant entre la Tunisie orienlale ei les autres parties du bloc, c'est-
a-d~rele pIaieau coniinenial actuel. I r n'est pas ncessaire d'aller pIus loiii. Cela
suffit rendre vaines toutes les tentatives d'ktablir u n e frontire a l'ouest dtr
bIoc qui soit diffrente. Au surplus. mEmc si l'axe nord-sud sparait deux
domaines geotogiques entirement diffrents - ce qui n'est pas te cas - ce
serait sans consequence juridique, des lors que cette continuite est tablie. Pour
le professeur Bowett. il s'agi! d'une coniinuiie latrale l i fci-dessus p. 166). Le
<(

mot est joIi. Mais c'art un mot.

Un autre trait - rEel celui I i - . qui fait probtemc de I'autrc c6tE de la barre.
est celui de la simiIariiE des contours bathymetriques et des cotes tunisieniles,
sirniIarit a Iaquelle la Tunisie, juste titre, attache une grande valeur
dernons~rativeet qui sont visibles sur cerie carte 2.03 de la rcplique tunisienne.
Le profcssci~rFabricius ne l'a pris nie Ici-dcssus p. i 94). inais on s'csi efforck.
par toures sortes de moyens, de la rneitre en doute. Sur ce point, la Cour n'a
certainement pas besoin des experts pour se faire sa propre conviction. C'est
pourquoi i l me parait inuiilc d'argumenter.
Pour le reste, iI n'y a pas vraimenr de quereIIe. TelIe que je l'avais rsuni& le
mercredi 23 septembre ( I V , p. $58 et suiv.) ei rappeIee encore il y a un insrant.
la thse tunisienne est trs simple. Elle se dveIoppe en trois propositions.
La premiere est que la direction de la marge continentale dans Ie bloc
plagien es1 determine a partir de chaque point des c8tes tunisiennes et
libyennes par une ligne de pente continue - bien qu'irrgulibre dans son
gradient et susceptible de rencontrer des irregultiritks locales - , une Iigne de
pente conlinue, qui descend progressivcrnen t et ,constamment vers la mer
Ionienne cl, finalement, la pIaine abyssale. Ce fait n'a pas t conteste par la
Pariie adverse. mime s'iI est expliqu uniquement par elle. par u n basculernenr
(iilriii,yl du pplatcau vers Ist, dont on nous afirme qu'iI n'a pas eu dffet sur
son orientation. ce qui est pour Ie moins paradoxal. Mais. nialgr bien des
rticences, l'existence de la plaine abyssale ionienne n'est pas non plus
vraiment contesl6e.
La seconde proposition de la rhse tunisienne es! que le bIoc pelagien est
marqu,.dans la zone de cidimitaiion, par trois alignements ouest-est, q u i
prolongent des alignements idenliques observs e n Tunisie. er qui sont
constitues par une partie haute centraIe. le plateau tunisien, eniour de deux
valIfes dans l'axe du golfe de Hammamei et du golfe de Gabs. Ces
alignements. ou transversales, exprimeni clairemeni It prolongemeni de la
terre tunisienne dans Ia mer Pclagienne.
Lc noIn de plateau tirnisien cst conteste. ce qui est sans rniportance. mais
le professeur Fabricius a d reconnaiire que les transversales consrituaierit
u n (< argunient vaIide ,i mme si. pour lui. csl seulement dans u n sens trcs
lltniii. Ici-dessus p. i85-186). Il ne pouvait deccinrnent aller au-del dc cet
effort dc minimisation verbaIe a propos d'un fait dont il avait reconnu expres-
sment cr clairetncnt l'existence dam l'etudc qu'il a signe et qui figure en
annexe I 1 (voir p. 1 3 ) a u contre-mmoirc libyen (III).On notera, d'aiIIeurs, en
passant quc sur cctie carre de l'Unesco en cours de publication, ei dont le
professeur Fabricius est un des diteurs, Ic plateau tunisieti es1 bicn ~tidiqu
et dsignf sous ce norn dc plateau tunisicii. qur ne peut par conseqiicni irc
conteste.
 REPLIQUE DE h.1. llIR.AI,LY 327
pu me rjouir. me fdiciter, des ecIaircissements importants apporls par les
plaidoiries de la dIgation Iibyenne, tout en regrettant que des obscuritks
subsistent et que de nouveIIes s'y soient mme ajoutes. ParIant aujourd'hui
des net ho des pratsques Iibye~r~res. j'ai beaucoup moirrs me rjouir. Maigri. Ies
ecIaircissemenis nurnbreux er utiIes donns par les conseils de Ia Libye, et
notarnnient par I'expose scintilIant de M. Highet. ou, paradoxalement, a cause
de ces kcIaircissements, les obscurif& de la thse Iibye~r~ie i t cess de
~ i ' o ~pas
spaissir. jusqua devenir i1rso11dabIes.
LE point de dpari tait ~~Iaiivernent sin-rpIe: cetait Ia Iigne pur nord d u
~ninoireIibyen. Ia ligne qrii refI~ela direction du proIo~rgementvers Ie no^-d
du point termina1 de Ia frontire te1-restre. p o u reprendre Ies termes de Ia
concIrisinn 5 de ce me~noire.
On nous a reproch d'avoir pris cette concIusion au srieux et dvuir mme
eu I'audace de rnont1-er quoi eIIe conduisair eIi traant une carte qui est Ia
@ figure 3 01 du contre-1n61noi1-e turrisien. Seloir nos dis~inguscontradicteurs.
qr11 n'ont pas mma~iquune occasion de le ~.epeter.cette ligne il'aurait jamais
reprisent Ies vues d e la Libye.
Je ferai seu Iemeni deux obse1-vat io~is.
La premire est qu'aucun mot, ni dans le ~neirioire Iibyen. ni dans ses
concIusions, ne pe1-mettait de se reprsenter autre~nentI'appIication d e la
mthode proposee. Toute I'argu~ne~itatiorr deveIoppee corrdaisait. i~iluctabIe-
ment, ce rsuItat.
La seconde es1 qu'iI n'existe aucune diffrence substantieIIe errtre Ia Iigne
@ 1-eproduiiea i r Ia figure 3-01 du contre-mmoire tunisien IIa f-a~neuseIrrr~rvi?
Iifrr4 et Ia Iig~ie A >> apparaissanr sur Ia figure produite aux pages 201 et 202
du contre-m6rnoi1-elibyen (11, p. 335 et 3351, tabIie, bien erirerrdu, avant q u e
Ia Libye ait pu voir Ia figure tunisienne.
La seules diffrences entre Ies deux lignes proviennent :
1 } de ce que Ia Tunisie a utilis une figne continue et la Libye une Iigrre de
flches ; ce n'est ceries pas une di fi-e~ice snbsta~irielIe:
21 de ce que Ia carte I i b y e ~ ~ s'a~.rte
ne au nord a queIques f i n u t e s an-dessus
du 36' paraIIIc et que sa Iigne, en consquence, a dU eti-e ar1-kte au-dessus d e
Ia Iatitr~dede I'Ie i1aIienne de Linosa - mais Ies flches utiIisees poi11- la
represe~ilersignifient clairement quqeIIepouvait &irepr-oIonge plus au nord ;
au C V I ~ I I - aIai ~
carre
e rir~iisienneva air-deIa d u 37Cparalllc,dc sorte que la Iigne
a pu tre irace u ~ degr i plus haut. Ce nst pas non pIus une diErence
substa~itielIe.

G ~ n r n e n tIgent et Ies co11se1Isde Ia Libye peuvent-ils nous reprocher

aujou1-d'hrri d'avui1- cornp1-iset reprkent Ies rsuItats auxquels co~idrrisaii1eri1-
mthode de fao11presque identique 1eu1'prop1-e rep1-kentation ?
On nous reproche aussi de parIer de nlet hode correctrice propos du virage,
ou iwv-irrg. effectrr paI- Ie conlre-mmoire Iibyei~pour tenir compte du
promontoire du SaIiel. Ce V~I-age est cependan1 excut par le recours ce qui
ne peut tre co~isidrarilrement que comme une mthode nouveIle, reposant
sur une justification et une Iugique gographiques totaIeinent trangres a Ia
jus~ificatio~i et A Ia Iogique gologiques de Ia mthode du mmoire. El celle
~nthuderrouveIIe a bien pour objet de corriger Ies resuItars. ~ n a ~ i i f e s ~ e r n e ~ i t
inquitabIes, de la Iigne c( A i> produite par cette dernire. Aussi bien, Ie contre-
mmoire Iibyen designe-t-il par la Ierrre << Z )i 11a Iig~reutiIiske par Ia deuxime
mthode, pour bien Ia diffrencier de Ia Iigne (< A i>.
e rnont1-ele professeur Ben Achour. ces deux mthodes iie sont pas
C o m ~ n l'a
 I
PLATEAU CONTlNENTAL

seuIement differenles. eIIes sont contradictoires,;en ce que Ia seconde raIise, au

profit de Ia Tunisie. un ernpitenient sur ce que Ia premire dfinit w m m e Ie
proIonge~nentnaturel de la Libye. M . Highet n'a pas lente d'expIiquw celle
contradiction. II s'est born - procd de piaidoirie - tablir un paraIIde
entre le changement de positiorr Iibyen et Ies ajustements que jlai apports, au
cours de mon expos oral, Ia Iigne des crtes i>. Mais iI n'y a pas de paraIIIe.
La mthode que ji dtaiIIe est identique ceIIe que le rnrnoire tunisien avait
+
dcrite. J a i t amene sirnpIement montrer, la Iurnire des donnes plus
rcentes el plus prcises dont nous disposons- ~nainterra~it. que Ies rsullals
auxquels conduisait son application s u r Ie terrain taie111Igremenl diffrents
de ceux indiqus dans le mmoire. Mais Ia mtIiode eIIe-menie n'a pas changi.
d'un pwce.
Passons sur la co~ilradictio~i. M~nesi c'tai1 ie prix payer pour parvenir 5
un resultat moirrs inquitabIe, je compre~rdsparfailenlent que Ia Parlie
Iibyerrne ~r'ail pas hsit faire ce sacrifi-. En outre, au stade du contre-
mmoire, comme celui de la rpIique. Ia rnthClde goIogique restail encore Ia
mthode principaIe. Ia mthode de base.
Aujourd'hui, nous sommes. sur ce point. dans k br0~iIIardIe pIus co1np1et.
Mon distingue contradicteur M. Highet a prsent la mthode prco~iisepar la
Libye avec une grande minutie anaIytique. Et jenole, entre parentlrses. que ce
qu'iI a fait consisle a dcrire une o u des mthodes de deIimitatiun, cst--dire
une ou des mthodes pratiques de tracer une Iigne de dlimitation. Qu'aurait-i1
pu faire d'autre I II a dmontr ainsi, de faon exprimentale. Ie pur verbaIIsrne
de Ia distinction dfendue par Ia Libye enlre mthode de dIimilatiun confurme
aux principes el rgles de droit inlernationa1 applicables, et mthode d'applica-
tion des principes et regIes de droit internationai applicabIa a Ia dlirn~lation.
La mthode u~iliseconduit d'aiIIeurs des rsuItats qui peuvent elre
iIIustrs par le trac d'une Iigrre sur une carte. tout de meme que Ies mlhodes
tunisiennes. Le fait que Ia carte utilisk pour cette iIIustratiun soit plus petite et
que Ies Iignes soient reprsentes par des fiches pIut6t que par des traits
continus n'y change rien. Fernions cette parentiise.
Ce qui m'a frappe. c'est que dans cette description minulieuse de la mihode
Iibyenrre, rnise part une rfrence tour fail gnrale et, encore une fois,
purement verbale. aux critureset aux exposs libyens relatifs a Ia gobgie, je
n'ai pour ainsi dire plus entendu parIer de geoIogie. C'est comme si M. Higlret
avait t absent, ou distrait peut-tre, pendant Ies pIaidoiries une urr deux
voix du professeur Bowett et de ses experis. I I n:en a peu prs rierr retenu.
La philosophie mme qui inspire sa description (ci-dessus p. 22 I est aux
arrtipodes de ceIIe qui se trouve derrire Ie triomphant ~~orrharard rhrirsf. Cst
Ia mthode des petits pas. On.doit commencer dans une zone reiativement
<(

precise et Iiniile . pour reprendre les lermes de M. Highet. Et I, eIIe sera

dter~ninepresque e~itirernenlpar Ie point lermirral de Ia fronlire terrestre.
Li el je cite encore :
Ia preuve prdominante de Ia d i r ~ t i o r jgnrale du proIvngement
(<

naturel doit elre considrk en relation avec la Iigne de direction spkifique

du dernier segment de Ia frontikre terrestre >>.

Sans doute, nous dit-on, Ia forme de la ma& terresrre ne peut-eIIe tre

indique par un simple point. Mais puisque, ajoute-t-on. dans le cas prsent, on
a affaire u n segment de frontire d'errviron 60 kiIomelres au sud de Ras
Ajdir, une rgle de raison permet de dire que c'est tout fait adquat pwIr
dterminer les masses terrestres concernes i>. Eiride~nment,pour M. Highel,
 ce segment a une direction nord, ce qui n'est qu'une approximation, nous Ie

!
I
savons, puisque la frontire a pris en considration, pour se dterminer. des
Iimites de territoires tribaux. Soit di!, encore entre parenthses. les !ribus en
cause auraient t t r k surprises d'apprendre qultes avaienl dcouvert la vrai
direction du prolongement naturel du territoire Iibyen. Fermons la parenthse.
M . Highei a ajoute que, au fur et Ci mesure de Ia progression vers le large,
lorsqubn s'iloigne des chtes, iI faIIait tenir compte d'autres circonstances, dites
pertinentes. notamment d'une courbe particuIiere de la cote tunisienne : celle
du Sahel.
Avec cette mthode pointilliste, finies les grandes thories, les approches
coniinentaIw, Ies centaines de millions d'annes des temps gologiques. Nous
voici dans la microgographie, physique et poIitique, mime plus dans le
rgional : dans le local. Quel contraste !
Qu'en est-iI de la goIogie dans tout cela ? 11 apparait cIairement, d'aprs tout
ce que nous venons de voir, qu'elIe n'a aucune place dans la mthode pratique,
w qui est pour Ie moins surprenant, a p r k tant d'ludes savantes, d'accumu-
lation de donnes, de figures,de graphiques, d'exposes. Cela n'a pas chapp
mon distingu contradicteur, qui avance une explication ingnieuse et lgante,
mais a nouveau purement verbale.
t'tablissement d'une mthode de dlimitation ncessiterait. nous dit-on,
quatre tapes, qui, est-il prcise, <( seraient toutes censes etre simultanes ou
avoir des effets simtiItanes )> Ici-dessus p. 22 3). Comprenne qui pourra.
Ces quatre tapes sont : premirement, I'examen de la direction gnrale
indique par les faits de prolongement naturel physique (c'est la gologie, ici
voque) ; deuximement, son raffinement en une ligne plus prcise,
commenant prks de Ia frontire terrestre, par rfrence a des circonstances
cotieres, telles que la continuation de Ia frontire terrestre ; iroisiemement, un
raflnement supplmentaire a u,ne plus grande distance de la ciite, par d'aurres
circonstances pertinentes ; enfin, quatrimement, a concretjsation en une
ligne de dlimitation.
Si Ia premire phrase que j'ai cite, s u r Ia simuItanite, a un sens, elte
signifie qu'd s'agit d'oprations intgres dans une opration globale et non
d'oprations successives. Mme pour la concrtisation de la ligne de delimi-
ation ? La Tunisie n'est jamais alle aussi loin Ionqu'eIIe a parle des m-
!hoda.
L'ide de (< ralfinement i i , d'autre part, est sduisante. Mais que signifie-
t-elle, a partir du moment ou ce prtendu raffinement permet de s'carter
substantiellement de la direction gnrale qu'il est cens rafiner, par un virage
soudain pris suivant un angIe d'environ 40'. ce qui n'est pas rien ? Le
raffinement est-il plus qu'un mot dans ce cas, destine a dissimuler que la
fameuse direction gnrale H, indique par la gologie. ne dirige plus rien ? Et
pourquoi cette direction generale s'afaiblirait-elle lorsqu'on s'loigne de ta
cote? N'est-elle pas le prolongement de toute la masse terrestre de I'Etat,
queIque chose qui est profondment inscrit dans la nature jusqu'au rebord du
plaleau, comme I'a expliqu le profaseur Boweir avec beaucoup de force Ici-
dessus p. 163-1641, Il y a en ralit une incompatibilit absolue entre la
philosophie, ou la Iogique, de la mthode des petits pas, utilise pour tracer la
dlimitation, et ceIle du prolongement naturel du continent jusqu'au rebord
extrieur de la marge continentale, qui inspire la doctrine gologique de la
Libye. Aucune riconciliation n'est possible entre ces deux logiques. L'abandon
de la gologie est inscrit l u i aussi, i r k profondment, dans Ia mthode dcrite
par M. Highet. PIus prcisment encore : cette mthode consacre dfinitive-
ment l'abandon de la gklogie a toutes fins pratiques.
330 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

Un renversement aussi radical. une voIte-race aussi brutale, effectue Iors

des deux dernires plaidoiries Iibyennes, me jette dans la perplexit. Je ne puis
penser qu'il ne subsiste plus rien de l'immense effort scientifique poursuivi par
la Libye depuis son mmoire jusqua l'avant-dernier jour de la presen1atiori
oraIe de son cas. 11 doir en rester quelque chose, quelque part. Mais ou ? Je dois
avouer que je me trouve sur ce point dans Ibbscurit la plus complete. Tout se
passe comme si la Partie adverse avaii prsente simultanment deux cas
totalement diffrents. spares et mutuellement contradictoires
TeIIes qulles sont prsentes maintenant, Ics mlhodes de ta Libye son1
devenues indfendables. On peut sc demander, lgitimement, si !eurs auteurs y
croient encore.
En tout cas, il ne serait gure convenable pour moi, dans ces circonstances,
d'ennuyer ta Cour par une rfutation dtail tee.
C'est pourquoi je crois plus utile de me tourner, sans plus tarder, vers Ies
mthodes tunisiennes. El ceci d'autant plus que si l'argument gologique libyen
conserve un sens - je ne parle pas de sa validit - c'est un sens dfensif. 11
n'apporte rien P l'appui d 6 mthodes libyennes, mais il continue de contredire
I'interpretation des donnes gologiques prksentes par la Tunisie.
Je crois superflu de revenir sur celte contradiction. J'ai su fisamment parl
hier et ce marin de gologie pour me dispenser de le faire a nouveau. TelIe
qu'elle a t prsente dans sa version finale, comme dans ses versions
prcdentes, la thorie gologique libyenne n'est pas en mesure de redresser
vers le nord un deveIoppement de la marge continenrale actuelle, au large des
cbtes de Ia Tunisie et de la Libye, qui s'effectue manifestemen1 vers l'est.
Mais on adresse, de I'aurre cot de la barre, d'autres critiques aux mthodes
tunisiennes, critiques qui ont t dveloppes par le distingue agent de la Libye
et par plusieurs de ses conseils. en particuIier sir Francis VaIIat, te professeur
Malintoppi, le professeur Bowett et M. Highet. It me faut rpondre brivement
aux plus importantes d'entre elles.
Ces critiques sont de deux ordres. Les unes sont formules a I'enconire de
I'ensembIe des mthodes tunisiennes. Les autres ariicuI6es plus spcifiquement
contre l'une ou l'autre d'entre etles.
Je commencerai par les premieres, me rservant d'examiner 1 s autres. au
fur et a mesure de l'examen que je ferai des pariicuIarites de ces mthodes et
sur Ieur justification.
Les critiques d'ensemble ont pris elles-rnrnesdeux formes. Certaines d'entre
elIes son! adresses au faisceau de lignes, shtwf of liires. rsultant de
I'appticalion des diverse mthodes tunisiennes. D'autres reprochent a Ia
Tunisie de n'avoir pas ienu compte. dans I'6tabIissemeni de ces mthodes, de
circonstances que la Libye prtend tre pertinentes. J'examinerai successive-
ment ces deux types de critiques.
D'abord le fameux (( faisceau de Iignes i ) .
Le mmoire tunisien avaii regroup sur une mme carte (fig. 9.141 les
diverses lignes donnes a titre purement indicatif et illusiraiif pour klairer la
Cour sur les rsultats approximatifs auxqueIs pourrait conduire I'appIication
des quatre mthodes proposes par ta Tunisie. On peut ainsi conslater que ces
rsultats sont trs proches les uns d q autres. CeIa est trs significatif, tant
donne que les mthodes dont ils sortent sont trs diffrentes er s'appuient sur
des circonstances pertinentes galement diffrentes. On voit ainsi que tout= les
circonstances pertinentes sont prises en considration de faon quilibre.
L'troitesse du faisceau, a vrai dire, n'est pas fortuite. EIIe provient de l'troite
connexit qui lie donnes gomorphologiques et donnes gographiques de la
rgion, connexit sur laquelle la Tunisie a souvent mis l'accent et qui vient de
 REPLIQUE DE M VIRALLY 331
ce que la morphoIogie n'est autre chose qrie I'expressiorr de la gographie ues
cotes se pro101igea1rtdans Ia direction de Ia plaine abyssale.
Cette figure a t trs fr+rrern~nenlreproduite par Ia partie adverse dans ses
critura comme dans sa prsentation orale. Chaque reproduction a t
I'occasio~ide forniuIer des critiques nouveIIes contre Ie faisceau qu'eile
1-eprsente.M. Highet Ies a rcapituIees dans son interventio~r.II lui a reproch
ainsi dtre beaucoup lrop penche vers Ist (ci-dessus p. 241 et 2521, de passer
devant Tripoli Ici-dessus p. 140).de parter aiteinte a la skuril de la Libye {ci-
dessr~sp. 2321. de raliser un changement de directiori iiiadrnissjbIe par rapport
Ia directiori de Ia frontire terrestre (ci-dessusp. 226). d'ig~iorerIes cores des
deui Parties Ici-dessus-p. 2531, de produire un rsultat disproportionn et
dkquiIibre <ci-dessus p. 254).
Je ne m'attarderai pas sur Ia plupart de ces critiques. II a dj t rpondu a
certaines d'entre elles, en particulier a I'argu~ne~it
de scuril, avant-hierencore
par Ie professeur Jennings. Je ~i'y reviendrai pas. Qurr est-iI des autres ? LRs
Iig~iesr~suItarrtdes mthodes propos& par lui passent devant Ies chia a la
Ilauteur de Tripoli ? Que1 est Ie sens de cette critique ? La position de Tripoli
serait-eIie une circoiistancje pertiriente irnposa~ltune dviation de Ia dliinita-
tio~rparce que la capitaie de Ia Tunisie ne se trouve pas sur la nier Pdagienne ?
t p s mthodes tunisiennes, en tout cas, ~l'errrpitenrni sur les m~iesde droits
historiqrres ni sur la Iner territoriale, ni mme eve~ituelIernentsur les eaux
intrieures de Iaulre Etar comme continuent de Ie faire Ies mthodes Iibyenrres.
M. Highet a prktendu le contraire. Rpo~ise: ce nst pas vrai, comme Ie
@ ~nonKebien la figure actuellement projete. Rappekrrs que Ia furure Iigne de
dlirnrtalron, d'apres Ia Libye, doit passer qneique part entre Ia Iigne A et Ia
ligne Z, a un endroit ericore indtermin. Mais iI y a empilernent darrs tous les
cas. N'en depIaise i inon horrorabIe contradicteur. il y a bien un doubIe
sta~idard.
Les mthodes tunisiennes rgnorent Ies cotes ? Deux dntre eIIes sont
construites A partir des coies. Je reviendrai d'aiI1eu1-ssur ce poi~itdans un
instant.
Le rsultat est disproportionnet inquitabIe ? Mais Ia Libye ne soutienl-eIIe
pas qu'une dlimitation conforme au prolongernerit ~laturel- et c'est Ie cas en
I'espece d'aprs la Tunisie - est autornatiquane~rtquitable ?
Reste aIors seulement Ia vraie crifique de Ia Libye : Ies Iignes sorta111des
mthodes tu~~isiennes sont dcidment trop penches vers l'est. M. Highet Ies
pe~icheun peu pIus enwre d'aiIIeurs, 65" nous dit-iI, dors qu7elIesvarient de
60 64" Ici-dessus p. 241 et 2521. Pourquoi trop p e n c h k vers I'est ? Parce
que, se1011Ia Libye, la niarge co~i~i~rentaIe va vers Ie ~iord.Mais si eIle va V ~ I - s
I'esi, l'argument tombe. Nous avons vlr qrre ctait bien Ie cas.
Notre disti~igu contradic1eur semble invoquer une rkgb de droit
inrernatio~iaIqui interdirait une Iigne de dIimitation d'etre penche par
rapport ila cele. Mais la pratique des Etats ignore compItement l'existence
d'une ieiIe rgle. Il existe de nombreux exernpla eIr sens contraire. Le meilleur
d'entre eux est saris doute ceIrri de I'acwrd entre Ia RpubIique idkrale
d'AlIernagne et la Rpublique dmocratique aIIemande du 5 octob1-e 1975
pubIie par Ie gographe du Depurrrnef~sof Srnrc dans Ia publication bien
connue LNnirs NI 1 f 3 Sens,
~ no 74.
La carte projete niontre que la Iigne convenue suit de trs prs. sur toute sa
longueur, Its ctes de ia Rpublique democratique don1 eIIe Ionge mkrne la nier
territuriaIe sur une certaine distarrce. La configuration de !a cete de Ia Repu-
brique fdrale n'est d'aiIleurs pas sans prsenter cerfaines analogies avec ceIIe
des ciires tunisiennes.
 U~reautre variante de I'argument consiste dire que le faisceau de Iignes
for~neun angIe marqu par rapport au der~iiersegment de Ia frorjtire
terrestre. On sait i'irnportarice que ia Partie adverse attache cet argument.
Pour appuyer sa propre #nstruction. M. Highet va jusqu'a aErmer : N each
side or each Party sIlouId bear a heavy burdenl to justify its crossing to the
other side of a norihward continuation of the Iand baundary Iine of direction >i
(ci-dessusp. 226b
Est-il ~~cessaire, devant cette Cour, de dire qu'une amrmation aussi
catgorique Iie I-eposesur rien ? Je n'ai pas te capbIe de trouver uri seuI
exemple de dlimitation du plateau col~lil~ental ralis& par le seul prolqnge-
nen nt de la fro111iere1er1-atredans sa partie Ia plus proche de la cote.
La Libye se~nble-t-ilrr'a pas eu plus de cIiance, puisqu'elle n'en cite aucun.
DesqueIquea cas coni~ne~rts dans Ie memoire libyen (1). aux paragraphes 1 17
1 19, aucun ne corrobore I'ide que la diimitatio~idu pIateao conlinenla1
devrait proIonger Ia fro~~tiere terrestre sans changement de direction. La Cour
a relev elle-mme qu'une leIle methode n'a jamais et erivisage que pour la
dIimitation de Ia mer twritoriaie (et d7aiIleursrejet&), mais ne I'a jamais t
pour Ie plateau eo~~ti~rental {C.I.J. Recueil 1959, p. 34, par. 52).
ResIe prcisment Ia questiori du point o la .dIimiblion coupe la Iirnile
extrieure de la mer territoriale. M. Highet a l-ep!is Iaccusation seIon IaqueIIe
Ies mthodes tunisierr nes prejugeraient Ia dIirnitation de Ia mer territoriaIe,
alors que la mthode libyenne ne le ferait pas (ci-dessus p. 239). Toujours le
dvubje sQndard ! Comment expIiquer celte diffrence ? C'est que seIon mon
distingue cantradicleur, Ia solution Iibyenne <( wouId no1 . . . prejudice a
reasonabIe or a t~-aditional solution Ici-dessus'p. 240).
En clair, ceIa veut dire que Ies nt th odes libyennes prjuge~itarrtant Ia
dIiiniralion de Ia mer IerritoriaIe que Ies mrhodes tunisiennes, mais qu'eIIes le
font dans ce que la Libye considre Gomme le bon sens, ce qui excuse torrt.
k in~neargument d'un bon sens vrai~neritpaI-trop biais est empIoy pour
rejeter I'ide, pourtant vidente et de vrai bon sens, que la Iimik extrieure de
Ia mer territoriaIe servira aussi - je di~-ai. ncesiairement - de dIimiftion
partieIIe du pIateau continerila1. si le point de dpart de cette deIirni~tion.sur
cette Ii~niteIre co~icidepas avec I'extremit de Ia front~r-e
des eaux territoriales
entre les deux Etab.
Cela suffira sur ce poi~il,et je passe maintenant 13 deuxirne srie de
critiques, plus remarquables peut-tre, que la Libye adresse a I'ense~nbIedes
mthodes tunisie~ines; c'est d'avoir oubIi, ou ig~ior,rrn certain nonibre de
circonstances hautement pertinentes d'aprs Ia ~ a h i adverse.
e
J'ai essayk de faire I'invenfaire des circonstances pertinentes se1011Ia Libye.
J'ai trouv beaucoup de difficults a le faire. Je 1n'e11tie~rdraidonc ce qu'a dit
sur ce poinl M. Highet, qrri a parI Ie dernier et qui a systmatjse de faon
rigoureuse Ies circo~ista~ices qu'il considre corn~nepe~ririentes.C'est ce qua
fait aussi le professeur Jennings avant-hier.
M. HigIlet a cit six circonstances pertirrentes et sept consideratioris qui
nierite111sans doute, selon Iui, d'ktre gaiement considrees coInrne pertinentes.
Le professeur Jennings a donn Iiiw la liste des six pre~nires,ce qui me
dispense de le faire. Quarrt aux sept consideratio~is,ce sorrt ceIIes qui avaient t
dveIoppees dans le corrtre-mmoire Iibyen (III, aux paragraphes 524 530,
pour clbrer Ies vertus des mthodes Iibyennes.
Tous ces Iements ne mritent pas Ia mme considration. Plusieurs d'errtre
eux sont rptitifs. C'est le cas eIi paricuIier des fameuses <r sept co~isidra-
tions >iqui
, renvoient Ioutes a des points discuts aiIIeurs. Au risque d'irriter
davantage M. HigIiet, qui tait tres fkli sur ce &nt, je ne leur ferai pas un
 sort particulier. Quant aux circonsiances voques par la Libye, Bles ont ~
examin* hier sous pIusieurs aspects par Ie professeur Jennings et je me
garderai bien de rpter ses explications. II y a cependant trois points srrr les-
quels, dans Ia perspective qui est Ia mienne, quelques indications co1np1-
mentaires me paraissent n-saires. Je veux parler, d'une part des affir~nations
de juridiction par des actes de droit interne, des gise~nenls et forages ptroliers,
de la wnfiguration des #ta des deux Etats, enfin. Je reprendrai successi-
vement ces trois points dans cet ordre.
Les aff'irrnarions de juridiction tout d'abord. La Tirriisie sera videmment la
dernire en conlester I'in~rt.Encore faut-il que w affrrrnations aient t
nianifestes et qu'eIIes aienl bnfici de la tolrance de Ia communaut
internationale, comme c'est Ie cas des titra historiques de Ia Tunisie. G i a me
dispensera de parIer de Ia IgisIation Iibye~inede 1955, don! s'est occupe le
professeur Jennings. En revanche, la question dei permis ptroliers mkite
qu'on s'y arrkte nouveau. Quelques mots doivent bre d i s galement au sujet
de Ia lgislation libyenne sur Ia pkhe des ponges, voque par I'ambassade~rr
EI Maghrir (ci-dessus p. 3 I 1et par M. Highet <ci-dessusp. 2421 Je cornmen-
cerai par ce denier point.
n'aprh la Partie adverse, 1a lgislation libyenne sur la p k h e des ponges
dmontrerait que les droits de la Libye s'tendraient, dans ce dornaine. jusqu-a
une Iigne partant de Ia frontire et orierrte pIein nord.
A l'appui de cetteaffirniation, 110scontradicteurs invoquent un rapport de Ia
FAO: Which incIuded a rnap indicating the western Iimit to the sponge
(<

