1 See The Helsinki Rules on The uses of The waters of international rivers, The International Law Association, Report On The Fifty-Second Conference Held At Helsinki 1966, 477 Et seq. (London 1967). On underground water, see O. Schachter, Sharing The World's Resources 64, 74 (1977); see also The papers of The symposium on U.S.-Mexican transboundary resources, pt. II, 18 Nat. Resources J. 1-212 (1978).

2 As, e.g., hydrocarbons, helium, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, ore-bearing silt and brine, sand and gravel, or sulphur and salts in solution. The principles laid down in this article apply also to nonrenewable resources of mineral water, hot water, or steam, but not to fresh water in general because it is normally a renewable resource.

3 Nonetheless, there is also cooperation between states as regards hard mineral deposits. Warranted by economic, geographical, geological and technical reasons, but not required by existing international law, this cooperation is limited to matters of common interest such as coordinated measures regarding maps, surface water projects, or protective measures for The surface. See, e.g., Arts. 2 and 3 of The Netherlands-Belgian treaty of 23 October 1950, 136 unts 40; Art. III of The Netherlands-German treaty of 18 January 1952, 179 Unts 156. If states deviate at all from The practice that each state exploits its own part of a common deposit of hard minerals, they prefer to accord “extraterritorial” mining rights to The neighboring state instead of establishing a system of common exploitation for The deposit. See, e.g., The Netherlands-Belgian treaty of 23 October 1950 and their treaty of 5 April 1963, 507 Unts 270; The Netherlands- German treaty of 18 January 1952, as revised on 8 November 1960, Bgbl, pt. II, 1110 (1961).

4 2 L Oppenheim, International Law 462 (8th ed. H. Lauterpacht, 1955); I, 2 P. Fauchille, Traité DE DROIT International Public 99 (8th ed. H. Bonfils, 1925). This is expressly noted in several boundary agreements. See, e.g., Austria-Czechoslovakia (1928), Art. 4, Cvih Lnts 9; German Democratic Republic-Poland (1950), Art. 2, 319 Unts 93; Soviet Union-Czechoslovakia (1956), Art. 1, 266 Unts 243; Soviet Union-Iran (1957), Art. 1, 457 Unts 161; Hungary-Romania (1963), Art. 2, 576 Unts 330; Austria-Yugoslavia (1965), Art. 2, 587 Unts 169.

5 International Court of Justice in The North Sea Continental Shelf cases, [1969] ICJ Rep. 22; see also Art. 2, para. 2 of The 1958 Geneva Convention on The Continental Shelf, 15 Ust 471, Tias No. 5578, 499 Unts 311, 52 Ajil 858 (1958). The state's authority over The mineral resources of its land territory and territorial sea is based on The concept of territorial sovereignty as an essential part of its legal personality, whereas its sovereign rights over The mineral resources in The soil and subsoil of its continental shelf are derived from The geographical concept of natural prolongation. [1969] ICJ Rep. 31.

6 See Handl, Territorial Sovereignty and The Problem of Transnational Pollution, 69 Ajil 50, 72 (1975). The author inferred this rule from extensively discussed principles and concepts, basing it on well-known precedents and state practice, as, e.g., The principle of territorial integrity, The emerging principle of sic utere tuo ut auenum non laedas, The concept of good neighborliness as representing an expansion of The principle of abuse of rights, and, inter alia, The Corfu Channel case, [1949] ICJ Rep. 22, and The Trail Smelter arbitration, 3 R. Int'l Arb. Awards 1905, passim.

7 There is no reason to distinguish between material damage caused by The on-surface operations of a mining corporation and material damage caused by its operations in The subsoil. Equally, one could not reasonably distinguish between material damage caused to The surface of a territory and damage caused to its subsoil. Hence, absent any state practice to The contrary, one has to apply this rule at least by analogy.

8 Ely, The Conservation of Oil, 51 HARV. L. Rev. 1209, 1219 (1937-1938). See also H. Williams, R. Maxwell & C. Meyers, Cases and materials on The law of oil and gAS 1-12 (3rd ed. 1974).

9 The importance of The “périmètre de protection” was emphasized in a memorandum prepared in 1950 by The Secretariat of The United Nations, Mémorandum présenté par le Secrétariat, 14 juillet 1950, [1950] 2 Y.B. Int'l L. Comm'N 67, 112, UN Doc. A/CN.4/32. These security zones have mainly been established by Arab states and will be discussed in section III infra. A similar effect results where states unilaterally prohibit mining operations within a certain “frontier belt,” as, e.g., Brazil. See I. ely, summary of mining and petroleum laws of The World 116 (1970).

