Correspondance

CORRESPONDENCE

CORRESPONDANCE 1. 7'HEAMBASSADORSOF CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERlCA TO THE
NETHERLANDS TO THE REGISTRAR
[See 1,pp. 3-41

2. THE AMBASSADORSOF CANADA AND THE UNlTIiD STAIATEO SF AMERlCA
TO THE NETHERLANDS 'IOTHE ACTING PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT
OF JUSTICE

25 November 1981

The Governments of the United States of America and Canada have on this
date notified the Registrar of the Court under Article 40 of the Statute of the
Court of the SoeciaÏAereement' between the Government of Canada and the
Go\ernment oithe unitcd Siates of Amcrica to siihmit IO a Chomkr of thc
Internaiional Court of Justice the Dclimiiaiion of the \lantime Roundary in the
Gulf of Maine area.
In theirjoint notification, the two Governments have stressed the importance

that they attach to early consultations with you under Article 17of the Rules of
Court so that you may be in a position to ascertain their views regarding the
comoosition of the Chamber to which the two Governments have now
submitted the question set out in Article II of the Special Agreement.
To thisend, on behalf ofthe Governments of Canada and the United States of
America, we hereby request a meeting with you within the period from the
afternoon of 8 December to II December 1981,inorder that the Agentsof both

Governments are able to present their views regarding the composition of the
Chamber to hear the Gulfof Maine case in accordance with the Statute and the
Rules of Court.

3. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AMBASSADOROF CANADA TO THE NETHERLANOS

25 November 1981

I h;i\,c the honour to acknowledge receipt of ihe Iettrr d~ied 25 N<>\,embcr
1081. si~ned b) Your El;ccllency and hy Hi, ëxccllency the Amb3ss3dor
in the Netherl~nds i>fthe Cnitcd Siütrs of Amcrica. con\tituiine notification in
the Court of the SpecialAgreement between the Go"ernmen1ofCanada and the
Government of the United States of America to submit to a Chamber of

the International Court of Justice the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary
in the Gulf of Maine area, signed at Washington on 29 March 1979, and
subsequently altered. 1 have the honour further to acknowledge receipt of
certified copies of the Treaty between the said two Governments to submit to
binding dispute settlement the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the
Gulf of Maine area, done at Washington on 29 Marçh 1979and subsequently
-
' 1.pp.3-26.286 GULF OF MAINE

altered: the SoecialAereement referred to ahove: a further Swcial Aereement
ktween the &id two-~overnments to >uhmit IOa Court of ~rhitLtion the
Delimitation of the Maritimc Boundary in the Gulf of Mainc area. and of the

Protocol of Exchün-c of in,truments of ratification of the said T.e.t!. dated
20 November 1981.
1 note that Mr. Leonard H. Legault has been appointed Agent for the
Government of Canada in this case, and that his address for service is the
Embassv of Canada at The Haeue.
Due note has also ken taken that it is the intention of the Government of
Canada to exercisethe power conferred by Article 31of the Statute of the Court

to choose a judgead hoc to sit in this case

(Signed)Santiago TORRES BERNARDE~

4. THEREGISTRAT ROTHEAMBASSAWR OFTHEUNITEDSTAN OFAMERICA
m THE NETHERLANDS

25 November 1981

1 have the honour to acknowledge receipt of the letter dated 25 November
1981,signedhy Your Excellencyand by His Excellency the Ambassador to the
Netherlands of Canada, constituting notification to the Court of the Special
Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the

United Statesof America to suhmit to a Chamber of the International Court of
Justice the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundarv in the Gulf of Maine area.
signed ai Washington on 29 March 1979.dnd sub;cquenlly ~ltsrcd 1have the
honour further to acknowledae rcceipt of sertified copiesof the Tredt) bctueen
the said two Governments to&hmit io bindine dis~uie settlemethe- eli imita-
lion of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf ofMaine area, done al Washington
on 29 March 1979and subsequentlyaltered; the Special Agreement referred to

above; a further Special Agreement between the said two Governments to
submit to a Court of Arhitration the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in
the Gulf of Maine area; and of the Protocol of Exchange of instruments of
ratification of the said Treaty, dated 20 November 1981.
Inote that Mr. Davis R. Robinson has heen ao~ointed Aeent for the
Go\ernmcnt or th? United Statesof Americli in lhis ;aie. and thhis addrcs
for serviceisthe Emhassyof the United Statesof Americü ai The Hxguc.

Due note ha5 also ken taken that it1,thc intention of the Go\,crnnieoi
Canada to exercisethe power conferred by Article 31of the Statute of the Court
to choose a judgead hoc to sit in this case.

5.THEREGISTRA RO THE SECRETARY-GENER OFTHE UNITED NATIONS

(relex)

26 November 1981

1have the honour to inform you, pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 3, of the

Statute of the Court, that on 25 November 1981the Governments of Canada
and the United States of America filed in the Regisiry of the Court a joint CORRESPONDENCE 287

notification of a Special Agreement dated 29 March 1979 (subsequently
amended) for the submission Io a Chamher of the Court of the Delimitation
of the Maritime Boundary in the Guy of Maine Area. Printed copies of the

Special Agreement willbe communicated Io you as soon as possible pursuant to
Article 42 of the Rules of Court.

27 November 1981

By a letter dated 25 Novemher 1981,and handed to me the same day, Their

Excellencies the Ambassadors Io the Netherlands of Canada and the United
Statesof America notified to the Court, pursuant to Article 40 of the Statute of
the Court. a Snecial Aereement between their resoective Governments for the
iuhmib,ion 10 aChlimher i)l'ihcCourt oiihe case coiiccrning the Br,limiruifot
rhv hl<ir!rtrR,,u,zd<ir)~rh<, 01hl<i,nArra; and h) thai Iciier the Court
was also informed of your appointment as Agent of the Government of the
United States of America. havine -s address for service the United States
Embassy a1The Hague
Bya further letter dated 25Novemher 1981.addressed to the Acting President
of the Court. the two Ambassadors reauested a meetlne of the Aeents of the
Parties with the Acting President, pursuant to Article 17of the ~ulës of Court.
The President has directed me Io inform you that he will he happy to meet
the Agents for that purpose, and proposes an appointment' for li a.m. on
12 December 1981. I am, of course, writing to the Agent of Canada in the

same sense.

7. THE REGISTRAR TO THE SECRETARY-GENE OFATHE UNITED NATIONS

Il December 1981

1 have the honour to refer to the telexmessageof 26November 1981whereby
1 informed you of the filing on the previous day of a joint notification by the
Governments of Canada and the United States, and to advise you that I am
fonvarding under separate cover (by airmailed parcel post, marked "Attention,
Director, General Legal Division") 200 copies of the Special Agreement thus
notified, providing for the submission 10 a Chaniber of the Court of the

Delimitation ofthe Maritime Boundaryin ihe Guljof Maine Area.
1 would be grateful if, in accordance with Article 40, paragraph 3, of the
Statute of the Court, you would be good enough to inform the Members of the
United Nations of the hling of this Special Agreement.

' The meetinginquestionwaslaterposfponeduntil 15December1981288 GULF OF MAINE

8. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES~ANGÈRFS D'AFGHANISTAN'

Le 16décembre1981

Le 25 novembre 1981, les ambassadeurs du Canada et des Etats-Unis
d'Amériqueaux Pays-Bas ont coniointement notifiéà la Cour internationale de
Justice u.n comnro&is entre leurs eouvernements visant à soumettre à une
chantbre de ILCour la qui5iion dc la Bi:lrmrrirriinIrluIro~irUrc~tiurir~mt,<itisItr
ri.qioiidu gel/<du .\lurtie. Ce compromis a etc signc i Washington le 29 mars
1979et modifiéoar 13suite: les instrumenis de ratification ont Ci6kch~neésà
Ottawa le 20 nobembre 1981. -

J'ai l'honneur de vous transmettre ci-joint, à toutes fins utiles, un exemplaire
dudit compromis et des autres textes déposesen mêmetemps au Grefïe de la
Cour.

9. THE ACTING PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONALCOURT OF JUSTICE
TO THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENTOF CANADA

18 December 1981

With reference to the meeting held in myofficeon Tuesday 15December 1981
forthe purpose of the consultation to ascertain the viewsof the Parties, pursuant
to Article 17,paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, concerning the composition of

the Chamber the formation of which has been requested to hear the case
concerning the Delimirarionofrhe Maritime Boundar)?in rheGuljof Main Area,
1 have to inform you that at a meeting held by the Court on Wednesday,
16 December 1981, 1duly reported the ascertained views of the Parties to the
Court.
In the course of that meeting the Court proceeded to an examination of
the Snecial Aereement notified to the Court on 25 November 1981 bv the
~ovekments of Canada and the United States of America, and the hther
documents enclosed with the notification. Views were exchanged between the
Members of the Court and certain issues were raised bv some of them

c~ ~~ ~~ ~ oroblems which in their view mieht create diffic;lties. oarticularlv
because or possible incomp~tibilitics wth ih~~tatutc and thc Rul& of cour;.
Follouina the discussion,it u.3~desidrd thît I should in\itr the Agents of boih
Parties t& submit in wnting to the Court supplementary exdanations or
clarifications on thefollowing points:

I How in Article IIIof the Treaty of29 Varch 1979 the referencetithc filling
of vacancies on the Chamber 'in a manner îcceptîble to the Pariies" cîn be
reconciled with the nrovi,ion? of Article 26 of the Statute and of Ariicle 17.
paragraph 3 (last sentence), and Article 18, paragraph 1, of the Rules of court:
2. Attention was drawn to the last sentence of Article 1 of the Treaty of
29 March 1979and to Article VI, paragraph I (a), of the Special Agreement,
which refer to the notification of the name of thejudge ad hocas determining the
constitution of the Chamber and the date from which the lime-limit for the
mernorials to be submitted by the Parties be counted, while a Chamber is
established by the Court, and the notification of the name of the judge ad hoc

' Unecommunicationanalogue a étéadresskeauxEtatsMembresdesNationsUniesel
auxEtatsnon membresdesNationsUniesadmis à ester devantla Cour. CORRESPONDENCE 289

does not exhaust the requirements of Article 31 of the Statute and Article 35 of
the Rules of Court.
3. What relationship exists, in the view of the two Governments, between
Article II, paragraph 4, ofthe Special Agreement and Article 27 of the Statute of
the Court?
4. 1sthe effect of Article VII, paragraph2, of the Special Agreement that the
decision of the Chamber (which under Article 27 of the Statute "shall be
considered as rendered bv the Court") will be subiect to review bv a "third
part)", 50 th:ititwiIIhc the decijion of the ..[hirp~it)" and not the jecision of
the Court which u,illbc regardcd b) the Partirs xs having hinding force,contrar)
to Ariiclcs 59 and 60 oi the Statute!

It would he of assistance to the Court if vour reolv to the Dresentletter were
to be ai~xil~bleto 11when itne.;[ meets ahund i3 ~xnuari, 1982 for further
consideration of the Speiial Agrccmcnt ar uell 3stif niy report of our nicctinp,of
15 December.
1am addressing a similar letter to the Agent of the United States of America.

(Signedj T. O. ELIAS.

10. THE AMBASSADORSOF CANADA AND THE UNITEDSTATFSOF AMERICA
TO THE NETHERLANDST0 THE ACTING PRFSIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONALCOURT

6 January 1982

The Partics to the case concïrning the »~liniirur~onollh<~Abriltmc Roitnduri.
in rheu'ul/i./.4~u11ir..lr<uc\pcctiully submit the following rcsponsc 10the four
questionsraised in your letter of 18December 1981.

At the outset the Parties wish to emphasize that they consulted informally
with the late President Sir Humphrey Waldock during the negotiation of the
Treaty of 29 March 1979and the related Special Agreement, and incorporated
suegestions made bv Sir Humohrev.in o.der to ensure that the Treatv and
~+:ial Agrccmrnt ui)uld heconsi,tr.nt in al1respects ~ith thr Staiutc =nd'~ule\
uithc Court Thae con,ultxtions with the Court ha\r continurd in .Inumher of
meetings with you and the Registrar during the past year. The Parties consider
that the Treatv and Soecial Aereement are fullv consistent with the Statute and
Rules of the kourt, and reaffi'm their requesi that the proposed Chamber be
constituted prior to the commencement ofthe Terms of Officeof those Members
of the court elected in the triennial election in 1981.
The questions and the answers thereto are as follows:
1. "How in Article III of the Treatv of 29 March 1979the reference to the
fillingof vacancieson the (:hanber 'in a rnxnnïr acceptahlc to the Parties'
îan be reconciled with the proi,ijions of Articlr. ?6 of the Stxtutc and ut'
Article 17.oxr;izr;ioh 3 Ilristscntcnccl. and Article IR.iiïrÿrrxnh 1.of the

Article III of the Treaty is wholly consistent with the Statute and Rules of the
Court. The Parties have at al1times expected that an). vacancy on the Chamber

' This communication wassenton behalfoftheAgentsoftheGovernment ofCanada
and theGovernmentof the UnitedStates ofAmerica.290 GULF OF MAINE

would be filled in accordance with the Statute and the Rules. The orocedures
Seiforth in Articles 17and 18ofihe Rules provide for ascertaining the \ieusof
the Pariics ~nd for a sub,equent election by the Couri in ihe case of a \acanc)
creaied hy ihc absence of a Member of ihc Couri no1 a national of eiiher
Party. Aiticle III of the Treaty in no way interferes with the operation
of these provisions. It simply specifies the circumstances under which the
Parties may exercise their right to terminate the Special Agreement and,
pursuant to Article 88 of the Rules, to discontinue the proceedings before the
Court.

The Parties note that the right of termination, as discussed above, is provided
for in the Treaty which was transmitted to the Court as background informa-
tion. Unlike the Special Agreement, the Treaty was not notified to the Court
pursuant Io Article 40 ofthe Statute and thus does no1cal1forany action by the
Court. In respect of the operation of Article III of the Treaty, the Parties
contemplate that they would jointly request the election of a Member of the
Court to fiIlany vacancy that might arise among those Judges not nationals of
either Party and either Party would have the option of terminating the Special
Agreement if the result of the election was no1 in accordance with this joint
request.

2. "Attention was drawn to the last sentence of Article 1 of the Treaty of
29 March 1979and to Article VI, paragraph 1,of the Special Agreement,

which refer to the notification of the name of the judge ad hoc as
determining the constitution of the Chamber and the date from which the
rime-limit for the memorials to ~e~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~the Parties be counted.
while a Ch3mber is e~tablished by the Couri, 2nd the notification of the
nsme of thejudge udl~u<~doen soi exh~uit the requiremenis of Article 31of
ihc Stliiuie and Ariicle 35 of ihe Rules ofCour1."

The las1sentence of Article I of theTreatv states that "The Chamber. ..shall
be deemed to have been constituted when ihe Registrar of the Court has been
notified of the name or names of the judge or judges ad hoc." The purpose and
practical effect of this language is to estahlish a reference point for the
calculation of the six-month oeriod referred to in Article II of the Treatv. This

dues no1 affeci the Court's iouer io interPrel and apply ihc Statule and the
Rulcs uith respect io the establishmeni of the Chamber. including Ariicle 31 oi
the Siaiuie and Ariick 35of ihc Ruler. Similarlv.Ariiclc VI. oaracraoh I /a,. of
the Special Agreement reflects an agreement bétweenthe ~irtie<to'requ'est ihe
Chamber Io set a certain lime-limit for the filing of the Memorials. Such an
agreement between the Parties is consistent with the Statute and the Rules and
practice of the Court. The date of notification of the name of the judge ad hoc
was selected by the Parties as a convenient formula to identify the time-limit to
be requested. This clause does not interfere with the operation of the Statute and
the Rules or, in particular, with theauthority of the Courtor the President to fix
lime-limits for the filing of Memorials pursuant to Articles 44 and 92 of the

Rules or such other provisions as may be relevant.
3. "What relationshi~ exists. in the view of the Iwo Governments. between

Article II, paragraph 4, of the Special Agreement and Article 27 of the
Statute of the Court?"

These provisions of the Statute and the SpecialAgreement are both consistent
and complementary. Under Article 27 of the Statute, the judgment to be given
by the Chamber "shall be considered as rendered hy the Courts". Article II, CORRESPONDENCE 291

paragraph 4, of the Special Agreement provides that the decision of the Cham-
ber rendered pursuant to the same Article - which aecording to the Statute must
be considered a judgment of the lnternational Court of Justice - shall be

accepted as final and binding by the Parties. The relationship of the two
provisions, therefore, is clear and unequivocal: the decision of the Chamber
under Article II of the SpecialAgreement shall be iifinal and binding decision of
the International Court of Justice. Although Article II, paragraph 4, of the
Special Agreement may not he necessary as a legal matter (since the Statute
alreadv makes the decision of the Chamber bindine on the Parties). this
paragriph does serve to inform domestic constituenciesïhat may no1be familiar
with the Statute of the Court.