grounds in Libya. And these were correcIly shshowg as extending due north of
@ !as Ajdir. >> W M. Highet ajoutait encore : r< This niap appeared as Map No. 13
rn our Counier-Me~norial,and it has no1 been conksted by Tunisia. ii (Ci-
dessus, p. 243 et p. 3 1 .)
J'ai eu la curiosit d'examiner le rapport de Ia FAO, dpose au Greffe par Ia
Libye. J'ai corntat qu'il tait dir un bidogiste, spciaIiste de la pche. Cet
expert est certainement trs capabIe de dterminer la valeur, au point de vue de
son exploilation, de te1 ou tel banc d'ponge et de le situer. En revanche, je ne
crois pas qu'il plrisse fre considr comme une autorit en matigre de
dlimitation juridique des espaces maritimes, ~ i imme qu'iI ait eu cette
prtention,
Quant la carte, eIIe n'appone aucurre indication concernant Ia dlimitation.
@ &II= qui a t mmmente au cours de celle procdure, Ia carte nu 13 figurant
dars le contre-rnmore Iibven et re~roduifedans le dossier Iibven et dans Ie
dossier d e la Tunisie, cene-carfe, j$i Ie regret de devoir dire &'elle est tout
simpIemen1fausse. C'est un montage destin lui faire prouver ce que la carte
originde de Ia F A 0 Ire disait pas.
Ceci est trks apparent sur Ies projections que Messieurs les juges ont
rnainfenant sous les yeux. La carte de la FA#, destin# montrer Ies divers
bancs d'eponge existant au large des ciiies libyennes, s'arrte trs,lgrement
l'ouest de Ras Ajdi. Sa bordure est videmment dpourvue de toute
signification en ce qui conwrne Ia Iimik-desdroits de la Libye. te fait quIIe ne
passe pas par Ras Ajdir, mais Igrement A l'&est, wt assez dmonstratif cet
gard. MSme Ia Libye n'a jamais prtendu avoir droit une Iigne sud-nord
Ibuest de Ras Ajdir.
La carte no 13 a t fabrique en reportarit Iss indications - simplifjk -
figurant sur Ia carie de la F A 0 sur une carte de Ia region, en prenant soin que,
cetle fois, la bordure passe exactement i Ras Ajdir, et sans dire que Sauteur de
la carte originale n'avait pas examin ce qui se passait I'ouesf de celle
bordure.
 Errfirr. M. Highet a i~isistesur le fait qu'il- parIair seuIenlenl de grsenlents
p6t1-vlierset de priits de pcirole. I I a ~ n i forteme111
s I'accent sur ce poi~it.Pour Ia
Tr~nisie.ds Ie rnoInerll oii I'on 1ne111ionneles I-SOU~~FS na1u1-eilesd u sous-su1
du pIateau conlinenra1. iI faut pa~-lei-d'hydrocai-brrres. Si le pktrale est
perliilenl. le gaz lst arissi. Et iI faut aussi parler de toute Ia region considcre.
et non pas seIe~nenlde Ia zone contesrce. Dauires puits exploitabIes devront
a101-ss'ajouter a la I ~ s ~ Efoui- rie par la Libye. avec d'autres giserne~ltsqui ont Et6
deceles,. aussi bien en gaz q i i ~ rpctroIe.
Du cot tu~risien,iI y a IE gisement d'Ashtart en activit. nais dont fes
rserves sont modestes, et UII gisement de gaz, encore plUs nod des te, qui se
trouverait du c 6 t i Iibye~rsi les mthodes libyennes taient ~ e t e ~ i n esoits , avec Ia
11gne <( A , soit avec la Iigne Z W . Du cot libyen. il y - a pIus~errnautres
gise~ne~rts petroIiers signaIs sur Ia dernire carte remise par Ia Libye Ia Cour.
mais on ne sait rien de sr sur les gise~ne~its de gaz, puisqrre la Libye ne fournit
pIus aucun renseigne~ne~ir sur ses activits uffslroi-r depriis Ia fi11de 1979 dans
Ia zone voisine d u 11t1ge.
J'e~rviens maintena~it.Monsieur Ie PrCsident, avec votre pe1-mission. au
troisime des poinrs que.jqavaisretenus au I ~ ~ I d' Ea circonstances ~ ~ I . ~ ~ I rI ~ I I I C S
ceIui qui colicerne Ies &tes.
k s conseiIs de la 1,ibye co~itinrrentde prkeritir le Iittorai d e la Tunisie
orientale comIne une anomaIie. cc qui reste une absurdit I'echelIe de Ia
rgion et, comme ~ i o u sIavons vu. une grave erreur au point de vue de Ia
gologie. Ou ~noinsadrnertent-iIx rnairirenarir que cette c61e exih~c.0 1 1 I'a di[
tris expresserncnr. EI pourtant 11s persistent Iie vouloir la prendre err
considerario~rqu'a Ras Yu~iga.rwt en d~netta~it que Ia con figura rion gbnrale
des cotes tunisieriries est carrrct~risepar rrtr ar~gledroit. Nous avons vrr dga Ies
contradiaio~isdans iesqueIIcs ils snfer~nentainsi. Passons.
1-e pIus inp portant. pour la Tu~iisie.csl evidemrne~rt I'a~rgrrIario~i dc Ia cote.
L'autr-e Parlic y a1tacIie aussi des consGqucric~sconsidr-ables, que le prvfcsseiir
Jen~ii~igs a voques. en ce q u cuIiceI'ne
~ Ie caIcr11dc Ia. Io~igiieurdes chtes el Ies
caIcuIs de proporlio~i~iaIit.
Uri dcs ciites de I'arigle. ~ i o r ~Iessavons. doit. sel011 Ia LiPyc. disparairre de
ces caIcuIs.
CeIa noiis place i~n~ncdiaterne~r~ au plaii des consideratio~rsdqiquiIi:et. sous
cct ir~igIe,la questio~rd 1'2quidistarrc-c SC trouve a noilveau pose. Je me vois
contraint. celte occasion. de rpondre bi-ive~nent aux ~ ~ u ~ n b r e u s e s
insinuations de Ia Partie adverse a u sujet de Ia position de Ia Tunisie a propos
de 1'6quididailce.
Les ccritures libyennes et, plus rkenlrnent. Ies conseiIs de Ia Libye se sont
pIainrs a p1rrsierr1.s reprises de ce que Ia "l'urr~sienvait pas dfendu la tlrse de
I'kquid~stancedans Ia prewiite instance. aiors qu'die Ivait acceptee au cours
des negociatio~isentre Ies Parties. On est mme aIIE plus foin : jusqu' 1aisse1-
e111end1-e que Ie diffcrend. arI murnerit de Ia signature drr co~npromis,etait eIirre
la Iigne de I'Cquidistance. soutellue par la Tu~risie.cl Ia Iigne 2SV.adoptee paI-
les co~icess~ons Iibyennes, sans se preoccuper beaucorip de Ia contradicrion
enTre cette aIItgatron et la thse de Ia Iigne plei~inord. On a insi~iriaussi. un
ce1-1ain moment. que Ie rejet de I'kquidista~icepar Ia Tunisie ne serait pas
sincire..
Cette prke~itationdes hirs est falIacieuse et inrenabIe. L.t diffkrend qui
separe Ies deux Parries porte sur Ia ddirnitatio~ieIIe-n~me.sur Ies zones de
pIateau coritinental appartcnarit respectivement aux deux Parties, sur les
principes et regles de droit internatio1ia1 applicables, sur Ies circo~rstances
pertinentes prendre eIr considratiorr . pas sur Ies positions de 1-1-5gociaIions qu~
on1 pu tre soutenues. u ~ momenti ou I'autre. paq I'une o u I'aulre des Parties,
ava1ir qu'elles ne dccide~itde swmelfre Ienr d~fferenda la Cour.
La Tunisie n'a aucrrne difficuIlE - el eIIe I'a deja dit - A reconnailre quIIe
avait effective~ne~it s o u k n u au cours des nigocialjons uIie t Irese differente de
ce1Ie qulle prcsen~eaujourd'hui devant Ia Cour. Gela s'explique par pIusreurs
raisons. do~rtla ~noinsimpoita~ilenst pas 11e progrs qr1'eIIe a pu faire, depuis
I'epoqr~ereIativenlent rke~rteou elle s'ai rriti-essee aux activites show,
dalis la connaissa~icedes reaIit& g6oIogiques et g~o~norpliologiques de Ia
reg~on.La Tu~~isie a meme etc a~nence rcayprecier de favon plus r&Iiste Ia
co~ifigriraiionde ses propres coles, qrr'eIIe avait decrites 5 une certaine epoqrie.
de faqo'oil cerlairrement error~ee,comme une c6tc si~nple.Elle a ai:co~rdrriie
ai~rsia pre~~dre conscience de I'inquire. a son .d&tr~me~rt. de toute ligne
d'eqriidista~ice.queIIes qrie soient Ies bases choisies pou1 son t~ace.
PIus fonda~rientalerne~it. Is Tunisie avait accepte IOquidistance au cours des
negociatio~isparce qrie c'etait une methode objective et reIarivemerrt simple,
bcncficiant aIors d'un grand renom dans Ies cercles qrii s'occr~paientdu di-oitde
Ia mer, notarnme~itcomme une methode prov~soire,dans I'trtle~ited'un accord.
Cette 1n6IhodeIui paraissait de nature peI ~nettreune ente~ileI-apideavec Ia
Libye et. quels que soient Ies desava~iragesqu'eIle pouvait entrainer pour elIe.
de Ia placer ainsi en positio~ide poussei- I'expIoratio~ides richesses nalurelIes de
son pIareau. en connaissa~~t avec exatirude I'kle~iduedes zones qu'eIle pouvait
forer. Cesi ceire mnre priocc-upation qui a guide sa poIitique en matire de
perinis et Ie choix des TOI-1nu1es enlployks pwr dfinir Ieurs Iirniles du c6t des
zones conrroversks.
L Tunisie n pas obte~irrI'avantage quFIIe reclrerchait en contrepartie de Ia
concession de I'quidisiance. Ses travaux de recherche onf &tearrets par Iuutes
sortes de InoyeIis. cependant. que In Libye accdcrait. Ias siens pour se creer des
~III-es Aujourd'I-rr~iericvre. dans I'attente de larrt de Ia Cour. Ia Tunisie ne
peu1 pro ce de^' ii aucune recherclie dans de vastes zones. Aussi estime-t-elle
devoir derna11de1- i Ia Cour Iapplicarion du droit. Ilon pas une ~OI-mule de
cornpro~nis.
1 2 Tu~iisie1rs1d'aiIIeurs pas la ser11e avoir cl-rarige.A aucrrrr rno~nenlau
cours des pourpar1e1-sIa Libye n'avait Iaissc entendre qukIle por~rraiti1ivoque1-
Ia gkoIogie dont e1Ie fait lant de cas aujorrrd'lini. au rnoi1-r~ en thorie. Qua111
Ia prte~irion Ia ligne 11ord.i peine esquiss&elors de Ia premire rencontre.
elIe paraissa~tdfrniliveinenl aba~-rdonnce. La Tu~iisiea e ~ caussi surprise en
Iisant pour Ia prem~refois Ie rnerriorre libyen.
L.'incqu~tc de I'eqriidislance 1-&u11edes circo~isiancesperri~-re~iies que Ia
Trinisie a dq eu I'occasion de 1neI11-e en Iumiere devant La Cour, savoi1-
InguIatinn de la cote tunisienne et la siluatio~rde Ia fro~ilieresrIr u n des cotes
de l'angle. Devant I'incomp~%hension affectee par Ia .Partie adver-se,je me dois
aujourd'hui. avec votre per~nission,Monsieur le PresiderIt. er eIi ~n'excusantde
Ie faire. de revenir encore une fois sur celte question capilaIe.
Cun11ne si je n'avais pas parIE au: premier loui-. le professer~rBowell a
1-affirm que les prolongerne~rls~iaturelsde derrx cdes i angle droit se
I-encontre~rt invitabIement. Mais st tout fa11faux. comme je I'ai moiitre
par ce s~rnpleschma {Eg. A ci-contre).Ce schma se trouve, avec ceux que je
vais vous prkjenter encore dans un instant. dans Ie dossier de Ia Cour. E I fait, ~
toril dcpe11d de 1'01-ientationdu proIongernent naturel. Dans v ~ cas r comme
celui-ci, qrri est prkisE1ne111tres proche de Ia prksente i~ista~i~e, ou Ie
~rrvIongeme~it se fait vers Ia pIaine abyssale iorrrenne qui se 1 rouve quelque part
par ici et qui. sur la carre que vous avez, est I-eprse~tee par Ie cercle marque
PA. il n'y a aucun chevauche~nc~rt et Ia bissect1-icede IangIe. tour en reaIi-
REPLIQUE DE M . VIRALLY 337
RPLIQUE DE M. VIRALLY
 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL 339
sni une dlimitation equitabIe lorsque la frontiere cst au sommet de cclui-
cl. ne prive aiicun point des deux cotes d e I'integraIiie de son prolongement
iiatureI.
Pour iIlusirer sa dmonstration, Ie professeur Bowett a utiIis un carr (fig. B.
ci-dessus p. 337). Cette consiruction est enlicernent errone, si Ies deux prolonge-
ments naturels ne sont pas perpendiculaires aux cotes, comme c'est le cas dans
la prsente ~ p c e .En efkt, ces c o t e voient leur proiongement naturel btoque
par les cts de l'angle, qui les interrompent suivant le poini de la cote
considr de facon tout a fa~t inegale. Au contraire, iI n'y a auctin
chevauchement et la bissectrice de I'angIe, tout en reaIisant une de limitation
fquitabIe, ne prive aucune partie de la cbtc de son prolongement naturel, dans
Ia figure que j'avais montrce prcedemment. Pour qu'un tel bIocage que ~ious
voyons ici soit ralise dans la rfalit, il faudrait supposer I'exislence de deux
Eiats voisins, doiit Ies cotes feraient un angle extremement prononc par
rapport celle dc I'Erat ou se trouve Ie sommet de l'angle. Mme dans la mer
du Nord, les lignes d'quidistance ne produisaienr pas tin rsulta[ aussi extrrne
et eltes ont t considres cornnie iniquitablfi par la Cour.
Je reviens sur cette figure B. Le sophisme du carr est pleinement mis en
lumire si on suppose que l'on prolonge une cote. A ce moment. il apparait tres
clairement que. ou bien Ia dmonstration n'est plus possible, ou bien qu'elle
aboutit a des r6sriItats qui sont parraitement inquitabIes. Si, en effet, nous
essayons de prolonger la ligne paraI1Ie i Ia cote jusqu'au point ou elle
rencontre la bissectrice, nous voyons que les rapports de proportionnaIite ne
sont plus du tout respectes et on peul, pour simplifier, dire que si un crc de
l'angle est double de I'autre, la surface obtenue par I'Elat qui l'occupe est
muItipli&epar quatre dans une celle hypothse.
En r&Iii, pour montrer g6omPtriquement I'equitk de la bissectrice. une
seuIe methode est possible, qui permet a tous les points de la cte d'avoir Ie
meme prolongement naturel : c'est celIe que j'ai expose devant la Cour, et qui
consiste a tracer des paralIles a Ia cote. partir d'un point quelconque de la
bissectrice et de fermer Ies surfaces par des paraIIIes a cette dernire. c'est la
figure C de Ia page 337 et, t a n ~donne mes quafits de dessinateur, il a paru
pr&fcrablequ'elle apparaisse tout de suite devant VOLIS, de faon u n peu plus
correcte. Tous Ies points de ta cote, dans ce cas, ont exactement le mme
proIongcment. suivant la mCmc direction, et la reIation entre les longueurs des
cotes esi absolument gale a cclle des surfaces. E t . ce qui esi tres important.
c'est de constater que cette galit se vrifie avcc des cStcs inegaIcs. comme
dans Ie cas prsent. aussi bien qu'avec des cotes kgales.
Maintenant, et cst l le point capita1, rien ne change si la frontiere. au lieu
de se trouver sur Ie sommet de I'angle, se trouve sur u n des coi&. Rien.
absolument rien n'est transfert, si ce n'est que la frontiere est remise sa
vritable place pour retrouver la situation qui existe en l'espce. Et cette simple
constatation rpond I I'objection apparemment Iogique que nous adresse notre
savant contradicteur de transfkrer notionneilement [a cote 'tunisienne a ta
hauteur de la rrontire (ci-dessus p. I 73). Rien n'a boug dans [a figure. si ce
n'est la frontiere elle-mme et la paraI1eIe a la bissectrice qui a Ete tire. Bien
entendu, toute la zone de plateau entre cette parallle et la cte rklIe est trait&
comme du pIateau et non pas comme du territoire. Faut-il ajouter encore qu'il
ne s'agit que d'une construction. don[ le seu t objet est d'apprkier un rapport de
proporrionnalite ?
Ayant dit cela, je m'empresse d'ajouter que le but de l'opration n'est pas de
procder a de iiicc. culciilurioiis, comme fi,ous accusent de vouloir le faire nos
contradicteurs, mais de rnonirer, l'aide d'un mcdeIe abstrait, comment la
 REPLIQUE DE M. V I R A L L Y 34 1
dlimitation, cela va sans dirc. Rien ne vient amputer le paraI1bIogramrnc du
cote Iibyen. et la Libye ne peut doiic se p1aiiidre d'tre desavantagk.
En revanche, le paraIIElogranirne dti cote ruiiisien cst ampute par la zonc
attribuce a l'Italie par l'accord iuniso-Iibycn. C'est un dsauaiitagc pour Ia
Ti1nisic. mais qui rsulic d'unc dontic gopolitique qu'cIIc doit supporler. ds
lors qu'il ne s'agit pas de refaire la riatiirc. Sans se livrer a aucun caIcuI, i l
apparait immcdiatemenl que la deliniitation propose est equitablc et nc
provoque aucun dcsavaniage au dlriinent de la Libye, loui au contraire.
l'en ai terrniii avec la questiori des clitcs el. du mme coup. avec lxarnen
des circonstatice pertinenres que la Tunisie avait t accusce d'avoir oubIices.
II ne mc parait pas utile, en effer, de revenir sur la questiori des Elars tiers, doni
j'ai d&jsuffisamment trait au cours du premier tour de parole. Quant celle
des #tes a prendre en considcration. je me propose dc I'exaininer a propos des
mthodcs spcifiques qui les utilisent. Je vais donc aborder maintenan1 la
dcrnirc partie de mon expos, qui concerne les dsaccords entre Ics Parties
propos dc chacunc des quatre meihodes tunisiennes.
Pour ces dernires explications, je pourrai me permetlre d'lre ires bref ei
ires rapide Si je mers part les arguments gcologiques. dont j'ai dj traite el
qui doivent tre Ecaris. les critiques adressks aux mcihodes i u n ~ s ~ e n n au es
coiirs de la procedure orale m'ont parti singuliereinent i~iconsisiantes,EIies ne
ni'obligent en tout cas aucune reclificatioii. ni a aucune retraite.
!M. Highet a tf exirrnement vigoureux dans les qualiCicatifs dont il a use
pour qiiaIilier Ies mei hodes que nous proposons : :ivhiri.:ii:il, rripricioiis,
sckcc!iiw,. c..riof 1)rrsc)tlon scic,~rrific-EIJ~I/<JIIC.C,lidri~h~~0,111d h ~K, ~ V Ct I i~,.yuI 11~i,ig111.
/~osiii~)c!v s ~ sf hf , ~/?ri~~cipic
i ~ ~ c o ~ ~wit11 ~ ~ i f (!f JI:{!t ~ r :/~w!o I o t ! g ~ioji,
f f i z / / x i o f ~ s .itof
st//)/~rinod rit- .wi~~~)oi.r:ih/r
Ce son1 l quelques uns des qualificatifs ct des expressions qu'il a utiliss.
Incontestablement, ce sont des mois energiques. Mais cc soiit des mots, pas des
dmonstrations. Wortls. tisiinrls,ir'r~rrls ... I I serail vain dc rcpoiidre par des rnots.
k professetrr Boweit a t u n peii plus prcis, tnais peine. II reproche a la
iniliode de la ligne des cretes dc s'appii yer s i r des circonstances qu'il quaIifie
d e i r i i i l i l (ci-dessus p. 168) - il.s'agrt bicn cntendu de la ride dc Zira - et dc ne
pas siiivre le ihaIweg du sillon tripoIiiain. donl j'avais poiiriant dit qu'iI
cotisiituait une frontire naturelle. Mais iI oinel la relation qui existe eiitrc ces
deux caractristiqt~esphysiques. I a ride dc Zira signale I'existence d'un mur de
sel de 4000 mtres de profondeur q u i barre le siIIon tripoIitain. La Iigiw de
delimitation ne peut doiic le traverser mais doit le contourner.
Pour M Highet. celte ligne es1 arbitraire et pourrait passer ailleurs ; niais
oii ? II s'ag~tpourrant d'une methode des petits pas qui aurait du Ic sduire. Je
rappeIle. d'autre part, ce qu'il s'tait donni. tani de peinc a fiabIir et qu'il parai1
avoir oubii en la circoiista~ice: Ia Cour nst pas appcI8e rirer unc Iigne eilc-
mme. Ce sera la tiiche des experis des deux Parties. Pour reprendre une iniage
que l'ai dj utiIisce et qiii n'a pas dkj t rejete. ils auront, irirrtaii,~~ ~ ~ i r / i : ~ , i l i s .
i accomplir la tache d'une comm~ssionde dclim~iationniaierialisanr sur Ie
terrain le trac6 dc la frontiere defini par le trait, ici par I'arrer. Cc sont eux qui,
datis Ia mise en e u v r e de la mcthode dfinie par la Cour, auront a determiner
si la Iigiie doit passer ici ou l ct tenir compte ou noii dc telIe ou tcIle courbe de
la ligne bathymetrique.
Je comprends mal. enfin. coin~ilent11 peut C~rereproche a cetic Iigne de reiiir
compte de l'equitb. comme l'a rait Ie professeur Bowerr (ci-dessus p. 1 69)-
Les criiiques contre Ia mlhodt physiograpIiique ne sont pas mieirx ajustes.
Si je les comprends bicii. elles iienncnl en i r o i ~poinls : preniiercmetit. il ii'y
aurait q u e des rclarions roriuites entre plaieau ,coiitincntal el proIongenifn1
342 PLATEAU CONl'INE%TA L

natrircI d'une part, er plaine abyssale d'autre pari : c'csi la premire critique
Ici-dcssus p. 169 et p. 2491 ; deusie~nccriiique : la pIaiiic abyssaIc ioiiiennc
serair trop Ioiii dc la zoiic a dcl~riiiier(ci-dcssiis p. 2491 : enfin. iI serait dif-
ficile de dierinincr Ic cciitrc d u triangle qiic coiistituc cette pIaiiie (ci-dessus
p. 751).
Sur cc dernier point. jc reiiverrai ma prcccdenie observatiori. Ce sera Ic
rIe des cxperts de dterminer avcc prcision Ie poini niarquant Ie centre de la
plaiiic abyssale ionienne.
Sur le premier point, cclui des reIations cntre plateau et plaine abyssalc. je
scrais teritf de repondre : vrai e l pas vrai.
Vrai. parce qiic. cornnic la deja indrqiic la rcpliquc runisienne. la nithode
proposce n'est pas d'applicat ioii universelle. ce qiii ti'esr pas uiie hiblesse. llaiis
bcaticoup de regions du moiide. la niarge oiitii~entalcti'cst pas oricntk vers la
plaiiie abyssaie. I I n'existe pas, en effet. dc relations gcoIogique ou geomor-
phoiogique nkessaires entre tnarge coniinen tale e l fosse abyssale.
M a i s faux. parcc qu'il CII va autrement dans la rcgioti, ct c'cst ccIa seul qui
compte.
la siiuation exisiani daris la nier Ionicnnc. coniiiie l'a niontri. la ? r ~ i i i ~ mt
ie.
trs prticriliere er peul-etre unique. Toutc la siructure de la rcgion rsulte
d'une histoire trs cornptiquir stir laquelle la Cour a Ete ampIenieni. el sans
doute csagkrcnienf, informk. On SC trouve dans une mer semi-fermce. en
forme de cuvelte. ou routes Ies marges continenfales dcs territoires tatiques
qui I'cnloure~it.sur le contineni africain Luimnie sur le contineiit europeii.
convcrgeiii vers la plaine abyssalc lonlenrie, doni la posiiion excenlree 11'cst
pas lfffci du hasard. mais cclui de loute l'histoire qui iiiodcIE aiissi Ics
aulrcs cracirrstiqttes de la rfgiotr. Ellc est le poiiir dc convergence uniquc
d'u~iesiructtirc cohcrcritc qui es plique aussi I'oric~itatioii des riiargcs coniiiicri-
talcs.
Cette siiuaiion lrs pariiculire es! uiie circonstance hautement periiriente
pour la prcsente dlimiiaiion ciitrc la Tunisie et Ia Libye, ce qui nc signifie pas,
Evidernmenl, qu'il potirrail en aIler de tnE~ncpour d'a~itresEtats dc ta rfgiori
placs uii autre endroit de celle mer.
Le fail que la pIine abyssale soit eloigiice des c8tes des Parfies nie parait roi11
a fair sans importance. II ne s'agit pas. en effer, de prolaiiger la delimitailon
jusque dans son voisinage mais de deierniincr uiie direction. qui es1 ceIIe du
deveIoppcttienr dc la niarge coiitinetik~le. Cetre direction aurait pu Elre
dcterminee par d'autres nioyens. beaucoi~pplus procha. par exeniple par une
obscrvaiion attei~iivede la direction gneralc dc la Iigiic des peiries. telle qti'eIIe
est rcvcIEe par Ia bathyincrrie. la inorphologie ci la physiographie. Mais la
plaine abyssaIc ionienne coiistitue un indicateur de cctie direciioii gcnerale
d'une uiilisation beaucoup plus commode.
Je passe maintenant aux mfthodes geomciriques.
Si ori Iaisse de cte Ies mors ciiergiques, lcs seules critiques adresses aux
mfthodes gonielriques. que tios coiriradicieui-s seniblcni avoir pciiic
distinguer I'une de l'autre, tiennent ail Tait qu'elles reposeraient sur ijne
selecrion arbitraire des ctes et a i r une simplification excessive de leur
drrcction generalc (ci-desstis p. I l 2 et p. 249. 25 1).
On leur reprachc aussi de ne ienir cornple que de la gographie. mais,
cornnie je I'ai dit. elles iibni etc coiistri~itesqu'eri vue dc vcrifier si les rsultats
de la mise en uvre des circoiistances gcographiques etaieiit en accord avec
ceux obtenus a partir de la gologie. Le test s'esr rvIc positif. Le reproche nsi
dotic pas fondc.
La seconde mthode prsente par Ia Tuiiisie seinbIe n'avoir pas ki:
344 PLA-1EAU CONTINENTAL

tourc leur Creridue. niainlient Ies quatre methodes quIIe a preccdemnieni sou-
mises. Pour les raisotis qire j'ai d q cxposCi's. elle tndrque, ioulefois. sa pref-
rctice pour Ies incihodes q u ~lui paraissciit ienii coinple lc plus cxciement
dc toules Ics circoiistaiiccs pcrlinentes : la tnthodc physiographique et. s'il
doit Ctrc fi111 appcl pliit8t h Ia gographie des c8rcs. I nikthodc dc Ia bisscc-
lric rraiislart;~.
 REPLY OF PROFESSOR JENNIR'GS
COUNSFL FOR THE GOVEKNMENi OF IUNISIA

Professor JENNINGS : Mr. President and Mernbers of the Carrrt - 1 shall be

vwjr brief, being conteril ~nerelyIo indicate what now seeIn to be tlre PI-i1icipa1
ciifferences rema~nii~g berween the Parlies.
Firs~it shouId be said IRat the Libyan atie~nptto emasculale rhe SpeciaI
Agreenlent and lo restric-1 unduIy [Re tahk of ihe Cour1 Iias failcd io withsrand
the r i g o 1 . o ~exarni~iation
~ by rny f'riend Profcxsor A bi-Saab. He aIso deaIt
failhfully with rIie suggestio~i.Iikewisc terrding towards a dirni~iutio~i of tfie
I-OIE of rIie Court. that reaI and rr~e;rningfulnegotiatio~rsfor lhe purpwe of
reaching a n agreeci dclimilation. Iiad II#[ talie11 place befor'e tire Pai-ries
sub~nittedthis t natter- to the C o u ~ t .It 1s perhaps, as weII thar lhese argrr-
me~itsslrould ~ i o thave suruived ii-~gorous exatrrrr~atio~i.It wwrld have bee~i
urrforturiate if rIie Courl, properly. seised of a Io~ig-standingdispute of first
~rnportance.couId have bee~ipersuaded il-rat. after thi-ee years of w1-itIe11and
01-al pleadirrgs ir was. after ail. not eii~poweredio render a final judg~nent
defer~ninairveof the deli~nitaiio~i of rIie continei~lalsl~clfbounda1-y.
TIiae orat FI-ocecdings have iocused airent ion on the cruc~aieIernenl III
any conrine1rta1 sheIf case - the coasIs of rIie. Parties co1ice1-~iedand the
reIatio~ishipof those coasts to eacIi other.
Libya. i ~ deaIing
i witl~the Tirnisia~iCoast. has always been anxiorrs ta find
reasons for cuiri~igit irrto seg~nents;but we wouId ask the Court to considcr
rIie Tu~iisianest-fac111gcm31 a s ari eritirery. FOI's Srate's natrr1,aI pr-olongarion
has to be related to ari entire cvast a ~ i dnot jus1 tu parts of it.

Before sri~nri~arizing the Tunisian position or1 this vilal relatioriship of masr
arid sea-bed. so~neihingneeds ro be said about a reIared ~naiter,I rneail the
Libyai~use of thei1- 1iotio11of a so-caIIed "area of co~iwrn" ludge Mos1e1-'s
question about this &vil1be answered fully in wrifing. Rut there are one or Iwo
poi~risrhat cal1 for cornmen1 now.
Fi~-st.the notion of a single "area of co~rcern".for a11 purposes of Ille case. is
in our subrn~ssion.a faise concept.
The Libyan " a r a of concern" is. like IIieir argument on the SpeciaI
Agreemerrt. airned ar confI~r~ng as far as maylie. rhe a~nbirof the Courl's
consideration. It aIso i~icide~itaIIye~iablesLibya to iIIustrate IIie Tunisian siieaf
of Iinw i ~ ai srnall frarrte instead of i ~ irelation Io the whole geograpI~icaI
coiilexr. But. irr fact there ~ n u s tbe different concerncd areas for differe~it
purposa and ir~deedaIso for different argumenls. The n~mirestr~credarea of
conce1-rr wouId, 1 suppose. be one that would be framed by those secrions of
the coast thar wouId influence the frrst Iranclie of a Ii~ieof equidisiance. The
Libyan a r a of concern is so near to this and the Libya~ipleadi~igsexhibit such
depths of feeii~igwireneve~'they a p p r m I t the questiori of equidrsrance. even
whiist 1-ejectingil,that one is tempted to speculate o n the reaI srrength of that
rejact ion.
But although one Fan 3ee the usefulness fo the Libyari argument of a very
 HEPLY OF PROFESSOR JEIVNINGS 347
Rui ihe other great pririciple. also one of equity. ihat tlicre n~iistbe no
cncroachment on thc natural proIongation, is the correspoiiding principle
concerning the sea-bed. No refashioiiing of geography and ilon-cncroachmcnl
bclong iogerher ; and they boili. ii is s~ibniitted.~iiusibe r c s p t e d in al1 cases.
To ensure this, IO ensure ihis respect for both priticiples, it inay in a
reIatively simple case be sufficictit to find a nicrhod wliich rakes reasonably
accurate accouiit of the two diinensional plane of 1hc conliguration of the coast
as a whole. In ihc iVor?li Sr#:/C i ) r i i i i i o i r r ~Slic!fcases,
l the Court. wit h litile or no
assistance from niorphology ni-geoIogy, fouiid il sri fficient for iw piirposes, to
deal wilh the distortions ihat tnighl flow rrom a parlicuIar inelhod in relation
to a particuIar coiifigiiration of the coast : and yet. felt abIe Io speak of the
nat ural prolongarion aiid nori-encroachn~eniiii ternis of the rejationship of
sri-bed and coasl. In the Anglo-French case, wherc there were comparable
coasls aiid a siiiglc shelf exiending berween ihein, the ljne or equidistance
suitabl y adjtrsicd IOrake accoutit of disioriing rcaii~reswifficed IO salisfy boih
Ihe rule forbiddiiig the rerashioiiing of geography and ihc ruIe forbidding
encroachment upoii the natural proiongaiioii.
But we submit that the present aise is significantIy more compIicaied than
either of ihosc tivo earIier cases. The co:isis of the two Pariics in rhis case are
iiot at :III coinparable- Tlie Tunisiaii coasiIine is complicaicd no1 o n l y by its
concavilies and its isIands but also by Ihose banks rvhere rhew is an rrnusuaI.
possibly eveii unique. interpenetrarion of land and sea. Moreover. there is a
sea-bed arca. described and expoutided by niy friend Proressor ViralIy. which
belongs most naiurally to Tiinaia because it is jn truth the coriiinuation of the
Tiitiisian iandrnass and its direciion iiito and undcr I ~ sea. E
As wc have said. the Court in 1969. by geogrphy. priiicipaIIy i i i mind, and
t h e configuration of rhe coasrs. was abIe lo make a decision. Bur geography
does riot stop at the coasis Geography daes not cedie a1 the low-water tnark.
And we submit that iri this present case where ~nanifestlythe i w o rules of rial
refashioning geography and non-ericroachment have to be respecied. il is not
suficienr jusi to take accouni of the configirrarion of ihe COitSi in ordcr io
eiisure rhai both rules are respezied. Il is necessary also lo Iook ai ihe shape of
rhe sea-iloor off the cost. The coanliiie after a!l is 1101 made up of items of land
deposited, as it wcrc. at randoin oti a geofogica1substratum. Thcre is herc a
continuum between Iand a n d sea. Thcrerore it rnust be taken into account.
Flow is this to be doiie !' In establishing boundaries on lhe dry land we siudy
rhc shapc and features of the terrain - rivers. ridgcs and the Iike - cerlainIy
not deep geology. T h e n why in the off-shore area should we lhen ignore rhe
shape of the terrain under the sea. which is only the continuation of the land
into and under the sa,and siiddcnly pIunge into deep geology ?
Libya. sensing, 1 think. that this must be right, has fallen back on the
argiiment that ihc arca in question is featureles. Professor Bowett described
one of the Tirnisian Methods as "irivia1". Professor ViraIly has already deaIt
wirh Ihar suggestion.
Bu1 there is one furiher point 1 ivotild like to make or1 lhis question of
Fcatures o f the sea-bed. That 1s ihe question of scale.
In my lirsl address 10 ihe Covri 1 inentioned ihe Unesco Study, which is in
the Tun~sianMernorial (1). Aiincx 95. which was prepared Tor the 1959
Geneva Conveiiiion. May 1 rernind the Coun of the declivily figures given in
that Report as the basis of the disrinciion between sheIf. sIow and rlse.

"The coniinental shelf itseIf. is defined as a shalIow slope o i a gradient

less rhan I : 1.000.
 The contitrentsl stope is defitied as ail area of abriipi increase rn
grxd~ent,lcading to the continenial rise- or soinetimes direcil y to the deep
sea noor. The gradient o f the slope is irstially Iess ihaii 1 :4.
The conlinenta1 T ~ S E ,is defined as a n arca of genllcr slope at thc root of
the coniinenral slope itself. ils gradient being betwcc~i1 : l O0 and 1 :700."
(1. Tiinisian Mcmoriat. p. 196.)
Mr. Presideiit. if one calculates oti :i perccntage basis the figures rhere which
arc the basis of rhis iinportanr disiinction bctween slope atid rise W C fiiid that
they arc very comparable to the ones which were being described in the
Libyan cvidence as "trivial".
'rViiat the Tuiiisian case endcavours to show is that it is posirble by means of
readily accessibIc gcotnorphoIogical evidence fo ident ify fhose parts of the
iiatural proIongation t hat bcIotig most naturalIy Io TunisIa and t hose that
belong most narurally io 1,ibya a n d rhat ihis is necessary if the non-
encroachmeni ruIe is to be observed.
So. 1 suggest finally that ~ h practical
e concIusion to bc drawn from al1 this is
that in the present case, unIike the two carlier ones, and simpler ones. it is not
sufticietit to have regard onIy to the coasts. This is an area in which. in order
lhat geography shall noi bc refashioned aiid thai lhcre shaII bc no
ericroachmeni on the natural prolongaiion it is necessary to take account not
on1y of lhe quite tinusually compIicaied Tunisian coaslline, and of ihe faci thal
it is nor coniparable ro the Li byati coastline. but aIso to take account of I he sea-
floor w hich is 1hc natural conritiuaiion of 1he whoIe coastline.
The jusrification of ihe 'Tunisian methods just describcd is that. ihough
unavoidably ~ h eTunisian gmmetrical meihods are - . unvoidabl y -
constructed from base points. which reflecl two-dimensional rather ihaii lhree-
dimensional controI. they do in fact prodtice Iines w hich rcspcct the Tiinisian
natural proIongation. This in the Tunisian submission is esseiitial if the
resuIring delimitation is to rcspect borh rules - not refashioiiing geography.
non-cncronchrneiit - for ihIs is no1 a situaiioii in which the iwo-dimensional
approach aIonc will do jirsiice, a facl oii which lhe Parlies secm to be agrced.
Mr. Prcsident, t hal concliides a11 1 have to say on behalf of Tiinisia : and the
time has coiiie when. so far as Tunisian counsd are concerneci. t h e case must
be cnirusied into the hands of this distiiiguished Couri. But, bcfore asking you
Io caII i~ponthe Tutiisian Agent, Flis E?tcclIency Ambassador Benghazi. 1 want
to thank you. Sir, and Mernbers of the Court, for yor patience and
aiieniiveness i i i hearing our arguments. And 1 should Iikc also, if 1 may, to
thank olir opponents for the frequent courtesy they have shown i o us on this
side of the bar. which has made rhis confrontation. though hard fotrght. an
agreeable one.
 R ~ P L I Q U EDE M . BENGHAZI
AGENT DU GOU\'EKNEMEN'f TUNISIEN

M. BENGHAZI : Moiisieur le Prsident. Messieurs les membres de la Cour,

Ia Partie tunisienne est arrivce maintenant au terme de son deuxime et dernier
tour de parole. 11 m'incombe a ce stade de faire connaitre les coiicIusions de
mon gouvernement. Je dcIare que le Gouvernement tutiisien maintient les
concIusions qu'iI a dposes l'issue de son premier tour de parole.
J'aborderai maintenant, si vous Ie pcrmeitez. une autre question. M M . les
juges Gros, Oda, Mosler ei Schwebel on1 bien voulu poser aux agents des deux
Parties un certain iiombre de questions '.
Je voudrais. avec voirc permission, monsieur le Prsident, apporter la
rponse de mon gouvernement a la prerniere question. qui a fte pose par M. le
juge Cros.
Je regrette ei je m'excuse de lie pas pouvoir ire en mesure d'apporter les
rponses de Ia Partie tunisienne a u s au trcs questions posks par M M . Ies autres
juges. Si vous ie permettez. la Partie lunisienne y rcpondra par crit avant Ia fin
de Ia procedure orale.
En ce qui concerne la question.pose par M . Ie juge Gros. la rponse du
Gouvernement tunisien esi la suivante :
Les Parties ont soumis Ieur diffrend a Ia Cour par compromis, confor-
mment a I'articlc 36, paragraphe t , du Statui de la Cour, en lui demandant
de rendre un jugement dans I'exerciw de sa comptence contentieuse sur
les questions qui lui sont posces dans le coinpromis.
La premiere de ces quesiions vise a ce que la Cour indique aux Parties les
trois sries de considCrarions mentioiines dans la question de M . le juge Gros
savoir : les principes et rales du droit international applicables a la detim~ta-
tion ; les principes equitables ; et !es circonstance pertinentes de la region qui
doivent Ire prises e n considraiion dans cette delimitatioii.
Le Gouvernement tunisien considerc qtie le juge~nentde la Cour sur ces
questions est obtigatoire pour les Parties, et cc conformment a l'article 94,
paragraphe 1 , de la Charte des Nations Unies. l'article 59 du Statut de la Cour
et a l'article 94, paragraphe 2. de son RgIeinenr. Le Gouvernement tuiiisieii
considre en ouire que le jugement de la Cour est cgaIenient dfinitif et sans
recours, conforinkment a I'anicle: 60 du Statirt et jouit ainsi dc I'autorii de la
chose juge (rr>sji~rlicrt~u).
A ce sujet. le Gouvernement tunisicn estime qu'il n'est pas sans inlr! de
rappeIer que les principes gknfraux de droit qui ont Etc codifies par rapport la
Cour inlernationale de Jr~sricedans l a dispositions prccirces se trouvent
ritrs dans le contexte spicifique du droit de la mer par l'article 296 du projet
de convention sur le droit de la mer. qui figure dans la partie 15 (section II du
projet de convention) relalive au reglernenl des diffbrends.
- Avcc vorre permission, je Iirai cet article tel qu'iI figure dans le document des
Naiions Unies A/CONF.67!L.78, a la page 121 :
350 PLATEAU CONTINEmAL

rt Article 2 95
Coracrere de$rti;$ FI force ohligaioirr rlrs dkcisioiis
1 . tes dcisions r e n d u s par une cour OU un tribunal ayant comp-
tence en vertu de la prsente section sont dfinitives, et toutes les parties
au diffrend doivent s'y conformer.
2. Ces dcisions n'ont force obligatoire que pour les parties et dans le
cas d'espce considr. ii
Le Gouvernement tunisien considre que la iorce de chose j u g k de I'arrei de
Ia Cour dans la prsente affaire embrasse en laut premier lieu le dispositif de
cet arrt. De plus, tant donne que les motifs de I'arrt constituent une partie
integrante de ta reponse de Ia Cour atix questions poses par le compromis et
sont ncessaires pour comprendre la porte et le sens prcis du dispositif, le
Gouvernement tunisien considere que ces motifs sont galement cauveris par
l'autorit de Ia chose juge.
La Partie tunisienne est maintenant parvenue au terme de son deuxime et
dernier tour de parole. Qu'il me soit permis a ce stade final de prisenter au nom
de Ia dlgation tunisienne toul entire aussi bien a vous-rnme, Monsieur le
Prsident. qu'a Messieurs Ies membres de la Cour, l'expression dferente de nos
trs sincres remerciements et'de notre reconnaissance pour la grande patience
et la bienveitIante attention avec laquelle vous avez bien voulu couter nos
interventions.
The ACTING PUESIDENT: The Cour! wishes it to be known that
although certain questions have been addressed specifically to one Party or the
other, both Parties are invited to comment on any of those questions, if they so
wish. On beha1f of the Court 1 thank the Agents, counseI and other
representativesof the Government of the Republic ofTunisia for the assistance
they have afforded the Cour1 during this second round.of-oraI argumenls.
 TWENTY-NINTH PUBLIC S I T i N G II 3 S 8 1 . 3 p.1n.1

