INTERNATIONAL COUOFJUSTICE
PLEADINCS, ORALARCUMENl'S, DOCUMENTS
CASE CONCERNING DlELIMITATION
OF THE MARITIMEBOUNDARY
IN THE GULF OF MAINE AREA
(CANADA/UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
VOLUMEVI1
OralProceed(conclud;orrespondence
COUR INTERNATIONADEJUSTICE
MÉMOIRES, PLAIDOIRIESET DOCUMENTS
AFFAIRE DE LA DÉLIMITATION
DE LA FRONTIÈRE MARITIME
DANS LA RÉGION DU GOLFE DU MAINE
(CANADA/ETATS-u NsD'AMERIQUE)
VOLUMEVI1
Procéduorale(stfin); correspondance INTERNATIONAL COURT OFJUSTICE
PLEADINGS,ORALARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS
CASECONCERNINGDELIMITATION
OF THE MARITIMEBOUNDARY
IN THE GULF OF MAINE AREA
(CANADA/UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
VOLUMEVI1
OralProceedings(con: orrespondence
COUR INTERNATIONALEDE JUSTICE
MÉMOIRES,PLAIDOIRIESETDOCUMENTS
AFFAIRE DE LA DÉLIMITATION
DE LA FRONTIÈRE MARITIME
DANS LA RÉGION DU GOLFEDU MAINE
(CANADAIÉTATS-UNIS D'AMÉRIQUE)
VOLUMEVI1
Procédureorale (suiteetfin);correspondance The case concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundaryin the Gulf of
Maine Area. ~nte~ed on the Court's General List on 25 November 1981under
numhcr 67, was the rubject of ;iJudgment delii,ered on 12Oflober 19x4by
the ('hamber con~tituted by the Order made by the <:ouri on 20 January 1982
tDdtmiration 01 rhp Maririmr Boundan.In the Gullol Maine Area. Judanieni.
~c.J. Reports 7984,p. 246). .. -
The pleadings and oral arguments in the case are being published in the
following order:
Volume 1. Special Agreement; Memorial of Canada.
Volume II. Memorial of the United States of America.
Volume III. Counter-Memorial of Canada
Volume IV. Counter-Mcmorial of the United States of America.
Volume V. Keplies of Canada and the United States <ifAmerica.
Volume VI. Commencement of Oral Arguments
Volume VI1 Conclusion of Oral Argumentr: Documents submitted to the
Court alter closure of the written proceedings: Correspondence.
Volume VIII. Maps, charts and illustrations.
Canada filed its pleadings both in English and in French. Although Canada
has two official laneuaees. onlv the Enelish text of those documents is rer>ro-
duced on the ensuikg Pages if these volumes, as Canada has informed'the
Ree-stw-that the Enel-sh tex1should be seen as aiithoritative for the p-rp-ses
of interpretation.
Certain pleadings and documents of this edition are reproduced photo-
graphically from the original printed text.
In addition tothe normal continuous ~aeination. the Volumes feature on the
inner margin of pages a bracketcd indication of tlie original pagination of the
hlemorials. the Countcr-Mçmorial\, the Replies and certain Annexes.
In interna1references. hold Roman numeÏals (inthe tex1or in the marnin) are
used to refer to volumes of this edition; if theyàre immediately followëd by a
pane reference, this relates to the new pagination of the Volume in question. On
iheother hand. .he o.-e numhen whichare ~receded bv a reference to one of
the pleading, relate to the originîl pagination of that document and accord-
ingly refer to the brdcketed pîgination oithe document in question.
The rnïin maps and charts are reproduced in a ieparate Volume (Vol. VIIIJ,
with ï renumbering, indicîted hy ringed numerals, that is also added in the
margin in Volumes I-\'Il wherever conesponding references appear; the
absence of such mareinal reference means that the ma^ or illustration is no1re-
produced in the pre&nt edition.
Neither the typography nor the presentation may be used for the purpose of
interpreting the iexïs reproduced
L'affaire de laDélimitationde lafrontière maritimedansla régiondu golfedu
Maine, inscrite au rôle généralde la Cour sous le numéro67 le 25 novembre
1981,a fait l'objet d'un arrêtrendu le 12octobre 1984par la Chambre consti-
tuéepar ordonnance de la Courdu 20janvier 1982 (Délimitationdelafrontière
maritimedansla régiondugolfedu Maine, arrêt, C.I.J.Recueil 1984,p. 246).Vttt GULFOF MAINE -GOLFE DU MAINE
Les pièces de procédure écrite et les plaidoiries relativeà cette affaire sont
publiéesdans l'ordre suivant:
Volume 1. Compromis: mémoire du Canada.
Volume II. Mémoire des Etats-Unisd'Amérique.
Volume III.Contre-mémoire du Canada
Volume IV Contre-mémoire des Ftats-Unis d'Amérique.
Volume V. Répliques du Canada et des Etats-Unis d'Amérique.
Volume VI. Début de la procédure orale.
Volume VI1 Suite et fin de la procédureorale: documents présentes à la Cour
aprésla fin de la procédureécrite: correspondance.
Volume VIII. Cartes et illustrations.
Le Canada a déooséses oièces de orocédure écriteen anelais et en francais.
Bienquele ~anadk ait deu; langues officielles, seul le texteanglais de sesécri-
tures est reproduit dans les volumes ci-dessus. le Canada avant fait savoir au
Greffe que; en cas d'interprétation, c'était le texte anglais qui devait faire foi.
Certaines piècesde la présenteédition sont photographiées d'après leur texte
imprimé oriainal
outre leur pagination continue habituelle, les volumes comportent, entre
crochets sur le bord intérieur des pages,l'indication de la paginationoriginale
des mémoires.des contre-mémoires, des répliau. .et de certaines de leurs an-
nexes.
S'agissant des renvois, les chiffres romains gras (dans le texte ou dans la
marge) indiquent le volume de la présenteédition; s'ils sont immédiatement
suivis var une référencede oa.e-.cette référencerenvoie à la nouvelle oaeina-
tion d; \olume concrrné. Fn revanche. les numérosde page qui sont pkcédes
del'indication d'une pièce de procidure visent la pagination originale deladite
pièce et renvoient donc à la oaeination entre crochets de la oiece mentionnée.
' Les principale, cartes sonireproduites dans un \olume séparé(~111 )U elle,
ont requ un numerotage nouveau indiqué par un chilfre cerclé. [>ans les \,O-
lumes I iVll, les ren\ois aux cartes et illustrations du \,olume Vil1 sont portés
cn margeselon cenoubeau numérotage,et l'absence de tout renvoi ;ila présente
édition 5ipniFic qu'une carie ou illu\trationn'est pas reproduite.
Ni la ..oo-ra.~hieni la orésentation nesauraieni êtreutiliséesaux fins de l'in-
terprétation destextes reproduits.Oral Arguments (concl.). Plaidoiries (suitetfin)
REJOINDE OF MR .LEGAUL(T CANADA) ....
1.Introduction ..................
II.Overview ...................
III.The legalvacuum in the United Statescase ........
1.Article 6 of the Continental ShelfConvention ......
2 .The basis of title to a 200-milezone .........
IV .The geographical misconceptions of the United States case . .
1.Proximity and equidistance .........
2 .The relevanceof geographical position and scale . .
V .Economic factors and the conduct of the Parties ...
1.Economic factors ...............
2 .Conduct of the Parties ..............
VI .Response to Judge Mosler's seventhquestion .......
VI1. Factual assertions ................
VI11. Conclusions ..................
RÉPLIQ~ DE M. WEIL(CANADA) ..............
Introduction ....................
Le concept de délimitation ...............
Leconcept de droit de la délimitation ............
Réponsesaux première et deuxième questions de M .Gros et à la
seconde question de M .Mosler .............
Réponseàla premièrequestion de M . Cohen .........
Conclusion .....................
REJOINDER OF PROFESSO JARENICK(E CANADA) .........
1. Introduction ...................
II. Identification of the extension of the coasts of the Parties into the
area of the delimitation...............
(a) General considerations on the problem of coastal front
extension incomplex geographical situations ......
(b) Natural prolongations or extensions of the coasts of the
Parties in the Gulf of Mainearea ..........
(i) Inner area ................
(ii) Outer area ................
III. Response to the argument of the United States that the equidis-
tance houndary "cuts off" the Coast of Maine from its seaward
extension .................. . .
North Sea and Bayof Biscay ............
Explanation of diagram used by Federal Repuhlic of Germany in
North Seo Continenral Sheycases ...........
IV . Article6of the 1958Continental ShelfConvention ......X CONTENTS - TABLEDESMATIÈRES
Introduction ....................
1. The geography of the Gulf of Maine area: the significanceof the
configuration of the Gulf and the location of the land houndary
A .The land houndary terminus and "the axis of the dispute" . .
B .The general configuration or general direction of the coasts
II. The basis of appurtenance ..............
III. The cut-off effect .................
A .the first roundon.................d by the United States in
B .The erron of pnnciple in the United States cut-ORargument
I.The direction of the Canadian linewithin the Gulf .-...
2 .Proportionality as a hasis of title: the United States ohjec-
tions to the Canadian line in the outer area ......
IV . An equitahle result in the geographical circumstances of the Gulf
of Maine area ..................
Introduction ...................
A .Points of agreement ...............
B .The location of the finalturning point .........
C .The direction of the linein the outer area ........
Response to the first. third. fourth and fifth questions put hy Judge
Mosler .............. ......
Response to the second and third questions put by ~udgeCohen ...
Conclusion .....................
Economics .....................
1. Fishing presence .................
I. Economicdependence ...............
II. Economicimpact ................
Conclusion .....................
Acquiescenceand estoppel ...............
1.The United States has failed to meet Canada's argument on
acquiescenceand estoppel .............
II. Reaffirmation of Canada's case concerning acquiescence and
estoppel ...................
III. Novel doctrines concerning acquiescenceand estoppel ....
IV . Detrimental reliance hy Canada ...........
Conduct of the Parties .................
I.The relevanceof the fishingactivities ..........
II.lrrelevant State activities..............
III. ICNAF ....................
IV .TOil and gasexplorationent .................. Activitiesof the Parties on Georges Bank ........
VI. Conclusions ..................
MPLIQU EE M .FORTIER (CANADA) .......
Introduction ....................
1. Vued'ensemble ..................
II. La théorie américaineà la recherche d'un fondement en droit et
dans lesfaits...................
.
I. La théoriede la frontièrenaturelle n'est pas fondéeen dro.t
2 . plateau continental dans la régiondu golfedu Maineo....ol du
3. Les études officielles des Etats-Unis et la théorie des trois
régimesécologiqueset dela prétendue frontière naturell...
Ill. Le banc de Georges et la notion de communauté distincte et
indivisibleappliquéeàtoutes lesressources halieutiques ....
I. La morue ...................
2 . Le hareng ...................
IV . Les ressources du banc de Georges: leur conservation et leur
gestion .....................
Réponseàla quatrièmequestion de M .Cohen .......
V . Les risques que présente l'exploitationdes hydrocarbures sur le
banc de Georges .................
VI .Conclusion ...................
%PLIQUE DE M .MALINTOP(PC IANADA) .......
Introduction ....................
La nature et la fonction du critèrede la proportionnalit.....
La question des modèlesde la proportionnalité vise lemêmeprocédé et
la meme méthode ..................
La place àreconnaître àla baie de Fundy dans le test de la proportion-
nalité ......................
Réponseàla deuxièmequestionde M .Schwebel .......
Le rôle du triangle visépar le compromis et à l'intérieurduquel la
frontièredoit nécessairementse terminer ..........
Les caractèresobjectifs de la portion extérieure de la régionàdélimiter
La question de savoir si la proportionnalitéest le seul testde l'ouuité
un parmi d'autres ..................
Conclusion .....................
STATEMENT BY MR .LEGAUL(T CANADA) ............
Closing Statement ..................
Response to question put by the President othe Chamber .....
Reaffirmation of Canada's oral and wntten argiiments ......
Confirmation of Canada's Submission ...........
REJOINDE OF MR .ROBINSO(N UNITED STATES ). . .
1.Introduction ...................
Applicable rulesand principlesof law ..........
Response to the third question @art 2)put by Judge Gros ..XI1 CONTENTS. TABLE DES MATIÈRES
I. Response to Canada's arguments concerning the conduct of the
Parties.....................
Canada's acquiescenceand estoppel argument .......
Canada's assertion that the conduct of the United States showed
that il accepted an equidistant line boundary on Georges Bank.
or considered il beequitable ............
1979Agreement on East Coast Fishery Resources ......
Response to the seventhquestion put by Judge Mosl....
QUESTIO BY JUDGE MOSLER ................
REJOINDE OF MR .LANCASTE (RNITED STATES) .........
Relevanceof fishingactivities..............
Review of historical and contemporary fishing activities on Georges
Bank ......................
REJOINDE OF MR .RASHKOW (UNITED STAN) ..........
Response to Canada's contentions regarding authorization hy the
United States Government of geophysical exploration on Georges
Bank ......................
REIOINDE RF MR .FELDMA(N UNITED STAN) ..........
Response to Canada's arguments regarding economicdependence . .
WOINDER OF MR .STEVENSO (NNITED STATES) .........
Major legalissues ..................
1.The law applicable to the determination of the single maritime
boundary ...................
A .The SpecialAgreement .............
Response to the second question put by Judge Mosler and to
the first and second questions put by Judge Gro...
B .The Convcntion on the Continental Shelf.......
Response to the fourth question put by Judge Gr....
C .The Fundamental Rule .............
Response to the first question put hy Judge Coh....
Responseto the question put by the President of the Chamber
Il.Efïect of the adoption by the Third United Nations Conference
on the Law of the Sea of treaty texts with reference to the
continental shelfand the exclusiveeconomiczone .....
Response to the third question (part 1)put hy Judge Gro. .
111.Canada's positions on the law applicable to the single maritime
houndary ...................
A .In general..................
B .As statedinCanada's written pleading........
C .As stated in the oral proceedin..........
IV .Critique of legalbasis for Canadian positi.......
A .Equity within the law..............
B .Treaty law .................
C .Customary law - the so-calleddistance princi.....
D .Proximity .................. V .Misunderstandings as to the United States legalposit...
A .Method ..................
B .Complete rejection of the equidistance metho.....
C .The United States alleged desire to turn back the legal clock
and not to recognize any changes in the law of delimitation
VI .Other legalissuesseparatingthe Partie.........
A .The role of economic dependence..........
B .The role of human geography ...........
C .Development of articulated equitable principles..
D .Possibleexpansion ofcoastal-State jurisdicti.....
VI1 .Conclusion ..................
QUESTIO NY JUDGE COHEN ..............
REIOINDEO RFPRO~R RIESENFEL (ONITED STA'IES) .......
Response to Canada's contentions regarding acquiescenceand estoppel
R~OINDER OF Mn .COISON (UNITED STATES) ..........
Application of delimitation methods to the geographical facts of this
case ......................
1.Remaining preliminary issuesof geographical significan. .
A .Relevant areas ................
Response to the fourth and sixth questions put by Judge
Mosler ..................
B .Macrogeography ...............
C .The Bayof Fundy ...............
D .The grey area ................
II.Thecut-off effect ................
III.The means for abating the cut-offeff.........
Response to the second question put by Judge Cohen and to the
first question put byJudge Mosle..........
A .The two-sector approach.............
Response to the third question put by Judge Mosler and to
the third question put byJudge Cohen.......
B .The one-sector approach.............
C .The two-method approach ............
QUESTIO NK JUDGE COHEN ............
ARGUMEN OTFMR .COISON (UNITED STATES) (COIII.).......
Conservation and management of area fisheriesresource.....
. The ICNAF line .................
I. Response to the eighth question put by Judge Mosl....
II. Stock distribution: reply to Canadian attack on Figure 7 of
United States Memorial ..............
IV. Response to the fourth question put byJudge Cohen....
Response to the seventh question put.ludge Mosler....
STATEMENT BK MR .ROBINSO(N UNITED STAW) .........
Wider significanceof Gulf of Maine ca...........XIV CONTENTS. TABLEDES MATIERES
Page
Response lo questions pu1hy ludge Cohen .......... 266
Reviewof factualconsiderations ............. 267
Coastal geography ................. 267
Marine environment ................. 268
Acriviiies ofthe Parties and their natiorials in the a..... 269
Rcsponre io the tir>[quesiion putb)Judgc Schuehcl ..... 270
Reatlirmaiion of ;irgumcnis for an adjustrd perpcndiculdr Iinc... 271
Final suhmissions ofihc United Siaics 272
Documents Presented to the Chamber after the Closure of the Wrltten
Proceedings . Documents présenté s la Chambre apr& la clôture de la
procédureécrite .................... 279
Correspondence . Correspondance .............. 283ORAL ARGUMENTS (Concluded)
MINUTES OF THE PUBLICSlTlNGS
heldar the PeacePalace. TheHague,
Presidenrof rhe Chnmber.JudgeAgo.presiding
PLAIDOIRIES (Suit etefin)
PROCÈS-VERBAUX DES AUDIENCES PUBLIQUES
renuesau palaisde la Paix, à La Haye.
du3 au II mai et le 12ocrobre1984.
sousla préside M. Ago.présidenrde la Chambre NINETEENTH PUBLIC Sl'ITlNG 13V 84, 3 p.m.)
Presenr: [Seesitting o2 IV 84.1
RWOINDER OF MR. LECAULT
AGENTFORTHE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. LEGAULT:
Mr. President, distinguished Judges,1 now have the honour to take up the
Canadian case once again at the outset of the second round of these oral
proceedings.
Canada is grateful to the Chamber for already having put questions to the
Parties. Counsel for Canada willattempt to answer these questions in the course
of this second round. Today 1shall address Judge Mosler'squestion regarding
the 1979 Agreement on East Coast Fishery Resources (VI, p. 463), and my
closing statement at the end of Canada's second round will address the
President's question (VI, p. 461). Other counsel for Canada will identify the
questions with which they will deal as the occasion arises.
My statement today will begin withan overview ofthis case as ir now stands,
after three rounds of written pleadingsand oneround of oral pleadings. Second,
it will deal with the legal vacuum in the United States case. Third, it will toucb
upon geography and ils legalconsequencesin the (iulfof Maine area. This part
of my statement will deal with questions relating both to proximity and
equidistance, and to the relevance ofgeographical position and scale. Fourth, 1
shall review the implications of certain economic factors and aspects of the
conduct of the Parties introduced by the United States. Fifth, 1shall respond 10
Judge Mosler's question regarding the 1979Agreement on East Coast Fishery
Resources. Next, 1shall digress for some few minutes to discuss the subject of
factual assertions in the pleadings of hoth Parties. And fin1shall attempt to
draw some general conclusions.
11.OVERVIEW
1 begin my overview, Mr. President, distinguished Judges, by noting again
ihat there is one important respect in whichthis casediffersfrom other maritime
boundary cases that have corne before the Court. In the North Sea Conrinenral
Shelfcases, the Court was asked for principles aloiie (I.C.J. Reports 1969,p. 6).
In the TlinisiujLibyacase, the Court was asked for hoth principles and an
indication of practical methods for their implernentation (I.C.J. Reports 1982,
p. 21). In the present case, the process is carried one step further. The Chamber
must obviously deal with principles of law. But the decision will also deal with
method in prescnbing the exact course of the boundary, and the line so pre-
scribed will he final and hinding upon the Parties.
As things now stand there is a marked imbakince in the way each of the4 GULF OF MAINE
Parties has placed ils case before the Chamber, and in the extent to which
each Party has given the other a clearly stated and fully defined case to meet.
Canada. for its oart. hascommitted itself 10a clearlv defined and inteerated
set of principles aid to a definite method and line. ~y'concluding stat&ent in
the first round pointed out that Canada's caseand Canada's line are basedon
the leeal content ofa 200-mile zone: on eeoaraohical adiacencv measured from
the Gast; on the equidistance-spkial &cÜmitances rile of'~rticle 6 of the
Continental Shelf Convention, which is binding on the Parties; on the vital
importance of the Georges Bank fishery 10the adjacent coastal communities of
Nova Scotia; and on the confirming evidence provided by the history of the
dispute (VI, p. 227).
Theseconsiderations al1ooint in the samedirection and form var1 of a single
integrated pattern. And théy al1confirm the appurtenancc of eastern Georges
Bank to Canada by reasonof the geographical position of Nova Scotia, and the
scaleand extent of ils coasts. Moreover, the pnnciples on which Ourcaseis based
are eiven a definite and c~n~ ~ ~ ~xoression in the Canadian line. Il is a line in
bei6 aline whoseoriginsdate bacfto the mid-1960s when canada first usedan
equidistance line for continental shelf oil and gas concessions. In sum, the
canadian caseis a simole. even conservative on6 based both on an inteerated
set oi principles andor; a clcarl) definrd xnd legally rccognizcd meihod.'
II is oihrruisc witthc Uniicd State5case In ihe tirri pldcc. the Unlied Siatcs
has no1proposed a single, integrated framework, bu1rather Iwo alternative and
conflictine theories. both eauallv novel and hoth eauallv unfounded. As 1 will
show in arew moments, the'theiry of perpendicular Oruni-directional extension
of the coastal front and the theory of the natural boundary are not complemen-
tary but mutually exclusive. And becausethey are mutually exclusive, thereis an
essentialambivalence about the basicpnnciples espousedby the United Statesin
this case.
The United Statesposition on the actual method and line the Chamber should
adoot is evenmore elusive.The United Statesdocs. of course.have a nrooosal in
fo;. ihead~usied per&ndicul~r Iinc Bui ihe rolc~~thai propoial in'ihr~niir~
Siaiescase is more <inillusiraiion of the conccpis ad\ocated by the United Suies
than a claim that reoresents the real substance of ils case
The Uniied ~iatcs'had tery Iitilc Io sayaboui11,adjusted perpendicular Iine in
the nrsi round. and very Iittle w) abnul Canada's man). objer.lions IOthat Iinc.
Amhx\s3dor Stetensun said. in cffcct. ihai any method or combination of
meihods would bc satisf~ciory so long as the end resuli uasi<"confirm United
Siaies jurisdlction mer 311oi Georprs RïnL" (VI. p ?fi61
Mr. Colwn spoke in similar icrms (VI. p. 322). But the ooini Io which he
attached narticilar imnortance was that the line mus1 be iurned seaward as
quickly a; possible. T~US. hr said, "Thç fundamental diRercncs hetu.een the
equidisiant linc and an cquiiablc solutiun in th15caseISihe location of the point
ai which the boundary turns seaward" (VI, p. 323).
And by "seaward", of course, he simply meant away [rom the coast of Maine
and towards the coast of Nova Scotia.
As Canada seesil, the United States position on method and line hoils down
to this.Firs tie.line should notbe an eauidistanceline. at leastbevond its initial
segments.~lcond,the line sh&d tum 'away from the United ta t eoast and
towards Nova Scotia as soon as possible. Third. it should ensure that al1 of
Georges Bank is allotted to the United States.
This is al1 we really know. We face an objection to equidistance and two
altemative theories of delimitation. But wedo no1have a definite claim to which
the United States will unequivocally commit its case.And so, Mr. President, 1 RUOINDER OF MR. LEGAULT 5
regret to say that even at this late stage in the proceedings, which represents
Canada's las1onnortunitv to soeak. the issues have been less.than fullv ioined.
There is, 1beiéve,an explanation'for the reticenceof the United Stat&>n this
question of method and line. And il lies precisely in the fact that the United
States case is based not unon a sinele inteerated frainework. but rather unon two
different theories that a;e mutuaÏly inc&npatible in the circumstances of this
case. 1refer, of course to the theory of the natural boundary and the theory of
coastal front extensions of so-called primary coasts. ~ecüuse these two theories
are in contradiction, they cannot be comhined in order 10 produce a single
coherent result.
1have already spoken of the factual incompatibility of the two United States
theories in the first round. The United States viewof uni-directional extension of
juri\dirtion holds that the entirc Are3seaward of the Gulf of Maine is uithin the
sc~u,.irdexiension ol the \u-callcd primar) coa~ialfront ai thc hack ofthc Gulf
- the coast of Maine. This, of course, assumes an essential continuity between
that coast and the outer area. But if the criteria implicit in the natural boundary
theory were to be accepted on their own termj, this continuity would he
decisivelyinterrupted. And this for two reasons. First. according to the United
States view, there is a division between the so-called ecological régimeof the
Gulf of Maine itself and the so-called ecological régimeof Georges Bank.
Secondly, the Gulf of Maine Basin, lying between Maine and the outer area, is
both deeper and over four times as broad as the Northeast Channel. How can il
be that the seaward extension of Maine can i2.~from one nuro. .ed ecoloeical-
régime IOanothcr. but the sc.iuard cxtenrli~noi&n\,3 S~oLiacannot" Hou :an
ithe that Maine un \auIl a geornorphi)logicïl fcatiircas pri~nouncedas the (iulf
of \laine Haiin. while Ihc re~uard ci;lcn>ionof Noia Scotix mus1be >tooocd
short by a featukeof much slighter dimensions? These are the~~ciuolcont~adic-
tions inherent in the Iwo United States theories.
Of equal importance is the reality that the two theories are concepruolly
incompatible. They rest on totally different conceptions of how the coastal
geography relates to the area of Georges Bank. They reflect two conflicting
versions of appurtenance, Iwo conflicting versions of what the Court has called
the "geographical correlation" of the coast and the sea (I.C.J. Reports 1982,
p. 61, para. 73).
It is obvious from any chart thdt the Northeast Channel kas absolutely no
connection with the coastal eeoera~hv of Maine. The Northeast Channel sim~lv
make5 no scnw 35 a dividing II& he1;ccn the scaward extensions of Maine in2
Kuvii Scotia. cithcr in terms oriis location or 11salignment. What IIimplics, in
Fdct,is a completel) ditlerent îi~ast:tlrelation,hip. That coastal relationship is
one that wouid require a maritime boundary between the opposite coasts of
Nova Scotia on the east and Massachusetts on the West.Such a view of the
coastal relationship looks across the area and no1 outward from the back of
the Gulf. This, in fact, was the frame of reference impliedhy the 1976claim of
the United States, and the Northeast Channel argument is simply a vestige
of that obsolete claim or "shadow claim". And we presume that the 1976claim
was abandoned in recognition of the fact that once Massachusetts and Nova
Scotia are identified as the coasts that abut the outer area - the controlling
coasts - the balance in the geography of these two coastal areas points almost
inexorably towards equidistance.
Now, Mr. President, we are fullyawarethat the natural boundary theory was
eiven a well-deserved demotion in the first round of the United States oral
ileadings. It no longer ranks alongside the theory of uni-directional or
perpendicular extensions ofjurisdiction as an independent principle ofdelimita- 6 GULF OF MAINE
tion, but only as an alleged relevant circumstance that is said to "confinn
independently" the result desired by the United States (VI,p. 457). But that only
makes the confusion worse. Because if the United States scheme of uni-
directional coastal front extension is taken on its own, it necessarily implies a
total gap in the seaward extension of Nova Scotia outside the closing line of the
@ Gulf. 1refer, of course, to the eîïect, shown on Figure 31 of the United States
Memonal. Canada would then be deemed to have no natural prolongation or
seaward extension onvwhere in the vicinitv of the Northeast Channel. The
Northeast Channel could play no concei;able role as a natural boundary,
because there could be no need for a delimitation anywhere in this area. The
United States extension itself would have disoosed of the question
So clcarly. the Unitcd Statrs clîim docs debnd on the snmbined application
of ihc two thcorics of uni-directional cxicnsion of jurisdiciion and the so.callcd
naiural boundarv. And the question thai rcmains is sim~ly[hi\: if Not.3 Scotia
does have a seaward extension up to the Northeast Channel, why not beyond?
The answer cannot lie in the coastal geography, because once the principle is
accepted that Nova Scotia does project in this direction, there can be no
geographical reason why it should not project as Carin that direction as the
United States Coast.So the only possible answerfor the United Statesmust lie in
the theory of the natural boundary.
But then 1must come back to my earlier question. How can Nova Scotia be
stoooed hv the Northeast Channel if Maine. which liesfurther awav. is not Io be
siopped b;.the Gulf or Mainc Basin? In short. how can any or Gcorgcs
Bank lie uithin the waward crtcnsion of Maine if the principles of ihe naturd
boundîry are valid? Ir iithai the thcow can be a~plied againsi only onc Party?
And if, on the other hand, the naturai boundaj'iheofis not valid, on what
possible basis should the seaward extension of Nova Scotia be stopped at the
Northeast Channel?
The contradictions in the United States case are hroueht-to lieht in the
\,apdricsof the adjusted perpcnJicul.ir Iinc The awkuardnçsr of ilsconsiruction
is3 refleziion of ihc fact thai ihc ijniicd Siïics cïsc is hascd on an unhîppv
marriaee of two contradictorv theories. The oeroendicular oortions of the I&e
repres&t the special view of the United ~iat4 on a uni:directional coastal
extension from the hack of the Gulf, while the adjusted portions of the line
reflect the United States theory of the natural houndary. In other words, the
"vertical" oarts of the lineeRect one theorv and the "horizontal" oarts reRect
ihe oiher ihcory. And thc structurîl incohe;encc of ihc wholc. u.hich 1siibvious
from a glancç ai the map. ir the nïiural sonscquencc or ihc unnÿtural union that
has givën it birth.
Here, if 1may digress for a moment, 1should like to recall the little lesson on
sailing techniques Mr. Colson gaveus on 13April (VI, p. 323).When 1reviewed
that lesson with CommanderJohn Cooper, Canada's nautical expert, he replied
wiih the refrain from the old British folk sone "What shall we do with the
drunken sailor?" For in Commander ~ooper's~~inion. any ma>tcr or J \oscl
who uould nîvlgaie dlong ihc Iincsuggecicdby Mr Colson uould ha\c iu bc in
a state of advanced inebriation indeed.
Mais laissons le morin de M. Colson ziezaeuer à son aise et revenons à la
mrrhude rr à lu lgnz zrgiogunree. The probïem. and ihc difticulty ihat ha'
confrontcd thc Unitcd Siaies throughoui in devising a plausihlc meihod. is noi
<imulvthat two bnd iheones cannot beaddcd toncihcr io mske î aood one. The
prob&m is more Iùndsmental ihan that. II is &al iwo cunrrodi~ror.~theorics.
whethcr gond or b3d. cannot possibly point in ihc direction ofa cohcrcni resuli.
I must add a word on whai we sec as the orrificruliiyof the United Statcs REJOlNDE RF MR. LEGAULT 7
theory - first adopted in 1982- that the coast of easternMaine should dominate
the entire delimitation. Maine has no coastline that actuallv borders the outer
area. There are 1u.ooihrr major coastal arras. Ma\sachusettr and Nova Scoiia.
ihat do lorm part of the outer arca IObedclimiied ;ind thai lie closer Io Georges
Bank. Thev are maior landmasses.not incidental features. And it is in these
areasof ~~ssaçhuséttsand Nota Scoria, noi c;istern Maine. thai the great hulk
of Georges Bank lishing operation\ are carried out. and whcre the principal
impact of the decision will he felt
III. THE LEGAL VACUUM IN THE UNITED STATES
Mr. President, the basic elementsof the United Statescasemay be internally
inconsistent, but they have at least one thing in common. They have no
foundation in the law of maritime boundaries. Neither of them is hased on
Article 6 of the Continental Shelf Convention. Neither of them takesaccount of
the iuridical content of the 200-mile zone. And nçither of them is'based on a
propcr iippreciaiion of geographical ad~dcencymc~surcd from the coast. the
common Faciorthat links ihe se\,eralfomr ofjuris~lict~oncomprising a 200-mile
zone.
As we noted in the first round. the United States~ ~~e~eives no mean~~eful
application 10 Article 6 of the ~~"tineni31~hclf ~on\enti~,n(~l. pp. 22. 25.56).
Ai the rame lime, ihe UnitedSuies Kepl) takcr the astonishing pos~tion ih~tthe
iuridical conicni of n 200-mile 7one is unreltted to ils Jeliniitïiiio 56. n3r3
86). And sowe pointed out that the United Statescasehas beendissiciated'both
from the conventional law and from the source from which principles of
customary law mus1be drawn; in brief, that the Utiited Statescasehasbeenleft
in a legal vacuum (VI, pp. 22-23). Mr. President, distinguished Judges, the
United States pleading in the first round has left this vacuum unfilled.
1.Arricle6 ofrhe ConrinenralShelfConvenrion
Let us look first at Article 6 of the Continental Shelf Convention. Professor
Jaenickewill havemore to sayon this suhject later. What I wish to stresshereis
that the United States refusesto come to grips with Article 6. It wasgiven what1
might cal1a "footnote" treatment by Ambassador Stevensontoward the end of
his statement of 12April (VI,pp. 284-285).But he dealt with it only asa sort of
Dreambuiar introduction 10his discussionof technical methods of delimitation.
;nd not ns a iource oi subsianiiie principlcs of Iau,.
The Jelimitation here under consideration dors .ippl) IO ihc coniinental shelf
and Article 6 is bindinv uoon the P~rtics. Oi that ihere can he no douht. The
United States recogniGd'in its Memonal (II) tliat the convention is appli-
cable (pp. 81-82. para.135; p. 101,para. 165).and the United States Reply (V)
affirmed that the delimitation should be consistent with the principles of the
eauidistance-s~ecialcircumstancesrule (PD.70-71.oara. 116).And Ambassador
Sievensonsaid that the United States ha; "recognized the expressapplicability
of Article 6 to a continental shelf determination between Parties to the
Convention and as a source of law in delimiting n single maritime boundary"
.VI. .. 284). That much is clear. But 1 reeret to sav that the United States
position on~rticlc 6 is fraught u,ith ambiguiïy. kauk Amhssador Stevrnson
also said th31"the United Statesdisagrecswith Canada as10the spplication of
Article 6 as a mattcr of iresiy ohliaalion" lihi<l.iand ihat "the United States
does not regard equidistancéas ufimately 'possessingthat obligatory force of
which the Anglo-French Tribunal spoke" (ibi) So it is understand-8 GULF OF MAINE
able, Mr. President, that we have found the United States position on Article 6
somewhat difficultto grasp.
Article 6 cannot have los1 its obligatory force unless il has been tacilly
abrogated by the Special Agreement. Neither Party, of course, has taken this
view,and it could not he seriouslyentertained in any event. On the contrary, the
Soecial Aereement (Art. II) (1. o. IO)exoresslv reauires that the nrovision be
..,=
g;ven its &II elïect, 'becauseit reque;ts a'deciGon based on the p;inciples and
rules of international law applicable in the matier as between the Parties. The
agreement that the conventional law should be given its full eKectcould not be
more explicit. For Article 6 is the only written source of positive law that is
applicable here.As 1said in the first round, Article 6providesa point of mooring
in otherwise uncharted waters.
Nor is there anv,imo.diment to the aoolr.ation ~~ Article 6 in the context of a
s~nglcmariiime b.>undnr). The applic~ii<>n of Ariiîlc 6 can takc accouni oithe
hro~Jencd leg:iland fÿclual c<inic\tof the singlemaritime houndary, Juri 2s ihe
Couri of Arhiir~iion in the Anelo-French case held ihai iicoul.1iake account ~ii
iheei.oluiion ofcusiomiiry internaiional law (pra 47). And ai WC haie alre2dy
pointcd oui. the principlcsof lawapplicable IOii200.milezone ofjuriidiciiiin in
relation to the waiercolumn have acommon origin with the equidistance-special
circumstances rule as a particular expression of a general nom. These principles
of law owe their meaning and their content to the concepts of equity and
geographical adjacency measured from the coast. They lead to a common
framework that is fullv comoatible with the rule in Article 6.
The L'nitcdSiaies hÿssaid(Vl. p 286) ihït idisagrecs u.iihCanada's \,;eu of
ihc opcraiion oi Article 6. Speiifi~.;ill),the Cniicd S13ie1dis3grecsthüi iherc 1.a
lewl oblieaiiiin, under Ariicle 6. io amsider adiusied cuuidisiancc oncc a sirici
equidistaice line is determined io he inapplica61e.
Now Canada, of course, did not state ils positions as rigidly as the United
States has suggested. But we hold to Our view that, within the framework of
Article 6, an adjustment of equidistance is frequently preferahle io ils total
ahandonment. This approach is one that avoids a hlack and white polarization
between the two branches of the mie. It recognizes that there is a single,
combined rule and not two separate rules that operate in opposition to each
other. This was the thrust of the reasoning of the Court of Arbitraiion in the
Anglo-French case. Article 6 provides that equidistance should he used unless
another line isjustified by specialcircumstances. But why should the departure
from equidistance he greater than the special circumstances require? In short,
hoth the spirit and the structure of the rule favour an adjustment of the
equidistance line in preference to its total abandonment.
2. The BusisofTirleto u 200-Mile Zone
Mr. President, the United States is lessambivalent on the implications of the
new law of the sea for the delimitation of a 200-milezone. It says in elïect that
there are no implications, apart from the addition of certain purely factual
considerations in the balancing up (VI, pp. 268-270). The United States
challenges the relevance of the distance principle, the exclusive basis of title
to a 200-mile zone (VI, p. 269). In elïect, the United States challenges
(ibid.) the Court's findings. made in the context of the new definition of the
continental shelf, that "the distance of 200 nautical miles isin certain cases the
hasis for litle of a coastal State" (I.C.J. Reports 1982,p. 48, para. 47) and that
"in certain circumstances the distance from the baseline, measured on
the surface of the sea, is the hasis for the title of the coastal State" (ibid., RUOINDER OF MR. LEGAULT 9
pp. 48-49,para. 48). And yct. of course, the crucial diffcrenccin the present saie
ir ihai the disiancc principle is the rolchasis ofIOa 200-mileu,aicr column
zone.
The United States has thus reireated. without exolanation. from the nosition
in 115Mcmorial (p. 101.pan. 164)ihai ~hiscase wis IO k dcicrmincd ni>solely
on the hasis of the law gotcrning the dr1imit:itionoithc coniincntal shelf. but
that the Iïu eoberninr the deliniiiation of the cxcliisire fishcriesrichts \rai also
to be applie& as wef as the law that serves "other purposes" Gr which the
Parties may exercisetheir jurisdiction undcr international law.
This viewof the law in theUnited States Memorial is a far cry from the view
exnressedin the United States Re. .(...54-60.oaras. 80-92).There the United
~tatcs 3rgued thït the juridisal content of the $0-mile rone is irrclev~nt.and
ihat the very cmcrgence and nature of thesc zones kas no real signifiwnce for
thcir dclimitation.And this reversal of positions suggejts ihsi the United Siates
has rwognized thai the distance principle and other basic pnnciplcs of the 200-
mile rbgmc 3rc inim~cal 10 ils case The United States aiiempi IOconfuse the
ver/ diiicrent concepts of ~'coïstal-Siaicmanaacmcnt" and "sin-le-Statc man-
agement" only servis to underline this incomGtibility.
1necd not reviewthe implications we have drawn from the basis of title to a
200-mile zone. They were fully set out in the first round. Mr. Hankey will
comment on the United States resoonse. includine its contention that the
distance principle is rclcvxntonIO&ter limits. ~ere-l u,illonly noie again ihar
Canada does no1hold that the distance pnnciplc niakes cquidisiance inhcrently
equitable or obligatory, but that if does make proximity to extensive coastal
areas a very important factor. And it certainly rules out the idea that a seaward
extension in any one direction is legally preferred.
IV.THEGEOGRAPHICA MLISCONCEPTIO ONFTHE UNITED STATEC SASE
Mr. President, 1turn now to the geographical misconceptions of the United
States case.
1said at the end of the first round that the equidistance-specialcircumstances
mle of Article 6 and the basis of title to a 200-milezone are founded on the
common principle of geographical adjacency measured from the Coast (VI,
p. 228). The United States case is built upon a faulty interpretation of the
geographical configuration largely because the United States misconceivesthe
practical implications of this principle.
1 do not propose to analyse the flaws in the United States geographical
argument in depth. I leave that task to my colleagiies,Professor Weil, Professor
Jaenickeand Mr. Hankey. And 1leavethequestion of theproportionality test to
Professor Malintoppi.
There are. however. Iwo basic errors in orinciole in the United States
argument that 1iannot Icabeunnoiiced One li;s in ihc confusion of proxim,ty
in a gencrül scnsewiih equidisiance aï a technical method. The oihcr liesin the
as>umptionby the United Staics ihat ihc ~eoarüphicalposition of a landmass-
without any regard to the question whetheÏ itceffect is proportionate to its scale
- can he relevant only as a source of inequity and not as a source of legitimate
entitlement. In other words, the position of Maine, far removed from the outer
area, is allegedlya source of inequity and musbc rectifiedby literally shifting
that position forward. The position of Nova Scotia, however, actually ahutting
on the outer area, allegedly entitles Nova Scotia to nothing. Much of the
geographical argument put fonvard by the United States in the first round can
ultimately betraced to these Iwo fundamental errors of pnnciple.10 GULF OF MAINE
1. Proximiry ond Equidisrnnce
1 shall deal first with the role of proximity as a relevant factor and iis
relationship to the equidistance method. The United States says that because
Canada relies on proximity to extensive stretches of coastline as a relevant
geographical factor, we have reversed the hierarchy of solution and method (VI,
D. 285: see also VI. o. 305).And in the United States view. anv consideration of
broxiiity - even p;Aximilyto a major landmass - issimpli a covert restatement
of the proposition that the equidistance is inherently equitahle (see VI, p. 285;
see also VI, p. 305).
This is not an accurate reoresentation of Canada's oosition. or of the law.
Although ihe Iau 1,neither \iIcnt nor indifiereni on the quesiiainof nicthod. we
have rwogni7ed ihrouphuut ihesc procwding\ thdi the equitable resuli 15indeed
the paramount conceÏn. What 1 want to focus on now, however, is the un-
warranted confusion the United States has sought to create belween equidis-
tance as a technical method and proximity as a relevant factor, which has an
independent and vitally important role in the law of delimitation.
Extensive passagesof my opening staternent were devoted to this very issue. 1
emphasized that "we rely upon proximity not to single, isolated points on the
coast, but to the abutting coasts as a whole" (VI, pp. 32,275). The United States
has chosen to pass over this in silence,and here 1regret to Saythat we appear to
have been engaged in a dialogue with the deaf.
There is a logical fallacy in the United States argument on the inter-
relationship or proximity and equidistance. Equidistance obviously has a
necessary correlation with proximity, in the sense that proximity provides its
essential rationale. But it hardlyfollows that proximity as a relevant factor can
simply be reduced to equidistance as a technical method. Indeed, as Canada
showed in some delail in the first round. there are cases where equidisiance fails
to give adequate expression to proximity in a generdl sense, and there are cases
where another method may do so better (see, e.g., VI, pp. 26-28).
And the other side of the coin is this. If the United States is -nht in "raui"n
ihai proi;imii) ha\ no independeni i,alue ar a rclev;int Fïci.ir. ihen equidirt;inre
itself would almosi ncier h:iw ;in objeciiie pnigraphical ioundïii.in The useoi
ruiiidisiance niirhi occ.lsronlill,bc iustilir.J in ihc lrah01' hciori >u~li ïs
pérpendicularity to a so-called primary coast, but never on the basis ol
proximity, which obviously constitutes the essential rationale for the equidis-
tance method. Il would, in other words, become inipossihle to justify an
eauidistance line as a line that is .. .ooriale in manv.-eoer-.hical situations
becaucc iileîvei Io cach Party the aress thai lie closest to irs '~ait. Thsre ir
clearly someihing radicîlly wrong u,iih this approïch.
I hope ue made ii clear in the firri round ihdt Canada reliesupon proximily in
a gencral scnic. and no! upon any îssumpiion thai the rquidisiance nieihiid is
inhrrenily rquiiablc or ihat il pro\,ides 11sown jusiific~tion WC e~pliciil)
recognized that there are situations where equidistance, strictly applied, may
disreeard imoortant auestions of scale. mav oroduce distortions. or mav fail to
retlr.7 the trie config;ration of the coï\i b;&\,ing cxsrs\ii.e weigIO inhiiiduiil
haiepoinis that di, no1corrcspond to 1h3tcontigurîii<~n Wc ri;pl.iined in ronic
detail that none of the ootential Ditfailssometimes associated with eauidistance
has any application in this case (VI, pp. 26-28). And we showed that the
Canadian line really does correspond 10the overall configuration, that it really
does reflect proximity in a general sense to the coasts as a whole (VI, p. 28).
Indeed, even the system of coastal fronts constructed by the United States
for the proportionality models in ils Counter-Memorial (IV) hears out RUOINDER OF MR. LEGAULT II
this point, apart from the use of the of-lying island ofNantucket. 1refer here to
Figures 24and 25of the United States Counter-Memorial. And Imight add lhat
these verycoastal fronts constructed hy the United States, again despite their use
of Nantucket, vividly illustrate that Cape Cod is the principal feature that
diverges from the overall configuration.
2. The Relevenceof GeogruphicalPosition und Scule
Mr. President, I turn now to a consideration of what has emerged as the
central geographical issue raised hy the United States argument - the relevance
of geographical position and scale. The United States says it is inequitable that
Nova Scotia. rather than eastern Maine. should control the eastern nart of
the outer aria to be delimited. Canada Says that this result is a natukal and
legitimate consequence of the geographical position of Nova Scotia. This dif-
feÏence of ~ersr>ectivehas become ihefocal oint of the ~eoeraohical debate as
approached bi the United States.
For the United States, the position or location ofa landmass is relevant only
as a source of potential inequity,and irrelevant as:isource of legitimatecoastal
entitlements. For Canada. on the other hand. the eeoe-anhuca.~ .sition of a
sot,tiil we;i 1sthe stïriing point iruni u.hichco:iiiaI Staiç entitlemcnts aIObe
determined. Position ctn indecd be a source of inequii). but onl) u hen the clTeci
that a landmass exerts hy virtue of its geographicaiphirion is &t of proportion
to itsscale.The general rule is that the position oa coastal area is simply a fact
of nature and no1 an inequity to be remedied. Il is only when a geographical
feature is a source of inequitahle distortion that equity calls for a remedy. This
can arise where a feature is incidental or aberrant to the general configuration.
But how can one take that view of the whole coast of southwest Nova Scotia?
Let me give a rather obvious example. No one could possibly doubt that the
northern half of the English Channel appertains 10the United Kingdom. That is
a natural and obvious consequence of the geographical position of the United
Kingdom. But the position of the Channel Islands in the southern half of the
Channel would have produced a disproportionaie efect in the light of their
relative scale ifthe equidistance method had been used, andanother method was
therefore adopted. Viola tour (Anglo-French Award. para. 199).
Why has this question of geographical position assumed such great impor-
tance in this case? It is because the United States has focused so much of its
geographical argument on a single stretch of the coast at the hack of the Gulf.
The United States considers that this stretch of coast is unduly cut off by the
equidistance method. 1refer, ofcourse, to the eastern half of the State of Maine,
from Penobscot Bav 10 the Canadian border. And the United States not onlv
sdys ihai thi, siretch of cod\i is undulyCUI utl. but also goes so fdr asIOinsisi
that itshuuld conirol ihc wholç delimiiation Non. clçarly. ihis is\uc iurn5 IO d
great extent on the significance10be attached to the role of geographicalposition
in the delimitation process. Becausethe keyelement that the United States leaves
out of the picture, e-rcept as a source of alleged inequity, is the geographical
position of eastern Maine in relation to that of Nova Scotia.
The essential facts are very simple.Nova Scotia is not only very large, but it
actuallv horders the outer area to be delimited. Eastern Maine. on the other
hand. iies in ihe dcepesi rwrrses oi the concd\iiy, full) one hundrçd nauiical
miles behind the slosing Iineof the Guliand thc Atlaniic coïsi oi Nova Scoiia.
And the auestion before the (:ourt is ihis: is ilie clTeciof the oosition of Noha
Scotia ani easiern Mdine undm the equidisiance meihod a ndiiral and therefore
an equiiiible consequence of ihe geographicdl realiiies" Or is the rlkct .O 12 GULF OF MAINE
produced an inequitable distortion of the geography, an aberration to be
rectified? In the final analysis, the geographical issuesraised by the United States
argument amount to no more - and no less- than that.
This diference of perspectiveon the role of geographical position explains the
conflicting geographicalframeworks that have beenurged upon the Chamber by
each of the Parties. For Canada. eauidistance is eauitable in the oresent case
kcaurc ilrespects;ind rcilrcis the pusilion of ihe lihutiinC#>3\tiIn c~chsector
of the houndar). uiihoui producing ~n).elemcni of di.ioriion or e\ab7b-'rrdlion.
And ue ident~fsthe ahuitinr coaiis on the hlisis oitheir ccoerliohical nosition in
relation to each sector of the boundary. This means that ~he'coasiai wings of
Nova Scotia and Massachusettsmus1control the delimitation of the ouier arca.
They lie ahundred miles seaward of eastern Maine. And they actually border the
outer area whereasno part of the coast of Maine forms part of the outer area.
They are, in short, the abutting coasts.
Now let us look at the geographical framework proposed by the United
States.The United States proposes a schemeof pcrpendicularity with which we
have now becornefamiliar - the idea of delimitine t-~ h~undarv~ ~ ~he bas~s~ ~
coastlil (roni ç~icnsion in a sin~ledireciitin3 direction thiitirpcrpendiçullir IO
iin asrumcd gcner;il direction of the çuntincntal sedhoÿrd The praçtiç3l eltic1 of
the United States schemeof uni-directional coastal front extension is exactlv the
s.inic in113~JSICprinriplcs a>if ihc uhole c<raslofca,tern hlxinc uere ph)sicliIl)
niotcd up to the closing Iinc of the <idIf. and posiiionc~l on the ,Anie ;ilignmr.nt
as the Atlantic coait of Nok3 Siotia ilsclF.The Guli no loncer crisis :ilXII The
back no loneer conirols the front. The back becomr.~ ~~ the frint
Irccognize ofcour<c. thal ihc Uniicd States sshcmc truuld allou ad~uiiiiicnts
tiigite Noia Scotia a \or1 of<.or<lonsunilfllr01'rnariiimr jurisdiction and permit
ilIo reiain a few of ils inshore fishinr hanks But Iihiiik C3nadli's tiew i>Ithe
United Statescoastal front extension lystern asapplied hereis an accurate one in
terms of its concept or principles. In fact, what 1am saying can readily be seen
O both from Figure 31 of the United Stntes Memorial and from the so-called cut-
@@ @) off diagrarnsproduced in the United States first round (Figs. 11-16).And again,
the net efect is to treat the coast of Maine as ifit were actually situated on
@@a the closing line of the Gulf and aligned side by side with Nova Scotia. This,
Mr. President. is a refashionine of eeoeraohv on a scale as vet unheard of.
The United Si;,iss CUI-of ;irgumcni. 11si~iniention ihat casicrn Mliinc 1s
incquiirhly cul oll'ïroni 11sszdu.ArdcKlcn,ion b) ihe cquidijtnnce Iine. 1smcrely
3 resiaiemcnt ol'c~actl) the %amethcor) in )et ancither form. Mr. Hlinkc) uill
show that the graphic demonstration of thi<argument was based on a seriesof
geographical rnisconceptions.The most remarkable misconception, perhaps, is
that it gave eastern Maine what amounts to a 300-mile zone by depicting a vast
area beyond 200 miles of ils coast as an area of cut-off. The United States has
portrayed as an area of cut-on the entire area that would belong to eastern
@ Maine if Nova Scotia did no1exist (sec,e.g., Fig. 16). Indeed, the United States
has evenadded to this area of imaginary cut-off. But the United Statesdepiction
bas no connection whatever with the idea of ineauitable cut-off as known to the
law, which is a function of inequitable disfortion.
And al1the United Statesdiagrams could really show, in the final analysis, is a
more or lessself-evident truth. Il is that a coast that bordersthe open sen will
always control a greater maritime area than a coast which is located at the back
of a relatively confined area. Here the logic of the United Statescasepartakes of
Kaila as well as Descartes. "Alle dieseGleichnisse",said Kaila, "alle diese
Gleichnisse wolleneigenilichnur sagend . assdusUnfassbureunfassbarisr,unddos
habenwir gewussr"."All of these parables", if 1 may translate, "All of these RUOINIIEROF MR. LEGAULT 13
parahles only go to show that the incomprehensihle is incomprehensihle, and
that we already know." And in the end, al1of Mr. Colson's trigonometry only
went to show that the ohvious is ohvious, and that was already ohvious.
For itis hoth ohvious and equitahle that Massachusetts and Nova Scotia
should command a greater ocean areathan the coasts a1the back of the Gulf.
They do so hecausethey actually ahut the outer area, and hecauseMaine is far
removed from that area. There is no distortion invi~lvedin this result. It sim.l,
redects the controlling. esiential characteri~tiss oi the geographiçal situlitiun,
without giving an exïggcrated etïecr tu incidental l'r;iturc,di thcerpenscofthosc
essential~charicteristi;c i.or is there any disproportion, becauseNova Scotia
and Massachusetts representmajor landmassesand major coastal areasthat are
entitled in equity to the full benefit of their geographical position.
Mr. President. the United Statescaseis huilt uDon a failure to a~~reciatethe
crucial distinction between eauitable onncinles'and refashioninéu uoer-.hv. ,
This distinction lier in the co~crpt of ;nequiiahle distortion. in the ahscnceof
%.hichthe geographical position of an area mus1 be taken ai ï fact of nature and
given its full efect in the delimitation.
V. ECONOMIC FACIORS ANDTHECONDU~XOFTHEPARTIES
1turn now to the non-aeoara~hical factors the United Stateshas invoked in
support ofirs claini. ~cca~seÏheUnited Statcsclaini hrisno foundïtion in 13u.or
in geography. Our opponents hn\e iùught iciprop itup b) lin appîdl IO a theor)
that i\ ioreien to both those disci~lines. II is li~r this Durnose that the United
States hasdivised its thesis on hi&oric "dominance". '
In Canada's tieu. the m3xim that the land dominates the seacan onl) mean.
on the hasis of accepted legal and geographicdl pnnciples. that the ahutting
colist of No\,a Scotia dominates eiistern Georges Bank. Nol so. sa)s the United
States: because II is the United States thdt hïs dominated Georges Rank from
early colonial times. The United Statesasrerts that until the 1960sal1activities in
the Gulf of Maine area "e\idenced the comnlets dominance of the United
States" over this area (United States ~emohal, para. 135, pp. 81-82). The
United States says, in efect, that Nova Scotia's stronger geographical and
human links with eastern Georges Bank cannot avail against this purported
record of historie "cornolete dominance". But even if the United States
assertionswerefactually t~nahle.they would only rcflect theearlier de\elupment
and grclitcr pouer of the United States as lipoliti;al and economiz force.
The L'nitcd Stiiics thesis of historic 'dominance" hlis trro senarate dimen-
sions. The first is economic. and rests in the contention that 'United States
naiionals dominated the ~eor~e, Bank fisher) from early historical tirne,. and
the further contention that the notion of "single-Stdte management" cntitles the
United States to monooolize the fishenes of this arîd. The other dimension of
the United Statesthesiilies in the record of various kinds of State activities that
have been carried out in the Gulf of Maine area.
Mr. President, wechallenge the dominance theory on severalgrounds. First,
the theorv fails when tested aeainst the facts. aswe have shown k the extensive
and inco~tro%,ertedevidence-filed with the canadian Counter-Memonal (III,
Anns., Vol. Il) and Reply (V, Anns . Vol. Il,Parts Iand II).Secondly, the iheory
is largely brisedon acrivities that are Ieaallv irrclevant - irrelevant because.in the
liehtoi their subiect-matter or theirremoteness in time. thev have lhtle or
nothing to do wifh the 200-mile régime.Thirdly, the ~niced &tes theory has
nothing to do with equity. It detachesthe equities of the delimitation from the
contemporary fisbery; which lies at the heaÏt of the dispute and constitutes a14 GULF OF MAINE
vital e~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~he 20--milezone. a.~ ~ ~ch iswhere the im~act of the decision
Gll befelt. And at the same time, the unitid States dominarktheory attempts
to shift the focus of attention to factors that have no real connection with the
2Oû-milezone and will not be af~~cted in the sliehte-t bv the outcome of these
proceedings.
Against this background 1would now propose to examine very hriefly both
the economic assumotions of the United Statesand the inferencesit draws from
the conducl of the Parties in the Gulf of Maine area.
1.Economic Factors
00th Parties have appealed to economic factors, in one way or another,
directly or indirectly, in their written or oral pleadings. 1shall deal here with the
United States position, as 1understood it. Mr. Binnie, of course, will treat this
subject in greater detail later.
In the United States first round, Amhassador Stevenson said that resource
activitiescan berelevant "if these activitiesare long-standing and are dominant"
(VI, p. 282).Now, Mr. President, Canada agrees that fishingactivities mus1be
sufficientlylong-standing to provide some assurance of their stahility. But the
question is: what is a sufficientperiod? Mr. Binniehas already pointed out that
the fishing patterns relied upon by Canada meet this test. The Chamber will
recall his discussion of the Grisbadarna principle and ils implications in terms of
the truly relevant period, as well as the observations of Judge Jessup on this
question in the North Seo Continental Sheljcases (ibid).
In addition, Canada denies that historic dominance, as that concept is used hy
the United States, is an equitable consideration. Our written pleadings have
shown that the history of the Georges Bank fishery bears little resemblance to
the picture the United States has painted. But whatever the facts, a claim of
historic dominance based on the fishing patterns of comparatively early limes is
devoid of equitable significance for the simple reason that it is devoid of
oractical sirnificance. Historic dominance of this kind. even where hased in fact,
;snothinghore than a rcflcction oidiffercnt raies of national rlcvclopmcn~in
pîst timcs. and is not an indication or prescnl or future rcdlitics. It isassociaicd
uith the \,ervconriderat~onsof rclatirc national uedlth ortcnsihl~ reiectçd hv the
United ~tatés.It is repugnant to equitable principles and to the &thosof thénew
law of the sea. And it has nothing to do with the purpose of the 200-milezone,
which has heen designed solely as a response to modern conditions.
Perhaps the most striking reliance on economic factors in the United States
approach is found in the notion of "single-Siate management". The United
States has objected 10 Ourcharacterization of this concept as one of "adminis-
trative convenience" or monopoly (VI, pp. 264-265). But the inevitable and
intended effect of the single-State management theory is that a claim to the
whole of a resource-bearing area would be favoured over a claim to only a
portion of the area. Indeed, the claim to the whole would benefit from a legal
presumption as against the claim to the part. 1said this in my opening statement
(VI. o. 22). but 1 am ohlieed to sav it aeain. For il is in the United States
iri"dpies ihemselves that tlheelemeit of ionopoly lies.
These so-called princi~les are, of course, another manifestation of the United
States theorv of the natiral houndarv. Thev run counter to the obliaation to co-
opcrate in the maiiagemcnt ofshsrci or tr;n,boundary resources a; reflcctcd in
the pro$,isionsof the 1982Law of the Sea Con\ention. and in u.ell-c~lablishcd
rules of customary international law.
Mr. Colson said on 19 April that "The flaw in Canada's reasoning is its RUOlNOER OF MU. LEGAULT 15
assumption that al1 resources are transboundary and must k shared" (VI,
p. 439). Mr. President, that is no1Canada's reasoning.
Canada's view is that the boundary must be determineci on equitable
principles within the law, and that if an equitable houndary leavesresources on
either side of the line -on both sidesof the line - then the conservation of these
resources must be assured bv CO-ooeration.The flaw in the United States
rcasoning is iis asrumpiion thai equic).itsd/ha.s a billsagainsi iransbound3ry
resources and againlt intern~tional ro-iipcration; that rqailj ifi<~/frcquiresthai
the whole or thébulk of the resources of a houndiiry area must-he left on one
side of the line, if possible. Mr. Colson went on to say (ibid.) that the mere
assertion of a claim cannot "render" resources transboundary. Of course it
cannot. But can a claim be made equitable by the mere assumption of a self-
stvled orinciole that the need for CO-ooeralionis an evil to be avoided to the
matim;m c;icnt pos\ihlc. in ;isiiuatio~ wherc iwo cod>ialStatcs abui upon the
samc bounddry drca 'Again the dnswer1s.of ~ourscnot. Yci ihat isexactlywhïi
is meant hy the notion of single-State management.
The~id~ ~ ~~sinele-State manaeement is as incomnatible with the bilateral
u ~ ~ ~~ ~
relaiionship of Canïda and ihc ~iitcd ~i&s as ili\ kith gcncral international
lau. Canadd sharcs a land boundîry of 8.891kilomctrcswiih the IJnited States -
an undefended boundarv as it is usuallv described. and not a "demilitarized
one, as it was describeci'hy the distingkshed ~~ent for the United States on
9 April (VI, p. 231). We share a continent. We share one of the greatest and
most extensivesystemsof lakes and rivers in the world. We share four maritime
boundary areas. Yes, we have diîTerencesand prohlems, but we manage 10
overcome them, peacefully and more or less sensibly, in the end. We muddle
through. But now the Chamber is told by the distinguished Agentof the United
States that any houndary that does not grdnt the wholeof Georges Bank 10the
United States will "perpetuate a major irritant in United States relations with
our friend, Canada, that can only become more serious as time passes" (VI,
o. 2321.1sthis a leeal areument. Mr. President? 1sthis an areumen- that would
&rru;dc ihc unitrd tics tu abandon iis policie>of rxira-territorial lunsdic-
lion. whicharc the vcry aniiihests of single-Staicm:inJgemrni. and which might
also be descrikd as a major irritant?
1must sav that we find it difficultio recoenizethe relationshio of Canada and
ihc United siairs as WC know it,from the-description iihai heen givcn in the
Uniicd States pleadings.just as WC find iidifficultIIIrecogni7ethe geography of
the Gulf of Mîinc arc3 and the economic situation of Nova Scoiia as thcy have
ken dcssribed in ihc Uniicd Siates pleddings.Co-i,persiion. noi conflici. is the
hallmark of Our rel;ition~hip.îlthough no rclationjhip is frce of irritants. And
e\cn if Mr Riihinson ucre richt in his remarks abolit "pcrpetuaiing 3n irntant",
that would not eive an eauZable character to the boundarv he oroooses. But
with great respect, we do ilorbelieve he isright on this point. W; have greater
confidence than that in the relationship of Canada and the United States. We
helievethe Chamber has rreater confidencethan that. And indeed we know that
the United States has greh confidence than that, outside the context of these
proceedings.
The answer to the conservation of natural resources is not single-State
ownershio. whether in the Gulf of Maine area or in other situations involvine
ncighbo;ring coasial States abuiiing upon an area io bc dclimitcd The solutio~
- the solution providd hylau, - liesinsicad in CU-ordinationand co-operation.
And if Canada and the United States cannot achicve ihis, then CO-opcration in
the nianagement of sharei or trdnsboundary rcsoiirces has little future in any
part of the wurld. But Canada and the United States cwi achievc this, and will RWOINDER OF MR. LEGAULT 17
extensive grid intended primarily for the compilation of fisheriesstatistics, and
for the purpose of indicating areas of interest for the groups of States that
formed the panels set up under a multilateral convention. Since both Canada
and the United States werefounding members of the panels for both Suhareas 4
and 5, how could the line hetween these subare;is possibly be said to have
dividedanything hetween them? And indeed the convention (Art. 1)itselfmakes
it clear that none of il.~~ro~isions c~ ~~~affect~~,~ i~ ~sdictional interests of the
contracting parties.
1now leavethis unfortunate theory of "complete dominance" to deal with the
new-found United States reliance on the Trunian Proclamation, asserted
perhaps in an atternpt to suggest a historic title, but ahove al1in a last-ditch
attempt 10 escape the legal effects of United States acquiescence in Canada's
equidistance claim. Not the Truman Proclamation itself, however :rather apress
release issued bv the State Deoartment al the time of the oroclamation. which
referred IO the i00-fathom d&ih not as a hasis ol~dcliiniiatiiin.bui only as a
dcscription of ihr areas "gcnerullj" comprisinp ihe shelf as ihe ierm u,asthen
understood (VI. o. 2331.
Mr. ~residcnt.'distin~uishe dudges. the idea that Canada was put on notice
of a potcntial 100-fathomboundary clïim hy the Truman Proclamîiion isbelied
hs ihc tcrms of the nroclamation iiself.whichcilled fordelimitaiion on ihe basis
&equitable principles and made no riference whatever to the 100-fathomdepth
(ibid .)n. the idea iscontradicted decisivelyby the explanatory memorandum
the United States issued with the proclamation, stating that delimitation issues
could "be leftuntil somefuture time" (Canadian Cciunter-Memorial.oara. 3921.
Can the United States really contend that its ex postJacio rationalization is
remotely compatible with its ratification of the 1958Continental Shelf Conven-
tion wiihout -any reservation whatsoever? Or remotely compatible with ils
subsequent conduct in relation to the issuance of Canadian continental shelf
permits from 196410 1969?
Mr. President, 1will add only the further point that none of the diplomatic
correspondence between the Parties provides any support for the novel usesto
which the United States seeks to put the Truman Proclamation 40 years later.
On the contrary, the only time a reference10the Truman Proclamation actually
appears is in a diplomatic note of 20 May 1976 (ibid A nns., Vol. III, Ann. 32,
p. 115). And the implications of that notice are totally inconsistent with the
thesis now adopted by the United States. 1will take the liberty of quoting from
the note:
"The United States wishesto emphasizethat sincethe Truman Proclama-
tion of 1945Canada has known that the position of the United States with
respect to continental shelf boundaries &th Canada is that they shall be
determined in accordance with equitable principles, and that this is
confimed hy the 1958Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf and
other relevant principles of international law."
The olain fact is that the 100-fathornclaim is a comolete invention that dates not
frum 1945bui <rom IYb?,u,hen ihe wriitcn procec;iing\ in this case firsi hegan
Why hls ihe United States found IInecegsarv iurn the ICNAF siatisiiçal
grid to ends that would have shocked thecontracting parties, and to invent the
100-fathom claim that never existed in law or in Tact? Why has it found it
necessary 10grasp at these straws? 1 suggest that al1of this confirms the serious
deficiencies ofthe United States case. And the same, 1 suhmit, is true of the
specialimportance the United Stateshas recentlyhgun to attach 10the fact that
the Gulfof Maine iscalled the Gulf of Maine (VI, pp. 290,302). 1shall not dwell18 GULF OF MAINE
upon the implications that nomenclature would have for the United States in
the Gulf of Mexico. Let me only mention that the Court of Arhitration in the
Anglo-French Award held that "il is the physical facts of geography, no1
nomenclature, with which this Court is concerned" (para. 204).
The United States thesis of "complete dominance" over the Gulf of Maine
area, and the related ex post Jacro interpretation now conferred upon a press
release associated with the Truman Proclamation, have together given a special
character Io the United States approach to the present case. Thus it is that the
United States in these proceedings has consistently treated Canada as a
petitioner coming before the Chamher asking for a slice of the American apple
pie, to borrow Mr. Robinson's metaphor (VI, p. 231) - asking, in other words,
for a delimitation based on distributive iustice.
As WC made clear in the wntiçn proc&dings and inthe opîning round of the
oral proceedings. this chür~cien~aiion of Canada's position before the Chambcr
mav reliect u,ishful thinking on ihe part of the United States, but 11 crrtainly
dois~no~ ~ccord with t~e~ ~ ~or t~~.facts. Canada will have~m~ ~ to sav latër
ahout ihis ailempi iu colour the üimosphere. At present. howei,er, I wish Io
make unlg a few remürks on ihç Canadian \iew of the Iradl co-sequïnces of the
conduct of the Parties.
The Canadian case on acquiescence and estoppel stands unrebutted after the
United States first round. We shall return 10 this later, but here 1 shall only
respond to onecomment made hy the distinguished Agent for the United States
on 9 April. 1quote MI. Robinson's precise words:
"The United States is saddened that Canada would seek in the vroceed-
ings Io turn United Siaies poliiical restraini. over a period of mîny years
during which ü political \etilement uas rought, into now a Cxnadian IçgaI
claim of acquiescence and eitoppel." (1'1.p 237)
In response. I mu$[ emphasize ihat Canada's claim of acquiescence and
esto~r>elresta on the mriod [rom 1964to 1969.uhen no riuliiicalwillemeni uîs
beine-soueht becausi none was considered necessarv on either side. What the
parires f;i;cd during ihat pîriod wasa legalquestion ind no1 a political one. And
what ihe Uniied States demonstratcd during thdt period wds no1 "poliiical
restraint", nor legal restraint for that matter. It was~afailure to protest in the
faceof publicactivities by Canada known to the United States. It was, in a word.
acquiescence. Political restraint can never justify the absence of a diplomatic
protest. On the contrary, it isprecisely the requirement of international stability
and fair dealing that calls for a timely protest or a resemation of rights in a
matter of sovereignty or jurisdiction.
VI. RESWNSE TOJUDGEMOSLER'Q SUESTION
1have now concluded my review of the United States case as Canada sees it
from the perspective of the first round of the oral proceedings. 1 shall now
endeavour to reply to Judge Mosler's question of 17 April regarding the 1979
Agreement on East Coast Fishery Resources.
With your permission, MI. President. 1shall not read Judge Mosler's question
to the Chamber, but only suggest that it might be included in the verbatim
record at this point, for reasons of convenient reference hy later readers.
"The Agreement on East Coast Fisheries Resources of 1979 and the
Treaty to suhmit to Binding Dispute Settlement the Settlement of the
Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area were originally linked with
one another hy their ratification clauses. The Treaty on Settlement alone RWOINDER OF MR. LEGAULT 19
went into force after theseclauseshad heen separated; the Agreement on
fisheries did not. The Chamber, of course, cannot refer to its provisions.
Both Parties exolained to the Court. while disaereeine - -the leeal -
conclusions, the provisions of the ~~rccmcni pro\,iding for ro-olx.riiiion of
ihe USA and Cinada in fishery maiter,. noiu,iihsianding ihe fulure
dclimiiation of their rcsoccii\c zone$ ofmariiimr iurisdiriion. u hich uiisIO
be decided according t8 the procedure agreed upon in the Special Agree-
ment.
If the Chamber had had to decide in the circumstances originally
envisaeed. the Fisheries ResourcesAereement beine in force. it could no1
have tiken into account the management of fishe&s resourcesdealt with
therein. Has the fact that the Agreement did no1enter in10 force the effect
that the matters dealt with in that Agreement are now excluded from the
consideration asrelevant circumstances, or, on the contrary, should they he
taken into account in that sensehy the Chamber?'(VI, p. 463.)
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~c~~rectlv understood Judee Mosler's uuestion. it starts from the
premise that the Chamher could no1 have taken into account the management
orovisions of the 1979fisheries agreementin the detcrmination of the houndary,
ifthat agreement had come into-force. Accordingly, Imus1stressat the outsét
that with or without prior agreementon management questions,the task of the
Chamber is to delimit a single maritime houndary for the continental shelf and
200-mile fishine zones of the Parties in the Gulf of Maine area. II nzasand
-
rmi'rins rlic rt,.ipon.ithrlir?~Jrhr Purrizs rhcnir<~lIOruork <)uirny so-operiii\c
arrangements ihey con,ider necrisdry Corihe manJgcment of fishery rcjourccs.
in ihc Iirhi of 3~r>licnhlc~rinci~lcs of in1crn;iiional Iaw on the manageme-t uf
shared or transb6undary naturd resources.
As to the task of the Chamber, if the 1979fisheriçs agreementhad come in10
force, the competing fisheries interestsof the Parties would already have been
largely settled by the Parties themselves, and. of course, the result of the
boundary decision would have had far lessimpact on the interests in question.
Clearly, however, the Chamber still could and should have proceeded from the
basic fact underlying the agreement: namely, that Canada is a coastal State in
relation to Georges Bank. with established leeal interests tberein.
Iiurn now i<iïhe \ituaiion ur facc ioday. Ghcrc ihc 1979fishcrics agrccmcni
hasnoi and will not come inio forcc The mol1 important dilïerence hciwcen the
oresent situation and the one orieinallv envisaeedis that the com~eting fisherv
;nieresis o~ihc Partics ha\c noi hFcnsciiled in ais u:iy. and will noh hc;esolved
cxclusircly by the single niarilime boundar) io hc iixed hy ihe Ch~mbcr. II is
also ohi,iou\ ihai in ihc ahrencc of the 1979 fishcrlcs ;iprccmcnt, co-opcratiic
arraneements for the manaeement of the fisherv resouÏces of the area to be
dclim;icd uill \iiIIha\e io b<u,orked oui hg the ~Ürticsthcniscl\~cs:no longcr. of
course. in :id\,ancc of ihc boundar) dcci\ion. hui raiher ai some future lime. in
the liehi of that decision.
N~U, ihdi is the lcgil significan~.eof this changed qiiuaticin for the t3skdi ihc
Chamhcr? The quotiun. as iisccnis io us. must he ansucreci ai iuo Ierclr.
Firsr, the Chamher still can and should proçeed from the basic fact that
underlay the 1979fisheries agreement- namely that Canada is a coastal State in
relation to Georges Bank, with established legal interests therein. This fact has
not changed, but only the nature of one part of the evidence attesting to it.
Second. now that the comwtine fisheries interests of the Parties are to he
settled exclusively hy the singie mahiime houndary to be fixed by the Chamber,
these interests should he taken into account hy the Chamher as relevant20 GULF OF MAINE
circurnstances going IO the heart of ihc dispute. In Canada's vicw. ihe niost
objecti\e ci,idenccfor the drfinition of thosc intcrcsis is pro\'iderlhy the conduci
of the Parties as reflectedin the neeoti3iion and sixnature of the 197')Fisheries
agrccmeni. This evidence indicales-that the inierc\;. of the Piirties la! in ihcir
entitlernenis tu the tijhcrv resourccs oiGcorges Hank3sdctcrmincd un ihc biisis
of a given period.
In brief. the conduct of the Parties in relation to the neeotiation and sienature
of thc 1979fishericr agreernint provides indiiis oiihaici-h~ Pariics ih&sel\e\
considcred io k an cquitablc rciult so far as the fi,hcricr cguities in ihis ca\e are
concerned. This conduct itself is a relevant circumstance if great importance.
The fisheriesinterests dealt with in the 1979agreement are not excluded from
consideration as relevant circumstances, and should indeed be taken into
account by the Chamber. Canada has invoked the 1979 fisheriesagreement not
as a legalinstrument but as part of the history of the dispute, as evidenceol the
viewsthe Parties themselveslook on these matters.
Mr. President, distinguishedJudges, 1have taken some time to answer Judge
Mosler'squestion because of ils great importance. 1hope I have understood it
correctly and responded to it fully.
In a few minutes 1shîll aitempi to dr3w SO~C gtnersl ionclu~ions frùrn lh~s
reviewof the ~ituaiion ai the end of the firsi round of oral plcadln~sb) both
Parties. Before doine su. however. 1 must deal with a charee levelled aeainst
Canada in the staie~ent made on II April by the distingi,zhed Agent ol the
United States. my good friend Mr Da\,is Rohinhon. "II appears to us". Mr.
Robinson said. "thst Canada's uleadinrs h;r\e bern rcolcte with staiernent. of
purported fact that are so exaggerated Tntheir descripiion as to be completely
lacking in credibility" (VI, p. 243).
This is a serious and unfounded charge. Let mefirst deal wiih the exarnplesof
so-called "distortions" cited bv Mr. Robinson.
hlr. Robinion sdid thiit P~;agraPh 190of the Csnadidn Mernorial suggcsts
that Canada "h3d siarted ihc icallop fisheryon Grorges Bank" libid., With al1
due respect, 1must emphasizethat the paragraph under referencemakes no such
suggestion. It is part of a section of the Canadian Memorial (1) entitled
"Historical Evolution of Canada's Presence in the Georges Bank Fishery"
(pp. 83-91,paras. 179-202).And il made two points: namely, that the Canadian
scallop fisherywas pioneered by Captain John Beck in 1945,and that by 1966,
according to an official United States document, there had ken a "virtual
ahandonment" of eastern Georges Bank by the United States scallop fleet
(p. 87, para. 190).
These are perfectly accurate statements, and Canada continues to abide by
thern. Mr. Robinson's complaint appears to be founded on the view that the
history of the Canadian scallop fisheryshould begin withan account of United
States activities. This is like saying that a history of Canada should begin not
with Cartier in Quebec but rather with the Pilgrim Fathers in Massachusetts.
And 1would also emphasize that Canada in any event has given credit where
credit was due in respect of United States activities in the scallop fishery. Mr.
Robinson himself inhis statement of II Anril auoted from documents cited and
deposited by Canada which amply acknoiledge theseactivitiesof United States
nationals (VI, p. 244). Unfortunately, however, Mr. Robinson attempted to
suggest that the materials deposited by Canada were evidenceol a Canadian
denial of United States activities. If Canada had not deposited these materials, RUOINDER OF MR. LEGAULT 21
the distinguished Agentfor the United States might havegroundsfor complaint.
As matters stand, he has none.
The second allegeddistortion referred to by the distinguished Agent for the
United States (VI, pp. 244-245) refers to Canada's description of lobster
migrations throughout the Gulf of Maine area, as set out in the Annexesto the
Canadian Counter-Memonal (Vol. 1,pp. 79-83, para. 131and Fig. 41).
This saga of the "adventurous lobsters", Io use Mr. Robinson's picturesque
phrase (VI, p. 245), begins with the United States Memonal. In Annex 1, page
138,paragraph 97, the United States asserts that "the lobster stocks found on
Georges Bank (and in the Georges Bank canyons) and on Browns Bank, are
separate and identifiable". ActII of the lobster saga is found in the Annexes to
the Canadian Counter-Memonal. to which 1 have already referred. There
Canada stated that "scientific evidence fails to support the view that there are
separate stocks of cusk or Atlantic lobster on each side of the Northeast
Channel" (Anns., Vol. 1,p. 179,para. 131).Part of the evidence usedto support
this conclusion was the taggingstudy noted by MI. Robinson.
Mr. President, distinguishedJudges, Canada stands tehind this study. It has
not kn challengedoutside thecontextof thesepr-dings. Moreover,Canada's
assertion that the lobsters in the Gulfof Maine area appear to constitute a single
stock unit is supported by other scientific evidence.1 refer the Chamter, for
instance, to a study in the CanadianJournalofFicheriesand AquaricSciences,
a learned periodical recently given an award for excellenceby the Amencan
Fishenes Society. A copy of Volume 40. 1983, has kn deposited with the
Registry.At page 180,refernng to lobsters in the Gulf of Maine area, the three
authors of the studv in auestion intemreted their results"to indicatea sinelestock
. .
with sommon recruiimeni". The conclusionsin ihai stud) appîïr tobc gcnerall)
accepied. In Tact.ihey are reflectedin an ariicle in the Fehniïr) 1984issueof the
United Siates irade puhlisaiion .V\'uriohlhert~wi. a copy of which ue have
dcposiied u,iih the Hegisiry. Bsscd on inicmeus uiih Ieading United Siates
scienrisis.this article c<insludcs.ai p~ge 17.that the evidencesuggr.is thai "the
entire East Coast lobster resourcecabe regarded as a singlestock".
Where is the distortion here? Uncertaintv. oerhaos. But fishenes science is
replete with uncertainties and controversies; canada has emphasized again
and again. 11is not Canada that is trying Io fixa boundary on the basis of these
uncertainties and controversies. It isnotëanadthat carries the burden of oroof
in this matter. And it is not Canada's evidencethat is lacking. 1hope, therefore,
that we can bring the lobster saga to a clbse al this point.
1have no wish to enter into an exchange of compliments with mygood friend,
the distinguished Agent for the United States. But 1am obligedto describesome
of the difficulties that Canada bas faced with regard to the United States
pleadings throughout this case. Let me also give tu.0 examples.
The illustrations presented by the United States throughout its written
nleadines and now in the oral o~ ~ ~ ~ ~s consistentlvfail to identifv the Great
South Channel and 10dcpici the 60-met; icohaih oii eeorgcj Hank khc oblsci.
ofcourse. has bccn io giic grcaler prominence Io the hortheast C'hanncland Io
Dorira) Georces Rank as n kind of ohvsicïl "n3tural iiruloneaiiooi mars^.
ihusetis- despite the United tat tassertions con&rning ihe perpendicular
extension of the Coast of Maine. This is one aspect of the "cartographic
impressionism" to which Canada has objected (Canadian Counter-Mernorial.
p. 14,para. 38). The United States Reply, however,alleged that "it is Canada's
depiction of a 60-metre depth contour that is a departure from standard
practice" (p. 122,para. 214, fn. 5).
Mr. Presideni, that is not the case. Figure 15 of the Canadian Reply
@22 GULFOF MAINE
reproduced the American Gcogr~phi~~ISUCISI)Baihyrnetnc Map of the Gulf ol
Maine area. published in 1974 Thai rnap makes proniinen1useof the 60-metrr-
de~ih contuur on Grorees Bank and cledrlv labels ihc Great South Channel
in addition, Canada Kasdeposited with the Registry fivecharts published by
the United States Department of Commerce - that is, charts 13003, 13006,
13009.13204and 13260.All of these clearlv show the 30-fathom-de~thcontour
on Georges Bank - and 30fathoms, of course, represent the virtual equivalent of
60 metres - and al1of them clearly identify the Great South Channel whenever
that feature is part of the area covered by the map.
1invite the Chamber's particular attention, however,to chart No. 13006.This
is oneof the two charts on which the Chamber is requested to depict the course
of the single maritime boundary, for illustrative purposes only, according to
Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Special Agreement. When the Chamber has this
chart before il, 1would invite it to note that the 30-fathom contour is clearly
outlined. Note, too, that the Great South Channel is clearly labelled and note,
on the other hand - note ahove al1 - that the Northeast Channel is nor. Nol
named. not labelled. not identified. desoite il. uniaue s~~ ~.~~s ~ ~o-called ~
"naiural houndary". The words "Norihcast Channel" sirnplydo noi appedr at
al1 So much ior any rrlaiionship between "standard prasiiie" and the illusirii-
lions used in the United ~tatës pleadings. And so much for the "natural
boundary" once more.
My second example of Canada's difficultieswith the United States pleadings
relates 10 the treatment of the Bay of Fundy. The United States Counter-
Memonal (in fn. 2 to para. 17 at p. 14), asserts that "The Bay of Fundy
(including Chignecto Bay) is not part of the Gulf of Maine or the Atlantic
Ocean". MI. President. now let me quote from the 18th edition of the Unired
Slares Pilor. I. Allantic Coosr. Easroorr Io Caoe Cod. which Canada has de-
postted wiih thc Kcgistry. This is r; ottisial publicïtion of ihe United States
Depariment of Cornmcrce. National Ocranic and Atmosphcric Adrnintsiraii<in.
At page 58 the Cou.irP~lrirreads ar fnll<iws:"The Gulf of Maine is ihc ereai
indentation of the Coastbetween the Canadian Province of Nova Scotia on the ~ -~~ ~ ~
noriheasi and .Massachuscit~on ihe souihwrst. II rncli«l<,rht.Raj of 1.ùnilj.und
i\la,ruchu,crr~ Xuj ur suh~riliiir)~/zururrs " (Italics 3ddcJ j
Which dciinition of the Guli<if Maine are u,e IO accent in the facc 01'ihese
contradictions? The one advanced in the United States ~oast Piloi in 1982,or
the one asserted in the United States Counter-Memorial in 1983? Does the
citation ofa 1953IHO publication (VI, p. 331),obviate the authority of the 1982
United States CoosrPiloi so that it can be passed over in silence?And by way of
postscnpts Imight add that the limited usesfor which the 1953IHO publication
were intended were made clear in a preface which the United States did not
include with the extracts it annexed to its le ad in e(Counter-Memorial. Ann.
II). The entire document has heen depositédby Fakda.
I could multiply these examples but 1 have already taken too much of the
Chamber's time on this matter. 1 could not, however, let such a serious
accusation en unchalleneed. And I can sum un mv rehuttal verv succinctlv: if
Mr. ~obinson's target wasCanada's allegeddisior6ons of fact, tien he aiiiédat
nothing - and missed. But now 1wish to turn to my general conclusions, after
this long but important digression
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, allow me to recapitulate the major
themes of this statement, beginning with an assessment of the case as it now REJOINDER OF MR. LEGAULT 23
stands in the liaht of the United States vleadines in the first round. It eoes
without say& of course, that ~nited- tat tes-conten noto npecifi~ally
addressedin this or later statementsby counselfor Canada, cannot bedeemedto
have ken acceptedby Canada.
The United States case. in the Canadian submission. is dominated bv a
~.ombinationof tuo niuiuslly cxclusiie theoriçs: uni-directional or perpcndicu-
Iar extensionsofjundiition, and the so-callednatural boundary. which hasnow
assumedthe more modest outward demeanour of an alleeed-relevant circum-
stance 'Thelatent contr~dictions in ihesetwo cumpcting thenrie%account for the
structural incohcrenccof the ïdjusted perpendicular line: and thcy also accouni.
1suagest,for the pronounced ambivalence of the United Statesvosition on the
entireauestion of method and line.
Ai a'more fundamental level. ihc Uniicd Statcr caseis also ioially divorced
from the rules ïnd principlcr of internaiional law rcspectinp th? delimitiition of
maritime boundanes. II iives no meaninzful ao~lication ?O the conventional
13w.And 11repudiates thèjuridical contenïand hisis oiiitle t<iï 200-mile zone
asa sourceof Iaw for the delimitaiii~n of thcseYonc,. Ihc United Statescasehas
iherefore beencas1adnft from any solid moorings in the law.
Two basic errors in principle underlie the United States approach to the
geographical issuesin its case. One error lies in the deliberate confusion of
proximity in a general senseas a relevant geographical factor, with the quite
distinct question of equidistance asa technical method. The seconderror lies in
the unitid Siatcs ass&nption ihst the geographicïl po\iiion <)fa landmasr van
only ka sourie of inequii) and not a sourceof lcgitiniate cntitlements, u,hcthcr
or no1its effect isproportionate to ils scale.
The geographical principles of the United States case require, above all, a
refashioning of ph~~sicalgcograph g shift the State of Maine up to the closing
line of the Gulf. But they also require a transformation of polirical geography.
Becausethe burden of the United States argument is to portray the State of
Maine as if il were an independent country bordered by foreign Statesnot only
on the east but on the Westas well.
Indeed, in ils graphic depiction of the cut-off effect, the United States has
taken the processone step further. Here, itis the eastern half of Maine that is
isolated and represented as if il were a separate entity - a geographically
disadvantaged State, bounded on the Westby a foreign power. And why this
truncation of Maine? Becauseno doubt, the graphiç effectwould bespoilt ifthe
areasof jurisdiction extending from western Maine and from New Hampshire
and Massachusetts were alsoshown.
1 will say this much about the United States approach; it takes as many
liberties with the geographyof the United Statesas it doeswith the geography of
Canada. But 1cannot emphasizetoo strongly that Canada is dealing herewith a
singlesovereignState. Ifthe United Statesshowedasmuch concern for "single-
State geography" as il does for its theory of "single-State management", then
the issuesarising out of this casewould begreatly simplified. For it is the whole
of the relevant geographyof the United Statesin the Gulf of Maine area that
mus1he taken into account - but taken into account where it is found and not
where the United Statesmieht wish itto he.
Whïi the United ~tatcs~a~~roachadds up to in the end. Mr. lBrcridcnt,
dist~nguishedJudgcs. ir a reia\hi<~ningoi I~,qulpi,<~,yrriphT ) he pcrpcndicular
ecometrv of the Unitcd Siaie,. iu~riled with ils n~~ved l octrine of "rccond~r,
Eoasts",~~im~~m ~eansthal only the United Stateswould enjoy any protection
from the cul-off effect.
The radial projection of jurisdiction, on the other hand - the only form of24 GULF OF MAINE
extension of jurisdiction that is consistent with the distance principle, means
reciprocolcut-off, muruolcut-OR,shoredcut-off- in brief,equirablecut-off. Small
wonder, then, that we have heard nothing from the United States about
President Reagan's proclamation of a 200-mile exclusiveeconomic zone based
on the distance principle. Small wonder then that the United Stateshas not even
tried to explain away the fact that its lobster line of 1974 and ils Northeast
Channel line of 1976swune f-r more s~~mlv i. .ront of the state of Maine than
does the Canadian line.
The United States theory of historical "complete dominance" can hardly fiIl
the legal vacuum in the ~nited States case, noÏ resolve ils interna1 conflicis or
contradictions. For the theory is urifounded in reality and relies largely on
factors that are remote in lime; that have little or nothing to do with the real
object of this disputc; that can serve only to divert attention from the practical
meanine of an eauitable result in this case: and that would Dromote rather than
minimiyedisput~s, and indced cal1inio question various fims of internaiional
CO-operation Nor. finally. is the lepal vacuum fille<lby the rr po~r JUCIO
construction the United Siaies now sseks Io dacc uoon ihc Truman Proclama-
tion.
In brief, like the Holy Roman Empire - which was neither holy, nor Roman,
nor an empire - the line the United States has advanced as representing an
ea.itab~~. natural. sinele maritime houndarv is neither eauitahle. nor natural:
nor is IIe\en single. h;cause ihc Uniicd ~iAes rcrn3ins rhhroilrh in a conflici
hetween icr 0u.n tariour Iines and its own muiully incomp~tible approachcs.
Againsi ïII this. \lr Presideni, Canada affirmsth~i the Canadian case ishasd
on clcar and siniple sel ofprinsiples ihai are firmlygrounded in equiiy and in
Ia\r, dnd on 3 clearl) detincd and lcgally recogniied method. Most imporiant of
ail. the Csnddian linc ;ichie!es the oierridin- -i~al oi'an equiublc rcsult in ihe
light of al1the relevant circumstances. RÉPLIQUE DE M. WEIL
CONSEILDU GOUVERNEMENT CANADIEN
M. WEIL: Monsieur le Président,Messieurs les juges, les problèmesjundi-
ques fondamentaux de la présente affaireont été traitép sar l'agent du Canada
ou vont l'êtrepar lui dans sa déclarationfinale.
II m'appartient essentiellement d'apporter les réponses du Canada aux
questions de M. Gros, à la deuxièmequestion de M. Mosler et à la première
question de M. Cohen.
Je voudraiscependant faire précéder cerséponsesde quelques observations de
caractère général.
Derrière la querelledes méthodes, derrièrela guerre des graphiques, derrièrele
conflit des lignes, se profile, me semble-t-il,une opposition infiniment plus
profonde entre les Parties.
Cette opposition se situe à un double niveau.
C'est, en premier lieu, le concept mêmede délimitation maritime que le
Canada et les Etats-Unis abordent de manière tout à fait différente.
Pour le Canada, l'opérationde délimitationconsiste à détermineret à mettre
en Œuvre le critère juridique permettant de fixer la ligne à laquelle devront
s'arrêterlesjuridictions et droits souverainsde chacun des deux Etats, alors que
chacun des deux Etats aurait un titre juridique à exercer ces droits au-delà de
setic Iignc Cesi po~r Ic Canada une opr:rat;on globale dans laquelle les (Cite\
de deux Partics et les circon,tsnec\ periincntei afférentes3uh deux Paruci
doivent être appréhendéee sn mémetemps.
Les Etats-Unis. au contraire. abordent I'ooérationde délimitationde manière
unilatérale.II\':igit, pour eu\. ks,in.; de délimiterIcsdroiis de mGmenaiure dei
deui: Ela15que dc dGfinirI'e~iïnsi.indcs droiis ci jiiridiciions des Eiais-Unis en
partant des cOtesdes Etats-Unis et des circonstances pertinentes qui concernent
les Etats-Unis. Ouant aux droits~e~ ~uridictions du Canada. ils ne sont oris en ~ ~
sunsiJer;ition q;e de rn~nitrc rC,iduile. Au\ )eux des tais-[!ni$ 'op2niiii,nde
délimiiaiion csi a~~réhendéed~ns la ricrsricriive d'une seule des Pariics. Le
conceot mèmede délimitationse trouve du-mêmecounnié.
IIn'cri pa, surprcnani. dans ces condiiions, qu'un ahime \épiireles P,trtiesen
cc qui concerne le droit régissantlx dklimitaiion.
Pour Ic F~nadd. la ironiiérc niariiinie doit étre le fruit d'une mCihode qui
tr<iu\,csr.,racine, cl 53 ]ujlifi~.ition dans des prlllilpcs et régie,de ciiriictcrc
~uridiqiic 1.c siiracterc Gquitahlc du réruliai est :crtes fondanienial. mai\ Ic
cheniinenient oui 3ura permis d') aboutir iniporte lui 3ussi. Pour Ir Cdnxda, il
existe un corp& juris régissantla délimitation.
Pour les Etats-Unis, au contraire, le droit de la délimitationse ramèneà une
proposition unique: le résultat,dit-on, doit être«équitable» - et I9aéquité»b ,ien
sùr, c'estle banc de Georges tout entier aux Etats-Unis. Sur le cheminement qui
aura permis d'y aboutir, le droit, à en croire les Etats-Unis, n'a tout simplement
rien à dire.
Par-delà les divergences sur le contenu du droit applicable, c'esten définitive
l'existencemémed'un tel droit qui est miseen question par les Etats-Unis et qui
est en cause devant la Chambre.
Concept de la délimitation, contenu - voire existence - du droit de la26 GOLFE DU MAINE
délimitation: tels sont, me semble-t-il. les aspectsfondamentaux qui constituent
l'ossature des thèsesqui s'affrontent devant la Chambre.
Cesont cesdeux aspectsqueje souhaiterais, Monsieur le Président,Messieurs
lesjuges, évoquerau cours de mon intervention.
LE CONCEPT DE D~LIMITATIOK
Au terme du premier tour des plaidoiries orales ilapparait, plus clairement
encore qu'à la fin de la procédureécrite,que la position des Etats-Unis repose
essentiellement sur le postulat de la projection frontale et perpendiculaire,
jusqu'à l'extrème limite de lajuridiction nationale des Etats-Unis, de leurscôtes
dites <<primaires»situéesdans le fond du golfe du Maine.
C'est sur cepostulat que lesEtats-Unis ont construit leur opération offensive
contre la linne canadienne etla méthoded'équidistance au'elleutilise. C'est ce
postulai aussiqui. de manière parallèle cl ci>rblliiirc. lcur ;cri d'e~pli~itiun - et
est in\oquk plr rux comme justification - dc lcur propre rc\endication i une
froniiérc siiuce au! alentoursdu chcnal Nord-Est. uuellc uur soi1riAr ai1lcur.r 13
méthode à laquelle on recourrait pour tracer une fr~ntière'~ermetiant d'obtenir
ce résultat.
Dans leurs plaidoiries orales, les Etats-Unis ont cependant revêtuleur thèse
d'un habillage nouveau: celui du cul-offeffect, c'est-à-dire de I'efiet d'amputa-
tion. Les Etats-Unis ont probablement estimé queleur postulat de base avait
plus de chances d'ètre regarde comme acceptable par la Chambre s'ils le
présentaient sousles couleurs du non-empiétement que sous celles de la
hiérarchiedescôtes: mais si l'emballage est plus chatoyant, la marchandiseest
bien toujours la même.
Dans l'espoir d'améliorerla présentationdeleur produit, nosamis américains
ont tentéenoutre de lui conférerune apparence scientifique, destinée à parer du
prestige de la mathématique unethèsequ'il leur était difficile de défendresur le
plan du droit et de la raison.
LesEtats-Unis ont-ils renforcéleursituation ens'appuyant aussi massivement
sur la thèsede l'amputation, revêtuedesséduisantsattraits dessciencesexactes?
Je ne le pensepas.
Sur le plan scientifique la théoriedu cul-off, telle qu'elle nous a étéprésentil
y a quelquesjours, ne résiste pas à la critique. Mes collèguesétabliront ce point,
et je ne m'y arrèterai pas.
Sur le plan juridique la démonstration soi-disant mathématique de nos
adversairesest tout simolement déoourvuede oertinence: le droit international
nc fait pasdépcndrcla vîlidiié juridique d'une délimitation d'ciTetsgCométrique,
telsqueccul qui nous ont ét>pr&entes. Sur ce1aspectessentielj'3ur31 I'ui~Asiun
de m'expliquer tout à l'heure.
La théorie de I'amoutation. telle au'elle nous a été orésentée.sunoose
préalablementacquis, a titre d;axiome,'que les côtes latéraiesde la ~o;;elle-
Ecossene peuvent,par nature mème,avoir deprojection versl'intérieur du golfe
ou que, si elles avaient une telle projection, celle-ci n'aurait pas de valeur
suffisante oour subsister face à la .ro,ection des côte~-du Mai~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~ ~e~
Hampshire. De mèmcque l'on expliquait, ily a quelquessiècles.quc l'opium fiiii
dormir parcequ'il a unevertu dormiii\e, lesEtats-Unis cx~liauent auiourd'hui i
la Chambre aue lescôtes américainesdu fond du eolfe d&nt seo.oie,er dans
uncdir~t~on'~cr~endicula~r ct,ra\crs le hancde George etsau-del=. parce que
leur vertu inhérente est de s'épanouir par-dessus toutes les projections que
pourraient engendrer les autres côtes bordant le golfe du Mainc C'csi. ires exactement, résoudrela question par la question ou, si l'on préfère,supposer le
problème résolu.Dans la terminologie de nos adversaires, cur-ofefeci, coasral
ponr e.rrension,primarj, coasrs opposées aux secondary coasrs apparaissent
comme autant de manières différentesd'exprimer la même idéee,t cette idée
repose sur un cercle vicieux.
La vérité estque nos adversaires méconnaissent la nature mème d'une
ooération de délimitation.
Ihns son arri.1de 1969,la Cour a JSni la délimiiatii)niiirnmc une opération
qui: c con sis lcer~entiellemj.tracer une lignede dr'niiircationcntrr.des lunes
rele\ant dcii dc l'un ou Je I'autrc des Etais interrssés* (C'1J. Rrmcil 1969.
L'idéequi se trouve i la hasc de toute délimit;itionrit donc I'c.tistcncedc
projections mriritimrï.d'tgsles valeur dcj deux Filits int2rcsseset I'impo~jibilit~
de oermcttre i chacun de br'n2ficier dc I'ini-eralite dcSA .ir-iiection. Par
hypothèse, le problème de la délimitation ne se pose que s'il n'existe pas
d'espaces maritimessuffisantspour que chacune des côtes en présence puisse se
projeter jusqu'à l'extrêmelimite de la juridiction nationale. Permettre un
épanouissement completà I'uned'entre elles serait nier le droit à l'existencede
l'autre.
C'est pourquoi toute opération de délimitationmaritime consiste par défini-
tion à amouter la . .iection maritime des deux Etats intéressésoar rao..rt au
droit que chacun aurait eu si I'autre n'existait pas.L'empiétementet I'amputa-
lion - I'enrroaclimenret le cul-of sont inhérentsau concept de délimitation.
Toute délimitation impliquenécessairement uneamputation réciproque. Cela
est particulièrement vrai dans le cas d'une concavité, où les projections
maritimes sechevauchent inévitablementfaute de pouvoir s'épanouir librement.
Ce que le droit international exige, c'estque cet empiétementet cette ampu-
tation s'effectuentde manièreéauitable et raisonnable. Ce aue le droit interna-
tional interdit, c'est que cet empiétementet cette amputatih privilégientd'une
manière inéquitableI'une des côtes au détriment de l'autre ou conduisent à
accorder un rôle disproportionné, c'est-à-dire dériiisonnable,à une configura-
tion mineure et non essentielle de I'une des côtes au détrimentde I'autre côte.
Comme dans un mariage, il faut étredeux dans une délimitationet, comme
dans un bon mariage, une délimitation conforme au droit se fait au prix de
concessions réciproques.
De là il découleque nos adversaires sont à côté de la question lorsqu'ils
tentent d'établir, géométriàel'appui, que la ligne canadienne ampute les côtes
américainesdu fond du golfe d'une partie de la projection maritime à laquelle
ellcsauraient droit si la côte canadienne n'étaitpas là où elle estet ce qu'elle est.
Biensûr -on en revient toujours àcette constatation- la délimitationserait plus
favorable aux Etats-Unis si la Nouvelle-Ecosse n'existait pas et si la côte
canadienne prolongeait en un alignement rectilignela côte américainede I'autre
côtéde la frontière terrestre.
Mais l'inverse est tout aussi vrai. La projection maritime de la Nouvelle-
Ecosse vers le sud-ouest pourrait s'épanouir infiniment plus librement- ro ihe
end ofrhe coasraljurisdicrion,comme diraient nos amis américains - si la côte
américaine n'ctait pas, elle aussi, là où elle est et ce qu'elleest.
IIsuffit de se reporter aux développementsde M. Colson et aux graphiques
@ @ qu'ila produits devant la Chambre, et plus particulièrementaux figures 10, 15et
@ 29,pour constater que ce n'estjamais sous l'anglede l'amputation mutuelle qu'il
envisage la délimitation, maistoujours, toujours, sous celui de I'Etat appelé
Srate A. c'est-à-dire les Etats-Unis.
L'illustration la plus frappante de cette approchç unilatéralenous est fournie 28 GOLFE DU MAINE
@ par !a figure 29A présentéepar les Etats-Unis et qui est reproduite sous le
numero 114de nos propres illustrations. Commentant ce graphique. M. Colson
a dénoncéle caractère inéquitablede la ligne d'équidistance dessinéeen rouge,
en relevantque cette ligneampute la projection maritime deI'Etat A,et ila vanté
lesméritesde la lignede couleur noire parce qu'elletourne suffisammenttôt, a-
t-il dit, pour rendre I'effetd'empiétementet d'amputation supportable àI'EtatA
(VI. o. 317-318).
L3 p!!rUc~lcivcrjcmerepondr.iii san, doute qii'ellcn'a pai ncgligelesdroii~de
I'Etat Hr.1qiic nion accusition d'unil~ierÿlisnicn'est ii~ntlic L'LiaiR requit.
nous a-t-on dit et répétésur tous les tons du côtéadverse, a bandof maritime
jurisdictioàl'intérieur du golfee,t ils'épanouit librementdevant sa côte qui fait
face au large sur l'Atlantique(VI, p. 248, 308, 318 et 323).
Mais comment, Monsieur le Président,ne pas être frappépar deux faits?
L'extension libre et sans entrave vers le large concédéepar nos adversaires à
I'Etat B au titre de sa côte faisant face au large, c'est-à-direà la côte de la
Nouvelle-Ecossefaisant face à l'Atlantique, s'effectuedans une régionsituéede
toute manièrehors de la iuridiction nationale de I'EtatA. c'est-à-dire des Etats-
Unir IIn'y 3là aucun probleme de d6liniitation. car >cullecanada estconccrnC.
Cesi comme bi nous \criionsarguer devant Iï Chambre que ILlignecanadienne
eit Cquitïble oarçe qu'elle laisseaux Etats-Unis I'in-L:cralde leurs.pr.~eclions
maritimes debant les côtes du Rhode Island!
Quand à la «bande» maritime concédéeau Canada devant la côte de la
Nouvelle-Ecosse donnant sur le golfe, rien ne saurait mieux illustrer son
caractèrerésiduelaue cette ohrase des ol7idoiries adverses: «the UniredStates
line leaves IO canada's sou;hn~esc toastolfront a generousband of maririme
jurisdictionextendingseaward». (VI, p. 323.) L'idée esctlaire.Pour lesEtats-Unis
cette côte canadienne n'aurait dû engendrer aucune projection maritime - ce
que montrent la ligne américainede départ avantses ajustements et la rameuse
@ figure 31 du contre-mémoire américain.C'est enquelque sorte par grandeur
d'$me que les Etats-Unis, après avoir envisagé d'enclavercette côte par une
étroiteceinture de 12milles marins. ont consenti à lui «laisser» la ~-énéreuse
bande. Joni on nous a si abondamment p~rlc.Le <:anada seriiii mal tenu i se
montrer trop gourmand. on nous l'a dit trk çlairement. rrhc aspira ri on^ofthe
coastaliront ii Canadamusrbe reducedr(VI. . .. 3211
~our.me rbsumcr. une délimitationexige la pnseen compic simuliank et
globale dcs côics des deux ParriCs.L'exigenced'une d~liniitation equi[dhle ci
raisonnable n'est que la traduction iuridiaue de cette proposition de bon sens.
S'enfermer.comme lefont nos adve&aires.'dansleooini devue de l'undes Etats.
I'EtatA - les Etats-Unis- et ne regarder la situation que dans la perspectivedé
I'un des Etats - I'Etat A, les Etats-Unis - c'est le contraire d'une approche
raisonnable et équitable. . .
La Cour a définila négociationpar la prise en considération raisonnablepar
chacune des Parties des droits de l'autre (Compétence en matièredepgcheries.
C.I.J. Recueil1974, p. 33,par. 78).11paraîtrait difficilementconcevablequedans
le règlementjudiciaire - dont chacun sait depuis l'arrêt des onesfranchesdela
Haute-Savoieel duPaysdeCe.< qu'il«n'est qu'un succédané du règlementdirect
et amiable» (C.P.J.I. sérieA no 22, p. 13) - une démonstration géométrique
caractériséeDarson égocentrismeet son unilatéralismese substitue au droit.
Je ne rcsisip35 i la~enlat~onde reprendre modesicmenti nion compte ceque
I'illusircMaurice Hourquin a dit 3 ccite mCmeplace ily 3 plus Je trente ans:
«Je n'aijamais été trèsfort en mathématiqueet j'avoue quedes formules
decegenre m'impressionnentbeaucoup. Elles me remplissentd'une sortede crainte rcspcciucusc. J'ai lait cc que j'ai pu p(iur saisir le nikanisme dc se
sysiimc . Cc que j'en :IIcompris csi suffis3ni pour cn apprccicr la \alcur
juridique.>.(Cl J M<'t~i~~ir er:<hrrit,,\oI. IV. p. 256 )
@ Cc que j'ai compris en regardani ïiicniii.emeni 1.1ligurc 29 A des Etais.Unis.
qui est.je lercpétc.la iigurc IIJ de noire praicedurcoralc. c'est ceci.Une loir quc
tout a etc dii ct vu. I:tuuellcde ses deux liener wnnutc-i-elle olus manifcsicment
Ikic6ie dc l'undes ~1ais.l~~~iicllecompo;te-i-ell~tine ampuiaiion réciproqueci
raisonnablemeni balancée?1.a r2ponsc. nie semhlc-1-11s,;iuic litiéralrmentaui;
yeux: la ligne rouge, qui stylise~la ligne canadienne, est à coup sùr la plus
raisonnable; la ligne noire, qui stylise la ligne américaine, protège certesles
droits de I'Etat A, mais sacrifieceux de 1'EtatBet, de ce fait, est inéquitable et
déraisonnable.
Puis-Aeme ~,rmeitre à orésent.Monsieur le Président.Messieurs les iuees,du
\ou, inviier .i \,ou, tourner enin.1conip2gnie \,Crla CarleJe IJ régloilqui porte
Icnunicro IIh de 1.1procc\lure $irale''C'ettcciric liecomporic pis I:ib.ith)nir'-
trie: ellene dessineoas lebanc de Georees: elle seconcentre suria confiaur-tion
càiiCrc. duni les deur Parties ;'.iicordcni ;<rcsuniiaiirc Ihprimaute Sur cctic
snrte figureni 13lisne c'inadienncci la lipneJ'cquidi~ianccsiricic. Si l'on~bordc
cette illustration avec un regard nouveau, peut-on dire, je me permets de poser
la question, qu'elle faitapparaitre nde prime abord)) (on rhefoce ofir), comme
le dit l'arrêtde 1969,un effetd'amputation «anornial>,ou «déraisonnable» sur
lesespaces maritimes des Etats-Unis? Sur cette carte, plus encore peut-ètreque
sur toutes les autres, la réponsene parait guère discutable.
Dèslors que les Etats-Unis envisagent la délimitationcomme une opération
destinéeà assurcr la prééminencede leur propre point de vue, on ne pouvait
-uère s'attendre à ce qu'ils concoivent le droit réeissantla délimitationde la
fruntiéremaritime unique ,Our Iciormc dc rr'giesjtiridiqucs propres à a>surer 12
prise en consi~lcraii~inCquilibrr'eet rais~iiinablcdei ibis\ des deux Pariics.
Sans doute nos distinguéscontradicteurs n'ont-ils nas cesséd'insister sur la
primautéde la géographiecôtière et sur la nécessité'detenir compte dans la
délimitation.avant toute autre chose, de la relation géographiqueentre lescôtes
des Parties et Icscspacesmaritimes en cause (VI,p. 246,254, 255, 256,263.268,
274. 281-282.286. 324 et 4571.et de cela nous ne Douvonsnue nous féliciter.
Il'un :,uire c9tc. ccpcnJant. leproseiw\ qu'ilspr6coniscntpour I'opcrÿiionde
delin1it:itiiinne p:iri pas [email protected] .irri\rr 1 I;ilignccn passant pJr IJ
mise en Œuvrede méthodesappÏopriéesj il commence d'eÏmblée par la ligne -
c'est-à-dire par le résulta- sans se préoccuperdu droit dont la méthodeest le
fruit et la géographiele point d'appui. Cela a étédit par M. Stevenson (VI,
p. 286). répété par M. Colson (VI, p. 310-311),ré;iffirmé par M. Robinson:
«Equiiablc principles and an equiiable solution are the master. The
particular method or methods of reaching an equitable solution in accor-
dance with those principles are but the servant. ,>(VI, p. 456.)
