text: 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 provided thatsuchignorance wasnotduetonegligence. " Article60oftheStatutereads: "Thejudgment isfinalandwithoutappeal.Inthe eventofdisputeastothemeaning orscopeofthe 5judgment, theCourtshallconstrue itupontherequestof anyparty." 41.Tojustifyitsapplication forrevision, theTunisian Government invoked thediscovery ofanewfact.It requested theCourttodeclaretheapplication admissible and,inregardtothefirstsectorofthedelimitation envisaged bytheCourt,torevisethedelimitation line indicated bytheJudgment. IntheeventoftheCourt's deciding thattheapplication forrevisionwasnotadmissi­ ble,itrequested theCourttoconstrue certainpassages of theJudgment concerning thissector.Itfurtherrequested the Courttodeclareinrespectofthesecondsectorthatitisfor theexpertsofthePartiestoestablish theexactco-ordinates ofthemostwesterly pointoftheGulfofGabes,whichis mentioned intheoperative termsoftheCourt'sJudgment. 42.Pursuant totheRulesofCourt,theVice-President fixedatime-limit withinwhichtheLibyanArabJamahiriya wouldbeentitledtopresentwrittenobservations onthe Tunisian application, inparticular onthesubjectofthe admissibility oftheapplication (Rules,Art.99,para.2). Theseobservations werefiledwithintheprescribed time­ limit,whichexpiredon15October 1984. 43.BothStateshavechosenajudgeadhocunder Article31oftheStatuteoftheCourt.Thnisiahasappointed Madame S.Bastid,andtheLibyanArabJamahiriya has appointed Mr.E.Jimenez deArechaga. 44.Between 13and18June1985,theCourtheldsix publicsittingsduringwhichspeeches weremadeonbehalf ofTunisiaandtheLibyanArabJamahiriya. Atthetimeof preparation ofthisreport,theCourtisdeliberating onthe case. B.CONTENTIOUS CASESBEFORE ACHAMBER 1.Delimitation oftheMaritime Boundary inthe GulfofMaineArea(CanadalUnited StatesofAmerica) 45.On25November 1981,theGovernment ofCanada andtheGovemment oftheUnitedStatesofAmerica notifiedtotheCourtaSpecial Agreement, concluded by themon29March1979,andhavingenteredintoforceon 20November 1981,bywhichtheysubmitted toachamber oftheCourtaquestion astothecourseofthemaritime boundary dividing thecontinental shelfandfisheries zones ofthetwoPartiesintheGulfofMainearea. 46.The SpI~cialAgreement provided forthesubmis­ sionofthedisputetoafive-member chamber tobe constituted afterconsultation with th~Parties,pursuant to Article26,paragmph 2,andArticle31oftheStatuteofthe Court.Thesearerespectively theArticlesproviding forthe establishment ofachamber todealwithaparticular case andfortherightofaParty,whenthereisnojudgeofits nationality uponthebench,tochooseajudgeadhoctosit inthecase. 47.ThePartieswereconsulted. TheCourthadalready beennotifiedinaletterfromthePartiesaccompanying the submission ofthecasethat,sincetheCourtdidnotinclude uponthebenchajudgeofCanadian nationality, the Government ofCanadaintended tochooseajudgeadhocto sitinthecase. 48.InthecourseoftheCourt'sconsideration ofthe SpecialAgreement notifiedbytheGovernments ofCanada andtheUnitedStatesofAmerica, variousMembers-of the Courtreferredtocertainproblems whichtheyfeltlikelyto. giverisetodifficulties, inparticular onaccountofcertain featureswhichintheirviewmightnotbecompatible withthe deci Agen expla presi the consi decid Cana form 49 Mor wher quest Cana with ment Schw 31, Presi cours Ju(~ Repo the appe 50. adh 54. theC filing p.56 time-I 55. Cham andt 1983 p.6). time-I submi menta 56. accedi witht J;toassi 1theStatuteandRulesofCourt.Intheoutcome, itwas decided titattheActingPresident wouldcalluponthe AgentsofthePartiestoprovide theCourtwithfurther explanations orclarifications onseveralpoints.TheActing president didsoinaletterof18December 1981,towhich thePartiesrepliedbyaletterof6January 1982.After consideration oftheanswers thussupplied, theCourt decided toaccedetotherequestbytheGovernments of CanadaandtheUnitedStatesthataspecialchamber be formed, andheldanelection on15January 1982.
analysis: The text appears to be related to international law, specifically to the International Court of Justice, and deals with territorial disputes and maritime boundaries between countries. It involves the delimitation of the continental shelf and fisheries zones, which are related to natural resources and the environment.