Alex G. Oude Elferink's detailed analysis of the negotiations between Denmark, Germany and The Netherlands concerning the delimitation of their continental shelf in the North Sea makes use of the full range of government archives in these three States. He looks at the role of international law in policy formulation and negotiations, and explores the legal context, political considerations and, in particular, oil interests which fed into these processes. He also explains why the parties decided to submit their disputes to the International Court of Justice and looks at the preparation of their pleadings and litigation strategy before the Court. The analysis shows how Denmark and The Netherlands were able to avoid the full impact of the implications of the Court's judgment by sidestepping legal arguments and insisting instead on political considerations.
|Publisher:||Cambridge University Press|
|Product dimensions:||5.98(w) x 9.02(h) x 1.14(d)|
About the Author
Alex G. Oude Elferink is a senior lecturer at the School of Law, Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands, where he is also Deputy Director of the Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea. He has worked in the field of public international law for over twenty years, focusing in particular on maritime boundary delimitation.
Table of Contents1. Introduction; 2. The setting; 3. The development of the delimitation rule of the Convention on the continental shelf; 4. Digesting the outcome of the 1958 conference; 5. The first phase of the negotiations on the delimitation of the continental shelf of the North Sea; 6. Finding a way out of the deadlock - the submission of the disputes to the International Court of Justice; 7. Interactions between the delimitation in the North Sea and other boundary issues of Denmark and The Netherlands in the 1960s; 8. The pleadings of Denmark, Germany and The Netherlands before the ICJ; 9. The judgment of the Court; 10. The negotiations following the judgment; 11. The outcomes of the case study in a broader perspective.