La séquencenormale qui mène à la ligne en partant du droit et de la
géographie. et en passant par la méthode qui jette un pont entre eux, est
purement et simplement renversée,puisqu'on commencepar la fin.
Mais les Etats-Unis vont plus loin encore. Non seulement le choix de lamkihodc succcdc au tract de ln ligne. mair ce choix n'est soumis li aucune règle
dc droit ci nc prhzntc d'autre iniCréiquc de justiticr <Iporlcriorile tricè rctcnu.
J'aidtii dknoncédans mn rirkckdenieinicrtention 13thbe clon Inauelle <<an,
methnd ir.combination of kethod tha~~oroduces an eauitable resdt msv h>
applied» (VI,p. 169).Nos adversairesont ;epris cette proiosition (VI, p.3z a )"
cours du oremier tourdes plaidoiries orales. Mais ils la poussent àprésentsi loin
au'ils en arrivent à ne olus attacher d'imoortance a leur . .ore méthode.e. ~ls
déclarent<en rtmîttr: li InCh~mhrc pour choisir cllc-nicmr ILou les niéihude,
~.onduir;intau r2ruli;iIqu'ilssuuhaitcnt. Ccitc ,urprcr~iiiitc:~iiitudc.qui :ons~,ie
àprendre du recul par rapport àsespropres thèse~~uridiqueset àdire en quelque
sorte à la Chambre: ((Donnez-nous ce que nous voulons, c'est-i-dire le banc de
Georges, 21justifiez-le comme vous voulez», a trouvé son expression la plus
remarquable dans la bouche de M. Stevenson:
«The United States does not exclude that the Chamber may be attracted
to another method or methods that produce a result satisfying the equitable
principles and relevant circumstances ...» (VI, p. 286.)
Si l'on pousse i'analyse un peu plus loin. on voit apparaître en filigrane
derrière les formules américaines une caractéristique d'une grande portée:
comme I'asoulignémon ami M. Legault, lecas américainse réduitaujourd'hui à
une revendication au.. sclon nos ~dv~ ~aires. doit trouver sa iustification -n -.le-
rii?riie.M Ste\cns<ina dccliir?. a,\ cl,iim . is not ;in cntitlemzn8,(\'I.p 253).
mais aucun de noi distinguéscuntradicicurs n'x ju3iiliCIc droit des Cii<tsCnis
3urI;itotalitéduhancdr Georecs- q<~nd hcvond 8>.cOmmlC 'aririétéhl. Robinson
dans $3dt:13r;itiun 1in:il(VI. p 558) - iutremcnt que p.ir I:i\.xlcurprcicnduc de
Ii rci,cndicÿtio~iellc-mime Qu;int :IUA mqen de ~;itisfii~r;cicctt~.re\en<licLtidn
en droit, ils sont considéréspar nos adversaires comme indifférents. Jedirais
volontiers que lecas américainn'estplus qu'un dispositif dépourvu demotifs. Ce
dispositif- à savoir, la totalitédu banc de Georges aux Etats-Unis - trouve dès
lors sajustification en lui-mémeet non pas dans les règleset principes du droit
international applicables à la délimitation de la frontière maritime unique. Le
sort du banc de Georges, au lieu d'étredéterminéàla findu processusjudiciaire,
est regardépar les Etats-Unis comme le point de départobligéde ce processus.
C'est dire que les Etats-Unis ne demandent pas à la Chambre un jugement
motivéen droit, mais une décisionqui réalise l'équité telq lue définiepar les
Etats-Unis et vue dans la perspective des Etats-Unis. Et cette équité - qui
pourrait en douter? - repose paradoxalement sur ces considérations écono-
miques dont les Etats-Unis essaient de persuader la Chambre qu'elles vicient
jusqu'à la racine la position canadienne.
La position américaine ne réserve enconséquence aucune place au droit
réeissant la délimitation. Dès lors aue seul comote le résultat, la démarche
juridique devient inJitlc:renic. C'cst ccqui cxpliquc quc d.ins Ic premlcr tour dc
leur5plxidoirics nos ad\errxircs n'aient pas jug? nr':csi;iircdc ~uitilierdc Fqan
sérieuseaucune deleurs lignes, mais se soient bornésà tenter dejeter lediscrédit
sur les méthodes enracinées dans le droit qui sont à la base de la ligne
canadienne. La position américainerevient en définitiveà nier l'existenceméme
d'un droit de la délimitationdes espaces maritimes.
Mais il Ya olus grave encore. S'iln'existeaucune règlegouvernant leDrocessus
de délimiiatikn et si seul compte le résultat, comme le proclament 'nos amis
américains,cela signifieque chaque cas doit ètre régléau coup par coup sans
qu'il puisseètre recouru à une norme préexistantequelconque.
Le Canada n'ignore pas qu'entoute matièrec'estledroit lui-mêmequi «exige
une application raisonnable,>. c'est-à-dire correspondant «aux circonstances de l'affaire)): la Chambre aura reconnu la formule employéepar la Cour dans
l'affaire de la Barcelona Tracrion (C.I.J. Recueil 1970, p. 48, par. 93). C'est le
droit lui-mêmequi exige qu'une règle généralesoit «adaptée à la diversitédes
situations de fait»: la Cour I'a dit en cestermes dansl'affaire des Pêcheries en
1951(C.I.J. Recueil 1951.p. 133) etelle l'a redit en cesmêmestermes en 1969
dansl'affaire du Plareauconlinenraldela nier du Nord(C.1.J. Rei:uril 1969,p. 51,
par. 94). La nécessitéde prendre en compte les circonstances propres à chaque
affaire a étérepéteeavec force tant dans la sentence de1977que dans l'arrét de
1982. L'équitéest bien. selon la forte expression de Charles De Visscher, «la
norme du cas individuel».
Certes ce n'estjamais la mêmeeau qui coule sousle mèmepont. Mais de là à
contester la légitimitéde toute liene directrice de caractère tant soit oeu eénéral.
II y3 un p3sque rien n'~uloriic. mescinhle-1-11 , ir:inchir. I1:irs;i niturc ménIï
ni)rmc juridique doit revéiir un ceriain degrc dc g>n&raliic. hie de quui l'une
dcs f<inciionr iondamcnialcs dudroii. ccllc de 13vr~viiihilii~CIdc la sCcuritc.nc
serait pas remplie. En recourant au règlement 'judiciaire ou arbitral de leurs
différends de délimitation maritime, les gouvernements s'engageraientdans la
voie incertaine dc décisionsqui ne seraient plus justifiées en droii. Par-delà
l'existence d'un droit de la délimitation. c'est la fonction mémedu règlement
judiciaire ou arbitral en matière de délimitation que la conception longuement
exposéepar nos adversairesmct ainsi en péril.
Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, la posirion du Canada est
diamétralement opposée.
Si, comme je l'ai indiqué dans mon précédentçxposé,deux gouvernements
sont libres de définir une frontière maritime qui leur paraît équiiablc sans se
soucier de la méthodoloeieu .rmettant d'v conduire. la dél~m~ ~tion Dar voie
judiciaire ou ;irbitr~lc duit ;tu ciintraire repowr rur le choi~ d'iinc ou plusieurs
methodcjcnracinccsd;in~ Icdroii Ccquc j';ii cru pouvoir ;ippcler .clincihodc Je
la non-méthode» n'a pas de place ici(~1, p. 170et suiv.): '
Les vues du Canada sur le droit applicable à la délimitation de la frontière
maritime unique dans notre aKaire sont connues de la Chambre, et je n'y
reviendrai vas.
Les exposésde nos adversaires ont cependant donnéde cesvues une image
tellement déformée - pour nepasdire faussée- qu'il me faut dénoncer quelques-
unesdes distorsions dont nos thCsesont étél'objet.
Où avons-nous déclaréque la méthode de I'équidistance is ~inherently
equitablen (VI, p. 246 et457), ou que l'équidistanceestenelle-mémeun principe
Cquitable applicable à toute délimitation maritime parce que aboutissant
touiours a un résultatcquitablc (VI, v. 267 et 27017
Ou a\<>n\-nnds un.<$crys<iphi,ti~xted ~3) oi,irgaing,.:ifindcsuggérer
qucv iih:it rcsll)i iniporiint is no1ihc ph)sir.il geographic rcl3t1,inship hciuccn
the co~is and the rnüriiimc ïrca IO bc drlimitcdo (VI. p. ?55)?
Où avons-nous exprimél'opinion que, si le di non-impiéiement a pu
étre applicable a la délimitation du plateau coniincntal, il ne l'est plus à la
délimitation des zones des 200 milles (VI, p. 260)?
Où avons-nous laisséentendre que le vrincive de distance ~ourrait devenir
absolu au point d'éliminer toute considéktion'de circonstances géographiques
spéciales(VI, p. 327)?
Sur tous cespoints, Monsieur le Président,la Chambre le sait, non seulement
nous n'avons pas dit cela, mais nous avons dit ex;ictement le contraire.
Nos adversaires se sont engagés,plus encore que par le passé,dans une
véritable croisadecontre I'équidistance.Tout leur effort s'estconcentrésur une
attaque massiveet excessive,non pas tellement contre la ligne canadienne,mais32 GOLFE DU MAINE
contre I'éauidisianceelle-mème. oresentéecomme le mol absolu en matière de
dClimii:iiion mnriiime Sansdouic Ic, tiats.Unis coniinucni-ili reconn3itre du
boui des IC\,rcsque I'cquidi~iance csi pdrliiih tquit;ihlc (V268pCI 269-?7U).
mais pour eux ce n'e~<~uasimentjamais l'occasion du ~~irfois». On nous a
longuement expliqué que cette méthode n'est concevable que dans deux
hypothèses: celle d'une côte rectiligne et celle d'une concavitédans laquelle la
frontière terrestreaboutirait au milieu de la concavité(VI, p. 300 et 310)-autant
dire oresoue idmai~. -n nous a exoliaué aussi oue cette méthodecréeun effet
~ii.i~ccpishlc d'.inipui.iiiJdiis ioutc\ les iiLtrcih)pothcses - ;iuiÿnt dire
prciquc ioulour.; Tant ci\ihicn que. si I'~quiiliit;ince csi ioulours rcrerrce, cllc
devient une-formule creuse, une mention rhétorique, rien deplus.
Ce thème, qui a constitué le leitmotiv des plaidoiries orales de nos amis
américains,vise à jeter le discrédit sur la méthodede l'équidistanceIIsesitue
dansle droit fid)e la euerrede religion menéeDarcertains contre l'éauidistance
au nom des %<principescquii;iblc~~~.çommicicesdcu\ conccpis Ciaienianiinomi-
que. ci conimc si I'hquidisiÿnce eiaii nécciwirrmeni in6quii;ible. II p;irt~cipede
la campagne qui cherche à opposer la flexibilité généreusedes principes
éouitablesau ri-orisme aveueue de la -éoméirieéauidisiante.
Indépendammentde toute autre considération, on peut sedemander, Mon-
sieur le Président,comment tant de gouvernements - y compris les Etats-Unis
eux-mêmes - ont pu recourir si souventà une méthodequi nous a été présentée
sousd'aussi sombrescouleurs!
Laudience es: leimiea 17h 58 VINGTIÈME AUDIENCE PUBLIQUE (4 V 84, 10h)
Présenrs:[Voir audience du 2 IV 84.1
M. WEIL: J'ai tentéde montrer hier qu'une opposition profonde sépareles
Etats-Unis et le Canada en cequi concerne leconcept mêmed'une opération de
délimitation: opérationéquilibiéeprenant en compie, de manière simultanéeet
globale, les côtes des deux Parties pour le Canada; opérationconcue dans une
perspective unilatéralepour les Etats-Unis.
J'ai abordé ensuite ce sui me semble constituer une non moins profonde
divergencede vuesentre les Parties: je veuxparler du contenu, pour ne pas dire
de l'existence,d'un droit régissantla délimitation.A la fin de l'audience,j'ai
évoauéla croisade entreprise par nos adversairescontre la méthode del'équidis-
tance, présentée,ai-je cru pouvoir dire. comme le mal absolu en matiere de
délimitationmaritime.
Monsieur le Président,les Etats-Unis semblent ignorer l'extrêmecommodité
et simplicitéde la méthode. «Aucune autre méthode de délimitation, adit
pourtant la Cour, ne combine au mèmedegréles avantages de la commodité
~ratique et de la certitude dans l'application»: son emploi, a-1-elleajouté,«est
indiquédansun trèsgrand nombre de cas» (C.I.J. Recueil 1969,p. 23.par. 22-23).
Le tribunal arbitral franco-hritannique a préciséque
«le bien-fondédecesobservations est certainement confirméDarla pratique
des Etats; celle-ci montre que jusqu'à ce jour un nombre consid&able'de
délimitations deplateaux continentaux ont été effectuée psar l'application
soit de la méthodede I'équidistance,soit, assez fréquemment,parquelque
variante de cette méthode»(sentence, par. 85).
1.csonirr<te 3wc 13 ~hL:bseelon laquelle I'cquidisitincenr seriit appropnécque
djns des siluaiions tout 3.fail cxccpii<innellesest r;iisis~anl.
Nos adversaires semblent ignorer égalementque c'est justement dans des
configurations géographiques irrégulièreq sue l'équidistancese révèlela plus
appropriée.Ainsi que la Cour l'a déclarédans l'affairedu Plateau conrinenral
(Tunisie/Jarnahiriyaarabe libyenne) cette méthodea précisémen(t(l'avantage -
peut-êtreaussi l'inconvénient- de reproduire presque toutes lesirrégularités des
côtes prises comme basea (C.I.J. Recueil1982, p. 68, par. 126).
Nos adversaires semblent ignorer enfinque la niéthodede l'équidistancese
prêteavec une souplesse particulière aux ajustements qui peuvent apparaitre
nécessairesafin de remédierà l'inconvénientque la Cour avait signaléet de
satisfaire à l'exigenced'un résultat équitabl. omnie nous l'avons ditau cours
de la procédureécrite:
«La ligned'équidistancefournit une norme objectivepour l'appréciation
du caractère équitablede toute autre ligne et pour l'évaluation deseffets
raisonnables O; déraisonnables.~rooor~onnés~oudisorooortionnés.éaui-
tables ou inéquitables de caraciéristiques ou de cohfi&rations !géogra-
phiques particulières.))(III, contre-mémoiredit Canada, par. 680.)
II est curieux de constater que cet avantage, très généralement reconnu à
I'équidistance,a été transféréar nos adversaires àla méthodede la perpendicu-
laire, alors qu'ils ne songent pas un instanàen crbditer celle de l'équidistance
(VI, p. 322).34 GOLFE DU MAINE
A quoi s'ajoutent, bien entendu, le poids particulier conféréà l'équidistance
dans notre affaire par l'application de l'article 6. au sujet de laquelle les deux
Parties sont d'accoid. ainsi oue le fait au'aucune autre méthode.~commeie l'ai
monirc dans ma prcccdcntc plaidoirie. n'incorpore -iuiani que I'l:quidisi:inceles
deiix composnnies du fondement juridique du titre de I'Evdicôtier .i In zonc
des 2UOniilles. i sa\oir le conccD1de ijirr cl celui dr distance (VI. P. 178et
... ,~
II est évidentque ces raisons convergentes ne font pas de l'équidistanceune
méthodeiuridiquement obligatoire et qu'elles ne conduisent pas à considérer
l'équidistancecomme constiiuant en elce-memeun principe équitable.Que les
choses soient bien claires, Monsieur le Président.Le Canada n'entend passe
placer dans le sillagedes thèsessoutenues par les Pays-Baset le Danemark dans
l'affairedu Pluteauconrinenrad l ela mer duNord. Le Canada n'entend pas faire
appel, si j'ose dire, de I'arrSt de 1969. Le Canada admet parfaitement que
I'équidistancesoit ajustée - voire, à la limite, abandonnée au profit d'une autre
méthode - lorsqu'elleconduit à un résultat inéquitable.
Tel est le cas lorsau'un accident eéoeraohiau. mineur- une ile ou un rocher.
un raillant isoli: Je 13.cOte OU un promonioirc e~ccpiioniiellement long -
provoque une dci,iation tiiu)rurt,génerliiriccd'une ampulaiion ou d'un cnipiéie-
ment déraisonnables
(:'eiaii là lesen%que la Commirsion du droii iniernntion:il ci la coniCrenccde
Ciencte attachaient au concept de <tcirconslÿncesspcciales ».Le commentaire de
la Commission sur se gui allai1 Jci,cnir I'arlicle 6 de la con\ention de 1558
é~o-uait. à cet u ,rd.(<"neconfieuration exceoti.nne~ ~ ~ la côte ou encore la
pré&nce'd;îlesou de chenaux na;igablesn (Commission du droit international.
Annuaire 1956,vol. II. p. 300);et lesmimes exemplesfurent donnés,au cours de
la conférencede Cienive, par le Commander I(ennedy dans une déclaration
souvent citée (Documentsoficiels, vol. VI, p. 112).
C'est là égalementla position de la jurisprudence, dont la terminologie cst
significative.L'arrêtde 1969parle ainsi de «la présencede toute caractéristique
spécialeou inhabituelle» (p. 54, par. 101D), de «l'effet exagéréde déviation»
produit par «des ilots, des rochers ou des légerssaillants de la cOte» (p. 36,
par. 57). de «résultatsde prime abord extraordinaires, anormaux ou déraison-
nahles~(o.,23.oa.. 24).,.une«oarticulariténon essentielled'où oourrait résulter
uncinjusiitiahicdifFércnced ireailement u(p 50.par 91) 1.3scniencc3rbilr31ede
1977dtclare. dc son~6ic. qu'il fautl:i.iicrque dcst<confipiirdtioiirp<irticiil~ired
Inc~te.~.des~~car:~ct~ri~iiquespa ~r<p:iricuilriicno~nrb,deilclle\~>
(par. IOU.IOI,251)necrCcn1une.~disior~iondïns Ir iraccdc I;limiic~~(pïr.100);
elle parlc d'~~effeidsisproportion ni:^^^(par. 250). de <<distorsionr.idii3lc de 13
délimitation, créatriced'inéquitén(par. 199).
Ce n'est donc oas. contrairement aux affirmations de nos adversaires. toute
disiorsion, quelque minime qu'elles(111q,ui sera sundainnCecommc generairice
d'inequiié,mais seulement celle qui provoque un «efit exagtrc de dc\idtion~>.
qui conduit .i unewdilïéren~x injustifiablede irïiiemeni 2,qui produii deswresul-
iars de prime abord (on rhrjLci, ofthznr di1le texte 3nglair de I'arr2t)cxirdor.
dinnire., anormaux ou dcrais~innahles Rrci.de disiorrion. mineurcr. lejuge ne
tient pas compte: deminimisnoncurardelimitaror.
L'observation au. i,aifaite au débutde mon exnosé.rend .insi son véritable
sens.Les~~minutieu~~~~ ei ~.i\~;intscaliu-~es~i~rr,~<iI~.al<rriiquie Ictrihunal
arbitral a considéréscomme inappropries dans le cadre du iesi dc pri>portion-
naliic (Dar.27ci 250).ei auxuuels les Eiais-Unis sc ion1livrésdînr notre atTairr
à propos du cur "8 sont tout simplement dépourv;s ici de toute pertinence
iuridique. D'abord, parce qu'on ne saurait qualifier de «circonstance spécialen,c'est-
à-dire regarder comme une «particularité non essentielle», l'ensemble de
la configuration géographique du golfe du Maine, comme le suggèrent
MM. Stevenson et Feldman (VI,p. 285 et 333).
Ensuite, parcequ'il resterait encoredémontrerque le caractèrefiextraordi-
naire, anormal ou déraisonnable» de I'eiïet de déviation apparait «de prime
abord», ontheface ofif. prima,facie- enquelque sorte,qu'il sauteaux yeux. qu'il
ait quelque chosede manifestement scandaleux.Comme ;'espère l'avoir montré
@ à l'aide du graphique de nos adversaires etde la carte de la région, teln'est
manifestement pas le cas.
Une dernière considérationenfin.M. Stevensona certesadmisque dans notre
affaire la Chambre orenneenconsidérationla méthodede I'éauidistance.mais il
a c<,ntestqu'elle Joirc prendre en considkraiion Cpalemeniune Iignc J'r:quidis-
tancea1ustéeïvdnt de passerà unemcihode radicrlcmeni ditTcrente(VI. p 2x5).
En limitant la mission du iucei 13\cuIç orise cil conridL:riiiion dr. I'i.uuid~s-
tance stricte, les Etats-uni;privent cette méthode de la souplesse'et de
l'adaptabilité qui font sa force. L'ayant ainsi dépouillée d'unepartie de ses
qualitésilleur devient plus facile d'en demander le rejet au nom de sa rigidité.
L'équidistance,à leurs yeux. ne peut plusalors s'appliquer qu'à titre tout à fait
exceptionnel, et c'est la non-équidistance qui devicnt la solution la plus
fréquente.Les donnéesde la question se trouvent tout simplement inversées.
De l'avis du Canada. si I'éauidistancen'est iamais iuridiauement oblieatoire
indépendammentdu caractère'équitabledeson;ésultai, elle nepeut pasnon plus
êtreréduiteau rang d'une méthoded'application exceptionneOeet marginale.
Que certains aie$ pu songer naguèrea la surestimer,celacst un bit. Mais cela
nejustifie pas les Etats-Unià la trainer dans la boue. Elle ne méritait pas cet
excèsd'honneur; elle ne méritepascette indignité.
*
Monsieur le Président, Messieurslesjuges,;'en vienàprésent àla réponsedu
Canada à certaines questions poséespar les membresde la Chambre.
Réponsea su\-preniièreer deltrièmeqi~esrionse M. Gros
er à la secondequesrionde M. Mosler
M. Gros et M. Mosleront demandé certainesprécisions relativesau pointA et
au triangle.
M. Gros a d'abord poséune question intéressant à la fois le poinA et le
triangleIIa demandés'il s'agit là:
«[d']élémentsagréés définitivement par les Parties dans le compromis, l'un
comme point de départ, l'autre conime zone d'arrivée dela ligne de déli-
mitation entre leszonesmaritimes relevant de leur juridiction dans la zone
du golfe du Maine qu'il est demandé à la Chambre de fixer» (VI, p. 461).
De I'avis du Canada, la réponseà cette question est affirmative. Sansdoute,
commeje I'ai dit, la délimitation entre le point de départet la zoned'arrivée ne
re~résente-t-elleQu'un maillon -de arande importance. sansdouie. mais ~artiel
q&nd m2me - di I'enscmble de 13?roniicrc martiime qui >;parera un p;ur les
Elïis-Unis el le C~nadadepuis le p<iint leminal <lela fronticrr. terresire Jans Ir.
fond de 13 baie de Passiiniïuuodd) ~usqu'au-dcladu triangle en direction du
rebord externe de la mar-e continentale. Cette délimitation n'en sera oasmoins
dctiniiivs. ci il n'est p~squesiton que Ic point de J+rou le puini ,l'arrii.i:c
fixer par In Ch:imhre.iI'inicricur du Iriïnglc pui>rcnt ètre remisencauhcIcjour
OUlesPdrlie. r'ait~cheronti JClimiter lescgmentcompris entre Ir.pu111erniinal 36 GOLE DU MAINE
de la frontièreinternationale délimiten 1925et lepoint A, ainsi que le segment
au-delà du point terminal fixépar la Chambre à I'intérieurdu triangle.
Lecompromis conclu en 1979s'analysecomme une convention internationale
par laquelle les Parties ont, entre autres, fixéd'un commun accord un point et
une zone par lesquels doit passer leur frontièremaritime. Cet accord a la méme
valeur que celui par lequel ellesont fixéd'ores etdéjàun premier segment de leur
frontière maritime en 1925. Quant à la fixation précisedu point d'arrivéeà
l'intérieurdu triangle et au tracéde la frontière que définirala Chambre, leur
caractère définitif aété décidé conventionnellementpar les Parties dans le
paragraphe 4 de l'article II du compromis, aux termes duquel: «Les Parties
acceptent comme définitiveet obligatoire pour elles-mémesla décisionde la
Chambre rendue en application du présentarticle.»
II ressort de là que la décision de la Chambre ne sera pas seulement
«obligatoire»pour les Parties conformémentau Statut de la Cour, mais qu'elle
aura aussi un caraclère «définitif»interdisant sa remise en cause.
Les indications que je viens de donner permettent de répondre aux deux
questions de M. Gros qui intéressentplus spécifiquementle point A.
M. Gros demande d'abord si les Parties reconnaissent que:
«tout accord éventuelentre elles sur la limite de leurs eaux territoriales
partir de l'actuellelimitemaritime internationale ne pourrait modifierlepoint
de départ dela ligne de délimitationunique demandéeà la Chambre)) (VI,
p. 461).
De ravis du Canada, la réponsene saurait là encore étreau'affirmative. Le
point A ayant un caractère définitif,le segment à délimitera partir du point
terminal de la frontièreinternationale devra aboutir nécessairementau point A
en application de l'article II, paragraphe 4. du compromis.
M. Gros oose la mémeauestion «àorooos de la réservefaiteen casd'arbitraee
-
sur la souviraineté de l'il; Machias ~eal'et du North Rock» (ibid.).
Là encore, et pour lesmêmesraisons, la réponseest affirmative.Le Canada est
d'accord avec les Etats-Unis pour estimer Quela orésenteaffaire et la solution
que lui apportera la chambré ne sa~raient'~réju~erde la souverainetésur I'ile
Machias Seal et sur North Rock, revendiquéeà la fois par les Etats-Unis et le
Canada. Par conséquent, et corollairement, toute solution, qu'elle soit conven-
tionnelle. judiciaire ou arbitrale, qui sera apportéeà la question de la souverai-
netésur Machias Seal et sur North Rock, laissera intact le choix du point A
comme point de départ du segment tracé par la Chambre et comme point
d'arrivéedu segment àdélimiteren aval du point terminal actuel de la frontière
internationale.
Le Canada croit nécessaired'apporter une précision i ce sujet.
Si la Chambre veut bien se reporter aux indications données dans notre
@ mémoiresur la construction de la lignecanadienne (par. 335-336et fig. 32)ainsi
qu'à la figure 117de la procédureorale, elle constatera ceci:
Premièren~ent:le point A ne correspond pas à un point d'infléchissement
fturnina~ointl canadien: ilest situéentre lesooints d'infléchissement41 et 42 de
i~ ~-ene-canadienne.
Druiir~t~io~irnrl.e point d'intl&ehi,,ement 41 tsttue en amont du point A et
donc en dehors Je la dclirniiliiion soumiic1.Chdmhre). le poini 42 (siiuc ;iu
suJ du point A et quiCditdon; partie Je la Jélimitsti~n ioamiw CLIdChamhrcj
ci Ic point43 (situe plus loin cncorc \crj le sud, >ont:ontriilL:\ psr dcux points
\,oisins- <<sret <CIO- situii rur I'ile.Mlichiaj Seal C'est jeulzinent au point
d'infl~chis~ement44 uue le oointJr contr6le .<unsitue rur le réciide la Trinité.
sur la côte de la Nouvelle-Ecosse, vientfaire sentir son influence. L'agent du Canada m'a autorisé à indiquer que le Canada ne verrait pas
d'objection à ce que la frontière joigne directement, par une ligne droite, le
point A, désignéconventionnellement par les Parties, au point d'infléchisse-
ment 44, à partir duquel la ligne canadienne cesse d'êtrecontr6lée par l'île
Machias Seal.
II faut préciserque les Etats-Unis n'ont soulevéaucune objection àcet égard
au moment où le point A a étéchoisi d'un commun accord des deux
gouvernements comme point de départ de la délimitation à demander à la
Chambre. Si nous avons oris l'initiative. Monsieiir le Président.de soulever
nous.mémescc problémeici.s'estafinde nicitrc la Chambre -CI nos advers~ires
- en prGrencede tous Irs ilémr'ntidu pruhlr'meci d'cvitr'r à lx Chambre louie
difficultédans le tracéde la ligne.
M. Gros a également posé unequestion rclative plus spécifiquementau
triangle. Avec son autorisation, je tenterai d'y répondre après avoir fourniune
réponseà la deuxièmequestion de M. Mosler relative elle aussiau point A.
M. Mosler demande si
«le fait que le point A est fixéà l'endroit d6finipar l'article IIdu compro-
mis peut ...avoir, de l'avis des Parties, une incidence quelconque sur la
méthodede la délimitation dela frontière maritime unique dans le secteur
intérieur dela régiondu golfe du Maine» (VI:p. 462-463).
Ainsique j'ai cru pouvoir ledire dans ma précédeiiteintervention, lepoint A a
été choisi parce qu'ilconstituait le point d'intersection des deux lignes officielle-
ment publiécspar les dcux Parties lors de la conclusion du compromis. Le
point A, ai-je précisée,st un point qui a étjugééquitableàla fois par les Etats-
Unis et par le Canada; c'est unpoint américainaussi bienqu'un point canadien
(VI, p. 160).
Pour le Canada, le point A s'imposait, et s'impose encore aujourd'hui -
exactement comme tous les autres voints de sa liene - comme un voint
J'Cquidisiancr Pour les Etiiis-Unis. 'au contraire. 1; point A sc rïpp"riait.
comms tous lesautres points de leur ligne de 1976, ides ionsidr'r~tionsqui, 31
cllei sont dillisilJsidentifier. soni ioui le moins éirdngereri I'Cquidistance.
Dans ces conditions. il ne serait vas raisonnable d'inferer de la situation du
point A que lesJeux Parties au~iicni Zii.impliciir'mcnid'xcord pour retenir une
dClimii3iiun fondcc sur la nicthode d'cquidistancc C'csi li une thèse quc Ir.
Canada n'ajamais défendue.
Cela dit, la situation du point A a néanmoins,de I'avis du Canada, une
incidencesur la méthode dedélimitationàl'intérieurdu golfe. Lefait qu'ilait été
choisi sans considérationde l'emplacement de la frontière terrestre, et loin de
son point terminal, atteste de la volontéimplicite des Parties, telle que cette
volonté s'est expriméedans le texte mêmedu compromis, de ne pas faire
dépendrela méthode de délimitation - et, du mèmecoup, le tracé dela frontière
maritime uniaue - de la direction de la frontièreterrestre et de l'emolacementde
son point ierminal D'iiutrc part, ld situation mCmcdu point A. cntrc lesc6ics
opposces ci dc siiniigur;ition ~.omplc\cdes dcux pays dans cettc régiunet dans
l'alignement de direction nord-estisud-ouest avec le segment de la frontière
inteFnationale délimitéen 1925,ne manque pas d'intérktpour le tracéde la
frontièremaritime unique. IIfaut noter enfinqu'en choisissantlepoint Acomme
point de départ de la délimitation,les Etats-Unis ont par là même considéré
qu'une lignepassant par ce point ne serapproche pas de leurs chtes au point dc
les amputer de leur projection maritime.
En bref, si la situation du point A ne commande pas directement la méthode
de délimitation de la frontière maritime unique dans l'intérieur du golfedu38 GOLFEDU MAINE
Maine, elle constitue à tout le moins une indication précieuse - fût-elle indi-
recte- que, selon le Canada, la Chambre ne devrait pas négliger.
J'en viens à présent à la question de M. Gros relative au triangle. Cette
question est rédigéecomme suit:
«En cequi concerne le triangle, quelleest la positionjuridique des Parties
auarit à l'effet de leur choix de ce orocédédans le comoromis sur la
L~i)mp~~cnd cc II Chambre qui doit juicr selon Irs rCglcset lfs principes de
droit applicïhlc>i l'alfaire?u(\'I.p 461)
La relalion entre le triangle et la compétencede la Chambre se situe au ceur
de I'affaice.
J'ai déjàeu l'occasion il y a quelques jours d'en évoquer l'undes aspects. J'ai
cru pouvoir relever que si la Chambre a pleine comp4tence pour fixer le point
terminal de sa délimitation à n'importe quel point dans le triangle, le choix
au'elle fera dans l'exercicede cette comr>étencaura une réoercussiondirecte sur
l'étenduede la solution judiciaire et, parà meme, sur ~'im'~ortance du segment
qui restera, lecaséchéant,àdélimiterau-delà de la limitede 200 milles.Ce choix,
ai-.e r..oelé.aura é"alementune incidence sur le oroloneement ultérieurde la
frontiérr en direction du rebord extrrnc dc 13 marde conttncnt~le. Sclon I'cm-
placement ile CC point termin31.11c.\i(ter:OU non une «zone grise,. d'une plus
ou moins grande-étendue.zone dans laauelle - ie me oermets dé le r..oeler- la
juridiction sur lc plïtcdu continçntdl .ipp3rticndr;iit i l'un des Ct31s.tandis que
la luridiction sur Icscaux surlïccntr. ou bien n'apparticndr~ili aucun Eiït uu
bien appartiendrait àl'autre Etat. Dans lesdeux cas, la situation.serait complexe
(VI. o. 162-164).C'est oourauoi i'avaiscru o.~~oir~ ~ire oart à la Chambre ~u~
iouhait du canada de Coirfixélépoint terminal de la délimitationsur la limite
extérieure des200 millesde l'une des Parties et de voir évitée la création d'une
«zone mise» d'une ampleur excessive (ibid.. o. 164). Mais il va de soi aue ce
si)uh.iiin':itfecte en riI;iplenitudc dc ILIco~pCicn~cde la Chambrc cn :c qui
concerne Ic choix du puint icrmin31d I'intcricur Jc la 7onc triangulaire A cct
égardla compétencede la Chambre est discrétionnaire.
Le problème soulevé par M. Gros me semble comporter un second aspect, sur
lequelje voudrais m'arrêterquelques instants.
Dans quelle mesure la zone en forme de triangle choisie par les Parties
s'impose-1-elleàla Chambre? En d'autres termes, que sepasserait-il si la miseen
Œuvre des principes et règles de droit applicables à l'affaire conduisait la
Chambre à la conclusion que la ligneappropriéene passerait pas par le triangle?
Une question analogue pourrait d'ailleurs se poser pour le point A.
Pour réoondre à cette auestion. on oeut évoauerla manièredont le tribunal
arbitral franco-britanniqk a conFu samission en 1977.Dans cette affaire, ainsi
que le relate la sentence. ce n'est pas seulement sur des points, mais sur des
segments entiers de la frontière de plateau continental dans la Manche que les
Parties étaient tombéesd'accord au cours des négociations antérieures,et le
tribunal a demandé aux agents des Parties, pendant la procédure orale, de
«confirmer formellement» les segments «acceptés par les Partiesa et «d'iden-
tifier de façon préciseles points extrêmesrespectifs de chacun des segments
acceptés»(par. III). Les Parties ayant accédé àcette demande, le tribunal a pris
acte des segments acceptés,et une illustration en a étéinséréedans la sentence
(~ar. 117). Le tribunal a en conséquence décidé de limiter sa mission au
comblcnicnt de cc qu'il n appclc Ics ~~solutionsde continuiié~~ - gup.~ dan> Iii
vcrsion anglaiic -dans Ictr<iccacccpt: par IcsParties (pdr 121) Lctribunal s'est
ainsi ronsidcrécommc lie iila fois vïr le point initi>Icl var le point ierminal dei
segmentsqui avaient fait l'objet d'un accord des Parties:~ette'solution, il faut le R~PLIQUEDE M. WEIL 39
rcconnaître, lui était d'autant plus facile que les Parties étaient d'accord pour
considérer que dans la Manche, à l'exception du secteur des îles Anglo-
Normandes, la limite devait êtreen principe la ligne médiane,et que tel était
égalementl'avis du tribunal (par. 103).
IIconvient par ailleurs de ne pasperdre de vue la place centrale qu'occupe
l'accord des Parties dans le droit de la délimitation maritime. Après la
proclamation Truman, l'article 6 de la convention de 1958 sur le plateau
continental ainsi aue lesarticles 73et 84 de la convention de 1982sur le droit de
la nier illustrent îbtte philosophie con\rnti~nnelle que la Cour3 déi.eloppr:ede
?oni6tC dans I'arrèt de 1969,dans lequel elle a Cv(iqué<(I'ohligat~onprimordi~lc.
J'slTectuerla dClimit~iion riJr \<lied'accord(L' 1J. Rcc&i,~lIY69 P..42. var. 72).
Dans un domaine diffirent, il n'est pas ;ans intérèt de rap&ler que dans
l'affaire des Minquiers et Erréhousla Cour a relevéque par le compromis la
France et le Royaume-Uni l'avaient priéede déciderauquel de ces deux pays
appartcndient les îlots et rochers litigieux et que, ce faisant, les Parties avaient
exclu le statut de resnulliusct celui de condominiumC .'est dans le cadre ainsi
défini par le compromis que 12Cour a conçu sa mission (C.[.J. Recueil1953,
p. 52):
Selon le principe énoncépar la Cour permanente dans l'affaire des Zones
fra~zcliesde la Haute-Savoie CI du Pays de Gex que j'ai déjà eu l'occasion
d'évoauer hier,«le règlementiudiciaire desconflits internationaux. envueduquel
la CO& est instituée,n'est qutn succédané au règlementdirect et amiable de'ces
conflits entrelesParties» (C.P.J.I. sPrieA no 22, p. 13).Dans cesconditions iln'y
a rien d'anormal, semble-1-il, à ce que deux gouvernements, qui sont tombés
d'accord sur un segmentou sur un point de leur frontière maritime, ou sur une
zone à I'intérieur de laquelle un segment ou un point doit sesituer, en fassent
part aujuge ou à l'arbitre, qui continueront l'Œuvreque les Parties n'ont réussi
au'i commencer. Loin de constituer un emniétementsur la liberté d'apvrécia-
tion du juge, la coexistenceentre une délimiiation partiellement négoci&et une
délimitation partiellement décidéepar le juge se situe, me semble-1-il,dans le
droit fil de la mission judiciaire.
C'est exactementde cette manièreque seprésentela situation entre les Etats-
Unis et le Canada dans la régiondu golfe du hlaine. Pour le moment, seul le
point de départ et la zone dans laquelle doit étrefixé le point d'arrivée ont pu
faire I'obiet d'un accord entre lesdeux gouvernements.Ce aui est demandé à la
chambré aujourd'hui, c'est de comhle;le «cap* entre la cfrtitudc du point de
départ et la semi-certitude du triangle d'arrivée.
ilne me paraît pas en définitive y avoir de contradiction entre le pouvoir
d'appréciation de la Chambre inhérent à sa mission judiciaire en matière de
délimitation maritime, d'une part, etsacompétenceliécqui lui prescrit d'arrêter
la délimitation à l'intérieur du triangle, d'autre part.
R4ponnsaeIii pre~iiierequesrinn deM. Colten
Yen arriveà présent,Monsieur le Président , la premièrequation de M. Cohen:
-1s there a unifying. dominant, legal principle that is to provide the basis
for the location of a single maritime boundary that unites the old Con-
tinental Shelf Doctrine and the old Coastal Fisheries Doctrine 10 the new
200-mile zone?» (VI, p. 464.)
De l'avis du Canada, c'est le concept d'adjacencr qui constitue le dénomina-
teur commun de la doctrine du plateaucontinental, decelledeszonesde pèche et
de la nouvelle zone des 200 miiles.40 GOLFE DU MAINE
Le rôle de I'adjacencedans la théoriedu plateau continental a étémis en
lumière Dar la Cour dans son arrét de 1969. lorsqu'elle a définile plateau
coniineni31rdmme le pr~~lungemenn i aiurel du icrriioire de I'Fui chlier-sous la
nier ri qu'ella enoncc le principe que la terre domine la nier. La Courajduié
que Ir dèlimitaiiondoit s'o~krer<<dmanièrei aiiribuer, dans iouteIimesuredu
possible, à chaque Partie, la totalité des zones du plateau continental qui
constituent le prolongement naturel de son territoire sous la mer ...» (C.I.J.
Recueil1969, p. 53, par. 101).La Cour a confirmécette approche dans son arrêt
de 1982(C.1.J. Recueil1982.D.48: D.71. Dar.73-74).
Encequi concerne leszone;de ~che. uni Ciude;iuloris& de laconveniion de
Genét,cde 1958sur Idpkhc et la conierution dcs ressource, biologiques de la
haute mer ?ouligneI'importînce de l'articl6de cceiieconveniion. $elonlaquelle
I'Etat riverain ;(a un -intérêstoécialau maintien de la oroductivité ei des
ressources biologiques dans toite partie de la haute mer adjacente à sa mer
territoriale». «Le critèresuffisantde cet intérét eslta proximitégéographique\>,
relèvecette étude,puisque «c'est ...I'Etat riverain qü...sera le mieux qualifié
pour assurer la responsabilitédecette conservatio» (A. Gros, Recueildes cours,
t. 97, Académiede droit international de La Haye, 1959,p. 42-43; reproduit
dans les annexes au mémoire des Etats-Unis,II. vol. V, annexe 93).
Quani iila nou\ellc ?onedes 200miller.ri i>iiniiion mCmz.iellequ'clletigure
a I'ariiclc55de13 conveniiun des Naiiuni Uniessur ledroit de la mer. incorpore
la noiiun J'adracence. I.'hisioire de I'émcrgenccde cette insiiiuilon du druii
international atteste aue c'est I'exolorati&net I'ex~loitation des ressources
naturelles des espaces maritimes adjacents au territoire étatique qui est à
l'originede cette doctrine. Leprincipe dedistanceconstitue I'expressionconcrète
de cëtte idéed'adjacence.
Comme l~a~ ~rit. avecl'intuition et la nersoicacitéau'on lui connait. Charles
L~iischer. .<.insl'ordrc desd2limiiaii<ininiariiimc,.'leconceptJe laconiiguiiC
ou proximii&gCographiqueileni uneplacecapiialc>~ (Pr<ihl~mm <I~con/fnr<~~i<Iroi~
!nrcrnoriond publrc.I'aris. Pcdonc. 1969,p. 105)
*.*
Monsieur le Président. Messieurs les iuees.ici s'achèvemon intervention.
Permettez-moi d'exprimer à la Chambre, ainsi qu'à nos adversaires et amis
américains, magratitude pour l'attention qu'ilsm'ont accordée. Permettez-moi
aussi de dire ~~bliauement au Gouvernement et aux asents du Canada. mes
amis MM. ~&ault'et Hankey, ma reconnaissance pou; la confiance dont ils
m'ont honoréen m'associant à cette procédure. REJOINDER OF PROFESSOR JAENICKE
COUNSEL FOR THEGOVERNMEN TF CANADA
Professor JAENICKE: Mr. President, distinguished Judges, 1 am deeply
honoured io appear hefore the Chamber today and 10 have the privilege of
participating in the presentation of Canada's case.
Sixteen vears aeo. 1had the hieh honour and orivileee to aooear hefore the
~ntematioial coiri of Justice as agent and counsel foruthe Go;ernment of the
Federal Repuhlic of Germany in the North SeoConiinenial Shelfcases. 11was in
these that ihe Court established the basic orincioles and rules for continental
~helfdelimitation TheFeprinciplcs and rulib havésincc been furihcr dcieloped
by thc juri~prudence and h~vr hecome ihc legdl framework for the determina-
tion of maritime houndaries.
Canada believes that ils boundary claim is firrnly grounded in this jurispru-
dence. It is Canada's opinion, on the other hand, that the case of the United
Stateslacks such foundation. In this context, it has fÿllen on me 10deal with the
followine issuesin the li-ht of the. .risorudence. Firsi, the identification of the
extcn,ion of ihe coasts of ihc Parties inio thc arc3 ~fdclimiirl~iun. recond, the
allcged CUI-of ekct by ihr equiaistancc boundary of Canada <in ihe Uniicd
Staics coa>i of Maine. and. ihird, the rolc of Artiçlrh of the Continent~l Shelf
Convention in the determination of the sinel- maritime houndarv.
Ii is common ground ihai ihc fundamenial rule of inicrn~ii~~nd law uhich
.eo\crnsthisease is ihst the maniimc boundarv musi hedeicnnined in au.<irJ;incc
&th equitable principles in order to prod;ce an equitable result. It follows
therefrom that the method for determining the houndary remains suhordinate to
this fundamental rule. However, the United States alleges that by relying on
distanceand proximity from the coast,Canada wants to reversethis order and to
re-estahlish the iheory that the eqiiidistance method is inherently equitable. a
theory which has been rejected hy the Court (VI, pp. 267-268). This allegation
misconst~es Canada's argument. Canada has never taken the position that the
eauidistance method is Derseeauitahle: Canada has alwavs iustified its claim to
a; cquidistancr hound& h) rcl;ing on the gcographical rfl;iiionrhlp <ifthr coasi
IO the area of Jclimiiation. h) relying oadjacent) IIIterms of diriansr l'rom ihc
coast as the source of title to the maritime areasof its coast.
Now, hoth Parties are in agreement that the coasts which ahut the Gulf of
Maine area are the starting point for the delimitation, and that thesecoastsare
the basisfrom which their jurisdiction extendsover the adjacent maritime areas,
irrespective of the nature of title to these areas. This point of departure is
~ - ~ - - ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ablished iurisorudence of this Court in continental shelf
delimitation (TunisialLib,'~ casé,1.6.~ R.eporis 1982,). 61, paras. 73-74). This
point of deoarture remains valid also for the extension of jurisdiction of the
ioastal tat oever the water column under the conceptsof the-fisherv zoneor the
cxcluri\c cconomic rone becauseherr. tuo. adjacency tiithe soasi is ihc h~sii or
iiile. The pojiiion of Csnada ihai adj;iccnc) in icrmi oidislancc from the ci><ist
is the prihary factor in determining the appurtenance of a maritime area, is,
~ ~~~-,~~ ~~,.in accordance with the Court's aoo..ach to the delimitation of
maritime rones. Where ihc exicnsions of opporiieor adjaccni cuasisovcrlap. ihc
degrceof adjacency thcreforc indicatcs the cquitablc~icssof a boundary beiween
th& unles~other~factors render such a boundary inequitahle.42 GULF OF MAINE
Whilethe Parties are in agreement that the extension of their jurisdiction into
the area of delimitation is controlled by their respective coasts, they differ
profoundly in applying this principle to the geography of the Gulf of Maine
area. In particular, they hold divergent viewswith respectto the direction into
which their coasts extend into the area of delimitation. They hold divergent
viewsas well with respect 10 the weight to be given to each of these coasts in
areas where theirextensions overlap.
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, we touch here one of the most crucial
issues of the dispute. The whole argument of ihe United States against the
Cdnadian equidistance line, as wellas the whole of the United States argument
in support of its perpendicular line, restsprimarily, if not solely, on the premise
thdt ail the coasts ahutting the Gulf of Maine area extend, hy necessity,only in a
singledirection, namely perpendicular from the coast of Maine at the back of
the Gulf into the Atlantic (VI, pp. 254, 256-258,292). Byallowingcoastal front
extension only in this one direction, the United States is able to deny the lateral
coasts of the Gulf of Maine the right to an extension in10 the Gulf and,
consequently, to downgrade them to so-called "secondary" coasts, ignoring
their extensive frontage onto the area of delimitation.
It is Canada's position that this concept of coastal front extension has no
foundation, either in the law or in the jurisprudence of this Court (VI, pp. 35-
38, 62-66).In support of this proposition, the United States relies heavily on
the North Sea Continental Shelfcases, the TunisioiLibyncase, and the Bay of
Biscay delimitation as precedents for a delimitation involving a coastal
concavity. 1fail Io see how these delimitations could provide any support for
the propositions of the United States. They do not support the proposition
that a coast at the back of the concavity determines the direction of the
extensions of the oiher coasts which abut the concavity, and they do not
support the proposition that the coast ai the back of the concaviiy must
necessarily have an extension into the area outside the concavity. These three
cases prove rather the opposite; 1shall come back to them later. But a correct
assessment of the orecedential value of these three delimitations should not
~ ~
overlook the fact ihat al1of them were mainly, if no1 exclusively, concerned
wiih a delimitation inside a large geogra~hical concavity. In al1three cases the
area of delimitation was confirÏedto the-area between the lateral coasts of the
concavii), and the houndiirics do not extend rubsiîniially <iui,idethis arîï. In
conirîsi. ihc dreï of delimitation in ihe prescni CJSC ixicnds far heyond the
concavity of the Gulf of Maine.
Permit me now to submit some ee-e~al c"~si~ ~ations o~ ~he oroblem of ~~
coastal front extension in complex geographical situations such as coastal
concavities of the size of the Gulf of Maine. These considerations will address
the following points:
Firsr, the relevance of the general geographical configuration of the area of
delimitaiion.
Second,the method used to define the direction in10which the coasial fronts
ahutting the area of delimitation converge and overlap.
Third, the weight to be accorded to each of the coastal fronts which extend
into the area of delimitation.
1have deliberately used the expression "coastal front" in this context without
however accepting the position of the United States that the extension of
jurisdiction of the coastal State over the maritime adjacent area mus1 of
necessitybe perpendicular io such a coastal front. 1use the expression "coastal
front" here only to make clear that the extension of a coast into an area of REJOlNDER OF PROFESSORIAENICKE 43
delimitation must be determined by the general relationship of the coast facing
that area. and not by small-scale coastal features which have no relevance in
determining the general relationship of a coast to the area of delimitation.
1 shall now deal with these three considerations in more detail. My first
consideration relates to the necessity of respecting the general configuration of
the coasts which abut the area of delimitation. The Court has alwavs clearlv
distinguiahed beiucen the coa~tal geography in gericrdl and incidental co3siÿl
fcdiurcs which ma) haie a distorting influrncï on the consiruciion of thc
eauidistance boundarv. On the other hand. the existence of extensive coastal
~ ~ ~~ around a concavitv cannot be ienored and the eeoeraohv has to be taken
" --.,
as it is; facts~2 nature &ch limit the amount of maritime areas which may be
attributed 10a coast cannot be chanaed. The law of maritime delimitation which
is founded on the geographical interrelation betwecn the land and the adjacent
sea cannot rernedy facts of nature which might not allow a coast to have a
natural prolongation or extension up to the outermost limit of coastal State
iurisdiction. It is in the relativelv confined ;ire;t of the concavitv that a
comparable and equitable treatment of the coasts abutting that mariiirne area
must beefected by the delimitation.
Whether a concavity is more than a mere incidental coastal feature may be an
i~~ue incertain eu - .ohical situations. and will eenerallv de,end.on a consider-
ation ofconfiguraiion 2nd bizc.Thc preçcni iasc~howevrr. prcscnih no diiliruli~
in idcntifying ihc se\cral exicnai\e coastal fronis of ihe Pari~cswhich enclose the
Gulf of Mainc. includinc ihe cxicnsivr Canadian co3jts 3ri)und ihe 83s of
Fundy and the southw&tern part of Nova Scotia. By no stretch of-the
imagination could they be treated as incidental features. Thus, in order to
identify the direction into which the coasts of the Parties extend and overlap
within the area ofdelimitation,one has, by nmssity, tu start from al1the coastal
fronts around the Gulf, and not merely from the coast at the back of the Gulf.
My second consideration relates to the method for defining the direction in
which the coasts of the Parties cxtend and converge within the area of
delimitation
In the North SeoConrinenral Sheifcases the particular geographical situation
was characterized by three adjoining States in the southeastern concavity of the
~or~h Sea. In its Judement. the Court observed that in the North Seathe natural
prolongations ;f several ~iates converged, met and intercrossed (I.C.J. Reports
1969, p. 49, para. 89 (b)), and the Court observcd further that one possible
method to cooe with that eeonraohical situation was the construction of
cquidisiancc boundarics on lie bxri, of thc coü~t;ilfroni, of ihe ihrcr. States
(ihrd..p. 52.para. 9bj Thu,. ihcCourt a.3sclcarl) oithcopinion thai the naiurïl
orolon~~iion of the lhrcc Siarcs c>iicndcrliioni dilfcrcnt directions into an area
of coniereunce. I need not remind the Chamber that the boundaries which were
latcr agreed bciuccn the parties fulloucd the pattcrn of ionvcrgencc.
In the Ti,nrsr<i,l.>bj<case. ihe Court w3, faced with a gcopraphicdl SilWJiiOn
where the coasts of the two parties formed a large two-Sded concavity of
onsi si der absze; this situation is shown here by Figure 118in your red folder.
Here again the Court defined the area where the extensions of the coasts of
Libya and Tunisia overlapped, as the area relevant for the delimitation and
clearly proceeded from the assumption of converging and overlapping exten-
sions of both coasts. Here again the Court did not recognize any privileged
direction of the extension of either of the two parties in spite of the fact that
Libya, in her pleadings, had relied on the general northward direction of the
natural prolongation of theNorth African landmass in10the Mediterranean Sea
(I.C.J. Reporrs 1982, p. 52, pam. 57; p. 80, para. 1Il; p. 85, para. 120). In the44 GULF OF MAINE
result. the Court indicated a boundaw line which. althoueh orimarilv founded
on th; conduci of Ihc pariics. came vciy near to an equtdiskncc linebéiuccnihe
two m3inllind coiists of Lihy~ and Tunisia. ;is shou,n herc by Figure IIY, and
hcre ai ihc Iiahih<ir(ihc hlcickIine is ihc boundarv indicaied hk the Couri, and
the red lineiS a hypothetical equidistance line coistructed from bath mainland
coasts of Libya and Tunisia).
Now. in bath the North Seo and the LibyalTunisia cases, the Court did no1
indicate oreciselv in which direction the coasts extended into the area of
delimitati'on, or'whether there was a focal point upon which the natural
prolongations or extensions of the coasts of each of the parties converged. The
Ünited-States, in putting fonvard ils coastal froiit extension concept, seems to
maintain that the extension of a coast in10 the area of delimitation, should, by
some unexplained necessity,he perpendicular to the general direction of that
coast. TheCourt has not recognized such a rule of perpendicular extension and
such a rule would indeed he incompatible with the diversity of geographical
configurations.
It is true that the Federal Repuhlic of Germany, in its pleadings in theNorth
Seo ContinentaS l helfcases, submitted among others, a construction of perpen-
dicular extensions from the coastal fronts around the concavity into the area of
their convergence (I.C.J. Pleadings, Vol. II, p. 189) which is shown here as
Figure 120,in your folder and now al the lighthox. Distinguished counsel for the
United Stateshas referred to this construction, but did not point to the fact that
the extensions of the coastal fronts were shown to converge - a construction
which is diametncally opposed to the United States theory of a single perpen-
dicular extension of the one coastal front al the back of the concavity. 1have
already mentioned that the Court accepted the approach of the Federal
Republic of Cermany as a possible method of achieving an equitable delimita-
lion (I.C.J. Reporls 1969, p. 52, para. 98). This was a clear recognition of the
convergence of the coastal front extensions in the North Sea and 1have already
mcntioned that the agreed boundaries followed the same pattern of convergence.
It seems to me, that the question of the direction into which a coast extends
into the area of delimitation has to be decided in lieht of the eeoeraohicai
relationship hetween that coast and the area of delimitation.
Only in this way can the particular geographical situation in eacb case be
adequately reflected. Thus, il may happen that the coastal extensions converge
into a focal ooint as in the southeastern concavitv of the NorthSea. or intercross
as in ihc aria of delimiiatton beiirccn the l.iby;n xnd Tunisian ciasta, or mert
each oihcr slong a rnedian Iinc as in the Chaniiel. or cxiend neiirly parallel io
cach oihcr a\ ihc Enrlish and French co~sisabutiinr! ihe Ailantic. The Anel&)-
French Continental Shelf arbitration shows that différentperspectives mus; be
taken where different coasts abut the different parts of the area of delimitation.
1 shall now turn to my third consideration relating to the weight to be
accorded to the extensions of different coastal fronts. Each coastal front tbat
abuis the are3 of dclimitalion cxirnds the ~unsdiction of the soastal Siaier in10
ihis maritime areli; itdors so regardlcss of the direciion from which thc coasl
faces ihc area <ifdclimiiation. Thir does no1mesn ihat each coasial front could
necessanly clliiman unlimiied rcachin any geographical situation; ihe exisiençc,
locaiion and lengih of oiher coasis which are cqually cntiiled io entend in10ihe
same area of delimitation, restrict, necessanly, the extension of each of them.
This is oarticularlv so in a concavitv where the relation of the coasts of hoth
Siatcs 15 each oihéris predominanili one oi'i~ppositeness.The F~ctrhat elichof
ihctoast\ ihlit &cc clich uihcr is rquïlly eniitled 10çxicnd junsdiction inio the
arca of dellrnitation is not. as ihc Lniicd Siaies asscrts. mcrclr restatement of REJOIKDER OFPROFESSO IRENICKE 45
the principle of equidistance; it is rather a necessaryconsequenceof the equal
application of the rule that coastal States have jurisdiction over the maritime
areas adjacent to iheir coasts. It is the equal application of this rule to
reoera~hical facts of the same order. It does not follow therefrom that an
;qu;di;t;insr.hounddr) muri ncccrrarily beçquitablc Incidcntîl coasial icatures
\\hich do not rcflcct acsur~icly ihc position of the cù.isial fronts in rctiiihc
area of delimitation, mieht have a distortine efiect on the course of the
equidistance boundary d?sproportionate to their size, and may render an
equidistance houndary inequitable in the special circumstances of the case. In
geographical situations, however, wherecomparable coasts laceeach other this
Court has clearly recognized the principle that each of the Iwo coasts has an
equal right of extension in10 the area of delimitation ktween them. IImay
sufice tu refer in this respectto the Judgment in lhe North SeaContinentalShel/
caseswhere the Court pointed out that in caseswhere the natural nrolonrations
i>1adjsccnt Staics tend Io convcrgc and iiverlal>. as in the ~orih ~ea,-such a
\ituation should k rcsol~edhy an cqual dit ilion ofihc oicrlapping ÿrrÿs (1 CJ
Renorr~1959. p.52, wra. 99) .his shuus clcarly that the Court pr<lscedcdfrom
théprinciple chat coasts which abut the samearea of delimitaiion have to be
treated equally, regardlessof the directionin which they project into the area of
delimitation.
In contras110this establishediurisorudence. the United StatesproDosesa new
thcory <iihicrarchy ol'coasis lie ~lnitcd Siîtci :issertsih;it 11scoast'ît the back
of ihï siincavil) of ihr Gulf of Maine has a sironger clnim IIIthe niarilime area
in front of that coast than the other comparable coastsenclosina the Gulf, even
thoueh thesecoasts are situated a1an eauivalent distance from that maritime
;ircaihc United Stîies even asscrtsthai ;ts coast a1the back of ihe Gulf has î
rirongcr claim IOthc mantimc arcîs outside the GiiIf notu,iihrtanding ih3t thc
coasts ahutting this area are much closer. Such a theory of hierarchy of coasts,
assertedon the ground that the coast at the back of the Gulf facesthe Atlantic
while the other coasts do not, has no foundaiion in the law or in the
jurisprudence. The theory that only those coasts of the Parties which face the
Atlantic are relevant for the delimitation oroceeds from the United States
untenahlc m~crogcographic~i pcrspccti\e: the Unitcd Siales CJnnuI escapethe
Pdctthat il'onc focuicï on the arca of dclimitaii~)ii. thcrc are oihcr coarti of
extensive length that abut that area. Becauseof their existence these coasts
cannot he ignored and in facl they are much closer to a greater part of the area
of delimitation and in particular Io the area outside the Gulf. All thesecoasts
ahut the area of delimitation and becausethey face and extend into the area of
delimitation, they are also relevant for the delimitalion.
On the basis of the foregoing considerations we are now able to identify the
natural prolongations or extensions of the coasts of the Parties into the Gulf of
Maine area in accordance wiih the actual geography of the area.
1show fi.1 the inner area, asdemonstrated by Figure 121in your folder and
@ herein the Iighlbox. In the inner area wherethe coastsolthe Parties enclose the
concavity of the Gulf, the shape and size of the area of delimitation and the
position of the coastal fronts of the Parties vis-à-vis each other and the area of
delimitation support the view that the extensions starting from their respective
coastal fronts converge. This perspective is here demonstrated. Even if one
accepts the United States view that a coastal front exfends in10 the adjacent
maritime area in a oeroendicular direction and ifone annlies this concent to the
coasisof the partir! c~closing ihc Gulf.itwould iulluw'ihai thr coasidl frunir of
the Partics cxtend and con\ergc touard~ in area appruximatcly îtthe midpoini
of the clusing Iinc of the Gulf. This supporis Canad;i's posiiion ihal a boundag 46 GULF OF MAINE
line reaching this point achieves an equal, and at the same lime equitahle,
division of the area of overlap of both coastal fronts which abut this area.
This is the outer area in your folder, Figure 122now at the lightbox. In the
@
area outside the Gulf, the extensions of the coastal fronts of the Parties which
abut this area are more difficult to identify. The are;i where the delimitation
takes place is laterally unbounded and comprises areas which extend well
bevond a hvoothelical 200-mile limit from the coastal front of Maine. and the
aréa lacks,-due to ils undefined shape, a focal point into which the coastal
extensions converge.The Canadian and United Statescoastswhich are the basis
of the extensionif jurisdiction into this are- the coiitrolling coasts - are the
coasts of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts which extend from inside the Gulf
around its lateral entrance points and then facethe Atlantic on both sidesof the
Gulf, here seen in red. They extend into the area of delimitation at difïerent
aneles. The extensions of thesecontrolline coasts firsr meet from an o..osite
dikiton along thc closing Iinc of the Gulf,-thcn iheirextensions graduaIl' move
inIo a posiiion where the) converge and ovcrlap. uniil linall) they citend nearlg
nardIlcl inio the oDenAilaniicThis ar>r>rcciütionof the eeoura~hicalsiiuation in
ihe area ouiside the Guifis noï mcr~'ret1ectii~n~fihe~~u~disiançepnnriplc. II
mthcr rcfleçts and tdkes ascouni of the priqxrlies of ihis pariiculdr gcogr~phicdl
situation. Il is nothingmore than the consequenceofa geographicalfaci that the
coastal State's jurisdictionextends in10 the sea without any predetermined
direction; il extends, as Canada has termedil,"radially" (V,Canadian Reply,
pp. 62-63, paras. 150-153; pp. 233-237, paras. 564.568). It may suiïice here to
cal1attention 10the situation of an isolated insular coast in the ocean. Nobody
would deny, for example, the Hawaian islands a radial seaward projection of
their coasts in al1directions.
1submit respectfully that this perspectiveofcoastal front extension reflectsthe
geography of the Gulf of Maine more accurately than the portrait given by the
United Statesofa perpendicular extension of the coast of Maine throughout the
@ Gulf into the open Atlantic. 1have illustrated il in Figure 123of Canada's oral
argument. That approach disregards the coasts of Massachusetts and Nova
Scotia which are much nearer to most of the area of delimitation outside the
Gulf, and itdisregards the fact that the coast of Maine would then have to claim
areaswhich are more than 200miles away fromits coastal front (the dottedred
@ line on Figure 123here indicates the distance of 200 miles from the coastal front
of Maine).
The Chnmberadjourned from 11.25 am. ro 11.40 a.m.
MI. President, distinguished Judges,1shall nowturn to the second issueofmy
presentation: this is the argument of the United States that the equidistance
boundarv as oronosed bv Canada cuts ofï the eastern coast of Maine from ils
seaward.exteision into ihe Atlantic. The United States uses the expression
"seaward extension", but meansin fact "extension into the Atlantic". The useof
these Iwo exoressionsis not onlv a auestion of difïerent wordinc. but rather a
question of;ubstance. The ~niied ~iaies cînnoi deny ihai ihc yo3si of Maine
gels ils proper share ofcxtensiun u,iihin the Gulf. The United Siaie, aiienipis.
nevcrihclcss. ioconvcv ihc im~rcssion thai rhecoasi of Maine ai the back oirhc
Gulf must. bv necessii,.ha~ ~n extension into the onen Atlantic. althoueh the
Canadian ind United Siaies coasts ficing the ~ilanc: on hoih sidesof ihg~ulf
arc the reai hasisof boih States'jurisdiclion mer lhc m3rilimç arcasouisidc lhe
Gulf uo IO the 200-mile Iimii and bevond. The cenirïl issue is ihcrcforc ihc
following: does the fact that the lateril coasts prevent the coast at the back of RUOlNDER OF PROFESSOR lAENlCKE 47
the Gulf from extendine further out into the sea constitute a cul-off that is
incquiiÿhle within thîmGning ofthe jurisprudence ofthc Couri'!Or. isiirtther
a fact ofnaiurc that iïnnut bcignored 2nd a gcographic31contiguration thai ha,
io bc takcn asit is'I michi rccall in ihis respect ihc dictuni of the Couri in ihr
North Sea Continenrol fhelf caseswhere in reviewing the relevant factors of
geography the Court pointed out that it did not consider that "markedly
pronounced configurations" can be ignored (I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 51,
Dara. 96).Thev could not be ienored even if thev. as one must add. affect the
extcnsio" of oihcr coïsi~. ~hus:ihc issuecomcsd;u n IOihc foliowing quesiion :
Is the confincmeni of the extension of the coasi of Maine io ihc inncr 2re3 of the
Gulf by ihe coasts of Massachusetis and Novï SCL,II~a CUI-oiI which muii k
qualificd as king inequiiable? Can~da dijeî not belici,e ihdt itis so.
The gcornetric modck which the distinguishcJ c<iunsclfor thc United Staics
used in sup~ort of his contention that the Canadi;in Iinc ciits off ihc coast of
Maine cakot prove anything unless the premises <inwhich they are based are
correct. But al1 the geometrical models are built on the premise that coasts
abutting a coastal concavity should extend in one direction only and al1other
coasts which hanoen to face the area of delimitation within or around the
concavity in another direction should not, asof right, he attributed any seaward
extension into the maritime areas adjacent to their coasts. As this premise is
wrong, the geometrical models do not prove what they are intendedto prove.
My colleague, Blair Hankey, will be showing that these geometric models have
little evidential value.
In the context of my observations, I shall only addressthe issuewhether, and
under what conditions, it is inequitahle that a coast at the back of a concavity
cannot extend further seaward becauseof the presenceof the lateral coastsof the
concavity.
Distinguished counsel for the United States has made the point that in al1
coastalconcavities where the terminus of the land boundarv is not located at the
midpoint of the coast at the back, this would produce a cut-off effect to the
disadvantage of that coast (VI, pp. 299-300). 1t is, of course, true that in such a
case the lateral coasts will bv their verv existenceand their own extension into
ihc area of delimitation, hark an influ~ncc on the rctch of ihc exiension of ihc
coasi ai the back. But. wheiher ihis is cquit3blc or noi cannor be ansucrcd u
oriori. It dependsessentiallv on the sizeand confieuration of the concavitv. Let
me explain- this hy referhng to the situation Tn the North Sea to khich
distinguished counsel for the United States has repeatedly referred.
Mr. President, the Chamher is well aware that iii the North Seo Continental
Sheljcases the Court recognized an inequitahle cut-off caused by the comhined
effect of two equidistance lines starting from land houndaries which reachedthe
concavity on hoth lateral sides.While recognizing this particular effect the Court
observed also that neither of the two lines in question, taken hy itself, would
have produced this eiïect, but only both of them together (1.C.J. Reports 1969,
p. 17, para. 7).This can easily be demonstrated by comparing the maps shown
at Figure 124(now on the lightbox). Map A in the left-hand corner shows the
hypothetical equidistance houndanes between the maritime zones of the three
countries and indicates clearly the cut-off caused hy the combined eiïect of the
two equidistanceboundaries. Maps B and C, on the right side, show eachof the
equidistance lines taken by itself, as if there were only two countries bordering
the concavitv of the North Sea.Neither of the two cases.asdeoicted on Maos B
and C. on the righi side. show on iheir facean inequitahle rcs;li and ihcy u;)uld
siliisf) a proporiion3liticsi bsscd on the ratios ofroariallcngthc and m,iritimc
areas attrihuted to them 48 GULF OF MAINE
The delimitation agreed hetween France and Spain in the Bay O/ Biscuy,
likewise, does not support the theory put forward by the United States. If you
would look al Figure 125 inyour folder and now on the lightbox - this figure
shows the Bay of Biscay with the agrced boundary line. The coastal front of
France immediately north of the land houndary terminus at the corner of the
concavity iscertainly prevented by the agreedboundary line from extending into
the open Atlantic, as it should do so under the United States theory of
perpendicular extension of coasts into the area outside the concavity.
Nevertheless, such a boundary was apparently not considercd inequitahle by
the parties io this houndary agreement. Therefore, this precedent. too,does not
confirm the assertion that t~~ oosition of the terminus of the land boundarv at
an) othrr than 31 the midpoint oiihc bdck ol'a coast~lioncavii) uill nece>sarily
le3d IO an ine~uii~hle cut-oiïof the ioasi ai the hack. Sor do \te know of any
other preceden-tinvolving a delimitation ina coastal concavity of the sizeof thé
Gulf of Maine which would confirm such a theory of the United States.
In view of these precedents there is no reason for concluding that an
eauidistance boundarv in a coastal concavitv startine from anv other than the
m;dpoint of the coasiai the hack auiomati&illy CUISO thRs c&st inequiiably.
The redl eKect of suïh boundaries depend>always on an appreciation of al1ihe
eeorravhic facts in each varticular case.
@ - ~he~nited Stateshas,'in its pleadings (II,Memorial, Fig. 25, Reply, Fig. 5).
referred to a diagram which 1 used in the pleadings of the Federal Republic of
Germany in the North Seu Continental Shelf cases in order 10 show the
dimensions of the distortine influence of a small convex nrotrusion of an
@ otheruire straight co3stlineO; the course of an equidisiance h;iundary (Figs. 32
and 126of Canada'soral argument); ihii uas a figure u,hichwa\ alrcady Fiyrc 32
in theredfolder. nou hhownagainasFigure 126and hereon ihe Iightb<ixon thelefi
side. The essenceof this diagram was 6 show how a small convex feature of the
coast may airraci 3disproportionaiely largearci if- and ihi~1simportani - ifihe
projection uf ihai feaiure i,small in compan<in IO ihe Jiiiancc the h)un&r)
reachesout inia ihe SCA.Thai buch d gcographicdlsiiu~iiun could rcnder th2 binct
applicaiion of the cquidisiancr method inquii~ble has been recugni~d bg ihe
junspmdence dnd hy Siate praciice. and ihe meihod hd; beenadopicd of @ving
reduccdelfeci or no eki ai al1to swh incidental ct~ditalfeîturcs.
Aoart from Caw Cod and Nantucket where the rationale of this diaeram is
rcle;ani. rhe grugraphicsl contiguraiion in the Gulf of Maine area 1; quite
ditTerenifrom ihïi shown in the diagram: this is so forIWO rrasoni: first. weare
not confronted with a vrotrusion ofi coastline. but with a concavitv: second.we
are noi conirunied wiih an incidental ioartalfeaiure uithin one ;odsial ironi.
hui wiih a concaviiy iormed b) sever~llarge coaslal fronis. [.et me cxplaln ihis
in more detail
Firsi t:ere is an important diiïerence in the eiïect of convex and concave
coastal features. The existenceof a concavity in a coastline does not normally
have a substantial etTect on the course of an equidistance line outside the
concavity, no matter whether the coast a1the back of the concavity belongs to
one or other of the parties. This is so becausethe coastsabutting the outer area
on both sides of the concavity will control the course of the line. This
corresponds to the fact that thesecoasts are the geographical basis of jurisdic-
tion over the maritime areasoutside theconcavitv. To accord a coastat the back
of the concavity an influence on theCourse of the boundary in the area outside
the concavity would, therefore, betantamount to compensating that coast for
being di~advanta~edby geography, at the expenseof ihose coasts which have
clearly a stronger claim to the area. Mr. President, distinguished Judges, this is indeed a claim for an equitable
share which has no1been recoanized in the iuris~mdence. 1would like to reDeat
it: sucha compensation for thëcoast at the back'would mean nothing more ihan
a claim for an equitable share which has not been recognized in the jurispru-
dence.
Second: the s~z-~o~ the concavitv and the fact that it is not a mere incidental
feature. but 3 configuration formed b) sc\eral coastal fronis of considerable
length. is a dirtinguishing elemïni of Jecisi\,e force. In cii3stal concaviiie\ of the
sizeoiihe Gullof Slaine ihc extension nfihe I~ter~lcoIi~is inio the concJ\ity 15
no less "seawürd" ihan ihc susi ai the bdck It uould be an inlidmis,ible
macrogeographical perspective io Iisieri ihai only an Ailaniic-facing co~sicould
ha\e a "se~ward" crien,ion. The u,aterr ofihc Gulf<ire part of ihc se3 no less
than Zn). p~rt or the Ailantic. The lïicral coasrs inside a conc;ivity of ihat sile
can clxim a compdrable if no1 ï greatcr exiension into ihat area as the codsi at
the bdck of theconca\,iiy Wherï 3 co~isilies nearl> IUOnauiiidl miles behind ihc
enirance of the concavity, il does not seem to be inequitable that that coast
cannot extend into areasoutside the concavity where the other coasts are twice
as close to that area.
Distinguished counsel for the United Stateshasreferred to a number of small-
scale diagrams of hypothetical equidistance boundaries in different regions of
the world which the Federal Republic of Germany used in its pleadings in the
North Seo Continental Shevcases, among them the Gulf of Maine area (I.C.J.
Pleodings, North Seo Coniinentol Shelj, Vol. 1. pp. 43-49). The diagrams are
reproduced as Figures 127and 128 in your folder; 127 is now in the lightbox.
These diagrams were meant 10 show a variety of complex geographical
situations where the equidistance method might çreate problems. They were
meant to demonstrate that equidistance is not per .seequitable in al1cases,but
each case bas 10 be judged on ils merits. None of the geographical situations
shown is comparable to the others and no general conclusions can be drawn
therefrom. 1 must stressthe fact that the Federal Republic at that time did not
pass any judgment on the equitableness of one or the other hypothetical
boundary shown; nor did the Court do so when it referred in a general way to
them. It may be interesting to repeat what the Federal Republic had to say in
introducing these diagrams:
"Since the rights of coastal Statesto the continental shelf are basedupon
geographical contiguity or identity with the non-submerged contiguous
coast, it may not seemunreasonable to take propinquity to the coast as a
main criterion for delimitina the shares of neiahbourina States in the
continenial shelf. Eien ihis of view cannot [usiify thsi a single point
on ;i salient PJri of iheCU~SI should decide the alloc~iion ofeirnsive su
areas. This would mean promoting a single geographic factor, the import-
ance of which is very questionable, to an absolute determinant, while
leaving other factors entirely out of account." (I.C.J. Pleodings. North Seo
Continent01SheK Vol. 1, p. 42.)
These introductory remarks to the diagrams shown reveal clearly that the
Federal Republic of Germany usedthesediagrams in order to show the effect of
incidental coastal features on the equidistance boundary, but not to deny a
coast, whatever be ils location or direction, its right of extension into the
adjacent maritime area. Also the Gulf of Maine area figured as an example
where the boundary might bedifficult 10achieve(Fig. 128,now on the lightbox).
If one looks objectively at the diagram of the Gulf of Maine area, it is readily
apparent that the perpendicular which was also hypothetically shown in this50 GULF OF MAINE
diagram does cut offthe Nova Scotian coast from itsextension into the sea while
the equidistance line distributes the impact of the concavity an the extensions of
the coasts evenly among al1of the coasts surrounding the Gulf.
In concluding this part of my pleading Iwould respectfully submit that the
United States has failed to show that an equidistance boundary would inequit-
ably cut off the eastern part of the coast of Maine from the sea.
1 shall now turn Io the last part of my presentation which will deal wiih the
place of Article6 of the Continental Shelf Convention in the determination of a
single maritime boundary.
Both Parties are in agreement that Article 6 is still binding law between the
Parties (VI. o. 24:o.284).As Article 6 istreatv law. it takes orecedence over the
p"ncip<es and ruie'sof c;stomary or general international la& as far as Article 6
governs the determination of the single maritime boundary. The Parties.
however, hold divergent views as to the extent to which the single maritime
boundary must be delimited in accordance with Article 6.
1 shall address first the question of the applicability of Article 6 to the
determination of the singlc maritime boundary under the terms of the Special
Agreement.
The United States rejects the application of Article 6 as a matter of treaty
obligation in the circumstances of this case because the single maritime
boundary does no1 solely delimit the continental shelf. Thus, according ta the
United States the eauidistance method does not oossess an oblieatorv force in
the senseunderstood by the court of ~rbitration in the ~n~lo-~rgnchkontinen-
ta1Shelf case (VI, p. 284).
The United States has failed Io exolain whv the fact that the Partics have
agreedthdt x singlehciundary should he delrnc~tedfor the conlincntal shelf and
the fishcryrone mrans that the Continental Shrll'Con\eniion docs no1an). nlorc
apply to the continental shelf component of their respective maritime zones.
Article 2of the Soecial Aereement reauests the Chamber to decide the course of
the singlemaritime boun&ry between the continental shelf and fisheryzones of
Canada and the United States; this does not necessarily imply the different
réeimes ofthe continental shelf and of the fishervzone aretherebv mereed or in
roks oiher way csiinguished. If the Chambcr 'isrcquesied in 6.x3 boundar).
çommon IO boih jurisdictional rigimes. iinecssiiirily impliesthdi ihe Iüu,and
the cqiiitie>u,hich arc relevant eiiher IO ihe soniinenial sheli'or io the fishery
lonc, or IOboth. h.i\.c Io be taken inlu acço~iii. and thîi the Jctcrininaiion of
the boundary mus1bc clTesiedin conformii) u.iih thciii.
,\sAriicle 6 ui'the Continenisl ShcliConvcniion is ihercfore relevïnt in ihc
oresent case. it is necessarv to ascertain its orecise leeal imoact on the choice of
keihods for achie%,ing an cquii<iblcresult ii ihe prc&i cae The Unsied States
rndiniains that the equidistancc spesiiil circunisiances riile of Ariiclc 6 JOCFno1
srciic .ir>rc\umniidnin f;iiuur of the cauidisiancc metliod rhid, .This T.iil10
distingukh between the interpretation' of Article 6 given by the Court of
Arbitration in the Anglo-French case where the Court applied Article 6 (Award,
para. 70),and what this Court had to say in the LibyalTunisiacase, where the
Continental Shelf Convention was not hinding between the parties and where
both parties explicitly rejected the application of the equidistance method.
Canada does not dispute the interpretation given to Article 6 by the Court of
Arbitration, but Canada does not feel able Io draw therefrom, as the United
Stateshas done. the conclusion that it is onlv the formal obliea-.rv force as a
maticr of trcai) Iautwhichdistinguishes ~riisie 6from the general principles and
rules of maritime lone dclimitliiion. Nor docs Cinada xcccpi ihat ihe Court of
Arbitration ruled out any presumption in favour of the equidistance method. REJOlNDER OF PROFESSORJAENICKE 51
The Court of Arbitration was very careful in expressing ils views on the
interpretation of Article 6. It is true that the Court of Arbitration pointed out
t~a~ u~d~ ~ ~ticle 6 the ~.est~on~whether the use of eauidistance or some other
method is appropriate for achieving an equiiablc dclimiiaiion will ultirnately hr
dccided in the Iirht uf ihe peorra~hical and ijther circurnsi3ncesof the p<irticular
case and not bc some normative oualitv of the eouidistance method (Award.
pwa. 70).~hus:ihe couri of~rhii~aiion're~llimed'ih~l Article 6did noi endow
the cquidi%tance mrthod with superior normative authority. Honever. the
orimdrv obiect ofthe Court's inter~rciation of Article 6 uac to rireservefor itielf
ihe same liberty of appreciating' the geographical and othér circumstances
relevant to the determination of the boundary as il would have in a case where
Article 6 does not apply (Award, para. 69).The Court did not want 10make it
incumbent on a oartv to invoke and nrove the existence ofsoecialcircumstances.
Bui. b) this ini~r~~ctaiion. the churi of Arhitration d;d no1 eliminate ihe
requirernent of Article 6 to ronsidcr fir\t ihe equidisi~nce rneihod in the Iighiof
the geographical and other circumstances. The Court expressly stated:
"Article 6 makes the application of the equidistance pnnciple a matter of
treaty obligation for Parties to the Convention. But the combined character
of the equidistance-special circumstances rule nieans that the obligation to
apply the equidistance principle is always one qualified hy the condition
'unless another boundary line is justified by special circumstances'."
(Award, para. 70.)
This is clear language in my view to the eKect that under Article 6 the
equidistance method is not to be regarded as merely one of the numerous
methods which may in certain circumstances be used to produce an equitahle
delimitation. a viewwhich was cxoresslv reiectedbv the Court of Arbitration a
frw paragraphs carlier (Ati3rd. Para 67j.'~onse~tientl). under Article 6 ihr
equidistance rnethorl should he the lirsi meth<idto be c<insidcrcdin the Iiphi of
ali the geographical and other circumstances of the case, but subject of cou;se, at
the same Lime,to the consideration of any special circumstances which might
require a variation or adjustment of the equidistancç boundary or which might
even rule out the a~dication of this method altorether in the delineation of the
wholeor part of the boundary Ei,enif the equidiGance meihod and the presence
ofspecial circumstances harc to be conridcred topethcr in appreciating *IIof the
circumstances of the case, il remains nevertheless true that under Article 6 the
application of the equidistance method or the use of some other method because
of special circumstances stand in relationship to each other as rule and
exception. This logical relationship between equidistance and special circum-
stances in the intellectual process of finding the boundary which reflects
eauitablv the circumstances of the case. remains true irresnective ofwhether the
pariy wl;o relieson special circurnsranccs has a burdcn or'invoking and pruving
such circumsiancrs. That is prirnlirilpa matier of pri>cedureand has nothing to
do u,ith the a~~rcciationof the facts and circumstanccs of the case The Couri of
Arhitration doubted whether it followed from the equidistance-special circum-
stances rule that there was an onus of proof on one of the parties (Award,
para. 67), but the Court did not decide this qiiestion finally; in any event,
however, these procedural considerations of the Court did not affect the
substance of the equidistance-special circumstances rule.
In the result, it can be maintained that Article 6 presumes that the equidis-
tance method vields an eouitable result as lonr!as no s~ecialcircumstances are
apparent urhiih mmht cisi douht on ihe eqüitablene;s of such a boundary.
Article 6 establiches an obligation io take this method as the first method into52 GULF OF MAINE
consideration as long as special circumstances do no1necessitate the search for
adjustment or alternatives; and, if there are no such circumstances, Article 6
requires the application of the equidistance method.
Now, does the particular approach embodied in Article 6 have to be taken
into account in determining a single maritime houndary for both continental
shelfand fisheryzone? The answer must be in the affirmative.The determination
of the singlemaritime houndary requires the balancing of al1the factors thatare
relevant to a delimitation of both jurisdictional régimesagainst each other to
find what boundarv resnonds best to the law and the eauities in relation to hoth
contineni~l \hclfand fiihery zone. and Article 6 is par; of the law that governs
the continental shelfcornponent of the boundary It has neter ken doubted that
equidistance is a method suited to fisheries or economic zone delimitation
because here geography and coasts control the extension ol jurisdiction in10the
waters adjacent to the Coast no less than under the continental shelf concept.
Therefore, the mere fact that a single boundary is to divide no1 only the
continental shelves.but also the fishervzones of the oarties. isno1a valid eround
for not ohserving the equidistance-~pecial cirsum;tanccs rule as parilof ihe
applicable Isu in determining 5ur.ha houndary. This is particularly so where ihe
reoardphy of the are3 ofdçlirnitation is the vrimarv basis for the claims of both
GarGes: in the result. therefore. the euuidistan&-soecial c~rc~ ~ ~nces rule
Should also guide the determination of ;single mariiime boundary.
This concludes my observations on Article 6 of the Continental Shelf
Convention.
Mr. President, distinguished Judges. al1of the considerations in the present
case have led me to the conclusion that the equidistance method is the
a~vrovriate method 10 achieve an eauitable result in the Gulf of Maine area.
~he sitribriiion of maritime dreii hy ~pplicstion of this method reilect, correctly
the relaiionship of the co3sts of the Parties to the are& of delimitdtion tn
accordance with the principles established by the jurisprudence. REJOINDER OF MR. HANKEY
DEPUTY-AGEN OT THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. HANKEY: Mr. President, distinguished Judges. It is a great honour and
privilege to address the Chamher again on the geographical circumstances
relevant to the delimitation. The distinguished Deputy-Agent for the United
Statesmade it clear in his intervention on 12April tliat the essential objection of
the United States to the Canadian line is that it allegedly cuis off the coast of
eastern Maine from maritime areas that the United States regards as properly
appurtenant to it (VI, p. 287). My presentation tod;iy will be directed primarily
to this central issue of the cut-off effect.
The presentation isdivided into four parts. First, it treats the two issueswhich
the United States has identified as the most important geographical issues
dividing the Parties, namely the significance for the delimitation of the great
concavity that is the Gulf of Maine and of the location of the land boundary
within that concavity.
My statement will show that the purpose and the effectof the United States
legal-geographical thesis is to treat the Gulf of Maine as an incidental, special
feature and to eliminate the effect of its genernl configuration upon the
delimitation. Second, as a necessary prelude to any discussion of cut-off, my
statement will review the different positions of the Parties on the basis of
appurtenance, namely the United States view of perpendicular extensions of
so-called "primary" coastal fronts and the Canadian view of geographical
adjacency and the radial projection of coasts. Third, my statement will focus
specifically on the two principal United States arguments concerning the
alleged "cut-off' effect of the Canadian line mentioned a moment ago: the
contention that the line extends tao far across the coastal front of Maine, and
that it denies to eastern Maine an extension into the outer area. From this
discussion it will hecome apparent that the disagreement between the Parties
has now centred uDon two orinci~al issues conccrnine the course of the line to
hcdrawn hy ihe~hÿmbcr. i'durih, xnd finxll). 1shall>ddrc~s thcrc tu,o criiic~l
iisur,, n3mely. ihc point at uhich ihe line ir io hr iurnïd ioii,arcl ihc open
Atlantic and ihe direciion or hc3rinx <\,hichthe linc ,hould folIo\\ in the ouier
area. -
Miss Sarita Verma of the Department of External Affairs will assist in my
presentation.
Mr Prcsidcni, disiingui.,hcd Judgcs. ihc tir,! pari of the prcseniation revicus
the tuo ijjues uhich ihc CniirJ Si.iies ha, ideniificas ihc iiso iiiosi impurimi
geographical issuesdividingthe Parties: first, the existence ofthe great concavity
that is the Gulf of Maine and. second. the location of the land houndarv or
international houndary termin& within that concavity (VI, pp. 287, 289; i33).
In its written pleadings the United States argued, in effect, that Nova Scotia
was an incidental special feature. Treating thë~ova Scotia coast as "second-
ary", allowed the United States to ignore that coast and to draw the houndary 54 GULF OF MAINE
perpendicular 10the coasts al the hack of the concavity - the coasts of Maine
and New Brunswick.
The United States seems10have realized that the argument that a feature of
the scaleand configuration of Nova Scotia isa specialcircumstance is simplynot
persuasive, and so has conceded that Nova Scotia is not, in fact, an incidental,
special feature (VI, p. 333).It now argues instead that the Gulf of Maine itself
constitutes an incidental feature or special circumstance (VI, pp. 308; 317-318,
321and 333).This allows the United States to achieve exactlythe same result -
to ignore the Coast of Nova Scotia - by a somewhat diffcrent method of
reasoning.
A. The Land Boundary Terminus an"dThe Axis
of theDispute"
Turning now Io the question or the land boundary and the international
boundary terminus. thereisno nccd IOcoveragsin u,hat has iilrc<tdyken said so
wcllby Prurcswr Weilduring the lirai round. But thc United State5 nou areues
in a "ew and interesting ïurn of phrase, that the land houndary or'the
international boundary terminus and "not the Gulf of Maine", "marks the axis
of the dispute" (VI, p. 291). This argument is said 10 respond to a purported
Canadian contention - and this is supposed to be a direct quotation from
Canada's pleading - that "the Gulf forms the axis of the dispute" (VI, p. 290).
But, unfortunately, this is a misquote. What Canada actually said is that the
Gulf itself "forms the axis of the Gulf of Maine area" (VI. o. 59). and it is
perfectlyclear from the context, that Canada was referring to ihe geographical
axis of a geographical region.
It is difficultto understand what is meant hv the term "axis of the disoute".
How can a dispute have an "axis"? In sofar as ihisdispute may besaid to have a
centre, il seems 10 me that it is Georges Bank. That is the central point in
contention. But in so far as the geographical point or points may be said to
"mark the axis of the disoute". it is surelv imnossihle to define such a noint or
points except hy referencèto thc Speci~l~~reementil). And u,hat
the Swial Agreement gi\e the Chamber on this point" First. the Speçial does
Agrerment refersin ils litleand prîanibl10 the Gulf of hlainc area,and second.
il fixes the starting-point of the single maritime boundary and the triangle in
which it is Ioend. And these Iwopoints clearly situate the dispute in the Gulf of
Maine itself and in the area seaward of the Gulf.
Let us examine the United States viewof the "axis ofthe dispute" depicted in
Figures 3and 8of the United States oral proceedings, reproduced as Figures 129
@ and 130 of the Canadian Reply. For the convenience of the Chamber these
figures, whichappear as two separate figures, Figures 129and 130in the red
binders, are shown here together on the lightbox.The purported "axis" consists
of lines drawn from the international houndary terminus along one side of the
Gulf only, that is, along the Canadian side of the Gulf, at bearings of 151"and
154"respectively. We haveadded Point A and the triangle to the United States
figures, to permit a comparison hetween the parameters established in the
Special Agreement and the so-called "axis" shown here. Comparing these so-
called "axis" lines with Point A and the triangle, it is immediatelyapparent that
the elïect of the United States notion of the "axis of the dispuis"to take this
dispute out of the geographical context estahlished in the Special Agreement,
and 10situate il in an entirely different context. For the geographical context
estahlished in the Special Agreement was based on the history of the dispute
and, in particular, upon the claimsof the Parties as they stood at the signature of
the Special Agreement in 1919. And the dispute was always about the 56 GULF OF MAIPIE
MI. Colson said
"the Chamber isin a position to decidethis question, and in sodoing it may
wish to note that the hypothetical closing line from Nantucket to Cape
Sable runs at a bearing of 56.7"" (VI, p. 292).
Mr. President,we failto seethe connection. A closing lineisa closing line.It is
important in determining the point where the geography is transformed from a
semi-enclosedarea to the open waters of the Atlantic. Buta closing line is nota
coast. 11bears no relationship to the actual directions of the coasts within the
concavity.
And if the closing line is excluded from the process of determining a single
coastal direction, it is clear that the United States has taken account of the
purported direction only of thecoast at the back of the Gulf, the coast of Maine,
excluding the opposite coasts of Nova Scotia and of New Hampshire and
Massachusetts at the sides of the Gulf, even though by the United States own
admission thesecoaststogether are as long as the coast at the back. And what is
the reason for taking account ofone coast and excludingtheothers? The reason
is said to be the distinction hetween primary and secondary coasts, the
distinction between coasts which are aligned with the single general direction,
and those which are not so aligned. So the United States legal-geographical
thesis is based on completely circular reasoning.
That thesishas the practical effectof eliminating the concavity that is the Gulf
of Maine. It has the effect of filling up the Gulf with United States land and
moving the land boundary terminus from Passamaquoddy Bay to Cape Sable.
That effect, 1 submit, is perfectly evident from the United States illustrations
13 shown on the lightbox (Figs. 3 and 8 of the United States oral proceedings).
O That effect is meant to remedy what the United States now calls an incidental,
special feature by the massive refashioning of the geography of the Gulf of
Maine area.
II. THEBals OF APPURTENANCE
The central obiection of the United States to the eauidistance method in the
Gull'of Maine arsa 15thatitallsgcdlyprod~çes :cui-oh'cffcctin violation of thc
principlz of non-enr~roa,,hmrnt(VI, pp. 256. 287).This cul-otf argument ivillbe
reviewedin depth later in my statement. One point, however, carisfor separate
treatment. It is that the United States contention of a cul-off effect is
misconceivedbecause it assumes a basisof appurtenance which is wrong in law.
And it is to this question of the basis of appurtenance that Part II of my
statement is devoted.
The application of the principle of non-encroachment by definition assumes
a clear understanding of the basis of appurtenance. And the United States
demonstration of a cut-off effect- the demonstration made by Mr. Colson on
12April (VI, pp. 296-302),is nothing more and nothing lessthan a restatement
of the basic United States contention that enlitlement is based on a scheme
of perpendiculanty to an assumed single general direction of the coasts.
MI. Colson said that
"the area of cul-off is thentire area between the equidistant line and the
perpendicular to the general direction of the coast at the international
boundary terminus" (VI, p. 303).
And his maps and diagrams are based on that assumption - both the abstract R001NDER OF MR.HANKEY 57
@ dcm?nstration in Figure 12and ils purporicd application to the Gulf of Maine
drca in Figure 16of the United Siates oral procccdings.
@ ' Mr. Prcsidcnt. this United Statesdefinition of the cut-ofretkct ixicorrcct
only ifthe follouing legal propositions arc corrcct: tirsi and forcmost that the
basisof appuricnancc is perpcndicularit). tu an assurnedsingle gcncral direction
of the ~03~1.second. that thcrc eiists a liitualand lceal distinction bciuccn
"primary" and "secondary" coasts, and that in c;ises lofoverlapping coastal
extensions, the extension of the so-called primary coast is to predominate; and
third, that the internationalundary terminus mus1~rovide~thestartine-point
from which this srheme ufappurtzn~nc~ is applied, n'oniattcr how rcmoti itis
from the area king delimited 2nd ni) rnatirr ifoihcr codsts actually abui rhosc
wa areas and lie substaniially closcr to rhcm In i>ur submission. the Uniied
Stateshas failed to demonstrate the validitv of anv of thesethree oronositions.
The United Statesschemeof perpendicufar extekion of coastal'frohts works
well enough in situations where the coastsare straight. For any systemofcoastal
extension will produce the same result in the simule. strainhtfirwarsituation
presentrd by a-sirüight coasilinc Hui the complct~ srtificiaïity and unworkahil-
ity of ihai systcrn in any situaiion whcrc the coasi changesdireciismanileci
0 in ihc illusiraiion shown hcrc as 1-ipure 131.Figure A shows thai wherever the
v
coasts are convex, the application of a svstem-of. .eroendicular extensions of
coast31fronts will prudu~e'ma)tlrapsin ihc scaarcasappcrtüining io that Statc.
Cndcr ihc United Staics system ihcsc areas Iyi~p -mmcdiaicly off' thc solist
would appertain to no State.
If,however, there werea secondState lying lessthiin 400 miles from this State,
the second State would be able to exercisejurisdiction over areas that lay
substantially closer to the coast of the first State. This situation is illustrated in
6h Fieure C. Here it can be seen that State A. whose seaward extensions are
V
ci)ïoured blue. uould bc enabled. undcr the Unitrd Sistes system. io sxercisc
jurisdiction o\er vasi se3 areas I)ing suh,taniially closcr to Staic R. including
this arca hcre.ly-nn immediaiely uiTState R. bu1alniosi ?O0miles distant from
State A.
In Canada's view, the only approach to coastal extension that can work in a
geographical situation where the coasts change their general direction, is the
6h concept of the radial ~roiection of coasts.As cbeseenin Fieures 131Band D.
V wherker the coasts iréirregular, this radial projection produces a far moré
reasonable result than does the system of perpendicular extensions. It does not
leave vast gapsin the coastal extensions wheÏe the coasts changetheir general
direction, but rather ensuresthat al1the areaswithiit 200 miles of the coast fall
under the jurisdiction of the coastal State. Moreover, this schemeof appurten-
ance is consistent with the principle of geographical adjacency measuredfrom
the coast; andilis clearly required by the distance principle as the basisof title
to a 200-mile zone.
Mr. Colson's only answer to this argument wasto accuseCanada of confusing
the determination of the outer limit of the 200-mile zone with the question of
delimitation(VI. o.320). But the idea of a radial nroiection is inherent in anv
conception oi'ge&raphical adjacency, although i; cléarly draws new strengti
from the distance principle. Further, it is simply not the case that the distance
principle is relevant only to the question ofthe outer limit of coastal State
jurisdiction. Of course, it deals with the outer limit. But it also identifies and
defines the area within which a State can exerciseits jurisdiction and sovereign
rights. And it definesthat area, not asa speciesof platfonn in front of the coast,
but in terms of a wide swath of maritime space surrounding the coast. and
extending seaward in al1directions out 10a specified distance. 58 GULF OF MAINE
The United States sa)s that the distance principle only üpplies when there are
no neidhbounng States (VI. p. 320). But, Mr. President. how ciin the wholc biisis
of appurten3ncc suddenly be chaneed b! the presence of ÿnother Sidie? This
wascertainly not the ap<roach in se ~irth ConfinenialShelJcases, where
non-encroachment was defined in terms of natural prolongation precisely
because natural prolongation was the general basis of appurtenance under the
customarv law of the continental shelf (I.C.J. Reooris 1969.o. 31. oara. 43).
Quite obviously, any State's belt of maritirnéjurisdictiin défined by 'the
distance principle has to be reduced when other States are present. For that is
the whole subitance of the delimitation process: a matter of determining how
great the reduction is be on each side- or, i1may put il this way- the extent
of the reciprocal cut-off. But first it is necessaryto identifywhat isbeing reduced.
And what isbeing reduced is preciselya zone ofjurisdiction that extends in every
direction from both coasts. The basic implication of the radial projection of
coasts is as simple as that.
But there is a second implication that isequally important. No singledirection
islegallypreferred for theseaward extension of the Coast.The United States now
explicitly asserts that "there is a preferred direction" (VI, p.-3that is, the
direction which is perpendicular to the so-called primary coast. But we cannot
emphasize too strongly that the United States has oKered absolutely no legal
justification for this assertion. It is simply a restatement of the basic premises of
the United States case.
@) It might be thought that the illustration in Figures 131A and C carries the
United States system to a reducrioadabsurdum. But we would ask the Chamber
@ to examine the favourite illustration of the United States,produced as Figure 31
of 11sMemonal, Figure 23 of its Counter-Memorial and Figure 30 of the oral
proceedings. The Chamber will see that this figure, which appears in the red
@ binders today as Figure 132 - represents an exact application to the Gulf of
Maine area of the system of perpendicular extensions represented in Figures
iu 131Aand C. As in Figure 131C, the whole of this pink area here, that is, the
O whole of the eastem hall of the outer sector, which is intended to represent the
seaward extension of the United States, liessubstantially closer to Canada than
it does to the United States.
The diiïerence between the United States conceotion of oerwndicular coastal
front extensions and the Canûdiîn conception ofihe rüdiil p;olectinn of coîsts
is not a m;itier of abstract theory. For the uhole of the United States argument
that theouter area appertains to the coast of Maine depends exclusively upon
this conceotion. And the whole of Mr. Colson's demonstration that thecoast of
eabiern Slainr i"CUI off' froni extension into this are3 b) an equidistanceiiine
Jependent upon this premisc of pcrpendicuhr cwstal front extension and the
related doctrine of ~rimarv and secondarv coasts. For the doctrine of orimarv
and secondary coaits proGdes the rationale which allows the coastal eitension
of Maine to leap over the coastal front extension of Nova Scotia and to attach
the outer area to the remote coasts at the back of the Gulf.
One conseauence of the United States scheme of wrwndicular extensions of
coasts isthe unlimitedwauard eitension ofeactern ~iine. The oiher, ofcourse. is
the enormuu, gap in the seîwîrd extension of Nota Scotia IOthe south of Cape
Sable. prhisel~ in the area where Nova Scotia'sexienston towlird Georres Bink
is mosi oronounced. Indeed. as the Aeent of Canada said in h~ ~ ~t~ment on 2
April, u;ile,s the scliuard îxtension of kacotia toward Georges Bmk uere in
be abolished as a matter of principle, as the United Siaici suggeits. there can k
no reason why Nova ~cotia should not extend as far in this direction as the
corresponding portions of the United States coast (VI, p. 36). REJOINDER OF MR. HANKEY 59
To this, the United States responds that at Cape Sable, the Canadian coast
must transform itself from a so-called primary coast into a so-called secondary
coast. And "ln that transformation, the aspirations of the coastal front of
Canada must he reduced" (VI. D. 321).The theorv. as we understand il, is that
the law as seen hy the ~4ted'~tates does not ohy provide for primary and
secondary coasts (VI, pp. 293-295;pp. 330-331).The United States viewof the
law also provides for zones of transition between these coasts where there is no
s~ ~ ~d ~xtension at all. And thus the d~c~rine of secondarvcoasts bccomesthe
juriilication. noi <ml! ïur the radiï.il curiailmcnr oiNo\* Scoiia's cniiilcnir'nt
injide ihc (iulfof Mainc. hut al\o iur lis total ;ibi>liiionwaiiard of the ~.lo$ing
linc
The Uniied Siaie5 also argues ihïi Noi,a Scoii~cannot projeci muihtv3rd
becauseC'apcSahlc isa singlepoint hciuecn lui, coaslïl CJqadesih.11projcct in
dirferenidirections (\II.p. 321J Ilerc 13another rruci~lflïw in the Uniicd Sialcs
argument. First, of course, it ignores the true projection of the aclual coasts
in al1directions. Secondly, the question is not one of the projection of a single
point but of the relationship of an entire coastal configiiration to an
57 offshorearea as shown here in Figure 133,depicting the application of the radial
O projection of coasts to the Gulf of Maine area.
It is for this reason, of course, that the idea that CieorgesBank is no1in front
of Nova Scotia - the litany we have heard countless limes since these
proceedings have begun - is nothing more than a substitution of form for
substance. The idea of constructing an entire legal edificeon a phrase whose
casual usage and imprecise character has heen underlined by the Court itself
(I.C.J. Reporrs 1969,p. 30, para. 41), highlights the artificiality of the United
States theory.
Mr. President, the only solution the United States can propose to what it
perceives as a cut-off of eastern Maine is a cut-off of Nova Scotia. And this is
where the concept of secondary coasts cornes into play.
The doctrine of secondary coasts, which is simply an ad hoc repeal of the
principle of non-encroachment, is absolutely indispensable to the United States
case. Mr. Colson said that the basis of the distinction hetwcen primary and
secondary coasts was not the general direction of the coasts determined on a
continental scale, as we were led to believe in the United States wntten
pleadings, but rather a distinction between the coasts which form the lateral
sides of a concavity and coasts which face seaward, by which he meant
oceanward or parallel to the closing line of the concavity (VI, p. 319) - because
al1the coasts of a concavity faceseaward. And in any event, this new criterion
-.ooosed bv the United States is iust another wa\. of imoosin. a ma..oeeo- -
grdphisal pcrspecii\c. For instr~d oi asxssing the geugr.iphical configur~lion
ironr ihc per\pcctirc of the co:ists ~hutiing the Ciuli.the geogr~ph!.is asscssed
from the perspective of the North Atlantic Ocean.
The only legaljustification or authority we have heen givenfor this new and
far-reaching doctrine of pnmary and secondary coasts is that the lems may be
new but the concepts are not (VI, p. 319; sec also p. 293). Mr. Colson claimed
that this hierarchical conceot 1sdrawn dircctlv from the North Seo Conrinenral
Shel/cases (VI, p. 294).
The Judgment in the North Sea ConrinenralSheycascs is the las1place the
United States should look for support on this issue.There is a core principle at
the heart of the 1969Judgment that is applicable equally to the shelfand to the
200-mile zone: the principle of the legal equality of coasts. In a situation of
equalily within the same order, comparable coasts mus! ohtain comparable
treatment. The pnnciple undoubtedly has its limitations. It cannot justify the60 GULF OF MAINE
apportioning of shares to overcome the irreducible facts of nature; it cannot, in
other words,justify a refashioning of geography. But what it does rule out in its
verv essence-is the United States idëa thal certain coasts are inflicted bv an
infirior legal statu- thalfhere is, as it were, a caste system of coasts. The iacts
of nature that place certain coasts closer than others to particular sea areas
cannot be overcome hy assigning an intrinsic superiority to a comparatively
remote coastal area. The realities of geography, Mr. President, distinguished
Judges, cannot be reversed by legal fictions.
The Chomber rose or 1 p.m 62 GULF OF MAINE
that thecoasts of the western halfof theGulf orof Massachusetts are in any way
227cut off. Looking at theahstract diagram in United States Figure 12Awhich now
appears as Figure l36A, the allegation is simply that coast CUIioff from
triangles 2, 3 and 4 hy the effect of coast XS here a1 the side.
In fact, Mr. President, al1 this is completely wrong. It is refuted by the
premises of the United States own demonstration, which defines the CUI-offas
the product of the relationship of these Iwo right-angled coasts, coasts YX and
XS. For oncewelook at that relationship as it would existwithout the restof the
configuration- in other words, without coasts WY and WR - it becomes
obvious that equidistance can produce no cut-off effect as hetween these two
@ CO s shlfevi~ent from the diagram now shown as Figure B. The use of
equidistance here could hardly he questioned. No one could argue that any of
thearea on the seaward sideof the eauidistance linewould lo~icallvappertain to
coast YX. And no onccould argue that coast YXis improp-Ay cui oFfrom any
part of that arçii hcrc.eiiher closeto shore orIOsea. And yet. this arca on
the seaward side of the equidistance line comprises the entire area from which
coast YX is said to be cut off according to the United States argument (VI,
p. 296)-in other words, thisarea herecomprises the whole of triangles2.3 and 4
@ in Figure 12A. The implication is clear. The area on the seaward side of the
eauidistance line is not an area from which coast YX is ineauitahlv cut off bv
cdasi XS undcr the cquidisianse method And more gene;ally, equidistance
applied to a pair of comparable nght-angled coasls cmnot producs a cul-off
cki in the absenceof incidental iixcial fcatures-ausinr the lineto dcviatc from
its normal course.
Now let us move to a configuration that more closely resembles the Gulf of
227 Maine without the Bayof Fundy- the configuration shown in Figure I2A of the
8 Uniled States oral proceedings which is now shown again as Figure C We can
seein Figure C the effectthat forms the burden of the United States co-plaint
@ the limited seaward extension of coast YX formed by triangle 1in Figure 12A.
But here is the reallysignificantpoint. Thislimited seaward extension is brought
about hy the addition of the coasts of State A-ithe addition of coasts WY
and WR. In other words, it is hrought about by the coasts of Western Maine,
New Hampshire and Massachusetts. It is, in effect, the coasts of the United
States itself that limit the seaward extension of eastern Maine.
The straight diagonal line drawn from Point X in the corner of the concavity,
and continued in black beyond Point T, is the equidistance line that would exist
if coasts YX and XS formed the entire configuration. It is, in other words, the
@ equidistance line shown here in Figure B. And we have seen that this straight
diagonal line creates a situation of perfect equity between these two coasts, the
coasls upon which the United States analysis of the cul-off effect is focused.
Nothing on either sideof the straight diagonal linecould pobeiconsidered
an area of cut-off in so far as coYXtsand XS are concerned. In particular,
nothing seaward of the diagonal line would belong to coast YX if the other
coasts of State A did not exist.
A cul-off of this co-sof coast YX- could onlv arise if it los1somethine to
SixteRai -Arc,uli of State B'sinclusi<inin this morf coiiiplcxconfiguraiion.lbut
itis clcar ai a glaihit this does not ossur
iiow Mr. President. disiinauished Judaes. this argument can obviousl$ be
turned around. We co~l~ ~l~ ~~ ~ that coast YX wiuld hav~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ëater
Laward extension ifcoast XS didkt exist. And that eastern Maine woulodhave
a much greater seaward extension if Nova Scotia did not exist. True enouah.
And it icprecisely th-snothing more - that the United States diagrams have RUOINDER OF MR. HANKEY 63
managed to show. But none of this has any connection with the idea of
inequitable cut-ofi.
Cut-of has to do with an efiect of ineauitable distortion that de~rivesa State
of an area ihai properl!. apperrain, to ii. II makes no sensr.ai ;il[Io define an
;irclioicui-utlas the uh<ilrarea ihat u,ould Iippcriain IO a Sixte if ils nsighbour
did not exist.And bv the same token. it makes no senseat al1to definean area of
c-~~~~ ~~~t~ ~a~ea that would aoor.tain to a coast ifanother maior landmassdid
not exist - a major geographical feature like Nova Scotia, which Ouropponents
have admitted cannot be regarded as an incidental feature(VI, p. 333).But that
is the whole framework ofihe United States analvsis. It mav be an interesting
intellectual exercise in refashioning geography, bit it has nothing to do at an
with the idea of inequitable cut-off as that concept is known 10 the law of
delimitation.
The other point this analysis brings out is that the United States demonstra-
tion not only involved a refashioning of physical geography; il implies a
refashioning of political geography as well. It does this by isolating coast YX -
eastern Maine - as if il were a seoarate sovereien State.
Eastern Maine is no1an independent State, c&lr;try to what isimplied bythe
United States diaarams. There is no international houndary at Penobscot Bay.
Eastern Maine isno1hemmed in bv a foreien State on the West.In sum, what we
haw herr is ;isitu~iion %i,hrrethe io~si:.ofyuci Si;iirs bordera conia\ity - no1a
ihrec-Siaie situation as in the .V,,rrSeo Ci»irinrnrolSliel/'caser.u,hcreiineSiate
was shelf-locked because only its coast was concave.
