For the Republic of Malta : Dr. Edgar Mizzi,
Professor Pierre Lalive,
Mr. M. E. Bathurst, C.M.G., C.B.E., Q.C.,
Mr. E. Lauterpacht, Q.C. ;
For the Socialist People’s
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya : H.E. Mr. Kamel H. El Maghur,
Sir Francis A. Vallat, K.C.M.G., Q.C.,
Professor Antonio Malintoppi,
Mr. Keith Highet ;
For the Republic of Tunisia : H.E. Mr. Slim Benghazi,
Professor Sadok Belaid,
Professor R. Y. Jennings, Q.C.
" 1. Should a State consider that it has an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the decision in the case, it may submit a request to the Court to be permitted to intervene.
2. It shall be for the Court to decide upon this request."
Such an application under Article 62 is required by Article 81, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court to specify the case to which it relates and to set out :
"(a) the interest of a legal nature which the State applying to intervene considers may be affected by the decision in that case ;
(b) the precise object of the intervention ;
(c) any basis of jurisdiction which is claimed to exist as between the State applying to intervene and the parties to the case".
Malta’s Application to be permitted to intervene in the present case set out its contentions with respect to the matters specified in each of those three subparagraphs, and those contentions were further explained and developed in the oral argument addressed to the Court by its representatives at the hearings. The Republic of Tunisia (hereinafter referred to as "Tunisia") and the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (hereinafter referred to as "Libya"), in written observations on the Application of Malta, gave their respective reasons for maintaining that Malta’s request for permission to intervene did not satisfy the conditions set out in the Statute and Rules of Court ; and their views were further explained and developed in the oral argument of their representatives at the hearings. The positions taken in the written and oral proceedings on these matters by the three States concerned may be summarized as follows.
"Should a State consider that it has an interest of a legal nature, which may be affected by the decision in the case, it may submit a request to the Court to be permitted to intervene. It will be for the Court to decide upon this request."
This formula was adopted by the Committee, subject to revision, and it was decided to make the new provision a separate article inserted immediately before Article 63. In the French text — the text established by the Committee — it was sought to make the phrase "un intérêt d’ordre juridique le concernant est en cause" more precise by revising it so as to read "un intérêt d’ordre juridique est pour lui en cause". In the English text, the corresponding phrase "interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the decision in the case" was at the same time completed by adding the words "as a third party". What was intended to be the precise significance of that addition is not stated in the Committee’s records. However, when the words "as a third party" added to the English text are read together with the revised wording of the French text "est pour lui en cause", it becomes clear that the interest of a legal nature to which Article 62 was intended to refer was an interest which is in issue in the proceedings and consequently one that "may be affected by the decision in the case".
Finds that the Application of the Republic of Malta, filed in the Registry of the Court on January 30th, 1981, for permission to intervene in the proceedings under Article 62 of the Statute of the Court, cannot be granted.
Done in English and in French, the English text being authoritative, at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this fourteenth day of April, one thousand nine hundred and eighty-one, in four copies, one of which will be placed in the archives of the Court and the others transmitted to the Government of the Republic of Tunisia, the Government of the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and the Government of the Republic of Malta, respectively.