TABLE OF CONTENTS

SERIAL NO TOPIC /SUBTOPIC PAGE NO

1 INTRODUCTION 4
1.1 FACTS ASSOCIATED
2. GEOGRAPHICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LIBIYA & TUNISIA 4-6
(Map 1)
3. ORIGIN OF ISSUE 7
3.1. ISSUE

4. IMPLICATION OF CASE 7
4.1 Regional Stability
4.2 Precedent for Future Cases
4.3 Environmental Considerations

5. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES 7

5.1 LIBYA
5.2 TUNISIA

6. THE JUDGMENT 7-10

6.1 CRICISM OF JUDGEMENT

7. PRINCIPLES INVOLVED /RELEVANCE 10-11

7.1 NATURAL PROLONGATION
7.2 EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES
7.3 THE LAND DOMINATES THE SEA
7.4 OTHER PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW INVOLVED
WITH THE CASE
7.5 JURIDICTION

8. CONCLUSION 11-12

9. REFERENCES 12

pg. 1
1.INTRODUCTION
The case of Libya vs. Tunisia regarding the delimitation of the continental shelf in the Mediterranean Sea represents a
significant legal dispute in international law. This assignment aims to explore the background, key issues, and
implications of the case, focusing on the principles of international law that govern continental shelf delimitation.

1.1 Facts Associated

A. This case was decided by the ICJ in 1982 with a vote of 10-4.
B. Tunisia and Libya petitioned the ICJ to apply international law to their border dispute regarding the
overlapping area for both countries of the continental shelf area.
In a special agreement signed by both states, they asked the court to use key principles to define and divide
the delimitation area between the two states without violating any natural prolongations of territory for either
state if possible.
C. Tunisia argues that the special agreement between the states gives the Court the jurisdiction to not only rule
on the principles that may apply to this case, but also apply them to the delimitation area.
D. Libya asserts that the Court was only given the authority to rule on what principles should apply in this case
but leave it to the states to apply them.
E. Both Libya and Tunisia based their cases primarily on the principle of natural prolongation in its physical
dimension, the Court found that concept inapplicable in the case before it. At the same time, the majority of
the Court declined to consider the equidistance method as a possible means of effecting a delimitation in
accordance with equitable principles.
F. With this case ICJ has taken a significant step towards the formulation of integrated principles that can be
applied to the delimitation of unitary maritime boundaries governing both the continental shelf and the
exclusive economic zone.
G. The Court has reconfirmed its decision in the North Sea cases that delimitation does not entail an
equitable distribution (or sharing out) of the resources of the shelf.
H. The Court has also reconfirmed the principle that "the land dominates the sea" a delimitation must not
encroach upon areas in front of the coasts of the parties.

2.GEOGRAPHICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LIBIYA & TUNISIA

Tunisia and Libya are neighbours on the African continent and the Mediterranean Sea.

They share a land frontier extending 285 miles from Bur al Hattabah to Ras Ajdir on the North African coast.

The most striking feature of the boundary area is a radical change in the direction of the Tunisian coast some 97 miles
northwest of the terminus of the international boundary line.

The Libyan coast in the area is relatively smooth and follows a general direction west-northwest/east-southern end.

The Tunisian coastline follows the same general direction towards the Gulf of Gabes, but its coastal front is
interrupted, 45 miles west of Ras Ajdir, by the bulge of the large Tunisian island of Jerba.

Fifty-two miles further west, the coast doubles back in a north-eastward direction creating the concavity of the Gulf of
Gabes.

The second significant geographical feature of the area is a group of Tunisian islands, the Kerkennah, which lie 11
miles off the Tunisian coast south of Ras Kaboudia.

pg. 2
MAP :1 COUNTRIES OF NORTHERN AFRICA (West to East)
a) Western Sahara
b) Morocco
c) Algeria
d) Tunisia- In view of case study
e) Libya- In view of case study
f) Egypt
Above map represents Geographical status of Tunisia & Libya as neighbouring countries sharing
coastal lines, continental shelf and visible maritime boundry falling within Mediterranean sea.