It is true that eastern Maine does attract a smaller maritime area than the
more favourably situated coasts of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts. But. as
demonstrated in Figure 137 - under the equidistance method, eastern Maine
receives an area more than two-and-one-half times large1 than does New
Brunswick, although the coast of New Brunswickis actuail~ some 16percent
longer than the coast of eastern Maine when measured according to ils general
direction.
And so. ifthree States. whvnot four? If the United Statescoast al the back of
the conc&ity is entitled on équitablegrounds to consideration separate in part
from that of the other United States coasts in the Ciulfof Maine area, why not
the Canadian coast al the hack of the concavity - ;icoast which is much more
severelydisadvantaged than the coast of eastern Maine?
The answer, of course, is obvious. The Chamber is no more required to
refashion political geography, than it is to refashion physical geography. The
lawhas great power, but il can no more subdivideCanada and the United States
into a seriesof hypothetical nation States, than it can move the coasts of Maine
and New Brunswick [rom the back to the front of the Gulf.
MI. President, the purpose of the United States cut-offdemonstration was 10
illustrate the operation of a cut-offeffect in the Gulf of Maine area. But in fact,
they were also used as proportionality models.
The United States was verycareful in selectingthe coasts to which it applied
its new proportionality test and in so doing it failedto compare like with like.It
chose the most disadvantaged segment of the United States coast, the coast of
eastern Maine. It disregarded both the coast of Massachusetts that attracts the
largest sea areas on the United States side, and the disadvantaged segmentsof
the Canadian coast on the Bay of Fundy. But e\,en within this narrow and
incorrect frame of referenceit appears to us thal the test has been misapplied.
Let us turn first, MI. President, to the abstract proportionality model
@ presented in Figure 12 of MI. Colson's presentation - now appeanng in the
@ lightbox as Figure 138A.A feature similar to the Bayof Fundy isconspicuously 64 GULF OF MAINE
absent from this model, but that is no1the problem now beingaddressed. What
is alsoconspicuous isthat the proportions used in this modelare those of an area
extending to 300 nautical miles from coast YX at the back of the concavity.
Since the model is supposed to deal with an area from which coast YX is
ineauitablv cut of. the model should extend onlv 200 miles from coast YX.
~he'modélshouldtherefore be amended 10 corkect this error, as shown in
to Figure 138B.
O 'A seconddefect in the model is that it allocates the whole of the area of Point
S io the co~stsinside the concaiity. But whywould the delimiiaiion outside the
oncavity be niade depcnJcnt exslusii~clyon ihc c<ia\rsbchind rhc cl<isioglirie?
Ai leïst someof the delimitaiion of the outcr ïrea musi denend uoon the ouisidc
coasts. The area of Point Sshoulbe divided betweencoait XS and the coast to
ihe righi i~iPoint S. whlchuc ha\c Iïbelso.~>iSO. he~ïuse iIIuerc .Irnziitcr
of delimiting ihis arcï betwccnthese tut) coüsts ihat would cleïrl) bc the correct
W. line.This bisecior aoccars as ihr rcd linchere in 17ieureIIcdn heszen ihai
it would allocate tÔcoast SO the whole of the arëa of triangle 4 in the United
States model and half of the area of triangle 3.
Consequently, even if one were to accept the major premises of CheUnited
States frame of reference, whichwe certainly do not, it is obvious that the area
designated as cut off from coast YX is greatly exaggerated.
@ Figure 16 of the United States oral argument, which applies ils cut-of
demonstration to the Gulf of Maine area, sufers from similar defects. The
figures now appearing on the lightbox, appear as separate figures, Figures 139
and 140 in the red binders. This United States figure also depicts an area
extending 300 milesfrom the Maine coast as an area from which Maine is cul
of. The first step in correcting il, therefore, beuto eliminate the las1 100
miles, as shown in Figure 139.The nexi step would be to attribute half of the
area depicted in yellow to the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia northeast of Cape
Sable. As1exolained a moment aro in connection with the abstract demonstra-
tion, half of this area would be at&buted to the outer coast ifit werea matter of
dividing it between the coastal fronts of Nova Scotia on either side of Cape
Sable. It therefore makes no sense to include it in a comparison of the areas
appertaining to the coast to the southwest coast of Nova Scotia and the eastern
coast of Maine.This defect is remedied inFigure 140.Finally, 1would add, as a
130 footnote, that the so-called area of "cut-OR' in the United States Figure 16is
O rather obviously tilted towards Canada throurh the use ofa coastal front on the
Maine cnasi that does noi in faci correspond Ïn ihc direction of the Mainc coiist.
Mr. President.ilhas bcen necesiïryIOdriiu the (:hamkr's attention to ihese
defccis in thc United Siaies demonstration. But therc are more fundamenial
difficulties.As alreadv noted. the calculations ei.en ~- the United States assess
only the efects of an équidist'lineupon the-mostrecessivepart of the~~nited
States coast, excluding the entitlements of the western half of the Gulf and
esoeciallv of Massachüsetts. and disreeardinr the disadvantaeed status of the
~iy of Fundy coasis. Once ihcivholec;nligu~tion ir broughi Lio thecquaiion.
iibecomcs appsrent. as Profestor Malintoppi ha$ already demonsrrated, that
the United States receives more than a proportionate share of the maritime
soace in theGulf of Maine area as a whole. For ~rooortionalitv isnot a orinciole
Ôf appurtenance or a basis of title to be uied '10 determine the sea arias
appertaining to each specificsegment of the coast. It is rather a test of equity,
wbich must be used to assess the overall result in relation to al1 the ioasts
abutting the relevant area.
1 have touched upon some of the Rawsthat in Our view deprive the United
States cut-of demonstrations of any probative value. But Ourcentral objection RUOIXDER OF MR. HANKEY 65
to the United States demonstration is that it deoicts the natural efect of the
geography of the Gulfof Maine area as a form oiiiiequity caused by the use of
the equidistance method. For al1the United States demonstration really shows,
even withits remarkable assumotions. isthe virtuallv axiomaticproposition that
a coast that actually horders a broad and open éxpanseof ;cean space can
attract a greater zone ofjurisdiction than a coast that is located in a deep recess.
But this,after all, is geography, not disproportion.
B. TheErrors O/ Principlein the UniiedStates Cul-Of Argument
This oresentation turns now. Mr. President. to a discussion of the fundamen-
131err;;~ of legalprinciple underl)ing the llnited Siaies cul-OITarçument. Th~t
ïrcumrni has IWO distinci comp,,nents. The firstis tliat the Iineinsidethc Gulf is
in6erently inequitable, no1 because it achieves a disproportionate result, but
because it follows the wrong direction. It allegedly extends too far across the
coast of Maine. The second objection is that the efect of the line outside the
Gulf is allegedly inequitable, not because its direction is wrong, but because it
denies to eastern Maine a seaward extension onto the eastern half of Georges
Bank.
1. The directiono/ the Canadianline within theGulJ
First, then, the direction of the line within the Gulf. Mr. Colson argued that
"If the land houndary does no1meet the sea a1 the midpoint of the lengths of
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~nts formine la coastall concavitv. the eeomëtrical character-of the
equidistance method ;s'such thai the line ;,il1 be-inclined towards the longer
coast and away from the shorter coast" (VI, p. 295). Applying this analysis to
the Gulf of aine area. he asserted that "~néauidistance line creates inequitv
because it swings Jar =cross the coast of aine before eventually tumini
seaward at the midpoint of the closing line" (VI, p. 317, emphasis added).
It would aooear from these remarks that Canada and the United States are in
agrecmcnt ih3i an inequitahle rut-olf ma) occur whcn ï short or shorter coaital
front causesan equidistiinceIineto bwingout laterïlly Iÿracross a longer coastal
ïront. The irn~liçation ir th31the cul-of i, inequitahle only u,heils\i,ings<iut
farther in front of the longer coastal front tha" it does in front of the shorter
130 coastal front. And yet, as Mr. Colson demonstrated in Figure 16of the United
O States oral argument, the equidistance line swingsno farther across the coastal
front of the United States than it does across the coastal front of Canada, as
those two fronts have been drawn by the United States itself (VI, p. 302). The
United States assertions about the cul-of efeci therefore cannot rest on any
argument concerning a disproportion in the length of the respective coastal
fronts allegedlycut of.
According to the United States, the problem with equidistance when the line
begins inside a concavity, is that wherever the line actually starts, it eventually
followsacourse that isaligned withthe centre of the Gulf (VI,pp. 298-299).This
is undoubtedlv so. but where we fail to follow the United States argument is in
its conclusionS.The United States suggeststhat this property of eqiidistance in
the presence of a concavity is inherently inequitable, and that this inequity is
more or less self-evident.
But what exdctly is the basis of this inherent inequity? 1s it inherently
inequitable that a line should proceed across the Gulf, staying as far as possible
from al1the coasts that form ils sides? 1sit inherently inequitable that the line
should leavean equal space ofeach of itscoasts an11divide these semi-enclosed66 GULF OF MAINE
waters within the concavitv in nrooortion to the coastal len~th? 1sit inherentlv
inequitable that a line shoild e;en<ually reach a point midw6 hetween the outer
coasts reflectingtheir proximity and contiguity to the outer area? If so, we find
the proposition less than self-evident. We fail to see why equidistance is
inhekntiy inequitable when it begins at the back of a concivity'with a semi-
circular or rectangularconfiguration and moves gradually out toward the centre
point. And, more important, we fail to see that equidistance produces any
ineauitv in the concrete circumstances of this case.
fie United States says that a cul-olïeffect in the Gulf of Maine area begins
close to shore and hroadens in the seaward area (VI, p. 296).This is because the
equidistance line, in proceeding towdrd the centre, has to extend across the
coastal front at the back. But the United Stateshas given only half of the story.
The equidistance line leaves an equal amount of space olï each of the coastal
frontsin the eastern half of the Gulf. And Io do this it obviously has to pass in
front of hoth of these coastal fronts. The equidistance line extends across the
front at the back of the Gulf - true enough - but it also extends across the coast
at the side IO an equal extent. For in order to reach the open Atlantic from its
starting-point at the back of the Gulf, the line must pass between the coasts of
C-~ada and the United St~tes.~a~~.~n that sense. in front of both of them. The
courje follou,edby an equidi<i2ncclineon ils uay to the ~ilaniic roughl) hiqects
the anale lomied b, rhccoasis ofça~iern Maine 2nd ofsouth~vesi ii<~i,Scot13.
The cil-otT is therefore equally shared - it is reciprocal and requires no remedy.
2. Proporrionalityas a basis of rifle: rhe United Srares objecrionsro the Cana-
dianline in rheourerarea
Mr. President, 1 turn now to the second component of the United States
argument, which is that the equidistance line improperly denies eastern Maine
an extension onto Georges Bank. In the view of the United States, this is an
inequitable cul-off. In Canada's view, it is a natural consequence of the
geographical position of the coasts of southwestern Nova Scotia and eastern
Maine.
The esseniiîl gcographical lacis are simple and unconiro\craial The coasial
wings 01'Nova Scotia and Massachuseits aciuÿlly border the ourer area. The
coast ai ihc back of the concîvitv - uheiher of Maine or of New Brunswick - is
deeply embedded within the c6ncavity, 100 nautical miles landward of the
closing line of the Gulf. It is for these very simple reasons of proximity and
contiguity that Nova Scotia and Massachusetts - not eastern Maine - control
the open spaces of the outer area.
And this, of course, is why the United States isquite wrong in suggesting that
the coasts of eastern Maine and Nova Scotia have been given comparable
treatment in relation to the outer area. "Comparable trealment by nature",
refers not simply to the extent of a coastline, to the length of a coastline, but it
also refers to its actual geographical position in relation to the area being
delimited.
Our opponents would no doubt say that disproportion is inherent in any
situation where two coasts of equivalent length have unequal offshore entitle-
ments. As between eastern Maine and southwest Nova Scotia, however, this
argument would involve two errors of pnnciple. First, as already demonstrated
bv Canada. the eauidistance line oroduces no disnro~o.ti.n in terms of coastal
l;ngths uhen thzeniire configurÿtion is iaken inio üccouni - in oiher uords.
whcn a bslanced frame of refcrence is used. Secondl'. propuriionlilir) cannot he
appreciated in the abstract, in isolation from the consequences inherent in the REJOIKDER OF MR. HANKEY 67
actual geographical situation. And the aspect of a geographical situation most
relevant 10maritime delimitation is the eeneral coniieuration of the coasts. It is
for ihis reïsiin that thc Court of~rbitr;tionin the &IO-~rench dwiird si;iied
thai proportionality could not he3 question ofsimply asigning to Siairr 'Ireas
ol'the ,helf in pronoriion to thc Itnrih\ iif thtir coasilinesIOfdo $0 uiiuld he
to suhstitute f8r the delimitation oïhoundaries a distribu'tiveapportionment of
shares" (Award, para. 101).It isnot a requirement ofequityor lawthat a deeply
recessedcoastline should have as great an offshorearea accrue to it as a coast
that borders an open expanse of sea.
The plain fact is that any coast at the back of a deep concavity is
disadvantaged in companson with one that borders the open sea in lems of the
potential exlent of ils seaward extension. It is geography, not the method of
delimitation. that causes this tobe so. Indeed. the coast in the Gulf of Maine
area that is most severely damaged by concavity - that is by its geographical
situation - is the coastline of the Bay of Fundy. Bu1Canada, unlike the United
States, does not ask for a refashioning of geoGaphy to compensate for the facts
of nature.
The United States objection to the eflèct of Nova Scotia's position 100
nautical milesseaward of Maine is unfounded because the effect of Nova Scotia
on an equidisiance Iine reflccts ils aciual geogr~lihic~llocation. and is nui
disproporiionaie other in irrm\ <IINova Scotia's$saIr or IL>rcal links with the
area being delimited.
Moreover, Mr. President, it is evident from a glance at the map that the
Canadian line leaves a broad expanse of maritime space off the United States
coast actually abutting the outer area -the coastal wing of Massachusetts.
Canada reaffirms ils position that if the Canadian line does not cul of the
coast of Maine within the Gulf itself, then it could hardly be said to cut off
that same stretch of coast a hundred miles further out to sea. And the absence
ofany such cul-olïelïect is evident, first, in the geography of the area, because
the line passes suhstantially closer to the Canadian coast than ildoes to the
coast of Maine. It is evident, secondly, in the history of the dispute, because
the Canadian line follows a course much further off the coast of Maine than
the lines used by the United States itself to claim jurisdiction prior to 1982.
And il is evident, finally, in the logic of the Special Agreement itself. in the
location of Point A wellto the west of the international boundary terminus "in
front of" the coast of Maine - to use the lan- -~e favoured hy the United
States.
The dislinguished Agent for the United States has suggested that the United
States Senate would not have given ils advicc and consent to the Special
Agreement had it realized that the location of Point A implied a southwesterly
direction of the sinele maritime boundarv within the Gulf (VI, o.2.2). This
suggestion is hard toreconcile u,ith the facis Point A uas sclcctcdb) the ~artiss
on the bxis of Ihcclaims of the Parties as thc) stooJ in 1979.ai the tinie of the
signature of the Special Agreement. And one-of those claims was the so-called
Northeast Channel line. That line was presurnahly known to the United States
Senate. And that line, likethe "lobster line" hefore il, extends as far across the
coastal front of Maine as does the Canadian line,and in fact passesmuch closer
to the Maine coastline (VI,pp. 15-16;V,Canadian Iceply,p. 158,para. 355and
@ Figure 35). As far as we know. the United States Senate did not complain that
that Iine cul or the coast of Maine.
The United States cut-off areument is based on a failure to annrehend the
essential distinction betwccn the role of equiiy in git,ing cfftc'IO the real
geography ofïn area 2nd the rejectednotion of refashioning gcogrïphy. For the68 GULF OF MAINE
elïects complained of by the United States are the natural consequences of the
geographyof the Gulf of Mainearea, not aberrations in the method proposed by
Canada.
IV. AN EQUITABL REESULT IN THE GEOGRAPHICA CILRCUMSTANCES
OF THE GULF OF MAINEAREA
Inrroduction
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, the fourth and final part of this
oresentalion addresses the auestioii of an eauilable result in the oarticular
gcographic~lciriumstancc~~ oiihiji:iss. In Candda's i,icii,an zquiidhle rcsult uiII
be dchie\,edh) a line thai reflccisthe gcner!I ci)nfiguralion of ihe i<s!~tsin the
Gulf of Maine area.
In his statement on 13April Mr. Colson defined the principal issue dividing
the Parties with respect to the course of the line. He said: "The fundamental
diîïerence between the equidistant line and an equitable solution in this case is
the location of the point at which the boundary turns seaward." (VI, p. 323.)
This is the firstissue1shalladdress in this finalpart of my statement. A second
important issue still dividing the Parties with respectto the course of the line,
which1shallalso address,isthe direction thelineisto take in the outer area. And,
the aooroach of the Parties as to the resolution of thes~ ~ ~~is~ ~ ~n~ld not he
mors'difircni. Iy<iwhilethe Uniisd Sidies hns strongly hinied in iis uriticn 5nd
oral argument ihat hoth the locationol'the turning point and the dirriiii,n of the
line inthe outer area are matters tobe determinedLaccordance withthe arbitrarv
nbj~iivcs of ihe UnitedStates(sec.cg., V. UniieJ Statei Keply.p 14d.par;i.2%;
1'1.1).323).itisCanada's rubmission ihai ihere i<suesniust lx deirrmined h) the
aooiication of leral criteria. This means thev mus1be determined essentiallvbv
réferenceta the general configuration of thérelevant coasts.
A. Poinrs ofogreemeni
Lei us considsr iir\t the points ofagreement kiueen ihe Parties. Thr Plrties
agree ihat ihc CiulCof M;iine area i, di\ided into inner and ouier scciorj by a
h\noiheiical closine Iinefr<imCa~eSable io N3niucket Island .II~-nited Staicr
~eniorial. p 19. pird ?Sand Cn. i. Ill.C.;in.idi;inCuunier-Memonal. p 50.pard.
120).Thisdivision has important ron\equcnces Wiihin ihc Ciulfitrlf, bchind ~hc
closing Iine,ihe arc., 1..emhr~cedu,iihinihc crin5isoCihc P:iriics.but seaiv3rJ 01'
the closinglinethe area to bedelimitedliesin the open expansesof the Atlantic. It
lies off, rÿther than within, the coasts of the Parties. The United States has
repeatedly emphasized the distinction between the general direction of the
continentalCoastand theconcaveconfigurationof thecodstsof the Gulf (see,e.g.,
VI,pp. 290,291,293, 317,319,320,325-326).The transformation ofthearea to be
delimited from interfauces vrraruni to open ocean by the radical and reciprocdl
chanaes in the aeneraldirection of the Canadian and United Statescoastsat Ca~e
~ablë and ~antucket Island respectively,therefore constitutes the single mis1
important geographical circumstance characterizingthis area.
The second point of agreement is ihat the boundarv must be drawn in two
eeneralseemenis. one in the area closer to thecoast. whérethe h~u~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
necessityiass in front of the coasts of bath ~tates,and the other furthérout to
sea. Mr. Colson described the United States viewas follows:
"An equitable boundary should divide the closes1inshore area, perhaps REJOINDEROF MR. HANKEY 69
generally hy dividing the angle between the two coastal fronts with
referenceto the proportions of their lengths, and then would turn seaward
perpendicular to the general direction of the coast." (VI, p. 318.)
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, there can be no objection to the
Canadian line on these grounds. As shown in Figure 141,the Canadian line in
the inner area roughly bisectsthe angle formed hy the controlling coastal fronts
of the Parties. The red line on the illustration is exactly a hisector of the angle
formed by these coasts. The Canadian equidistance line bisects the controlling
coastal fronts of the Parties, that is, the coast of southwest Nova Scotia between
Cape St. Mary's and Cape Sable, and the coast of eastern Maine between
Penohscot Bay and the international houndary terminus. 1want to emphasize
the word "angle", hecausethe United States has tried to suggest that hecause
Canada recognizes that these two coasts are juxtaposed at a right angle, it also
accepts the United States position that Canada's coastal front on the Bay of
Fundy can he replaced by a closing lineacross its mouth (United States Reply,
p. 93, para. 159; VI, pp. 293-295, 330-331). But the only connection hetween
these two quite distinct ideas -the relationship of the two coasts to each other,
and a closing line across the mouth of the Bay of Fundy - is that in order to
measure the anele formed bv the Nova Scotia and Maine coastal fronts. that is
to say, in ordeFto assess m~thematicallythe relationship of these two coasts to
each other, one must extend the direction of the two coasts until these directions
meet at an apex.
And what of the United States criterion for the second segment ofthe line?
The United States asserts that an equitable houndary should "then turn seaward
perpendicular to the general direction of the coasts" (VI, p. 318). Canada can
accent that once the line has lefthehind the concavecoastal confiruration of the
Ciul~, 11rhuuld he ri>ughl) perpendicular io the gcneral direciioi of the cwiists
ahuiiing the open Ail~niic on eiiher side oi the enir;ince points IO the Gull'
Canada believesits line meets this criterion.
The questions that remain, then, are first, exactly where the line should
change its course and, secondly, exactly what direction it should take in the
outer area.
B. Thelocationof thefino1iurningpoint
First, the question of the turning point. The geography of the innermost area
imooses a boundarv that runs in a eeneral southwesterlv direction. Mr. Colson
h~;conccdcd as m&h (VI.pp 317-fi8.322,. But iirhe II& i~alli,ued iuciiniinuc
ina souihucsicrly direction untilIIlc~\csthe Gulf. and isihcn iurncd sirïight oui
into the Aildniii. the Iinccul3 ihrourh Gcorecs Biink. Hui th15rcsuli. ihc rcsuli
imposed hy the geography, frustratës the a$ratioiis of the United States to
ohtain as much of the Bank as possible.Therein liesthe dilemmawith whichthe
United States appears to have been wrestlingfor sonie years.
As can he seen in Fieure 142. the most recent llnited States line. its 1982
boundary pruposal. iur; sharply IOthe southcast ai Point A Hut whcrc is the
sharp change in the direciion oi'ihc coaiis uhich çiiu>csthe UnircdSiatcs lineiu
chanec II.direction si)aharrilvri Point A'!The Uniied States kas neter told us.
and one can study the mapi i'nvain for the answer. The study of maps is futile,
however, hecausethe sharp change in the direction of the United States line at
Point A is to be explained, not hy any change in the direction of the coasts, but
hv a marked chanee in the leeal and tactical thinkinrrof the United Statessome
tcmeduring the preparation if its Memorial.
The point at which the Canadian line turns towatds the open Atlantic is, hy 70 GULF OF MAINE
contrast. Mr. President, based on objective geographical and legal criteria, as
2.1 illustrated in Figure 143.There is a geographical rationale for a change in the
O direction of the line when it leaves the Gulf oc Maine. 1t is here, near the
midpoint of the closing li-enot before that the coastal extensions ofa semi-
circular gulf converge. It is here - not hefore - that the geography is
transformed. It is her- not before- that the line leavesa semi-cnclosedarea
and ceases to pass between the coasts of the two States. It is here that the line
leaves an area situated between two extensivecoastal areas which are perfectly
opposite and which the United States has conceded to be comparable (Reply,
p. 104,para. 179).It ishere that the lineenters the open spaces of the Atlantic. If
a change in the direction of the line is to be dictated hy objective geographical
criteria. ii is -eand not hefore - that it musi take place.
In contrast, there coube no objectivegeographical rationale for a change in
the direction of the line before it leaves the Gulf. Such a change of direction
would no1 resoond to anv chanee in the actual confieuration of the coasts. 11
would be prompted only iy theibjective of achievinga certain apportionment
of shares in the outer area- in particular, by the United States objective of
obtaining as much of Georges ~ank as possible. It would not be baied upon
legalstandards because it would disregard thegeography of the abutting coasts.
And what is equally important. Mr. President, it would disregard the non-
geographical equities that must be satisfied to obtain an equitable result.
As the Chamher can see. the Canadian line proceeds progressively seaward
from its point of commencement. But here, at turning poin50. it turns to the
southeast and heads straight out inIo the open Atlantic. This point, turning
point 50, is the tnpoint equidistant from the las1basepoints used by Canada on
each of the three sides of the G-lthat is on the coasts of Nova Scotia, Maine
and Massachusetts.
The United States has asserted that the equidistance line crosses the closing
line of the Gulf at ils midpoint and then hecomes a line perpendicular to the
closing line (VI, pp. 303, 304, 305, 318). Butthis is not exactly so. The red
@ line which appears as Figure 144,the next figure in the binders, is a line drawn
perpendicular to the closingline at its midpoint. This figureis not shown on the
lightbox. However, Figure 145, now shown on the lightbox, depicts in simple
zla close-up form the linesin the area enclosed in the red frame in Figure 144.This
O grey line here on the left-hand side of the diagram is the Canadian line.and this
hlack line, the strict equidistance line. This red line is a perpendicular to the
closing line of the Gulf drawn from its midpoint. As the Chamher can see the
Canadian line and the strict equidistance line, which are the same line at this
point, the Canadian line and the strict equidistance line intersect the closing line
some 5 nautical miles to the northeast of ils midpoint.
The Chamher can also see here the tripoint of the strict equidistance line, the
point equidistantfrom the nearest land on the three sidesof the Gulf. This point,
at which the strict equidistance line turns straight out into the Atlantic, is an
objective geographical criterion that should be taken into account in achieving
an equitable result, especially in the light of the role of Article 6 in the legal
framework of this case.
There are other indicia which show that the line must turn at a point near the
midpoint of the agreed closingline of the Gulf.The figuresnow shown together
on the lightbox appear in the red hinder as separate figures,as Figures 146,147,
@@a 148 and 149. My argument now refers to Figure 1479. One of the principal
objections of the United States to the Canadian line is that it is allegedlydrawn
from "isolated points on a protruding coastline" (United States Reply, p. 6,
para. 9; p. 106,para. 185). Inparagraph 98 of thNorrh Sea ConrinenralShey RFJOINDER OF MR. HANKEY 71
cases Jud~ment. the Court stated that the coastal fronts used to measure the
coasts ac&rding IOtheir gcneral direction for the pri>portionïlity icst cùuld also
"play a usefulpart in elimin;itingor diminiqhingthe distortions that niight result
from the u\r oi(iheea~idistnncel mcthod(I.C.J. R.,porrs196D. 52,vara. 981.
An equidistanci line'drawn from the coistal fronis used hy Canada in the
@ proportionali!y test is shown in Figure 1478.As can he seen, the tripoint of this
equidistanceIine,hereinred,lyingto thenortheast of the tripoint oftheCanadian
line, should be here.
Turning now to Figure 148the Chamher may wish 10note the point at which
@ the extension of the "due north line" (VI, p. 601,intersects the closing lineof
the Gulf, just one nautical mile northeast of its midpoint. As benseen in
14 Figure 148,virtually the whole of the area claimed by Canada liesto the east of
O the due north line; that is, to the east of the segment of the land boundaiy that
establishes the general east-west juxtaposition of the territories of the Parties
abuttiue the Gulf~o~ Maine area.
@ Findll). turninIOFigure 149.Canada askj ihe Cliamher10 noir carefully the
pointiitwhich the $0-îalled 'Lohsier Line to Protect the Lobiter of the United
St3ics Ciintinental Shelf" interscets the iizreed closiiic lin?of the Guli For this
line- which is said to have been "vigo~usly enforced by the United States
@ from 1974to 1976-(United States Memorial, p. 85, para. 145and Fig. 16).this
line, as the Chamber can see in Figure 149,intersects the agreed closingline of
@ the Gulf some 10nautical miles northeast of its midpoint.
@ Turning now to Figure 150,a clear picturc emerges when al1these points are
shown together on a map of the area. Why is il, hlr. President, distinguished
Judees. that al1 these ooint- Canadian ooints and United States ooints.
cquidistiini tripoints drawn from co3stiil bascpoints and equidist3nce tripoints
drawn frum coastal fronts, points of intersrciion on the closing lin? and the
mid~ointoithc closine Iin- rhv irillhat al1thesepoints are clustercd torether
in the middle of this area here. where the Gulf meFeeswith the oo~ ~ ~ ~rs of
the Atlantic? The ;inluC1.ilear. The convergence of thr cùastal extensions of
the P~rtiç; 3ipùinl in this 3re.i. ncar the midpoint of the agrced closing Iineof
the Gulf. cleÿrlv reflects. to ùuoie from the sencirateùniùiJudee Hujta.
mante y~iver; in the~ortk Sea ~onrinenrai Shtdf cases ~ud~menï, clearly
reflecls"an exigencyofgeography" (see I.C.Reports1969. pp. 61-62,para. 6).
C. The directionof rheline in the ourerarea
I now turn to the direction the line should take in the outer area.
@ As shown in Figure 151,the bearing of the Canadian line in the outer area is
154.6".The bearing of the United States li-eshown in green - is 144'.The
United States appears to have suggested that a line drawn perpendicular to the
closing line of the Gulf might he an appropriate line in the outer area. Mr.
Colson said that the bearing of the closing lineis exactly 56.7"(VI, p. 292).Thus
a perpendicular to the closing -shown here in red-would have a bearingof
146.7".As the Chamber can see, this lineperpendicular Io the closing lineof the
Gulf would allocate to the United States some 1,485square nautical miles of
additional ocean space as compared to a line with the same bearing as the
Canadian line, drawn from the same point on the closing line.
A lineof the same bearing as the United States line,that is 144".ifdrawn from
the same ooint on the closine line would allocate to the United States a further
580square nautical milesof ;cean spacein the outer nrea. Thus the total amount
of additional ocean space that would accrue to the United States in the outer
area, as a result of u<ng a line at the same direction as the United Staies line, 72 GULI: OF MAINE
thai is 144".insicad oi'ai ihc beiiringof ihc C~nadiiinIinr 1546". ISihe suni of
these iu,o area,. thai is 2.065 square nautic~l miles And I uiini Io cinphdsirc
thal the ;tlloc:ition<ifihis Iarre ,e;i ;ire;iof?.OU0 ruuiirc nauiiciil milcl ;i
function of the direction or béaringof the line,irrespecti;e of the point al which
the line is turned toward the open Atlantic.
In Canada's view an appropriate test to determine whether the line in the
outer area reflects the relevant geographical circumstances is to compare the
direction of the line withthe average general directionof the coasts of the Parties
ahutting the Atlantic on either side of the entrance 10 the Gulf. The general
direction on the Canadian side, measured by a straight line from Cape Sable to
50 Cape Sambro, as shown in Figure 7 of the Canadian Counter-Memorial, is 54".
O On the United States side, the general coastal direction is approximately 79",
whether measured along the mainland Coastsouthwest ofCape Cod or along the
outer coasts of Nantucket and Long Island.The average general directionof the
Canadian and United States coasts hordering the open Atlantic is therefore
66.5",or in round figures67".Thus, the Canadian line, withils bearing of 154.7"
is almost oeroendicular to this averdee eeneral direction. Canada would also
note that iislineis roughly parallel to the general direction of the oppositecoasts
of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts, the coasts within the Gulf that are nearest
and most closely linked to the outer area. Canada therefore believes that the
direction taken hy the Canadian line in the outer area is fully compatible with
the relevant geographical circumstances.
Responses ro QueslionsPosedby MemberscfrheChumber
Mr. President, with your permission, 1 would like at this point, before
summing up m) siaicnicnt. Io gi\,c Canada'. anwcri IO csrt:iiii quc\ti<ins h)
Judgc ktusler 2nd Judgc Cohen. To siire ihc Limeof the Chmhïr I uill rcinin
from re~diiigih; qu;sti<ins ihemiel\cs. bui irould rcqueïi ihat for the Ch:iiii-
ber's convenience, the text of the questions be placed in the verbatim record.
1will first answer Questions 1, 3, 4 and 5 by Judge Mosler.
"Question I
What is the geographical significanceof the Point A which. according 10
Article II, paragraph 1,of the SpecialAgreement, theChamber has to take
as ils starting-point in drawing the delimitation line,in relation Io the limits
of the Parties' territorial waters?'(VI, p. 462.)
Canada's answer is as follows. As shown in Figure 152,Point A is situated
20.25nautical milesfrom the nearest point of United States land at a small islet
lying off Steele Harbour Island; it is also 20.25 nautical miles from the nearest
ooint of Canadian land at Machias Seal Island. The next nearest ooint of
canadian land is hlurr Lcdgcwhich Iissolf Grand Xlanan Island somc'25milcs
from Point A. (Murr I.edgc is noi shown on ihir figure j Thc IimitofC3nadi:in
terntoriiil uatcrs is I? nauiical miles; ihc limit of United Staies ierriiorial u,aicrs
is 3 nautical miles. Accordinelv. Point A lies well outside the limits of the
territorial waters of both~artG;.'~he relationship of ~oinl A Io a hypoih&ical
12-milelimit drawn from both coasts is de~icted in Fig.re 152.
"Question 3
For what reason have the Parties proposed theline [rom Nantucket to
Cape Sable as the line dividing the inner sector (theGulf proper) from the
outer sector of the Gulf of Maine area (the 'closing-liof~heCu(/') ?'(VI,
p. 463.) RUOINDER OF MR. HAPIKEY 73
Canada has proposed the Nantucket to Cape Sable closing line as the line
indicating the geographical distinction between the semi-enclosed waters of the
Gulf of Maine and the open waters of the Atlantic Ocean. The line is drawn
between the outermost points on Nantucket lsland and Cape Sable because
these constitute the natural entrance points to the Gulf. Until the boundary
reaches the closing line, it may be said to pass between the coasts of the Parties.
Seaward of the closing line, this is obviously no longer the case.
"Ouestion 4
Ifthïi Iinedcnoics a gcographiral riiu;itiun. u h) do ihe Pariics niîkc usc
ofnnoiher Iineior ihc purposc oidcmonsirÿting Ih;ii ihc southcasi cons1of
Nov:i Sco1i;iand pari of ihc Cniicd Siatc\ c<i.~sriouihrrcsi ofCapc Cud arc
coasts relevant 10 the decision of the dispute?'' (VI,p. 463.)
In Canada's \,icu,.ihe coasis ouiside ihr.cloiing IineIo ihc northcîsi of Cape
Sable, and 1,)ihc \uuthrrcsi of C:ipe Cod and Naniuckci, are gcogriiphi~.îlly
rclevani IO ihr dclirniiniion of ihc arca outsidc ihc closinc Iine h, \,iriuc of iheir
eeneral oroximitv to thc ~ ~ ~ ~r~a and the fact that thevaciuall; abut this area.
The c~tîblishcd links heiuccn ihc cornmuniiirr <inihcsc toasts ;ind ihc fishcry
rcsourccs in the aren Io bc dcliniiird pro\ide furihcr eiiclcnccof ihe rclc\încc oi
that geographical relationship.
As explained in the answer to Question 3, the closing line of the Gulf is
relevant because il divides the Gulf of Maine from the outer area. The general
direction ofthe coastsabutting the ocean on either sidcof themouth of a coastal
concavity is not necessarily aligned with the natural entrance points to the
concavity or to the closing linejoining these entrance points.
"Question 5
What isthe significanceof the 'closing-line'in relation to the linefrom Seal
lsland to the northern enirance of Cape Cod Canal whose two extremities
constitute basepoints for the equidistancelineproposed by Canada?" (Ibid.)
In Canada's view, the two lines are not related. A line joining the two
basenointsdoes no1constitute either a closine lineor a coastal front reoresentinz -
the gcnsral d~reiiion of î eoasiline. Thcsc b~\epoini<.mureo\,cr. do niii ciinirol
ihc Cilnadidn Iine until 19 nîuiical miles ouisidc the Cape Sahle Io Nantuckei
closing line. Consequently, while these basepoints do control the line beyond
turning point 50,a linejoining these two points is not itself an element in the
construction of the Canadian line.
With respect to the basepoinis used hy Canada, Article 6 of the 1958
Continental Shelf Convention orovides that a strict eauidistance line is to be
consirucird from ihc nciircbipo;nts on ihc bniclinc ftijm ivhichihc ierriioriîl sea
ir mc~surcd. The ha\epuini on Scdl I\land c<informi Io this criierion.
In ihc conriruciiun of the Canadian Iinc. C'anad;~ha selecicd ihc norihcrn
entrance to the Cape Cod Canal as the las1basepoint on the United States coast,
because in Canada's view this point better reflects the general configuration of
the United States coast abutting the area than do the basepoints on the
attenuated extremities of Cape Cod and Nantucket Island. The useof basepoints
on Cape Cod and Nantucket lsland would produce an inequitabledistortion in
the course of the line.
As explained in the answers to Questions 3 and 4, the closing line to a coastal
~-~~~~it~~.s~r~wn between ~ ~ ~~~~ral entrance ooints to the concavitv. Neither
of the last two basepoints used in the construction oïthe Canadian eq;idistance
lineconstitutes a natural entrance point to the GUI. since both Seal Island and 74 GULF OF MAINE
the northern entrance io theCape Cod Canal are locaied wellwithin the confines
of the Gulf.
Mr. President, this completes Canada's answers to the Questions 1,3.4 and 5
hy Judge Mosler.
Answersro Quesrions 2 and 3 by JudgeCohen
1 shall now answer Questions 2 and 3 by Judge Cohen.
"Question 2
1sthe criiicism of the eauidistant method sufficient if it rests on the cut-
of of ihe adlaceni neighb&r~scoilsial shùrc sinccmer) equidisiaiit Iine. iiii
iino1e~;~ctlyin ihe centre of ihc concariiy. is bùund iiisuing ionieuhsi
ovcr Io ihe other sidr? 'I'erm.nJi~~ul:ira'nd 'eauidiiiani' arc ierv unlikelv io
be the same or nearly ihe same in real situatibns. What degrecof CUI-OK is
acceptable?'(VI, p. 464.)
The question "What degree of cul-of is acceptahle?'musi be posed in
relation to the coasts of both parties bordering a concaviiy, because the result
must be equitable for boih of [hem. In Canada's view, this means that a linewill
be primafacie equitable where il entends an equal distance across the coasts of
the Iwo States. This is because the "cut-OR' is then reciprocal and therefore
equitable. IIis only where the lineextends further across the coast of one State
than il does across the coast of the other, that an inequitable cut-offcan occur.
@ This efect is illustratcd in Figure 34A of the Canadian Reply.
The question of an inequitable cut-of therefore can only arise when the line
extends a greater distance across the coast of one State than it does across the
coast of another. Even then, whether such a cut-of is inequitable, and a1what
ooint il becomes so. has to be detennined in the liehi of al1 the relevant
~irciinistanccs.including. in particular. u hethcr iln incid&ial. special ieÿiurc hïs
n disiorting and disproporii~inlitcrfcci upon the course of ihr Iinc.
The answer to the auestion "1s the iriticism of the eauidisiance method
dlicieni if il resis on the LUI-i>fofan adj:icent net-hbour'sîoariïl sliarc . . ."'
niust be ihai Ihecniicism is suificient only iiiian beshow ihai the lirclit'rom
u hirh ihc adiaccnt Staie 15allegcdlv CUI ofis nronerls :ioDuricnant IO ihai Statr.
rather than io the other. It is.,fEo,rse. unéersi~ ~ ~hit th~ w~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~in , ~ ~
this context, does not imply the apportioning or sharing out of the area in
proportion to the lenaths of specificsegmentsof the coasts of the IwoStates. For
the~court, in statements relied on by both Parties in the present case, has
declared that delimiiation is not a process of distributive justice or apportion-
ment ofshares (I.C.J. Reports 1969,pp. 21-23,paras. 18-20; 1.C.J. Reports 1982,
pp. 46-47, para. 44). Canada's submission that a State can onlv be cul offrom
&a areas that are leeullv,ano..tenant to il. and that the auesi.on~ ~ wh~ther a
cui.oR occurs siln onl) be determined in ihc Iight of a propcr undcr~txndingof
thc bilsisof lippurienance. isthereiorr 1~11c~i>nsistentwith ihis <iïicmeni of laa.
There is an~imoortant distinction between the aoolicat..n of the notion of
'-cul-OR'in Iwo ind ihree State \ituationc The term ..sui-off' originAtesin the
Gcrman pleadings in ihe .Vorrh Sc,<Cu»tetr~rro S/li~i~'cïres.u,hereIIwas used to
deicribe the situation of a .'shelf-Iosked" or "zone-locked" Stùtc. CUL otilrom
the outer limits of continental shelf jurisdiction when two equidistance lines
swing out laterally and converge in front of a third State situated between the
two other States. That was the situation which applied in relation to the
Netherlands, the Federal Republic of Germany and Denmark in the North Sea.
There, the Court round that the two equidistance lines "taken conjointly" REJOINDER OF MR. HANKEY 75
produced an inequitahle cut-offeffect (I.C.J. Reports 1969,pp. 17-18,para. 8).
But the Court observed "that neither of the lines in question, taken by itself,
would produce that effect,but only hoth of them taken together" (ibid.para. 7).
That completes Canada's answer to Question 2 by Judge Cohen.
"Question 3
What role in fact and in law does the southern coast of Nova Scotia and
the opposite northern coast of Massachusetts play, either with respectto the
Gulf or seaward?YVI, o. 465.)
Canada's answer is as follows. With respect to the outer area, the application
of the principle ofequality to comparable factsrequires that the opposite coasts of
Massachusetts and Nova Scotia, which hoth Parties have recognized have a
similar length and configuration, must be accorded equal treatment. As recog-
nized in the,iuri.orudence. the eauidistance or median line eeneral..oroduces an
squii~ble rciuli uhere the <<,arts3rc in ïn oppi)citc rc13iion~hip.,\n cquidist;ince
or niedinn line hetiicen thc appoiitc .ind ;iimpariihlc co;is01''lova S;ot13itnd
Massachusetts that eeogra~hicallvabut and dominatç the outer area is, therefore,
the appropriate means of achievcngan equitahle delimitation of that area.
In the technical construction of the Canadian equidistance line, a basepoint
on the Massachusetts coast al Cape Cod Canal first takes effectat turning point
50, 19nautical milesoutside the Nantucket to Cape Sableclosing line.Until that
point - that is, throughout the Gulf itself- the line is controlled on the United
States side hy hasepoints situated off the coast of Maine at the back of theGulf.
However. the peneral ~osition of the Canadian line inside the Gulf, where it
extends 1'0a point app;oximately midway between the coasts of Massachusetts
and Nova Scotia at the threshold of the outer area. isjustified by the opposite
relationship of these two coasts.
This completes Canada's answers to Questions 2 and 3 hy Judge Cohen
Conclusion
And now, MI. President, distinguished Judges, in concluding my presentation
I would like to sum UD Canada's oosition on the orincio.l p.-.raphical issues
still dividing the parti&.
Firsr,the SpecialAgreement clearly setsthe dispute in the Gulf of Maine itself
and the area seaward thereof. The effort to move the dispute out of this
geographical context by the unilateral invention of a so-called "axis of the
dispute" running down one side of the Gulf only is not in accord with the facts
and is incomoatihle with the Snecial Agreement.
Second, thé coastline forming the Gulf of Maine establishes the general
configuration of the coasts that must be taken fully into account. This coastal
configuration does not constitute an incidental, special feature or special
circumstance.
Third,the basis of appurtenance is geographical adjacency measured from the
coast in every direction. The notion of perpendicular extensions to a so-called
primary coastal direction is incompatible with the kiw of maritime jurisdiction.
Fourth, a State can only be "cul-off' when the efrect of an incidental special
feature on the equidistance line denies that State its extension into sea areas
properly appurtenant to it. The equidistance line does not produce an inequit-
able cut-off effect in the Gulf of Maine area becaiise any cul-off in the inner
sector is reciprocal andequally shared, and hecause the eastern half of the outer
sector is not appurtenant to the coast of Maine.
Fifth, the question whether an inequitahle CUI-offoccurs mus1he determined16 GULF OF MAINE
hy reference to the overall configuration of the Gulf of Maine area; il cannobe
determined hy reference to isolated segments of the coasts.
Si.~r11t,e location ofthe point at which the lineisto be turned straight toward
the openAtlantic should befixedon the hasis of objective legaland geographical
criteria.
Sevmrh, only a line which reaches the point of convergence of the coastal
extensions of the Parties at or near the midpoint of the closing line of the Gulf
will respect the general configuration of the coasts and take account of the
relevant geographical circumstances.
Eighrh, and finally, the direction of the line in the outer area should take
account of the general configuration of the coasts by reflecting the general
direction of the coastsahutting the Atlantic on either side of the entrance points
to the Gulf, as wellas the general direction of the opposite coasts of Nova Scotia
and Massachusetts.
The Chun~ber urljournedfrom 4.23 p.m. ro 4.41 p.m. REJOINDEROF MR. BINNIE
COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. BINNIE:
ECONOMICS
Mr. President. distineuished Judees. this afternoon 1 have the ~rivileee to
appeiir ior3 second tim~beiorc the i'hiinibcr IO respond io ihe argu"ienis hiide
hy ihs I:nitcd States in the tirst round of the ordl presentation on 1u.omaiicrs.
First, the Parties' fishing activities- both historical and contemporary -
within the Gulf of Maine area, and
Second, the economic geography issues, to which the United States returned
again and again in its oral presentation, rather like;itongue to a sore tooth if 1
may say so.
The United States position on the applicable law is that the totality of the
fishing activities of the Parties is a relevant circumstance, not only the
contemporary fishery, but the "entire record", as Mr. Lancaster put il, of
150vears (VI.o. 350). But it was sueaested that the economic denendence of a
ctyilsia~Po'pu~diiono'n ihiii s3me fiihery. rontrmporx) or fut"rc, ruses no
equitablc ion.iderations. one ua).or the other (VI. pp. 270.271 1. 1will addreis
ihcrc leaal ii.;uc%and tciihs exteni the IJniirJ Siaie, raiscd a number offi~ctual
points fwill deal with those as well to the extent that time permits.
Counsel for both Canada and the United States have addressed fishing and
the economic geography in three steps, and for convenience 1 will follow the
same order:
First, the fishing presence within the Gulf of Mairie area during the "relevant
period" - under this heading 1will deal with the United States argument that
historically the United States "dominated" the high seas fishery on Georges
Bank, or, as the distinguished Agent for the United States put it, the high seas
fishery on Georges Bank was considered by many United States citizens to be
"as American as apple pie" (VI, p. 231). 1will also deal with Mr. Lancaster's
efforts to redefine "the relevant area" for fisheries purposes in a way that he
apparently considered was more favourable to the United States argument;
Second, the economic dependence, if any, of the coastal population on the
fishery. Under this heading 1will address Mr. Feldman's submissions on legal
relevance, and his suggestion that Nova Scotia has no relevant economic
dependence on Georges Bank; and
Third, and finally, the impact on Nova Scotia of loss of access to fishing
grounds on Georges Bank. Under this heading 1will address the United States
contention that Nova Scotia is a land overflowing with alternative economic
opportunities, awaiting only the arriva1 of unemployed fishermen to set the
economic miracle in motion.
As to fishing presence Mr. President, distinguished Judges, Mr. Lancaster's
presentation was preoccupied with two matters, timç and space. With respect to78 GULF OF MAINE
lime, his apparent objective was to have the Chamber subordinatethe contem-
oorarv fisherv over the oast 20 or 25 vears to a much longer historical
&rspkti\,e, reaching back 150 years or m;rc to the enrly 19th céntury. In his
LICW. what wcnt on in the 19thccntury un Gcorgcs Bank. to ihc cxtcnt ihai thc
faris of ihosc diriani iimcscan now IICasccrtained. iscntirlcd IOss much u,cig.i.
year for year, as the most recent 20 or 25 years (VI, p. 339).
With respect to space, Mr. Lancaster's apparent objective was to limit
consideration of the United States catch to the disputed area, and to enlarge
consideration of the Canadian catch 10areas as far north as Newfoundland, to
attribute great fisherieswealth to these grounds, distant by hundreds of nautical
miles from the Gulf of Maine, and to portray New England fishermen as king
forced to withdraw from one Canadian fishingground after another, until al last
thev have come hefore this Chamher to take a final stand on the Canadian
fishcry on ihe rartcrn portion orGeorees Bank. hlr 1.3nc~sterIookcd stc3dily
IO the noriheasi iouards Neufoundland. Hc did no1 louk hehind him to the
fishericsucalih uhich strctchcs fri~mihc Canadian Iincsouth to 1:lorida.cauall,
distant from the Gulf of Maine. Neither did he stop to explain why'~ew
Englanders had decided to take their stand on the eastern portion of Georges
Bank that, like Newfoundland and the Scotian Shelf, is still closer to Canada
than to any part of the United States.
In his treatment of the "relevant period" Mr. Lancaster offered the analogy
lhat fisheries analysis is like a moving picture, and he cautioned the Chamber
no1to isolate a fewframes or scenes(~~. ..342).He said the Chamber must look
al ihc u,hule film.Of course 11musi: Canada agrees ihal the Chamkr niusi look
ai ihc uhole film. Thc issue betuccn ihc Parties is how long a film docs ihe
Chamber need to watch in order to get a proper appreciation of the relevant
facts. The entire contemporary period for which adequate statistics are avail-
able, as Canada has suggested in the first round of these proceedings (IV, p. 96),
or 150 years as Mr. Lancaster has proposed? Although Canada is of the view
that the IO-vearoeriod 1969 to 1978is the most relevant oeriod followine. in
thai respect: in ihc footsicps of ihc negotiAiori of ihc 197<li\hcries ngrcc&nt
and oiihc Jcciiion oi'JuJgc Jcsiup in thc 196Y.Yl>rr h%ruCo»rrnrnrulS/ie/jçascs
(IV, D. 95). Clnada h3s a1s0maJc II!Cr\ slcar in the oocninr round. thai if the
relevant oeriod is exoanded somewha~ ~~t makes n~~~~-~erence to the ultimate
result because there i; a broad measure of agreement bctween the Parties that for
more than 20 years, since the early 1960s.both Canada and the United States
have had a verv .ienificant fishervon Georees -ank. That is whv the Canadian
line.draun hy rricrcnce Io the ciia\iaI gcography. achie~csan rquiiahlc rcsult ln
tcrms of the cstablishcd lishcrics of boih Pariics on Georges Hank as seIl a\nf
the known resources of the continental shelf.
But the United States puts three arguments against the fairness of the
Canadian line:firsr, it is asserted that there is somc "distortion" (VI, p. 348) in
Canada's statistical presentation of the contemporary fishery.
Second, the United States says that the heari of the Georges Bank issue is
"dominance" (VI,p. 350)and in the viewof the United States ils fishermenhave
"dominated the Georges Bank fishery, and therefore. says the United States -
althourh in Canada's view the conclusion does not follow from the oremises,
even ifihe premixs wercaccuraie - Canadian lishermen should now he'rcmoscd
(rom ihc~rcstahh>hcd ti,hing groundi on Gcorgc.5Rnnk
Tliird.ihc Uniicd Statcs argucs thai hisiurisal fishingaiii\,ities arc ctcry bit as
imoortant as contemoorarv fishine activities. if not more so. because vear for
ycar ihc historis~1period 1slonger than ihc coniempurnr) period
Let me tirst ofall examine ihc United Siatcs 3llegation of "distortion" This is REJOINDER OF MR. BlNNlE 79
a charge which could have serious consequences if it had any merit, and 1am
therefore obliged to take the time of the Chamher to deal with il. MI. Lancaster
built his argument around the fact that Canada has presented the weight of the
scallop catch of both Canada and the United States in the fonn in which that
catch is taken from the sea - shells and all. This, says the United States, is a
distortion that goes to the root of Canada's statistical presentation. But is it a
distortion? MI. Lancaster knows perfectly wellthat it isnot a distortion, for he
acknowledged that "scallops are of course a relatively high value species.In
fact", he says:
"for the years upon which Canada relies. scallops (meat only) wereworth
somewhere in the range of 10 times the value of cod and haddock, the
primary United States catches ... when weightis used [for the purpose of
catch comparisons] the economic significance of the scallop fishery is
understated" (VI, p. 347).
And that is Mr. Lancaster's word - "understated". In that passage, MI.
President, the United States recognizedthat if there isany statistical distortion it
lies in its own attempt to equate low value species with high value species,and
not in the Canadian presentation, which endeavours to take these important
diiïerences of value into account. Although the United States in its written
pleadings used round weight as well as meat weight from time to time for the
scallop catch (e.g., IV, Counter-Memonal, Table A, p. 55; II, Memorial, Vol.
III, Ann. 47) - there is no consistency ofUnited States practice in that regard -
MI. Lancaster strongly criticized Canadian catch comparisons for employing
round weight because, as he says:
"If the shell weieht of the scallo~s were considered, il would attrihute
significanceto the Gady 90per ceniof the scallop that isthrown overboard
at sea and which is of no economic or protein value." (VI, p. 348.)
But, putting these two observations of Mr. Lancaster together, it isobvious that
there is no distortion in the Canadian weight-statistics at all. The United States
sas5 thiit icallop mcai accountq for a icnth of its total ucight. Thc United States
ackno~iledgesthat scall,~pniear. pound I;I~paund. is worlh tsn iimcs;lm such ;ii
thc nnmar, Unlied Siaici caich:s of~.od and haddi>çk The Iiigicslconclusion
~-----h~-~~~~o~o~se~v~tions of the United States - thoua--MI. Lancaster
refrained from saying so - is that scallops in their sliells,pound for pound, are
worth rourhly the same as cod and haddock which have no shells, and that
Canada's ctaiistical presentation, using round weight for al1products. gives a
perfectly fair perspective of the economic value of the Georges Bank fishery.
Mr. President, Mr. Feldman also challenged the Canadian statistics. But the
apparent point of Mr. Feldman'sattack wascontradicted on the face of the very
statistical table he complained about. He made the extraordinary allegation that
Canada had exaggerated the importance to Nova Scotia of Georges Bank
scallops, and in this respect he put before the Chamber Figure 56 of the
United States oral presentation - a reproduction of Table 13to the Canadian
Economics Annex - which you now havebefore you in the red dossier as Figure
153to the Canadian oral proceedings. Mr. Feldman announced that the United
States had ascertained from its analysis of ICNAF data that Table 13does not
accurately depict the total Canadian scallop catch from al1sources. Mr. Feld-
man's objectionwas made in the following lems: "The Canadian table fails to
include on the average 21 percent of Canada's yearly scallop landings for the
period shown." (VI, p. 387.)Well, the United States could have spared itselfthe
trouble and expense of analysing the ICNAF data merely hy pausing long80 GUI.F OF MAINE
enough to read the heading to Table 13whichsays, quite clearly, "Nova Scotia
Offshore Scallo~ Landinrs from NAFO Division 4X and Subdivision 5Ze".
Ea.allv,.the toitno~e~ ~ ~r ~ ~-~ ~f~the Economics Annex. whichMr. Feldman
complained aboui. also rrlaicd io a discussion of offshore ~allop vessels.Why
did Canada no1include in Table 13the raich from the inshore scallop grounds
and from more distant offshore scallop grounds? Well surely the -aiswer is
obvious, Mr. President. Becauseit iaonly the Georges Bankcatch that is at risk
in these proceedings. That is why Canada used only the catch attributahle to
Georges Bankin itseconomic calculations. Yet Mr. Feldman says: "The scallop
table", referring to Table 13,"is just one example of the libertieswhich Canada
takes with the data in this case." (VI, p. 388.) What liberties? Canada quite
properly excluded the value of the catch from inshore and distant grounds from
its valuation of the e~-~~---~ ~---tance of Georees Bank. Yet Mr. Feldman
attempted to useTable 13as a sphngboard for bis ztack oncanada's economic
analysis, an attack which was - in the result- without substance or merit. It is
appropriate to recall Mr. Feldman's exact words:
"Since 33 Dercent of the scallops landed in southwest Nova Scotia came
from other i<rïaJ under undispuied <:3naJian risdi di ci ao1nt.e ligures
presenied bg Canada for cnipl<iymeniand income atiribuiable IO Georgcs
B3nk in 1980hate to he reduccd signiiicanlly." #,VI.p. 387.)
But of course scallops landed from areas under undisputed Canadian
jurisdiction have nothing to do with employment and income attributable to
Georges Bank. In the case of scallops, Canada used exactly the same dollar
figure as the United States for the value attributable 10 Canada's harvesting
activity in the disputed area, namely about SCdn. 34 million (United States
Counter-Memonal. Anns., Vol. III,Ann. 4, App. B,Sec.2,Table 2,1980,p. 17).
With respect to the valuegenerated by the processingactivily that sameyear, the
Canadian calculation is derived from Table 10 of the Canadian Economics
Annex. For ease of reference.Table 10is renroduced side bv side in Figure 153
wiih Table 13. II shous ihat when Canada Calculated ihe incoine andëmpli>).-
meni thai u,ould he lost to F1'0t.Scotia by rcasun of being depri\ed oiascess io
Georres Bank - 3s the Court ii.1ce bv the red Iineahich isdraun beiurrn ihe
two red sauares - Ca~ ~ ~based its ialculations on the orecise weieht of fish
products - in this case scallois - taken from the disput/d portion 2 Georges
Bank, and nothing else. Furthemore, Mr. President, in order to minimizeareas
of ootential disaireement between the Parties. when Canada calculated the
ind;rcct and induLkdçmplo)nteni atirihutabls to Georges B~nkCanada uscdthe
same muliiplier in relaiion io Nova Scotia as did the United States in rslaiion io
No5.aScoiia (Cnited Siaie, Counicr-Memonal. Anns . Vol. III. Ann.4. Aoo B.
o. 47. oara. 16. fn. 2). ..
' In'ihe result, M; President, the unfortunate accusation of "distortion"
against the statistical record presented by Canada in these proceedings turns out
to represent nothing more significant than a careless mis<eadingbfthe United
States counsel of data which are perfectlyaccurate, clearly labelled,and directly
related to Georges Bank.
But thesematters of controversy should not distract attention from the broad
basis of agreement between the Parties, because whether emphasis should be
placed on the fact that in 1981Georges Bank represented about 97 per cent of
Nova Scotia'soffshore scallop catch in divisions 5Z and 4X, as Canada points
out, or whether the emphasisshould beplaced on the fact that in 1981Georges
Bank represented 74 per cent of the entire Canadian scallop catch from al1
sources, as the United States points out (VI, p. 387), both figures simply REJOINDER OF MR. RINNIE 81
underline the extraordinary importance of Georges Bank to Nova Scotia. And
that is the point.
Mr. Lancaster attempted to develop a theory 01'dominance as the second
element in the United States claim to the whole of Georges Bank (VI, p. 350).
Canada does no1 claim dominance. In Canada's view, "dominance" as relied
upon hy the United States has nothing to do with equity. The Chamber isaware
that Canada's fishing activities averaged over the pas1 20 years or more are
roughly al parity with those of the United States across Georges Bank as a
whole,with, of course, a specialinierest in the eastern or northeastern portion of
the Bank (VI, pp. 94-98).1willnot repeai my submissionson the contemporary
fishery.
But not only did the United States fail to dominate the contemporary fishery
@ on Georges Bank in relation to Canada, as Canada's Figure 46 to the oral
proceedings demonstrated, but the fisheryof both countries represented merely
one element in the larger context of a high seasfishery, wherevesselsfrom many
nations had a substantial participation. The Chamkr will recall the evidence of
United States Amhassador Cutler that the 1979 fisheriesagreement was based
on the catch experience of, on average, about 13 years' duration (VI, p. 95).
Figure 154 to the oral proceedings contained in your red dossier, puts the
combined Canadian and United States fishingactivities for this 13-year period
throughout the wholeof ICNAF subdivision 5Ze, includingGeorges Bank, into
perspective.
Refernne to Fieure 154.the red lineshows the oercentaee of the catch tak~~ ~ ~
hy the comlbinedeïffortrof ihr United Siatcs andC.;~XJ~ T.'ha1isthe hoiiom line
up Io and inrluding 1976u,hirh is ihc lasi c~nmpleie)cdr before the iniplcnieni.~.
lion of the ZOO-milzeones. The bluc line,hou5 thc nerccntaee of the wtch iiiken
year hy year hy distant water fleets.In the years leading upUtothe proclamation
of 200-mile zones in 1977 Georges Bank was not even dominated by the
comhined effortsof the coastal State fisheries ofCanada and the United States -
much less by the United States alone. So much for dominance by the United
States of the contemporary fishery.
The third element in the United States claim to the whole of Georges Bank
was the attemot to suhordinate the "contemoorarv" fisherv to the "historical"
fishery. Mr. Lancaster suggested that the c&temporary fishery represents but
a short aberration (VI, p. 348), in his 150-year-long film.The object of
Mr. Lancaster's advocacy apparently was to aitempt to escape contemporary
realities by appealing to what the United States considers to he the more
favourable picture presented by the 19th century.
The sweepingclaims of the United States to be the first on Georges Bankand
the biggest on Georges Bank and the most caring in relation to Georges Bank
and so on are simply no1 supported hy the evidçnce, and in rejecting the
relevance of the United States historical argument Canada must not be
understood as accepting as accurate the United States version ofthe historical
facts. Canada has no1taken the lime of the Chamber to deal extensivelv withthe
history of Georges Bank in these oral proceedings because the do;umentary
evidenceis self-explanatory. Time is short and in Canada's view - as a matter of
law - the ancestral activitiesof fishermen in a differcnt age afford no equitahle
basis on which to delimit a 200-milezone, either in the Gulf of Maine area or
elsewhere inthe world.
But some of the United States pronouncements on this subject simplycannot
go unchallenged. In the course of his submissions. Mr. Lancaster made the
following categorical statement: "The hard factual evidence is uncontroverted.
Only since the 1950shas Canada fished on Georges Bank." (VI. p. 338). The82 GULF OF MAINE
existence of a Canadian fishery on Georges Bank since the 19th century is
carefully documented in the historical Annexes to the Canadian pleadings. In
these Annexes, Mr. President, and 1do not propose to read from them, there are
in the order of 400 oares of detailed references which1urre the Chamber to
pcruie a1 )OUI conveniçncç.The ?\idence is iakçn irom 3 \\,ideand c'imprehen-
si\,? ~ariet) of sources in~luding conteniporary Lnited Siate, Governinent
records and newspaper accounts. So many independent sourcesover such a long
period of lime cannot al1be wrong. But the United States has decided Io pretend
that this evidence hefore the Chamber simply does not exist.
The United States has also claimed in these oral proceedings Io have
discovered and undertaken the initial development of every major commercial
fishery on Georges Bank (VI, p. 350). If, contrary to Canada's submissions,
this is regarded as a relevant test of equity, the fact of the matter is that the
Basques and the Portuguese discovered and initially developed the commercial
fisheriesin the Gulf of Maine area. The volumeentitled The MaririnieHisroryof
Massachusetts, deposited by the United States, points out that prior to the
founding of any colonies in North Amenca:
"one could find men in any fishingport from Bristol to Bilbao who could
tell the hearings of Cape Ann from Cape Cod, and compare the holding-
ground in every harbour from Narragansett to Passamaquoddy" (Samuel
Eliot Morison, The Maritime Hisroryof Massachuserts,1921,p. 8).
And ùIIof tlint explor~tion ùnd de\clopnient look place before there\tas such4
ci>uiitr)as ihc Cnitcd SPJIC\.So much li~rdi\so\cr) and initial dc\cl<ipmcntand
so rniich for the Lnited States claim niade b) \Ir Lancaster to hÿvc been ..the
sole country expli~itingGei~r:c, Rank" in the zarlier perii~d.
C~nada'sc!idenccinsupport of 11shistorical fisher! isbiisedon !rha1 ISsJid in
hundrcds oi hist<~ncaldocument\ and recordr. The IJnitçd States ime arainst
Canada's historic fishery largely rests on what is not raid hy selected souÏces.
Firsr.the United States relieson a few books which concern themselves with
the history of the United States fishery. Given the focus of these books it is not
surprising that they do not address the importance or extent of the Canadian
fisheryon Georges Bank.
Second, the United States relies heavily on two reports prepared hy the
ICNAF secretariat in 1952(VI,pp. 343-344).These reports not only sufferfrom
the acknowledged factthat the Canadian data provided toICNAF - for reasons
already explained to the Chamber - identified Canadian catches by port of
landing only, and did not purport to identify any Canadian catch hy area of
capture, but it mus1also he pointed out that these lCNAF Reports addressed
only groundfish species. No pretence was made hy ICNAF in the documents
relied upon by the United States to reflect the swordfish fishery, which wasa
major Canadian Georges Bank fishery,nor Canada's early scallop fisheryon the
Bank which is well documented elsewhere (V, Canadian Reply, pp. 135-136,
para. 310; ibid., 1, Anns., Vol. II, Pt. II, pp. 290-294.paras. 25-31).
In the circumstances it isim. . unreasonahle to su--est. as the United States
dors. that a negaiive inkrense ïr,im wh~t ii no1 said in sslçctsd piihlicatiuns
\hould prc\cnt the Chamber irom ;icseptinp a\ accurJtc inilcpendcnt reports
from newspapers and other sources and official government documents from
hoth the United States and Canada, al1of which leave no doubt that Georges
Bank was fished by Canadian fishermen from the early 19th century onwards
(III, Canadian Counter-Memorial, Anns., Vol. II, Pt. II, pp. 10-14,
paras. 15-24).After all, Nova Scotiansand New Englanders inhahited the same REJOlNDER OF MR. BlNNIE 83
part of the world, and their fishermen followed the same stocks of fish in their
seasonal concentrations around a similar cycle of offshore banks. If United
States fishermen werepresent in greater numhers on Georges Bank in the earlier
years it simply suggests that the United States eastern seaboard had a larger
population where fishingactivitiesachieved a degreeof maturity -earlier- than
its developing Canadian counterpart. But that fact, MI. President, in Canada's
submission has no relevanceto the equitable delimitation of a modern 200-mile
zone.
Contemporaneous documentary evidencz shows that Canadian exploitation
of Georges Bank intensified inthe early part of the 20th century, particularly
during the period of virtual free trade in fishproducts between Canada and the
United States from 1913to 1922when Canadian vesselsfrom southwest Nova
Scotia participated in the cod, haddock and halibut fisherieson Georges Bank
(Canadian Counter-Memorial, Anns., Vol. II, pp. 19-39,paras. 28-58).Official
United States statistical reports for the 1918to 1921seasons record suhstantial
Georges Bank landings by Canadian vessels at United States ports. These
records, prepared hy the United States Commissioner of Fisheries,indicate that
during the period from 1918ta 1921,ta take an illustration, more than one-third
of Canadian fishingvoyages whichmade rezorded laridingsin the United States
included trips to Georges Bank (ibid.,Anns., Vol. il, pp. 25-26,para. 39).These
figures,of course, do not include landings of Georges Bank catches in Canadian
ports. MI. Lancaster's statement that "only since the 1950shas Canada fished
on Georges Bank" (VI, p. 338) is simply no1 in accordance with al1 of this
evidence.
I do not wish to take the time of the Chamber for more than this hrief
reference to the historical evidence, because the real issue iswhat use can the
Chamber make of it all? Canada does not claim to have dominated the high seas
fisheryon Georges Bank in the historical period - or even to bave equalled the
United States activity for much of that time. 1sthat relevant? ShouldCanada be
penalized for the fact that ils fisheries were slowerta develop to a state of
matuntv than those of the United States?Are States that become bieeest first to
prevail ;n matters of maritime delimitation? A numbcr of things shGild he kept
in mind in this connection, in Canada's view:
Firsr,neither Canada nor the United States puts fonvard any claim to
"historical fishing rights" (VI, p. 349).
Second, the paramount historical fact about Georges Bank is that it was a
high seas fishery. MI. Robinson's remark that Georges Bank was considered by
many ta he "as American as apple pie" (VI, p. 231)raisesthe question of "Who
thought that?'Perhaps some Amencans. Certainly not other nations. Ask the
captains of the distant water fleets.MI. Lancaster said that if Canada ohtains
junsdiction over the northeast portion of Georges Bank, il will receive a
"windfall" (Vl, p. 346),but of course it would be no less of a "windfall" for the
United States. MI. Lancaster complained that the Canadian line would retain
for Canada winter fishing grounds on the eastern portion of Georges Bank,
which MI. Lancaster said Canada "has never before had exclusively in its
control" (VI, p. 340). Nor, of course, has the United States ever had exclusive
control of these winter fishinggrounds.And the Chamber willhave noticed that
United States counsel like to sav. whenever oossihle. that this nroceedine is
intendcd 10 "conlirm" \lnited ~t~tesjurisdirti~~nmer Georges ~ank (s.g..\~,
p. 3x5)t.huç treiting dsprcrlctermincd by thc Unitcd States the \er) issuewhich
has ken rcrcrred to the Chamhcr for its con~ideritidn In Canada's view the
United States presentation on these issues is fundamentally flawed hy the84 GULF OF MAINE
misconception that histoncally the United States in some way owned the high
seas fishery on Georges Bank (VI, pp. 234, 249. 286). an assertion which is of
course without any legal or factual foundation whaisoever.
Third,Mr. President, the 200-milezone was broughi into existenceta respond
to a widely perceived needfor coastal States to be permiited to benefitfrom and
ta carefully hushand the resources in adjacent waters. The Chamber's accep-
tance of the United States arguments that an alleged historical "status quo"
mus1prevail would - ta say the least- undermine in many parts of the world the
verv reason whv the 200-milezone was created.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
fourrh, the f00-mile zone also responds - as Mr. Stevenson acknowledged
(VI, p. 263) - to mounting pressures on fishery resources created by advanced
harvesting capacity and technology - contemporary conditions whkh have no
counterpart in the historical period whichthe United States seeks to rely upon.
Mounting pressure on resources was also noted as a fisheriesconsideration of
growing importance in the Fisheries Jurisdicrioncase (I.C.J. Reporrs 1974,
p. 195,para. 52). 11is no1a 19th-centuryprohlem, and nostalgia for the simpler
days of the 19th century is no substitute for analysis of 20th-century problems
for, as is perfectly clear, the 200-mile zone has no application except to the
present and to the future.
The United States showed a more practical grasp of the modern world, in
Canada's view, when it negoti-ted the 1979fisheriesaercemen- on the basis of
fishingeKpcrienscoser. ai rn<ist.ihe pre\iour iuù des.ides - 13).car\ <lniicr:igc.
In rhiiri, C3nad.i ha%no ohjr.r.tiiint<>a rc\icu of thc hiioric:il lisherte\ rcdrrl
- we do no1 suggest that any part of the moving picture which Mr. Lancaster
would likeyou to see be heldback - even ifit lasts 150years - but al some point
in these proceedings appropriate criteria of relevancemust be imposed and, ai
that point, in Canada's view, the historical approach advocated by the United
States should be firmly rejected.
There is one further point 1should add with respectta the "relevant period.
The United States pressed the Chamher ta observe that ils fishing effort on
Georges Bank has increased sincethe Senate'sfailure ta ratify the 1979fishenes
agreement. Mr. Lancaster said it would be wrong ta exclude the fisheries ofthe
pas1 five years (VI, p. 338). Mr. Feldman used catch statistics up to and
including 1983(VI, pp. 386-387).The United States disclaims any particular
reliance on these recent figures (VI, p. 339). But neverthelessany reliance at al1
upon posl-1979 catches raised legal considerations about the attempted use of
evidence arising from the Parties' conduct after the dispute is crystallized. And
the law on that aspect of the matter, Mr. President, will he addressed by
Professor Bowett. Factually, however, it is not clear why the United States
believes that it can take comfort from the post-1979 siatistics. Mr. Lancaster
said on more than one occasion that the "United States scallop catches on
Georges Bank in 1981surpassed Canadian catches" (VI, p. 346). Butaccording
to the recent United States data denosited with the Chamber. that is simnlvnot
the case. In 1981Canada took aboit 60percent of the scallop catch on Georges
Bank, as a whole,and of course an even higher percentageof the scallopcatch in
the disouted area (Canadian Reolv. Anns.. Vol. II. Pt. 1.Table 24. o. 521.Fieure
41to he United SI~ICS oral pri'><çc~ingp surportcd to show un the hail, <;;'an
inc<~iiiplcicsdniplç ih~r mure Unitcd Stïiçh vci,r.ls than Cdn~dian \estcl, ucrc
sichicd on the casiern ooriion of Gcorecs Bank in 1981.Bu1the ç~tchst;iiijiicj
show - perhaps the hiumph of skillover numbers - that Canadian vessels
nevertheless manage* to take home more than 53 per cent of the value of
the catch from the whole of Georges Bank in that year (ibid., Anns., 86 GULF OF MAINE
geoeraohv il does result in a reasonahle accommodation of the fishine interests
of the ParttciRut 115 unrc~ioni~blcior thc I:nit~J St3tcs ~OLI~O Iattcmpt10
portray the C~n~dian propoul as .;tdrt~n~.polniora lurtlicr shifting oi ihc
line tocanada's di~advanta~e.
Mr. Lancaster at limes seemedto speak of the northeast or eastern portion of
Georges Bank as a separate fishery, quite distinct fromthe fishery on the rest of
the Bank - a separate and distinct fishery from which the United States was
threatened with expulsion -a distinct ecological régimein fact, suggestive ofthe
possibility that in Mr. Lancaster's view the Canadian line reflects a natural
ecological boundary. In his statement to the Chamber on 16 April 1984,
Mr. Lancaster said:
"The United States fishermen would he cut off hy the Canadian line.
They would have to stand hy and watch while the Canadian fishermen
reaped the rich harvest from the stocks on the northeast portion of the
Bank, cul off for al1time from the fisheries their predecessors estahlished
and developed." (VI, pp. 340-341.)
But on that point, MI. President, Mr. Lancaster was flatly contradicted by
Dr. Edwards and MI. Colson, who insisted that the whole of Georges Bank is
the area within whichcommercially valuahle fishstocks ought to be considered.
Canada of course is of the view that Georges Bank itself is but part of a still
larger oceanographic and hiological system. But the point is that al1 of the
United States presentations other than that of Mr. Lancaster were at pains to
emphasize that the Canadian line would give hoth the United States and
Canadian fishermen eenerous access to Georees Bank stocks. That indeed was
the hurden of the ~Gted States complaint. -
The United States kas attempted to attach particular importance to its fishery
in the disputed zone inthese proceedings. Mr. Lancasterwent so far as to say
that: "the groundfish fishery on the northeastern portion of the Bank has been
the mainstay of the New England fishing industry for over 150 years" (VI.
p. 342). But the United States administration told the United States Senate in
1979 that, hased on recent figures, the fishery resoiirces aiTectedby the 1979
agreement, including Georges Bank. comprised no1more than 10percent of the
fishlanded and IOper cent of the total value of the fisheriesin the New England
and Mid-Atlantic States (United States Draft EnvironmenraiImpact Study on
the 1979East Coast Resources Aereement. o. 110).If Georees Bank as a whole
does not qualify as "the mainstay' of thN~W ~nglandfishFng industry, itmuil
be asked, how can the northeastern portion alone achieve such an inflated
status?
Before leavingMr. Lancaster's presentation on the fishery, it shouldnoted
thal while he made references from time to time to fishing activities linking
Maine and Georges Bank, he did not pause to refer the Chamher to the relevant
evidence. "Today", he said,
"New England fishermen, including fishermen from my home state of
Maine, ... follow the same stocks, on the same Georges Bank fishing
grounds, that their predecessors fished many generations ago." (VI,
D. 339).
Figure 155 to the Canadian oral proceedings shows that the fishermen of
@ Maine and New Hampshire rarely find their way to Georges Bank. The green
@ bars on Figure 155represent the Canadian catch and the dark green at the top
represents the catch of vesselsfrom the Bay of Fundy which in this proceeding
the United States regards as virtually non-existent. The blues represenl the REJOINVER OF MR. BINNIE 87
United Statescatch and the tinydark blue strips hugging thehottom ofthe chart
represent the catch hy vesselsfrom Maine and New Hampshire for the years in
question.
It would appear clear that Georges Bank is of greater interest to the lawyers
in Maine than it is to the fishermen in Maine, and this is not surprising.
Mr. Lancaster's"home vort" of Portland. Maine. is 143nautical milesfrom the
ne:irc,t point onGeorge ;ani., and 11.ti,hernien conccntrste on lishinggrounds
doser to h,ime. <:apeSahlc. NUVJScoiia, isonly 78nauiical mile, from Georges
Bank.
It is not that Canada disagrees with the sentiments expressed by Mr. Lan-
caster. On the contrary, his senseof priorities parallels those of the fishermenof
southwest Nova Scotia. "ln some minds", Mr. Lancaster said,
"the Georges Bank ti\hcry ma) be of imiill signiticance in the overïll
cunicxi oi ihc issuesof ihis C~SC Pkasr undcrsiiind that in the minds of the
tiihernien [rom hlainç and JII of New Fnrlan- this iswhai [hi.;clire ir a11
about." (VI, p. 350.)
The difficulty for Mr. Lancaster, as for other IJnited States counsel who
attemoted Io find economiclinks between Georees Bank and the Maine CoastIo
support their theory that the one somehow lies'Ynfront of" the other, is the fact
- confirmedby United States data - that Maine's fishermensimplydo not make
the trip out Io Georges Bank in any significant numbers
II. EC~NOMID CEPENVENCii
If the coastal region of Maine did have a significantfisheryon Georges Bank,
and could demonstrate a degree of economic dependence on such a fishery
eauivalent Io that of southwest Nova Scotia. Mr. Lancaster mieht -ave received
3 ;)mpaiheiic hcdring from hii finadian iieighbours.
A more ympaiheii~. he'iring.in iaci. than Maine uould hs Iikcl) io gei from
Mr Fcldniÿn, uho look the "osilion ihat econonii~.de~endence is irrelrtani.
Even if it were relevant. Mr. ~e~ ~ ~ areu-,. Canada has failed to make o~t ~~ ~
case on the facts (VI, p. 380).
Mr. President, the United States does not deny the relevance of economic
factors to thisdelimitation. Indeed. thesue~estednatural boundarv turns out on
closerc~dmindtiun i<ilxnothing more tha<an artenipred alluidii(;n i)i'stusksoi
a fcw comniercially important sp~ic\ oi tiah. and oicourse tisheries conserva-
tion and management isprimarily an economicand socialfunction - it concems
. .ole not iust fish.The United ~t~tes soueht to show how its linewould divide
ihc casi c<i;rt fishcricsallihe ua) froni ihkreat Soiiih Channrl IO Neufouiid-
lind. in Mr Lanc~sier'svie\v,and thus 3I10cdlethe relali\,scsonomic bcneiiisof
ihc ?OU-niilezone to edch Part!. Thr 50-cÿllcJ "n;itural boundarv" in short
turned out Io have very strong élementsof an economic boundary..
The United States is thus not against economic considerations as such. It
merely opposes the Chamber giving its consideration to al1 aspects of the
economic picture, including the economic dependence of Nova Scotia on the
disputed fishing grounds.
Mr. Feldman contended that the Grisbadarna Award did not discuss the
economic impact of the loss of the fishery Io either Party (VI, p. 381). But the
Tribunal specifically referred to the "greater importance" of the hanks to
Sweden than to Denmark. In the words of the Tribunal:
"Fishing is, generallyspeaking, of more importance to the inhabitants of
Koster than to those of Hvaler, the latter having, at least until compara-88 GULF OF MAINE
tivelyrecent limes, engaged rather in navigation than fishing." (J. R. Scott,
ed., The HagueCourr Reports, 1916,p. 131.)
With respect to the Anglo-Nonvegian Fisheriescase, the Court specifically
addressed the issue of regional economic dependence in a number of important
passages whichhave already been drawn to the attention of the Chamber.
Mr. Feldman tned to dismiss these passages as obirerdicta (VI, p. 382), but
the Court did not rank its reasons in order of pnonty, and did not relegate
regional economic dependence 10an infenor status in its decision. The United
States argued that Canada's position is closer to that of the United Kingdom
than to that of Nonvay (ibid.). But of course one of the many points of
distinction is that the United Kingdom did not assert any economicdependence
on the fisheriesin question.
Mr. Feldman soueht to contras1 the ereat leneth of the Nonveeian coastline
north of the Arclic Circlc ai is\uc in 19<lïscokpsrcd wiih whai hc icnncd the
small fraciion of ihc coastline of Canada ai iswr in ihis case (VI. p. 384). II is
inicrrsiinc!lu noie ihai ihe bascline ofihc 90ru.cei;in coasiline in issue in 1951
w3s aboui 600 naulic;iI milcsin lrngih. Iiis sboui IYU n3ulical milcsfollowing
the CUJSI from Lunenburg to Digby and ii is imporiani Ur. Przsidcni. in ni).
submission, 10keep this sinse ofgeographic scale firmly in mind.
In reswci of the 1974FisheriesJurisdicrioncasethe United States savsthat the
new co&ept of the 200-milezone has changed the law and made the ioncept of
"preferential fishing rights" obsolete (VI,p. 382). Canada agrees that the new
200-milezone has hadan enormous impact on the law - indëed that is a major
element in Canada's legalargument - but it does not follow that equity has lost
ils meaning and that economic dependence ought now to be rejected as a
"relevant circumstance" within a framework of "equitahle pnnciples" as held in
the 1974Judement of the Court.
Lastly, the-united States referred to the 1982TunisiaILibyaJudgment (ibid.)
where the Court considered the relevance of Tunisia's economic arguments,
includingils allegeddependence upon fishingresources denved from itsclaimed
"historic rights" and "histonc waters" (I.C.J. Reporrs 1982,p. 63, para. 106).
The Court held:
"The Court is, however, of the viewthat these economic considerations
cannot be taken into aaount for the delimitation of the conrinenralshelf
areas appertaining to each Party." (Emphasis added.) (Ibid., pp. 63-64,
para. 107.)
But the Court adopted a method of delimitation that it said would "undoubt-
edly leaveTunisia in the full and undisturbed exercise" of its claimed historic
nghts (ibid., pp. 62-63, para. los), and, having set to one side historic fishing
nghts, it isnot surprising that fishingactivitiesand other equities associated with
the water column were not considered hy the Court to he relevant to what was
purely a continental shelfdelimitation. In so far as counsel for the United States
has attempted to take thesewords out of the continental shelfcontext and to say
that fisheries activities and a related economic dependence are not relevant to
delimitation of overlapping fisherieszones, even where such dependence relates
to fishinggrounds closer to the coasts of the dependent party than to the coasts
of anv other State. then ils leeal areument finds no sunoort in the TunisiaILibva
desision. and issontrar) tu the rea;oning in thc ~r,~h;i;li~rnAau~ril. the /\n8io-
Noruegian F~slicrit,J ,udgnicnt and in the t';rIierie~urrr<lrcr~o case.
Mr. President. ihe Uniicd SI~ICS summïrizcd ils areuments un this branch of
the case with the following assertion by MI. ~eldman: "The logic ofthis position [that is the Canadian position] is that a coast-
line such as the long coast of Maine could be deprived of a 200-nautical-
mile zone if it is not dependent on the resources of that zone." (VI, p. 383.)
But on the contrary, the logic of Canada's position is that where a fishing
ground is located within the 200-mileeconomiczone ofmore than one State, the
issue oi economic dependence is a relevant circumstance to be included in the
balancing up of factors in the delimitation of the area wherethe claimsoverlap -
a relevant circumstance within a framework of equitable principles, as the Court
reaffirmedin 1974.
Counsel for the United States also attacked Canada's facts as well as ifs
interpretation of the law and in respect of the facts that economic dependence
which hinds southwest Nova Scotia to Georges Bank, the United States made
essentially four arguments.
Firsr C.anada has exagge-.ted the dollar value of Georges Bank to Nova
Scotia.
Second, Canada has ignored the large number of jobs available in Nova
Scotia's service sector.
Tltird,the facts in Nova Scotia are different than were the facts in Nonvay in
1951and Iceland in 1974.
And,fourth, economic dependencemus1be assessedon a national basisrather
than on a regional basis.
With resoect to the accuracv of the economic dat~~ the ~~~~.er will
appreciate that the incomeand employment statistics reliedupon by Canada are
supported by detailed analysis set out in the Economics Index filed with the
Canadian Reply. No detaiïed response has been made to this analysis by the
United States. lnstead the United States simply claims that the Canadian
analysis should be discounted hy 33 per cent because, Mr. Feldman says,
Canadian economists mixed up inshore and offshorescallopcatches (VI,p. 386).
As 1have already explained,the only person who got his scallops mixed up was
Mr. Feldman.
Accordingly, the Canadian calculation of $146 million contribution hy
Georges Bank to the economy of Nova Scotia in 1980 - a dollar figure derived
by using the same economic multiplier as was used by the United States in
relation to Nova Scotia - stands without senous contradiction, and such
contradiction as has ken put forward hy the United States turned out to he
b~ ~ ~ ~ ~ careless United States misreadine of the material.
The qucriion belore the ~himber ihu; becomcs this. Is an economic
dependencc of this magntiude in rrl;iiion IO this rcgiri3 relativc circumslancc~
1, 5146 million a niaior contribution IO an economv the size of Nota Scotili?
Mr. Feldman says, in relation to Georges Bank, thai il is not. Yet elsewherein
his remarks Mr. Feldman characterized the economic impact of an oil and gas
discoveryoffSablelsland as "of major importance to Nova Scotia" (VI,p. 383).
That is,to the entire province of Nova Scotia.And soit is. During its productive
period of 14to 16years the Sable lsland project. not to be confused with Cape
Sable, in southwest Nova Scotia (Sable lsland lies some 156 nautical miles
southeast of Halifax), the Sable lsland development is expected to generate
directly and indirectly income of about $41 millionannually (1979dollars), less
than a third ofthe 1980contribution of Georges Bank (Socio-EcoftonticRevieit',
The VenrureDevelopmenrProjecr, Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Oil and Gas
Board, Halifax, 1984,pp. 20 and 29). Evenduring its peak construction phase it
will not generate the equivalent of Georges Bank's 1980contribution to Nova90 GULFOF MAINE
Scotia. Yet if the Sable Island oil and gas field is acknowledged by the United
States to be of "major importance" to Nova Scotia, however short lived the
benefits,why is the contribution of $146 milliona year to be denigrated in the
case of Georges Bank, whose benefits may last for ever?
A study sponsored in 1978 by the Officeof the Geographer of the United
States Department of State, deposited with the Court, contradicts the viewnow
asserted by United States counsel. It says:
"Oil and mineral development, potentially important to the future of
Canada, cannot be counted upon to solve Nova Scotia's economicprob-
lems." (GeorgesBank, Gu(jof Maine, CapeCod, NovaScoiia, Perspectives
in Economicsand Hisrory,Trigom, Portland, Maine, 1978,p. 97.)
The United States second line of attack was to contend that the Canadian
analysis ignored Nova Scotia's servicesector (VI,p. 388)or, as the United States
put it, Nova Scotia's "enormous service sector" (ibid.).The population of
southwest Nova Scotia is apparently expected to survive independently of the
fisheryby taking in each other's laundry and performing other servicesfor one
another. But as the same study sponsored by the Officeof the Geographer of the
United States Department of State pointed out:
"The Seriice Sector. including business.personal and financial servicesis
closel) dcpcndent upon ihcproduci sccior." ((;eorpv Bank.Gul/o/ Afiiine.
Cape Cod, .Vu,wS<wriu.Prrrperrive.r Ilrvor~, und Erunomir.i. p. Y)
In other words, the vrimarv and secondarv sectors hiehliehted bv Canada in the
first round of the &al proceedings, leadthe economy of a reion, the service
sector follows where the primary and secondary sectors have led. The service
sector cannot hold itself up by its own bootstraps. If the primary and secondary
sectorscollapse,as with a sharp reduction in the fishingindustry, and its workers
depart, the servicesector disappears as well,whicb iswhat common sensewould
anticipate.
The United States third lineof attack was to saythat the actual circumstances
in Norway in 1951and Iceland in 1974 are diiïerent from the facts in Nova
Scotia in the 1980s.Mr Feldman spent a good deal of time developing thispoint.
He said, for example, that if Nova Scotia really were locked into an economy
based on resourcesexploitation, "its labour forcewould be employed principally
in the primary sector - that is in the production of raw materials" (VI, p. 389).
But that is simply not the case, Mr. President. In 1981- the year of concern to
Mr. Feldman -the majority ofjobs in Iceland and Nonvay were also found in
the service sector (Canadian Memorial, Anns., Vol. 4, Anns. 15and 16). 1will
not take the time of the Chamber to review the United States critique but 1
would caution the Chamber to review with scepticismthe critique which mixed
up the "adult male population" in one case with the "total workforce" in
another case; the "aiïected area" of part of a coastal region in one case and the
entire province of Nova Scotia in the other case. Comparisons of this type are
likely to generate more heat than light, and 1mention them only to put them
aside. The earlier international law authorities were cited not for their facts but
for their propositions of law.
Fourthly, and finally,the United States says that, well,even if Nova Scotia is
now linked with Georges Bank by an economic dependence worth $146 million
in 1981,what matters such a figure in the national accounts of Canada? What
could it mean in the national accounts of the United States? What did the
Grisbadarna Bank contribute to the national accounts of Sweden? The United States would like the Chamber to lift economics, like geography, to the
continental scale, thereby seeking to dwarf the local features of the area to be
delimited. There isnodoubtthat Canada could survivethe lossof Georges Bank
without a national bankruotcv. Canada has never made anv sueeestion to the
contrary. But there are substantial legai and factual objecthns-;o the United
States approach which 1would summarize as follows:
Firsr. the Grisbadarna Award of 1909.the Annlo-Nonveeian Fisheriescase in
1951and ihc t'ishrr!iiiJuri«di<.rioncliin 1973,makc it cleir ihai as a iiiaiier of
Iÿw the cconomic dcpcndcncc ol rcgions oi comrnuniiies IS rclcvant ~l'ihcilicts
warrant.
Second.the "relevant area" in this delimitation isthe Gulf of Maine area. and.
in canada's view it would not be equitable to brush aside the establisbed
economic interests of coastal populations within the relevant area. which would
othenvise be regarded as relevant, by reason merely of the fact that in this
particular case the landmass stretching out behind the relevant coasts forms part
of continental-scale countries.
Third, the economic contribution of Georges Bank is of "major importance"
to the entire province of Nova Scotia, to borrow the words applied by
Mr. Feldman to the much lessereconomic factor of the Sable Island oil and gas
development, and, of course, of even greater importiince to the fivecounties of
southwest Nova Scotia which is the area where the existing economic depen-
dence is concentrated.
III. ECONOMIIC MPACT
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, 1 turn fincilly to the United States
submissions on the economic impact of the delimitation of a single maritime
boundary. Let me say first of al1that Canada does not agree with the United
States that economic dependence is merely another expression for relative
national wealth (.I, .. 381). Neither did the Court in the cases Canada relies
upon. A rich economy could well bedependent on a narrow economic sector -
wealth and economic diversification are two entirely diîïerent and unrelated
matters.
As to diversification, the evidence is clear- and the United States does not
deny it that the "productive sector" of southwest Nova Scotia isdependent on
the resources of the sea - 1addressed this issue in the opening round and 1will
no1repeat il here. Nor is the fishingindustry itself capable of absorbing the loss
of Georges Bank. Mr. Feldman says that Nova Scotia waters are "teeming with
fish but the fact is that inrecent years large parts of Subarea 4 have been closed,
either entirely or after an abbreviated season, due to low fishery stocks. It has
never been sumested bv Canada that southwest Nova Scotia fishes exclusivelv
on Georges Knk. hé issue is not exclusivity but economic importance and
dependence. To eliminate access to Georges Bank would be to deprive Canada
of one of the major pillars which supports the economy of southwest Nova
Scotia. and which now links Canada to Georees Bank.
Mr Fcldman referred io the Kirby Repm uiich w.is a Canadian enquiry in10
the Atlaniic Fi,herics. u,hich recommendcd thdt the ('anadian Govcrnmcni
make a substantial investment in east Coastfisheries.Mr. President, this is not a
sign of a flourishing fishing industry- jus1 the opposite. The private sector in
Nova Scotia cannot cope with the problems of the fishing industry. The
Canadian pleadings have dealt al considerable length with government assist-
ance to the fishery over the years by both the United States and CanadianGovernments (Canadian Counter-Memonal, pp. 113-114, paras. 280-285;
Canadian Reply, p. 126,para. 294and Anns., Vol. II, Pt. 1,App. 6, pp. 155-164,
paras. 1-23).One of the few bright spots in Canada's Atlantic fishery identified
by the Kirby Report was southwest Nova Scotia - closest 10 Georges Bank
(Canadian Reply, p. 121,para. 283).
The United States told the Chamber that southwest Nova Scotia would
quickly adjust to the lossof accessto Georges Bank. But as the study relied upon
by the United States on this aspect of the argument itself pointed out, the t.wo
most important factors that determine the long-term severity of a serious
economic dislocation are firstly the proportion (no1 the actual numhers) of a
communitv's workers wh- los- -h~~r~e~~lovme. .and secondlv. the economic
spei.iali~~iionoi ihe rcgional - not the national - ccononi) (Job Lorhri inMujor
Indurlrii~c.OFCI). 1983,p. 13,deposiied as Document II? hy ihc Cniicd Siaies.
9 April 1984) Thcse IWO factors OCproportiunats sile înd specializaiion uiihin
rhc rcgional cconomy explain ihe ditikrencr in ihc rrlativï abiliiy oi ~outhwcsi
Nova Ssotia and es$tcrn hlasrash~~tts 10 respond Io a scrious disruplion in the
fishery.
If the Chamber is of the view,following thejudicial precedents relied upon by
Canada, that regional economic dependence is an appropriate frame of refer-
ence, as Canada says it is, it would follow that a situation of economic
deoendence has heen made out on the facts of this case.
Mosi of ihe scri,icc-i"pejobs in Nova Scot13rderred IU b) Mr. Feldman are
conceniratcd in the cîpitdl ciiy. Haliiax, ivhich i\ Ioc~iedi)ui,ide the region ol
souihwebi Nina Scoiia. Mr. Fcldmîn aticnioicd IO makc much OC HaIiCaxas the
counterpart to Boston. The two centres are hardly comparable in their ahility to
absorb displaced fishermen. The Boston metropolitan area has about 2.7 million
people (Canadian Reply, Anns., Vol. II, doc. App. 5, p. 186).Halifax is a city of
about 225,000 people - less than one-tenth of the size. But the reason Canada
referred to Boston is not because Boston is big but hecause Boston, amongst
other things, is the home port for a substantial part of the Massachusetts
Georges Bank fleet. It is not a "one industry" fishing town. Halifax has no
vessels which fish Georges Bank. And the communities which send hoats to
Georges Bank lack the economic depth cven of Halifax.
What is the United States answer to Canada's legitimate regional concerns?
Mr. Feldman had an answer: he said the unemoloved fishermen of Lunenbure
. . -
could commulc 192kilomctrcs cach day io work in service-typejobs in Halifax
(\II, p. 389)The buggesiion is ludicrous cvcn in rclaiion IO Lunenburg - bu1
whai about Digby, a 466-kilometrc round trip by road frum Halili~? And if the
fishermen of the-southwest Coast migrate out of the region to find work - 10
Halifax or to central Canada - or wherever - the very problem which rightly
concerned the Court in 1951and 1974will have happened.
Mr. President, what is the maior underlvinr . -.lem which concerned the
Court in thcsc carlicrcîscs? 1sII.as the United Siaieh,uggc\t anoihcr dimension
oi "rcl;iii\c n8iionîl u.e.ilthV? Or ii il somcihing more Cund3mcntal and
proCound'!ln Canada's \icw the Iarrcr and more impori3nt issue unrlsrl)ing the
court's recognition of regional "economic dependence" as a "relevantcirium-
stance within a framework of equitahle principles" is not wealth but the
recognized responsibility ofa State to maintain the structure and viability of ils
regions and communities. Mr. Feldman criticized al lenath Canada's insistence
on-lookine 31 rcgional economis dependence, and ihc im~oriancc of mainiaining
ihc wonomis bars oisouthuest Nova Scoiia as 3 rcgion ofCanada. Indced. he
attached this aspect of the Canadian presentation in the stronsest, 1 would
almost say intemperate, ternis: REJOINDER OF MR. BlNNlE 93
"All of these distortions are small, however, by comparison with
Canada's effort to confine the analysis to fiveselectedcounties in southwest
Nova Scotia. This narrow focus has no basis in legal principle or in
economic reality." (VI, p. 389.)
But, in the cases relied upon hy Canada the Court was quite rightly concerned
about the economic vulnerahility of regions within a country andthe importance
to States of maintaining the population base of tlieir coastal regions. In the
Anglo-Norwegian Fisheriescase, the Court did not take the view that the
inhabitants of the coastal zone in northern Norway should pack up and go to
the city of Oslo to seekjobs in the servicesector. While il is true that the Fisheries
Jurisdicrioncase did not involve a boundary delimitation, the point is that the
fishermen of lceland were not told bv the Court simolv to make a livine at
\omcthing othcr [han ii.hing In cach.siisc the Cuiiri ha, taken the ccuno-mie
gcogrdph) as iiiouiid it.Thc hdsic acii\ity uhich holds people in siiuihuesi
K<~i.dScoiid 15rhc tishcry. Service jobs irould nut rcmain in souihucii No\,a
Scùtid ii ihc rcgion heiame progreisi\cl) Jrpupuldtcd. nor uiiuld ecunomic
Jc\~elupmcnt, clrcwhcrc in CdniJa kczp pcoplc in s~uthu,cbt N0\.3 Scoiiï. Nor
will oil ïnd a.ii ~lcrclonmcni of Sahlc Islïnd kccn pcoplc in southucit N0t.a
Scotia. Mr. Feldman raid great stress on alleged employment opportunities
within southwest Nova Scotia, but on any fair reading of the record hefore the
Chamber, such opportunities do not exist to any significantextent. The forestry
and agricultural potential is dealt with at length iri the material and is poor.
Mr. Feldman spoke sarcastically of an impression of southwest Nova Scotia
which emerged fromthe Canadian pleadings, as "a picturesque but poor region
which consists of nothing but small fishing villages and farms with limited
economic oov..tunities" (VI. o. .85).
Mr. PreriJcni. unii~riunitcl) therc I>morc proof than pucir) in thlii plirody
iiis nui ihc whulc piiiurc. hui it i\a pari oi ihc piciurc
Mr. Prcsidcnt. disiingui,hcd Judgcs. lei nieconclude on this noie C,inïda hiis
Iïid sonic significdnt. rele\ani, econ<>micNets hefore thc (:h3mhzr. The I:nitcJ
Sidies hac put hciorc )ou oihcr cconiimii coniirlcraiion including ihc nliiural
boundïr) u,hich bccdmc ihc ccononiic bounddry 'TheChmiber cm perhaps
take some comfort from the aooarent aereement of the Parties that their
..
rzspscii\c claims. ruotcd in iheir dilkring intcrprctations olihe rclctant coîstal
geography. mu\t nç\,çrihclew hç tesicd ligain\t cconomii fl.cior\ io xs\es\ the
cuuit, of the rcsuli In C4n;tdd's \ic\i.311the rclc\iint ccononii~.hciors oueht to
bé looked at - and the relevant economic factors include as an imnortant
clcment. hut hy no meani the only clemcni. ihc cionomic dcpcndcncc of ihc
voplc oi houihuïit Nova Scoiid on C;eorgcr Hank For. ar ihe Chambcr \ras
assurcd b) ni).learncd fricnd Ur. Liinc:isicr,the couiisel from Maine u,ho spoke
ior the lishcrmen uf Slassachusetis, in the minds ol'ordinlin pçuple the Cieorgrs
Hank tibhcr) "is u,hat ihis cdje is a11aboui"
The Chamberrose ar 6.04 p.m. TWENN-SECOND PUBLIC SITTING (5 IV 84, 10am.)
Presenr: [Seesitting of 2 IV 84.1
REJOINDER OF PROFESSOR BOWETT
COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Professor BOWETT:
ACQUIESCEN CND ESTOPPEL
1. The UnitedStatesHas Failed tu Meel Canada'sArgumenton Acquiescence
and Esioppel
Mr. President. distinguished Judges, asignificant - but a quite independent -
part of Canada's case rests upon the principlesof acquiescenceand estoppel and
Canada's position on these questions has been developed both in the written
pleadings (1, Memorial, pp. 172-179,paras. 412-426: 111,Counter-Mernorial,
pp. 151-155,paras. 377-381; V, Reply, pp. 85-98, paras. 201-233) and in the
presentation of Professor Brownlie in the first round of these hearings (IV,
pp. 125-136). Nevertheless,the United States treatment of acquiescence and
estoppel, which was characterized by certain idiosyncrasies in the written
pleadings (IV. Counter-Memonal, pp. 171-179, paras. 265-288; V, Reply,
pp. 31-32,paras. 48-51)has been compounded by fresh crrors introduced in the
first round of the oral proceedings, and 1would liketo comment on aspects of
Mr. Rashkow's statement (VI. ... 366-378)and the United States argument on
acqiiiesscnceand csioppel gcnerally In do& \O I would takc this u~portuniis
of asknowledging Professor Hrou.nlic'scontribution to my own riÿicmcni.
Thc ccntral Doinic;in lx exprcssedquiic simnly: the Unitcd States h3scntircly
failed to mcei Canada's argument on acquikcence and estoppel. Often thé
United States has simply put forward irrelevant propositions as if they were an
answer to the Canadian position. An example of this style of pleading is first
found in the United States Counter-Memorial (pp. 158-162,paras. 243-251 ;and
p. 171,para. 267)where it is stated that "the officialupon whose conduct claims
of acquiescence and estoppel are made must have the authority ta bind the
State". This proposition also appears in the United States Reply (p. 31,
vara. 48). and it was reoeated in Mr. Rashkow's oresentation (VI. o. 373).
~c~ ~ ~ . . Y
' As wkhakc pointcd out inour Rcpl! (pp. 93-94.i.ir;is. 221.222)this is a major
misrcpreicntaiion of ihc 1awgovrrning ac-.ie~ccnic. Nonc of the cases coni-
rnonly ciicd by iniern;riii>n~I1iwyr.r~i>nihc iubjecr of îcquiescencc places an).
signiliclinseon ihc authority of officiaisIo bind In the TeniplrofP~r,uh Vi/,ziir
case (1 C.J.Reporir1962. pp. 21-25)ihe Court jtatcd ihît ihc 3cts and words of
evenminor offieials.acting within their mandate, would engage thegood faith of
their governmentsand preclude those governments from subsequently changing
their positions.
The fact is that the United States wishesto avoid the eRectof the correspon-
dence engaged in by the United States Department of the lnterior early in 1965,
which clearly evidences the explicit knowledge of the United States of the
Canadian permit programme and the existence ofa median linedelimitation on Georges Bank (Canadian Memorial, Anns., Vol. III. Anns. 1-6).The Templeoj
Preah Vihear case invalidates the United States assertionof an alleged require-
ment of authority to bind the Staie, and underlines the irrelevance of the
description of Mr. Luther Hoiïman as "a mid-level . . . employee of no
diplomatic standing" (United States Reply, p. 31, para. 48).
The response of the United States in the first round of the oral proceedings is
quite inadequate. The decision in thTempleof PrealrVihear case, whichisafter
al1the primary authority. isignored.The onlyauthority cited for the proposition
that "the official whose conduci is in question mus1 have either express or
implied authority to bind his State" isthe United Siates Counter-Memorial
(VI, p. 374; referring 10II, United States Memorial, pp. 158-159,para. 243),and
with al1due respect to my colleagueson the other side, they cannot reallyexpect
us to find their own pleadings a sufficientauthority for the propositions they
make.
In any case the United States is completcly begging the question, since the
issue is no1 one of treaty-making or of unilateral declarations. but of
knowledge, or the means of knowledge. on the part of the officialsconcerned.
The "authority to bind the State" is not the issue and this has been used
by the United States as a vehicle for avoiding the joinder of issues with
Canada.
Perhaps the chief characteristic of Mr. Rashkciw's presentation was the
omission of any reference to certain significanl inatters of fact which are
prominent in the documentary material used by the Parties in relation to
acquiescenceand estoppel. Twoof these omissions are quite remarkable. First,
in MI. Rashkow's lengthy speech rhere is no single reference, not even an
allusion, to the aide-mémoireof 5 November 1969, inwhich the United States
first made a reservation of rights in the context of "the United States-Canada
continental shelf boundary in the Gulf of Maine" (Canadian Memorial, Anns.,
Vol. III, Ann. 13).Second, there was no referencein Mr. Rashkow's statement
Io the permit maps which Canada sent to the United States officialsin response
to express requests for such maps. Such permit maps were attached to a letter
dated 8 April 1965 from the Canadian Department of Northern Atïairs and
National Resourcesand also to the letter of 30August 1966from the Canadian
Department of External Aiïairs to the United States Embassy in Ottawa
(Canadian Memorial, Anns., Vol. III, Anns. 3 and 8, pp. 10and 37).
Copies of these permit maps are in your folders as Figures 156and 157.If 1
can ask you to jus1glanceat these figures, 156and 157,you willsee that both of
these figuresshow unmistakably a divisionof Georges Bank on the basis of the
exerciseof continental shelf rights by Canada up 10the strict equidistance line.
But on this important evidence Mr. Rashkow mainiained an eloquent silence.
It is for these reasons that 1 have to emphasize that the United States has
failed 10meet Canada's arguments on acquiescenceand estoppel and has really
avoided a satisfactory joinder of issues.
II. Reafirmution ofCanada'sCaseconceritingAcquiescetlce andEsroppel
In the face of this evasive mode of vleadin~. Canada finds it necessarv 10
reaiiirm her position in general. The coRductoithe United States from 19h4to
1969constituted acquiescence in, or recogniiion r>f.ihe use of the equidijiance
method in ihe delimitation of thecontinental shclfin ihc Gulf of Maine area and
the exercise of Canadian jurisdiction over a large part of Georges Bank. The
crux of the legal principle of acquiescenceis a silence, afailure to protest, when
protest, or a reservation of rights, is called for. This aspect of the matter is96 GULF OF MAINE
wrsistentlv ienored both in the United States written ~leadinzs and in Mr.
Rashkow's speech.~~~ -
The essential elements are the existence of a public activity affecting legal
riahts as between the Parties and an absence of orotest or reservation of riahts in
[<;ceof this puhlic acii\,iiy. Kceping silcnt in ihc prescnce of knowledge.or the
means of kn<iu,ledge.of such public aciiviiy consliiuics 3n acquirscence. a tücii
acccDtancc. of the lersl oosition. Ilr. Rahhkou hai idilcd io rebut Canada's
posiiion concerning Gch'and every one of these key elements.
Canada's public activity in respect of continental shelf rights over Georges
Bank began in mid-1964and the issue of oil and gas permits for Georges Bank
based upon an equidistance line wasactually known to United States officiaias
early as 1965. This is shown in a riumber of ways, including Mr. Hoffman's
letter of 1 April 1965 (Canadian Memorial, Anns., Vol. III, Ann. 1), and no
reservation of rights was forthcoming until 5 November 1969 (ibid., Anns.,
Vol. III, A~ ~ ~~-.
In hisoral preséntation Mr. Rashkow has attempted to avoid the implications
of the evidence adduced bq Canada by means of two principal tactics. First, he
asserted that, as a matte; of law "acquiescence based upon tacit acceptance
requires the passage of a substantial penod of time" (VI, p. 375).As 1shall show
in due course, this view of the law is misconceived, though of course il is a
misconception helpful to the United States case.
The second principal tactic adoptcd by Mr. Rashkow is to seek to abbreviate
the acquiescence period by resort to two subsidiary devices. The first of these is
to push the date of United Statesactual knowledge forward from I April 1965to
16August 1966,when in Mr. Rashkow's words, "the inatter entered diplomatic
channels" (VI, p. 376). The success of this device depends upon the fictitious
principle of international law that the official having knowledge of the public
activity concerned "must have authority to bind the [acquiescentl State", in
combination with the necessarv but irrelevant assertion that theofficialwho sent
ihc Iciieroi I April 1965lackid the "iiuthority 10bind the United Siaies" Nol
only is this view based upon a mqor error of Iaw, aboui u.hich I uill sirymore
later, butilis in sirik-nr contradiction Io the oosition taken in thc United Siairs
Counter-Memorial.
Mr. President, the official in question, Mr. Luther Hoffman, who signed the
letter of I April 1965indicating knowledge of Canada's permit programme in
respect of Georges Bank, has suffered remarkable vicissitudes of fortune in
the course of these proceedings. At the stage of the Counter-Memorial (p. 175,
para. 275) it was stated by the United States that Mr. Hoffman's conduct, in
writing as he did on 1April 196510the Government of Canada, "constituted a
protest" against any claim, which "Canada might be deemed to have made".
This view was reiterated in clear terms in the United States Reply (pp. 31-32,
para. 49). So Mr. Hoffman was important enough to be able to make a formal
protest.
It goes without saying that Canada does not accept that Mr. Hofman's
letter could be interpreted as a protest. It was, quite simply, a request for
information against a background of knowledge of the Canadian permit
programme affecting areas of Georges Bank (Canadian Reply, p. 91, para.
216). However, the point is that the United States, both in its Counter-
Memorial and the Reply, gives an explicit acknowledgement of Mr. Hoffman
having a capacity to protest in the context of a dispute about delimitation. And
by parity of reasoning, a capacity to protest must, so to speak, include a
capacity for acquiescence.
During the first round of the oral proceedings Mr. Hoffman's capacity tomake protests hecomesa thing of the past. In his speechthe United States Agent
describes Mr. Holiman as a "functionary" engaged in "a routine exchange of
correspondence between mid-level bureaucrats concerned wiih oil and gas
matters" (VI,p. 236),and Mr. Rashkow usessimilar terms (VI, p. 367). Between
the Reply and the oral proceedings it must have ken decided that Mr. Hoff-
man's days of protest were over because if he w;isn't important enough to
acquiesce, he could no1 he important enough to protest. But that is bad law.
