IN THE HON BLE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, HEGUE IN THE MATTER OF (AEGEAN SEA CONTINENTAL SHELF CASE) GREECE.... APPELLANT Vs TURKEY.... RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON BLE COURT IN EXCERSISE OF THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED UPON IT BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 17 OF THE GENERAL ACT 1928 R/W ART 36(1) AND ART 37 OF THE STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT VISHNU TANDI 12LLB084
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...3 A. BOOKS REFERRED...3 B. CASES REFERRED...3 C. STATUTES REFERRED...3 D. WEBSITE...3 2. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...4 3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...5 4. SUMMARY OF FACTS...6 5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES...8 6. SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS...9 7. ARGUEMENTS ADVANCED...10 8. PRAYER...14 pg. 2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES STATUTES REFERRED 1. The General Act 1928 2. Statute of the International Court of Justice. 3. The United Nations convention on the law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) CASES REFERRED 1. North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark), I.C.J. 1969 I.C.J. 3 WEBSITES 1. www.icj-cij.org 2. www.law.cornell.edu 3. www.securitycouncilreport.org BOOKS REFFERRED 1. International Law, Malcolm N. Shaw, Cambridge university press, sixth ed., 2008. 2. The International Law of the Sea, O.P Sharma, oxford university press, 2009 pg. 3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Art ICJ Ed. Para. UNCLOS Pg. Hon ble i.e. Article International court of justice Edition Paragraph United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea Page Honourable That is pg. 4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The Appellants have approached the Honourable Court under Article17 of the General Act 1928, read with Article 36, paragraph 1, and Article 37 of the Statute of the court. i.e Art 17 of the General Act:- "All disputes with regard to which the parties are in Continued on next page Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the International Court of Justice Not an official document conflict as to their respective rights shall, subject to any reservations which may be made under Article 39, be submitted for decision to the Permanent Court of International Justice, unless the parties agree, in the manner hereinafter provided, to have resort to an arbitral tribunal. It is understood that the disputes referred to above include in particular those mentioned in Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice." Art 36 (1) of the Statute of the Court:- The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force. Art 37 of the Statute of the Court:- Whenever a treaty or convention in force provides for reference of a matter to a tribunal to have been instituted by the League of Nations, or to the Permanent Court of International Justice, the matter shall, as between the parties to the present Statute, be referred to the International Court of Justice. pg. 5
SUMMARY OF FACT The present dispute is a set of interrelated controversial issues between Greece and Turkey over sovereignty and related rights in the area of the Aegean Sea. Turkey granted petroleum exploration permits in the Aegean Sea over areas of seabed that Greece claimed belongs to its islands. In February 1974, Greece, questioned the validity of the licenses granted by Turkey, reserved its sovereign rights over the continental shelf adjacent to the coasts of the Greek islands. The dispute between Turkey and Greece is to what degree the Greek islands off the Turkish coast should be taken into account for determining the Greek and Turkish economic zones. On 10 August 1976 Greece instituted proceedings against Turkey in respect of a dispute concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf appertaining to each of the two States in the Aegean Sea and their rights there over. In accordance with Article 40, paragraph 2, of the Statute, the Application was at once communicated to the Government of Turkey. In accordance with paragraph 3 of that Article, all other States entitled to appear before the Court, were notified of the Application. Pursuant to Article 31, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Court, the Government of Greece chose Mr Michel to sit as judge ad hoc in the case. The Government of Turkey did not seek to exercise the right conferred on it by that Article to choose a judge ad hoc. On 10 August 1976, the same day as the Application was filed, the Agent of Greece filed in the Registry of the Court a request for the indication of interim measures of protection under Article 33 of the General Act of 1928 for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, Article 41 of the Statute, and the Rules of Court as adopted on 6 May 1946 and amended on 10 May 1972. pg. 6