4 "1, thceffcct of Ariicle VII. paragraph 2,ofthc Speci31Agreement that ihe
decision of the Chamkr (uhirh undcr Article 27 of ihç Statute 'shall k
considered as rendered by the Court') will be subject to review bya 'third
party', so that it willhe the decision of the 'third party'and not the decision
of the Court which willbe regarded by the Partics as having binding force,
contrary to Articles 59 and 60 of the Statutc?"

The Special Agreement does not provide for any third party review of the
decision of the Chamber of the International Court of Justice. As orovided in
Articles 27, 59 and 60 of the Statute, that decision is final and without appeal.
Article VI1 of the Special Agreement concerns an entirely different matter,
namely, the possible future seaward extension <ifthe boundary beyond the
segment drawn by the Chamber. Article II of the Spccial Agreement definesan
area within which the Chamber is asked to place the seaward limit of the
boundary to be drawn under that Article. Article VI1envisagesthe possibility of
extending the boundary beyond that terminal point, cither by agreement of the
Parties or hy recourse to third party settlement procedures. Since the seaward
extension would begin at the terminus of the line drawn by the Chamher

and would not alter that line in any way, there is no inconsistency between
Article VI1of the Special Agreement and Articles 59 and 60 of the Statute.

11. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE GOVERPIMENTOF THE UNITED STAES
OF AMERICA'

23 January 1982.

1 have the honour, with reference to the request notified to me on 25
November 1981 for the formation by the Court, pursuant to Article 26, para-
graph 2, of ils Statute, of a Chamber to deal with a dispute between Canada and
the United States of America concerning the Deliniiiarioii of the Maritime
Boundary in rhe Cul/ of Maine Area, to inform Your Excellency that on
20January 1982the Court made an Order2 to that effsct,and to transmit to you
an officialcopy of the Order in question.
Printed copies of the Order will also be dispalched to you very shortly.

' A communication in the rame lems was sent to the Aeenof the Government of292 GULF OF MAINE

26 January 1982

1 have the honour to refer to the letter dated 25 November 1981, from the
Amhassadors of Canada and of the United States to the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, notifying the Coun of the Special Agreement between their
Governments to suhmit to binding dispute settlemeiit the Delimitation of the
Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine area, and to the notification by the
Government of Canada in the said letter of ils intention to exercise the power
conferred by Article 31 of theStatute of the Court to choose a judgead hoc in
this case.
In accordance with Article 31 of the Statute and Article 35 of the Rules, the
Government of Canada hereby informsthe Court that the name of the person
chosen by Canada to si1 as judge ad hoc on the Chamber of the Court

constituted for theCulfof Maine case is Professor Maxwell Cohen, of Ottawa,
Canada. Professor Cohen is of Canadian nationality. A hrief biography is
attached herewith2.
The Governmeni of Canada would he pleased IO k infonned bg the Court as
soon as possiblcIir io the ohscnations. if any. of the Governmçnt of the United
Staiei and of the Cuuri ree-rdinr finatta'sehoice of Prolesror Cohen as ils
judge ad hoc for this case.

26 January 1982.

1have the honour to inform you that by a letter of today's date, of which a
copy is enclosed, the Amhassador of Canada to the Netherlands has informed
me of hisGovernment's choie, in accordance with Article 31 of the Statute and
Article 35 of the Rules of Court, of Professor Maxwell Cohen to sit as a judge
ad hoc in the case concerning theDelimitarionof the Maritime Bounahryin rhe
CulJoJ Maine Area.

14. THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA
TU THE REGISTRAR

26 January 1982.

1 have the honor to refer to your communication of 26 January 1982
fonvarding to the Government of the United States the letter of 26January 1982
from the Agent of the Government of Canada which infonns the Court of the
name and nationality of the person chosen by the Government of Canada as
judge odhoc in the case concerning thDelimitationofrhe Maritime Boundaryin
the Gulf of Maine Area.

'Thiscommunicationwassent on behalfoftheAgent ofthe GovernmentofCanada.
Not reoroduced. CORRESWNDENCE 293

I have the honor to inform you that the Government of the United States has

no observations to make with respectto the choice of Professor MaxwellCohen
as judge ad hoc in this case.

(Signed) Davis R. ROBINSON.

15.THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA
TO THE REGISTRAR

27 January 1982.

On hehalfof the Covernmcnt of the United Siaiesof America, Iüm pleascdto
inform the Court of ihc seleciion of David A Colson. as Depuiy-,\gent for the
Government of the United States of America in the case concerning the
Delimitationof the Maritime Boundaryin theCuljof Maine Area. The address
for the Deputy-Agent for the United States of America is: Emhassy of the
United States of America to the Netherlands, Lange Voorhout 102,The Hague.

16. THE REGISTRARTO THE SECRETARY-GENE ORFTHLE UNITEDNATIONS

27 January 1982

1have the honour to refer Io my telex message' of 26November 1981and to
my letter of II December 1981concerning the submission by Canada and the
United States of America of a new case concerning the Delimirationof rhe

Maritime Boundaryin the Gulfof Maine Areo.
Today I have the honour to inform you that, pursuant 10Article 1 of the
Special Agreement concluded between Canada and the United States on
29 March 1979(and subsequently altered), the Court, after consultation of the
Parties, has, by anrder of 20 January 1982,fornied a Chamber which will be
composed of four Memhers of the Court and a judge ad hoc chosen hy the
Government of Canada.
1enclose a stencilledcopy of the Order of 20January 1982and also, for your
further convenience, a copy of the Special Agreement as notified to the Court.
The printed tex1of the Order willbe sent to you as soon as it is availahle.

1 should stress that this is the first time since ils foundation in 1946that the
Internationîl Court of Justice has formed a Chamber IO deal withü pariicular
C~SC.eten lhough ihere har aluays hwn formal provision for il10 do so in
,\rticle 26, paragrap2. of ils SI~IUIC. hich r~adi:

"The Court may at any time form a chamber for dealing with a particular
case. The number of judges to constitute such a chamber shall be
determined by the Court with the approval of the parties."
It followsfrom Article 27 of the Statute and Article 20of the Rules ofCourt
that the procedure hefore a Chamber of the Court and the nature of ilsdecisions294 GULF OF MAINE

are the same as in the case of a full Court. At the same time, however, there are
certain snecial features which inevitahlv arise out of the establishment of a
~h~mk;in gcncr31.and the e,tabli\hmekt of thisone in particulsr. and I think I
should drau your aiteniion to two of thesc
First. amonr the Memhers of thc Court called unon to \cr\,e on the Chamber.
there is one ïhe last day of whose term of office would normally be that

immediately preceding the triennial renewal of the Court's composition, i.e.,
5 Fehruary 1982.His duties willnow therefore extend heyond that date until the
end of the case, though solelyfor the purpose of hisparticipation in the work of
the Chamber in accordance with Article 13. paragraph 3, of the Statute and
Article 17,paragraph 4, of the Rules of Court. Theparagraphs in question read
as follows:
Statute, Article 13(3):

"The Members of the Court shall continue to discharge their duties until
their places have been filled. Though replaced, they shall finishany cases
which they may have begun."

Rules, Article 17(4):
"Memhers of a Chamber formed under this Article who have been
replaced, in accordance with Article 13 of the Statute following the
expiration of their terms of office,shall continue to sit in al1phases of the
case, whatever the stage it has then reached."

A second special feature, arising out of ArticII,paragraph 3, of the Special
Agreement, is that the Chamber has to be assisted by a technical expert. This
question is governed by Article 50 of the Statute of the Court and Article 67 of
the Rules.
These features and certain questions concerning the Canadian judge ad hoc
and other matters give rise to some queries of a financial nature which 1 am
hringing Io the attention of Mr. Dehatin, Under-Secretary-General for Adminis-
tration, Finance and Management, in a letter' 1am addressing to him today.

29 January 1982.

1 have the honour to acknowledge receipt of the letter of 26 January 1982
signed on your behalf hy His Excellency the Amhassador of Canada to the
Netherlands, wherehy, referringto Article 31 of the Court's Statute and Article

35 of the Rules of Court, you informed the Court of your Government's choice
of Professor Maxwell Cohen to sit as iudee ad hoc in the case concernine
U~/;nrirarion,>f'rh~hfarilim~ &>und<irjin'rh;~it//'o>f Muine Arc" and cnciored
hricf biogrdphicaldetails of Profcssor Cohen. and to cncloscLIcopy of a letteoi
thc s3ms date transmittcd on bchdlf of the Aacnt of the Cnitcd States liilliiw-
ing communication of a copy of your notification pursuant to Article 35,
paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court.
I am, furiher, to inform you that, as foreseen in the Court's Order of
20 January 1982,Judge Ruda has, pursuant to Article 31, paragraph 4, of the

'Not ceproduccd CORRESPONDENCE 295

Statute of the Court given place to the person chosen by your Government.
Accordingly Judge Cohen participated in the pnvatç meeting of the Chamber

held immediately before the public meeting at which he made the solemn
declaration required by the Statute and Rules of Court.
Judge Cohen will duly be sent the case dossier pari passu with the other
members of the Chamber.

18. THE REGlSTRAR TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS

29 January 1982

1 have the honour to inform you that today, al a private meeting of the
Chamber formed by the International Court of Justice to deal with the case
concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundaryin the Guy of Maine Area
between Canada and the United States of America, the memhers of the
Chamber, consisting of Judges Gros, Mosler, Ago and Schwebeland the judge

<idhoc chosen by Canada, Professor Maxwell Cohen, elected Judge Ago to be
President of the Chamher, in accordance with Article 18, paragraph 2, of the
Rules of Court.
Immediately following the election, a public meeting was held al which Judge
Cohen made a solemn declaration in accordance with Article 20 and Article 31,
paragraph 6, of the Statute of the Court.
The meeting was opened with a speech by the Acting President and was also
addressed by the President of the Chamber and the Agents of the Parties.

19. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE COVERNUENT OF CANADAL

I February 1982.

1have the honour to infonn you that the Court today, pursuant to Article 92,
paragraph 1,ofthe Rules of Court, made an Order2 fixing26August 1982as the
time-limit for the filing of Memorials hy the Parties in the case concerning

Delimitation ofthe Maritime Boundaryin theGulfof Maine Area.
An official,printed copy of the Order will he transmitted to you within a few
days.

20. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRB ÉTRANGÈRES D'AFGHANISTAN'

5 février 1982.

I'ai l'honneur de vouscommuniquer ci-jointletexte de l'ordonnance du 20jan-
vier 1982par laquelle la Cour a constitué,en vertu de l'article26, paragraphe 2,

' Acommunicationinthesameternis wassentto theAgentoftheGovernmentofthe
UnitedStatesof Amenca.
SeeNos. 24 and 25, infro.
' Une communication analogue aété adresséaex autresEtatsMembresdesNations
Unies etux Etatsnon membres desNationsUniesadmis à çsterdevantlaCour. Lemême
envoia étéfaitau Secrétaie énérale i'organisationdesNations Unies.296 GULF OF MAINE

de son Statut, unechambre chargéedeconnaitre de I'aKairede laDélimitationde
la frontière maritime dansla région dugoFe du Maine entre le Canada et les
Etats-Unis d'Amérique,et de porter à votre connaissance que, par application
des articles 31, paragraphe 4, du Statut et 35et 18,paragraphe 2, du Règlement,
cette chambre sera composée commesuit:

M. Roberto Ago, présidentde la Chambre,
M. AndréGros,
M. Hermann Mosler,
M. Stephen Schwebel,juges,
M. Maxwell Cohen, juge ad hoc (désignépar le Canada).

21. THE AGENTOF THE GOVERXMENT OF CANADA TO THE REGISTRAR

10March 1982.

I have kcn insrrucicdIO hring to your aiieniion iny Governmcnt's concern
repïrding the siaius and role <ifthc pdgei~dhoc.chosen bv Ciinada. Maxucll
Cohen. in ihe c;iscconcernineDrlin~irortinifthe.\larrrrtiréHr.i<ndurii.n th<,C'idlt
of m ain A rea (~unadal~niïed Statesof ~merica).
The Court's Order of I February 1982in this case does no1lis1Judge ad hoc
Cohen among the judges present and composing the Court, nor among those

voting. Thus it would appear that the Court made the Order establishing the
time-limit for the filing of the Memorials of Canada and the United States of
America without the participation of Judgead hoc Cohen, who on 29 January
1982made the solemn declaration required under Article 8, paragraph 2, of the
Rules of Court. Judge ad hoc Cohen, moreover, is not named in the Order'
which notes that "the judge ad hoc chosen by Canada" was "invited Io be
present".
Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court provides that judges ad hoc
chosen under Article 31 of the Statute of the Court for the purposes of a
particular caseshall be admitted to sit on the Benchof the Court. This provision
isexpresslyapplicable to Chamber proceedings. In the light of the Court's Order
of 1 February 1982,my Government is anxious to ascertain that Judge ad hoc

Cohen has in fact been admitted to the Bench for the purposes of the case
concerning Delimirationof theMaritime Bounduryin rheGul/oJMuine Area, in
accordance with the aforementioned Article 7,paragraph 1, of the Rules. It is
also anxious to ascertain that he is able Io participate in the case on terms of
completeequality with the other Judgeson the Bench,in accordance with Article
7, paragraph 2, of the Rules and the las1sentence of Article 31, paragraph 6,
of the Statute. Accordingly, 1 respectfully request clarification of these two
questions, which are of fundamental importance to my Government. 1should
point out that my Government understands the term "the Benchof the Court"
to include both the Chamber and the full Court when sitting in connection with
the present case.
1am fonvarding a copy of this communication to the Agent for the United
States of America.

(Signed) L. H. LEGAULT Q,.C. 22. THE AGENT Of THE GOVERNhENT OF CANADA TO THE REGISTRAR

12March 1982

On behalf of the Government of Canada, 1am pleased to inform the Court of
the appointment of BlairG. Hankey, Esq., as Deputy-Agent for Canada in the
case concerning Delimitation ofthe Maritime Boundaryin the Gulf of Maine
Area. The address for the Deputy-Agent for Canada is:
Emhassy of Canada 10The Netherlands

Sophialaan 7
The Hague.

23. THE REGISTRAR TO THI AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA

18March 1982.