Much imoortant businessof eovernments isconducted bv thosedescribed bv the ,
Cniied Siaics Agent as "mid.level hure3usr~tj"
So much iur Mr. R.~shkou'sdci,i~eoi,eeking IO mo!e forwdrd ihc ciaicoithe
Uniied Siaies actual knoivledae.This dcvice wa\ desianed iu shorten the ner~od
of acquiescence at one end.-A second device, not;urprisingly, involied an
attempt to shorten the period al the other end by hringing the date of the first
United States reservation of rights further back. Thus, both the United States
Agent and Mr. Rashkow attempted to present the aide-mémoireof 10May 1968
(Canadian Memorial, Anns., Vol. III, Ann. II) as constituting the first
reservation of rights hy the United States (VI'pp. 231 and 376).
With respect, this is simplynot the case. This aide-mémoirerefersto the need
to seek an agreement on the "exact location" - those were the words used: the
"exact location" - of the boundary "in the area of the northern half of the
Georges Banks" (sic). The validity of the equidistance line is not questioned,
and indeed this aide-mémoire confirms theUnited States assumption of an
equidistance line hy referring to the houndary "in the area of the northern half
of the Georges Banks" (sic).
The documentary record isclear. The first reservation of rights hy the United
States took place on 5 November 1969(Canadian Memorial, Anns., Vol. III,
Ann. 13).This was recognizedin the clearest terms in a United Statesdiplomatic
note dated 20 May 1976(ibifl.,Anns., Vol. III, Ann. 32). The aide-mémoireof
5 November 1969was the basis for the publication of a "Noticc of Reservation
of Exploration and Exploitation Rights of the United States and ils Nationals",
dated 12February 1970,in the Federal Regisrer(United States Memorial, Anns.,
Vol. IV, Ann. 57), and its language is unamhiguous. 11indicatesclearly that no
previous reservation of rights had taken place. Its importance, 1believe,merits
citation.
"'1hc Govcrnment of Canada has ~lre~d)issiiede~plorliiionpermits for
ihe norihcrn pciriirinof the Gci~rgcsBank contineniiil bheli.
Until the exïri lucdiion of the United Sidies-C~nnd;icuniinenial sheli
boundar) in thc Guli iiiMaine is agrccd upon. the Cnitcd Statcr clinnoi
;icquiebcein an). Cdnxdian authorintion of e.%plor;iiionur rxplriitatiun of
ihe n;itur;il resuurccs of the Gcorrcr Hdnk cilniincntal shelf The United
States Government, therefore, calnot recognize the validity of Canadian
permits for any part of the Georges Bank, reservesits rights and the rights
of ils nationals to this continental shelf area, and intends to make its
position a matter of public record in the Federal Registerso that individuals
and companies concerned with exploration and exploitation in the area may
be aware of this position."
This, Mr. President, was a straightfonvard reservation of rights, not a renewal
of any previous reservation. Mr. Rashkow's attempts to ahbreviate the acqui-
escenceperiod to some 21 months are wholly unconvincing. The facts are that
the silence of the United States dates from 1964 and the period of actual
knowledgecan be dated back to April 1965.The first reservation of rights takes
place fiveyears aftenvards, in November of 2969. III. NovelDoctrines concerningAcquiescenceand Esroppel
In the course of its treatment of acuuiescence and eston~el in these oral
proceedings the United States has prod;ced some novel do'cirinesof interna-
tional law. 1have afready referred to the viewof the United States that theacts
of relatively minor officialscould not have legalconsequences for governments
within the framework of international law(VI. D.374).A wrusal ofanv eeneral
treatise on State responsibility demonstrates tiat thé&te is an intesril unit, .
legallyresponsihle for the acts of al1ils officials,even in certainconditions when
such acts are ultra vires.
A second instanceof the United Statesnovel approach to the law in this area
concerns the tendencyto equate the ldw relating to aquiescence and the law of
acquisitiveprescriptionas a basisof titleor sovereigntyovertemtory (VI, pp. 375-
376).This confusion of two relatedbut distinctareasof international lawservesthe
~nhed States purpose. The cases involvingtitle to temtory, such asthe Islandof
Palma. case,arecitedasan excusefor refemng to wriods suchas 200years,and in
order to ]endsupport to theinventedcrilerion~c&ding to which"tacitacceptance
requiresthe passage ofa substantial pend of time" (VI, p. 375).
Incidentally,the Fisheriescase,referred10by Mr. Rashkow(VI, p. 376),wasnot
bascdupon acquiewpncebut upon theviewthat thesystemof straightbaselineswas
in accordance withgeneralinternational law. To say that the pend of silenceor
lack of protest in the Fisheriescase was 60 years is highlymisleading.The Court
simply pointed out that the British protest of 1935came too late to protect
her position. At the same time the Court in the Fisheriescase pointed out that a
duty to protest could anse even within a narrow lime scale(I.C.J. Reports 1951,
pp. 138-139).And Mr. Rashkow's citationof the Templeof Preah Vihearcase (VI.
p. 376)isequally inerror, for the Court found Thailandp acquiescenceina failure
to react "withina reasonablelime" (I.C.J. Reports1962,p. 23).Thus, the reference
to a period of 60yearsin Mr. Rashkow'sspeechhas nojustification. Moreover, the
authorities citedhy the United Statesin ils Counter-Memonal referto the doctrine
of acquisitive prescription(pp. 162-161,paras. 252-257).None of them actually
formulates thecondition of a "substantial period of time" in relation to acquies-
cenceand estoppel.
The invocation of the cases relating 10 title to territory tend to confuse the
picture in another respect. It is not Canada's case that her entitlement to
continental shelf rights on Georges Bank anses from the doctrine of acquisitive
prescription. In the context of the law relating to the continental shelf the hasis
of title anses ab inirio and by operation of law. As Article 2 (3) of the
Continental Shelf Convention of 1958provides "the rights of the coastal State
over the continental shelfdo no1depend on occupation, effectiveor notional, or
on any express proclamation". Canada's case on acquiescence and estoppel
relates to recognition of the aoolication of the eauidistance method in the~G-~f
of Maine area.11 is concernedwith delimitation'and not with title.
The corrst principleis,quite simply,that the existenceofacquieçcencederends
on the evidenci in the nart~cularCG. and the oassace of lime-isno1a necffsarv
condition That is ihr cntiwl disiinciionkium; acqGesma. and cstoppl, on the
one hînd. and the concepi of prescription. on ihe oihcr Acqu~eurencçdcpnd,
upon tacit acceptanceand not upon prescriptivepends of time.
IV. Detrimenral Reliance by Canada
Mr. President, 1turn now to look at the question of the detrimental reliance
by Canada on this acquiescence. This is another issue which shows that the100 GULF OF MAINE
Moreover, the unfounded assertion that the Truman Proclamation consti-
tuted a "claim" of which Canada was given "notice" is designed to imply that
any suhsequent United States acquiescence in an equidistance delimitation on
Georges Bank does not count, so to speak, hecause it merely amounted to a
policy, in the words of MI. Davis Robinson, of "political restraint" (VI, p. 237).
The Agent has already discussed this theory of political restraint and 1would
just add that such restraint could only be of a certain significancesuhsequent to
a resewatioii OC rights: indeed, such significance must remain provisional until
the United States has formulated a claim of its own, as opposed to a reservation
of rights in general terms.
1stress again that the United States made no reservation of nghts prior to the
aide-mémoire of5 Novemher 1969 and the clairn to a line in the Northeast
Channel was no1fonnulated until 1976.The United States has not rebutted the
strong evidence of acquiescence in the use of an equidistance delimitation on
Georges Bank in the years 1964to 1969.Dunng those years the only issue raised
hv the United States related to the orecise location of the median line. In the
phraséusrd in the Cniicd Stiitcr lciicr uf 14May 19hS.the qucsiion uas ihdr of
"thï el~mcntj positioning a mediun Iinï" and iiu;ir riiseil in th< contexi of ihc
ap~lic~iion 01'Ariiclï 6 of the Coniincnial Sheli Ci>n\cntion of 1Y5niCdnîJian
~êmorial,Anns., Vol. III, Ann. 4, p. 26).
MI. President, this concludes my discussion of the question of acquiescence
and estoppel.
CONDUCI OF THE PARTIES
1turn now, if 1may, to the second part of my statement in which 1reply to
that part of the oral argument which deals with the conduct of the Parties as
indicia of what might he an equitable result in this case.1must emphasize at the
outset that this part of my statement stands quite separate from my earlier
discussion of the doctrine of acquiescence and estoppel.
1shall endeavour to he as concise as possible. 1want to deal, first, with two
important preliminary issues on which the Parties remain divided. And then 1
shall deal successively - as 1did in the first round- with ICNAF, with the 1979
agreement and finally with the oil and gas exploration activities of the two
Parties. So 1begin with the two preliminary issues.
Both Parties agree on the relevance of their fishing activitieson Georges Bank.
MI. Lancaster had no douht that il was a "relevant circumstance" (VI, p. 338).
There are reallytwo issuesdividing the Parties. One isthe amount -the intensity
-of the fishing activity of each Party. It will he apparent to the Chamber that
Canada does not accept the view that the United States fished Georges Bank
exclusivelvuntil 1950.The clear evidence to the contrarv has been set out in the
~aiiïdia/~ounier-~emor~ill, Annc~cs,Vulumc Il. and.has noi hccn rcfuicd hy
ihc Cniird Siatc\, and MI. Binniéhas alreÿd) dcalt u,ith th31rnxiicr. Thï uthcr
issue, which 1propose to deal with now, is that of the appropnate period - the
time-snan - ove~ ~h~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~mher should assess the sienificanceof the fishine
activiGesof the two Parties. For Canada, the a~rbpriat~period is 1969to 1978:
for the United States, it is the whole histoncal record, ria-. up to the present
time.
This issue is ohviously going to be critical in al1economic zone delimitations.
It is an issue of pnnciple, and the Chamber will be conscious that, in deciding
this issue, its decision will have far-reaching consequences.
Let me first defend the Canadian ten-year period. It is long enough to afford
a reasonable basisforjudging the real measure of dependency on the fishery.It isthe length of lime proposed by the United States to ICNAF in making
allocations (Canadian Reply, Anns., Vol.II, Part IV, Ann. 28, p. 821). It is long
rnough to ensure that with reasonable conservation and management, the level
of fishine can be maintained for the future. 1mean hv that. that there is everv
reason t~bclic\~cihlii bi~ththe United Siaies and linh h could maintain. ii,iihin
ihcir rcspeciivcarc3s of the Hank. undcr an cquitablc, equidisiance delimitation.
the same level of fishine as has existed ove; the ten-vear ~eriod. Indeed, the
United States own ~nGronmental Impact ~tatemen<su~~ests that, once the
stocks are allowed to recover, both Parties could increase their catches (Drafr
EnvironmenialImpact Statemenron East Coasi FishctryResources,United States
Department of State, 1980, p. 127).Taking the United States own figures,
Canada's estimate of this potential increase is 83 per cent for Canada, and a
202 wr cent increase for the United Stÿtes (Canadian Reply, Anns., Vol. II,
table 2, p. 13).And the other point to be made about the ten-year period is that
it covers a period during which the Canadian fishingwas on the high seas and
unquestionably legitimate. And it is also a period diiring which the statistics for
both Parties Ge rëliable.
But the United States would have the Chamber look at the whole historical
record, right hack into the 19thcentury. In my submission, Mr. President, that
simplycannot be done, for a numher of reasons. First, as a practical matter, the
fisheryof today - the contemporary fishery - is very differentfrom what it wasin
the 19th century, or even prior to the Second World War. The techniques are
different, the speciessought are diflerent, and the foreign, long-distance fishing
fleetsare now excluded. But more imoortant, the law haschanged. There is now
an isue or principle, and ihai ijihai in order Io arhicve ihc basic aiins of thc
conicmporir) lau,on c~clusi\c,coastal Sixtejuriidi~tiun. itis neccsslirytu luuk
a1contemporary and even potential interests, and no1at the historical interests
of a oast era. It is self-evident that the United States historical areument is
deiig&ed IO pcrpciuliic whlii na, once ihcir chimed dominancc of 16s fishcry.
Such ;inaini runs dircctl) countcr IOihc uliolc piirpow of the nru rcgimcol'the
Excluri\,cEconi)micZ<ine.The riurrioieoi this no\. réainie ISio confcr riehts to
the economicresources of the 20'0-milezone on the coaital Stateas such. 1; most
parts of the world the beneficiarieswill be new States, with little record of long-
established fishing practice. The régime is designedto proteci coastal States
aeainst the continuation of the historical exoloitation of their offshore fisheries
hi oihcr Staics. And uhai <.ansda sceks.es&ntially. likero many colistalSiatcs.
is an end IO ihc one-lime dominancc of hcr olfbhorr fishcricsby fureign States.
So, the historical record is inappropriate because it is incompatible with the new
~~-~~~~~~
Obviously, whenyou have two neighhouring coastal Statessharing a common
fishery,and a houndary betweenthem has to be drawn, a court has io look at the
eaui1i.e~of the situation. But these are the eauities of the current situation. The
court wililook Io the reiliiies of thccurrent ;iiuation. cvidcnced by ihc,s<indust
of the parties over a iultisicnt pr'rio.\uch as ien )cars - and no1Io conduct in
the distant Dast, which is either unrelated to the contemDorary fishery or else
typical of Cheso-called "dominance" of a powerful neighbour ove; a less-
powerful neighbour.
It is within the same context of the modern law that one has to assess the
relevanceof the authorities cited hv Mr. Lancaster - the Crisbadarna case and
the Anglo-Noruegian iïil!rrrr.<a>;(VI. pp 338-339, The duraiion of afiihing
prlici~ccrcwllyha\ no rrlei..in~.cin the ahsirail. II niay ha\.c relc\,aiiccin the
contexi of3 03rlicuIi1rrulcof lii!~.for the ourooses of thai plirticular rule. BuII
would cleariy be unwise to assume that'the long-çstablished fishing practice102 GULF OF MAINE
which the International Court took note of for the purposes of formulating the
rule on straight baselines is equally relevant to the determination of a single
maritime boundary. Moreover. even the "stability principle" which emerges
from the Grisbadarnucasecannot he aoolied witbout referenceto the nature and
purposeof ihe pdriiculïr lcgal rulc. hi; uas the point inde hy Mr. Rinnic in his
oral argument on 4 April (\'I,p. 92) u.hcn he ciicd Judgc Jcsrup in ihe 1969
Norih Sru Conrinrnrul Shrlfclises For Judee Jessuo'sJudrment Jçm<insirÿtcd
tbat the Grisbadarna principle of stability h& to be ippliedh the context of the
contemporary, developing law. And he noted that habitua1 exploitation of
fisheries, or even so-called "historic rights", was heginning to mean something
between five and ten years only (I.C.J.Reports 1969, p. 80). If that were true of
the evolution of the law in the 1960s, MF. President, how much more true il mus1
be of the new Exclusive Economic Zone. It is for this reason that Canada
believes that its fisheries on Georees Bank are sufficientlv lone-established to
meet al1the testsof any "stability~rinciple" which the Giisbad~rna casemight
suggest10be relevant in this case.And equally that is why the Grisbadurna case
doesnot require this Chamber to give pariiculir - or, indeed, any - weight 10the
historical evidence which goes back far beyond the period to which contempo-
rary law attaches any importance.
Let me turnto the very recent period between 1977and the present time. Mr.
Lancaster invited the Chamber to reeardthis ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"far better
indication oiihings to comc" ihan f3nads.s earlier isn-ygar period (VI. p. 340).
1 u,ould sdy IWO things ahoui ihat. First. thc Chamber sillrecall Mr. Lancasier's
very frank admission that the increase in United States fishing on Georges
Bank in those years was the result of the withdrawal of the United States
fishermen from other Canadian waters including Brou,ns Bank and the Scotian
Shelf, as a result of Canada's 1977 200-mile fisheries zone (ibid.). 1invite the
Chamber to consider the implications of that statzment very carefully. It
rneans simply this. United States fishermen withdrew from Canadian waters
as a temporary measure until the new agreement was accepted, and from a
fisbery of rather minimal economic significance - at the same time, 1may add,
that Canadian fishermen were having to withdraw from United States waters.
Some of these United States fishermen, together with many other United
States fishermen from the south. concentrated in the disputed area on Georges
Bank. The reason for this concentration was that the United Statesauthorities
had allowed a regulatory and enforcement vacuum - a "free for all" - to
develop: it was not because of the termination of reciprocal fishing. But,
whatever the reason, why should that strengthen the United Statesclaim in this
dispute? Ifyou are in dispute with your neighbour over the ownership of a field,
you do not expect a court 10 be impressed by evidence that, with the dispute
pending, you put more ofyour cattle in the field than usual! That leadsmeto my
secondcomment on this verv recent neriod. International law knows a concent
whish ue cd11..the critic31dak". II uaj a concept mu~.hdiscusscdin the Ëcrrh;,.~
<III~.Ili~iyu~rrsa,c 1I.C.J. Ri>p,,rt, /Y53 .though thcre are ùther auih,>ritiei in
iiddiiion Sirioncd ici 11harc csseniidls, ilme;lns that in disoutet o\er iiile Io
territory, a party will not be allowed to improve its position by relying on
evidenceof its activities after the dispute had "crystallized" - after the "critical
date". The concept prevents the useof self-serving conduct asevidence of title.
The disputeover the fisherieson Georges Bank had most certainly "crystallized
in 1977: it began with the Canadian and United States puMications of their
respective 200-mile zones in 1976(Canadian Memorial, p. 100, para. 224). So
it is quite unacceptable for the United States to use this recent evidence of
large-scale incursions by United States fishermen in10 the disputed area as REJOINDEROF PROFESSOR BOWFIT 103
proof of the pre-existing rights or of the so-called "dominance" of the United
States.
A second issue whichcontinues to divide the Parties relates to the kind of
conduct, or activities, which might be relevant. hlr. Rashkow placed great
emphasis on the hydrographic surveys and chartiiig activities of the United
States in the Gulf of Maine (VI, pp. 352-353).Canada does no1dispute the role
of the United States in these activities. and it can be said immediatelv. that
Cinada. alihough she. ioo, si>ntrihuied. has never Iisd the resourccs io'maich
ihe United Siaiçs in thisendeavour Huiwhyis ihis siiri ofactiviiy relevant? 1s il
seriously suggested that, in any of her maritime boundary settlemenis wiih
countries like Mexico,Venezuela,Cuba, the Cook Islands and NewZealand, the
United States reliedon such activitiesand that the other parties concededweight
10 them? This is the type of high seas activity par excellence which has
traditionallv heen undertaken al1over the world bv the ereat maritime Powers
such as~reit Hriiliin.France. lisl>.the ~elherland~andÏhe Uniicd Sisies. ITii
ucrc conscdcd 1,)he rele\ani every new dcveloping Staie uould he disad\,an-
taged, because il would have no such activity to rely on. Again, we have here a
United States argument totally alien to the new régime ofthe Exclusive
Economic Zone. The same point could equally be made of the United States
arguments based on lhe other irrelevant activiiies such as the co-operative
arrangements for search and rescue, and defence.
1want, now, to turn to the question of Canada's participation in Panel 5 of
ICNAF.The Chamher willrecall that Canada has miidetwo important points in
this connection. The first was that this particip~tion was based on Canada's
existing fishery on Georges Bank in 1949and on Canada's coastal State
relationship 10the area. The second was that the United States had conceded
Canada's right to representation on Panel 5 on bot11counts (VI, p. 140).
Mr. Rashkow, in hisoral argument, denied hoth points. He says,first,that the
notion of a "coastal State" was no1 used in ICNAF until 1969 (VI, p. 354).
That is a quibble. 11is true that the 1949Conventiori used the term "contiguity
of coast to subarea" rather than "coastal State", but it means exactly the same
thing. Then MI. Rashkow suggeststhat when the Canadian delegate, MI. Bates,
in 1949claimed an intensive fishery in Subarea 5, hc was probably referring to
the inshore fishery along the Maine coast and the Bay of Fundy, and not
Georges Bank (ibid.). Now he could not possihly have ken referring to the
Fundy fishery, because that was in Subarea 4, not 5.1invite the Chamber to
examine the record of that meeting on 4 February 1949-il can he found in the
Canadian Memorial, Annexes, Volume II, Annex 15at page 101 :there is not a
word 10support MI. Rashkow's assumption. Similarly,when the United States
delegate, Dr. Chapman, acknowledged Canada's claim, Mr. Rashkow suggests
he was merely acknowledging the statement about Newfoundland (ibid.).
Again, 1invite the Chamber to examine the record. 11simply does not bear out
this interpretation. And Dr. Chapman's statement cited by Mr. Rashkow (VI,
p. 355)was no1that Canada had never fishedGeorges Bank but only that, to his
knowledgein recent yearsCanadian vesselshad seldomfishedthere- and hewas
ohviously referring only to the ICNAF regulated species of cod, flatfish and
redfish - that is all! (Canadian Memorial, Anns., Vol. II, Ann. 12,pp. 58-59.)
The Canadian claims to a suhstantial fishery related to Georges Bank, not
Newfoundland. In the Canadian Counter-Memorial, Annexes, Volume II, we
have submitted clear evidence of Canadian fishing for groundfish - for cod,
haddock and halibut -on the Bank in the early part of ihis ceniury. That is
the fishery the Canadian delegation was referring 10. And we must also re-
member the Canadian swordfish fishery established after the First World War 104 GULF OF MAINE
(pp. 17-60). My colleague, Mr. Binnie, has already given the Chamber full
details of these fisheries.
But the short answer to Mr. Rashkow is simply this. Why was Canada a
founder-member of Panel 51 Given that membership of any Panel presupposed
either a contiauous Coastor an estahlished,substantial fishery,what wasCanada
doing on thel'anel if she mct neither criterion?
The fact that after 1972, Canada began to be awarded "coastal State
preferences" inSubarea 5, obviously creates difficultiesfor the United States
thesis: indeed, the factsand the thesisare irreconcilable.So Mr. Rashkow would
have the Chamber minimize the difficulties inhis thesis by suggesting that the
United States had more preferences - or coastal State allocations - than
Canada; and by saying that Canada either did not fully use, or else traded part
of its allocation with the Soviet Union (VI, pp. 355-356).
Mr. President, 1 would invite the Chamber to keep a number of points in
mind. Firsr,Canada's interest isin only a small part of Subarea 5, so you would
expect Canada's allocations to besmaller. Second, the stock that Canada was
most interested in, scallops, was never made the suhject of these quota
allocations. And, ihird, the purpose of the coastal States claiming these
preferenceswasessentiallyto provide themselveswith opportunities for develop-
ine their own fisheries.Coastal States can usetheseouotas in whatever wav thev
d&m appropriate to achieve that end, including bargaining. The sign~ficait
thina is not what Canada did with her quotas, but rather the Cactthat her status
as aEoasta~State in relation to GeoreesBank was recoenizedbv the fact that she
receivedsuch quotas. -
And, finally, in relation to ICNAF, the United States seeks to minimize
Canada's contribution to the establishment of ICNAF and her participation in
Panel 5 (VI, pp. 95-96). Nothing is said of Canada's proposal in 1943at the
London Conference to esiablish an international, regulatory body. Nothing is
said of Canada's contributions to the programmes of scientificassessrnent and
research within ICNAF: nothing is said of Canada's initiative in develop-
ing ICNAF's statistical system (Canadian Counter-Memorial, pp. 164-166,
paras. 405-408; pp. 171-177,paras. 416-430).What is said is a rather dispara-
ging remark about Canada's role in the enforcement activitiesin Subarea 5. The
iu Chamber will recall Figure 50, displayed by the United States on Monday,
O 16 April. 1t showed the location of hoardings of fishing ressels, by both the
United States and Canadian fisheryprotection vessels: the Chamber will recall
the map, spattered with reddotsto denote United States hoardings, and then the
relatively fewgreen dots in the northeast sector of Georges Bank, to denote the
Canadian boardings.
Mr. President. without exolanation. that figureisauite misleadine.The fact is
that the majority of the ~nned Statcs boardings weie conccrned tocnforcc the
Cnited Statcs own dome5ticlobster programme, ïnd that iiuhy so niany of the
rcd duts arc clu\tcrcd round ihc 100-f3thomcontour of the Hank Cirnada had
no part in that enforcement programme, and no interest either. The enforcement
activities whichCanada had assumed under ICNAF were mainly in relation to
the patrolling of the Closed Area for haddock (Canadian Reply, p. 116,
para. 270). But,if the area is a closed area, you should not expect to vessels
fishingthere for haddock at all! If everyone played the game, thereshould be no
boardings in a closed area. So the seemingly minimal Canadian activity in
hoarding vessels is exactlywhat you would expect.
1feelbound to add, in concluding my remarks on ICNAF, that most of the
points 1 have made are already clearly stated in the Canadian Reply, at
paragraphs 263-272. It is a matter for some regret that the United States oral REJOlNDER OF PROFESSOR BOW'ETT 105
argument proceeded almost as though the Canadian Reply had never been
wntten. However, since that was the case, 1 had little choice but to refer the
Chamber to these matters.
Mr. President, 1turn now to the 1979fisbenes agreement.
A good deal may depend on how the Chamber views this agreement.
Obviously, if it was a short-term agreement, pending the resolution of the
boundary question, then whatever the "equities" of the allocation of fishstocks,
there might be some hesitation in the Chamber in continuing this same
allocation over the lone term. And that is essentiallv the United States
argumcni. TheChamber ;IIIreçallhou the Uniicd ~tate,~~ent (VI.p. 241)and
Mr. Kashkou (1'1.pp. 358. 363-3641cniphasizcd tliai uhai the Uniicd Siaies
had in mind was a~temporary agreement to preserve the status quo. The
Chamber will recall Mr. Rashkow's phrase, to the effectthat the agreement was
designed to maintain what he called "businessas usual" (VI,p. 358).And let me
add, in parenthesis, that it was this same "business as usuai" which Mr.
Lancaster. in his oral areument. seemed Io find so unacceotable (VI. o. 339).
~owever,'~r. ~ashkow'; esseniial point was that the ~niied taiesyanted a
provisional agreement which would beovertaken by a boundary settlement, and
no1 the vermanent arreement desired bv Canada
Mr. P;cridcni, ihaï\ica rcprssentsa kii.csi! of the rrxord. The Ilnitcd St:ites
initi;iicd the di\cu>si,ins on this agreement hy twat aide-m6moires of 8 and
14Janudr) 1977 Boih rcferred e\prrrsl, to neroiiations on "lone-terni fishcrics
arrangements", and that was the end towhichCanada negotiated in good faith
(Canadian Memorial, Anns., Vol. III, Anns. 48 and 49).
Moreover, look at the terms of the agreement itself (ibid., Anns., Vol. 1,
pp. 252-326).1sil likely that the Parties would set up the East Coast Fishenes
Commission, with its 14members and ils two CO-Chairmenappointed for five
years, with provision for a headquarters in a place to be agreed, and with a
specialchapter on arbitration, as a temporary measure? Why make the express
provision for lobster (Ann. A (4) and Ann. C (14)) in termsthat it was to be
transferred 10Annex C afier the boundary was decided, if the assumption was
that the whole agreement wasto endure only unril the boundary was decided?
Any why make provision for the review of stock entitlements every ten years
~~~t. ~~.?
And uhat of the terms ofthc Final Clause on Trrmination? Let me cite it IO
)OU. Arliclc XXV, p~ragraph 2. "Subjeci IO paragrciph 3. ihiAgreement shall
rcmain in force until tcrminated h\ arreemeni of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~es"ID ?Y?). Nou thc
proviso as to paragraph 3 need no1detain us, for that merely provided for the
situation in which arbitration of the boundary might be frustrated. But
termination by agreement is scarcelythe hallmark of a temporary agreement. I
frankly do no1 follow Mr. Rashkow's statement (VI, p. 339) that Article Xlll
of the Joint Statement of Principles - the Cadieux-Cutler Report of October
1977 (Canadian Memorial, Anns., Vol. II, Ann. 36) - specificallycalled for
withdrawal on notice. There wasno text: it wassimplya heading for an articleto
be agreed. And if you look al the Joint Report of March 1978(Ann. 39), there
the two negotiators again expresslyreferred to "a long-term agreement", and the
members of the United States Senate took exactly the same view. The
Congressional Record for 29 June 1978abounds with referencesto that effect.
Senator Kennedy referred to a "lasting structure Ior mutual CO-operation";
Senator Stevens to a "long-term agreement"; and Senator Brooke to "a
permanent mutual CO-operativerelationship" (Unired Stores Senare Congres-
sionol Record, 29 June 1978,pp. 19623-19624).
And so, Mr. President, Canada is entitled to ask the Chamber to look on this 106 GULF OF MAINE
agreement as clear evidence of what the Parties considered to be a fair and
equitahle divisionof the fisheryresources of Georges Bank in 1979,and not as a
temporary measure, but as a fair and equitahle resolution of the dispute for al1
time. 1will no1repeat the statements by the President of the United States, and
by the United States Negotiator Mr. Cutler, commending the agreement in those
terms. But, without douht, that was the view of the then United States
Administration.
If 1mav savso. I was not imoressedwith the recital of onoosition b~,S~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Pell and ~hafee of Rhode lsland, or Senator Javits of ~ey~ork, or Congress-
man Studds of Massachusetts (VI, pp. 240, 364-366). These were scarcely
disinteresied ohservers, making an ohjëctive assessment.~or am 1impressed by
a lecture on the separation of powers in the United States Constitution, and
being remindedthat the executivehranch of government is not the United States
(VI,pp. 240-241).Canada negotiated in good faith with the proper authorities of
the United States. and the~~esult of that neeo-iat~~~~-.~~ ~ ~ ~i~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
agreement, was r&arded as fair and equitable by Mr. Cutler. by Secretary of
State Vance, and by President Carter, and it il1becomes the United States now,
to treat the agreement as axiomatically inequitable, and as if the authorities of
the United States Government had never accepted its fairness.
Setting that issue aside, I mus1 next comment on the manner in which the
agreement was~ortraved bv Mr. Rashkow. The Chamber willrecall that. in the
oÏal argument if the.~nit;d States, the whole fwus was on the management
authority for the various stocks. We were told that "the entire management
structure of the agreement is hased upon the need for single-State management
of each stock. wherevernossible .. .".VI.o. 359).1beeun to have doubts. atthat
stage. o\cru hciher Ihadkeii lookingat ihc sameagreement. For. a.. l rrÿd it. it
15for ihe Cornmirsiun IO revchagreement on the fishing )car ior each stock, and
the Commission IS the ioint United Siaie, Canxdkn Commrinon of 16 mem-
bers: and in my langkge that is joint management. True, with Category B
stocks the party with primary responsihility makes proposais: but it is the
Commission that agrees them, and the same applies to management measures.
So Ido not believeCanada errs in speaking ofjoint management. The text ofthe
agreement is really quite clear. But, of course, the United States oral argument
seemed not to beconcerned about the text of the agreement. Instead, we were
@ given a,somewhat lengthy demonstration of Figure 7 from the United States
Memorial - the Chamber will recall Mr. Rashkow putting crosses in the boxes
besidethe bar-graph for each stock (VI, pp. 360and 361.363).And weweretold
that this demonstration confirmed not only the division of stocks at the
Northeast Channel, but also the utility ofsingle-Statemanagement (VI, p. 363).
@ 1 -und thac conclusion extraordinary at the time and still do. Figure 7 is
scientificallyindefensibl- as emerged from Mr. Fortier's cross-examination of
Dr. Edwards. But the point 1 wish to make is that, as a reflection of what the
@ 1979agreement provided for, as regards stock management, Figure 7 is
meaningless.lfwe are to be told that the agreementendorses the utilityof single-
State management, then by al1 means let the United States make such an
argument. Yet let us test that argument against the tems of the agreement -not
against some self-serving,and scientificallyindefensihle, figure drawn from the
United States own Memorial. We might also test the argument for consistency.
In 1948the United States herself proposed to Canada that there should bejoint
regulation of the fisheriesin the Gulf of Maine (Canadian Counter-Memonal,
p. 166, para. 408). That scarcely sounds like an argument for single'State
management.
But the interesting question, Mr. President, is whydid the United States have RWOINOER OF PROFESSOR BOWETT 107
so little to say about stock quotas? Why al1this concentration on management?
The answer, 1suepest. is oerfectlv clear. As Iexolained in mv earlier statement.
uith thc ~ütc~or)-~ rro~ks, Cü"ada'r share rüngcd froni 4Opcr cent to 74 pcr
cent. With Categi>r) R ,iiick>. dcpcnding on the arca. Canada' iharc rüngcd
ïrom 100per cent io O.Bui with scalli~ps.whirh arr the economicallv .ienilicant
stock. Canada had orimarv interest and 73.35Dercent of the catch iv~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~-.rr
145).These quotas Show,Gith ahsolute clarity: that in equity Canada must have
a major share in the resources of Georges Rank. And that is oreciselv whv the
~nitéd Statesshows such interest in management, and so littléinterest in stock
quotas, under the 1979agreement.
A final word, if 1may, Mr. President, about this renewed argument by the
United States that it was Canada's unilateral termination of the 1978 interim
reciprocal fishing agreement which caused the new Administration not to press
for ratification (VI, p. 364). As 1indicated in my first statement, none of the
opponents of the agreement in the United States gave that as a reason. And if
Mr. Rashkow is to label il a "strone-arm tactic" (VI. o. 365).then it ishest that 1
niakc certain things clear. Thc reci~ocal tishingagre~mcnr;;as being=hured. So
iar as ihr Ilniied Siütcs tishcrmrn ucrc conrçrned, Canadian waters ucre ;i"ircc
for all", a regulatory vacuum in which they could over-fish without restraint.
And that is why reciprocal fishing came to an end.
The Chamberadjournedfrom 11.02a.m. to 11.12a.m
Mr. President, if 1may 1would now like to turn to the oil and gas exploration
activities of the Parties on Georges Rank.
The first, and most striking, feature of the oral argument by the United States
was the reoeated assertion that the United States had issuednermits cr~erine ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~c ~ ~
northcasicrn puriion ul'Georgcs Rank lrum ihc mid-1960;onuards The Uniied
Siaics obi,iouil) makcs this a.scriion IO suggcri that ithüd eicrci,cd jurisdiciion
over ihc uholr of (irorecs Rank. 1musi iav I iind samc diflic~Ii\ in rcconciline L.
this uith the othcr, diiicrent Uniied ~iaici argumcnt ihat A had cxcrriied
re\iraint. Hui m! main difficuliy is uiih the ciidencc IO hack up ihis asscriion
Where, and what. is the evidence? Not a sinele mao was shownto demonstrate
-
that this was actuallv so.
Nui 3 uurd was siid ahuui the aidr-mCm<iirroi i N<i!çmhcr 1969.in which
the United States Rate to Canada form.11asrurîncci to the contr;ir\. (Cünadian. .
Memorial, ~nns.,~ol. II, Ann. 13).
And scarcely a word was said about the demonstration 1 had made to the
contrary in my first statement. 1had made a conscious effort to go through the
facts, to illustrate them by various maps, so as to make the record of these
activities clear. Ohviouslv 1had hooed that if the United States wis~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~-
issueuith my account ofihc rccord'of the dctii,irics.ihc) would have donc so in
Mr Rashkow's tirsi oral staicnicnt Rut ihat uas noi donc - cxcepi in the niost
marginal u,ay So 1find niysclf in sunic diffic~ltyin idcniifying the evidencc on
which thc Uniicd Siaics relies to sontinuc IO makc this assertiun aboui hijing
authorrled actriitics in the nurthe3stcrn poriion or tlicBank . fcrl bound Io sa)
that if thc Cnitcd Siaicç producc~such ci,idcnccin rhcsccond round of ihcir oral
argument purporting to-support this assertion - and at the stage when Canada
cannot reply to it - 1believe the Chamber should treat such evidence with the
iitmn<t rpsprv.-
Ai this stage. howc\er. 1ciinonly dcal uiih ihe Uniicd St;itescvidence. sush as
il1s.There arc twu permits mentiuncd by the United Siaiesand which, ïrum the
ordl argunicnt, appcür to haje somc signifiçanccfor the Uniied Siaics. 108 GULF OF MAINE
The first is El-65, issued 10Shell in the year 1965;and of this permit, MI.
Rashkow says it "specifiedan area of operation that extended wellbeyond any
median line across Georges Bank" (VI, p. 371). Mr. President, you have the
map of the permit area suhmittedwitb the permit application in your folder: it is
Figure 158,and 1would invite the Chamber to look hrieflya1that map. This was
deposited with the materials provided by the United States on 20 January 1983.
As youwillsee,the northern limit of the permit area isa rough equidistance line.
It goes straight through the middle of the bank. And that is exactlywhat 1said
about this permit in my first statement. Incidentally, this permit was cancelled,
so no actual activity look place. And that is the first piece of this so-called
"evidence".
The second permit is E2-69, granted to Chevron in 1969, and of this MI.
Rashkow told us that it wasissued for an area extending from Cape Henlopen in
Delaware to Cape Sable in Maine (VI, p. 372). 1 trust the Chamber will no1
attach any significance to this very loose verbal description of the area. 11s
importance can be gauged by the fact that il places Cape Sable in the wrong
country. Cape Sable isin Nova Scotia, no1 Maine. Of course, for practical
purposes what concerned the permit-granting authority - that is Our MI.
Dupont - was the location of the pre-plot lines. It is the pre-plot lines,and only
these, that showwhat work was actuallyproposed. And when 1las1spoke to the
@) Chamher 1showed theChamber those lines.Il was Figure 74.TheChamher will
recall that 1pointed out the two lineswhich, in Mr. Dupont's words. "extend to
the Canadian side of the BLM line" (Canadian Reply, Anns., Vol. II, p. 574).
Understandably, the permit was subject to a caveor,approving the lines only in
so far as they "lie within the 'outer Continental Shelf' (as definedin section 2 of
the Outer Continental ShelfLands Act of 7August 1953)"(ibid., p. 570).Indeed,
and this isperhaps important, al1the programmes or extensions that crossed the
BLM line on Georges Bank weresubject to this samejurisdictional caveat from
1968onwards.
There is one further permit 1 had best refer to, jus1 to be on the safe side,
because the United States might pull it out of the hat at the reply stage. This is
permit E3-68B,granted to Shell in 1968.1want to show the Chamber the pre-
plot map submitted for this permit, and this is given as Figure 159 in your
dossier, and it is also now on the lighthox. The pre-plot map shows the actual
survey lines. You will see that al1 of these actual survey lines respect an
equidistance boundary on the Bank.
Mr. President, Canada has no wish - and indeed no need - to conceal any
evidence. The Digicon Corporation, a United States company, has prepared
four comprehensiveshot-point maps in 1975,and theseshow al1the major group
?w seismicsurveys.The map now hehind meas Figure 160is simplya composite of
O those'four maps. It shows the 400 senes lines, rhot in 1969and 1970,and so on
up to and including the 900 senes shot in 1974by the group led by Getty. We
bave deposited the original maps, with a key which enables the Chamber to
identify each line, ils mileage, whichcompany shot it, and under which permit.
So wewould invitethe Chamber to have the aauracy of our assertions checked.
The picture - as you will clearly see from this figure- is quite clear. The
colouring, incidentally, was done by the oil company which provided the maps.
We have added the BLM line and the company equidistance line - these two
green lines- so that you can see exactly where the majority of the survey lines
ended. As 1said in my earlier statement (VI, p. 152),only in 1972,under permit
E2-72,is there any real transgression of the equidistance line.These faint, brown
lines here are the lines under the 1972permit. And even these transgressions go
nowhere near the northeastern edge of the Bank. So, 1 would ask that theChamher reject this particular United States assertion as king contrary to al1
the evidence. The evidence clearlv shows a broad adherence to equidistance.
whether the comnanv.eou,distancéline or the BLM line.
Hui I niurt noi forge1;ha1 u,c hate a pri>hlcmwiili thi BLM line or ro ihe
Uniicd Siaies iuggcsis In crfcci. the United Siatc\ dcnics thai ihcrc r.i,cr wa\
such a Iinc Indccd, 511.Rashkon iold thcCh;imbcr th31ihc linc'uas no1a Iinc
appc~ring in ;iny documcnr iii the Dcpdrimcni oi ihc Inicri<~rhut ira\
ionsiructcd hy Clinlida solcl!.for the purposc, of thir adjudic~tion" (VI. p 373)
Thosc arc harsh \$ordi. and ihc Chanibcr \vil1underitand ihai I muii rrnl\ io
. -
them.
Let me invite the attention of the Chamher to another map (Fig. 161).It is
very large and too unwieldy for reproduction, but 1 thought it hest that the
Chamber should see it in its oriei-al form - to avoid anv further accusation~ o~ ~
..m;inuF~cturc"(dcpi)\iied hy Clnada on I? Deccmber ic)#31.Whai we ask sou
io note is rhis linc hcrc. Cÿnada ilid noi put ihdt linc ihcre. This linc w:isput on
ihc ni30 b\ ihc 011 ciimiianv which pruvidcd the mJii and anplicd tg)the Llniied
States 'Government foi pehits'. Ând the comPany treaiid that line as the
boundary between the continental shelves of Canadi and the United States. In
fact on the original you can seethe words written on the line, "Canada" and the
"United States". The line is a strict eauidistance line. and it fits exactlv withthe
descripiion ofihe HureJu of Land h~in~gemcniIinc in \Ir ~<iifman'>Iciicr ol'
11.Ma) 1965(Can;iJian Mcmiirial, Ann,. Vol. III, Ann. 4. p. ?hl.
So, Mr. President, there was a line, and it was an equidistance line, being used
fo~-United~ ~ates nermits. We don't much mind wliat it is called. It was Mr. ~-~ -~
Dupont who used the term BLM line.His version, as you willrecall, was that his
reference to this line and his pencilled annotations on the map, served only to
remind him that the Bureau of Land Management had told him that. bevond
thxi linc, ihcrr. ucre Cÿnadian permits. In hirailida\it Mr. Dupont said ih;t he
niürkcd [\\O poinis on ihis H1.M lins on a m.ip for pcrmii E3-69 io mxrk the
cdgc i)rthe <:-nadian pcrmiis WtII, wr have ploiicd ihose iwo poinis, i3kcn
Cronithe niap pro\,iJcd by ihc Cnitcd Siatei and the).do niircurrc\pond uiih the
cdgc of 3ny Ciinadian pcrmitr. So ire simply ciinniii acccpi ihai e\planaiion
Actually, the two points don't seem to correspond with anything very much.
One is on the BLM line, but the other isjust nowherc in particular. In our view,
Mr. Dupont's BLM line was an equidistance line but ils purpose was ta mark
the limit of the original United States claim to a shelf on Georges Bank.
Of course, Mr.Dupont says that he neverconsidered the equidistance lineas a
houndary - he always assumed that the United States claim went to the
Northeast Channel. And this unlikely story was supported by Mr. Rashkow on
two grounds (VI, p. 373). First, that on 10 May 1968 - that is prior to Mr.
Duoont's annotations in 1969 - the United States had out Canada on notice of
iis bbjcciions 10 C'anadian pcrmit asii\iiics <inthe lldnk. But. ihrt noiice said
nothing ahour an) h,~rihi.dsiChdnnel line,su rhdi cïnnoi have ken ihc b~sisof
Ur Ou~oni's knou,lcdac (Cdnadian Mcmorial. :\nnn\ \'uI III,Ani1 II. p.63)
Then wéare eiven a second eround. namelv that Mr. Duoont was familiàr with
rhesïd-hed inihc (iulf <ifhliinc are2 '.as yuorking gcol~gic~licchniiian" Rui
I am afrdid Mr Ilupont uould nccd io Lx much morc [han 3 uorkiiig gcolopiciil
icchnician io dis~kü\ih;ii dc~rr.ct>ili~rciii!hI.<orhe na5 uav ahexd of thc Stale
Departmeni. 11; uould h~\e n:cdcd pcrhaps io undersud ihc J~i.ra»i itlthe
Inicrnaiional Court i>fJuiiicc in parïgraph 45 of iis Judgmcni in ihc orrh Sc<r
('onrr,rnrul Slzcl/ caws, relaiing io ihr Nuruegi~n Trough 11 ('J. Reporr-,
' See Correspondence,No. 120, infra.110 GULF OF MAINE
1969). And he would also have had to be somethine of a marine ecoloeis~~ for
ihc Noriheari Channel uns prcscnicd 3s an ccologicïl. more ihan a gconiorpho-
logical boundary. As 1sïid beliirc. Mr Duponi is a rcmarkahle man I'ei if he
rciilly did assume ihe houndary was ihc Norihcasi Channel. consisicnily wiih
ihe Trunian Proclamaiion. why in\eri ihe juridictional catedis in a11ihew
trespassing pcrmitband c~tcnsionsfront IYhXonwards? Frankly. Mr. Prcsidcnt.
al1this makis no more senseto me than the first time 1 heard it; so I mus1repeat
my request Io the Chamber that Mr. Dupont's aRdavit be disregarded.
1 want 10 emphasize that Canada's view that an equidistance line did exist
does findsupport in the maps and matenal provided hy the United States. So let
me ask the Chamber ta look at this map on the lightbox - you also have it in
your folders as Figure 162.This is the copy of Digicon'smap for the 1975group
survey under permit E3-75 which was provided to Canada by the United States
on 29 March 1984. So this is in the materials formally lodged by the United
States.
The Chamh:r uiII rccall ihat whcn I dcjxibcd this sur\,c) in m) firsi,t;itcnicni
indctail. Inoinicd IO the dilfsrcnce heiuecn ihe oricinal arca. hcrc- thnt was the
Northeast ~rea, but lyingIo the southwest of the Guidisiance line - and the so-
called "Extension Programme", on the Canadian side. Now the Chamber will
see, here, this line running through the Bank, marked as a "lateral line". Now
Canada did not invent that line: that linewas on the map used by Digicon for its
survey under United States permit E3-75. The Chamber will also note snother
line, here, running round the northeast edge of the Bank and labelled "alternate
line". Remember, the year is 1975.So what we have here, beyond any jhadow
of doubt. is the orieinal eauidistance line and then a line to show the new.
~lternaii!~eUnitcd Siaics chim iinr down the Norihcasi Channel. liai ihis
"Iaieral Ilne" is an equidistance Iinccan ciarccly k quesiionçd. I can shou ihc
Chamkr the loc;ition 6)I'thdtsame Iinc on ihc maD nou, bchind rnç - 11ia ihc
map you have in your folder as Figure 163.Now this is the "lateral line" - this
broken, red line is the same "lateral line" -and you can compare ils location
with ihe strict equidistance line, there, with theCanadian claim line, here, with
the BLM line,there, and the Companyequidistance line, there. So there can be
no doubt that that was an equidistance line.As 1said before, depending on what
basepoints were used, there were difierences in the various lines. But what is
absolutely clear is that they al1 purported ta be an application of the equi-
distance method.
1 turn now to a diiïerent feature of the United States oral argument. That
argument deals indiscriminately with United States permits and Canadian
permits, as if they were the same thing. 1mus1emphasize yet again that they are
not the same thing.
The United States has attempted to minimize the evidence presented by
Canada concerninz Canadian continental shelf activities bv dismissine the
Canadian pcrmit p~ogr~tn~n~ oc the grclund ihdi n<idrilling h& bccn cond;sted
on Ccorgcs Bank pursuant io thosc pcriniis (VI. p. 236and p. 3661.And iincc no
drillinr has hcen sonductcd Dursuant Io Unlied Stîics authoriiy in the disouicd
area, The United States gent has suggested thai the disiinclion beiween
Canadian and United States continental shelf activities is one "of form rather
than substance" (VI, p. 236). As explained in my statement Io the Chamber
on 5 April, the United States permits conferred no proprietary rights whatso-
ever, and moreover, they have al1expired (VI, p. 155).All of the Canadian
permits, on the other hand, are in force today and most have ken for the pas1
20 years. The permits cover a specific area of approximately 10 by II nauti-
cal miles: quite unlike the United States geophysical survey permits which MOINDER OF PROFESSORBOWTI 111
allow surveys over very large areas. And the Canadian permit holders have
exclusive rights over the areas described in their permits and continue to have
the right to convert them to production leasesonce ;icommercial oil or gas field
is found. But this objective, and the drilling it recluires,of course cannot be
achieved until a delimitation has been made in the area. Soin the meantime, the
permit holders have complied with the regulatory requirements in order to
maintain these rights and the Canadian Government has issued special executive
orders protecting these rights. Thus the true comparison is between the United
States leases and the Canadian pennits. If 1 may recall to the Chamber the
picture which that comparison presents, then it ishcst illustrated by the United
States officialData Atlas, published by NOAA in 1980; youhave seen it before
but it may assistyou to have il illustrated once again on the lightbox. The picture
@ speaks for itself (Fig. 164).The divisions of responsihilities and of activities is
there on the basis of equidistance and it was this that led me to suggest, in my
first statement, that the Parties had in elïect established a defacto boundary.
Mr. Rashkow disputes that, understandably enough (VI,pp. 378-379). But1do
no1understand his reasonine. -
He siiyi. firsi,thai the IinepcrpendiciilIOihcco;,rt in rhc Tun,sia I.th),icïsc
had been operiited for a luiip iinic sithoui rirutcri. Ccrt3inl\. But uh3i of the
eauidistance line.or orinciolë. on Georees Bank? Professor Ërownlie has shown
inhis statementthat Le habe fiveyears 1 from 1964to the protest of 5November
1969 - during which both Parties acted on the basis of an equidistance division
of their shelfactivities.
Then MI. Rashkow identifies inthe TunisialLibyacase the "critical fact" that
both parties had used the 26" line as the limit of their oil and gas concessions.
But, Mr. President, if that is the "critical fact" what about the fact that, at least
until 1972,both Parties in this case observed the equidistance principle? Why is
that not equally "critical"?
And then he notes that the LibyanITunisian perpendicular line "was neither
arhitrarv nor without orecedent" .VI. o. 3781. That mav be. but surelv in
relation io coniincnial shdf delimitaii<insthe equidiiiancc mcihnd is cven 1e.s
3rhiirar). and evrn rniire x~undlyhued on precedeni?
And finaIl). \Ir. Ka.hkou uould have uhirîai the Cÿnïdian eauidisiancc Iine
as a "purely internal administrative act" - to be disregarded, like the Libyan
"due north line" based on the 1955petroleum decrce in the TunisialLibyacase
(VI,p. 379).That is a truly extraordinary comparison. Far from being a "purely
internal administrative act", the Canadian eauidistance line was based on the
1958Con\cniion, ilua, acied upon h) Can;irlüas the haair of lis iurijdiciional
çompîience, and iiu13.kni>u,nin ïnd acquiesced iiihy the Uniied Siaics o\cr
several years. To describe this as an internal administrative act is a misdescrio-
tion which almost - 1sav "almost" - leaves me soeechless.
So. uith such .pccch a\ 1sleit 10rnc. I ?an ciinrliide quiie hrieiïy.
In 11s~>raalrgument the I.'nitcdSiaie.: has.o iar iïiledicgriipplcuith an) i>i
ihc cb~enti~l15iuc)relaiin~ 10ihe conduci of the Pïrtics. The, ma\ \ci attenioi
to do so, but this, alas, will he al a stage when Canada can makéno furthér
comment.
The conclusion therefore remains, that both in relation to fisheries and in
relation to oil and eas exoloration. the Parties have iàr manv vears acted on the
assumption that a Fbouniarybased on equidistance aould ivi them both a fair
deal. But no1just a "fair deal" in the sense of a fair bargain. By "fair deal" 1
mean a result based on legal principle and takiiig fuïl acco"nt of al1 the
circumstances of the present case so as to reach an equitable result. REPLIQUE DE M. FORTIER
CONSEILDU GOUVERNEMENTCANADIEN
M. FORTIER: Monsieur le Président, Messieurs lesjuges, tout d'abord je
vous présentede nouveau mon collègue, Me Ross Hornby, du barreau de
l'Ontario, qui va me.donner un coup de main durant ma présentationce matin.
J'ai l'insignehonneur de revenir au prétoireaujourd'hui pour vous adresser la
parole à nouveau au nom du Canada. Encore une fois. je dois vous parler du
milieu marin dans la régiondu golfe du Maine.
Mêmes'ilest patent selon nous,commel'agentdu Canada I'adéjà notéq , ue la
théoriede la frontière naturelle au chenal Nord-Est a beaucoun ne. . de son
lusire depuis le; premières écriiurci amCric.iines.nos ad\erra~res i,uudraicnt
nkiinmoinsioujours lui voir confcrcr le SI~IUIde circonstance pertinenie dans la
réeiondu golfe du Maine (VI, D.457)
Je me donc aujourdhui de démontrer que cette théorie restesans
fondement sous quelque guise qu'elle puisseètre présentéeJ.e procéderaicomme
En premier lieu, je donnerai une brève vued'ensemble de la thèse de la
frontière naturelle telle qu'elle nous apparait après le premier tour de la
procédure orale. En secondlieu, j'exposerai la totale absence de fondement, en
droit ou dans les faits. de la théorieaméricaine des troisréeimesécoloeiaues
séparés, distinctset identifiables dans la régiondu golfe di Maine etQ; la
prétendue frontièrenaturelle au chenal Nord-Est. En troisièmelieu,je démon-
Ïrerai que les Etats-Unis font erreur lorsqu'ils veulent voir dans le banc de
Georges un fond commun pour la plupart des stocks de poisson d'importance
commerciale. Enquatrièmelieu,je parlerai de la nécessité de coopérerau regard
de la gestion des péchesdans la régiondu golfe du Maine, quelle que soit la
localisation de~l~ f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~time uniaue.~.e la Chambre est aowlée .. à
déterminer.Encinquièmelieu,je mepencherai sur laquestion des risques relatifs
que l'exploitation deshydrocarbures en quelque point que ce soit du banc de
Ceoraes orésenteoour ies zones de oêcheet-les c6tes Ïesoectives des Parties.
~nfi6je Eonc~urai'enhomme de loi en commentant la coniribution réellede la
scienceà la solution de cette importante affaire.
1.VUE D'ENSEMBLE
Dans ses écritures.le Canada a. sans ambaees. aualifiéde mythe la thèse
américainedc$iroij régimesécologiquescianch& et de la frontitrénaiurclle au
chenal Nord-Est (V, rr'pliqucdu Canada, par. 162) Aujourd'hui, aprèsaroir
entendu les plaidoiriesaméricaines consacrées à cette thèse, et après avoir
entendu le témoignagede l'expertaméricain,le docteur Robert L. Edwards, le
Canada n'a aucune hésitation à la qualifier à nouveau de mythe, maiscette fois
avec encore plus d'énergieet plus de conviction.
Ou'il me soit oermis tout d'abord. Monsieur le Président. de rappeler
1'éGdence mêmeànos contradicteurs. ce sont eux, les ~tats-unis; qui poStLlent
devant cette Chambre cette thèseinouïe de la frontière naturelle dans une mer
dont nous savons - et dont nous voyons - qu'elleest en mouvement perpétuel.
Ce sont donc eux qui ont le lourd fardeau de prouver leur thèseà la satisfaction de la Chambre. Le Canada prétendque ses adversaires ne se sontpas déchargés
de ce fardeauet que la thèseaméricained'une frontière naturellecomme telle,ou
encore comme circonstance pertinente, demeure un mythe sans fondement
aucun. Elle n'estnullement reconnue dans le monde scientifique,et certainement
pas dans les ouvrages qui font autorité.
De~uisque la thèse inéditede la frontièrenaturelle au chenal Nord-Est a fait
son app3rition. sije peux m'exprimer ainsi. cl'insle mémoirede nos coniradic.
leurs. lesjuristes canadiens on! con,ulié les scientifiquesles plus rcputcs ;ifinde
la icrifier Le résultatde ses rechcrihes. lz rCwlIa1de ces cludcs 3n~rofondics.
on le trouve dans l'affirmationcatégoriquedu Canada au 195de sa
réplique,que je me permets de citer en partie:
«les Etats-Unis n'ont pas étéen mesure de citer le moindre ouvrage scien-
tifique sur la régiondu golfe du Maine qui a étépublié antérieurcmentà
l'ouverture de la présente instanceet qui décrit trois«écosystfmesdistincts
et reconnaissables» dans cette région ou qui décrit le chenal Nord-Est
comme «frontière naturelle)).
La Chambre se souviendra que, le mercredi 18 avril, mon collègueet ami
Me Ralph Lancaster a demandé au témoin ambricain, le docteur Robert
Edwards, de commenter cette affirmation du Canada dont je viens de vous
donner lecture. La réponsedu témoin américainest à la fois trèscandide et très
révélatrice.e me dois de la reprendre en partie ici car elle situe dans une juste
perspective la position du Canada sur cet élémentdc l'argumentation des Etats-
Unis. Tout d'abord, le témoinaméricainadmet candidement que le Canada a
raison. IIdit: «I think it is correct to say that no scientificwork on the Gulf of
Maine area explicitly labels the three areas we have discussed as régime»(VI,
p. 421.)
Quelques instants plus tard, le docteur Edwards ajoute. dans un passage
éminemment révélateurq,ue la thèseaméricaine des troisrégimesécologiques
distincts et de la frontière naturelle au chenal Nord-Est est tellement conn~~.
qu'elleconstitue un Faitacquis et qu'il n'a donc jamliéténécessairepour aucun
scientifiqued'en l'aireI'ohjeld'un arliçle dïns une retuc Ecoutons. Munricur le
Prcsident. MessieursIrr jugrs. Iïs paroles mémcsdi, tcnioin des Etats-Unis
«ifa general factiswellknown and accepted,individualsdo not feelthe need
to state it in writing, although acceptance of that fact, and what it implies,
may underlie other work that they don (VI, p. 422).
Voici.ce que I'i~nnous orTrcpour prcu\c de I'cxi~tenceJ'une froniicre natiirellc
3uchenal Nord-Est. la simpleasscrticin.par Icpremier rehponsahledes Ccriturcs
américainesdans ce dossier, qu'il s'agitd'un fait généra,onnu et accepté,bien
qu'il n'en ait iamais étéfait mention dans aucun ouvrage scientifiaue traita- -de
ia régiondu golfe du Maine. Monsieur le Président,pe&ettez-mG dedouter de
la valeur scientifiquede cette assertion. Quant sa valeurjuridique, le Canada
affirmequ'elle n'en a aucune.
11.LA THEORIE AMERICAINEÀ LA RECHERCHE D'UN FONDEMENTEN DROIT
ET DANS LES FAIT3
Je m'engage maintenant dans mon premier argument. Je le résume:ni le droit
ni la science ne reconnaissent la notion de frontières naturelles fixes dans la
colonne d'eau. Quoi qu'il en soit, les donnéesfactuelles disponibles ne permet-
tent pas d'affirmeraveccertitude qu'ilexiste une frontière unique, prétendument
naturelle, dans les circonstances de l'espèce.114 GOLE DU MAINE
Ce premier de mes arguments comprend trois volets. Je traiterai en premier
lieu du droit; en second lieu,je reviendrai brièvement sur la géologiedu milieu
marin et, enfin, je montrerai que d'importants écritsscient~fi~ueiaméricains
n'appuient aucunement la thèsede nos contradicteurs dans cette affaire.
1. La théoriede Iofrontière naturellen'estpasfondée en droit
Abstraction faite des données scientifiques,il se pose évidemment la question
plus fondamentale de savoir si lesimple fait de prétendre qu'il existe unefron-
tière naturelle dispense de la nécessid'aboutir àun résultatéquitablefondésur
des principes équitables selonle droit (répliquedu Cariada, pac 28). Les Etats-
Unis ont refuséou négligé de lier contestation avec le Canada sur cette question
absolument fondamentale. Mc Stevenson a soutenu:
«If a natural boundary exists ... then such a houndary can holsterand
con$rm a delimitation reached by the application of equitable geographic
principles.» (VI, p. 276.)
Mais. Monsieur le Président.cet areument suooo.. à la fois au'il existe une
frontière naturelle- ce qui n'est pas le-ca- et que la frontière p;oposéepar les
Etats-Unis est le résultat de l'applicationde principes équitables- ce qui selon
nous n'est Das non plus le cas. Me ~tevenion a fait valoir aue la irise en
considération de frontiéres naturelles trouve un «fondement soliden'dans la
jurisprudence. Bienrespectueusement, MeStevensonest dans I'erreur. En effet,il
suffitde lire attentivement les décisions pertinentespour se rendre compte que,
bien au contraire, la prise en considérationde caractéristiques naturellesdans la
mer aux finsdu droit repose en réalité«sur le sable».
Je n'aipas l'intention dem'attarder longuement sur ce point, maisje dois tout
de mêmedonner la réplique à McStevenson:
Premièrement, I'affaire des Grisbadarna ne présente sûrement pas un précé-
dent pour ce qui est de la théorie dela frontière naturelle. II est évidentque le
point à retenir dans cette affaire est que le tribunal arbitral a tenu compte
expressément dans sa sentence du désir des Parties elles-mêmes,qui avaient
convenu que les petits bancs de pêchedes Grisbadarna ne devaient pas être
divisés(III, contre-mémoiredu Canada, par. 45, et notes 30 et 31, p. 19).
Deuxièmement, il est étonnant que M' Stevenson ait invoqué I'arrèt dela
Cour dans l'affaire des Pécheries (VI, p. 277). En effet, cette affaire n'avait
absolument rien à voir avecdes frontières prétendument naturelles.Ce qui était
en cause, comme vous le savez mieux que moi, c'étaitle système norvégien de
lignes de base droites. Or, ces lignes de base avaient ététiréesentre des points
fixessituéssur la terre ferme, sur des iles ou sur des rochers, et non en fonction
de caractéristiaues du fond de la mer ou d'autres nhénomènesocéanioues.
~roisièmemént,et avecle plus grand respect pou; l'opinion contraire: nous ne
saurions prendre au sérieux la référencede Me Stevenson à la convergence
antarctiqüe (ihid.)En effet, cette convergenceest un phénomène extrêmement
?tendu iui resreniblei 13con\ergencC oh;er\& knlre lis c;iii*.du froiit plïtsliu-
131~s CIleseïux du Gulf Sirr.iini;iu 13rgJe I:c6te est <leI'Ami:riquedu Nord et
que IkCïniidd a dc~ntcdans ses c'cniurc\(ci)nirc-niCrn<iicii C'dnaJ.i,vdr.b41.
Sa localisation varie sur des centaines de milles marins en I'esoace &'à oeine
quelques semaines. Et c'estjustement à cause de son étendueet $e sa variibilité
géographique que les Parties à la convention sur la conservation de la faune
et de la flore marines de l'Antarctique ont prévu que la convergence serait
réputéese situer le long d'une ligne préciseaux fins de la convention. Cette convention n'apporte donc aucun appui, encore moins un fondement solide à la
thèseaméricainede la frontière naturelle.
A notre avis, il est très significatif que Mc Stevenson, lorsqu'il a parlédroit
dans ce domaine, se soit limitéa ces trois référencesI.I semble au Canada qu'il
aurait pu donner lecture a la Chambre de certains passages de la décision
arbitrale de 1977 qui traitent abondamment de l'argument du Royaume-Uni
fondé sur une caractéristique géomorpbologiquedu fond marin de la Manche.
Dans l'affaire du plateau continental franco-britannique, tout comme dans la
présenteespèce,les parties étaientd'accord à reconnaître «la continuitégéolo-
gique fondamentale du plateau continental» (sentence, par. 106).Et il ne fait
pas de doute que, dans l'esprit des parties et du trit>unalarbitral, cette conti-
nuités'appliquait tout autant à la géologie qu'àla géomorphologie. II est dès
lors intéressant, Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, de relever deux
conclusions importantes du tribunal arbitral:
Premièrement,attacher une signification déterminanteà un élément physique
tel que la fosse centrale et la zone de failles de la fosse centrale serait aller à
l'encontre de la tendance générale manifestép ear la pratique des Etats concer-
nant le ~lateau continental en da n les dernières années(sentence. .a.. 107).
~euxièmement, compte -tenu de la continuité fondàmentale du platéau
continental, il n'y avait aucun motif juridique d'écartçrla méthodede I'équidis-
tance ou toute autre méthode de délimitationpour lui préférersimplement un
accident tel que la fossecentraleet la zone de faillede la fossecentrale (sentence,
r--. IOR).
Essentiellement, letribunal arbitral ajugéque l'axede la fossecentraleet de la
zone de failles de la fosse centrale n'étaitqu'un «simple accident de la naturea
et qu'il ne constituai1 pas un facteur utile pour arrèter la délimitation. II ne
s'agissait par conséquentni d'une circonstance spécialeni d'un facteur pertinent
susceptible de se substituer aux caractéristiques géographiquesessentielles de
I'esoèce(sentence. var. 108).
Monsie~r le I'rr:~idcnt.hlc\>ieur. lesjuge,. c.'c.tpré~is5ineniILle point Je $uc
di1CdnaJa qudni ;i In pertinence dcj r.trdeter~\tiqu:s ~~iiturclled,u nliliei1marln
dans la présente affaire.Les Etats-Unis, oar conire. iirooosent aue la frontière
maritirnéunique respecte uneprétenduefrbntiere natirellédans la'colonned'eau
et sur le fond de la mer. Ce faisant, ils invitent la Chanibre à faireabstraction du
lait, pourtant évidentet reconnu par les deux Parties, que le plateau continental
dans la régiondu golfe du Maine est caractérisépar son unitéessentielle (VI,
p. 278).J'ai déjà traitéde cette contradiction dans l'argumentation des Etats-Unis
au premier tour de la procédure orale (VI. p. 108). Je voudrais aujourd'hui
rappeler très brièvementcomment, dans le contexte de son examen de la
jurisprudence qu'il jugepertinente, Me Stevenson a traitéde kagéologie.
2. La théoriede lafronriere nalurelleappliquée au sous-sol
duplareauconlirrenlaldansla ré~ionditg<iIJedu Main?
Me Stevenson a fait état de l'arrêtde la Cour dans l'affaire du Plareau
conrinental(TunisielJamahiriyaarabe libyenne) de 1982.Or il est clair que les
circonstances géologiques invoquéespar les Parties dans cette affaire étaient
d'un tout autre ordreque les références aux donnéesg5ologiquesactuelles faites
par le Canada en l'espèce.Les paragraphes pertinents de I'arrêtde 1982 (C.I.J.
Recueil 1982. var. 51-61) ne laissent aucun doute sur le fait aue les Parties
avaient articule leurs thèses géologiquesautour d'événements et Je processus de
l'évolutiondont elles considéraient qu'ilsavaient déterminéla direction ou la 116 GOLFE DU MAINE
~oroiectionn de leurs orolon~ements naturels res~ctifs. Et en déclarant que
«c'est le résultatqui importe, ët non l'évolutionqurs'est produite dans un
lointain)) (C.I.J. Recueil 1982,par. 61). la Cour a indiquésa préférencpour les
faits tels qu'ils seprésententaujourd'hui.
C'est donc avec raison aue Mc Stevenson a invoauéle reiet var la Cour en
1982des ihisej fondées surdcsé\ènemrnihrciiioni:ini iun milliond'iinnccs.sur
<<lesproce.xu>ei les c\cncmcnis qui sont a l'origine des 13115 . sur CI SOUS IJ
surfacc tcrrc\irc>. i\'D. 277-27aj Hicn .Ur. ~cn'di hii iiucunc reicrencc d:ins
mon exoosédu 4 a&il à'laoertinencedes orocëssus de la eéoloeiehistoriaue. Par
conirc. j'aiellccti~ciiicnifr:t;ide sert:tins i';iitsaciueli c(inLernan1la srriiciurc
gCulogiquede Iü marge contincntalc dans II rcgiun du golre du laine. Er jï
souiicns uue hirc Ciai de ccs fait5est nariaircmeni cn accord ascc I'idcc~LC Ib
Cour rc f3isiiii dc son rOlcdan, l'ariirc de 1982.un r6le q~i consiste -i nï
recouriri la géologiïque Jans la mcsure ou I'applicati~indu droii inicrnaiional
I'exigcn(('1.J Re<ueil IYY2.Dar 61) 1.cCanada n'en demïnde pas plus
~&neitez-moi. M.nsi~ur '1;président.Messieurs lesiuee2. ue ;oui raooele..
trèsbricvïmeni I'uncder ihcscs fondbmc.nialesdu Canada conccrnlini ccriiitnc.;
caractérisiiquc5clCsdu sous-sol dc IL régionJu golfe du hlainc Je le fais parcc
aue cette thèsen'a fait l'obiet d'aucunecritiauede la Dart des ~tats-Unis~dans
kurs plaidoiries orales. *
S'il est vrai que les Parties sont d'accord à reconnaître que le plateau
continental de la réeion du eolfe du Maine se caractérise Dar son unité
essentielle, nous avons cependant démontréle 4 avril dernier q;'il existe deux
bassins sédimentairesprofonds dans la région,à savoir le bassin Scotian et le
bassin du banc de Georges, et que ces deux bassins sont partiellement séparés
par l'arche de Yarmouth, qui se situe un peu à l'est du centre du banc de
Georges. Par conséquent,les discontinuitésgéologiquesdans la région nese
@) produisent pas au chenal Nord-Est. (Je vous rappelle cet égardlesfigures52et
53 de la procédure oraledu Canada que vous trouvez dans votre livre rouge.)
@ Ces deux bassins sédimentairessur lesquels tant de travaux ont étéeffectués
sont potentiellement très riches en hydrocarbures, cette ressource du plateau
continental qui a pu sembler êtrereléguée au second plan dans cette affaire en
faveur des ressources halieutiaues de lacolonne d'eau: non oarce aue le Canada
n'aitachc p3s un grand iniéreiaux ressourcesd~ pldicau coniincnlÿl. mais parce
que I'imporiancc connuc des ressources halieuliquci ci la dépendancedu sud-
oucsi dc la Nou\,ellc-Ecossci I'caardJc ce\ ressourcesconfcrcni a la qucslion dc
la pêcheune immédiatetéparticÜlièresur le plan humain. IIest donc impossible
de décrirele banc de Georges comme un gisement unique de ressources en
hydrocarbures. Si l'on veut parler de frontière naturelleen ce qui concerne le
sous-sol. eh bien. ce n'estoas au chenal Nord-Est au'il faut la chercher.
C'est une iron;ièrc m;ir;iinic unique que le conipromis intiic13 Chambre à
Jlm~ir Et nii.rnii la ligne aiiiéric~incpcui prtiçndrc 7igragucr rur le plan
horizontal, il va de soi qu'une frontière naturellene peut, elle, zigzaguer sur le
plan vertical,autrement dit entre lestrois étages,entre lestrois paliers du milieu
marin.
Je vous rappelle, Monsieur le Président,Messieurs les juges, mesparoles du
4 avril:
«si la théseaméricainede la frontière naturelleétaitmêmereconnue en droii,
pour triompher, elle devrait forcément valoirpour chacun des étages.Elle
ne peut subir une seuleexception à quelque palier que ce soit, sinon elle
s'effondre))(VI, p. 108).
II est manifeste qu'à l'étageimportant de la géologiela thèseaméricainede la frontière naturelle s'écrouleirrémédiablement commeun château de cartes.
J'arrive à mon troisième volet.
3. Les étudesoficielles des Etats-Uniset la théoriedrs trois régimes écologiques
et de laprétendue frontièrenaturelle
En ce qui concerne les ou\,niges scientitiqur, ir~iiant de cette question des
trois rkgimcsécologiqueset dc la prCicnduefrontiere n,iiurelle nous avons diia
montréque ledocteur Edwards aadmis au'il n'enexistenas. La thèseaméricaine
est donc'dénuée detout fondement scientifique.
Mais, nous avons cherchéàdécouvrirs'iln'existait pas d'autres textes faisant
étatd'études aoprofondies du milieu marin dans la réeiondu eolfe du Maine
dans un conte% autre que la présenteafïaire. Si ces textes exisïaient, corrobo-
raient-ils la thèseaméricaineou plutôt la thèsecanadienne, qui postule, elle,que
le banc de Georges présente beaucouo d'affinitésavec d'autres zones cana-
diennes au nord-est, àla fois sur les géologique, géophysique, océanogra-
phique et biologique?
Monsieur le Président, Messieursles iunes. nous avons effectivement niis la
main sur lu sieursraooorts oubliésoa; le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis lui-
..
mfme. depuis 1977,et qui av.iicnt tous comme objet premier I'crudedu milieu
marin d~nscert<tinssecteurs de la rcgion dii golfe du Maine. IIi';igii do hilans
des erTetswr I'en\ironment (<En\irtinment;il Inipast Si,iicmenisul r>reparr:saux
fins de l'octroi de nermis de foraee a-éri~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ il~~ déia'été'a,es~ ~ ~.
desant la ~hanibre'les IXet 19atril Jrrnicr (\'I, p. 151)
Tulle part d~ns ccs dc>cunients<~ilicieInsous ne trouvons la moindre mention
de I'e~i~rcnïede truis reeinies eiol<iriuucs identiiiahlr<dans la rkeion ou d'une
hsrritrc naturelle au chcial ~i)rd-~G 'IIno111irmble fort pertineG de çommen-
ter bric\ement ceri;iins de ces importants rapport~~qui uint tous déjadepuGs
auprès de la Chambre.
Le bilan des efïets sur l'environnement préparéen 1979par le Gouvernement
des Etats-Unis ne fait aucune mention ni de trois régimesdistincts ni d'une
frontière naturelle. Nous tenons ces omissions pour extrêmementsignificatives.
En effet. non seulement cette étuderenferme-t-elle une description détailléedu
milieu marin de l'ensemble de la régiondu golfe dii Maine, mais elle a aussi
donnélieu à d'importantes consultations publiques et fait l'objet d'un examen
par la National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration dont fait partie le
docteur Edwards.
Un autre bilan des effets sur l'environnement, établi en prévision d'une
adjudication ultérieure de concessions sur la partie américaine du banc de
Georees. a été oublié nar le Gouvernement d~s~Etats-Unis en avril 1982. ilv a
Jeu.; ans Ce document a donnk lieuau niémeproçessiisd'sudiences publique, ci
d'e\ünien guuverncmenidl Or. il ne l'ai1lui non plus ;rucune mcntion d'une
l'r<iniicrcocéani>graphiqueou hiologique qui se siiueraii ïu chenal Nord-Elt
Ces deux kiuder font par conire ressortir un autre point. tiravoir I'imporiance
de la /une Je transition cap Cod-haut,-fonds de Naiiiucket-grand chenal Sud.
Ces documents ne laissent aucun doute sur le fait que la zone de transition la
plus significativesur les plans biologique et océanographiquese situe non pas au
chenal Nord-Est, mais bien au sud-ouest du banc de Georges comme le Canada
l'a fait valoir dans ses écritures.
Ainsi ces ouvrages scientifiques n'étayentpas la théorie américainemais
confirment plutôt la thèsedu Canada selon laquelle le banc de Georges est de
nature boréale ou nordique et fait partie d'une série bien définiede bancs
s'étendantvers le sud-ouest à partir du plateau Scotian. 111.LE BANC DE GEORGES
Permetter-moi, Monsieur le Président,Messieurs les juges, d'aborder main-
tenant le deuxième point qu'entend faire valoir le Canada aujourd'hui en ce qui
a trait au milieu marin. Le banc de Georges n'est pas une entité autonome,
comme le prétendent les Etats-Unis. Ces derniers mésinterprètentles faits en
identifiant les ressources halieutiques du banc de Georges comme une commu-
nautédistincte et indivisible.
Le 19avril. lesEtats-Unis ont soutenu que le banc de Georses est un banc de
p2clie~.ahi.rcniri .iuion<riii(qcinternaIl! c;)hrrcrii .in4 ~clics~ixine4>.).qu'on )
rcir,iu\c une coiiiniun.iuii. Je rcr3ourses Ji.tinctc et queId division du banc p.ir
unc ir,>iiiiCrceniraincr;iii Jc ar>\ci prohlcnic, Jc sonrcri..iiion (VI. p. 436)
Laissons de côté pour l'instant la question de la pertinence juridique de ces
arguments et arrêtons-nous à l'hypothèsede l'enclavement total des ressources
du banc de Georges, que l'on doit imaginer entièrement isolé des zones
contiguës. Mêmesi leCanada croitavoir démontréque cette hypothèsen'estque
pure chimère,nous devons aujourd'hui répliquer à des arguments qui ont fait
leur premièreapparition dans le mémoire desEtats-Unis en septembre 1982et
qui refont surface, maintenant, sous un emballage différent,dans les plaidoiries
amér~c..nes-
Conir.iirr.mcni :lu\ .iffirmdtionsdch Ctxi~Lnii. IcCiinida nn j:iniiii. iti.iqii6
Ir,noiioii Je stock>coirinit,iclleA ry;ird. irrappille iiIï Chÿ~iibrc,Ic. propor
aue i'ai tenus à ce suiet lors de ma oremière-intetvention (VI. D. 116-117).A la
&&ence des ~tats-Unis, nous ne c;oyons pasque les stocks se'cantonneit dans
des limites rigides coïncidant avec les bancs de pêche.Tout au contraire, le
Canada conclut de son analyse de la structure des stocks dans la régiondu golfe
du Mai~ ~a~e~,e~hanc de Geo~g~s c~-sti~ ~ un milieu oui n'est oas une com-
munÿuii. Je ressource, cohCrinii. ci ;iiii<>niiiiie(~sintirn.il1)ii~hcrciii and beli
coniriiied .,) M2iiicIr., p,>isronsqui t',iip:irticdc.5stock, qu'on Ji1 .<rlucls ilu
banc de Ceorees» sont entièrement mobiïes et aucunement confinésà I'intérieur
de murs infr~nchissahles qui entoureraient le banc de Georges. A l'intérieur
mime du banc, les groupements et lesconcentrations de poissons sont variables
et irréguliers.Certaines espècess'apparentent davantage par leur comportement
au banc de Brown tandis que d'autres montrent plus d'affinités avecle grand
chenal Sud.
Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, la pierre angulaire sur laquelle
repose la thèse américained'une frontière naturelle au chenal Nord-Est est la
division trèsnette («sharp stock division») que marquerait ce chenal entre des
stocks distincts de douze des seize espèces de poissons que les Etats-Unis
considèrent ètre d'importance commerciale (II. mémoire des Etats-Unis,
par. 57).Or, nous croyons avoir démontréde façon concluante, lors de notre
contre-interrogatoire du témoin desEtats-Unis, la contradiction flagrante qui
entache la position de nos adversaires en ce qui concerne au moins~quatre de
ces douze esoèces.Le chenal Nord-Est n'est vas et n'a iamais étéune frontière
biologique naturelle divisant le hanc de Geokgeset le plateau Scotian avec, de
part et d'autre, des stocks prétendument distincts de calmars à nageoires
longues, de brosmes, de séhasteset de merluches blanches. L'agent du Canada,
mon ami Me Legault, a déjàmontréjeudi comment le homard ne cadrepas non
plus avec le modèle américain(ci-dessus, VI, p. 21).
Cela est extrèmement sérieux. Si nous avons raison de trouver dans le
témoignage du docteur Edwards et dans les écrits auxquels nous I'avons confrontéla confirmation aue seules subsistent sent des douze esnecesmention-
@ nies i l'originedsns I:Ific.;re 7 du ni?nioire ;imi.r;cain,quelle c,i donc I'inipur.
tan;: r2:llc de csitc impi.nr:ir:ihlcir~iiiiicren;iiiircllc du chenal K'rJ-C,i
N'est-il pas permis d'affirmer que cette barrière perd quelque peu de I'étan-
chéitéjuridique que nous adversaires américainsveulent lui conférer?N'est-il
par permis égalementd'affirmer que le banc de Georges perd quelque peu de sa
prétendueintégrité biologique?
Monsieur le Président, Messieursles juges. le Canada n'accepte évidemment
pas que Mc Colson infère, comme il l'a fait le 19 avril, que si nous n'avons
contre-interrogé le témoin desEtats-Unis que sur quatre des douze espècesde
@ poissons mentionnéesà la figure 7 du mémoire américain,c'est que nous étions
disposesàconcéderlesautres (VI,p. 440).Nous pourrions rendre la monnaie de
sa pièceà M' Colson. En efiet, M' Lancaster n'a interrogéle docteur Edwards
que sur six espèces.Faut-il en conclure que les Etats-Unis concèdent que leur
@ figure 7 n'aurait pas dû renfermer Ics autres?
Pour démontrer une fois de plus que la thèseque soutiennent toujours nos
adversaires américains,que la thèsede la frontièrenaturelle au chenal Nord-Est
et de i'intéeritébioloeiaue du banc de Georees n'est aue Dure chimère. nous
coiiimenier<>n.;iiijourd'hui. trA hrir:\ciiisiii. .i iiiie d's\cnipl~, Jeu\ iuircs
erpkcs dllcs c~mmcril~lenlçnt ires imporiante,, oit 13riirirueci le h~rsn,!
Nous avons choisi la morue parce que cette espèceillustre de façon saisissante
au'il n'existe oas de communauté autonome confinCeau banc de Georees et
;ussi parce l'utilisation qu'en ont faite les Efats-Unis met en relief,encore
une fois, le manque de rigueur scientifique de l'analyse américaine.Nous avons
choisi le hareng parce qÜ'ilillustre éloquemment les mouvements de stocks à
travers des régimesécologiqueset des frontières natiirelles dont les Etats-Unis
nous ont affirmél'existence.
Selon leCanada, lechenal Nord-Est n'estpas une barrièrede stocks de morue
comme le rét tendentes Etats-Unis. De fait, les stocks de morue associéà la
partie nord-est du banc de Georges ont des affinitésétroitesavec lesstocks de
morue qu'on retrouve sur le banc de Brown (1,mémoiredu Canada, par. 106).
Messieurs lesjuges, vous pouvez voir maintenant sur la boîte a images la
figure 165,que vous retrouvez aussi dans votre cahier rouge. Ces concentrations
de morue sur le banc de Brown et sur le banc de Georges sont clairement
distinctes du stock de morue au large de la côtede la Nouvelle-Angleterre. Dans
son contre-mémoire (III. Dar. 215). le Canada a cité à I'. .ui de cette nro-
p(isiii<lnune ctude dz marquage rcalisécpJr un saeiitinquc 3niiricain. Ic doc-
teur Wise.Vau, i.oye/ m:iintcn3ni 3urla h,iirci im;ipc;.sur cciie iIlu~ir.iiion165.
la barrière migratoire de la morue selon le doçtei~r Wise. Elle se situe au
soixante-huitième méridien.Mais. évidemment.les conclusions de cette étudene
consordeni p.15aicc 13 ihé~e:imiricsinc. cilors les Etlits-[!ni, ilni critique le,
ira\dur dc.cct Cniinent ~cieniiliquc le pr2icxie qu'ils reposdieni \ur iin
i~or~~brtrop re\trcini J'~nci~s~dursr:<upr:r?btV. r.nl~aucdes EIdi~-[Jni\. vol Il.
annexe 21, par. 3).
Pour jeter le discréditsur les travaux du docteur Wise, les Etats-Unis ont cité
six documents dans l'une des annexes àleur contre-mémoire(IV, vol. 1,Part A,
var. 96. notes 2-4). Des scientifiquescanadiens ont examiné cesdocuments. Sur
1. hise de cet ekamcn. Ic C';,nad:,atlirme aulourd'hui que deux J'cnirc cux ne
IrJitsiii m2mep;ide, b~ncsdu large,le Iüriglun du go112JU hlainc; lrolj autres
ne font ressortir aucune différencedans les caractéristiquesbiologiques impor-120 GOLFE DU MAINE
tantes de la morue sur le banc de Brown et sur lehanc de Georgeset lesixième ne
renferme que des assertions non étayees.Monsieur le Président, Messieursles
juges, vous vous souviendrez que nous avons mis en reliefdans notre contre-
interrogatoire du témoinaméricainSutilisation également moinsque scientifi-
quement rigoureuse, je choisis mesmots avec soin, utilisation également moins
que scientifiquement rigoureuse que les Etats-Unis ont faite de Dice dans leurs
écriturespour étayer leur vision biogéographiquede la région(VI, p. 425-427).
Outre les travaux de Wise, les seulesautres donnéesde marquage pertinentes
concernant la morue mises àla disposition de la Chambre ont été fourniespar le
Canada dans un document dépose, qui avait été préparé parle scientifique
canadien. ,~- docteur R. G. Hallidav. 2elui~ ~ ~ ~tabli au'en 1973 un tiers des
morues qui avaient étémarquées sur le hanc de Brown ont étéeffectivement
reprises sur le banc de Georges de l'autre côtédu chenal Nord-Est (ICNAF
~ésearchDocu,nenr73/71, p. il).
Dans son étude,Wise enarrive àla conclusion suivante: «A linedrawn along
the 68th meridian separates the offshore and southern Nova Scotia fishfrom the
moreinshoregroups. a (((CodGroupsin the NewEnglandArean, FirheryBullefin,
vol. 63. o. 201.)
Quelle estdonc, je vous pose la question, quelle est donc I'airecommune de la
morue que l'on retrouve dans la partie nord-est du banc de Georges? Ce n'est
certainement pas la totalité du banc. Compte tenu des migrations de part et
d'autre du chenal Nord-Est, le Canada est d'avisque c'estla régioncomprenant
la partienord-est du bancdeGeorges et le bancdc Brown. En tout étatdecause,
I'aire commune se limiterait à la partie du hanc de Georges situéeà l'est de la
barrière établiepar Wise au méridiende 68" ouest.
2. Le hareng
Parlons maintenant du hareng. II n'existe pas de communauté distincte et
indivisible de hareng sur le banc de Georges. Tout d'abord, le hareng est un
grand migrateur et, in second lieu, lesharengsdedifférentsstocks reproducteurs
se mélangentdurant l'annéeen dehors des périodesde frai.
Le New England Fisheries Management Council lui-même a reconnu ces
caractéristiques du hareng. En 1979, dans un projet de bilan des effets sur
l'environne~en~ à l'a..ui de son olan de eestion du hareng. le conseil s'est
prononcécn Ilr\.curd'une approche gloh~lede I'c\~lulition.soiihc \ariou\ ~duli
herring Cisherieain the Giilioi Maine and (icorges H.ink S~ythern Ncu England
re-ion 8(.. l. En 1YXO.ledérnrtcmend i'Etiiien vientii1.1memzconcluriiin dans
Ir.prOjC1de hilan des ciTel>%UI r'cn\iri>nnr.mciitqu'il .Ipr(.p.Ircdans le conlexic
de I'.iccorJ sur les re,iourccs halieuiiques de I:c6te est. Jc cite en partie
<rAt various times of the year, fishfrom al1three stocks [from the Georges
Bank, Gulf of Maine and southwest Nova Scotia], may he expected to
overlap geographically in vnrying proportions and become seasonally
subject to capture in the various fisheries ...» (Appendices, p. 103.)
Encore ici. Monsieur le Président.le témoin des Etats-Unis. à .,i i'ai donné
le~rurcdese p;i,viigr. n'acccpic C\idcninieni pas ses consluri~~nspui>qu'ellcrne
ioïncident pii\ a\ec 9.1\I\i<ln compartimentée du milieu. i\'+ünmoins, ilnous
semble patént que Saire commune du hareng est bel et bien la région tout
entièredu golfe du Maine.
Par conséquent,j'estime qu'il estjustifiéde conclure, car je vous avais dit que
je serai bref en traitant de ces deux espèces,dans les limites des connaissances
que nousavons (tout aussi imprécises soient-elles dans de nombreux cas), que les communautés de ressources halieutioues dans la rérriondu aolfe du Maine
\ciricnt bwuii)up d'une rrpcLe i I':iuircci ~ii'cllssc~drcntdanire, peu dc ca,
3\cc I'entit2totnlcinrnt indépeiidsnieci indivi~ililcque con\tiitic. l'~i.1dcs
Etais-Cnis. le banc de Gcorzci I>mc rc. e~.riturcs.le C~n;iJi:imonir; 4~e Jrr
vingt-huit espècesde valeu; commerciale dans la régiondu golfe du Maine
seulement deux répondaient auxcritèresde commuriautédistincte du banc de
Georges (contre-mémoiredu Canada, par. 212). 11se dégagedonc une fausse
@ impression de la figure7 du mémoire américainI.I n'existetout simplement pas
de phalanges de stocks distincts qui manŒuvrentavecune précisionmilitaire de
part et d'autre du chenal Nord-Est. La frontière naturelleau chenal Nord-Est
tient donc toujours du mythe. Toute lignededélimitationdans la régiondu golfe
du Maine, comme l'ont d'ailleurs reconnulesEtats-Unis, divisera des ressources
biologiqueset entraînera la nécessitde coopérersur lesplans de laconservation
et de la gestion.
Monsieur le Président. Messieursles iuees. avant d'en venir à mon troisième
point concernant la conservation et la gestion des ressources du banc de
Georges,je dois traiter d'un autre argument américaiiifonde celui-cisur la ligne
qui sépareles sous-zones 4 et 5 de la CIPAN.
Nous croyons avoir démontré quel'aire de distribution d'un stock n'est pas
limitéependant tout le cycle vital à la zone situéeà l'ouest de la ligne séparant
les sous-zones 4 et 5, pas plus d'ailleurs qu'au banc de Georges ou a la
subdivision 5 Ze, du seul fait de sa désignationcomme «stock du banc de
Georges» ou, aux finsde la CIPAN, comme stock de la subdivision 5Ze. Ainsi,
les arguments américains,que vous avez entendus le 19 avril dernier, liésà
l'utilisation de tellesdésianationsDarla CIPAN restent àcôtéde la auestion de
rJpport entre la dijiribuiion dc, stocksel le*rr:giiiiciprCienduriicnt2ci1logiqiicr.
La ligne Je r2pÿr:itlunJc wus-?une> 1 ci 5. ~tahlic rn 1931pour renriler les
ilonnr:csJe c3pturc dr I'alglçtin,51:iitune liplir ~isti%iiuiie.Ousnil c,t tenu Ic
temps, quelque quarante ans plus tard, dé mettre en place un régimede
contingentement des captures, on a choisi cette ligne,parmi tant d'autres, pour
des raisons de commodité administrative qui tenaient essentiellement au fait
qu'elleexistait depuis longtemps. Est-il besoinde le rappeler, ellen'avait pas été
destinéeà représenterune barrièreuniverselleséparantlesstocks. Enfin, comme
l'a démontre Me Legault, à l'audience du 3 mai 1984, il va de soi qu'on n'a
jamais donné à cette ligne de dimension juridictionnelle (ci-dessus p. 16-17),
Mais voyons plutôt une autre lignestatistique- une lignequi avait été établie
par le conseil nord-américain des recherches sur les pêchespour séparer des
unitésstatistiques- des «concentrations naturelles de pêche» - sur le banc de
Georges. Cette ligne, que le Canada a illustréedans sa réplique(par. 93). a été
utiliséepar ledocteur Edwards lui-mêmedans son exposesur l'écologiedu banc
de Georges (VI, p. 419-420).Le Canada et les Etats-Unis continuent tous deux
d'utiliser aujourd'hui ces unitéspour leurs statistiques nationales de capture.
Reaardons à nouveau les données américaincs concernant la morue et
l'aiglëfin, mais en y ajoutant cette fois la ligne séparant les unitésstatistiques
-;;;)5 Zej et 5 Zem de la partie ouest du banc de Georges. II s'agit de la figure 166
dans votre cahier rouge, que vous voyez maintenant, Monsieur le Président,
Messieurs les juges, sur la boite à images. Je ne préiendspas que cette ligne
statistique constitue une frontière naturelle. Ce n'est pas là la position du
Canada. Nous croyons qu'il est impossiblede tracer une lignedans la régiondu
golfe sans diviser lesressources et sans, par voie de conséquence,commander
une forme quelconque de coopérationbilatérale.Pourtant, il est clair que cette
ligne statistique ne divise pas les concentrations de frai de la morue et de
l'aiglefin.Sur la boità images, vous voyez les lettres A, B, C, en regard de122 GOLFE DU MAINE
chacune de ces petites cartes; malheureusement, elles n'ont pas été reproduites
sur l'illustration aue vous retrouvez dans votre cahier. Je vous orierai, s'ilvous
plaît, de les ajoukr en regard de chacune de ces illustrations. '
Monsieur le Président, vousavez pu constater que cette ligne statistique ne
divise pas les concentrations de frai de la morue sur la petite carte A, pas plus
que les concentrations de frai de l'aiglefin sur la petite carte B. Regardons
maintenant la carte C. On voit très bien que la ligne de division des unités
statistiques se situe égalemententre les plus importantes concentrations de
pétonclessur le banc de Georges. Une fois fixés,nous savons, ceci nous a été
indiquépar le docteur Edwards (VI, p. 415). que les pétoncles ne migrentpas.
Par conséquent,mêmesi une concentration de pétonclesétaitdiviséepar une
ligne, la péche menée d'un côtéde cette ligne n'influeraitpas directement sur la
péchemenéede l'autre côté.
11ressort de ces figures, Monsieur le Président,Messieurs lesjuges, interpré-
tées selonle critère appliqué par les Etats-Unis aux concentrations de frai,
qu'une ligne statistique très proche de la ligne canadienne ne divise pas les
frayèresdu hanc de Georges. Toutefois, le fait que ni la ligne canadienne ni la
ligne américaine ne divisent de concentrations de frai n'est pas réellement
pertinent en l'espèce.Nous demeurons convaincus que si l'on prend en compte
l'ensemble du cycle vital et la distribution globale des stocks au stade où ils
peuvent être capturés,le schémabien ordonné des concentrations de frai se
transforme en un écheveau complexede parcours qui rayonnent à partir des
frayères enun lacisque ne sauraient reproduire aucune construction de lignesni
aucune frontière prétendument naturelle.
Dans son mémoire(par. 140), le Canada a fait valoir que la partie non
contestée du hanc de Georges fournit aux Etats-Unis une ample base de
ressources pour maintenir la vigueur de son industrie de pêcheet lui donner des
possibilités de se développer. Les Etats-Unis ont cherché à réfuter cette
affirmation en présentant un tableau récapitulatif desexperiences de chalutage
d'une seuleannée,en 1980,annéeatypique dois-je souligner (VI, p. 444-445, et
IV, contre-mémoire des Etats-Unis,par. 354).
Ce tableau montre, expriméeen pourcentages, une trèsforteconcentration de
morue. d'aielefinet de limande àaueue iaune dans la oartie nord-est du hanc de
Georges durcini la prcsqiie ioialiii. Je l'.;nn?e 19#0 Cc$r?iuIIaIs son1icpendnnl
i,)uà l'opposéde. doniiéeicomprrdbles fuurnio p.ir Ir, Etais-L'niseui-mCiiies
puur Ici deux ;innCe, précédcnie\(curitre-mCmoire Jr's Fidis-Unis. \ul V. ail-
nexc 38) En elïci. I'esiiniatioiides pruporiions de cer truis cspecc*d.ii13 p:ir-
tic nord-est du bdnc de George\ e>ien\iron le doahle <le\chilTresde 1978ci de
197').C'e\t dunc d!rc que Ics Ei.its.llni$ iuni de nuu\r.au un usdgc tris jcle.Tii
des données.créantde-la sorte une image -out a fait inexacte.
En rkaliii.i I'cx.imcndcs donnccr puur tuutcï leszrpeies ?iudiCcs.on con>-
talc qu'cn\iron 70 pour cent dc 1.1biixnasre se trouve ddns Id parlie amCrir';iinc
non coniestéc du banc de Gcorgc~. Comnie I'J denionir; rntlii colliguc, le
prol'csicur Bou~cit.lx poiiiion dz la ligne can~dieiiric rcflCtzlx d~\,i<ionder
resiourcci que lesP~riics~u~c~ien? iquii.ihlcsd;in\ I'accorddc 1379 (VI.p 146).
IV. LES RESSOURCESDU RANC DE GEORGES:
LEüR CONSERVATION ET LEUR GESTION
J'enviensmaintenant àmon troisièmeet dernier point: lesressourcesdu banc
de Georges, aussi bien biologiques que non biologiques. peuvent faire l'objet
d'une conservationefficacepar deux Etats travaillant en collaboration de part et
d'autre d'une frontière établieselon des principes équitables. Monsieur le Président, les Etats-Unis ont dressé un inventaire de l'histoire
des commissions de pêcheinternationales et ont conclu à l'échecde la gestion
conjointe ou coopérative. Ils ont établi le mêmeconstat à la suite de leur
examen du bilan de la gestion conjointe des pêchespar le Canada et les Etats-
Unis. L'agent du Canada a déjàrépliquéà cet argument américain (ci-dessus
p. 15-16).
Mais pour répondreprécisémentàla quatrièmeqiiestion poséepar M. lejuge
Cohen (VI. o. 4651. nous orétendons. contrairement à nos adversaires. aue.l.
~anada'et 1;s ~tatS:~nis Ont une longue tradition de gestion bilatérale desres-
sources, aussi bien dans le domaine des pêchesque dans d'autres secteurs. Le
Canada a reproduit dans le ~remier livredes annëxes à son mémoirele texte des
:iicord~hil.ilcr:iu.\que lesPariie, ont conclus rcl;iii\cmcni .igcrtioiides p2chr.
rie>rur 13i6ic c%tde I'Aiii(.riquedu Norit 1.esunir:-in(.nioirc Ju Cdn.id;i r:n-
ferme égalementnombre d'exemplesde la coopération canado-américainedans
le domaine de la ee-tion des oèches.au sein d'oreauismes tant bilatérauxaue
multiliter~u\ Je cite. .i iiirc d'eicniple.1.zoiiimii<i,,n miLie internii.)n.ils. 1.1
coninii..ion ilej pé~hericjdes Grdnds L:i..r ci 1.1c<inimi\,ion iniern;iriondlc dei
néchcriesdu Pdcitiuuc Si~rilicimtrc-minioirc du Cin~cid. nar. 231-2421
Au fil des ans, 1;s deux pàys ont développeau nivea"'régional ukrégime
efficaced'exploitation et de gestion conjointes de leurs ressources halieutiques
communes. D'ailleurs. lesaccords conioints portant sur les ressources com-
munes couvrent. oiitre lespécht,. une i..i\te g.immcde Jomaine, ci ont csnjtitu(.
1.1rcgle plutiit quc I'c~~~cpiionepui, ileu\ ceni, ans I e C'an.idans sou,-csiime
pas i'effort qu'il faudra consentir pour en venir i un accord sur la gestion des
ressources. Par ailleurs. nous ne cro,..s oas aue les arranee.,nts coooératifs
3~0i11ê111:IU.riwucr JC ditfi:rcnd, lou1;tu cc>ntr.iiri,.nous r>it2rdiisqu'au<une
ir.)ntir:rcuniqLr Jan> 1%rr:gi<~dnu golfe du 3l:iine ne pcui oh\ier? I'impr:r.itil'Jc
la coopération. Les Partiei ne tireront donc pleinement avantage de leurs zones
de pEcheélargiesque si ellesarrivent àcoopérerdans l'ensemblede la régiondu
golfe du Maine. Lorsque seulsdeux Etatssont en presence, ilest invariablement
dans I'intérètde I'un et de l'autre de conserver et de gérerleurs ressources
communes d'une facon rationnelle.
Avant de conclure, je voudrais traiter de la question de la pollution par le
pétrole. Le 19 avril, M. Colson a présenté diversarguments qui visaient a
démontrer que si la ligne canadienne était retenuepar la Chambre et que les
hydrocarbures de la partie est du banc de Georges étaient misen valeur, les
ressources et les côtes des Etats-Unis seraient exposéesà un plus grand risque
que les ressources et les côtes du Canada (VI, o. 4501.
t.':r.!i!i.I«,u.je souiiieis que,I'drgumcntdc il. i;>lriin L.Igr;i\cnient \icié
II siippoje cn elki que t<iutc. le, reibiiurcc, JIJ h;incde Cicorgesapp3riicnncnt
du^ CIAI\-[!ni>.Chhiin. uu.ini ;IIC'cinad3. il\a ~ticndr: que la ('hamhre ail iixe
la frontière pour savoir a qui appartiennent les ressour~esqui risquent d'être
compromises sur le banc de Georges.
En secondlieu, il me faut réfuter l'argument desEtats-Unis selon lequel le
pétrolequi atteindrait les côtes du Canada à la suite d'un déversementsur la
partie est du banc de Georges n'aurait que des effets négligeablessur ces côtes,
qui sont pourtant les plus proches du banc de Georges. C'est là une affirmation
dénuéede tout fondement,et qui est en contradiction flagrante avec l'expérience
malheureusement acquise lors de déversementseffectifs, tel l'accident du pétro- 124 GOLFE DU MAINE
lier Kurdisransurvenue en mars 1979 (contre-mémoiredu Canada, annexes,
livre 1,par. 100).
Monsieur le Président,les Etats-Unis prétendenten outre qu'il n'y a qu'une
faible probabilité que du pétrole déversé sur le banc de Georges atteigne le
@ littoral canadien. Evidemment, M. Colson s'estcontentéde regarder la figure 16
de la replique du Canada, qui illustre la trajectoire que suivrait du pétrole
déversé sur la partie nord-est du banc de Georges. S'il avait consulté l'e'oùd
cette firure est tirée.il v aurait trouvé des données suoolémentairesindiauant
que dupétrole déveksé l'extrémité ouesdtu banc de &orges, soit au point A
prèsdu grand chenal Sud, pourrait atteindre le littoral de la Nouvelle-Eeosse
au bout de vingt jours à peine. Sur la figure que vous avez devant vous (la
figure 167),la trajectoire vingtjours est indiquéeen vertet la trajectoire quarante
jours est indiquéeen rouge. Cette figure montre à l'évidenceque la mise en
valeur des hydrocarbures, en quelque point que ce soit du banc de Georges,
cornoorterait des risaues oour leszones de Décheet lescôtes du Canada..et .ue
les Etats-unis sont dans i'erreur Ikirsqu'ils le contraire
IIme resie un dernier point a faire uloir pour dissiper la confusion crééepar
les Eiats.Unis en cp qui concerne les déversementsde péirole. Lc Canada
convient qu'il est important de distinguer entre le pétrole quipénétredans Id
culonnr d'eau et la nappe de surfacc Mais, en r>aliré.la plus grande partie -
environ 90 pour cent - du pétrole déversé dans le milieu marin demeure à la
surface (répliquedu Canada, par. 178).Et c'estcette massede pétroleàla dérive
qui souillele littoral, lesplageset lesengins de péche,et qui ne peut êtrenettoyée
qu'au prix d'eîïorts et de dépenses énormes.
A auoi tout cela nous conduit-il. Monsieur le Président?Tout simolement à
conclure que les Euts-Unis ne sauraient plausiblemcni prétcndrc seraient
seiils a subir les conscquenccs d'un J2versement de pétrole sur le hanc de
Georges. Ils ne sauraient soutenir comme ils le font que leurs ressources sur le
banc de Georges seraient en daneer si le Canada entreorenait d'exoloiter les
hydrocarbure;de la partie est du banc, alors quelecanada ne serait pas exposé
à des risques semblables si cette mêmerégionétaitmise en valeur par les Etats-
Unis. Ce1argument est tout simplement indéfendable.Le risque est partagé par
les deux Parties. D'ailleurs, elles ont déjàadoptéun plan d'urgence en vue de
coordonner leurs actions pour le nettoiement et le contrôle de la pollution en
cas d'accident pétrolier (répliquedu Canada, par. 177-178).Et elles doivent
continuer de coopéreren vue de réduirece risque, quelle que soit la localisation
de la frontière que fixera la Chambre.
VI. CONCLUSION
LeCanada n'a pasjugénécessaire,Monsieurle Président, Messieurslesjuges,
de présenter un témoin pour répliquer au docteur Edwards. Cependant, la
Chambre a effectivemententendu un témoinpour le Canada durant la procé-
dure orale. Je m'explique. Le docteur Edwards lui-mêmea reconnu, dans un
article oublié en1978dans SecondSuecialSvmuosiumof rheAmerican Socierv 01
~imnoiogy and Ocennography(p. j06) et auquel je fai confronté le 18 avr:l
dernier, que tous les régimesécologiquessont en mouvement perpétuel. Je
reprends sespropres mots: «Al1ecosystemschange continuously ..»Le docteur
Edwards est aussi l'auteur de cette phrase qui porte le coup de grâce à la cause
américainesurcepoint: «In theocean,boundaries and distribution ofecosystems
change constantly.» Je répète,dixir le docteur Edwards.
Le témoindu Canada, qui réfute de façondéfinitivela thèse américainedans le domaine du milieu marin, c'est le réputé biologiste américainl,e docteur
Robert L. Edwards lui-même,dans son incarnation de 1978et non dans sa
metamorohose de 1984.
i on sieu le Président, Messieurslesjuges, homme de loi,j'ai abordélemonde
de la science avecle vif sentiment des limites du droit. Je le quitte aujourd'hui
avec une certaine perception des limites de la science. Einstein a d'ailleurs
parfaitement exprimécetteidéelorsqu'ila dit: «Man seeksto formfor himself,in
whatever manner is suitable for him, a simplifiedand lucid image of the world,
and so to overcome the world of experience by striving to replace it to some
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1978,p. 213.)e ScienrificImagination,
Dans les circonstances de i'espèce,le milieu marin de la régiondu golfe du
Maine doit êtreconsidérédu point de vue du «monde de l'expérience))et non
envisagédu point de vue d'une«image simplifiée))forméede manière àconvenir
à I'une des Parties.II doit êtreconsidéréàla lumière de la diversité,de la plura-
lité,de la complexitéet de la mobilitéqui font toute sa richesse. Et aussi,
paradoxalement peut-être,à la lumière deson unitéet de sa continuité fonda-
mentale.
Mais ce n'est ni dans les paradoxes de la nature ni dans les perpétuelles
controverses de la scienceaue nous devons chercher le filconducteur aui nous
guiJrr~ dïnr lxdeliinitxtion des ironiiCrcsquc les Eiai. iraceni cnirc eux \urIï
terre krme <iudans Id mer. C'ciiiondurieur, c'c\Idïns Iii rCglc,ci le. principe>
du droit, imparfaits certes mais indisoensables - dans nos notions. imoarfaites
certes mais indispensables, de réquite ou du raisonnable - que nous devons le
trouver. La sciencene peut espérerse substituer au droit, pas plus que ledroit ne
peut espérerse substituer à la science.
Monsieur le Président. Messieursles iu..s. ie.vous remercie infiniment de
ioirc gcnr:rcu>ep;iiience Ce fui un grand honneur pour moi que Je compar;iitrc
dciliiit ccite chambre de13Cour intern3iiun3li de Juitisc.eileVOUS en remercie.
Le PRÉSIDENT: Monsieur Fortier, je vous remercie et je me permets
seulementde vous demander si,au moment que vous estimerezle plus opportun,
vous trouverez le moyen vous-mêmeou quelqu'un dela délégation canadienne
de satisfaire à une petite curiositéqui me reste. Vous avez mentionnéet vos
écrituresont mentionnéun ohénomènedont i'ieno.e-'il esteéolo-iaue -. eéo- -
morphologique que vous avez appelél'«arche de Yarmouth». Est-ce que vous
pourrez nous préciser très rapidementde quoi il s'agit?
M. FORTIER: Sûrement, Monsieur le Président, nousle ferons.
L'audience estlevée à 13 h 5 VINGT-TROISIÈME AUDIENCE PUBLIQUE (5 V 84, 15 h)
Présents: [Voir audience du 2 IV 84.1
REPLIQUE DE M. MALINTOPPI
CONSEIL DU GOUVERNEMENTCANADIEN
M. MALINTOPPI: Monsieur le Président,Messieurs lesjuges, la concentra-
tion du débat, exigéepar l'esprit qui régitles répliquesorales, nous impose de
rechercherlesnoints essentielsaui.onno..nt lesParties en Œ aui concerne lecritère
ou teetde 13~roPoriionn31i~~C . es points, iimon iitis. sont au nonihre de six
En cc qui concerne d'irhurd le droit. et en dehors Jc quelques divergences
d'ordre secoiidiiire.il. a on..silion cnrre leCanada CI les Etai\-llnis uuant i la
n;lture ci ci 1fonction dc ILproportionnal~lr:.quuique les troib c<inseilsqui ont
apporte leur ionirihuiion ;ice hujei de l'autre côik de la harre ne se soient pas
tous exprimés de lamèmemanière.
-~ de~xième lieu l faut souliuner lecaract~~etotalement arbitraire du modèle
proposé par les Etats-Unis pour le testde la proportionnalité, mêmedans sa
version que j'avais appelée«maquillée»,pour laquelle la Partie adverse semble
maintenant avoir unecertaine préférence, etmème dans une sorte de modèle
nouveau «panaché» bâti en remaniant quelques éléments del'un des modèles
canadiens.
Troisièmement l convient de considérer la position dogmatique adoptée par
nos adversaires en ce qui concerne le rôle de la baie de Fundy, dont l'exclusion
est l'une - mais certes pas la seule - des raisons de fond du caractère arbitraire
des modèlesde proportionnalité proposéspar les Etats-Unis.
