In a recent ICJ meeting concerning the case of the North Sea Continental Shelf, controversy occurred at the mention of implementing a third party.
The North Sea Continental Shelf Case was introduced by Germany. The German representatives felt that the division of the North Sea Continental Shelf did not evenly distribute the rich resources. The solution to the issue is being debated as the parties consider whether to divide according to the number of resources or not. “When a child cries for candy, does their mom give it to them? No. But that is what is happening, the countries are throwing a temper tantrum,” a representative from Morocco remarked, believing that it is instead necessary to bring in a third party to take control of the triangle of the sea, preventing anyone from receiving the resources.
“We must give the countries in their area their vegetables,” a representative from Slovakia responded. The Slovakian believes that the best solution would be to divide according to resources. A representative from Australia agreed with the representative from Slovakia, stating that giving the water area to a third party would be “like giving the Gaza Strip to a country other than Palestine or Israel.” The representatives from Slovakia and Australia, along with representatives from Japan and Jamaica, believe that the implementation of a third party would cause further conflicts in the future, especially when choosing the third party.
Instead of the implementation of a third party, some representatives wish to divide the resources of the area. “We plan to take the triangle and divide it equally among the three countries by resource,” a delegate from Japan remarked. Japan plans to justify this with praeter legem, stating that it is above the law.
Currently, there is more support for the resolution that evenly distributes the resources.