国际法 北海大陆架.docx

国际法 北海大陆架.docx

《国际法 北海大陆架.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《国际法 北海大陆架.docx（6页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

国际法北海大陆架

SummaryoftheJudgmentof20February1969

NORTHSEACONTINENTALSHELFCASES（FederalRepublicofGermanyvDenmark;FRGvNetherlands）

Judgmentof20February1969

TheCourtdeliveredjudgment,by11votesto6,intheNorthSeaContinentalShelfcases.

Thedispute,whichwassubmittedtotheCourton20February1967,relatedtothedelimitationofthecontinentalshelfbetweentheFederalRepublicofGermanyandDenmarkontheonehand,andbetweentheFederalRepublicofGermanyandtheNetherlandsontheother.ThePartiesaskedtheCourttostatetheprinciplesandrulesofinternationallawapplicable,andundertookthereaftertocarryoutthedelimitationsonthatbasis.

TheCourtrejectedthecontentionofDenmarkandtheNetherlandstotheeffectthatthedelimitationsinquestionhadtobecarriedoutinaccordancewiththeprincipleofequidistanceasdefinedinArticle6ofthe1958GenevaConventionontheContinentalShelf,holding:

 - thattheFederalRepublic,whichhadnotratifiedtheConvention,wasnotlegallyboundbytheprovisionsofArticle6;

 - thattheequidistanceprinciplewasnotanecessaryconsequenceofthegeneralconceptofcontinentalshelfrights,andwasnotaruleofcustomaryinternationallaw.

Non-ApplicabilityofArticle6ofthe1958ContinentalShelfConvention（paras.21-36oftheJudgment）

TheCourtthenturnedtothequestionwhetherindelimitingthoseareastheFederalRepublicwasunderalegalobligationtoaccepttheapplicationoftheequidistanceprinciple.Whileitwasprobablytruethatnoothermethodofdelimitationhadthesamecombinationofpracticalconvenienceandcertaintyofapplication,thosefactorsdidnotsufficeofthemselvestoconvertwhatwasamethodintoaruleoflaw.Suchamethodwouldhavetodrawitslegalforcefromotherfactorsthantheexistenceofthoseadvantages.

Thefirstquestiontobeconsideredwaswhetherthe1958GenevaConventionontheContinentalShelfwasbindingforallthePartiesinthecase.UndertheformalprovisionsoftheConvention,itwasinforceforanyindividualStatethathadsigneditwithinthetime-limitprovided,onlyifthatStatehadalsosubsequentlyratifiedit.DenmarkandtheNetherlandshadbothsignedandratifiedtheConventionandwerepartiestoit,buttheFederalRepublic,althoughoneofthesignatoriesoftheConvention,hadneverratifiedit,andwasconsequentlynotaparty.ItwasadmittedonbehalfofDenmarkandtheNetherlandsthatinthecircumstancestheConventioncouldnot,assuch,bebindingontheFederalRepublic.ButitwascontendedthattherégimeofArticle6oftheConventionhadbecomebindingontheFederalRepublic,because,byconduct,bypublicstatementsandproclamations,andinotherways,theRepublichadassumedtheobligationsoftheConvention.

Itwasclearthatonlyaverydefinite,veryconsistentcourseofconductonthepartofaStateinthesituationoftheFederalRepubliccouldjustifyupholdingthosecontentions.WhenanumberofStatesdrewupaconventionspecificallyprovidingforaparticularmethodbywhichtheintentiontobecomeboundbytherégimeoftheconventionwastobemanifested,itwasnotlightlytobepresumedthataStatewhichhadnotcarriedoutthoseformalitieshadneverthelesssomehowbecomeboundinanotherway.Furthermore,hadtheFederalRepublicratifiedtheGenevaConvention,itcouldhaveenteredareservationtoArticle6,byreasonofthefacultytodosoconferredbyArticle12oftheConvention.

OnlytheexistenceofasituationofestoppelcouldlendsubstancetothecontentionofDenmarkandtheNetherlands - ie.,iftheFederalRepublicwerenowprecludedfromdenyingtheapplicabilityoftheconventionalrégime,byreasonofpastconduct,declarations,etc.,whichnotonlyclearlyandconsistentlyevincedacceptanceofthatrégime,butalsohadcausedDenmarkortheNetherlands,inrelianceonsuchconduct,detrimentallytochangepositionorsuffersomeprejudice.Ofthistherewasnoevidence.Accordingly,Article6oftheGenevaConventionwasnot,assuch,applicabletothedelimitationsinvolvedinthepresentproceedings.

TheEquidistancePrincipleNotaRuleofCustomaryInternationalLaw（paras. 60-82oftheJudgment）

Thequestionremainedwhetherthroughpositivelawprocessestheequidistanceprinciplemustnowberegardedasaruleofcustomaryinternationallaw.

