Francioni: Gulf of Sirte THE STATUS OF THE GULF OF SIRTE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW Francesco Francioni * I. INTRODUCTION Among the many sources of strain and conflict that have arisen between states throughout the development of the law of the sea, coastal states' claims of jurisdiction over adjacent seas and sea-bed areas are perhaps the single most important category. Fisheries disputes and problems related to the delimitation of the continen­ tal shelf account for by far the largest number of incidents. One need only check the record starting with the early precedent of the Fisheries Case 1 of 1951 and ending with the most recent judg­ ment in the Gulf of Maine2 case in 1984. An equally serious source of tension between maritime powers and coastal states, however, is connected to the parallel phenomenon of the increasingly liberal use of straight baselines and the widespread resort to the theory of historic titles to justify the clos­ ing of large bodies of adjacent waters and bays. To date, reactions to this phenomenon, and particularly to the latter practice, have been limited to protests or other diplomatic steps intended to pre­ vent acquiescence. By contrast, with respect to the Gulf of Sirte, the United States deemed it necessary-or advisable-to accom­ pany the act of protest with a show of force which took the form of military maneuvers in the proximity of the contested area. As is known, this attempt caused open armed conflict resulting in the downing of two Libyan planes by jet fighters of the United States Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean.3 *Professor of International Law, University of Siena, Italy; Visiting Professor Cor­ nell Law School. 1. Fisheries Case (U.K. v. Nor.), 1951 I.C.J. 116 (Judgment of Dec. 18). 2. Case Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Can. v. U.S.) 1984 I.C.J. 1 (unofficial) (Judgment of Oct. 12). 3. This article will not examine the legal issues connected to the use of force for the purpose of enforcing navigational rights or coastal states' claims over sea areas. For an analysis of these issues see Francioni, The Gulf of Sirte Incident and International Law, 5 ITALIAN Y.B. INT'L L. 85 (1980-81); Adam, L 'incidente <kl Golfo <Ulla Sirte, 64 RIVISTA DI DIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE (RIV. DIR. INT.) 1025 (1981); Spinnato, Historic and Vital Bays: An Analysis of Libya's Claim to the Gulf of Sidra, 13 OCEAN DEV. & INT. L.J. 65 (1983). 311 Published by SURFACE, 1984 1 Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce, Vol. 11, No. 2 [1984], Art. 6 312 Syr. J. Int'I L. & Com. [Vol. 11:311 In view of the dangerous potential for military escalation that such precedent suggests, it seems important to analyze the legal status of the Gulf of Sirte. At this juncture indeed several coun­ tries, foremost among them the United States, maintain an attitude of non-recognition of the Libyan claim. The legal issues to be addressed in this paper are the follow­ ing: 1) Is the closing of the Gulf of Sirte justifiable under the Geneva Convention of 1958,4 the Montego Bay Convention of 1982,5 as well as customary international law? 2) To what extent is the straight baseline method recognized in the 1951 Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case, 6 as well as in the 1958 and 1982 Conventions,7 applicable to the entirety of the Gulf of Sirte? 3) And, finally, is this gulf sub­ ject to a regime of appropriation by virtue of historic titles or vital interests that may be claimed by Libya? The following discussion shall also attempt to develop a criterion of transitional law intended to determine the limits of standing for coastal states' claims which are neither generally recognized nor so completely arbitrary and capricious as to constitute a prime facie violation of international law. II. THE ORIGIN AND JUSTIFICATION OF THE LIBYAN CLAIM The Gulf of Sirte was unilaterally proclaimed an integral part of Libyan territory by the Declaration of October 10, 1973.8 This act purported to enclose the waters of the Gulf within a straight line of approximately 300 miles connecting the two parts of the coast at the cities of Benghazi and Misurata at a latitude of 32 degrees and 30 minutes north.9 The United States was notified of the Declaration by a note from the Libyan Embassy in Washington to the Department of State on October 11, 1973. 10 On October 19, 1973, 4. 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, done Apr. 29, 1958, 15 U.S.T. 1606, T.I.A.S. No. 5639, 516 U.N.T.S. 205 (effective Sept. 10, 1964) [hereinafter cited as 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea]. 5. Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature Dec. 10, 1982, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/122 (1893), reprinted in 21l.L.M.1261 (1982) [hereinafter cited as 1982 Convention]. 