1 acknowledge receipt of your letter relating to the case concerning the
Delimitotion of the Maritime Boundarv in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada1

IJnited 3rurt>/ Anrrri<.a iransmiitcdto me by sieiier Jated I? Mnrch 1982
from the Counscllor of the Canadian Emb~sjyai The Hague
As soon as 1 recei\crl your lctlcr I hr~~urhi11firit io ihe ;iirentii>nuf ihc
President of the Court and then to that of the President of the Chamber
constituted by the Order of the Court of 20 January 1982.
It was agreed that the text of the Order of the Court of I February 1982,an
official copy of which was transmitted to you hy letter of 9 Februaxy 1982,
contained two factual errors. The correction of these two errors will be
incorporated in a corrected text of the Order which will he pnnted as soon as
possible and sent immediately to you and 10the Agent of the United States of
Amenca in the case.
With regard to the substance of your letter, 1would like, in mycapacity as
Registrar of the Court. and without brejudging in any way the position the
Court might adopt in this matter, to make the following commenls.
Judge adhoc MaxwellCohen, chosen by Canada pursuant to Article 31of the
Statute of the Court and Article 35 of the Rules of Court, as well as to the

relevant provisions of the Special Agreement between Canada and the United
States,has heendulyadmitted by the Courtto sit in the Chamber formed to deal
with the caseconcerningthe Delimitotion of theMaritimeBoundaryintheGu(jof
MaineArea. As provided for in Article 8, paragraph 2,of the Rules of Court for
cases dealt with bv Chambers. .udee-Cohen made his solemn declaration at a
public siiiing of {GeChamber concerned, hcld on 29 Jnnuary 1982.
It followsihnt. as siaicd in ihc Iasisenisnce of paraçraph 6of Article 31oiihe
Siaiute. Judae ad hoc Cohen in his ca~aciiv as mcmlrr of the Chamkr "shall
take part inthe decision on terms of complete equality with [his]colleagues",
and that, therefore, there are no grounds for the Canadian Government to feel
any anxiety as to the participation of Judge Cohen in the Chamber in which he
sits on the lems stated in Article 7. oarazra~h 2. of the Rules of Court. namelv
on icrms of compleir equaliiy with the rithe;~ud~es siiting in the s;iid~hnrnbe;.
II u,asuith a vlcw IOensuring, since the creation of the Chambcr. ihr c~istcncc
of ihis situation of com~lcieeuualitvIO which Canada so nphilv aiiachcs such
great importance that ~id~e~6hen bas invited to make hisiolemn declaration
at such an exceptionally early stage.As you are surely aware, in the practice of298 GULF OF MAINE

the Court. judges udhor are normally appointcd jus1 before the lime-liniit fixcd
for thefilingofthe Irlemonsl or Counter.Mcmorial aiid theyare invited IOmake

their solemn declaration at a considerahlv later staee. that-is. at the ooenine of
the oral proceedings. There are numerou; exampleSi" the practice of ihe court
of non-participation of judges ad hoc in the formal decision-making process
concernine. the ado~tion ocorders dealine with non-controversial ~Ïoiedurai
matters, ai for example the fixingof time-fmits for pleadings previously agreed
upon by the parties themselves. This practice has never been viewed as
conflicting, in any manner whatsoever, with the provisions sel forth in the
last sentence of paragraph 6 of Article 31 of the Statute and in Article 7,
paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court.
The lime-limit for the filingby the Parties of their respective Memorials has
ken fixedhv the Court in its Order of 1 Februarv 1982.oursuant to Article 92.
paragraph 1; of the Rules of Court. The Order kerely';ecorded an agreement
reached betweenthe Parties in the Special Agreement under which the case was
hrought before the Court and confirmed by the Agents to the Acting President
of the Court at a meeting held in hisofficeon 29January 1982.Pursuant to the
aforesaid paragraph I of Article 92, the Court, before issuing the Order, also
consulted theChamber concerned, in the person of ils President, about the time-
limit. The Order recorded these develooments in the las1 oaraeraoh of ils
preiiniblr.as iollous: "llaiing con\ulted the Chamhei ,inJ aswrtaineJ the i,ieus

of the Pariirr". Furthcrmore. Judge Cohen being \iiIIpreseni in The Hague wai
ini,itedb) the Court to he Dresentai itcmeetingof I 1:ehruarv IYS?and had the
oooortunitv of exoressine'his SuDDortfor theOrder. even ifthis manifestation
c&ld not be fom;ally ctunted &'a participation in ;he vote
Itshould headded th~t dunng the period frorn 20January to I Fchruary 1932
the Court had neber been informed of the understandine nou indicated bv the
Canadian Government that the term "the Bench of thekourt" should inilude
"both the Chamher and the full Court when sitting in connection with the
present case". Leaving aside any consideration as to the ments of this
understandine. it is in fact hv the above-mentioned letter of 12March 1982that
itw3sfor thefirst tinie brouphi to the attention of the court. lt could not jndicrl
h3be hcen inferrcd irom the Ianguage used in the letter of 26 January 1982by
uhich the Go\,ernment oi Canada "informled] the Court that the name of the
person chosen by Cnnadd to si1as judge ad huc on the Chxmber of the Couri
conititutcd for the Gulj 01' hluinc taie Iuasl Pruf\,ssor Maxuell Cohen. of
0113~2, Canada". 1:urthrrmorr.. followingthe public sitting <ifthe Chamher on
29 January 1982. the Agents of both Parties in the raie stres'ed only thcir
ragernesr for the adoption bv the Court oithe Order fixingthe time-limit for the

submission of the Irlemorials ai thr carliest possihlc date, notwithstanding the
iudicial work of the Court in the case concernine the Continental 3helf
i~uniria/~ib~an Arab Jamahirii'a), then in ils final stages.
The subject-matter of the understanding now indicated by the Canadian
Government is not regulated,when a particuÏar case isreferred io a Chamber, by
any express provision ofthe Statute and/or the Rulesof Court. Article90 of the
Rules only provides that "Proceedings before the Chambers ... shall, subject to
the provisions of the Statute and of these Rules relating specificallyto the
Chambers. be eoverned bv the orovisions of Parts 1 to III of these Rules
>pplicahlein c&tentioui cises kfurc the Couri" Under the circumrtancçr. the
understanding JI'the Go\ernnir.nt or Canada appears to bc baied solel) upon a
consiruction of ceriüin provisions of the Rules OCCourt in ionnsctii>n uith a
matter inwhichthe Cou&hasnot had inthe pas1the opportunity of pronouncing.
In the present case, the invitation extended 10Judge Cohen IO be present in CORRESPONDENCE 299

the delihcrdtions conicrninp the adoption ut'ihc Order of I Fcbruaq I'h? w~s
not prcccdcdhy an).dscision of the Cuurt conserning the suhjcct-matter Io which
the aho\e-menlioncd understandine of thc Canadian (;o\crnmcnt rcl~tec.Taken
literallv.this understandine coulbe intemreted as meanine that. for a narticular
case rifcrredIO a ~hambc;. ..the ~cnch"'would beconstit;ird hy ihc iull Couri

anil ihc Judpcssiiting in the Chambcr. 1do no1iwlitncccssarytoclahuratr on the
idct that such;definitioncould bescli-dcfhtin,! in the cax uiChambers. bwausc
the pnnciplc ofcqu~liiy ol'ludgcs sitting on ..;he Bcnch" could lxiniokcd boih
ua)i Wiihuut prcjudgingany detinition of"ihc Rench" that the Coun mxyïdopt
ln thc future ïnr cases dc:ilt iviih hv ChJmknI u,ould \cnturc to say that in ihc
Rules of Court the term "the Ber&" is not accompanied by the words "of the
Court" but used consistently as referringIo the Judges who are dealing with a
particular case.Therefore, when a particular case is referred no1Io the Court but
to a Chamber of the Court, one may speak of the "Bench" of the Chamber, this
word indicating al1those who willtake part in the decisionof that particular case,
but not of the "Bench of the Court. In the light of the above, it cannot be
assumed that the understanding of the Canadidn Government would necessarily
correspond to the position which could be adopted by the Court in a matter
which, in some hypotheses at least, might give rise Io diiïiculties.

1 am fonvarding a copy of this letter to the Ageiit of the United States of
America.

a. THE DEPUTY-REGISTR TORTHE AGENT OF THI! GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'

16April 1982.

You ma) rcc~llth31hy his lettcr oi 18March 1982the Rcgisirar undcrtook io
hj\c prinierl and sent to )ou x\ suun as av.iil.iblcthecurrected tcxt of the Order'
m~dcbv the Court on I t'ehruar~ 1982in the çasc cunccrninr Ui~lrmirul~oo nlrhr
.~<rr,r,thRoundur) ;,rhr ~.ull.~>j.fuiArt?i.Accordingl) ihavc the honour io

enclose hercuith printcd copies of ihnt iexi in repldccmcni or an) copics of the
uncorrected tex1that mav be in vour hands. For ease of reference.1would draw
your attention Io the faci that the sales number of the corrected version bears an
asterisk distinguishing il from that of the uncorrected edition, circulation of
which will now be stopped.
The officialcopies will he the suhject of a further communication.

25. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE GOVEllNMENT OF CANADA^

13 May 1982.

Further to our letter of 16April 19821have the honour to transmit to you

herewith an officialcopy of the corrected text of the Order of I February 1982
A communication inthe sametermswassent to the Agentof the ~ov~mmentof
Canada.
I.C.J. Reporf1982,p. 15.
' Acommunicationinthesametems wassentto theApent of theGavernment of the
UnitedStatesof America.300 GULF OF MAINE

made in the case concerning Delimitationofrhe hfaririme Boundaryin the Cu(/of
Maine Area. This copy is to replace the official copy of the uncorrected text
which was transmitted to you on 9 February 1982and which 1would ask you
now to be so good as to return to me.

26. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF TEE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA

27 May 1982.

1have the honour to acknowledee the receiot todav o, t~e~ ~ ~ ~l conv~-, ~ ~
uncorrectc~licxt of the Order mÿdrh) the ~ohrt on I ITebruar) 1982in the iasc
ioncerniiig Drliniirurti,,~<,/rkr .llrirililFiound~rj'in lhe Gu// i>f.Mumi*Ar<,ri
whosc rciurn \ish reiiueiicd b~ mi,Ieiter of 1Mav and uhich the Drnu..-Aecnt
of your ~overnmeni has had fokvarded to me. .

27. LE GREFFIERÀ L'AGENT ou GOUVERNEMENT DU CANADA
(télex)

17juillet 1982.

Cunimc suite a noir< cntreticn iilCphoniquc du Ih juillct IYX2,j'ai l'honneur
dc \ou\ contirnier quz le, Iinncxcs~UA piCie<de procedure prebucs iiI'ariiclr50
du Règlementde IaCour doivent etre déooséesen autant d'exemolaires aue les
pièces-deprocédure elles-mêmes, c'est-&dire ec nent vingt-sept éxemplaireset

que leur liste doit êtrejointeàla pièce.Bien entendu, pour chaque document, il
suffit de joindre les extraits nécessairesaux fins de la pièce dont il s'agit.
L'ensembledu document dont est tirél'extrait annexé peut être remis au Greffe
en original ou en photocopie pour toutes vérificationspar les juges ou par la
partie adverse. Si le document est dans le domaine public, il peut suffire
d'indiauer clairement sa référenceC . ette deuxième formule orésentecet avan-
tage que ledepd peut ne pas SCCaireevdctcmcnt lemsmr )ou; que pour la piecc

dc procédureclle-ménicci que ledu~unicntdipok pcui étrcrepns aprcs Iïfinde
I'afiire. Ellcest SD~ciairmcntaoolicdblc au cas des annexes iecllniaucs. doni une
grande partie peut sans inconGCnientêtredéposéeselon cette fo&~ulé.

28. THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO THE REGISTRAR

27 July 1982.

1refer to the Court's Order of 1 February 1982fixing26 August 1982as the
time-limit for the filingof the Memorials of both Parties in the case concerning
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Cul/ of Maine Area (Canada/
United States of America).

On behalf of the Government of Canada. 1herebv reauest an extension of the
tinic-lirniirixedin the Order or I tcbruary 1982 1hkc~i'ensionrequcstcd isfur a
period oifour ueekh, IO 24or 27 Sepiernbcr 1982 This rcqucst 1% occa%ioncdby CORRESPONDENCE 301

unforeseen technical delays and difficultiesarising in the pnnting process. The

Agent for the United States has been consulted in this matter and has expressed
no objection to the proposed extension

29. TEE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENTOF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA

28 July 1982.

1have the honour to acknowledgereceipt of your letterLdated 27July 1982hy
which you stated that your Government had no objection to the extension
requested by the Government of Canada, of the time-limitfixed for the filingof
the Memorials of both Parties in the case concerning Delimitation of the
Maritime Boundaryin the Gu(/ of Maine Area, and to inform you that the

President of the Chamher formed 10deal with this case today made an Order2
extending the said time-limit to 27 September 1982.
1enclose herewith a mimeographed copy of the text of the Order. An officia1
sealed copy, as well as printed copies, will he transmitted to you very shortly.

28 July 1982

1 have the honour to acknowledgereceipt of your letter dated 27July 1982by
which you requested, on hehalf of your Government, an extension of the time-
limit fixed for the filingof the Memorials of both Parties in the case concerning
Delimitarionof theMaritime Boundarv intheGulfof Maine Area. and to inform

)~IU ihdiihc ~residcni ofihc ~hamh& iurnled rodk i\.iihthii casc ioda). made
an OrdcrJ e~icnding ihc sdid iimc-limii io 27 Scptenibcr 1982.
I enclose hcrcwiih3 mimcoerii~hcd riIr>,olthe ichi of ihc Ordcr. An olficial
sealed copy, as well as printea copies, wi'llbe transmitted Io you very shortly.

27 September 1982.

Further to the Court's Order of I Fehruary 1982,as varied by an Order of
28 July 1982, and in accordance with Articles 49, 50; 52 and other relevant
Articles of the Rules of Court, I am filing with gou today the original of

Canada's Memona14 in the case concerning Delimitation of the Maririme
Boundary in the Guifof Maine Area, duly signed hy me as Agent for Canada,

' Nol reproduced.
' I.C.J. Report1982,p. 557
' Ibid.
1,pp.9-526.302 GULF OF MAINE

toeether with the oneinals of the Annexes thereto. in four volumes. each dulv

ce~ified by me ~ach>iihew do~uments isaccomp~nied b>a ceriified 'op) for
communicaiion IO the Go\ernment of the United Siaies of America. togeiher
with one hundred and twentv-fiveadditional cooies to meet the reauirements of
the Rzgisiry Finally. se\,encopies of a case-bound ediiion of théseplcadings
hai,calso bcen pro\,idcd for ihe con\enience of the Chamber formed to hcar thc
present case.
In keeping with the agreement that the proceedings in this case shall be
conducted in either or both of the two official languages of the Court, the

Memonal of Canada and certain of the Annexes thereto are submitted in both
the English and French languages. The French-language versions of the
Memonal and of the Histoncal Introduction to Volume I of the Annexes have
ken prepared under mydirection and to this extent have an officialcharacter; in
the event of interpretation, however, they are to be read in the light of the
Enelish versions. The texts of Canadian laws and reeulations included amone
theo~nnexesare equally authentic in the Englishand Kench languages, as isalsi
the case for other official Canadian documents, including treaty instmments,
unless othewise indicated.

1 am also depositing with you today copies of the whole documents from
which extracts have ken annexed to the Memorial of Canada, as well as copies
of al1other documents referred to in the Memonal but no1included in whole or
in nart in the Annexes. These documents are also beine orovided to t-e~Aeent
t';;the Uniicd ~iaks~ compleie lis1 'oi the documenk ;n question is aiiacyhed
herewith (ihose marked u,iih double asicriski ;ire no1yei availahle for iransniis-
$ion Io the Aeeni fur ihç United States but uill be orovidcd io hini shortlvi.
Also encl&ed are ten copies of a preliminary erroro sheetl indic;&
corrections to he made to the Memorial of Canada. A final lis1of corrections to

be made to al1of the present pleadings will be provided in due course, in printed
~-~~at and in su~h~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~v be reauired bv vou.
At a meeting withthe President ofihe chamber on fi May 1982,the Agents for
the Parlies iointlv reauested, pursuant to Article 53 of the Rules of Court. that
cooiesof théoleadinei and annexed documents should be made availableto other
siiies eni6iied IOapbar before the Coun and dccessiblcio the publa only upon
the opening of ihe oral proceedings 1wi$h in confirm that reqursi ai [hi\ iime
In a recent communi&tion hv teleohone vou have reauested lhe Parties' views
concerning the time-limit for thé filingof th; ~ounter-Memonais in ihis case. As

you know. pariigraph I Io,, Ariicle VI. ol'thc Spçcial Agreement providcsthai
the Parties shall requesi the Chamber IO auihon7c a iime-limit of sir monthi for
this purpose, while-paragraph 2 of the same Article provides that the Chamher
may extend such time-limit at the request of either Party. In light of the
expenence gained in the production of the Memorial, my Government considers
that a oenod of six months will be clearlv insufficientto allow comnletion of the
proce&es involved in the preparation of the Counter-Memorial. ~ccordingl~ 1
wish to request that the time-limit be extended 10 ten months. This request is
made al the present lime so that it may be taken in10account in the planning of

the Court's calendar. 1 would of course be prepared 10 agree to a further
extension should the Agent for the United States request one following the
exchange of the Parties' Memorials.
1have informed the Agent for the United States of my intentions regarding
the time-limit for the Counter-Memonal and he will be conveying his views on
this matter to you direct.

' No1 reproduced CORRESPONDENCE 303

32. THE AGENT OF THE GOWRNMENT OF ~m UNITED STATFS OF AMERICA
TO THE REGISTRAR

27 September 1982.

In connection with the filing of the United States Memonal' in the case

concerning the Delimitarionofthe Maritime Boundaryin theGulfofMaine Area,
1 have the honor to inform you of the views of the United States on two
-~~..~~.~~~~- nen~~--~~~-
At a meeting with the President of the Chamber oit II May 1982the Agents
for the Partiesiointlv reauested. uursuant to Article53 of the Rules of Court,
that cooies of Dleadhes and an&xed documents should be made available to
other Siaies eniitlerl toGppear before the Court and acscssible to the public only
upon the opening of the oral proceedings. I wish to conlirm that request ai this
time.
In accordance with Article VI of the Spmial Agreemcni the United Siaies
requests that the filing of the Countcr-Mcmorial in this case nou be authorized.
I have ken informed that the Arent for the Go\ernment of Canada intends 10
request that the ~ounter-~emohals be filed ten months after the filing of the

Memorial rather than the six months agreed to in Article VI of the Special
Agreement. The United States is not in a position at this time to reach a
iudement whether anv extension is in its view iustifiedwithout a orior reviewof
;hey~emonal of canada. The United ~tateswill communicate ;ts visw to the
Court in this re~pectalter 3 reasonable opportunity IOconduct il>revicu.