. [Set: sitting of 28 IX 8 1 .]
P~<'IT~s<wI

COUNSEL FOR TEIF GO\'ERN?s,.ILN'T OF TEIE l.IRY.4N AR 48 J+\;\iAFIIKIYIi

MI-. EL MAGHUR - MI-. Pmsiden~.Members of ihe Court : il is agairl an

horiorrr. to appear' before yorI wirh our deIegatrori to begiri rhc fina1 p11asc of
L~bya'soral p~es~iltatio~r. The I"ibya11case wiIl be deait wil h by cou1rsc1aiid 1
I-espectfultyask jruu to caIl Sir Franc~sValIat Io begii~our sessioii. SII-F1,aircis
wiil be foIIowed by Professor iMaIirrioppi.
Sir FI-a11cisVAI..LAT : 1t is indecd an h ~ i ~ i o uiMr. r . Presidenl and Mcnibe1-s
of rRe cour^. to have a n opporiiirii~yIo address you once morc in tliis
imporla nt casc
During rlre cou1-se of the WI-1tte11 and 01-a1p1ead11igat here have 11atu1-a11 y
I-iee11dwelup~nenlsin ihe thougfirs of ihe IWOParties. Poirirs of agr-eernetlt arid
poinIs o r disagreement have emerged. but I! wuuld be FI-uiIIessas ilris stage io
try ro idcntify al1 of rlieni, a ~ i d1 shall Ir)! ro concerrI~.aleonly 011 the poi~rtsthai
seem to be nios1 i~nportalii.
Now. as the Age~iITOI- Tu11isia lnade clear, centra1 to the wIioIe case is the
mrnrnori olrjecrrve of Ihe Parties ro settle rhe probIem of dcIimitalio~i as
s p d i l y as possible. In thih w~inection.rsrliere they differ is 111lhc extent of Ille
1-oIeassigiied io Ille C O ~ I and - t to the Par.lierj by Ille pruvisior~sof the Spccial
Agreernenl. Ori rhe Lrbyan side, we h d d Ille vjew that me;rriirigfriI
ncgotiations. as conie~nplated111 ilie 1369 Jrrdgment of tlie <OUI-t. Iiavc never
[?ken pIace.
Eve~ion the bas~sof the -1'unisian record of.the discussioris. tI~ei-ehave beeri
no such negot~ations.Tu111siaRas cons~a~ltIy and obsIinateIy nlaintaind wIiat
may ti.uIy be desci-ibed as a ~nu~-rui~thic s1a11ce.eveIr wlien Libya bas showrr
w11Ii1ignesslu cr>mprornIse: Morevver. Tunisia has gone further and has
greali y estended ils cIairn bcyo~ida n y tIii~igeveI-inentio~redi r l the course of the
diplornat ic discussiorrs. ~ i o tme14y Iong afIer the signature of 1lie SpeciaI
Ag~-ee~nc~-rI birt even afte1- Ihe date of i& ratification and ~iuIification 10 the
CO~II-t.
May 1 he allowed. IO rernind t h e Trinisiarr delegation of w l ~ a tlie t Courr s a ~ d
on Ihis pai13t i ~ par-agrapli
i 8 5 . subparag1-aph hl.of ils 1969 Judg~nentin the
,WJI.IIISc.tr Ciliriisir,liiul Slrt,?/cases I I C,J. H<,/~(}t.is
194 9, p. 47). The Cori~tsaid :
"CI TIre Parties are under a11obligat~o~r lo enrer i11to negolialions w ~ t ha
view to arriving at a11 agreement. and no1 nlereIy Io go tlrrough a
rorn~aIproccs of 11egotiation as a sorr of prio1- co~iditio~i for the
autoinatic applicai~o~i of a C~I-tain rnethod of deIi~nitation i ~ ithe
rrbse~iccof agreement ;".
As the Court rlien poi~iredout. nego~iationsw11l rlot be meaningful if eithe1-
of the P~I-riesinsists upan 11s own posilion withour co~itempIaringa n y
modification of it -'I'he$e statemerrts appIy II lirr!ior-i Io a cdae such as Ille
prescIit. wliere one of the Parties has persisle~itly~niri~rta~ned 11s01-iginaIstand
and. Iong afler tire co~iclrisionof the SpcciaI Agrce~ne~it. Irs very substantiaIly
incrcascd ils Iai~ns. I
T i ~ n eis s1io1.i.So, lravirrg made lhesc prcIimi11a1-yobservaiio~rs.I shaII corne
dirccIIy Io rhe pr311ri.F ~ I - s1~inlend
. of the SpeciaI
to disctiss Ille irrie1-111-e~ation
A~I-eernent and then some of I Re Tu II isia~rcontentions aboul the principles a ~ r d
rr~lesof internarioml law.

lhe Iirst round of speeclres it did seed lhat therc was some app1-oach
Drr 1-i~ig
rorvards a c o m m o ~iaterp~.erai~on
~ of lhe Speciai Agree~nerrtas between t hc
Parties. Howevt~..in his speeclr of 1 3 0ctobe1-(p. 280 fi..sri/?i-u)P~ofessorA bi-
Saab seems. in a qliixotic fasliio~i,T o Iiave gone ou1 of his way to try to widerl
rlie gap as nuc ch as possibIc Therefo~.e.regretdhIy. it is necessary to deal one
by or-re wiTIr tlie poinls which lie na de. althor~gh1 wiIl not do so i ~ PI-ecisely
r
ihe sine ordei-.
Firsi. 1 must n ~ a k eIWO observalions rhal a r i s out
~ o r Iiis sixth poinl. Bot h by
impIication a ~ r dspec~ficaIIyIe.g..pp 282. 786-187.siilirrr X he has ;rccrrsed 11s
of rrying Io reslrict the iurisdiclion of the Cour1 in t his aise. so as lo rcduce [Ire
role o f the Court to t h e poi11t d evaporation. Mr. Preside~it.this suggeslio~iis
co~npletelyiintrue W C rccog~rizeand acknowlcdgc to [lie frrII t h e mporIance
of tlre 1-oIeof r he Coiirt. b i ~ twe say that. in accQrdancc wilI~{Ireprovisions of
the Spec~aIAgreement - ivliicli reaIIy are quite c1ea1 - [lie I-oIe is grcater
i one assigned to I he Court In the Nor-fhSrw Cirririiic.~tf<ri
t h a ~[lie Slzr,!icases but
does 1101 go so h ~as- the Court of Arbirration was asked by the P ~ I - t ~tue go s in
the case belwee~rIlle United Kingdo~nand F I ~ I IinC 1977 ~ There is 110basis
whalever for lhe suggestion that the Libyarr view of the proper iilterp~.etat~on
of Ille 5peciaI A~I-eementis w r o ~ i gbeciiust: it would rruIlify lhe role of ille
Court. 01'.Iiecar~seri woiiId resrric! it as compa1-ed tu the role of rile Coriri of
Arbitratio~r.There is. indccd. an appa1-ent se1T:cont radict ion i1iIiere11lt ~ i1h e
Turiisian argumenl. The T~i111s1an case. as we know . rests heavily on lhe 1969
Judgmeirl and r11e1-ebylestifies tu the imporiance of tire part played by the
Court in tliat case. wliere t Ire terms of the Sp~ciaIA~I-eeme~rt did not go even
as far as Article 1 of tlre SpeciaI Agreement in the prcse11I case . yet Tunisia
IIOW faIsely a r g u a IIiaI Libya 1s seeking a so-caIIed rest rictive ~~iterpretalion.
even though Libya accepts ihal the Court's roIe is gralter rhan In 1969. This
ki~idof argriinenl carrirot p1'evail against ih e clear nlca~ii~ig of Ihe WOI-dsoc the
r coniext in which lhey appear. Libya's conce1-n is Io arrive al: tlie
Trealy i ~ ilje
correct meaIr Ing of the Agree~ne~it. neitl-rer nro1-e nor Ies.
We Iiave I-ecog~iizedand are convi~icedthat. In tlie present caw. Ihe way is
operi for the Corrri to make another greal conirihution tu jnternatior~allarv
conce1.11i1igthe cont i~ientalsheI f. This is sci becar~sethe circi~rnsla~lccs of t Ir is
case are di fferenr irom [Rose of 1he N(~rjh.Gul Cilrzfirirwlul SAC>(!- cases. The
coastal coilfiguratio~is.for exampIe. a1-e most unusuaI and pussibIy unique.
AccordingIy. [lie circumsla~r~es caIl for clarificaiio~i i ~ iIIre Iaw and its
application. If tlre1.e wwere uny need ta underline ille irnpur.tar-rce of thc part to
be played b y the COUI-tin t his casc. lhis worrId be dune by irhe currenl drafl of
Ariicle 83 of the drafi conventic>~i011 ifre Ia w of the sea of 198 1 . w h~ch.
broiidIy speaking. contains a i-r.rri*)i back to cristomary inIer~ratio~ral law as
beirrg appIicabIe for r he prrrpos- of deIirniiation of cont i11e11ta1sheI areas as
betweerr Srales with opposite or adjacent coasts.
354 CONTINENTr i L SkIE1.I:

it is tiear enough. 1i is cIearIy an admission thal ivhat is important is iiot the

shorthand used by Ttinisia with a view to inviiitig thc Coi~rt10 do everylhing
shori of drawing the Iine. biit it is rather ihe words acruall y used in rhc Special
Agreement wliich Tunisia is trying to bend to ils own wishes. Not on1y is the
paragraph quite clear in using rhc ivords "the practical n~cihod For the
application or those principles and rulcs", but these words are also virtuaIIy
rcpeaied in AriicIe 2 which 1 have just quoted. Ifanything is cIear in lhis case.
it is thai the Special Agreement does not cal1 upoti the Couri to do evcrythiiig
shorl of, as it rvere, pIoiiing rhe Iine on a chart.
May 1 make two briei comnleiits w hich relaie to poitirs one, four and fIve
of Professor Abi-Saab's presentalion. Firsi, against i he background of ihc
diplomaiic practice of Tunisia and Libya. and indced of inaiiy oiher colintries.
it is qtiiie clcar ihat "experts". as used in Article 7, does no1 mean just simpl y
technicians. The distinction, 1 suggart. is bet ween represeniation at thc politrcal
IeveI and reprcsenlat ion at the cspert level. This is a normal dis1inction which
is very oRen drawn in internationa1 bodies. Thus. for example, Mr. Aiteiga, a
dipIomai of ran k. w hose. wit hout prejudice. offer of compromise was swept
aside by Tiitin~a.{vas regardcd ns acling in the capacity of an "expert". Quire
norrnaIly, qiiiie nati~rally.Now ~ h seconde point rhal I would make in this
connection is this. I t is coinmon knowledge that thc Judgnieiit of the Court in
Slzcl~casesi t i ract enabIcd the Parties 10 arrive at an
the ,Vi)rih Seri Ctrriri~ii~~irul
agrcernent without atiy diffificiiIries. Why should it bc thoughr ihar in this case.
thc Judgrnerit of thc Cour1 wouId be ail y Iess effective.
I I is unnecessary now io take the iinie of ihis Hotioi~rableCourt io deal with
the raiher weak reference to ihe 1,ibyan Memorial and ihe role of subscquenl
practice in ihe inrerpreiatiori of treaiics. Thc argurnen t has not been developcd.
but it cantiot be scriotisly conlcnded that the pIeadings exchariged by the
kirtics amouni to ail agreenierit regarding ihe it~terpretarioiiof the SpeciaI
Agrecmetit \vithiil ihe tneaning of paragraph 3 {f?) of Arricle 3 1 of ihe Vienna
Conveniion on [he 1w t; of'I'reaties. This argutnenr. 1 wouId say. howcver. is
typjcal of ihe Tunisiati rel~aiicethrorighout its casc on implicit or express
clairns of acquiesccnce. estoppet. preclusion and so on. which although
mentioned or hi~ited;it, are not scriousIy arg~iedor supportcd by evidciice.
I iiow rcvert to Professor Abi-Saabls second poinl in which he takes
somewhat out of coiitext what ! was sayit~gabout "reIevatii circums~ances".
and attributes to rny words a sigtiificaiice which ihcy rvere nor intended Io
bear. 1 fiiid this sIightly amusing. When 1 spoke of relevant circumslances oii
30 Scptember Ipp. 5 1 K.. spru). as is cIear froin the record. I was then
spcaking in thc contesi of naiural prolongatiori and with reference to lhe
suggested scaIe or relevanm piit orward in Artnes t 10 the Tutiisiaii Counier-
Memorial. which incidentally, is even more conrusing having regard to t h e
explanation givc~iby Professor ViraIIy that it was a scientific and not a Iegal
scaIe of relevance. Nevertheless, 1 welcome the lin k Professor Abi-Saab made
bel wecn w ha1 I said aboul relevani circumstances, and equitable principles,
w hen he said, aiid I use his words, i hat 1 had prweeded :
"to ihe presentation of Libya's understanding of whar are thc rclevant
circumstances and their relative importance, which is exactly Libya's
version of rhc equiiable baIance meil tioned by the Court" (pr280, s i ~ ~ i r u ) .
1 d o not exactly irndersiand whal the statement is intended to mean or exactIy
how it relates io the words 1 spoke. Bu1 1 ain delighted to have this
acknowIedgment of the [ink bel ween "relevant circumslances" and the concept
of "equitable balance" as explained by Professor Briggs and M r. Highet.
 HEJOINI)I:R OF SIR FRANCIS VALLA'T 355

1 ~ioirlturn to Proressor Ahi-Saab's Ihird point which concerned the ncw

acceptcd trends in thc Third Confcrcnce on tlie Law of the Sea. Hcre 1 d o nor
lhink ihal therc is rniich difference between us. l t inay be difficult to idenrify
1\1hich provisioiis or the drsifi coi3ventioii oii the Iaw of lhe sea are i o be
rcgarded as "new accepted iretids"or to suggcst whal weiglii. if any, shoitld be
altached to aiiy of these irends.
The 1-eliance in ArticIe 76. paragraph I , on natural proIongaiio~iatid ihc
rcrcience i r i Article 76. pragraph 3. to "prolongation of the Iriiidmass" tiiay be
regarded as rcnecting ciisiomary intertiational law as accepicd in doctrine and
in Siaie practicc. Bu(. thc provisions of Article 76 as a whoIe. as Proressor
Jennings pointed oui. arc a co~iipromiseaimed aai sctding the vexed question of
the oirrer limil of the continental sheIfiii itsiuridical sense. I am afraid thal I do
iiot have i i i rny possession rhc eIemen!s !O judge whether t h a e provisioris
shouId be regardcd as i e w acceptcd trends". And I regret lhcrefore that 1
cannot iit this Inornent help tlic Cotirt further on this particu tar point
Now. in faci, Profcssor Abi-Saab added :r seventh point about the
interprelation of Article 3 of thc Special Agrcernenl. This. he quite rightly says
is an article which coiicerns a poss~blelaier slage which we al1 hope wiIl never
occur. However, once inorc. h c attribtited to us a position that has not been
adopted by or oti behlf of Libya. We have absoIurely no thoughi of judgrncnt
by instnInients. On the othcr hand. we do co~isiderthat A rticte 3 of the SpeciaI
Agreemcnl stands on its own reel and that ils lcrrns are, as is usual in lhe
intcrpretation o f treaties. to be given their ordinary meaning in the contesi in
which lliey apperir and in the Iighl of the objcci and prrrposc of the Treaiy. 1 do
not rhink that Prorcssor Abi-Saab's examitiation of Ariiclc 61)of ihe Siair~ieof
lhc Coun corilributes much. if anythiiig. 10 the discussion. However, if the
Parties do have to conie back ro the Coiirt for n y "cxptanations o r clari-
fications". it will be by virtue of Article 3 rather than ArticIe 50 or the Statute.
Having made lhcse observations, 1 would add no more on ~ h i aspect s of the
case other ~ l i a nrcspecttrlly lo reer the Courr back io the analysis of the
Special Agreement which I offered in ihe first round of speeches Ipp. 4 8 ff..
slipra 1.
Subjecr to this. there is otie other important inrerpretarion of the SpeciaI
Agreement to which Libya has alIuded, but which Tunisia seems inclined lo
hide or ignore. J i is t h e problem of the meaning OF the term "area" o r "areas"
which appears rcpcaiedIy in thc Special Agreement and ! refer to Articles I , 2
and 3. Judgc MosIer has called atten tioii lo rhis irnporian t poini in the question
which hc has addrcssed to rhe Tunisian representatives and, as far as 1 am
aware. rhey Iiave no1 so fat answered. CoriId this be because any reasonable
defin~tionof the area would prove cxtreniely awkward for the shearof Iincs
which appeared in the Tunisian Mernorial '! It is no use suggesting thai "area
of concern" may be defined differeniIy Tor different purposes because. if I may
s;iy so wilhout d~srespect.J u d g Mosler has made peredl y dcar the purpose
which he had in mind in his questioii. He has referred to the area of concern
w hich .is relevant for the indicarion of the principIes, rules and methods 10 be
applied in the futiire delimitation of the continental sheIFappertaining to Libya
and Tunisia respeclively.
This is the central and essential question which is highlighted by the use or
~ h ephrase "the relevani circuinsiances w hich characterize I hc area" ihal
appears in AriicIe 1 ofthe SpeciaI Agreement. Whai was coriternplated by the
two Parties af rhe date of the signature of lhe Special Agreement '? To answer
this question. one has to look al the cIaims put forward on &haIf of each
Party. The area in dispute ar that rimc, that is ~ h edate of signaiure of the
offered an opportnnity ~o1-e-sraielhe applicabIe principIes and 1-uIesrn the 11gIir
of the circumstanres wliiclr characicrize the area iri the present case. In tIiis
connecriori. may 1 caIl alk~itionspecificaIly to 1-ibyati Srrb~niss~ons Nos. 1. 2.
3, 5 and 8 to 1 3 set out in the Counter-Mernorial arid the reasons given in that
document which support the submissions. These submisions are legal in
character and are in thernselves indicative of the importance which Libya
attaches to the role of the Court in the present case.
h'ow what is il that ~nakesthe prese~itcase so different from the one which
co~ifrontedt h e COUI-t in 1969 ? It is the need ro examiile more cIoseIy the
nature of natr~raIproIo~igalionns rhc basis for thc ip.sri.f>r-rcrand:th N ~ i r i r riglits ,
of eacl? Parry- The basic difference is Ihat, as wc Say, ir is necessary ro look at
the real substance of which the shelf is made and its connection with the land
territory of the coastal State. 'Tunisia says thai what matters is the surface and
variations in ihe depth of water above it.
In his first iniervention, Profmsor Jennings led 11s in10 confiision by
speaking of nattrral prolongarion as a mixed matter of faa and law. Wis
mlleagues and now h e himself have withdrawn frorn that confsiori arid Iiave
;rck~iowledgetI t hat ~ ~ a t u r aprolongation
l is esseritia1Iy a physiaI fact - a
physical characteristic of tlie con'ineirtal shelf i t i its Iegal serise. Of cotr~-se,
natural prolongation is a legal term, in the sense that it is an ingredient in the
juridical meening of the continental shelf, but, as now seerns to be
acknowledged, its features are essentially physical. The real problem is how
dues a State establish the conririuity 01-exte~lsionof its land territory into and
under the sea - to use the lerms of tlie Jrrdgment in I hr: ~Vul-rlrS<,:r Co2rriitc~iii:ri
Slri,ifcases - or the extensron of the sea-bed and stibsoi1 of the subrnerged
arens beyond ifs territoria1 sea throtrgIrouI IIie natural proIongation of its land
territory - to use the language of Article 76, paragraph 1, of the draft
convention on the law of the sea of 1981 (A/CONF.62!L.78). There is, in
Article 76, no atlempt at definition of natural prolongation, but its most
imporiant characterist ic is indicated in paragraph 3 of the Article which speaks
of the subrnerged PI-olorrgationof t h e Iandmass of the coastal State. Reading
Iogether the Ianguage used in the 1469 Jridgment and ils adapration in the
1981-drat converition. two thrrigs are clear. First, rhat the question of natural
prolorigaticin is indeed one of physical conlinuity or exlension of the territory
of a Statc into and under the sea : and the second. in the light of the words uscd
in paragraph 3, is that it is the landrnass rather than the surfacc of the sea-bcd
that 1s of importance in this confieclion.
Mr. President. i n rny iirsi speech on 30 Scpicnibcr alid 1 Oclober (pp. 54-
55 and 51-68. supm). 1 tried witIi some t a r e to a11aIyse the relevanl
principle~and rtrles or internatiorial Iaw III ihrs fieId and rheri went o n IO
discuss Ihe q~lesrio~i of delimiralioir Ipp 68 ff.. . i i j p j - t r 1. I I wilI be rec;iIIed 1Ir;rr 1
there examined the nature of the continental shelf as distinct from the question
of appurienance involved in the concept of natural prolongation, the q~iestion
of the outer limit of the continerital shelf and the question of delimitation.
No serious attempt has been made on the other side to deal with ihat analy-
sis w Iiich stands in rhesc oral proceedings virtualIy u~rtouched. Professor
Jennings, if 1 may say so. has trird now to papfr #ver the cracks by treatirig Ille
definition of fIie contine1ita1sheIf for thc prrrposes of the draft convention as if
it were a definition of naiural prolongation. Bur if anything iri ttiis case is
absolutely clear, it is thai the meaning of the continental shelf as a Iegal
institution and the establishment of appurtenance of particular shelf areas to
the coastal State which depends on natural prolongation, are two different,
though related, matters. Unfortnnately. as so often happens w ith basic
 REJOINDER OF StR FRANCIS VALLAT 35 1
rights. where the edge of the continental sheIr estended beyond 200 miles. Yer
hc hirnsclf said (pp. 262 f.1 of ihc draft convention that drticle 76 of i h e draft
convenlion was meant to deal with two specific problerns. namely "the daim
of coastal States io nationaI ji~risdiction out to the edge of the continenral
rnargin. and of course the paraIIel development of rights in respect of the
exclusive econornic zone". 1 do not understand why he broughi in the
exctusive economic zone, which finds no place in ArticIe 76 ; nor do 1
understand why, when commenting on my rernarks, he failed to caII aiteniion
to the fact that 1 was discussing the meaning or natural prolongation and ,no1
a l for rhe purposes of the drafr convenrion.
the defiriitiuri uT the c o n ~ i n e n ~shelf
We really do have to be cIear in the use of our basic concepts. Happily , al1 is
not dissenl- As 1 have said, we have made some progress in the recognition of
natural prolongation as a physical fact - the fact out o f w hich the rights of the
coastaI State arise. I t also seerns to be acknowledged by both sides that ii is
necessary in this case to look ai factors oiher than proximity. Nothing we have
said implies the contrary. We also agree with Professor Virall y that the present
case has some most unusual characierisiics aIthough, as 1 am sure he wouId
recognize. the findirigs of Iaw in rhe present case wiIi be of great assistance in
the understanding of rhe Iaw to be appIied in other cases. In this connection, 1
have no hesitation in urging the Court to take into account the geotogical
factors, but to reject bathymetry as giving no indicaiion whatever of natural
proIongation. 1 wilI leave furlher examinaiioii of ihe basic pertinence of
geoIogy ro rny Iearned friend, Professor Bowetr. but 1 would rnysel add a few
words about baihymeiry.
Now first, bathy metry is concerned with the depth pf water above the sea-
bed and indirect1y the contours of the sea-bed ilself. It is not concerned direcil y
with the imporlant substance of the conlinenta1 shelf which is the subsoil.
Secondly, the use of,bathyrnetry in the presenr case does not achieve the results
which Tunisia wouId have the Court believe. If one looks ai the bathyrnetric
chan provided by Tunisia, which is Figure 1 in the Tunisian MemoriaI, Map
No. 2, certain things are obvious. The barhy metric Iines do not actuaIIy foIIow
the configuration of the Tunisian coast out to the 200- or 300-metre isobath as
alleged. Where, for example. is the reflection of the IsIand of Jerba ? What
ieature of the coast cornmon to Tunisia and Libya is reflected in the so-called
ri& de Zira :' Agzii~i.~f one carries the cyc say from Tripoli wesiafard. is no1
the slope rat hcr northward from Libya !han eastward from Tunisia ? Thirdly,
whar happens to the theory of the genrIe dope or declivity in the face of off-
shore banks or shoals Or, for exampte, features such as the Medina and Melita
Banks whiEh even on the Tunisian iheory seem to offer an insuperabIe barrier
in the way of the march from the Gulf of Gabes towards the Ionian Abyssal
Plain ?
It rnay be ihat the preent situation is one lhat does not faIl very clearly
within the description of the continenta1 rnargin as consisring of shelf. dope
and rise - may ix.Bu! as we al1 know chat does not prevenr sea-bed and
subsoil from being regarded as the natural prolongation of the State so as 10 be
subjeci to Ihe rights of the coasial State. And 1 may say t hat Professor Boweti
wiIl of course be examining Ihai aspecr of the matter in due course.
But the possibility of the kind of silualion t hat 1 have just menlioned has
been recognized vinually from the date of the Truman P r ~ l a m a t i o n .I t was
clearIy acknowledged by this honourabIe Court itself in paragraph 95 of the
1963 Judgmeni, where it said : "The continental shelf is, by definition, an area
physicaIIy extending the territory of most coastal States into a species of
platform . . ." This is a dear recognitibn of the undoubted fact that in some
parts of the world there is IittIe or virtuaIly no cotitinenta1 margin in the
technical sense. This may be so eithcr'because seaward of the coast the sea-bed
plunges rapidiy, as for example in certain pans of the PacirIc coasi or North
America, ceriain parts of Laiin America and eveii in some parts of the
Mediterranean Sea. Or, on the orher hand, Ihere rnay be a sheIf area where, a s
between the Siates concerned, there is a single continuous shelf with no s10p-e
and rise as deftned. for example, in ArticIe 76 of the drafi conventioti. In such
circurnstances, it would be rnanifetIy njust to deprive the coasial Siates of
their righls with respect to t h e sea-bed and subsoiI which flow f r o n ~the
prolongation of the Iandmass of their territories into and under ~ h sea.e So ar
as States in the second category are concerned, this injustice was avoided by
the terms of Article I of the 1958 Convention. So ir as States in the firsr
category are concerned. the injustice has been rectifted partly by practice and
partIy by the acknowIedgment in the draft convention on the Iaw of the sea.
that they are entitled to rights over 1he sea-bed up to a distalice of 200 nau ticaI
rniIes. This right is dependent in no way on sheIf, slope and rise: ii is
dependent on natural prolongation. In this respect, Mr. Presideni, I would
subrnit that there is no distinction between States w hich have a continenral
margin in the defined sense and States which do not. The essentia1 question to
be determined is which areas i11 fact prolong, continue or exrend the Iandmass
of the coastal State.
Now berore I leave this aspeci of the case. may 1 just mention one more
obscurity thai there seems to be in the conlentions of Professor Jennings. I am
rcferring to ihe remarks made by him on 1 3 October (pp. 262 f.. sr~pru1, when
he placed under the utnbrelIa of Article 76 of the draft convention on the law
of the sea the outer extent of nationaI jurisdiction both with respect to the
continental sheIf and ihe exclusive econornic zone. This is the passage 1 quoted
a few minutes ago. Now this calIs for two cornment. First, ihere seems to be
impIicit in the observations made a confusion belween the outer o r seaward
extent of the conlinenla1 shelf and the question of deiimitation. Secondly, there
has t x e n a constant underIy~ngassumption ln tIic Tunisian case ihat T~tnisiais
entitled, as it were, to sweep a11 before il up to the fut1 extent of a! !fast 200
miles from ils nover baseIines. Of coiIrse,, Ihis cannot be righl. The
Mediterranean, although extensive, does no! necessariIy provide 200 miles -
does noi provide in facl - 200 m i l e for every coastai State. Besides, the
assumption does no1 take account of the faci thai, on the same basis, Libya
would also be entitled to a n extent of 200 miles from its coast. In other words,
as I have tried to make so clear from 1he beginning,the question ofextent is the
real problern with which ArticIe 76 is concerned as distinct from the problern
of naruraI proIongaiion - which relates to the physical Iiiik between the shelf
and the land - and also as distinct from the problem of delirnilation. This is
such an elernentary distinction that one would hope not to have to make it at
this stage of the proceedings.But the obscurity that ha$ crept into the Tunisian
oral argument has made it necessary to d o so.
Now Iet me continue with an examination of a few fiirther observations
made by Professor Jennings on I 3 October. Having discussed Article 76 of the
draft convention, he passed to the question of the relationship to delimitation
on the assumption, apparently, that naturaI prolongation is defined in his sense
in ArticIe 76 of the draft rather than in the 1969 Judgrnent of the Cour! -
overjooking once more the fact that he had just stated that the problem
involved in ArticIe 76, paragraph 1, was the determinarion of the outer limit of
the continental shelf. It is no wonder thar he found the reIationship between
naturaI prolongation and deIimitation diflicult ipp. 263 f.. sripru). But his
 REJOIXDER OF SIR FKi\NLIS VAl..I.4T- 363

characterizalion of the Libyair geological argument as a Iitile coy must provoke

a wry srnile. AIlhough he does not acrually say so. he seems to base this
remark on the assumptioii that aII that Libya has done 1s to establish that both
States are prolonged irilo one geo!ogjcaI structure. f-ie musi have been out of
Court for a good deal of time during the hearing to have missed the point that
the geologicaI case for Libya is thai the evidene shows ihar. i i i facl, ~ h area
e or
rhe Pelagian Block to the norlh of ihe adjaceni coasts or Tunisia and Libya is
rhe natural prolongatioii of those coasts of Tunisia and Libya rat her thai? of the
so-caIled easr-racing Coast of Tunisia.
For my part, 1 can agree with Professor Jennings that the question does arise
in this case as to what part of the shelf is to be regarded as more naturall y the
prolongation of the Iandmass of one State raiher than the oiher - an
irnporiaiit point. Brit 1 caiinoi agrce wi!h Ihe use ivhich he lried ro inake of
certain analogies. To attenipi to usc the analogy of sieps going dow n to bolster
the noveI bathymetric theory simply wi1I noi do. 'The direction of a IcveI
gardeii path from the front door of a housc to the gate is in no way dependenr
on whether the path is lcvel or slopes up or down. EquaIIy. a flight of steps
leading to the backyard from a basemeiit still goes in thai direction from the
housc. even lhough it goes up. The suggesied analogy between ihe African
Plate and the sitc of this city is too absurd io bear coniinent. I I has noihing 10
do w i ~ hthe rifting thar has occurred berwmii Africa and Eurasia. o r the
creafion of the coiitinental shelf area irr fact by rhe process of stretching
northward which has occurred in the case of the Pelagian BIock as i i i the
of other continental sheIf arcas.
Happily, Mr. President, 1 do not need ro take much rurther time over the
remainder of Professor Jenniiigs' reniarks. In connection w ith ~ h eln terpreta-
lion of the Special Agreement. I meiirioned the questlon of equiiabIe principles
a ~ i dthe balaiice of factors of relevani circumsiances. 1 have nothing to add at
this stage : 1 wouId onty rerer to what has already been said by Professor
Briggs (pp. 199, 203 K. s i t p i v ) aiid hlr. Highet (pp. 225-229. sitpi-rr)
Lest it be thought lhat I have bowed to Tuiiisian attemprs to discredit the
1955 PerroIeum Law and ReguIatioii No. 1 , 1 would onIy say lhat the futile
attacks on rhe efects of the Law and ihe Regularion, including the attempt to
drag in by lhe backdoor a possible delimitation wiih Egypt. have in no way
shaken the Law and ReguIation and h4ap No. I , which speak for themselves.
1 wiIl content rnyself. once more. with confirrning and referring ta the
observations which 1 made in this connection in the first round of speches
(pp. 4 1 ff., sitpm 1.
On the olher hand. 1 cannot refrain from cornmenring on the shift in
position where aIIeged historic rights are relied upon as confirming "the
palpable existence of the natural prolongation" or as "evidence of the existence
of a Tunisian naturaI prolo~igation i t i those parts". The idea of a kind of
notionai natu rat proIoiigation. which was itself palpabl y wrong, has been
abandoned and now the claimed exercise o r so-called h~storicfrshery rights is
relied upon as evidence of natural prolongation. The proposition is no more
acceptable in rhat forni thaii il was before.
However, whai is curious is thal Professor Virall y still wants Io have il both
ways. While disavowing the "constitutive" vaIue of historic rights and
specifying their "demonstrative" value. he still spea ks of "lin prolongement
naturel des activltes humaines". What an extraordinary elastic use of words
this is (p. 291, s i i p r a ) ! Words, words, words. Besides, it is wrong to say ihat
Tunisia does noi clsirn somc form of acquisition of continental shelf arcas
through alleged h~storicrishery righis and their exercisc. Ar Icast it was wrong
364 CONTINENTAL SHELF

at the commencement of these procecdings. This is precisel y whal Tunisia has

been doing. and doing wrongIy. in connection wiih iu ctaim to a Z V 4S0 tine
from Ras Ajdir coupied with the 50-metre isobath.
In conclusion, let me stress, in this conneciion. I hat Tunisia has produced no
evidence w halever of the immeinoria1 evercise of fishery rights by Tunisia,
either with respect 10 sedentary fisheries or sedenrary specia, in any area on
the Tunisian side of the Iine 1 have just mentioned that would be afected by
any deIirnitation that might result from giving effet IO the tibyan position in
these proccedings.
1 wouId conclude by asking, wherc is the evidence ? I t doen't exist.
This leads narurally to lhe Tunisian claims io historic rights.
 CONSEIL UU GOUVERNEMENT VF L A IrlMAHIRIY.4 liKARE LIBYENNE

M. MALINTOPPI : Monsitrir Ie P I - ~ I ~ ~Messieurs III, les inembres de la

Cour, Ia Cour sait bien comment. au deuxi~netour des d i ~ ~ u s s i oorales, m la
thcIie des corrseiIs est ingrate. UII effort de synrhse s'impose. Et pourtarrt la
simplification est sonvenr dificile Iorsque la Partre adverse essaie, par voie soit
d e distorsions soit de diversions, de detourner l'attention des aspecrs essentiels
de l'affaire. Pour ma part, je voudrais, avec la permission de la Cour,
concentrer ma rponse autour des thmes fondamentaux que j'ai eu l'honneur
de vous exposer i l y a une dizaine de jours. Je le ferai, bien entendu. de
manire a viter les rptitions et a faire ressortir les diffrences qui semblent
subsister dans les positions des Parties.
Cst dans cet esprir que je me permets de rappcIer que noire thse reiative
aux deIi~nitatio~is la~eralesdes juridictions ~.tispcctivesde Ia Tunisie el de la
Libye peul se ~.t%rirnesen cinq points : Pr-irr~r).l'hisloire de la formatio~ide la
frontire terrestre fournit des faiitils et per~netdes ~ ~ n s i d e r a ~ iqui
o n sconstituent
la ioiIe de fond de la prkstnte affaire. Sr.c?ritBi, c'est en vain que Ia Parrie
advei-se pretend avoir adopre depuis 1904 une lrgne IatkraIe de 45' pour
dlimiter sa juridiction en matiere de peche a l'gard de la Libye. Torfio, le
blocus dklar par l'Italie lors de la guerre de 19 1 1 - 19 12 avec l'Empire ottoman
supposait une dlimitation des eaux le long du mridien de la frontire. Qiwrlu,
en 1914 l'Italie a suggr une solution provisoire, r k fic!o, pour rgler les
juridictions maritimes respectives en Tunisie et en Libye, solution qui a et&
applique sans dificult tout au long de la prsence italienne en Libye. Q i i i ~ r ~ o ,
Ia situatio~in'ayant nuIIernenl chang par la suite. toure diimiiaiion maritime
r a t e encore faire entre Ies Parties.