3.ORIGIN OF ISSUE

pg. 3
A significant amount of hydrocarbon exploration and drilling has occurred in the boundary area since the first
offshore oil concession was granted by Tunisia in 1964.

The Tunisian concession line of October 21, 1966 was bounded on the east by a stepped line running at a bearing of
approximately 260, roughly perpendicular to the general direction of the coast in the vicinity of Ras Ajdir.

In 1968 Libya granted a concession up to the Tunisian line and subsequent Libyan concessions followed the same 260
line.

The concessions granted by Tunisia in 1974 extended further east up to an equidistance line. Both parties claimed
larger areas before the Court.

3.1. ISSUE
Libya and Tunisia filed case in ICJ to bring common judgements on following issues

Delimitation Criteria: The primary issue was how to define the boundary of the continental shelf between the two
countries. Libya claimed a broader area based on geographical contiguity, while Tunisia sought a more equitable
solution based on the median line principle.

Equity vs. Geographical Factors: The dispute highlighted the tension between equitable principles in international
law and geographical realities. Tunisia argued for an equitable division, while Libya emphasized its geographical
features.

Impact on Resource Management: The resolution of this case had significant implications for the management of
natural resources, particularly hydrocarbons, which are vital for both economies.

4. IMPLICATION OF CASE
1. Regional Stability: The outcome could either exacerbate tensions or foster cooperation between Libya and Tunisia,
affecting regional geopolitical dynamics.

2. Precedent for Future Cases: The ruling could set a precedent for how similar disputes are resolved in the
Mediterranean and beyond, influencing international maritime law.

3. Environmental Considerations: Effective management of the continental shelf has environmental implications,
particularly regarding fishing rights and conservation efforts in the Mediterranean Sea.

4.Does the Court have the jurisdiction to apply the principles in a practical method it asserts applies to this case to the
delimitation zone?

5.What area should be considered for the delimitation zone?

6.What is the practical method that should be applied to the delimitation zone to settle the dispute between the two
nations?

Key note – There is no defendant or plaintiff in this case because both parties petitioned the Court to arbitrate
this issue under a special agreement decided on by the two states.

5. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

The parties adopted similar positions on the law. Both Libya and Tunisia relied on natural prolongation. Each
eschewed equidistance. However, they disagreed about both the facts and the application of the law to the facts.
{Special Agreement between the Republic of Tunisia and the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, signed June
10, 1977, quoted in Continental Shelf, 1982 ICJ REP. at 21, para. 2. Neither state was party to the 1958 Geneva
Convention on the Continental Shelf ,1982 ICJ REP. at 39, para. 27}

5.1 LIBYA

pg. 4
Libya contended that a delimitation giving effect to the principle of natural prolongation is ipso facto(By the fact) in
accordance with equitable principles because it respects the inherent sovereign rights of each state over its appurtenant
continental shelf.

According to the Libyan view, natural prolongation is to be determined solely on the basis of geological criteria.

The Libyan position was based on

(1) the broad geographical relationship of the two states as neighbours to the east and west of each other facing north
on the Mediterranean;

(2) the geological unity of the African landmass and the submerged shelf as part of the same tectonic plate, "the
African platform"; and

(3) the projection seaward of the terminal point of the land boundary.

Libya argued that the general direction of the North African coast is east-west and that the east-facing Tunisian
coast in the Sahel area is an anomaly, an "incidental special feature" that should be discounted in any
delimitation.

5.2 TUNISIA
Contrary to expectations, Tunisia did not propose an equidistance boundary. Rather, it supported a delimitation much
further to the east. Relying primarily on geomorphology and historic fisheries, Tunisia argued that the natural
prolongation of the continent in the boundary area is eastward and that the continental shelf at issue is "submerged
Tunisia.

Tunisia agreed that natural prolongation is the controlling principle, but it argued that " 'the satisfying of equitable
principles in a particular geographical situation' is part of the process of 'the identification of the natural prolongation.