10 Under international law The state has exclusive power (imperium) over The mineral resources of its territory and continental shelf, whereas questions of ownership, mineral rights, and vested interests are governed by its domestic law. See I. Brownlie, Principles Of Public International Law 110 (2nd ed. 1973). One can distinguish between countries where The mineral rights are linked to The ownership of The land because The minerals in place are regarded as an integral part of The soil (“accession system“), and those where The right to explore and exploit most minerals are exclusively reserved for The state (“domanial system“). See Campbell, , Principles of Mineral Ownership in The Civil Law and Common Law Systems, 31 TUL. L. Rev. 303 (1956-1957);Google Scholar Legoux, Guiding principles of mining legislation, in Proceedings of The Seminar on Mining Legislation and Administration (Held at Manila, Philippines, 19 to 23 October 1969) 21 Et seq., UN Doc. E/CN.11/919 (Ecafe Mineral Resources Development Series No. 34). However, even in those countries which still adhere to The accession system on their land territory, The state normally possesses The mineral rights as regards The continental shelf.

11 See The Corfu Channel case, [1949] ICJ Rep. 22.

12 A licensee who is in possession of The mining rights on both sides of a frontier or dividing line would not violate The territorial integrity of a state by exploiting The whole common deposit from The other side of The frontier or dividing line if he does not drill through The boundary line. Unauthorized directional drilling through The boundary line, however, would be a violation of international law. Accordingly, unauthorized mining through The frontier between France and Germany by a French coal-mining corporation, owned by The French Government, which possessed The mineral rights on both sides of The frontier, gave rise to a dispute between The countries before World War II. This was regarded as a violation of German sovereignty by Schücking, Das vőlkerrechtliche Problem der Wamdtgruben, in 2 MéLanges Offertes À Ernest Mahaim 229, 303 (Paris 1935).

13 [1969] ICJ Rep. 51, para. 97

14 See Onorato, Apportionment of an International Common Petroleum Deposit, 26 Int'L & Comp. L.Q. 324, 324 n.2 (1977).

15 The Murchison oilfield and The Brae oilfield on The British continental shelf. See Onorato, supra note 14, at 324 n.3.

16 In 1977 and 1978 confidential negotiations were under way between The Land Niedersachsen of The Federal Republic of Germany and The German Democratic Republic concerning The exploitation of that natural gas field. According to unofficial reports, The Gdr had already begun to exploit The common field, while The FRG was still hesitating to do so because of The high percentage of nitrogen in The natural gas.

17 Barberis, Los recursos minerales compartidos entre Estados y el derecho internacional, 8 Derecho De La Integracion 45, 55 (1975).

18 H. Thalmann, Grundprinzipien des Modernen Zwischenstaatlichen Nachbarrechts 121, 132 (Doctoral Thesis Geneva No. 78, Zurich 1951). Thalmann apparently regarded The whole problem as one of pollution (“negative emission“) between neighboring states; id. at 66. Morris, North Sea Continental Shelf: Oil and Gas Problems, 2 Int'l Lawyer 190, 207 Et seq. (1967-1968).

19 E.g., Morris, supra note 18, stated The rule as follows: “One who has t he right to drill for and produce oil and gas from a particular tract of land may so produce such hydrocarbons even though The oil or gas so produced is drained from beneath The land of another“; id. at 206. For The legal foundations of this rule in American law, see Ely, supra note 8, at 1218 Et seq.; Williams, Maxwell, & Meyers, supra note 8, at 57.

20 See Onorato, Apportionment of an International Common Petroleum Deposit, 17 Int'L & Comp. L.Q. 85, 89 (1968); Jacobs, Unit Operation of .Oil and Gas Fields, 57 YALE L.J. 1207 (1947-1948); Utton, Institutional Arrangements for Developing North Sea Oil and Gas, 9 Virginia J. Int'L L. 66, 74, 77 Et seq. (1968-1969); Vuilleumier, , Versunrégime juridique propre à la recherche Et à Vexploitation des gisements de pétrole, 76 zeitschbift fur schweizerisches recht 185a, 289a, (1957)Google Scholar. As regards compulsory pooling in American law, see Williams, Maxwell, & Meyers, supra note 8, 653, 686.

21 Andrassy, Les relations Internationales de voisinage, 79 Recueil Des Cours 77, 127 (1951,11).

22 In 1968 Utton, supra note 20, recommended compulsory unitization and The establishment of bilateral oil and gas commissions, or even a multilateral commission, for common mineral resources in The North Sea. Id. at 69 Et seq., 80 Et seq.

23 See S. toriguian, Legal Aspects Of Oil Concessions In The Middle East 271 (Beirut 1972).

24 Barberis, supra note 17, at 55 Et seq.

25 Barberis, supra note 17, at 58, arrives at The conclusion that UN General Assembly Resolutions 2995 (XXVII), 2996 (XXVII), and 3129 (XXVIII) in combination regulate The obligation to exchange information and to consult.