Je serai extrmement breren ce qui concerne la frontiere terrestre. La Partie

adverse a prefer nous donner des rcponses trs sommaires I ce sujet. Je
renvoie par consquent a mon premier expos aussi bien qu' celui du
professeur Martel, aujourd'hui prsident de l'universit de Montpellier, qui a
longuement sejourne en Tunisie. Son livre sur les frontieres de la Tunisie (ci- .
dessus p. 7 6 ) est entirement bas sur des documents d'archives et, vous l'aurez
re~narqu.aucune plaidoirie dc la Partie adversc n'a soriffl mot de cc
reina~quableouvrage screntifique.
. me bornerai a repondre aux trois crii~quesqui nous unt ie
CeIa d ~ t je
adresses. Le professcrir Jerinirrgs <ci-dessusp. 2681. nous a opposC u11rapport
d'un officier de I'lntcIIigence Service de 1890 d'iiprSs lequel Ia f~-o~itire
tuniso-
aurait djj ti. a i'poque, Ras Ajdrr. La rponse est simple. Nous
libye~~~.ie
avons vu que la dcision de pousser la frontire vers le Mokta a t prise par les
autorits franco-tunisiennes en 1886 (ci-dessus p. 77 et suiv.). Le rapport
anglais, rdige quatre ans aprs, ne relatait de toute vidence que le point de
vue de ces autorits.
Le professeur Jennings nous a fait galement observer que les cartes de
l'poque auraient etc Ctablies sur la base de la carte annexe un livre publi
 365 PLITEAU CONTINENTAI.

par Ie voyageur aIIema11d Bar-th en 1849. mais que ce iirme arileur arrrait
inodifik sori juge~ne~rt dails u n Iivre: public une epoque post&rieurccl que la
frontire se situeraii. d'ap~-ssa norivcIIe version. srIr le hlokra et rian plus F-
Bibati (cl-dessus p. 2hH1 l'observe B ccr gard que noiis avons produit dcus
cartes qui fixenl la frontire a El-Biban inais q u i portent iine date ariterieure a
celle du premier voyage de Banh (voir 1, annexe 1-6 au rrin~oirelibyen) et que
ces cartes, qui n'avaient donc pas t inspires par celle de Barth, ont t
slectionnkes parmi beaucoup d'autres cartes publies.
- J'observe kgalement que nous avons dlibrment carte Ic livre de Barth
auquel mon estim contradicteur a fait all~ision,et 'vclici pourquoi i Barrh k r i t
que son gro~rpeaurail atteint Ie point incliqu par lui cvmnlc Mziggta en p81-tanr
du itla khada. II rcIa te, aux piges 1 I et I 2 qire le PI-ofesseurJennings a remises
Ia Cattr. avoir qiritta Ie Makhada le 15 janvier, VI-aisembIabIernenrau niatin
s rievialion laterale - II etait archcologue - potIr
avarir les rhalei~rs.A ~ I - une
visiter des rtriries roInarnes p~.ochesdu lac des Bihns. iI afiirme trc'arrivc au
Maggta i deux Ileures de I'aprs-midi. Or, la disrance entre Makhada et le
Mokta viritable est en ligne droite d'une quarantaine de kilomtres. 011voit
mal comment une telle distance peut-eire couvei'le en iiilc demi-journe par
une caravane de quinze persorines et cinq animaux. La Cour, je pense, n'aura
pas de difficult a comprendre pourquoi nous avons eu le regret de ne pas
pouvoir faire confiance a l'auleur e n question.
Finalement la troisime critique nous a adresse par I'agenr drr
Gotivernernent tunisien. II nous a fait remnrquer que Ies anciennes limiles
entre la Libye et Ia Trinisie tiiaierit des <( confins ii i11te1-nesplritfit que des
~-onriresinrcrnatianaIcs (ci-desstis p. 258) Je Ine bornerai Irii faire obsei-ver
a mon toirr que si 1'011 Ire devair pas tcni~'cornlrtc des aanicns confins
administratifs pou1- dterminer dcs fronriercs i~~iernatio~taIes, l'on devrait
~netrreeri disctasion Ia IFgitimiti de presque toutes les frontires latino-
atnricaiiies et utlc bonne parlie des frontires africaines.

Je passe maintenant aux iiinites maricimes. Le second point de irion e x p o k

vise ici la qiesiion cardinaIe de Ia Iigne dc 45" qui d'aprk la Parrie advcrse
aurai1 fait deptlis 1904 i'objel d'une << IoIerance i11te1-natiorraIe>>.
Quatre corisidCra1~ o n ge111.aIes
s s'imposenr. I a Partie adverse a rinc certaine
te11dance oirblier eI faire oublrer qire I'angie de 45" 11-aCte dC~errninCpour Ia
premiere fois que par Ie dcr-etdi1 24 j~riIIci195 1 . Tor~lau Iong de son expose Ia
. Parrir adverse r:i par corrtre par[& de la << ddrrnitation de 1804 (ci-dessus
)*

p. 2941, coriiinc si en 1904 l'on avait tabli utie-vritable froiitikre et ccla

conforrnmenr a u n trace caractrise par une inclinaison prcise. Ce n'est pas
vrai. Je le rpete : l'instruction du 31 dcembre 1904 n'a fait qu'indiquer
comme lirnitr: latrale de la siirveillance d'une zone de pche : << une ligne
partant de Ras Ashdir et se dirigeant vers le nord-est jusqu'a sa rencontre des ,
fonds de 50 mlres i>( 1 . nimoire tunisieri, annexe 77. p. 203).
n'est donc qrie quaran~e-sep1ans aprs qu'on a prelendti doirner a ccile
ligne une incIinaiso1-r PI-ecise1 4s0 L'artifice reIIioi-ique qui consiste a lier Ia
specificarion des 4S0 la dale de 1904 rie sauraIr cacher Ie fait quen 1904
per-sonne n'mail encore pe~isea rin angIe dtermine et qi;'ori deirait Ie faire
pour la preniire fois e ~ 1i95 I .
La deuxitne cons ide ratio^^ gnkraIe a trait la nature de l'insiruction de
1404. Noiis avons tabli cet gard qu'en tout cas l'instruction franco-
tunisienne de 1904 a Ia mme nalure et Ia mme valeur que les inslructions
iiaIiennes de 1919 ou ceIIes de 193 1 {ci-dessus p. 49). On ne riaus a rien
repo~idu.J'y reviendrai par la suite. mais il tait opportun de cornmericer par le
souligner ici.
La troisime considration gnrale est de loin la plus importante. Elle se
rattache une constatation que nous avions dj faite dans le contre-mmoire
(II, par. 102) et a laquelle la Partie adverse a jug bon de ne pas rpondre. La
Partie adverse ne saurai1 faire orrbIie1- que, quel q u e soit le contenu d'une
instruc~ionde seivice de 1904. le dc1-et tunisien sur Ia p k h e maritime ciitire
du 15 avril 1906 n'indique aucune Iigne sur la mer. LarticIe 2 dit en effet que,
el vous eri avez le texte daris Ie dossier que vous avez reu aujorlrd'hui ' : LR
(<

littoral de la Rgence est divis, au point de vue de la pche maritime ctire,

en quatre arrondissements. i>Et le quatrime arrondissement, celui de Sfax, est
dfini de la manire suivante : (t Arrondissement de Sfax : de Ras-Salakta
jusqu'i la froniire tripolitaine. H
Cette citation est tiree du Co& arinr~fkdc lu Tmrisie de Boinpard, Srippjknc~~r
( 1 1905-1907-1908
~ par Zeys (Na~rcy,1909). page 732 ; dans le texte de ce
dcret qui a t prrbli a l'annexe 74 du mmoire tunisien (11 des points de
suspension rempIacen1 les articles 2 et 3, dont Ihrticle 2 que je viens de Iire. Le
but de l'amputation est vident. II fallait dtourner l'attention d'un point
essentiel : un dcret sur la p k h e maritime cotiere publie en 1906 ne reproduit
pas l'indication de la ligne qui figurait dans une instruction dicte deux ans
avant.
Et ponmnt le si1e1ice du dcret de I 305 es1 d'une importance capiraIe. En
effek si-ainsi que Ia Partie adverse Ie pretcnd Ici-dessus p. 297) Ie protectorat
avair Ie souci de procurer 5 Ia Tunisie Ia possession des bancs de Faroua qui se
prologent, nous dit-on, a l'est de Ras Ajdir, pourquoi ne pas profiter du dcret
de 1906 pour donner une indication lgislative quant la limite latrale de la
zone de pkhe? Pourquoi se contenter d'une chose aussi faible qu'une
instruction de service ? Pourquoi attendre jusqu'a 1951 avant d'incorporer la
Iigne-dans un dcret el lui donner un angle dtermirr ? Autant de questions
qui restent sans rponse.
Quatrime et dernire cansidratio~igkiirale. I I est dsor niais acq LI is eIitre
les Parties que l'histoire des lrmjfes IalraIes srir Ia mer commence c ~ i1904.
C'est dj un rabais considrable'que la Partie adverse noirs accorde apres la
tentative de nous faire croire qu'une telle limite aurait drive d'un usage im-
mkmorial. 1904 est apres tout une datc assez rcente et une simple instruc-
lion de servi^^ e d un acte assez discurable quani sa porte internatio-
nale ; ds lors, la Partie adverse a dii Invoquer une prerenrlue lolrance
~rrternatronaIe cet egard Ici-dessus p. 2951 I I y a cependdnr dtr nouveau
dans Ies rGpIiques orales rt~nisienries.011ne parle plus, se~nbIe-r-iI.dri soi-disanr
acquiescement dont auraien1 fit preuve les Ouornans en ne s'=iIevarrt pas
contre la ligne de l'instruction de 1904 lors de la conclusion di1 traite de 19 10
siIr la frontire terrestre. Nous avions montre combien celte affirmation
ktait arbitraire (ci-dessus p. 82-83] et je prends volonliers acte que l'Empire
otto~nana t ray de Ia lisre. On continue a y irouver, cependant, ie Royame-
Uni et la Grce, mais j e me permers de rappeler qu'o1-r voit ma1 pourquoi ces
derrx pays auraien1 dU prendre position pour ori co~itrt. des Iimites qui
cqncernaienr des pays tiers un mornent oil la suzerainet oilomane sur Ia
Libye approchait irresisliblement de sa fin.

' Voir ci-aprs. documcnls. p. 442. et corcspondance. nU 175

.id8 PLATEAIJ CONTIh'ENT,lL

Tout aiitre. 6vidcinincnt. est Ic cas de I'ltalic. Et si l'on rflchit a u fait quc la
prsencc italierine eii Libye aura dur6 de 19 1 1 h 1947. parallelement la
prssencc fraii~aiseen Tiiiiisie. forcc est-il de considirer I'attiiiidc dci deiix Etais
cn cjucstio~icoiimt. I'LIII des aspecls forrdame~itauxde I'histoirc des lYoririeres
Or. cri ce qui conccrnc I'Iralie. I'historre a. en 1 9 I 0. trri petit prCarnbnIe do111
ori pciit i-pidrrnrnr Ira11ei-.1 2 Cour se sorivic~~dra peur -lrc dc 1'11icidenrdcs
trais s;icolve J'cti avars fail eut dalis rna prcniiiire plaidoirie (ci-dessus p. 8 5 ) .
[..a Parlie advcrsc coiiteste qiic cette affaire SC soit soldce par i i n Gchcc tti nisieri
(ci-dessus p. 2991.. I'obscrvc A inon loiii- qiie si 1'011 rclit le passage que
j'avais cit il est clair qiie le Coiivernemeni tunisien se trouva dans
I'impossibilid de poursiiivre sa plainte. Mais j'observe aussi - el suriotrt -
que la Partie arlverse a crtiic. de soir c&e, de rappeIer qtre cet incident s'est
prodr~it.daprks les at~toritcsirlnisiennes eIIes-mfmes, i 18 mille5 dans Ie
I(

nord ?OD est de Ras Ajdir i , (IV, ariirexe 1-27 a la rkpIique Iibyeririe) et,
partant, sur un alignemciit qui est celui de la solutioii provisoire qui rut adopte
(Ir. / ~ I c . I ( par
~ la France ct l'Italie polir la dlimitation de leurs juridictions
i~iaritimes,ainsi que je l'ai dcji indiquc et qiie l'on verra ;i nouveau soiis peu.

III

Cela dit, je crois pouvoir passer au troisime poinl de mon expos qui aura
trait a nouveau au blocus des ctes de la Libye tabli par I'ltalie lors de sa
dclaration de guerre ri l'Empire oltoman le 29 septembre 191 1 . C'est i cet
gard que la Parrie adverse nous a adrese pour la premiere fois I'acctisatrori
rrtiiellc dvoir sollicii&de5 textes. De quoi sgit-il !'
Nous avions vu que Id decIara1ion de bIocus ir-rdiquair par deux degms de
Iorigilude Ies exrrernir&sdu bIocrrs respectivernenl I'oirest et I'esi. Notrs eti
avions aussi dduit qu'a dfaut d'indication coi~traire,q u n I'espkce on n'avait
pas donnh. de la part dc l'Italie. le prolongement raisonnable et naturel de ces
deiix points tait le long de leurs meridiens et doiic vers le nord. Ce n'tail pas
pour nous la seille manire de prolonger Ics points en question, aiiisi que la
Pariie adverse wudraii nous Ic fii~redire. mais c'kiair bicn Ia ~nanircnormale.
rariorir~etk.raisonnabIe. Mars Ia Rirtre adverse ~ i o u opposes sr~rioutqtre kidiie
lrgnc << rre nuisait en rien ii I'chcacit d t ~bIocrrs ilaIicn i. (ci-dcssr~sp JflI).
i ccperidanl coillredrie par Ics farrs. Ras Ajdrr
Cetie derrriere a f i r i n a t ~ o ~est
vous le voyez sur la cartc 4247, qui esl une cartc publique francaise. Kas Ajdir
cst caracterisi! par la prsence d'iine fosse qui pcrmet le mo~iillageen rade
des bateaux Je vais mettre et1 vidence. d'une n~anicretres peu habile bien
entendu, la ligiie de 3 mtres. Voila, cst cela la ligne de 3 mtres. La cir-
constance de la psksence d'u~re~'adcou abri aIIait tre ~Iairemcnt1-eIevecn
1914 ainsi que Ie tkmoigne Ia Ietrrc du rCsident genf ral funis dont imtrs
avons deji fait ral (IV,aniiexe 1-26 Ia s6pIique Iibyenrie) Contr.aire~neritaux
prktentions de la Patrie adverse. le blocus italicii n'aurait donc pas pu tre
realisk en deiiieuratit sous unc ligne de 4SU (ci-dcssiis p . 301 1. Je vais traccr.
toujours de ma main tres peu habile, le mridien de Kas Ajdir. Je vais tracer
galement la ligne de 45". On voit bien que le blocus italien n'aurait donc pas
pu trc ralis en dcrneura nt sous une ligne de 45'. parce qu'r~neteIle Iigne
aurai1 prkisi.rnenr empche le contrIe d'un abri qui en raison de sa prrixiniitk
Ia frontii-ese priait d'r~nenra~rirepariiculiere Ia con1rebar-rde. Il es1 donc
rnipensabIe que lors de 121 guerrc ilaIo-atroma~ieon ait pu envisager aulre chose
qii'une proIongatioii tout au iiord de la ligne de blocus.
 Monsieur le Prsident, si en ce qui concerne le blwus de 191 1 on m'a
reproche d'avoir sollicitC les textes, j'attendais avec une certaine curiositc Ia
rponse de Ia Parlie adverse en ce qui concerne le quatrime point de mon
argumentation. II s'agit, la Cour s'en souviendra. de l'incident des trois bareaux
grecs arraisonns par Ie torpilieur italien O F ~ ~IeT 26 ) aot 191 3 u n poini
qui, d'apres Ia Partie adverse. aurait t revendique par la Tunisie grce a
la fameuse instructroti de 1904 Ici-dessus p. 88). klessicurs les juges. ici. Ia
situation me semblait tout a fait claire. La note verbale rranqaise du
9 septembre 191 3 revendiquait les eaux sans pourtant raire aucuiie rfrence
ni a Ia distance de la chie ni a la Iongiiude par rapport au point ou la frontire
terrestre touche la mer. Lie 2 octobre suivant, le minisire des aflaircs
Etrangeres d'Italie en rponse a l'ambassade franaise revendiqua a soi1 tour les
eaux mais suggkrait une sotuIion provisoire en attetidant que les eaux soient
rormellemeni dclimitees. Cetie solution transitoire, rk,l':zc.fo. fut mise en muvre
par l'Italie. La Cour s'en souviendra. la note prkise que la juridiction italienne
allait tre limite
{i une Iigne droite q u ~ partani
. d'un poini de la cete scrvani de roniicre
e . proIoongeaii eii nier normalelnent la direction de Ia
avec Ia T i ~ n ~ s i SC
cote en cc poinr i i (ci-dessus p. 9 Il.
Pour sa part. Ia Francc ri'a jamais doiine de rponse la note verbale
italienne. Deux notes internes francaises, dont nous avons fait 6 a t , expIiquent
que ce silence est d au fait que du cbte franco-tunisien on coiisidra la
proposition itaIieniie
i< comme une solurion rarionnellc d'un diffrend qu'iI imporie de rsoudre
et pour IequeI les kl&ments d'appreciatioii ne sorit pas d'une pr&cisiotl
suflisaritc i)(ci-dessts p. 95).
Monsieur Ie Prsident, Messieurs les juges. bien entendu, c'esl le silence
franais que nous avons invoque sur la base du droit internaiional pour en
dduire, prii~iv, que si jamais Ies Franco-Tunisicns avaient prtendu
revendiquer en 1904 une Iigne vers Ie nord-est, iIs y avaient renonc dix ans
aprs en faveur d'une ligne allant approximativement vers Ic nord-nord-est : et.
inversement. sc~c~1ii00. que si une entcnte s'tait forine. elle se situait autour
d'une ligne de 2 0 - 2 2 O perpendiculaire a la direction de la cotc Ras Ajdir.
tes textes nous semblent donc assez clairs. Que nous rcpond-on de I'autre
cot de Ia barre ? Non sans esprit. on m'a cette rois impute d'avoir sollicite un
silence. On m a prte I'habiIetE d'avoir invite la C o u r a couter Ie silence i~ (ci-
((

dessus p: 302). belle image Iittraire. dont je crois avoir retrac l-originc dans les
vers d'un pote franais du sicle de Louis le Gratid -
i( J'kcoute, a demi transporte,
Le bruit des ailes du silence
Qui voIent dans I'obscurii. i i (Saint-Amant.)
Ce silence est si Eviden~,manifeste, presque palpabIe, que la Partie adverse a
dG se livrer a u n effort suprme pour essayer de le justifier. A vrai dire, Ie
professeur Du puy a t jusqu'a alfrrrner que ce siIence n'a jamais existe i>
<( (ci-
dessus p. 30 I ). Aurais-je donc fait preuve de ce talent de romancier historique
qu'on a bien vouIu m'atiribuer ? Je m'attendais, non sans inquitude, je
I'avoue, i ce q u b n nous dise que nous nous ciions tromp&s - rrrgi-t>
hniuiiiri~i c.sl ; que dans les recherches que nous avions men& dans Ies
archives de trois Erats u n document essentiel nous avait peut-tre Cchapp ;
que la France avait aprs roui rpondu la note italienne en refusant carrement
Ia soluiion provisoire a v a n d e ; qu'une note franaise en reponse tait ici. a la
disposition de Ia Cour.
Or. il n'en a rie11etc.
Pour mieux dire, et puisquc la Cour se souviendra du suspens cr par moi1
savant et habiie contradicteur, la montagne a accouch d'unc souris. Le 3 avril
1914. soir deiis mois apres la note par laquelle Ie rsidetit getiral de Tunis
avait juge (x rationnelle i l Ia solution propose par I'llalie. trois barques
tu~iisiennesfurent iirraisunn&espar un torpilleur italien. Ger incideni est relarc
dans tous ses dtails l'annexe 1-20 a Ia rphque libyenne ( I V } . Comme je
connais mon dossier, c'est avec une cerla~nesurprise que I'ai entendu
itivoquer par la Partie adverse car dans ce cas-l les autorites franaises n'ont
nulIemeii1 songe revendiquer les eaux DU l'incident s'ctair produii. D'ailleurs.
si I'on rcporte sur une cartc nautique les points gcographiques relatifs a cette
alTaire. I'on constate que les bateaux avaient t saisis dans Ics eaux territoria1c.s
iripoIitaines a 2 milles de Ia cote et sur une Iigne qui, par rapport a Ras Ajdir, a
ut1 angle dc I 03'. Eh oui. Messieurs. vous avcz bien enieiidu : 1 03". c'esr-a-dire
vers le sud-est. Et puisque mine les ambitions les plus exorbiiantes de la Pariic
adverse ne sont jamais arrivees jusque-Il, l'on comprend pourquoi toute la
qtiereHe entre les au torites iran~aiseser italiennes relative cette affaire ctait
sur le poinr de savoir si Ies bateaux tunisiens se livraient. oui ou non. la pche
au moment OU 1s saisie eul lieu.
Mais ce que la Partie adversc voudrait nous faire croire, c'est que Ies effers
du siIence gard a I'egard de la noie italienne de 19 1 3 proposaiit une ligne
provisoire perpendiculaire la cote auraieni etc cartes d'un coup parce que :
i x Par u n e note du 24 avril 1 9 1 4. le tiiktne rsident grieral. qui sernbIait
amsi avoir abandoniif Ies ides conciliatrices. niais lo tes perso~iiicIIcs.
qu'iI avait expriines deux mois plus 181, invitai1 cette fois ses suprieurs a
envoyer pIus souvcni dans Ies parages de la frontire des torpilleilrs
irancais poui- apportcr. disait-il. aux pccheirrs iildigenes de la rbgion. ce
qu'il appelait u n e protection morale indispensable. i i (Ci-dessus p. 302.)
((

Monsieur Ie Prsident. Messieurs de la Cour, je vous prie de vous pencher

sur I'annexe 1-20 a la repiique libyenne (IV). parce qu'il y a certaines choscs
que mon estime contradicteur a oubIi de vous dire : iI a oublie de vous dire
sept choses, el je vais Ies nu'mrer trs rapidement : pritiio, que Ie rsident
general avait souIign que Ies pcheurs indignes se plaignaieiit de la ((

prf sencc frquente des torpilleirrs iialiens qui Ieur donneix Ia chasse des qu'ils
depassent Ia frontiere i) (quatrieme pice du dossier) ; sccir~ilh~, que ces mmes
pcheurs indigenes <( s'tonnent que nous Iles Fran~aisln'ayons pas de navires
pour exerccr dans les rnmes parages une action de mme sorte i> lihid.); f ~ r i i o ,
que Ia preuve est ainsi Faite - et csr fa raison pour laquelle nous avions
prcsente u n te1 document - que les Franco-Tunisiens n'effectuaient en ralit
aucun contr9Ie dans les parages de la frontiere : ilii:irfo, que le rsident gnEraI
demanda que I'on exige des rcparations des autoritk itaiicnnes fiIlid.): qilirrro.
qu'aucune rparation n'a, en fait, jamais t officielIement demandedans cette
affaire : si..\-!(), que l'ambassade franaise a Rome relatait par une note du
19 juin 19 14 avoir transmis aux autorits italiennes la version franaise de
l'incident tsixikrne pice du dossier); s ~ ~ p i N ~que i o , pour mute riponse je
gouverne men^ iialien avait fait officieIIement savoir Ie 18 juin qu'en ce qui
concernait les autorits de TripoIi Ia justice allait suivre son cours (huitime
p i k e du dossier).
 Tout auire cominentairc devient superfli~. Mais ce qui tmoigne des
difficults de la Pariie adversc ce ~ i pas
t sci~len~ent d'avoir evoque un dossier
qui, cotnme je viens de le dctnontrer. sape pourtant son argument a la base :
c'est pIuii d'avoir invoque une note i~ireili' dans un effori dsespr polir
viter les consequences d'un silence Nitc.i-iiliiiriiial. Ce silence est la. Et puisque
l'examen de ce point a e ~ ouvcrie par iine image litleraire. la Cour me permetira
peut-erre de le terminer par une autre. eniprunte celte fois a Alfred de Vigny :
tr Setri Ie silence est grand, tout le reste es1 faiblesse. )i
En ce qui concerne la siiuaiion de Ititre-deux-girerres. j'avais montr A la
Cour que les instructions pour ta surveiltaiice d e Ia p&he inariii~neen Libye
diclces par Ics autorites italiennes en 1919 el eii 143 1 avaient applique
concrclemeni la solution avance dans la iioie verbale de 191 3 . J'ai trouv dans
I'exposc de mon estinl contradicteur. dans ce gii'iI a dii mais stirtout dans ce
qu'iI n'a pas dit, la confirination Ia plus compI6te de ma dcrnonstration. La
Partie adverse a prblendu faire tat de Ia toile tainpon de 8 milles niarins
praIIIc a la limite nord-nord-est. c'est-&dire la limite de 20" oti 21, qtie
@ lesditcs instructions avaient ftablie. On a fait aussi talage d'un croquls, qu'on a
commente de la faon suivante :
(( Dans cctte zonc . les baicaus baiiani pnviIlori crranger. s'ils taient
dciiiirn~s d e ltitorisation dktivree par I'admrrirsirriiion tiiilienne. ric
dcvaicnt pris Ctre sa~sis.niais eIoigtics. sauf danr des cas caceplronncls. ),

(Ci-dessus p. 303.)
Vous trouverez une reproduction du croquis presentc par mon estime
coiitradicteur dans Ie dossier qui vous a Ele remis aujourd'hiii.
Le texte complet des insrructions itaIiennes figure non sei~lernenr aux
annexes 43 et 45 du contre-mmoire libyen (II). mais il a Etc aussi cite irr
riv~c,~rso a Ia page 59 de ce mme contre-memoire. Si je n'avais pas examin ce
point dans ma pIaidoirie, c'est parce q u e les arirres arguments que j'avais
utiliss me paraissaient suffire. Mais la Partie adverse a probablement raisoti de
se plaindre :j'aurais sans doute cpargnc pas mal d'efforts a ses conseils si j'avais
examin celte question auparavant.
Mon argument est d'abord confirme par ce que mon contradic~eura dit. La
zone tampon netait pas sousiraite a Ia 'juridiction navale itaIienne. Les unites
navaIes devaient avant tout constaler si Ies bareaux etraiigers etaieni, oui ou
rion, munis de I'autorisation de pche italienne. Pour ce faire. iI FatIait
evidemmcnt les arrter, ce q u i constittie d g un acte de jilridicrion. Mais, et
surtout. les baleaux dkmuii is d'autorisaiion devaicnl tre loigns. CC qui
suppose bien que les eaux de la zone tampon taient des eaux iialiennes car on
n'loigne quelqu'un que d'une zone qui voi~sappartient.
Ainsi. ce que mon contradicteur a dit confirme dkj mon point. Mais il a cri)
bon aussi d'ajouter une demi-conire-vrit. II a dit que les bam~uxktrangers
pchant sans permis dans la zone tampon : r< ne devaicnt pas trc saisis. mais
eIoignes, sauf dans des cas exceptionnels i>(ci-dessus p. 303). I I est vrai que les
bateaux en quesiion devaient ue saisis, et non pas simplement loignes, dans
certains cas. mais - et voila la conire-verit - Ia condition requise pour la
saisie des bateaux ne dpendait pas du caractere exceptionne1 de l'incident : les ---
bateaux devaient fre doigns a moins
(i qu'on n e puissc dmontrer d'une manikre irrkfutabIe, mme par la suite,

l'emplacement, I'intericur des confins, o ils avaient t surpris en pche

abusive ii ( I l , contre-mcmoire libyen, annexe 43).
C'est donc le souci, tout a fait approprie. d'eviter des contestations quant la
localisation exacte des bateaux qui avait motive I'inviiation a essayer d'tablir
d'une rnanirc irrkftitable la positioi~de t'incident. Mais si cciui-ci s'&taitproduit
sans nut doiitc dans les confitis. r,litn) c.ci~!{irri.Ie unitEs navales avaient I'ordre
de procder P la capture. Ctait donc l'application de cet esprit de tolerance qui
avait ri: prcconis par la note verbaIe de 1 9 1 3, dans u n passage que j'ai cit au
corirs de ma premire iiircrvcntion (ci-dessus p. 92). Mars la tolkrance devait
cesser si le point de I'infraction ctaii ctabli d'une manire irrcf~itable.
CEque mon conlradicteur n'a pas juge utile de porter a la connaissance de I
Cour c'es1 que Ies autorites itaIiennes avaient adopte, dans Ie mme paragraphe
de ces mmes instructions, la mme prkcaution de prudence internalionale
I'auire extrmit de la cote libyenne. En d'auires ter~nes,on a h i t c d e vous dire
qu'il y avait en rcalite r l r , ~ < zones
r tanipon. et non pas sculemcnt celle du cote
tunisien. Si ia G u r veut bicn examiner le croquis qui SC trouve au verso dc la
reproduction de celui qui a t prepare par Ia Partie adverse, elIe pourra
aismeni constater la raison detre des deux zones tampon. Ei puisque mon
contradicteur a cru pouvoir arrtrrner que :
<( Cetic zone tampon naii ... de la conjoiiction de la fertnete tunisienne

et dc l'attitude conciliatrice. inais aussi quelque peu hcs~ilinic,dc I'ltalic ii

(ci-dcssi~sp. 303).
j'aimerais bien lui demander si la zone tampon tablie du cote Egyptien Etait,
elle aussi. issue de la conjoncttire d'unc ftrrnctc Egyptieniie et d'uiie altitude
conciliatrice. mais aussi quclque peu hsitante. de l'lralie !
C'est a propos de cette quesrion de la zone tatnpoii que la Rrtie adverse a fair
u n e concession dont I'irnporrancc n'cchappera pas a I'atteniion de Ia Cour. La
Partie advcrse a d reconnaitrc qu'aucun iiicideiii lie s'est plus produit jusqu'air
terme de la seconde guerre mondiale. De l'autre cote de la barre. on attribue cet
heureux rsultat a la crhtion de la zone tampon. Mais puisque In crkation de la
zone tampon supposaIr, tout au contraire, la jiiridiction italienne jusqu.5 une
tigne perpendiculaire a ta cole Ras Ajdir, cst plutot cette dernire ligne qui
coiistituaii, pour empioyer les mots de Ia Partie adverse cIIc-mmc, u n
{( compromis incertain, mais fructueux >i.

Notrc honorabIc contradicteur a cu I'air de nous reprocher de subir le

charme discret de Ia ligne perpendiculaire a la direction de Ia cole el le moment
est peut-tre venu de preciser ce qu'une lelle Iigne reprfserite a nos yeux.
Je voudrais d'abord rappeler qu'il s'agit d'une direction, plutt que d'une
Iigne. La perpendiculaire allait. el videmment va toujours, vers Ie nord-nord-
est. Selon des calculs faits par les Franco-Tunisiens en 19 14, elle devait avoir
u n angIe de 2 2 O : selon nos caIcuIs Iangle devraii &ireplutt de 20 (ci-dessirs
p. 96). DBiIIeurs. la faincuse inslruciioii fraiiaise de 1904 adopta ceIle qu'on
appela {( ligne ii, cejle vers le nord-es(, qui n'tait en raIil pas une ligne, parce
que l'indication de I'angk de 4S0 es1 ne en 195 1 Pour la priode anterieure a
195 t , I'angle de 45'. je Ie rcpete une fois de plus, n'a existe que dans
I'imaginarion de nos adversaires.
CeIa dit, il convient d'ajouter aussitQi que Ie charme que cette ligne exerce
sur nous est un charn~eessentiellemeii~ngatif. h Iigiie de 20-2 2 O est a nos
yeux, et jspre qu'elle Ie sera gaiement aux yeux de la Cour, la preuve
manifeste que les Franco-Tunisiens n'ont jamais obtenu l'acceptation de Ia
ligne vers le nord-est prconise par les instructions de 1904.
Troisimement, on peut observer que l'histoire nous'dEmontre que si u n
compromis transitoire. provisoire, de ,fiicra, sst jamais produit a l'cpoque
coloniale entre les Franco-Ti~nisiensd'un cote et I'ltalie de I'autre. c'est autour
d'une direction nord-nord-est et non pas d'une direction nord-el, autour d'une
374 PLATEAU CUNTINENTAL

La deuxime prcisio~iqu'il m'iricornbe de faire a t r a ~au t dcret tunisien de

195 1. Celui-ci - je le rpeie, je Ispre, ~ O I I IIa r e - n'a nul1eme11i
- d e s ~ i ~ efois
i<confirnie >i la ligne de 4 5 O ; il 21, ce qui constituait une chose bien diffrente,
donne une ligne vers le nord-est un angle spcifique,de 45'. Ce n'est donc pas
vrai que ce dcret ne contenait qu'une seule innovation 7) (ci-dessus p. 304); il
(<

y avail aussi l'introduction de l'angle, ce que la Partie adverse voudrait faire

oublier.
Si la Libye n'opposa pas de protestations, il y avait deux raisons bien
prcises. Tout d'abord, la Libye se trolivait alors sous l'occupation tnilitaire des
forces angIaises el ce n'est qu'a Ia fin de 1952 que son indpendance fut
proclam&.
Ce qu'il faut ajouter a~msithtc'est que I'ocmpat~on nriiitaire tait co11join-
Iemenr effectue pax- Ies for= anglais- et pal' Ies forces franpises. Bref.
il est titile de rapp~ler,ii propos de Ia priode de l'occupation militaire, que
Ie rgime adopt par la rsolution 289 8 flV) de l'Assemble gnrale des
Nations Unies du 2 1 novembre 1 949 confiait l'administration du territoire
libyen aux puissances administran~esU. Or ces puissances taient au nombre
de deux, Ia France s'ajoutant au Royaume-Uni en raison de l'occupation
militaire du Fezzan. Dans ces conditions qui soni rappelks dans l'ouvrage
classique publi par le commissaire des Nations Unies en Libye a i'poque
(PeIt, Lihyaii Iridepciidtirrce urtd ~ h eUtrird Narioia, t o ~ i d r e set New Haven,
19701, I'on coniprend sans Ia moindre difficuIt .pourquoi I'on ne saurait
prtendre que It Rayau~ne-Uniait pu formuler des proteslations l'gard de la
franc^ qrii wit Ii~irepriissance coadrninisrrante.
Aprs son indepe~idance. Ia Libye n'avait auciirr besoin de soulever des
protestations pour une rais011 assez simple et peremploire qui apparaitra au
grand jour lorsqu'on aura remarque une autre des afirmations tunisiennes q u i
nous semble dpourvue de fondement. On nous a dit en effet :
{< Alors que la lgislation tunisienne rappelait la frontire maintenue entre

les deux pays, la lgislation libyenne ne contient en revanche aucune

disposition formelle cet gard. (Ci-dessus p. 304.)
~ r t affirmarions que IQn ne peur pas accepter. Tour
Cette citatiori c o ~ ~ t i edeux
d'abord, ce n'esr pas exact que Iri ~IgisIatioi~ Iu~i~sienne, I'excepttoil de
I'ephemre loi de 1962. ait spEcifi des fronti1-es ~naritirnesii latrales. La
Igislatiori tunisie~i~ie ant1-ieure ne vise que des z o ~ r de s p k h e . Q u a n ~ Ia
IegisIation trinisienne de 1973. la Cour se sorivieridra que les carres rrlatives
son application ont fi11aIement t exhibes ici, d:une manire vrai dire
quelque peu fuyante, au cours de la rplique orale. Cependant, un examen de
la carte 102' du dossier remis a la Cour a l'audience du 14 octobre dernier nous
a permis de faire une constatation qui ne manque peut-tre pas d'intrt. Une
ligne de 45' a t ajoute sur cette carte pour y faire apparaitre une frontire
latrale. Dans ces conditions, il nous est difficile de croire que la ligne dessine
dans le dossier, mme supposer qu'elle existe dans la Farte originale, air urr
caractre officiel quelco~~que.
La deuxime affirmation de Ia Panie adverse qu'il f a u ~I-ejererconcerne I'ktat
de Ia lgislaiion libyenne. Ce n'est pas vrai que ceIIe-ci n'avait, au dbut.
aucune disposition en matire de dlimitations analogue a ceIIes des zones de
pches tiln isienries.
Ainsi Ia ~onstitutionIibyen~redu 1 octobre 195 1 (dont le texte est reproduit

Voir ci-aprs,correspondance, na 1 22.

