North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v. Netherlands) [1969]
ICJ Rep 1969, p. 3 · International Court of Justice · International
Issue
Whether the equidistance principle in Article 6 of the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf had become a rule of customary international law binding on Germany.
Held
The equidistance method was not a customary rule; it had not acquired sufficient state practice and opinio juris.
Exam use
Summary
Whether the equidistance principle in Article 6 of the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf had become a rule of customary international law binding on Germany.
Facts
Issue
Whether the equidistance principle in Article 6 of the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf had become a rule of customary international law binding on Germany.
Held
The equidistance method was not a customary rule; it had not acquired sufficient state practice and opinio juris.
Ratio Decidendi
For a treaty provision to become customary international law, it must be of a fundamentally norm-creating character and there must be extensive and virtually uniform state practice accompanied by a sense of legal obligation (opinio juris).
Reasoning
Essay-Ready Explanation Generator
Version 1 of 4
Reference to North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v. Netherlands) (ICJ Rep 1969, p. 3) strengthens a Public International Law answer because the case reflects the principle that For a treaty provision to become customary international law, it must be of a fundamentally norm-creating character and there must be extensive and virtually uniform state practice accompanied by a sense of legal obligation (opinio juris). Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Whether the equidistance principle in Article 6 of the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf had become a rule of customary international law binding on Germany. The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.
Underlying Concepts
- public-international-law
- Public International Law
- Sources of international law – customary international law
- case authority
- exam application
Significance
Related Cases
No related cases listed.
Exam Tips
Revision Checklist
- Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
- State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
- Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
- Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.