6. Fisheries Case, supra note 1. 7. 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea, supra note 4; 1982 Convention, supra note 5. 8. Declaration of Oct. 10, 1973, reprinted in Spinnato, Historic and Vital Bays: An Analysis of Libya's Claim to the Gulf of Sidra, 13 OCEAN DEV. & INT'L L. 65, 67-68 (1983). 9. See Rousseau, Chronique des faits internationaux, 78 REVUE GENERALE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC (R. G. DR. INT. P.) 1177 (1974). 10. Letter from Libya to the United States (October 11, 1973). https://surface.syr.edu/jilc/vol11/iss2/6 2 Francioni: Gulf of Sirte 1984] Gulf of Sirte 313 the Declaration was sent to the United Nations in a Note Verbale which justified the closing based on "security interests" as well as sovereign rights and possession exercised over the area for a long time. A regime of prior authorization was made mandatory for foreign vessels that intended to navigate in the area of the Gulf. The United States Government did not reply immediately. However, on February 11, 1974, 11 a note of protest was addressed to Libya in which the claim over the Gulf of Sirte was declared "unacceptable and a violation of international law."12 The follow­ ing passage from the note illustrates the arguments made by the Department of State to challenge the legality of the Libyan proclamation: Under international law, as codified in the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, the body of waters enclosed in this line (the straight line closing the Gulf of Sirte) cannot be regarded as the juridical internal or territorial waters of the Libyan Arab Republic. Nor does the Gulf of Sirte meet the inter­ national law standards of past, open, notorious and effective exer­ cise of authority, continuous exercise of authority, and acquiescence of foreign nations necessary to be regarded historically as Libyan internal or territorial waters. The United States Government views the Libyan action as an attempt to appropriate a large area of the high seas by unilateral action, thereby encroaching upon the long established principle of freedom of the seas. This action is par­ ticularly unfortunate when the international community is engaged in intensive efforts to obtain broad international agreement on law of the sea issues, including the nature and extent of coastal state jurisdiction. Unilateral actions of this type can only hinder the pro­ cess of achieving an accommodation of the interests of all nations at the Law of the Sea Conference. In accordance with the position stated above, the United States Government reserves its rights and the rights of its na­ tionals in the area of the Gulf of Sirte affected by the action of the Government of Libya.13 Regarding the entire correspondence by the U.S. Department 11. Letter from the United States to Libya (February 11, 1974). 12. Id. 13. A. ROVINE, DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 293 (1974). France and the United Kingdom protested while Italy presented "reservations" on the legality of the closing of the Gulf of Sirte in a note delivered by the Libyan charge d'affaires in Rome. See Statement of Mr. Bensi, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, reprinted in 2 ITALIAN Y.B. INT'L L. 422 (1976). Published by SURFACE, 1984 3 Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce, Vol. 11, No. 2 [1984], Art. 6 314 Syr. J. Int'l L. & Com. [Vol. 11:311 of State, the United States' claim appears to be based on the follow­ ing legal points: 1) The status of a bay or gulf cannot be determined by unilateral acts of the coastal state but must conform to interna­ tional norms in order to be recognized by other states; 2) The delimitation of the Gulf of Sirte was not consistent with the 1958 Geneva Convention; 3) The closing of the Gulf was not consistent with general international law. As to the first point, the United States position is, needless to say, entirely correct. As was stated by the International Court of Justice in the Fisheries Case, "[t]he delimitation of the sea areas has always had an international aspect; it cannot be dependent merely upon the will of the coastal State as expressed in its municipal law." 14 The Court added in this case that "[a]lthough ... the act of delimitation is necessarily a unilateral act, because only the coastal State is competent to undertake it, the validity of the delimitation with regard to other States depends upon international law."15 In light of this Libya was not free to unilaterally determine the sea boundary of the Gulf of Sirte, but was under an obligation to set the boundary in accordance with applicable rules of both conventional and customary international law.