En quoirieme lieu, nous verrons pourquoi la Partie adverse affecte de
n'attribuer aucun rôle au triangle àl'intérieur duquella frontièreàétablir parla
Chambre doit nécessairementse terminer: ici encore la position de la Partie
adverse se traduit par une tentative de s'éloignerdes termes du compromis
lorsaue ceux-ci ne lui conviennent olus.
Cinqudmr puinr. 1.a Partie ddterse perrisie a ne p;ij iidmctirc que 13portion
cxti:rit,urcde13 région i dClimiierpossèdeder caracieres objcctir\ qui en font une
zone «ouverte* dans le senset aux effetsdesconsidérations pertinentes énoncées
par le tribunal arbitral de 1977dans des conditions assurémentcomparables.
Finglemenr, nos adversaires feignent de ne pas comprendre la valeur à
reconnaître à la flexibilitédu critèrede la proportionnalité par la jurispmdence
internationale: cette flexibilitéa Darcontre un caractèreessentiel. non seulement
d'un point de vue intrinsèque,miis aussi - et surtout - dans la coordination entre
ledit critère etles autres resrsde l'équité d'une délimitation maritime déterminée.
Voilà. Messieursde la Chambre. lesuoints aui nous paraissent essentiels. Il va
évi~ ~ ~nt~aussi d'autres~o~ ~ ~ons sur l~sauelle~~les Parties ne sont~~as
d'accord, mais, dans un souci'debrièveté,il faui se reporter à ce propos soit a la
procédure écritesoit à ma première intervention. Point n'est-il besoin d'aiouter
que je ne me rallie à aucune des thèsesde nos adversaires du seul fait de nÏ plus
en parler à ce stade final de la procédure orale. Ainsiqu'on Pa vu, lepremier point sur lequellesParties nesont pas d'accordest
un point de droit. II a trait à la nature el à la fonction du critère de la pro-
oortionnaliie. A vrai dire. le désaccordà ce suiet est surtout dans les oositions
divergentes destrois conseils des Etats-Unis qul se sont prononcéslàdéssus. La
position canadienne, quant àelle,est très simple, mais en mémte emps très précise,
dans son aspe.t oo.itif tout autant aue dansses asoects néeat-fs.~a oro&. .on-
n~litr:cil pour nom un cntcrc d'apprcciaiion du résuliai:clle n'csi.par conire. ni
un principe cquiiablcen soi niun iiircjundiquc. ti t,>ilique .M.Sirwii5iln. doni
(ai une f<iide plus admiréla prohiii. inicllr.ciuelle.prend nour ia vdrt la posiiion
di;imcir~lcmcn~o~~orée POU; lui.la proportionniiliic cri "n <<sub<diar-drlimiin-
lion pnnciplc~?.denve du premier pnncips équii3hleinvoqué pdr les Eiai\-Unii. i
savoircelui:«that the boundary mus1respect therelationshipixtween thecoasts of
the Parties and themaritime areas in front of thesecoasisx (VI,p. 259).11y a plus.
Sans sesoucierde la contradiction, M. Stevenson,lejour suivant, lui a accordéla
valeurd'un «test todeterminetheequity ordisproportionofthe result»(VI,p. 261).
En somme, la proportionnalitéest presque bonne à tout faire. Ellepourrait jouer
indifféremmentle rôle d'un principe de délimitationct celui d'un critère d'appré-
ciation de l'équité du résultat.
L'erreur qui entache ce raisonnement est simple. La fonction des tests de
l'èquiiéest d'apprécier que le résultat découlant de l'application de certains
principes n'est pas inéquitable du fait qu'il est déraisonnable. Dans ces
conditions, la proportionnalité ne peut pas êtrcen mémetemps un principe
équitableamenant àun résultatdéterminé et uncritèrepour apprécierI'équité de
ce mémerésultat. Mais la contradiction aui . f~~,,e~l~ ~ ~ -n~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~on
honorahlr coniradicieur csi ri.\.Clïincc. Elle monire que dans son csprit - toui
cummc Jans cclui de vs collcguesJc la deir.nscde, Fiati-Unis - la oroporlion-
nalitéao..rait comme un oriÏncioeéa.itab.e narce aue ce aue nos'adversaires
demandent en réalité à la Chambre, c'est qu'elle seprononce el aequo erbono,
utilisani n'importe quelles motivations pour attribuer à la Partie adverse la
totaliiédu banc de Georges, et non pas un jugement de droit, conduisant à un
résultaiéquitablepar le biais de l'équité infralegem.
Le mime vice, d'ailleurs, apparaît au grand jour dans les arguments dévelop-
péspar M. Colson, qui est un contradicteur habile et sagace. En se posant la
question de savoir si la baie de Fundy doit étre prise en considérationdans letest
de la proportionnalité - question sur laquelleje reviendrai sous peu - M. Colson
affirme que:
«As a nreliminarv matter. however, WC lles Etats-Unis1 think that the
ansuer I<Iihis queiiion initixllylie\ i:ihajic :ind clf-c\ideni rulc of I;iu.;i
hod) or u,aier çannoi ~.onim~ndniorc n1;iritiniejiirijdiction than can .in
ideniicüll).riru~ied body of land ,#(VI, p. 293-294.1
Nous verrons quelle importance l'onpeut attacher àdes apophtegmes d'une telle
nature. Ce que, par contre, il faut souligner ici c'est que pareille proposition
revient à affirmer aue la oronortionnalité est un titre iuridiaue. En effet. elle
implique que ce serait la proportion découlant de terres et/ou d'eaux équiva-
lentes qui déterminerait l'appartenance des espaces maritimes. Mais, une fois
encore.la proportionnalité ne peut pas êtreen même tempsla règleconférant un
droit et le critère pour apprécier si l'application (l'une telle prétendue règle
aboutit à un résultatéquitable.
M. Feldman, qui a l'esprit subtil, quant à lui n'est pas formellement tombé
dans de telles erreurs. II a demandéexpressémentà la Chambre d'appliquer la
(<proportionality in this case, as a test of the houndary line proposed by128 GOLFE DU MAINE
Canada and of the houndary Iine proposed by the Uniied Siaies, to
determine which Iine produces a disproportionate resull and which pro-
duces a rrsult that isa fair reflcctionlof the relatio..hinl ofthecoasts to the
area in front of thosetoasts» (VI, p. 325).
Mais immédiatement après,il affirmeaussi, avec une assurance totale, que:
a We [lesEtats-Unis] are convinced that an equidistant line, or any other
boundary that would divideGeorges Bank, cannot pass the proportionality
test for the simple reason that any boundary that does not respect the
coastal fronts of the Parties in the Gulf of Maine area will produce a
significantlydisproportionate result.)) (Ibid.)
Bien qu'avec beaucoup plus de précaution que ses collègues, M. Feldman
impliquedonc lui aussique ce que l'ondemande en réalité à la Chambre c'estde
se prononcer ex aequo et bono. En effet, le point de départ demeure toujours
l'idéefixe de l'attribution exclusive du banc de Georges aux Etats-Unis, en
faisant plier règles.principes et autres critèresd'appréciationà cette finalitési
essentiellepour la Partie adverse.
D'ailleurs, et j'en viens ainsi au deuxième point de ma réplique, toute
l'argumentation dévelopée par la Partie adverse sur laquestion des modèlesde la
proportionnalité vise le même procéde ét la mêmeméthode.
Qu'il me soit permis de ra~wler à la Chambre I'ooinion du Gouvernement
canàdien en ce'qui conce& les conditions d'appiication du critère de la
proportionnalitédans la présenteaffaire. Cette position peut bien se résumeren
deux propositions qui sont d'ailleurs trèssimples:
a) LeGouvernement canadien estimed'abord qu'il ya lieude distinguer, dans
la zone à délimiter,entre la portion interne du golfe proprement dit et la
partie extérieurequi s'ouvre sur les vastes étendues de l'Atlantique. En
d'autres termes, le Canada est d'avis que, en ce qui concerne la zone
extérieure, l'on est en présence d'une situation analogue à celle qui
caractérisaitl'objet de la sentence arbitrale de 1977en ce qui concerne la
partie de la frontière du plateau entre la France et le Royaume-Uni
s'ouvrant au-delà des eaux cernées directementpar lescôtes des deux Etats
intéressés.
h, honobstant cela. le C'mada n'a p~sla moindre diiliculté ice que Iccritcre
de la proportionnalite soit appliqu; dr manière i \,isrr conjuintemrnt le\
deux parties de la zone idclimitcr. la condition csseniiellenécessaireoour
ce faGeest cependant que la Chambre établisseun ou plusieurs cadrésde
référence quiaient, bien entendu, des liens bien précisavec la situation
objectivedes lieux aussi bienqu'avec lestermes du compromis. Le Canada
estime avoir suggéréà cet égardà la Chambre deux cadres nossibles de
référenceet que-ces cadres,-ainsi que nous le verrons plus avant, n'ont
nullement étéatteints par les critiques de la partie adverse.
Que nous répond-ondel'autrecôtéde la barre? La Partie adverse n'admet pas
que l'onpuisseconsidérerla portion extérieuredu aolfecommeétantooen-ended
dans le iens retenu var la-sentence arbitrale dé 1977. Je la~ss~.-~~c .o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
permission. Monsieur le Prbident. pour le moment cette question de ctitç, en
ren\ersant ainsi l'ordrede présentationdc nos arguments. Eneffet,cequ'il nous
intéressede soulianer icic'estque la ~ositiondc la Partic adberse sur les modcles
globaux a consi&rablement é;olué acet égardau cours des discussions orales. D'un côté.elle a concentré ses efforts sur ce oue i'avais anneléla «variante
maquillée* de sonmodClede proportionnaliié. De i'aulre. Aie ;i introduit une
sorte de verrion «panachée>,du modéleen question en essayant Je plirr à se\
ksuins l'un des modélescanadiens. Mais \,avons d'abord le modcle américain
«maquillé». Ce modèle présenteà nos yeux heur défauts fondamentaux qui le
rendent totalement arbitraire.
Vous voyez maintenant ce modèle àcôtéde moi et vous remarauerez d'abord
qu'une très longue partie de la côte atlantique de la ~ouvellé-Ecosse y est
incluse,alors qu'en revanche aucune côte au sud de l'îlede Nantucket n'estprise
en considération du côtéaméricain.II s'agit donc d'un modèleaxéautour de la
frontière demandée par les Etats-Unis sans la moindre référence aux données
géographiques.
Pour mieux dire, M. Colson et M. Feldman vous ont donnéune explication de
ce procédéqui ne manque pas de piquant. A leurs veux. les côtes de la baie de
Fundv ne devraient nai rentrer dans-les calculs de ia nrooortionnalit~~~~~~~~~,~~~~~ ~ ~
revanihe la côte de ia baie de Fundy relevant du ~o'uveau-~runswick devrait
êtrepour ainsi dire «transférée)> sur la côte atlantiquede la Nouvelle-Ecossede
manièreàfournir la partie septentrionale du modèle pour lecalcul de la propor-
tionnalité. Donc, le point de repère n'est pas en réalitéla côte de la Nouvelle-
Ecosse, mais plutôt la côte du Nouveau-Brunswick transférée à la place de la
côte de la Nouvelle-Ecosse. C'est un exemple parfait de remise en cause de la
péoeranhie.
- auir ir défautdu modcle des Etats-Unis es1que celui-cis'arrCieen amont du
triangle à I'inténcurduquel la i'runtikreenire les drux Etats doit nc5cesssirement
se terminer. La Partie adverse elisse sur le trianele comme chat sur ~rai~ ~ ~ ~t ~ ~
ce que M. Feldman a dit àcepropos c'estque I& Et;its-Unis considèrentque les
lignes utiliséespar le Canada pour rattacher le triangle aux côtes des deux
Parties sont ((arbitrarv and unreasonableu. La Chambre comnrendra aue ie ne
peux pas considérer ces simples affirmations non proutces comme une'criiique
ou un argument quelconque. IIn'ya pas un seul mot de dtmonsiration Je la pari
dc M. Feldman: <<ir> $frir »Mais ilest sianiticatif que leniodéledes Etats-Unis
n'arrive pas au triangle et que, par conséquent,ce modèle est arbitraire égale-
ment du fait de ne pas couvrir toute la ligne de déliniitationque la Chambre est
appeléeà tracer.
IIen suit, Monsieur le Président, Messieursles juges, que la Partie adverse n'a
pas en réalité présenté usneul modèle deproportionnalité valable. M. Feldman
en est tellement conscient qu'il les a pratiquement jetés par-dessus bord en
affirmant:
«As the United States seesthis problem, ... the Chamtxr is in a position
10 construct a proportionality test which incorporates substantial elements
which have ken used by both Parties.» (VI, p. 329.)
Ainsi la Partie adverse se déclare disposée à considérer en particulierle premier
des deux modèles suggéréspar le Canada, celui qui s'appuie sur une portion
comparable des côtes des deux pays à l'extérieurdu golfe, les ailes latérales,
respectivement au nord-est et au sud-ouest. C'est une concession imnortante sur
laquelle j'attire l'attention de la Chambre.
Ce qui est particulièrement important, dans cette concession, c'est que la
Partie adverse semble avoir reconnu que l'on ne saurait prétendre que la
Chambre adopte un modèle singulièrement dépourvude symétrie.
Cependant, pareille concession n'a pas été faiteà titre gratuit. La Partie
adverse cherche en effetà obtenir un résultat plusfavorable àses prétentions en
modifiant l'orientation des limiteslatéralesdu modèleversl'Atlantique. IIs'agit, 130 GOLFE DU MAINE
la Chambre le sait, de lignes qui, de l'avisdu Canada, doivent étreperpendicu-
lairesà la direction générale moyenne descôtes réelles,de la Nouvelle-Ecosse
d'un côté etdes Etats-Unis au sud du cap Cod de l'autre.
Quant à la Partie adverse, sesperpendiculaires sont baséessur unecascade de
lignes arbitraires. L'orientation de 54" environ, qui constituerait d'après les
Etats-Unis la direction généralede la côte, figure déjàdans la première pièce
américainede la procédureécritecomme le résultatcombinéde quatre lignes
tracéesau méprisde la géographiede lazone àdélimiter(II, mémoire desEtats-
@ Unis, par. 282-283et fig. 26).La première,et la plus proche aux terres, est celle
qui va du cap Ann au fond de l'isthme de Chigneçtou. Elle se traduit, par
conséquent, par une nouvelle tentative de «transférer» la côte du Nouveau-
Brunswick nour remolacer la côte orientale de la Nouvelle-Ecosse. Ladeuxième
ligne,qui rattache l'iiede Nantucket aucap de Sable, n'a évidemmentrien àvoir
avec la direction des côtes du Massachusetts et de la Nouvelle-Ecosse qui
marquent les«ailes» latéralesde ce inodèlede proportionnalité. Lesautres deux
lignes - celles du cap Charles au cap Canso. et du cap Hatteras au cap Saint
Marie - relèventde la macrogéographieau sens le plus large de l'expression.
C'estdonc grice àcette superposition de lignesarbitraires. et seulement à un tel
orix. que la Partie adverse neut arriverà vous sue--rerdes ne.oe.diculaires qui
\oni atfect>c. par de5 tices qui fr~ppent leur h~rcniais qui. fin:ilenient. suiveni
un ÿlignement plus C..i\or;ihleaux Et:its-Cnis Slns doute. II Partie aJ\cr,e a
déclaré quecesdonnéessont, bienentendu, à prendre avec«someflexibility» (VI,
o. 3291.A mon avis. une simole flexibiliténe suffirait nullement. La construction
~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
suggéréepar les Etats-Unis n'est pas baséesur des éléments géographiques
susceptibles d'étre «aiustés», mais sur une séried'artificesqui nous empèchede
considérersérieusemintla suree-.ion avancéeDar la partie adverse,
D'ailleur\. cn quoi ss ir~duirait-r.llcceitr.~<tle;ibilit?>d~e la i?irtieadversr.r.t du
niodélcaméric;iin.panaché ;i\.crIc modele canadien ri modilis. hien entenilu,
Jans Ier lignes laiCralesdans I'iniérEtdes Fi;ii~.Unis' Selon M I;cIJman
«We [lesEtats-Unis] respectfully suggest that, in formulating the Cham-
ber's approach on this particular issue, you could use the perpendicular
to the azimuth of the closing line across the mouth of the Gulf of Maine
from Nantucket to Cape Sable ... The closing line runs at an azimuth of
about 56.7".Thus, the perpendicular lineswould extend seaward at 146.T.~
(Ihid.)
Cette ligne, on l'a vu. est arbitraire au point de vue de la construction des
perpendiculaires qui délimitent latéralementle cadre de référenceN . éanmoins,
nous avons fait un petit exercicede cartographie. IIen ressort que mèmesi, par
pure hypothèse, l'on devait prendre en considération un cadre de référence
comme celui-ci avec des lignes perpendiculaires latéralesà 146.7"d'inclinaison,
eh bien. mémedans cecas la frontièreproposée parle Canada satisferait au tesr
de l'équitéV . ous pouvez le voir clairement dans la figure 170qui est entre vos
mains et qui contient tous les calculs pertinents.
Monsieur le Président.Messieurs les juges. ces calculs n'oublient pas l'exis-
tence de la baie de Fundy. J'en viens ainsi à mon troisième point qui concerne
précisémentla place à ieconnaitre à la baie de Fundy dans lé lesrde la
proportionnalité. La Partie adverse qui, ainsi queje l'avais relevau cours de ma
première intervention, aimerait prendre en considération la baie de Fundy à
toutes finsutiles sauf une, repousse avec acharnement l'idéemême qu'elle puisse compter dans les rc<rsde Id proportionndité autrement que pïr la I<>ngucur
d'une Iigncdro~tctracée i son emhouchurc. 1:acharncmeni cri tel que I'onesi
\,r~imcnten Jriiit de sc Jcmander ici qu~ :irr;ellenicntpciir ilId h.iie drt unil\,
M. Colson. on l'avu. est oarmi ceuxaui voudraient ia considérercomme terre
ferme: comnie une espécedep~>l<leg~ir gïntciquc qui ierait Ir r2ir de.;Hollandais
Quclleauhsine. pour loiic. si M Col\on aiait 212i \c~ciric~rIor, du pds~~gcdc
la mer Rouge! Il aurait pu épargnerau bon Dieu iin miracle et se baser,tout
simolement. sur la notion de terre ferme au sens iundiaue.
Mais Iais~onstout cela Jr cjte. pour en \mir iiI'erre~rlogiqueet juridique qui
atlccte toute argumentation de ce genre hler\iciir\ Jr I:i('hnmhrr. loriou'une
baie est ferméeiar une liene droite dans un lesr de la oroo. .ionnalité..on ne
lransforme p3s leseaux en lerre el on n'annule pas Ir poid.;de la h:iiedans le rrsr.
Ce qu'on fait 3u point de vue juridique. c'e>iqu'on reciinndit :i I'enscmhlcdes
c6ies de Iïhaie un poids Iimirc:cl sorreiriotidaiiiJ la lori2ueurde IJ Iirrricdroile
tracéeen travers dei'entréede la baie. ER d'autres termes,on reconnaiÏaux côtes
de la baie un effet partiel. Tout cela me parait tout à fait légitime, maisà la
condition, bien entendu,que l'attribution d'uneffet limitéàla baie soit elleaussi
soumise à un resr de raisonnabilité.Pour ma part, j'avais indiquédans ma pre-
mière intervention que, si I'on devait suivre la conception de la Partie adverse,
l'on aurait fini par reconnaitre à la baie de Fundy seulement un «cinquième
d'effet», ce qui me parait impensable dans lescirconstances de l'espèceet tout à
fait contraire à l'essence même d'un resr de la proportionnalité d'une délimita-
tion maritime par rapport à une baie de l'étenduede cellede Fundy.
Mais, Monsieur le Président, Messieursles juges, j'ai dù constater que je
m'étaistrompe, car M. Feldman n bien voulu me corriger. M. Feldman vient en
effet de remarquer que: <<TheCanadian coasts al1 round the Bay of Fundy
measure approximately 200 nautical miles, which is over six times the distance
across the mouth of the Bay.» (VI. p. 330.)
Sir rimes. Donc, pour M. Feldman, I'on nedevrait accorder à la baie de
Fundy qu'un «sixièmed'effet))et mémepas un cinquième,ce qui rend la thèse
américaineencore moins admissible dans notre cas.
Les autres areuments formulésvar la Partie adverse contre la baie de Fundv
demeurent toujours les mèmes etje me suis imposéde ne pas être répétiteitf de
renvoyerautant que possibleaux réponsesdéiàdonnéespar leCanada à cetégard.
Je faiscependaniquelquesexceptions,d'abord pour mettreen lumièreun soph~sme.
Le sophisme est simple. D'aprèsla Partie adverse, et l'argument est mainte-
nant repris par M. Feldman: «The waters and sea-bed of the Bay of Fundy are
no1 being delimited in [the present case]. ,>(VI, p. 331.)
Cet argument porte à faux. S'ilen étaitainsi et si I'ondevait exclure du resrde
la proportionnalité les eaux et les sols el sous-sols qui ne sont pas soumis à
délimitation,I'ondevrait exclure de tout modèlede proportionnalité les espaces
marins et sous-marins situés.res~ectivement. au nord-est de la oeroendiculaire
ajustéedemandée par les ~tats-ljnis et au s;d-ouest de la ligne d'kquidistance
ajustéeproposée parleCanada. L'argument prouve donc trop et ilse traduit par
un sophisme classique.
Je voudrai considérermaintenant l'arrêtdc la Cour ~ ~198~. Les Etats-lJnis~ ~ ~ ~ ~
tentent de tirer argunicnl du pÿs\ace de I'alhirc du Pliirt,ir<onlr,ir?zlu/ 7ioi,ii,*
Ju»~'ihir~~. iriihrI!hj<~n»c,dm\ Icqucl la Cour cherche 3 d2titiirI;irégiona
~rendrc en conioie oour 1.1d~limit:iiiontnar 751. Or. 13 ('our conclui. bien en.
iendu dans les Circonstancesde cette espice:
«Les cartes mettent en évidence,sur la côte de chacune des deux Parties,
l'existenced'un point au-delà duquel ladite côte ne peut plus avoir de lien132 GOLE DU MAINE
avec lescôtes de l'autre Partie aux fins de la délimitationdes fonds marins.
Au-delà de ce point, les fonds marins au large de la côte ne peuvent donc
pas constituer une zone de chevauchement des extensions du territoire des
deux Parties et, de ce fait, n'ont aucun rôle àjouer dans la délimitation.»
(C.I.J.Recueil 1982, p. 61-62, par. 75.)
Les Etats-Unis prétendent-ilspar là que seules doivent êtreprises en compte
lescôtes aui orésententun certaindeeréd'oooosition. Darceau'ellesseules«font
face»au ierhtoire de l'autre partie et>onc à'larégionf;ontaliére?S'ilen estainsi,
la Partie adverse tombe immédiatement en contradiction avec la position
adoptée dans ses modèles pour le testde la proportionnalité, ou lescôtes à
l'extérieurdu -~lf~ ~t ~ - ~nt face àI'Atlantiaue seulement so~t b~ ~ ~ ~ien orises
en considéraiion.Cei argument est dCpour\,udc cohérence interneparce qu'il est
incompîiible awc le modélemCme propos2 var Ics Eiats-Unis II re\.ieni i
exclure de tout resr de la proportionnalité les c6tes situées latéralementles unes
par rapport aux autres, et dans les cas où la frontière aboutit a une partie
convexe du littoral aucune côte ne pourrait êtreprise en compte puisque aucune
côte ne ferait face a l'autre Partie ni à la réaiona délimiter.
Mais suppurons. pdr pure hypoihcse. quel'argumeni de la Piriie ad\irsc ait
un fondemeni quelconqus. IIy a en tout c3s une portion des côtes du 'lou\e~u-
Brunswick qui fait hcï i la zone ;iJcliniiter ei uui r>lrcons2uuïn1 devrait Ctrr
prise en considérationselon la propre thèsede nos adversaire;. Eh bien, même
dans ce cas, rapporté sur le premier modèle de proportionnalité canadien, le
compte est bon pour nouset la frontièreque nousdemandons passe sans aucune
difficultéleiesi de la orooortionnalité.
Le raisonnement dis ~uis-unis est ég'ilcmenten coniradiciion avis I'ap-
proche adopiéepar la Cour en 1982dans I'alTaire Tunisie Li%.2. L'illustration
qui 3 accomvayné I'exr>osé de hl FcldmJn avait évidemmcni riOur but de
ranoeler l'une &s thèse; tunisiennes oour la comoarer avec noir; thèse sur la
biiéde Fundy. ?avouene pas comprendre le sens he l'argument. IIest bien vrai
que la Tunisie avait essayéd'exclure du resr de la proportionnalité des zones
d'eaux - et non nas des côtes - sur lesauelles elk estimait avoir des titres
hisionques. La fermeiure du golfedc Gabé;a\,aii donc le but d'éliminerreseaux
ei non pas sescôies -des c3lculsde la proporii<~nnaliiéMaisce qui es!cer13in.
c'estque la Cour n'a pas retenu l'argument tunisien et que,par conséquent,ellea
maintenu dans le cadre de référencede la proportionnalité les eaux tout autant
que les côtes du golfe de Gabès.
Sans doute - et cela n'est pas sans intérêt - il est possible,cumgram salis,
d'établir certains parallèlesau point de vuejuridique entre la baie de Fundy et le
golfe de Gabès, sans oublier pour autant que I'étenduede la première dépasse
largement celle du second. En tout cas, vous voyez en ce moment, sur la boite
à images, la haie et le golfe et aussi, au niveau latéral, la reproduction de la
figure 34 qui a accompagné, bien que pour un temps quelque peu fuyant,
l'exposéde M. Feldman. J'attire l'attention de la Chambre sur la ligne tiréepar
la Partie adverse de Ras Kapoudia en travers du golfe de Gabès pour rejoindre
la côte tunisienne à l'est de I'ilede Djerba. Cette ligne présenteà nos yeux un
intérêt particuliecrar pllemontre l'opérationque la Partie adverse aimerait faire
dans la haie de Fundy. Faut-il encore rappeler que la Cour n'a pas tirépareille
lignedans l'araire TunisielLibye, et qu'ellea pris en compte toute la longueur du
littoral aussi bien que les eaux du golfe de Gabès? La Cour a rejetéla thèse
tunisienne et je ne vois pas pourquoi il n'en devrait pas être demême avecla
thèsedes Etats-Unis aujourd'hui.
La haie de Fundy est géographiquementdésavantagée de par sa nature même,en ce sens que sa concavitélui interdit de commander une grande étendue de
juridiction maritime. Mais il reste que sa côte fait partie du littoral canadien
dans la régiondu golfedu Maine, et rien nejustifie qu'elle soitignorée ouréduite
au sixièmede sa loneueur oour I'aooréciationde I'éauité du résultat d'ensemble.
Rien nejustifie, en üautr& terme;,8ue la Partie adGerse,après avoir vainement
essayé d'établir une hiérarchie inadmissible entre côtes primaires et côtes
secondaires, veuille maintenant v aiouter la catégoriedes côies «tertiaires»qui
Fundy, je doiscependant ajouterquelq~e~mots pour répondreàla question que
M. Schwebel a bien voulu nous adresser à son égrd (VI, p. 464). Je me
bornerai, bien entendu, àtraiter des aspects relatifs ai!statut juridique de la baie
au point de vue du test de la proportionnalité. Ce qui me paraît constituer le
noyau de la question.
Le Canada maintient pour des raisons historiques son droit de traiter leseaux
de la baie de Fundy comme des eaux intérieures.IIn'a cependant jamais adopté
des lignes de base droites pour délimiter labaie de Fundy à cet effet. Dans ce
contexte, le Canada a tiré,en ce qui concerne la pêche,en 1970 une ligne de
fermeture en travers de I'entréede la baie de Fundy et a dcpuis exercéà
l'intérieurde la baie une iuridiction exclusive sur le~ ~ ~hes.II s'ensuit nue la
~, r~~~ ~ ~
nature et le contenu de pareillejuridiction sont exactement les mêmesque ceux
de lajuridiction applicable àla zone de pêchede 200 milles à partir de 1977.Les
eaux de la baie deFundv ont donc en ce qui concerne la liine de fermeture le
niénic sialut juridique que leseau\ rele\anl de 1.170n- Je pCcheJe ?O(Imilles.ci
cc t:int pou le droii interne canddicn q~r.p,wr le droit iniern&tional'
I>'.iillcur\.1,tst.iiurididuc desc;iii~siiuée~dci~anItc~c3tc~ionod6récsn'est
pas un facteur pertinent au moment de décidersi ces côtes doivent êtreincluses
dans le calcul des rapports côtiers aux fins du rsrr de la proportionnalité.
L'affaire du Plateau continer~ra(lTunisielJamahiriyaarabe libyenne) est claire
sur ce point. Selon la Tunisie. lesétenduesmaritimes du eolfe deGabèsdevaient
Arc c.\clucs du calcul Jc I:prop<~rtiiinndlitCpxcc qu'il s':igi$,.iird'caui ]nt;-
ricure, ou hi>toriqucs. La Cour rcjctc cct :<rgumcntei cginiprir tant les éten.
Jucc iiiaritinies .i I'iniéric~rdu wlk uuc lessjtes Je ic Jcrnicr ilan, Iccalcul dc
la proportionnalité. Dans son arrêt,fa Cour a précisé qu'elle
«n'est oas convaincue var I'areument delaTunisienui voudrait nue leszones
d'eaux'intérieureset &eaux tGritoriales ne fu~sent'~asprises ei considéra-
tion; ... mais le problème n'est pas un problèine de définition: c'est un
probieme de ~ro~ortionnalitéen tant qu'as.ect .e I'éauité ...En outre. la
proportionnaiité'se rapporte à la longueur des côtes désEtats en cause et
non àdes lignesde base droites tracéesle long de cescôtes. » (C.I.J.Recueil
1982, p. 76, par. 104.)
II s'ensuit que la condition juridique des eaux n'a aucun effet sur la prise en
considération des côtes de la baie de Fundy au point de vue du testde la
proportionnalité.
J'ajoute que, contrairement à ce que nos adversaires voudraient nous attri-
buer, nous avons fait tout au long de la procédure un usage assezdiscret de la
baie de Fundy en comparaison avec son-étenduequi en fGt, dans la région en
discussion, une «baie dans la baien, ou, si vous le préférez, un«golfe dans le
golfen. Non seulement nous avons toujours mesuréles côtes par la méthodedes
' Voircorrespondance, na120,ci-après.134 WLFE DU MAINE
lignesde b~scdroites, mai, nous iiions clirrr:menicoupélesdeux bassinssitué, ii
I'extrCmii2de Id baic. la baie de Chignectou st le bassin de, Mines. alors qur
nour Is iranifcri dei cOtz\ du Nou\,eau-Brunswick. aux lieu ci vlacs dc la ci>ic
de la Nouvelle-Ecosse.~.es Etats-Unis sont ~ ~~ ~out au boui de ~ ~-~ie de
C'hignecti>u.Nour a\.on\ en rcaliti. \,ciIli a ramener, Iorïqu'il Ic iallaii. des sôics
ires irrr:gulitrciileurs proporiioni plus réellei.Mais cela est cvidcmmcni tout
autre chose aue d'éliminer-tout simulement de loneues étenduesdes côtes du
calcul de la proportionnalité. ~ela'est notammenï tout autre chose que de
réduireà un sixièmel'effet reconnu à une baie d'une telle importance.
J'en viens, Monsieur le Président, Messieursles iuges, au quatrième point de
mon exposé, quia trait au r6le du triangle visépar~lecompromis et àl'intérieur
duquel la frontière doit nécessairement se terminer. le ne reviens évidemment
pas sur les divers problèmes soulevéspar ce triangle, dont certains ont fait aussi
l'objet de questions poséespar la Chambre. Je me bornerai à le considérerdans
l'optique de la proportionnalité et surtout à répondre aux arguments d'une
portéeà vrai dire bien limitée, développéà s cet égardpar M. Feldman.
Ou'ilme soit vermis de rao..ler àla Chambre aue letrianele a été utilisé Darle
~'aniidadans ci conicxtc pour biiir son deuxi2mc niodele-de prop<~riion~nlit~
que vous \oyer de nou\edu ici <icbii de moi. II niiuh a scmhlCen etTetque le
triangle constitue un point fixe du processus de délimitation de la frontière
maritime, dont il s'agit d'apprécie; le rapport de proportionnalité. Et ma
première observation est bien simple. M. Feldman a affirméne pas comprendre
pourquoi, dans cet exercice, nous nous sommes servis de l'hypoténuse du
triangle. Je pensais avoir éténourtant assez clair à ce suiet. Les prétentions
maii~ales dis Parties ne vont pas au-drli de l'hypoiknu,e,~i la lign; pcrpendi-
cul~~ireaju\iéedrs Eiais-Unis suhit en rcaliic ici un ajusiemcnt supplémentaire
pour toucher de iustesseau-delà de l'hypoténuseà son extrémitéseüientrionale.
voilà pourquoi nous avons adoptédani nos calculs ce côté dutriangle comme
base du modèle.
Que la Partie adverse ait des difficultésà saisir la logique d'une telle
construction, cela secomprend vu que le résultatd'un resrde la proportionnalité
sur cette base n'est pas de nature àlui donner une satisfaction particulière. Mais
les difficultésdela Partie adverse produisent mémedes erreurs matérielles,dont
la Chambre me permettra de souligner celle qui s'est glisséedans la plaidoirie
de M. Feldman. Mon honorable contradicteur a affirmé(VI, p. 336) que le
Canada, dans la note 66 qui figure au bas de la page 162 de sa réplique(V),
((construes its own test to meet what it calls the "parameters" accepted by the
Court ))dans l'affairedu Plareau conrinenral(Tunisie/Jamahiriya arabe libyenne)
en incluant les côtes de la baie de Fundy. Mais la note 66 ne't~aite pas de
I'application canadienne du tesr de la proportionnalité; elle traite de I'applica-
tion qu'en font les Etats-Unis en excluant la baie de Fundv. et elle vise à
démontrer que, ntémelorsque la Iignc canadisnnç cii >oumiseau rcsr selon le
modcle amkricain qui s'étendjusqu'i I'isobathedes I(iO0brasses. le resuliat n'en
demeure pas moins proportionné à l'intérieurdes paramètres adoptés dans
I'afïaire TunisieiLibve.
Il'aillcun. la cr11;~uede la Partie adterse porteraità raux mémcsi la noie 66
faisaii réfkrenscau modèlede proporiionnalité canadien établiselon la méthode
utiliséedans I'affairr li,nisfz libjr, c'cst.;i-dire en faisant apiides méridiens
cl de, piirallélcspour borner la régionsoumise ;iurerr (modL:lcde proporiionna-
litéH du Canada). Car IIest tout cifait clair que la proporiionnalitC de la Iignccanadienne est démontréemêmesi I'on accepte par hypothèse I'argument
américainet si I'on exclut la baie de Fundy (voir ILIfigure qui apparait en ce
moment sur la boite à images).
Finalement, j'ai déjàpris acte du fait que M. Feldman s'est bornéà rejeter
sans la moindre explication le bien-fondé deslignes que, partant du triangle,
nous avons tracéespour cerner cemodèlede proportionnalité. II lesa qualifiées
d'arbitraires sans aucune démonstration.J'espèreavoir montrépour ma part à
la Chambre que ces lignessont lesplus objectives si le triangle a un sens dans le
test dela proportionnalité.Pour épargnerle temps de la Chambreje dressedonc
un procès-verbalde carence àcet égardetje renvoie, pour autant que de besoin,
aux donnéesde la procédureécritesur ce point.
Monsieur le Président. Messieurslesiuees. ie m'excuseauorèsde la Chambre
du temps que l'ai lini consacrer ii~a.~;estiondes modèle;.Mais il n'éta~p t3s
sans intcrètde montrcr qu'en finde compte I'insistancede nos adi,ersaires sur la
ncccssiicd'appliquer le rr.>rde la prop<irtionnaliiédans la présenteaffaired'une
manicre globale ne lcur a pas rendu le moindre service.Aprèstout. je pensr que
le Canada 3 démoniri:cn tuus points que lesmodélesalternatif^qu'ila soumis a
I'intention de la Chambrc n'ont nullemeniétéatTe~tespar les critiques de la
Partie adverse. En revanche. cesont lesEtats-Unis aiii n'ont. .s ou seSoustraire
à I'eiTctnég~tifdu dCïaut de symctric de lrurs modeles et ce n'est donc pas par
pur hasard ou dans unciprit dcsoncilintion de dcrniéreminuie qu'ilsont finipar
dcniander i la Chanibrc dc hstir un tout nouie3ii mudele baséjur le5élcment,
communs àcertains modèles des Partiesmais rectifié.bien entendu. de manièreà
réaliserla distorsion nécessairepour que les frontièrksdemandéespar les Etats-
Unis passent le tesr de la proportionnalité. On 81vu que cette tentative porte
égalementàfaux, mais elleest assez significativepour montrer que si quelqu'un
a peur, dans cette araire, du resrde la proportionnalité,ce n'estpas du côtédu
Canada qu'on devrait le chercher.
M. Feldman n'a pas beaucoup appréciéque le Canada ait utilisé,dans le
contexte de la proportionnalité, leconcept de «flexibilité».IIy a vu unesorte de
signe de faiblesse de notre part. Je m'excuse de devoir le décevoir, mais la
flexibilitéqui dans notre esprit est inhérenteau iesrde la proportionnalitésignifie
tout simplement que I'on nesaurait jamais faire abstraction, dans ce contexte,
des donnéesobjectives du cas d'espèce.Voilà pourquoi - et j'en viens ainsi au
cinquièmepoint de mon exposé - nos adversaires ont cru pouvoir nous prêter
I'intention de nous soustraire au resr de la proportionnalité, là où nous nous
sommes interroeé- tout simolement sur la auestion de savoir si le resrde la
proportionnalité est applicable de la même manièredans la partie interne du
golfedu Maine et dans la partie qui s'ouvreàl'extérieur verls'Atlantique. Qu'on
nous comorenne bien. Le Candda laisse volontiers a la Chambre je soin de
choisir enire deux modcles globaux et la répartitionen deux pïrtic5. aux lins de
la propurtionn~l~lé.de la zone i délimiter.Le Canada n'a pas renoncépour
autant tiattirer I'sttention 13Chambresur lefait quc. si I'onconsidcre lestrois
affairesdans lesquellesil a étquestion de resrsde la proportionnalité,ce critère
d'appréciationde l'équitén'a pas étéappliquéde la mêmemanièreeu égardà
I'état deslieux dans lequel chaque affaire se situait.
La Chambre sait bien que lorsque le problèmese posa pour la première foisà
l'occasiondes arrètsde 1969 laCour étaiten présenced'une zone aux contours
bien délimités où la proportion entre côtes et plateau pouvait se faire sans la
moindre difficulté.136 GOLFE DU MAINE
La situation est déjà quelquepeu différentedans l'affairela plus récente,celle
tranchéeDarla Cour en 1982entre la Tunisieet la Libve. Ici.et ainsi au'on l'avu
mêmedans ces débats,le cadre de référencene ressortait bas des Côtesen jeu
aussi nettement quedans lesaffairesdu PlaleauconrinentaldelamerduNord. La
Cour a quand mêmeétablison cadre de référence en le rattachant à la situation
deslieux;mais cecadre est assurémentliéd'une façon moins préciseaux données
géographiquesque celui de 1969.C'est pourquoi la Cour en 1982a adoptéune
certaine latitude - et donc une certaine flexibilité - dans les calculs de la
oro~ortionnalitédu résultat final.Si I'on passe maintenant à l'affaire arbitrale
. .
anglo-française de 1977, I'on constate aisémentque, tout au moins en ce qui
concerne la partie du tracéde la frontière qui s'ouvrevers l'Atlantique etqui est
par conséquent de plusen plus éloignéd eespoints de repère naturels-surlescàtes
des Etats intéressésl,e test de la proportionnalité a étéappliquéd'unc faqon
différente.
C'est précisémend tans ce contexte que le tribunal arbitral de 1977a apporté
sa contribution particulièreà la théorie dela proportionnalitéen soulignant que
dans certaines circonstances c'estplutôt son aspect négatifqui entre en lignede
compte: àsavoir, lesdisproportions ou effetsdisproportionnésqui peuvent être
nroduits Darcertains facteurs eu u . .iauessur le tracéd'une liene-d'éauidis-
tance. Ainsi. lc trihunal arbitral. dans cette partie de la frontiéredu plateau.
Iimiia Laprise en considération de la proportionnalité. sous 13 Forme de la
disproporiion, aux effets des îles sur le tracé dela frontière
voiià pourquoi, et toujours dans cet esprit de flexibilitédont le lestde la
proportionnalité doit s'inspirer, nousavons attiré l'attentionde la Chambre sur
lesanalogies frappantes entre la situation envisagéepar la sentence arbitrale de
1977et cellede la présenteaffaire. Iciaussi il va un point du tracé de lafrontière
i partir duquel ce trac2 n'estplus directement cernépar der cà1c5.Iciaussi IIy a
en réxlitr:dcux scctions de la zone êdélimitercarücteriséespar des cadres
gcographiqucs diflérents. Ici ausi, 2 partir de la section e~téneureau golfe.
l'espace<idelimiter cst ou\crt.open-rn<lril.mais su,ceptible d'ttrc affectépar les
eifeti disproportionnésde certainî facteurs naturels. tels que I'ilede Kantucket
ou le cap Cod. Ici aussi, par conséquent,ily a une section de la zone àdélimiter
où le problèmede la proportionnalité est plutôt celui de la disproportion que
celui d'une relation stricte entre càtes et espaces marins.
II est donc tout à fait gratuit d'affirmerque «Canada raises so many doubts
about the application of the proportionality test in this case, particularly as
regards the area seaward of the Gulf of Maine. » (VI,p. 325.)Une foisde plus, la
position de la Partie adverse consiste à nous préterdes intentions que nous
n'avonsiamais eueset àne pas comprendre ceque i'aiappelé laflexibilitédu test
de la pr(~portionnxlitéc.'esi-à-dire,ies conditio& ;pécifiquesde son application
dans chaque cas en fonction de la situation des lieuxainsi que la jurisprudence
internïtionale l'adùment mis enlumicre La flexibilitéc .e n'cstdonc pas le refus
du resr:c'est tout simolement aue le testdoit lui aussi s'annliauer de manière
.. .
raisonnable, non reulement sans refaire la nature mais sushivan3kaforcer dans
des schémasou cadres artificiels et sans traduire la proportionnalité par des
petits calculs. Aucun doute, de notre part, sur le sens et la portéedu resrde la
proportionnalité. Tout ce que le Canada demande, c'est le respect de la
géographie,le respect de la raison.
Le dernier point de mon exposé a trait à la question de savoir si la
proportionnalité est le seultestde l'équité ou l'un parmi d'autres. La Chamhreconnaît notre position à cet égard. Nous estimons quele droit est encore ici en
évolution mais qu'en principel'on peut d'oreset déjàaffirmerque la proportion-
nalitén'est pas le seul resr de l'équité. LPartie adverse l'a d'ailleursreconnu
elle-mêmeen déclarantque:
«The United Statessubmits that the most reliabletestisthe proportional-
historic Judgment in the Norrh Sea Continenral Shelfcases» (VI, p. 324),its
et en reconnaissant, var conséauent.aue si un resrest le olus xreliablen.Yen a
C\idemment d'auires aussi Gai,, uns fois de plus. l:i~iiriie adterse s'arr2te
pouriani i mi-chemin, s;lns pr6;isr.r rldvani3b.esa pcnsce ci riins indiquer quels
autres resrspourraient à son avis êtreutilisés.
Mon honorable contradicteur. M. Feldman. ne orend oas non olus en
considération la thèse canadiennéquant au ràléque'l'on péut attrib"er à la
conduite des Parties en tant que tesr de l'équitédans la présente affaire.Et
pourtant, ici encore notre posiiion est très simple.Elle viseà faire reconnaître
que la conduite des Parties joue un rôle fondamental dans l'ensemble de la
présente affaireet que, par conséquent,elle pourrait entrer en ligne de compte
parmi les tests de l'équité.
Sans doute, Messieurs lesjuges, il faut mettre les choses bien au point. Dans
mon premier exposé, j'ai essayé de montrer le r6le des parties dans toute
délimitation d'espaces maritimes. J'ai notamment soulignéque le droit des
délimitations des nouvelles formes de iuridictions sur la mer s'est déveloo..
prCcirementen fonction du ri>ledr la conduiie dcr pririier. qu'il .~'~gJc leur
i,olonic ou J'acii\iti3u sens crroii de I'c~prc~sio. e r5lc csi plu, directemeni
rierce\able lonuue la d6limitation esi faiie v;lr !oie J'accord, iln'est iamais
absent mêmelorsque la tache de délimiteGlafrontièreest confiéeaux juges.
Dans ce dernier cas, la conduite des parties peiit entrer en jeu sous deux
aspects différents.Ellepeut ainsi être priseen considération entant que contenu
d'unnrincio. .uitableetnotamment d'unorincioeéa. .ahleditd'«intéerati-n».
diin, lesen$qu'il peutCireappclc iintégrerd'auires principes pour dCtrrminer 13
solution du diiitrcnd. Ccsi d'ahord dans ce sens que ~'eiiimequc l'on pourrait
faire aooel à la conduite des oarties. Dans oareii cas. la conduite dei oarties
renired;t dans leciiiircdc\ pri~cipor'quiiabl~s FIIeresirr~ii par conirc h;rs des
rcrrr dc l'équité,xce qu'un principr équitable,ainii qu'on I'a \u i propos de
certaines thèses de M. Stevensonau suiet de la nature de la pro~ortionnalité.ne
peut pas seconstituer en contràleur desoi-mêmeet donc en fritkre de l'équité de
la solution qu'il a contribuéàdéterminer.
Cependant, hors l'hypothèse que je viens de considérer, etpar conséquent
chaque fois que la conduite des parties n'entre pas en lignede compte dans le
cadre des principeséquitables,c'est biendans lestesrsde l'équité qu'ellaeencore
à jouer son rôle. La conduite des parties, dans un processus qui suppose des
principes équitables et qui doit aboutir à un résiiltat équitable, est l'indice
révélateur.le . .ier à tournesol de ce au'elles considèrent éouitabledans la
dcniarïïiion de leurijuridictionsmariiimei. I>an\celle opiiquc, 13nie,ure Jans
Iaquellc la cunduiie des parties s'esi concrr:iis~e.au poini dc tue hiioriqur.
autour d'une certaine solution montre que cette soliition étaità leurs yeux une
solution équitableet donc appropriée.
Voilà donc deux aspects sous lesquelsla conduite desparties peut alternative-
ment entrer en ligne de compte dans la présentearaire. II y en a évidemment
d'autres encore. et vous avez. ..oorécieràcet ée-rilnos are"ments en matière
d'acquie~cemrni et J'esriipprl. hlciir en cc qui cunerne direcienieni Ich deux
aspects que je \Lensde considirer icilest loin de nou. ds suggerer le choix tinal 138 GOLE DU MAINE
qui peut dépendred'une série complexede facteurs. Nous avons, en d'autres
termes. Monsieur le Président,Messieurs lesjuges, une conception que j'oserais
appeler très classique du r6le des parties dans le procès international. Nous
sommes ici, bien entendu, pour appuyer des demandes que nous estimons
fondées.en fait comme en droit. Mais nous sommes aussi ici-et surtout - pour
assister entoute humilité lesjugesavec nos arguments, et avec nos doutes aussi,
toujours dans un effort sincèrede rechercher cette harmonie entre le fait et le
droit, qui rend si difficilel'Œuvredu juge, mais qui est l'essence mèmede la
justice.
Je remercie la Cour de la patience avec I~quelleelle a bien voulu suivre mon
cxposéetje vous prie, Monsier le Présidcnt.si vous le voulez bien, de donner la
parole, après l'interruption, à l'agent du Gouverneinent du Canada pour sa
déclarationfinale.
L'audience.suspendu,ù 16 h 5. esrrepriseù 16 h 20 STATEMENTBY MR. LEGAULT
AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. LEGAULT: Mr. President, distinguished Judges, it is with a certain
emotion that 1address the Chamber on this last occasion 1shall have to speak
on behalf of Canada in these proceedings. There are three facts 1wish to leave
with you.
1. Eastern Georges Bank is closer to Canada than to the United States.
2. The economy of southwest Nova Scotia depends in large measure upon
Canada's eslablished fishery on Georger Bank.
3. The conduct ofthe Parties, over a period ofmany years, points to a common
viewthat Canada has undeniable rights and established interests in respect of
Georges Bank. Indeed, it points to United States acquiescence in and
recognition of Canada's equidistance chim.
As to the legalconsequences of these facts, there are sixpoints 1wish to leave
with you.
1. In the circumstances of this case, an equidistance boundary across Georges
Bank is reauired bv Article 6 of the Continental Shelf Convention.
2. Article 6 rèpresentsa particular expression of the general nom that govems
the determination of the singlemaritime boundary now under consideration.
3. An eauidistance boundarv- across Georees Bank is consistent with the
disianCe principle3% the lkgïl basis oftiti;frir the 200-mile7i7nc.
4. The C~nadlan Iine produces an equiiable rcruli by Icdting tu cach P;irt) the
arenr closesi IO its codii, excepi ii,herc insidenial frdtursj would ha\e a
disorooortionate and distortine-effect
5 hé dependence of ‘lins ~coti; on the fishcr, of (;eorgr\ Uiinktindi 11slepl
sipniticanccIIIthe economic nature ïnd purpoçe <ifthe neu 200-niilcrCgims.
and in the weieht traditionallv eiven to established economic interestin the
general international law of marilime jurisdiction. These considerations
provide further support for an equidistance houridary on Georges Bank.
6. The conduct of the Parties provides an objective measure of an equitable
result and responds to the imperative need to uphold stability and good faith
in relations hetween States. An equidistance bouiidary across Georges Bank
will best satisfy this measure and this need.
In these statements of fact and law 1have outlined once more the sk:eletonof
Candda's case The llesh i, i~iund in Cdnadii's uritten plrddings 'ilid in the
siaremcnts rnlideby coun>clfor Canudu inthe iirci alid rc~.undroond oiihe oral
oroceedines And the heiirt and sou1oiCandd,i'\ cd,?is round in the r~~nclusion
ihat an eiuitable boundary in the Gulf of Maine area would leave the eastern
part of Georges Bank to Canada, and leave to the LrnitedStatesthe larger part
of the Bank to the Westof the Canadian line.
Against this background, Mr. President, 1shall now provide Canada's reply
to the question you have addressed to hoth Parties. The question reads:
"In the event that one uarticular method, or set of methods. should
appear appropriate ior thedelimitaiion orihe coniinental shelf.rnd another
for thai of the exclu~i\cFisher)xoncsu h-itdo tlic PdrtiesconiideIO bc the140 GULF OF MAINE
legal grounds that might be invoked for prefernng one or the other in
seeking to determine a single line?" (VI, p. 461.)
Thi, question priiceed, from the hypothesi% thdi dificrent methods might hc
deemçd appropriate for ihc delimiiaiion of the bhelf and the exclusiie lishcr)
/ones orihe Pÿriics. On that h~~othcsis.Cÿnadd's \leu is ihat the rirekrc.n~.e3s
to method would he dictated %y the relevant circumstances that ielate to any
particular sector of the single line to be fixed by the Chamber.
Canada believes that the appropriate legal approach 10 this question must
stem from a recognition of the role of Article 6 of the 1958Continental Shelf
Convention. Article 6, once again, is the only clear treaty provision that is
applicable to this case, and il is hinding upon the Parties. Ils application,
moreover, is required by Article II, paragraph 1, of the Special Agreement (1,
p. IO),which requests a decision "in accordance with the principles and rules of
international law applicable in the matter as between the Parties".
Il mus1 also be recalled that this dispute originated in the context of the
continental shelf. In this context, private rights were created and continental
shelf rights vested in Canada by virtue of the doctrines of acquiescence and
estoppel. The single maritime boundary should he compatible with the rights
that vested in Canada in the context of the continental shelf régime.
Alihough the 1958Con!eniion, as 3 maiter oftrcdiy Iau. isdirktly appliwhle
onl) 10 the ioniinental 5heli.Canada belicvcsthat the principlc of delimiuiion
embodicd in Article 6 hüs a uider aD~lvatii~nfor several rwsons. FirTr, the
equidistance-special circumstances rulè of Article 6 has been authoritatively
described as a "particular expression of a more general nom" (Anglo-French
Continental Shelf Award, 1977, para. 70 (1, Canadian Memorial, p. 120,
paras. 281-282). Secondly, when the Parties took the first steps toward the
establishment of their 200-milefishery zonesin 1976,they both took the position
that the lateral limitsof thesezonesin the Gulf of Maine area should bethe same
as those applicable to the continental shelfi (Canadian Memorial, pp. 100-101,
paras. 225-226).This parallel course of action indicates a shared assumption that
the principlesof Article 6 would apply 10the delimitation of the 200-milefishery
zone.
Turnine now to the leeallvrelevant factual circumstances. Canada recoenizes
ihat the ~riumstances bri.dining to a continental ihelf delimiiaiion miihi. in
ccri3in insiances. diffcr [rom thosc pcrtaining io a fijhrry 7one delimiiaiion In
onnciule. thesediffcrentcircumstdnccs micht ~roduceJilierent Iinc, ofdelimit3-
iion. or different forms or deerees of a&usiment of the method identified in
Ariicle6 In ihdieieni, the pr&rencc for one method oraniither uould hÿ\c io
depend on rhe deprcc of relei3ncc io be attachecl io anv giicn f;icior. ciilicr for
the boundaw as a-wholeor for anv oortion thereof. sucha determination could
no1 be madéii the abstract. It GÔuld have to be guided by the objective of
achieving an equitable result within the law in the light of the particular
circumstances of each case. As the Court held in 1969,"[tlhe prohlem of the
relative weight to be accorded 10different considerations naturally varies with
the circumstances of the case" (J.C.J.Reports 1969,p. 50, para. 93).
In the present case, the degree of relevance to beattacbed to various factors
may differin each of the two areas under consideration: the Gulf of Maine itself,
and the outer area that includes Georges Bank.
In the Gulf of Maine itself,as far seaward as the closingline from Cape Sable
to Nantucket, it seems clear that the geographical configuration is by far the
' SeeCorrespondence ,o. 120,infrn, STATEMENTBY MR. LEGAULT 141
most relevant circumstance. Neither Party has relied upon other circumstances
with reswct to this area, such as fishinginterests or the conduct of the Parties,
~~~~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~mnortance would annear Ïo he minimal. Accordinnlv. in this inner
area, preferen& should he givén'to the method that most &pends on the
configuration of the relevant coasts. In Canada's view,this would clearly bethe
equi&stance method. This method respects the basic principle of the legal
equality of the coasts that ahut the inner area. No incidental, special features
cause an inequitable distortion in the course of the equidistance line. That line
takes full account of the Coast of Maine. As theclos inline of the Gulf is
approached, it reflects the perfectly opposite relationshifof Nova Scotia and
Massachusetts. And it achieves a result whose proportionate character can be
objectively verified.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ,evond the clo-ine line from Cane Sable Io Nantucket. the
gcogrïphisîl conicit rrmlins fund;irnentül. Rui hcrc. and csp-rially ln the arc3
of Georges Bank. ihc non-gcographical circumsianrcs have assumcd 3 high
deeree or nrominence in thedeadinas of both Parties. If the Chamber were of
theview tiat thesn~n-~eo~~a~hicaÏcircu do notan1pesint in the same
direction, and might therefore lead 10digerent results, it would be necessary to
determine which of them should be given the greatest weight.
In that event, Canada's view would be that IWO categories of relevant
circumstances would provide both the most reliahle indication of an equitable
result and the legal basis upon which a preference as to method should be
determined. These are the conduct of the Parties and an established dependence
upon the fishery resources of the area.
A number of considerations would support givingeffectto the conduct of the
Parties, especiallyif the other relevant circumstances were considered indecisive
or pointed toward different results. This approach would he consistent with the
jurisprudence (I.C.J.Reporrs 1982,p. 84,para. 118; p. 93, para. 133(dispositif),
subpara. B(4)). Il would also he consistent with the emphasis on the consensual
element in hoth the 1958Continental ShelfConvention and the 1982Law of the
Sea Convention. It would respect the rights vested in the Parties through the
operation of general principles ofinternational law. And it would serveas what
Professor Malintoppi has jus1 descrihed as a "principle of integration", hy
pointing up the factors that should be decisive,and hy providing an indication of
how the Parties themselves wouldhave approached the balancing-up.
The conduct of the Parties may no1indicate the exact course the line should
follow, but it does estahlish what Professor Bowett called the "parameters" of
an equitahle solution. In the present case, it points unequivocally towards a
boundary in the vicinity of the equidistance line. This is as true of the
entitlements setout in the 1979Agreementon East Coast Fishery Resourcesas it
is of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of oil and gas permits or
geophysicalsurveypermits. Here, Canada would refer the Chamher to Canada's
illustrations of various lines across central Georges Bank, reflecting the con-
duct of the Parties with respect to both the continental shelf and the fisheries
@@ (Counter-Memorial. Figs. 53 and 54; Figs. 71, 76 and 163).
Canada's pleadings have set out in full the legal reasons why an established
@ dependence on the known and exploited fishery rîsources of the area should
be given significant weight (see, e.g., 1, Memorial, pp. 128-129, para. 302;
pp. 131-134,paras. 311-319; 111,Counter-Memorial, p. 211, para. 511; p. 230,
paras. 553-554; pp. 242-246,paras. 579-587V, Reply, pp. 34-36,paras. 86-92;
pp. 119-120, paras. 277-280; VI. pp. 87-94). This factor is central to the
immediate interests at stake in the particular circunistances of this case, and in
Canada's submission, thatalone confirms the importance il should be given in142 GULF OF MAINE
the halancing-up. Here again, Canada's submission is that a boundary in the
vicinity of the Canadian equidistance line will accommodate the interests of the
Parties.
Accordingly, Canada's view is that on the hypothesis stated in the question,
preference should be given to the method that most fully reflects the greater
relevance of these circumstances in the outer portion of the Gulf of Maine area.
Mr. President, Canada has answered your question in the full recognition that
the dilemma you have identified might well arise in certain cases. We feel
confident, however, that al1 the relevant circumstances in the present case
converge toward the same result.
The Chamber. we believe. is not confronted with a case where imoortant
f~ctu;ilconsidcraiions mighipoini ii>uarJ substanii311)dillereni mcihods The
C3nadi.m linc is bascd upon unrcconstru~'iedcoast31geograph). and h3s hccn
adju\ted onl) in di\counl the disproporiion~tc etl;.cir oi C~pe Cod and
Nantuckrt as incidcnidl, .pccial friliurcs that are abcrrxni ti> the coasi:il
conliguratiun. Thc Canadian linc respects ihe cqualit! oithr. co~sisol'b~ih the
Parties. Ii learei io each Pilriy as much as possihlc ot'iis natural pr<ilona;ition
and 200-mile zone. without encroachment unon the corresnondinb enlitlement
of the other Party. In so doing, it respects thé mostfundamental Fecept of the
Judgment of the Court in the North Sea ContinentalShelfcases, as adapted to a
sinde maritime boundarv. It accommodates the fisheriesinterests of both Parties
on-~eorges Bank and &kes account of the vital importance of this fishery to
adjacent Canadian coastal communities. It respects the indicia ofequity revealed
by the conduct of the Parties, and it is compatible with the rights that have
vested in them under general rules of international law.
And finally! the boundary ,p~oposed by Canada is proportionate; it is
reasonable; il is balanced; and 11is moderate. It neither enclaves any part of the
United States coast, nor does it come too close to any part of that coast. We
respectfully and confidently commend it Io the judgment of this Chamber. In
doing so, 1reaffinn the arguments made in Ourwritten and oral proceedings as
a whole and, in particular, the summary of general conclusions set out a1
pages 173Io 176of Canada's Reply.
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, the time has come for me Io confirm
Canada's final Suhmission:
In view of the facts and arguments set out in the Canadian Memorial,
Counter-Memorial and Reply, and by Canada in these oral proceedings,
~ ~
Mn, rrplcrr~c ~/rt.Ci~i,rrcjcctinpallconirarv cbim, AndSubniiss~onrSeiiorth
in the United Stai~.sMcmorial (II), Countcr-Mrm<inal (I\'), and Rcply i\'j3nd
by the United States in these oral proceedings,
To declare and adjudge that:
The course of the single maritime boundary referred to in the Special
Aereement concluded hv Canada and the United States o~ ~-~~~rch 1979 is
de%ned by geodetic lin& connecting the geographical co-ordinates of points
descnbed in the Submission appended t-~Canada's Memorial, Counter-
Memorial and Reply.
Mr. President, copies of this final Submission, signed hy me as Agent for
Canada, are being transmitted to the Registry and to the Agent for the United
States.
Mr. Presidcnt. disiinguished Judges. I cannot Icr\e the Har u,iihoui adding
sume dccpl) ielt uords of gratitude. I thank my dclc~~ti<int'orils unstinting
cflorts and il9spirit oidedication. I ihdnk our distingui,hed ~ounseland Iegal STATEMENTBY MU. LECAULT 143
advisers. ourexperts. consultants and graphic ürti*ts: and 1especiallythank our
administraiive ïnd support staR for iheir coniribuiii)n. whiçh has been no less
invalu~blefor 311 ihatiih3s kn silent and uniwn in this Greai HaIIof Justicc.
My thanks go, as well, to the Registry and other star of the Court for their
impartial but nevertheless precious advice and assistance.
To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, may 1say how pleased I have
been by the spirit of fair play and the spiritof vigorous but friendly giveand take
that has marked - and 1 fear will continue to mark! - these proceedings.
Together we have been part of this ripple in the relations of Canada and the
United States: toeether weshall return totheendurinestream whose untroubled
flowtranscends this dispute and remains our commonconcern. And weshall do
sa linked hy the special bonds of the unique experience we have shared here in
The Hague.
And finally,Mr. President, distinguished Judges, on behalf of the Covernment
and the people of Canada who have entrusted me with the grave responsibility
and the unique honour of representing them before this Chamber of the
International Court of Justice,1thank you for the patient and attentive hearing
you have given us.Dieu sauve/a Cour.
The Ckamberrosear 4.45p.m. TWENTY-FOURTH PUBLIC SlïTlNG (9 V 84, 10 am.)
Presenr: [Seesitting of 2 IV 84.1
REJOINDER OF MR. ROBINSON
AGENT OF THE UNITED STATE OSF AMERICA
Mr. ROBINSON:
1.INTRODUCTION
Mr. President, distinguished Judges. May it please the Chamber. On II April,
almost one month ago, ilwas my great honour and privilege to appear bccore
the Chamber for the first lime as the Agent of the United States of America. It is
with great pleasure that 1reiurn to this podium to open the second round of the
United States oral presentations.
On II April, the United Siates emphasized that it seeksajust decision that is.
in the words of the Special Agreement, "in accordance with the principles and
rules of international lawapplicable in the matter as between the Parties". Asthe
United States said then, we are confident that a decision in this case thal is
in accordance with law and that is not a compromise or split-the-difference
judgment will reinforce ihe longstanding commitment of the United States io
the lnternational Court of Justice and will serve the broader interests of the
community of nations al large.
The United States should add that the United States and Canada share a
common legal tradition. Under ihis tradition, lawyers and govcrnments, having
rejected the types of compromises that in our countries are associated with the
oolitical orocess. oress in a iudicial forum for a definite~~ecision. on the merits.
in accordance w;ih the law.ihe Special ~~reem&t (1)in this caséisveryclear ai
io the expectaiions of the Parties in this regard.
The Uniied Siaies continues to believethat bv everv rule and ~rincioleoflaw
applicable 10 ihis case, Georges Bank appertains in2its entiret; to the United
States.
On II April, the United Statcs respectfully asked the Chamber to reaffirmthe
principles and rules of law that, as applicable to the delimitation of maritime
boundarics, have consistently been recognized by the International Court of
Justice and reinforced bythe developing law of thesea. On 11April, the United
States explained its perception that Canada is attempting to resurrect under a
new name the rcjected notion of proximiiy. According to that discarded notion,
each State is Io attract the area of the seaclosest 10its Coast,even ifsuch a result
cuts OR the coasial extension of a neighbouring State, and no matier how
extraordinarv. how unreasonable. how unnatural. or how disorooortionate that
cul-ciiTma) .be This Canadian ohjrciivc tirsi kcame app;rent inCanada's
Cuunier-X4.lcmoria(lIll) uhereitaskcd the Chamlrr 10 rccunsiiler "the esscntial
raiionalc" of the Couri's r.onclusi~nsin thh'orrhSru Conr;,icnrd SIzelfçascs.a
rationale. that accordine10Canada. "no loneer holds true" (vara. 561).As set
forth in the United ~laïes Reply (v) , e regarded this apGoach as a barely
disguiscd attack on the Fundamental Rule of maritimedelimitations which both 146 GULF OF MAINE
case, including statements about the proportionality test, but also in the United
States claim itself, which leavesto southwest Nova Scotia a large area lying in
front of the Coastof Maine.
In this finalround of ils oral nresentation. the United States willconcentrate
on the'real issues that separate ihe Parties and will address the questions posed
by the distinguished Judges of the Chamber, including the President. Silenceon
any particul& issue does not signal agreement.
Mr. President, the United States would now like 10 say a word about the
fishenes dimension of this case. As the Chamber appreciates, in recent years
fisheriesand environmental issues have increasinnlv troubled relations between
the Uniicd States 2nd Canada. Mutual frustratii;n~ïnd rcçnmination ïrc more
and more ei,iJcni Reciprocal fishingby nïtionalr oloiie country offthe eoast of
the other has been urminated. This practice has continued in one form or
another from the earliest davs of sertlement of the New World.
The Deputy-Agent of the United States explained to the Chamber on 19April
some of the problems that have consistently frustrated effective international
conservationand management of the fishenes of Georees Bank under the old
réglmc oi the Iau 01the-sca xnd undcr the ncu rCgimc.ïn ihii conneciion. uiih
)our permission. I willquotc the uords of ï high Cancidianoflieiil the rccent
Law of the Sea Conference:
"The aoolication of different manaeement nhilosoohies to a sinde stock
inciiwbly'~esultsinï lei,elof harre\tingfrom thr wholéstock approïyhing lhc
lm consswaiivc managemenilcvcl.Ilcatch quoiai arc alsudividcd.control <in
a continuous basis kmes alnio5timpoiiiblc. p;irticulïrl) uhcn the areï of
lirhingisclose10the limitsof national fishenf un diction (1980Argcniin;~,
Canada Working Papcr on iish stocks uhich occur hoth uirhin the cx;lusivc
economic zone and in an area beyond and immediately adjacent to il.
UNCLOS, Ninth Session,II, United States Memorial, Ann. 91.)
That was from a Canadian official, not an American official.
The United States would only respectfully add that any judgment by the
Chamber that would divide Georges Bank would force the Parties into
permanent political conflict over the management of the fisheries and hydro-
carbon resources of Georges Bank. In Our view, such a result would not be
consistent with international law. It would no1 be consistent with the law
because it would disregard the extension of the coastal fronts of the Parties into
the sea, because it would frustrate the conservation and management of the
resources, and because it would not take account of other circumstances relevant
to this delimitation. We recognize that a division of Georges Bank would be
popular in Canada, but it iscertain to cause difficultiesthat, in our opinion, will
be contrary to the long-term interests of both the United States and Canada.
The Figure behind medepicts the claims of the Parties before the Chamber.
@ We have emphasized in Our oral argument that, contrary to the assertions
contained in many of Canada's oral presentations. there is more at stake in this
case than simply the resources of the northeast portion of Georges Bank. Under
Article III of the Special Agreement, the boundary as determined by the
Chamber will delimit al1sovereign rights and jurisdictions that are currently or
may in the future become recognized in international law. As distinguished
counsel for Canada, Professor Weil, so well put it in his oral presentation of
6 April 1984:
"the single boundary is required to divide certain jurisdictions which are
not directly linked either to the continental shelf or to the fisheries zones:
thereis more to this single maritime boundary than that." (VI, p. 175.) REJOINUE RP MR. ROBINSON 147
The United States completely agrees.
Mr. President, it would bc appropriate at this time for the United States to
respond to the second part of Judge Gros's third question (VI, p. 461).
In order to avoid taking the time of the Chamber, if it is agreeable io you,
Mr. President, the United States would request that the tex1of the second part
of Judge Gros's third question be inserted in the transcript of these remarks at
this point.
"ln the view of the United StatesGovernment. what construction is to bc
placed in relation to the present caseon:
(O) the statement made by the President of the United States of America
on 9 July 1982:
'We have now completed a review of that convention and recognize
that il contains many positive and very significant accomplishmenis.
Those extensive parts dealing with navigation and overflighi and mosi
other provisions of the convention are consistent with United States
interests and, in Our view, servewell the interesis of al1nations.' (IV,
United States Counter-Mcmorial, Ann. 28. para. 4.)
(6) the proclamation made by the President of the United States on 10
March 1983:
'Within the ExclusiveEconomic Zone, the United States has, to the
extent permitted by international law, (a) sovereign rights for the
purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing naiural
resources, both living and non-living. of the seabedand subsoil and
the suveriacent waters and with reeard to other activities for the
. . -
economic expl,)iiai~i)n and expliiraiion i~i ihe zone. such ab the
produciion of energ). froni ihc wliirr. currcnts and windb; and 1b,
iuri\diciion uiih rcr;ird tu the criablirhnieni and urc of 3riiiici:il
Islands, and insiail~ions and structures hciving economic purposes,
and the protection and preservation of the marine environment.'
(Ibid.,Ann. 28, para. 6.)
What is the precise meaning in this text of the formula 'to the extcnt
permitted by internationallaw'? Would itbe right to read this formula in
the light ofthe 'guidelincs reflected in the 1982Law of the SeaConvention'
mentioned during the hearing by the United States?(VI, p. 279.)
(c) the statement made by the President of the llnitcd Stateson 10March
1983:
'Third. I am oroclaimine todav an Exclusive Economic Zone in ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
which the unitid States wyll exe;cise sovereign Ghts in living and
non-living resources within 200 nautical miles of its Coast. This will
~rovide United States iurisdiction for mineral resources out to 200
nauiicli~ miles ih3t 3ré not on the continental shc~f. Keceniiy dis-
co\ercd drpo\its iherc could k an important fuiurc s~)urceofsir~tcgic
minerals' (Uniicd Siaies Countçr-5lcmorial. Ann. 28. pÿrli 8 )"
Permii me ii)hcgin with a gcncral observation. Il is ihe opinion of thc bnitcd
States thst. in so f~r2s ihc Proclamaiion ïnd ~tïlcments of ihe Preiideni of the
Unitcd Statsr rcferrcd Io b, JuJre Gros are conccrncil. Canad~ and ihc Unitcd
States are relying on similar priiciples and sources ofcustomary international
law in this case, and that Our diflerences relate to thcir interpretation and148 GULF OF MAINE
application with respect to the establishment of a singlemaritime boundary in
the Gulf of Maine area.
First, with respect to point 2 (a) of Judge Gros's third question, the statement
hy the President of the United States of 9 July 1982announced and gave the
reasons for the decision by the United States not to sign the 1982Convention on
the Law of the Sea.
The portion of that statement cited hy Judge Gros indicates that this decision
wasnot motivated by the "extensiveparts dealing with navigation and overflight
and most other provisions of the Convention". The statement indicates the
United States position that these provisions represent positive and significant
accomplishments, which signifythe benefitsof working together and effectively
balancing numerous interests. Elsewhere in the statement the President stated
that the reason the United States would not sign the Convention was taken
because "the deeo sea-bed minine part of the Convention does not meet United
S~~IC, ohjecti\es" T~C iaiier reiekce is IOthe part ofthe Cuni,ention thai deais
u,ith thc rniningufsc3-bed resourceqbc)ond the Iimitsof the ZOO-naulical-mile
exclusiveeconomic zone and the continental shelf.
Whatever theviews ofthe Government of Canada regarding the Convention,
the decision hy the President of the United States means that the 1982
Convention cannot be regarded as a treaty to which both States involved inthis
case intend to become Party.
With resoect to 2. .J: In the Proclamation of 10March 1983.the President of
the United States proclaimrd an exclusi\,eeconomic zone of ihe Uniied States in
rhich iihas the so\ercign nghis and ~urisdictiondessrihed in the passage cited
hy Judge Gros Thc purpose of the qualifying uords "Io the cxtcnt pcrmiited hy
international lau". refcrrcd to hy Judge Gros. was iu rnake slesr. without the
need to Iisiindetail al1the applicshle limitaiion\. ihai. in e~ercisingits sovereign
riehis and ~urisdiction.the L'niledStates uould resoect ils ohlieaiions to oiher
&tes und& international law. An example would be the duty of the coastal
State to respect and have due regard for freedom of navigation in the zone.
The extract fromthe Proclamation contained in Judge Gros's question reveals
that the Proclamation was guided by the texts of the 1982Convention regarding
the exclusive economic zone. The language of the Proclamation regarding
delimitation of the zone hetween the United States and other States is identical
to corresponding languagein the 1945Truman Proclamation, and, in the viewof
the United States,it reflectsthe content of the referencesto international law in
Articles 74 and 83of the Convention.
The relationship between the Proclamation and the 1982 Convention is
further clanfied hy the President's statement of the same date. After ohserving
that the United States would no1 sign the Convention because of "major
problems in the Convention's deep sea-bed mining provisions", the President
noted that "the Convention also contains provisions with respect to traditional
uses of the oceans which generally confirm existing maritime law and practice
and fairly balance the interests of al1States".
The President then announced three decisions "10 promote and protect the
oceans interests of the United States in a manner consistent with those fair and
halanced results in the Convention and international law". First,"The United
States will recognize the nghts of other States in the waters off their coasts, as
reflected in the Convention", subject to their recognition of the rights and
freedoms of the United States. Second, "the United States will exercise and
assert itsnavigation and overflightrightsand freedomson a worldwide basisin a
manner that is consistent with the balance of interests reflected inthe Conven-
tion". The thirddecision was the proclamation of an exclusiveeconomic zone. RUOINDER OF MR. ROBINSON 149
As the tex1 of the Proclamation and the President's statement reveal, the
Proclamation was or. .red in the lieht-of the euiuel~ ~s reflected in the ~9~ ~-
Convention regarding coastal-State rights in the exclusive economic zone and
the duty to respect navigation and other high seas freedoms therein. Our
response is accordingly affirmative to Judge Gros's enquiry as to whether it
would be right to read the language he cited in the light of the guidelines
reflected in the Convention.
With regard to point 2 (c) of Judge Gros's question:
The statement of 10March 1983points out that the Proclamation "does not
change existing United States policies concerning the continental shelf, marine
mammals and fisheries" including the 200-nautical-mile fishenesconservation
zone establishedhy the United States FisheryConservation and Management Act
of 1976.Accordingly, its major effectwith respect to natural resources concerns
the sea-bed of the economic zone in areas where that economic zone extends
seaward of the continental shelf. The purpose of the las1 two sentences of the
.arag..ph cited by Judge Gros was to emphasize th15wint. The first sentenceis.
of course. a een&al cross-reference to the ~roclama6on of the same date. and
should he re;;d in the light of uur comments on pointsZ (0, and ? (hl of Judge
Gros'?third qucstion Wenote that in the Gulfof Maine arca it1sthe \,iewofboth
Partiesthat the continental shelfextend, bcyond 200n.iuticalmiln from theCoast.
The United States hopes that Judge Gros finds these remarks a satisfactory
response to the question addresîed.
In this closing round, the United States will çndeavour to address the
remaining issuesand not repeat the points we have previously made. We will, as
already indicated, adopt Canada's approach and address orally the questions
which the distinguished Judges of the Chamber have posed to the Parties. First,
il will he my privilege to address certain issues concerning the conduct of the
Parties. Later, the United States will ask, Mr. President, that you cal1upon my
colleagues, Mr. Lancaster, Mr. Rashkow and Mr. Feldman, who will brieRy
address this morning a few remaining points on the facts relating to fishing
activities, continental shelf activities and socio-ecc~nomics.We would then
ask. this afternoon. that vou cal1 uoon Mr. Stevenson. who will address the
remaining legal issues. ~oilowin~ hi; presentation, we dould ask that you cal1
upon Our very distinguished colleague Professor Riesenfeld who will briefly
address the law of aciuiescence andestoo~el. Thereafter. tomorrow. we would
request that you invité Mr. Colson 10sp&k, who will address first geography,
and then finally,conservation. Then, at the end, it willbe my honour to have the
privilege of concluding the United States oral presentation.
11.CONDUC OTFTHE PARTIES
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, il is my honour and duty to respond to
Canada's arguments concerning the conduct of the Parties.
The United States willnot burden the Chamber with a recapitulation ofall the
details. Rather, we would ask that the Chamber view these issues from an
historical perspective- one that appreciates the lime and the circumstances in
which these issues arose. We will address first Ciinada's acquiescence and
estoppel argument; second, Canada's argument that the continental shelf
activities of the United States. while oossiblv not risine to the level of
acquiescence and cstoppel, no ne the les^ support Conada's position that the
Unitcd States adupted Canada's equidisiant line; and third. Canada's argument
in relation 10 the failcd 1979fishenes agrccmcnt150 GULFOF MAINE
First, let usexamineCanada's acquiescenceand estoppel argument. In light of
the most basic rule of maritime boundary delimitation that requires that
boundaries be determined hv aereement of the Parties. Canada's akuiescence
and estoppel argument must, in order to succeed, oiercome this fundamental
legal tenet. This tenet was an indispensable element in the very inception of
continental shelf doctrine as set forth in the Truman Proclamation of 1945and
was endorsed by the International Court of Justice in the North Sen C<~ntinentol
Shelfcases in 1969,the very year cited by Canada as the end of a purported
period of acquiescence bythe United States. United States conduct would have
to indicate acceotance of Canada's unilateral oermit nroeramme clearlv and
convincinglyfor'a\uh\t.iniial wriod ofiimc in ordcr foi theldw of acquic~ccncc
and esioppel Io takc prcccdçncr over this fundamentdi rulc oidçlimitntion The
mle requsing agreement is also important because it is helpful in appreciating
~ ~ ~ ~nectiveconduct of the Parties in this case.
~hebnited States helievesthat Canada has longignored the fundamental rule
of law requiring agreement and has sought-to avoid ils consequences through
unilateral-action. -
Paragraph 19of the United States Reply described in the candid words of a
Canadian, not an American, the background and objective of the policy of
unilateralism that Canada had purposefully adopted by 1970 with regard to
maritime matters. When we examine tha Parties' conduct in the context of the
rule of international law requiring agreement, it is clear that there can be no
auestion of acauiescence or esto~wl in this case. regardless of whether, as a
katter ofpolacy, C;inad.ichose ii&srcgard th~tfund;imcnt;ilruls As ihc Couri
reailirmed only rccenily a1 pdrdgraph 87 of the ?iinirr<r/LrhiJudgment.
"The Court ~ould thcrcforc obhcrvea1 ihc outsct thai an aitempt by a
unilateral aci tu çstablish internïiional maritime boundüry lines regardless
<ifthe leral nosiiion of orhcr Siaies is cuntrarv Io recoxni7cd ri no pl uf
internat6nai law ... which provide that mahtime boindaries should be
determined by agreement between the Parties."
My first-round opening statement recalled that Canada was consulted in
advance of the 1945Truman Proclamation. For twenty years, notwithstanding
ils ohvious interest as a neighbouring State, Canada raised no objections and
made no protest. If the law of acquiescenceand estoppel is to have any bearing
in this case, then clearly it is Canada that acquiesced in the Truman Procla-
mation's requirement that delimitation be by agreement in accordance with
equitahle pnnciples. In any event, the requirement of delimitation by agreement
already had becomepart of customary international law whenCanada began ils
unilateral actions in the mid-1960s. It is Canada's burden to show that the
United States deliberatelv. consciouslv and manifesilv decided Io overlurn ils
own presidential ~roclam3tion by accipiing. throughbmissiun or commission.
Canada's permiis on Gcorges Bank. As one could cxpcci, Canada has toially
failed in meeting this burden.
Moreover. aoart from this ooint of international law. the lone-established
bilateral practice of the ~nited'states and Canada, beginn'ingwith ïhe Treaty of
Peace in 1783,had heen to delimit al1their mutual boundanes by agreement, or,
as in this case, by judicial resolution pursuant to agreement.AImost always,
these agreements have taken the form of treaties, requiring on the part of the
United States the adviceand consent of the United States Senate to ratification.
In viewof this well-establishedpractice, as wellas the controlling principle of
international law, the United States could only have expected in the mid-1960s
tbat any continental shelf boundaries with Canada would be determined by152 GULF OF MA~NE
Georges Bank was still in its early stages and there was no perceivedurgent need
either to develop this area, to nuard against Canadian assertions, or to delimit
.
houndaries.
Moreover, governments respond to new issues, especially those of a diplo-
matic character. with reasoned diliberation, al1 the more so when they arise
between good neighbours and allies. The slow Pace of diplomacy is sometimes
~r~ ~r~tine. but 20mont~s is~ ~ ~a soeck of lime when the relevant case law and
ihe icimmon scnsc cunduct of bilaicral relations in inicrnatiiin~l dITairsbctueen
fricndly States 3rc consiJcrïd. Acsordingly. IIti.3~ inconcci\ahlc xt thdt tinic
thai the CniicJ States u.ould cirncctth3t C.tnaJa. iti iricnd. nciehbour and 311s.
would ever seek to interpret the normal Pace of diplomacy as an act of le&l
acquiescence.
Let us look at the content of the United States aide-mémoireof 10May 1968
(United States Memorial, Anns., Vol. IV, Ann. 55).There are three points to be
noted. First, the aide-mémoireconfirmed that there already had been informal
communications between the Parties concerning the delimitation of the hound-
arv. Second. in comolete consonance with the Truman Proclamation. the aide-
mémoiresuggested chat discussions be held to seek agreement on the delimita-
tion of a continental shelf houndary in the Gulf of Maine area. Third, the aide-
mémoiresuggested that, pending agreement, there he a temporary suspension of
continental shelf activities in the northern half of Georges Bank. 1now quote
from that aide-mémoire:
"As the Government of Canada is aware, the United States Government
has been considering the desirahility of delineating the boundary between
the United States and Canada on the continental shelf in the Gulf of
Maine."
Thus, there had already been informal communications reminding Canada of
the need for a houndary agreement. The aide-mémoirecontinues:
"It appears to the United States highly desirable that early discussions he
undertaken with a view to reaching agreement on the location of these
dividing lines ... In this connection,-in order that some reassurance can he
given to the fishing interests involved, it appears to the United States that
particular urgency attaches to the question [of continental shelf activities,
that is] with regard to the fishing resources now heing exploited hy a
number of nations o~ ~he Georees Bank. . .The United States. .. su--ests
thai in the mcaniimc thcrc he a tcnipor;iry $uspension oi c~pl~ration and
cnploiiiiiion aciii.itics \rith regard icimiiicr.il rcsourîei in the ared of the
norihcrn halioiihe Georees Ilank io ixrmii consuli;iiion io take plxc 2nd
to provide lime to seek anagreement on the exact location of the boundary
in this area."
This language does not set forth a precise houndary cldim, but we fail to see
how the aide-mémoirecound he understood as anything but an assertion of the
interest of the United States in seeing to it that al1Canadian oil and gas activity
on Georges Bank, of whatever form and substance, he terminated. That
assertion - couched in correct diplomatic language - is in direct contradiction to
Canada's allegation of continental shelf jurisdiction on Georges Bank ansing
from a unilateral permit programme.
Distinguished counsel for Canada argued that the words "the exact location
of the houndary in this area" meant that the United States accepted generally
that the houndary would cross Georges Bank, and, in his view, follow the
equidistant line (p. 97. supra). With al1due respect, this aide-mémoiredoes not RUO~NDER OF MR. ROBINSON 153
permit such a conclusion. If.îs Canada kas suggîtcd. the United Siaies alrcady
had acceptcd in prinriple ihc use of the median linc. ihen itis logical io assumr
thai the aidc-mémoircrould ha\e refcrred IO that f.içi.
If al1that remained to be discussedwas the exact location of the median line.
as Canada has suggçsied,then the aidc-memoirealso u,ould haie rcièrrcdto thai
fact Hui the aidr-mcmoirc made no siaicmenis con,isieni ujih ihc conclusii>n
suggested by Canada. The aide-mémoirereferred, for example, to concern for
fishine on Georees Bank as an entitv. The aide-mémoir~cit~ ~~~~~-o~~~-~n half
of th; bank as-the area of concern, not just some iiarrow strip in the middle
portion of Georges Bank.
The aide-mémoireof 10Mav 1968thus out Canada on notice that sovereientv
IO al1of Georges Bank sas ai issuc. andnoi jusi ihc loc~tionof some mezia"
Iineproposcd by Canada. The aide-mémoireof 10 May 1968dispcls any doubt.
if indccd the lau and thc conduci of the Parties would hiiverrrmittcd anv. thai
the boundarv in the Gulf of Maine area was to be determinid hv aereemént.as
first enunciated hy the Truman Proclamation of fully 23 years-earlier, not
23 months but 23 years. Canada was officiallyaware, at least hy 10May 1968,
that the United States had neither acceptednor acquiesced iiany puiported
Canadian claim to any part of Georges Bank. The United States repeats:
Canada wasofficiallyaware. at least by 10May 1968,that the United Stateshad
neither accepted nor acquiesced inany purported Canadian claim to any part of
Georges Bank.
To illustrate the slow Pace of diplomacy hetween the Parties on this matter al
that time, Canada had not responded formally10the 10May 1968aide-mémoire
when the United States more forcefullyset forth ils position hy diplomatic note
in November 1969(United States Memorial, Anns., Vol. IV, Ann. 56).Thisnote
restated the points in the 1968 aide-mémoire, but in stronger diplomatic
language.
There are several points about the 1969 note that dcserve comment. Firsr,
distinguished counsel for Canada has admitted that the 1969note reserved al1
United States righls in regard to Georges Bank (p.97,supra). Clearly therecould
be no question of acauiescence in the oeriod after this note was received.Thus.
regard& of canada's viewof the 10~a~ 1968aide-mémoire,it has admitted
that by 1969it understood that the United States did not intend to let Canada
gel away with ils unilateral permit programme on Georges Bank.
Second. distineuished counselfor Canada areued that the 1969not~ i~ ~ ~tes
thai the unitcd States had made no prcviour r&ekaiion of righis lrhid.,.This
argument does not uiihsiand scrutiny. The 1968 aide-memoirc rcmindcd
Cdnada that the boundarb uould have IO bc dctermincd b\.;i-rccmcnt.The ber\.
first sentence of the 1969.note recalled this fact,
"The Department of State refers to the aide-mémoiregiven to the
Canadian Embassy on 10May 1968,suggestingthe suspension by Canada
of exploration and exploitation activities on the Georges Bank until
agreement could be reached on the exact location of the United States-
Canada Atlantic continental shelfboundary ... The United States Govern-
ment.. .cannot recognizethe validity of Canaditin permits for any part of
Georges Bank ..."
Note, here, that in 1969the United States Government clearly reaffirmedthat
the 1968aide-mémoire referredto al1of Georees Ban-.
7hird. the 1969noie encouraged Canada io aci wiili restraint wiih respect IO
exploratory aciivities and cxplained why ihc United Siaies continucd to pursue
such a policy,154 GULF OF MAINE
"The United States is concerned that, pending settlement of the bound-
ary question, substantial investment in exploration and exploitation of the
area could greatly increase the difficulty of negotiating a satisfactory
boundary. For this reason, the United Stateshas refrained fromauthorizing
mineral exploration or exploitation in the area."
The note makes clear that the United States Government then had the
impression that on an informal basis Canada had agreed not to proceed to oil
exploitation, but had refused to agree to suspend oil exploration, that is
exploratory drilling.
Fourth, the 1969note emphasized the United States interest in protecting the
valuable fisheriesof Georees Bank. Il called for "a comnlete moratorium on al1
mineral exploration and exploitation in the entire Guif of Maine" in light of
pollution concerns, continued uncertainty regarding the United States-Canada
continentdl shelf boundaries. and "the im~orionce if thefishervresources of the
GeorgesRurik" (cmphasis added) The ~niied ~iaiénini;relt /n conirollin~ ihc
exerciseof coniineninl shelf righis so as IO proieci Georges Bink fi\hcner could
no1he more evidcni ihan in the follouinc heniencefroni ihc 19h9Cnited Siaies
diplomatic note:
"Until mineral exploration and exploitation are suspended in the Gulf of
Maine and mutually acceptable regulations safeguarding the fisheries ofthe
area are adopted, the United States will hold the Government of Canada
completely liable for any and al1damages for pollution of the Gulf and the
Georges Bank resulting from such activities authorized by Canada."
F,frh,at t~~-~ ~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~note. both Canada and the United Statesalreadv
were participating actively in planning a new conference on the law of the sea to
negotiate, inter olia,a maximum breadth of the territorial sea at 12 nautical
miles on accentable terms to the maritime oowers and an extension of fisheries
righis of co;iEiaiSiaies wcll beyond ihai l;mii Indred, the Uniied Siaies and
Canada bcgnndiscu,si<~nson thir mïtier uiih each oihcr and ihird Siaies sc\,eral
years earliër, and, despite differences over details. never disagreed on the
underlying premise that extensive coastal-State fisheries rights would be neces-
sary 10 achieve a global consensus. In 1969, the United Nations General
Assembly look the formal step of canvassing the views of member States on
convening a new comprehensive conference on the law of the sea; it decided to
convene the conference one year later.
Accordingly, there is no substance to the assertion by Canada that the Parties
wereconcerned with the continental shelfalone at the lime of the United States
1969note. That proposition is refuted by the very terms of the note itself, by the
private discussions of both Governments, and by the public documents of the
United Nations General Assembly, ils Seabed Committee, and the Third
Conference on the Law of the Sea. Indeed. if one examines the 10 Mav 1968
Uniicd Siaies aide-mCmoirc. iibecornesclcar ihai the protection of ihe lkheries
of Georges Bank underb~your concerns e\en then. Although no spcritic fisherics
slairns were made ai ihat tinie. il sirelches creduliiy to imply ihai. by 1969.ihe
Governments o~ ~ ~ Un~ ~d tat t e sd Canada weie unawiie that the continen-
iïlrhclf hounddry was rclc\ani to the protection oiihe en\ironmcni of Georges
Bank tishcrics iir to thc e\cntuïl alloc3iion of Canadian and Ameriçdn righis IO
those fisheries.
To sum up the Canadian acquiescence and estoppel argument, during this
period of the 1960s.the United States acted with the normal, deliberate Pace of
diplomacy. Perhaps wewere notas much on our guard as by hindsight wemight REJO~NDEROF MR. ROB~NSON 155
have been. Perhaps Our diplomatic communications were not as blunt as they
might have been. But, after all, we had no reason then to expect Ourfriend and
neighbour to seek advantage in unilateral action, contrary to international law
and contrary 10 Canada's own pas1 conduct. Al1 in ail, the United States
communications to Canada were a~o~o~r.ate. time.v an~, ~~ ~---"oint.
Even had Canada ever conceived thal the continental shelf boundary in the
Gulf of Maine area would be determined on the basis of a unilateral programme
that disregarded "international legal precedents and procedures" (~nited States
Reply, para. 19).the aide-mémoireof 10May 1968was suîiicient to correct any
such misconception. In brief, Canada's acquiescence and estappel argument is
contrary to law, is contrary to practice and is contrary to the common-sense
manner in which friendlv eovernments conduct their business.
The United Statesnow turns to Canada's secondargument~which seems to be
a fall-back position from ifs acquiescence and estoppel argument. Canada's
second argument sometimes appëars as the assertion that the conduct of the
United States, no1only in the 1960s,but in the 1970sas well, indicates that the
United States itself accepted an equidistant line boundary for the continental
shelf on Georges Bank. At other times this argument appears as the Canadian
assertion that the conduct of the United States isevidence that the United States
considered the equidistant line to be an equitable boundary.
This argument, in either form that Canada has advanced it, is unfounded and
is an ill-conceivedsubstitute for acquiescence.These comments that 1shall make
are equally applicable to Canada's allegations coiicerning continental shelf
conduct and the 1979fisheries agreement. Canada's goal is to bind the United
States to a pattern of alleged conduct and Canada seeks to attribute to that
alleged conduct the same consequences that would follow from a pattern of
acquiescence and estoppel or, as Canada's distinguished counsel called it,
"acquisitive prescription" (p. 98, supra). Thus, the consequences of Canada's
theory are extreme indeed. Yet the theory is not hedged in any way with the
caveats or protections that apply to the doctrine of acquiescence.
Canada's theory has no relationship to the Court's decision in the
TunisiaiLibvo case. which was based uDon four decades. without Drotest. of
niuiual ohs;rbancc oia i/r,~hi.lti>hcr) fnforccmenl Iimil,and upon'ihc failure
of one of the Parties io protcrt actual oil Jrllling b) the oiher The Chamber will
recognize that Canada's theory has no basis in law or in logic.
Canada first areues that the seismic nermits issued bv the United States frorn
1965into the 1970;respectcd a median iine From there: Canïda proceeds to put
forth mapi on which appcar, uhtit itinsisth<inclilling a "BLM line" and even
ihe "United Siaie, B1.Mline". WCwish itunderstood th~i the Chambcr willfind
no map in the cvidencc of this caw 011uhich ans Cnitrd Sttes officiaidreu ans
such Iinc.The dcpiction ol such a Iine has been invcnied by Canada I regret to
say that, in Our view, it is particularly outrageous that most of Canada's
illustrations of ils so-called BLM lineomit to mention that the linewas invented
and constructed by Canada. The Chamber might, for example, refer to
@@ Canadian Figures 76, 77, 160 and 163 of the oral proceedings in this regard.
Only in its Figure 63 did Canada see iït to explain by way of legend that,
@ according to the evidence, this so-called "BLM line" was only drawn by
Canada, and no1 by the United States or any official thereof.
Second, Canada argues that the seismicexploration authorized by the United
States Government did not encompass al1oîGeorges Bank. This is wrong. The
United States Department of the lnterior approved al1 permit applications
submitted to it, whether the applications did or did not include northeast
Georges Bank. As Mr. Rashkow willdiscuss again, as early as 1965,the United156 GULF OF MAINE
States authorized permit activity that went well to the northeast of any
purported equidistant line across the Bank -and in some cases included al1the
Bank. In no case, 1repeat, in no case,did the United States everdeclinea permit
request that extended beyond any such equidistant line.Thus, il is preposterous
to suggestthat the United States wasoperating on the hasis of some equidistance
l~~~-
Third, Canada argues that the oil companies respected the equidistant line
prior tothe lime that officialclaims weremade by the United States.This isfalse,
but even if it were true, it would prove nothin; relative to this case.
By 1969, the Parties knew there was a full-blown dispute brewing. In such
situations formal diplomatic notes were and are a cornerstone of diplomatic
practice. Theyallow a State to put its position on record and to reserveils rights
peacefullywith the written word. Within the law, they makeit possible to avoid
contentious - even dangerous - conduct. The implication of Canada's argument
is that such devicesdo not have this efiect.That would be a dangerous doctrine
indeed. It would reauire nations to orotect their nehts not hv words but hv
dccdh.In this case,th; Uniicd Siaics iosiiion uas staicd cleïrly ind forccfullyin
diplomaiic corrcspondence and. sincc 1970, in man! meetings hctwecn high
uilicialsof both Governmcnis. The United Siairs Go\,crnmeni rescrtcd il,r.rhts
in the matter on several occasions, heginning, in fact, with the s ru han
Proclamation of 1945.
Amencan and Canadian companies have hoth conducted seismicexploration
in ihc disputzd nred during the sndcncs oi ihis dijpuie. luri as the ti,hermen of
hoth sides h3i.e fished in ihc dispuicd are3 sincc tisheriss jurisdiciion ri~s
cxtcndcd in 1977 Thr seismicacii\.ity ih~t has occurrcd doci noi pose rhc samc
issues as actual exoloratow drilline.~lndeed. il is a relativelv benien activitv in
thii respect, ai i>pGusedlu drii~inp,~hich violaies ihc shelfiihelf,riiks dJng&10
tishery resourccs, and rcqiiires inri3113iions N~ii3bly. ihere had becn uclls
drillcd and even oil.oump.d in ihc T~nisian 2nd I.ibrxn concessionsiunsidcrcd
in the TunisialLibyacase. Notahly, there have been no wells drilled by either
Party in the disputed area in this case.This is a crucial distinction. The United
States helievesil bas acted responsihly during this dispute and ilalso helievesil
has done so in a manner that is no1prejudicial to its interests. The United States
reserved ils position in diplomatic correspondence when Canada and its
nationals engaged in relatively benign activityon Georges Bank. Does anyone
seriously believewe would have heen content to stand by, without interference
or protest, had Canada hegun drilling on a portion of the continental shelf
drilling on continental shelf that was claimed hy Canada?by if we started
Canada ohserved that the United States has no1sold anv oil and ea" leasesfor 1
ihc nurihcasi half of Georges Hank The obser~aiion iscorrcci, but, irankl). we
are angzred th~i Canada has aitcmpted IO tdkc ad\ani;ige oi ihis resir~ini in
these ~rocccdin~s.The United Si3icschose nui io issue lune--erm lcdscspcndine -
t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~n cf this disoute.
The United t ta t ceontinues to believe that it would be irresponsible to
authorize private parties to drill in a disputed area. Therefore, the United States
has withdiawn the tracts on northeast Georees Bank at an aooro.. .te point in
iime îrom c\cry proposcd Uniicd Siiitcs les,; sale in the general are;i. ~ich such
withdrawal has bccn accompanicd by a siaiemeni reatlirming ihc Cniicd Siiiic~
daim
The question ior the C'hxnhcr is whcihcr such restr~int may he mischarüsicr-
i7cdas e\,~dcnce,despiic the diplomniic record tu the conirary, ihai ihc Cniird
States belie\cd Canad3's purporied claim 10 he equiiablr. The L'niicd Siaics RUOINDER OF MR. ROBINSON 157
suhmits that Canada's characterization of the conduct of these continental shelf
activities is unfounded and inconsistent with the clear requirements of interria-
tional law as set forth hy the Court. We trust that ihe Chamber will reach the
same conclusion.
MI. President, the United States has three other maritime boundaries to be
delimited with Canada, and in each of those areas the United States is exercising
restraint, as it has shown in the Gulfof Maine area. The United Stateshas other
houndary questions around the world. includine. not onlv with Mexico. the
Rahamai. and Carihbean and PacificStaies. but aiso. ~tappéars,with the soviet
Union In ihese areas. too, ihe United Siaies has acted and w15hes IO continue IO
act with restraint. Equallv important, there are several hundred unresolved
maritime boundaries around the world that do not involve the United States,
but that could lead to confrontation if not delimited by agreement or adjudica-
tion. If the parties toese disputes cannot relyon the written diplomatic record
to protect their interests then lack of restraint. and even serious confrontation
thàt could lead to conflict, are inevitahle. The United States wishesto encourage
al1nations to act with restraint in boundary matiers and not to seek to gain
advantane throunh unilateral acts.
WereCïnada'~arguments Io beacccpied and its uiiilateral actions sanctioned
hy ihe Chamher, what could 1,as Legal Adti~cr. tsll my Go\ernmeni? I could
only say that continued restraint in boundary regions will prejudice the legal
rights of the United States.1could only say that tiniely diplomatic correspon-
dence attempting to reserve rights would appear to he useless. 1could only say
that the United States must sel1leases to protect its rights and must encourage
exploration and develonment. whatever environmental or other concerns mav
be'present. In Ourview; the chamber must assure that such things need not be
said. We respectfully suhmit that the Chamber must assure the nations of the
world and their respective legal advisers that the law encourages moderation,
reslraint and diplomacy. The Chamber mus1thus confirm that delimitation by
agreement, and no1 unilateralism, remains the law.
The United States now turns to another issue involving the conduct of the
Parties of which Canada has soueht to make much in this case. We refer to the
1979 Agreement on East Coast kishery Resources. Canada recognizes, albeit
reluctantly, that the agreement was never ratified and never entered into force.
Canada likewise concedes that the aereement never created anv ohlieations
beiwesn ihr Parties. Canada argues iisieïd ihat the Iàilçd 1979'agree;cni is
evideniç ihat ihe Uniied Siater, in tome Fashion,recosni7cd Canada's claim IOa
sharc of the fishery resources of Cicorges Bank
There is a fatal factual Rawin the Canadian areurnent. Canada seeks to use
the rejected 1979agreement as evidence of legal entitlement. However, it was
never the object and purpose of the 1979agreement to identify or reRectwhat
the Parties were entiiled to under law. Conclusions of leeal entitlement are
seldom the produci (IInegoiiatcd agreemcnis. I.eyl sntitlrment is an issue for
judgc,. no1poliiiciïns The 1979agreement u;is r~jeci~dby the Congress of the
Uniied States precisel, becauss. whçn measured ïgcilnsi II$ vie*, oi what the
United States~was entitled to under the law of-the new extended fishery
jurisdiction, it was not a fair agreement.
It is a self-evident but important proposition that negotiated agreements are
no1 confined to principles and rules of law. The negotiations of the 1979
agreement involved many meetings. Compromise canie only with difficulty,but
it eventually emerged. Directly contradictory interests were compromised,
conciliated, orsimplyswept under the rug, so to speak. For political expediency,
these conflicting non-legal interests were assemhled in10a package consisting of158 GULF OF MAINE
25 articles and 4 annexes. In the annex to the Canadian Memorial (1), the
English and French tex1 of the agreement and its annexes take up 76 pages
(Anns., Vol. 1,pp. 251-327).
The most significant concession on the side of the Executive Branch of the
United States was that the final proposed agreement, contrary to the original
concept set forth in the 15October 1977Statement of Agreed Principles, tumed
what originally had ken billedas an agreement for a limited term of years, from
which eachside could withdraw upon notice, into an agreement that was likely
to be permanent because the mutual consent of both Parties was required for its
termination.
The second most sienificantconcessionbv the United States Executive~ ~ ~c~ ~ ~ ~
came in negoiiating &arcs bascd upon 3 lihiied and rcrsnt tims framc, so thii
the allocalions undcr ihc agrcemeni iundamenislly rcprcicnicd ihr.status quo IO
the advantage of Canada. During the negoliahg process that statu; quo
changed. Mr. Binnie as much as conceded that the expulsion of the United
States fishermenfrom Canadian waters on 2 June 1978was a negotiating tactic,
designed to encourage ratification of the agreement by the United States. He
said :
"the termination of reciprocal fishing privileges in 1978 was a wound
which the United States inflicted uDonitself.because reciorocal fishinewas
meant to resume with the ratification of the 1979 fisheries agreementm
(p. 85, supra).
Oiher counscl for Canada profcss noi IOundersiand thc point ahtiui Canada's
hîbing up,ei the political applecart, bu1ihose werc ihe words of Mr. Binnie
Distinpuishcd Counrel for Cÿnada 3lso seeks io vîrsc wurds from ihc Uniicd
States C&gressional Record 10advance the view t'hatthere was support in the
United States Congress for the long-term agreement that ultimately was
accepted by the United States Executive Branch. However, Counselfor Canada
quickly passed over the date of that Congressional Record, from which he
quoted. That date was 29 June 1978, more than eight months before the
agreement was signed.
In June of 1978,Canada hadjus1terminated reciprocal fishing,but the United
States wcnt nonetheless fonvard and passed a law allowing such fishing to
resume inorder to create a favourable atmosphere for the ongoing negotiations.
The Senators and Congressmen quoted by counsel for Canada thus exposed
themselvcsto political risks in June 1978to sustain those ongoing negotiations.
Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts sponsored the Bill.1will read. with your
permission, parts of this Congressional Record that Professor Bowett did not
read. In speaking of the then envisaged long-term agreement, Senator Kennedy
said (CongressionalRecord. 29June 1978,pp. 19623-19624deposited hy Canada
in connection with its second round of oral presentation):
"As a Senator from New England 1have long been an advocate of close
and friendlv relations with Canada. But. as a New Eneland Senator. 1am
also awar; that the hall in reciprocal fishing has dGply conceméd the
fishermenof New England and has increased mistrust and resentment of the
other country's fishermen on both sides of the border. 1am informed that
mutual tension between Canadian and American fishermen on the Pacific
Coastisequally high. US fishermenexperiencedfurther frustration alter the
recent decision not 10impose countewailing dulies on Canadian subsidized
fish products exported to this country. Under these circumstances the
atmosphere for negotiating a mutually satisfactory long-term agreement RUOINDER OF MR. ROBINSON 159
has worsened. Should each side withdraw behind a wall of distrust and
make the painful readjustments necessary to fish in its own waters, an
amicable long-term relationship based on the tradition of reciprocal fishing
and on joint management of the coastal fish stocks will he exceedingly
difficult."
Senator Kennedy went on to say in June of 1978:
''1hope that our action today in ratifying the 1978Interim Agreement -
despite the Canadian decision not to continue its provisional implementa-
lion - willbe correctlv oerceived in Canada as ;ibeau eeste. out forward to
denlomtrsie thrconii&ing interest of the United ~lat; in iGginb:coopera-
[ivemaritime relationship uith Canada. I hop-?Ihat Cilnadd uill 13kesome
comparable step toward Ïesumption of reciprocal fishing, inorder to reduce
the present levelof tension and permit the special negotiators to finishtheir
task."
But reciprocal fishing did no1 resume.
By the lime the negotiations concluded in March of 1979,the record makes
clear that the major preoccupation of the Executive Branch of the United States
Government related to the overall relationshio between the United States and
Canada. rmhrlicing innumerable and incalcuiablc iactor5 and dilferences. As
Senator lavit\ made clear in a pass3pe that Iquoted in my openinp siaiemeni in
the first round. the fundamental issue ulir uhcther the United States \hould
concede substantiallv ereater riehts to Canada than we believed Canada was ~~ ~ ~ ~
legally entitled 10,inoyder 10prkote the general overall bilateral relationship
between the United States and Canada. Senator Javits concluded, along with
virtuallv everv United States Senator and everv member of the HoÜse of
~e~rcs~ntati\~\. that Clinad3 should not sxpcct the United States IO accept an
unfliir agreemeni lin). more thiin uc i\,ould expect I'anada to 3ciept one That
issue of fairnesi is the qucstion on u,hich Special Ncs<it-~t<irCutler and thc
Senate of the United taies ultimatelv disaurëed.
In recognition of the fact that the'proposed agreement was not intended to
reflectand in fact did not reflect the legal rights of the Parties, but instead was a
negotiated conciliation of competing inl&ests, Article 24 of the agreement
provided:
"Nothing in this agreement shall affect the position of either Party with
respect to the legal nature and seaward extent of interna1 waters, of the
territorial sea, of the continental shelf, of fisheries jurisdiction, or of
sovereign rights or jurisdiction for any other purpose under international
law."
Thus, had the 1979aereement been in force todav. the Chamber could not
takc cognirance of its trks and conditions 10 suppo;t the vieu, <iieither Plirt?
conscrning ils legal entitlemcnt Io a houndary linc in the (iiili of hlüine ;irea.
Such a provision was considered necessary to ensure that political corn~rornises
acceoted for one ouroose would not orGudice a iudiciaidecision to be hased
upon Icglilcnti!lement raiher than upon politiçiil seitlsment.
As I3rofeh\orWeilstated on 6 April. go\crnments are "free to ignore al1legal
conridcrations" in negotiatinr a houndart agrecmeni (VI. p. 108).Wewrcc In
this respect, negotiacons are closely akin ïo a decihon ;.Y aequo et bono in
that in neither case is the result necessanly detennined by pnnciples and
mles of law.
The failed agreement was never intended to reiiect what each Party was
entitled to as a matter of law. Indeed, the Parties disagreed vehemently160 GULF OF MAINE
concerning what it was that the law required. That the United States strongly
maintained ils right to Georges Bank, while Canada continued to assertils own
claim that the fisihervaereement and the houndarv treatv. includine the Soecial
. ~ ~
Agrccmcnt. ucrc slgnci thc sïme da). is furtheri~ide&e thai the-parties hdd
not agrccd upon the underlbing Iegalquc,tiuns and upun thcir Iegalentitlrmcnts
in the houndary area
In one wn\e,.ihe proposcd 1979agreement sought to ~\,oid the lau,, that 1s. IO
avoid the crieniion ofe\rluiii,e coasial-Statc li,hrry jurisdiciion uhich invol\ed
the expulsion of ioreipn fishcrmen [rom the ?UO-nauiicdl-mile zone. The
a-reement soueh- to avsid the natural leeal conseauence of extended coastal-
Staic jurisdiciion bv insiead proposing the maintenance of the staiui quo ai
kiwcen the fishermen of Canada and the United Siaies. ihai is. by proposing
rcciprocal fishine righis for erisii-a fishcries as Farnorih3s Ncufoundland and
as iar south as NoGh Carolina.
