text: filedtheirrespective Replies within thetime-limi~ andthe casethusbecamereadyforhearing. Thedocumentation whichthePartieshavesubmitted totheCourtinordertosub­ stantiatetheirclaimsisveryvoluminous (some3,400pages). 37.Following theresignation forhealthreasonsof JudgeadhocMr.J.Castaneda, appointed byMalta,Malta appointed Mr.N.Valticosasitsm~wjudgeadhoc. 38.Between 26November and14December 1984and 4and24February 1985,theCourtheld25publicsittings duringwhichspeeches weremadeonbehalfoftheLibyan ArabJamahiriya andMalta. 39.On3June1985.theCourtdelivered itsJudgment at apublicsitting(I.e.J.Reports1985.p.13).The operative partoftheJudgment readsasfollows: "TheCourt. "byfourteen votestothree. "findsthat,withreference totheareasofcontinental shelfbetween thecoastsofthePartieswithinthelimits definedinthepresentJudgment. namelythemeridian 13°50'Eandthemeridian 15°10'E: "A.Theprinciples andrulesofinternational law applicable fDrthedelimitation. tobeeffected byagree­ mentinimplementation ofthepresentJudgment. ofthe areasofcontinental shelfappertaining totheSocialist •People'sLibyanArabJamahiriya andtotheRepublic of Maltarespectively are.asfollows: "(I)thedelimitation istobeeffectedinaccordance withequitable principles andtakingaccountof allrelevantcircumstances. soastoarriveatan equitable result; "(2)theareaofcontinental shelftobefoundto appertain toeitherPartynotextending more than200milesfromthecoastoftheParty concerned. nocriterion fordelimitation ofshelf areascanbederived fromtheprinciple of naturalprolongation inthephysical sense. "B.Thecircumstances andfactorstobetakeninto account inachieving anequitable delimitation inthe presentcasearethefollowing: "(I)thegeneralconfiguration ofthecoastsofthe Parties.theiroppositeness. andtheirrelation­ shiptoeachotherwithinthegeneralgeograph­ icalcontext;.. .. arri me low the coa adj stan sub that (so mat con con Lib resp Can Ag M Are Judge (ibid., separal Ruda appen~ andJu (ibid., appenc pp.11 3.AJ-jUt thE (Tu 40. Republ revisio Court Comin Tunisia tionon andI theSt mad fact was, Cou prov Article evenm:"~~._------------ ----------. "(2)thedisparity inthelengthsoftherelevantcoasts ofthePartiesandthedistance between them; "(3)theneedtoavoidinthedelimitation any excessive disproportion between theextentof thecontinental shelfareasappertaining tothe coastalStateandthelengthoftherelevantpart ofitscoast,measured inthegeneraldirection of thecoastlines. "C.Inconsequence, anequitable resultmaybe arrivedatbydrawing, asafirststageintheprocess, a medianlineeverypointofwhichisequidistant fromthe low-water markoftherelevantcoastofMalta(excluding theisletofFilfla)andthelow-water markoftherelevant coastofLibya,thatinitiallinebeingthensubjectto adjustment inthelightoftheabove-mentioned circum­ stancesandfactors. "D.Theadjustment ofthemedianlinereferredtoin subparagraph C above istobeeffected bytransposing thatlinenorthwards througheighteen minutesoflatitude (sothatitinterserts themeridian 15°10'Eatapproxi­ matelylatitude34°30'N)suchtransposed linethen constitutilag thedelimitation linebetween theareasof continental shelfapP,ertaining totheSocialist People's LibyanArabJamahiriya andtotheRepublic ofMalta respectively. "Infavour:President Elias;Vice-President Sette­ Camara;JudgesLachs,Morozov, Nagendra Singh,Ruda, Ago,EI-Khani, SirRobertJennings, deLacharriere, Mbaye,Bedjaoui; JudgesadhocValticos, Jimenez de Arechaga. "Against: JudgesMosler,OdaandSchwebel." JudgeEI-Khani appended adeclaration totheJudgment (ibid.,p.59).Vice-President Sette-Camara appended a separateopiniontotheJudgment (ibid.,pp.60-75);Judges RudaandBedjaoui andJudgeadhocJimenezdeArechaga appen~ed ajointopinion(ibid.,pp.76-92);JudgeMbaye andJudgeadhocValticoseachappended separateopinions (ibid.,pp.93-113). JudgesMosler,OdaandSchwebel appended dissenting opinions totheJudgment (ibid., pp.114-187). 3.~p'plication .forrevISIon andinterpretation ofthe -JudJ?ment Qf24February 1982inthecaseconcerninJ? theContinental Shelf('Tunisia/Libyan ArabJamahiriya) ('Tunisia v.LibyanArabJamahiriya) 40.On27July1984,theGovernment oftheTunisian Republic submitted totheCourtanapplication forthe revisionandtheinterpretation oftheJudgment givenbythe Courton24February 1982inthecaseconcerning the Colltillental Shelf(Tunisia/Libyan ArabJamahiriya). Tunisiafoundeditsapplication forrevisionandinterpreta­ tiononArticles60and61oftheStatuteandArticles98,99 and100oftheRulesofCourt.Article61,paragraph I,of theStatuteiswordedasfollows: "I.Anapplication forrevisionofajudgment maybe' madeonlywhenitisbaseduponthediscovery ofsome factofsuchanatureastobeadecisivefactor,whichfact was,whenthejudgment wasgiven,unknown tothe Courtandalsotothepartyclaiming revision, always
analysis: The text appears to be a judicial document related to a territorial dispute between two countries, Libya and Malta, regarding the delimitation of their continental shelves. The document discusses the principles and rules of international law applicable to the delimitation, the circumstances and factors to be taken into account, and the eventual judgment reached by the court. The topic seems to be more related to international law and territorial disputes rather than economic development or natural resources.