Important international cases in which Sir Derek has appeared as Counsel
- 1977 Counsel for UK in UK/France Channel Arbitration
- 1981 Counsel for Dubai in Sharjah/Dubai Arbitration
- 1982 Counsel for Libya in Libya/Tunisia case, I.C.J.
- 1984 Counsel for Canada in Gulf of Maine case, I.C.J.
- 1985 Counsel for Libya in Libya/Malta case, I.C.J.
- 1988-91 Counsel for Honduras in Honduras/El Salvador Lands, Islands and Maritime Boundary case, I.C.J.
- 1988 Counsel for Egypt in Israel/Egypt Taba Arbitration
- 1991 Counsel for Denmark in the case concerning Passage Through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark), I.C. J.
- 1992 Counsel for Canada in St Pierre et Miquelon Maritime Boundary Arbitration
- 1993 Counsel for Denmark in Jan Mayen case, I.C.J.
- 1994 Counsel for Australia in East Timor case, I.C.J
- 1997 Counsel for Slovakia in the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project, I.C.J.
In addition, Sir Derek has advised the following governments on disputes that did not lead to litigation:
Maritime boundaries: UK, USA, Iceland, Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Brunei, New Zealand, Canada and Greece.
Land boundaries: Somalia, Sudan, Venezuela, Brunei, Thailand, Belize and Canada.
Summaries of the ICJ cases in which Sir Derek was involved
1982 Counsel for Libya in Libya/Tunisia case, I.C.J.
Summary from ICJ website:
CASE CONCERNING THE CONTINENTAL SHELF (TUNISIA/LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA)
Judgment of 24 February 1982. In its judgment in the Continental Shelf case between Tunisia and Libya, the Court declared the principles and rules of international law which are applicable to the delimitation of the areas of continental shelf appertaining respectively to Tunisia and Libya in the region concerned in the dispute.
It enumerated the relevant circumstances to be taken into account for the purpose of arriving at an equitable delimitation and specified the practical method to be used for the delimitation itself.
The delimitation line indicated by the Court is made up of two segments: the first segment of the line starts from the outer limit of the Parties' territorial sea, at the intersection of that limit with a straight line constructed from the frontier point of Ras Ajdir at a bearing approximately 26° east of north; it continues at the same bearing until it meets the latitude of the most westerly point of the Gulf of Gabes, approximately 34° 10' 30" N. There begins the second segment, which is inclined farther to the east at a bearing of 52°.
The Court's Judgment was adopted by 10 votes to 4.
The Court was composed as follows: Acting President Elias; Judges Forster, Gros, Lachs, Morozov, Nagendra Singh, Mosler, Oda, Ago, Sette-Camara, El-Khani and Schwebel; Judges ad hoc Evensen and Jiménez de Aréchaga.
Judges Ago, Schwebel and Jiménez de Aréchaga appended separate opinions to the Judgment.
Judges Gros, Oda and Evensen appended dissenting opinions to the Judgment.
In these opinions the Judges concerned stated and explained the positions they adopted in regard to certain points dealt with in the Judgment
For full judgment see: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=330&code=tl&p1=3&p2=3&case=63&k=c4&p3=5
1984 Counsel for Canada in Gulf of Maine case, I.C.J.
Summary from ICJ Website:
CASE CONCERNING DELIMITATION OF THE MARITIME BOUNDARY IN THE GULF OF MAINE AREA
Judgment of 12 October 1984. In its judgment, the Chamber of the Court constituted in the case concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) decided by four votes to one:
"That the course of the single maritime boundary that divides the continental shelf and the exclusive fisheries zones of Canada and the United States of America in the Area referred to in the Special Agreement concluded by those two States on 29 March 1979 shall be defined by geodetic lines connecting the points with the following co-ordinates:
Latitude North Longitude West
A. 44° 11' 12" 67° 16' 46"
B. 42° 53' 14" 67° 44' 35"
C. 42° 31' 08" 67° 28' 05"
D. 40° 27' 05" 65° 41' 59"."
The votes were cast as follows:
IN FAVOUR: President Ago; Judges Mosler and Schwebel, Judge ad hoc Cohen;
AGAINST: Judge Gros.
For full judgment see: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=346&code=cigm&p1=3&p2=3&case=67&k=6f&p3=5
1985 Counsel for Libya in Libya/Malta case, I.C.J.
Summary from ICJ website:
CASE CONCERNING THE CONTINENTAL SHELF (LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA/MALTA)
Judgment of 3 June 1985. In its judgment in the case concerning the Continental Shelf between the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Malta, the Court, by 14 votes to 3, stated what principles and rules of international law are applicable to the delimitation of the continental shelf between the two States, and the circumstances and factors to be taken into consideration in order to achieve an equitable delimitation. It stated that an equitable result could be obtained first by drawing between the 13° 50' and the 15° 10' meridians a median line, of which every point is equidistant from the low-water mark of the relevant coasts of Malta, on the one hand, and of Libya, on the other, and by then transposing this line northwards by 18' so as to intersect the 15° 10' E meridian at a latitude of approximately 34° 30' N.