26 Compare The dictum of The arbitral tribunal in The Lac Lanoux arbitration that any unilateral utilization of The hydraulic force of an international watercourse does not require prior agreement between The parties, neither under international law nor under The general principles of law. See Sentence du Tribunal Arbitral Franco-Espagnol en date du 16 Novembre 1957 dans l'Affaire de L'Utilisation des Eaux du Lac Lanoux, 62 REVUE GÈNÉrale de droit international public [hereinafter cited as Rev. gen. droIT Int'L PUB.] 79, 108 (1958); also in 24 ILR 101, 130 (1961).

27 Onorato, supra note 14, at 325, 328.

28 Id. at 329.

29 In 1968 The author observed that The still rudimentary practice regarding common petroleum deposits has been “well on its way to establish a fair and equitable rule of international law and practice.” Supra note 20, at 101. About ten years later, he based his conclusions on “almost all treaties delimiting offshore international boundaries,” especially The delimitation agreements in The North Sea. Onorato, supra note 14, at 325.

30 E.g., in The Federal Republic of Germany, a civil law country which adheres to The domanial system, supra note 10, The mineral resources of The continental shelf and almost all mineral resources on The land territory are bergfrei, i.e., they are not subject to any property rights while they are in place. See Entwurf eines Bundesberggesetzes von 1977, §3 (Deutscher Bundestag, Drucksache 8/1315 vom 9.12.1977). The Government has The exclusive right to explore and exploit these mineral resources. Property rights to The minerals accrue from The extraction itself.

31 There are several specialized treaty collections concerning The law of The sea: United Nations Legislative Series, National Legislation and Treaties Relating to The Territorial Sea, The Contiguous Zone, The Continental Shelf, The High Seas and to The Fishing and The Conservation of The Living Resources of The Sea, UN Doc. ST/Leg/ Ser.B/15 (1970) [hereinafter cited as ST/Leg/Ser.B/15]; United Nations Legislative Series, National Legislation and Treaties Relating to The Law of The Sea, UN Docs. ST/Leg/Ser.B/16 (1974), 18 (1976), and 19 (preliminary issue 1978) [hereinafter cited as ST/Leg/Ser.B/16, 18, or 19 prel. issue]; 1-5 New Dibections in The Law of The Sea (Churchill Et al. eds., 1973 Et. seq.) [hereinafter cited as churchill]; ruster, vertbage und deklarationen uber den festlandsockel (continental shelF) (Frankfurt am Main 1975). Maps and analyses are supplied in U.S. Dep't Of State, Office Of The Geographer, International Boundary Study, Series A, Limits In The Seas [hereinafter cited as Limits In The Seas].

32 Agreement Concerning The Delimitation of The Continental Shelf in The Persian Gulf Between The Shaykhdom of Bahrain and The Kingdom of Arabia, Riyadh 22 February 1958, ST/Leg/Ser.B/16, supra note 31, at 409. See The analysis in Limits In The Seas, supra note 31, No. 12, at 3; compare Kassim, Conflicting Claims in The Persian Gulf, 4 J. L. & Econ. Dev. 282, 321 (1969).

33 Art. 1 of The Agreement Between The Government of The Czechoslovak Republic and The Austrian Federal Government Concerning The Working of Common Deposits of Natural Gas and Petroleum, Prague 23 January 1960, 495 Unts 125.

34 Id. at Art. 3, para. 1 and Art. 5, para. 1. See also Onorato, supra note 20, at 98 Et seq. G. Braun, Die Vőlkerrechtliche Problematik des Grenzüberschreitenden Bergwerksbetriebes 63 Et seq. (Doctoral Thesis University of Cologne, Munich 1967), reports that Czechoslovakia received its share in money after The gas had moved into Austrian territory some years after The beginning of The exploitation. Under Art. 4 The parties shall, inter alia, “immediately inform each other of The emergence of circumstances which may affect The calculation of The reserves in The deposit.” One example of this was a fire at a production pipe on The Austrian side. See id. at 63.

35 Supplementary Agreement to The Treaty Concerning Arrangements for The Cooperation in The Ems Estuary (Ems-Dollart Treaty), Signed Between The Kingdom of The Netherlands and The Federal Republic of Germany on 8 April 1960, Bennekom 14 May 1962, 509 Unts 140. On The agreement generally, see Treviranus, Der deutschniederländische Ems-Dollart-Vertrag, 23 Zeitschrift FüR AuslÄndisches öFfentliches Recht Und VöLkerrecht 536, 549 Et seq. (1963); Menzel, Der Festlandsockel der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und das Urteil des International Gerichtshofs vom 20. Februar 1969, 14 Jahrbuch Fur Internationales Recht 13, 62 Et seq. (1969); A. Wenger, PÉTrole Et Gaz Naturel En Mer Du Nord 103 (Paris 1971).

