text: 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 even.. ..... !i!i'II ~iiI .liIlilllilliillilliiMi.---~""',~1'!#'t~,ilIiI1lIiIi-.Ii!!I!!!!-I!II· __1 1 Iprovided forinArticle53oftheStatutewhenever oneofthe PartiesdoesnotappearbeforetheCourtorfailstodefend itscase. 29.ByanOrderdated22January1985(I.C.J.Reports 1984,p.3),thePresident fixedtime-limits forthefilingof pleadings onthemerits.TheGovernment ofNicaragua fileditsMemorial withintheprescribed time-Hmit (30April 1985).NoCounter-Memorial hasbeenfiledbytheGovern­ mentoftheUnitedStateswithinthetime-limit allottedtoit, whichexpiredon31May1985,andnoextension ofsuch time-limit wasrequested bythatGovernment. Theoral proceedings willstarton12September 1985. 2.COlllinelltal Shelf(LibyanArabJamalziriya/Malta) 30.On26July1982.theGovernments oftheLibyan ArabJamahiriya andMaltanotifiedjointlytotheRegistrar aSpecial ..Lgreement concluded between themon23May 1976andinforcesincetheexchange on20March1982of theinstruments ofratification. TheSpecialAgreement rC"l~~sts theCourttodecidethefollowing question: "Whatprinciple" andrulesofinternational laware. applicable tothedelimitation oftheareaofthecontinen­ talshelfwhichappertains totheRepublic ofMaltaand theareaofcontinental shelfwhichappertait.3 tothe LibyanArabRepublic. andhowinpracticesuchprinci­ plesandrulescanbeappliedbythetwoPartiesinthis particular caseinorderthattheymaywithoutdifficulty delimitsuchareasbyanagreement asprovided inArti­ clelilT' TheArticleIIIreferredtoprovides fornegotiation afterthe casewithaviewtoreaching agreement onthedelimitation inaccordance withtheCourt'sdecision. 31.On27July1982.theVice-President oftheCourt madeanOrderwhereby. havingregardtoaprovi~,ion ofthe SpecialAgreement between theParties.hefixed26April 1983asthetime-limit forthefilingofaMemorial byeach Party(1.e.J.Reports1982,p.554).TheMemorials were filedwithintheprescribed time-limit and.byanOrderof 26April1983.thePresident fixed26October 1983asthe time-limit forthefilingoftheCounter-Memorials (I.C.J. Reports 1983,p.3).Thelatterwerefiledwithinthe prescribed time-limit. 32.EachStateappointed aJudgeadhocinaccordance withArticle31oftheStatuteoftheCourt. Th~LibyanArab Jamahiriya choseMr.E.Jimenez deArechaga, andMalta choseMr.J.Castaneda. 33.On24October 1983,theItalianGovernment filed anapplication forpermission tointervene underArticle62 oftheStatute.ThatArticlereadsasfollows: "I.ShouldaStateconsider thatithasaninterestofa legalnaturewhichmaybeaffectedbythedecision inthe case,itmaysubmitarequesttotheCourttobepermitted tointervene. "2.ItshallbefortheCourttodecideuponthis request." TheGovernment ofItalyindicated initsapplication thatthe objectofitsintervention inthecaseconcerning delimitation ofthecontinental shelfbetweentheLibyanArabJamahiriya andMaltawastoenableittoparticipate intheproceedings tothefullextentnecessary todefenditsrightsovercertain areasclaimedbytheParties,sothattheCourtmightbeable totakethoserightsintoaccount initsdecision. 34.Inaccordance withArticle83oftheRules.the Governments oftheLibyanArabJamahiriya andMalta 4~ubmitted writtenobservations onthisapplication. As objections wereraisedtoItaly'srequestforintervention, the Courtheld,inaccordance withArticle84oftheRules, sevenpublicsittingsduringwhichspeeches weremadeon behalfofItaly,theLibyanArabJamahiriya andMalta. 35.On21March1984,theCourtdelivered atapublic sittingaJudgment findingbyelevenvotestofivethat Italy'sapplication couldnotbegranted(I.C.J.Reports 1984,p.3).JudgesMorozov, Nagendra SinghandMbaye andJudgeadhocJimenez deArechaga appended separate opinions totheJudgment (ibid.,pp.30-70).Vice-President Sette-Camara andJudgesOda,Ago,Schwebel and Sir RobertJennings appended dissenting opinions totheJudg­ ment(ibid.,pp.70-160). 36.Afterthedecision refusing Italypermission to intervene, theproceedings continued. On21March1984, thePresident madeanOrderfixingat12July1984thetime­ limitforthefilingofRepliesbytheLibyanArabJamahiriya andMalta(I.e.J.Reports1984,p.162),bothStateshaving expressec' thewishtosubmitafurtherpleading asprovided intheirSpecialAgreement. TheAgentsofthePartieseach
analysis: This text appears to be related to an international court case involving the delimitation of the continental shelf between two countries, Libya and Malta. The case is focused on the application of international law principles and rules to determine the boundary of the shelf. The text mentions natural prolongation, equitable principles, and the need to take into account various circumstances to achieve an equitable result. Given the technical and legal nature of the text, it is likely that the category is related to natural resources and the environment.