On 26 August 1976, a letter was received in the Registry from the Secretary-General of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, enclosing the Observations of the Government of Turkey on the request by the Government of Greece for provisional measures of protection dated The Hague, 10 August 1976. In these observations, the Turkish Government, inter alia, contended that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Application. By an Order dated 11 September 1976, the Court, after finding that the circumstances were not then such as to require the exercise of its power under Article 41 of the Statute to indicate interim measures of protection, decided that the written proceedings should first be addressed to the question of the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the dispute. By an Order dated 14 October 1976 the President of the Court fixed time-limits for the written proceedings on the question of jurisdiction, namely, 18 April 1977 for the filing of a Memorial by Greece, and 24 October 1977 for the filing of a Counter- Memorial by Turkey. By a further Order dated 18 April 1977, at the request of Greece these time-limits were extended by the President to 18 July 1977 and 24 April 1978 respectively. The Memorial of the Government of Greece was filed within the extended time limit fixed therefore, and was communicated to the Government of Turkey. No Counter-Memorial was filed by the Government of Turkey and the written proceedings being thus closed, the case was ready for hearing on 25 April 1978. On 24 April 1978, the date fixed for the filing of the Counter-Memorial of Turkey, a letter dated the same day was received in the Registry from the Ambassador of Turkey to the Netherlands, in which it was stated, inter alia, that it was evident that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Greek Application in the circumstances in which it was seized thereof, and that consequently the Government of Turkey did not intend to appoint an agent or file a Counter- Memorial. pg. 7
ISSUES RAISED 1. WHETHER THE COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE PRESENT APPLICATION OR NOT? 2. WHETHER THE GREECE IS ENTITLED TO EXERCISE OVER ITS CONTINENTAL SHELF SOVEREIGN AND EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OR NOT? pg. 8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 1. THAT THE COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE PRESENT APPLICATION. Greece and Turkey had agreed to the General Act on the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (the "1928 Act"), a treaty providing that all disputes between the parties be submitted to the ICJ. The parties had issued the Brussels Communiqué, which provides that problems of relations between the two countries be negotiated peacefully and, specifically, that the dispute of the continental shelf be resolved by the ICJ. 2. THAT THE GREECE IS ENTITLED TO EXERCISE OVER ITS CONTINENTAL SHELF SOVEREIGN AND EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS. Boundary dispute is a question of law, not politics, and thus should be resolved on the basis of customary and conventional international law. According to the 1958 Convention, if parties failed to agree on any other boundary, the delimitation line for the continental shelf should be the median line between opposite coasts, whether the territory concerned was continental or insular. The boundary line between the continental shelf of Greece and Turkey should follow the median line between the Greek islands and the Turkish mainland. pg. 9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 1. THAT THE COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE PRESENT APPLICATION. It is most humbly submitted before this hon ble court that Article 17 of the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, 1928, read with Articles 36, paragraph 2, and 37 of the Statute of the Court, or on the basis of the joint communiqué of Brussels dated 31 May 1975, the Court is competent to entertain the dispute between Greece and Turkey on the subject of the delimitation of the continental shelf appertaining to the two countries in the Aegean Sea. Turkey had consented to the ICJ's jurisdiction on the basis of two agreements. First, Greece and Turkey had agreed to the General Act on the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (the "1928 Act"), a treaty providing that all disputes between the parties be submitted to the ICJ. Second, the parties had issued the Brussels Communiqué, which provides that problems of relations between the two countries be negotiated peacefully and, specifically, that the dispute of the continental shelf be resolved by the ICJ. It is further submitted that No pleadings were filed by the Government of Turkey, and it was not represented at the oral proceedings; no formal submissions were therefore made by that Government. The attitude of the Government of Turkey with regard to the question of the Court s jurisdiction has however been defined in its communications to the Court of 25 August 1976, 24 April 1978, and 10 October 1978. The last-mentioned Communication was received in the Registry on the morning of the second day of the public hearings, and was transmitted to the Agent of Greece by the Registrar later the same day. In these circumstances account can be taken of its contents only to the extent that the Court finds appropriate in discharging its duty, under Article 53 of the Statute, to satisfy itself as to its jurisdiction to entertain the Application. Furthermore, in the present case, the duty of the Court to make this examination on its own initiative is reinforced by the terms of Article 53 of the Statute of the Court. According to this provision, whenever one of the parties does not appear before the Court, pg. 10