I
au lrO 1 606 dh 28 avril 1 95 2 de Lu di,ct,rircrrrirrf<>~f ,/i.uri~trisc,, s&ie interrra-
lionaIe CCLX VI I I. et par G o d ~ h o t tc.5
. c-vi?srirrttiririsdii Aficlir r,f d u Mc<iuvi-
Orict~f (Paris. 1957. p. 3401 et peut tre a~isulfici Ia bibiiothque du palais)
contie~ita I'a~ricIe2 I O une disposition d'apres kaquelie :
- << Les Iois, regLementsi proclamations et ordoilnarices appiiques dans
n'importe quelle partie de Ia Libye lors de l'entre en vigueur de Ia
prsenle Constitution denreureilt exkcutoires - moins qu'ils ne
contreviennent aux principes de libert et d'kgalite garantis par la
&rrstilution - jusqu'i Leur abrogatio~i,modification ou renlplaceme~ir
par d'autres disposilions IgisIatives tabIia corrforinmerrt la prsente
Constitutiorr.Q

Par consquent. les disposirions italiennes, que la presence rni1itai1.e aIIie

n'avait certainement pas abroges en considration de In nature qui est propre
Ibccupatio~ise1011le droit de Ia guerre, daneuraient pleinerne~iten vigueur, y
coinpris naturellerirent les instructions du gouverneur de la Tripolitaii~ede
1931 que nous avoils cites a pIusieurs reprises. II s'ensuit que Ia situation
continuait lre exactemerit la rni?rne que celle de I'entre-deux-guerres. tes
dispositiwis appIicabIes eIi Libye faisaient pendant i celIes qui se1011 nos
adversaires taie111appliques en Trr~iisia
II me rate un tout dernier point qui coIrcerne la lgisiation Iibyenne en
matire de pche des ponges. LA Io1 11' 12 de 1959 renvoie Ia cornpetence
Iocaie pour la dtermination des zones de pche III. co111re-me~noire Iibyen,
aIrIlexe 47). Pour Ia province occidentaie, Ia matire a ei rgle par deux
dcisions de 1960 et de 1951 dont la deuxime a rernpIac la pre~niereet
demeure encore en vigrreur. La zone de.pche est drimite par I'i~idicatio~i du
mridien qui passe par Ras Ajdi1-(iilif.. i r ~ f i r dLe professeur Dupriy, qu'il faut
remercier FOUI- Ie h ~ i p rlay avec Iequel il a rectifi une erreur rnatrieIIe qui
sTt;ritgIissee dans Ia traduction de I'origi~iaIarabe de GS dcisiorrs, a bien
v w l u adrnellre que Ia deuxime d'e~ilreeIles prend bien Ras Ajdir comrne
<( point de repre lii'toral- de Ia zone de pkhe, mais - rrous dit-il - ne prjuge
pas de Ia ZV 4S0 i i Ici-dessusp 305).
Ia Parlie adverse cornrrlet ici la rnme erreur dam IaqueIIe elle rait tombe
au sujet du blocus iraIien de Ia c h tripaiiraine brsqu'un point sur Ie Iittoral
es1 indiqu pas un mridien. c'es1 ce mine nr ri di en qui dter~nineI'alignernerrt
et par consquent sa projectio~~ sur Ia iner. Lorsqu'il s'agit de dterrnr~ierurre
zone de pche, I'i~idicatlv~i d'un poi~itsur Ie IittoraI au moyen d'un ~nridiei~
il'aurail pas de seris si c;e mridien ne devait pas tre suivi sur Ia mer. La p6cIie
cornmerrce o coinme~icentles eaux. Si, par hypothse, I'on suppose qu'une
Iimire maritime a une 111c1inaiso1i de 4s0, le p~erniercerrtirrrrre des eaux est. Iui
aussi, divise par une ligne de 4Y. Dans ces conditions, i'ii~dicat~on d'un
rnridien deviendrait absurde parce qu'incornpatible, par dfirlition, avec une
frontiere inariti~necaraclSrise par un angle qireIconque.
Er pourtaIr1 cst uri mrid~er~ que la IgkIatior~Iibyer~i~e a adopt, ce qui
confirme que Ia Libye n'a jamais admis la pr~entionque Ia Tunisie avait vorilu
avancer-eri adoptant le dcret de 1951.
La Cour me permettra de terminer en voquant I'iinage d'une des pIaces les
plus connues : la place Navone a Roine. En son milieu, une fontai~iecirculaire,
chef-d'euvre du Bernirr : une cvmpositioi~autour de quat1-e gants qrri
reprsentent Ies Deuves les pIus Iorrgs du monde. Face a Ia fontairie, presque
surplombant, I'eglise Saiirte-Agns,due u ~autre i ~naitre,Borromini. LES deux
ceuvres semblent se confi'onter,s'opposer-. Et pourtant, au fil des sicls. dans
ce scnai-iosuperbe qu'est Ia place Navorie. un quiIib1-e parfait s'est ralise
entre deux masses si diffrentes mais d'une beaut si galement suprme. Mon
voru. Monsieur le Prsident. Messieurs de Ia Cour, wt que gr& vous un
meme quilibre puisse s'tablir. dans le scnario aussi i~ico~nparabIe de Ia
iilediterra~re.entre les deux peuples frres don1 les reprkentanls sige~~t
aujourd'hui dans cette salIe avec Ia confia~ice qui est due a la justice
i11iernationaIe.
 REPLIQUE DE M.COLLIARD
CONSEIL DU GOUVERNEMENT DE LA JAMAHIRIYA ARABE LIBYENNE

M. COLLTARD : Monsieur Ie Prsideni, Messieurs les membres de Ia Cour,

j'ai l'honneur de me prsenter a nouveau devant vous pour reprendre I'tude
de Ia question des droits historiques. Je serai certainement bref, plus que lors de
ma premire intervention, bien que Ies plaidoiries libyennes sur ce p i n t aient
t plus courtes qu'ii n'a t dit.
11 nous fallait rpondre puisque Ies conseils de la Tunisie faisaient des droits
historiques une p i k e rnaitrese de Ieur thse.
Le dmontage de leurs arguments tait ncessaire ainsi que la critique
minutieuse d'affirmations qui s'enveloppaient de forrnriIes souvent lyriques
sans pour autant tre fondes sur ta ralit a t t ~ t epar les textes juridiques et
les pices d'archives.
J'prouve aujourd'hui moins d'inquitude car Ies arguments qui nous sont
opposs sont bien rduits en nombre et le ton n'a plus les sonorits d'antan et je
me demande donc si la thse n'a pas change.
Je disais cr les droits historiques sont d'un faible secours >).Et je constate avec
satisfaction que la poudre du feu d'artifice initial est aujourd'hui bien mouiile.
Initialement prsent comme un systme rgIant d'un seut coup et
majestueusement le probIme soumis B la Cour voici que la thorie des droits
historiques a recul. On nous disait nagure la puissance des titres historiques
crateurs de droits souverains. L'affirmation du mmoire tunisien au
paragraphe 4.12 (1) tait reprise, multiplie, magnifie dans les plaidoiris de
derniers jours de l't (IV, p. 458, 472, 4751.
La fontlion acquisitive tait le thme majeur d'une clatante symphonie :
c( i moins d'iniquit et de spoliation de ces droits souverains d'wcupation,
on ne pourra remettre en cause, de quelque manire que ce soit,
l'attribution de la zone des droits historiques au plateau continental de la
Tunisie. i> II, mmoire tunisien, par. 4.103.)
Aujourd'hui Iclat des cuivres a baiss, des afikmations lrop fragiles, peu
fondes en droit, sont abandonnes. Le professeur Jennings en ouvrant Ie
second tour des plaidoiries dclare :
cd Tunisia does not claim form of acquisition of continental shelf rights,
through the historical fishery rights and their exercise. That wouid be
contrary to the whole legal philosophy of the na!uraI prolonga~ion.ii (Ci-
dessus p. 278.)
Il donne ainsi le ton juste et a la place de I'afirrnation glorieuse de la vaIeur
acquisitive des textes, c'est la remarque toute simple : (< Nous n'avons ... jamais
prtendu que le plateau continental de la Tunisie a t acquis par elte au cours
des sicles ii (ci-dessus p. 29 1) ou encore : cd EIIes [les activits] ne sont pas
constitutives de nos droits sur le proIongement natureI. i)
Maintenant les droits historiques dmontrent, illustrent << une supersiructure
humaine reposani sur une ridit physique i>fibihid.7.0~encore nous dit-on :
(i Respecter Ies pcheries, cst respecter le proIongement ii (ci-dessus p. 292).
On passe ainsi d'un thme a un autre.
Nous prenons acte de ces changemens, je veux dire de ces abandons.
378 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

Nous constatons aussi bien d'autres reculs. Que resle-t-il de trois conven-
tions invoques comme la manifestation de la reconnaissance de prtendues
rrontieres maritimes alors qu'elles ne contenaient pas un seul mot sur Ia ques-
tion II, mmoire tunisien, par. 4.99).
-Que reste-l-il de la pseudo convention de 1869 prsente comme <( un
vnement important sur le plan international >i (IV, p. 4641 el au sujet de
laquelle le mernoire tunisien initial indiquait : (i 11 s'agit d'une reconnaissance
internationale d'une importance capitale et d'une grande valeur probante. >i
(1, mmoire tunisien, par. 4.98, note 1 27.)
Que reste-t-iI de ce qui ne fut: qu'un tr& simpIe arrangement financier ? Pour
la prsente affaire, rien.
Notons ces abandons, ces reculs, ces changements. ces mtamorphoses.
Mais tout n'est pas pour autant rsolu, el je suis ainsi amen a traiter de deux
questions, d'une part ceIIe de Ia prtendue zone unique de droits historiques,
d'autre part celle des variations du rgime juridique dans cette pretendue zone.

Et tout d'abord, le premier point.

Notre ami le professeur Ren-Jean Dupuy nous fait grief (ci-dessus p. 292)
d'avoir fait ce qu'il appelIe un trange reproche aux critures et plaidoiries
tunisiennes et il explicite le reproche : (< celui d'avoir vouIu dissirnuIer la Cour
l'existence de deux catgories successives de pcheries sdentaires l'intrieur
de cetie zone des titres historiques i i .
Je regrette de n'avoir t ni mute ni lu car i l suilit de se reporter a ce qui
apparaii dans le compte rendu de l'audience du 2 cctobre 198 1 (ci-dessus
p. 103) pour voir que ma critique a port sur la tentative de cration artificielte
d'une pretendue zone de droits historiques, d'une seule zone, et s u r cela
seuternent.
Cesr sur le caractere factice d'une zone unique de caractre abstrait el
artificiel qu'ont porte mes observations.
La notion de zone historique - de zone historique unique - a t forge dc
toutes p i k a pour les besoins de la prsente affaire.
J'ai dit et je rpte que cette notion rie correspond pas aux ralits. Que cette
mthode mIe les procds de pche, les espces pches, [es personnels de
p k h e , les profondeurs. Et si le pofesseur Jennings a pu dire H propos d'une
construction juridique eIabor& par sir Francis VaIIat rt one can'l waIk about
on a nolionaI bank >)(ci-dessusp. 2781. je dirai a mon tour que je ne pense pas
que des pcheurs puissent pcher dans les limits d'une zone notionnelIe,
conceptuelle ou joueraient des droits historiques indtermins.
It convient, en taute clart, de remettre les choses au point, ei c'est dire que
j'avoue ne pas comprendre qu'aprs avoir choisi une approche on s'efforce de
la nier.
L'unit de Ia zone n ' a t pas une invention des conseils de la Libye. Elle est la
thse dlibrment choisie par Ies conseils de la Tunisie.
Cette thse a t adopte, cette thse 'est Ia pice d'un systme et cette thse
tant inexacte la dmonstration qu'elle sous-entend s'ecrouIe.
Tout d'abord, cette thse a t adopte d'une manire permanente par les
conseils de ta Tunisie. Le mmoire tunisien (11, chapitre IV, qui affrrne dans
une section I : L'unit de la zone couverre par les titres historiques (p.75).
Et- cetie FormuIe (p. 77) est dveloppke aux pages suivantes dont deux
 REPLIQUE DE M. COLLIARD 379
paragraphes sont consacr&? I'un g l'ui~itcotogique (jbid.1, I'autre A I'uniI
ecoi~ornique{p. 8 5 1 II s'agit bien d'une unit.
Cette thorie de I'u~lits'es1 manifestesarrs cesse tour au long des plaidciria
@ par la prsence de la figur-e 4.06 d u rnn~oiretutiisien.
Elle se manifeste par la conclusion no 2 des conclusions tunisiennes, selon
laquelle la dlimitation ne doit en aucun point empiter sur la zone l'intrieur
de laquelle la Tunisie possde des droits historiques bien tablis :
La dIiniibtion ne daif, en aucun point, empiter sur la zone a
I'intrieur de IaqueIIe la Tunisie possde des droits histo1-iqriesbien tabIis
et qui est dfinie tatkraIemerit, d o ciit Iibyen. Fdr Ia ligne Z V 4s0 et. vers
le Iarge, par I'isobatlie de 50 mtres. I )
Conclusion qui signifie la volont d'exclure l'opration de dlimitation d'un
ensemble de 25 000 kilomtres carres, presque la Belgique.
Cette thse est la pice matresse d'un systme artificiel. Ce systme artificiel
qui est masque par un autre artifice, l'existence prtendue d'uri ecosystme.
Deux afirrnations, en effet, apparaissen1 ici concernant, I'rine, Ia zone
historique en tant que coricepf et, d'autre pan, une aut1-e affirmation, la
prtendue existence d'un cosystme.
De ces deux points, avec votre permission, Monsieur le Prsident,
j'aborderai simplement aujourd'hui le premier.

Llrrde des activits humaines de pche fait 2pparaitre des pkheries f i e s

etablies tout prs d'une partie des &es tunisienn~ser nous verrons demain une
carte a ce sujet, et d'autre part des pzheries d'espkces sdentaires, tout
spcialement les ponges sur des fonds dits bancs tunisiens.
Ces deux types d'activits sont totalement diffrents. Ils se manifestent en
des endroits diffre~its,par des profondeurs diffrentes selon des procds
diffrents et des personnels diffrerrts.
Pourquoi ds Iors amalgamer Ies deux types dans u n ensemble a h t r a i t sous
Ie nom apparaissant pour la premire fois de Ia zone IIa zone rrniquel des droits
historiques.
J'ai songe en voyant.cela a la technique qui est utilise parfois par des
bnistes ou des antiquaires.
A partir d'un lment partiel d'un meuble, lment ancien et vnrable, on
realise, en ajoutant des p~cespIus 1-kentes, un ense~nbIeque la prsence de
I'lrnent ancierr, si partielle soit-eIIe, permet de prsenter comme non
moderiie. C'es! ce quoi fend Ia thorie de Ia zone des droits historiques.
On part des pkheries fixes qui existenr, en effer, depuis bien Iongternps, sans
doute avant la Tunisie elle-mme, ce qui diminue d'ailleurs la valeur de la
dmonstration.
On amalgame a ces pcheries liees a l'habitat territorial des pkhes d'ponges
qui, jusqu'i l'interdiction formule par le dcret de 1 95 1 , taient pratiques
principaIemen1 par des rion-Tunisiens et Ibn construit ainsi la thorie des
pkheries dans la zone hisroriqne.
On dfinit la zorre historique. 011se rfere a la ligne de 50 mtres de
profondeur.
Le raisonnement, ou plus exactement l'artifice est le suivant.
Les pcheries fixes sont trs ancienns. donc respectables. Ce respect ne doit
pas 'se limiter a ces pcheries fixes, il doit tre report en matire de p c h a
d'epanges. ,
380 PLATEAU W N T l N E N T A L

Mais il vaut mieux faire confiance au bon sens des populations laborieuses.
Les pkheurs des Kerkennah n'opposent-ils pas ce qu'ils appellent (( notre
mer , les pcheries fixes, et la zone au-dela, <( la mer profonde )) qui s'tend
au-deI de ces pcheries.
Cst eii pensarit 5 ces popuIations dignes de respect q u e Ibn rrouve Ia
meiIIeure raisori de dnoncer Ie systme arfifrcie1 de la zone unique.
La limite imagine pour des prtendus droits historiques est f i x e
50 mtres de profondeur.
On la considre comme existant de temps immmorial bien qu'elle soit
apparue inopinment en 1904, et qu'autrefois des limites bien differentes aient
pu b r e envisagees. Peir importe que la ligne de 1904 n'ait fait Ibbjet d'aucune
reconnaissance formelle.
Peu irnporte qri'eIIe ait t conteste, je rerrvoie ici aux p i m d'archives des
critrrres libyennes, a nos premires pIaidoir.ies, et aussi en particulier a ce que
vient de dire il y a quelques instants mon minent collgue le professeur
Malintoppi, parlant du dkret de 1906, parmi les rdacteurs duquel figure le
directeur d~ piches et qui ne comporte mme pas la ligne vise par
l'instruction de service.
Ainsi est appam le systme d e Ia zone historique conceptueIIe.
 TRENTIEME AUDIENCE PUBLIQUE (20 X 8 1, 10 h l

Prseiiis : [Voir abdience du 29 IX 81.1

Professor JEM\JINGS : Mr. President, Mernbers of the Court, 1 apologize

or interrupting my friend Professor Colliard's discourse even rnornentariIy,
'
but a quick study of the documents circulated this rnorning suggats that at
Ieast one is a new document ; Tunisia has no objection, bu1 1 thin k we ought
formally io reserve our righl under Article 56 (31 io comment upon a new
document if need be.
The ACTING PRESIDENT : The Court takes note of the reservation. It wiII
deal with il in the usual way.

REPLIQUE DE M. COLLIARD (Suiid

CONSEIL DU GOUVERNEMEhT DE LA JAMAHtRIYA ARABE LlBYENNE

M. COLLIARD : Monsieur le Prsident, Messieurs' les membres de Ia Cour,

j'avais en commenant mon expos hier indiqu qu'iI comporterai1 deux
parties. La premiere sur Ia thorie d'une prtendue zone de droits historiques ;
la seconde sur les variations du rgime juridique de cette prtendue zone.Nous
avions aborde hier Ia premire partie et dans cette premire partie il y a deux
poins que j'avais indiqus comme plan que je suivrai. D'une part, la thorie de
I'amaIgame, et ce point a t trait. et deuximement l'artifice du pseudo
xx bsystrne ii. C s t a ce point que je m'tais arrte hier. C'est de ce point que
je veux partir aujourd'hui.

Dessiner sur une carte une zone de droik historiques n'entraine pas
ncessairement l'adhsion.
Il est donc ncessaire, pour appuyer cette construction thorique de lui
donner une apparence de raIit.
C'est ce qui a t recherch, d'une part, d'une maniere geographique et;
d'autre part, d'une maniere conomique.

Au plan gographique Ia tentative est celle qui consis~ea donner a une zone
thorique et abstraite une unit apparente par I'appeIlarion Rgion du goIfe
((

de Gabs ii.
Cette tentative a t mene par Ia prsentation d'une prtendue rgion
geographique largement definie depuis Ras Kapoudia jusqu'a Ras Ajdir.
Diverses cartes ont t prsentees par les conseils de Ia Tunisie tendant dans

See iiifra, Correspondence, No. 126

382 PLATEAU CONTINEXTAL.

des conditions parfois surprenantes Ies reprsentations cartographiques du

golfe de Gabs.
J'ai prsent un album s u r ce point, montre les reprsentations tant des
spciaIistes, comme Jean Despois, de qui quelques lignes avaient t
interprtes quelque peu abusivement, ainsi que des Iivres ou cartes a l'usage
du grand public, et dmontre Ie caractre outrancier de certaines cartes
spcialement prpares pour la Cour.

Au pIan konomique, le systeme propose est parfaitement artificiel.

Le profsseur Dupuy a rappel (IV, p. 47 1 ) que l'arrt de tg5 I rendu a
propos des Pc;cIirritii norvgiennes tait imporlant pour la presente affaire en
raison de la pIace qu'il fait aux relations troites enire le milieu marin et les
populations qui le bordent.
PIus nettement encore iI a souIign cc point dans sa rplique (ci-dessus
p. 293).
II a demande la Cour de se souvenir que depuis des temps immmoriaux
- il est peut-tre difficile de se souvenir depuis des temps immernoriailx :

<(c'est de ces pcheries sdentaires que ces populations ont tire le moyen
d'une subsistance que teur refusait l'ingratitude de la rgion terrestre
altcnanie (cf. mmoire tunisien, par. 4.20 a 4.45 et 4.48 P 4.68) ii II).
En voquant l'arrt de 195 1 , on songe a :
c< une considration dont la porte dpasse les doririkes purement
gographiques [rappelait-it] : ceIIes de certains intrts conomiques
propres une r&gion Iorsque leur raIisation et leur importance se
trouvent dairement attestes par un long usage ii.
Mais c'est I prcisment que I'on peut saisir, si j'ose dire, sur Ic vif, le
caractre artificieI de la prsentation.
II n'existe pas, en effet, contrairement aux afirinalions tunisiennes (1,
mmoire tunisien, par. 4.1 3. aI. 21, reprises dans les plaidoiries : ({ d'bsystme
des eaux littorales tunisiennes, jusqu' I'isobathe de 50 mtres, a partir et
autour du golfe de Ga& i i .
Tout d'abord, la distinction entre pkheries fixes d phes d'ponge doit
tre marque.
1 ) Les kporrgcs. N'oublions pas que jusqu'en 195 1 Ia pche des ponges est
pratique essentieIlement par des non-Tunisiens, Grecs, Malrais, Siciliens.
On ne peut voir dans l'activit de ces pcheurs non-Tunisiens, qui sont les
pIus actifs, si j'ose dire, Ies plus productifs ii, une activit Iie a la rgion. aIors
qu'ils sont saisonniers et migrants.
Ce caractre international de la p k h e des ponges est remarquable. II a t
mis en avant par les Tunisiens eux-mmes comme une sorte de justification du
rgime de la patente.
La note de la rsidence gnraIe du 1 " aot 19 1 1 au sujet de la rgIemen-
tation de Ia p k h e des ponges que Ibn trouve dans I'annexe 82 au mmoire
tunisien est significative ce sujet. On lit en effet :
<( Sans cette police, dont la charge se Iraduit, pour !a Rgence, par une

dpense de plus de 50 000 francs par an, Ies pcheurs. tivrs a eux-mrnes.
auraient. en peu d'annes. puis des bancs qui font vivre actuellemetit
 plus de quarre mille cinq cents marins cl Icurs ramiIIes. arabes. grecs. et
surtout itaIiens. 1)
Comparons avec l'arrt de 1951. L i la Cour prend en considration une
raIite gographique indiscutabIe : i<Dans ces rgions arides, c'est dans la
pche que les habitants de la zone chiiere trouveni la base essentielle de leur
subsistance. i ) (C.I.J.Hrcrteil 195 1 . p. 1 28.)
C'est une rhlit norvgienne qui a d'aiIleurs t reconnue par Ie Royaume-
Uni alors qu'il en va tout autrement dans Ia prsente affaire.
Pour la Tunisie et s'agissant des ponges la note de 1 9 1 1 remarque aussi les
ralits conomiques et sociales mais prcise la prsence et mme Ia
prpondrance des trangers, grecs et surtout italiens. Les statistiques des
ouvrages comme celui de Servonnet et Lafitte ou celui de Fages et Ponzevera
relverit ces mrnes caractrisiiques (extrait ' de ce dernier ouvrage dans Ie
dossier remis a la Cour}.
On dira qu'aujourd'hui Ia pche est entirement tunisienne. Cela est vrai
mais le tonnage pch est faible ; la FAO, pour t'ensemble de la Tunisie l'value
une quarantaine de tonnes mtriques (d'aprs le tableau * de Ia FAO,
reproduit dans Ie dossier remis la Cour, iI s'agit de 43 tonnes).
Mme si actueIIement ce total est entirement tunisien, il marque le dkIin de
cette activit el sa signification de plus en pIus mineure dans le cadre de
l'conomie tunisienne (voir II, contre-mmoire libyen, p. 64. et ci-dessus
p. 104).On ne saurait raisonnablement prendre donc ce point en consideration
pour marquer, a l'instar des intcrets norvgiens retenus en 195 1 , u n lien troit
avcc la terre.
21 Restent alors les peclieries ,fixes. Pour elIes certainement le Iien avec Ia
terre es! vident. Et cst prcisment partir de certe particuIarit qu'a ei
monte tout le systme de Ia zone unique.
Lxtrapolation partir des pkheries fixes est manifeste. La carte qui se
trouve devant vous, Monsieur le Prsident, fait apparaitre en route ctarte la
. Iigne rouge marquant la limite de Ia zone revendique par la Tunisie (telle
O : .
quelle rsulte de la figure 4.06 du mmoire lunisien) et ces indications, ces
po~ntsn o m marquent les p&heries fixes et les hauls-fonds decouvrants. 11
apparaii, a l'vidence, combien Ieur superficie est iaibIe sur l'ensemble de la
zone.
II est donc vident qu'on ne peut songer a appliquer I'ensernbIe de la zone,
et ceci contrairement a la thse tunisienne, la thorie de l'arrt des Pec/icries de
195 1 . On remarquera au passage que dans cet arrt de 195 I l'valuation des
intrts conomiques tait simple en ce sens qu'il s'agissait d'un conflit entre
des intrts de pche et de ceia seulemeni et que donc la dlimitation avaii avec
la prise en considration de ces interets un lien direct.
II en va tout autrement dans la prsente affaire. Cerres Ia ddimitation q u i
sera opre aura des consquences conomiques mais le problme pos Ia
Cour n'est pas prit110facir, un problme conomique.
%i remarques ncessaires ayant t faites, on peut examiner si, s'agissant de
ces pcheries fixes, on retrouve le Iien avec Iconomie nationale sous la forme
de I'ktroite dpendance de la population coriere. Quant a leurs ressources, cette
dpendance peut tre assez exaclement mesure par la production des
pcheries.

'De Fages ci Ponzevera. Les pkches iirririiitiies dr, lu T~iiiisir,2' c d . , 1908, p. 300.
[Non reproduit.]
'
Aitiiuoirr siorisriqrie des pFclies. F.40. 1975. vol. 40. p 5 et 33. [Non rcpmdui1.l
384 PLATEAU C O ~ T I N E N T A L

Les indications contenues dans le fttm Plufea~iftiiiisie~tet golfe de Gabks : Irs

qui a t prsent le f4 octobre 1981 peuvent nous
haiirs-fiiitds iscicoio~iaiir.~
tre ici utiles.
La production des pkheries fixes des Kerkennah y est indique comme
s'Ievant a 800 tonnes mtriques par an. h tableau des prisa tabli par la FA0
rait apparatre un total mondia1 de pche de 69 millions de,ionnes mtriques
parmi lequel la Tunisie figure pour 42 65 1 lonnes mtriques doni 43 tonnes
d'ponges.
Autrement dit. it est facile de caIcuIer l'apport des pcheries fixes des
Kerkennah a InsembIe des pches tunisiennes. il est infrieur a 0.02. moins de
2 pour cent.
Notons, au passage, que le tonnage de poissons dbarqu annuellemen1
Sfax tait en 1978 de 10 700 toniies et que pour l'ensemble du gouvernorat de
Sfax i l tait de 14 200 (voir Gitidc~/>/CUtirriisieti. p. 356).
Ces donnes numriques montrent a l'vidence que n'existe pas un
(( cosystme i i comme il la t soutenu par Ia Partie tunisienne. Mais cette

construst ion lui tait ncessaire a l'appui de la thorie de la zone unique des
droits historiques. Elle I'uiilisera gaiement, nous le verrons pIus loin, pour
tenter d'y trouver. en ce q u i concerne Ie golfe de Gabs. une justification
principale du !race des lignes de base droites ou encore pour afirmer : rt Ies
lignes de base droites de Ia Tunisie rattachent aux eaux intrieures l'ensemble
de Ia zone maritime q u i couvre Ies pecheries fixes i l . Mais les pcheries fixes.
nous l'avons v u ioul !'heure. ne comportaient qu'une superficie trs restreinte
par rapport a I'ensembIe.
3) Ainsi apparat manifesfernent l'inexactitude de la ihse tunisienne d'une
zone unique, c ' a i toujours la thorie de l'amalgame. la technique de
I'amaIgame.
A cette premire faiblesse. s'en ajoute une autre concernant Ies variations
des lignes utilises et les variations du rkgime juridique d'une zone dont Ia
tirnite a pu demeurer fixe. J'aborde ainsi la seconde partie de mon expos.

II. LES VARIATIONS DU R ~ G J G I M E

D'UNE P R ~ T E N D U EZONE HISTORIOUE

Lmptoi de l'adjectifs historique i i voque normalement ta stabilit. Dans la

thse tunisienne o n ne rencontre pas une teIle stabiiit.
Des rgimes juridiques successifs, voire coritradidoire, sont elablis sur de
mmes espaces maritimes, leur succession dans le temps tant parfois for1
rapide.
Par ailleurs des lignes diverses ont t utilises pour marquer des limites de
prtentions maritimes tunisiennes. Les variations quant aux lignes sont
cerbines. Nous avons mentionn Ia ligne des profondeurs de 20 mtres.
propose en 1888 par Senionnet et Lafitte.
L'Italie refusant la ligne des 50 mtres institue par le zle des forsciionnaires
franais au service de la Rgence, comme limite de surveillance de la p k h e des
ponges, I'ltalie dis-je, a propose une Iigne de 30 mtres au dbut du sicle.
Cette proposition a t prkenre, a tort, comme une acceptation de la thse par
Ies conseils tunisiens (ci-dessus p. 295).
D'autres Iignes ont t pratiques. N'oubIions pas ta Iigne Ras MzebIa.
frontire tuiiio-lripojitaine. qui. comme Ie rappeIIe l'article 29 de Ia fameuse
instruction de 1904, constituait la limite des bancs d'ponges au temps du
fermage et donl la direction ne peut tre indique, puisqu'eIle partait non pas de
 Ras Ajdir mais d'EI Biban, et eIIe est en tout cas bien a l'intrieur de la Iigne de
@ 2' 15' prsente dans ta carte no I O du contre-mmoire libyen.
Les tignes ou pseudo-lignes partant de Ras Ajdir et se dirigeant vers Ie nord-
est, formule 1904, ou ZV 4S0, formule 195 1 , ont t tudies par mon minent
ami le professeur Malintoppi et je ne reviendrai donc pas sur ce point.
Dans la limite de ce que les &rituces et pIaidoiries tunisiennes appelIent la
(< zone des droits historiques i>on constate que le rgime juridique des espaces
maritimes situs entre cette Iigne et la mer territoriaIe lunisienne a vari
largement.
Ces variations successives merirent d'tre prsentes, car elles illustrent les
incertitudes juridiques caractrisant Iadiie zone. Je voudrais le faire rapide-
ment.
On peut distinguer cinq phases successives.

Ainsi que l'indique Ia circulaire, ainsi que l'indique la carte dite des fonds
spongiferes que l'on trouve au contre-mmoire libyen (II,p. 184). la zone est
une simple zone de surveiilance pour la p k h e des ponges el Ie pcheurs qui
sont munis d'une patente doiverit respecter des obligations fiscales.
Les pcheurs d'ponges sont ainsi autoriss a pcher sur Ies bancs tunisiens
et la patente remise chaque pkheur ne comporte aucune indication gogra-
phique: Cela souligne bien qu'iI ne s'agit pas d'une limite poIitique. C'est sans
doute la raison pour IaquelIe la Parlie tunisienne n'avait pas fait figurer cette
carie dans ses critures avant que nous ne 1-yons fait nous-rnmes. Celle
omission me semble avoir une cause ou pIut81 deux.
La premire est que la carte, par son intitul mme, marque q u b n ne se
trouve pas en prsence d'une zone spongifere, mais de fonds,c'est--dire de
bancs gographiquement distincts, non Iik les uns aux autres.
La seconde raison est que ces bancs lunisiens reprsents sur la carte sont
au nombre de cinq, et que parmi eux ne figure pas le banc Farouah ou Greco.
II est important de relever qu'une carie ayant un caractre ofiiciel parce
qu'annexk Ia circuIaire de I904 avant d'tre reproduite dans l'ouvrage
classique de De Fages et Ponzevera ne considre pas le banc Greco comme
tunisien.
Cela signifie qu'au dbut du X Xe sicle Ia situatton n'mit pas diffrente de
celle des annes 1885 telle que Ie livre de Servonnet et Lafitte la font apparatre.
Je ne dis pas que la situation de cet ouvrage et de sa page 269 par mon cher
collgue et ami Ren-Jean Dupuy soit inexacte, certes, mais je pense qu'iI
aurait pu ne pas oublier la note de bas de page de la page 256 du mme ouvrage
et aussi continuer sa lecture jusqu'a la page 394 ou les auteurs se posent une
intressante question propos du banc Greco.
Vous trouverez ces extraits ' pertinents. Monsieur le Prsident, dans le
dossier que vous avez devant vous.
II est inutile a ce stade de rappeIer que Ia zone de surveilIance n'a pas fait
l'objet d'un acquiscernent gnral, que I'ltalie n'a jamais admis la ligne des
50 mtres, et pourtani le rgime tait trs libral. Toute personne payant [a
patente pouvait pratiquer la pkhe, les droits exigs variant videmment selon
les p r d d e s . Or, maigre ces possibilits, malgr le fait que I
a pcheurs italiens
profitaient Iargement de ce rgime, I'ltalie ne I'a pas accepte.
I
Servonnet et Lafitie, te gage de Gubt'.r eii f888. p. 265-269 et 394-395. [Non
reproduits.]
386 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

Le professeur Dupuy dans sa derniere intervention a tent de justifier Ia

ligne des 50 mtres en y voyant une protection tunisienne contre des pcheurs
trangers utilisant des techniques de pche nouveIIes et destructrices et iI
relevai! aussi Ia ncessil de cette circuIaire de 1904 pour l'application d'une
nouvelle rglementation par dcret. L'expIication est intkressante. J e n
retiendrai l'ide qu'il s'agit simplement de dispositions d'ordre pratique. Mais
videmment on remarquera que la circuIaire est de 1904, alors que le dcret
est du t 7 jitillet 1906. Donc que la circulaire n'est pas intervenue pour
I'appIication du dcret. D'ailleurs, et ourre la remarque chronoIogique, il n'y a
pas de tien entre les deux textes.
Quani aux techniques trangres contre lesquelles il aurait fallu se dfendre,
eh bien, on remarquera qu'eIIes soni bien antrieurs, 1 866 pour le scaphandre,
1875 pour la gangave. deux procds introduits d'ailleurs par Ies Grecs,
comme l'ont indiqu Ies spciaIistes Marchis (p. 53) et Despois (p. 462). Ce
rgime tait totalement distinct d'un sysrme comportant des droits souverains,
comme l'indique encore Ia note de la rsidence gnrale du 1"' aout 191 I (1,
mmoire tunisien, annexe 82)cite plus haut, relevanl : (4 Ce droit d'usage, tout
different des droits qui s'appliquent a la mer territoriale, ne porte aucune
atteinte au principe de Ia libert des mers et aux droits de Ia navigation.
De ce premier regime, on passe au second, le dcret du 26 juitlet 1951.