Throughout the course of the written and oral proceedings, the United States
hasinsisted that the ternis and provisions of the 1979agreement areirrelevant as
a malter of law. hecause that-agreement failed. and because those ternis and
pro\,isions nid) thercforc not bi u~d Io the irejudice of ihc United ~iiii:s:
Canada's elforts Io useselcclcdlerms of the hiled agreenicnt ij ïnoiher exïmplc
of the Tactthat, whcn al1 I>baid and done. Cünadï 1srequeqting ihis Chamher IO
render a decision er aeyuuerhonu- a dccision ih3t this Chambcr may no1rcndcr
undcr Article 38 of ihc Statute of the Court
A decision ex aeguoerbonowould involve com~romise. exvediencv, concilia-
tion. and evaluatiin of conflictine non-leeal interests of the ivne tha.<no~mallv
are handled by politicians, rathGr than-by judg&. The canadian economk
dependence argument also falls well inside the category of non-legal interests
-. -
that Canada i~-~ressin~upon this Chamber.
Hersch Lauterpacht, in his work TheDer,eloprneno rfInternariona1Lon,by the
lnrernarionalCourt, stated:
"Adjudication ex aequoet bono is a species of legislative activity ...
adjudication ex aequoer bonoamounts to an avowed creation of new legal
relations between the parties." (I.C.J. Pleadings,North Sea Conrinenral
Shelj, Vol. 1,p. 391.)
Thus. a dccision <..varyuo rr bnnoconicmplatci an adjusimeni of inierrsts
withoul deferensc IO rulcs of Iaw. Thc failcd 1979agreement uas an eKon to
accommodate ihc inicrîsiii~f ihe Pariici ihrourh aussi-legislaiive activiiv. II
was an effort to create a new legal relationship Ltween the Parties - and.one
that was other than that provided by the new 200-nautical-mile jurisdiction.
Those negotiations involved considerable compromise. entered in10 for the sake
of expediency. The processwas similar to what the Chamher might do if it were
permitted to render an ex aequoel bonodecision. But the Parties have no1asked
the Chamber to render such a decision and the Chamher is therefore not
permitted to do so under the Statute of the Court.
My disiinguishsd collr.aguc. Mr. Lïncasicr, has noted thai Canada asks for
mure in 11,legalclaim in thcsc procccdings ihan IIu,ould haveattaincd undcr the
Fdiled 1979agreement. Thr United Siaie, al,o sçcks more from ihis Chdmbcr
than it wouldhave receivedunder the reiected 1979aereement. Nevertheless.the
faci lh31 the 1979agrccment marks on; failcd cfforïof the Parties IO rcconcilc
compeiing inierçsts is no signposi for ihc Chaniber in identify~ng whal ihc law
requires in ascertaining an equitable solution in this case.
With this background, the United States is now honoured to address Judge
Mosler's question number 7, which concerns the 1979fisheries agreement. We REJOINDER OF MR. ROBINSON 161
would request thai the rranscnpt set forth the full text. The basic question of
Judge Mosler is as follows:
"If the Chamber had had to decide in the circumstances originally
envisaged, the Fisheries Resources Agrcemcnt being in force, il could no1
have taken into account the manaeement of lisheries resources dealt with
therein ll;isthe I:ict thst ihe .igrcèii,enidid n8iienter iniù forcc ihr cil'e~.i
that thc m.iitcrs Jc~lt iriih in rhki ~grermcnt are noul cxcldded frsiii the
consideration as relevant circumstances, or,on the contrary, should they be
taken inio accouni in that sense by the Chamber?" (VI, p. 463.)
Our answer is respectfully as follows (alsoinfra,p. 263):
1. the 1979agreement is a failed efïort at political compromise;
2. the 1979agreement made no pretext of identifyingthe boundary between the
Parties;
3. because of the compromises reflectedin the agreement, Article 24makes clear
that the provisions of the 1979agreement could not be used to support the
arguments of one side or the other in the subsequent adjudication of the
maritime boundary ;
4. the classic definition ofe.r aequoet bon0 is that it is a quasi-legislative act
involving compromise between competing interests; and
5.the provisions of the failcd 1979 agreement are compromises between
competing interests and to now take account of these provisions in reaching
ils judgment would bring the Chamber into the forbidden realm of e.xaequo
et bono.
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, that concludes my introductory presenta-
tion.
The Chamberadjournedfrom 11.25 a.m. IO 11.45 a.m. QUESTIONBYJUDGEMOSLER
ThePRESIDENT: Mr. Robinson, I think Judge Mosler would liketo make a
little commentary on your reply to his question.
Judge MOSLER: The distinguished Agent of the United States of Amenca's
answer Io my question under 7 concerning the 1979agreement was clear and
precise, but 1regret it did no1meet al1my points, and 1would be grsteful if an
additional answer could be given. Certainly, the provisions of the 1979
agreement cannot in any way be taken into account hy the Chamber and,
furthermore. anv decision based on ex oeuuoer bon0 considerations would he
eonirary Io the jurisprudence of the court: 3spointed oui recentl) again inthe
Judgment in the Tun;.vioLlhyo vaFe.The Iast sentencc OC ihe third parigrtaph of
mr iluestion 7 relates IO rbr fniirrerdeali uith in ihe 1979aereemeni. no1ro 11.c
pr~visions, which wecannot of course rely on. The question istherefore whether
these matters can be taken into account by the Charnber as relevant circum-
stances in this case. Both Parties referred in their pleadings to matters of
management and conservation of fisheries which were dealt with in the 1979
agreement. Of course, the Chamber can only consider them in the cofltext of the
delimitation of the boundary line, not under any other aspect. Part of these
matters were to be settled by compromise in the agreemint of 1979 which,
however. did not enter into force. I think that the Chamber~~ ~~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ its
considerations, any matter raised before it by the Parties. This concludes my
question, which 1think is easily to he answered.
Mr. ROBINSON: Yes,Sir, 1would propose with your permission that wewill
answer that in a subsequent presentation if that is satisfactory to Judge Mosler. REJOINDER OF MR. LANCASTER
COUNSELFOR THE GOVERNMEWTOF THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA
MI. LANCASTER: May it please the Chamber.
We began, Mr. President, distinguished Judges, some 38days ago with the Rat
charge by the distinguished Agent for Canada that the United States had argued
that "established patterns of fishing are legally irrelevant despite their being at
the heart of the dispute" (VI, p. 24).ourteen days later the United States set the
record straight (VI, p. 338). We said, as we had said ail along, thai the United
States invited the Chamber to consider al1of the fishingactivities of hnth Parties
as relevant circumstances. ei- -e 10them such weieht a- the Chamber thoueht -
ju\iitird in ihe context ofall relc\,ani circumrtancei. ).or sùnie rciison. u,hiçh.II
le:islcdnnol fathum. ihis raiher reason3ble propoiiiicin ha5inipircd a sùniewhat
vituperative and barbed response. . .
11would, of course, be possible 10 line up and blow away each of the straw
men which Canada has so cleverly crafted to aitempt again to shift the
Chamber's focus from the facts. It would be possible to do so, but it would be
temhlv wasteful of orecious lime. For there is no loneer a disoute on this
approich. Canada. khich originally condemned histor;cal fishkics io ioial
banishmcnl. has )ieldr.d. Cansdii now conccdc, ihai "Canada has no objeciion
io iireviewof the hisinrical fichenesrecord . "(o. 84. rupro) II look us a while
to gel here, Mr. President, but we are here - agFeedthai this Chamber should
indeed consider al1fishing activities of both Parties ;is relevant circumstances.
The United States is pleased 10have Canada's concurrence. In agreeing to this
approach, Canada has invited you to review the annexes to its Counter-
Memorial (III), and so do we. Together with the United States annexes (IV,
Counter-Memorial. Ann. 7, Vol. IV; V, Reply, Anns. 28 and 29, Vol. II), for
thev show more clearlv than anvthi.e else that we could ooint 10.exactlv what
u.ehave j3id from thcsiart. Canxdi3n fiihing ;ictivityon Seorge, Bank ;rior to
1950ua, spoii). qporadic. insubstiiniial. and in,uilicirni. And a11-,II/ - of the
evidence which Canada has been able to muster by ils extensive research
establishes. ai best. an occasional visit to Georees Bank bv an occasional
Canadian craft on &dely scattered occasions during this historic period. Thus, ~ ~
as pointed out in the United States reply, Canada's extended and extensive
search has unearthed only approximately 85 Canadian vessels which visited
Georges Bank during the first half of this century -and not al1of them came to
fish (para. 229).
Canada has been consistent in ils inconsistency. First it labelled historical
fishine activities irrelevan- not Io be considered bv .his Chamber - and now it
concc&s ihïi ihis Charnbcr can conbider [hem.
Bui a11the u hile ihatIIwas \~aiillatinghetueen these tuo approachss. Canada
was trying desperately to convince you (and perh~ps itxif) that it had an
historical fishery which it could use to balance that of the United States. If.
indeed. Canada really helieves that an histoncal fishery is irrelevant - of no
consequence - something which will no1 weigh at al1 - why has Canada made
such an enormous effort 10 create some semblance of an historic fishery for
itself? Never mind that that effort failed. The very fact that Canada would
attempt to do so has obvious significance.
And that significanceisgrounded in the sure knowledge that the United States 164 GULF OF MAINE
does have an impressiveand fullydocumented historic fisheryon Georges Bank
which indeedis relevant to your deliherations.
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, let me briefly and quickly refresh the
recollection of the Chamber. Figure 85 (which you previouslysaw as Fig. 40)
@ showsconclusivelythat Canada dominated (despite its obvious distaste for that
word), dominated the historical fishery off ils coast and the United States
dominated the historical fishery off the coast of New England, including
Georges Bank.
@ Figure 86 (which was previously displayed as Fig. 42) shows overwhelming
dominance by the United States in the Georges Bank groundfish fishery from
1904to 1981 - including Canada's "contemporary" period. Figure 87 (which
@ was Fig. 43 in the first round) shows scallop statistics on Georges Bank and
includes the undisputed fact that Canadian landings brieflysurpassed those of
the United States and the United States scallopers moved their operations south
to the mid-Atlantic scallop beds.It also shows, however, that that situation no
longer continues.
The historical fisheriesfacts remainas uncontroverted now as at the berinnine
of this case. They speak for themselves and they clearly and concrusively
establish who did what, when, and where on Georges Bank. We said before; we
say again; we are very comfortable resting on that record as reflected in the
pleadings and the documents submitted hy both Parties in this case.
But because of interna1 inconsistencies in Canada's pleadings, and faint
rumblings yet of a claimed priority for a "contemporary fishery" (whatever that
term may now mean) we must brieflyaddress some of the current fisheriesfacts
against the background of some of Canada's claims.
First, it is important to realize what Canada has attempted to do by this
forced focus on the 1969 and 1978 period. It wants you to take this single,
aberrational frame of referencean- either hy ignoring history or hy relegating
histoncal fact to insignific-nto conclude that Canada has al least an equality
of fishery activity with the United States on Georges Bank. How seductively
simple. For if that is the fact, the argument goes, this relevant circumstance is
neutralized. And that, Mr. President, has been the target on which Canada has
drawn its bead from the start- not to prevail on fishing activities but to so
confuse the factsas to suggesiequilihrium and irrelevance. It does not work. We
need onlv take a steo back and out it in oersoective to see whv.
What Le rcally hive- when ail the smAkeliascleared- is3" unbruken [rack
of substani~slactivity hy the United States <inGeorges Bank fur over 150years.
There 3re narallel irdcks for ooriions of ihat ~enod to hc sure. But ihose othcr
tracks are 'aberrational. The canadian parallei, for example, is faint and spotty
until it beginsto solidify in the 1950sand become sustained in the 1960s.And it
is again beginning to diminish. Other third-party States are represented hy a
sudden. sinele.heavv thicktrack startine in the 1960sand al1but disaooeanne in
the 1970s frue. both Csnsda's and thetnitcd States [racks u~ereo&;harlo~~cd
by that nearly Jevastating intrusion. Bu- againsi the long. uninterruptcd United
States record, it also is an aberration.
What are the facts about the current situation which Canada has either
ignored or perhaps presented somewhat less than impartially? Let us quickly
tick them off in the context of:
1. The true current United States fishery; and
2. The diminishing Canadian fishing on Georges Bank
What does the evidence show us about them?
First, the United States current fishery. We showed you Figure 88 before166 GULF OF MAINE
"Not only have current Canadian catches for Georges Bank fallen
generally but their decline has ken paralleled by an increase in the catch of
the United States scallop fishermen. Canadian scallop fishermen have
begun to take a large share of their catch from other scallop grounds,
located in Canadian waters offNova Scotia or Newfoundland. Indeed, both
the Canadian offshore scallop fishing industry and, more generally, the
Canadian offshore fishing industry, unlike their American counierparis,
have undergone a decline rather than an expansion, since the extension of
United States jurisdiction in 1977." (VI, p. 346.)
If ever there was a gauntlet, Mr. President, that was il. Yet Canada chose not
Io pick it up. Canada chose no1 to reply. Not one word. You may, therefore,
accept il as unchallenged. For it is true and, by silence, admitted to be true.
These are the true current, or contemporary if you will, fishery facts. Like
their histoncal counterparts, they also speak volumes. But again, as we said
before, il would k unfair to [ake them in isolation even though they arguably
uresage the future.
~ësubmit now, respectfully, as we did before, that you should consider these
current facts in context: in the context of al1 fishing activities as relevant
circumstances; and in the context of fishing activities as one of the several
relevant circumstances.
The relative weight to be given to the fish activities has been and will be
discussed by my colleagues. But whatever that weight, al1 of those activities
should be laid on justice's scale ifjustice is to he done. We are confident that if
that measure ismade, the balance will tip substantially in favour of the United
States.
Finallv. in Canada's second oresentalion. 1 was descnbed as "the counsel
from ~ainc uho spokc for lhc'firhermcn of Ma~sachuicils" (p. 93, atpru). If
learned counhel for Canada ucre acquainicd u,iihihosc lishermen, ihcy would
rcrilizeihal thet havc donc me an hunour and ihrir 1Jm rra[cful. 1rhink rhat I
said earlier, and 1 repeat now, that 1 do speak, how&er haltingly, for the
fishermen of the United States, those fishermen who daily risk their lives and
fortunes on Georges Bank and who have confidently and trustingly laid their
hopes before you, and 1 am proud to acknowledge that role. REJOlNDER OF MR. RASHKOW
COUNSELFOR THE GOVERNMENTOF THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA
Ur. RASIIKOW: Mr. Prcsideni. disiinguished Judges, this prejent3iion will
addrcss ihe acti\itics of the Uniicd S1;itcsin rclation IO geoph)sic;il c\ploraiion
of the coniinental shelf in ihe Gulf <ii&l:iinearc3 Thr Uniicd States regrets ihat
ii must burden the Chamber with further argument on this issue. In th; viewof
the United States, however, the extremeand unfounded contentions of Canada
regarding this issue require a response.
1 will be assisted in this presentation today hy Dr. Jonathon Olsson of the
Office of the Geographer of the Department of State as well as by MI. Ray
Meyer of the Officeof the Legal Adviser of the Department of State. 1would
also like to expressmy appreciation to Lt. Commander Peler Ward Comfort, of
the Judge Advocate General'sCorps of the United States Navy, who assisted me
in the preparation of this presentation.
MI. President, Canada asserts that prior to 1972no exploration was either
authorized or conducted on the northeastern portion of Georges Bank pursuant
to the United States geophysical exploration permits. Indeed, Canada asserts
that, during the yearsprior to 1972,and aftenvards, United States oil companies
and the United States Department of the lnterior assumed the existence of an
equidistant boundary on Georges Bank. Canada is incorrect.
The United States has identified and analysed the permits that the United
States Government issued prior to 1972 and aftenvards, that authorized
exploration on the northeastern portion of Georges Bank. We are referring, in
particular, to the United States correspondence with the Registrar of the Court
over the las1several months and the attachments thereto (letter from Davis R.
Robinson, Ageni of the United States of America, to the Registrar, dated
27 February 1984,enclosure 1, pp. 5-9, attachments I and 2).
Canada purports to have reviewedthis material bu1continues, nonetheless, to
insist that no such exploration was either authorized by the United States or
conducted bv ,r.valecomoanies: (VI.0.. 13..135. 149-150.152.154. 156).The. .
faci is thai Candda's rc\icw oi [hi\ mliierial.in poliie terms. u,asincornpleteand
the conclusion that C3n;ida u,ould ha\c ihis Chamber draw from ihai rciicw is
contradicted bv the facts.
Wc regret ihat C~nÿda has ïorcrd us IO ducll upoii li ~hlccl ihal urebclie\,r
Canadx is using IO divert ihe Ch3mbcr'sattention from significantissuesin ihis
case. Ncverthelcss, in view<iiCan~da'sinsistcnce on ihis poini. we willdiscuss
the exoloration authorized bv the United States northeast of anv of the , .
purpo;ted equidistant lines idehtified by Canada.
In this regard, the United States wishesto stress that it is the authorization by
the ~nited-States Government. no1 the conduct <if exoloration bv orivate . .
~.omp3niesundcr thai auihorifliiion. ihai IS rcle\ant 3,a mditcr <ifinternation~il
Iau. Thc IJniied Siairs Go\erniiieni ïuthori~es gc<iph)jicale~ploraiion in :ireas
of ihe United Siaies continenilil shelluiihin the Ilmiis applied ior bs ori\ate
companies. Whether or not those private companies conduct exploraii6n that
has been officiallyauthorized is, under United States law, entirely subject to the
discretion of those companies.
But those companies cannot by their decisions diminish or in any way affect
the significanceof the governmental authorization as an exercise bythe United
States of ils rights regarding thecontinental shelf.Nevertheless, in order fullyto REJOINDER OF MR.RASHKOW 169
granting this permit, the United States Government authonzexploration
throughout the entire area, as requested by the Conipany.
Canada has characterized the exploration conducted under permit E2-68as
"a few tentative forays into the Canadian zone" (III, Counter-Memonal,
para. 370). However, the exploration by that private company extended across
the northeastern portion of Georges Bank to the Northeast Channel (letter of
9 Apnl 1984,doc. 60, post-plot maps).
Displayedto my right as Figure 93isan illustration that reproduces on a more
standard chart the exploration actuallyconducted by Exploration Surveysunder
that United States Government authonzation. That exploration consisted of
some 450 line miles(letter of 9 April 1984,Attachment I), and encompassed an
area on Georges Bank of approximately 5,000square nautical milesbeyond the
strict equidistant line.
The next permit to he discussed,also issued in 1968,ispermit E3-68,issuedto
@ ShellOil Company. Displayed to my nght, as Figure 94, isa reproduction of the
map that accompanied Shell's originalrequest for permit E3-68 which depicts
the limits of Shell's proposed exploration. It may be ohserved that the
northeastern limit shown as a shallow arc emanating from the United States-
Canadian international boundary terminus.
@ Displayed alongside Figure 94 is Figure 95, which depicts the northeastern
limit in the original map submitted by Shell Oil Company on a more standard
chart. It may be observed that Shell included al1of Georges Bank within the
proposed area of exploration. The United States Government approved Shell's
application as submitted and as reflected in Figure 95 (letter of 9 April 1984,
doc. 8, letters of 20 May 1968, 27 May 1968 and 5 June 1968; doc. 61,
@ Map 4027C).
Counsel for Canada foreshadowed that we would show the Chamber this
map, stating: "There is one further permit 1had best refer to, just to be on the
safe side, hecause the United States might pull it out of the hat at the reply
stage" (p. 108supra)But then, counsel for Canada, in discussing this map,
confused pre-plot maps with post-plot maps. As the Chamher will recall, pre-
plot maps are maps which depict the exploration which is proposed to be
conducted; post-plot maps illustrate the exploration that was actually conducted
by the company. Now, counsel for Canada showed you Figure 159 of the
Canadian presentation, which depicted a few survey lines on the middle of
Georees Bank. He States: "1 want to show the Chamber the ore-nlot man
subm;tted !or this permitihrd But hç Jid nui $hou )iiu the "rc-Plot
@@ Figure, 94 dnd 95. io my righi. iIlu,ir.itc the prc-plot rndp Counsel for C~ndd~.
in elfeci. sho\red ,ou thc riost-plot mari. mist3kenl! ~isseriinrthai "ihr rire-riloi
map shows the aitual surbey lin(&id.). - . .
As Figures 94 and 95 demonstrate, the area for which Shell Oil originally
@ @ requested authorization to conduct operations and for which a permit was
granted by the United States Government, in fact includedal1of Georges Bank.
The fact that Shelldid not conduct exploration throughout the entire area is not
relevant.
@ Displayed to my right is Figure 96, which depicts the area covered hy a
subseauent work nlan that ShellOil Comoanv filedwith the Deoartment of the
interi8r in relaIOopermit E3-68 Th&cd ;iprop<)\rdoperdiiuns undcr ihdi
uork pldn extendcd wellbeyund strict equidistdnt Iine (lYtApnl 1984,
doc. 61,ure- lot)Indeed, the northeastern limit of thdt area extended more
than 20'<auticalmilesbey6nd a stnct equidistant li'ne.and encompassed an area
on Georges Bank of about 1,200 square nautical miles beyond the strict
equidistant line. 170 GULF OF MAINE
In ils summary review of the United States permit activity, Canada did not
discuss permit E3-69, issued to Chevron Oil Company as Agent for Digicon,
Incorported, on hehalf of a number of oil companies (letter of 9 April 1984,doc.
ze 51,letters dated 26 May 1969,1I July 1969).Displayedto my right is Figure 97,
O which depicts the exploration Chevron proposed to conduct (letter of 9 April
1984, doc. 100, pre-plot). As you will observe. that exploration extended far
beyond the strict equidistant line, which we have imposed on this Figure 97.
Indeed, the area of proposed operations extended almost 60 nautical miles
beyond a strict equidistant line, and encompassed more than 2,900 square
nautical miles beyond that line. Once again, the United States Government
approved the private Company'sapplication as submitted.
For the information of the Chamber, the United States has also depicted on
@ Figure97 two notations, "Pt. on BLM line", that appear on the copy of the map
submitted by Chevron with its permit application descrihing its proposed
operations. The United States uncovered these two notations and disclosedthem
to Canada in connection with its response to Canada's repeated extraordinary
reauests for information.
ihese two notations, and the two points they identified, were made on the
map by Mr. Dupont of the United States Geological Survey of the Department
of ihe-Interior and are two of the three isolate2 referenc& that consiitute the
entire evidence ofthis so-called "BLM line" - the third being a reference in an
attachment 10 a memorandum in a permit file that Canada discovered in a
document provided by the United States. Canada had itself unsuccessfully
searched United States records.~~,t ~ ~v in Washineton.-but in other citi~s ~s~ ~ ~ ~
uell. for c\,idencc<ifthis purported "B(\I linc" Canada. howçi,cr. ;ipparently
dismissed there tuo notations iuo of the three isolatcd referenccï thai
constltute ihc cniirc cvidcnce of thc io.c~llcd "BLM Iinc" - uhcn distincuiilicd
counsel for Canada stated: "actually, the two points don't seem to correspond
withanythingmuch" (pp. 109,l II,supra).The Unitedstatesagrees. In fact,inthe
view of the United States, Canada's entire argument concerning any "BLM
line" does not seem to correspond to anything very much.
To the best of our knowledge,these three isolated referencesto a "BLM line",
two of which Canada itself discounts, were based upon information that was
provided informally to the United States Geological Survey by the Bureau of
Land Management, for the purpose of describing the limitsof Canada's permits
on Georges Bank.
Mr. President, distinguished Judges,that is al1there is; no map, no line, only
information from the Bureau~ ~ ~ ~d Manaeementv~so~ ~ ~e in 1968or 1969 ~ ~~ ~~ - -
the date is unclear - as to the limits of Canada's permits on Georges Bank.
As the Agent for the United States has stressed, the United States has been
unahle to dkcover in the original records of the Department of the lnterior any
map actually depicting the so-called "BLM line". Nonetheless, Canada has
repeatedly displayed the socalled "BLM line", occasionally even labelling it
"the United States BLM line", and thereby implying that Canada was repro-
ducing an officialexisting line from an officialUnited States map. However, as
the Agent for the United States has jus1 noted, there is no evidenceof any such
line on any such map.
Canada attempts to estahlish the existence ofsuch a "BLM line" by reference
to an exploration Companymap that Canada theatrically produced before this
Chamber on 5 May. As the Chamber will recall, this map that Canada
produced, was a very large post-plot map and it was the only figurethat Canada
has produced that has been mounted on a board for viewing, rather than
projected on Canada's lighthox. Canada contends, in the words of Canadian REJOINDER OF MR. RASHKOW 171
counsel, that the lineon this company map fitsexactly with the description of the
Bureau of Land Management line in Mr. Hoîïman's letter of 14 May 1965
(p. 109,supra).
Mr. President, with al1respect, Mr. Hoîïman's letter of 14 May 1965upon
which Canada reliescontains no reference ta any Bureau of Land Management
line at all. We invite your attention 10that Ietter, which appears at Annex 53,
Volume IV, of the United States Memorial. Thcre is a reference in Mr.
Hoiïman's letter to the term "median line" in relation Io the Continental Shelf
Convention. bu1 nowhcrc do the words 'Bure~u i~f[.and Man~gemcnt" or
"ULM Iine" upprar in relation IO any Iine,as Profcs\or Btiueit would juggsst.
Prufcssor Howctt'~ch~rdctcri~~tionof %Ir.Hofi'man'rIeiier is thus com~lctely
u~fo~nded. .
We iurn nuw IO the compdny mrp upon uhich C.innd~ relier and uhich \i,dj
inirùduccd so dr~mati~Jii)during a scs\ion of 5May.Thai miipuas preparcd in
relaiii>nid permit E2-72.undcr u,hichcxpl<,rsiiùnbc)ond ihe sirict cquidisiant
Iine waj no1 unly aulhorized hy ihr [;nitcd States Govrrnmcnt. but aciually
cunducted by ihc pri\,ate company as wcll.
In view of thk broad ailhorization extending over large parts of the
northeastern nortion of Georees Bank. and in viewof the exoloration actuallv
conducted ovcr those largeare& of thenortheastern portion oiGeorges Bank,
is incomprehensihle to the United States how Canada can, in good faith,
contend that thismao. whichdeoicts that actual ex~loration under ~iited States
Governmcni authù;iz.ition, s~ppurts Cinada'\ 'conieiition ihai ihc Cnired
Siates Gd\ernmcnt reçogni~edan equirlisi;iiilhounrlary on Georges H~nkwhen.
in fact, the map directly contradicts those contentions.
1reeret that~ ~mu~ ~dieress momentarilv ,o comment unon the circumstances
surrounding the produciion of thisexplordiion post-plot mJp. In ihc vieu of ihe
Unitsd States. Canada has playcd a bit fasi and loose with this whollyirrele\ant
map - not only in the use ii seeksta make of the map, but in the manner it was
produced. As we understand, neither the Chamber nor the United States was
provided with a copy of this map in advance of the session at which it was
displayed, as iscustomary. It isjust such surprises that the Rules of Court were
intended 10avoid.
We are confident that Canada's production of this map will only serve as a
reminder of Canada's utter failure to demonsirate the application of any so-
called "BLM line" bv the United States Governmçnt in ils authorization of
geophysical exploration permits. Indeed, it will iilso serve ta remind the
Chamber that Canada has failed to produce any evidencethat the United States
recognized, or othenvise acted upon, an equidistant line.
The United States will next discuss permit E4-69,which Canada neglectedto
discuss. This permit, issued to Exploration Surveys lncorporated on 16 July
1969,was a continuation of the programme initiated the previous year under
permit E2-68, which 1 have previously discussed(letier of 9 April 1984,doc. 9,
letter of 29 July 1969).
Figure 98, displayed to my right, illustrates that the company conducted
exploration under this permit well beyond the sirict equidistant line (letter of
9 April 1984,doc. 9, letter dated 5 Nov. 1969,doc. 62, Exhibit A). At its most
northeasterly point, this exploration extended approximately 30 nautical miles
beyond that strict equidistant line.
As the Chamber is aware. the United States notifiedCanada of the unaccept-
~hiliiy of Canada's perrniis on Georges Bank. Tirs!.by an ride-memoire'of
10 May 1968and. ,uhsequently. bya diplomxiic Note ofProte>t of 5Novcmhçr
1969. De.pitr these protesi\ of Crnadian aiti\iiies. Canadii relie.. upon the172 GULF OF MAINE
~ermitactiviliesof the Parties subse~uent to 1969to suooort its contention that
bniicd SIXCSpermit astii.it) in somc Fishion atlirmat~\;iy rcsognized Cdnsda's
permit<. Canada's contention is, hiiu,e\cr. contrddictcd by Canada', own
presentation.
Thus, Canada has acknowledged that exploration was both authorized by the
United States Government and conducted by private applicants on the north-
eastern portion of Georges Bank under permit E2-72, issued 10 Digicon,
Incorporated, in May of 1972 (VI.pp. 152; p. 108, supra).
Displayed 10 my right is Figure 99, a reproduction of Figure 77 from
Canada's first oral presentation. Figure 77 illustrated the scope of the explora-
tion conducted by the private company under United States permit E2-72.As
the Chamber will recall, it was the post-plot map relating to this particular
permit that Canada theatrically produced before the Chamber on 5May; yet al1
the exploration shown in Canada's Figure 77 was conducted under United
States Government authorization, including the exploration depicted by the red-
dashed lines that extend into the northeast portion of Georges Bank.
Exploration beyond any of the equidisiant linesidentifiedhy Canada wasalso
authorized by the United States Government and conducted by the private
applicant under permit E3-72, issuedin August of 1972,to Shell Oil Company
(letter of 9 April 1984,doc. 14,letters of 10August 1972and 18August 1972,
doc. 67, items 73 and 74-77). Displayed on my right, as Figure 100, is an
illustration of the area covered bv Shell'sreauest for authorization to conduct
exploration. The area of proposed exploraiion is shaded in pink, with the
exploration subsequently conducted under that permit represented by the black
lines. The ~nited-States Government once again approved the pr-ivatecom-
pany's application as submitted and, in fact, exploration was conducted by the
private firm as proposed.
Figure 79 from Canada's oral presentation, which purported to depict the
areas surveved under Uni~ed~ ~ ~es oermits El-74 and E3~ ~-~also contradicts
Canada's assertion that United ~taks activities after 1972 somehow
recognized Canadian permits on Georges Bank. Displayed to my right, as
Figure 101,isa reproduction of Canada's Figure 79. However,wehave modified
Canada's Figure 79 so as to show the exploration actually conducted by the
private companies under United States permits El-74and E3-75, in addition to
the three lines of exploration that Canada depicted in its original Figure 79
(letter of 9 April 1984,docs. 70, 72).As the Chamher will observe, substantial
geophysical exploration, far in excess of that depicted by Canada, was con-
ducted on the entire northeastern portion of Georges Bank under these per-
mits.
In sum, the record of United States permit activity on Georges Bank
contradicts Canada's contentions that the United States assumed the existence
of an equidistant boundary in administering its geophysical exploration pro-
gramme on Georges Bank. The most that can be said, from Canada's point of
view, is that private companies, in both the United States and in Canada,
recognized that a dispute existed and obtained authorizations from both
countries. This is once again demonstrated by Canada's own presentation.
In Figure 162, that Canada produced at oral presentation, Canada repro-
duced a map submitted by Digicon in connection with United States permit
E3-75. Ascounsel for Canada noted, the company map reproduced in Canada's
Figure 162depicts both "a lateral line", which counsel for Canada described as
the strict equidistance line, and an "alternate line", which counsel for Canada
described as the United States claim line in 1975, going down the Northeast
Channel (p. 110, supra). Thus, Figure 162 is a striking example of a private REIOINDEROF MR. RASHKOW 173
compamy conducting exploration on the northeastern portion of Georges Bank
that recognized the existence of the dispute between the United States and
Canada.
It is also an example of an instance where such a Companyhas played it safe.
As you will recall, Digicon requested and ohtained authorization under both
United States and Canadian permits to conduct exploration throughout the
entire northeastern portion of Georges Bank. This permit was granted hy the
United States without restriction. Once again, Canada purports to rely upon
evidence that. rather than suooortine its contentions. flatlv contradicts them.
The esjcni~al Clicris ihat'~rii~ai~c~impanics applied for authorizdtion IO
iunduci exploraiion hcjond nny cquidisiiini linc on Ccorgcs Rdnk and ihdi ihc
Cniicd St.itcs Govcrnnieni granted cvery .inglc dplilication to ihc lull cxtcnt
rcqucsicd and ncicr 1imitr.ddny iuih auihciriwiion besd~sc of an! purportcd
CanaJian cldim 1,)the norihedsicrn portion of Georgcj Rank. REJOINDER OF MR. FELDMAN
COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA
Mr. FELDMAN: Mr. President, distinguished ludges, the United States now
turns to Canada's arguments regarding economic dependence.
Throughout these proceedings, Canada has attempted to persuade the
Chamber that an equitahle delimitation requires the division of Georges Bank
because the Georees Bank fisherv is imnortant to several communities in
southwest ~ova ~cLtia.Canada ha; formuiated this argument in different ways
at dilïerent times. In its pleadings Canada emphasized the "vital" need of
southwest Nova Scotia - excluding Halifax 1 as compared with eastern
Massachusetts - including Boston. In the first round of the oral proceedings,
Canada asserted "a special economic dependence" of southwest Nova Scotia in
attempted analogy with the unique situation of Iceland at the lime of the
FisheriesJurisdidioncase where preferential shares of high seas fisheries rather
than exclusivenghts were at stake.
In the final round of its oral presentation, Canada has heen a bit more
restrained as to the facts. The distineuished Aeent of Canada states that "the
economy of southwest Nova Scotia%epends in large measure upon Canada's
established fisheryon Georges Bank". The United States believes,however, this,
forward by Canada has become even more radical. Canadian counsel told thet
Chamber that:
"the larger and more important issueunderlying the Court's recognition of
regional 'economic dependence' as a 'relevant circumstance within a
framework of eauitahle orincinles' is not wealth but the recognized
responsibilit) <lia Si~letu mainiain the structure and viabiliiy of ils rcgion,
:ind conimuniiirr.(P Y?,supra.)
We aillconinicnt on [hi, poini Iaicr.
The Unitcd Stateshas demonbtriited in 11sole3dingsand in thcsc proceedinps.
that Canada's claim of economic denendenci is not consistent with-the law and
is not ,upporteJ hy ihr FacWC. ha\e ,houn that lishing activities of the Parties
arc relr.i.antuhcre delirnitat!on of the waicr coiua1issue, hiit th;it ;illcgcJ
dependence is not relevant, because dependence means the absence of economic
alternatives which, in the words of the Court in theunisialLibyacase, "are
variables which unpredictahle national fortu..might at any timecause to tilt
the scale one way or another".
In cases such as thGrisbadarnaand the Anglo-Nonvegian Fisheriecase, the
law has given weight to the predominant fishinginterest of the party which has
fished for a longer time and more extensively, and has cut off the less lengthy
estahlishedfishine interests of the other State. We also demonstrated that the
~llocation of th; high sels ti\hericb in the t'isheJiiridizrioncase 1s not
rcle\ant to the dcliniit.iiion of niariiime houndarier, and rhiit thr conccpt of
~rcfercniial richts has bcen o\crtiih,nrhc recognition of ?U@-nauiical-mile
exclusivefisherv zones.
The L'niteJ ~tiites h.~, iurthcr shou,n ihat the Canadian claim of ccoitontic
depcndcnce ha, becn grcatlv o\ersiaicd b! cxdggeraiing cmploymcnt and
incomc atiributiible io Georges Ba;hy~.onfusing(:an;iJa's fishcryon Gcorge!çs RUOINDER OF MR. FELDMAI*' 175
Bank with the much larger fisheries of Nova Scotia (see, e.g., VI, p. 99); by
ignonng the predominant economic activities in Nova Scotia, particularly
services; by confining the analysis to a small subregion of one province of
Canada;and by minimizingthe opportunities for adjustment within the larger
fishingindustry and other economic sectors of Nova Scotia and eastem Canada.
Canada's latest response to the United States analysis of this issue consists
essentially of three points:
1. the United States criticism of Canada's factual areument is unfounded:
2. the holding of the Court in the ~unisial~ib~a-case does not apply to
economic dependence on fishenes resources wherefisheriesjurisdiction is at
ir\ue; and
3 inicrnaiiunal Iawrccognizes,or should recognizc.a Siaie's responsibility for
ihc \iability of ils "regiuns and communitics" as a relevant circum~tancein
the delimitation of a single maritime boundary.
We will discuss each of these points in turn.
First, distinguished counselforCanada says United States counsel has "made
the extraordinary allegation that Canada has exaggerated the importance to
Nova Scotia of Georges Bank scallops" (p. 79, supra), and he attributes that
position to a careless misreading of Canadian documents (p. 80, supra). The
United States will respond to that criticism in a moment, but first we want to
explain the importance of the data concerning scüllops to Canada's entire
argument of economic dependence.
Canada claims that ils fisherieson Georges Bank are of major importance to
southwest Nova Scotiaeven ifthey arenot important to Canada as a wholeorto
the province of Nova Scotia as a whole. Canada measures the Georges Bank
fishery as involving 3,600 jobs and 146 million Canadian dollars of gross
domestic product in 1980. The Chamber will recall that the United States
estimates are much lower. Canada claims that 2,206 jobs, and 96 million
Canadian dollars of GDP relate to Georges Bank scallops. In other words,
Canada claims that 67 percent of thejobs and 66percent of the income Canada
attributes to Georges Bank relate to scallops. Thus if the scallop figures
developed by Canada are not accurate, its entire econi,micargument is in doubt.
In this connecfion, the United States would liketo remind the Chamber that
Canada argued in ils pleadings that the Georges Bank fisheryis essential to the
well-being of hundreds of fishermen operating small vessels out of numerous
villages infar southwest Nova Scotia (1,Memorial, piiras. 143-148).The United
States thorouehlv rebutted this areument in detail in Annex 32 of the United
Siaie, Rrply <V)..AS poinied oui in ihai Anncx. llic ?\idence clrarly csiablishcs
ihai groundtish 13ndcdfrom Ciei>rgeiBank arc ofiri\.ial importance Io the small
i.es,els ofuiuihuesi Nova Scoiia That ilesi may be imooriani IO Nova Scotia.
but Georges Bank isnot important to that fleei.
MI. President, it is striking that Canada has made no effort in these oral
proceedings 10respond to that analysis by the United States.
Canada's maior economic inferest in the fisheriesof Georees Bank is scallovs.
and ihuse rca~l&~s hate ken iakcn by no nkrc than 77 la&c vcs~cls,of u.h;ch
ah<)utiwo-thirds arc oier ?O )cars old (bascd on Prari. T., p. 75. dcposiied hy
ihc United Siaies on 8,Mas 19841 Mo.[ ol'thosc vcss;ls are <)uncdbv a handful
of firms. Forty-five of them operate from just tn.0 ports, ~unënbur~ and
Riverport (Jamieson, er al.. Table 5, deposited by the United States on 8 May
1984).These ports are located close to metropolitin Halifax, and over 150
nautical miles from the tip of Georges Bank.
With that background, let us consider whether the scallopdata presented byCanada to the Chamber are consistent with the facts, and whether the United
States wasjustified in pointing out that Canada has "exaggerated the import-
ance to Nova Scotia of Georges Bank scallops".
The United States made two basic points: First, that Canada made an
incorrect assumption about the dependenceof the Nova Scotia scallop fleet on
Georees Bank in 1980 that distorted ils cal~ ~~~-o~s as to t~e ~m~ ~tance of
Georges Bank to the economy of southwest Nova Scotia. The se~ond~~ointwas
that a tahle presented hy Canada in support of a related assertion concerning
1981did not in fact sunnort either the assumotion or the assertion. Both of these
points arc valid. and h8ih are impurtant (\'i. pp. 386-387).
Thc incorrect assumption ihat underlies much or Can~da'seconomic aiidi)sis
is the aisumption that al1 77 Iiiensed offshore scallop \esselsin southaest Nova
Scotis fishede~clusi~el)and full-lime on Georges Rankin 1980 As notcd in Our
lasi preieniation. ihat i<\<iuniptionappears in footnotc 2 oit~ble 8 in Volume II
or ihe Annexer in Canada's Rrnlv. As J rcsult of ihai assumniion. Canïda
calculates that the Georges Bank icallop fishery provided full ehployment for
1,309fishermen in 1980. Unfortunately, that assumption is not correct.
If it were correct, 100 per cent of the scallops taken by the Nova Scotia
ofshore scallop fleet in 1980 would have had to come from Georges Bank.
However, aspointed out in Our last presentation on this issue,only 67 percent of
the scallops landed in Nova Scotia by offshore vessels in 1980 came from
Georges Bank. Thirty-three per cent, that is 21,340 metric tons (shell weight),
came from other areas, for a total offshore catch in 1980of 64,674 metric tons
(shell weight) (doc. 124,deposited by the United States on 28 June 1983).
Therefore, the Canadian figure of 1,309 fishermen employed in the Georges
Bank scallo~fisherv is inflated bv rouehlvuone,~hird. Becauseof the wav Canada
calculates indirect-employmeni, this overstatement is reflected in Canada's
estimate of indirect employment, as well. We now calculate this one overstate-
ment 10 represent 691jobs.
The United States also pointed out in Our last presentation on scallop data
that Canada was incorrect in asserting that "in 1981,97 per cent of Canadian
scallop landings came from Georges Bank" (VI, p. 387). Wedo not believe we
are misreading that statement, which appearsat footnote 38, page21 of Volume
II of the Annexes to Canada's Reply.
We drew the Chamber's attention to Table 13 at page 43 of that same
Canadian Annex, becausethat table of Canadian scallop catches was the sole
authoritv cited bv Canada for the incorrect~assu~ ~ion for 1980 and the ~ ~ ~
incorreci asseriio~ior 1981that I havelusi dejcribed fhe~uniied Statestold the
Chamber ihnt Table 13does not sunvort the conclusion^for u,hich ii wasciied.
and we stand bv that statement
Indccd. there7isno question rhai both the assumption with respect IO 1980and
the ïsseriion with rcrpeci to 1981are incorreci. The issue is u,hether thçre are
harmless errors.
Distineuished counsel for Canada savs t~~ ~-~~ada exclu~ed th~ ~ ~ ~ of ~ ~ ~
scallop catchesfrom other areasfrom itsCaluation of the economic importance
of Georges Bank. However, the fact remains that Canada usedthe wronn figure
for hamislinp. ern~lovment related to Georees Bank scallons. In this conieciion.
the ~hambe~sho~ld'noie that Table 10 p~sented by canada in Figure 153to
rebut the United States reldtes 10 gross dnmesric product. not to cniploymrnt
That table hasno beiinnc on Canada's miscalculation of harvest~nee -..m~lovmrni
in the Georges Bank scdloo fishem.
For the record, the unitid ta tépoisnts out that its objections to Canada's
calculations of GDP are basedon other dubious assumptions made hy Canada. REJOINDEROF MR. FELDMAN 177
Thc tigurc gii,cn in Table IUfor value addcd in procesiing i~fsc~llopi in Canada.
almosi S8Yper man.hour, is more [han double the figure ue hai,e ohtaincd for
\,due addcd in processinescallopj in New England. Certain kcv oarameicrs uscd
by Canada in fhis compiex calculation cannot be reconciled with the available
data. We estimate the value added in processingscallops in Canada at about $38
per man-hour.
Distineuished counsel for Canada has sueeestedthat the United States has
not pres&ted a detailed response 10 al1 of canada's calculations. Part of the
answer is that Canada did not provide this data until ils Reply. Consequently,
we had no oooortunitv to resoond in writine. and we have "ot had theiime io
cowr evcry i;;uc in thcscordl ~rocccdings. T~Cother part of the rcsponre. as WC
said on Ih April. is ihat çvsn if the Chamkr aarpied al1of Canada's figures, the
facts do no1support the claim of economic dependenceon Georges Bank, even
for the small area of southwest Nova Scotia.
Canada has argued that the economy of southwest Nova Scotia is dependent
upon the Georges Bank fishery. In this conneclion, Canada emphasizes the
importance of ihat it calls the "basic" sector, by which it meansthat part of the
economy which generatesexports from the province of Nova Scotia.
Figure 102, which is now before you, shows the United States analysis of
employment in the basic and non-basic sectors in southwesi Nova Scotia in
1980.(Basic, non-basic and total employment (1981) in southwest Nova Scotia
were drawn from the Canadian Reply, Anns., Vol. II, Pt. 1,App. 2, Table A.2A.
Employment in basic (harvesting and processing) and non-basic (indirect)
sectors attributable Io the Canadian Georges Bank fishery (1984) were drawn
from the United States Counter-Memorial (IV), rlnns., Vol. III, App. 8,
Introduction, Table 1.) The data confirm that the basic sector is substantial in
this part of the province, but that Georges Bank is no1 very important to
employment in the basic sector, and even lessimportant to employment in the
non-basic sector. This graph uses the United States figures for employment
related to Georges Bank. If Canada's figures were used,the ratio would be a bit
higher, but the difference would not affect the conclusion. Georges Bank is
simply not as important to southwest Nova Scotia as Canada would have the
Chamber believe.
Unfortunately, the United States has no time to deal with other factual
matters where we disagreewith Canada's presentation on this issue,particularly
the important matter of the many possibilities for adjustment that are available
in Nova Scotia. We have tried to point out that the bleak future foreseen by
Canadian counsel in this caseis not suooorted bv the documents deoosited with
the Chamkr, u,hiçh reflect ihç tieus ;i!other Canadian oflicials. '
WCmuqt say a feu wordh ahoui itvo points uf 13w.First. Canada argues ihat
the Tuni~iu,Lihvucaseshould nui ïppl tu the dclimitaiioii of fishcrv zoner. in so
far asitexcludesconsideration of economic dependence.We do noi secthe logic
of this distinction. If dependence on resources of the continental shelf is not
relevant to delimitation of the shelf, why should dependence on fisheries
resources be relevant to delimitation of fisheriesjurisdiction. The objection in
both casesis the same - that a chanee in economic fortu~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~anee
the dependenceon the particular resource, whatever it may be. ~, ~ ~ -~
Canada also urgesthe Chamber Io establish a new principle thai recognizesa
State's resoonsibilitv to maintain ils reeions and communities. A~~irentlv.
Canada beiieves ihi inicrnaiional Iaw shniit amepi the possibility ikat some
fishermen now living in Lunenhurg mighi have i11 movc io oiher nearby
communiiies io coniinue ti~hinpor Io find other empl<iymeni. The United States
respectfully submits that this question is a matter of national policy for Canada178 GULF OF MAINE
to deal with, and not a question of international law that this Chamber should
appropriately consider. lndced. ifCanada 1,poing IO susiain311liscommunities,
il willdo so utth nation31resourïcr - 311the more reason ihai thc propcr fr3me
of reference for assessing economic dependence is the national economy.
Regional policy isnot a universal value. It varies from country to country and
from time to time. There is no guarantee that Ottawa will continue to pump
money into the fisheries of Nova Scotia or southwest Nova Scotia, even if
Canada has its wav in these oroceedines. The Government ofCanada is free to
maintain its preseat regional'policy, bit it has no right under international law
to do so at the expense of the United States of America. The United States
res~ectfullvsubmits that this Canadian line of ar-ument is entirelv irrelevant to
thkjudiciaj duty of this Chamber.
TheChamber rose or 1.05 p.111.180 GULF OF MAINE
A. The Special Agreement
Thcrc 1s.olcuurse. no qucsiion ih:ii ihc Sper.131 Agreement i\ xpplic~blc. Bui
uhai IP11srolc :ISf3r3s thc subsianti\c IJ~Y I< eonceined?
Il is ihe position ol'ihc Uiiiicd Staics ihat. in submiiting Ihi, dispuic io the
Chamhcr. thc Pdriies in the Special r\greemcnt in ~»iplr~~<lt;hicplicïbil-
11) of an) p;irti~.ularuh~txnii\e rulch. Thus. al1 of the ;irgiimr.ni> ou diriin-
guished counsel for Canada based upon any such implication must necessarily
fail (VI, pp. 167-170.and pp. 36-39,supru).
Certainly the United States did not intend 10provide for the law applicable to
this delimitation by implication. It was, in part, because the Parties could noi
reach an aereement on the aereed or.ncialr~~~ lawihat this disoute wassub~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
10the chamber for resolutiin by an impartial tribunal in accordance with inter-
national law.The SpecialAgreementdoes includean express provision providing
for the a..lication ofthe orinciolesand rulesof international law. Moreover. it is
quite specificin ils abplicable to the substanceof the dispute, thai is, in
the case of the point of departure and the area of arrival of the line.
Thus, we come 10Judge Mosler's second question:
"ln the Parties' view, can the fact ihat point A is located ai the place
defined by Article II of the Special Agreement have any bearing on the
method for the delimitation of the singlc maritime boundary in the inner
sector of the Gulf of Maine area?'(VI, p. 462.)
InOurview.the SuecialAereement was no1intended 10"have anv bearine on
the nicthod for ihc deiimitxhon oi the singlc m;iriiinic b~undxr)"'lih~~l.,.?hr
Spcc131Agreement did no1identiiy xny meihod. To findihai ilh.15a "karing on
ihc mclhod" would incrîïic ihe scope uf ihc P~riics' ublir~iions-undcr the
Soecial Aereement bevond what was clearlv intended.
'on theither hand,'where the Parties e&ressly and specificallydealt wiih a
substantive maiter relating to the location of the single maritime boundary - as
thev did in the case ofthe~oini ofde~arture and are; of arrival of ihc boundarv
to be determincd in this case - the parties have definitely agreed and they a&
bound.
This brings us then to Our answer to the introductory paragraph of Judge
Gros's firstquestion:
"Are point A and the triangle elements definitively agreed upon by the
Parties in the SpecialAgreement as, respectively,the point of departure and
area of arrival of the line, delimiting the maritime zones appertaining to
theirjurisdiction in the Gulfof Maine area, which the Chamber isrequested
to determine?"VI, p. 461.)
Our response is that the Parties in the Special Agreement definitively agreed
upon the point of departure and the area of arrival of the line which the
Chamber is requested to determine.
We will now respond to the first paragraph of Judge Gros's first question:
"With regard to point A, do the Parties recognize that the point of
departure of the singledelimitation linerequested of the Chamber could not
be modificd by any agreement they may conclude as to the limit of their
terrilorial waters beyond the present international maritime boundary?"
(Ibid.)
The United States is of the view that the agreed starting-pointwould not be
modified by any agreement that may be concluded by the Parties as to the limit
of their territorial waters beyond the present international maritime boundary. RUOINDER OF MR. STEVENSON 181
We will also respond to the second paragraph of Judge Gros's first question:
"The same question arises inconnection with the reservation made in the
event of arbitration as to sovereientv over Machias Seal Island and North
Rock (cf.,where theUnited ~tate;isConcerncd. ils Reply(V),para. 238and
fn. 4)" (VI, p. 461.)
The United States is of the view that any arbitration as 10sovereignty over
Machias Seal Island and North Rock would no1 niodify the agreed point of
deparlure.
In order to give a complete response to the previous two questions, 1should
note a slight nuance. Subsequent ratified agreements betweenthe Parties, having
the eiïcct ofa treaty under the laws ofthe United States,could of course change
the legal relationship between the Parties on these matters if they expressly so
provided, just as they could on virtually any other matter. However, we do not
contemplate any such agreement.
WCwill now respond to Judge Gros's second question:
"Where the triangle isconcerned, what is the legalposition of the Parties
in regard 10the efiectof their choosing this dcvice inthe Swcial Agreement
on the iurisdiction of the Chamber. whichhas 10findin accordancewith the
rules and principles of la; that are applicable to the case?' (Ibid.)
The United States is of the view that Article II of the Special Agreement
requires that the single maritime boundary to he ilelimited must end in the
triangle even if the application of the principles and rules of international law
othenvise applicable would cause the line to miss the triangle. The Special
Agreement is a particular international convention within the meaning of
Article 38, paragraph 1 (a), of the Court's Statute, establishing in this respecta
rule "expressly recognizedhy the contesting States". Thus, in Ourview,to repeat
Our answer to Judge Gros, the single maritime boundary must end in the
triangle, even if the application of the principles und rules of international law
otherwise applicable, would cause the boundary to miss the triangle.
B. The Convenrionon rheConrinenralSheif
The other convention (that is the convention in addition to the Special
Agreement between the Parties) potentially relating 10the subject-matter of this
dispute is the 1958Convention on the Continental Shelf.
This brings us to Judge Gros's fourth question.
Judge Gros requests us to explain the precise ineaning of the following
sentence from the United States Reply:
"The United States and Canada are Parties to the 1958Convention on
the Continental Shelf, and Article 6 of that Convention isrelevant to this
nroceedinr as a source of nrincioles and mles for delimitation of the con-
iinental s6elf; however, the continental Shelf Convention is not deter-
minative in the delimitation of a single maritime boundary." (VI, p. 462.)
Judge Gros requests us to explain the meaning of tliat statement. As its name
indicates and as Article 6 expressly States. the Convention applies only to the
delimitation of the continental shelf. It does not apply 10 200-nautical-mile
fishervzones. nor does it amlv to other maritime zonesrelatine to the exerciseof
soveréignrights or jurisdi&n for any purpose over the waters or sea-bed and
soi1 to which, according to Article III of the Special Agreement, the single182 GULF OF MAINE
maritime houndary will apply. Thus, we would respond to Judge Gros's
question as follows:
In this case, the Chamber has been requested to apply the law that relates to
the single maritime houndary. It has not been requested to delimit the
continental shelf, fisheries,and other potential rights separately. Article 6would,
of course, govern a delimitation between the Parties to that Convention if the
delimitation related only to the continental shelf. But because the law relating 10
a single maritime houndary that also delimits fisheriesor economic zones must
be identified and applied in this case, the Continental Shelf Convention is not
hinding as a matter of treaty law.
In this case, sinceArticle 6 of that Convention is not applicable as a matter of
treaty law, the equidistance method does not "ultimately possess" in respect of
the single maritime boundary that "ohtgatory force" of which the Anglo-
French Tribunal spoke (para. 70).
We, frankly, do not understand distinguished counsel for Canada's statement
that the United States has failed to explain why the Continental Shelf Conven-
tion does no! apply as a matter of treaty law(p. 50,supra). The Convention does
not apply, by its terms, as a matter of treaty-law obligation, to the single
maritime houndary of which the continental shelf is but one component.
We will now take up the matter of the relationship of Article 6 10 the
customary law relating to fisheriesand other matters.
The decision in the Anglo-French arhitration established a number of points;
among these are the following:
1. "The combined 'equidistance-special circumstances rule', in eKect, gives
particular expression to a general nom that, failing agreement, the houndary
between States ahutting the same continental shelf is 10 be determined on
equitahle principles." (Para. 70; emphasis added.)
2."The role ofthe 'specialcircumstances'condition in Article 6isto ensure an
equitable delimitation." (Ibid.)
3. The specialcircumstances feature of Article 6 "underlines the full liberty of
the Court in appreciating the geographical and other circumstances relevant to
the determination of the ...Boundary" (para. 69).
4. There is no onus, or burden of proof, upon the Party claiming special
circumstances (para. 68).
5. "Under Article 6 it is the geographical circumstances of any given case
which indicate and justify the use of the equidistance method as the means for
achievingan equitahlesolution rather than the inherent quality of the method as
a legal nom of delimitation." (Para. 70).
6. Finally, the "rules ofcustomary laware a relevant and even essentialmeans
hoth for interpreting and completing the provisions of Article 6" (para. 75).
The six points 1have just listed are hy and large direct quotations from the
Opinion, rather than my own words.
As a result ofdevelopments in thejurisprudence, as manifested particularly in
~~i~ Anelo-French arbitration decision. the customarv international law relating
to deliLtation of houndaries has so e\,olvedthat ess~niiallythere is non a single
unified customary Iau, rulc applying Io the continental shelf, IO fisheries. and
to the economic zone This Fundamental Rule embodics L.oncepisthat have
devclopcd in the continental shelf cases. hoth where the Convention u,as
applicable and whrre it was not. but also iaking into account the jurisprudence
ansing from the fisheriesdelimitation cases.
Thus, in the United States view, it today makes very little differencewhether RUOINDER OF MR. STEVENSON 183
Article 6 of the Convention is applicable as a matter of treaty law or merelyas a
sourceof customary lawas reflectedin the Fundamental Rule. In our view,and we
believe this also was the view of the Anglo-French Tribunal, the"equidistance-
special circumstance" rule and the Fundamental Rule are substantively thesame.
The only diference is that, if Article 6 applies as a matter of treaty law, the
equidistance rulemust beconsidered,but without any priorityor prcsumption inits
favour, with the tribunal freeto considerconcurrentlyanother mcthod or methods.
Distinguished counsel for Canada has attempted to cnplain the language of
the Anglo-FrenchTribunal, indicating ihat there was no burden of proof on the
party urging the existence of "special circumstances" as being "primarily a
matter of procedure" and "having nothing to do with the appreciation of the
facts and circumstances of the case" (p. 51, supra). However, we find this
explanation completely unconvincing. The Tribunal found that it is no longer
necessary for a party to have the "legal burden of proof in regard to the existence
of'snecial circumstances'" ,,ara~ 68). Thus. what wr have is no loneer a two-
\lep rulc in u hi~.hthr.tirsi issueisu'hcihcror niit thcre arc spc~ililcircuiiisiaiixs.
u,ith a pdris hdving the burdcn uf csi:ibliihinl: "ipc~i~l circum,t;ince~" ;ijx
nreliminarv-reauirement for not usine the eauid'istançerule
But the ?rib;nal went further. It hzd that i't us1consider, as a matter of law,
what boundary will be in accordance with equitable principles, taking into
account the relevant circumstances. In the Tribunal's own words -
"Even under Article 6, thequestion ofwhether the useof the equidistance
method or some other method is appropriate for achieving an equitable
delimitation, is very much a matter of appreciation in the light of the
geographical and other circumstances. In other words, even under Article 6,
it is the geographical and other circumstances of any given case which
indicate and justify the use of the equidistance method as the means of
achieving an equitable solution rather than thc inherent quiility of the
method as a legal norm of delimitation." (Para. 70.)
1am again repeating the language of the Tribunal, not my own words.
In the United States view, this language expressly reflects the Fundamental
Rule into which "the old continental shelf" law has çvolved.
Thus, in our view, there is no duty first to consider the equidistance method,
thcn Io dctcrmine if it mav bc adiusted Io satisfv the a~~..cabie eauitable
principlcs. taking inio 3ccouni the relctani cir:unisiiinces, 2nd <ml)thcn ii~iurn
IO iinoiher nieihod or nieihods
We belicvcthat diilinguished counssl fiir Clinlidxuxs miii3kcn. ;is 3 maiicr of
law. insue--stine.that "ihe ao..ication of the eauidistancemethod or the use of
soms oiher meihod hcciu\c of rpcci;il :ircumsi;in:t> ilind in rclliiii>n%hip Io
elich oihrr a; rule lincicxccpiion" ur ih:it iherrir;in). requircnicniilili"undcr
rlriicleh the caui~lis1;inccmslhod ihuulJ bc the iirii incihod io bc considcrcd"
and only rejecïed if there are "special circumstances" requiring adjustment or
ruling it out (p. 51,supra).
Counsel for Canada has, in Ourview,made a verylawyer-likeaitcmpt to bring
in by the back door an old - and even then disputed - viewof continental shelf
doctrine, namely, that equidistance applies unless special circumstances are
established. The language in the Anglo-French case docs not support any such
revivalof what somemay have considered the old doctrine to provide. In fact, in
Our view, the Tribunal said precisely the opposite. This attempted revivication
of a doctrine must fail in the light of the development of a single unified
Fundamental Rule in the jurisprudence, particularly the Anglo-French arbitra-
lion. as confirmed by the 1982Law of the Sea Convention.184 GULF OF MAINE
What remains, in Our view, of the treaty obligation under Article 6, where
applicable (and we do not think it is applicable in this case), is to consider the
equidistance method under the Fundamental Rule, but without any presump-
lion or priority. Thus, even if Article 6 applies as treaty law in this case, which
wedo not think it does. eauidistance need not be considered first. but it mavbe
considercd çoncurrenily &th other method, in deiermining u,hlii meihoi or
meihods besi satiify the subsiantive requiremenis of ihr Fundamenial Rule. ihai
is. that the boundarv is to be deternÏined in accordance with the a~~licable
equitable principles, iaking into account the relevant circumstances in ihe area.
Accordingly, in the United States view,even if Article 6 were applicable as a
matter of treaty law in this case, the combined "equidistance-special circum-
stance" rule would reauire concurrent consideration of the eauidistance method.
bu1ui)uld accord ilno primacy. Thc drterminillion of wheiher or no1ihere are
"special circumstanc~s" isjusi anoiher cxpresiion ol'thç conclusion whether ihc
eauidisiance method would ~roducean eauiiahle resull in liahi ofthe a~~licable
ohncioles and relevant circ&nstances. . - ..
oiev ve r,en if the inapplicability of the equidistance method depended on
an express finding of "special circumstances", the essential geographic circum-
stancesin thiscase - moit particularly thecoastal configurati6n andthe location
of the land boundary - would constitute such special circumstances.
We believethat, even under the old continental shelf doctrine, the Canadian
view of "special circumstances" under Article 6 is altogether too limited. Our
viewis in keeping with thelawas it has developedand in fact ismore in line with
an analysis set forth in a Memorial of the Federal Republic of Germany in the
North Sea Continenial Shey cases. We would like 10 quote a passage from
paragraph 70 of that Memorial, wherein the Federal Republic set forth ils
position on Article 6:
"'Special circumstances' are always present should the situation display
not inconsiderable divereenciesfrom the normal case. The normal case. in
which the application of the equidistance method leads to a just and
equitable apportionment, is a more or less straight coastline, so that the
areas of the shelf a~~ortioned through the eauidistance boundarv more or
less correspond to ihe shorelines (fiGades) of the adjacent ~tatis. Should
this not be the case, and should therefore no equitable and appropriate
solution result, the clause of 'specialcircumstances' applies... In addition
to soecial situations of a technical nature - such as navieable channels.
cahies. sdiçly or defence requiremenis. proleciion of tishe&~ (kh hdnks).
indi\isiblc dçposiis of mineral oil or ndtural gas - special geographical
situations such as special coastal configurations have, above all, been
regarded as 'specialcircumstances' within the meaningof Article 6." (I.C.J.
Pleadings, Vol. 1, pp. 68-69.)
Thereafter, the German Memorial contains quotations from the works of
Sir HerschLauterpacht,Mouton, Colombos, de Ferron, Padwa, Shalowitz,and
McDougal and Burke, which point out that the general geographic features or
configuration of the area constitute special circumstances under Article 6.
The distinguished Agent for the Federal Republic of Germany summed up
Article 6 in another way:
"lt depends on the specific situation, on the geography, on the land
frontiers. on the extension of the continental shelf. etc.. whether the
combination of al1thesefactors givesthe situation sucha speCialcharacteri-
zation that the application of the equidistance line would produce an
inequitable result."(lbid., Vol. II, p. 49.) REJOlNDEROF MR. STCVENSON 185
He went on to state in the same connection:
"This cutting off of extensive areas of the continental shell can only be
regarded as special circumstance, because it ciits off extensive areas of
continental shelf which should be regarded as a continuation of German
territory ..." (Ibid.,p. 51.)
He then concluded that "a 'cut-off effect'invariably isthe specialcircumstance
which justifiesanother boundary" (ibid.).
May 1repeat the concluding siatement: "A 'cut-off eiïect' invnriably is the
~oe;.al circumstance which iu,~ifies ano~her~ ~undarv."
The United States h:i, shoun ihai the cquidisiance Iine pr<~ilucea sn inequit-
~blecut-OITin ihc geogr;iphiccircum\tanccs of this cdse.Thu,. the cquidisiance
Iineshould no1 be applicd in ihis ciiss.Thr cui.oRclTect musi bç shaicd and ihc
relci,ani circumsianccs - or. if )ou will.undcr thc old conilnenial \hclf doclrinc.
ihe "spcciïl circumsianccs" - in the ïrca miisi be laken in10accuuni.
1turn now, Mr. President, to the Fundamental Rule.
C. The FundamentalRule
The Fundamental Rule applicable Io the delimitation of a single maritime
boundary, expresslyconfirmcdby both Parties in their written pleadings - bythe
United States in ils submissions and substantially by Canada in its Memorial
and in the conclusions to its Counter-Memorial and Reply (1, Memorial,
para. 278; 111,Counter-Memorial, para. 729; and V, Reply, para. 375) - is as
follows :
"The delimitation of a singlemaritime boundary requires the application
of equitable principles, taking into account the relevant circumstances in
the area, ta produce an equitable solution."
In thislight, the United States will proceed to respond to Judge Cohen's first
question:
"1s there a unifying,dominant, legal principlethat is to provide the basis
for the location of a single maritime bound;iry lhat unites the old
Continental Shelf Doctrine and the old Coastal Fisheries Doctrine 10 the
new 200-milezone?'(VI, p. 464.)
The Fundamental Rule which 1have jus1 cited is the "unifying, dominant,
legal principle that is to provide the basis for the localion of a single maritime
boundary". Moreover, to use Judge Cohen's own words, it "unites ihe old
Continental Shelf Doctrine and the old Coastal Fisheries Doctrine to the new
200-mile zone" (ibid.).
This Fundamental Rule was developed by the Court in cases delimiting the
continental shelf under cusiomary international law (North Seo Conrinenral
Shelj, para. 101 (C) (1); Tunisia/Libya, para. 37). The Court of Arbitration
inierpreted and applied Article 6 of the Continental Shelf Convention consis-
tently with the Fundamental Rule for delimitation of maritime areas generally.
The objective of applying the Fundamental Rule is an equitable solution
within the law, that is, a solution arnved at by an applicaiion of the applicable
equitable principles, whichare legal rules, in the lighi of the relevant circum-
stances. Thus, this rule provides the flexibility necessaryto deal with differing
fact situations throueh the selection ofthe ao..oor.aie eauitable orincioles and
thc dcicrminniion ;inJ hslancing-up oiihe rclr\,sni circiimsiancci. Thur. ihc rulc
1%sblc ro cnibrace ir:ctu~lsiiusl~oiisothcr ihiin lhosc in!oiiirig ihc i<intincnisl186 GULF OF MAINE
shelf or onlv fisheries. This has ken the view exoressed and aoolied hv the
United tat t ros ihe outset of this case.The rep&ted insistencéOfthe Agent
for Canada in characterizinn the United States position as a "le-al vacuum" is,
in Our view. unfounded (p6 3. 24. supru).
The Fundamental Rule does no1 contemplale that the Chamber would
considcr different methods as linked to different circumsiances. For example,
one method for the continental shelf, under Article 6. and some other method
for the exclusive fisheries zone. Nor would the Chamber then decide which
method or methods to apply in view of whether the continental shelf or fisheries
facts are entitled to greater weight.
In this respect, the Fundamental Rule may be said to contemplate what
counsel for Canada hasdescrihed as"one single global operation" to delimii the
"single polyvalent line". rather than the identification and fusion of multiple
lines designed for specific purposes (VI. p. 168). The Fundamental Rule
contemplates that the relevant circumstances will he wcighed in the light of the
applicable principles so as to arrive at a single method or combination of
methods that will give an equitable solution in the particular case.
This hrings us to the President's very basic question:
"ln the event that one oarticular method. or set of methods. should
:ippcÿr apprupri:itr. for the dclimitaiion <iiihe ~ontinenial %hcli. and
dnother ior ihat of thc excl~si\elishery /<mes.uh:ii Iedil gruunds might hc.
invoked for preferring one or the other in seeking to deiermine a single
line?" (VI, p. 461.)
In resoonse 10-t~ ~ ~es~ ~ ~'s auestion. WC note ihat. where one method
appcari under ihe Fiindanienial Kule ici be ihe appropriale mcihod for
delimiiati<)n oi ihc cont~ncnial rhçlf. and anuther niethod appcar, apprupriate
for the exclusive fisherieszone, there appe;ir to be no legal gLoundsthat may be
invoked a priori for preferring one or the other method in sceking to determine a
single line.
Rather. when two methods are called for, the applicable principles and
relevant circumstances from which the aooroonatcncss of the resoective
methods for the delimitation of the contine;iîal ihelf or the exclusive ksheries
zones would follow individually should k considered as an inte~rated whole.
Due regard should be givento al1 the relevant circumstances Yelating to the
jurisdictional rights alïected by the single boundary, allocating 10such circum-
stancesthe proper weight in the light of the objective of an equitable solulion
and the determination of an appropriate method or comhination of methods.
Thus, Mr. President, in our vicw, the objectiveshould bean equitahle solulion
determined in the light of the applicable equitahle principles and the identifi-
cation and balancing up of the relevant circumstances in the particular case.
This. of course. means chat anv ,xor.ss linkaee of a oarticular method with a
p~riicul;ir :i\pr~t of ihc single ni.iritimc houndxry. such as the ~oniinentdl ihcli
or thc tisherie, ,<>ne.ui>uld. in our \ie\i. inhibii the Ch;iinher's ;ibilii) Io xrrive
ai ihc must equii;ihle roluiion in the Iight uf ;il1 the appli.-dhlr. prin~iples and
rclc\ant c~rcumstances. II could requirc the ('hümkr IO appl!. a method
sunsidered IO beIinkcd IOciiher ihe coniincntal shelfiir the lisherier 7onewhçn.
in Tact. the niost cquitahle overrll solutiun nii-ht uell invol\c ncither meihod
nor some combination of the two.
In Our view the Chamber should not, and is no1required. first to characierize
the facts as relating predominantly 10 either fisheries or the continental shelf,
and then to apply a method considered 10he linked to one or the other. Such a
procedurewould, in Our view, no1 be consonant with the transcending principle ROOINDER OF MR. STEVENSûN 187
of taking in10 account the uniqueness or individiiality of the facts in the
particular case before the Chamber.
Thus, to summarize, inOurview,under the Fundamental Rule. the Chamher's
responsibility is: first, ta identify the applicable equitable principles; second, ta
identify and balance-up the relevant circumstances; and, then, third, to deter-
minewhat method or methods willmeet thesesubstantive requirements of lawto
produce an equitable solution.
The choice among methods should he an informed choice within thelaw, not
jus1 the selection of any method or methods that will produce an equitable
solution. Thus, the method or methods selectedmus1giveeffectta the applicable
equitable principles in the light of the relevant circumstances. However, the
Chamber's right and, indeed, its responsibility ta find an equitable solution
should not be arbitrarily restricted hy any presumption in favour of one method
or the other.
Such a result would be inkeeping with the work of the International Law
Commission on maritime boundaries prior to the first Law of the Sea Confer-
ence in 1958.The Commission considered four delimitation methods, including
the perpendicular ta the general direction of the coast and the equidistance
method. Ultimately, the Commission chose the equidistance method. In doing
sa, however, it was concerned, even in the narrow coiltext of the territorial sea,
that one method could not equitahly he applied in al1 situations. Thus, the
"equidistance-special circumstances rule" was barn, and was introduced into
Article 6 of the 1958Continental Shelf Convention. This was done hecause. as
the Anglo-French Tribunal out it. "Annlication of the eauidistance method
might no1infrequently result'in an unreasonahle or inequitable delimitation of
the continental shelf" (para. 70).
Mr. President, distinauished Judges, this Chamber has the rieht to selectone
or more methods, inclÜdingthe përpendicular to the generalldirection of the
coast (which, indeed, has a basis in State practice), without any presumption in
favour of equidistance. This isail the more evident in the delimitation provisions
relating to the continental shelfand exclusiveeconomiçzonesof the 1982Law of
the Sea Convention. They do not even refer ta equidistance (Arts. 83 and 74,
respectively).
Somuch for general theory. In practice, the concrete circumstances beforethis
Chamber involve bath continental shelf and fisheries facts. How in these
circumstances may this Chamher find legal grounds, in President Aga's lan-
guage, "for preferring one or the other method in seeking to determine a single
line?"
For the reasons set forth in the United States written pleadings,and in the first
round of the oral statements, the United States regards the applicable equitable
principles to include:
first, the fundamental principle of respecting the relalionship between the coasts
of the Parties and the maritime areas in front of these coasts. ~.cl~di~e the
subsidiary principles of non-encroachment, proportionality, and nzural
prolongation in the geographic sense, that is, coastal-front extension;
the second principle isthe Ürinci~leof facilitati-gconservation and manaee-ent
of the n&ural iesourcei of théarea;
the third, is the principle of dispute minimization; and
finally, the principle of considering such other circumstances the Chamber
regards as relevant in this particular case.
In halancing up the relevant circumstancesin the light of these principles, the
United States has suggested that the Chamber give more weight ta those 188 GULF OF MAINE
circumstances that relate to substantive articulated principles, such as the first
three equitable principles identified by the United States. This, in Our view,
would reflect the importance of articulated equitable principles in achievingan
eauitable boundarv solution. either throueh neeotiation between the Parties or
IR internaiional a'djudicaiion. ~0reoi.e;- and ihis consideration responds
speciticallIO the President'squcsiion - circumsiançcs relevant IO the funciional
effectivenessof a boundary relating 10hoth the water column and the sea-bed
should he givengreater weight than circumstances relating to only one of them.
Thus, it is the position of the United States that the relevant circumstances
entitled to the most weight in this case are geographic. They relate to the
expresslyarticulated principle of respect for the relationship of the coasts to the
sea and to both fisheriesand the sea-bed. Mr. Colson discussedthesegeographic
circumstances in the opening round. He will return to his discussion of them
later in this round. Natural ~roloneation in the eeoloeical sense. which aoolies
only to the continental shelf,-isnota relevant cirLmsGnce in thi'scase sincethe
Parties are agreed that there is only one continuous shelf. However, natural
prolongation~in the geographic sense, that is, coastal-front projection, does
apply here. It applies with equal force to fisheriesand the continental shelf.
Moreover, coastal front projection will respect the natural houndary at the
Northeast Channel and the integrity of Georges Bank. Thus, the circumstances
in this case relatine to the marine environment reinforce the eeoeraohic
circumsi~nres. FishGics gcncrally are associaied uiih pnrticular fish;nguhynks.
In ihis case. commercially imporlani siocks of fish associaied wiih ihose banks
are dii,idedlitihe Noriheasi Ch3nnel ~lorcover. ihe Noriheasi Channel is a
rclc\,ani geomorphologicïl l'eaturein a location where ii marks and helps io
sreate 3 natur3l bounddry. The ncccssiiy. in the interésisof boih conservaiion
and dispute niininiization. for single-Siliicmanapetnent of boih the fish stocks
and the ootential hvdrocarhon résourcesof Gëorees Bank was set forth bv
Mr. colion in somédetail in his second presentaGon in the opening round'.
Finally, Mr. President, with respect to the activities of the Parties and their
nationals in this area. the oredominant interest of the United States in a laree
number of boih resourcc-rilaicd and othcr activiiiesclcarly ouiweighs ~anad2s
receniJei,elopmeni of a singlescïllop fisheryand itsclaim IOas yci unconfirmed
hydrocïrbon resources. Canada's challenecs to the Uniicd Siaies orrdominani
interest have heen both relatively limitedand recent.
Now what does al1this mean with respect to the method or methods to he
used and the President's basic question? It means, in our opinion, that the
Chamber. in selectine a method or methods to achieve an eauitable solution.
should coniider ihç relaiivç u.cightof these \=nous circumsian~esin the Iighiof
the applicable equitable principles This is how equ~ty~wiihin the law is IO be
achieved.
With respect to specificmethods. the United States, in its pleadings, con-
sidered at some length the use in this case of the strict equidistance method as
wellas the adjustment of that method proposed hy Canada that would giveno
effectto Cane Cod or Nantucket. Neither method would. in Ourooinion. satisfv
ihesubstanii\erequiremeni,ofihe ïundamental Rule in ihat neither uouid giié
ellecl Io the applicdblc cquiidhle pnnciples idklng inio accouni the reletarii
circumstances in the area.
The two Canadian lines as wellas the proposed United States line are shown
@ on the map before theChamber and are set forth as Figure 103in the hlue folder
which you have - the United States line, the initial Canadian line of strict
equidistance, and the actual Canadian line.
It is the position of the United States that the line proposed hy the United REJOINDER OF MR. STEVENSON 189
States would meet the requirements of the Fundamental Rule. This is not to say,
however, that the United States believes or suggcsts that the Chamber is
precluded from using anoiher method or combinaiion of methods to meet the
Substantive requirem&ts of the Fundamentdl Rule- this the strict equidistance
lin, or the adjusted Canadian equidistance line cannot do. This. in our view. is
nothing more than the word implies - a medns - in this case, a means of
achieving an equitable result within the law. What is required is 10 satisfy the
substantive demands of the Fundamental Rule, not to use a predetermined
meihod.
Mr. President, that concludes our response to your question.
II.EFFECT OF THE ADOPTION BY THE THIRDUNITED NATIONC SONFERENC ON
THE LAW OF THE SEA OF TREATY TEXTS WITH REFERESC EO THE CONTINENTAL
SHELF AND THE EXCLUSIVEECONOMIZ CONE
This brings us to the first paragrdph of Judge Gros's third question:
"Have the texts adopied by the ihird United Nations Confcrence on the
Law of the Sea, with reference to the continentdl shelf and exclusive
economic zone, any legal effectson the 1958Continental ShelfConvention
and the present state of customary law?' (VI, p. 461.)
We willbe a bit expansive in our answer 10this question because we believe it is
most important to have a clear understanding of the relaiionship of these three
sources of law. that is the 1982 texts. the 1958Continental Shelf Convention.
2nd cur1oni;iry intcrn;iiionaI lau.
Thcw tetis in Icirgemeiisurc, in Our\le\!. cither reflecicxiting Si;iie prxiice
or hase had n subst;iniial inipdci on St;itc pracilce. Although ihry are in man)
rcspcctr conririent uiih ihe 1958 C'unvention. Article 311 of the 1982 Çon-
tcnlion proizidc*Iharil prciailr cirer ihe 1958Com.cntion 3s beinccn Siatcs
Parties.
Neither Canada nor the United Statesis a oartv to the 1982Convention. and
the United States has not signed the ~onvent/on. 'Therelevance of these Ïoks
this case is that, with respect to customary international law, the adoption of
ihese texts in some cases kas confirmcd exisiinz law: it hasalso so influencedthe
behaviour of States that other provisions& noi reflect customary interna-
lional law.
The provisions most relevant to thisdelimiialion reflect existing customary
law - neither delimitation article (Article 74, relating to the exclusivecconomic
zone, or Article 83, relating to the coniinental shelf) includes any specific
reference to the equidistance method. Rather, theyprovide that delimitation
shall be effected "on the bdsisof international law as referred to in Article 38of
the Statute of the International Courtof Justice". In the United States view,this
means on the basis of any relevant treaty between the Parties and on the basis of
the customary international law of maritime boundary delimitation. Given the
extensive discussion of the decision of the Court in the Norrh Sea Conrinenral
Slze(jcases at the conference, which had widespread support, we believe the
specific, and legally unnecessary, reference 10 the Statute of the Court is a
specificindication that the conference was aware of the important role of that
decision as a source of law.
An important underlying question that has arisen in these proceedings
concerns the relationship between the development of customary international
law, the principlesrelebant to delimitation,. and thc factors relevant to the
application of those principles.190 GULF OF MAINE
This question principally concerns the relationship hetween the continental
shelf and fisheriesor exclusiveeconomic zones.
Thc continental shclf concept originaieJ wiih ihc Truman Proclamaiion and
was rapidly emhraced by uidesprcad Slatc praciicc. and ultiniaiely nîs reflcctcd
in ihc 1958Conicniion on ihe Coniincniîl Sheliînd ihc Opinion of ihr (:ouri in
ihc .V<irrl5t.u C'onrine~,zSuli<4fcîscs(1 CJ Rc,purr~1969. p. 3. para. 47)
The idcî of fisher) roncs of Iimiiedbrcsdth has a long hisior). aniedating ihîi
of the continental shelfprinciplc. Howc\,er.11isonl) rccentlythat the concept of
fishencsjurisdiciion dillering by an urder of magnitude from the breadth of ihe
territonal se3 has come io bç ac~~pird The Third Uniird Nations Cunlçrence
on the Law oî the Sea had a maior impact on this new development in State
practice. Even beforethe conclusion of the Conference, a largenimber of States
that previouslyhad claimed fisheriesjurisdiction, at most to 12miles,estahlished
fishing zones or economic zones generally modelled on the negotiating texts
before the Conference. This process has continued since the end of the
Conference.
The Ers1question ihai arises in ihir conneciion 15whçiher the basi, of title for
the fisheries or economic 7oncs diffcrs lrom iliat for ihc coniinental shelr, as
Cînada has assertcd WC submit thai therc is no dillercnce In c3ch caseiiis the
s<i\ercignty~I'ihr Siate u\cr ihc ioîst ihat is ihr hdsi, oftitle. nui dirtsnsc. noi
ceonomic dcpcndcncc. In clich sasc. ihc fundamcnial prcmijc is ihai of
amurtenance to the land. not oroximitv. This is true not oniv of the continental
shélfbut of the exclusiveecoiomic zone as well.
Article 55of the 1982Law ofthe SeaConvention definesthe economiczone as
an area adjacent to the territorial sea, suhject to a special régimethat allocates
competences between the coastal State and al1 States. It makes no mention
whatsoever of a 200-milelimit. In fact, this limit is setforth in a separate Article
- Article 57on "the hreadth of the exclusiveeconomic zone".
In stressing the importance of the 200-nautical-mile limit. Our Canadian
colleaguesregrettably confusethe question of the basisof titleand the content of
the zone with the maximum seaward limits of iurisdiction. Those limits were
designed Io create a reasonable balance betuken coastal and international
interests, not to define the basis of title or the nature of jurisdiction, and
certainly no1 to affect hilateral delimitation. We will proceed now to identify
certain other factorsthat indicate that Canada's relianceupon the 200-nautical-
mile limit as the hasis of title is misplaced.
As to fisheries, the nature of the zone is clear. Thus, the United States
originally proposed that, with respect to fisheries jurisdiction, management
responsibility be based on the migratory characteristics of different species,
allocating such responsibility to the coastal States for coastal species, to the
State of origin for anadromous species,and 10competent organizations of States
with respect to highly migratory species(UN doc. A/AC.138/SC.II/L.9). These
principles were. in fact, similar to those consistently enunciated by Canada (II,
United States Memorial, Ann. 91). These principles were merged into the
economic zone articles hy the Law of the Sea Conference, initially through
means of a fisheriesproposal made by Canada and others (UN doc. A/AC.1831
SC.II/L.38).
Sincemost coastal speciesin most parts of the world do not migrate seaward
of 200 nautical miles, a 200-nautical-mile limit was considered a satisfactory
basis for dealine with such soecies.and had the virtues of ease of identification
TorcnforsemenÏpurp~iws and political appeîl to States thai ~lreîdy had made
2UU.nïuticlil.milcclîims Howctcr. ihcCi)nfcrcnccîI.;oadopted spcciîl rulcsfor
anadromous, catadromous, and highly migratory species, and even for coastal REJOlNDER OF MR. STEVENSON 191
species that migrate seaward of 200 nautical miles. Thus, the 200-nautical-mile
line is hy no means a description of the nature of the fisheries régime inthe
economic zone.
Likc ihe 1958Conferense. the Third Uniird Nations Conferense on ihe Lïu,
oi the Sea adoptrd a pragmaiic raiher [han a Iegalc<incepiualappri~ach IO ihc
issueof the scauard limitsof~unsdiclion on ihc sca-bed The objcci of Article 76
u,as: (1) Io place i,irtually al1potential h>drocsrhons of the sea.bed. including
the ioniinenial nsc. under coasial-Siaie jurisdisiiun, ihereby accommodaiing
the economic and environmental interests of hroad-margin Siates and avoidiné
furiher complications in ihe ncgoiiaiions regirding ihc sèa-hedbcyond narionz
jurisdiction; (2) IO 3ccommod3te ihe poliiiciildemiinds of States ihiit had made
201)-milecl.iims. (3) IO rcu~lvc.in issue Ihai al te ad ^laxucd the Iniernaiional
.. -
Law Commission and the First Conference. namelv. the amarent discrimination
among coasial Slaics causcd by seauard limiis depciidcni ;olely on the ban~ble
geography of the sea-hed; and (4) IO esiahlish pernianent. reaionahly idcntifi-
able arbitrary linesdi!,idine.the areas of co3stal-Statc iurisdiciion from thc sca-
bed beyand.-The fact that an international commi&ion of non-lawyers was
proposed to reviewthe lines(Ann. II and Art. 76, para. 8)is itselfevidence ofan
emphasis on administrative concerns relevant to geography, rather than legal
~rinci~les.
' If iherc ciiuld he an) Jouhi ihat the .iddition of.i ?DO-milealtcrnati\c ti,the
derinition of the coniineniÿl bhclfwasnul inicndcd IO h~e an, effecion bilaieral
delimitation. Article 76 com~letelv disoels that doubt. It mikes entirelv clear , ~ ~
that Article76 is without prjudice ta ihe question of delimitation.
In hnef, Mr. President, the maximum seaward limits of coastal-State iurisdic-
tion have nothing whatsoever to do with the hasir of title but were merely
pragmatic accommodations of a vanety of political, economic and administra-
tive concerns.
The Chamberadjournedfrom 4.15 p.m. ru 4.35p.m
When we adjourned 1was discussing the effect of the adoption by the Third
United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea of treaty texts with respectto
the continental shelf and the exclusiveeconomic îone.~ ~ ~~-
The nexi qucsiion which I would Iike IO addrcss in ihis conneciion is wheiher
ihc advent of the ncw iurisdiciion, namcly. ihc caclusivceconomic zone. crcated
by one of these treati texts, affects the iircumstances relevant to this delimita-
tion.
With regard 10the geography of the coastline, my answer to this question is
no. The configuration of the Coastwill have the same effect on delimitation of
iishcries or cconornic zones JS iih3s on the contincnral shclf Itu,illproducc ihc
sanie disiortions iian cquidisiance Iineis uscd. Ituill resuli in rou-hly~the rame
geographic calculations on coastal proportionality.
With respect to other relevant circumsiances, the answer is yes.The advent of
new forrns of jurisdiction affects, either in kind or in degree, the relevant
circumstances other than those related to the geography of the coastline.
The most important of these additional relevant circumstances is the nature
and distribution of fishstocks. The reiison for ihis istlwi the primary motivation
in crrating these neu forms ofjunsdiction uas Io facilitate the conreri,aiion and
m3nagement offi~hstock\. IIwa.ra dircci reilionse io ihe failurc ofinicrnaiional
fisheries orranizations ta deal adeauatelv with the nroblem of over-fishine.
Indccd, the-\sry tirs1exicnded junsd~siio~sl3ims of rhr Soulh Amerisan Siiiie\
ucrc justified in part as a response to indiscriniinaie whaling. The ver) tcxi of the REJOINDER OF MR. STEVENSON 193
ially respecied rules, aniiis ihcrcforïi \ariancc u,iih the fundamenial rulrs of
treaiy inicrprciaiion. In our upinion. such an inicrprciaiion would also cornpli-
csie the dclimiiation iask thai willnow face mosi S1;itcsand Tnbunals. namclv.
the simultaneous delimitation of the continental shelf and the economi'czone&
the vast areas where they overlap.
In brief, the 1958Conventions should not be construed so that they become a
barrier to universalitv bvisolatina theiroarties from nther States. as that wasnot
their intent, but rathérihould beconsttued in a manner that promotes universal
respect for theule of law. This was preciselywhat was done by the Tribunal in
the Anglo-French arbitration.
This concludes, Mr. President, a rather lengthy response by the United States
to the first part of Judge Gros's third question.
III. CANADA'P SOSITIONS ON THE LAWAPPLICABL EO THE SINGLE MARITIME
BOUNDARY
A. In General
At the outset of my previous discussion of the legal issues, 1mentioned the
difficultyin presenting thesc issuesas a result of Can:idaSspresentation, in many
different guises, of what was basically the same argument in favour of the use of
the equidistance method in this case.
That problem persists. In fact, it has been exacerbated hy the Canadian oral
presentations, which rely essentially upon previously unarticulated approaches
in sustaining the central Canadian thesis that equidistance should, as a matter of
law, beapplied in this case. These newCanadian approaches to the fundamental
legal problem of deciding whal is the applicable law in determining a single
maritime boundary complicate immeasurably the task of Canada's adversary in
complying with the prescription of Article 60 of the Rules of Court to present
succinctly the legal issues that divide the Parties. How and where have the
Parties ioined issueon leaal matters?
Wed;ragrcc verysh~rpi~uiih the disiinguished Agent for Canada's sraicmcni
ihat Cinsda "has commiticd iiself io a rledrly delincd and integrated set of
prinaplcs and to a meihod and line" (p 4,noru). Canada hai. ofcourse. adhcred
steadfastlv to one method - eauidistance- and tu one line - the adiusted
equidistance line- adjusted to gi;e no effectto Cape Cod and Nantucket. But its
pnnciples have, on their face, variedfrom the Fundanlental Rule, to equidistance
as a leaalreauirement of Article6. to ~roximitvas a leealreauirement ofeither the
disran& principle or th< su-cilled '.&emding gericràl pniLiplr olg~ognph~cal
adjawncy measurcd fromthe coast" (VI.p. 2271.and hdck again lo a mélange of
these socdllcd lecal rcquircmenis and the Fundamenial Kulc, whi~.hhds ken
reduced bevond r&oeniiion to a mere test of eouitv,
The problem of joining issue with canada'& best be met hy describing
bnefly for this Chamber the United States understanding of Canada's diverse
approaches in its written pleadings and in its oral presintations. The United
States then will attemot to identifv for the Chamber the recurre~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~.
illuminate what is fundkmental to canada's case and what is not, and show the
major legal areas of disagreement between Canada and the United States.
B. As Srored in Canada's WrirrenI'leadings
The position of Canada as stated in its written pleadings is essentially the
approach to which the United States responded in its first oral statement.194 GULF OF MAINE
Canada's nosition was that a sinele maritime boundarv must he achic-~d~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
basir of ihe application of eqGtahle principles in ihe light of the relevant
circumstances to achieve an equitable solution. This was the Fundamental Rule
to which hoth Parties have aeree- and attributed central imnorlance until
Canada chose grcatl) to play dou,n its role in the ordl proceedings
Recognition of the fundamenial nom in .inglc maritime boundary delirnita-
tions is common ground in al1 the Canadian written pleadings. 1 refer the
Chamber to paragraph 278of the Canadian Memorial and to the conclusions of
its Counter-Memorial and Reply (Memorial, para. 278; Counter-Mernorial.
para. 279; and Reply, para. 375).
Appdrently in response to United States criticism ofCanada for setting forth
this Fundamental Rule in its Memorial without identifying the applicable
equitable principles,Canada did propose in its Counter-Memorial and Replythe
specific equitable principles referred to in the United States Reply and oral
statement (Counter-Mernorial, para. 729, and Reply, para. 375 (3)).
Nevertheless, although Canada expressly endorsed the Fundamental Rule in
its written pleadings, the purported equitable principles it identified demon-
strated Canada's reliance upon two notions that previously and firmlyhad been
rejected by the Court - proximity and economic dependence (United States
Reply, paras. 4-11).
Thus, our greatest difficulty in responding to Canada's application of the
Fundamental Rule was that the specificequitable principles setforth by Canada
were not equitable principles at all. They were merely a way of supporting the
eauidistance method bv. in effect, treatine that method as if it were the first
equitable principlc. cinada si>ughi supp&t ior applic;riion of ihis artilicial
pnnciple in ils second asseried equiiable principle - economic dependence -
which. as the United Siaies demonsir~ied in ils opening legal slatemeni and in
Mr. Feldman's two statements. is not a relevant circumitance. much less a
prinsiple. Finall), equidist3nce isalso deemcd hy Clnitda Io bc supporied by rhe
conduct of the Pariies ai indicia oiuhat the Parties rhcmsel\es ha\e considered
eriuitahle.The Cniicd States vieus ih~sso-cdllcdprinciple onlv as a circumitance
to be weighed withother circumstances. ~oreover, in-the ~nited States view,it
supports the United States boundary line, not the Canadian.
C. As Sratedin the Oral Procecdings
When it came to the oral proceedings, Canada adopted quite a different
approach. In neither his opening nor his closing statement in the first round did
the~d~stin-uished AeeU~~~~r~-anada reaffirmthe role of the Funda~e~t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
previously stated. Rather, in his opening statement. he referred to "equity within
the law" as the governing concept. The applicable law, according to Canada, is
to be found first in anv relevant treatv. and. if no treatv rule of delimitation is
dircctly applicable. ihénin the Iaw dc;i\ed from thejunsdiction 10 k delimited
(VI. p. 21). He stated rhc k'und3menial Rule ihcn is Io he a~p-ied to deierniine
the equitableness of the results.
In other words, the Fundamental Rule by itself is now viewed by Canada as
essentially a test of equity with little or no legalcontent - and not alone fulfilling
the law component of "equity within the law". In this respect, the Canadian and
United States ~ositions are diametricallv onnosed. Under the United States
i,ieu,.the equit;ble principles arc lcgal rulis akl the Fundamenial Rule provides
boih the law and the cquiiy oi"equity wiihin the law"
In hisconcluding siaiemeni of the firsi round. the Agent for CanadJ descrikd
the "two overridiig general principles that provide ihe legal foundation for a REJOINDER OF UR. STEVENSON 195
singlemaritime boundary beyond the limits of the territorial sea: equity within
the rules, and geographical adjacency measured froin the Coastas the hasis of
coastal State title" (VI, p. 227).
His treatment of "equity within the rules" is similar to that in his opening
statement. However. hethen added this new concent. .eeow u .ical adiacencv
me~suredfrom ihe coa\t" as one oi ihe "tuin pillar\" for deierniining ; sin&!
mariiime boundar) (VI, pp. 227-228) Th#\ncwconcrpi 1sno1clexly described.
but is siîtcdIO be "inherent in the eauidisiance-sorcial circumsianse ruk" i)l'
Article 6 and manifested in the so-calléddistance pknciple (VI, p. 228).We can
only conclude that the Agent for Canada is suggesting still another variant of
proximity to support the use of the equidistance method.
In conclusion of this point, the new Canadian position, in eiïect, denies that
the Fundamental Rule has anymore than incidental legalcontent. It is regarded
simplyas a means of testing the equity of a line previouslydrawn in accordance
with the law-dictated equidistance method.
IV. CRITIQLE OF LF.GAB LASIS FOR CANADIAP NOSITION
Canada's position makes the task of a responsible adversary attempting to
join issue comparable to that of a marksman atteinpting to hit a randomly
moving target. Nonetheless, in order to assis1the Chamber in focusingupon the
principal legal issuesdividing the Parties, the United States will here re-state
what itunderstands to be the present Canadian position as synthesizedfrom the
staiements of the Canadian Agent and distinguished counsel. We will then
indicate the reasons why the United States disagreeswith the Canadian position
as we understand it.
A. Equity wirhinrheLaw
First, a point of general agreement. The United States does agree with the
general objective ofachieving equity withinthe law. In the United States view,it
is not merely a question of achieving an equitable solution, but an equitable
solution resulting from the application of specificequitable principles,which are
legalprinciples in the light of the relevant circumstances in accordance with the
Fundamental Rule.
B. Treary Law
With respect to the conventional law, Canada relies on two treaties - the
Special Agreement and the 1958Convention on the Continental Shelf. It is the
United States position that the Special Agreement, although clearly applicable,
has only a limited substantive lawfunction, namely,as indicated in our response
to Judge Gros's first question- to require that the boundary to be delimited is
to begin al the agreed starting-point and is to terminate within the triangle.
Thus. the United States must stronelv disaaree with the contention of
distinguished counsel for Canada that othér subsianiive law inferences may be
drawn from the SpecialAgreement (VI, pp. 165-169).To imply substantive law
consequences from procedural terms of the Special Agreement would, in the
viewof the United States. be contrarv to the intention of the Parties in enterine
inio lhr. Spesial AgrcenientIO suhmii ihi. dispute IO~id~udis~tion
Ar 10 Canîda's contention th~t Ariiclr 6 iif the 195h Con\ention on the
Coniineni;il Sheli is applicable as Tre.iiy La\<,io the <ietcrminaiionol ihs single196 GULF OF MAINE
maritime boundary, the United States disagrees for the reasons set forth earlier
in Our response to Judge Gros.
C. Cusiomary Low- ihe So-Called DistancePrinciple
1 now turn at somewhat greater length 10 the question of customary law,
particularly Canada's assertion of a new so-called distance principle.
Canada's vosirion is that. if Article6 of the 1958Convention is not lenallv
binding as a matter of treaty law or does not encompass al1 aspects or thé
delimitation of the single maritime boundary, then, as a matter of customary
international law. the Chamber in determinine a singlemaritime boundary must
give elïect to ne'wdevelopments in the lac, thaï is the so-called "dktance
principle". This Canadian proposition requires an assumption that the 1982
Convention on the Law of the Sea established the "distance principle" as the
applicable law to be applied through the equidistance method.
Canada, in fact. has used this so-called distance principle in at least three
dilïerent ways. Initially, the distance principle was usedto support Canada's
allegation of its first specificequitahle princi-lthat of proximity. Secondly,it
was urged hy the Agent for Canada as an applicable legalprinciple that might be
applied in fulfilment of the law component of the concept of equity within the
law. More recently, inhis concluding statement in the first round, the Agen1for
Canada again urged its independent application as the principle of geographic
adjacency measured from the coast (VI, pp. 227-228).
In the end, Mr. President, it is important for the Chamber to recognize that
what Canada is really urging is that there is a legal obligation to apply the
equidistance method as the method of implementing the distance principle.
The United States disagrees that there is a so-called distance principle for
reasons set forth at some length in ils written proceedings, in the initial oral
oresentation and in Our resnonse to ludee Gros's third auestion. But Canada's
tontinued emphasis upon iirequires a firthcr reply. '
Canadd's disiancc principle confuses ihree concepts. These arc: (Il the source
of jurisdiction; (2) the outer Ilmit of junsdiciion; and (3) ihe delimitation of
areas of dijpuied jurisdisiion betueen ncighbounng States.
In ihc Uniied Siaies \,iew.the sourceofjunsdiciion. the hdsisof iiilc. isnot, as
Canada contends, the distance from the coast, but rather sovereignty over
coastal land. As the Court stated in the Norih Seo ConiinenialShel/cases, "the
land is the legal source of the power which a State may exerciseover territorial
extensions to seaward" (para. 96). It is hecause maritime jurisdiction extends
from the coastal land that the relationship of the coast and the maritime area in
front of that coast is so important to boundary delimitations. The definitions of
the exclusiveeconomiczone and the continental shelffound in the 1982United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea both recognize this link of the
maritime area to the sovereignty overthe land from which they extend. Thus, as
1have already noted, Article 55definesthe exclusiveeconomiczone as "the area
beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea"; while Article 76 defines the
continental shelfas "the sea-bed and subsoil in the submarine area that extends
beyond [the coastal State's] territorial sea throughout the prolongation of ils
land frontier ...".
Canada ignores the distinction between land as the source of sovereignrights,
and thus, the basis of title, and the 200-nautical-miledistance as the seaward
limit of these rights. Thesedistances are merelythe seaward limitsto whichsuch
jurisdiction may extend.
1turn now for a moment to distinguishedcounsel forCanada's criticism ofthe RUOINDER OF MR. STEVENSON 197
United States for no1 accepting the "correlation between the legal basis of the
entitlement 10the manne area in question and the method of delimitation which
is legally appropriate" (VI, p. 176). He asserts the United States fall-back
defenceis "10 minimize .. .the extent of the development of the Law of the Sea
in the direction of the exclusive economic zone". By this, he apparently means
Our refusal 10 accent the distance orinciole and Our reliance unon th.~erad~ ~ -
cusiomar) c\olution ofihc rclci,ani principlci round in ihc continenial shelrand
tishcriescdscs.Houcvcr. hc asicrts that ihc Uniicd Statesconccniraics iiictTiirir
on iii "ironiline Jcknce" - the claim "lhai the iiuesiion of delimitation of the
economic zone has no connection with the question of entitlement ta that zone"
(ibid.).
Mr. President, this goes beyond what the United States had asserted. The
closest approximation in the written pleadings is the statement in the United
States Reply indicating that the "reasons underlying the adoption of an outer
limit of 200 nautical miles had nothing to do with delimitation" (para. 89).
This is quite a different matter, sinceit is entirelv clear that the 200-mile limit
wïs eriahhbhcd. among other reasons, IO obiîiaa political consensuson an
economic 7onc. uhilc ai ihe same lime proieciing nïvigaiional righis, and IO
include ihe scîu,ard migratory range of most stm.ics of fish Dclimiiaiion was
. .
not a consideration.
The Unitcd Siaics posiiion ipsirïighil'oru,ard and iinamhiguouc. The Cniied
Siîtcs docs no1îgrcc lhîi ihe dirixncc pnnciple is ihc fundamenial basisof iiile.
Furthermore, evenwere the distanceorinciole the leaal basisof title. it would not
require the application of the equidisiancekethod Gr a principle of proximity in
delimitation.
In his oral statement, distinguished counsel for Canada has been at some
pains to state his awarenessthat legal title and delimitation "are not synony-
mous or identical concepts" (VI, p. 177). He could hardly do othewise in view
of the express finding of the Court in the North Seo Conrinenrol Slielj cases
(para. 46) that "the appurtenance of a given area . ..in no way governs the
orecisedelimitati~~~-~ -~s ~ ~-~~ri~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~
1.çi me rciieraie once again ihïi the iu,o Law of ihc Seadclimiiîiion Ariiclcs
(Ariiclc 74 on thc E~clusivc Econnmic Zone and Ariiclc 83 on the Continental
Shelf), which reflect customary international law, coiitain not one word about
the applicability of the distance principle or the equidistance method of
delimitation.
D. Proximity
Closely related to Canada's reliance upon the distance pnnciple is its reliance
upon the proximity concept.
The distinguished Agent for Canada, in his eloquent concluding statement,
squarely rooted the Canadian caseon the law of delimitation in the concept of
proximity. Subject, in his view, ta only what he regards as the most minor
deviations, his conclusion is indistinguishable from that of Denmark and the
Netherlands in the Norrh Seo Conrinenrol Sheljcases, where il is stated "hence,
delimitation mus1 be effected by a metbod which will leave 10each one of the
Statesconcerned al1those areas that are nearest to ils own Coast" (para. 39).
In rejecting that contention with respect to delimit;ttion, the Court observed
that
"this situation may only serve 10obscure the real issue,which is whether it
follows that every part of the area concerned miist be placed in this way, 198 GULF OF MAINE
and that it should be as itwere prohibited that any part should not be so
placed. The Court does not consider that it does follow, eirherfrom rhe
norionofproximiry ilself, or from the more fundamental concept of the
continental shelf as being the natural prolongation of the land domain."
(Para. 40; emphasis added.)
In uur tiew. ihe marim that "the land dominliics the seli" ii anoiher uay of
sa)ing ihït suvsreigni) o\cr ihr coasi generatesthe rele\ani offshore jurisdic-
lion That bcing ihc case.the lonccr ihe coli\iline of anv ei\cn Siliie from u hich
jurisdiction ovër any given poik at sea can be méaiured, the greater the
underlying basis of ils jurisdiction over that point as compared with another
State that has a shorter coastline generatingjurisdiction over the samepoint.
Mr. President.this is the leealanaloeueof examinine the extent o~ ~cti~iti~s ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
the contesting ~iates- the sGengthortheir contacts Gith the area - where title
over land territory is generated by conflicting claims of effective occupation.
In this regard, in Our view, the Aaent for Canada ignores the most imoortant
aspectof any principle of proximity, namely, that whatever its applicability to
rerra nullius,or an isolated island, it has no applicability where the area is a
physical extension of the territory of two States
The proximity argumenis madi by Canadï in effect ignore ihese basicFïcis
Raiher. counsel for Canada contend ihai the junsdiciional claim of ihe coasial
Siaie owr iisheries and the coniinenilil shelf auiomaiically welikens as ihe arca
movesfanher out to sea.This aremiseis exoresslvcontradicted bv the fact that
\,ersbroad limits of coa\tal.Staiç juriidiciion now haveemergrd in iniernatiunal
law Their tery ebçenceis ihai ihey arc no1proximale io ihr c<iart.
The ouier Iiniii of ihe coniinenrïl shelf aas ercndeJ in the 1982Con\enrion
to the outer edeeof the continental marein. rather than beine fixed~~t the 200-
- - ~ ~~ ~ ~ -~~
merreiiobaih & ei,enthe fooi of the continental slov. preci\cl) bcrausc II is ihe
conrinentxl rise. scauard of ihe continrnial slopc. th~t is of greatestconcern IO
mdny coastal Stlites as a potential sourceof hydroc~rbons %nilarly. a Iimii of
200milsr wasconsideredappropriaic for cuasldl spiles of lish preciselybecause
il u,a\ conaideredimporiani to give Ihc coasial Siatc conirol o\,er ihesespesies IO
the very seaward limit of their miaratorv ranee. oarticularlv where svawnine
grinindi are ai the seaward endofiheir ;igraior)'range. lis on Cieorg& ~3nk
In brief. nopoinion the continenial shelfor in ihe economic zoneis uprroriof
lcsserinierest IO the coastal State ihan an). other. Earh coïsial Siaie hîs a full.
independent, and inherent right to exercisejurisdiction to the seaward limits
permitted by international law, irrespective of proximity.
Where those rights of two coastal Statesconflict, there can be no assumption
that the greater interest or the greater nght is the more proximale one. The
question is which parts of the area more appropriately are regarded as the
extension of one coast rather than that of the other, andnot which parts of the
area are closer to one coast than to the other.
Accordinalv. our oosition is that the 200-mile distance limit is irrelevant to
bilareral d&aiitaiion. but eten were it rele\ani. ils implicaiionr uould be
prcciselythe rewrse of thosesuggcsiedby Canadü. The ?OU-mileIimit. b) \.irtuc
of ils rnormous hreadih. in and i)fitrelf coniradiiis an, imnliiation ufnro\imitv
as the basis of the riehts of the coastal State. . .
11is of course corFecl that an isolated point of land facing an uninterrupted
expanse of the open sea will generate a socalled "radial oroiection" of
iurisdiction to theiimits oermittéd bv international law. but we.~~a to s~ ~he ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
;clevance oi ihis point io'ihe ei(uiiahie resi)luiion of ihr prohlems posed by the
cul-off hy çucha radial projeciion of ïnoiher Siaie'scoïsial proieciion seïu,ard. REJOINDEROF MR. STEVENSON 199
It isthis so-called radial projection that givesriseto the prohlems of cut-off; it
does not resolve them. It is the so-called radial nroiection that makes anv
principlc of proximity. and ils companion. the cquid;st~ncc mcthod. inequitahie
u,here a short inuard-Facing coasi of one State ir perpzndicular Io 3 long
seaward-facing coast of another, as well as in many other situations. It is the
shortcomines of the so-called radial oroiection that created the difficultiesin the
NorrlzSc" ?onrinr,tiriilSkdjcïse,. in ihe I'gtni.i;<Lirl'iu cïie, and in ihc Anglo-
French arbitraiion. and that requircd the tnhunal iiieach casc to rcsort 10 the
euuitahlc onnciolcs of dclimiiaiion contained in international Iaw. takinr inio
a&ount the coastal configuration, the relative proportionality of the coastg, and
other relevant factors in resolving the case. It is unyielding insistenceon the so-
called radial projection that has caused most of the delimitation disputes
between States. includine those that recentlv have heen hroueht before this
Court And iiir ihrre iacïs ihat should lead ih~sChambcr IO rrCk ihc means Io
rest~lvethe problems Canada's claimcd radial prol.cii.n poses in curting oiTthe
seaward extension of the coast of Maine.
Th&, in this cïse, the hasic question iithe exieni to which. if any. areas thït
arc extensions of long srau,ard-iacing segments of the coasi ofihc Uniied Siatei
- indecd. that are wiihin 200 milesof thosc long seauard-facine sc- -nis of the
United States coast - can be cut off by the shoser inward-facing coast of Nova
Scotia.
Learned counsel for Canada suggests that the solution to the cut-off problem
nosed bv the so-called radial oroiection is eauidistance. This conclusion rests on
ihe premisc so oftcn repeaicd'hyk3nïda. n;mely. th:it proximiiy is the hxrir lor
dclimitation. Canïd~ argues that this result iscquitahle becau,c IIleares Io cach
State the area closest to-its coast.
Mr. President, there are other fallaciesin this argunient. First, it presumes that
the so-called radial projection of jurisdiction establishes a hierarchy or jurisdic-
tion extending seaward from the coast. There is iiothing in the law of the
continental shelf, in the law of fisheriesjurisdiction, or in the law of the exclusive
economic zone to support such a proposition. One will search the tex1of the
1982Convention in vain for such a proposition.
Second, the radial projection theory presumes thai the interests of the coastal
State in fact decrease as one moves further out to sea. Here we helievelearned
counsel for Canada gravely confuses the nature and purposes of the territorial
sea, and perhaps the 24-milecontiguous zone referred to in Article 33 of the 1982
ConvenGon, with the nature and purposes of the continental shelf and exclusive
- - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~~
The fundamental distinction between the territorial sea and jurisdictional
zones seaward of the territorial sea is that, in the terrilorial sea. the coastal State
has control no1only over resource-related and other economic uses of the area,
but over virtually al1 activities. Aside from Straits, aircraft and submerged
suhmarines may not enter the territorial sea without consent, and surface ships
mav. .lv naviea-e in innocent oassaee. namelv. o,.saee tuat is not orei.,icial to
ihc peacc, good order, or secu~ityoiihe soasial S13ie.and c\,en ihcn suhjcci to
coastal-State ruspcn\ion and rcgulation IIisciident that ihe sccurity ofthc land
territory of the- coastal ~tate is the interest protected by such additional
iurisdiction.
