Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T08:18:13.021Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Court of Justice: Application of the Government of Malta for Permission to Intervene in the Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial and Similar Proceedings
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , March 1981 , pp. 329 - 332
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

*[Reproduced from the text provided by the International Court of Justice. The application was filed with the Court on January 30, 1981.

[The Parties have filed written observations, having been invited to do so in accordance with Article 83 of the Rules (17 I.L.M. 1300 (1978)). Since objection has been made to the application, the Court has scheduled public hearings beginning on March 19, 1981, in accordance with Article 84 of the Rules (17 I.L.M. 1300 (1978)), before deciding whether or not to grant the application.

[The agreement between Tunisia and Libya to submit the case to the I.C.J, appears at 18 I.L.M. 51 (1979). The I.C.J. Order on the time limits for the written proceedings appears at 19 I.L.M. 964 (1980).]

References

* Judge Gurfein. who was a member of the en banc Court, unfortunately died on December 16, 1979. Prior to his death, he had voted to affirm the judgment of the district court. He did not have the opportunity, however, to see thii orinion prior to his death.

1. We assume familiarity with the statements of fact set forth in the opinion of the district court. 453 F.Supp. 10 (January 17, 1978), and in the two sets of panel opinions of this Court.