36 In 1966 The Netherlands concessionaire N.A.M. and The German concessionaire Brigitta made a contract about The exploitation of a common deposit of gas. Subsequently, they agreed that The whole deposit be exploited from Netherlands territory. This was approved by The German administration. See Wenger, supra note 35, at 105.

37 See Jacobs, supra note 20, at 1210; Horigan, Unitization of Petroleum Reservoirs Extending Across Sub-Sea Boundary Lines of Bordering States in The North Sea, 7 Nat. Resources Law. 67, 73 (1974).

38 See The literature mentioned in note 20 supra.

39 Agreement Between Japan and The Republic of Korea Concerning Joint Development of The Southern Part of The Continental Shelf Adjacent to The Two Countries, Seoul 5 February 1974, 4 Churchill, supra note 31, at 117; a map is provided by rusteh, supra note 31, at 181.

40 See Park, Continental Shelf Issues In The Yellow Sea And The East China SeA 20, 25, 29 Et seq. (1972) (Law of The Sea Institute, Occasional Paper No. 15). North Korea and The People's Republic filed official protests against The signing of this agreement (44 archiv der gegenwart 18511 (1974)) and repeatedly protested it in 1977 and 1978 (47 archiv der gegenwart 21062 (1977), 48 archiv der gegenwart 21866 (1978)).

41 Conventionentre le Gouvernement de l'Etat espagnol Et le Gouvernement de la République françhise sur la délimitation des plateaux continenteaux des deux Etats dans le golfe de Gascogne (golfe de Biscaye), Paris 29 Janvier 1974, 80 Rev. gen. Droit Int'L Pub. 368; see Queneudec, Chronique du droit de la met, 20 annuaire FranÇAise De Droit International 831 (1974); Azcárraga, Espana suscribe, con Francia e Italia, dos Convenios sobre delimitación de sus plataformas submarinas comunes, 18 Revista ) Espanol De Derecho Internacional 131 (1975). In December 1975, The parties signed an additional agreement on oceanologic cooperation in The fields of scientific research, exploration, and exploitation of living and nonliving resources (ST/Leg/ Ser.B/19, 396 prel. issue, supra note 31).

42 According to Queneudec, supra note 41, one reason for The establishment of The special zone was The intention of The parties to develop this zone conjointly, if Spain would join The European Communities. Id. at 833 n.9.

43 Agreement Between The Government of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and The Government of The Kingdom of Norway Relating to The Exploitation of The Frigg Field Reservoir and The Transmission of Gas Therefrom to The United Kingdom, London 10 May 1976, 5 Churchill, supra note 31, at 398.

44 Frigg Field is operated by French corporations. Its installations were officially inaugurated in May 1978. See International Herald Tribune, 9 May 1978, at 2. An analysis of The agreement is given by Woodliffe, International Unitization of an Offshore Gas Field, 26 Int'L & Comp. L.Q. 338 (1977); see also Onorato, supra note 14, at 335 Et seq.

45 Agreement Between The State of Kuwait and The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Relating to The Partition of The Neutral Zone, Al-Hadda 7 July 1965, ST/Leg/Ser.B/15, supra note 31, at 760; reprinted also in 4 ILM 1134 (1965), 60 Ajil 744 (1966).

46 There was some discussion in The literature as to whether The partition had any relevance for The status of The Neutral Zone. See Ghoneimy, Talaat El, The Legal Status of The Saudi-Kuwait Neutral Zone, 15 Int'L & Comp. L.Q. 690, 715 (1966);Google Scholar Hosni, The Partition of The Neutral Zone, 60 Ajil 735 (1966); Al-Baharna, A Note on The Kuwait-Saudi Arabia Neutral Zone Agreement of July 7, 1965, Relating to The Partition of The Zone, 17 Int'L & Comp. L.Q. 730 (1968). At any rate, The agreement did not alter The legal status of The shared natural resources in The partitioned zone or in The unpartitioned submerged area adjoining The zone.

47 Agreement on Settlement of Maritime Boundary Lines and Sovereign Rights over Islands Between Qatar and Abu Dhabi, 20 March 1969, ST/Leg/Ser.B/16, supra note 31, at 403; also reprinted in Limits in The Seas, No. 18, 5 Churchill 223, both supra note 31.

48 Agreement Between Sudan and Saudi Arabia Relating to The Joint Exploitation of The Natural Resources of The Sea-Bed and Sub-Soil of The Red Sea in The Common Zone, Khartoum 16 May 1974, ST/Leg/Ser.B/18, supra note 31, at 452.