The voting was as follows:
IN FAVOUR: President Elias; Vice-President Sette-Camara; Judges Lachs, Morozov, Nagendra Singh, Ruda, Ago, El-Khani, Sir Robert Jennings, de Lacharrière, Mbaye, Bedjaoui; Judges ad hoc Valticos, Jiménéz de Aréchaga.
AGAINST: Judges Mosler, Oda and Schwebel.
For full judgment see: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=353&code=lm&p1=3&p2=3&case=68&k=a8&p3=5
1988-91 Counsel for Honduras in Honduras/El Salvador Lands, Islands and Maritime Boundary case, I.C.J.
Summary from ICJ website:
CASE CONCERNING LAND, ISLAND AND MARITIME FRONTIER DISPUTE
(EL SALVADOR/HONDURAS: NICARAGUA INTERVENING)
Judgment of 11 September 1992The Chamber constituted by the Court in the case concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute between El Salvador and Honduras, Nicaragua intervening, first adopted the course of the boundary line in the disputed land sections between El Salvador and Honduras. It then ruled on the legal status of the islands of the Gulf of Fonseca, as well as on the legal situation of the maritime spaces within and outside the closing line of that Gulf.
The Chamber was composed as follows: Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber; President Sir Robert Jennings; Vice-President Oda; Judges ad hoc Valticos, Torres Bernárdez.
For full judgment see: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=390&code=sh&p1=3&p2=3&case=75&k=0e&p3=5
1993 Counsel for Denmark in Jan Mayen case, I.C.J.
Summary from ICJ website:
CASE CONCERNING MARITIME DELIMITATION IN THE AREA BETWEEN
GREENLAND AND JAN MAYEN (DENMARK v. NORWAY)
Judgment of 14 June 1993. In its Judgment on the case concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen, the Court, by fourteen votes to one, fixed a delimitation line for both the continental shelf and the fishery zones of Denmark and of Norway in the area between Greenland and Jan Mayen.
The Court was composed as follows: President Sir Robert Jennings; Vice-President Oda; Judges Ago, Schwebel, Bedjaoui, Ni, Evensen, Tarassov, Guillaume, Shahabuddeen, Aguilar Mawdsley, Weeramantry, Ranjeva, Ajibola; Judge ad hoc Fischer; Registrar Valencia-Ospina.
The full text of the operative paragraph is as follows:
THE COURT, By fourteen votes to one, Decides that, within the limits defined that, within the limits defined
1. to the north by the intersection of the line of equidistance between the coasts of Eastern Greenland and the western coasts of Jan Mayen with the 200-mile limit calculated as from the said coasts of Greenland, indicated on sketch-map No. 2 as point A, and
2. to the south, by the 200-mile limit around Iceland, as claimed by Iceland, between the points of intersection of that limit with the two said lines, indicated on sketch-map No. 2 as points B and D,the delimitation line that divides the continental shelf and fishery zones of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of Norway is to be drawn as set out in paragraphs 91 and 92 of the present Judgment.
IN FAVOUR: President Sir Robert Jennings; Vice-President Oda; Judges Ago, Schwebel, Bedjaoui, Ni, Evensen, Tarassov, Guillaume, Shahabuddeen, Aguilar Mawdsley, Weeramantry, Ranjeva, Ajibola.
AGAINST: Judge ad hoc Fischer.
For full judgment see: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=401&code=gjm&p1=3&p2=3&case=78&k=e0&p3=5
1991 Counsel for Denmark in the case Concerning Passage Through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark)
Summary from ICJ website:
CASE CONCERNING PASSAGE THROUGH THE GREAT BELT
(FINLAND v. DENMARK) (PROVISIONAL MEASURES)
Order of 29 July 1991.In an Order made in the case concerning the Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark) the Court found, unanimously, that the circumstances, as they presented themselves to the Court, were not such as to require the exercise of its power under Article 41 of the Statute to indicate provisional measures.
The Court was composed as follows: President Sir Robert Yewdall Jennings; Vice-President Shigeru Oda; Judges: Manfred Lachs, Roberto Ago, Stephen M. Schwebel, Mohammed Bedjaoui, Ni Zhengyu, Jens Evensen, Nikolaï Tarassov, Gilbert Guillaume, Mohamed Shahabuddeen, Andrés Aguilar Mawdsley, Christopher G. Weeramantry, Raymond Ranjeva; Judges ad hoc Paul Fischer and Bengt Broms.Judge Tarassov appended a declaration to the Order of the Court.Vice-President ODA, Judge Shahabuddeen and Judge ad hoc Broms appended separate opinions to the Order of the Court.
In its Order, the Court recalls that on 17 May 1991 Finland instituted proceedings against Denmark in respect of a dispute concerning passage through the Great Belt (Storebaelt), and the project by the Government of Denmark to construct a fixed traffic connection for both road and rail traffic across the West and East Channels of the Great Belt. The effect of this project, and in particular of the planned high-level suspension bridge over the East Channel, would be permanently to close the Baltic for deep draught vessels of over 65 metres' height, thus preventing the passage of such drill ships and oil rigs manufactured in Finland as require more than that clearance.