RejectingthecontentionsofDenmarkandtheNetherlands,theCourtconsideredthattheprincipleofequidistance,asitfiguredinArticle6oftheGenevaConvention,hadnotbeenproposedbytheInternationalLawCommissionasanemergingruleofcustomaryinternationallaw.ThisArticlecouldnotbesaidtohavereflectedorcrystallizedsucharule.ThiswasconfirmedbythefactthatanyStatemightmakereservationsinrespectofArticle6,unlikeArticles1,2and3,onsigning,ratifyingoraccedingtotheConvention.WhilecertainotherprovisionsoftheConvention,althoughrelatingtomattersthatlaywithinthefieldofreceivedcustomarylaw,werealsonotexcludedfromthefacultyofreservation,theyallrelatedtorulesofgeneralmaritimelawveryconsiderablyantedatingtheConventionwhichwereonlyincidentaltocontinentalshelfrightsassuch,andhadbeenmentionedintheConventionsimplytoensurethattheywerenotprejudicedbytheexerciseofcontinentalshelfrights.Article6,however,relateddirectlytocontinentalshelfrightsassuch,andsinceitwasnotexcludedfromthefacultyofreservation,itwasalegitimateinferencethatitwasnotconsideredtoreflectemergentcustomarylaw.

IthadbeenarguedonbehalfofDenmarkandtheNetherlandsthatevenifatthedateoftheGenevaConventionnoruleofcustomaryinternationallawexistedinfavouroftheequidistanceprinciple,sucharulehadneverthelesscomeintobeingsincetheConvention,partlybecauseofitsownimpact,andpartlyonthebasisofsubsequentStatepractice.InorderforthisprocesstooccuritwasnecessarythatArticle6oftheConventionshould,atalleventspotentially,beofanorm-creatingcharacter.Article6wassoframed,however,astoputtheobligationtomakeuseoftheequidistancemethodafteraprimaryobligationtoeffectdelimitationbyagreement.Furthermore,thepartplayedbythenotionofspecialcircumstancesinrelationtotheprincipleofequidistance,thecontroversiesastotheexactmeaningandscopeofthatnotion,andthefacultyofmakingreservationstoArticle6mustallraisedoubtsastothepotentiallynorm-creatingcharacterofthatArticle.

Furthermore,whileaverywidespreadandrepresentativeparticipationinaconventionmightshowthataconventionalrulehadbecomeageneralruleofinternationallaw,inthepresentcasethenumberofratificationsandaccessionssofarwashardlysufficient.Asregardsthetimeelement,althoughthepassageofonlyashortperiodoftimewasnotnecessarilyabartotheformationofanewruleofcustomaryinternationallawonthebasisofwhatwasoriginallyapurelyconventionalrule,itwasindispensablethatStatepracticeduringthatperiod,includingthatofStateswhoseinterestswerespeciallyaffected,shouldhavebeenbothextensiveandvirtuallyuniforminthesenseoftheprovisioninvokedandshouldhaveoccurredinsuchawayastoshowageneralrecognitionthataruleoflawwasinvolved.Some15caseshadbeencitedinwhichtheStatesconcernedhadagreedtodraworhaddrawntheboundariesconcernedaccordingtotheprincipleofequidistance,buttherewasnoevidencethattheyhadsoactedbecausetheyhadfeltlegallycompelledtodrawtheminthatwaybyreasonofaruleofcustomarylaw.Thecasescitedwereinconclusiveandinsufficientevidenceofasettledpractice.

TheCourtconsequentlyconcludedthattheGenevaConventionwasnotinitsoriginsorinceptiondeclaratoryofamandatoryruleofcustomaryinternationallawenjoiningtheuseoftheequidistanceprinciple,itssubsequenteffecthadnotbeenconstitutiveofsucharule,andStatepracticeuptodatehadequallybeeninsufficientforthepurpose.

ThePrinciplesandRulesofLawApplicable（paras. 83-101oftheJudgment）

ThePartieswereunderanobligationtoactinsuchawaythatintheparticularcase,andtakingallthecircumstancesintoaccount,equitableprincipleswereapplied.TherewasnoquestionoftheCourt'sdecisionbeingexaequoetbono.Itwaspreciselyaruleoflawthatcalledfortheapplicationofequitableprinciples,andinsuchcasesasthepresentonestheequidistancemethodcouldunquestionablyleadtoinequity.Othermethodsexistedandmightbeemployed,aloneorincombination,accordingtotheareasinvolved.AlthoughthePartiesintendedthemselvestoapplytheprinciplesandruleslaiddownbytheCourtsomeindicationwascalledforofthepossiblewaysinwhichtheymightapplythem.

Foralltheforegoingreasons,theCourtfoundineachcasethattheuseoftheequidistancemethodofdelimitationwasnotobligatoryasbetweentheParties;thatnoothersinglemethodofdelimitationwasinallcircumstancesobligatory;thatdelimitationwastobeeffectedbyagreementinaccordancewithequitableprinciplesandtakingaccountofallrelevantcircumstances,insuchawayastoleaveasmuchaspossibletoeachPartyallthosepartsofthecontinentalshelfthatconstitutedanaturalprolongationofitslandterritory,withoutencroachmentonthenaturalprolongationofthelandterritoryoftheother;andthat,ifsuchdelimitationproducedoverlappingareas,theyweretobedividedbetweenthePartiesinagreedproportions,or,failingagreement,equally,unlesstheydecidedonarégimeofjointjurisdiction,user,orexploitation.

问题：

1、为什么国际法院在本案中没有适用1958年日内瓦《大陆架公约》第六条？

本案中，哪个国