33. THE DEPUTY-REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA

27 September 1982.

1have the honour to acknowledge receipt of the Memorial ofthe Government
of Canada in the case concerning Delimitarionof rheMaritime Boundaryin the

Gulfof Maine Area, filed with its Annexes in the Registry of the Court under
cover of your letter of today's date, and accompanied by the copies required
under Article 52,paragraph 1,of the Rules of Coun. All the texts thus provided,
together with those supplied today on behalf of the United States, will be
communicated forthwith to the memhers of the Chamher formed to deal with
the case, whose attentionwillbe particularly drawn to the explanations given by
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~oaraeraoh of vour letter of transmittal.
The cerliked ;op;, of those texts which you have supplied for the other Party
has ken communicated to the Go\,ernment of the United States in accordanse
with Article 26.. -.riiard~h1.of the Rules of Court. I have likewisecommuni-
sated to your Govcrnment the certified copy of the Memorial and Anne\es liled
today in the samc case on bchdlf of the Go\crnmeiit ol the United Stdtes of
America. and send vou herewith fivefurther cooies of the same. 1also transmit
to vou aco~v of a létterof todav's date in which the Aeent of the United States

conveys the hews of his Gover~ment on tuo qucstio~ now pcnding
I wish further to inform you that a copy of )Our letter of transnittdl. w115
enclosures. has been transmitted to the Aeent of the United States The cooies
you have ;upplied of the documents listed in your first enclosure and, in due

' II.pp.3421.304 GULF Of MAINE

course, copiesofthedocument similarlydeposited on hehalf of the United States
will he available to the Chamher and the Parties in the library of the Court.
1note finallythat in due course you willbe sending, in the requisite numher of
copies, a final list of corrections.

34. THEDEPUTY-REGISTRARTO THE AGENTOF THEWVERNMENT OF THE
UNItED STATESOF AMERICA

27 September 1982.

1have the honour to acknowledge receiptof the Memorial of the Government
of the United States of America in the case concerning Delimitation oj the
MaritimeBoundaryinthe GulfojMaine Area, filedtoday with its Annexes inthe
Registry of the Court and accompanied by the copies required under Article 52,
oaraeranh 1. of the Rules of Court. The texts thus filed. toeether with al1those
Sup&ei today on behalf 2 Canada, 411 be communi&tei forthwith to every
memher of the Chamber formed to deal with the case. Due note has heen taken
that copies of Annex 44 to the Memorial and photostats of certain quoted
documents will shortly be transmitted to the Registry.
The certified copy of your Government's Memorial and Annexes has heen
communicated to the other Party in accordance with Article 26,paragraph 1,of
the Rules of Court. 1 have likewise communicated to your Government the
certified copy of the Memorial and Annexes filed today in the same case on
behalf of the Government of Canada, and send you herewith fivefurther copies
of the same.
The filingof the Canadian Memorial was accompanied by a letter with which
the Agent of Canada enclosed a preliminary errata sheet' and a list' of
documents of which cooies have ken deoosited in the Reristrv. A coov of this
Ietter and its enclosure; is trdnsniitted tu')ou hercwith ~he d&~sitrd'&~ies of
documents will k ai3ilable Ir,the Chiimhcr and the Parties in ihr Iihrïr) of the
Court. I uish further to inform )ou that the attention (I'he nienitxrs of the
Chamber has heen oarticularlv drawn to the exolanations ei-en in the second
pÿragraph of the ~inarlian ~Rcn1.sletter.
Finiilly1acknoulcdge receipt of the letter <iirnddy'idincwhich g.iu ronvcy
the Lieu>uf ihe United Statcs on tuo uue,iionr now ~endin-. I hate triinrrnittcd
a copy of this letter to the Agent of canada.

35. THE AGENTOF THEWVERNMENTOf THE UNITEDSTATESOF AMERICA
TO THEREGLSTRAR

[Received on 20 Octoher 1982.1

In my letter to you of 27Septemher, 1noted that following upon a reasonahle
on..rtunitv to review the Canadian Memorial. the United States would
comniunisiitr ils vicw>on the questiun of ihc timc-limit for the iiling of the
Counter-Mernon~ls, ïnd. in partieular. with regard to the requesi bg the Agcni
of Canada that the timc-limit be set for ten months (rom the daof the iilingof

'Not reproduced. CORRESPONDENCE 305

the Memorials. The United States has now conducted this review. Webelievethe
United States could meet the time-limit of six months for filine the Counter-
Memonals orovided for in Article VI of the Soecial ~ereement.althoueh from
Ourpcrspcciivca one monih c\tension ivould bc wclci,hcd. I ha;c disçu~scd[hi,
m~tier u,iih ihc Agcnt niCanada, h<iucvrr. and I undsrsiand that he stands hs
his earlier requestr
In the Special Agreementsuhmitting this caseto the Court, the Parties stressed
their desire to reach an early resolution of this matter. The United States believes
that although the Special Agreement provides for requests hy either Party for
extensions of the time-limitsspecifiedtherein, the schedule specificallymentioned

in the Special Agreement for the filing of the Meinorials and the Counter-
Memorialsevidencedan agreement of the Parties to put someconstraint upon the
amount of lime to he used in the oreoaration and oresentation of this case.
The Ilnitcd Siaiçc ufcoursc rec&n;~es thdicscr( p:irtp to4procccding beforc
the Court should hc allowcd ihc timc rr.i,on.ibly rcquircd to prcparc its case
For [hiil reilson. the Unitcd Siare, did nui uhicci tu the une monih ericntion
requested hy canada of the seven month périod established by the Special
Agreement for the filingof the Memorials. Nor does the United States object to
a delay if reasonahly required to file the Counter-Memorials. However, we
continue to helieve that everv effort should be made to adhere as closelv as
posrihlc to the sçhedule esi<ihiihcd in the Spçsi31Agreement.
The United Stiitcs notes ihat if C~nadtü'srequc,! for a tcn monih iimr pcriod
Ior the iiline oiihc <:<iuntsr-Mçmurialsis zriin1r.d:ind the filine of rc~lvbriefs is
subsequentïy requested and authorized, the informal schedule~iscus~edbetween
the Agents and the President of the Chamber at a meeting on II May 1982to
hold oral argument in Octoher 1983willno1be met. I'urthermore, now that the

Governments of Lihya and Malta have suhmitted their Continental Shelf
Boundary Dispute to the Court, we are concerned that the schedule in that case
could have implications for the schedule in this case.
The United States recognizesthat it isfor the Chamber, or the President ofthe
Chamher, taking account of the views and reasonable needs of the Parties, to
establish the time-limit for the filing of the Counter-Memorials. Whatever
determination is made in this resard, the United States is ho~eful that anv
further written pleadings that may%eréquestedand aiithorized b$ the ~hamhe;,
or President of the Chamher, can be scheduled so that the oral argument in this
case can be held no later than early 1984.

20 October 1982.

The Agent for the United States has provided me with a copy of his letter of
19Octoher communicating to you his further viewsconcerning the time-limit for
the filing of the Counter-Memorials in the case concerning Delimitarionof the
Maritime Boundaryin the Cuifof Maine Area.
1wish to confirm that my Government maintains its viewthat a period of six
months isclearly insufficientto allowcompletion of the processes involvedin the
preparation of the Counter-Memorial. The experiencr:gained in the production
of the Memorial is alone sufficient to establish the need for more lime.
Accordingly 1 would renew my request that the limit he fixed at ten months,
pursuant to Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Special Agreement.306 GULF OF MAINE

4 rci,icu of the Unitcd Suies Mcmoriül furthcr aitcsts Io thc nccd for a tinic-
Iiniitoi nt Icast [en nionihs. The Mcniorial proposes 3 boundar) Iinc thai

rcore,cnis 3 fundamenidl chanrc in the çI;iim hiihcrto sustaincd by ihc United
~iates of America; it cites a-number of publications that are- not readily
available, extracts from which have been annexed to the Memonal but bave no1
been accompanied by the deposit of the whole document in the Registry in
accordance with Article 50 of the Rules of Court: and finallv. il also advances
coiitcntions 3s 10 facl? for which no d,icumentar) support is pro\ided. Thcsc
i'aciori uill unilouhtcdl) add ii>the tirne rcquired for ihc prcpdrütion of thc
Cîn~dian Countcr-Mcmorial. Notuithstandine ihssc unforcsccn circumstanccs.
1 ahide hv mv orieinal reouest for a time-limTtof ten months. 1 shall seek to
avoid any delays b; propihg to the Agent for the United States an exchange of

information that may be required on either side. In thisconnection J would note
that the Canadian side deoosited with the Reeistrar and with the Aeent for the
United States on 27 ~e~tember 1982copies oïthe whole documentsfrom which
extracts were annexed to the Canadian Memonal.
1 need scarcely add that the Government of Canada attaches the greatest
imn.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~editious resolution of the various issues involved in these
proceedings. lndeed kanada has done its utmost to further this objective from
the outset, and particularly during the period of more than two and one-half
vears that ela~sedfrom the sienature of the Treatv to Submit to Bindine Disoute
~ettlement tie Delimitation of the Maritime ~oundar~ in the Gulf if aine

Area and the related Agreement on East Coast Fishery Resources, until
the ratification of the former instrument. that is from 29 March 1979 to
?O Novcmbcr 1981 The iimc-limii proposcd by the Go\,crnmcni of Ciinîda for
ihr filingof the Counicr-Mcmorials would ccrtüinly dllou thc or~l procccdings
to begii within the first quarter of 1984.

37. TillTiIiRllSFC'RFrhRY Or TiiF FMRAESYUF THF PR>PI.E'S KEPC.HI.IC
OF H.4SbLADCSH T0 1HC NCTHLRLASUS10 IHC RC<iISIRAH

Bmssels, 2 November 1982.

We understand that the case on delimitation of maritime boundary between
Canada and the USA isdue to be heard in the Court soon. We shall appreciate il
very much if you could kindly send us copy of the memorandum submitted hy

the concerned Parties and also the outcome of the hearing as and when it takes
place.

(Signed) (Mrs.) Nasim Fi~o~us.

38. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA'

9 November 1982.

1refer to your letter, received in the Registry on 20 October 1982,concerning
the time-limits to be fixed for the further proceedings in the case concerning the

' A similarcommunication was sentto the Agent ofthe Governmentof Canada. CORRESPONDENCE 307

Delimitarion of rhe Maririme Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/
UnitedStares of America), and have the honour to inform you that the President

of the Chamher has decided, after taking account of the viewsof the Parties, to
fix 28 lune 1983 as the lime-limit for the filing of the Counter-Memorials
contemplated by Article VI, paragraph 1, of the Special Agreement. The
subsequent procedure is reserved for further decision.
1enclose the officialsealed copy of the Orderi made by the President of the
Chamber for this purpose.

39. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA

12November 1982.

1.have the honour to send you herewith a copy of a letter dated 2 November
1982and receivedfrom the Embassy of Bangladeshwhich ineffectconstitutes a
request governed by Article 53, paragraph 1,of the Rules of Court.
Byyour letter of 27September 1982you have givenme to understand that it is
the desireof vour Government that the nleadinesuand documents annexed in the
caseconccrning Bt~lin~irurio(nfrlie Mur~r~»eHI>U~,/U II,rhcGUIJoj'AIu»~, .TPU
hc niitmddeavailahle i<iihird partie5kiore the upening of the ordl procccdings
Cnlcss I hcar from )ou io thecunirïr) by 22 So\cmbcr 19821rhall :ir,umc ihït
)Our <io\ernrnent's attitude in this niaiter reniains iinshanged and inforni the

Prc,ideni oi thc Chamher acrordingly.
A similar Icllcr is being sent Io the Ageni oi ihc l'nitcil Staie~ui Amcrisa.

40. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA

15Novemher 1982.

1have the honour. with referenceto the fili.e.on 27 Seotember 1982.of vour
Ciovernmcni's Memurial in thc case conccrning ~t~lrmi;urio» u/ rhu ,kurt'rim<
Hotindur! in rh<.Gu//'o/ hluitt<Areu, tu cal1io Sour 3ttention dn undertaking,
given on your behalf on that occasion, whereby certain copies or originals of
whole documents would be deposited in the Registry in accordance with
Article 50, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court.
Since several weeks have elapsed since that undertaking was given, 1venture
to enquire whether 1am shortly to expect the deposit of the documents or copies
in question so that they, like those already deposited by Canada, may be made
available for the inspection of memhers of the Chamher and the other Party.
1take this opportunity of thanking you most warmly for the 130reprints of

the illustrations from vour Government's Memorial.which have arrived under
cover of a letterYrom2the Deputy-Agent dated 1I ~hvemher 1982.Thesecopies
will be invaluable in finalizing the French translation of the pleading.

' ICJ. Reports1982, p. 561.
Not repraduced.308 GULF OF MAINE

41. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA

24 November 1982.

1 have the honour to acknowledge receipt with thanks of your lerter of
19November 1982,and of the copy documents submitted under cover of that
letter for deposit in the Registry, pursuant to Article 50, paragraph 2, of the
Rules of Court, in the case concerning the Delimitation of the Maritime
Boundaryin the Gulf of Maine Area. The members of the Chamber, and the

Agent of Canada, are being informed that these documents are availahle to be
consulted in the library of the Court, along with the documents similarly
deposited by the Agent of Canada at the time of the filing of the Memorials.

42. THE LEGAL ADVISER OF THE FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE OF THE
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRlTAlN AND NORTHERNIRELAND TO THE REGISTRAR

25 November 1982.

1have the honour to refer to Article 53 ofthe Rules of Court and to request
that copies of the Parties' pleadings in this case be furnished to the Government
of the United Kingdom.
1should be most grateful if copies could be sent to me either direct or via the
British Embassy inThe Hague.

(Signed) lan SINCLAIR.

43. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE WVERNMENT OF THE UNITE0 STATES
OF AMERICA

30 November 1982.

1 have the honour to acknowledge receipt with thanks of your letter of
15November 1982,with which you enclosedan errata sheet' to accompany the
Memorial of the United States in the case concerning the Delimitation ofthe

Maritime Boundory in the Gulf of Maine Area. 1 have to inform you that
pursuant to Article 52,paragraph 4, and Article 18,paragraph 3, of the Rules of
Court. the President of the Chamber has eiv-n ~ ~ ~ ~or the corrections in
question to be-made to the Memorial; the errata sheet is accordingly heing
transmitted to the members of the Chamber and to the Agent of Canada.

44. THE DEPUTY-REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE WVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATESOF AMERICA

1 December 1982.

1 have the honour to infonn you tbat 1 have received a request from the

Government of the United Kingdom for copies of the pleadings and annexed
'Nol reproduced. CORRESPONDENCE 309

documents in the cïsc cuncerning the I~eliniirurii»roj'rhr Murrrr~nrBounJary in
rhr Gu//'of'.Vr>iArc" to hc made îvail.ihle to thai Go,ernment. pursuani to

Article53.113rîeraoh 1.ofthe RulesofCourt In iiew of the terms oi'vour lelter
of 27 ~e~ikmbe; 19'82,1shall assume, unles1hear from you to the contrary by
10 December 1982 that the attitude of your Government is unchanged, and
inform the President of the Chamber accordingly.
A similar letter is being sent ta the Agent of Canada.

45. THE DEPUTY-REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE WWRNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATESOF AMERlCA

3December 1982.

