What did the ICJ say about the equidistance rule?

Equidistance was not obligatory between the parties. Under the 1958 Convention it is secondary and applies only failing agreement.

Did equidistance qualify as customary international law?

No. The Court found the state practice and opinio juris were insufficient for equidistance to become a binding custom.

Why did Germany oppose equidistance?

Germany’s coast is concave; strict equidistance would cut off a fair share of the continental shelf, so it argued for equitable principles.

Is a non-party bound by a treaty-based rule?

Only if that rule is also customary international law. Here, equidistance had not reached custom, so Germany was not bound.

What is the exam takeaway?

Custom needs consistent practice + opinio juris. Equidistance (Art. 6, 1958 Convention) was not custom in 1969; equity and agreement guide delimitation.

Federal Republic of Germany v. Netherlands

Federal Republic of Germany v. Netherlands — I.C.J. 1969 I.C.J. 3

Public International Law Continental Shelf International Court of Justice 1969 Citation: 1969 I.C.J. 3 ≈7 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi Published: 08-Aug-2024 Tags: Customary Law, Equidistance, Equity, Geneva Convention 1958 Location: India

Quick Summary

The ICJ explained how a rule becomes customary international law. It held that the equidistance method in Article 6 of the 1958 Convention did not bind Germany because: (1) Germany was not a party, and (2) equidistance had not matured into customary law. For the North Sea, the boundary should come from an equitable solution, not automatic equidistance.

```

Issues

Is equidistance customary international law for continental shelf delimitation?
Is delimitation part of an equitable agreement rather than a fixed formula?

Rules

Custom formation: Requires state practice that is widespread and representative + opinio juris (belief of legal obligation).
Article 6, 1958 Convention: Equidistance is secondary; it applies only if states fail to reach agreement.
Equitable principles: Delimitation must achieve an equitable result; strict formulas can be adjusted for coastal geography (e.g., concavity).

PIL Custom

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline graphic of North Sea equidistance dispute and ICJ proceedings

Germany claimed a fair share of the North Sea continental shelf beyond existing points.

Netherlands sought to extend the boundary by the equidistance method.

Talks stalled; Netherlands argued equidistance under Article 6 (1958 Convention) should apply as custom.

Germany (not a party to the 1958 Convention) opposed equidistance due to its concave coastline, which would cut off shelf.

ICJ examined treaty status, practice of states, and whether equidistance had become customary law.

Arguments

Applicant — Germany

Not bound by Article 6 because not a party to the 1958 Convention.
Equidistance had not crystallised into custom; practice/opinio juris were lacking.
Due to coastal concavity, strict equidistance would be inequitable; equity must guide delimitation.

Respondent — Netherlands

Urged equidistance as the governing rule under Article 6.
Claimed the rule bound Germany as customary law even without treaty consent.
Sought a predictable, formula-based boundary extension in the North Sea.

Judgment

Article 6 makes equidistance a fallback method; it is not primary and not automatic.
Equidistance had not attained the status of customary international law in 1969.
Germany was therefore not bound by Article 6, and delimitation should aim at an equitable result.

Ratio

A treaty rule binds non-parties only if it has become custom. Custom requires clear state practice supported by opinio juris. The evidence did not show this for equidistance; equitable principles therefore govern delimitation.

Why It Matters

Sets the two-element test for custom: practice + opinio juris.
Balances formulas with equity in maritime delimitation.
A cornerstone for exam questions on customary international law and treaty vs custom.

Key Takeaways

Custom

Needs general practice + opinio juris, not just many treaties.

Equidistance

A fallback in 1958 Convention; not customary in 1969.

Equity

Aim for an equitable result considering coast shape and cut-off effects.

Treaty vs Custom

Non-parties are bound only if the rule is also custom.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “P&O or No-Go.”

Practice + Opinio juris → custom.
No P&O → rule is not custom.
Then use equity for a fair line.

3-Step Hook:

Check: widespread practice?
Check: opinio juris?
If lacking → seek equitable solution, not strict equidistance.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Whether equidistance bound Germany as customary law for North Sea delimitation.

Rule

Custom = state practice + opinio juris; Article 6 equidistance is a fallback failing agreement.

Application

Practice and opinio juris insufficient; Germany’s concave coast made strict equidistance unfair.

Conclusion

Equidistance not customary in 1969; Germany not bound; equitable result governs delimitation.

Glossary

Equidistance: A line every point of which is equally distant from the nearest points of each coast.
Opinio Juris: Belief that a practice is carried out of a sense of legal duty, not convenience.
Equitable Result: A fair outcome that considers special coastal features and prevents cutoff effects.

FAQs

Not by itself. Custom also needs opinio juris and consistent state practice beyond the treaty parties.

Strict equidistance can “cut off” a concave coast, shrinking shelf unfairly. Equity allows adjustment to avoid such distortion.

They may use fallback methods like equidistance, but still aim for an equitable outcome considering geography and proportionality.

Yes—if that rule is also customary international law. Otherwise, consent is needed.

Quick Jump

Case Meta

CASE_TITLE: Federal Republic of Germany v. Netherlands — I.C.J. 1969 I.C.J. 3
PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Customary International Law, Equidistance Principle
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: North Sea Continental Shelf, Article 6 (1958 Convention), Equity
PUBLISH_DATE: 08-Aug-2024
AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi
LOCATION: India
Slug: federal-republic-of-germany-v-netherlands-icj-1969-icj-3

```

Useful Links

Contact