INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE MARITIME DELIMITATION IN THE AREA BETWEEN GREENLAND AND JAN MAYEN (DENMARKJNORWAY) REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF DENMARK VOLUME 1 JANUARY 199 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 Page INTRODUCTION ............................ 3 PART 1. THE FACTS Refutation of the Norwegian Presentation and Supplementary Information ....... 9 A . The Relevant Area ....................... I I B . Hisrory of the Dispute .................... 16 I . The Incident ....................... 16 2 . lnterim Arrangement ................. 17 3 . Arbitration Negotiations ............... 18 C . Jan Mayen ............................ 21 I . General Description of Jan Mayen ........ 21 2 . The Relevance of Geology and Geomorphology ..................... 23 D . Activities in the Region ................... 28 I . General Remarks .................... 28 2 . Specific Comments on Map 1 in the Counrer-Memorial .............. 34 E . The Greenland Economy and Fisheries Sector ...... 36 I . Recent Developments in the Greenland Economy ............... 36 2 . Greenland and Foreign Fishing Activities in Greenland Waters ...........42 F . The Resources off the East Coast of Greenland .... 51 1. The Importance of Easr Coast Fishing to the Economy of Greenland ............51 2 . Fishing for Capelin ..................62 3 . Sealing and Whaling in the Easr Greenland Fishery Zone ............... 70 G . Manne Research in Greenland Waters .......... 78 PART II . THE LAW ............................ 81 CHAPTER 1. The Status of Islands in Maritime Delimitation . 83 A . General Remarks ........................ 83 B . Analysis of the Effecr of Islands in Maritime Delimitarion ..................... 86 1 . State Practice Relied on in the Counter-Mernoriai ............... 86 2 . Other Islands Accorded Partial or No Effect ...................... 96 3 . Bear Island ....................... 100 CHAPTER II . The Case of the Island of Jan Mayen ....... 109 A . Prelude ............................ 109 B . Delimitation vis-à-vis the Open Sea ............ 113 C . Delimitaiion vis-à-vis Iceland ................ 114 D . Delimitation vis-à-vis Greenland .............. 118 CHAPTER III . The Rule Applicable to the Present Dispute ... 125 A . Norwegian Contentions .................... 125 I . The 1965 Agreement .................126 2 . The Conduct of the Parties ............. 130 3 . General International Law .............. 150 B . The Position of Denmark .................. 161 CHAITER IV. The Method of Delimitation . 165 A. General Approach . 165 B. Relevant Factors . 167 C. The Single Line Approach . 170 D. Computation of the 200-Mile Delimitaiion Line . 173 PART III. SUBMISSIONS . 175 MAPS ............................ 179 Map V Disputed and Relevant Areas in their Geographical Context Map VI Illustration of the Computation of East Greenland's 200-Nautical Mile Line Map VI1 Illustration of the Revised East Greenland Baseline VOLUME Il ANNEXES Annex 56. Excerpt from Maritime Boundary Agreements (1970 - 1984). Office for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, United Nations, New York 1987. (page 42). Annex 57. Map annexed to Proposition No. 61 to the Storting Annex 58. The Revised Baseline along the East Coast of Greenland Annex 59. Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. "The Incident": Day-to-Day Description, dated 16 September 1981 (excerpt). Annex 60. Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Elements of an Arbitration Agreement, dated 9 May 1988. Annex 6 1. Nonvegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Paper 1 and II containing draft elements of an "aibitration" procedure. dated 21 June 1988. Annex 62. Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Conclusion Resumk Arbitration talks held in Copenhagen on 21 June 1988. Annex 63. Second Protocol laying down the Conditions relating to Fishing provided for in the Agreement on Fisheries between the Government of Denmark and the Local Government of Greenland. on the one hand, and the European Economic Community. on the other. Done al Bmssels 16 July 1990. Annex 64. Act of the Landsting No. 12 of 22 November 1984 on Commercial Hunting. Annex 65. Danish and International Marine Research in Greenland Waters after 1950. Annex 66. Document A/Conf.62/C.2/L-62/Rev.I.Algeria, Dahomey, Guinea. Ivory Coast, Liberia, Madagascar. Mali, Mauritania, Morocco. Sierra Leone. Sudan, Tunesia, Upper Volta and Zambia: draft anicles on the régime of islands, of 27 August 1974. Annex 67. Treaty of 6 April 1984 on the Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Costa Rica, supplementary to that signed in the City of San Jose on 17 March 1977. Agreement of 24 October 1968 concerning the Sovereignty over the Islands of AlL'Arabiyah and Farsi and the