Ce texte, comme Ie remarque, trs juste titre, le mmoire tunisien (1) en son
paragraphe 4.8 1 est different. 11 institue, A la place d'une zone de surveillance,
une zone de pche rserve. Son article 3 delim~teIa zone de p c h e rserve.
Cette formule de la zone de e h e rserve qui donc reconnat Ie regime de Ia
haute mer de Ia zone et qui s'appliquait tant a la colonne d'eau qu'au sol de Ia
mer puisque Ie d k r e ~concernait aussi la pche des ponges, ce systerne de
1 95 1 a dure une dizaine d'annes.
Et nous abordons alors Ia troisime phase.

Changement total. II est marqu par Ia loi 62.35 du 1 6 wtobre I 962, texte
particuIirement novateur.
11 empIoie la nolion de mer territoriale et I'utiIise pour des espace maritimes
qui, dans le systme de 1904, constituaient une zone de surveillance et, dans Ie
systme de 1951. une zone de pkhe rserve, formuIes qui, ni l'une et ni
I'aritre, ne dtruisent pas ta riotian de haute mer.
C'est un rexre fondamenta1. On Ie trouve dans les critures libyennes (1,
mmoire libyen, annexe 1-1 5). Mais je voudrais ici rappeler une noi~veIle
omission, l'omission de ce texte dans les critures tunisiennes. 11 n'est pas
reproduit, dans le mmoire tunisien il n'est pas cit.
Je voudrais simplement dplorer cette omission. Elle s'explique car Ia loi de
1962 tait a l I k trop Ioin. l'ai voqu, dalis ma premire intervention, les
ractions italiennes, et la conclusion de I'accord de pche itaIo-lunisien du
le' fvrier 1963.
Ce texte reprend, pour Ies mmes espaces maritimes, ce qy'appelle mer
territoriale la toi de 1962, ce texte dis-je, reprend la formule d'une simple zone
rserve de pche.
Et c'est cette formuIe d'une simpIe zone rserve de p k h e qui va apparatre
ou reapparairre dans Ie droit interne tunisien avec la loi nu 63-49 du
30 dcembre 1963.

La solution de I'accord italo-tunisien est adopte par Ie droit interne tunisien

avec la loi no 63-49 du 30 dcembre 1963 (1, mmoire tunisien, annexe 85) qui
abroge la Ioi de 1962 et modifie a nouveau l'article 3 du dcret de 195 1 .
On en revient a la zone de p k h e en employant une formule lgrement
differenle de celIe du dcret de 195 1 , zone contigu la mer territoriale.
Le nouveau texte devait demeurer en vigueur une dizaine d'annes, avant un
nouveau changement total qui se marque en 1973, et j'aborde ainsi la
cinquime mtamorphose.

Deux textes internes de 1973, une Ioi no 73-49 du 2 aout, un dcret 73-527
du 3 novembre. Ces textes modifient d'une maniere torale Ie rgime des eaux
IittoraIes tunisiennes.
Le mmoire tunisien (1) en son paragraphe 4.82 afirme :
(< La loi no 73-49 du 2 aot I 973 portani dlimitation des eaux territo-

r i a I ~a repris purement et simplement I'article 3 du dcret du 26 juillet

195 1 modifi par la loi du 30 dkembre 1963. n
Cette formule minimise dlibrerneni la porte du texte et iI n'est pas exact
de dire que la Ioi de I 973 h m o i r e tunisien, annexe 851 reprend purement et
simplement les dispositions de Ioi de 1963. car la loi nouvelle ne conserve du
passe que l'article 3 modifie et pour des raisons de p k h e . Pour le reste, ta loi du
2 aot 1 973 constitue une transformation par rappon au pass, une extension,
ou plus exactement une rupture.
Le texte du 2 aot 1973 est en effet a l'vidence un texte de circonstance. II
est adopte au cours de I'et 1973 aprs que se soient derouIs au dbut de
t'anne, et pendant plusieurs mois, les travaux des cornissions mixtes tuniso-
libyennes. Son dessein vident apparat dans l'article 4 qui proclame Ia
souverainet tunisienne sur le lit et le sous-sol de la mer territoriale. Cette
souverainet est videmment inhrente a la notion de mer territoriale, mais sa
proclamation, Ia prricIarnation de ceIle-ci, marque prcisment l'intention du
gouvernement.
Cette volont se retrouve dans la dfinition de la mer territoriaIe, beaucoup
plus tendue que dans Ies textes prcedens.
Elle se manifeste sunout par des prises de position particulirement nettes
concernant les lignes .de base. II est fait mention des pcheries fixes, a la
difference de tous les textes precdents.
Enfin, et pour Ia premire fois, Ie caractre d'eaux intrieures d'une partie du
golfe de Gabs est procIarn.
Le dcret du 3 novembre consacre cette extension (1, mmoire libyen,
annexe 1- 1 7).
Les lignes de base utilises comportent sur les onze traos mention& deux
lignes de fermeture de golfe, une ligne de base droite joignant Ia pointe de Sidi
Garus Ras Marmor, et un polygone compIexe trs vaste constitue par les
Iignes de base d r o i t s enveloppant les pcheries f ~ e de s Chebba et des les
Kerkennah, et dfinies par Ras Kapoudia et onze balises.
-On remarquera que le dcret du 3 novembre I973 n'est mme pas
388 PLATEAU CONTINENTAL

mentionne dans le mmoire tunisien, que son texte n'est pas reproduit dans les
critures tunisiennes. Cela n'est certainement pas fortuit car ce texte n'est pas
conforme aux regIes du droit internationa1.
Mais, avant d'aborder ce point, je voudrais formuler une observation au
sujet de la carte presentee devant . vous, Monsieur Ie Prsident, assez
thtralement, Ie 14 ociobre (ci-dessusp. 293).
En effet, selon l'article 2 du dcret de 1 973 :
(( Le ministre des travaux publics et de I'habitar est charg detabtir les

caries marines indiquant les nouveIles lignes de base a partir desqueIIes est
mesure la largeur d e la mer territoriale tunisienne er d'assiirer ces cartes
la publicit suffisante.
Cette disposition du texte tunisien semble correspondre a l'exigence de la
convention de Geneve sur ta mer territoriale et Ia zone contigu dont I'articIe 4.
paragraphe 6, stipuIe : ({ L'Etat riverain doit indiquer cIairement Ies lignes de
base sur des cartes marines en assurant a ceIIes-ci une publicit suffisante. i i
A la vrit, Ia carte prsente par le professeur Dupuy, comme la carte
officielle vise par l'article 2 du decret de 1 973, ne correspond pas exactement
aux exigences.de ce texte.
On notera tout d'abord qu'elle mane du ministre de la dfense et non du
ministre des travaux pubIics et de I'habitat, anicIe 2 du dcret de 1 97 3, mais
ceci est un dtaiI.
Le point important est que cette carte ne correspond pas a Ia carte prvue par
le dcret qui devrait avoir pour seuI but de prsenter les lignes de base
dterminant la mer territoriale. Or ta carte produite indique bien d'autres
choses, comme par exemple une zone de p k h e rserve et des prtendues
frontires maritimes IatraIes. Ces additions ne sont pas adrnissibIes dans la
mesure oii eIIes ne peuvent tre regardes comme trouvant une justification
dans la Ioi de 1973 et son dcret d'application qui, bien videmment, ne
peuvent pas dfinir une frontiere IateraIe entre la Libye et la Tunisie.
On doit dplorer une telle confusion car figure sur ladite carte une ligne
dIirnilant une zone de pche rserve dans le cadre d'un accord de pche itaIo-
tunisien aujourd'hui caduc et totalement etrangere Ia mer territoriaIe.
On remarquera enfin que Ia carte porte la date de 1976 mais q u e Ia partie
tunisienne l'a prsente pour la premire fois le 1 3 octobre 198 1 , aIors que, s'iI
es1 vrai qu'iI s'aglt d'une carte de 1975, elle aurait d tre disponible depuis
cinq ans el, au moins, mise ds le dbut de la prsente affaire dans les critures
tunisiennes.
Ainsi doivent tre formules les pIus expresses rserves.
Mais, ces remarques prIirninaires tant faites, je voudrais revenir aux
problmes des rapports du dcret d u 3 novembre 1973 avec Ie droit
international et je voudrais le faire l'gard de deux questions : premirement,
le probieme des lignes de base droites ; deuximement, le problme de la
justification de certaines lignes tentes par le professeur Dupu y utilisant a cet
effet l'existence de Wheries fixes.
Et d'abord, premier point, s'agissant des Iignes de base droites, on doit
rappeIer ou avoir en mmoire Ies dispositions de I'arricle 4, paragraphe 3, de la
convention de Gencve sur la mer territoriale :
(( lignes de base ne sont pas tires vers ou a partir des minences
dcouvertes mare basse a moins que des'phares ou des instaIlations
similaires se trouvant en permanence au-dessus du niveau de Ia mer
n'aient t construiis sur ces minences. 1)
 Et Ie projet de convention sur Ie droit de la mer conrporte dans son articIe 7,
paragraphe 4, des dispositiws analogues :
(< Les lignes de base droits ne doivent pas tre tires vers o u depuis des
hauts-fonds dcouvrants, moins que des phares ou des instaIIations
similaires merges en permanence n'y aient t construits ou que le trac
de telles lignes de base droites n'ait fait l'objet d'une reconnaissance
internationale gnrale. >)
Ces conditions ne sont pas satisfaites par Ies Iigties de base tunisiennes.
L'examen ghgraphique des onze balises mentionnes au paragraphe 6 de
I'articIe I du dcret de riovembre 1973 conduit a des remarques. test a u sujet
du diagramme qui figure sous le no 8 dans Ie dossier qui vous a t remis. Cst
a son sujet que des rserves ont t formules il y a quelques instants par
M. Jennings. Je voudrais simplement rappeler que la lettre ' de l'agent de la
Jamahiriya arabe libyenne au Greffier de la Cour en date du 19 octobre 198 1
indique que cette pice no 8 exprime sous forme de diagraiiimes des
informations numriques contenues darrs Ies paragraphes 131 a 135 du
mmoire libyen (1).
Sur les baIises, nous avons Ia reinarque suivante : certaiiies de ces balises
figurent sur les cartes marines franaises, d'autres non. Aucune des balises,
c'est-a-dire b, c, d, e, g, i, j, n'est implante sur des fonds dwuvrant aux plus
basses mers. Leur base est donc recouverte d'eau a tout moment : de 1 mtre a
1,30 nitre pair Maruka ; 1,2 1,30 mtre pour Barani ; 1,6 a 2 mtres pour
Mzebia ;20 centimtres 1 mtre pour Sakib Harnida ; d'une profondeur non
prcise pour Bou Zrara ; d'environ I rnlre pour Oued Mimun ; d'envir-o~i
I mtre pour Oued Saadun.
Aux lieux indiques pour les autr-es boues non portes sur les cartes Ia
profondeur est galement en dessous des plus basses mers.
Ainsi, aucun des points de jalonnement ne fait partie des lieux des bancs
Kerkennah indiqus sur lm cartes par d s cotes soulignes wmme mergeant
aux pius basses merS.
Seion les dispositio~isde la conve~itionde Genve, pour que les baIises
puissent tre utirises, il faudrait qu'eIIes frissent situes sur des lieux
dcouvranr mare basse ; or ce nst pas Ie cas. La Tunisie n'est donc pas
fonde a tracer par elles ses lignes de base, puisqu'eIIes sont en dehors des
dcouvrants.
Dans ces conditions, le trac des lignes de base droites ne parait pas
particulirement valable du point de vue international et, dans ces conditions,
urr ne saurait s'torrner de ce que le nimdre tunisien rie fme aucune aljusion
au dcret du 3 novembre 197 3.
Derrximement, sur uii autre point que celiri des Iignes de base droites dont
rious avotis marqu ici Ie iraci poIygona1, ii existe une justification particulire
invoque par le professeur Ren-Jean Dupuy, observation a laquelle j'ai fait
allusion plus haut et que je voudrais reprendre ici.
II veut retrouver dans la prsente affaire des analogies trs troites avec
l'affaire des Pc;ciieries norvgiennes et I'arret de 195 1 . Il voit dans les pcheries
fixes Ia justificario~~ principaIe du trace des lignes de base droites ii (ci-dessus
p. 2921 et partant de celte remarque i1 affirme : << k s Iignes de base droites de la
Tunisie rattachent aux eaux intrieures InsembIe de Ia zone maritime gui
couvre les pcheries fixes. >i(Ci-dessus p. 293.1

Voir ci-aprs. correspondance, nu 126.

390 PLATEAU CON'TINEWTA L

mais c'est prcisment une telle entreprise

de la zoiic ~>wi-i!itirc.
L'c.~ise~r~h/e
qui laisse rveur.
Les pcheries fixes ne peuvent se situer que sur des fonds infrieurs a
3 in11-es,disons entre 2 et 3 rnires.
Au point de vue geogi.aphique, on peur Ies localiser essentieIIemenr a Ist
des K~I-kennah et autous de Sfax.
P~.cisement le d&ret d u 5 fkvrier 193 I accordant aux usagers de ces
pcheries un droit d'occupation temporaire du domaine pubIic maritime
concerne les Kerkennah et aussi une partie de la cote situe de part et d'autre de
Sfax au nord vers la Chebba et au sud vers la Skhira.
Ces pkheries fixes sont un fait. Elles soitt' a l'intrieur d'irne Iigne de
3 ~ntres.Cette Iigne est si proche du rivage qu'iI n'a pas Gf possibIe de Ia
reprsenter sur une c a ~ t eet cst la raison pour ,IaqrieIIe noris avons prsent
U r i e Iigi~ede 10 rnkres qui cst videmnient pIus loigne de la cak. simpIement
pour faciliter la dmonstration.
Mais j'avoue ne pas comprendre comment l'existence des pcheries fixes, q u i
son1 un fait, justifie le trac d'une ligne de base droite ayant pour but de fermer
juridiquement le golfe de Gabes pour la premiere fois dans l'histoire. Bien sfir le
but poursuivi est sirnpIe et le conseiI de la Tunisie, le 13 octobi'e. rie le caclie
pas : c l Les Iig~resde base druire de Ia Turiisie rattachent aux eaux intrieures
I'ense~nblede Ia zone maritime qui cotIvre les pcheris fixes
~ I ~ s P ~ ? ~ I /a
/ ~1011~'
F ~ P ? ? ~ r i f i l >laflechnique
~'. de la globalisation apparait ici en
toutc lumire. Qu'importe si la ligne utilise a 46 milles d e long, qu'importe si
elle traverse des fonds de 40 a 50 mtres alors que les pcheries fixes sont
installes par des fonds de 2 a 3 metres, qu'importe si elles se trouvent situes
sur la cote. a une distance de la ligne de l'ordre de 50 milles. Peut-on penser
raiso~lnabiernentque so~rtsatishtes, dans cette siruatiori, les conditions poses
par Ia Cour datis son ari-et du 18 dcembre 195 I piopos du choix du trace
des Iignes de base : (< savoir si certaines tendues de mer situes en de de ces
lignes wnt suifrsarnn~entl i e s au domaine terrestre pour tre soumises au
rgime des eaux intrieures ii (C.I.J.Rec~tcil1951, p. 133).
On retrouve la technique de l'amalgame. On est indiffrent a la ralit
physique oci humaine. Pour masquer Ic caractre irrgulier d'une tentative
d'tablissement de lignes de base qu'on laisse d a ~ i Ie s flou eIr Iie fournissanr pas
Ie texte du dcret qui tes tablit, on utiIise une thorie a partir des pcheries
eIIes- nem mes.
II est temps de condure, e1 ma dernii-e remarque me conduit tout
naturellement la conclusion. Elle est trs simple.
C'est sur des faits et seulement des faits que peuvent se construire des droits
historiques, sur des faits avec leurs caractres spcifiques, leurs ralits
gographiques physiques.
Mais des thories, des a~laIogies,ries afiir~nations tion dinontres tie
perIve11t fonder objectivemerlt des droirs imprkcis.
La thse Iibyenne SUI- ce poinl repose sur Ies fails et srir Ierrr. exacte et
objective anaIyse.
Je rejoins ici, du point de vue de la mthode, mes collegue qui ont parl
avant moi. Je suis certain de me trouver kgalement en plein accord, du point de
vue de la mthode et de l'objectivit scientifique, avec mon minent collgue et
ami. le professeur Bowett.
 RFJOINDER OF PROFESSOR BOWETT 393
Egypt. a very similar featurf. and the Court has a rndy of lhis particular a r a
~ I tire
I Columbia Study. the Libyan RepIy (IV). Technical A111iex11-6. Now
Fignr-e 13 of that CoIunlbia Srudy shows a cross-section of the Egyptian
landmass and rhe margin based on drill holes arid seisrnic data. And exacrly the
sarne sequence is shown of fall-line, hingeline, coast, quite a narrow shelf -
and then moving down into the deep sea-bed. So there are Iwo examples
elsewhere in the Mediterranean which show that, however cornplex the
Mediterranean may be, the cfassic pattern I have described to you with
1.eie1-enceto the PeIagia~i BIock can be fonnd elsewlrere arid cannoi be
sIrrugged off as if if itwere something unique ta the Noitll AtIaiit~c.
My setond poitlt is tliat rhe Libyan thesis has no1 bcen conjirred trp for the
first time in the Libyan Reply, as Professor Virally suggests. I cornmend to him
a careful reading of the Libyan Counter-Mernorial (II), paragraphs 200-202,
242-244, 263-274, and before that in the Libyan Memorial (11, paragraphs 66-
68 and h n e x II Ithat was the Scientific Study amched to that Memorial).
Third, and rnost irnpo~tant.the Libya~ithesis is tu~ril,as Professor Jennings
suggests, an alternalive analysis to the traditionai progressi011 from sheIf, tu
dope. to rise. Nor is it, in Professor.ViraIIy's terms, a nover, scientific definit ion
which Libya wislies to substitute for Article 76 of the draft convention. I t is
simply a scientific and accurate method for determining in which direction the
progression from landmass, to shelf, to rise and to the edge of the continental
margin can be found. In other words, plate theory is not at variance with the
Couri's notion o f narural protongatian On the contrary. it en riches the notion
of natural prolongation and provides the evidetice for its application.
Thus (and 1 cannd emphasize tua strongIy this poirr~~, there is no con-
Iradicrion b e t w e n rhe Tunisian idea of a progression f r o ~ nshclf, to sIope, to
rise, and the Libyan argument that the direction of that progression can be
determined both by traditional geological knowledge - 1 refer, of course, t o
these parallel zones - and by the newer techniques of "backstripping" based
upon well-proven theories of plate tectonics, a technique 1 described IO you in
some detaiI during Iny firs~SIateme~iI.We are both dealing wirh one and the
same progression. The difference i that Libya has related that psogressio~ito
Ille Ia~idmas,and show11 by scienrific evidence rhe northerly direction of that
progression ; whereas Tunisia has simpIy asserieci t ha t i t is a progressi011
eastwards of shelf, to slope. to rise, but wiihout offering any real proof; and
Tunisia has omitted from the sequence the essential basis from which it al1
starts, namely the landmass.
Now that is the crux of the matter. Il is so important that J do not expect the
Cori~tto accepr rny asserlion simply as an assertion. And 1 p-opose, with [Ire
Court's induIgence, to go over the proaf avaiIabIe to support the Libyan thesis
21id tu denioristrate, b y way of corttrast. the quire extraurdinary absence of
proof for die Tuiiisian assertion. 1 shalr iake the Tu~iisianassertion first.
Professor Virally urged us to keep to the facts - well, so be it. 1 will try my
best to indicate which matters are based on fact, and which are pure theory.

Lei me trirn the11 io the T~inisianasseriori. If there reaIIy is, as Trrnisia

asserts, a progression or prolongation eastwards, we should find the necessary
components of that progression in the following sequence.
First,-the continental landmass should be found to the West of the Gulf of
Gabes. We would expect to fi nd, in this area, the stable African landmass from
 394 CONTINENTAL SHELF

which, during rifting, this easlwardly extending shelf was pulled or extracted.
W e know,as a fact. that this is not so. The stable African landmass we know
as a fact lies to the south. to the south o f the Perrnian Hingeline and ils
continuation, the south-AtIasic fauIt. TIiat is the fearure aliorit wllich Professor
Lffitte spoke. And we k ~ i o wIhat t his area is I-ecently-erne1-gedshelf. That is a
fact wirich is rmgnized by Professor Laffitte (1 refer to IV, p. 5381 and by Dr.
StaiiIey (IV. p. 524). So that 1s rhe firsi fact which does noi fil w ith the Tunisian
thesis.
Second, we should expect to find a fall-line and a hinge-zone, running north-
south and facing towards the east. Do we find any such fall-line or hinge-
zone ? Of course noi. Certainly we find the ilorth-~0~1th axis, alo~ighere, but
~ h a tis ~ i o at hingelrne. N o mie has dared to offer rhat feature - ~ h enorth-
souIli axis - as a hingeIine, becarise the necessary tectoni pattertis to either
side - that is to say, tIie absence of fauIting to the ives! in the stabIe area,
and the presence of parallei faulting to the east in the unstable and subsiding
area - simply does noi exist. So that is number 2, fact number 2, that does
not fit.
Third, we should expect to find the coast broadly at right angles ta the
direction of the prolo~igaliorr,of the rifting. Arrd that we do. That is o n e fact
which fils, althorrgh eveil here I niut add a cavear. and tIrat is, that this
Ttrnislan Coast is no! contenlporaneous with IIie cseation of tire continenta1
margin. It became a coast Iong, Iong afer the ~nargttihad already been formed
and is the result of the violent tectonic events - to which Professor Fabricius
testified - which threw up this Tunisian landmass and forrned these very
pronounced Atlasic trends and the present Tunisian coastline.
Fourthly, we should expect to find on the shelf, as we move eastwards. the
characteristic featrires of a siteIf sloping away tu the east. Whal. in fact. do we
find ?
We find thar rhe ~hinningof rhe crust, which should be there as you rnove
easlwrds, does no1 exist. The Court will remember the analysis of the data
from the three wells, done by Columbia University and not challenged by
Tunisia. So there is another fact which does not fit.
We find ihat the corresponding thickness iri t h e sedimentary layers, the
sirata. as you move iowards the eas! a1so dues no1 exist : both Professor
MoreIIi and Professor Laffitte forrnd thal tIie kediments rhickened as yori move
towards the north, nat towards the a s t . So tl~ere1s yet anvtl~erfact that. does
no1 fit.
W e find. admittedly. a tilting towards the northeast. But the slope towards
the east is not uniform, not by any means. On the contrary. you have to pass
through this complex area - the borderland - ,before you reach the Malta
rise and before you reach ultimaiely the Malta-Misratah Escarprnerit. And, in'
any event, we know ilrat the tilting of the PeIagian BImk was a tectonrc event.
Iinked tu the eIevatiori of Tunisia in the wesi and the subside~lceof the Ionian
t explanarion you wouId expect LQ find of
Basin in the east. So lhat is i ~ o the
true, %si-facing shelf, w11ere the subsidei~ceas you move iowards the edge of
the margin would be the result of the stretching and thinning of the crust. And
even the appearance of the bathymetric lines - however superficially
attractive and consistent with the Tunisian thesis - have been shown to be
linked to the tectonic eventc;of the Pelagian Block. not the shoreIi~reof Tunisia
nor even to the idea of a slielf sloping eastwards. The Couri wiIi recalI o n this
@ p o i q Dr. Fabricius' examination of rhe bathyn~etricIines on Map 2.03 of the
Tun~sianRepIy which is here o n the board [pp. 195 ff., supra). And so, in
conclusion on this point, the Bcts do not suggest that on the shelf itself we
400 CONTINENTAL SHELF

opinions publicly expressed by the distinguished scientists now advising

Tunisia.
Again. 1 hope the Court will allow me a few citations to rnake my point.
These are again from ihe work of Finetti and MoreIli. rvork 1 had previously
cited froirl VoIurne 1 5 of !Ire R t ~ l k ~ i lpubIisIied
io in 1973 :
"In the Sri-rrii r t l Sic-iji,tlrere is ahsulute co~itinuityof the a~itirienlal
A frican plate from Tr~nisla-Libyaup to the Ragirsan inissif, witli Teriiary
and Mesozoic sediments that in the central naft of the Strait seem to be
predominantly of platform and interested b$ a rifting geodynamics, still
active." (P. 263.)
And. again tthis is frorn p 3 321.
"The Strait of SiciIy. w~tliifs thick Miocene to ~Mesozoicsedimenrary
sequeIlce. Const ir tr tes t l ~ er i i ~ i . r hirunzl u~rrfiririuiiirrrof rhr. djkicrrir plnrr,,
[rom tire Libyan-Tunisian coasK, np to the southern S~cily(Ragusan
Massiii. The clear evidence of recent extensional tectonics, in the middle
of the Strait, is indicative of a rifting process probably at an early slage
and siill active."
And in the 1 972 joinr ariile with Finett i.
"The African PIaie (Fig. I 91 wirh ils h~rac~erisf ic thik continenta1
~ i r l s ii<n?h. covcritig flic Strait of SiciIy n p Io the Ragua
C~xistc ~ ~ ~ - ~ c ,rijic,(rr-il
inassif. . ."(P. 333.1
And, further to the east. the shelf which slopes towards the lonian Abyssal
Plain is not the Tiinisian Plaleau. but rather the shelf in the Gulf of Sirte, as
Dr. Lazreg expIained at IV, page 50 1 , and as can be seen in the Tunisian
Mernorial. Hgiire 5.2 3. Thiis. the s h d f slopes northwiirds roward t Iie loniari
AbyssaI Plaiil - no1 frorn this 1andni;iss towards tlie easl. Let me agairi cire
from Frnetti and MoreIIi.
"Going from the GriIf of Syrtt: Io lhe deeper par1 of the Westel-IIioniari
Sea, al1 along lhe line MS-27- it is possible to follow the calibrated seisrnic
horizons (A. B, K) with absolute continuity and reliable interpretation
based on reflections of high S I N ratio (Figs. 29 and 32). All thc sequence
is considcrably thickening toward the central loniaii basin (top of
Mesozuic at a miniinurn of inore than 8 sccl."

That citation is frorn page 305.

Thc upshot of rhar is tIiat Professor MoreIIi himself is on record as sayrng
that the coiiliiluiry is northwardv and no[ eastwards.
M y fifth poini is that if the Libyan thesis is right, we should find the edgc of
Ihe continental margin somewhere to the north of the Pelagian Block, Well,
here it is. shown on this map here. This is where the edgc of ihe Arrican PlaIe,
the edge of-the old rnargin. lies. It is, of course. now obscured by the coIIision
of the two Plates as ~ h e yaIne togerher- again. Without questior~. the
Medirerrairean is much more co~nplexrhan tlie AtIantic. But thrs is where you
watrld otherwise have fou~id1I1e edge of the rnargin. and rhis is confirincd by
the fact thar further north. iir ijie Tyrrhenian Sea, yoii get oceanic crust.
confirmed by drilling by the Cloi~irri.Cliul1~1ig~:c.i.'The arca is still evolving and
there is soine evidence that cventually the Pantelleria Trough along this line
will develop into a new edge, a iiew continental margin. But both fcatures -
the cdge of the old African Plate and the Pnte!leria Troirgh - lie to the nosr h.
Thfy are where they shot11d be. consistently with the Libyan thesis.
 seeins to be comnlon ground 1hat sirch a platforrn exterids ont ro the 250- net se
iwbatli.
1 do not think it is necessary for me to show lo the Court the map referred
to. 1 lhink everyone recalls the large area map placed on the easel behind
Ambassador Maghur with segments of the Coast taced in different colours. A
series of overlays were placed on this map to show the successive cIaiins
asserted by Tunisia, and always to the east. It showed the 1973 baselines -
the 12-mile terriiorial sea - the 50-metre isobath, stiII frirther eastwa1-d. And
frrially, and tlris is what was referred Io by Profersor Jentrings, tlie so-caIIed
"Plateau Tu~risren"That map outlined with green Iines lhe general wter-timils
of rhe ama c1ar1nedby Tunisia 10 const~tutea part of their cotitinental sheIf and
to reffect Ihe co~-ltourso f the
Tb suggest [ha! the dispIay af 8iat nlap for tliat purpwe demonsttal~the
agreement of Libya on scientific grounds to the existence of such a plalform
out to the 250-metre isobaih is really quite wrong. As for the name "Plateau
Tunisien", surely naturd prolongation is not to be determined on the
subjective basis of names placed on maps. even assuming some measure of
acceptance of the narne by geographers. Aiter all. the appellation "English
Channet" is quiie widely used, brit the 1977 Awa1.d seerned r# be infiue~iced
not at aIi by tl~atfacl.
It was alsv suggested by Professor Jeniiings that Libya had o~nirtedthe
bathymelric contours from i t s niaps and figures. This is incorrecr. L~bya,
slartrng with the Libya~iMemorraI, lias made se1.ious effar.1~to indicate w hat
@ t h e bathynietry of the Peragian BIock ieally does reveal. Figure 1 3 to Annex II
lo the Libyan Memorial showed how the baihymetry followed the tectonic
trends of the Pelagian Block. This was done by an overlay of the bathymetry
placed over a figure depicling the northwest Isoutheast-trending faults. The
same conclusion was demonstrated bcfore the Court by Professor Fabricius.
He explained al some Iength how the bathy metry of the Block. except near the
Turiisianl Libyan coasr. reflects rhe fai11ts caused by tectonics and not the
coaaal contours
Horvever, the task of presenting the scientific daims of Tunisia lay
principally with Professo~\'isaIIy, rarher t11a1i PI-ofessorJenriings. Sv Iei ine
rurn r# the recerrt ren~arksof Profe%sctrV~I-aIIy during This secn~rdphase of
argument. W ha[ did Iie Irave to say about bathyme!ry ? Very little indeed. His
remarks appear at page 325, to half way down page 326, supru . Considering
that this is the very heart of Tunisia's scientific case, this brevity is surprising.
Professor Virally began his discussion of bathymetry with the claimed
similarity betwcen the bathymetric contours and the Tunisian coasts. And he
asserts, at page 325 that Professor Fabricius did not deny it, and he cited page
194 in which Professor Fabricins gave evide~rce.1 wanr ta quote irom that
transcript, sirnply to show the actual exchange which look place belween
rnyself and Professor Fabricius.
'.Pr~fissvr
Bofivif :. . .

Now, if 1 can just reinain with bathymetry for a moment. let me turn to
Tunisian Map No. 2 from the Tunisian Memorial. It is here, on the board
- and 1 would like you to really address the main Tunisian argument
that the bathymetry of the shelf reflects a series, or represents a series of,
'terraces' which reffect in turn the Tunisian coastline. Is this a fair,
layrnan's description of the argument ?
Fai~riciirs:Yes. 1 suppose so.
Pr0f~~sOi- "
 RUOINUER OF PROFESSOR BOWETI' 403
M1iII the Court noie plehse, that the amrrnative answer is not lo the rnerits of
the Tunisiaii c1ai1n.but to rvlicther 1 had given a fair descriplion of that ctaim
To resume :
"Pi-r!/i.ssoiBoit:c~r: Ooes the arguineni have merii ?
Pi-c!fil.;soi- Fubi-iciir.5 : 1 do iiot beI ieve so . . . "

I d o not rhink 1 need go any f~irtherro niake rny point. And Professor
Virally feIt he didn't have IO go fiirther eirher - as he said, in efreci. the Court
dces no1 need experts in order to make up ia mirid regarding the clairn thal
bathy rnetric contours follow the coastaI conloiirs.
So let us put back up the balhymetric chart on w h ~ c hl'roressor Fabricius
drew certain Iines. This is the bathymetric chart produced by Tunisia with its
RepIy ; it is Map 2.03 - and this is the map said b y Tunisia Io refiect the mosl
up-ro-date bathyrnctric data.
Now Iet me recall two points about this map, points made by me, by
Dr. Vita-Finzi and by Professor Fabricius.
Except for the baihymerr~ccontours close to the Tunisian and Libyan
coasts. w h ~ hdo reflecr the coasraI contours quite nati~rally, rhe oiher
bathy metric contours do no1 conform at aII.
The bathynletry does not echo, o r foIIow ihe coast ar RII. And here, for
example, and here, and again here. the bathymetry is going in the oppositc
direction.
M y second point is ihat. as the Libyan evidence and indeed the Tunisian
scientific evidence has shown. this balhymetry 1s the product of. and is cused
by. the tectonic evolution of ihe PeIagian BIwk. I t has nothing to do with the
aricient shoreIines. be ihey Tunisian or Libyan. The balhymerry reffects the
strong tectoriic trends ruiining from the south-east to ihe north-west - part o f
a tectonic slructure stretching right back to the Sirt Basin. Now , these tcctonic
trends are not imaginary : they are portrayed on al1 the rnaps, Tiinisian and
Libyan.
So how d o our opporienls deaI with t hese two points :' Very s1nipIy : they
just ignore them.
Professor Fabricius was prodiiced by Libya as an expert. tiot to rcad a
statement and then sit down. He came as an expert subject to cross-
examination. And 1 shouId say that the siibjecl before us now. bathymetry, is
vcry much in ihc Professor's area of expertise. hdoreover. the thesis which the
Professor was asked to address was ai rhc very h a r t ofTutiisia5 scicntifi case
of a naturaI progression. a naturaI proIongalion, to the easl. Now, Professor
Fabricius compIetely refured these daims when he stood up here and drew
thosc lines. M7hy was he riot challenged on ~ h i svital point ? W hy did Tunisian
counsel not cross-examine him on the point ? Wh y did Professor ViralIy deaI
with the matter in a few phrases the other day, as you can see. at page 325,
s i ~ l ~ i Wcll.
o. the answer is clear. The bathymetric contours. cxcept close in to
both the Tunisian and i he Libyan coasis, do not refleci lhe coasUI contours.
The shape of the sa-noor. to use Professor Jennings' phrase. does no! refiect
the coast, nor doe 11 reveal a prolongation of the coast to the east.
I shaII ask the Registrar to take this bathymelric chart drawn on by
Professor Fabricius and rnyself and the same chart withoul lines and make
h e m available to the Members of the Court. I a g r e with Professor ViraIIy. the
Members of the Court can see for ihernselves what the actual bathymerric
contours show.
Professor ViraIIy ihen turned to another aspect of geomorphology. This is
 REJOINDER OF PROFESSOR BOWETT 405
on the subject ? First, he said that the ,falaises were not in dispute (p. 325,
sirpiv). TIren afluding to the Libyan testimony that they were not erosional
features, Professor Virally m~npletedhis reniarks by sayirig : "Mais eIIes soiit
bien I." Again n o effort was niade to quesrion LibyaS experr : na eKurt was
made even to reply ro the Libyan evidence I t is d~fficlrItro see quite wIiat
rebvaric-e tthese features have. even 10 the Tiunisian case i in our uiew. they
really have none.
Turning to the rides - and we may as weil limit ourselves to the "ride of
Zira". since the "ride of Zuwarah" has now vanished - the evidence of
Professor Fabricius showed how lrivial this feature is - a bank or shoal,
barel y noticeable on the sea-bottom. Again you have on the easel behind me
t h e figure used by Professor hbricius 10 dernonstrate this point. Now. the
poi~itabout rhis figure is that it shows how extren~elygradua1 thar incIination
is. Even at the highest point of the rfdt,. the gradie~it.the slope, is extrerneIy
graduai. You recaII his representation of rhat gradient by a horizonta1 and a1-l
inclined Iine, here arid Iierc, with a separation of the two Iines - the o n e
horizontal the one the incline line - a separation so small, the gradient so
small, that the difference between the lines can hardly be detected. Now, what
did Professor Virally have lo say in reply, having avoided asking Professor
Fabricius any questions regarding this feature ? Well, again, it came down to
sayi~ig.weII, at Ieast, il is there. That may weil be. Mr. President, but. as a
geo~norphoIogicalfealirre. as a fe.atrur on the sea-bed itseIf. i! is Irivial : and I
rnairrtain rhat word as a proper description of that fealure. On the bIock
diagrams wirhor~tvertimI exaggerariori - a i e c a ~ i n ost e anything III the area
wher-e the so-called ridc~.~ arc said to Iie. 01iIy with ten tirnes verl1ca1
exaggeration can any feature be seen.
It is almost as if, in recognition of its triviality as a feature on the surface of
the sea-bed that, in the second phase of argument, Tunisia sought to find some
significance in the depth of this same feature helow the sea-bed. The Court
wiII remember Professoi- Virally's description of the salt wall plunging
4,000 ~nelresbeiow tire surface - making the I-idc.of Zira. wr were tord,
comparable ro the higIiest mounrairis in Africa. This 1s said to give this
negiigibIe bump ari the surface of the sex-floor majo1- signrficance.
This, of course, is a Iasl. desperare effort to rnaIie samerhing out of tiris
feature. A salt wall exists because of a fault and, obviously. if (lie sedinients are
4 kilometres deep (it sounds more if you Say 4,000 metres), bu1 if they are 4
kilometres deep. the salt wall will rise vertically for 4 kilornetres. 1s it suggested
that this creates some kind of boundary ? If this were so, every fault liiie
' ciitting through rhe sedimenis would be eligible for treatment as a boundary.
There are such faults a11 over the Pelg~anBIwk. And there are many sait wails
in this area - mosr of them having caused not even a bump. Again, tiiis poinr
was made by Professor Fzbricius, and Tunisian cou~iselchose not to question
him about it before the C o r i ~ - t .
FinaIly, 1 sbaII turri to the "SiIIoti Tripolitain". I t 1s a fearure identifiecl
separately from the Gulf of Gabes for the first time in the Tunisian pleadings. 1
have put up on the easel behind me the figure referred to by Professor
Fabricius in his discussion of this lature, this alleged "Sillon Tripolitain".
@ 1 would like the Couri to look, once again, at the figure used by Professor
Fabricius ;and it still hu: o n it his calrufarions both of distance a ~ l ddeclivity.
We have a dope of 0.09 per cent north of Ru: Ajdir. or more parlicuIarIy aIong
IIie 1 2 O paraIIel. If you moue to the 14" Iine of Iaritude, to this paraIIe1. there
you have a BightIy greater sIope bu1 il is 0.64 per cent of an incIination.
Now, I wish to n ~ a k eonIy four brief poirrts about this feattr1-e. First. il is
400 CONTINENTAL SHELF