49 As to The question of who acquires ownership of The extracted oil or gas, and which law governs this: The Unit Operator certainly acquires possession of The extracted minerals through The extraction, and this is determined by The domestic law under which it operates, i.e., British law on The British side of The dividing line and Norwegian law on The Norwegian side.

50 France made a reservation to Art. 6 of The 1958 Geneva Convention on The Continental Shelf in order to exclude The application of The equidistance principle to The Gulf of Biscay; Spain filed an objection to this. See Multilateral Treaties in Respect of Which The Secretary-General Performs Depositary Functions 518, 519 (1976), UN Doc. ST/Leg/Ser.D/10. The geodetic line, which runs closer to The Spanish than to The French coast, coincides in effect with The equidistance line between certain lines of equal depth. See Azcárraga, supra note 41, at 132.

51 Hosni, supra note 46, at 741, refers to The earlier status of The Neutral Zone, which also is The status of The mineral resources after The partition of The zone, as undivided ownership under Islamic law.

52 Agreement Between The Government of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and The Government of The Kingdom of Norway Relating to The Delimitation of The Continental Shelf Between The Two Countries, London 10 March 1965, 551 Unts 214.

53 Netherlands-United Kingdom 1965, 595 Unts 105, providing The mineral deposit clause for The delimitation agreement of The same date; id. at 113; Denmark-Norway 1965, 634 Unts 71; United Kingdom-Denmark 1966, 592 Unts 209; Norway-Sweden 1968, ST/Leg/Ser.B/16, supra note 31, at 413; Federal Republic of Germany-Denmark 1971, ST/Leg/Ser.B/16, at 424, 65 Ajil 904 (1971); Federal Republic of Germany-Netherlands 1971, ST/Leg/Ser.B/16, at 419, 65 Ajil 909 (197,1); Federal Republic of Germany-United Kingdom 1971, ST/Leg/Ser.B/18, supra note 31, at 435, 11 ILM 731 (1972); United Kingdom-Denmark 1971, ST/Leg/Ser.B/16, at 431, 11 ILM 723 (1972).

54 Sweden-Finland 1972 (Agreed Minute), ST/Leg/Ser.B/18, supra note 31, at 441; Sweden-German Democratic Republic, 22 June 1978, 1 Riksdagen 1978/79, 1 saml., No. 14.

55 Spain-France 1974, supra note 41.

56 Italy-Tunisia 1971, 5 Churchill, supra note 31, at 247; Italy-Spain 1974, id. at 261; Italy-Greece 1977, Senato della Repubblica (vii Legislatura), No. 1443.

57 Italy-Yugoslavia 1968, 7 ILM 547 (1968).

58 Netherlands-Federal Republic of Germany 1964, 550 Unts 123; Denmark-Federal Republic of Germany 1965, 570 Unts 91; Netherlands-Denmark 1966, 604 Unts 209; France-Spain 1974, ST/Leg/Ser.B/19, supra note 31, 389 prel. issue.

59 German Democratic Republic-Poland 1968, RüSTEB, supra note 31, at 85; Soviet Union-Poland 1969, ST/Leg/Ser.B/16, supra note 31, at 414. See their Moscow Declaration on The Continental Shelf in The Baltic Sea of 23 October 1968, ST/Leg/ Ser.B/15, supra note 31, at 772, 7 ILM 1393 (1968).

60 Norway-Soviet Union concerning The Varangerfjord, 1957, LIMITS IN The SEAS, supra note 31, No. 17; and The two German states, Protocol Note of 1974 on The territorial sea, 5 Churchill, supra note 31, at 5.

61 Finland-Soviet Union on The Gulf of Finland, 1965, 566 Unts 31; and on The northeastern part of The Baltic Sea, 1967, 640 Unts 111.

62 On 23 June 1978 Turkey and The Soviet Union signed an agreement on The delimitation of maritime areas in The Black Sea. The Turkish text was generously provided by The Turkish Embassy in Bonn.

63 Iran-Qatar 1969, 787 Unts 165; Iran-Bahrain 1971, ST/Leg/Ser.B/16, supra note 31, at 428; Iran-Oman 1974, 14 ILM 1478 (1975); Iran-United Arab Emirates 1974, 5 Churchill, supra note 31, at 242.

64 Sudan-Saudi Arabia 1974, supra note 48.

65 Saudi Arabia-Bahrain 1958, ST/Leg/Ser.B/16, supra note 31, at 409; Kuwait- Saudi Arabia 1965, supra note 45; Abu Dhabi-Qatar 1969, supra note 47.