Delirnitation of the Boundary Line separating the Submarine Areas between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Iran. Annex 69. Agreement of 24 May 1977 between the Republic of ltaly and the Republic of Greece on the Delineation of the Zones of the Continental Shelf belonging to each of the two States. Annex 70. Agreement of 27 October 1969 between the Government of Malaysia and the Government of lndonesia on the Delimitation of the Continental Shelves between the two Countries. Annex 7 1. Agreement of 25 July 1974 concerning Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Iran and Oman. Annex 72. Agreement of 7 November 1988 between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nonhem lreland and the Govemment of the Republic of lreland concerning the Delimitation of Areas of the Continental Shelf between the two Countries. Annex 73. Agreement of 8 January 1968 between ltaly and Yugoslavia concerning the Continental Shelf Boundary. Annex 74. Agreement of 20 August 1971 between the Government of the ltalian Republic and the Govemment of the Tunisian Republic relating to the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between the two Countries. Annex 75. Agreement of 30 March 1969 on Settlement of Maritime Boundary Lines and Sovereign Rights over Islands between Qatar and Abu Dhabi. Annex 76. Agreement of 13 August 1974 between Iran and the United Arab Emirates on the Continental Shelf Boundary. Annex 77. Treaty of 18 Decernber 1978 between Australia and the Independent State of Papua New Guinea concerning Sovereignty and Maritime Boundaries in the Area between the two Countries. including the Area known as Torres Strait, and related Maners. Annex 78. Sketch Map relating to the Sharjah - Dubai Continental Shelf Arbitration 1981. Annex 79. Treaty concerning the Archipelago of Spitsbergen. signed at Paris, 9 Februaw 1920. Annex 80. Nonvegian Ministry of Justice. Excerpt from Srorringsmelding No. 40 (1985 - 1986). Svalbard. Annex 81. The Hansard, House of Lords, Volume 389, 1977fi8. Columns 1353 - 1356. Annex 82. Excerpt from statement by Nonvegian Minister for Foreign Affairs. Mr Knut Frydenlund. during a foreign policy debate in the Srorring on 6 June 1977 (Records of Debates in the Srorring No. 40, 3 - 6 June, 1976 - 77). Annex 83. Excerpt from Records of the Question Time of the Slorting on 31 May 1989 (Records of Debates in the Storting No. 41, 31 May - 2 June, 1988 - 1989). Annex 84. Nonvegian Ministi of Foreign Affairs. Proposition No. 63 to the Srorting (1979 - 1980). Annex 85. Royal Decree No. 259 of 7 June 1963 conceming the Exercise of Danish Sovereignty over the Continental Shelf. Annex 86. Written Comments by the Danish Minister for Foreign Affairs on a proposal submitted to the Folkering for ratification of the Convention on the Continental Shelf, adopted on 26 April 1958 in Geneva. Annex 87. Act No. 259 of 9 lune 1971 on the Continental Shelf. Annex 88. Act No. 259 of 9 June 1971 on the Continental Shelf Excerpt from Writlen Comments on the Bill. Annex 89. Reply by the Minister for Greenland on 9 December 1976 to the interpellation from the Folkering Committee on the Bill relating to the Fishing Temtory of the Danish Realm. INTRODUCTION 1. As stated in Article 49 of the Rules of Court, the main purpose of the Reply and the Rejoinder should be to address those issues of the dispute which continue to divide the Parties. Unfortunately, the Parties seem to have little common ground with respect to the law which should govem the present dispute. Also with regard to the facts of the case the two Parties are not in agreement. The contents of the Mernorial and the Counter-Memorial make it apparent why this maritime delimitation case is now pending before the International Court of Justice. 2. Though the Counter-Memorial operates with several lines of reasoning which are said to be both independent of and supplementary to each other, they al1 seem to end up in the thesis that the median line method amounts to a legal principle which must govem al1 maritime delimitation situations at least as a starting point, and in the present case even as a mandatory rule deciding the dispute. 3. However, the goveming norm for maritime delimitation according to contemporary international law is to seek an equitable solution. It is the submission of the Danish Govemment that the relevant factors substantiating that norm in the present case, and among them first and foremost the factors of geography and population, lead to the establishment of a 200-mile boundary line measured from Greenland's baseline. 4. The most astonishing features in the Norwegian presentation are the assertion that the boundary line conceming the continental shelf in the waters between Greenland and Jan Mayen is already in place and has, in fact, been so since 1965, and the assertion