Ihave the honour to transmit to you today, under separate cover, sixcopies of

the French translation', prepared by the Registry, of Volume 1, Part 1
(Documentary Annexes I ta 9) and Part 2(Documentary Annexes 10and II) of
the Annexes to the Memorial of the United States of America in the case
concerning Delimiration of the Maritime Bowldary in rhe Gulfof Maine Areo.
This translation, prepared for the use of members of the Chamber, has no
officialcharacter whatsoever.
As SOU uill obwrvc. the maps and illustraiions are, in gcneral. not reproduced
separately in the volumes containing the iriinslation,. the readrr king refcrred
to the original volume. However. it appears to me that it might be of assistance
to members of the Chamber usine the translation volume if the man suoolied as
@ Annex Y9 could be insertcd I bhould therefoheobliyed if you coild s;pply me

withcopics i~fthis miip With an eyeto the future. ue are preparing 130copics i~f
the relc\înt i,olumc. and therciurc I shîll hegraieful for 130copies of the mîp

46. TttEI>I!PUTY-KI<ülSIH 10 Ittt. FIIIKI) SECKElAHY OF THF CMRASSYOF TttF
I'EOPLE'KEPL.RI.IOCF RASGI.AI>ISIt TTltlStfltLRLANUS2

6 December 1982.

1refer to your letter of 2 November 1982,by which youasked that copies of
the pleadings submitted to the Court by the Parties to the case concerning the
Delimiration of the Murilime Boundary in ihe Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/
UniredStates of America) besupplied to the Government of Bangladesh. 1have

10draw your attention to the provisions of Arti53.paragraph 1,of the Rules
of Court, which reads:
"The Court, or the President if the Court no1sitting, may al any time
decide, after ascertaining the views of the p;irties, that copies of the
pleadings and documents annexed shall be made available to a State

entitled to appear before it which has asked to be furnished with such
copies."
The request of the Government of Bangladesh hastherefore been laid before

'Not reproduîed.
'A similar communicationwas sent to the kgal Adviser of the Foreignand
Commonwealth Osce ofthe UnitedKingdom.310 GULF OF MAINE

Judge Ago, President of the Chamber formed to deal with this case, who under
Article 18. oaraeranh 3. of the Rules of Court exercises the functions of the
President oithc ?oh in relation to this case. The vicwsof the Partics have ken
ascertainçd: hoth the Caniidian Guvernrneni' and ihe Government of the

Uniicd States' ha\c indicated th31 i1sthcir uish thai cooics of the pleadinas he
not made available to other Statesbefore the opening ofihe oral proceedings in
the case. Taking these views inIo account, the President of the Chamber has
decided that it would not be appropriate to grant the request of the Government
of Bangladesh at the present lime. When the stage of the oral proceedings is
reached, the request of the Government of Bangladesh will bere-examined in the
light of the views of the Parties at that time.
1am however enclosing for your information such documents in the case as
are in the public domain, namely the Special Agreement filed on 25 November
1981,and the Orders subsequently made by the Court or by the President of the
Chamber.

47. THE DEPUTY-REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENTOF CANADA^

7 December 1982.

Further 10the Registrar's letter of 12November 1982concerning the request
by the Government of Bangladesh for copies of the pleadings and annexed
documents in the case concerning DelimirorionoJtheMoririme Boundaryin rhe
GuiJoJMaine Area, 1have the honour to inform you that the President of the
Chamher has decided that it would not he appropriate 10 grant the request of the
Government of Bangladesh al the present time. When the stage of the oral

proceedings is reached, the request will be re-examined in the light of the views
of the Parties at that time.
The Government of Bangladesh has heen informed of this decision.

48. THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNUENTOF CANADA TO THE REGISTRAR

15 December 1982.

1 refer 10 my letter of 20 October 1982 relative to the case concerning
Delimilolion of the Morifime Boundoryin the Gulf of Moine Areo. That letter
noted that the United States Memorial cites a number of publications that are
not readily available, extracts from which have ken annexed to the Memorial
but have not ken accompanied by the deposit of the whole document in the
Registry in accordance with Article 50of the Rules of Court, and, further, that
the United States Memorial also advances contentions as to fact for which no
documentary support is provided.
On I December 1982I received inOttawa a copy of the United States Agent's

' SeeNo. 31.m.
SeeNo. 32,supra.
' Acommunicationinthesametcms waswnt to theAgentoftheGovernmentof the
UnitedStatesofAmerim.Similarcommunications weresent totheAgentsconrrmingthe
requat ofthe UnitedKingdamGovemmeni (seesupraNo. 42). letter10 you of 19 November, together with copies of some of the documents
deposited in the Registry by the United States on the latter date. Although the
United States has not deposited al1 those documents that are not readily
available, 1 shall now make my own arrangements Io obtain the missing
materials.
My present concern is to obtain information that would enable both the
Government of Canada and the Court 10 assess certain unsubstantiated
contentions advanced by the United States, in order to facilitate a better
understanding of the areas of agreement and disagrcement between the Parties
and enable Canada to comolv with its oblinations under Article 49 (2) of the

Rules of Court. ~ccordingli 1 have prep&ed the request for information
attached hereto. 1should be grateful if you could transmit this request to the
Agent for the United States.
All appropriate measures will be taken 10 protect the confidentiality of
information provided by the United States.

Annex

1. Rangeof stocks

Pa~agraphs55 to 57 and Figures 7 and 36: These paragraphs and figures
@@ contain contentions of fact as to the ranges of stocks of 16 commercially
important species.
Authorities and sources are requested.

2. UnitedStaresarea calcularions

(a) Paragraph23 andfootnoie 3: It is contended that the area of the entire
US east coast physical continental shelf encompasses approximately 95,000
square nautical miles (326,000square kilometers), and the area of the Canadian
east coast continental shelfabout 275,000square nautical miles(943,000square
kilometers).
Information is requested to explain these calculations including:

(i) the coordinates of relevant points between which the inshore limits are
drawn, and the bodies of water included in the calculations;
(ii) the coordinates of the northeastern limit in the Lincoln Sea and the
coordinates of the southwestern limit (specifying the treatment of the
Gulf of Mexico and the Florida Keys) from which measurements were
~ ~
taken;
(iii) the area included within the above calculations that lieswithin 200 miles
and the area that lies beyond that limit.
(b) Paragraph24andfootnote1: It is contended that the area of the US 200-
mile fishery conservations zone off the east coast eiicompasses approximately

266,000square nautical miles (912,000 square kilometers), and the area of the
Canadian 200-milefishinezone off the east coast ;thout 599.000souare nautical
miles (2.055.000square k;lometrr,)
Same informaiion requc\tcd as in points (1)and (IIunder rub-parapraph (a,

3. United States continentalshel/permits

Paragraphs93 and 135: It is contended that "Beginning in 1964,the United
States Geological Surveyissued permits for geophysicalexploration of areas ...
including Georges Bank." It is further contended that during 1961-1964the US312 GULF OF MAINE

began the exploration of its continental shelf off the New England States and
that "over the next few years. seismic exploration permits covering al1 the
continental shelf off New England, including the entirety of Georges Bank,
weregranted by the United States. and activities began". No evidencehas been

adduced in support of these contentions. A lis1 of permits is produced in
Annex 40 but the first permit listed is dated 1967.
Evidence is requested to show that, in fact, the USGS issued permits
beginning in 1964 (as indicated in the United States Memorial) or 1960 (as
indicated by information available to Canada) rather than 1967. Copies of
applications for permits and of the permits themselves are requested, for the
period from 1960to the present.

4. UnitedStatescatches
Poragraphs73and78 IO88: Unsubstantiated contentions are made in relation
to the United States and Canadian fishenes in and around the Gulf of Maine
generally and by refcrcnce io ihc areas and sub-arcas inio which the rçgion was

ditided undcr ICNAF. Unsubstaniiated allegaiions are also made rcgarding
relîiivc sizcsof the Unired States and Canadian fishine fleeis.
The following information is aeeordingly requested:-
(a) For ICNAF sub-area 5, from each 10minute square and/or each ICNAF
statistical unit (for example, 5Zeg, 5Zeh, and so on), by port of landing for as
many years as possible between 1953 and 1981, data specifying the quantity
(meat weight for scallops and round weight for other species)of United States

catches, by speciesand in total.
(b) For the States of Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode
Island, for al1years for which statistics are available since 1965,data specifying:
(1) contnburion to ihc Gross Siïic Produci (GI)P for the Siatel uf the fish
hdrvesiing sector and of the fi~hproccssing ~nd u holçs~ling\c~ti)rs,
(II)numbers ofworkers and ProDoriionof the ldbour forceinvolvcdin lishin~
(indicating whether full-iiméor part-lime and defining these categorieq
and in fish processing, by city if possible in hoth cases.

(c) For United States vessels whichparticipated in the Georges Bank fishery
in general (ICNAF statistical unit areas SZeh, SZej, 5Zem and SZen) and the
disputed area in particular (5Zej. 5Zem),by port of registration, for al1the years
for whichstatistics are available since 1965,data specifyingby ICNAF statistical
unit area:

(i) numbers of vessels by major vessellgear class (giving average length,
tonnage and crew size);
(ii) total number of fishingtrips per yearand average number of days per trip
for each major vessel/gear class.

(d) For the States of Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode
Island, for al1years for which statistics are available since 1965,the number of
new fishing vessel registrations (including both newly constructed vessels and
transfers of registration) and the number of de-registrations, by major vessel
length and tonnage class.

Pleaseprovide sourcesof information and the basis for any calculations made.
At least part of the relevant data should he readily available in material the US
National Fisberies Manne Servicehas furnished to the Southeastern Massachu-
setts University Foundation, College of Business and Industry, contract refer-
ence 03-07-043-35132. 49. THE AGENT OF THE WVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATE SF AMERICA

TO THE REGISTRAR

20 January 1983.

1have the honor 10refer to vour letter of 21 Decçmber 1982.transmittine a
letter of 15 December 1982, 6om the Agent of clinad; &alive to the case
concerning the Delimitationufthe Maritime BoundarlrintheGulfof MaineArea.
As a preliminary matter, we note that the Agent ;if Canada-su-ggestedin his
letter of 15Decemher 1982that the United States is no1in compliance with its
obligations under Article 50of the Rules of Court. In its view,the United States
has with regard to ils Memorial deposited in the Registry al1of the documents
required hy Article 50.

In his letter, the Agent of Canada also presents the viewsof Canada regarding
certain statements of fact contained in the United States Memorial. By that
letter. Canada has circ~ ~ ~ted theorder and scheduleesta- -~hed bv the Court
for p;esenting such views.Thus, Canada has laid certain of its posi60ns before
the Court in advance of the submission of the Counter-Memorial of the United
States. The United States ohjects to this apparently unprecedented procedure
employed hy the Agent of Canada.
Moreover, the Agent of Canada, in his letter of 15 December, makes an
extraordinary request for information. Canada would have the United States
respond to such request and to the viewsexpressed tiy the Agent of Canada in

the letter of 15 December prematurely, in isolation from the comprehensive
arguments of the Parties to be suhmitted on these and other matters in their
Counter-Memorials.
The Agent of Canada asserts that the requested information is necessaryfor
Canada ta comply with itsobligations under Article49(2)of the Rulesof Court.
In this regard, Article 49 (2) requires that a Counter-Memorial contain "an
admission or denial of the facts stated in the Memorial". Canada has received
the Mernorial of the United Siales. It nceds no additional i~formation from the
United States in order tu comply with thai rcquircincnt. If Canada disagrecs

with the iacts ~rcscnlcdin thc United Siatc, Mernorial. eiihcr bccauhcCanada
possessescont;ary information or hecause Canada believesthat the Memorial
and Annexes of the United States do not contain evidenceto substantiate those
facts, Canada is Creeto state that viewin ils Counter-Memorial. For its part, the
United States, as required by Article 49 (2), will respond in its Counter-
Memorial to the numerous contentions contained iii the Canadian Memorial
that are not supported hy the evidence.
Despite these objections, the United States has prepared the attachment to
this letter in order to remove any pretext for delay by Canada that would
undermine the expeditious resolution of this case.

1would begrateful ifyou would transmit this letter and its attachments to the
Agent of Canada.

Annex

1. Rangeof stocks
Paragraph I of the attachment to the 15December 1982letter from the Agent
of Canada seeksinformation relating to paragraphs 55through 57and Figures
@ @ 7 and 36 of the Memorial of the United States regarding the range of stocks of

16commercially important speciesfound on Georges Bank and on the Scotian
Shelf, including Browns Bank. Paragraphs 55 through 57 and Figures 7 and 36 314 GULF OF MAINE

of the United States Mernorial illusirdie ihe niturlil houndlir) that the Norih-
ca<i Channcl fornis beiwccn scparaic stocks of 12 of th<isc Ih spcctcs The
remainine four siocks shown ai Fieurer 7 and 36of the United States Merni~rial
(mackereï, pollock, argentine, andushortfinsquid) range throughout the Gulf of
Maine area and beyond.
The United States would hring to the attention of the Agent of Canada that
the Canadian Memorial discusses and identifies a division at the Northeast
Channel for many of the 12aflected stocks referred to by the United States. At

paragraph 100of ils Memorial, Canada recognizesthat the Northeast Channel
is the northern lirnit of the range of longfin squid; a1 paragraph 103Canada
notes the "discrete" stocks of haddock, cod, yellowtail flounder, and Atlantic
herring found on Georges Bank; at paragraph 106(after a tentative discussion
al paragraph 104)Canada refers to the "resident" stock of scallops on Georges
Bank. With respect Io fiveof the sixremaining stocks, the attention of the Agent
of Canada is directed 10 the Allas of the Major Arlantic Coasr Fish and
InverrebrareResourcesArljacentrotheCanada-UnitedStaresBoundaryAreas, by
G. M. Hare, a technical report of the Canadian Department of the Environ-
ment, Fisheries and Marine Service, cited in the Canadian Memorial at
paragraph 106,note 27, a full copy of which was deposited in the Registry by
Canada. Besidesdealine with other fisheries.the reoort states clearlv that there
are stock divisii>nsa1 the Northeast channe1 for sher hakr (p. 3)and rcdtijh
(p. 2). Th? report's discuss~onof red hake and white hikc (pp. 3-4) is tcntaiivc.
hut ir asiumcs siock div~sio31 the Noriheasi Channel. Allhi>ughihc Hare
report discusrcs lobsier in terms of "concentraiioii" nlihcr than srockit

identifiesthe Northsast Channrl as a dihirion bciuecn the lobrtcr "concentra-
tioti" on Brorins Bank and thai on Ccoraes Hïn(p.a).The United Stdlrsdoes
not, of course, embrace al1of the report3sfindings.~owever, it isevidence ofthe
consensus that existson the stock division al the Northeast Channel. The Hare
report does not discuss cusk.
While cusk has no1been studied as extensivelyas the other aforementioned
species, the attention of the Agent of Canada is directed to the United States
groundfish survey data cited in the Canadian Mernorial al paragraph 106,
note 25.
The stock division al the Northeast Channel is reflected by the line dividing
Statistical Areas XXI (Nova Scotia) and XXll (New England) established by the
North American Council on Fishery Investigations (NACFI) in 1931,shown at
@ Figure 8 of the United States Memorial; it isalso reflectedby the line dividing
Subareas 4 and 5established hy the International Convention for the Northwest
@ Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF) in 1950,shown at Figure 9 of the United States
Memorial.
Whenthe United States prepared its Memorial, it did so assuming that there is

little or no question that the Northeast Channel divides stocks of 12 of the
commercially important species referred 10 in paragraphs 55 through 57 and
@@ Figures 7 and 36 of the United States Memorial. In view of the letter of
15 December 1982from the Agent ofCanada, the United States will provide in
ils Counter-Memorial further substantiation of this division inaddition 10that
contained or cited in the Memorial of Canada and its Annexes.