The Tunisian position was based on

1. The physical contours of the seabed, which parallel the contours of the Tunisian coast, demonstrate that the
continental shelf is a veritable submerged Tunisia; the natural prolongation of the shelf, slope, and rise trends
northeast towards the abyssal deeps
2. The marine areas in front of the Tunisian coast, consisting of shoals and islets and seas dedicated to marine
agriculture, "are the natural prolongation of the land upon which man has settled.
3. Tunisia has established sovereignty over maritime areas out to the 50-meter isobath and east as far as the ZV-
45 line, where Tunisian fishermen have exploited fixed fisheries for sponge and octopus from time
immemorial.

6. THE JUDGMENT
The Court reviewed and rejected the lines proposed by the parties.

In Judgment of the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libya) case, ICJ ruled that “It seems clear that the matter continues
to be governed by general international law which does not provide for a single “régime” for “historic waters” or
“historic bays”. It is clearly the case that, basically, the notion of historic rights or waters and that of continental
shelf are governed by distinct legal régimes in customary international law.

The first régime is based on acquisition and occupation, while the second is based on the existence of rights ‘ipso
facto and ab initio’.”(ICJ Reports, 1982, p.74, para.100)

It held that a delimitation based on equitable principles, taking into account the relevant circumstances, called
for the boundary area to be treated as two sectors, and it indicated a line of delimitation in two segments.

The first segment, closer to the coast, began at the outer limits of the territorial sea and ran at a bearing of 26 degree
east of north (measured from Ras Ajdir) to a point on the parallel of latitude drawn from the most westerly point of the
Tunisian coastline between Ras Kaboudia and Ras Ajdir.

pg. 5
That segment corresponded to the concession lines utilized by Tunisia (1966) and Libya (1968), to a fisheries “modus
vivendi” observed by France and Italy since 1919, and to the perpendicular to the coast at the terminus of the
land boundary.

The second segment of the maritime boundary, more seaward of the coast, veered to the east to take account of the
radical change in direction of the Tunisian coast. However, the Court concluded that the Kerkennah Islands should not
be given full effect in determining the direction of the coast.

The significance of natural prolongation, in the Court's view, is that it is the basis for the sovereign rights of the
coastal state over its appurtenant continental shelf. But "the appurtenance of a given area, considered as an entity, in
no way governs the precise delimitation of its boundaries."33

Court's concluded that "natural prolongation" is not determined by geological or geomorphological facts, and
that "continental shelf delimitation is not governed in an unqualified and exclusive manner by such a notion of
'natural prolongation.

The Court was not persuaded by the scientific arguments of either side.

It concluded that since "Libya and Tunisia both derive continental shelf title from a natural prolongation
common to both territories, the ascertainment of the extent of the areas of shelf appertaining to each State must
be governed by criteria of international law other than those taken from physical features”.

The Court rejected the relevance of both geology and geomorphology in the case before it, it made a significant
distinction between the two.

"Deep" or "historical" geology was dismissed as having no bearing on the human interests affected by maritime
delimitation.

For legal purposes it is not possible to define the areas of continental shelf by reference solely or mainly to geological
considerations. Court stated it must be taken into account in the delimitation of shelf areas are the physical
circumstances as they are today; that just as it is the geographical configuration of the present-day coasts, so
also it is the present-day sea-bed, which must be considered.

The Court did not accept any of the features cited by Tunisia as involving "such a marked disruption or discontinuance
of the sea-bed as to constitute an indisputable indication of the limits of two separate continental shelves, or two
separate natural prolongation.

The Court stated in the disposition that the "area relevant for the delimitation constitutes a single continental shelf as
the natural prolongation of the land territory of both Parties, so that in the present case, no criterion for delimitation of
shelf areas can be derived from the principle of natural prolongation as such”.

The Court was not persuaded by the scientific arguments of either side. It concluded that since "Libya and Tunisia
both derive continental shelf title from a natural prolongation common to both territories, the ascertainment of the
extent of the areas of shelf appertaining to each State must be governed by criteria of international law other than
those taken from physical features.”