1riviaI : I have 110 hesitzition in using that ierm. Here on the board we have the
Tunisian blocli diagram, not the Libyan, the Tunisian block diagram No. 3 3 l .
It is in the Judges' folder. This diagram involves a vertical exaggeration
something between 25 and 64 tirnes: 1 can'i Say exactly what vertical
exaggeration because we were not told by Professor Morelli. But, that is
vertical exaggeration at lest 25 tiines. Here is the coas~Iinea~rdthere b e h i ~ ~ d
yoir see the rnuuntl~ins,the Jebel Nefusa. The Pantelleria Trough, here, is very
cIear : so al-ethe tecronic features, t he,loss~s of Jarsa fa a ~ i dZohra ; you can ser
them here. But where is the Si11011 Tripolitairi ? This is the area where ir sho~11d
be, but you can seairh that block diagrain in vairi for aiiy trace of ir. Second,
the Sillon Tripolitain is far less of a depression than the one we find lying
between the so-called Tunisian shelf and the Malta Rise. So if the borderland
does not interrupt Tunisia's continuity to the east, why should Tunisia assume
that the Sillon Tripolitain should interrupt Libya's continuity to the north ? My
third point, again. is a point of # n f ~ # n b t i ~ n If . Trlnisia wisIied to chaIIenge
P r o f a o r Fabricius' evidence o n the insignifiance of this fealure, wli y did lhey
not d o so ? My fourth arid 1 s t point s thar the feature is irreIevant for, as I
ex prairieci to the Court during rhe iirst phase, not one of the Turrisian rnethads
places any reliailce on this feature - Ihe SiI!ori Tripolitairr. The thalweg, what
Professor Virally termed "the'natural frontier", is nor used at al1 in any of the
Tunisian methods.
1 have used the word trivial ro describe both the ride of Zira and the Sillon
Tripolitain. The word was obviously resented by counsel for Tunisia and
Professor Jennings tried to support the importance of these features by
seference to the gradients given for the shelf, sIope and rise in the 1458 Unescri
study (pp.3 4 7 - 3 4 8 , ~ ~ t p: rRis ~ )p d n l was ihat these fealr11-es- sheIf, ~ I o p and
e
rise - have quite genrIe gradienls - the dope I in 4 01-25 per cenl. the rise 1
in 100 or 1 pei-cent.
This is quite irreievant to the question of a boundary between States
adjoining the same shelf. As the 1977 Anglo-French Award showed, for such
a boundary you need a fundamental dis~ritinuity in the shelf. And by
reference to that criterion, the ride de Zira and the Sillon Tripolitain are indeed
trivial.
1 turn now tu geography 1 have nu wisli to trespm into the dernonstratioi~
of the extent to which the Libbyai~n~etIraddoes, in facr, pay carefuI heed 10 Ihe
geographica1 circu~nstancesof tlris case. That wiII be d o ~ i eby rny coIleague,
Mr. Highet, and he wiII show y011exactly hoiu the Libya~irndhod takes fuII
account of both the Tunisian north-facirrg coast, from Ras Ajdir to Gabes ; and
also the marked change in direction of the Sahel Promontory.
1 would, however, like to share with the Court my difficulty in com-
prehending the Tunisian argument on gmgraphy. Professor Jennings has
repeatedly m p h a s i ~ dthat we must take account of the actual coasts, not
purely hypothetical ones, and we must no1 aftenipt to refashioii geography,
although this, i i ~effat, is exactljr what the Tirnisian 1 973 baselines do. The
Couri wiIl reca1I that Professor Jerrnings si~igledout rhe sIand of Jerba as an
important featnre whicIi Libya totaIIy ignores.
1 can orrIy r e s p o ~ ~tod tliis in The fvIIowing way. If equidisiance is rejected by
both Parti& as a method quite inappropriate to the circumstances of this case,
it necessarily follows that the relevance of the actual coastlinw will be dimi-
nished. The Libyan method has neverthela given them appropriate effect.
But what of the Tunisian methods ? Which one of the Tunisian methods is
 REJOINDER OF PROFESSOR BOWETT 407
influenceci by Jei-ba, 01. by the cuncavity of the GuIf of Gabes, or by [Ire
uffS1r01.e isIands of Kerkennah in any way ? Not #rie of tIre Tunisian niethods
takes tIie sIightest account of Ihese fealures. The actual coasIIines are ignorai.
and for them we have substituted entirely fictiorial coastiines, extending far to
the east. And the important stretch of Tunisian coast stretching westwards
from Ras Ajdir Io Gabes, some 70 miles long, is discreetly ignored because
unfortunately il does not face east.
Now this leads me directiy into a discussiori of the Tunisian meihods. so I
IIOW turn to Professor ViralIy's seco~iddefence of i11e Tunisian geornetrical
ineIlrods. And 1 begin wirh rhe fitsi inetliod - the rransfer of rhe bissc=-~ri:.~.
I besiule to tnfljct 011 the Corrrt moi-e geomerrical exei-cises. But if the Cou1.t
will allow me just three, lhen 1 think the Court will see the basic fallacies of the
whole Tunisian approach.
Let us begin, once again, with the simple right angle, and the frontier at the
apex iirre. Boih sida accept ihat with that configuration the bisector of the
angle wo~rlfibe aIi equitabIe one and a proper deIimilation of a ~ I an i area.
Now. let rne draw soinethi~iglike tire actual sitriatio~r.w i l l ~the Tunisian coast
ru~rniiig70 miIes to lhe West. ro Gabes. and then moving 11o1.thwards at Gabes.
Can it really be supposed that [lie or.igirrai hisscc-triccis still cqujlable ? Ooes il
really make no difference w hether Ihe Tunisian east-acing coast runs north
from Ras Ajdir - or north from Gabes. 70 miles away ? The whole idea is
untenable, and the translation of the idea to the actual coasts in question can be
done by rnearis of a lraiisparenr overIay which yau riow Irave on tire board. As
1 said iri my earlier presetitatio~r. tliis system sealIy does two things ; it
iiotionally tseats the Tunisiari ccast as if it ran rioithwa~.dsor northeast fi-om
Ras- Ajdir, and it m a l s the whole of this arta behind tIrat ~iorionalcoastIine
as belonging to Tunisia, and simply not counting, not relevant, for the
delimitation and the question of proportionality in relation to the area that
remains to ihe east. Such a method cannot be, cannot conceivably be, an
equitable or evcn a reasonable method of approaching this particular confi-
guration.
Now we heard from Professor Viraily ariother i~irerestingidea. The Court
wiII remernbes Iliat 1 suggested that with a right-a~igled coast, tlie pro-
longations of the two coasts neccssarily overlap, and they must, therefore,
share the same shclf area. Not so, says Professor Virally ; not if we follow the
direction of the natural proloigation. And so he pravides us with this diagram
- this was diagram or Figure D on the series of diagrams he provided for us. 1
have done i t i ~ r rough. but I lrvpe thai you accept it as a reasonable
representarion of figure D.'The ~deais that if al1 the bouiidaries a n tire shelf
PI-oceed from the Iand. fyom 1he Iand frontiers. fowards rhe centre of the
abyssal plam here. you do no! gel an ovesIapl and everyone in respect of his
landmass gels his proper natural prolongation. Now the device is snmetI~ii~g of
a cheat. if you will forgive the word, in that we have introduced into matiers of
plane geometry notions of the direction of areas. But let that pass, because the
objections 1 have are really much more fundamental.
I sirggest rhnt we test this t h e ~ i sby refeserice !O a inap, of w hich you iave
copies in yMIr foIder. Now. what 1 have done here is to take t h e various
frontier points U I I ~ . using the Tu~iisianmethod, I Iiave joined them to the
ccritrc of the abyssal plain Iiwe. For the IlaIian/Ttrnisian frontier I have mken
the southern edge of the maritime boundary agreed in 197 1. For the ltalianl
Malta frontiers, 1 have postulated the turning point here in the same 197 1
agreement line, and 1 postulated between Malta and Sicily the mid-point across
IIie channel. have abo closed the Libyan sector at Ras Tajura, because that
 THIRTY-FIRST PUBLICSITING (21 X 81, 1Oa.m.)

Present : [See sitting of 29 IX 8 1 .]

REJUINDER OF MR. HIGHET

COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMEM OF THE LIRYAN ARAB JAMAHlRlYA

Mr. HIGHET : Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Court : it is once
agaIn an honour and a priviIege to address yair in this case. 1 shalI arganize rny
1-erna1-kstoday into three parts.
First, I shah deaI with three general aspectsof iheTunisian niethods brought
out by counseI for Turrisia during thesecond phase of argument. These aspects
are mainly addressed to legal considerations. 1 need not take the Court's time
with a detailed rebuttal of the four Tunisian methods. This was done yesterday
by Professor Bowett.
Second, I shail the11trirn to a brief discussion of the Libyan met hod relating
the applicable IegaI principIes and 1-uIesIO the peflinent facis.
And fhird. 1 shaiI take irp certain of the Tnnisian criticisms of the Libyan
1ne1hod in Iight of the rernarks which OUT opponents made drrring This second
phase.

1. THE TUNISIAN
"METHDDS"
Liws Oiie RI a Tiinc
1 would Iike to t u r ~ rto a fundamenial probIern which we have with the
Tunisian sheaf of lines. If the Members of the Court will imagine that Tunisia
had only advanced orle of her methods, and had not been able to come upon
any others, it can readily be seen how feeble the whole Tunisian case would
be.
In Iight of Professor Bowett's preseniations during the oraI firoceedings,
imagine if you wiII the Sribmissions 011the Tunisian side resting solely upon
the rides of Zira and Zirrvarah or just the ri& of Zira, if yori wiII. Imagine
again if Tunisia had only b e n abie to corne u p wjtlr someihing Iike the "Ionian
Abyssal Plain method" ?
Members of the Court might consider for a moment again what the result
would have been had Tunisia merely produced one or the other of its two
geo~netricarguments ;the bisstc~ric~ or "anti-amputation Iine" or the "angular
aperttrre" Iine. Can one jrisrify a response to the question franied in the Special
Agreement by producing four different methods, none of which takes a11 of the
devant circun~stancesirita accau~rt.and each of which w e feeI does 1101 in any
way reflect al1 the principles and r u l s of law with which we must here be
wncerned ?
We al1 know that it is possibte, literally and figuratively, to bind reeds
together to form a strong sheaf: a fasces or bundle. This will serve its purpose.
But not where we musi examirie the nature o r the stre~igihof each cornporient
of that sheaf. None of the reeds can stand by itself. Each, when taken alone,
will bend.
Professor Jennings said last T u s d a y that it was impossible fo devise a
metlrod t hat worild Iake accourir of a11 the reIevant circu~nsiances. He
d perhaps a coniprrter might be able to u~ldertakesuch a
siiggested i ~ ~ d e et hat
task al solne frrtlrreda~e.But he heId out IittIe hope that ir couId bedone for tlie
purposes of the present case. T o paraphrase Professor Jei~nings,perhaps il is a
"novel doctrine of the exhaustion of methods".
How can this be ? Why is it so ? Indeed, if Professor Jennings' theory of
impossibility or exhaustion is correct. it would seem that the Parties have
asked the Coritr an i~npossiblequestiwi rriider Artide 1 of t h e SpeciaI
Agreement. And perhaps this expIains t Ire Tunisian insistencc t liai the SpeciaI
Agreemeirt requesrs the Cour1 Io clarify a pract ira1 merliod of delirnirat io~r
rather thair a merhod d applying the principles and rules. Indeed we think
there is more to this distinction than merely a forn~alenquiry. I t is in faci
fundamental.
Possibly one of the reasons why Tunisia must interpret the Special
Agreement in the rnanner s h e does is because she cannot suggesl a praclical
metliod o f applyrrig the PI-inciples and ruIes rvhich wilI also satisfy her
objectives. SIie therefore suggest four diffe1-entrne~hadsof deIimitation zirid. at
rhe sanle ti~ne.begs rhe question as to whether t hey shorild be required to fit i ~ i
with al1 the relevant circumstances.
Tunisia, the iMembers of the Court will rernernkr, once confidently stated
in her Mernoria1 (1, para. 9.36) that "the delimitation litie in question" - it was
one of the geornetric lines 1 believe - "takes atcount of al1 the releva111
cirru~nstanceswhich characterize rhc ara". This k a s seIating Io the second
geomet1-ic n~ethodin Tact. Brrt Tunisia is no longer so confident o f this
assertion, at rhe end of the day. Nui o~ilyis tliis second geonreiric method
dis~irictIyphced to orieside - the first geometric method has now bacorne the
one which is "to be preferred", in Professor Virally's words (IV, p. 6 14) :
Tunisia now even denies the ability of any of her methods lo Lake into account
al1 the relevant circumstances. W h y ? Obviously because she must.
Moreover, w hat does p~aducingfour e11ti1-eIydifkrent methods. or al Ieast
three e11tirely different methods. have to d o w ~ i hthis '! We think in a way
it is a kind of war of alliition. If one has to deferid oilaeIT against foiil.
misi~rierpretaiionsrather than one, one Iras a more diffIcrrIt job of pixing the
matter in true perspective at any point. And if one has to divide one's argu-
ment in four in order io meet four different viewpojnts and four different
recommendations from the other side. one's own argument suffers, at least can
appear to become belaboured. And, with respect. we think that the task of the
Court is thereby aIso sendered Inore difficuI1.
In our uiew. ro produce the result she desires, Tunisia has made every effort
to drrplicate and rednpllcate, triplicate and quadruplicale her I-easons, none of
which is compIete on its own and each of wliicli differs from the other.
Turning now to what was said in rebuttal by Tunisian counsel, following
our initial attack on the sheaf of lines some two weeks ago, we have found
almost nothing said of any signicance about the first geomorphological
method - the ride de Ziru
But Professor ViraIIy {p. 34 1, supra) see~ned 10 respo~rdto Iny earlier
stateme~ittirai the Zira borrndary Iine was arbit1a.y .by indicati~igtllat 1 shouId
not. ~ I my
I argtlmrnr, be coiicerned wirh t lie dratving of Ii~res.But here the
other Party has chosen to insist upon drawing lines and fixing them very
precisely by various methods - geomorphological o r geometric. And it will
j~~s t do
not io say lhat since our arguineiit is that the Court should not draw
Iines. we must lhcrefore be si tent about any linc proposed by Tunisia.
M y early point. that the first meihod - rhe "Zira ridge method" - was
arbitrary, has iior bcen met at all. It is, as we said iwo wecks ago. and as Sir
Francis reiterared on Mondsy akernoon. en tireIy possible, as the Court has
seen. to inierpret the bathymetry in the arca of concern in such a manner that
Professor Virall y's hypotheiical boundary commission could happily pursue a
nonhrvard course, rather lhan a 65O easiward course. Professor Boweii
reiiiforced ihis point yesterday. as the Court wiIl recall. and showed t h e
evidence from Professor Fabricius thar has tiot been cont rovertcd.
Professor Bowetr also pointcd out, again, the fundamental factual defects -
the factual defects in the "lonian Abyssal Plain" method, as weIl as its quite
extraordinary lheoretical conseqiiences for other States and situations. The
Coiirt will recaII rhe striking map which he produced. refIec11tig its diIigent
appIication eIsewIiere in the Mediterranean.
However. abyssaI plains did not even make enough impression Io be
mentloned. either in 1 969 or I 977. i v e thitik that the only reason Tunisia has
now discovered the Ionian Abyssal PIaiti is because it Iies east of Tunisia. As
Professor Bowcrt has said : its acceptance will obviously give Tunisia the lion's
share of a n y delimiiation. 11 was cerlainly not considered (by Tunisia herseln
as providing a raiional direction for sheIf delirniraiion i i i her I 97 1 Agreement
rvith Italy.
So 1 would invite the Cour1 t o esamine each of the Tuiiisian proposais alone.
by i~seIFand iri particular as each - alone by itself - relates or does not relate
to the applicable principlcs and rules of international law, and ali rhe reIevant
circumstances of the case.
In lighi of the scieniific evidence that has been produced in these
proceedings.can a n y of these rneihods really be said 10 reffect the fundarneiital
priiiciple of natural proiongalion ? an any one be said to take inro account al1
the relcvanl circurnstances ? And. above al]. can any one of Ihem realistically
k said to produce a result which would be equitable ?
We would say no.

I lurn riow io my second poinr. This is Tunisia's reliance upon irreIevatit

coasts. o r her effort to use the same masr Iwice. This was alluded to by
Professor Jennings. perhaps with an unconscious t w i s ~of humour, as being a
"novet doctrinc of ex haustion" (p. 272, sirpraX Professor Jennings aIso made a
curious admission, or qualification, that this doctrine dws not apply, in my
words, to coasts "which abutted on the same area of sheIf", and he went o n to
smtc that this quaIificaiion begs t h e very question at issue here. That question
is : what is the "same area of shelf" for ihis purpose :'
Of course, Libya. we submii. has aIready answered this question. We have
indicated an "area of concern" rvhich is speifically reIated to ihe effect of
exisiing o r prospective deIimitations with third Srares in the area.
As for the Trinisian coast north of Ras Kaboudia, it is quite true to say that
lhis coast has already b e n taken into account in the deIimitation agreement
with Iial y . Bu1 the real reason lhat the Tunisian coast north of Ras Kaboudia is
"exhasied" for purposes of the present case, is not thal. 1t is precisely the same
reason why the northern coasl of Tunisja near Tunis is "exhausied". And that
is, of course. because bofh these coasts bear no reIation io ihe sheIf areas to be
deIimited as between Tunisia and Libya.
412 CONTINENTAL SHELF

Nor can Tunisia find soIace for her proposition - Tor her point of view -
in the Nr)rfh SPU Corrriiic~iiralS/zc//cases. Professor Jennings said as follows :
"The entire coast of rhe Federal Democratic RepubIic [of German y] was
taken in10 account by lhis Court in 1969. And . . . indeed, Iay at the very
heart of the Court's Judgment. The Court could not have drawn ils
illustraiive -Map 2 in the I.C.J. R ~ p o r i s1969. page 15, had it espoused
Libya's contention." (P.273. sulira.)
Members of the Court, two days aRer Professor Jennings made this
argument, we were most impressed by the map which wzs introduced in rhe
Tunisian counroom folder. The Court wilI recalI that this was ihe map
accompanying Lirt~irsiii 11re Scrrs No. 74, illustrating ih e maritime boiindary
agreement between ihe Federal Republic and the German Democratic
Republic (p. 33 1 ,supra).
1 should menrion here parenthetically that the line there agreed upon
between those two States exrends for less than eight miles, that it has no
apparent relation at a11 to the contrnenta1 shelf, that i i was specificatIy designed
to folIow a shipping route. an existing navigational channet. None of these
points was even mentioned by Tunisian counsel. This agreement can hardIy
serve as actuaI or even apparent authority for the proposition for which it was
advanced.
But, back to what 1 was saying. The misleading illustrarion - that is 10 say
the German maritime delimitation agreement - did remind u s of something
which was rhe Baltic coast of the Federal Republic, and we reaIized that. with
respect, Professor Jennings had been quite mistaken in saying that "The entire
coasi of the Federal RepubIic [of Germanyl was taken into account by this
Court in 1969".The Coi~rtdid no1 take into account - nor did il even consider
- the BaIlic coast of the FederaI Republic any more than the Court in the
presen t case should, in our respectru1 submission, take into consideration the
Tunisian coasts north of Ras Kaboudia.
One rnight aIso ask whether the WeIsh coasi was rIIustraied on the rnap of
1he United K~ngdomon page 1 5 of t he 1 969 Judgment, or whether the eastcrn
coasi (the BaItic coastl of Denmark was taken into account ? The answer is
that, w hen it cornes to examining the relevance of particuIar portions of coast.
it is not a "ruIe of exhaustion" really, i t is a rule of reason ihat rnust be
appIied.
Now, obviously Proressor Jennings woutd have changed the word!ng of his
staternent had he been reminded of the Baltic coasr.
But that is precisely rny point, Mr. President. When one gets to the question
of the reIevani coasts. one has fo ask onseIf : which coasts. and relevant to
what ? And that is whai is meant by the arnusing doctrine of coasral
exhaustion w hich Proressor Jennings described but, with respect, railed to
analyse o r to appIy correctly.

Our opponents have consistentty tried to deaI with the GuIf of Gabes by
explaining it away as a serious disadvantage for Tunisia, and they have aIso
had to face the fact - the irrefutabIe fact - that rhe land boundary is found al
Ras Ajdir. Yet the boundary is not in eastern Tunisia ; il is on that broadly
uniform stretch of coasi which in fact faces northward. But, according to our
opponents; this fact onIy exaggerates the inherent disadvantage to which the
GuIf of Gabes subjects them.
4 14 M ~ T N E ~ T A L SKELF

enables us to illustrate the Tunisian sheaf of lines in a small frame. To a certain

extent so it does. No1 that the sheaf cannot also be looked at iri a larger frame .
there we would still say, with confidence, that ii woiild look as eqnally odd
atrd as exrreme in irs effect.
But in a srnaII fra~ne,it becornes, witlr respect. qrrnd rrnr dc~~rroirs~mrrcii~~~?.
N o rnatter h a w rhe delimitaiion is lo procmd. it rnust still be seen to be
appropriale in the firsl ontext to be considered : that is. the area of the coast at
the poinl where the delimitation must actuaily commence.
Nor can one get away from that basic fact by having spon with our
proposal, as being a method of "little steps".
It is indeed by little steps as we11 as larger o11asrhar the Iaw, carefril in irs
applicatiorr, mus[ prciceed Alid even lie uildeiwziter boundary conirnissio~~
musr so proceed. one step at a irnie. Otherwise il is, niorc than evcr, a rnere
fictio~r.
And we would therefore Say, Mr. President, that the "area of,concern" for
the Parties - and thus for the Court - to consider for the delimitatioii, is an
area substantially along the lines of that suggested by' u s in Our Counter-
Mernorial - for the reasons given in that pleading and as subsequenlly
ela borated.
We wouId Say ~ h much
t of the discrrssion in the clositig paart of edrh Parr y's
case has now confirmed the propriety of co~rsideringan a1-ea reIevanr to rhe
case. for the purpose of evaluating the inell-iod of;appl ying the principles and
rula!.
In summary : the fundameiital weakness of Tunisia's concept of a sheaf of
three or four lines is that if the Parties had intended to say "a method of
delimitation", they would have said il. and surely if they had wantcd io sefer ro
more t h a ~ one i srich rnerhod of delimi~ationrhey wouId aIso have done so,in
rhe pIural or in rhe disjuncrive.
One off lie Tnnisian "methods" is responsive lo an alleged iheorjl of the casc
bearing upon a special reading of Article 76 of the draft convention, and a
p a ~ i c u I a and
r erroneous view of the scientific iialure of the Ct underiying the
abyssal plains.
Another. of the Tunisian "methods" is responsive to ~ieither of lhese
assurnptivns ; but is based upon a prernise IIirrt certain ephen~eraI~norphologi-
cal reatu1-es can provide crite1-ia for a n aclual bwrndarg Ilrie between thc shelf
of one State and the sheIf of the other.
The geornetric exercises a1-e based r ~ y o n a very simple distortion of
geography. Let me add that we can hardly be accusecl of failing to understand
the geometric methods because we said that one was a mere variation of the
other (p. 342, supru) : as Professor Bowett has already indicated : they both
presume an urijustified and artificial rnovement of the Turiisian Coast
easlwards to the fronrie1-point.
Su il is cIer iri orir subrnission thar none of these niethods can aIonr nieet
r h t require~nentsof rhe SpeciaI Agi'eemenI. As Sir Francis suggested, il' cr>rlId
very weII be argued thal Iliey are therefore outside its scope.
But Professor Jennings said that one should,
"apply a melhod and then if need be adjust the resulling boundary in
some degree to take some account of othet' consideraiions or circum-
stances as is aften done for example witIi a line of equidistance" (p. 279,
supI-a1.
Now this Indy explair1 Professor ViraIIy's veer ro the nortli In one of iiis
bathymetric constructs, but which only appeared in the oral praceedings -
 REJOINDER OF MR. HIGHET 4 15
s . t hat seems. in turn, 10 liave been engendered
perhaps for obvious r e a s o ~ ~Arid
by a beIated flash of recog~riiionof equitable principles which Iraue been so
dormant in Ttinisia's written pleadirigs arrd c e ~ u i n l yin Iier oral arguments.
BuI if one is 'appi yii~ga rnerhod" - in Professor lennings' phrase - why
should then one adopt an arlificial sheafof lirres, joined with so much artifice
concerning scientific fact and theory on the one hand. and concerning history
and alleged "historic rights" ?
Why the adoption of a choice of three, or four, lines of delimitation ?
This beais some tl~ouglrt.But obviously. we do no[ know. Biii it does also
seem obvioris ttiat Tunisia has norhing to lose, and mnch IO gain, by incrcasing
he1- c0111inenraI sheIf daims from the inequitabIe equrdisra~rceline of I 976 ta
an even more inequitabb slieaf of Iines at $5" iri 1981 l (I rniyl~Ilrere note that
this number was rio1 mine : it was Professor Jennings' figure : IV. p. 4251.
Atid perhaps this also accounts. on a different level or levels, for the intricate
and highly artificial "campaign", the "campaign" relating to the alleged historic
rights which, in the long run, are still so fundamentally obscure and
amalgarnated and wnfused.
I t Inusr be ciear, Mr. President. that Tunisia caririot support any such daim.
of 64' o r 6S0,by seeking to do whzit is in fact askerl by the SpeciaI Agreement.
Therc is na way i11 which an appIicatio11 of the priticipIes a ~ i drnIes of
iri teriiatiorial larv could result iri a deliinitation ;iIong the Iina~s~iggesredby
Tunisia. And so a different in terpretaiion of the Agreement is reqiiired.
And this is what 1 said and why I said what 1 did two weeks ago (p. 2 16,
supra) that Tunisia's theory of the case has resulted in the fact that "the need
for the practical method 10 have evolved from the principles and rules and to
be consistent with them al a11 limes has been placed at one. or possibly more.
remwes".

Profcssor Jennings' admission - lhat no one couid devise a method of

deiimitatiait w hich wculd respect al1 the relevant circumstances of this case
{p. 279. strpru) - leads me ro the second pa1-t of my sraremenr.
Agairi. wc Say tlrat lht. Libvari rncthod is 1101 ii method o f deIi1nirarion atid
also ~Iial11 does not suffer from 'the Ii~nitatio~rs
which Professur Jennings has
petreived in Tunisia's own sheaf of lities, 1iame1y an inabiIity tu mpe wn h the
circumstances.
Our basic position has i ~ fact
i reniailied intact and, if anything, it has b e n
rcinforced and conrirmed by the final atlacks by Tunisia upon it as well as the
final developments in the I'unisian case itself. Our concept of interpretation of
the SpeciaI Agreement - to which I have spoken. as weII as Sir Francis - has
in h c t becn bolstei-ed i11 otrr sr~brnissio~i
by al1 the argu~nentsmade oii rhe
ot hm- side.
Our views of r11e approprrate roIe of this Couri, of rhe dutics of rhe Panies
and their experts. have been streilgthened. And Our percepIion of the
fundainental lcgal principles and riiles which are applicable has only been
rendered more clear in the context of our opponents' views.
1 . First. it is stiil our fundarneaial proposition that the most practical
manner by which the Parries and tIieir experts can effect a delinirtation.
co~isistent wir h the PI-i11cipIesand rules as appIred to rhe hcts, is for thern tu
examine the seriou> pertinen i evide~iceof geoIagy arid recognize the true
4 16 COWTINEWAL SHELF

natiiral prolongation of Lhe structure and mass of the North African

continental landmass 10 the north, consistent with the reality of the political
boundaiies and other elcments which w e have considered here at length.
2. Applying the law to these facls. as SV indicareci by the Court, and
fo1Iouting iIie rnethod of appIication aIso to be indicted : the Parties wouId
rhen be ~equiredro refine the general lirie of directiori of rhe PI-dongation as
deter~ninedby rhe geoIogicaI evidence - a ~ r dthat conId be iridicaled by the
Corirt upo11Ille bxis of the evidence it this case.
3. This refinement will therefore occur. and the practical rnethod of
application will nacessarily proceed. in the logical manner - step by step - as
the Parties work out the line of delimitation northward along its course. This
t hey are to do under the guidance of the Court's Jiidgment - the legal rnles.
indicaled by the Courr. wiIl he appIied to t h e facis as orrnd by 1Ire Couri.
4. II must also be remembercd that the deli~nitationi ro srart ai this point
on rhe no~thward-fxiiigAfrican.co~stos al a poi~rioff the cmst. but I I O ~ar
ariorher point.
S. The factors siipporting this line of northerly direction over the irst
section of the proposed delimitation are welI known to the Court. The
principal factor is geology. supported by the unequivocal truih that one must
proceed from this north-facing coast and one must start there. and that such a
progression is consislent with the 1955 ktroleum Law. And geography.
poIirim1 and other geography. lrere combi~iesand reinforces geology and
confir~nsits restrlt.
5. 80. taken togethes. these eIe1neri1scombine to resolve a direction. They
all go north. In addition. common sense suggests that ihere would be a
compelling reason to abandon the longitude of the last section of the land
boundary in its seaward course. The westward edge of the Petroleum Law
Zone No. 1 would run identically to that line of longitude.
7 . This would al1 be co~isistenr tvith a recogrritiori of rhe fundamental
eletnent of 1ratrria1prolongation of the nortli-facing North Africa~rlandmass.
heie. into and under the sea. iherc - t h e exte~lsionof thai Iandmass infoa n d
niider the sea in al1 S E n S e S rererred to by Sir Francis on Monday afternoo~i
atrd
as frrlIy agaiii demonsiraled by Professor Bnwett yesterday morning. This
would be consistent with il and it would reflect it.
8. As fhe Parties move northward, they may well be assisted bq' a
determiiiation by the Court whether the alleged fishing or othcr "historie
rights" exist. But in every likelihood thesc - even if thcy did exist - wotrld
nor be affected.
9. And if to atiy extent thcy are - whicli we deny - the Parties can
always consider how to accord reasonable protection for them. which would
nor affecr tlie shelf delimitalion itseseIf. For thc Court will no doubt have
considered the mass of material which has been introduced in an attempt to
establish - but which in Our view falls far short of establishing, in fact or in
law - an alleged zone bounded by the so-called ZV-45' line out to Ihe
50-metre isobath.
1O. Our proposa1 rvould then Iead the Parties to. o r rather would i~rvitethe
Court tv cIarify how the Parlies can prnceed. step by logira1 srep, in a manner
which reinai~rscorisistent witlr the fundamenla1 detesniiriation of rraiural
proIongation of the Iandrnass lying ro the south, aiid ais0 consistenl with
those other factors which 1 mentioned, including, no doubt, the particular
circumstance of the geography of their coasts in that area of concern.
I 1 . And so the Parties will proceed to a point where the geographical
circumstances are affected because of a change in direction of the original
 4 18 CONTINENTAL SHELF