This king the case, wecan well understand that, al1other things being equal,
proximity would be an important factor in eiïectinn an equitable accommoda-
;ion of the interests of two CoastalStates in an area where Grrow territorial seas
o!erl;ip. h'c~eriheless.eben in thc case oiihe ierniori:il scri.ihe \cry c.xisicnceoi
contrul rcgiirding na\igatiiin and ovcrfiight siill uuuld requirs th;it the naviga-200 GULF OF MAINE
lion interests of the two States be examined in eiiecting an appropnate
delimitation. This, in Our view, explains why the rules of delimitation in
Article 12of the 1958Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous
Zone and Article 15of the 1982Convention on the Law of the Sea emphasize
equidistance, but nevertheless not without significant qualification.
On the other hand. Article2 of the 1958Convention on the Continental Shelf.
dnd Articles 5hand 77ofthe 1982Con\ention on the Lîu ofthc Seli.rnakeclear
thai the sotereipn righi~and~~risdictionof the coasial Sratco\er theconiincntïl
shelf and the exclusive economic zone are for limited purposes relating to
resources. Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention on the Continental Shelf, and
Articles 58and 77of the 1982Convention, make clear that navigation and other
activities continue 10 be governed hy high-seas principles. Thus, neither the
continental shelf nor the economic zone are buiïer zones desianed to enahle the
coastal Siate to pre\eni foreigners rrom posing 3secunty threlit to ihe cualt.
Thuç, although the purpose of the lurisdiciii>no\cr \irt~all) al1acii\itics in
the narrow ter6torial sea is to accommodate the interest of the coastal State in
keeo.ne-foreiv~~rs from ao..oachine too~ ~ose to the coast - which inherentlv
suggestsconsiderations of proximity - the purposç of the junsdiction ovcr the
broad continental shelf and n-onomic 7one is to accommodate the interesis of
the coastal State in controlline the uses of the resources located a1s-awhich
has no tnherent relationship uith proximit) to the cols1
Mr Presidcnt, although wedo no! conccde the point, mddc b) OurCdnddian
colleagues inregard to the radial projection, we would note that, even wereone
to take into account ail of the coast of Nova Scotia facing the open Atlantic, as
wellas that facing the Gulfof Maine, the Northeast Channel of Georges Bank
would be within 200nautical milesof approximately equal lengths of coastline
of the Unite~ ~~a~es and Canada. The noints to the northeast of the Channel.
that is, those on the Scotian Shelf, ge&ally lie within 200 nautical miles of
longer segmentsof the Canadian coastline than of the United States coastline.
~otÏversdv. the ooints to the southwest of that Channel. that is. on Georees
Bank. ge&rlilly iie \rithin 200 nauiical miles of longer segmcnrs of the uni&
Sistcs codst than of the Clinadilincoast. In ihat respect, thcrcfore. the Cdnïdilin
proposais contradicl the very premise upon which they purport 10rest, namely,
the basis of ti~~ ~of the coastal State: since.in the United States view.sovereientv
over the coastline is the basis oftitle, the longer the segmentsof ilschastlineïh&
generate jurisdiction over any given area, the stronger a coastal State's claim
over that area as against another coastal State
Accordingly, it iSthe opinion of the United States that Canada's emphasis
upon proximity has no foundation in the law of the continental shelf, and
the exclusive economic zone does not take into account the special and
limited nature of the jurisdiction of the coastal State in such areas, and if
pressed to its logical conclusion, would confuse the economic zone with the
V. MISUNOERSTAND~ ASGIS THE UNITED STATEL SEGAL P~ITION
As 1 indicated al the outset, the United States would iike to take this
opportunity to clarify any misunderstandings that may have been created in the
course of the oral statements as to the United States position on a number of
legal questions. RWOINDER OF MR. STEVENSON
A. Merhod
In many ways, the most serious misundersianding of the United States
position relates 10the role of a method or methods. The distinguished counsel
for Canada kas areu-d ihat. in the United States view. anv method mav be , -~
;ipplicd priniding ihe mcihod is cquitnblc Ife sliilcs ihtiWC 'ci>nccdc ihïi ihc
choicc of mcihod ij ïmïiter oiinditfr.rcnccto ihe Ixn,and isgovcrncd solcly by
ihc cuuiiv of ihc rcsuli" i\'lD 1701.This 1,no! ihe Ilnitrd Siaici oosiiion. As
indicated expressly in both 'the wntten pleadings and its oral staiements, the
United Siates recognizes and has stated unequivocally that a method must
be appropriaie in meeting the legal requirements of the Fundamental Rule
to produce an equitable soluiion (VI, pp. 254. 283-284; II, Memorial,
paras. 237-238; IV, Counter-Memorial. paras. 136-139).Thus, under the Fun-
damental Rule, the applicable equitable principles miist be identifiedand applied
in the lieht of the relevant circumstances. This we. but not Canada. have done.
~ ~ ~
In the~nited States view,moreover, it isan inaccurate characteriktion of the
United States position to remove from its context a statement relating solely to
the equitahle solution resuliine from the use of a method. and to alleé-that. in
the uiited States view, this isthe only delimitation requirement.
This is inaccurate because the Fundamental Rule that the United States
consistently has supported and applied requires conformity with the ipplicable
equitable principles - principles of international law- in the light of the relevant
circumslances.
There mdyalso be another explanation of this Canadian misunderstanding of
the United States oosition. In the Canadian oral statements. the role of the
Fundamcnial ~ulchas. in faci, hccn reduccd Io ihït <ifdcicrminingthccquity of
3 meihod oihcrnise dcicrmined in ïcrordance with ihc applicable Iau. Thus in
ihis vicn, if onl) the Fundïmeniïl Rule were ap~llrd, ihcrc n,ould bc no Icaal
content to thedecision to apply one method or another. This illuminaies
the present very basic diference between the Caiiadian and United States
approaches to the governing law in delimiting a single maritime houndary.
The United States (and Canada. as well. until the oral oroceedines) have
ricued ihe ~undamenkl Rulc as prv\iJing equit) wiihin ihe iau hy rziu~ring ;I
solution in nccord~nce uiih ihc ïpplicÿblc cquitiiblc principlcr. uhich arc Icgal
rulcs. in ihc Iiaht of the idcniiiiiation 2nd ihc h31an:ine UP of the rclcvani
circumstances. in the United States view,this allows the chamber the choice of a
method or combination of methods to produce an equitahle solution that meets
these legal requirements.
Distinguished counsel for Canada States that, under the United States view,
"many lines in the mansion of law" may be considered (VI, p. 180). This
criticism reflects what the United States Agent, in his concluding statement of
the first round, indicated was perhaps the fundamental philosophical dilierence
between Canada and the United States: the reversal hy Canada of what the
United States views as the proper hierarchy of pnnciples and method.
Our view is that the substantive legal requirements of a solution in keeping
with the aoolicable eauitable orincioles. takine into account the identification
and balan%ng up of ielevant 'circumsta"ces, must be met and then an appro-
priate method or methods selected to achieve an equitable solution consistent
with these substantive requirements. Canada, in effect, seeks to reverse the
hierarchy and first apply a method, namely, the equidistance method, which it
asserts is required hy the applicable law. Canada then would determine the
equitahleness of this line and, only if this line is inequitable, pass on to any
adjustments in this line necessary to do equity. Only then would Canada havethe Chamber, if such adjustments were insufficient to meet the test of equity,
turn Io any other method alone or in combination.
The United States believesthat C~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~-v~ ~ .iderine first the method and
ihcn the principlcs and relevant cirçumstancc; lias. to use; colloquial Amcrican
exprcsiun from ihc froniier dajs. "put the cari helorc the horsc".
B. Complete Rejecrionof the EquidisrariceMethod
The second misunderstanding of the United States position relates to its
asserted cornolete reiection of the eauidistance method. The United States has
ken chsllcngcd hy ~ana&ü Cor"o\e;-kill" in aitacking the cquidi~taiicerneihod
across the hi~ard(VI, p 187).Indccd. counsel ior Canada has gonc $0 Caras Io
accusc the Uniied Siaies of emharkine on "a crusadc deainsl cuuidi~iancc", in
which we are alleged to portray the concept of equi&stan& itself as "evil
incarnate where maritime delimitation is conccrned" (p. 8, supra).
Mr. President, this is not the United Statesposition. We certainly agree that,
in relevant circumstances. t,e ea~i~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ - ~~ ~ ~ ~ - be an ao.. .riate
method. In the relevant circumstances of this case, however, particularly the
aeoaraphic circumstances, the United States does no1 helieve equidistance
proauces an equitablc solution uithin ihc Iaw.Our concern isthe samc as that of
IheCourr in iir 1969and 1982Dccisions (NuriIl3rd Conrin<3~iralSl~cP l/J,rJ 83,
Tun;.v~a L~hju. para 110). ihüt the e~uidirtance mcthcid no1 he ircaicd a,
inherentlv eauitahle. but rather be coniidered alona with another method or
methods-in ieaching an equitahle solution substantively determined by the
application of equitable principles, considered in the light of the identification
and halancing up of the relevant circumstances.
C. The Uniied Slares AllegedDesire ro Turn Back rhe Legal Clock and Nor to
RecognizeAny Chonges in the Law, of Delimi~alion
The hasis for this Canadian allegation is, apparently, the refusal of the United
States to recognize the novel Canadian "distance principle" as the hasis of title
to the 200-milezone (p. 9, supra). It also rests upon Canada's contention that
the 1982Law ofthe Sea Convention. comoletelv unbeknownst to ils neaotiators.
who would be and are completely astuundid by this Canadian assertion;
adopted a distance principle that institutionalized the equidistance method of
delimitation
Thc Cn~icdSiaies ceriainl) docr not acçcpt. Correasonc set iorih hcreinand in
il, u,riiicn and prior oral pic~dings,therc Candian conleniions l~oucvcr, the
Cactihat the Unitcd Sv~icsdocs not Jarcc to a cornrilete «\,cr-turning OCihe
customarv international law of delimitalion in favour of enshrinine theëauidis-
tance rneihod, does not mean that it is opposed to any development in the law.
On the contrary, this case, involving as it does the first delimitation of a single
maritime boundarv. reauires the devëlooment of aoolicable delimitation orin-
ciples. In doing so,.in théviewof the ~nhed States, ii;e Chamber should, jus1as
many tribunals before it have done when faced with new circumstances, be
guided by the relevant legal principles applied in related if not the same
circumstances. It should not adopt acornpletely new philosophical approach.As
indicated at the outset, the United States believes that the Fundamental Rule
provides an appropriate vehicle for reflecting in a single maritime boundary
delimitation the relevant orincioles drawn from orior delimitations of both the
sea-bed and the waler colknn, in the light of the identificationand balancing up
of the relevant circumstances. This will afiord the Chamber, as well as future REJOINDER OFMR.STEVENSON 203
tribunals, the opportunity to Lakeinto account the individual circumstances of
each individual case.
We find Canada's most recent statements that the United States is no1
applying or is misapplyingexisting law - in particular, the Norrh SeaContinental
Sheljcases - most surprising, particularly so in light of Canada's assertion in its
Counter-Memonal that a "reconsideration of. .. the essential rationale of the
conclusions reached by the Court in the Norrh Sea Conrinenral Sheljcases"
(para. 561) is necessary.
VI.OTHER LEGAL ISSUETSEPARATING THEPARTIES
1 now turn to other legal issuesseparating the P;irties. Most of these issues
have already been dealt with at some length in both the written pleadings and
oral statements, and 1will merely summanze them most briefly.
A. The Role of Economic Deperidence
The first such issue relates to the role of economic deoendence.The United
States hasexpressedin ils written pleadings, its earlier statement of the law, and
in Mr. Feldman's oral statements, its profound disagreement with Canada's
view on the subiect of so-called economic der>enden&. Canada's ~osition is
summanzed in lts second alleged equitahle principle referring 10 the vital
importance Io Canadian coastal communities in the relevant area of the fishery
resourcesof Georges Bank.
It is the view of the United Statesthat economic de~endenceon the resources
ol'ihe areï is neiiher ïn equitable principle nor a réle\ant circumsiancr. The
faci\ simply do noi support thr argunient by Cïnli<ia ihat developmeni oiihr
200-nliuiical-mile rone Kas based uoon a recoanitioii of ihe scxcial decadence
of coastal States upon the resouices of th& coasts. ~ome coasial States
supported the extension of fisheriesjurisdiction in order to claim for themselves
more resources,andcertainly someof thesecoastal States were dependentupon
fishenes. The rule of law that emereed. however. was not that everv State was
cniitled Io chim olTshorelurisdiciio~inaccordance with ils degrreif cconomic
dependencc Rathcr. ii was thai each coÿ\ililSiate u,as eniiiled tu fisheries
iuri$diciion uithin200 nauiiîÿl miles rce~rdless of whetheril was deoendcnt
Lpon the resoursesin the lire3 off 11,coa$ïxnd regardlcssof u hetheie.;ploiied
there rcsourcc.. A determinaiion h) the Chamber moiii,ated h) relaiiw e~.o.
nomic dependencewould not be an application of recognized legal principles,
but rather an exercisein distributive justice, an ex aequoet bon0 determination
to which the Parties have no1agreed.
B. The Role of iiurnan Geogniphy
Mr. President, the United States also disagrees with Canada's attempt to
supplant, or at least to influence physical geography by the consideration of
human geography. What is important in maritime delimitation is the land, not
what the nationals of Statesdo on land.
C. Developrnenrof Arriculared Equirable Principles
A ihird legalconsideraiion the Unitcd Stateswishesto emphûri7eis ihai of the
developmcni of ariiculaied equitahle principles. Canada apparenily h~signored
ihe United States suggestionof the desirabiliiy thai cquitablc pnnciples applic-204 GULF OF MAINE
able to maritime delimitation, particularly of a single maritime boundary, be
articulated. Such articulation of the applicable principles will, in Ourview, both
promote negotiated settlements based on law and give assurance to parties
resorting to adjudication.
D. PossibleExpansionof Coasral-SrareJurisdicrion
Finally, with respect to miscellaneous legal difierences, let me urge the
Chamber to take into account the possible expansion of coastal States jurisdic-
lion in the Gulf of Maine area.
Distinguished counsel for Canada, in discussing the necessityof determining a
singlemaritime boundary for al1purposes -he calls it a "single polyvalent line"
(VI, p. 168)-points out the probability thatthe jurisdiction of the coastal State
may expand beyond fisheries and continental shelfjurisdiction.
The United States, in ils prior oral statement on the law, referred expresslyto
the provisions in the Special Agreement that the single boundary will limit al1
rights and jurisdictions now recognized and to be recognized. We stated that,
aocordingly, it would be most unwise to limit arbitrarily the interests and
activities that the Chamber mav consider relevant.
Ai this point, the Cniied ~irt& wishesio reassert ilsconscrn ihat the boundary
eslahlishcd b) ihe Chambcr o,cntually could eiTh.1rights and junsd~ctions no!
now 31 issue. includine. in ~anicular. navicatiunal nahts with which the Uniied
States was so very müch ioncernedin the Law ofThe %a Conference and is
concerned today. It is appropriate for the Chamber to consider the probable
future expansion of the jurisdictions to be delimited by the single boundary,
~articularlv in view of Canada's em~hasisuoon the "~olvvalent" line.
These Eoncerns are no1 merely hypotheiical. canada has signed the 1982
Convention. As Canada's Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act of 1970made
clear, it has taken an expansive view of coastal-State rights to control vesse1
source vollution in waters off ils Coast. Canada's interoretation of the 1982
convention is likely to be no lessexpansive. Under canada's views of ils rights
under international law, il can be expected, as a minimum, to enforce in its 200-
nautical-mile zone what Canada, in the first instance, regards as generally
accepted international pollution standards and it may also enforce special
pollution standards it alone proposes if they are approved by the competent
international organization.
Mr. President. distineuished Judees. at this iuncture. 1will resort onc~~aeain
10what my Canadian colleagues have deprecated as "cartographic impression- u~
ism". 1would invite your attention to the two Canadian lineson the map before
you and ask you to share my concern, one that I am sure the ~merican people
will share; that concern is that if either one of these lines were to become the
single maritime boundary, we may well be put in a position of arguing with
Canada about Our rights to navigate through and overfly the area northeast of
this line.
VII. CONCLUSION
1come now to my conclusion. The nile of law governing delimitation urged
on this Chamber by the distinguished Agent for Canada can, we believe, be
summarized as follows:
"The dclimit~iion of ihe cxclusi\e economic ionc and continental shdi
kiueen adj~centor opposite Stdies shall be erlecied b) dgreement employ- MOINDER OF MR. STEVENSON 205
ing, 3, a grnerd principle. the median or equidistancc Iine, taking inio
account an) s~cial cirsum\tances uherc this iblusiilied."
The language I have just read is a direct quotation from an informal
suggestion co-sponsored by Canada at the Third United Nations Conference on
the Law of the Sea (doc. NG7/2, 20 April 1978).Nothing like this proposition
ever appeared in any decision of the International Court of Justice or in any of
the negotiating texts issued hy the leadership of the Conference. All of these
decisions and texts represented a movement away l'romthe role attributed by
Canada to equidistance in ils interpretation of the 1958 Convention on the
Continental Shelf and customary international law. In the end, with full
knowledee of the Court's teachinr on this suhie-.. the Third Law of the Sea
conference settled upon a cross-Ïeference to international law, including a
specific referenceto the Statute of the Court.
And yet, Canada ~ersists.A ~ro~osition whose leral validitv others could not
persuade the Courtio accept, a p;oposition whoseÜtility and fairness Canada
could no1persuade the assemhled representatives of al1the States in the world to
accept, Canada now urges upon this Chamber.
Canada areues hefore this Chamher that the same conference that reiected its
delimitation ~roporiilr, ir the conferencc uhoie woik, directly and th;ough iis
influcnccon Staie practice. compels eractly the iamc rejcctcd rerulby viriue of
ihc ~ido~tionoia 200-mileseaward linlit for the cxcliisiveeconumic zone. In our
view thfsconclusion is untenable as a matter of history, as a matter of logic, and
as a matter of law.
Finally, the United States wishes to reiterate its views that the Chamber, in
discharging ils responsibility to delimit a singlemaritime houndary, should hase
itself squarely on the Fundamental Rule expressly recognized hy the Court.
This is the best means of achieving equity within the law. Thus, in our view,
the Chamber should apply equitahle principles inthe light of the identification,
weighing, and halancing up of the relevant circumstances regarding the conti-
nental shelf, fisheries,and other matters that have heen, are presently, or may in
the future be suhject to coastal-State jurisdiction.
In concluding, the United States reiterates its hope that, in applying this
Fundamental Rule, the Chamber will reject the equidistance method as applied
by Canada, and instead use such method or methods as will produce an
eauitahle solution in the Ii&t of the a~~licahle eauitahle orincides and the
identilicdiion and hal3neingip of the cir~umsianîcs ;ele\.int io th&e principles
Permit me,Mr Prc5idcniand diaiinguishrd Judges. IOihank this Chamher Tor
its patience and attention, and reiterate how pleased 1personally have heen to
have the opportunity to participate inthese proceedings. QUESTION BY JUDGE COHEN
Judge COHEN: Iwas interested in your reply to m).Question No. I and 1am
concerned to hetter understand. Do you mean to say that the continental shelf
doctrine, as we have known il, and the coastal fisheries law, as WC have
understood it, now have a unified replacement in what you cal1the "fundamen-
ta1rule": and if that is so. would vou beoerhans more snecificas to what are the
concrete'substantive elements that are 10he ised by t6e Court as guidelines in
determining what are these elements of the fundamental rule? Because it is
difficult to piece together in the rather circular argument that follows, how one
moves from the basic idea of a fundamental rule, to then, the relevant
circumstances, then to equitahle principles or vice versa, and eventually to an
equitable result. Nowhere along that road do 1gei a sense of concreteness on
which 1can then build a specificsubstantive argument for myself, and did you
mean that to he the answer to my question?
Mr. STEVENSON: Yes, 1 did, Judge Cohen, and in accordance with the
nrocedure of this Court 1will re.,v more fullv later.,infr..o. 266).but 1think I
ihould luri puini 0.11thxi in al1our vriitcn pro~ccdingsplu the <>rd~i:iicmcnt~
ec hd\c \,ery c3rcîull) dclinc.~tsdthe 3ppIicablc cqui~xhle priniiplcs and Ihc
relevant circumstance; in this case. The equitahle onncioles are rcs~ect for the
i11351.rehpcct for the inierrrioi'~ïcciul ~ciilement of dispuir.\. ïacilitation of
conrcr\atii~n 2nd manxgemcni of resourccs. and taking inii~ arcount oihcr
factors which the Tnhunal considers important. Just to give you an example. 1
most recentlv referred to the fact that the Tribunal should take in10account as a
relevant cir&mstance the future possihilities with respectto this not only being a
iurisdiction for economic purposes. but for certain other DurDoses.But if 1may,
MI. President, 1would like to confirm this answer in wGtiig. REJOINDER OF PROFESSOR RIESENFELD
COUKSEL FOR THEGOVERKMEN OTFTHE UNITED STATESOF AMERlCA
Professor RIESENFELD: Mr. President, distinguished Judges,may it please
the Chamber. This is a distinct honour and privilege for me to address the
Chamber in this great caseand 1 am grateful to the authorities of the United
Siaie>. my sdopied. or pcrhïps morc ~ccuraiely. rny adopiing country. for
gii,ing me ihis opportunityso chcrished hy any memkr of ihc lcgal proression.
My prcscniaiion willk %,esh. ncf- about 15minuio - and will deal wiih the
subject of acquiescenceand estoppel and, in particular, with Canada's conten-
tion that the United States has failed toeet its arguments on that subject.
As the Chamber will recall, Canada in its oral prçsentation on5 May 1984
faulted the United Statesfor having "entirely failed to meet Canada's argument
on acauiescenceand estoooel" (o. 94. suera) both diirine the stares of written
plcadings and Juring th>'tir$<'round if the oral argÜmcnis. j\mong oihcr
charges. Canada hss blsnicd the United Siaics. firit. for ignoring the Tzmpof
Priwh Vlhsurrase, which in rhe \iew ofcanada's lcarricd iuunsel "1saftcr al1ihc
primary authority" (p. 95, supra)and, secondly, for the tendency of the United
States "10 equate the law relating to acquiescenceand the law of acquisitive
prescription as a hasis of title or sovereignty over territo(p. 98, supra).In
connection with this second criticism by Canada, its oral argument tems the
reliance of the United States on the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheriescaseas "highly
misleading".
Let me discussthese two contentions of Canada in the order brought up in
Canada's arguments in the last round.
Canada alleges that the Temple ofPreah Vihearcase "stated":
"that the acts and words of even minor officiais,acting within their
mandate, would engage the good faith of their governments and preclude
those governments from subsequently changinfi their positions." (P. 94,
supra.)
Canada's counselreferred to pages24 and 25of the Judgment in the Templeof
Preah Vihearcasefor the prooosition quoted. However, no such statement can
be round on the n.ees cked'nor can ihat statement serve as an anor.. .ate
paraphrase of whai the Couri astu~lly didSJ).In ordcr Io inierprci propcrly ihe
Court's rcssoning, ihc i>sue2nd the farts of the caseinusi bc reclillrd. The issue
w3s.3sihc Chamber ma, remcmher. ihr eff~i uoon l'hailsnd of the nublic~iion
and disirihuiion of a map showing the temple a,?allinx uiihin the so;crcigniy of
Camhodw. rhc rival cl3imani. The mlip u3s prepared in conneciion with the
work of a Mixed Commission cstÿbli,hed in 1904 to dclimii rhe boundary
between Thailand and what was then French Indo-China, in the region (the
eastern sector of the Dangrek Range) where the temple was located. The map
was produced by French Government topographical experts, in responseto a
request made by Thailand authorities, but was printed only alter the Mixed
Commission had ceasedto operate. In the words of the Court:
"The publication and communication of the .. maps ...wassomething
of an occasion. This was no mere interchange between the French and
Siamese Governments ... On the contras., the maps were given wide
publicity ...by king also communicated to the Siameselegations accred-208 GULFOF MAINE
ited to the British, German, Russian and United States Governments; and
10al1the members of the Mixed Commission. French and Siamese.
II is clear that the circunistdnces were suchaj ciillcd for some reaction.
wiihin a reasonÿhle pcriod, on ihc pari of the Siameie ~uihoriiies. if the)
wishcd IO dijazree uith the map . . ihev did ni,! do30, ciiher ihen or for
many years, and thereby mus1 & held to have acquiesced." (I.C.J. Reporrs
1962, pp. 22-23.)
The eli'ectof the conduct of minor officials was onlv commented won in
conneciion wiih Thailand's daim ihai ..ihc maps receii,d lrom Paris we;e only
seen by minor olficials uho ha" no exwriiic in cartography. and ui>uld know
nothinn aboui ihe Temple The Couri rciecied ihese contentions "ciihrr on
the fa& or the law", ;lating:
"If the Siamcse 3uthonties Jid ihou these m,ipi onl) IO minor officials.
the) clearlyxied 31 their oun risk. and the claim of Thailand could not. on
the inicrnational plane, den\e an) assisiance from that faci. Bui the history
of the matier. 3s set out above. clcarly show ihït the maps were secnby
the Foreign Zlinister....the Minisicr olthe Interior. the Siamcsemembers
of ihe Firsi Mixed Commission and lother hieh-rïnkinn o-ficialsl." (I.C.J.
Reporrs1962. p. 25.)
These are the officialswho were listed by the Court. Note that it says that the
Siamese authorities did show these mans onlv tn minor officials. Obviouslv
nothing in the facts of the case or the language if the Court supports the citation
of the Judgment in the Temple of Preah Vihear case as authority for the
nro~ositio~which Canada seeks todeduce therefrom
~imilarl~ misplaced is Canada's reproach that the United States ignores a
"critical distinction between acquiescence and estoppel, on the one hand, and
the concept of prescription, on the other" (p. 98, supra). Acquiescence,
according to Canada's distinguished counsel, "depends upon lacit acceptance
and not upon prescriptive periods of lime" (ibid.).But tacit acceptance likewise
involves the passage of time. As Professor Sperduti in his magisterial article
Prescrizione,Consuerudine e Acquiescenzain Dirirro Inrernazionale (which the
Chamber may find in Vol. V of Our Documentary Annexes to the Counter-
Memorial (IV), Ann. 33). has pointed out, international law requires also a
duration of the hehaviour (arreggiamenro) which produces the character of
acquiescence. Although no single rule governing al1 situations can be formu-
lated, the generally valid criterion is found in "the passivity maintained with
regard to a situation by a person or persons who had been entitled to object to
il" (Sperduti, p. 14, quoted in I.C.J.Reporrs1982, p. 97).Mr. President, you
may recognize that phrase because you quoted it in your separate opinion in the
TunisialLibyo case.
The duration of the lime span during which inaction does not amount to
acquiescence is no1 capable of being expressed in ternis of a fixed period. It is
governed by the principle of good faith in the conduct of foreign relations. It
depends on the length of the lime during which a protest or disclaimer by the
persons entitled to make il can legitimately be expected. The length will thus
depend both on the time when the proper authorities may be expected to have
gained knowledge of the situation and, in addition, when they can be expectedto
react. This period, as Professor Sperduti has shown, willbe considerably longer
when the issue concerns jurisdictional or sovereign rights than other matters
such as police measures. There is no such thing as "instant passivity" as
Canada's counsel seems to assert. REJOINDEROF PROFESSORRIESENFELI> 209
Canada hlames the United States for relyingon inapposite authorities such as
the Anglo-Nonvegian Fisheries case. While it is true that the Judgment in that
case rests also on other legal hases, its authority for the issue at hand is
recognized not only by the author just mentioned, Professor Sperduti, but -
most of al1 - hy the separate opinion of Vice-President Alfaro in the Temple of
Preah Vihear case itself. It is perhaps not withuut irony that Canada's
distinguishedcounsel himselfhefore his "metamorphosis of 1984" - io borrow a
uhrase from Canada's allenation reaardine Our own exnert witness - cited the
~n~lo-~orwe~ian ~i.vheriecase as3 preredent for théelleci of acquiescencc
bascd on ïbsencc of protest ïgîinsl Noruegian clïims (1957 RYRII., p. 199) ln
no case has the Court ever found acquiescence to a claim of territorial rights,
except by failure to protest over a period of many years. In no case is
"reasonahle" tantamount to "immediate". Any such assertion is not borne out
hy the governing case-law. In the Tentple of Preah Vihear case, for instance,
Thailand did not ohiect for more than 50 vears.
Canada's counscl [ries IOoiercome thélick of<icquiesccnccdue to the bretiiy
of the perii)ddunng u hich the United Siatcs i~rlaimed to ha\e remained silent,
by conlending thatihe tacit acceptance related only to a method of delimitation
rather than to a claim ofjurisdiction. But withdue respect,this distinction isone
without difference. As the Temple of Preah Viheur case shows, claims to
sovereignty are no1 foreign to the law of acquiescence. The method of
delimitation connotes the extent of such claim. Hence, although the concepts of
prescription and acquiescence must not he confused, iievertheless - as Professor
Sperduti likewiseemphasizes - hoth are lied to a lapse of lime and hoth have a
legitimizing function: ". ..L'una e I'altra si colleghiiio al decorso del tempo e
I'una a I'altraabhiano funzione legittimatrice" (Sperduti, p. 7). The lapse of
time required in hoth types of situations does not ditïer suhstantially where
sovereignty is involved.
Because of other unfounded claims hv Canada based on alleeed estonnel .. ,
po$itivciunduci WC uuuld like tu adJ ihat such condiici -oihrr-ihan a promisr
made publicly by a high-ranking official - ïlso rnusi be reiieraied or miiintaincd
over a lengthy kriod, if relinquishment of sovereign rights or claims is to he
implied. Although such conduct may perhaps he characterized more accurately
as recognition rather than acquiescence, that is recognition understood "in ils
hroadest aspects" - to usea term coined hy Anzilotti- it ishardly dehatablethat
it likewise must extend over a long-lem interval, the same as in the case of
acquiescence.
As a concluding observation 1 would like to point out that the contention
"that acts and words of even minor officiais,acting wiihin their mandate" would
bind the State on an international level cannot possihly he hased on the
principles governing international responsibility, as is claimed hy Canada's
counsel (p. 98,supra). True, a State may beresponsihle for injuries inflicted on
aliens by a police officer, even ifactiulrra viresBut 1venture to think that no
one could claim that a saleof the Brooklyn Bridgehy such an officerto a foreign
trade mission would have any legal consequences whatsoever.
The Chamberrosear 6.05p.m. RFJOINDER OF MR. COLSON 211
In this discussion we do no1 propose to restate wkit we have said hefore on
this suhject except to note that the United States bas examined the relevant
circumstances, and applied equitahle pnnciples, in three dilïerent areas for
different purposes. The first area - what we have called the relevant area -
extends, in Our view, from Nantucket to Cape Canso. It includes al1the coasts
within those limits and the maritime area seawardof those coaststo the limit of
coastal-State i,risdiction. The second area we have referred 10 is the area in ~~
uhich thc Jclirnii:ition iakes plcicc: the Gull'oi'Mniiir and the area inirncdiirtcl~
sea\i,ard of the (iuli. Itdues not includc the Babof I.undi. nor the Canadian
coast andmarine areasnortheast of Cape Sable.~hetliird area we have referred
to in our pleadings is the proportionality test area - in this case defined by
gcographical features marking major changesin the direction of the coast - at
Nantucket and the ooint northeast of Halifax on the Nova Scotia coast
identified hy referencéto the Chignecto Isthmus.
Canada has included coasts southwest of Nantucket and northeast of Cape
Sablein its definitions of relevant areas.Ils reasonshave no1beenaeoara~hicil.
Canada har argued that the soaststhat hcar somcmcawrc ofeco&m~c l;nks to
the arca in rlispuie shuuld hc includcd. Therc isno 1cg;ilhasir for this assertion.
Moreover, there are a number of factual prohlems with such a definition - one
such nroblem is where do vou ston. FO; cxamole. fishine vesselsfrom as far
away'as Florida and ~ewtoundlahd periodicahy'visit &orges Bank. Thus,
Canada's limits at Lunenburg and somewhere in Rhode Island or Connecticut
are artificial and imorecise e&n in the economic sensethat Canada argues
The areas the ~njted States kas chosen are baseduponour analysisof what
the Court said al paragraphs 72-75, and 103 and 104,of its Judgment in the
TunisialLibya case. In particular, the United States relies on paragraph 104of
the ludgment where the Court states that, in regard to the proporïionality test
area, "the only absolute requirement of equity is that one should compare like
with Iike". In rhat case,the coasral concavity was basically fwo-sided. Herc it is
three-sided: and to comoare like with like one must identifv a fourth coastal
front The laieral co:isir>f the concnvity may be cornparcd .TO whai may ihe
.Maine and Nru, Hampshire cirasi be compared?
In Our vicw, ihc Canadian coirsi ihirt is Iikr ihc United Statescoast at Mxine
and New Hamoshir. is t~e coast ~~ Canada northeasr ~f~Caoe Sable t. Caoe ~
Canso. l'hcsc co~sisarc about ihe sarnclcngth. ihcy eachrun frorn souihu~csito
northc~st in ihc siimi. ccncrÿl directiiin: and their rcl:tiion,hip to the Atlaniis
Ocean is the same - that is, they both face it. Accordingly, wehave included al1
of this Canadian coast in Our analysis of the relevant area, and part of it in the
proportionality test area we have consistently advancçd. In order to compare
like with like, it is no1 necessaryor appropriate to include United States coasts
southwest of Nantucket; therefore, we have not done so.
Judge Mosler's fourth question asks:
"If (the Sxniuckei io Cape Sahlel Iine dcn<iics :igcographisïl siiuation,
svhydo the Parties makc useofanoihcr Iinc ior the purpose of deinonstrat-
ing ihat the i<iuthcast coaii of New Scot13and riart of the United States
cois1 southwest of Cape Cod are coasts rele%.antto the decision of the
dispute?" (VI, p. 463.)
Our ansu.cr is thai u,hilc WC recogniie thai ihc closing linc of ihç ioncavitv
from Nxniuckct io Cape Sablemarks a "gcographical situ~tion", ue klic\c ihat
ihc Canadian uoï,t noriheasi of Cam Sable is rclcr~nt io the dccision of the
dirpute. for the purposc ofcomparing the I!niicd Siaics coast of Maine and NCW
Ilarnpihirc with a like Canadiail coasi - the Iike Canadian cons1u,hiih f:ices the212 GULF OF MAINE
Atlantic Ocean is that from Cape Sable to Cape Canso. We do not believe that
this Canadian coast which faces the Atlantic Ocean may be said to extend ils
jurisdiction to any area within or directly seaward of the Gulf of Maine.
Nonetheless, a comoarison of this coast with the like United Statescoast shows
the ineauitv that exists in this eeoera~hical situation: that. whereas Canada
enjo!~ c~tension into ihc ~ïlxnïi~irom ils S~\A ~cotia CWJSI. the ~i~nnuc-
F~cin~M : ~iiieConsi is sut oll'~nd docs no1 rçcci\.ccompar;ihle 1rr.atnienl.
~ud~eMosler's sixth question asks:
"What is thejustification, in the viewof the United States,for prolonging
that line ~e~ond Lunenhure (a noint acceoted. it annears. also bv Canada)
, .. . ..
as tir a\ Cape Cdnso cien ihough ihc United Siaics h;is no1pruposed ;in)
similar r>rolonaaiionof ihai linebeyund Rhode Island. thccnd-point uhich
appearito correspond in the southwest 10the situation of ~unenburg in the
northeast?'(VI, p. 463.)
In rcsponse. ut have prolongcd thii s<ia\i hcjond I.uncnhurg Io Cape Cïnso
so ihat likccoa,is ufcqu31 lenpth uill hecùmparcd to Iikccoasts ofequal length.
We have no1 included in ou; analvsis theUnited States coast southwest of
Nnniuckci hesausc. in Our \icu,. il 15noi ncccisîry io du su in conipdring Iikc
wiih likc- idking accouni ùlihc Ii~cdli<~onf the I:indhoundary. To takc acc<iuni
ulihe Cniicd Siatcicuasi soiilhucii of Saniuckcl frnmcsthcCiuliuiM;iineand
puts il, as Canada would. at the centre of the dispute. To do so, in Our view,
disregards the location of the land boundary. It is the location of the land
boundary that we believeshould be the centre of the Chamher's consideration.
The relevant cnastal fronts identified bv the United States on eithcr side of the
land boundary are of approximately equal length and thus provide a balanced
geographical framework in which to consider this case.
That concludes our response to these two questions.
The United ~ ~~es r~ ~enizes. however. that the Court's Judement in the
TunisialLibya case can be inte;preted dikerently. A diflerent Lterpretation
would lead to a result where the relevant area and the proportionality test area
would more closely correspond to what we have termed the area in which the
delimitation takes place.
In this connection, wenote paragraph 75of the Court's ludgment. TheCourt
stated:
"The submarine extension of any part of the coast of one Party which,
becauseof its geographic situation, cannot overlap with the extension of the
coast of the other,isto be excludedfrom furtherconsideration by the Court."
On ils face, this statement, if made applicable to the Gulf of Maine area,
excludesthe Bay of Fundy, the Canadian coast northeast of Cape Sable, and the
United States coast southwest of Nantucket. The Court also stated:
"It isclear from the map that there cornesa point on the coast of each of
the two Parties, beyond which the coast in question no longer has a
relationship with the coast of the other Party relevant for submanne
delimitation. The sea-bed areas ofl the coast beyond that point cannot
therefore constitute an area of overlap of the extensions of the territories of
the two Parties, and are therefore no1 relevant to the delimitation. In the
viewof the Court, in the present context that point on the Tunisian coast is
Ras Kaboudia; on the Libyan coast it is Ras Tajoura." (Ibid.)
By defining the area of overlap in the TunisialLibyacase as including the
entire coast and maritime area seaward of the coast from Ras Kaboudia to Ras RWOINDER OF MR. COISON 213
Taioura. the Court eave the lem "overlan" a hroad nieanine. It included-~- ~he
aria of overlap areasin which the claim of one orthe other oithe parties was no1
subject to serious challenge. Also included in the area of overlap were al1the
coasts that faced the delimitation area. In Ourview. the Court's area of overlan
in the TunisialLibyacase is analogous to the area we have called the area in
which the delimitation takes place - that is, the Gulf of Maine and the area
seaward of the coastal concavity. We can accept thac the map may show that
within this area from Nantucket 10 Cape Sable the Parties' coasts have a
relationship - as the Court sdid - a relationship that is "relevant for submarine
delimitation" (ibid. J.
The United States has based ils proportionality tests on a hroader area that
includes an appropriate portion of the Canadian Atlantic-facing coast from
Cape Sable to Cape Canso so as to compare like with like.That United States
analysis is already before the Chamber. The United Statescontinues to believe
that its chosen area is the appropriate one for the purposes of the proportional-
ity test. For the remainder of this presentation wewillanalyse the case, including
the proportionality test, on the basis that one might interpret the TunisialLibyo
case as considering this smaller area - defined by the coastal fronts of the Parties
facing the Gulf of Maine, and including the Gulf itself and the waters and sea-
bed seaward of the Gulf. We do this so that the Chamber will have Ouranalyses
of such an interpretation before il.
B. Macrogeogrnphy
We now turn briefly to the issue of macrogeography and scale. In Our
opening presentation, we showed that the United States geographical analysis
of this case can be made in relation to even Canadian illustrations depicting
onlv the Gulf of Maine Area (VI. D. 291: Fie. i of United States oral
dr&menis) WCdo noi rcly on macro~cography b make our poincb II ia no1
dn indppropriaic gcographic assessrnent IO note thsi ihr Gulf of Mdinc 19 a
lareecoastal concavitv in the North American coastliiie. that the coast outside
ih; concaviiy also eitends from southuesi IO norihcart. and lhai the closing
Iine acros5 the mouth of thc concavity is ai a southwest-10-norihem direction.
as is thc concd\iiv. We habe merelv indicûtcd thai ihc aencriil dirçciion of the
coast of the Gulf of aine area isconsistent with and confirmed by the general
direction of the east coast of North America as a whole. This is no more than
what the Federal Republic of Germany did when it pointed out the relation-
ship of its coasts to the general configuration of the North Sea.
Furthermore, we note that what is or is not an inappropriate geographical
assessment is a question of scale. It may be inappropriate to consider coasts
several hundred milesin length when considering the delimitation of the narrow
territorialsea. But where the issue becomes the delimitation of a Zûû-nautical-
milezone ollthc coast of iwo States sharing a contiiicnt, ccrtainly the 1awisnot
Iimiiedin ils evaluation of rele\,ant gcogrnphical circunisianccs IO a Iimitedarrd
ihai is hardly wider than ihç hreadih of the lonr iisclf The boundarv io he
estahlished b; this Chamber will annear on detailed nautical charts. b,i~it ~ ~l
also clearly abpear on generalized charts of the ~oAh American Continent. It is
entirely appropriate that the law takes in10 account the geographical circum-
stances and framework in which the boundarv will he viewedl
Canada's objection relates primarily to ietemining and confirming the
general direction of the coast. The Deputy-Agent for Canada stated:
"The curious notion that il is possible to determine a single general
direction for al1 the coasts of a deep concavity is thus one of the most 214 GULF OF MAINE
fundamental issues still dividing the Parties. For unless il is possible to
determine such a singlecoastal direction, the United Statescontention that
the seaward extension of the coast at the back of the concavitv has onmacv
over the seaward ext&sions of the coasts forming ils lateral &desmus1fajl
to the ground. And with it will fall the whole United States geographical
case, bëcause that case rests on the determination of a single gëneral
direction of the coast."(P. 55,supra.)
The Court has dealt with Canada's "cunous notion" and determined the
general direction of the coas- even where coastal concavities were concerned.
Before you as Figure 104 is a composite of three charts appearing in the
Nonveeian oieadines in the Aneto-Norweeian Fisheries case. That case. as the
~hdmb;r u;ll recalc involved the delimita<on of the terniunal sea b) reference
io bdxlines draun in the gencrdl direciion of the coasA conieniious issue wds
the baseline in the Lo~vhavet Basin. It isshown here on this composite of charts
which, unfortunately;are notas clear as might be desired. ~oneiheless, you can
see the Lopphavet Basin in the centre.
The course of the haseline or baselines between Point 21 (on the left) and
Point 20 (on the right) was in issue. The United Kingdom urged a line
connecting points in the inner portion of the perimeter of the Basin. The Court
upheld Norway's position that a straight line connecting Points 21 and 20
denoted the general direction of the coast. The Court stated in relation to ils
determination of the general direction of the coast:
"ln order properly to apply the rule, regard must be had for the relation
between the deviation comolained of and what. accordine to the terms of
the rule, mus1be regardedis the general direction of thecoast. Therefore
one cannot confine oneself to examining one sector of the coast alone..."
(I.C.J. Reports 1951,p. 142.)
With al1respect, webelieveCanada's reference to macrogeography is, to use a
term used by Canada, a "smokescreen strategy" (VI, p. 193)of the first order
designed to obscure the major issues in this case.
C. The Bay of Fundy
The third issue of preliminary geographical significance relates to what has
recently been said by Canada concerning the geographical relevance of the
@ Bay of Fundy. On the hasis of Figures 171 and 173 of the Canadian oral
presentation, it would seemthat, if wewere to go on a bit longer, Canada might
finally concede that the Bay of Fundy cannot be included in a properly
constmcted proportionality test.
To begin with, through no stretch of the imagination can the Bay of Fundy be
regarded as part of the area in which the delimitation takes place. The Bay of
Fundy lies behind the starting point. Indeed, it lies behind the international
boundary terminus. It is not pari of the area of overlap as the Court used that
term in the Twiisia/Libyocase. To once again quote the Agent for Canada:
"The concave configuration of the Bay of Fundy means that ils coasts
cannot, even under an application of equitable pnnciples, be granted a
significant seaward extension of their own." (VI, p. 49.)
One needsonly to ask why Canada should argue that those coasts be included
in a proportionality test when the Court in 1969 said the proportionality test
should measure coasts according to their truer proportions (I.C.J. Repor1969,
para. 98). 216 GULF OF MAINE
TunisialLibyacase il reallydid not matter whether the Gulf of Gabes was or was
not included in the proportionality test.
Figure 105 of Our presentation shows the geographical situation of the
TunisialLibyacase, together with the equidistant line and boundary determined
by the Court. As you may imagine, if the Gulf of Gabes is removed from the
proportionality test the Tunisian coastline willhe reduced in length. But so also
is the amount of marine area Tunisia would receivereduced. Use or non-use of
the Gulf of Gabes will not distort the ultimate proportionality test in this area.
You may recall that in the TunisiaILibyacase the Court found that, using the
Gulfof Gahes, the lengths of coastal fronts was in a Tunisia-10-Libya ratio of 64
to 36. The area delimited was in a ratio of 60 to 40. If the Gulf of Gabes would
have heen removed from consideration in the proportionality test hy, for
instance. drawine a line from Ras Kahoudia south to a noint near Jerba. the
proportiiinality iëst u,ould thcn show a Tunisia-IO-l.ibydc~asiline ratio or61 to
39-a three point ratio suing u,hiçhin actwlity mîkes 27 percent rcduction in
the Tunisisn coïiiline, u,hile the arc2 rïiio u,ould kcome 80 47.a ri.^point
ratio swine or. in actual terms. a 25 ver cent reduction in Tunisian area. since
the percenïage'reduction of thecoastal front and the maritime area is nearly the
same, it made no material diiierence whether the Coastand marine areas of the
Gulf of Gabes were included in the ~rooortionalitv test in that case
We hïvc made the poini several timrs in Ourwritien pleadings that xdding the
@ Bay of Fund) IO Canada's propurtionalit) models (Fig. 5IA ul the Canadian
Cuunter-Mcmoriall increases the amount of are:! a~pertsinine Io Canada in the
test byabout 7 cent. Yet inclusion of thecoast ofthe Bayof und^ increases
the Canadian coastline length by about 100 percent. Thus, in respect of the Bay
of Fundy, the increase in length of coastline is not balanced by the additional
water area included in the calculation, as it is in the Gulf of Gabes. This proves
that the analogy Canada draws is faulty.
In Ourfirst round we showed that if the Bay of Fundy is treated as a body of
land. which is basicallv how Canadian law treats the Bav of Fundv in ils
domestic and international practice, then we will he treaiing it at ieast as
favourably as it deserves. Foralytical purpases, a lineacross the mouth of the
bav should be used to represent the Canadian coastline for the oumose of the
oronortionalitv test.
@ ' !he equity of using such a closing line is easily demonstrated in Figure 106
which we showed as Figure 9 of Ourfirst round presentation. We do not believe
that Canada answered the auestion we oosed with resoect to this eraohic.
Cïnada referrcd )ou tu ~osei. Can~da referred )ou to thé~utchnian';dr;sms
(p 131,rupro). and Canada made thc popular charge that Canada user to ai,<iiJ
the issue- that wewere refashioning nature with this graphic. Permit me to pose
the auestion aeain: should the deletion of that land territorv in State Bcause the
bouAdar).to dei,iatc in the direction of State A, to the ad$,aitage of ~tatc B.'The
answcr in Ourvicu is no.Wc belie~ethai iiss rundameni21proporiiion ihai the
absence of land territory cannot entitle a Party to more maritime area beyond
the closing line a1 the mouth of the bay than would the presence of land
territory.
The use of a straight line across the mouth of the Bay of Fundy to represent
Canada's coastal front in the Gulf of Maine is consistent also with the Court's
Judgment in the Norrh Sra Conrinenrul Shdfcaxs. In parîgrdph 98 of the
Court's Judgment. the Cuurtstatcd that, inapplying the proporiionality tr\t. the
Parties should mcîsure thcir co3stsaccordinIO iheir ecnerîl direction This wss
necessary in order "to reduce very irregulG coastliies to their truer propor-
tions". In response Io Canada's new version of a truncated Bay of Fundy REJOtNDE RF MR.COISON 217
@ (Canada, Fig. 171 of ils oral presentation) we need only state that there is no
leeal or zeoeraohical basis to include even this smaller area of the Bav in the
p~~porii~n~~ty'test.Hcre, the truc medsureof Canad:i's coasial front f&ing the
Gulf of Maine is 100 nautical miles long 3s mcasured from the international
boundary terminus, across the mi>uth of ihc Bay of Fundy. IO Cape Sable.
D. The Grey Areo
The final preliminary issue of geographical significance with which we will
deal - and then set aside - is the matter of the so-called grey area.
This is a matter upon which Canada profcssesIo be solicitous ofour interests.
Canada advances the view, most clearly set forth by Professor Weil in the first
round, that the United Statesand Canada should no1have "difficulties pile up"
for the future (VI, p. 164); and, thus, in Canada's view, the Chamber should
"avoid creating an over-large 'grey area"' (ibid.), presumably because the
Parties mav have difficulties in resolvine this matter in the future.
We findthis an inconsistent position-for Canada Io take in light of the fact
that it has repeatedly suggested that the Chamber should not be concerned
about the serious difficulties that will arise in resource conservation and
management, on a daily basis, if Georges Bank is split. But we do not rely on
Canada's inconsistency in this connection. Therc are four specific reasonswhy
the Chamber need not be concerned about any grey area problem. We wiil
oresent thesefour reasonsin a moment.
But, first, let us be clear on what we are talking about. The issueof the grey
area is relevant only where a fixed distance, such as 200 nautical miles from the
coast. alone deterinines the extent of coastal Statc iurisdiction. It is not.
ihercfore. relei,lint to thecontinental rhelf. as 11souier Iimiir are not dctermineti
h) ;ifixcd di>iïnce from the cuast wherc the rclctant sea-hedarîds contprise part
~ ~
of the natural continental shelf.
Canada riehtlv has oointed out that if the boundarv of the 200-nautical~m~~ ~ ~ ~-
zonesof the iu,o'neighbuuring S13tcsdoes nit end. ;id WC would cmphasizç this
uord end - precisel) 31 poini 200 nautic31miles fiom both co3sts. hy ,irict
application ofthe equidistance method, then a grey areawill be created: Thus,
any such lateral delimitation of 200-nautical-mile zoneswill createan area- the
grey area - that is within 200 nautical miles of the coast of one Party, and
beyond 200 nautical miles of the coast of the other. The sameeiïectsoccur in any
other zones of standard hreadth, such as the narrower territorial sea.
Figure 107of our presentation is Figure 89 of the Canadian first round oral
presentation. It shows the grey area created by the Canadian line. This shaded
areais bevond 200nautical miles of Canada. It iswithin 200 nautical miles of the
United ~iates. A boundary that iolloued ihc Cnnadian line out Io 200 nautic31
miles would leavethe legalsiatus of this area uncert:iin Would the United Siaie.;
200-nautiial-mile zone heall(iued to wrap around theCanadian zone'! Or would
the fisheriesiurisdiction in this area eounexercised.and thus. in concent..rem~in~ ~ ~
an arc3 be)a;nd ihe firheries l~risdi~~~~oonf any countr)'! 0;. might the Parties
rearh somc agreement upon fishcrics management in this ared'! Whlit uould the
coniincni~l shelirceimc be ! We submit thlit suchauestions are for thc future.As
we stated, they ex& in each instance that a bbundary does not end at an
equidistant point 200 nautical miles from neighbouring coasts.
Let usturnnow to the four reasonswewould give to suggestthat the grey area
is not a matter that should concern the Chamber in tltis case.
t'trirthe grey 3rea iswc hds beenknuwn for soniç tiine and to Our knowledge
ithas neicr deierred States from 3ppl)ing a methocl or mcthodc iither thiin the 218 GULF OF MAINE
equidistînce meihod when ii u,a<equiiahlr IO do so. Second. the ihrcc Uniied
Nations Law of ihe Sea Conferences have paid no heed to the grey areî issue
Third. Siaie oractise hîs not kcn concerned with this issue. And. liiurrh. the
Parties have' provided a means for dealing with the issue in Che Special
Agreement.
Let us turn to the first point. The international community long has
recoenized the existence ofthe erevarea. But so far as weare aware. the creation
of aWgreyarea has never deteyred countries from using delimitation methods
other than equidistance when such other methods were called for 10produce an
eauitable solution
'~arl~in this century, the same argument that Canada has advanced in this
case was raised by Norway in the Grisbadarno case. There it was rejected hy the
Arbitral Tribunal.
Before you is Figure 108 of Our presentation showing the Grisbadarna
houndary area. The Chamber will recail that Nonvay argued for an equidistant
line, the line shown here in red (Nonvegian Memorial (German version), pp. 12
and 13). Nonvay argued that, by using the equidisiance method, the terminal
point of the line of division, the boundary it proposed, would coincide with the
point of intersection of the two arcs that il claimed formed the southernmost
limit of the Norwegian territorial sea and the northernmost limit of the Swedish
territorial sea. These arcs intersect al point XXI.They are shown on your chart.
In other words, no grey area would he created. Norway also argued that the
course of a dividing line different from the equidistant line would leave an area
of the ooen sea - the erev area - no1 heloneine to either State.
~u,cd;n pu1 foruarjthé green lineshown'hérfaiid replicd io the Norucgilin
grey area argumeni (German tcxt. p. 311). It poinied oui ihai the Arbitral
Tribunal had IO decide thc course of the boundary hetwcen the iuo Siatrs. and
ni>!ihe extent of the reqwciive terniorial ssÿs or ihe end points for the outcr
limiic<ifsuch ierriiorial scî(ihW.,p. 312) (For fullciiationsIO the pleadinps in
the Grlrhodorno decision. scc II. Uniied Statcs Mernorial. p. 104.fn. 2).
Thus. even in this earlv case. Nonvav made an areument comoarahle. if no1
ideniisal. to the argument made herc by Cïnnda. ~he Arbitral ~rihunal in ihe
G'rtsbudurno case evidenily was noi impressed with ihe Noruegian argument.
The boundîry iiesiahlished. show here as ihe blnck Iinc. lcft the Gnsbïdîrnï
Rïnk io Sucdcn and ihe Skjoiiegrunde Hlink IO Norway. creîring LIgre) area of
rclaii\el) Ilirpesize(IO8 sq. km.). lihoui one-fifih of the area in dispuic. Ixyond
the four-nliuiirül-mile territorilil rra of Suedcn. iind ,uuih oithe Tribunïl'5 Iine.
Wenote that the Parties' continental shelf houndary. which came into force in
1969,beginswhere the Grishadarna Award left off,a1Point A of this Figure 108.
It leaves this grey area under the continental shelf jurisdiction of Sweden.
Canada has shown at Figure 44 of itsCounter-Mcmorial, that S. W. Boggs,a
@ formerGeographer of the United States Department of State, was fullyaware of
the grey area issue in connection with his early work on the use of the
equidistance method in the delimitation of the territorial sea. Il was no1enough
to deter Boees. or others that followed him. from concludine that aoolication of
the rquidistancc mcthod is inequitahlc in somc sîses. 11was his conclusion. and
ihose ihai follou,cd him. ihlii if the applicaiion <ifihe equidisiance method
achievesan ineauitahle result. a diferenidelimitation method must be em~.oy.d
and any grey aies dealt withseparately by the Parties.
We have searched the work of the International Law Commission on the
suhject of maritime houndaries; in particular, its work on the delimitation of the
territorial sea, a zone measured hy the distance limit. We have found no
reference to the concept which inthis case has been giventhe label grey area. In RUOlNOER OF MR. COISON 219
the lieht of the fact that the eauidistant line was not acceoted as an absolute
requikment by the ~ommissio< clearly the early work of tic Commission must
be seen as a denial that delimitations must avoid - even in the narrow limits of
the territorial sea- creatine-a e-.v area
The sccond reason that wegivcio set asideconcern for creaiins a grey area is
ihai the Third Uniied Nations Conlbrencc un the I.au of the Sea. uhich
ncaotiaicd the hreadth of the 200-nauticïl-mile zone. its iuridicil content. and
established rules for its delimitation, never once, to Ourkiowledge, took up the
grey area issue in al1 the debates about the 2M)-nautical-milezone, and its
delimitation between neighbouring States; no one ever suggested that equidis-
tance had ta be used in delimitation so as to avoid the grey area. We can only
conclude that in light of the fact that the grey area issue did not concern the
Conierence, in fact did not even came up at the Conference, so far as we are
aware, and in light of the reluctance of the Conference to even use the word
equidistance in the delimitation formula for the continental shelf and for the
200-nautical-milezone, it need not be a matter of concern here.
Third, we note that the practice of States clearly does not regard the creation
of a grey area as a problem to be avoided in the negotiation of maritime
boundaries out to 200 nautical miles. For instance, we find it noteworthy that
the States that claimed the first 200-nautical-mile zones - Chile. Ecuador and
Peru - indeed the theoreticians of the 200-nautical-mile zone - do not seem to
have ken bothered by the grey area issue.
@ Fiyre 109 oi our presentation shows two charts - one of the Chile-Peru
mantime houndary and the other of the Peru-Ecuador maritime boundary.
These boundaries wereestablished in the trilateral Declaration on the Maritime
Zone of 18August 1952.hy thescihrce States. TheCh;imber may note ihiit these
Iwo charts are no! on the same scale. But cash shows the iuasial region in ihe
vicinitvof the maritime boundarv. the boundarv estatilished in ihc Dcclariition.
and the 200-nautical-mile iimit ihat these taies first declared (United tat tes
Memorial, Anns. 79 and 80. Vol. IV).
As you can see,Chile, Ecuador and Peru werenot concerned about greyareas.
In the case of the boundarv hetweenChile and~P~ru. the erevarea created~b~ ~~e
boundary meaburcsappro;imatel) 7.800square nauiicalhiies. In the caseif the
houndary hetu,een Peru and Ecuad<)r il is \maller, mca,ur!ng dboui 400 bquarc
nautical miles
In this case. the United Sidies h3s reliçJ upon the North Sed and the Rd) tif
Bisiay as rele\,aniSiaie praitice e~amplerhaiing geographical similariiic~Io the
Gulfof Mainc arca. Lei uhexamine thi)sc two iituatii,ns tirii. ue jce that one
may not encounter a grey area in a semi-enclosed seü, such as the North Sea,
where the extendedjurisdiction of the other States prevents the extension of full
200-nautical-milezones. Thus, there is no grey area in the North Sea.
Also. sincethe Parties in the Bavof Biscavboundarv have not vetestablished
the boundary out to 200 nauticaimiles from the coait, we can only speculate
about the grey area that might ultimately exist in that case.We hesitate ta do sa
and only note that if the same principlesof delimitation are used in the extension
beyond Point T of the final segment of the agreed boundary ta 200 nautical
miles, a large grey area will k created.
We would also point out that grey areas of various sizes exist worldwide,
including such negotiated delimitations as those between Kenya-Tanzania,
Colombia-Ecuador.--he.Gambia-Seneeal. Gui.ea~.-ssau-Seneeal. the nor-.ern ~
houndary hetween Portugal and Spain. and Bralil-ljruguag.
Accordingly. the faci that a yrey area would rxi\t uerç thc United States Iine
or others Ïhrough the Northeast Channel to prevail, is not an unusual220 GULF OF MAINE
circumstance such as to warrant the Chamber's concern. The grey area in
this case, which would be created by the United States line, is approximately
5,700 square nautical miles.The greyarea created by the 1976United States line
was somewhat less - about 4,400 square nautical miles.These areas lie seaward
of Georees Bank and are not sienificant fishine areas. The crev area that could
result in-our case is smaller thanthal createdby even the fi& i00-nautical-mile
zone boundary between Chile and Peru. Canada's line, of course, also creates a
nrev area. albéitone of smaller area
- A fourth, and final reason u.ewould gire for the Chiimber to $etaside the grc)
îreï 35 part of its consideration. is the fact that the Partirs have provided a
means in the Srxuial Agreenient for dealinr with the grey area, as wcll as with
other issuesthàt may asse in extending the boundary sëaward of the point in the
triangle where the Chamher terminales the boundary it willdelimit. All relevant
issues maybe addressed in such negotiations, and are no1foreclosedin any way.
Canada has noted only two possible alternative resolutions of this question.
One was that the continental shelf would he subject to the jurisdiction of one
State, and the water column suhject to thejurisdiction of the other (VI, p. 163).
Such a result, we suhmit, may be contrary to Article III, paragraph 1. of the
Special Agreement (1).
The other alternative that was suggestedwas that the establishment of any line
that does not coincide with an equidistant line al ils outer limit would create an
area that would in elïect be a windfall for third State(ibid. T h.s conclusion
rests on an unarticulated premise that is not hefore the Chamber in this case,
namely, that coastal States have no alternative to creating a windfall for third
States if they deviate from an equidistant line at the 200-nautical-mile limit.
We submit that another nremise is at least eauallv olausible. That oremise
rests on the assurnption that al1third States are'suh&t to the jurisdiition of
either Canada or the United States in al1relevant areas within 200nautical miles
of the Atlantic coast of North America - settine aside. for the moment, the St.
Pierrc/!4iquelon situation Canada and the ~nzcd Statcs dre free to share the
zone. as has ken done in the European community, they sre also free to divide
the zone in any way they please, by agreement or by judicial settlement.
Accordinelv. third States have no leeal com~laint so lone as-il is either the
United ~ïaiésor Canada exercisingfiiheriesjLrisdiction.
This Chamber should not proceed on the basis of Canada's assumptions, nor
are we asking that it accept ihe alternative assumptions we have discussed. The
United States is merely asking the Chamber to recognize that the issue of the
grey area is not relevant to the continental shelf since the shelf may extend
heyond 200 nautical miles, and that a grey area in the water column does no1
necessarily implyany one of the alternatives identified by Canada.
There is, accordingly, no reason for the Chamber to consider the relative size
of a grey area as a restraining factor in elïecting an otherwise equitable
delimitation. The existence of erev areas is a fact of international life. Its
minimizaiion is nut a delimita~ok prinîiple From whst we ha\e sen. ils
mtnimizatiun is no1 a valid conccrn. The Parties have provided a means for
dealine with IIThe argument made by Canada irsimply a.o.her way of urging - -
a pref&ence for equidistance.
II.THE CUT-OFFEFFECT
In this part of our presentation we will deal with a simple question: where
does the cut-olïelïect begin? Does it begin only at the midpoint of the closing
line of the concavity as Canada has argued? Or, does il hegin close to the coast222 GULF OF MAINE
"If you look a1these figures you willseethat if you facethe sea (rom the
coast the natural continuation of the coast into the sea will be naturally
definedby a line perpendicular on the coastal frontand it is, of course, the
purpose of the concept of the coastal front to judge (rom which basis the
territory extends in10the sea." (I.C.J. Pleadings, Vol. II, p. 40.)
In respect of this Figure it was said "the direction of the continental shelf
extending into the sea could not possibly be determined hy the changing
direction of a curving coast" (I.C.J. Pleadings, Vol. II, p. 188). Instead, the
eeneral direction of the coast was determined bv the straieht coastal front.
" Shown ne.xtis ihischïrt (rom the Gcrman ple;dings (;hi;. p. 189).Figurc II?
df our prcseniation Disiinguished counsel for Canada. Professor Jaenicke.
acknowlcd~cdin his ~reseniation Iast wcek ihït ihischsrt showed "r>zrnendiçu-
lar extensions (rom ihe coastal front around the concavitv" (o. 44: sunro).He
said that the court "accepted the approach of the ~ederal ~epiblic DïCeAany
as a possible method of achievina an equitable delimitation" (ibid.). The dis-
tinction he drew was that he said chat the purpose of this char: was thshow that
the coastal fronts converged (ibid.). Maybe so, but this was not becauseof any
inherent theory of convergence.As can be seen,al1three coastal fronts faced the
area of delimitation, and their extensions did converge. This was because the
coastal fronts wereat obtuse angles to one another, and because the area being
delimited was an enclosed sea.
In the Gulf of Maine area, there is no such convergence. The area king
delimited is the concavitv and the seaward area. which is no1hemmed in bv the
lu ris dictioofn^ther ~taies. ~hecoasts of 4laini and souihwesiern Kov~~I,i>tia
are 31 a righl angle io one another No coast of Canada ihat Faccsthe Gulf of
Maine also faces-the mouth of the coastal concavitv and the sea bevond
The geographical issue in this case has boiled do& to the question whether
the coast of Maine is entitled to an extension outside the hypothetical closing
line of the Gulf of Maine proper.
Canada has contended - in manv differentformulations. but al1arnvine at the
wme conclusion - ihdtthe u,idih of the niaritime arrï Io which the enta; coast
of Maine iscntiilcd decreascs progrrbsively uniil itrcacheszero ai ihc cvntre 01'
the hv~othetical closine line
In ihe uords of ~rokssor Jaenicke last ueck. "the Iaieral coasts prcvent the
c<rast31 the hïsk ol the Gulf frornextending luriher oui into the sca" (~~. 46-47,
supra).
That barrier is,so Canada claims, the result of a variety of waysof viewingthe
situation, phrased dilïerently hy different speakers for Canada:
(1) the convergence of the maritime extension of the coasts within the Gulf;
(2) the result of the radial projection of the coasts;
(3) the requirements of the equidistance approach.
Actually, al1 these approaches are identical. The intersection of the radii
around the coastal points (rom which they are drawn simply marks the progress
of the eauidistance line. Canada's argument about noints of convereence of the
mantiméextensions within the ~ulf rcsuli orieniid. based upon tfe reonrnia-
tion of the coastal frontsIO producc Jn cquidisiant line Canddd', po~iulstcthat
ultimately the most seaward base points of the coasts of the two c-ountriesmust
control the delimitation in the outer area, states the same thesis in yet another
rom.
Canada ignores over and over again the distinction between geography and
method. It is accurate to say that Canada's entire rebuttal to the United States R~JOINDEROF MR. COLSON 223
geography presentation is based upon a failure to make this distinction. Canada
argues that Maine is "confined" by Massachusetts and Nova Scotia, and that
"the lateral coasts prevent the coast at the hack from extending" (pp. 46, 47,
sutra). The coasts do no such thine. All that lies in front of Maine and New~ ~ ~
~ampshire is the open ocean. ~herGs no coast "in the way". What prevents the
coast of Maine from extending is not other coasts, but the equidistance method,
whose characteristic is to swingthe line across the coast al the back. Bvcontrast.
il is gcography lh31 prc\cnt! ihc co~si of Yeu Brun\wiçk from.eitcnding
scauard, bcciiusc'li~\a Sci>iia Iir.in front tif Neu Brunswisk. This. olcourse. is
ihc critical disiinciion, also ipnorcd b>CJn3d~. bctur.cn the coast oi hlainc 2nd
the coast of New ~runswick.
Canada's contentions rcsi Jpon an iissumpiion ahich WC con;iJer F~llaciou>.
namr.lyihai Canada's Jesired rciuli is dictaicd b) ihc n3iurc of thc uroccsi of
delimitation and that anv other result can onlv he-iustifiedon an idea of sharine
out. This iswrong. canada assumesthat the coastsin an area of delimitation can
only have directional relations inrer se, and that the directions of the coasts
within the area of delimitationare totally isolated froin the relation of the coasts
adjoining the area of delimitation, namely, the general direction of the coast.
While this view is of strategic necessity for Canada's case, it is not anchored in
the law. The general direction of the coast is a relevant circumstance which must
he considered in the process of delimitation. 11isa circumstance which isentitled
to great weight.
In the viewof the United States, the coastal front of the coast of Maine cannot
be cut off hv the extension of the Canadian coastal front which facesthe Gulf
but not thc ~ildntic 0cc;in An) oihcr rulc i\.ould ignore the Faciih~i the coasij
of Maine and New Ilanipshirc run in ihc gcncral dirc<:iionoiihe Ailaiiiic co~sii
oi the ia,<icountrics ~nd ihc iasi thdi ihc Ios~iion of ihc terminus of ihc land
boundary between the Parties is in the northern cornçr of the Gulf of Maine. It
would deprive these indisputable and unalterable facts of the weight to which
they are entitled by equitahle principles. We note again that in the Anglo-
Norwegian Fisheries case, swakine of the eeneral direction of the coast. the
Couri Gxicd. ..one cannoi cimtinr ;nesrif ior.uniiiiing one scctor of ihc coxst
alonc" (ICJ Repuri, lLSI. Jutl,nwnl. p 142). (:anada would prcfcr ihc
('hamhcr IO forpct ihdi ihc are3 of dclimii:iiion i; vari oia Iarper areü and thai
the law of delim'itationcontains no oroscrintion oEa consideraïion of that fact.
To obrcurc 11struc intcniions. CxnaJa hds in\.cnicJ the cu;istdluing ihcory io
digii~scihc F~ctihat iiis rîÿlly iinly iuo proiruding pfiintr thsi sonirol C'nnads's
proposzd boundary scauard of the Guli. noi the lairral coaiiv. Canada makes
se\cr:il ;irgument, in this regiird hui the mosi illogic~lis iir argument thai the
Iarcr~lco'iiij r.o~iIrolihc dcliniiixiion on the i~ut.idc- becdusethc) ticClinadci's
dcfinition of "abut" Disringuishcd coun~clior CanxJx statcd: "The Can~dian
xnd Ilnitcd Stai~scoasts whish iIrcthe b~siiof ihc exir.nïii>nof iurisdiciion inio
this area, [speaking of the outer area] - the controlling coasts - are the coasts of
Nova Scotia and Massachusetts which extend from inside the Gulf around its
lateral entrance points and then face the Atlantic on both sides of the Gulf"
(p. 46. >tipr<i). i:idr.nily,ihr.c~ix,iat the bask oiihc concavit) docs noi ..abut"
in Can~d3.s ticu.. so it has no rolc io pla) in ihc Jclimitaiion scaward of thc
Ciuli. Bui, ilihc Ixicral C03SI somchow h~s the hciliis io suinx around 2nd
extend itself into the outer area. we fail to see wl>v-the coasï of Maine is
incapable of extending directly into that area.
Throughout the case Canada has misinterpreted our positions in this respect.
We do not advocate a scheme of perpendi;ularity as descrihed by Canada. It
would not be correct to assert that one direction is to be legally preferred to the 224 GULF OF MAINE
completeexclusionof theother, to the point that only a perpendicular projection
is admitted. There are no -.os ~ ~ ~r analvsis. All coasts are entitled to a
projeciion ssÿwürd. Huiirwill h3 no\el reo;dering <ifihc Iawif the projeciion
from the lateral coasi within iheconcaviiy isroIOdbccntiiled io hlock. or cul
off,the extension of the recessivecoast ai the back of the concavity,just hecause
the lateral coast is closer to the area.
Mr. President, Canada argues that you should ignore coastal fronts and their
extensions in10the sea and simply measure 200-nautical-milejurisdiction from
the coast in al1directions. We do not agree. But even if we did agree, let us
examine how such a proposition should be applied in a delimitation situation.
@ Before you is Figure 113 of our presentation. If each part of the coast
eenerates iurisdiction in al1directions. if each oart of the coast is entitled to a
%O-nauii~:al.niilczone in prin~,iplc,iirelevÿniqueiiion 1s.hou much of ihe
C03ilof 311)giwn Siale ir eniiileIOclaim jurisdiçtion over any gi\cn point ai
--.9
The logical effect of Canada's argument is that the Chamher mus1 simply
ignore the fact that a given point at sea is within 200 nautical miles of
substantially greater length of coast of one party than another. Instead, in
Canada's view, everything must turn on the nearest coastal promontory.
That cannot be. If 300 nautical miles of one State's coast and only 100
nautical milesof another State's coast are within 200 nautical miles of the same
uoint at sea. Canada's verv theorv of radial oroiection should reauire a
;ummine-up of ihc relïiive éxieniof coïsrline geAerÿiingjurisdiction Ger the
same point ai sca Let me repeai ihat If 3U0nautical milcsof one Staic'sco~st
and only 100n~uiicalmiles ofanoiher Siaie'scoasi are wiihin 200naulical miles
of the same point at sea, Canada's very theory of radial projection should
require a summing-up of the relative extent of coastline generatingjurisdiction
over the same point at sea.
Figure 113makes this point graphically. This is the geometrical diagram we
@ have been working with wherecoast WX is twiceas long as coast XS. Imagine
that coast WX is 200nautical mileslong. Let usapplyCanada's theory that each
segment of the coast generates 200-nautical-milejurisdiction in al1directions.
Our object is to ascertain whether any givenpoint iswithin 200nautical miles
of moreof the coast of one State than the other. Todo this, al1we need Io do is
describe a 200-nautical-mile arc from that point at sea, and then measure the
leneth of the resoective seements of coast that are intersected bv the arcs.
@ fhat isexactlywhat Gehave done on this Figure 113.Arcs of ihe same length
as coast WX - 200 nautical mile- wereswung from each point in the grid. The
length of the respective segments of the coast interseited by the-arc was
measured.
The result is that al1 the parts of the grid in the colour red are within 200
nautical miles ofmore of the coast of State A than of State B.All of the parts of
the arid in the colour areen are within 200nautical miles ofmore of the ëoast of
~tak B than State A.'
The cuwed line on the grid represents al1points that are within 200 nautical
miles of as much of the coast of State A as of State B. Of course, this analysis
does not take account of the continental shelf heyond 200 nautical miles. In so
far as that is concerned, the curvature toward State A woube more gradua1
than is shown here.
Another important fact emergesfrom this Figure. Point T, themidpoint of the
closing line across the Gulf, is within 200 nautical miles of twiceas much of the
coast of State A as State B.
@ We are placing before you Figure 114ofour presentation which Canada used REJOlNDER OF MR. COLSON 225
to show that areas of the landmass of Nova Scotia are withincertain distancesof
points on Georges Bank. Ifyou wereto draw 200-nautical-milearcs [rom either
X, or Y, or Z, more United States coastal front - shown on that graphic - than
Canadian coastal front would be intersected by that 200-nautical-mile arc.
Approximately 320 nautical miles of United States coastal front is within 200
nautical miles of Point Z, whereas only 230 nautical miles of Canadian coastal
front is within 200nautical milesof that point. If 200-nautical-milearcs are Io
be drawn, let them, then, be drawn from al1points on the coast. There is much
more United States coastal front within 200 nautical miles of Georges Bank
than Canadian coastal front. If that is what Canada means by geographical
adjacency, we are prepared to accept it.
Canada's radial proposals contradict the very premise upon which they
ournort to rest. namelv the basis of title of the coastal State: since sovereiantv
Lv&the coastli'neis the basis of title, the longer the segmentof ils coastlineihit
generates iurisdiction over any given area, the stronger a coastal State's claim
;ver that irea should be as &nst another coastal State. Canada. of course,
would object. It would sayuthe protruding points on coasts control the
delimitation. We submit that is based upon an incorrect understanding of the
law. Itisincorrect in its understanding of the 200-nautical-milezone, and it is an
utter misconception of the geographic facts in this cnse.
The Chomberodjournedfrom 4.20p.m. fo 4.40 p.m.
Mr. President, distinguished ludges. may it please the Chamber. This brings
me to the second section of this part on the cut-oiïeiïect. We will now take up
the question of the cul-of eiïect outside the concavity.
In theNorrhSeoConrinenroS l helfcases the Court examined the cul-oiïeffect
in two paragraphs of its Judgment.
At paragraph 8, the Court made the followlng statement:
"The effectof the useof the eauidistance method is to ~ullthe line of the
boundary inwards. in the dirîci~i>nof the ïonca%,it).~~"sequently. whcre
tuo such line5arc drdwn 31diiïcreni pointç ona concave codsl. they will.if
the curvature is pronounced, inevitably meet at a relatively short distance
from the coast, thus causing the continental shelf area they enclose to take
the form approximately of a triangle with its apexto seaward and, as it was
put on behalf of the Federal Republic, 'cuttingoff' the coastal State from
the further areas of the continental shelf outside of and beyond this
triangle."(I.C.J. Reports 1969,para. 8.)
Two specificpoints should be noted about this statement.
First, the Court used the words "relatively short distance from the coast" to
refer to a point that is in fact some 100 nautical miles offshore. (The exact
mileage from the coast to this point in the North Sea situation is given in V,
United States Reply, p. 76, fn. 4.)
In Ourdiscussion in the Reply on the subject of non-encroachment, which is
but another means of addressing the cut-offeh!, weshowed that thedistances
involved in the North Sea are comparable to those in the Gulf of Maine area
(p. 76,fn. 4; p. 77,fn. 1).That is, the meetingpoint of any two equidistant lines
- not the convergenceof the extensionsof coastal fronts in the Gulf of Maine -
occurs approximately at the midpoint of the closinglineacross the mouth of the 226 GULF OF MAINE
concavitv. at about the sarnedistance from the coast as the meetin-.ooint of the
equidisiant Iinesin the Sorih Seî situaiion.
Hcforc you i\Figure 115of our presentaiion. 11ismade up oiFigurc 28of our
Counicr-Mcrnonal iogcihcr with Figure 30A of Canada's firsi-round oral
prcrcntaiion. Iishow thecornparabiliry ofthe North Sca and the Gulfof Maine
arcî, hoth in tcrrns of actual cquidistani lines, and in ierrn\ of the geometric
model ihai Ciinad2 hai oroduccd. WCwould ask thïi you çonsider ihis chart
carefullv in lieht of what Canadian counsel said last week. Referrine 10 the
North ~ea asbell as the Bay of Biscay and the TunisiolLibya case, cinadian
counsel said: "In al1three cases the area of delimitation was confined to the area
between the lateral coasts of the concavity, and the boundaries do not extend
substantially outside this area" (p. 42, supra). With al1 respect, there may be
something to that statement as one viewsthe Tunisia/Libyacase, but we do no1
klieve that it is so in regard to the other two mentioned. The boundaries in the
North Sea extended wellseaward of the concavity, as it willinthe Bay of Biscay.
In the top chart on the left of the North Sea frorn Figure 28of our Counter-
@
Mernonal, the German complaint that it was cut off from the areas seaward of
the ooint where the two eauidistant lines met is illustrated. It is this comolaint
thai'ihc Court noied ai pa;agraph 8 of itr 1969Judgmeni. In order IO highlighi
ihe rcsemhlancc betweenthe German cwasiai the bîck of the concaviiy and the
Ma~nc-Ncu,llarnn~hirc coasi. also ai the b~ckof the roncaviiv. ue dçoicted. as
shown on the loiver lefi-hand chart, equidistant lines as if-Maine and New
Hampshire were a third State located between Massachusetts and Canada.
As may be seen, a sirnilar complaint may be lodged here. Canada's geometric
figure makes our same point in geometrical terrns.
It is clear then that the cul-of cxists seaward of this point where the
equidistant lines meet - in other words, in Ourcase the midpoint of the closing
line across the mouth of the concavity. Does it matter, in this case, that two
States are involved, rather than three? In other words, does it rnatter that here,
in this case, in fact, there are not two equidistant lines, but only one?
The answer isno, for al least four related reasons. The cut-offexists even when
only one equidistant line is involved.
First, we have jusi seen in Figure 111 that the Geman pleadings illustrated
the cut-off effect in a two-State situation, and we believe that it is in that light
that the Norrh Seo ConrinenialSheljcases mus1k understood (Vol. 1,p. 427).It
is interesting to note what the German pleadings said in respect of that chart:
"If such configurations would have the eiïect to apportion parts of the
continental shelf which appear to an unbiased observer as a continuation of
one State's terntory,tu another State, such an eiïcct has to be regarded asa
circumstance - or a 'special circurnstance' in the meaning of Article 6,
naraeraoh 2. of the Continental Shelf Convention if it were aoolicable -
;hi& &cludes the application of the equidistance rnethod for thédetermi-
nation of the boundary between these States as inequitable." (I.C.J.
Pleadings, Vol. 1,p. 426:)
Second, the Court of Arbiiration in the Anglo-French Arbitration stated the
matter clcarly:
"The International Court of Justice also sineled out an asoect of lateral
houndary siiuaiions wh1.h tend io insrcar; ihc likcliho;~ that strict
application of the equidistance rnethod rnay bc produciivc of inequiiablc
rciulis indcliniitations bctwccnSt~tcshabinr adioininc cwasis.Alihou~h its
observations on this aspect of 'adjacent StaÏes'>itua<ons were directëd to RUOlNDER OF MR. COLSON 227
the particular context of a concave coastline fonned by the adjoining
territones of three States, they reflect an evident geometncal truth and
clearly have a more general validity." (Para. 86.)
Third, the answer remains no when we consider that it is the land that
dominates the sea. We submit that the relationship of the land to the sea is the
same whether it is a third State that liesai the back of the concavity, or whether
that coastline helongs to one of the States on the side of the concavity.
Fourrh, the Gennan complaint in the Norrh Seo <ontinenrai Shelfcases was
that it suHered not only a cut-OHeHect but a cumulative cut-off effect. The
argument in that case was that the equidistant lines cut OHGermany on both
sides and thus it got a double dose of inequity, so to speak.
Figure 116 of Our presentation, which is heing placed before you, is a
reproduction of pages 72 and 73 from Volume I of the pleadings in the Norrh
Seo Conlinenrai Shelfcases. We would like to quote to you the language from
page 72 and the following language on page 74. It makes it quite clear that
Germany believed that inequity occurred when just one headland was in play
and that Germany suHered a double injustice in its geographic circumstances.
"If in the case of gulfs, bays, or other major indentations of the coastline,
one or even hoth seaward sides belona to a neiahbour State. the eeogra~hi-
cal situation corresponds to the pr&lem of Tslandswhich lie iefire'the
coast, but belong to another State. In both cases the drawing of a boundary
line in application of the equidistance method must, by geometncal
necessity,cut off the State from the sea. As shown above (supra paras. 43et
seq.) projecting parts of the coastline of the neighbour State aHect the
direction of the equidistance line considerably ; the further the equidistance
lineis drawn into the sea, the greater is the effect of this deviation upon the
allocation of suhmarine areas before the coast. The following diagram
(figure 16) illustrates how markedly a projecting part of the coast of the
neighbour State influencesthe course of an equidistance line drawn into the
sea even ai a areater distance from the coast.
The enclosGe of the coast of a State hy projected parts of the coasts of
the two neighbour States to the left and to the right has a cumulative
geometric effect: ai a relativelv short distance from the coast the two
ëquidistance lines intersect, the;eby cutting off the inside coast from the
high sea." (I.C.J. Pieadings, North Sea Continenlal Shelf, Vol. 1,pp. 72-74.)
Canada would resoond, wesu.oos~ ~t..t since it is a United States coa~t ~h~ ~~ ~
is on the side of the concavit?. the Cnited ~iaie. h:is no ~.ompldinior CUI-O Nn
thi~.iuter area. rince the Cnitsd Stntei. in ïtTe;t. peirçier)ihinaon iis side of ihc
perpendicular to the closing line of the concavicy drawnfromits midpoint.
But that is only true for one side of this concavity and its seaward area. That
side of the concavity is made up of only United States coasts. What of the other
side? United Statescoast fonns one half of the coast on the northern side ofthe
Gulf of Maine concavitv. Canadian coast forms the other half. Surelv the
disirion ofthis norihern i>~ilfofthe conca\iiy, and thc are3 reIiwdrdof thai Iiali
oi ihç concIi\.ii). rhould rcfle~.~ ihdt vcq i~ndamenul fast
The Federill Repuhlic of Gcniianv wa\cui oKb\ e~uidiiiIini linesdrdivn ïriim
both lateral coasis - on on~ ~ ~- bv Denmark and on the other side b~ ~ ~ ~- ~ - ~
Netherlands. The final negotiated Gnes of delimitaiion hetween the ~éderal
Republic and the Netherlands, and the Federal Republic and Denmark, abate
the-cut-oHof the Gennan coastal front on both sides.Neither boundary usesthe
equidistant line in the outer area.228 GULF OF MAINE
Thus, the approximately 100-nautical-mileMaine coast from the land bound-
arv southwestward to Penohscot Bav.iscul olf in the seaward area bv the lateral
exiension of the southwestern ~&a Scotia coast. The princiGe of non-
encroachment enunciated by the Court in the Norih SeoContinenialShelf cases
is not limited to areas close to the coast. nor 10three-State situations. It aoolies
as wellto arcas Iyingfuriher out, and to Iwo-Statesituations. In othcr u,ord; the
cul-otf etTectexistsbe)ond the Gulf of Maineconcavilv and the principle ofnon-
encroachment requires its abatement
Now. let us examine how the cul-of elfect beeins within the concavitv. We
said that there were two points 10note in regard the words of paragraih 8 of
the Court's 1969Judgment.
The second point 10consider is: what of the fact that, in paragraph 8 of the
Judement. the Court referred to the cul-off onlv in relation to the German~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~
~o&~laint'that it was cul off from the area beyond the apex of the triangle
created by the meeting of the two equidistant lines? Can this be taken to mean,
as Canada sueeests. that the cul-off doe nsot heein within the concavitv?
~otuithstil~din~ 311 of the reierences [O "<?oss to" in sonnectiin sith
applicttion of the principle of non-cncroachment. can itix thtt thç cut.ofonly
beyinsuutsidc theconcïi.ii)? The answer 15 no The sui-ulfberins-as soon 3s ihe
eqüidistant line leavesthe land frontier.
At paragraph 44of the Court's Judgment, the Court addressed the cul-olf
elfect inlanguage we have often quoted. This language is diferent from that in
paragraph 8and can only be understood in respectofthe cut-offeffectwithin the
concavity. We will quote that language again:
"As reeards eauidistance. it clearlv cannot be identified withthe notion
of naturz 01 extension, since, as has already heen stated
(paragraph 8), the use of the equidistance method would frequently cause
areaswhich are the natural oroloneation or extensionof the teiritor; of one
State to he attributed to a'nothc; when the configurrtiun oi th~1ïtier.s
coast makcs the cquidistsncc Iinc suing oui Iïterally iicross the former's
coastal front. cuttina it ORfrom areas situated directlv berore that front."
(I.C.J. Reports 1969;para. 44.)
This statement bv the Court is a eeneral truth. It dues not relv for ,ts ~ali~ ~v ~ ~~ ~
upon the three- tai situation al i&ue in 1969. It addresses the matter of thé
extension of the coastal front and, of course, that extension beains at the coast.
It is also necessary to consider the reference to swinging out. The only
swingingout of equidistant lines across the Gennan coastal front in that case
were those that swung out from the German-Dutch land frontier and the
German-Danish land frontier. and which both continued to swine across the
German coastal front until the eauidistant lines met - ai a&r==~m~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~
the midpoint of the closing line acrois the mouth of the concavity. ~hereafte;
the equidistant line extended as a perpendicular to the closina line from its
mid~oint. It no lon~er swune out across the coastal front.
~hus, the swing out acrosythe coasial iront. uhish ii io muih a ptrt oi the
cul-offeffect. is a charactenstic of the equidisiant linc within the concavity and
beginsas soon as ihe equidistani Iinelesvesihe iniernïiional frontier. Where the
eauidistance method is used and lateral coasts ultimatelv come into olav at
the headlands of the concavity. theequidisiani Iinewillstop swingingou; a&oss
the coastal front at the back of the concavity It simply goes straight out to sea 230 GULF OF MAINE
@ , Thismay be seenin Figure 33of Canada's firstround oral presentation, which
1snow before you as Figure 118of this presentation. If you look closely,you can
see that the dashed line represents the 5-mile headland in the chart. The
corresvondine eouidistant line has a strairtht dashed line to the other corner of
ihis square that Canada has produced oRthis close-up of the chïri. This Iink
represents the 5-mileconstline and this heîvy Iincisa strdight Iine infront of the
chart.
Thus, a headland of a given length will drive the equidistant line across the
coastal front of the other State with the recessive coastline for a distance of
exactly the same length. You may recall that in mathematics werefer to this line
as having a certain slope, in this case a slope of 1.For every step the linegoes up
the chart, it takes a step across the chart.
@ Let us refer back to the previous chart, Figure 117. Once one is pas1 the
headland, the slope of the line begins to increase. In other words, we can say
that, as the line takes onestep up the chart, it will not take a full stepacross the
chart. At first, once the line leaves the parallel of the headland, the step across
the chart will bealmost a full stev. Then, if vou examine the 5-mile lineon this
chart. ai ahuut the 8-mils point. ihe slope ofthc Iine hecomer abuut 2, mcÿning
that forctery stepup the chari, the Iineiïkc* only one-ha1istr.pdsross the chart.
iurther se~uard. the slope continues to incruse so th.it hy the top of the chart.
virtually no lateral move is made at all.
Thus, the diversion effect - the swingingout effect - is mostdramatic close ta
the coast inside the headland, inside the concavity - it lessens as it leaves the
coast behind. Av..vi.r -his mathematical knowledee to our case. since the 100-
nautiçdl.milc southucstcrn codstal front or Nova ~Fotinrcprescntr the hcïdlïnd
in thesc chïrts,WC know th31thc equidistant linc ru,ing, uui acruss 100nautical
miles of Uniicd States co~stal front - the reccs<i\c coastal front - from the
international houndarv terminus southwestward almost to Penohscot Bav.
Bu1this poini ihai ihe diversion etleci 1sstrongcst close Io the codsi m&i not
ohseure the major point. which is. whilc thcdivcrsion efict may Ics~rnnfter the
cauidistînt Iinc oîsws the headlïnd. the arcï of cut-ofl kccos incrcasinn. For
eieh <tep up th~chari. marc drca in front of thc CWJ~~ la Ging LUI ofl Ky the
sxieniion of the equidistnni Iine Of course, once dnolhcr hcîdland came, inio
play, the equidistant linestops ils lateral extension- its lateral swingingout. But
the area ofcut-oflkeeos increasine.u,ven as ~h~ ~ ~ ~istant lineextends se~war- ~ - ~
as a perpendicular to'the closing line of the concavity.~~~
Thus, wesay, as wesaid in the first round of these oral vroceedinas, that when
Canada vuts iÏntothe chart another headland as it does here on Fiëure B. it has
@) told us nbthing we did not know hefore (Fig. 32 of Canada's oral pr~ceedin~s).
Of course, the diversion effect is stopped by the neighbouring headland. The
equidistant line isnow a perpendicular ta thi midpoint of the closing line across
the mouth of the concavity. But the diversion effect has already had its
opportunity ta engage in ils most substantial lateral moves
- taking a step in
front of the coast at the back of the concavity for every step it takes seaward ta
leave the concavity. Thus, the imperative of the equidistant line to reach the
midooint of the closine line of the concavitv ~, ac~ ~ ~ ~~-
~hi. ta rcpent ib.iiin,-uhile~hcdi\rrsion cfiCt is stopped by the cstablishmcnt
of the oppubina hcüdland, the cut-otTcontinucs. Ei,erv hit of arc3 bctuccn this
vertical iinean2 this dashed linerepresenting the equidistant line, is an areathat
is cut off from the recessivecoast at the hack of the concavity. As the boundary
extends seaward, the area of cul-off becomes greater and greater. It grows and it
grows. It would have been larger had it not ken for the new headland, but in
relative terms, it remains enormous. REJOINDER OF MR. COLSON 231
We now turn to the fourth section of this part on the cul-offeffect in whichwe
propose to examine the role of the recessivecoast.
Canada's argument that the recessivecoast has no role to ~lav bevond the
heîdlïnd, (if thèconct\iiy has no place in the lawand no place in ~iaie~prdciice
11ii ironie to noie that aficr ail1sCanada ihdi is ihe pruponeni of a iheory of
unequal treatment for coasts - it is Canada that promotes a caste systemamong
coasts. For, in Canada's view,the most proximate coast dominates and cuts off
the recessivecoast.
We believeit is necessary to dwell on ihis matter for a moment. Canada bas
stated:
"As for the external segment, challengedby Our United States friends, it
is quite normal that il should bedetermined by basepoints situated on the
exterior wings of the Gulf. What would be abnormal, on the contrary,
would k for the external segment 10 k determined as Caras ils extreme
seaward limit solely by the terminus of the land boundary situated at the
back of the Gulf, or hy points situated on cither side of this houndary but
much further from this segment than the points situated on the coastal
wings." (VI, p. 197.)
And moments later:
"Thers appearr io he ni)rcdson uhy, in ihecïsc of adcepconcri\,iiy-2nd
just look ai the siresr the Uniicd Siaies is plaiing on ihe depih ofconsî\ity
of ihc Ciulf of Mainç - the siime hïsepoints I(icÿtedai ihe bïck of ihe
concavity should govern the line from one end ta the other, insreodofgiving
wayta other governingpoinfsas the lineadvances.Over each segment of its
course, the boundary must reflectthe actual coasts whichborder the area in
question." (VI, pp. 197-198.)(Emphasis added.)
That is a good description of the equidistant line. Whyshould the course of a
boundary outside of the concavity star1al the midpoint of the closing lineand
follow a course depending solely on equidistancë from the Iwo protruding
coastal points? Canada's argument amounts ta the assertion that outside the
concavity, the existence ofa concavity and the location of the terminus of the
land boundary therein must be ignored and ihat the boundary in the outer area
must follow a course that would he appropriate if the terminus of the land
boundary were located at the midpoint of the closing line.
In effect, Canada suggests a method which would require the filling of the
Gulf of Maine with land and moving the international boundary straight south
to the midpoint of the closing lineof the concavity. If Canada wants ta re-
fashion nature and fiIlin the Gulf of Maine with land, it would make much more
sense ta follow the last segment of the existing land boundary - the St. Croix
river- in its natural extension to the sea.hv w.v of the Northeast Channel.
No such rule in favour of the more proximîtc coasi can be deduced from the
ciiw decided by internai1on31iribunîls, or can he demonsir~ied in Siate
prÿctice The Nurrk Sru ConrinenrulSheifcdsr? certaiiily make cleïr ihc right of
ihe Germ3n rrces\ivr coasi io bcprolongcd throughoui its nîtural prolongaiion.
Roth thc decision of the Couri 01Arhiiraiion in the ,\nglo.Frr.nch Arbiiration
and ihr Judameni of the Court in the Tirniin Lih,.r case adiurted ihe liner.
otherwise co&tructed hv the chosen method. sa as.10 abate the cul-off of the
distant portions of thoséines. The Bay of &ay delimitation shows that the
practice of States respects the extension of the recessivecoast. REJO~NDEROF MR. COLSON 233
In the Anglo-French Arbitration, the recessive coasi also was taken into
account in the outer sector. Before you is Figure 120 of Our prcsentation. It
shows a diagram of the construction of the final seemeni in that case - the
scgmeni exiGding inio thc Atlantic ocçün We emph;,i;.c ihït ihis rharii, no1
drwn io scîlc II hss bccn drawn in a way rh;it crnpliasizcs ihc icshniqucs used
in ihai sarc ,\didrram morc to scale1sfuund ai Firure I?OBin $uur mao hlio.
This exaggerated diagram before you is in keeping Giih the example set forth in
an article hy Canada's distinguished counsel, Profcssor Bowett. in the 1978
British Year Book of InrernarionalLuii,,page 23.
In the An~lo-French case. both States had subsiantial coasts abuttine the
outer segrneni. but thesourse <>fthcrquidistant line in thai segment uould'hîvc
hecndeicniiineJ. cxclusi\cl) and iiilscriiirciy. by iuci points. I'oi,\arid I'oirii
B (Winelsidnr. Scillv lsles ~iid Lc Crom. Ushani). II tvould hn%esiartcd ai the
midpoint of Chelin6 connecting these two points, line AB. The cul-off effect
caused by the equidistant line wasdue io the protrusion and change of direction
of the controlling portions of the English coast in relation to the ultimate hase-
point on the French coast, Point B. The strict equidistant line terminaies at the
1,000-fathom contour at the parallel of latitude of the French coast on
the northern shores of the Bay of Biscay. Becduse of the cul-off effect of the
equidistant line on the more recessivecoast of France, the Court of Arhitration
devised a method which abated the cut-off effect of the more distant section of
the line.
The line perpendicular to lineAB represents the equidistant line, B represent-
ing Ushant, A representing the Scilly Isles,and C anclD representing points on
the British mainland. In this case, the Court or Arbitration abated the cul-off
effect of the extension of the French coast by moving the starting-point of the
finalsegmentof the boundary lineinwards insideof the lineAB to point L, Point
L king equidistant from Points B. A and D. From Point L, the Court of
Arbitration changed the course of the line twice, al segment LM and segment
MN. Point M is the point of intersection of the pcrpcndicular bisectors of lines
BA and BC. The effect was that the houndary crossed the line AR not in its
centre but away from the recessivecoast (closcr to A than to B) and to tilt the
angle away from that cut-off coast.
In the ouinion of the United States. these examoles alone. in .eoe--.hical
circumstan~esin some cases similar 10,and in othcr Casesconsiderably different
Trom,our case, sufficeto refute Canada's assertion that ultimately the wings of
the concavity must control the line - that in the outer seemeni these ooints mus1
control. In no case do the "wings" govern these lines. fhcrefore ou; position is
no1 novel. 11is rooted in law.
It has been before the Court in other cases and the issue will no douht
continue to arise in future cases. To date. the law has found that the recessive
toast IS cntitlcd to ils extension into the area io be deliniitcd, u,heiheriiis the
CWJSI ai the back of a conca\,it) as in Ourçïsc. u,hciher iiis a mainland soa,t
hlosked from ils ertrnsitin by the use of the equidistancc method from offshorc
islands. or u,hcthcr othcr geographiç~l circumslanccs makc equidisiance Iinc\
cul off the reccssivccoasi (roni an cquitable seauard c\tension.
III. THEMEANS FOR ABAT~N GHE CUT-OFFEFFECT
We now come to the third part of Ourgeography presentation - that dealing
with the abatement of the cul-off effect required by the principle of non-
encroachment. Or, to put ilin the words of Question 2 of Judge Cohen: "What
degree of cul-offis acceptable?'(VI, p. 464.) The remainder of Ourpresentation RWOINDEROF MR. COLSON 235
whole testarea toward the United Statesand could evenmake a Canadian claim
tu the Gre~t South Channel look equitabls.
Fflk. CanadJ'i lingeringdoubis <ihi>utthe ~ippl~cÿtion uf thc proportionaliiy
test to the outer ;ire;iarc o\crshadoued bs ils cicknu\iledrement that the test can
be applied there, and ils repeated efforis to do so. canada has taken a step
fonvard in indicating Canada's recognition that the Chamber willbe considenng
a single proportionality test for the entire area (p. 128,supra). But the most
158 recent models shown by Canada are not realistic. Figure 171of Canada's oral
O presentation continues to use the coast of the Bay of Fundy rather than the
closing line; the lateral limits are oriented unfairly lowards the United States;
and, the United Statescoast and area southwest of Nintucket are included in the
test without regard to the fact that they neither reflectthe like with likecriteria,
or area of overlap criteria set out hy the TunisialLihyacase. Figure 173of the
Canadian oral presentation has the defect of the triangle previously mentioned.
Sixth, Canada speaks of flexibility in the application of the test. We have
shown Ourflexibilityinthis regard. But wedo no1believethat the proportional-
ity test has anything to do with coasts defined by economic factors, or areas
defined by the conduct of the Parties. The proportionality test is a test of
geographic equity and Canada's efforts to contest that is jus1 one of the
numerous ways that Canada seeks to overturn the jurisprudence.
WCuould Iike to inake iine i'urtherpoint ahout proportionlility.
Thc asressnieni hy the Court in the Tunrsri,Lihju ssse that a dilrcrencs oisix
percentage points between the proportion of the relevant coastlines and the
proportion of the seaward areas extended from those coastlines was equitahle
would no1 be justifiable in the test we are about to apply. Where in the
TunisialLibya case, the ratio of the coastal front was under 2: 1 (in fact,
somewhere around 1.96:l), the ratio of coastal fronts in the Gulf of Maine
is 3:l.
A discrepancy between the proportion of delimited maritime areas and the
proportion of the coastal fronts themselves is magnified as the ratios increase.
For example, a 50 percent to 50 per cent proportion corresponds to a ratio of
1 :I; a proportion of 80 per cent to 20 per cent corresponds to a ratio of 4: 1.
When the ratio is relatively low, as was the 1.96:l ratio in the TunisialLibya
case, a differenceof a fewpercentage points has muçh lesseffectthan when the
ratio is greater, such as the3: 1coastal-front ratio in the Gulf of Maine.
Let us now return to the abatement of the cut-off effectand the appropriate
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~tine unv ~~t-~~f ~ffect. We believe that there are three basic
approaches for abating the cut-off effect in this case: one is a two-sector
aovroach; another is a one-sector appro..h; and the third is a two-method
à$Proach.
Earlier in this presentation we said that we would analyse, in this round of
argument, the geographical equities in this case within and seaward of the area
formed by the coastal fronts between Nantucket and Cape Sable.
So let us examine these three ao..oaches for ahatine t-e cut-off effect in this
case in an area that some might argue is analogous to the area of overlap to
which the Court referred inthe TunisiaILibyadecision. Coupled with Ourearlier
analysis in which we employed a larger area, the relevant area from Nantucket
to Cape Canso, we believethis new analysis willgivc you a full appreciation of
the equitable nature of the United States position.
We would like to begin Ourdiscussion by responding to Judge Mosler's first
question:
"What is the geographical significanceof the Point A which, according to236 GULF OF MAINE
Article II, paragraph 1,of the SpecialAgreement, the Chamber has to take
as ils starting point in drawing the delimitation line, in relation to the limits
of the Parties' territorialaters?'(VI, p. 462.)
Our answer is that, in respect of the Parties' territorial waters, regardless of the
answer to the question of sovercigntyover Machias Seal Island and North Rock,
there is no geographical significance to Point A. As the Deputy-Agent for
Canada noted, "Point A lies well outside the limits of the ierritorial waters of
both Parties" (p. 72, supra). We would note in this connection, however, that
while the United States. as we have indicated here many limes, docs no1ascrihe
substantive meaning to the terms of the Special Agreement in respect to the
course of the line the Chamber will delimit from the starting-point under
the Special Agreement, the general geographical significanceof Point A is that
the delimitation hegins at a point that already concedes to Canada a substantial
amount of area in front of the southwestern-facing coast of Nova Scotia. That
completes the answer to Judge Mosler's first question.
A. The Two-SectorApprooch
We would now like to begin Our discussion of the two-sector approach by
responding to Judge Mosler's third question:
"For what reason have the Parties proposed the line from Nantucket to
Cape Sable as the line dividing the inner sector (the Gulf proper) from the
outer sector of the Gulf of Maine area (the 'closing-line ofthe Gulf')?"
(VI, p. 463.)
Our answer hegins with a general cÿveat which is that the United States has
not proposed that the boundary to be determined by the Chamber necessarily
take account of the fact that there are two sectors, or components, to the Gulf of
Maine area. The United States has spoken of the hypothetical closing line
between Nantucket and Cape Sable only as a means to assis1our analysis and
understanding of the issues in this case. Nantucket and Cape Sable are the
natural headlands of the concavity that is the Gulf of Maine. The United States
and Canada agree upon the location of the hypothetical closing lineacross the
mouth of the concavity. But the United States does not advocate a two-sector
ao~roach to the delimitation. We do not. in ~articular, believe that the closinr
lineacts as a barrier to the extension of al1theCoasta1fronts insidetheconcavit;
We have only spoken of the inner and the outer components for analytical
purposes. That is Ouranswer to Judge Mosler's third question.
Canada has been oressinr a two-sector aooroach in the hooe of convincine the
Chamber on two points. ~he first goal ofcanada is to ar&e that in the outer
sector the coasts forming the concavity have no influenceon the delimitation. In
Canada's view. onlv the oroiectinr oints or oarts of the coast should have
intlucnce \>\srihc d6limii;iiok in ihcouisr sc;t<;r.-Thesecond C:in:irli.ingo:il is
io c:ictduuhi on thc .ipplic.iti<inof ihe pr<~porilo~i;iIittinithc ouicr jcgmcni
I1oih ihcjc C.indilisn poinis arc Tduli).and ue n<>ieu,ith somc :,r>orccisiion
that Canada,at least according to Profeisor Malintoppi, now "has difficulty
in the proportionality lest being applied in such a way as to involve simultan-
eously both parts of the area to be delimited" (p. 128,supro).
We have no particular objection to a two-sector analysis ofthis case, but any
boundary line in the outer sector mus1 respect the coastal front of the United
States as it extends through the Gulf of Maine into the open sea. Further. the
delirnitation of the outer sector musi fairly reflectthe 3 to I ratio of the coasts of
the Parties that face the Gulf of Maine and thereby achieve that reasonabledegree of proportionality which is a cntical test of an equitable delimitation. The
Court stated at paragraph 114 of ils Judgment in the Tunisia/Libya case in
conneclion with the two-sector approach that the primordial requirement was to
achieve an overall equitable result.
Accordingly, we do no1 believe that the two-seçtor approach means applica-
tion of Iwo proportionality tests, something which has never been done to our
knowledge. The issue for the Chamber here is what coasts and areas are to be
included in one, overall test.
Here we would like to take up Judge Cohen's third question, which asks:
"What role in fact and in law does the southern coast of Nova Scotia and the
opposite northern coast of Massachusetts play, either with respectto the Gulf or
seaward?'(VI, p. 465.)
Our answer is that these lateral coasts may no1cul oii the coast at the back of
the concavity from its seaward extension; but they do have an extension of their
own. There has been much said in this case about a hierarchy of coasts, and what
we have, in fact, seen is that it is characteristic of proximity, or of the
equidistance method, to create a caste system in favour of the most proximale
coast. In our view, al1 the coastal fronts facing the area to be delimited are
entitled to be extended throughout the delimitation aiea regardless of proximity.
In fact, and in law, the coastal front of southwestern Nova Scotia and the
coastal front of northern Massachusetts are entitled Io an extension throuehout
ihr dcliniiiati<in;ircd.hui so. toi). i. ihr cod>i:illrunt of the Cniisd ~iaïcs 31
Maine :ind New Ilümprhire Whciher or no1 3 houndar) fairly - cquiiahl) -
rcrpects thai cxiension of a11the coiistlil lronts facinz the area io he dclimiied
mai be tested by proper application of the proportiu-walitytest.
That concludes Our answer to Judge Cohen's third question.
But the Canadian approach has been to distinguish IWO sectors and to
comoare the ouier sector to the Atlantic aooroachcs to the Enelish Channel.
whiih extend beyond the coasts of the ~artiétinto the open sea. Canada argue;
that the Chamber should apply proportionality as a lest of distortion caused by
a special feature and no1 in Ïeks of the relatioiiship between coasts and
maritime areas.
There is a certain analogy to be drawn from the Anglo-French situation in
that theouter sector of the Gulf of Mainecoast isoffthe coast of the Iwo Parties.
However. there is an imoortant diiierence since the (iulf of Maine involves one
coniinuuus boundilr) ihrgi~gh ;tconiinuous arcï. hrxinning ai the international
land boundary terminus. Ihu,. ihr bciier andIopics:ire ihe Norrh Sru ('o1111»~~~1.
ru1 SIft~lica\esand ihc Bay of RI.c~v.nherc the arca io hr delimited and the
boundary extend (or willextend) frokwithin the concavity into the area off the
coasts of the Parties.
The fundamental purpose of the proportionality test is to ensure that the line
beine tested does nit result in a dktnbution of tÏre;i that is not in reasonable
pruGr~ion IO the lcngih of ihe coliris. In thc Anglo-French Arbitration ihe
pr<)hlcmnas to delcrmirir whether ihe Scilly Islands. considerni togcihcr wih
the Curnish Pcninsuls. becauie of iheir further oii>hore loïdiion. dcflecicd the
equidistant boundary proposed by the United Kingdom so far as to produce
an equitable result. There is no implication in thiit case that the Court of
Arbitration would have accepled a delimitation whiçh produced a distribution
of areas out of . .oortion to the relative lene-h of the relevant coasts.
Ha\ing nidde there puinii. i8.are prepïred IOpui iorward an andlysis for ihc
C'hamhcr'sconsideration of ho\<,ihs cul-otfcfisi coiild he abaicd ilone wcre Io
adopt the two-sector approach urged by Canada. There is no question in Our
view that if a two-sector approach is used, the law requires that al1the coastal REJOINDER OF MR. COLSON 239
proportional to the lengths of the coastal fronts of State A and State B forming
the coastal concavity. The coasts of equal length, XY and YS, are left with the
same amount of marine area, and, thus, neither coast can complain that this
abatement of the cut-ofiefiect does not treat it equitably.
On first glance, the technique of turning the line back toward State B is not
appealing -shall we say, for aesthetic reasons. But if one stops to think about il
for a moment, one will soon realize that this, in fact, is a common practice in
regard to lines that the Parties have used in this area.
For example, we are placing before you again the ICNAF line between
@ Subafea 4 and Subarea 5, as Figure 123of this presentation. We believethat an
exammation of the geographical characteristics of this line may prove interest-
ing. The first three segmentsof the line extend due south from the international
houndary terminus, then, due West,and then due soiith again-south, Westand
south.
The point where the fourth segment begins in an eastward direction, is about
six nautical miles from the midpoint of the hypothetical closing line from
Nantucket to Cape Sable. Thus, up to that point, the ICNAF line within the
inner sector acts almost like an eauidistant line.