" The theory of plate tectonics advanced by Libya was described as an "essay in geopoetry”

The Court sought to avoid a cutoff effect in this case by utilizing the perpendicular to the coastline as the boundary in
the first sector and by adjusting the line in the second sector to take account of the change in the general direction of
the coast. However, the Court did not expressly connect this concern to the principle of natural prolongation.

Tunisia and Libya agreed that the governing principle of delimitation was that stated by the ICJ in the North Sea
Continental Shelf cases:

Delimitation is to be effected by agreement in accordance with equitable principles, and taking account of all the
relevant circumstances, in such a way as to leave as much as possible to each Party all those parts of the continental
shelf that constitute a natural prolongation of its land territory into and under the sea, without encroachment on the
natural prolongation of the land territory of the other.

pg. 6
MAP 2 : REPRESENTS ICJ AWARD
It represents two segments decided by ICJ judgement on Libya v/s Tunisia case

pg. 7
6.1 CRITICISM OF JUDGEMENT
The Judgment can be criticized for diminishing unduly the meaning of natural prolongation-an
understandable, but unfortunate, overreaction to the tactics of Tunisia and Libya before the Court.

It is clear that the scientific arguments presented to the Court in the Tunisia-Libya case were speculative,
contradictory, difficult to understand, and hard to relate to the interests involved in the delimitation of maritime
boundaries.

7. PRINCIPLES INVOLVED /RELEVANCE

7.1 NATURAL PROLONGATION
The significance of natural prolongation, in the Court's view, is that it is the basis for the sovereign rights of the
coastal state over its appurtenant continental shelf.

The Judgment in the Tunisia-Libya case might have been more useful if, instead of implying that natural
prolongation applies only in two-shelf situations, it had redefined the doctrine to minimize its
geological/geomorphological content.

Thus, the Court was "unable to accept the contention of Libya that 'once the natural prolongation of a State is
determined, delimitation becomes a simple matter -of complying with the dictates of nature.

The "idea of the natural prolongation of the land territory would not necessarily be sufficient, or even appropriate, in
itself to determine the precise extent of the rights of one State in relation to those of a neighbouring State."

7.2 EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES

"Equitable principles" form the foundation of the law of maritime boundary delimitation.

The doctrine that maritime boundaries are to be determined by mutual agreement and in accordance with equitable
principles derives from the Truman Proclamation on the Continental Shelf of September 28, 1945.

The Truman Proclamation(1945) is regarded as the cornerstone of continental shelf law, and its criterion of
equitable principles was adopted by the ICJ in the North Sea cases and by the court of arbitration in the Anglo-
French Continental Shelf case.

Moreover, the concept was carried forward in the reference to "special circumstances" in Article 6 of the Geneva
Convention on the Continental Shelf(1958).

The North Sea cases and the Anglo-French case recognized the close relationship between equitable principles and
natural prolongation.

In Tunisia Libya, however, the Court determined that it was bound to decide the case on the basis of equitable
principles, "divorced from the concept of natural prolongation." Thus, the Court's idea of the applicable equitable
principles becomes decisive.

Article 83(1) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea adopted by the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of
the Sea stipulates: "The delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacent coasts shall be
effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International
Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution.

The Judgment does provides significant indications of the meaning of equitable principles in the context of maritime
boundary delimitation.

1. No Equitable Sharing of Resources First, the Court emphasized the difference between equity as "a
general principle directly applicable as law" and a decision ex aequo et bono ("according to what is
equitable and good"), which would not be based on legal rules

pg. 8
 The Court followed its Judgment in the North Sea cases where it rejected the argument of the Federal
Republic of Germany that delimitation' should effect an equitable sharing of the resources of the shelf.

2. Tunisia urged the Court to consider its relative poverty in natural resources, particularly oil and gas, and its
dependence on fisheries, not to refashion nature, but to avoid "widening the disparities created by nature.
Court emphasized "these economic considerations cannot be taken into account" in the delimitation.