I should now like to run quickly through some of the significant issues and
points made by Tunisian counsel concerning the practical method proposed by
Libya.
(il First. Professor. ViraIIy slated (p. 327. s l r p r ~ that
) the broivn Iine, the
@ famous brown Iine of Figrrre 3.0 1 of the Trinisizn Counte1--Mernorial - which
kas featured 50 heaviIy in t h a e PI-oxedings - :he srared that thar Iine was
entirely just~fied,because ir i,esembIes the Iine of~irrriwswIi~chwere show11in
out. Couilter-Menlorial at pages 201 and 202 (II). But what he failed to
mention is that the line of arrows, as such, was not advanced as such by our
Counter-Memorial. The northerly line of direction represented by those
arrows was specifically identified in terms in paragraph 503 as being so
indicated as "Line A . . . for illustrative purposesonly, and represents ncifher a
specific ine1'idian nar an exact line of direcrion". And Professur ViralIy krrew
perfectly weII that we had nor suggested that anyane foIIow Li~ieA al1 rhe way
norlh ro the GuIf of Hammamet, and 1 wouId here refer Ille Corlrt yet orrce
again to the prescient foornote No. 1 o n page 201 of our Corinter-Mernorial.
whrch iii effect repudiated the equitabieness of Line A , characterizing it as
passing close by the Kerkennah Islands and cutting directly in front of the
Tunisian coastline.
(ii) Next point. We are also accused o f failing to give any example of State
practice prolonging the land boundary s a w a r d in-accordance with its general
direction (p.332, srrprrrj. Rr~rwIiat was om~itedwere the words specified i ~ i
pariigraph 1 16 of Our MemoriaI, at page 48 (1). They said that : "The ! a ~ ~ o f r r
li13e uy" larrgirudi, (or joiiiud~,) drawrr from rhe rerniinaI poirrr of rhe Iand
boundary of adjacent colista1 States, and projected seawal-ds as a maritime
boundarfr, is weII established by Skte practice." 1 shouid add thal Professor
Abi-Saab, to his credit, got this right - he even quoted this same language in
his rebutta] speech (p. 284, supra).
But we had set forth the Gambia/Setiegal Agreement (para- 1 17) which
most certainly continued the actual azimuth of the general direction (it was
also on a line of latitude) of the land boundary befort: its terminarion. And we
se1 forth the CoIombia/Ect~ador Agr-eement (para. 1 1 8), ited as beirrg
"Anorher- exampIe of rhe cont~nualionof a Iand bonndary aIong a Iine of
latitude". Arid finalIy - a diflererrt exampie - we set fmrh the xarnpIe of "a
rhunib Iine perpendicnIar io the generaI Iine of the coast" - rhat wss the
BraziI/Uruguay Agreerneni (para. 1 1 9).
fiii) 1 shall now turn briefly to the issue of encroachment. It was said
elsewhere that we had claimed that the Libyan practical method would not
encroach on the historic rights, on the territorial sea, or on the interna1 waters
of Tunisia. And the Court will remember that a slide was shown from the
@ Tunisian coirrtroorn foIder. and we were criticized for e1np10ying a double
srandard (p. 33 1 , sirpt-al.
What had in fat been said ? And wIiat in fact is the ~rosition?
First, it was said (and rhis was by us1 rhat Our Iine of di~zctionwoiild
prohbly "Ieave on the Tunisian side of a resulring dei imitation the shoals and
banks of the Kerkennah Islands and whatever else. The fixed fishery
installations of the Kerkennians would thus surely be preserved . . ." (p. 241,
supra).
I next stated that :
"ihe IikeIy effect of the Iine of direction which wor11d resuIt from
 REJOINDER OF M K . HIGHET 419
appIicarion of our proposal wuuid also be to ornpietely avoid t h e
Tunisian rerritoria1 sea cIairns, eveIi 1110s~ greatly exaggerared cIairns
based irpon the 111appropriatebaseIi11esadopred in 1973" (p. 24 1, srrprilj.
And finaIly, on rhe nexl page, 1 repeated r11y statemerit a b w i avojding rhe 1973
territorial seas, and 1 then added this :
"Nor would the result of the proposed Libyan method affect any areas
ijr u~l~irliTut~isiocnr? i~alidycluitn aity riglrt 10 take sponges, or to
coIrstrnct fixed fisliery installations." [Emphasis add4.I Obi(/ )
A ~ i dI woriId srras - very clearIy stress - "itr ir4tic!r Tiurnririu rai? i~uliJ!ii
c.lail?r".
So what was said was the following : thal even the right-hand parallel to rhe
Tunisian Coast, represented by "Line Z" on the diagram in our Counter-
Mernorial on page 202 - that even this right-hand parallel would avoid
encroaching upon, first, the shoals and banks and the tixed tsheries of the
Kerkennahs ; second, aIry a1-rasin which Tunisia can i?aIid(iiciairn any i-ight to
take sponge o r to co~istrnct fixed fishe1-y insraIIariot~s; and, three. the
Tu~risianterritorra1 sea clairned in 1973. A I I ~1 said nothing about inferna1
waters.
Now, if ihe Members o f the Court would consiilt the diagralri ori page 202
of our Counter-Mernorial (II), and look at that "Line 2" - it is marked
"Parallel io Change in Direction" - they will note that the line bears at an
angle or azimuth of approximaiely 40 east of due north. In my argument on
9 Oclober 1 hd said that Iny remark could be ~nfismedby a qriick g l a n e -
@ 1I-raeare rhe words 1 us& - a "quick gIance at Map No. 1 1. facii~gpage 50 of
our Counter-Menior~aI"{p. 24 I , s~lpj-rr 1. Now, MY. Pseside111,1 do not hoId
myseIf oirt :is a cartograplrer, birt iir view of Professot VII-a1Iy.sremarks, 1
rather carefully lransferred the parallel of Ras Yonga and the due-riorth Iine A
from Ras Ajdir on to Map No. 1 1. aiid 1 then put a 40' east line on that same
map, running north-east fairly much, as you ivill notice, on an intersection
course with Lampedusa, jus1 as it is shown by the litlle grey arrows on the
diagrams on pages 20 1 and 202 of t h e Counter-Mernorial (II). And in the
words of the Cou~iier-MeinoriaI,the I111esof direcrion W ~ I"genera1".
-e 1hey
I-eprese~ned an "app1-oxirnatechange i11 direction", anri nor is "Line 2'' itself a
"precise proposed 111ieof deIimirarionn {I..ibyarr Counrer-MemoriaI, pasas. 500.
502 and 503).
But Our statement stiH held true, after f transferred those things. The
easternmost line proposed for the zone of overlap or "marginal area of
divergence" still appears ta pdss to the east of the controversial 1 973 territorial
sea Iimi~s- it is just 10 f Iie txt of them. Ifle need not be concerned wifh the
1 962 Tunisian terrilorial sea, which was swiftly wirhdrawn, as tIie Cour1 wiII
recaII. one year IaIer
But are nor the reaI points as follows ? First. this is a quesrion for the
experts ; and indeed, the controversiai 1973 territorial waters and the "interrra1
waters" are complelely avoided by the parallel to the coastal direction "Line
Z". The point really is that there is little, if any, encroachment.
Now there can be no question about the shoals and banks of the Kerkennah
@ Islands, since even oIr the T~iirisianmap just mentioned most of the marginal
area of divergerice is weII ourside the 1O-metse isobath. if not the M-melre.
And we absaitrteIy deiry that there can be any fixed fisheries in wateiY: deeper
tha~ra few metses. This is perhaps the onIy point proved by the fIIm which
Tunisia showed to the Cour1 the other day. And crin ailyone serioudy argue
 4 20 CONTINENTAL SHELF

that fixed lisheries of that nature could be maintaincd in deeper waters - say,
as deep as this wurtroom, which must be at least 10 to 15 m e t r e ~high ?
And valid daims to take sponges. Well, we of course consistently resisted
any pretension of Tunisia to regulate or have exclusive sponge fishing rights
based on 1Iie ZV 45'150-1net1-e isobarh for~nuIa,and this shouId eIimi11aterhe
@ litrle triangle ai the borto~nof the rnap. That is rhis IirtIe rriangIe here. We also
rleriy the IegaI effcr of tlie assertion of Tn~irsiantishing riglifs within i h r
tiortherly dotted Iinc marked Litllire d~ ICI zoiic des tiir~3.shsfrirjql(cs,roughly in
this area and the Court will look at it on the map.
1 might also refer here to the map in ihe Tunisian Mernorial (Fig. 5.26). If 1
@ could rernind the Court olihis map for a moment, it is entitled "Rc;purririuii dP.v
corrc~iilraiio~is cles ipurigr>s''.Members of the C o u r t can readily ascertain w kat
the effect wouId be a n any sponge beds - even significant spo~igebeds, brir I
think any sponge beds - nor;Ii of the latitude of Ras Yonga. of the Libyan
propoised Iines of directiurr. It wouId be niI. Incidei~laIIy,1 should note tlrat this
map dues not even show "Tunisian" sponge banks bu1 rather shows sponge
banks generally, off the Tunisian and Libyan coasts.
And so we continue - unaffected, Mr. President. in Our view - that the
general lines of direction, and certainly the easternmost line of direction - the
so-called "veering" line - suggesied by the t i b y a ~ psacticali method. wiII no1
encroach In any srgnificant way, rf ai a11, o n any IegI right oI -l.n~~ista and
even upo11 the exaggerated Ier~.iioriaIsea cIaimed by Tunisia. .
tiv) Mr. Preidenr, before 1 leave this point 1 sliwId aIso make Iraste to deny
an i~rternperateallcgatiorr which was made concerning "falsification" of Map
@ No. 1 3 in our Counier-Mernorial - the F A 0 rnap of sponge fishing in Libya
(P. 333, sirpra).
Without going in10 the details of what was said at that point - the Court
will refer of course. if it is concerneci, io the record - I raise these questions
onIy. First, huw could this Iiave k e n a hIsification? The 0rigi1raI F A 0 map
@ had Iorrg ago b e n deposired with the Court by Libya. Map No. 1 3, the one i n
our Corinter-Mernorial. V ~ I -specificaIly
y indicated on iis face that it had b e n
prepared "after" the F A 0 map. And we wei-e even carefui io show the limit
of Libyan sponge grounds on O u r map more conservatively than had been
shown on the F A 0 map. ln fact they were several kilometres to the east of Ras
Ajdir.
It appears to us tlierefore that ihere could only have b e n a fahification or a
d i s t o n i o ~if~ the originaI rnap had no1 been fIIed, if the copy in tire Counter-
Mernaria1 had not rndicated iis provenarice, and if Map 13 had showed niore
- not Iexx - of rhe area sribject to Libyan jr~risdictionrhan did the F A 0 map.
(VIThis Ieads me 10 a reIated point coricer-ning the "margiiiaj area of
divergence" : subslaniially, from A 10 Z.
It is important lo keep i n mind, Mr. President, that line Z - this is al1 on the
@ T u n F n Courlroorn folder Map again - which was taken from the diagram
originally produced at page 202 o f our Counter-Mernorial (II), was onty a line
rvhicli was generally paraIIeI 10 the change i11-r di1-ection of The Tunisian Coast
after the app1-oxiniate Ia~itudeof R a s Yonga - 10 the selecrion of which, thar is
to Say Ras Yo~iga,iricidentally, Tunisia has had nothing frrhe1- to say her
oral reply.
The parallel line was not itself a Iine of direction for a delimitation, far less a
line of delimitation. It represented the probably easterly lim'it of what we said
in our Counter-Mernorial was "a marginal area of divergence where several
differing considerations must be balanced in 0r. to achiwe an quitable
resuIt" III, Libjian Counre1--Mernorial,para. 504).

I
 REJOINDER OF MR HICHET 42 1

Now with a11 the discussion of "veeriny" i11Ille present case, the impression
rniglit Irave been given thal Iirie Z in that diagran is in effect a proposed Iine of
deli~nita~ion, or a "veer line" which is sornehow being prpposed by our side. I
wouId make it clear, Mr. Presidenl. rhat this is nt so. This whole matter kas 111
our view always been one for the Parties and their experts to work out in
accordance with the indications to k given by the Court in order to arrive ai
an equitable result and to fix the actual line.
Of course the "veering" must not be, and cannot be, at the outset, from the
outer limit of the rerritorial sea.
In the initia1 segment, that is nonh of R a y Ajdir. as 1 said earlier : we have
geoIogy. geographj, and al1 the other reIevarit circrrrnsta~ices poiriting
uniforinly no1rhrva1.d~.A ~ i dir is only at a considerable dista~icefrorn rhe Coast.
north of Ras Ajdir, that the influence of the Sahel promontory begins to be felt.
And it is then, and only then, that the geographical circumstances begin to
militate in favour of a "veering" to the north-easl, to support a marginal area of
divergence which may be appropriate for the Parties and their experts to
cons~de~'.
Nor, and tIiis is aIi Important point, should rhe analysis r-epresented in o u r
presei~tationof the ma1-girraI asea o f divergence be confused with any area of
overIap claimed by Turrisia. In parricuIar it shoirld riot be confused with the
enormous areas which would result from the eastward burgeoning of rtie
Tunisian concessions, which was pointed out by Sir Francis on Monday
afternoon, this w e k . Finally, nor, in our view, is this thought applicable to the
overlap of positions, or distance between one legal position and another, with
Tunisia for fxampie at her modifieci 1976 equidistance Iine or oiherwise,
which was aIso rnentioned by Sir Francis. This would indeed. Mr.Pserdent.
be inconsistenr with the proposition at page 192 of orir own Count1--
Me~no~.iaI Thar "The Extreme Clainis bf a Parly Are Not Necessarily Dete1--
minative of Ihe Continental Shelf to Be Delimiied".
(vil My next point, Sir, relates to the presence and nature of Libyan oil wells
which would be cut off by the Tunisian sheaf of lines, and the nature of any
Tunisian wells which might be affecied by the Libyan proposal.
Professor.Jenni~igs(p.175, sprrr~cliided rne for identifying Libyan wells i11
the area as being "productive" {p. 225,supra) and he the11 went on tu say thal :
"1 e~nphasizethe WOI-dyroductive because sso far as Tunisia is awase, none of
Ihe exploratiori sites driIIed by Libya17 concessionaires a ~ r dwliich mighr be
affected by the delimitation line proposed by Tunisia, is actually producing
oil." (Ibid.) Now this is technically true but the conclusion is, with respecl,
substantially untrue.
Perhaps it would be helpful, Mr. President, if 1 told the Court a little bit
about uffshose pe11-o1eu1ndrilling operations. Exploratory weils are drilled, but
once a field 1s discovered it does not rneaIi it wrII be economicaI to psodnce oiI
~ I - Uit.
I ~
I f producrion ope1-ations are comrnenced, huge experrses are enlaiIed to
implant stable concrete pIatforms. These cost in the huridi.eds of miIIions of
dollars.
The offshore stable concrete platform must then be connected up with al1
Ihe wells in the field. They must al1 faed into that platform. And the platform is
then irr turn mn~iecIedtu pipeliries or, i1-l certain cases, to offshore terminal
points. It is onIy lhen. Mr. President. tlrat expIoirarion of the uil I-esourwstakes
pIace provided the quaIity and quantity is adeqnafe.
Now the Cour1 wiIl recaII my pointing out eighr Libyai~oiI welIs which 1
@ indicated to the Court on the rnap (p. 243, supra) atid we wouId reaffirm
422 CONTINENTAL 3 H E L F

these are indeed oil wells. Each site is capable of being put into production.
Every single one of these well is therefore a "producer", even if it is not
urrently in production and, moreover, when each will be developed and
placed into commerciat production il wiH the11 be n cornrnerciaIIy producing
weII.
Professor ViraIIy ran througIr these eighI welIs (p. 334, srip-0). He meri-
traned A 1 / 1 37. and he said 1I1at it was not co~n~nerciallyexpIoitabIe. (This is
not correct ; it has not yel been put on stream.) B 1 A / 1 37 and B I/NC 4 1
were mentioried by him as being the first ones in the area drilled by Libya
containing exploitable quantities of petroleum and he then stated that Tunisian
concessions had been awarded in 1 972 (p. 334) ; and that these covered large
rireas. includiiig ta! least in part} areas which are also covered lry t h e I.ibyan
CO~C~SSIO~S.
Bul Iie faiIed to mentioir Ihar Turiisia has IieveI- driIIed any weIIs. Io our
knccwledge. in the are% coverered by Libyan Coi~cessiotisT 37 and NC 4 I . For
al1 il.irents arid purposes, therffore, there has been no Tunisian drilling in those
areas covered by Libyan coilcessions, and where sonle 56 1 million has already
been expended in exploration costs for these Libyan wells.
Yet he implied a right of adverse possession. or prior claim, and he denied at
the same time thai the Tunisian easlward expa~isionwas encourageri by
the s1ne1I of oiI. Rut alrhough Tunisia rnay haile CI-eatedo r granted those con-
cessions - as Sir Franc~sValIat has indeed aIready mred - n o "Ttrtii-
sian" weIIs Iiave beeri pruvccI out o r evcn driIIed i ~ tI-~ose
i areas. And Ihis faclor
rnay indeed be relevant in evaluating the equities of a silualion of this sort.
So it appean that it was the smell of oil, after all.
Furthermore, the suggestion made by counsel for Tunisia that there is only
one productive field - the Ashtart field - that is relevant. leaves the Coun
with the impression that Libya so far has, i ~ her i own offshore concessions.
fo~rndnooiI, or nooiI in commercial quan~iIiar.MT. Presidcnr. 1 do rroi wish Io
get into a frrrl her argunient about when an 011weII is "producitig". But as 1 said
a few ririnutes ago - the facrs are ihat iri ttie Libyan conccsslc>Iial-eas II~ere1s
&il.
The stage when that field is put into production, o that it comcs on flow,
that has not been reached. But the reasons for thai are not that the oil does not
exist, but that the business and policy decision has not yet been made tn
expend the funds and take the steps necessary for the full developme~~t of these
weIIs.
Iviil Professor V~ralIytheil pointed out that the five retnaining Lilryail wclIs.
five of the eigIit indicaleci by me, had beeti d~ilIed aher rlie so-caIIed "critica1
date" of the signature of the Special Agreement (p. 334, s ~ / / ) r uSir
) . Francis has
also analysed this point. lndeed we were str~ickby the lack of logic of a
proposition which would deny - retroactively - Libya the right to drill on
Libyan shelf under Libyan concessions in areas which were far removed from
even the rnost extreme claim (the 1376 eqtiidistance clairn) theretofore os at
lhat lime made ktiown by Tu~iisia.
How was Libya ta know tliat Ttrnisia would Iaier be assertii~ga different
d a i m of 1,igIrr to rhose areas ?
And as for the ruriisian rvells, the Court wiil iioie lhal the only two oil wells
indicated as being affected by the Libyan practical, method are Isis and Didon.
Neither, as far as we know, is producing. And these were both listed in the
Petroconsultants Survey filed with the Court as Technical Annex 9 to Our
Counier-Mernorial.
And f i ~ ~ ay,i lthe modesr gas deposit which Profevwr ViraIIy inentio~ied2tt
424 CONTINENTAL SHELF

Who proposed the change in the original line of direction - the divergence
creating an area w here other relevant circumstances cn be taken into
account ? W here is the area of conern for Our opponents ?
They will say that there are two or ihree or forir sirch areas. but norie to
which they will commit. Their precision with the fotrr lines, and rheir
limitarions upon rhe SpeciaI Agreemenr, derive from the obvious Tact rhat they
have nuc ch 10 win and IittIe to Iose by any soIution aIong t h e Ii~iesproposed by
them.
But we did not propose an extreme o r a "bargtiining position" type of
soiution. We did not lunge to the West as Tunisia has indeed lunged to the east.
However, Professor Jennings and Professor Virally both spent much time
and effort atiempting to attack oiir proposal. First. Professor Jennings said that
OUI- s~reciiicarion of the "dilemma of the frontier" effectiveIy swept away
geoIugy (pp.254 and 265. sirprab Professor ViraIIy then said lhat in rny
presentation of the Libyan practical rnerhod Ire had heat-d no mentioti of
geology (p. 328. siiprai ; and that i had adopted the new tactic of littie steps
which was an impressionistic, if not poiirtillisle, technique of pproaching the
problem.
Irideed, Professor Virally unburdened himself of a veritable Philippic upon
Ihe practical method :~ being unable to be acco~nplishedin "stepq'at all. We
were accrrsed of a "fu~rdarnent;iI inm~npatibiiity" betwee~i [lie method
respecting nafrrrd prolo~igatrorrand the rnethod of Iittle steps, which was
exp1-essedas "'consacr [an!] dfinitiverrienr I'aba~idunde la goIogie toutes fins
pratiques" (p. 329, siipra).
W e were then accused of no longer "believing in" oiir practical method
lihid.). And he concluded by saying that : "un renversement aussi radical, une
volte-face aussi brutale, effectuce lors des deux dernieres plaidoiries libyennes.
me jette dans la perplexit " (fbid.1
W hat does a11 of rhis conle down to !' How are we strpposed to deaI with it ?
In moi-e than orie sense. tliis heated reponse was a grave disappoinlinenr ro
trs. W e did no1 mean to Iose confidence in or~rnlethod, nor io be toId lhat we
couId no Longer believe in it. We did not for an inslanl perceive lhai we were
engaged in any dramatic process of uprooting and overturning our earlier
arguments. In fact, we felt and we still feel this morning that it is entirely
logical and consistent with the principlcs and rules of law as set down by this
Court and by the Court of Arbitration. for the rnethod of apply ing the law to
the facts to psoceed. by co~rsideringnot n1e1-eIywhat the Iaw is but what the
facrs ;ire.
For to say that wt: arc. oIr the one hand. ~nonohthic( i n OUI- Me~noriaIland
or are iiow adopting
that. 011theolher, we have adopred a rrrc'rlrt~dc~corr~c,c-rricc,
a method which is a "renversement . . . radical", consrituting the definitive
abandonment of geology : where does this leave the responsible advocate, and
the Court. in the search towards the answer to the question put to the Couri by
the Special Agreement ?
Naw. surely nalnraI projongation must be Iooked ar. and govern the
attribu [ion of di+jjl;i.csheIf areas. but stlrely something orher than char has [CI be
- aird must be - rakeil into acconnr by the Courr, and rhe Parlies. and r h e
experls ? By rhe t e r m of the Specsal Agreernerrt, Or the existriig state of
iniernational law, or common sense, or possibly al1 t h r e ?
A n d when we suggested our veering to the north-east, to provide a marginal
area of divergence within which the Parties could operatc, consistent with
natural prolongation, geographic circumstances and equiiable principles, and
w h e ~ iwe suggested that it rnight be a good idea to mnsider rhe area wherein
 REJOINDER OF MU. HIGHET 425
Ihe derimitalion wouId reaiiy be expecied tu be effectivf - surely al1 these
considerations are co~isistentwith one another and no1 inconsistent. On rhe
one h a ~ i dwe were accused of denying equity. Yet on the otlrer, wkieri we
alIude Io equirabIe PI-incipIes.rve are heId IO be inconsnte~rt.
We are told that we are rnonolitliic. arid (Ilus subject to criticism. But when
w e are carefut to take al1 relevant considerations into accaunt, we are told we
are no longer monolithic and thus subject to criticism.
We rely upon geology and we are told that il is wrong to do so. But if we say
that there are other fadors to br considered as well we are then told that it is
wroIig to Say so.
It is therefore our position that nothing which has beerr said by OUI-
oppone~ilsin their oral repiy has ro any extent hrin our case.
II is clear beyond a doubt that the evidence supporiing theTunisian methods
of delilnitaiion is precarious, selective and arbitrary.
It is clear beyond a doubt that the interpretation of the Special Agreement,
which has resuited in the production of these methods, is a flawed inter-
pretation.
And it is clear beyund a dcirbt rhar Tunisia's interpretation of the Iaw and
the facts is wrotig, bath as to the IegaI effect to be arrribuled to rhe factors
iending ta prove the existence of naturai proIongation. and as to the pmper
interpretation of Arlicb 76.
IL is crystal clear that the more explanation that Tunisia has given of her
three or four systems or merhods of delimitation, the less acceptable thev prove
to be.
Finaiiy, ii is d e a r that each of those is less respnsive io the relevant
circurnstanes and more dependent Lipon irrelevant maiter and f;iIlacious
n than we had previous1y thorrght.
p r e ~ jses
011the other Iiand Libya has i~~dicated to rhe Coun what naturaI
proIongation in f a a is, in the geoIogicaI arid geographical circumstances d this I
case.
It has also indicated the relevant circumstances w hich clearly characteri~e
the area and which must be taken into account to reach a result that accords
w ith equiiabie principies.
I t has also put before the Coun a proposa1 as to horv the pr-irrcipIesand ruIes
nlay be applied Io these-ieIevantcircurnsrances so as to ahieve an eq~ritable
resuIt, an eqir~rablesoIution.
This proposai - or this practical rnethod - stops rvell s110rt of drawing a
line but goes considerably further than the Nor111Spa Cot1rii7ei71alSl~elfcases.
I t leaves to the Parties a n important negotiating role but one which, within
the framework set by the Court, can lead to agreement between the Parties
within a three-month period.
In concIusion, w e subrnit that oirr suggmted method of appIyi~rgthe Iaw to
tire facts 1s ln the fr1ra1a~iaIysisthe only practical merhod to this end which has
been advanced in this case. The Tunisian Iines are nos rnethods ;fkiey are not
pi-actjcal and tIiey are rot equitable.
Our suggestion is a niethod ; it is practical, arid it observes the reality of the
relevant circumstances, as well as the ultimate requirements of equity.
 REJOINDER OF SIR FRANCIS VALLAT 427
proof of damage. these are al1 areas i ~ which i coutts have lo resoIve diffe~ent
i~iterpretariorisof IIie facts.
One of the lests that may be applied in deaIing with the fcis and ~Iieir
.
inlerpreration is Ille test ofconsistency ObviotnIy in the course of a long and
difficult case, the arguments made by a Party will be developed and changed.
But development and retinement, and even change, are not to be equaied with
inconsistency. But where one finds real inconsistency either internally between
orje pa~-taiid another of a party's case, or beiwaen the case argued ai an earlier
stage aiid zit a laler stage. then one reaches a point at w hich the sarrndness of
the case as a whole conies rnta qriation.
1 srrbmir Io rhe Court with confidence that ihere is no inconsistency In aIry
importani respect in the Libyan case presenred to the Court. 'The one major
accusation of inconsistency is levelled at Our suggestion that a delimitation
should veer towards the northeast to take account of the prominent Tiinisian
Sahel i'ormation. Mr. Presidenl. that is not an inconsistency. We do no more
than equitable princ~pIesrequire iri ta ki11.gaccor~ntofa circu~nsiaiicewkcich is
reIeitanr and canrrul properly be ig~io~.ed.
By coritsast, one of the feattrrei; of tilis case, rvhich mnst Iiave struck us al1
inoreand rnore forcibIy. has been lhe inconsistency a ~ i dIack of reality in rnaIiy
of the Tunisian arguments. We have witnessed, as it were. a most curious
,divorce betwmeenthe contentions advanced by Tunisia aiid the realities, the
facts, which lie behind them.
{Ur.Presidenr. take, for example. Tunisian cartography , of which this map is
a specIrnen. This is the Inap which appeared :it the beginning of the TuIlisian
fiI111. and it shows the quite incredibIe use of riames 011Inaps made by the
Tu~sisianside. 1 s e , Mr. President. tllat rliis is not a Iauglii~~g marrer. Agairr,
rake the whole Turrisian argument based upon rhe importance and reality of
alleged immernorial fishing rights. ln truth lhis is largely an empty claim. The
txed fisheries are nowhere near any conceivable area of delimitation ; the
sponge fisheries are, in economic terms, almost trivial. Then, again, take those
cIiTs - theAfoI~~.rps - and the rides. a ~ r dthe valley - the Sillon Tripolitain ;
a11 of them, s the evidence has show11, features of trivial signifrcane i ~ rlie i
contex1 of sIiBf deIimitation. Take those docriments dasigned to slrow a11
interiiational acqrriesc~ncein rhe TuIlisian assenion of sove1,eignty ou! to the
50-metre isobath and the Z V 45" line ; a11 of them have been show11 to be
without IegaI foundatioii. Take this totally, total1y new east-facing coiitii~ental
shelf. conjured up by Professor Virally : entirely withoui scientific basis. Take
the supposed reflection of the Tunisian coast in the bathymetry : it is simply
co11t1,aryr# Trlnisia's own maps. And here one cornes back to t h e funda~nental
inlernal contsadict~onin the Tunisia~im. One has. on !Ire one hand, PI-O-
fessor Jennings bravely ba~tlinga n w~tIibiiihymerry. and. by mnonrras.1, Proim-
sor VjraIIy tryrtlg io sescire the 'Tu~risiancase from iota1 coIIapse o n the wIioIly
differenl ground of this newly imagined continental shelf to the east of Tunisia.
These are the fruits of a claim that gives the appearance of having b e n
created and developed for the purposes of litigation. Indeed, at an earlier stage,
Professor Jennings said as rniich in trying to explain Tunisia's abandonment of
the May 1 975 Memorandum, which, as the Libyari Mernorial showed, wor11d
urrdoubtediy have beerr trnfairIy generous to Tnnisia al the expense of Libya.
Tunisia has chosen to put forward extrenie ~ I a i ~ nins the course of the
proceedings which werit far beyond any daims pr-eviorrsly srigga~ed by
Tunisia. It was this fact that provoked the statement in the Libyan Counter-
Mernorial that the extreme claims of a party are nat necessarily determinative
of the continental shelf to be delimited (11, Libyan Counter-Mernorial, p. i 92).
428 CONTINENTAL SHELF

This is, of course, not the same as saying that, in the absence of a definition of
an area for the purposes of a special agreement, the area referred to in such an
agreement must have regard to claims put forward by the parties before -
rat1re1-than afrer - tlre mncIusion of the speciaI agreement. It is Iriily ironic
rhat Tunisia has sorrgirt to evade the question of The asea of c o n c e r ~ Even
~ . as 1
speak, I have no idea what area they wouId Iiave in mind. One woirld have
r course of presentation of its case, have been
thought rI.iat Tunisia would, i ~ the
anxious to show that its new claims in some way fall within the area to which
Article l of the Special Agreement refers. The fact that Tunisia has no1 done
this throws a shadow over the whole of its exaggerated claim.
By contrast, the case for Libya is iinified, is consistent and based o n sotrnd
evidence 1 wiII not try to review 311 the facts, but wor11d stress one or two
majw-points thai have b e n niade du ring the proceedings.
First, there is rhe northward-facing toast, cornmon to Tunisia and Libya,
with the Iand boundary thal reaches Ras Ajdir running in a generally south-
north direction. Secondly, i s the undeniable fact that out to the limit of the
12-mile territorial sea a strict equidistance line would run practically due
north. Thirdly, Libya, in the 1955 Petroleurn Law and Regulation, has claimed
a continental shelf delirnitatiorr running nort h for same distance, as shown o ~ i
Map No. 1 farrning part of tlie I 955 ReguIatio~i.Founhly, the pi-eponderance
of the evidence is rhat rlie continenta1 sheIf of this part of Norrh Africa
proceeds fi-orn the stable A~I-icanplaftorrn, from the faII-Iirre,through the
hingeline, the coast and in the direction of the continental margin to the north.
The geological evidence confirms what is an obvious yeoyraphical fact that,
generally speaking, the north coast of North Africa faces north and that the
continental shelf of the various parts of Africa must in general lie to the north.
A s has bee~ishown beyond doubt by ~ h evide~ice
e of the Libyan experts as
expIairred to t h e Court by Professor Bowelt, these is no question of a
confinenta1 shelf in rlre technical sense runni~igeastrvard from Trrnisia, as
Professo~-Virally wouid have us beiieve, but it runs northward irom the
northward-facing coast. Accordingly, the natural prolongation from the coast
in the vicinity of the common boundary of Tunisia,and Libya is not to the east
or f o the west, it is towards the north.
In this specific situation, Libya requests the Courr ro find that the pr~nciples
and ruIes d internatimraI Iaw which are appIicabIe ro the deIiniifarion are
principaIIy tirose ser fortir ir-r the Coun's 1969 Judgrnent irr the Norilt Sril
CriirtNirrirrrl Sh~(fcasesand IIie 1977 Decision 01 the Court of Arbitrarion in
the Anglo-Frcnch case. But in so doing it also asks the Court to take into
account the relevant circumstances which characterize the area, particularly
those to which 1 have just referred.
The position of Libya thus rests on the principle which is basic in both those
decisions that the title of a Staie to appuriena~itareas of conti~ie~ttaIshelf resrs
frrmly o n tire riattlral proIongarion of its Iand mass nto and under the sea.
CounseI for Libya, assisteci by scieritific experts, have dernonstrated that the
facts of natursl psolongatio~ra1-e solidly grounded on geoiogy rather than on
the contours of the sea-bed or its progressive declivities as it proceeds seaward
from the coast. Neither of the two cases to which I have referred, nor
Article 76 of the draft conventiori on the law of the sea, provide support for the
Tunisian contention that natufal prolongatipn of the landniass is to be
detes~nined by the surface of rhe seri-bed rather than by the underIying
gmlogical struct nre.
Althougli titIe to appurtenant conrine1rIa1 sheIf areas ffows from the
principie of iiaturai proiongation, the principle of non-encroachment on the
 STATEMENT Bi' MR. El, MAGMUR '

AGENT FOR 'THE GOVERNMENT OF LIBYr\

Mt-. EL MAGHUR : M r President, Members of the Court : this concludes

the oral presenlation of Libya. Libya confirms and maintains unchanged its
Submissions as set forth in the Libyan Counter-Mernorial'. Libya has aIso
responded to each of the questions put by the Members of fhe Cotlrt. 1 should
like to lhank t lie Cori~tfor its arten1ion and patience during the presenratioil of
the Libyan case. I sliouId Iike also to express the wish 10 my fr-iend.
'Ambasador Berrghazi. the Tir nisian Agent. that Tunisia and Libya may
without difficulty resoIre their differences conter-ning the conrinenra1 sheIf o n
t h e basis of the judgrnent to be rendered b y the Court.

l II, p. 347
 CLOSING O F T H E ORAL PROCEEDINGS
The ACTING PRESIDENT : I thank the Agenr arid courisel for Libya for
the assisiance they have given the Court. This brings u s to lhe end of the oral
proceedings in the present case. The Court will, in accordance with Article 74,
paragraph 2. of the Statute. withdraw to consider the judgment. A niimber of
questions werf put by Members of the Court to one o r both Parties. The
indicated that they wished r# answer those qesrio~isin writing and
Iiave, 1 i r nderstand. r raiisn~ittedtheir replies to rhe Registsa1- of [lie Cour1 rhis
~norning.The Agents of the Partres are. however, requested tu re~naina! r h c
disposa1 of the Court for any further ii~forrnationil may I-eqir11-e.Wirh Ihar
reservation, 1 declare the oral proceedings in this case concerning the
Co~;ti~ireirtulSlieI/'(Tii,iisicrl LilWari A i.uh J~~tiraliii.~~rt)closed.
The datc on which
the Court will deliver ils judgmcnt will be announced in d u e course.
 THIRTY-SECOND PUBLIC SITING (24 11 82, I O a.m.)

Pr~jsrrrr:ISee sirring of 29 IX 8 1, Judge oJ Iiuc- Jim~iezde Arechaga absent.]

READING OF T H E JUDGRIENT
The Court rneets today in order to dcliver in open court, pursuant to
Article 58 of the Statute. its Judgmcnt in the case concerning the Ctiriiiircritril
S~IC,!~' ~Tis~~iGul LiIlj~ut~A I-rrfr julurriuliir-jr:rrl. brou g h t be fore it by SpeciaI
Agreetnerrt between the RepubIic of Tunisia and the Social 1st PeopIe's Libyan
Arab Ja1naI1i1-~ya.
Beforc rcading the Judgrne~~t, Irowever, i f is rny sad dury 10 pay tribuie to
the memory of Judge Abdullah El-Erian, who died at The Hague. afler a short
illness, on 1 2 December 1 98 1 , w hile the Court was engaged in its deliberations
in this case.
For 20 years before be joined the Bench Abdullah El-Erian had given
distinguished service. nat only to his country as Iectirrer. legal adviser.
ncgoiiaTor- and antbassador. but aIso to the inrtr11ationaI comrntrniry and the
world rr11e of Iaw. tlirotrgii his participarion in various Urr ikd Nations 01-gans
and codificatiori c a n f e r e n ~ ~ sAbave
. aII. Abdullah EI-Erian hrl pIayed a
highIy sigrrifi~a~-rt role ln the Iiaison between the disparate groups belonging 10
what is terined Ihe Third World. At once Arab and African, he was present at
the birth of the non-aligned rnovement at Bandung and aIso at the Addis
Ababa conference which founded the Organization of African Unity. At the
same time, lhrough his upbringing and educalion, he was as much at home in
rhe law of IsIarn as rti the doctrines of AngIo-Arne1.ica11jririspitrdence.
As a Member of the Coirrt. h e wiII be remkmbered for the cotrrtmus dignity
and rvarm concern which marked Iiis demeanoui.-. and his pointed eloqence
in debaie. His participariori in the work of rhe Court was whole-1iea1-ted;
indeed, I~iswriiien noie on the issues in the present Case was dictated from his
hospital bed a few days before his death.
I invite al! those present at this sitting io rise and observe a minute of silence
in tribiite to the mernory of Judge El-Erian.

1 should aIso pIacc on rcco1.d tlie Fdct tiiat. for the first t i ~ n ein The hidory of
the preent Court. ir has bccn Iimessary rri rhis case ;evput intci effet Article I 3 ,
paragraph 3. of the Sratute of the Court, which provides that Members of ihc .
Court who have been replaced on the expirat~onof their terms of office "shall
tiilish any cases which they may have begun". The terrns of office of our
colleagues Judges Forster and Gros came to an end on 5 Februry 1982, and
they have been replaced with effect from that date by 1iew1yeIected Jtldges. but
of the Statrrte, in the
they have tlrrrs participiited. pur-suant to thal provisio~~
decisiw of tire Court now ro be read.
Itidge ad hoc Jimeriez de Arechaga. w h o aIso ppa~ticipatedin the decision.
has had to retuirr to tiis home counuy for family reasons, and is therefore
iinable to be present today.
 1 shall now read the Judgment. The opening paragraphs deal, as is cus-
tomary, with the procedural history of the case, and with the geogra-
phicial context, and these 1 shall not read. The Court then turns to the Special
Agreement.
[The Acting President reads paragraphs 17 to 132 of the Judgment '.]
1caII upon the Registrar, as is customary, to read the operative clause of the
Iiidg~nentin French.
[The Reg~strarr a d s the operarive clause in FI-ench'-1
Idges Ago alrd SchwebeI and Judge ad iior Jimnez de Archaga apperrd
separate opi~iionsto the Judgmetit. Judges Gros and Oda arid Iudge oad hoc
Evensen append dissenting opinions to the Judgmenr.
In order tu avoid delay, the Indg~nentIlas been sead today f1-01na
mimeographed text, copies of which are being made available to the Parties.
The usual printed text will be available in approximately [five weeks'] time.
(Sigrledl T. O. ELIAS,
Acting Presidenl.

' I.CJ Repm 1982, pp. 34-92

fbi<l., pp. 92-94.