66 Abu Dhabi-Dubai 1968, 5 Churchill, supra note 31, at 214; Saudi Arabia-Iran 1968, 696 Unts 189.

67 See, e.g., Art. 2 of The agreement between Iran and Qatar of 1969, supra note 63.

68 Indonesia-Malaysia 1969, ST/Leg/Ser.B/16, supra note 31, at 417; Indonesia- Australia 1971, ST/Leg/Ser.B/18, supra note 31, at 433, The supplementary agreement of 1972, ST/Leg/Ser.B/18, at 441, and The agreement of 1973 concerning Papua New Guinea, ST/Leg/Ser.B/18, at 444; Thailand-Indonesia 1971, ST/Leg/ Ser.B/18, at 437; Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand 1974, ST/Leg/Ser.B/18, at 429; Japan-Republic of Korea 1974 (concerning The Northern Part), 5 Churchill, supra note 31, at 113; Japan-Republic of Korea 1974 (concerning The Southern Part), id. at 117; India-Indonesia 1974, id. at 265; India-Sri Lanka 1974, 13 ILM 1442 (1974); India-Sri Lanka 23 March 1976, ST/Leg/Ser.B/19, supra note 31, at 399 prel. issue, and Supplementary Agreement of 22 November 1976, id. at 404 prel. issue. A trilateral agreement of India, Sri Lanka, and The Maldives signed in July 1976, id at 387 prel. issue, which does not contain a mineral deposit clause, is only concerned with The determination of The trijunction point on The continental shelf adjacent to those countries. The same is true for The trilateral agreement signed by India, Indonesia, and Thailand on 22 June 1978. India-Maldives, 28 December 1976; India-Thailand, 22 June 1978 (The latter agreements were generously provided by The Embassy of India in Bonn).

69 Only to mention here The Greek-Turkish dispute concerning The continental shelf of The Aegean Sea, and The dispute between Libya and Timisia concerning their continental shelf boundary.

70 See Mcdowell, [1976] Digest Of United States Practice In International Law 346 Et seq. As to The U.S.-Canadian dispute concerning The Gulf of Maine, see Swan, That Gulf of Maine Dispute: Canada and The United States Delimiting The Atlantic Continental Shelf, 10 nat. Resources law. 405 (1977).

71 See The maritime boundary agreement with Mexico of 1970, 23 UST 371, TIAS No. 7313; The exchange of notes of 24 November 1976 on provisional maritime boundaries, MCDOWELL, supra note 70, at 348, and The treaty on maritime boundaries of 4 May 1978, 48 archiv der gegenwart 21762 (1978).

72 Maritime Boundary Agreement of 16 December 1977, 17 ILM 110 (1978).

73 Treaty on maritime boundaries signed at Caracas on 28 March 1978, 48 Archiv Der'Gegenwart 22039 (1978).

74 Signed at Ottawa, 17 December 1973, 13 ILM 506 (1974).

75 205 LNTS 122.

76 Art. 6, Tractatenblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, No. 61 (1978).

77 Preamble, Art. 43, and Art. 71 of The Treaty of The La Plata River and its Maritime Limits Between The Republic of Uruguay and The Republic of Argentina, Montevideo 19 November 1973, 13 ILM 251 (1974).

78 Signed at Quito, 23 August 1975, ST/Leg/Ser.B/19, supra note 31, at 393 prel. issue; see also Limits In The Seas, supra note 31, No. 69.

79 Signed at Cartagena, 20 November 1976, Gaceta oficial (Panama), 30 June 1978, No. 18.610.

80 Exchange of Notes of 26 April 1960 between France and Portugal, [1960] J.O. (May 31); see also Limits In The Seas, supra note 31, No. 68.

81 As to The relevance of time for The development of customary international law, see The North Sea Continental Shelf cases, [1969] ICJ Rep. 43.

82 Id. at 42.

83 Id. at 41.

84 Id. at 44.

85 See especially, Sohn, The Stockholm Declaration on The Human Environment, 14 HARV. Int'L L.J. 423, 500 Et seq. (1973).

86 GA Res. 2995 (XXVII), 2996 (XXVII), and 3129 (XXVIII) ﹛see supra note 25), and Art. 3 of The Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, GA Res. 3281 (XXIX), 12 December 1974, 29 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 31) 50.

87 Res. 2995 was adopted by a vote of 115 to none with 10 abstentions. Res. 3129 was adopted by a vote of 77 in favor, 5 against (mostly Latin American states), and 43 abstentions (industrialized countries). Res. 3281 was adopted by a vote of 120 in favor, 6 against, and 10 abstentions.

88 For a recent appraisal of The process of lawmaking by resolutions of international organizations, see Schachter, The Evolving International Law of Development, 15 COLUM. J. Transnat'L L. 1, 3 Et seq. (1976).