7.3 THE LAND DOMINATES THE SEA

A delimitation in accordance with equitable principles must take into account the relationship between the maritime
areas to be delimited and the coasts of the parties. Court said, it is "the element of a reasonable degree of
proportionality between the extent of the continental shelf areas appertaining to the coastal State and the length of the
relevant part of its coast, measured in the general direction of the coastlines.”

A. Coastal Fronts
The Court began its discussion of relevant circumstances by stating that the "geographic correlation between
coast and submerged areas off the coast is the basis of the coastal State's legal title," and it reiterated its
characterization in the North Sea cases of the continental shelf as a legal concept in which "the principle is
applied that the land dominates the sea.
B. Conduct of the Parties
An equitable delimitation must take into account the conduct of the parties in the boundary area, particularly
where there are historical circumstances that establish a high degree of consensus for various boundary
purposes.

7.4 OTHER PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW INVOLVED WITH

THE CASE
A. Sovereignty: Each nation has the right to govern itself without external interference. This principle is
crucial in the context of border management, diplomatic relations, and territorial disputes.
B. Non-Interference: States should refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of other nations. This
principle often comes into play regarding issues like migration and political asylum.
C. Human Rights: Both countries are subject to international human rights laws. Any actions taken
regarding refugees or migrants must respect their rights and dignity.
D. International Law: Treaties and agreements, such as those related to trade, border security, and refugee
protection, play a significant role in governing relations between the two countries.
E. Regional Stability: The stability of North Africa is often a concern, as conflicts in one nation can have
spillover effects on its neighbours. Cooperation for regional security is essential.

7.5 JURIDICTION
Jurisdiction is important in this case because the Court could only decide on a zone that was not considered part of the
territory of another uninvolved state. (i.e.Malta)

8. CONCLUSION
Tunisia-Libya case only involved the delimitation of the continental shelf.

Relevant past circumstances were useful in this case because they helped the Court decide how the delimitation zone
should be divided. The Court used previous Libyan petroleum concessions made to Tunisia to decide which area
should be under whose control.

This case carved out the path for delimitation of the exclusive economic zone and of unitary maritime
boundaries marking the continental shelf and other maritime zones.

A delimitation in accordance with equitable principles will respect the extension.

pg. 9
The equitable character of a delimitation will be tested by the principle of proportionality as stipulated by the
Court in the North Sea cases.

It was concluded, geology will not be a significant factor in maritime delimitation, but a delimitation will be expected
to affect a reasonable degree of proportionality between the areas appertaining to the coastal states and the length of
their relevant coasts.

9. REFERENCES
1. Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), 1982 ICJ Rep. 18, 50, para. 70
(Judgment of Feb. 24), reprinted in 21 ILM 225 (1982) [hereinafter cited as Continental Shelf].
2. Continental Shelf, 1982 ICJ https://www.icj-cij.org/case/63
3. Charney, J., A Preliminary Evaluation of the Judgment by the International Court of Justice in the Case
Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia / Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (presented at the annual meeting of the
American Society of International Law, Apr. 23, 1982) compare Stein, T., The Libyan-Tunisian Continental
Shelf Case; The Impact of New Trends in the Law of the Sea on the Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries
5 (also presented at the 1982 ASIL annual meeting, Apr. 23, 1982)
4. Cambridge University Press/american-journal-of-international-law/tunisialibya-continental-shelf-case-
5. Special Agreement between the Republic of Tunisia and the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya, signed June 10, 1977, quoted in Continental Shelf, 1982 ICJ Rep. at 21, para. 2. Neither state was
party to the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, 15 UST 471, TIAS No. 5578, 499 UNTS 311.
6. Memorial of the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Continental Shelf (Tunisia / Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya) 70, Submission 5 (Memorial of May 30, 1980) [hereinafter cited as Libyan Memorial], quoted
in Continental Shelf, 1982 ICJ Rep. at 29, para. 15.
7. Memorial of Tunisia, Continental Shelf (Tunisia I Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) 210–11 (Memorial of May 30,
1980) [hereinafter cited as Tunisian Memorial].

pg. 10