or fails to defend its case, the Court, before finding upon the merits, must satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction. 2. THAT GREECE IS ENTITLED TO EXERCISE OVER ITS CONTINENTAL SHELF SOVEREIGN AND EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS. It is most humbly submitted before this hon ble court that Greece is entitled to exercise over its continental shelf sovereign and exclusive rights. Sovereignty of the state is confined not only to the waters and land lying within its boundaries. It also extends to a part of the sea which is adjacent to the costal state. These waters are contained in a certain zone or belt called Marginal Zone or Marginal Belt and the rights which the coastal states enjoy is called maritime rights. Extension of the sovereignty of the coastal states over the territorial sea or marginal zone is based on the principle which can be summarized as the land dominates the sea. Towards the end of 1973 the Turkish Government granted licences to carry out exploration for petroleum in submarine areas of the Aegean Sea, including areas which encroached upon the continental shelf which, appertains to certain Greek islands. By a Note Verbale of 7 February 1974, the Greek Government, basing itself on international law as codified by Articles 1 (b) and 2 of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, questioned the validity of the licences granted by Turkey, reserved its sovereign rights over the continental shelf adjacent to the coasts of the said islands, and contended that the continental shelf required to be delimited between the two States on a basis of equidistance by means of a median line. The Turkish Government replied, by a Note Verbale of 27 February 1974, that the Greek Islands situated very close to the Turkish coast. Boundary dispute is a question of law, not politics, and thus should be resolved on the basis of customary and conventional international law. All the islands under its sovereignty, and in particular the islands in the eastern half of the Aegean Sea near the coast of Turkey, are an integral part of its territory and that it is entitled to the continental shelf that appertains to them. pg. 11
Article 1, paragraph (b) of the Convention, which provides in part that For the purpose of these Articles, the term continental shelf is used as referring b) to the sea-bed and subsoil of similar submarine areas adjacent to the coasts of islands. What was also significant in the Greek view was that this rule was not only a conventional, but also a customary rule and it should therefore bind Turkey although it was not a party to the Convention. The ICJ has stated that article 1 reflects rules of customary international law 1 and is, therefore, binding as law on all states. According to the 1958 Convention, if parties failed to agree on any other boundary, the delimitation line for the continental shelf should be the median line between opposite coasts, whether the territory concerned was continental or insular. Article 6, paragraph 2, of the convention clearly says that In the absence of agreement, and unless another boundary line is justified by special circumstances, the boundary is the median line, every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points of the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea of each State is measured. In the case of adjacent states the method of lateral equidistance applies. In this situation, a line is drawn equally distant from the baseline of each adjacent state. According to the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) outer limits of the continental shelf should be twelve-nautical-mile territorial sea surrounding each state. The disputed island is only six nautical far from Greece hence it comes under the boundary of Greece and should be considered as a part of the continental shelf of Greece. The rules and principles regulating the delimitation of the continental shelf were the same as the conventional rules, as developed in both State practice and the ICJ judgment in the North Sea Cases (1969) 2.Those rules provided the delimitation between the two opposite coasts, whether continental or insular, be the median line, unless another boundary was justified by special circumstances. In present case, islands did not constitute special circumstances. Only some low-tide elevations such as small islets and rocks could be ignored as special circumstances in the course of delimitation. The boundary line between the continental shelf of Greece and Turkey should follow the median line between the Greek islands and the Turkish mainland. Median line was further 1 North Sea Continental Shelf (W. Ger. v. Den.; W. Ger. v. Neth.), 1969 I.C.J. 3, 39 (Judgment of Feb. 20) 2 I.C.J. 1969 I.C.J. 3 pg. 12
confirmed by the fact that it would also preserve the political and geographical unity between the Greek mainland and its islands. Delimitation law provides that the delimitation line between two or more States should be the median line, unless they agree on another line. Delimitation law does not differentiate between insular and continental territories in this sense. Only some low-tide elevations could be ignored as special circumstances. Accordingly, the delimitation line between Greece and Turkey in the Aegean Sea should be the median line between the Greek islands and the Turkish mainland. pg. 13
PRAYER Wherefore in the light of the facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and authorities cited, the counsel for the Appellant humbly pray before this Hon ble Court that may be pleased to adjudge and declare. 1. That Greece is entitled to exercise over its continental shelf sovereign and exclusive rights for the purpose of researching and exploring it and exploiting its natural resources. And 2. That Turkey is not entitled to undertake any activities on the Greek continental shelf, whether by exploration, exploitation, research or otherwise, without the consent of Greece. Pass any other order that the Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper. Place: Hague All of which is most respectfully submitted Vishnu Tandi Counsel for Appellant pg. 14