89 See, e.g., The declarations of The oil-producing states in The Middle East: Saudi Arabia, Royal Pronouncement of 1949, United Nations Legislative Series, Laws and Regulations on The Regime of The High Seas, ST/Leg/Ser.B/1, at 22; Kuwait, Proclamation of 1949, id. at 26; Iran, Law of 1955 Concerning The Continental Shelf, Art. 3, ST/Leg/Ser.B/15, supra note 31, at 366.

90 Presidential Proclamation No. 2667, concerning The policy of The United States with respect to natural resources of The subsoil and The seabed of The continental shelf, 28 September 1945. 59 Stat. 884 (1945).

91 [1969] ICJ Rep. 83.

92 19 Ajil 393, 398 (1925).

93 [1931] PCIJ, Ser. A/B, No. 42, at 108, 116.

94 [1969] ICJ Rep. 47.

95 See also Beyerlin, Pactum de contrahendi) und pactum de negotiando im Volkerrecht? 36 Zeitschbift Fur Auslandisches Offentliches Recht Und Volkerrecht 406 (1976).

96 Supra note 26; cited from 24 ILR 128 (1961).

97 Supra note 56, Art. IV, sec. 2.

98 La Plata River Treaty, Arts. 43 and 71, supra note 77. See also The delimitation agreements of The Federal Republic of Germany of 1971 with Denmark and The Netherlands, Arts. 2, para. 2, supra note 53.

99 See, e.g., The typical Anglo-Norwegian and The typical Iranian clause, supra at pp. 229, 230-31.

100 E.g., The agreements between Indonesia and Australia, supra note 68; Sudan- Saudi Arabia, supra note 48, Art. 14; India-Indonesia of 1974, supra note 68, Art. 3.

101 See The Helsinki Rules, Art. 4, supra note 1; Schachter, supra note 1, at 64 Et seq.; Lipper, Equitable Utilization, in The Law Of International Drainage Basins 15 Et seq. (A. Garretson, R. Hayton, & C. Olmstead eds., 1967).

102 See The example mentioned at note 34 supra.

103 E.g., Spain-France 1974, Art. 4, para. 2, supra note 41; Federal Republic of Germany- Denmark and FRG-Netherlands, Arts. 2, para. 2, supra note 53.

104 United Kingdom-Denmark 1966, Art. 2, supra note 53. However, The sharing of The costs depends also on The kind of cooperation finally chosen by The parties because in The case of coordinated exploitation, for example, each licensee or party bears its own production costs.

105 Supplementary Agreement of 1962 to The Ems-Dollart Treaty, Art. 7, para. 3, supra note 35.

106 Id. at Art. 5, para. 1; Japan-South Korea 1974 (Southern Part), Art. 9, supra note 39.

107 E.g., Norway-United Kingdom 1965, Art. 4, supra note 52; Italy-Yugoslavia 1968, Art. 2, supra note 57; Federal Republic-Denmark and FRG-Netherlands, Arts. 2, para. 3, supra note 53; Australia-Indonesia 1972, Art. 8, supra note 68; Spain-France 1974, Art. 4, supra note 41; Japan-Korea 1974 (Northern Part), Art. 2, supra note 68, (Southern Part) Art. 23, supra note 39.

108 E.g., Netherlands-United Kingdom 1965, Art. 2, supra note 53; The agreements of The Federal Republic of Germany with Denmark, The Netherlands, and The United Kingdom of 1971, Arts. 5 and 4, supra note 53; Spain-France 1974, Art. 5, supra note 41; Japan-Korea 1974 (Southern Part), Art. 26, supra note 39. Sudan-Saudi Arabia 1974, Art. 16, supra note 48, even accepted The compulsory jurisdiction of The ICJ concerning disputes that may arise from their agreement concerning The Red Sea.

109 See, e.g., The agreements concluded between Indonesia and several of its neighboring states, supra note 68.

110 In practice, however, The discovery of a petroleum or natural gas deposit on The continental shelf of any country is normally made public. In addition, any country that observes drilling operations at its frontiers or dividing lines may request The neighboring country to consult about The possible extension of deposits upon its territory or continental shelf.

111 See supra note 86. Art. 3 of The Charter reads: “In The exploitation of natural resources shared by two or more countries, each State must co-operate on The basis of a system of information and prior consultation in order to achieve optimum use of such resources without causing damage to The legitimate interest of others.“

112 Lac Lanoux arbitration, cited from 24 ILR 138 (1961).

113 As regards The duty to inform in The case of projects for The regulation of international rivers, The tribunal held in The Lac Lanoux case that a state “is not obliged to associate The [other] State in The elaboration of its schemes.” Id. at 140.

114 Contra, Onorato, supra note 14, who assumes that The state would “abandon title to property through failure to maintain a minimum of sovereign rights in The face of rival activity, a minimal response, such as a seasonable objection.” Id. at 329.

