CIA 1

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

CASE ANALYSIS: LIBYA V. MALTA

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITED BY:

MS. SHAINY P NANCY WADHWA
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR 1650557
SCHOOL OF LAW, 7 BBA LLB B
CHRIST. SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Malta, 1985 I.C.J. 13.

Introduction

This case analysis is to examine the issues involved in the case of Libya vs. Malta and the
principles on which the International Court of Justice relied, to decide the case. Moreover, this
analysis also examines how this case is related to International Law. The International Court of
Justice in this case looked at the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law and Sea because
both States agreed to it and signed it.

Facts

The Libyan Arab Republic and the Republic of Malta were involved in a dispute regarding the
delimitation of the area of continental shelf between them. Libya believes that the continental
shelf belongs to the them because of natural prolongation of the land into the Sea, and Malta
believes the continental shelf belongs to them because of its location from their coast. To settle
the dispute, they decided on a Special Agreement which would allow the International Court of
Justice to come up with a resolution.

Issues:

a. What principles and rules of international law are applicable in this dispute?
b. Should the court examine the “rift-zone” of the continental shelf when deciding the
delimitation line?
c. Should the method of equidistance be used when deciding the delimitation line?

Contentions:

Although both parties agree that the ICJ should decide on what principles and rules of
international law are applicable in this case, Malta believes that the ICJ should be able to
implement the rules by drawing a median line (to figure out the delimitation of the continental
shelf). Libya holds that it is not the court’s job to draw the delimitation line; however, the court
agrees with Malta and determines that the Special Agreement does not suspend them from
indicating a median line. In support of its argument, Libya relied on the principle of natural
prolongation and the concept of proportionality. Malta maintained that States’ rights over areas
of continental shelf were now governed by the concept of distance from the coast, which was
held to confer a primacy on the equidistance method of defining boundaries between areas of
continental shelf, particularly when these appertained to States lying directly opposite each
other, as in the case of Malta and Libya.

Decision:

a. The ICJ decided that they have the ability to determine what principles and rules to uphold,
and also have the right to establish the delimitation line. The court decides to look at the 1982
United Nations Convention on the Law and Sea because both States agreed to it and signed it.
Even though the Convention has not been put into force yet, the ICJ comes to the conclusion
that the main determining factor of the delimitation line will be distance. The Convention allows
the courts to use their discretion in determining the median line.
b. The court decided against Libya’s claim of a “rift-zone” because the law (coming from the
1982 United Nations Convention of Law and Sea) allows a State to claim continental shelf up
to as far as 200 miles from its coast. The “rift-zone” cannot be considered a natural boundary.
c. The court decided against Malta’s proposition of the method of equidistance when
determining the delimitation line. The court decides to use a different method to draw up the
median line and takes into account the lengths of the Parties’ coasts. The court decides not to
take into account the Maltese island of Filfla to eliminate disproportionate effects and adjusts
the median line accordingly.
Principles:

a. The ICJ used the principle of the distance and the idea of an economic zone when deciding
the delimitation of the continental shelf. The court uses Article 76 of the 1982 United Nations
Convention on the Law and Sea. This article states that distance does matter and the continental
shelf cannot exceed a certain amount of nautical miles from the territorial sea. Even though the
Convention has not yet entered into force, both States signed it. This Convention also gave the
court discretion to determine a way to draw the median line and end the dispute (1982
Convention).
b. The 1982 Convention does not mention any other way to determine the delimitation of
continental shelves other than distance. A “rift-zone” was not mentioned.
c. Equidistance was not used because the 1982 Convention gives the court the right to use
discretion and apply principles and rules to determine the median line. The court decided that
the method of equidistance would not be fair and adjusted the median line based on coast length,
continental shelf distance, etc.