The Government of Finland requested the Court to adjudge and declare:
"(a) That there is a right of free passage through the Great Belt which applies to all ships entering and leaving Finnish ports and shipyards;
"(b) That this right extends to drill ships, oil rigs and reasonably foreseeable ships;
"(c) That the construction of a fixed bridge over the Great Belt as currently planned by Denmark would be incompatible with the right of passage mentioned in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above;
"(d) That Denmark and Finland should start negotiations, in good faith, on how the right of free passage, as set out in subparagraphs (a) to (c) above shall be guaranteed."
1994 Counsel for Australia in East Timor case, I.C.J.
Summary from ICJ website:
CASE CONCERNING EAST TIMOR(PORTUGAL v. AUSTRALIA)
Judgment of 30 June 1995.In its Judgment on the case concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), the Court, by 14 votes to 2, found that it could not exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the declarations made by the Parties under Article 36, paragraph 2, of its Statute to adjudicate upon the dispute referred to it by the Application of the Portuguese Republic.
Those who voted in favour were: President Bedjaoui: Vice President Schwebel; Judges Oda, Sir Robert Jennings, Guillaume, Shahabuddeen, Aguilar-Mawdsley, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin; Judge ad hoc Sir Ninian Stephen.Against: Judge Weeramantry; Judge ad hoc Skubiszewski.
Judges Oda, Shahabuddeen, Ranjeva, and Vereshchetin appended separate opinions to the Judgment of the Court.Judge Weeramantry and Judge ad hoc Skubiszewski appended dissenting opinions to the Judgment of the Court.
For full judgment see: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=430&code=pa&p1=3&p2=3&case=84&k=66&p3=5
1997 Counsel for Slovakia in the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project, I.C.J.
Summary from ICJ website.
CASE CONCERNING GABČíKOVO-NAGYMAROS PROJECT (HUNGARY/SLOVAKIA).
Judgment, The Hague, 25 September. The International Court of Justice today delivered judgment on a protracted dispute between Hungary and Slovakia over the construction and operation of dams on the river Danube which found both States in breach of their legal obligations. It called on both countries to carry out the relevant treaty between them while taking account of the factual situation that has developed since 1989.
Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1977 concluded a treaty for the building of dam structures in Slovakia and Hungary for the production of electric power, flood control and improvement of navigation on the Danube. In 1989 Hungary suspended and subsequently abandoned completion of the project alleging that it entailed grave risks to the Hungarian environment and the water supply of Budapest. Slovakia (successor to Czechoslovakia) denied these allegations and insisted that Hungary carry out its treaty obligations. It planned and subsequently put into operation an alternative project only on Slovak territory, whose operation had effects on Hungary's access to the water of the Danube.
In its judgment, the Court found:
- that Hungary was not entitled to suspend and subsequently abandon, in 1989, its part of the works in the dam project, as laid down in the treaty signed in 1977 by Hungary and Czechoslovakia and related instruments;
- that Czechoslovakia was entitled to start, in November 1991, preparation of an alternative provisional solution (called "Variant C"), but not to put that solution into operation in October 1992 as a unilateral measure;
- that Hungary's notification of termination of the 1977 Treaty and related instruments on 19 May 1992 did not legally terminate them (and that they are consequently still in force and govern the relationship between the Parties);
- and that Slovakia, as successor to Czechoslovakia became a party to the Treaty of 1977.
As to the future conduct of the Parties, the Court found:
- that Hungary and Slovakia must negotiate in good faith in the light of the prevailing situation, and must take all necessary measures to ensure the achievement of the objectives of the 1977 Treaty;
- that, unless the Parties agree otherwise, a joint operational régime for the dam on Slovak territory must be established in accordance with the Treaty of 1977;
- that each Party must compensate the other Party for the damage caused by its conduct;
- and that the accounts for the construction and operation of the works must be settled in accordance with the relevant provisions of the 1977 Treaty and its related instruments.
The Court held that newly developed norms of environmental law are relevant for the implementation of the Treaty and that the Parties could, by agreement, incorporate them through the application of several of its articles. It found that the Parties, in order to reconcile economic development with protection of the environment, "should look afresh at the effects on the environment of the operation of the Gabčíkovo power plant. In particular they must find a satisfactory solution for the volume of water to be released into the old bed of the Danube and into the side-arms of the river."
The Court was composed as follows: President Schwebel; Vice-President Weeramantry; Judges Oda, Bedjaoui, Guillaume, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek; Judge ad hoc Skubiszewski; Registrar Valencia-Ospina.
President Schwebel and Judge Rezek appended declarations to the Judgment of the Court; Vice-President Weeramantry and Judges Bedjaoui and Koroma appended separate opinions; Judges Oda, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Vereshchetin, Parra-Aranguren and Judge ad hoc Skubiszewski appended dissenting opinions.
A summary of the Judgment is given in Press Communiqué No. 97/10 bis. The text of the declarations and a brief summary of the opinions may be found in the Annex to that press communiqué;