115 This means that states have no right of veto against other states’ operations; see The Lac Lanoux arbitration, 24 ILR 128 (1961).

116 See The PCIJ in The Railway Traffic case, supra note 93, at 116; The ICJ in The North Sea Continental Shelf cases, [1969] ICJ Rep. 48

117 To mention here but The principles of cooperation (Art. 1, sec. 3), peaceful settlement of disputes (Art. 2, sec. 3 and Art. 33), and of good neighborliness (Art. 74) of The UN Charter.

118 As, e.g., between Greece and Turkey or Libya and Tunisia.

119 In The southern part of The continental shelf between Japan and South Korea, see supra note 40; or in The case of The continental shelf between The United Kingdom, Denmark, and The Netherlands until 1971.

120 The delimitation agreement between Denmark and Canada of 1973, supra note 104, provides for The possibility of a new delimitation of The continental shelf areas between Greenland and Canada in an area between 67° and 69° north latitude, if The international law concerning The delimitation should change in a manner acceptable to both parties. Id. at Art. 8.

121 Mouton, The Continental Shelf, 85 Recueil DES COUKS 347, 422 (1954, I).

122 Id. at 421, 422.

123 Supra note 9, at 112; “Le principe qu'il ne faut pas perdre de vue Et dont la pratique obligera a tenir compte est celui de l'unite du gisement.“

124 “Le droit international consacre déjá cette idée en matiére de droit fluvial; elle s'impose d'autant plus ici que le gisement, loin de se renouveler comme le fleuve, se detruit par l'usage.” Ibid.

125 See supra note 101.

126 The Grisbadarna Case (Norway v. Sweden), Hague Ct. Rep. (Scott) 121 (Perm. Ct. Arb. 1909); for The original French version, see id. at 487, or 11 R. Int'l Arb. Awards 155.

127 The perpendicular line ran 20° in a westerly direction to The south, whereas The boundary line ran 19° to The south. Hague Ct. Rep. supra note 126, at 129.

128 Id. at 130, 131.

129 Id. at 130.

130 Y. Blum, Historic Titles In International Law 20 Et seq., 259 n.3 (1965); Padwa, Submarine Boundaries, 9 Int'L & Comp. L.Q. 628, 645 (1960).

131 Padwa, supra note 130, at 645; E. D. Brown, The Legal Status Of Hydrospace 67 (1971); Onorato, supra note 14, at 325; unclear: Grisel, The Lateral Boundaries of The Continental Shelf and The Judgment of The International Court of Justice in The North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, 64 Ajil 562, 583 (1970).

132 [1969] ICJ Rep . 46.

133 Id. at 52, 53.

134 Id. at 52.

135 Decision of 30 June 1977 by The court of arbitration established by The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and The French Republic on delimitation of The continental shelf; see Colson, The United Kingdom-France Continental Shelf Arbitration, 72 Ajil 95 (1978), and Blecher, Equitable Delimitation of Continental Shelf, 73 Ajil 60 (1979). See also Art. 83 of The Informal Composite Negotiating Text, UN Doc. A/CONF.62/WP.10/Add.l, 22 July 1977, 16 ILM 1143 (1977).

136 Colson, supra note 135, at 103.

137 See The delimitation agreement between The Federal Republic and Denmark of 1971, supra note 53. The deviation is between The turning points S2 and Sa. See RÜSTER, supra note 31, at 177; Schenk, von, Die vertragliche Abgrenzung des FestUmdsockels unter der Nordsee zwischen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und Dänemark und den Niederlanden nach dem Vrteil des Internationalen Cerichtshofs vom 20. Februar 1969,Google Scholar 14 Jahrbuch FÜR Internationales Recht 370, 385 Et seq. (1971); Auburn, The North Sea Continental Shelf Boundary Settlement, 16 ARCHIV DES VÖLkerrechts 28, 31 (1974/1975); Wenger, supra note 35, 132 Et seq.

138 Under Art. 4 of The agreement The Danish concessionaires in The ceded area had a right to acquire a German license within 1 year after The agreement went into force. The same was true for The Dutch concessionaires under Art. 4 of The Netherlands- German agreement. For a similar provision, see Art. 8 of The supplementary agreement between Australia and Indonesia of 1972, supra note 68.

139 Supra note 66. See Young, Equitable Solutions for Offshore Boundaries: The 1968 Saudi Arabia-Iran Agreement, 64 Ajil 152, 156 (1970).

140 See Oda's remarks in Vol. 1 of North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, ICJ Pleadings 62 (1968).

141 Supra note 65.

142 One also could think of joint licensing of a consortium for “wildcat” operations in areas of overlapping claims. See Judge Jessup, The North Sea Continental Shelf cases, [1969] ICJ Rep. 83.