2. Area calculations

Paragraph 2 of the attachment to the 15December 1982letter from the Agent
of Canada requests information to explain the calculations at paragraph 23 and
note 3and paragraph 24and note 1of the Memorial ofthe United States,setting forth the relativeareas of the continental shelvesand 200nautical-mile exclusive
fishing zones of the United States and Canada OIT their east coasts. Those
presentationsshowthat the United Statespossessesa smallercontinental shelfand
fisherieszone on ils east coast than does~C-~ada. With reg~-~~to both of these
requeats.the Agent ofCan3da hasarked for the specificgeographiccoordinste, ni
the Iimitsof the ïrcas drsnbed by the United Statcs Moreovcr. in regard to thc
descriution of the continental shelf areas. the Aeent of Canada has iauested a
calcul~tionofthc are;ishoth uithin and bc)ond 2%nautical milesfrom [hecoast
Although note 3 (rclating 10paragrïph 23)and note 1(relating to paragraph
24) oiicr tcneral iniormation th~t shnuld tx sulfi~ientio test the validitv oiihe
conipariri>nsniade in pdragr~ph.. 23 and 24. the fullorring ~Jdilional i~chnical
inrorniation ir <itT~.rrdIn rcgÿrd to paragraph 23. the area olconiincntal shelf
OITthe cart CWJS~ ui the United States wa, cülculaied urinc the iolluwinc United
States National Ocean Survey (NOS) charts: - -

11013:34th ed., September 5/81 - 1: 1,200,000at Lat. 25 degrees 11'50;
11009:28th ed., Septernber 5/81 - 1: 1,200,000at Lat. 31 degrees 44';
13003:34th ed., February 28/81 - 1:1,200,000at Lat. 40 degrees 00'.
These charts are king deposited in the Registry. All of these charu depict

depths in fathoms. As indicated in note 3 (relating to paragraph 23). the 100-
fathom depth contour as shown on these charts was used to determine the
seaward limit of the continental shelf for this purpose. The inshore limit for
calculating the continental shelf area off the United States east coast was the
baseline used 10 delimit the territorial sea of the United States in accordance
with the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, as
understood and applied by the United States. The southern lirnit of the
continental shelf off the east coast of the United States was defined by a line
extending from a point located at approxirnately 25 degrees 04'N., 80degrees
27'55" W. seaward at an azimuth of approximately 128 degrees (true) to its
intersection with the 100-fathorn denth conto~ ~ ~h~s noint~a.~ azimuth~ ~ ~ ~
approxiiiistc ihc bodndary dcliniiiing Iic ujc of the Mean LowWater Reiercncc
Diitum ior the Atlantic Coast and the Ciuli<:o:i,t I.ow Wütcr Rcferencc I>atum
as indicüted on NOS chart 11013.The norihern Iimit<ifthe continent~lshrlioff
the United States east coast wasdefined by the maritime boundary with Canada
~r proposed by the United States in its Memorial (as shown at Figure 30 of the
O United States Mernorial and as set forth in paragraph 2 of Section C of the

Submissions of the United States. found at page 215 of ils Memonal) and a
straight line connecting the northernrnost point of that boundary with the
United States-Canada international boundary terminus.
The continental shelf off the east coast of Canada was calculated using the
following Canadian Hydrographic Servicecharts:

L(A)-4001(INT 109):Jan. 1, 1982 - 1:3,500,000(22 degrees30');
LIA, C-5001 (INT 110): Aug. 10, 1979 - 1:3,500,000 (22 degrees 30');
7010: Aug. 7, 1981 - 1: 2,000,000;
7000: Feh. 29, 1980 - 1:4,000,000.
Thcse charts are being deposited in the Registry. Charts L(A)-4001and LIA,
C-5001 depict depths in rneters while charts 7010 arid 7000 depict depths in
fathoms. As indicated in note 3(relatine to oaraeraoh 23).either the 100-fathom
or 200-meterdcpth contour as rhinvn on the>echsrts u;is ujed to determine the
se;iuurd Iirnit<ifiIieconrinrritiil shclt"liirihis piirpose. The inshore limit used in
calculaiine thc Canüdian continental zhçlf uiis the h.iseline ior delimitinr ihc

territorialsea in accordance with the Convention on tlie Territorial Sea and the 316 GULF OF MAINE

Contiguous Zone, as it would te understood and applied by the United States.
The Bavof Fun-~~-,d~ ~ ~ ~ - ~f St. Lawrenc~ ~ ~ ~~~luded inthe calculation
of the eanadian east coast continental shelf.The northern limitof the continental
shelfoff the east coast of Canada. for this purpose, was determined tobe at the
ooint where the 100-fathomdeoth contour intersects the 65th meridian of West
iongitudein the LincolnSea.~hesouthern limit oftheCanadian continental shelf,

as noted in note 3 (in relation to paragraph 23), was defined by the maritime
boundary with Canada proposed by the United States in its Memorial (as shown
ta in Figure 30 of the United States Memorial and as set forth in paragraph 2 of
O Section C of the Submissions of the United States, found at page 215 of its
Memorial) and a straigbt line connecting the northernmost point of that
boundary with the United States-Canada international boundary terminus.
In its Memorial, the United States did not differentiate the areas of the
respectiveeast coast continental sbelvesthat liewithin 200nautical miles ofthe
coast and the areas teyond 200 nautical miles from the coast. To provide

additional calculations making that differentiation at this point would therefore
not serve to substantiate any statement in the United States Memorial. The
United States did include the area of the territorial sea within the continental
shelf calculation. This was done to avoid a discussion of the breadth of the
territorial sea. These area calculations are intended solely to provide a general
comparison based upon common standards. In this respect the disclaimer in the
United States Memorial at oaraeraoh 22. note 2. should be recalled.
In regard in p~ragraph 24'.thArias of the exclbsi\c fishingzones off the casi
cuaii of the United Siaies and Canada were calculatçd employing ihc süme
baselincs used for cslculaiinr! ihe continenial shelr areas. Thesc baselines

provided the inner limit for the calculations.
The outer limits were determined by 200-nautical-milearcs determined from
such baselines. The northern limit of the United States fishing zone and the
southern limit of the Canadian fishing zone were defined by the maritime
boundary with Canada proposed bythe United States in its Memorial (as shown
@) at Fjgure 30 of the United States Memorial and as set forth in paragraph 2 of
Section C of the Submissions of the United States, found at page 215 of its
Memorial) and a straight line connecting the northernmost point of that
boundary with the United States-Canada international boundary terminus. The
southern limit of the fishing zone off the east coast of the United States was

defined by extending the southern limit of the United States east coast
continental shelf, defined above, to a point situated al approximately 24 de-
grees 43'02" N., 79 degrees 49'39" W. That point is identified as point 83 on
page 12937 of 42 Federai Register, 12937-12940(7 Marcb 1977), found in
Annex 61 to the United States Memorial.
The northern limit of the Canadian east coast fishingzone was definedby the
northern limit of ils Fishing Zone 4 at the 66 degrees 15'parallel of North
latitude. This is well short of the northern limit of the Canadian east coast
continental shelf, which isover 1,000nautical milesto the nortb. If the northern
limit of the continental shelfwere usedfor calculating the area of Canada's east

coast fishing zone, it would add approximately 100,000square nautical miles
(343,000 square kilometers) to the 599,000 square nautical miles (2,055,000
square kilometers) already identified in the United States Memorial.

3. United Srritescontinentalshelfpermits
Paragraph 3 of the attachment to the 15December 1982letter from the Agent
of Canada seeks to substantiate whether the United States began 10 issue
exploration permits for the New England area of the continental shelf off the CORRESWNDENCE 317

United States east coast in 1960or 1964.In viewof the comments of the Agent
of Canada regarding the statements contained in paragraphs 93 and 135 of the
United States Memorial, the Agent of the United States takes this opportunity
to clarify those statements.

As indicated in paragraph 93and note 2ofits Memorial, the United States, hy
oublication of a Notice in the Federo Rle~isterin 1960Ifound in Annex 9).
;niriaicd 11sprogr3m ti)de\clop ils cast co&i coniiiicntsl shelf by opcning the
cntirc cast co3st contineniiil shell io yeological und pcoph!.si~?aelxploriliions,
upon condition that such explorations be conducred pursuant io and in
accordance with a permit from the United States Geological Survey. While
permits 10explore parts of ils east coast continental shelfwere issuedin the early
years following that Notice, as indicated in paragraph 93 of the United States

Memorial. the first ~ermitto exolore the continental shelfoffNew Eneland was
noi isaucduniil 19h4 1har per~it. uhich did no1cricnd Io Ceorgcs Üdnk.was
folloucd hy ~uh,equcnt permiiqin 1965and 1966ih.ii exiendcd throughoui ihc
entiretv of Georges Bank. Cooies of those vermits are enclosed. In the
atiachmcni io his~eticr of 15~&emkr 1982.ihe Ageni for Canada suggcsicd
thai Canada hasiniomt~on availablc to it th31the llnited Staies kgan to isuc
ex~lorator~ r>errniiscxicndine io Georees Bank in 1960. The Uniied Sisics
asiumes thaicanada will provide in ils-counter-~emorial the evidence upon

which it has concluded that such permiis were issued for Georges Bank
beginning in 1960.
The United States did not include the 1964. 1965.and 1966uermits in the lis1
coniained a1Annex40 hecauscihc purpose of ihai Aiincx wassimply io support
ihc additiondl siliiemcnt ai paragrsph 93 ihai pursuani io pcrmiis issued by the
Uniied Siaics Ccolocical Surie!. 19.185miles (30.X69kiliimr.icrs~of reur>h!si-
cal data have been collected on.the northeastern part of Georges'~ank. obie es

of those permits under which the geophysicaldata were collected are also
enclosed. As the Agent of Canada observed, the earliest United States Geologi-
cal SUN^ permit under which exploration activities actually occurred on the
northeastern part of Georges Bank was issuedin 1967.

4. Fisheries
ParaW .oh 4 of theattachment~to t~e 15~ ~~ ~er 1982letter from the Aeent u
of Canada requcsts inionnation to substaniisie statcmcnij rclsiing io ihc Unitcd

Siaics and Csnadian fiahcries.as sel forih in paragraphs 73and 78ihrough 88of
the United States Memorial. Those oara. -.hsContain footnotes ref&rine to
the cvidence iupporiinp the siaicmcnts made there. l'hosç rcfcrcnccsare io ihe
statisiical publications of ihc Intcrnaiion;il Cummi\sion for the Norihuesi
Atlaniic Fishcrics(ICE;t\F), relevant poriions of whicharc sci forih in Annexes
46 and 47 to theunitedstates ~Lmor~ . .a oublication of the Northwest
klinlii Fiihçrics ~r~anilation, found ai Annex 47: and a publicaiion of the
Food and Agriculture Organiz~iton of ihc Cniicd Nations. found ai Anne\ 2?.
The >latirtic rclatinr: tu ihc Gcsrecs Bank scallop hiir\,csi in 1955iouiid in the

second sentence ~f-~ara~ra~h83was taken from an official Canadian docu-
ment: Caddy, J. F.,"Spatial Model for an Exploited ShellfishPopulation, and
Its Application to the Georges Bank Scallop Fishery", Journalof the Fisheries
Re~ ~ ~hBoardofCanada. Vol. 32. 1975.Table 2. oilee 1309.
The Ageni ofCanïdî also~requcsisitiïormalio"'o~the relatii,~sizcs of ihe
Uniied Staies and Canadian fishingRccis.The United Staics Memorial docs no1
m3ke a comoarison of ihai kind. The Uniied Si;iics Memorial does statc. ai
paragraph 82. thai ihcre uere 32oKshorcscalloping b(vdt5in Ihc Canadian flcci

in ihc early 1960s(precisely. in 1961).Thai numbçr was iakcn from pariigraph318 GULF OF MAINE

six, page twelveof "Sea Scallop Industry of Canada", reproduced as Annex 21
to the United States Memonal. The United States notes that information
deposited by Canada with the Court indicates this numher was only 27 in 1962.

See N. Bourne: Scallopsand the OflshoreFisheryof the Mariiimes, Ottawa,
Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin No. 145, 1964, p. 24, cited al
paragraph 190,note 57, of the Canadian Memorial.
The other information requested by the Agent of Canada in paragraph 4 of
the attachment relates to the role of United States fishine activities in the
regional cconomy of New England. The United States has m;dc in ils Memorial
no argument drawinp on sush inlorm~tion and thereisthus noihing CorCînadd
to admit or deny h this regard in ils Counter-Memonal for purposes of
Article 49 (2) of the Rules of Court. The United States will deal fully in its
Counter-Memonal with the unusual "socio-economic" arguments contained in
Canada's Memorial.

List of EnclosedContinentalShelfExplorarionPermits*

€4-64 6/8/64 E8-75 7110175
EI-65 3/31/65 E21-75 9/29/75
5/4/65 E13-76 4/29/76
EI-66 3/9/66 E22-76 7/13/76
E3-67 6/29/67 E25-76 9/3/76
E2-68 4/23/68 E32-76 9/28/79
E3-68 6/5/68 E8-77 8110177
E4-69 7116/68 €9-77 8/17/77
EI-70 3/30/70 E4-78 5/5/78
EI-71 5/13/71 E12-78 10/11/78
E2-72 5/4/72 €17-78 12/12/78
EI-74 2/13/74 €2-79 4/13/79

E3-75 5/15/75 EI-81 2/20/81
E6-75 6/3/75 EIO-82 5/17/82
*Certain documents referred to in the correspondence constituting these
permits have not been located. Should thesedocuments belocated, copies willbe
provided.

50. THE REGlSTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA

26 January 1983,

I have the honour to transmit to you herewith a copy of a letter. dated
20 January 1983 and received on 24 January, from the Agent of the United
States in the case concerniDelimirationof theMaritime Boundaryin theGulf
ofMaine Area, refernng to your letter ta meof 15December 1982.1also enclose
a copy of the Annex to the letter from the United States Agent; a copy of a
further letter' from him, also dated 20 January 1983,referring to the deposit of
certain charts in the Registry of the Court: and a copy lis1of Continental ShelfExploration Permits. All these copies were supplied to me by the United States
Agent for transmission to you.
In order to facilitate vour work, 1have also thoueht ilaovro~riate to have
phoiocupics prepared inihe Regirtry of ihc docunicn<;cnum;;aied on ihr iistof
Coniinrnt~l Shelt'Exploration Pcrmit,. and ihesccopier ;ireal~ocncloscd.There
document, and the ch:irts rcfcrrcd Io ucrc dcposiicd hv ihc Cniicd Siÿics Arcni
with his letter, and have been placedin the library of &e Court for consulta?ion
by you and by the members of the Chamber formed to deal with thiscase.

I Fehruary 1983.

1 have the honour to acknowledge rcceipt with thanks of your letter of
20 January 1983,and the enclosures thereto, referring 10 the letter of 15 De-
cember 1982from the Aecn- of Canada in the case concernine Ddimiiarion of
rhr AlirrrrrmcBi,~,nd<rr;y,i rhr Gult A!UI,I<, r<<ii;insniiticd Io ).ou with in)
lciicr of 21 Dcccmher 19112T. he ciip)oi )dur lcitcr .iiid enilusurcs supplicd hy
vou has been transmitted bv me 6 the~~eent of Canada: 1 also thoueht
appropriate to supply him &th photocopiës of the material supplied b; you
listed undcr the heading "Continental Shelf Exploration Permits". May 1
observe in this connection that the documentation supplied includes some
relating to permit number E3-82 of 1I March 1982, whichdoes not appear on
the list.
1have also to acknowledge receipt of your second letter' of 20January 1983
relating to the deposit of certain charts, and of the charts in question.

52. THE REGlSTRAR TO THE COUNSELLOROF THE EMIIASSYOF CANADA
TO THE NETHERLANDS

17 February 1983.

Thank you for your letter of 14February 1983' corifirminpthat the Agents of
Canada and the United States of Amcrica in the casc concerning the Delimita-
lion of the Maririme iioundary inrhe Guy of Moine Area have agreed, at the
request of the President of the Chamber, that their respective Memorials be
made available to the Members of the Court not sitting in the Chamber. 1note
also that the Governmcnt of Canada will make available 12 addiiional case-
hound copies of ils Memorial with Annexes for this purpose, for which the
Members of the Court concerned will, 1am sure, be grateful.

' Nat reproduced.320 GULF OF MAINE

53. THE AGEST OF THE GOVERNMENTOF CANADA TO THE REGISIlIAR

21 March 1983.

1refer to the letter of 20January 1983from the Agent for the United States in
reply Io your letter of [21] Decemher 1982 relative to the case concerning
Delimirarion of the Maritime Bounduryin the Gulfof Maine Area.
In his letter, the United States Agent suggeststhat "Canada bas circumvented
the order and schedule established by the Court" for presenting viewsregarding
allegations of fact contained in the United States Memonal. The Government
of Canada cannot accept this unfounded suggestion. My letter to you of
15December simplypointed out that in some cases allegations advanced by the
United States were not substantiated by supporting documents or data. The

purpose of my letter was to obtain the required data or information.
Nor can the Government of Canada accept the view of the United States
Agent that this request for information was "extraordinary". 1would point out,
for instance, that the Memonal of Canada (Annexes, Vol. II, Annex 49)
provided the Court and the United States Agent with copies of the Oil and Gas
Exoloratorv Permits issued bv Canada in the Gulf of Maine area between 1964
and 1971 ~h~i sccnisc~tr~o~~in~r v,thïi C~nada ihould haie heen ohlr~~,dto
reqde$ithe United Stiiirs io protide çopicsof Uniicd Stdtcs "rcismicexplordiion
pcrmits" - and thai in thc end the United Siiiies Azc-i rhould hase pro\,iJcd
only some of the material requested.
The Government of Canada is particularly disturbed by the unwarranted
suggestion of the Agent for the United States that Canada's request for

information was a "pretext for delay" intended to "undermine the expeditious
resolution of this case". Canada has sought an expeditious resolution from the
outset. The delay in bringing this case before the Court in the first instance -
from the signature of the Treaty to Submit to Binding Dispute Setllement the
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, in March
1979,until its ratification in November 1981 - was the sole responsihility of the
United States.
1 should be grateful if you would transmit this letter to the Agent for the
United States.

54. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA

(relex)

6 May 1983.

With referenceto your letter' of 15April and in order that the President of the
Chamber may be in a position to know whether it is in order for him 10give
leave for the correction to bemade under Article 52,paragraph 4, of the Rulesof
Court, 1should be grateful if you would inform me hy telex in what precise
resoect the mao now suhmitted differsfrom the one orieinallv included withthe

~chorial ~lc;sc also çonfirm that the modificaiion is;ughiin ordcr tricorrcct
a purcly maierial crror. Whrn iiuthuri'ed hy the Presidcni of ihc Chambcr the
corrcciion should bc made io al1 co~ics of thc Mcmorial supplied ii~ the
Registry. I shall therefore require furthércopies of the revised map

' Nol reproduced. 55. THE AGENT OF THE WVERNMENT OF CANADA TO THE REGISTRAR

18May 1983.

V This will confirm that orooosed modifications 10 Fiaure 6' in the Canadian
Mcmorial 3rc intcndcd 'IO' corrc-1 purcl) matcrial' crrors tolloiving ihe
suhmissii>nof the Cdncidian>lcniori;ilon 27Scptcmhcr 1982.ii wasnoied th31 d
technical error had becn made in the com~ilïiion of Fieurc 6. uhish rc,ulied in
the omission of Northumberland Strait from t~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r of th~-~Fieure.
This is the major correction proposed for Figure6. At the sametime, howeGr, it

was also noted lhat minor errors had also been made in the depiction of the
coastline in the vicinitv ofCave Cod and Ca~eAnn and in the vositionine of the
islets north of Seal [siand, th'osesouthwest ;>fGrand Manan island andcoffthe
Coastof Maine. Thus it was decided to take the opportunity to provide a more
accurate representation of the coastline by drawing iipon reproductive material
from Canadian Hydrographic Service Chart Number 4006, first puhlished on

18 February 1983.Copies of Canadian Hydrographic Service Chart 4006 are
king forwarded to the Court. Additional copies of the corrected Figure 6willbe
provided in due course.

56. THE REGISTRARTO THE AGENT OF THE MVERNMBN OF THE UNITED STA7ES
Of AMERICA

24 May 1983.

With reference to the Memorial filed by the Government of Canada in the

case concerning Delimitarionof the Maritime Bounduryin the Culj of Maine
Area, 1am to inform you that the President of the Chamber has giventhe Agent
of Canada leave under Article 52, paragraph 4, of the Rules of Court to
@ substitute a corrected version of Figure 6 on page 22 for the plate originally
inserted at that place.
1accordingly transmit to you herewith a copy of tlie revised versionsupplied

hv the Aeent ofCanada and willsend vou further covies when hehas orovided
thcm. I3ïw rnîloçe for )our informa1i;n a copy of a létterdated IR~a) 1983in
uhich the Agent ofCanadd, in rcsponsc to my enqi,ir). ~ndisaicsthe maicri;il
errors which had called for correction.

57. 'l'HEAGENT OF THE WmRNMENT OF CANADA TO THE REGISTRAR

28 June 1983

Further 10 the Court's Order of 5 November 198'2,and in accordance with

Articles 49, 50,52and other relevant Articles of the llules of Court, 1am filing
with you today the original of Canada's Counter-Memorial' in the case

' Repraducedas modified.
III.pp. 3456.322 GULF OF MAINE

concerning Delimirarionof rhe Maririme Boundaryin rhe Guljof Maine Area,
dul, si-ned bv me as Aeent for Canada. toee.her..ith-the---- ----s -f the
Annexes theréto, in five\olumes. Those Annexes incorporating documents
adduced in support of contentions contained in the ~leading hav- been duly
certified byme..
The Canadian Counter-Memorial and the Annexes thereto are each ac-
companied by a certified copy for communication to the Government of the
United States of America, together withone hundred and twenty-fiveadditional
copies to meet the requirements of the Registry.
Nineteen case-bound copies of the Canadian Counter-Memorial will be
provided in midJuly for the convenience of the Court. The French-language
version of the Canadian Counter-Memorial will also b~ ~~ ~~ ~ed in mid-Julv.
1 am also depositing with you today copies of the wh&documents frok
which extracts have ken annexed to the Counter-Memorial of Canada, as well
as documents in support of Volume 1and Volume III of the Annexes. These
documents are also king provided to the Agent for the United States. A
complete lis1' of the documents in question isattached herewith.The documents
in support of Volume 1and Volume III of the Annexes have been grouped by
volume and chapter and contain al1the articles and reports referred to therein,
with the exception of those that have already been deposited with the Court in
conneclion with the submission of the Parties* Memorials. The documents in
support of Volume II of the Canadian Counter-Memorial willbe deposited with
the Court in midJuly.
Also enclosed are ten copies of a preliminary errata sheet' indicating
corrections to be made to the Counter-Memonal of Canada. A final lis1 of
corrections to be made to al1of the present pleadings will be provided in due
course, in printed format and in such numbers as may be required by you.
At a meeting with the President of the Chamber on II May 1982,the Agents
for the Parties iointlv reauested. oursuant to Article 52 of the Rules of Court.
th~i copics of ihc pléadir;gsand innexed d<icumcnt\bhould bc mîdc dvdildblc
Io othcr States cntitledIO 3ppesr bcfore the Court înd acccssiblc to the public
only upon the opening of the oral proceedings. 1 confirmed that request on
27 September 1982when the Canadian Memorial wasfiledand 1do so again at
this time.

28 June 1983.

In accordance with the Order of 5 November 1982issued hy the President of
the Chamber formed to deal with the case concerning Delimirarionof rhe
Maririme Boundaryin the Guljof Maine Area, 1am filing with you today the
original of the United States Counter-Memorial2 in this case,duly signed by the
Agent of the United States, together with its Annexes, in fivevolumes, certified
by the Agent of the United States. In addition. the Counter-Memorial and ils

'Nol reproduced
' IV. pp. 3-42, CORRESPONDENCE 323

Annexes are accompanied by a certified copy for communication to the
Government of Canada. toaether with one hundred twentv-five additional
copies to meet the requiremeRtsof the Registry.
1am also depositing with you today copies of most of the whole documents
which have been referred to in the Counter-Memorial and its Annexes. A list' is
enclosed.The remainder willbe deposited within a fewdays. All such documents

are being provided to the Agent of Canada. as well.
In keepingwith previous practice, the United States willbe pleasedto provide
the Registry with copies of the figurescontained in the Counter-Memorial and
itsAnnexes for the Registry'stranslation into French. 1also note that the United
States will provide the Registry with hard-bound copies of the Counter-
Memorial and its Annexes, for use of the Judges of t.e Court, within a few
weeks.
In conneclion with the filingof the United States Counter-Memorial. 1have

the honor to reaffirm the United States view that copies of pleadings and
annexed documents should be made available to other States entitled to appear
before the Court and accessible to the public only upon the opening of oral
proceedings.

(Sigiied) David A. COLSON

59. THE REGlSTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA

28 June 1983.

1have the honour to acknowledee recei~tof .our l,tter of 28June 1983.with
cnclo~ures.conçerning the filin~ofihc Counier-Mcmi,rilil of Ciinad;!in the case
ïoncerning D<,lrt~iirurrt .f rkr .\luririnzrHnand<rr)inrlieGal/o~j~M<~r Aruu. and
io iiçknowledce rcceirii also of the jirned original of ihrl Counler-!vlemorial
with its ~nnexes, a ceitified copy thereof for co~munication to the Government
of the United States of America, and 125additional copies, in accordance with
Article 52, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court.
1 confirm that the Counter-Memorial of Canada has thus been dulv filed

wiihin the iime-limit fixedhy the Order made hy the Prcsident of the ~himkr
on 5 Uo\ember 1982 The Counier Memonal of ihe Ilniicd Siaie, uas aI\o tiled
in the Registry today, and thus also within the time-limit fixed.
~he~ ~ ~ of t~e~C-~adian Counter-Memorial destined for the Government of
the ~nitz~iaies uas delii.crcd io the 1)e~uty-~gni ofihlii (iovernrncni at a
mcclin~held in rn) officethi, morning. in the prcscnçcof Mr Hlinkey. Deputy-
eeni of Ciinda. At the same lime. the sertificd cnnv of the Countcr-Memonal

orthe Uniicd States was delivered to Mr. ~ankej:iogcihrr wiih seven plsin
copies thereof. Also dcliverediu Mr. Hankey uas a copy of aleiicr addrrssed to
me b\ ihc United Siïics Axent. diited 28Junï 1983.aiid of ihc Iisiofdocumcnis
enclised therewith. A copy of your letter of 28 June 1983,and enclosures, was
similarly handed by me at that meeting to the Deputy-Agent of the United
States.

' Nol reproduced.324 GULF OF MAINE

28 June 1983.

I have the honour to acknowledge receipt ofyour letter of 28June 1983,with
enclosure, concerning thefilingof the Counter-Memorial of the United States of
America in the case-concerniÏnp.Dclimirarion of fhe Maritime Boundarvin the
Gu// 01.A~<,uIcArr,o,and to xknowledgr rcseipi iilso or the signed original OI
thiit Counier-Memorial uiih it\Annexes. a certiliçd copy thereof ior sornmuni-
c3iion to ihc Goternrnrni of Canad3. and 125addirional s~>p~es . ;iccordiincc
with Article 52, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court.
1confirm that the Counter-Memonal of the United States has thus been duly
filed within the time-limit fixed by the Order made by the President of the
Chamber on 5November 1982.The Counter-Mernorial of Canada wasalso filed
in ihe Rcgisiry ioda).. and ihui al50 wiihin ihe iime-lirniifixed.
The cupy of the United Siaics Counter->lernoniil desiined for the Govrrn-

meni orCanada was delii,cred IO ihe Dcputy.Ace-t oi thït Go\ernment ai the
meeting attended hy you in my officeihis morning. At the sarne lime, the
certified copy of the Counter-Memorial of Canada was delivered to you,
together with fiveplain copies thereof, and a copy of a letter addressed to me hy
the Canadian Aeent. dated 28 June 1983. and of an errata sheet and list of
documents encl&ed therewith. A copy of your letter of 28 June 1983, and
enclosure, was similarly handed by me al that meeting to the Deputy-Agent of
Canada

61. THE DEPUTY-AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA
TO THE RECISTRAR

II Juiy 1983.

During the meetingon 28June 1983for the purpose offiling with the Registry
the Counter-Memonals in the case concerning the Delimirarionof the Maririme
BoundarvinrheGulfof Maine-Areo. 1indicared that the ~nited-States did not
intend 1; issue a préssrelease markhg the event. In this regard 1was in error.
Please find enclosed a copy of the press release issuedby the Department of
State on 28 June 1983 marking the filing of the Counter-Memorials with the
lnternational Court of Justice.

lune 28, 1983.
No. 236.

UniredSraresSubmiis Ifs PleadingsIo the Inrernarional Courr oJfusricein the
Case concerningrheMariiime BoundaryivirhCanadain rheGul/of Maine Area

On June 28, 1983the United States filedits second written pleading(Counter-
Memorial) with the lnternational Court of Justice in The Hague in the "Case
concerning the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine
Area" between Canada and the United States. Canada also filed its second CORRESPONDENCE 325

pleading on the same date. The first written pleading (Memorial) was filedwith
the Court by both the United States and Canada on September 27, 1982.
The case is before the Court as the result of a boundary settlement treaty
between the United States and Canada which entered into force on No-
vember 20, 1981.A Chamber of fivejudges has been established by the Court

to hear the case.The members of the Chamber are Judge Roberto Ago of Italy,
as President, Judge André Gros of France, Judge Hermann Mosler of the
Federal Republic ofGermany, Judge Stephen Schwebelof the United States and
Judge ad hoc Maxwell Cohen of Canada.
The Court will establish the single maritime boundary between the two
countries that will divide their continental shelf iurisdictions and 200-nautical-
milefisheryzones in the Gulf of Maine area. ~hai boundary willalso delimit the
200-nautical-mile exclusiveeconomic zone of the United States in the Gulf of
Maine area. At stake is approximately 15,000square nautical milesof resource-
rich ocean off the New England Coast.This Atlantic îrea includes rich fisheries
developed by the United States on Georges Bank, a site of signifiant cod,
haddock, scallop and other catches. The Bank may also contain valuable oil and
eas resources.
L
The bounddry proposed b) the Cniird Statesclaims UniirJ Statesjurisdiciion
dvcr al1 of George, Rank. Ne\\ England tishcrmen de\~elopeJthc iishrrie<of
Georllrr Hlinkdurinr the 19thrcniurv and fished the Iireliexclusi\el\ uniil the
Iaiç 1550snhen an icfl~xof Coreignfi&ermcn hegan. Over the Ili5?OOyrars.the
linitcd States has undertaken ihe priniar) responsibility for surtcying and
chartine the area, the maintenance of other navigational aids, the orovision of
warch ind rescuc ser\icr<. the conduci of scicn1;ficresearch. and del'çnse.The
boundar) proposçd by the Uniied States respects the nüiural divisions in the
marine environmeni uCihc area hy iakina inio accouiit the Noriheasi Channel,
which separates the Georges ~ank ecological regime from the separate ecologi-
cal regime of the Scotian-Shelf.
One further round of written pleadings may be submitted. Oral argument is
currently contemplated to bescheduled in early 1984.

The Agent of the United States directing the case 1sDavis R. Robinson, the
Legal Adviser of the Department of State. The Agent for Canada is L. H.
Legault, LegalAdviser to the Department of External Aiïairs. A chart depicting
the boundary claimed by the United States is attachedi.

19July 1983

Further to my letter of 28 June 1983 with which 1 filed the original of
Canada's Counter-Memorial and Annexesin the caseconcerning Delimitation of

rheMaritime Boundaryin ihe Gulfof Maine Area, 1;im sending you today the
original of the French-language version of the Canadian Counter-Memorial,
toeether with a certified coov for communication 11)the Government of the
~nited States of America, a& one hundred and tweniy-fiveadditional copies to
meet the requirements of the Registry. The French-language versions of the

' Nol reproduced. 326 GULF OF MAINE

Counter-Memorial have been prepared under my direction and to this extent
have an officialcharacter; in the event of interpretation, however, theyareto be
read in the light of the English versions.
I am also sending you today further copies of corrected versions, in English
and French, of Figure 6 (page 22)of the Cenadian Memorial. Additional copies
a
O are also being provided 10the Agent of the United States. (Please refer to my
letter of 18May 1983.)
In addition. 1am sendine vou cooies of documents in sumort of Volume II of
ihe Anne.rcsIo ihc canadi;counier-~crnorial. asWC))a;Copiesof four books
cited in support of the Counter-Memonal, which uerc no1deposited on 28Junc
1983 All of the documcnts sent todav are Iisted in the atinchment' hereto.
Copies of thcse documents arc also beiig proviIOdthe Agent for the United
Siatcs. The documents in support of Volumc II arc grouped under genenc
headings. with the exception of thosc that haw alrcad) been deposited with thc
Court rn connection wiih the submission of the partie;' ~emonals or Counter-
Mcmonals Also dttdched 15a Iist' of documents in suppon of Volume II that
areno1 ~ncludcduith ihc documents sent toda) but will he depositcd uith the
Court as soon as they are available.

63. THE COUNSELLOR OF ~m EMBASSYOF THE UNITED STA~ OF AMERICA
TO THENETHERLAN TDSTHE REGISTRAR

20 July 1983

The following agenda was agreed upon by theUS and Canadian Agents for
the GulfofMaine case for the meeting whichwilltake place with the President of
the Chamber on 27 July.
Agenda:

1. An order for a reply.
2. Date for commencement of oral proceedings.
3. Discussion of the approximate length of oral proceedings.
4. The technicalexpert provided for in Article II(3) of the SpecialAgreement.
5. Discussionofthe use of witncssesand experts and the application ofArticles
57,63 and 65 of the Rules of Court.
6. Discussion of the application of Article 56 of the Rules of Court.
7. The use of demonstrative evidence in the oral proceedings.
8. The Parties' viewsconŒrning the apulication of Article 59 of the Rules of
~.
Court.
9. Schedule for discussion of matters pertaining to Article 58 of the Rules of
Court and other procedural mattcrs.
10. Other business.

