3d4yVkKMl

- 20 -
34. Australia rejects Japan’s interpretation of its reservation, maintaining that
“the reservation only operates in relation to disputes between Australia and another
country with a maritime claim that overlaps with that of Australia that is, a
situation of delimitation. Australia has no delimitation [dispute] with Japan and hence
the paragraph (b) reservation can have no operation.”
It adds that “[i]n particular, the reservation does not cover a dispute concerning the validity, or
otherwise, under the 1946 Convention, of Japan’s JARPA II programme, a dispute entirely
unconnected with any delimitation situation”.
According to Australia, the intent underlying the reservation was to give effect to its “belief
that its overlapping maritime claims are best resolved by negotiations”, especially the complex
maritime boundary delimitations with New Zealand and Timor-Leste that were ongoing at the time
the declaration was made. Australia maintains that the wording of the reservation is to be
understood against this background. Thus, the purpose of the second part of the reservation “is to
make clear [that] the reservation extends beyond disputes over delimitation of maritime zones per
se, to associated disputes concerning [the] exploitation of resources that may arise between the
States with overlapping maritime claims pending delimitation”.
Australia also contests Japan’s view that the dispute over JARPA II is about “exploitation”
in the sense of its reservation, arguing that the exploitation contemplated by the reservation is
“exploitation of resources covered by a potential delimitation arrangement and not any exploitation
unrelated to that delimitation situation that happens to occur in the relevant geographic area”.
35. Australia furthermore contends that the geographic area of operation of JARPA II, which
in any event extends well outside any waters claimed by it, cannot determine the Court’s
jurisdiction over a treaty dispute that is unrelated to the status of the waters in which the activity
occurs. According to Australia, “[t]he dispute before the Court concerning compliance of
JARPA II with the whaling Convention exists whether or not Australia asserts maritime zones
adjacent to Antarctica and irrespective of any delimitation with adjacent claimants”. Australia
emphasizes that, in the maritime context, the word “delimitation” has a specific meaning, referring
solely to “the fixing of boundaries between neighbouring States, whether adjacent or opposite”.
36. The Court recalls that, when interpreting a declaration accepting its compulsory
jurisdiction, it “must seek the interpretation which is in harmony with a natural and reasonable way
of reading the text, having due regard to the intention” of the declaring State (Anglo-Iranian Oil
Co. (United Kingdom v. Iran), Preliminary Objection, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1952, p. 104). The
Court noted in the Fisheries Jurisdiction case that it had “not hesitated to place a certain emphasis