Huioncc itrcachssth31 point- neïr the clnsingIln- the ICNAF lincJeparts
ironi Canada's proposed course ior ihc ouisr secior. In,tead, the ICNAF Iine
does what we have seen an equitable solution will do, it turns back towards
Canada -not preciselyalong the closing lineofthe concavi-ybut back towards
Canada nonetheless. It extends back about halfway toward Canada - to the
Northeast Channel, where it turns southeastward and seaward.
You will note that the ICNAF line turns south aeain after il extends throueh
the Chÿnnrl. Thus. if the ICNAF lineu,a$s~nnsidered3saproposcd delirnitati<;n
ituould diradi,rntagc the United States in th15re~lÿrd.lis fin31segnieni would
not he a perpendicular to the general direction of the coast. as even the
equidistant line would he. By turning south, the ICNAF line loses the
opportunity to abate the cul-ofi eiïect entirely, and to produce a proportional
delimitation.
For oumoses of analvsis. it is interestine to consider the result whichcould be
achievid 1;the nexi-io:lart çcgment of tte ICNAF line ihat runr through the
Northeast Channel, at an azirnuth oi 1435 de gr sewhi~his ba>tcall) perpsn-
diculart~ithe eeneral direction oithe corst that ue ha\e c,iahli\hed. tiers to be
exynded seawird.
On this next figure,Figure 124ofOurpresentation, wehave run a proportion-
ality test on such a modified ICNAF line. As you can see, the coastline ratio is
3 to 1,or 75to 25.The outer limit is the 200-nautical-milezone. The grey area is
shown. The area ratio in this test is 70:30, slightly in Canada's favour in
comparison to the coastline ratio that actually exists.
It should be pointed out that this approach of extending a line generally
southward from the international houndary terminus to Georges Bankand then
turning the line back toward Canada to avoid splitting the Bank, and then
extendingthe lineseawardthrough the Northeast Channel, isnot only the pattern
that has been used in ICNAF, NACFl and NAFO for more than 50 yean.
The Chamber may wish to recall Figure 13of the United States Memonal,
@ which shows a search and rescue line used by the Parties which adopts this
is general approach; Figure 14 of our Memorial shows the Second World War
O CHOP line, which is a variation of the same pattern. The United States lohster
line of the early 1970salso adopted this approach, shown at Figure 16 of the
@ United States Memorial. Thus, this type of linekas heen usedhy one or both of
the Parties for several different purposes. 240 GULFOF MAINE
The 1976Uniied Siaies Iine31Soïdopied Anapproach \imilar io ihai requircd
IO produce an rquitüble solution ifthe luo.secior approïch is io he used IOahüic
the cul-off effectand Io oroduce a oro~ortionate delimitation i~~ ~ ~ ~ase. ~ ~~ ~
Agent of the United taies will adare& Judge Schwebel'squestion of the legal
basis for the 1976line in his concluding remarks. Here we only wish to mention
that the 1976United States line basicallv followed the IWO-sectoraooroach we
have ouilined: movcmeni from ihe intrrndtional houndary tcrminus'ioward tlie
midpoini oithe closing Iinein the inner secior. alihough irdid noi e~icndio fxr.
a mobemeni back tuuard Canada io the Noriheast Channel: and a movemeni in
the outer sector through the Channel so as Io effectan equitahle delimitation in
the outer area and thereby meet the proportionality test as well.
Figure 125 of our presentation shows here the 1976 United States line,
@
together with the proportionality test that we are employing. As you can see,
with the coastal ratio of 3 to 1, or 75 to 25, the United States line was modest,
modest in the extreme. It left to the United States only 62 per cent of the area.
Under strict proportionality, the United States should have received75 percent
of the area. The 1976United States line left Canada almost 50 per cent more
area than it would have been entitled to if proportionality was a strict criterion
for delimitation methods. The reason for that. as Mr. Robinson will explain, is
that the line was based upon the United States interpretation at that time that
the geological and geomorphological fealures of the sea-bed were entitled to
great weight. Accordingly, those circumstances were taken into account to
Canada's advantage, and the 1976 line followed the line of deepest water
througb the Gulf of Maine Basin and seaward through the Northeast Channel.
Thus, the line more than abated the cul-off effect inCanada's favour.
We would liketo point out here that the 1976Canadian equidistant line did
not ado~t a fair two-sector ao~roach. While it divides the inner area. basicallv
proport;onaielb, iimakes ni>;/Tort io meei the proportion3liry [est in the outic
dred, and hence the overïll delimiidtion IS no1equii~hle
Figure 126 of Our presentation applies the proportionality test to the 1976
Canadian equidistant line. Despite the 3 Io I coastal-front ratio in favour of the
United States, the equidistant line shown here leaves 46per cent of the entire
area for Canada, leaving only 54percent to the United States.
The foreaoine illustrations show that there are wavs that a two-sector
approüch cin ahÿie the cul-<ii7effeciand result in a proiorti(,nal delimiiaiion
Buithere isa ke) 10 IIand ihïi isihai the Iinemust turn back iou,ard Cÿnïda as
it reaches or approaches the midpoint of the closing line of the mouth of the
concavity. Such a line mus1 skirt Georges Bank before extending seaward
through the Northeast Channel. The equidistant lines and the Canadian linedo
no1do that. Other lines used bythe Parties for other purposes, particularly the
ICNAF line. havehad this characteristic of headine back toward Canada as the
midpoint of the closing line was approached. ~he-1976 United States line had
that vety characteristic as well.
B. The One-SeclorApproach
The second means of abating the cut-off effect is to adopt a one-sector
a~oroach. Thus. one method would be chosen and used throuehout the
bbbndary. This, in fact, is what the Parties have done. Canada has chosen an
equidistant method and used il throughout, modifying it Io take account of its
viewof the relevant circumstances in the area - namely the existence,or possibly
lack of existence,of Cape Cod and Nantucket. The United States has also used
one method, the perpendicular to the general direction of the Coastmethod, and RUOINDER OF MR. COLSON 241
has modified it to take account of certain of the relevant circumstances in the
area, namely the existence of the fishing hanks and the need for boundaries to
protect their integrity and not arbitrarily to split the banks if an equitable
boundary can he devised which otherwise goes round the banks.
Since the Cbamber is quite familiar with the Canadian line and the United
States line, we do not propose to review them at this time. Instead we will
examine another possibility, applying one method throughout the entire region.
The Chamber willrecall that the difference betweenthe Parties concerning the
general direction of the coast is hetween 64 degrees now proposed by Canada,
based upon an assessrnent of the nature of a geodetic line between Long Island
and Newfoundland - that is macrogeography if anything is - and the 54degrees
proposed hy the United States. This 10degree differenceproduces a significantly
large area when projected over 200 nautical miles.
Shown on the next figure - Figure 127of the presentation - is a line bearing
@
154degrees from the starting point - a perpendicular to the 64 degree general
direction of the coast that Canada has identified. This line has been modified
once, to avoid crossing Browns Bank.
Such a line would abate the cut-off effectand would produce a proportionate
delimitation. The Canadian coastal front at southwïstern Nova Scotia extends
within the concavity that is the Gulf of Maine. Moreover, a hroad area is left to
Canada seaward of the mouth of the concavity. The line leaves to the United
States 74percent of the area and Canada 26 per cent of the area. Thus, the line
achieves a proportionate overall delimitation in light of the 3 to 1, 75 to 25,
coastline ratio.
C. The Two-MerhodApprooch
The third concept for ahating the cut-offeffect and producing a proportionate
delimitation may he termed the two-method approach.
The Parties have respectively proposed the equidistance method and the
perpendicular method. The two-method approach for abating the cut-off effect
would combine the two delimitation methods.
The United States believes that should this approach for ahating the cut-off
effecthe followed, it would be reasonable to use the equidistant method closer
inshore, and the perpendicular method further seaward. If the equidistant line is
allowed to extend too far seaward in the inner area..so.cificallvto the midooint
oiihr closing Iinexcross ihe mouih 01'the cùnca\ity. iihas alrcrd) swung tio fiir
across ihc coa\t <ifthe United Staie, io producc 3 proportion~itc delimitaiion
when the oeroendicular method is used further out.
for the'i\io-method appris~ch tùprùduce a delimitliiion that ahaies the CUI.
oiTciTcci,2nd nhich produces a proportion;itc dcliniiiïtiiin. ihr equidistani line
- 3s ilIVJVCt)he coasidl fronticr - mu51turn \ea\iard well berore iiredchcs the
midpoint of the closing line; then the line must extend as a perpendicular to the
general direction of the coast.
Thus, as we said in the first round of these oral hearings (VI, p. 3231,the
essential question is where does the final perpendicular begin within the con-
cavity? Where, then, is the proper turning point?
@ , We are placing before you a new chart, Figure 128of our presentation, which
is hased upon the standard geometrical model we have been using in our
presentation.
This chart demonstrates that the point to stop the equidistant line is, in
geometrical tems, at a point which we have called and lahelled here Point Q of
this diagram. Here the equidistant line is stopped half-way between the land 242 GULF OF MAINE
frontier in the corner of the concavity and the midpoint of the closing lineacross
the mouth of the concavity.
Thus, the equidistant line is stopped as it reaches the middle of the square
formed hy Points T, X, S and Y on the hypothetical line connecting the end
points of those two coasts of equal length -Coast XS and coast YS.
If the equidistant line is stopped at Point Q, and the perpendicular kgins
there within theconcavity, the perpendicular linewillcross the closing lineof the
concavity at a point three-founhs of the way ktween the beadlands of the
concavity. Thus, the closing linewillhe divided in the3 to 1ralio of the relative
leneths of the coaslal fronts formine the concavitv. The ~ ~ ~-ea of ~ut~ ~ ~ .
shnwn here. uill then beequlillyshiire-dbetwern ~ili;e A and Siaie B.This 1smit
licnsie $ysiemor hierarrhy of coasis, hui an equ<ilityoi irîiitineni of colisis.
WCnoie thai ihis iechnique ni sioppine the u,e ni the equidirisni line irell
uithin the cwiisialconclivii) In relaiion to colistsof equal length on either sideof
ihe land houndar) iscompliriible 10the icchnique th11is ,ci oui in Annex Ilof
uur Counter-Memorial II\'). uhich is uur inieroretaiiun ol hou France 2nd
Spain stopped the equidistant line well within the Bay of Biscaycoastal con-
cavity - well hefore the equidistant line reached the midpoint of the closing line
across the mouth of the concavity. In that case it is also true that Point T on the
closine line is located at a ooint that reRectsthe l-neths of the coastal fronts of
~ran& and Spain forminithe concavity.
@ @ Figure 129ofour presentation, which wehave shown before, depicts hy direct
analoev to the Bay of Biscav delimitation and the North Sea delimitation the
point-it which thé equidis&nt line would be stopped in this case were the
Chamher Io follow the approach adopted in those three situations. Canada has
not rehutled these direct analogies.
How could this annroach of ahatine the cul-off effect be used in the actual
geogrÿphy of the ciif of Maine arc.ir
@ Bcfore you in Figure 130of our presentation. II shows a lins perpcndicularIO
ihe eenerel Jire;tion of ihe coiisr irussine the closine Iine iiiihrcc-<iu.iriers
point. That perpendicular line extends Lndward to- its intersection &th the
equidistant line. Such a line abates the cut-offefect. The southwestern coast of
Nova Scotia is treated fairly. It is left an area within the coastal concavity, and
an area outside the concavity - as is the coast of comparable length of the
United States from Penohscot Bay to the international houndary terminus.
As you can see,this means of ahating the cut-offeffect produces a proportion-
ate delimitation as well. Such a line produces a delimitation that leaves 75 per
cent ofthe area to the United States and 25percent of the area to Canada. Thus,
on the basis ofa coastal-front ratio of 75: 25, the area delimited exactly reflects
that ratio.
The ooint at which the eouidistant line ends. and the oeroendicular line
kgin\. Onthe hasis<iithis 3P&~~ch. 15n~oregcnrri,us Io ~linidithan ihedircci
analogies Io ihe North Sea and Bay of Iliscay siiuations thlit iveju\t eriimined
on the previous Figure, and whichwere nevercontested as proper analogies. The
point of intersection of the equidistant lineand perpendicular lineshown on this
chart is about 38 nautical miles further seaward of the analogous point in the
German-Danish boundary; and 14 nautical miles further seaward than the
an3logous poini from théGerman-Duich boundar), and ihe analugou\ poini
@ from ihe Hliyof Biscliyboundary. Thus. this Iine,shown here on Figure 130.is
more gencrous IOCanada in ihc use of equidisiancc ihxn u3s ihc case in either
the North Sea or the Bay of Biscav
Accordingly, there is lhis third Ïneans for abating the cut-of effect so that
il is equitahly shared and so that the boundary produces a proportionate REJOINDEROF MR. COLSON 243
delimitation - that is, by combining the two methods which the Parties have
proposed.
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, that brings aclose thispresentation of
the application of delimitation methods within the seography of the Gulf of
Maine area. It has been my distinct honour to appear before you. QUESTION BYJUDGE COHEN
Judge COHEN: 1 simply would like Io relaie what you have said Io Mr.
Stevenson'svervcom~rehensiveexamination of the law.and if 1understood Mr.
Sicienson he p;i IOu; ihai there isa neu lundamcni;il Iau govcrning ihis uhole
scqucnce of dci.elopmenti in rcccni Srdrs. afleciing boih the fisherics problcni
and thecontincntal <heIlproblcm Thcrc wcrefour coniDoncritshc nui bclorc us.
if 1understood him. ~he-four comoonents were: Io recbenize the hoortance of
the coastal front; to understand'that they would begoverned by relevant
circumstances; the relevant circumstances were to be understood or interpreted
b, ea.itahle ~rincioles: and the whole would. or should. lead to an eaiitable
resuli. I hop? thst1,r Iiir bummar) iiiihe conie\r of Mr Stc\.cnion's ÿpproach
Would yoii tell me hou. you fithe \,eryiÿrclul .ina. .i> )ou ha\e made ioda),
which rests it seems to me verv heavilv on the ~ronortionalitv theorv. inio
\Ir. Sic\enson's more gcncral c~nccpiio" or the lcial'irsmeuori uithin'~vhich
u,c arc lu ninkc our decision!
Mr. COLSON: Mr. President, we will be happy to respond to that in the
normal procedures of the Court (infra, p. 267).
The Cliamber rose ai 6.05p.ni. TWENTY-SEVENTH PUBLIC SITTING (II V 84, 10am.)
Present: [SeeSittingof 2 IV 84.1
Mr. COLSON:
CONSERVATION
Mr. President, distinguished Judges. May it please the Chamber. It is an
honour for me. once a-ain. to reoresent mv countrv hefore this Chamber.
The purpo>e of this prcsent3tio1%tu addrcss four clo,rly rcliitedsubjects thxi
concsrn the conscr\3ti<in and m;inapcmcnt <ifthe lishcries rcsourcrs ol'ihc Gulf
ofMainc arca. The I:niicd Staics ha, no intention of rciieratinr thc man\, DOintS
wehave already made on this suhject. We believethat, for themost parc during
Canada's second round oforal presentation, Canada made no arguments on this
suhject that cal1for a response.
Part 1of this presentation will address Canada's recent comments about the
hiological underpinnings of the ICNAF line dividing Suhare4 and Subarea 5.
In Part II, it will be my honour to respond to question number8 posed by
Judge Mosler regarding the ecological régime ofthe Gulf of Maine Basin.
In Part 111,we will address Canada's attack on Figur7 of the United States
@ Memoriai. 'ïhat Figure shows that ranges of stocks of 12 of 16 commercially
important species in the Gulf of Maine area are limited or divided hy the
Northeast Channel.
In Part IV,iuill bc m) honùur 10rcspond id the fourth question put to us hy
Judge Cohen irhich cùncerni the baji: problems ïi,ociaicd uith loint mxnagc.
meif of transhoundary resources. In this connection, we will also add to iur
response to Judge Mosler's seventhquestion.
1.THEICNAF LINE
Today 1willhe assisted by Dr. Jonathan Olsson and Mr. Richard Davis, and 1
would also like to express my appreciation 10 Miss Mary Wild Ennis and
Lieutenant Bnan Flanagan.
Let us begin with an examination of the ICNAF line dividing Suharea 4,
designated by NACFI -as long agoas 1931 -as being "off Nova Scotia", from
Suharea 5. desienated- at that same tirn- as beine "off New Eneland".
The divisionoiti,h stocks in the tiulf ol'Main&a h3r becn tL suhieci oi
much discusii<inin this case The plnidingr of the Uriited States have outlined
the cristcncc of thrw rcpdratr and idenllli~blcc~ulugicalrcgiiiiesin the Gulf of
Maine area. WCh3t.cst3tcd what iveconsder iu be :in uncontro\erted ssientitic
conclusion. thal \cpariltc stocks hh 3re ~ssoc~atcdwith Georges Rank and
ihe Scotian shclf rcp,imcs.Canada kas rejponded hy xttempiing to disparaxe the
evidence and bv,ieiorine-ils own oractke. It mav be rememberedthat-most
iishernicn arc ol'consumm~tc good srnrc in cdrninp a Iiiclihood. 'l'hc) kndw
uhcrc IOlish )car in and ycar oui. as did ?\,enthe P~squesand ihc Poriugucsc to
uhom Mr. Rinniercferrcd sr\er31 da), a20(P. 82, vapr<Stock di\isions mas hc
new to some attorneys representing.CafÏada in these proceedings, but thGare
not new to the fishermen themselves.
In particular, Canada has sought to question the significanceof theNAF 246 GULFOF MAINE
3 Iine,shown here as Figure 131of this presentation. We are told that it is a lineof
O "convenience". and that it has no biological basis (VI, p. 143).We are told that
it "never had anything to do with the hilateral relations of Canada and the
United States..." (p. 16,supra).We are told that, notwithstanding that the
United States and Canada have resoected the line for purposes of fisheries
conservation and management for ovèr50years, the Chamber should consider
the lineirrelevant to a delimitation ofjurisdiction over those verysame resources
(p. 17supra).
As we near the end of these proceedings, the United States helieves that il
would be useful for the Chamber to have hrought to its attention a few facts
about the ICNAF line. We do no1 argue that the ICNAF line constitutes a
houndarv. or that Canada has ever acceoted it for a iurisdictional oumose in
international law. The line does, however, represent iome fundamentai truths
about the marine environment of the Gulf of Maine area that Canada has
sought repeatedly to obscure in this case. The line represents an aspect of the
United States and Canadian fisheries management in this area for more than
50 years, which Canada now asks you to ignore.
We willaddress three points in this regard: the origin of this line in NACFI;
its evolution in ICNAF; and its continued use today by NAFO.
The ICNAF line separating Suhareas 4 and 5 was hased upon a line
established by the North American Council on Fisheries lnvestigalions
(NACFI) in 1931.
NACFl sought to subdivide the northwest Atlantic Ocean for purposes of
developing an orderly and functional framework within which to gather
statistics and conduct fisheriesresearch. BeforeNACFI, fisheriesstatistics in the
northwest Atlantic Ocean were comoiled hv fishine erounds.
The Iinesunginall) dc\clopcdin k~~~iuere, %ïargc part, büsrd upon ihe
grouing undersi~ndingof fishçryhiologists.oceanographcrs. cariographers,and
manners. includine fishcrmcn. oi ihe nîiure of the continental shclf. ihe waters
found thereon, atd the fishes and other living manne resources of the area.
These hiological realitieswereincorporated deliberately in10the development of
International Area houndarie- Area XXI, "off Nova Scotia", and AreaXXII,
"-~~~N~wEnel-~~". .n ~~~~I.
NACFl made its statistical systemconform to that which had first been used
in Eurooe hq the International Council for the Study of the Sea, known as ICES,
to faciliiatebniform reporting of catches by varioui countries. This was done by
extending to the northwest Atlantic Ocean the system of International Areas
that had been put to good use in the northeast Atlantic Ocean (Rounsefell,
G. A., Developmenrof FisherySrarisricsin rheNorrh ArlanriU.S. Department
of the Interior, Special ScientificReport No. 47, pp. 8-9. Deposited by Canada
pursuant to AR. 50 (2) of the Rules of Court on 28 lune 1983; hereinafter
"Rounsefell").
Rounsefell. whose renort. written in 1948.is the onlv comorehensive studv of
the development of the statistical and fishej managiment iines in the Guif of
Maine area, points out, in regard to the overall development of the NACFl
statistical sysÏem, that it took into account what was then known about the
stock divisions in the area. He wrote:
"The seacan be regarded as a vas1water-ranch populated with various
kinds of livestock (or fish).The areas covered bv the fishingfleetscomprise
waiers of barluus depths. tcmpcrütures. and rali~ities.~ac<s~cics of fishis
normally most ahundani on the bînks most suiiable to ii. Diffcrcnt stocks
of ihc same spccicsmay inhabii Iwo ncighbouring bïnkr, yei beseparared REJOlNDER OF MR. COLSON 247
by waters of such depth or temperature, or by suçh unsuitable bottom, that
the two stocks niingle slightly or no1 at all." (Rounsefell, p. 1.)
Thus, the NACFI divisions were no1 based simply upon considerations of
administrative convenience. They were based upoii the best scientific data
available at the lime. They were the product of a deliberate effortto develop an
efficient and reliable system of catch statistics based upon the activities of
fishennen, and the contemporary understanding of the marine environment,
including the sea-bed fearures and the characteristics of fish stocks.
The International Area boundaries that NACFl established in 1931 were
adopted by ICNAF in 1949.With the founding of ICNAF, a newdimension was
thereby added to the governmental involvement in fisheries - namely, conserva-
tion and management of the resource. For the entire 28-year period of ICNAF,
the division hetween Subarea 4 and Subarea 5 was recognized and respected hy
both Parties for the conservation and management of the fisheryresources of the
Gulf of Maine area.
In his presentation in the first round, Professor Bowett stated that the
credibility of thethesis that this line marks a natural boundary between fishing
banks could be tested against the records of the 1949ICNAF Conference (VI,
p. 142). He then quoted, from that record, the words of the chairman of the
Conference. Dr. Wilburt Chaoman of the United States.
If the Chamber willbear wiih me, weare compelled to quote the same passage
from the record before this Chamber. ln explaining, al an early negotiating
session, the proposed subareas in relation to their efficient management, ~ry
Chapman stated:
"We have thought that this would be achieved best by splitting the
overall area [speaking of the overall Conventiori area] into smaller areas
lsoeakiue of the Drooosed ICNAF subareasl. which smaller areas have a
dégree Of homogenéity from a biological standpoint and also from a
political standpoint. To the best of Our knowledge the stocks of fish in
ihich weare particularly interested do not move inany large way from one
area to another. If that assumption proves to he correct, then regulations in
one area simply would have little or no effect on fish stocks in one of the
other areas. ..." (ICNAF, Miriirres of ihr Negoriaring Conference,Second
Session, para. 32. Cited at VI, pp. 142-143.)
1 would note that he spoke from a biological standpoint and also from a
political standpoint.
Dr. Chapman went on to state:
"From the biological standpoint it is realizecl that the presently pro-
posed areas may no1 be the proper ones. It niight be quite necessary,
as more evidence cornes in, to change the boundaries of the areas." (Ibid.
para. 34; VI, p. 143.)
Professor Bowett stated, without supporting evidence: "the assumption of
biological homogeneity, of the separation of stocks, has proved inaccurate as
the Chairman intimated might happen" (VI, p. 143). If Professor Bowett is
correct, why has the line not been changed, as Dr. Chapman suggestedmight be
necessaryin the light of newevidence? If, as Canada asserts, referring to Browns
Bank and Georges Bank, "scientific knowledge later destroyed any assumption
of the separation of stocks on those banks" (ibid.), why did ICNAF no1change
the line, or NAFO, or Canada in its domestic practice? Why has the line not
been changed if it has no credible basis in biology?248 GULF OF MAINE
Professor Bowett refers to Dr. Chaoman's statement asa concessionin regard
to the ICNAF Iinc (VI. p. 143). He'makcs this statement presumably be&use
Dr Chlipman said ihai the areasmighi iurn out no1Io rcflcci hiological realities.
Bui Dr. Chïpman also raid that, as ncw hiologcsl evidence wÿs ideniified.
changes in ihe subarea boundarics might hecslled for.
We simply note thït ihe division between Subÿrcÿi 4 and 5 has provcd io he
hiologicallycorrect. No major changes have occurred in this line. As new
evidence has come forward, it has only confirrned this division.
We invite the Chamber's attention to the fact that these sweeping scientific
conclusions by Canada about biological separationand hiological homogeneity,
such as. "scientific knowledce later destroved anv assumotion of the seoaration
of stocks on those hanks". lre provided u,iihoutany benefii o~citation~ in iheir
support. The cold. hard hct is ihat the biological foundations of ihc ICNAF
suharca houndsrrcs arc ucll cstahlished hv Crinndi'in 2nd Ilnitcd States fishencs
s- - ~ ~~s.
This conclusion is strongly supporied by the faci thai ihe onl) modific3tion of
the ICNAF suhsrea boundaries hlis hccn in responir. ILItirm scieniific e\,idcnce.
The endurinc nïturc of the IChAF boundanca. in Iirhi of the \as1 incrzÿhe in
knowledge zthc marine biology in the region cincc ïhe establishment of ihose
boundaries, is cvidcnse thai the onginal line hciuccn Suhiircii 4 and Sublireli 5
reflected in the past, and continues to do so today, scientific realities and no1
considerations of administrative convenience alone.
If, in fact, as Canada suggests,scientific knowledge later had destroyed the
assumption that the boundaries reflected biological division, the ICNAF
subarea boundaries would have heen altered to conform to the division
indicaicd hy suchdata The iruth of thai iiaicment is illusiratcd hy the faci that.
when ICNAF's ncgoiiliiors uere sonfronted by such new scientific daia, ihey
readily altered the proposed subarea boundaries.
The early drafts of the ICNAF Convention proposed to the Conference that
were prepared by the United States proposed that the Convention area be
divided inio four subareas.The reason that the Convention ended up with five
suhareasis ihat. dunne the Conference. Danish fisheries scientists orovided the
delegaies with a detGled scientific prcseniJiion ihat demonriraied ihat ihe
currcnis and cod siocks off West Greenland were associaied closely wiih those
OIT Iceland. u,heredsthe siocks oTcod off L~brddor on ihe Labrador sidc of the
proposed ~ubarea I were associated with the stocks off Newfoundland. After
Denmark's presentation. it was agreed that the stocks off West Greenland
should not be managed together with those off Labrador, and that the West
Greenland side should form a separate subarea (ICNAF, Minuies of rhe
NegoriaiingConference,9th Session,para. 40).
With that agreed, the question at the ICNAF Conference aroseas to whether
the Labrador side of Suharea I should be made into a separate subarea, or
whether it should be included in the onginally proposed Subarea 2, which
contained the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. At that time, Canada objected 10
the latter course of action, arguing that combining the two areas would create
difficult manaeement orohlems. and. on that cround. the Conference elected to
make the ~ab;ador ;ide of thé old ~ubarea-l a separate subarea. Thus, the
Labrador area was labelled Subarea 2, and the proposed Suhareas 2, 3 and 4
were relahelled Subareas 3. 4 and 5.resoectively:
~h~~~e~"~iatine-historv of the ICNAF~ ~~nvéntion oroves two ooints about
this line. First, the subarea boundaries had a biological foundation. Biological
arguments could have altered and did alter the proposed boundaries. No such
argument was brought forward, however, in-cokiection with the division REJOINDER OF MR. COLSON 249
between Subarea 4 and Subarea 5 dividing Browns Bankand Georges Bank at
the Northeast Channel. Second, there wasa fisheriesmanagement element to the
subarea boundaries. Canada's desire to manage the Labrador stocks differently
from those off Newfoundland was based upon the recognition of the political
problems of managing a high-seas (common-pool) resource. Canada therein
recoenized that management authoritv. shared amone nations over too laree
an ayea, would lead topolitical probl&s (ICNAF, nute otetse~e~otiatii~
Conference, pp. 3 and 6). To have combined the Labrador area with the
Newfoundland area in one management unit would have meant that several
nations that ordinarily would not have been concerned with the fishery off
Labrador would have been involved inils management due to their fishery on
the Grand Banks. The possibility ofmaking trade-offs betweenthe two areas for
conservation and management purposes was not acceptable to Canada at that
lime.
In subsequent years, ICNAF reviewedils subarea bi~undariesand divisionsto
determine if any modification should be made based upon newinformation. For
example,in 1975,ICNAFchanged the management structure for herring in part
of ICNAF Subarea 4. Based upon the advice of scientists on ICNAF's
Assessment Committee, two herring management units within Subarea 4 were
altered. Also, you may recallthe modification of the closedgroundfish spawning
areas, which wediscussedduring Ourfirst round presentation. These areas were
changed as new scientificevidencecame to light. There does not appear ever to
have been, however, any question regarding the validity of the line dividing
Subarea 4 from Subarea 5. We would liketo point out, in this connection, that
the ICNAF Convention did not require formal amendment to change the
subarea boundaries. The ICNAF Commission had that power to make such
changes under the Convention, but it did not.
As is well established by our ICNAF Annex (IV. United States Counter-
Memorial, Ann. 3,Vol. II), and OurManne Environn~entAnnex (ibid., Ann. 1,
Vol. IA, Appendices A-H), ICNAF respected the stock divisions representedby
ICNAF's Subarea 4 and Subarea 5 and the dividing liiiebetween Subarea 4 and
Subarea 5. For 28 years, the stocks of Subdivision SZe, Georges Bank, were
managed independently from those in Subarea 4. There was never a change in
this line.
Even in 1978,with the dissolution of ICNAF and the formation of NAFO,
the exact same line was preserved (Convention on Future Multilateral Co-
operationinthe Northwest Atlantic Fisheries,Ottawa, 24 October 1978,entered
into force I January 1979,Ann. III, 1, Canadian Mzmorial, Ann. 9, Vol. 1).
Considenngthe circumstances,and Canadian leadership in forming NAFO, it is
noteworthy that this would have beenan ideal tirne for Canada ta take steps to
change the line if there were any rational basis for dcringso. The line was not
changed. Today, il is used by bath the United States and Canada in their
domestic fisherymanagement programmes.
@ We mus1 digress for a moment. At Figure 166 of the Canadian oral
presentation, we were sbown a chart with line- called ICNAF lines - that
followed a soutbward course across Georges Bank.In the Canadian Reply, at
@ Figure 18,the same lineor lineswere shown.Wewould point out, forthe record,
that these linesrepresent a composite of borders of vanous smallstatisticalunits.
These composite lines have never been usedfor fisherymanagement purposes.
To conclude this discussion of the ICNAF line, we would like to quote a
nassaee from the eminent Canadian scientist M. 1.. Sinclair. identified bv
~anaza as an expert witness it proposed to cal1in this case andnotified to thé
Registry by a letter from the Agent for Canada to the Registrar of 19 March250 GULF OF MAINE
1984 \Ir Sinclair ~3s pre>rmtJurirlg 211rele\ant portions of the tirs1riund i>l'
or31procccd~ngs,hut he nc\cr u;i, callcd upoii hy C;in;iJ;i. As io-author d';in
article tiuhliihed in the 1982cdition <ifS<rr,i<c* m:<ra/inc. derioritcd u,iih ihc
~e~istr~by the United States on 16 April 1984, Gtitled "~tlantic Herring:
Stock Discreteness and Abundance", Dr. Sinclair stated the following with
respect to this line:
"The Proceedings of the Norrh American Council on Fisheries Invesriga-
rions(1931-33(No. 2). Ottawa (1935))record an earlv attemDt to subdivide
the norihuc,t l\tlartt~c in10 \kallcr :irc~s The ,l~siingui;hed gro~p of
riihcrie, biologi.~3rd Ii)drogr.ipher\ ihat \\ers iiivol\cd dgreed ginh,iund.
:trie, ihat Inier bc.imc the ha.is for the s~bdi\i,ion ,if thr.C~n\,cntion arra
of the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
(1CN:Il:) into mansgrment drcds Thc gr.nerdli~>rrespondcni.ïhciucen the
hiological uniis oi spcciss such :iici~d, l'or ehariiple. .ind ihc ICNAI:
iuh~rra\ :tllo\ied ihc deiclopmciit of the sophi>iicÿteJ.Inicrn.ition:~lMln-
;iyeni:ni Scheine sct up in ihc 1970's The di\i\ion> dcnioiistr~te<l the
group's understanding of the ducil nxturc oi the f.ictori ihai dndcrlic the
structure of marine ecosystems. It is this dual nature, resulting from an
interaction of the biological and physical factors, that we are stressing." (At
No. 1.)
It is unfortunate that Dr. Sinclair was not called before us so that he could
have explained how this statement squares with the arguments of Canadian
counsel hefore this Chamher.
One las1word about ICNAF. Distineuished counsel for Canada said that the
ICNAF Ci>nkri.ncc ~1eleg;iiesuoiild h?il\ehcen ..limucd :andshocked" hy the
iieight Ire atiaih 1,ihc medninp oiihe Iinr.ditiding Subarra J ir,ini Sub;ire.i 5.
ehiendinr Io the se;iihrouzh the Sorihc;i~t Channel IVI. D 143) Wc 3uhmitthai
what th&e negotiators wiuld have been amazed and shocked about was that,
lessthan 30years after the ICNAF Conference, Canada would make a claim to
half of Georges Bank notwithstanding the traditional, almost exclusive, fishing
activity by United States fishermen on Georges Bank and the longstanding
recognition of divisions of stocks at the Northeast Chan?el.
II
We now turn to the second part of this presentation, which willaddressJudge
Mosler's question number 8 posed to the United States. That question is as
follows:
"According to the pleadings there exist three régimes inthe Gulf of
Maine area, and Dr. Edwards also referred to them in his testimony on
18 April 1984.They are said to be:
(i) Georges Bank
(ii) Scotian Shelf
(iii) Gulf of Maine Basin
To the best of my recollection, the Gulf of Maine Basin has not yet
played a prominent role in the oral proceedings. Looking at the map, my
impression is that this area isnot such a coherent unit as the other two seem
to be. Would the United States please explain what are the characteristic
features of the Gulf of Maine Basin distinguishing it from the other two
régimes." (VI, p. 463.)
In response, wewilldemonstrate two points. First, the ecological régimeof the RFJOlNDER OF MR. COLSON 251
Gulf of Maine Basin is, infact, a coherent unit. Second, wewillexplain that the
reason why the United States has not focused upon the ecology of the Gulf of
Maine Basin régime isthat the nature of the régime issuch that neither of the
lines proposed by the Parties divides the Basin in such a manner that would
create senous conservation and management prohlenis.
The United States in its pleadings, and Dr. Edwards in his testimony on
18April 1984, describedthe three major oceanographic and ecological régimes
in the Gulf of Maine area, identifiedrespectivelywith the Scotian Shelf, withthe
Gulf of Maine Basin, and with Georges Bank. Inthis respect, it is important to
note that the "Gulf of Maine Basin" régimedoes not include theportion of the
Scotian Shelf régimethat wraps around the southwestern tip of Nova Scotia,
inside the coastal concavity of the Gulf of Maine.
This is the definition of the Gulf of Maine Basin régimeconsistently used in
our pleadings (II, United States Memonal, para. 25, fn. 2; IV, Counter-
Memorial, para. 16, fn. 2; and ibid., Ann. 1, para. 1, fn. 1).Thus, the Gulf of
Maine Basin régimeis hordered to the south and southeast by Georges Bank
and to the northeast hv the Scotian Shel-réeime.It is a coherent o-.anoeraohic
and ec<ilogicalrcginic. disiinsi l'rom the oiher tuo rcgimes (sec. gcncrally.
UnitrJ Siatm Countcr-Mçmori~l. Anri 1) Pcmiit nic to gi\e ihrec e\ümplcs.
On the reomiirrihi,lodi~.dle\cl. the Gulrof Maine Hain is likca liirreIiowl
has an avëraee dénthof anoroximatelv 150metres~~.nd con~~~~~~~~-ee deener
basins, Georges, &dan aAd wilkinsok. These are not labelled, but are shcwn
here on the ICNAF chart. The fact that the Gulf of Maine Basinisshallow only
in the immediate coastal area, and punctuated by a few peaks and ridges
between relativelydeep basins, distinguishes its geomorphology from that of
Georges Bank, which is a hroad shallow bank (with an average depth of 75
metres), and from that of the Scotian Shelf (with :in average depth of 110
metres), which is a combination of banks and basins (see, generally, Counter-
Memorial, Ann. 1, paras. 5-8).
The secondexampleis that theGulf of Maine Basinrégimeisdistinct from the
other Iwo by virtue of its water circulation pattern. You may wish Io note that
the Parties do not disagreeon the water circulation patterns in the Gulf of Maine
area. The water in the Gulf of Maine Basin circul;ites in a large, unifying,
@ counter-clockwise gyre. In this regard, you may recall Figure 5 of the United
States Memorial and Fieure 64 of our oral oresentation. This counter-clockwise
gyredistinguishes theGilf of aine Basin&me from that ofthe Scotian Shelf.
The Scotian Shelf régimeis hest characterized as a "flow-through" current
system, with weak, kolated gyres, whereas that of Georges Ëank has a
consistent, central counter-clockwise gyre (see, generally, Counter-Mernorial,
Ann. I, paras. 9-17).
The third example relates to the characteristics of the water in terms of
temperature, salinity and vertical mixing.Because the majotity of the water in
the Gulf of Maine Basin is slope water that enters through the Northeast
Channel, it is more saline and of a diKerent(seasonallyconsistent) temperature
from the water over the adjacent Scotian Shelf.The water in the Gulf of Maine
Basin also difiers from that of the Scotian Shelf in terms of temperature and
salinit(see,generally, ibid., Ann. 1, paras. 18-28).Also, because it is a deep
hasin, the water in the Gulf of Maine Basinis more stratified than the shallower
water over Georges Bank and over the banks on the Scotian Shelf (see,
generally, ibid., Ann. 1, paras. 29-33).
The differences in bottom temperatures between the régimeswere seen in
@ Figure 10 of the United States Counter-Memorial. Annex 1, which was also
Figure 66 of the United States oral presentations. This illustration showed, 252 GULF OF MAINE
among other things, that there is considerably less seasonal vanability in the
temperature of the bottom water in the Gulf of Maine Basin than in the bottom
temperatures on the Scotian Shelf and Georges Bank.
@ Before you is Figure 132ofour presentation, which appearedasFigure IIC of
the United States Counter-Memorial. Annex 1. and Fieure 65 of the United
Statesoral prescnilitions, exccpi ihai. in this insiance. ihètinStatesline h3s
been supenmposed on the chart. 'This is a iïiellite image of the surhce
iemperaiures and temperature gradients in the Gulf of Irlliine area on 14Junc
1979.This rcveals the di~erenccs in the surPdceiemperaiures beiucen ihc ihrec
ti!gime,.as do saielliie images of mosi oiher nionihs of ihc)rdr
The temperature pradicnis - sccnli\dark Iinrî on ihis chart - mark ihe placcs
where surfacetempëratures change significantly over a short distance. ~he-green
colour marks the Scotian Shelf régime.You can also see the yellow and red
colour marking the Gulf of Maine Basin and the gradients marking the outline
of Georges Bank. Such gradients occur where the Scotian Shelf and the Gulf of
Maine Ëasin régimes&et. as uell as where the Georges Bank and Gulf of
Maine Basin régimesmeei. Such gradients also seplirliic the Georges Rank and
Scoiian Shclrrégimesfrom edchoiher. The surPacetemwraiure grad-ent5 rrflesi.
in turn, change; that occur in the water column klow.
In summary, the Gulf of Maine Basin oceanographic régimeis a coherent
régime, distinct from the other two régimes associatedrespectively with the
Scotian Shelf and Georges Bank. The boundaw hetween the Gulf of Maine
Basin rcgime dnd the ~coiian Shelf rcgime and i6dt betuccn the Georges Rank
rcgime and the Scoiidn Shclf régimeis e\xntially along the Iinesof iemperaiure
gradients shown here.Asyou can see,the United Statesline approximates those
lines of temnerature eradients.
The ~niibd ~taies~alrclid~hlis explained the mlinagemrni and conicrvaiion
headachzthat uould result from a houndary thai cuis across the Georges Bank
répime.This is becausethe stocks on ~eorees Bank. 10a laree extent. roam over
bo-th the disputed and undisputed of the Bank. -
In the written and oral proceedings to date, the focus of the debate has been
upon companng the management consequences of a line that follows the
Northeast Channel with that of a line that cuts across GeorgesBank. In other
words, the focus has been on the optimal location of a boundary outside the
geograpbic closing line from Nantucket to Cape Sable.
The auestion that has no1 vet been addresseds~ecificallv is whether some
boundaiy positions inside ihe geographic closing lin; are mok prcferable from a
conservaiion and management perspectiveio others. In faci. analysisof the Gulf
of Maine Rasinrégimeand ils fishcries rcsources showsihat theesiablishment of
the boundary inside the closing line presentslessof a management problem than
it does outside the closing line.
As described above, the United States line closely approximates the natural
division between the Scotian Shelf régime,on the one hand, and the régimesof
the Gulf of Maine Basin and Georges Bank, on the other. Such a houndary
would be optimal from a fisheries management point of view.
Becauseof the particular nature of the fishery resourcesof the Gulf of Maine
Basin. however. which for the most nartavoid the deeoestwaters of the Basin. a
boundary that instead followed thé line of the deebst water, a line like the
ICNAF line, would not create serious management problems like those created
hv a boundaw crossing Georges Bank.
.~hc rea\on-for ihisiiihai many of the commcrcially important spccicsof the
Gulf of Maine ara drc groundfish. that is to Say,thcy livc near the sea.hed Such
fi\h frequcnily are Iimiied in their distnhuiion hy vanaiions in sea-bed iopo- 254 GULF OF MAINE
Barrier". The chart purported to show a harner to cod migration along a
vertical lineal 68"W longitude, and stock interchanges across the Northeast
Channel. You may recall that there were bright red lines going between the
northeast tip of Georges Bank and Browns Bank. The United States already
addressed the problems with that Canadian figure, at paragraphs 3-6of Annex
21 to the United States Reply.
Canada's oral presentations do nothing Io rehabilitate this figure, which is
contradicted by the bulk of the scientificliterature, including by Canadians, on
this subject. For example. Canada's expert, in the article we previously quoted,
said that there is"general correspondence hetween the hiological units of species
such as cod, for example, and the ICNAF subareas" (T. D. lles and M. Sinclair,
Science, No. 1). In other words it would seem that the expert identified by
Canada in this case believesthat stocks of cod on Georges Bank and in the Gulf
of Maine Basin are senarate from the stocks of cod on the Scotian Shelf.While
we are on this suhje&, we would also like to emphasize a fact that Canada
persists in overlooking. Stocks that are associated with Georges Bank are not
jus1 associated with it dunng the spawning season- they migrate around the
Bank, and can be found at different locations, al different limes of the year
(pp. 416-417).
The United States does not wish to cakethe Chamber's lime addressing each
and every one of the similar arguments Canada has attempted to raise against
the United States description of the manne environment and the location of
separate stocks of commercially important species. The United States believes
that al1of Canada's arguments on these subjects are as groundless as Canada's
arguments regarding cod. We regard Figure 165of Canada's oral presentation
as a good example of the liberties that Canada has taken with the weight of
evidence of fisheries science. (For the major portions of the United States
pleadings and oral presentations dealing with the facts of the marine environ-
ment of the Gulf of Maine area, see Memorial, paras. 38-58; ibid., Ann. 44;
Counter-Mernofial. paras. 45-57; ibid., Anns. I and 2; Reply, paras. 215-227;
ibid., Anns. 20-25; and hearings of 18Apnl 1984.)
111
Wenow turn 10the third part of this presentation whichwilladdressCanada's
@ attacks on Figure 7 of the United States Memorial, a figure which Canadian
counsel charactenzed as "scientificallyindefensib@." 107,supra).Figure 7 is
O before you now as Figure 134of this presentation.
Canada's attack on this chart isan oblique way ofattacking the credibilityof
the ICNAF line. Moreover, it isa direct attack on the United States line, which,
in the area seaward of the Gulf of Maine closing line, divides Georges Bank
from Browns Bank at the Northeast Channel, jus1as have the NACFI, ICNAF
and NAFO lines for over 50years. That United States line reflectsand respects
the equitable principle of resource conservation and management.
This bar chart, now Figure 134hefore you, was developedto illustrate but one
ooint. That noint is that the Northeast Channel marks a division or limit for
ktocksof I? but of 16sommercially imporiani speciesin the Ciulfi>fMsine ares.
II does not purport io dcal with stock distribution in the Gulf of Maine Basin.
Canada has attemoted to sow seeds of confusion about the information
show in this figure.but. if the chart is fully understood. Canada's attiick cm be
xçn ior what ilis, an effoIO obscure the fundament;il factual existence ofthe
stock di\isionr at the Northcast Channel. AccordinglWC would likc10explain
to you how this chart was developed The fact that this Figure conveys two-dimensiorial information on a one-
dimensional levelprovides Canada with the opportunity to confuse the matter.
The chart only shows one-dimensional bars 10 represent stock concentrations
over a laree area extendine from the southwest al Rhode Island to the northeast
to ~a~a; Bank on the Cotian Shelf. The chart was not developed to depict
stock.concentrations from the perspective of the continental slope landward.
By noting that some of the stocks represented hy the one-dimensional hars in
the Georges Bank area do not aggregate on the shallower parts of Georges
Bank, but in fact aggregate along the northern slope of the Bank, Canada has
attempted to discredit this Figure.
The Figure is no substitute for general stock distribution charts. lndividual
charts showing the two-dimensional distribution of major commercial fish
stocksin theGulfof Maine area may be round in Aiinex 1to the United States
Counter-Memorial.
To clanf) the nieaning of this FiguIIis helpful 10identiiy the breadth. if
SOU WIII.ithedrcd rcprcsented by thc bdrs in the Figure Canadli'sobfusçation
evaporates once the construction of the chart is iinderstood.
To assist inthe understanding of Fig7rof the United States Memonal, we
@ have prepared Figure 135of thispresentation. This isa chart showing the length
and the hreadth of thezone represented by the bars in 7iof the Memorial.
This zone extends from the western houndary of ICNAF and NAFO Division
5Zw to the northeastern part of Division 4X. or, in other words, from Block
Island (Rhode Island) to LaHave Bank on the Scotian Shelf. As you can see
from Figure 135,the zone covers the contineiital shelf hanks. You can also see
that it goes slightly beyond, incorporating some area both seaward and
landward of the 100-fathom (200-metre)depth contour.
In order to make it possible to depict the stock distribution pattern on a one-
dimensional plane, the zone on the chart was marked with diagonals at 45
degrees, numbered, West to east, from I to 64. These diagonals and their
corresponding numbers are shown in Figure 135.From the northern end,an axis
bisecting the 45-degree diagonals was drawn, running southwest from LaHave
Bank, through Browns Bank, across the Northeast Channel, through Georges
Bank to about 40"35'north latitude, 69' Westlongitude, and then, due Westto
off Rhode Island. This axis in red isshown on this Figure. The axis corresponds
23 to the bars in Figu7eof the Memorial, which run from Block Island, Rhode
O Island, to LaHave Bank; the hars in Figure 7 represent this red line.
The ranges of the stocks portrayed in Figure 7of the United States Memonal
are shown in relation to the intersection of the numbered diagonals with the
bisecting axis. If a stock occurs in fishable quantities ai some point along a
21 numbered diagonal line, it is shown in the segment of the Figure 7 bar that
O corresponds to the same numbered diagonal. Figure 7 of the United States
Memonal is reproduced as Figure 136of this presentation, with oneaddition: a
cross reference to the numbered diagonals has been added to the bottom of the
Figure. We will not put up a large board of Figure 136,but, at your leisure, you
may wish to compare the numbered diagonals on Figure 135with the numbers
on the bottom of Figure 136,and you will understand the relationship we have
sought to depict.
The limitations of using one-dimensional bars 10 convey two-dimensional
information are clear if one compares, for example, the Georges Bank bar for
cusk with that for yellowtail Rounder. Yellowtail Rounder concentrate on
Georges Bankproper, whereas cusk concentrate on the lower slopesof Georges
Bank. Becauseof the one-dimensional nature of the bar chart, that distinction is
lost in Figure 7 of the Memorial and both fish arc simply represented by a 256 GULF OF MAINE
"Georees Bank bar on the Georges Bank side of the Northeast Channel.
~ikewKe, redfish, which congregatë along the northern slope of the Bank,
appear on thechart as if they were fonnd in the middle of the Bank, which they
are not.
What Figure 7 of the Memorial does convey is that there is a break at the
Northeast Channel between the yellowtail flounder and cusk on the Scotian
Shelf side of the Channel, and the yellowtail flounder and cusk on the Georges
Bank side of the Channel. It also shows that there is a break al the Northeast
Channel between the redfish stock that occurs in deep water along the northern
edge of Georges Bank and the stock associated with the basin of the Scotian
Shelf. This break, which appears in the distribution patterns of 12 of the 16
stocks we have identified, is associated with the diagonal linesnumbered 44 and
45 on this chart. Along with those diagonal lines, represcnting the Northeast
Channel, stocks of the 12 species about which we have been talking do not
aooear in fishable auantities.
.As wc hais sscn, thcre arc Ih sommercially important species in the Gulf oi
Maine arca. 12 of uhich habe sep;irate stocks associated uith Georges B~nk.
Therc 12 stocks uould bedivided bv.incq~idistrint Iinc.Similarlv. the Canadian
Iine.or any oiher Iinecrossing ~eo;~es ~ink. wouldsut through.these 12stocks.
By sonir.isi, these sioski iiould nui he divided by the Iinc proposed hy the
United States. The other four species, namely, mackerel, pollock, argentine and
illex sauid. would be divided -eeardless of where the houndarv is draw---~ ~ ~ ~
Gulf if Maine area.
@ At Figure 59 of its oral presentation, which is from its Counter-Memorial,
Canada has added another 12 soecies in an effort to muddv the water. so to
sprlik. Ssven oi the iwel\,e spcci& C~nJdii adds migr~te ihioughout the area
Fish such .Ithe hluefin tuna. swordfirh and the A113nticsalmon, for example,
are clearly transboundary resources. The tuna and salmon are already managed
by multilateral agreements. None of these species will be affected hy the
delimitation in this case. The remaining five of Canada's proposed additional
species divide naturally at the Northeast Channel, whereas concentrations of
these fivesoecieswould be transected bv a delimitation that cuts across Georees
Bank ni ex22 of the United States ~eply provides furiher analysis of thi'l2
additional spc:ies proposed b) C~ndda to be of commercial importance in the
Gulfof M:iineare.i In sumniary, iheonly siocksdi\idsd by the Iineproposcd by
the Uniicd Siaies arc stocks of \\ide-ranging speciesthxi uill be diiided by any
boundar) in the drcJ H) contrast. iiIresident stocks on Georges Rank, as well
3s the stocks of wide-ranring spscie., \i'ould he divided hy the Canadian Iine.
The ranges of stocksth& were translated onto the bar chart are based upon a
combination of accepted scientific data: the results of hottom-trawl surveys
conducted by the United States Northeast Fisheries Center between 1965and
1978, and the stock units and limits accepted by ICNAF and NAFO and in
United States and Canadian scientific literature.
The United States standsbehind the informationcontained in Figure 7 of the
@ United States Memorial.
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, Canada's attitude towards science in
these proceedings has been remarkable. In fishery management fora, Canada
takes the position that science has an important role to play, but in this case,
Canada would deny the results and relevance of science.By feigning difficulty
with science, by discrediting the very sciencethat is has acted upon in the past,
Canada has made the task of the Chamher more difficult.
In his closing remarks, Mr. Fortier pounced upon a point that Canada
seemingly has been unable to comprehend from the start: the point being that258 GULF OF MAIKE
discussion with another observation by Einstein: "The only thing incomprehen-
sihle about nature is the fact that nature is comprehensible."
The Chamberadiournedfrom 11.10o.m. ro 11.35 a.m
IV
Mr. President, dislinguished Judges. May it please the Chamber.
We now come to the fourth oart of this oresenvation. in which we shall
endeavour 10respond to the foukh question put to us by Judge Cohen.
That question is as follows:
"Wh) hatc hoih Pnrt~csundcrpl:t!cd thc role ofjotnt manxgemrni for al1
m<ihileiransboundary fisherirs'' In iicw of the long record of CO-owra.
tive 'management' and common fact-finding in the:arrying out ofboth
Parties' obligations under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909and by the
lnternational Joint Commission, would there not have ken a credihle
opportunity to examine joint management of offshore migratory fisheries
and related biological/environmental matters in the Gulf of Maine area -
and conversely, why must il therefore be assumed that such CO-operativeor
joint management of biological resources would create more opportunities
for disoutes rather than avoid them. eiven the record of both cou~trie~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
simila;mdtters under the internatio noint Conimission. the Great Lakes
Fisberies Commission, etc.?'(Vl, p. 465.)
Our answer to this question will not be brief or simple, because we feel
comoelled 10describe 10the Chamber whv it is that recourse to international co-
operaiion -indced co-opcrntion hetuccn iu,oslojc ncighhours. allir. and iricnds
- protides no soluiiun Io ihc dcliniitaiiun queiiion hcforc this Ch~mber.
The iinited States-Cnnada Inicrn3i!onsl Juini Commijsion. knoun a\ IJC.
and theGreat Lakes Fishery Commission have accomplished a great deal within
the scope of their mandates. Bccause of the circumscribed nature of those
mandates, however, those bodies do not provide models for addressing ongoing
political, economic and technical questions of the magnitude and complexity
associated with joint management of Georges Bank.
The lnternational Joint Commission was established pursuant to the Bound-
ary Water Treaty of 1909(36 Stat. 2448, T.S. No. 548). Since that lime, it has
been justly celebrated as an effective mechanism for sometimes regulating, and
sometimes resolving, transborder problems between the United States and
Canada that principally involve water resources.
The lnternational Joint Commission kas been touted. nehilv.-as a,.odel for bi-
national CO-operation.Pagescould be,and have been,written about its successes.
The Treaty authorizes three functions to be performed by the lnternational
Joint Commission: (1) approving certain uses, ohstructioni, or diversions of
waters related to the boundarv lArti,l\ ~ -1.IV and V111):~ ~ ~ ~a~ ~,,e~, ".
reporting, and making advisory recommendations with respect to matters of
difference along the border that have been referred by the Governments to the
lnternational Joint Commission, under Article IX ofthe Treaty; and (3) reso-
lution by arbitration of anv other matter on the terms under which it bas been
presented by the two Governments IO the lnternational Joint Commission, under
Article X of the Treatv. The International Joint Commission never has been
called upon Io render idecision pursuant to Article X, but ilhas received over
100applications for approval and references requesting advisory recommenda-
tions under Article lx. REJOINDER OF MR. COLSON 259
The International Joint Commission typically beginsits work on a problem hy
establishing a scientific or technical board of experts from each nation. The
Commission frames a solution to the problem on the basis of the facts as
established by the experts. This works best in matters that do not involvedeeply
heldconflictingviews,or that are not of maior ooliticalimportance to the Parties.
Thus, it works best in matters that are relativélynarrowor technical in nature.
The International Joint Commission has examined factual questions, made
effectiverecommendations, and provided valuable follow-up advice on numer-
ous matters throuehout its existence.It never has. however. beencalled uoon to
cicrsisc ongoing management rc~pon\ihilitici in rclïtion IO srjrce tisheries
rc~i~urcc\.rcquiring ~lloc~iiunsbeti\een the tishermenof the tuo countries on ai
least an annual basis - the type ofjoint management that would be required for
Georges Bank.
Severalof the passages 1willrefer to in the next fewminutes are from a recent
book, entitled TheInternationalJoint CommissionSeventy YearsOn, 1981.It has
been deposited with the Registry in accordance with Article 56 of the Rules of
Court. It waspublished hy the Center for International Studiesof the University
of Toronto, following a conference held in 1979on the subject of the Inter-
national Joint Commission. Each chapter is hy a different author, and the book
includes, among others, a chapter hy the distinguished author of the question to
which we are responding.
As the late Professor Willoughby of the University of New Brunswickwrote
of the International Joint Commission:
"At times both governments have seemed reluctant to ask the IJC to
tackle difficult issues. On one note-worthy occasion they removed a
controversial matter - the Colombia River development proposal - from
the Commission'sjurisdiction and gave it to the diplomats."
He notes that:
"Issues which have become highly politicized and controversial may
better he left to the politicians and the diplomats . ..As for pushing the
implementation of its own recommendations, there are obvious limits
beyond which the IIC should not go. If thex are not ohserved, the
Commission may find itself involved in the intemal politics ofone or both
countries." (Ibid., pp. 38-39.)
Indeed, it isaenerallyaccepted viewthat, had the powers of the IJC not been
restricted inthe first place, it never would havecome into being, or, had it come
into being, it quickly would haveheen destroyed. Thus, Professor Dreiszingerof
the Royal Military College, Kingston, Ontario, wrotç:
"A commission with power to interfere in American (or Canadian)
domestic affairs would have been an easy target for nationalists, states-
rightists, and the vanous regional lobbies, and would, in al1probability,
have soon been destroyed. In this event, the experiment of 1909would have
bequeathed to Canada and the United States nothing but bitterness and a
legacy of failure, which would have been difficult to overcome at a later
date." (Ibid., p. 21.)
Lastly, as the distinguishedauthor of the question to whichweare responding
noted in 1981.regarding the International Joint Commission. "In al1likelihood
neither country, its prësent nationalist or sectionalist mood; would approve or
ratify the Boundary Waters Treaty" (ibid.,p. 122).
Applying thesethoughts to the question of fisheries managementin the Gulf of260 GULF OF MAINE
Maine area, one must question whether an institution modelledalong the limited
lines of the International Joint Commission could succeed in the management,
includingallocation, of the fisheriesof Georges Bank.In our view,it could not.
To succeed, il would have to have supernational regulatory authority to
manage the daily activities of United States and Canadian fishermen. We
seriouslydoubt that either side would place ils fisheriesinterests in the hands of
such an independent regulatory institution.
The questions raised by potential division between the United States and
Canadaof the groundfishand scallopresourceson Georges Bankwould be highly
charged,becauseof thecompetinginterests ofthe fishermen ofthe two States.The
rejection of the 1979 East Coast Fisheries Agreementand the presence of the
Parties before this Chamber today, are al1 one needs to note in order to
understand that fisheries allocation decisionsare far beyond theordinary.
Like the International Joint Commission, the Great Lakes Fishery Commis-
sion also has a commendahle record, but its broad mandate falls short of
comorehensive fisheries manaeement of the order reauired on Georees Bank.
~he'~ommission was established pursuïni to the ~onvcniion on gai Lakes
tishenes, signed ai Washington. 10Seplember 1954(6 UST2837. TIRS 3326
(entered in10force II October 1955).asamended 5April 1966and 19May 1967,
18UST 1402,TlAS 6297). Il has two primary undertakings: the eradication of
sea lampreysto permit developmentofa fisheryand the conduct of research and
formulation of recomrnendations for Great Lakes Fisheries (Art. IV). Neither
oroeramme reoresents a commitment of either the character'or the maenitude
ihaiuould be'requircd for ~omprehensi~cfishcriesnianagement u
In summary, neiiher instirurion hds been in\ol\ed in dn)ihing comparable Io
the comolex and recurrina decisions that need Io be made reiardin- fishe-ies
allocations between fishemien of two countries.
We3retempicd to inwrt here.asan exîmple, a shon dirsussionor the problenis
(ha1ihe Parties 3re expçnencing in the managenieni of ihe salmon re5ourceson
the Westcoast of North America. The comoeiine interests ofthe two sides.with
respn.1Io ihis resource,ha\,econtnbuied to'the&linc of ihe stocksand threaten
to destroy ihe commercialfisheryfor at Irait one species - the Chinook ur King
Salmon. Thai is no1an overstatement. We have ken nraotiatine with Canada
toward a common manaeement svstemfor the Westcoast Glmon Uocksfor m~r~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
than 20 years. We have-no1agréed,and the resource has sukered. Canada has
even told us it isconsidering withdrawing from theone applicable treaty that we
have.We willnot dwellon Ïhisexamole.Fnorder no1to fan the flame.Weare not
casting blame on anyone. Canada Gasnegotiated in good faith and with great
effort and so has the UnitedStates. But this only confirms the problemsthat are
faced in ioint resource fisheriesmanarement situations.
~athe; than trying to elaboraie fu;ther upon fisheriesallocation problemsin
terms oithc experiencesof the United States and Canada. permii me to examine
for a moment theciïoris within the European EcunomicCommunit, to establish
a common fisheriesool.cv .
The European Economic Comniunity'selïon io establish xcommon fisheries
policy demonstraies ihe dificulties oi bilairral or muliilatcr.iI management of a
common fisheries resource.The EEC exr>erienwkas ken frauahi with com~lex
problems u,ith both scientificand poliii~~~ dimensions.and pro;ides an exceilznt
example of ihe pruhlems that anse from joint managemeni of a common-pool
resource.
The Communitv ex~erience between 1977 and 1983 was illustrative of the
wide range of problenk that can arise fromjoint fisheries management. These
problems involved the full range of political, scientific, economic and social REJOINDEROF MR. COLSON 261
considerations that inevitably confront fisherymanagers. They are not overcome
by resolutions or new organizational frameworks. The allocation of scarce and
vulnerable resources is a difficult task. Let me quote from one well-informed
observer of the EEC's problem, in a recently published book that has been
deposited with the Court under Article 56 of the Rules of Court:
"The Hague Agreements made the Community potentially the world's
most effective fisheries conservation organization. Unlike NEAFC, the
North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, ICNAF and other intergovern-
mental fisheries commissions, the Community possessed the authonty to
adoot regulations which were directlv anolicable in the member States and
cnf;rsedthrough thc (.ouri\. Hui the C;>kmunii) uas Saccdwiih the s~iiiie
pruhlrm a* the old fisheries Comniission. competing claimi Id scarce
resources. Siocks u,hich haJ hçcn subiesi iu rceulation bv iiEAtC nosi,lrll
within the Communitv's fisherv zone. The triinsfer of the debate over the ~~-
distribution of these rcsourccs tu a Communit) irdmeuork did not in iiself
makr scilutionscasier to rexh 'TheC<~mrnonFishcnes PuIicydchire uds to
continue for six vears before an agreement was reached about accessto the
C:ommunity'?fi& resource, and Iheir d~.trihution betueen memher Statcs
Only then could thc Cummuniiy mume full! iis rolc ofm~n;iger of ihr.200
mile fishery zone ir hsd crrdted hy ci~nccrtrdiistion in 1977." (Leigh, M..
Ekri~pcun Inrc~rilrion il~tirlirC(.»i,nun F~\ht*ri<r 1'011<1,pp. 76 and 77.
Ueposircd by the Cnitcd St3tr5 pursuani 10Art. 56of the Kulesof Court;
hereinafter cited as Leigh.)
The penod from 1977 to 1983, during which the EEC worked out the
Common Fisheries Policy, provides some interesting examples of the problems
of joint management.
In particular, there is a long and hard-fought debate over the allocation of
quotas between member governments. It would seeni to an objective observer
that, giventhe previous regulation ofmany of the fisheriesof theCommunityarea
hy the North East Atlantic Fishenes Commission, the development of catch
quotasand national allocations for stocks in Community waters wouldhave been
a relatively simplematter. This was not the case, however,and ensuing prohlems,
over even the rnost minor technical measures, al limes proved insurmountable.
The situation was summed up as follows:
"The reason for the long delay in reacbing agreement is not hard to
discover. For the apparently technical rubnc of 'total allowahle catch and
quotas' disguises a political problem of resource distribution hetween
member States. The sum of the member States' demands added up to more
than the total amount of fish available. In the bad old days when this
situation arose in the fisherycommissions, il led 10 the inflating of the 'total
allowahle catch', followed by overfishing - in the Community the excessof
demand over supply led to a prolonged debate about the critena for
distribution, quotas among memher States and about the sharing out of
specific stocks." (Leigh, p. 90.)
The difficultiesof ioint rnanaeement encountered bv the ~ ~-~nitv were not
Iimitcd to the seiting ofçiiiïh quoid\ and national aliocstions. ~hosé~roblems
cunst3ntly spilled over inio the more teshnii.~liirpectj of the repul,itor) rcgime.
such as mech reeulations. minimum fisb sizes.b<-catch limits. closed area; and
seasons, and other gear'restrictions. ~etween i976 and 1983, the EEC tried
repeatedly to implement a comprehensive set of such regulations. The EEC was
only able 10adopt partial measures pending resolutii~nof disputes over quotas 262 GULF OF MAINE
and national allocations, due to the conflictingmanagement philosophies and
objectives of the various member States.
The fact that a common fishery policy was finally adopted only mesns that,
after six years of negotiation, the EEC finally was able to agree upon fisheries
management for a single year - that is, in January 1983,it agreed upon 1982
quotas-after thefact.Thosequotasdo not apply prospectively, and willhaveto
he renegotiated annually. To conclude the EEC experience in joint fisheries
management between 1976and 1983,I would liketomakeoneother quote from
this book to best sum it np:
"The [Common Fisheries Policy] is also a good case study hecause
fisheries is an intensely political suhject, according to Harold Laswell's
definition of oolitics as 'who "ets what. when and how'. Des~ -ert~--manv
icchnic~lirsuri invol\cd ihc IConinion Fisheries Polit>]1suliim,iicl) >bout
resourcç all~~cdiionbci\rccn niciiiher Staie.. The suni of national JcmanJ.
adds uo tomore than thetotal resourcesavailable sothatthe comoromises.
rr3dc-011'sxnd \ide-pdymcnii arc nccessary. Compri>mi,c ,oluiions drc
p~rticularly hard i<ircdçh hcc:iiiscoi the inicn>cicclings dssoci;iicd with
tishinc. man', Iastcionomicallv iipnilicdni hunting;ictivity. Iiisditlisuli io
persuade those directly involvédin theindustry ofthe need to limit catches
and to share fishing grounds with vessels from memher States." (Leigh,
p. 5; citations omitted.)
To return to the case of Georges Bank, were the Georges Bank stocks to be
transboundary, the United States and Canada would he faced with prohlems
that are similar to those of the EEC. The inescapable goal of resource
conservation and management is to balance the needs ofconservation with the
desire to allow each State its fair share of the stocks.
Hcrcin Iicsthcdilliculty. Hoi\,docs oncdctcrminc ljir rhxrc? I)o )ouconsidsr
nccd, or histr>ric31c3tih'' Perhaps x form~ldthai is hhscd upon ihc dniount oi
time that each stock spends in each State's waters as it makes its annual
mieration around the Bank is most eauitable. or. to use an extreme examole.
pe;hap$cach St:itc uiII ignore ih~~~cti\~lic~nfthcoihcr.ind t.iki.ai muzh otihc
tish 3s iican white ihc stock ir uiihin iis juri~Jicti<~n
The Iasi e~dmrileir noi a\ Far-fctchcdas IIuc~uldiecni. Fconomic vdridblc.
often have com~licated attemots at ioint resource manaeement between th~~
United States and Canada. ~eoftin have disagreed uion management of
particular stocks because we often have ditïerent social and economic goals.
~econciliation of those human goalsisin almost al1casesdone at the expenseof
the fishery resource.
Let us look at Figure 137.This Figure appeared as Figure 7 of the United
@ States Counter-Mernorial, Annex 2. The arrows relate to our pollution argu-
ments and are not relevant to our comments today. The nnderlying chart - a
chart of the distribution of herring larvae in the Gulf of Maine area - shows
what happens under joint management of a common-pool resource when
competinginterests areat stake. The herring fisherybegan inearnest on Georges
Bank in the 1960s,during the time of ICNAF's responsibility. You can seethat,
in 1973, there was still an abundance of herring larvae in the distribution
pattern. Youcan alsosee thedemise of theherrinnin 1974.There wasno herring
iarvae to be found on Georges Bank in 1980,and there is none today (VI;
p. 416). A fishery was destroyed.
The United States has referred to thisfact before (Counter-Memorial, Ann. 1,
para. 82; VI, pp. 416-417). It is evidence of the separateness of the Georges
Bank and Scotian Shelf stocks of herring. The latter were not atïected by the REJOINOER OF MR. COLSON 263
devastation of the Georges Bank stock. If Georges Bank is no1 divided hy a
boundary, the management, or lack thereof, of the Georges Bank stocks willnot
affect the management, or lack thereof. of the Scoiian Shelf stocks, and vice-
versa. By contrast, if the Georges Bank stocks are rendered transhoundary by
the delimitation in this case, the actions of one Party could have equally drastic
consequences for the resources of the other.
Here 1would like brieRy to pause to expand our answer (supra, p. 161) to
Judge Mosler's seventhquestion (VI, p. 463).
The United States helieves that fishing activities and resource conservation
and management - matters dealt with in the failed 1979Fisheries Agreement -
may he taken in10 account hy the Chamher. Our reason is that the legal
relevance of fishingactivities is well recognized in the jurisprudence. Further-
more, in respect of resource conservation and management, il is a recognized
objective ofinternational law, and, in Ourview,an equitable principle applicable
10 the delimitation of the sinele maritime boundarv. Thus. these matters arise
<>u t~~L~LII,IIII:II:1\1- the priniiplc\ rules ufinicrnaiion.il I:irrcierred 1,)in
i\rticle II, p,ir;igr~ph 1,<nithr. Speci.iI 4grccmcni - aiid ihiis .ire noi hiundcd
iiuun the i~iled 1'17'd1crccnicni: nor 111sthe P;irlies'I;iileJ eifiiri Io coninroniisc
put these matters hey<nd the riach of the Chamber.
That is our answer Io Judge Mosler's seventhquestion.
In the viewof the United States, international law requires that the Chamber
take into account, as a circumstance relevant to the delimitation, the fact that
the boundary could pass between stocks, that is, along the lines of stock
divisions in the area, rather than through stocks. A houndary that took
advantage, in the inner area, of the line dividing the Scotian Shelf ecological
régimefrom that of the Gulf of Maine Basin, or, indeed, a boundary that
followedthe deeper waters of the Basin, would minimizethe extent to which unit
stocks would be bisected by a boundary. In theouter area, a line that follows the
course of the Northeast Channel would minimizethe extent to which unit stocks
hciiimc tr.in\h<,uiid.ir! I{! :uniraai, a Iinc iIi;iirA\crscs and ihcrch! d~vide,
C;cor&c\Hdnk iv<>uldreiider tr.inihound.ir! ;IIIof ihc Gei>rgcsHani. .,iucks si
commercially important fish and shellfish.
WChupe thai the Chamber understands the problems of the joint manage-
ment of the Georges Bank fisheries,and realizes the exaggerations that Canada
kas employed in attempting to confuse this issue.
The United States does not reiect the conceot of ioint manaeement when such
man.igcmcnt is neces,;iry Mc JO. ho\icher. rcci,gni7canJ have .ilic~lih! rcbpect
ior 11sinhcrcnt JilIir.uliics.It uotild hc n.iivc i<i%uggc:ithai joint m.tnagcmznt of
the <icorecs I3;inkri\hcric\ aould he sim~lc maticr <'*n:id;incrfcr.ilv ucll
knows thk. ln addition to the unique ecos$stem of Georges ~ank, thGe are
myriad social, economic, and political factors that becomc variables in the
management equation.
Byasking the Chamber to draw a boundary line that willdivide management
authority for the fewest numher of commercially important stocks, we are not
asking the Chamber to reject the concept of international co-operation. Quile to
the contrary, we are asking the Chamber to recognizç the inherent difficultiesin
international manaeement of a shared resource. and ~. IO draw a boun~a~~ ~~~,
based upon al1theapplicable equitahle principles and relevant circumstances,
that will reduce those difficulties.In so many words, iveare asking theChamher
to lay the foundation for a future system of resource, conservation, and
management in the Gulf of Maine area that will be effective. STATEMENTBY MR. ROBINSON
AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTOF THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA
Mr. ROBINSON: MI. President, distinguished Judges. May it please the
Chamber.
This morning, il is my great honour to conclude the oral presentation of the
United States of America. After almost two-and-one-half years of sustained
effort by many, many talented men and women on hoth sidesof the aisle, it is, as
the distinguished Agent for Canada said in his closing remarks, with some
emotion thatthe Parties now realizethat their role in the proceedings in the Gulf
of Maine case isdrawing ta a close. Whilethe Parties are nearing the end of their
labours, the most important work of the Chamber and its distinguished Judges
still lies ahead.
The Parlic\ hÿje prcsented the Ch3mbr.r with thi~us~ndsof pages oiuurds,
uiih hundrcds of ligurss and wiih niany hour, <>fordlargument in ihis hi,toric
case. II 1sni~wior ihc Chamher io consider uhat har hccn uriiten and said here
and ta prepare its judgment.
In connection with my presentation today 1would liketa recognizethe special
contribution of Michael Danaher.
The Chamber has two distinct but closelyrelated tasks: First, to determine the
principles and rules of international law that apply as between the Parties in this
matter, and second, from those principles and rules, taking account of the
relevant circumstances, toderive thecourse of the singlemaritime houndary that
willdivide the present and future maritime jurisdiction of the Parties in the Gulf
of Maine area.
In so doing, the Chamber will provide important guidance for the resolution
ofother disouted maritime boundaries around the world. The scooe of maritime
houndary $elimitation has dramatically increased with the advent of the 200-
nautical-mile zone as a fact of life in international law. This expansion in
coastal-State jurisdiction is presenting the community of nations aïlarge, and
now this Chamher, with a special challenge in seekingto further the goal of the
peaceful resolution of disputes between States.
The Judgment in this case willwrite a major newchapter in ajudicial history
that beeins with the 1969 North Sea ContinentalShslf cases. In that case. the
Court &amincd the general prinsiplcs of iniernatiokl Iliuthai 3pply IO thc
delimit~iii)n of thc continental ,helf. 11determincd ihat the çoniinïnial shelf
boundary hetween neighbouring States is not based on the concept of a just
and equitable share of the area to be delimited, nor on any principle of
proximity to the nearest coasts of the Parties. Rather, the Court determined
that shelf boundaries are to be determined in accordance with equitahle
principles, taking account of al1the relevant circumstances, and with respect
for the natural prolongation of the Coast of each State into and under the
sea.
In the 1977 Anelo-French case. the Court of Arbitration examined the de-
Iimii~tionpro!,isi<n\ oiihc 1958Continenial ShelfConvention and the rcliiiion-
zhip of Article 6oithiii Con\eniion Io boih cu5torniir) law and ihc dc\r.loping
lau of thc sea The Couri of Arbitriition offercd neu perspectiver on naturd
prolongation,proportionality and the equidistance-speca c&cumstancesrule of
Article 6. In so doing, the Court of Arbitration contributed to the hamoniza-266 GULFOF MAINE
This issue ofcul-off of which the United Stateshas made so much in this case,
will be replicated in maritime boundary disputes around the world. This issue
raises the most fundamental questions of sovereignty. The question of cut-off
posed inthis case, no1only in a geographic sense, but in a political sense as well,
affects the interests of al1States. For al1our houes that the customarv law of
co.i\i:,l-Siie ri~ht.;will nu\\ \iühili,c. no Siaie knon, \riIli in) ieridiniy uh3i
the iuiurc of the <:oniimic 7oiie rcgimc uill hold
Mr Prcsideni. in ihi, conicxi. the I:niieil Si;iies.uith grmi rcs~ccl,nllirmr the
response to your question, given by Ambassador ~tevenson on 9 May. The
United States would emphasize that, in weighing the factors relevant to
delimitation, under the Fundamental Rule first enunciated in the North Sen
Confinenfa1Shelf cases. the Chamber should consider carefullv the orohlem of
protecting the extensions of coastal fronts out to the open sea:~s Agent of the
United States 1also take tbis opportunity to confirm ail the responses given by
mv colleaeues to al1the other iuestionsof the distinruished Judres
'~r. l>rcsident,goiid ienccs io iiideed mxkc good'ncighhiiur~,"evcn if thiisc
ieiixs hi reilc<ii\e of nature .I,iicll lisofget~graph) Whxi thr uorld nccds aiid
i\ cniiilcd IO e\ncci irom ihe C'hainher i\ Ilcxihlebut nrini'ip.i.dcu-d;incc. roott.rl
in the established law. on ~h~t to do in the ma& situations. like the one~ ~ ~
prcscnied herc, uhcrc a go<,ilicncc h:i$hccn rcque;tcd The appris~chsuggestcd
hy the Cnitcd SI~IL.\i.iconfirnicd h) ihe Ch:iniber. ii<iuldprui,ide iuch guidande
and thsrch\ heln ooini iht u.is ii>ri.ibiliis. nui iuri IIIthe Gulf ui .M.iinc;irea.
hi11 nrou~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -. ... ...
It is against thisba~k~round that the United States would now like to respond
to the questions ~0Sedbv Judre Cohen at the end of Ambassador Stevenson's
presentation on 9 May Gd atihe end of Mr. Colson's presentation on 10May
(pp. 206, 244, supra).
Judge Cohen requests the United States to confim and explain its view that
the Fundamental Rule is the "unifying, dominant, legal principle that is to
provide the hasis for the location of a single maritime boundary that unites the
continental shelf doctrine and old coastal fisheriesdoctrine Io the new 200-mile
zone". We do confirm this position of the United States. ln explanation, we
would begin by noting that the Memorial of Canada contains the following
statement (para. 278):
"What then are the legal principles governing the determination of a
single maritime boundary? In Canada's suhmission, the answer to this
question isas follows: ~here isan underlvinr and fundamental nom or rule
of law to be applied in al1maritime deliniitaijons and therefore to the single
maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine area. This singlerule of law isthat
maritime boundaries are to be determined in accordance with equitable
principles, taking account of al1 the relevant circumstances, in ordcr to
achieve an equitable result."
Canada has since confirmed this "fundamental nom" (III, Counter-
Memorial, para. 729; V, Reply, para. 375; hearing of 5 May 1984).
Canada's formulation is thus substantially the same as the United States
~ ~~ ~e~t of the Fundamen~al ~ ~ ~ ~ al1its ~;bmissions. Moreover. the ~ ~ ~-~ .
meni.il Kiilchlir heenerprc,sl! ciidorscd h) ihc Couri in ihc ILt~is~uI.rhi.<r sasr
ip~ra. .AII J<IC ihc d~rnoiirrt j: "the dcliniit~iiun i\ tu hc cffccred iii xccurdancc
with equitable principies, and taking account of al1relevant circumstances".
At the end of theoral hearing on 9 May, Judge Cohen raised the issue ofwhat
"guidelines" the Fundamental Rule would give in this case. In Mr. Stevenson's
oral reply to Judge Cohen, he pointed out the îour equitable principles STATEMENTBY MR. ROBINSON 267
consistently identified hy the United States in al1its written pleadings and in
these oral ~resentations in this case.
4loreo\,ér.the Jc\elopments 41 thc Third I:niied Xiitions Conierence on the
Law olthr 53 uere in keeping u,ith these priniiples Thc (:onferencc huili upon
the oldcr juriiprudrnce dnd, h) rcferring io Article 35 of the Court's Siaiute. in
~,pu.i of the deliniitation ut'the ?OO-nauticii1-milrc~cluciie cconomic 7one JBJ
conlincntal shrlf. confirmed cxisting international law. rcjwting an) exprebs
refercnie ii~the eauidistiinw meih<rl.The mdior concern of the Lau of the Sca
Conference in effktive conservation and minaeement of natural resources is
expresslyreflectedin the secondequitahle principleidentified hy the United States.
That the Fundamental Rule calls for taking into account the relevant
circumstances in each case ~rovides a tribunal with the flexihilitvto consider no1
only different factual but also the relative importance of difierent
equitahle principles as applied to these particular circumstances. Every case has
its own unique circumsiiÏnces, whethergeographical, environmental or histori-
cal. and thisc~s~ ~soeciallvso. In a moment the United States w~~~list the soecific
co~sider~iionsimpbrtant'to this çarr~~hese williIlu,traie the application;f the
Fundanient~l Rule this CdSC in the \iew of the United Siaies.
At the conclusion of the Deputy-Agent's geography presentation on 10May,
Judge Cohen asked about the relationship hetween Mr. Stevenson's statement
on the law and Mr. Colson's treatment of the cut-ofieffect and proportionality.
In response, the United States recalls the well-developed principle of non-
encroachment. which reauires the avoidance or abatement of a cut-off.
The law of delimitation hegins with the coasts and with the principle that the
houndary must respect the relationship of the coasts and the sea. Within this
principleof lawis aconcePt of equity -of geographical equity - that comparable
coasts deserve comparable treatment. The proportionality test is an expression
of this concept of equity in the law.
In this case. the concavitv of the Gulf of Maine is an incidental, soecialfeature
ihat, ~fthe equ!di\tance mgthod werc urcd. uould cause the hound&) to cul otT
the ioast of hlaine from the are3 in front of itand IO den) that cor>[comparable
or ~roportionate treatment. An equitahle boundary must abate that cut-off.The
propoÏtionality test demonstraterwhether a boundary ahates the cut-ofito the
extent that al1the coasts receivecomparable treatment. Theproportionality test,
therefore, applies the law to the facts of a given case in a concrete way.
1hope this answers satisfactorily Judge Cohen's question about the propor-
tionality test.
That concludes the United States response to the questions raised hy Judge
Cohen on 9 and 10 May.
Mr. President. the United States would now liketo turn to the soecificfactual
con>idrrations uhich u,e helievr.3re importani io the delimiiatio~ uf the single
maritime boundar) in the Gulf of Maine arça. firit, the coasial geography;
second. the marine en\ironmcnr. and. ihird. the 3cti\iries of the Partics and their
nationals in the area.
The essentialconsiderations relating to coastal geography are four in numher.
Firsr.the eeneral direction of the coasts of the Parties in the Gulf of Maine
area, includyng the general direction of the Coast at the hack of the Gulf of
Maine, is from southwest to northeast.
Second, the land houndary and the international houndary terminus are
located in the northern corner of thecoastal concavity that is the Gulf of Maine.
Third,the overall ratio of the length of United States to Canadian coastal
front in the Gulf of Maine is three to one.268 GULF OF MAINE
Fourrh, the United States coast at Maine and New Hampshire extends
seaward so as to embrace al1of Georges Bank.
We believe that these geographical considerations mean that the boundary
should proceed seaward, through the Gulf of Maine and beyond, perpendicular
to the general direction of the coast. A boundary such as that proposed by the
United States willleave to~e~ ~ ~artv as much as nossibleof the area in front of
ils coast. Such a boundary will aclord each ~~~~~omparabl~and balanced
treatment, and will achieve a reasonable derree of ~roportionality between the
leneths of the resoective coastal fronts and the are; beine delimited
A boundary that swings far across the front of th$ ~nited States coast and
approaches the midpoint of the closingline of the Gulf of Maine before turning
seaward would not reflect the general direction of the coast and would not
respect the location of the land boundary and the international boundary
terminus in the northern corner of the concavity that is the Gulf of Maine. Such
a boundary would deny the United States coast at the back of the Gulf ils
rightful extension through the Gulf of Maine and beyond. Such a boundary
would produce a disproportionate and inequitable result.
Such a result could be contemplated only if the coast of Maine and New
Hamnshire at the back of the Gulf of Maine did not exist. or if Canada's lateral
co~ct ibcrr.r~niiilcIo r.sr.ric prcfcrcntidl trcstmr~niIloi~eicr, thi'lau Joss niJi
cont~nipl:iicsuch prcierenti:il rightç.As ~t.iieilhy C3113da:"the noiion of tirci-
class and secondIclass coasts with unequal offshore entitlements is simply
unknown to the law. Indeed, it goes against the law." (VI, p. 36.)
The essential considerations relating to the marine environment are six.
Firsl, fish stocks are single biological units and mus1 be managed as such.
Canada agrees (United States Memorial, Ann. 91).
Second.most of the imnortant fish stocks associated withGeorees Bank are
,epar:tic from the import.i~tfish.io~.ksassosi~tedwiih the Scotidn<heli Ciin;id;i
has rccogni7sdthe st<i;k>ep:ir;iiion 21 the N~irthe.istCh:~iinel.relie.l iipoit iiir
fishervmanaeement pur.ose.for decades.and continues to do so. The& mav be
ihe ociasion;l .id\~cntiirsu~Ikib.tcror jtr;i) il~iunder.but. for pr;iittcal. tibher!
rnAn.i&cnicnp iurpihe*. the stock%are .cp:iratc the \iholc !.c;irroiind.
Tlriril,single-Stiitecoiisertsti<in .ind ni3nagemcnt oi tijh rtosL\ ir Nr niore
effectiveand-reliablethan joint conservation and management by more than one
State. This is a political reality recognized and given legal effect by the 1982
Convention on the Law of the Sea, with the strongencouragementofCanada al
the Conference. The root of the problem of joint fishery conservation is the
difficultythat States have in reaching agreement on the allocation of a scarce
resource.
The many bonds of friendship between the United States and Canada should
not obscure the unfortunate reality that our nations have enormous difficulty in
agreeing npon the allocation of fishery resources.Our experiencein the Gulf of
Maine area and in the Pacific salmon fishery provide recent examples of how
intractable this problem may be. Dividing Georges Bank between us would
create difficult problems of joint fishery conservation and management, prob-
lems that would persist and fester.
Fourih,the boundary delimitation should facilitate fisheryconservation and
manaeement where Dossible. This nrincinle is rootcd in the law of the sea
relating to fisheries,khich has beei driven by the quest for etïective fishery
conservation régimes.Indeed, Canada has long been
a forcefuladvocate of the
need for the law of the sea to promote effective fishery conservation and
management (United States Memonal, Ann. 91). STATEMENTBY MR. ROBINSON 269
Foih.developmcnt oicontinental \helioil and gas on the n<)rthe3sternpart of
Gcurgci Bank could endanger the fishstocks that extend southwcst onto the rest
tiithe Bdnk The United States thus hl\ an important inicrest in c(~ntrollingthe
Js\~elopmentof the continental shelfon al1oi'<ieorges Bank in ordcr io protcct
ils fisheries.
Sixrh,the boundary should minimizethe potential for disputes. This principle
is rooted in the nature and function of international law generally and in the
Charter of the United Nations.
In our opinion, it isnot good for Canada and the United States 10devote so
much of their relationship to the nagging and hotly contested problems of
managing the fishery resources for which their constituents compete. There are
too many other ripples inthe Stream.The agenda is too full. A boundary across
Georges Bank would only add more to the agenda. Such a boundary would
merelyperpetuate this dispute in another fom. We bçlievethat a boundary that
avoids dividing Georges Bank will, in the long run, strengthen, not weaken, the
underlying bonds between us.
These marine environment considerations cal1for the singlemaritime hound-
arv in this case to take advantaee of the natural boundarv and the sevaration of
ikportant fish stocks at the Northeast Channel. These marine efivironrnent
considerations are independent of the geographic çonsiderations, but in the
particular circumstances of this case they both support the same equitable
solution.
The essential considerations relating to the activities of the Parties and their
nationals are:
t'ir.,the United Statsr has strong estahli>hzdinterests in al1activitiesrel3ting
IO al1 oi'CicorgesBank, inîluJing b~t not Iimited to the fisheries.
Sc~on<lt.he Ilnitcd States fiahericsembnce ail imnortant iishstocksand JIIof
Georges Bank, including but not limited to scallois.
Third,United States interests in al1of Georges Bank are both historical and
contemporary.
Fourrh,Canada has similar multi-faceted and historical interests, no1 on
Georges Bank, but on the Scotian Shelf.
Geography, the marine environment, and the activities ofthe Parties and their
nationals, taken together, provide the factual and legal hasis for the houndary
claimed by the United States in 1976 and for the boundary proposed by the
United States in this case.
Rcfors pdssing to the mzthod ofdelimitation. the IJnited Statca \i,ouldlike to
somment on the proici5 <iimaritime boundary Jelimitation Thcrc are. in our
view, four steps to this process.
Firsr, one must identify the pertinent equitable principles and the relevant
circumstances. This is one step and not two. The facts and the law must be
examined together, for the facts are only relevant when the law makes them
relevant, and the principles of laware applicable only when theyare implicated
by the facts.
~ ~ ~ ~one mus1weieh~~o~~circumstances which are found to be relevant and
balance them up in order to ascertain the nature of an equitable solution.
Third,one mus1 select the method or methods appropri..e t. the circum-
stances of the case. This is no1oossible until one has e-ined an ann..ciation of
the relc\,ant circumstan.xs 2nd the applic~blerquitahle principlc~ AI ii,e hate
said hefurc. the mcthod i\hut the servant, no1the niastsr.270 GULF OF MAINE
Fourth,one must adjust the line as necessary to take account of the relevant
circumstances.
And,fifth, one mus1test whether the line produces a proportionate result.
The United States would now like to turn to the question posed by Judge
Schwebel. Judee Schwehel ~ ~u~ ~ ~ that the Unit~d-~~~~~s exnlain "the leeal
basis for the Northeast channe1 line which it maintained (untii the filing octs
Memorial in this case) was the line at which the maritime boundary should be
drawn in the Gulf of aine" (VI, p. 464).
The original legal basis for the Northeast Channzl line was stated in 1976
and 1977 in three Department of State memaranda. These memoranda were
distributed publicly at the time and have heen deposited under Article 56 of the
Rules of Court. The memorandum of 17May 1977Statesas follows:
"The United States maintains that a maritime boundary in the Gulf of
Maine area should reflect the special circumstances of that area, and,
specifically, that a maritime boundary in accordance with equitable prin-
ciples should recognize that al1of Georges Bank appertains to the United
States. In the view of the United States, the concavity of the New England
coastline and the convexity of the Nova Scotian coastline cause an
equidistant line to he 'pulled' toward the United States coastline, therehy
creating a boundary that is not in accordance with equitahle principles.
Also, the United States believesthat the geological, geomorphological, and
ecoloeical nature of Georees Bank indicates that it is ohvsicallv and leeallv
ihc aiturdl prolongaiih~of thc I:nircJ Siaies dnd'ii~t 3 bs~nd:~;) in
3csorJ.incc with equitabls prinîiples should rcrleit [hi, Tact.An important
noin1 oi the Ilnitcil States ;irrumrni ir ih:il the rir~iri~~rtiiin:l1;itionchin
between the lengths of the relevant coastlines shodd Lereflectedin the aria
to be delimited. The United States coastline is much longer than the
Canadian coastline in this area."
1hc 1976and 1977mcniorÿiidltarc iull) consistent wiih the position pr<ipo\r'd
b) the UniirJ Statcs in thij casc. wiih une cr.'eption. In 1976thc United Siale,
bélievedthat the law placed much more emphasis on the role of geology and
geomorphology in determining natural prolongation. Accordingly, the 1976
boundary followed the line of deepest water from the international boundary
terminus to the Atlantic Ocean. In this way, the United States gave eiïect to
geology and geomorphology even though to do socaused the houndary to swing
across the United States coast and then move back again. That line left
proportionately a much greater area to Canada than the coastal-length ratios
would justify, as explained hy the Deputy-Agent of the United States in his
presentation yesterday on 10 May.
The 1982 Judgment in the TunisialLibyacase clarified that the concept of
natural prolongation in its geological and geomorphological sense applied only
where there were distinct and separate continental shelves. As a result of this
Judgment, the United States no longer felt compelled to give the same eiïect to
the geological and geomorphological circumstances of the Gulf of Maine area
and revised its position accordingly. The United States and Canada agree that
there is one continuous continental shelf in the Gulf of Maine area. Particular
features of the suhsurface geology are discussed in Chapter II to Annex 5,
Volume IV of the United States Counter-Memorial (IV). The Northeast
Channel remains an important and relevant circumstance in this case with
respect to both the marine environment and the continental shelf.
The process by which the United States determined the 1976 line was
consistent with that described a moment ago. The United States identified the STAIEMENT BY MR. ROBINSON 271
üpplicahle equitahle principlcs ïnd rele\,~nt circum.;tances, u,eigheJ and b31-
3nced thcm. identiticd an appr~ ~iat~ mcthod. and applicd i~~ proportio~al~ty
test to the result.
That completes the answer of the United States to Judge Schwebel'squestion.
In 1982, the United States proposed a new line based on the method of
drawing a line perpendicular to the general direction of the coast. This line was
adiusted to assure Canada its orooer share of the area and to resoect the
ci~cumstances of the marine enbiroknent. The United States recogntes that
there are other approaches and methods, alone or in combination, that could
produce a simila; Ïesult in accordance with the law.
The United States helieves that the perpendicular method has advantages in
the particular circumstances of this case. The perpendicular method is well
recognized in law, as evidenced by the Grisbadnrnn case, by early scholarly
writings, hy the earliest delimitations of 200-nautical-mile zones,by the work of
the International Law Commission, and, most recently, by the TunisialLibya
case.
The houndary proposed hy the United States reflects the geographical
relationship of the Parties because the perpendiciilar line drawn from the
starting-point assures each State a reasonable seawanl extension of its coast and
a .roo.rtionate share of the area.
The adlusicd perpzndicalar line giver clTeci IO both ihe Unitcd Staies and
C<inadianco~sts.including the Atldntic-facing United States cu3st ai the bd~kof
the Gulf dnd the United Siatec 3nd Cdnadian COïSt$ un the sidesof ihc Gulf. The
United States line does not refashion geography; it respects geography.
The United States adjustments in the perpendicular line give effect to the
major relevant circumstance in the marine environment, that is, the separation at
the Nortbeast Channel of the Georees Bank and the Scotian Shelf fish stocks.
The adjusicd pcrpendisular Iinel&ves to each o1the Parties ihc arcÿ in uhich
ithas the preda>minaniinterest. thüi 1s. icithe United State,, Georges t)~nk.and
to CanadJ. the Scotian Shelt; includine Hrowns Bÿnk and Gcrman Hank. Thai.
MI. President, concludes this portionof my presentation.
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, as Agent of the United States, 1wish to
share with those who are present here today, and to express for the record, the
deeo eratitude of mv Government to al1those Americans who have made so
mli~s-per~onalriicrificcr in makinp their significïni contributions to the United
States c3.e II has been a greït privilegeto be asroci:iteJ uiih a11uho hatc been
connected uith the prepariiiion of thc IJniiçd Siaics case. includinr those \<ho
are members of ou;deiegation and those who are not. We owe so-much to so
many, including the distinguished Deputy-Agent, Ourable special counsel, Our
learned and most dedicated counsel, and al1the outstanding attorneys, advisers
and exoerts who have shared this arduous and challeneinp.exoerience with us.
~peciai thanks are due to our geographers and cartographic professionals for
their endurance among so many attorneys. Of signal importance, we wish to
acknowledge the indispensable contribution of Our administrative and support
oersonnel. Thev have heenextraordinarilv dedicated. and oatient. In this reeard.
ihe secretaries éspeciallyhave had to pu<up with the mosi extreme of deminds,
to say nothing of terrible penmanship, until al1hours of the day and night. We
are the first toadmit that the preparation of our case has provenlor onceand for
al1that attorneys are helplessand hopeless without the excellentclerical support
that has been so evident throughout this case.
With great personal pride, 1wish to singleout the Deputy-Agent of the United
States, my friend and mycolleague, David Colson. He has spent much of the last
ten years addressing the delimitation of the maritime boundary in the Gulf of272 GULF OF MAINE
Maine area. In the las1three years there has heen much to leam and to decide as
the Agent of the United States in this great case. Thanks, in this regard, goes
especially to David for his consistent good counsel and his persistent good
humour however sorely taxed hy the Agent of the United States. He deserves
special praise for his enormous contribution to the presentation of the United
States case.
The United States also wishes to coneratulate the entire Canadian deleeation
<inthcir ourstandingeiïurti. Itha, beenk) pcrsonal pnvilcgc oovcrthe p~sÏthree
)cars to de\,rlop a htrong uorking rclationship uith the Agent and the Depuiy-
Agent for Clinadî. For thst 1uill a1\!,3yihcgriitcful. 1especiallvu,li10 ex~ress
mi,ao..eciation to mv friend. Ambasiador Leeault. for-al1the-manv couriesies
which hç ha, 'onsistcntl) shoun We h3i.e iharcd quitc an cxpçrienie iogcthcr
and ii1suiih perronal plcasurc thai I virer a rpccidl s~lute to him
Mr. Prcrident, ihe UniiçJ Siaies 3150 uishcs 10 ihank the Kceistrv anJ 11s
outstanding staffwho have heen courteous and helpful from starito finish and
to the interpreters and translators upon whom we have made so many
unreasonable demands.
And, finallyMr. President, distinguished Judges, weespeciallywant to express
our appreciation to the Chamher for having listened to us with such patience
and attention. The Government and people of the United States are grateful to
the Court and we are grateful to each of you for having undertaken the
important task before the Chamber.
It was 30 months ago, in Ottawa, that the United States and Canada
exchanged the instruments of ratification that brought the Special Agreement
into force. On that oc~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~r officiaisof both Governments seemed to
hrcliihe a cOllecti\e sigh of relicf
A major hil~trral problem has been parscd iv the lau yerr and their iulle~gucs
Tuda!.. ihc Dcleeation of the United States and ihr Delecüiion of Canada uill
also bkeathe a srgh of relief, for Our work is over. But there will he a sigh of
nostalgia, also, hecause participating in this case on behalf of Our respective
countries has been a pnvilege of the highest magnitude for us al1and we are
grateful to Our Governments for this rare opportunity.
As provided in Rule 60 of the Rules of Court, it is my last act as Agent of the
United States in these oral proceedings to read the Suhmissions of the United
States. In so doing, the United States reaffirms its arguments in its written
pleadingsand in theseoral proceedings. The Suhmissions ofthe United States are
the same as those contained at pages 213 to 215 of the United States Memonal
(Ti),and restated at pages 269to 271of the United States Counter-Memorial @V)
and pages 165to 167of the United States Reply (V),with three modifications to
reflect its argument more precisely. Submission A (2) (A) now refers to natural
prolongation in its geographic sense. Suhmission A (3) now clarifiesthe connec-
tion betweenthe method of delimitation and the eauitable onnci~lesand relevant
ctrcumrianccs. And a new paragraph H (1)(A) bis ken ikerted to include as a
\pifiwlly identified relc\ant circumstance ihc scaward extension oi the coaswl
froni of !vi~iiieand New Ilam~,hire throuch-the Gulf 01'Maine and bcvond.
1now read the Final ~ubmikions.
ln i,iu(4 ihe Fdsts.the statement oiihc Iau, and the application of the Pau io
the factsset forth in thc Unitcd States Memorial. Counter-Memonal. .eoI.,.and
the oral presentations by United States ~ounsel;
Consideri nha! the Special Agreement between the Parties requests the
Chamber, in accordance with the pnnciples and rnles of international law
applicable in the matter as hetween the Parties, to decide the course of the single STATEMENT BY MR. ROBINSON 273
maritime boundary that divides the continental shelf and fisherieszones of the
United States of America and Canada from a point in latitude 44" 11'12"N,
loneiiude 67" 16'46" W to a ooint to be determined bv this Chamber within an
arca bounded by straight liks connecting the following sets of co.ordinïtcs.
latitude 40"N, longitude 67- W. latitude 40"N. longitude 65' W; latitude42 N.
longitude 65" W;
May it pleaserhe Chamber, on behalf of the United States of America, to
adjudge and declare:
A. Concerningrheapplicable law
1.That delimitation of a singlemaritime boundziryrequires the application of
eauitable principles, takine into account the relevant circumstances in the area.
to'produ& an equiiable solution.
2. That the equitable principles to be applied in this case include:
(u, the pnnciple that the delimitation respect the relationship betu,ecn the
relevant coasts of the Parties and the mantirnc ares\ lyingin front of those
cossis. including non-cncroachmcnt : proportioiialit).; and natural prolon-
gation in ils geogrÿphic scnse, or coastal-front extension.
(hl the principle ihat the delirnit;ition facilitate conscrviition and management
of the natural resources of the area;
(c) the principle that the delimitation minimize the potential for disputes
between the Parties; and
(d) the principle that the delimitation take accouiit of the relevant circum-
stances in the area.
3. That the equidistance method is no1obligatory <inthe Parties or preferred,
either bv treatv or as a rule of customary international law,and that any method
or combination of methods of delimitation may be used that produces an
equitable solution in application of these principlçs, taking account of the
relevant circumstances.
B. Concerningtherelevanrcircumsrances ro be rukeninroaccounr
I. That the relevant geographical circumstances in the area include:
(a) the extension of the coastal front of Maine and New Hampshire through
the Gulf of Maine and beyond;
(b) the broad geographical relationship of the Parties as adjacent States;
/cJ the eeneral northeastern direction of the east coast of North Arnerica.both
'
with;n the Gull oi Maine and seiiusrd of the Gulf.
(1 the location of the intcrnation~l boundnry terminus in the northcrn corner
of the Gulf of Maine:
(e) the radical changes in the direction of the Canadian coast beginning al
the Chignecto Isthmus, 147miles northeast of the international boundary
terminus;
1'1 the orotrusion of theNova Scotia oeninsula 100nautical milessoutbeast of
the ;nterniitiondl boundary tcminus, ireaiing a short Ciinadian coiistline
perpcndicular to the gcncral direction of the coasi. and iicross from the
international boundary terminus;
/~., the concavitv in the coast created bv the combiiiation of the orotrusion of
the Nota ~<otixpeninsula and the~ur\~atureoi thc New ~Gland Coast:
(hi the relative lcngth of thc rclcvant ~(iastlinesof the Parties; and
1ii the Korihrast Channel. Geurees B~nk. :ind Hrouns Hank and Cicrman
Bank on the Scotian Shelf, asspecial features.274 GULF OF MAINE
2. That the relevant environmental circumstances in the area include:
(a) the three separate and identifiable ecological régimesassociated, respec-
tively,with the Gulf of Maine Basin,Georges Bank, and the Scotian Shelf;
and
(b) the Northeast Channel as the natural boundary dividing not only separate
and identifiableecological régimesof Georges Bank and the Scotian Shelf,
but also most of the commercially important fish stocks associated with
each such régime.
3. That the relevant circumstances in the area reiating to the predominant
interest of the United States as evidencedhv the activitiesof the Parties and their
nationals include:
(a) the longer and larger extent of fishing by United States fishermen since
hefore the United States became an independent country;
(b) the sole development, and, until recently, the almost exclusivedomination
of theGeorees Bank fisheriesbv United St-t~s~~~~-ermen: and
c. the c\srciscky the Lniicd ~tare; and its national~for more thiin 200 )cJrs
i>fthc rcspoiisihility IUr aidi to na\ig3tion. se3rch 2nd rc%~.ued,cfcncc,
scientificresearch, and fisheriesconseÏvation and management.
C. Concerning the delimitation
1.That the application of equitable principlestaking into account the relevant
circumstances in the area to produce an equitahle solution is hest accomplished
hy a single maritime houndary that is perpendicular Io the general direction of
the Coast in the Gulf of Maine area, commencing at the starting-point for
delimitation specifiedin Article II of the SpecialAgreement and proceeding into
the triangle descrihed in that Article, but adjusted during its course Io avoid
dividing Geman Bank and Browns Bank, both of which would be left in their
entirety to Canada.
2.That the boundary should consist of geodeticlinesconnecting the following
geographic CO-ordinates:
Latitude (North) Longitude(West)
(a) 44"11'12" 67"16'46
IbJ 43" 29'06 66" 34'30"
.. .. - ~ -- .- ..
i2j 43" 00'00" 66" 33'21"
le) 42" 57' 13" 66" 38'36
If1 42' 28'48" 66' IO'25"
?" 42" 34'24" 66" 00, 00
fh) 42" 15'45" 65"41' 33"
(il 42" 22'23" 65" 29' 12"
(1) 41" 56'21" 65"03'48"
(k) 41" 58'24" 65"00'00
A signed copy of these Snbmissions will be communicated to the Chamher
and transmitted IoCanada as required by Rule 60. Le PRÉSIDENT DE LA CHAMBRE: Votre exposémet fin à la réplique
orale des Etats-Unis d'Amériqueet avec elleà toute cette phase de la procédure
en la présente affaire.Je tiens en ce moment à exprimer aux Parties, à leurs
aeents-et -eents adioints. àleursconseils eàleurs c6llabora~~.irs lc gratitude de
(3 Chamhrî pour I'xsiis~anceqii'll.;lui uni îouriiip.ir 1.priwniaiion clsire CI
appriiïondie de leurs ihcier rcspc~.ii!:r Ji. \<iudrair en m2me temps Ic, f2li:itr.r
de-l'atmosphèretoujours sereine et mime cordiale qui a étémaintenue pendant
tous lesdébats.Les deux Parties ont dûment déposéleurs conclusions finales. Je
serais reconnaissant aux agents des Parties de bien vouloir se tenir à la
disposition de la Chambre au cas ou celle-ci aurait besoin d'un complément
d'information. Les Parties seront convoquéesen temps utile oour connaître la
décision finale.Je déclareclose la procéd;re orale en ?affaire he la délimitation
de la frontière maritime dans la région du golfe du Maine.
L'audience est levéeà 12 h 5.3 VINGT-HUITIÈME AUDIENCE PUBLIQUE (12 X 84, 10h)
Présenrs:voir audience du 2 IV 84.1
LECTUREDE L'ARRET
Le PRESIDES T E LA CIIAhlllKE. 1.a Chïmhre consiiiu~s pour con-
nüitre de I'aitliired13 /)(ilin~~luli/r/<I/r<»~l~irc,nIur!IIJU»I /U r@gt~>tIli
golfe du Maine se réunitaujourd'hui pour donner lecture en séancepÜblique,
conformémentà l'article 58 du Statut de la Cour et à l'article 93 de son Règle-
ment, de son arrètdans cette affaire,qui lui a souniiseen exécutiond'uncom-
promis entre le Gouvernement du Canada et le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis
d'Amériquenotifiéà la Cour le 25 novembre 1981. Je rappelle qu'en vertude
l'article 27 du Statut tout arrêtrendu par une chambre est considérécomme
rendu par la Cour.
Avant d'entamer la lecture de I'arrétil m'incombeun pénibledevoir: celuide
rendre hommage à la mémoirede M. Koretsky, membre de la Cour de 1961à
1970et Vice-Présidentde 1967 à 1970,dont nous venons d'apprendre le décès
à l'âge de quatre-vingt-quatorze ans. Tous ceux qui ont connu M. Koretsky
auront gardéle souvenir d'un juriste éminentet scrupuleux ainsi que d'une
personnalité extrêmemenh tumaine et chaleureuse. Je voudrais aussi évoquer
une imagequi,j'en suissùr, est présenteàl'espritde toutes lespersonnes réunies
aujourd'hui dans ce prétoire,celle du regretté professeurAntonio Malintoppi
qui, le 5 mai 1984, bien que très affaibli déjàpar la maladie qui devait I'em-
porter moins d'un mois plus tard, prononqait icimêmesa dernièreplaidoirie au
nom du Canada, donnant ainsi un exemple émouvant de courage et de
conscience ~rofessionnelle aui a laisséà tous une imnression orofonde. Je
v<>udr.iispr><enicr une nou;elle fois les condolCanccs 13 ~h;mbre ei les
miennes:i I'xgenidu C3nxd.i. ci xux proches du di5psru Je prietous lesprcsents
de bien vouloir se lever pour observer une minute de silence à la mémoirede
M. Koretsky et à celle de M. Malintoppi.
[Les personnes présentesse lèvent.]
Veuillezvous rasseoir.
Je voudrais maintenant, sur une note toute différente, rappelerque nous nous
trouvons réunisauiourd'hui Dour rendre la décisionde la Chambre en cette af-
Iiire ,>ppo\.inldeui grxnds ciais J'Amcrique du Nord. prcciscment r.» Co/u»~-
ha.,Diii..c'est-:i-Jiresousdes ;iuspicesplriiculic:rcmentopportun cjcI'rpere.
favorables. Je ne saurais donc &ire moins que de saisir cette occasion pour
adresser aux délégations du Canada et des Etats-Unis d'Amériquemes félicita-
tions et mes vŒuxles plus chaleureux, auxquels s'associent lesautres membres
de la Chambre.
Je vaismaintenant commencer la lecture de l'arrêt. J'omettraide cette lecture
les qualités, c'est-à-direles paragraphes rappelant les diverses étapes de la
procédure,les conclusions des Parties, etc., les passages concernant l'origineet
l'évolutiondu différendet ceux qui consistent en une description et une analyse
des lignesde délimitation proposéespar les Parties. J'entamerai donc ma lecture
par les paragraphes relatifs au compromis entre les Parties. [Le présidentde la Chambre lit les paragraphes 14 à243 de l'arrêt'.]
J'inviie maintenant le Greffier à donner lecture du dispositif de L'arrtn
anglais.
[The Registrar reads the operative clause innglish'.]
M. Schwebeljoint à l'arrêtl'exposede son opinion individuelM.. Gros joint
a l'arrêtl'exposéde son opinion dissidente.
L'audiencees! levéeci12 h15
Le présidentde la Chambre,
(Signé)Roberto Aco.
Le Greffier,
(Signe) Santiago TORRF ~ERK~RDEZ
' C.I.J. Recueil198p. 263-345
I.C.J. Reporis 1984345.
Plaidoiries (suite et fin) - Procès-verbaux des audiences publiques tenues au Palais de la Paix, à La Haye, du 3 au 11 mai et le 12 octobre 1984, sous la présidence de M. Ago, président de la Chambre