(Siped) Michael J. HABIB.

' Not reproduced. CORRESPONDENCE 327

61. THE RECISTRA O THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENTOF CANADA

25 July 1983.

1have the honour to acknowledge receipt ofyour Ietter of 19July 1983, with
which you communicated to me the French-language version of the Counter-
Memorial of Canada in the case concerning Delirnitation of the Maririme
Boundaryin the GuiJoJMaine Area, in one original, one certified copy for the
Government of the United States of America and 125plain copies. Duenote has
ken taken of your indication as to the extent to which the French-language

version has an officialcharacter.
1acknowledge receipt also of the copies of the corrected versions, in English
and French, of Figure 6 of the Canadian Memorial.
Finally, receipt isacknowledged of the documents deposited in the Registryin
suvvort of Volume II of the Annexes to the Counter-Memorial of Canada, as
enümerated in the listsent with your letter, and of the list supplied hy you of the
documents which have yet 10be deposited in this corinection.

65. THE AGENT OF THE WVERNMENT OF ME UNITED STATESOF AMERICA
TO THE REGISTRAR

27 July 1983

1 have the honor to submit to you for deposit in the Registry of the Court
copies of certain documents relating to the Counter-Memorial filed by the
United States of America in the caseconcerning the D~ilimitaof theMaritime
Boundaryin the GuIfoJMaine Area. These documenls are in addition to those
already submitted along with the Counter-Memorial of the United States of
America on 28 June 1983. These documents, with one exception, are being
submitted pursuant to Article 50 of the Rules of the Court. The exception is
composed of ihose documents published by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
Organization (NAFO) not referred to in the Counter-Memorial of the United
States. A full set of NAFO documents is being submitted in order to comple-

ment the full set of ICNAF documents submitted with the Memonal of the
United States last year.
A list' of the documents king deposited at this time is attached.

66. THE REGISTRA RO THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENTOF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA~

28 July 1983

With reference to the meeting held yesterday between the President of the
Chamber formed to deal with the case concerning DelimitarionoJtlie Maritime

' No1 rcproduced.
A communication inthe ramelems wassentto the Agent of the Governmentof
Canada.328 GULF OF MAINE

Boundarvin theGulfof Maine Area and the Aeents of the Parties to that case. 1

havr théhonour IO ihnsmit i<i).ou hercu.iihUtheotticial iealcd copy for your
Govrrnment of ihc Order' made by the President oi ihe Chÿmher authorizing
the tiling OCRepliesand iixin,!ihe tiine-limit ihcrefor I also c!iclo,e ihrcc r>lain
copies if the order; further innted copies will follow in due course.

67. WE AGENTSOF THE WMRNMENT OF THE UNITED STATESOF AMER~CAAND
THE WVERNMENT OF CANADA TO THE TECHNICAL EXPERT

15September 1983

We are writing to you to express Our appreciation for your continued
willingnessta serve as the technical expert that the Parties intend to nominate
jointly to the Chamber formed to deal with the case concerning the Delimiiaiion
of rheMariiinie Boundary inthe Gu// of Maine Area.
As you are aware, the Parties submitted the Special Agreement to the

International Court of Justice on 25 November 1981.On 20January 1982.the
Court constituted a Chamber 10 hear the case. The Memorials were filed on
27 September 1982, and the Counter-Memorials were filed on 28 June 1983.
Replies are 10be submitted on 12December 1983.The Parties are hopeful that
oral proceedings will begin in the Spring of 1984.

In a recent meeting with the President of the Chamber, the Parties informed
him of their intention lo submit your nomination to the Chamber on or about
12October 1983. Following that nomination, al1further correspondence con-
cerning this matter shall be between yourselfand the Court. In this connection,
it was suggested that it would be most helpful if you could be available in the
first nart of November in order 10meet w~~~ the Cha~be-~

T~C Parties rould appreeiaic ilil)ou would beso kind as IO transmit IO ihem
a currisulum viiae, Torsubmission to the Court iogeihcr wiih )Our nomination.
Wc are hopçful ihai this inTormationu,illassist yi>uin making your pçrsiinal
plans. We are graieiul TorSour patience and are confident that sou uill makc a
\,aluahle coniribution IO ihc resoluiion of ihis malier.

68. THE AGENTOF THE WVERNMENT OF CANADA TO THE REGISTRAR

26 September 1983

1refer 10 the meeting held in The Hague on 27 July 1983betweenthe Agents
for Canada and the United States and the President of the Chamber formed to
deal with the caseconcerning Delimirarion ofrheMaririme Boundaryin ihe Gulf
of Maine Area.
At the meeting under reference,1inforrned the Court that the Government of

Canada was considering the preparation of a film for presentation during the
oral proceedings in this case. 1now wish to confirm that a filmis beingproduced
and to inform you of ils subject.
The subject of the film is the physical and human geography of the Gulf of
Maine area. While the film willfocus primarily on southwest Nova Scotia and

' I.C.J.Reporis 1983,p. 6. CORRESPONDENCE 329

the Fundy coast of Neu Hrunswick. ilwill also incorporait bnef sequences
showing United Si~te~coastdl dreas dnd the marine drea, undcr considcrstion in
this case
The filmu,illbenarrated and isexpectcd io k abolit thirty minutes in lengih
Ii uillcmploy bolh den.il and ground photogr~phy iu permtt huih close-updnd

panoramic views.
1attacha copy of this letter for transmission to theAgent of the United States.

69. THE AGENTSOF THE GOVERNMENTOF CANADA AND THE GOVERNMENTOF THE
UNITED STATESOF AMERICA TO THE REGISTRAR

12October 1983.

Article II, paragraph 3'. of the SpecialAgreement between our Governments
to submit to a Chamber of the International Court of Justice the delimitation of
the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine area provides that the Parties are to
request the Chamber to appoint a technical expert, nominated jointly by the
Parties, to assist the Chamber in respect to technical matters and, in particular,

in preparing the description of the maritime boundary and the charts referred to
in Article II, paragraph 2'. of the Special Agreement.
This is to request that Commander Peler Beazley, R.N. (Ret.), be appointed
as the technical expert. Commander Beazley'scurriciilum vitae is enclosed3.

70. THE AGENT OF THE WVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA

TO THE REGISTRAR

18October 1983.

1 have the honor to refer to the letter from the Agent for Canada dated
28 Seotember 1983. advisine the Court that Canada is nroducin~ a film for
possibl perçsentation during oral proceedings in the caseCon~erni~~Delimrru-

lionofrhe MurilimeBoundaryinrheGuijn/Afarnc Arca.The 28September lettcr
also infonncd the Court that the eeneral subiect and content uf the tilm is the
"Physical and Human Geography'of the Gud of Maine Area". On the basis of
the information supplied in that letter and for the reasons outlined below, the
United States abjects to a presentation of this film before the Court.
The question of a film was first raised with the Court at a meeting in The
Hague on 27 July 1983, betweenthe President of the Chamber and the Agents
for Canada and the United States. At that meeting, the Agent for Canada

withdrew Canada's ititial and longstandingopposition to a possibleon-site visit
to the Gulf of Maine ~~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~amber. At the sa~~ ~ ~~~ the Aeent for
canada also reported thai &nada wasconsidering the prepardt;on of aufilmfor
presentation Junng the oral proceedings in this caw. Ai that lime. however. he
declined to answer the reuuesi of the Aeent for the United Siatcs for a
description of the subject maiter and contentof the proposed film.The agent for330 GULF OF MAINE

the United States informed the President of the Chamber that, in view of the

extensive written submissions of the Parties, he couid envisage no legitimate
evidentiarv ouroose Io he served hv the oresentation of a film-in this case. He
furiher ex~ress~dthe belicf ihat films.uhich are netther necessary nor ~ubjccttu
ihc agreement of the Partier or 10 spc'cilicpr~cedural and subsiantii,c standards.
can k hi~hlv oru\ocati\e in a ~udicialselliny. The Aeeni ïor the Uniird Siïtei
expressed7thkkiew that a film;depending upon ils sibject and content, could
introduce political considerations inIo the proceediiigs before the Court that
could detract from their judicial character. He also stated his belief that the
introduction and rebuttal of a film could, a1 this late stage in the proceedings,
entail considerable inconvenience to the United States and the Chamber.
In light of the diRering views of the Parties, as expressed al the 27 July
meeting, the Agents for Canada and the United States informed the President
of the Chamher ihat they would discuss the issue further. By its letter of
28 September 1983, which followed upon conversations between the Agents,

Canada has now confirmed that it is preparing a narrated film that will "focus
primarily on southwest Nova Scotia and the Fundy Coast of New Brunswick"
but will also include "brief sequences" showing "the marine areas under
consideration" and, in a cunous development, "United States coastal areas".
The United States obiects to anv oresentation of the Canadian filmbefore the
Couri on sir grounds. kirii. riiic; ihc proposed Cdnïdidn rilm is. in elfeci. an
cliori h) Cnada IOcreaie a suhrtiiute for an on-~ite\isii. ils presentation would
be contrary to the previous understanding of the Parties thaï an on-site visit to
the Gulf of Maine area need not and, in their view, should not he conducted in
this case. Second, the United States believes that the proposed Canadian film,
unilaterally and selectivelyprepared for use in this adjudication, should not be
presented over the objection of the United States. Third, the production of such
a film hy Canada as a suhstitute for an on-site visit is not consistent with the
safeguardsthat are contained in the Statute and Rules of the Court and that are

designed 10ensure that an on-site visit willbe fair and balanced in keeping with
the iudicial nature of.or~ ~ ~ines before the Court. Fourth. Canada isorenarine
ihi;lilm expressly for use in thi;casc. In the absence of goierning stanhards, th:
filmwillntcessïr~l) haveelements ofxlecti\,iiy and advocacy thxi. in the view of
the United States: will detract from the iudicial character-of the nroceedines.
Fifih, ihe ~an~disn concept of "Jlum3n ~eo~ra~h)". ai sr lorth'in ~anîdà's
Mernorial and Countçr.Menional. ~n~dudesissue, thai ihc United StateF hdi
shown in ils written pleadings are irrelevant as a matter of law to the
delimitation of a singlemaritimeboundary in this case. And sixth, a precedent in
which a film such as tbat being prepared by Canada is presented before the
Court would, in the viewof the United States, increase the cos1of adjudication
before the Court and add an element of unnecessary uncertainty and potential
unfairness. The United States is concerned that the consequence of such a
precedent could be Io discourage recourse to the Court in other disputes.
With regard to these objections, I refer first Io the previous understanding of

the Parties, communicated to the President of the Chamber, that an on-site visit
need not beconducted in this case. The Registrar of the Court raised the subject
of a visit with the Parties in March of 1982,shortly after the formation of the
Chamber and in the early stages of the preparation of the Mernorials hy the
Parties. The Parties consulted on this question and agreed that they would
jointly discourage the Chamber from conducting an on-site visit. During a
subsequent meeting with the Registrar on 22 March 1982, the Deputy-Agents
for the United States and Canada informed the Court that they saw no need for
an on-site visit and indeed were opposed 10 one being held. Subsequently, on CORRESPONDENCE 331

Il May 1982,inkeeping with Article 31of the Rules of the Court, the Agents for
the United States and Canada met with the President of the Chamber and the
Registrar to discuss this and other matters. At that lime, the Parties reiterated
for the President of the Chamber their common view that an on-site visit by the
Chamber would serve no useful or necessary purpose and would, for local
reasons. be undesirable to both Parties.

The Court h.~\relied upon the understanding nui to conduct .in on-site \isit.
fur inqtance. in the prepardtion of ils budget for the biennium 1984-1985 The
United States, in organizing and staffing iis preparation for this case, has also
relied upon Canada's prior agreement that an on-site visit would not add
anything appropriate or necessaryto the presentation of this case. In this regard,
the United States fears neither the facts nor the law of this case but isconcerned
about unnecessarv or unanticioated noliticization of these oroceedines. In the
absence of a com&lling need, kanada should no1now bepekitted tolwithdraw

unilaterally from that agreement and, without the consent of the United States,
uresent what is. in effect.an unsatisfactorv substitute for an on-site visit. subiect
io no safeguardç and raising ihc ter) skctrc of politicization th31 the r ries
hid pre\iousl) agreed tu beektu a\oid in no1encouraging an unnecessary visit
Se~ondl),escn in the absencc of the prior agrecmcnt. thr prïcti~v<]t'theC<iurt
in rerard both to visitsand to filmssuièests that the Court should not nermit the
pres~nution of thc pri,posed na na di fin without ihe consent of ihc United
States As FJ~as the United Stater <an determine. no on-site \,isit has c\er becn

conductcd by the Court uiihout thc consent <liaIl of th? Partie>. Indecil. in the
only instance of which the United States is aware, where oneParty objecled to a
request hy another Party for such a visit (South Wesr Africa case'), the Court
declined to conduct the visit.
Similarly, in each case of which the United States is aware in which the Court
has witnessed a film, it has only been with the consent of the other Party. As far
as the United States has ken able to determine, the Court has viewed a filmin

onlv two cases. In the case of the Tem~leof Preoh Vihear. the Court oermitted
~akbodia, with Thailand's consent, <O présentwhat the United taies under-
stands was a silent film, produced long before the iiiitiation of the case by a
scientific expedition conducting reseirch in the area in dispute2. In ihe
TunisialLibya case, the United States understands that while Lihya initially
ohjected to the presentation of a filmby Tunisia, Libya withdrew that objection
after viewing the film and consented 10ils presentation before Court.The only
other instance in which a film has been shown before an international tribunal,

of which the United States is aware, occurred in the Rann of Kurch arbitration.
In that land boundary case, Pakistan, with the consent of India, presented a film
of certain topographical features in the area to he delimited3.
Thus, as far as the United States is aware, international tribunals have
followed a practice of permitting on-site visits or admitting filmsonly where the
parties are not in disagreement.
Thirdly, the presentation of the proposed Canadian film, unilaterally pro-
duced by Canada without consultations with the United States and the Court

'South Wesr Alrira,Orderof29 November1%5, I.C.J. ReDoris1965, ri.9.
' Cmr ionrrrning rhr Temple of Preuh I'thrii1Comhid;~ v 7'h;lunJ., Alt~r,~.~,
JuJgnien otj ISJunr1962.1CJ Reporrr1962. pp.6.Y. lhc ('ouriappnrînilyallnwedihis
orewniliiionofihe film for ih. .now ofshowinc-hcuninhsb~~c~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ai
ihe tirnethe filmwasmade.
Arb.CAwardsnce1, 10(1968).o-Pokisron Western Boundary (Rann of Kutch),17 R. Int'l.332 GULF OF MAINE

regarding the conditions under which the film would be made, would not be
consistent with the Rules of the Court that pertain to on-site visits and are
desienedto ensure their lairness. Article 66 of the Rules. for examrile. reouires
co&ltations among the parties and the Court regard& the esta6lishmek of

the conditions under which a visit is to be conducted. Article 67 descnbes the
nature and scooe of the conditions of enauirv where nenons other than
Mcmhcrr of ihé Court are to conduct ihr ;iii;(a situaiion that should be
conipïred for analytical purpiisc, io ihc proposed Canadian film). Thesc
conditions include the definiiion of the subieci of the cnouirv tu be made. the

number and mode of appointment of thé persons to carri it out, and the
procedures to be followed.
From the onlv two casesbefore the Court that are knownto the United States
in which un-sit; iisit\ u,ereconducted. it appcars that thc Court and the I>arties

agreed in advancc upon both substance and procedures. In the case of the
Birzrsion of M'urer/rom rlir Mwsu, the on-site visit uÿs conducicd on the basis
of an itin&ary thaï was jointly prepared by the Parties. The Agents for both
Parties,aswell astheir technical advisersand others, participated in the visit and
provided the Courtwithinformation regarding the works. canals and watenvays

that were the subject of the dispute'. In the Co(u Channel case, the Court
appointcd three experts to conduct the on-site visit. The Court identified the
questions 10 be addressed by the experts. A detailed itinerary and specific
methods of obtaining evidence wereestablished by the Court. The Court also

provided the Parties with an opportunity to submit comments on the report of
t~ ..xnr-t~ ~
The arbitral tribunal in the Grr~hadarnu caseülso conducted an on-site \,isit3.
The tribunal look carc Io ensurc that the visit rcsulted in a full. fair, and accuraie
viewing of the maritime area in question. The tribunal conducted separatevisits

of approximately equal length to the coastal areasof both Nonvay and Sweden
in accordance with agreed upon itineraries. Agents, experts, and counsel for
both Parties participated in the viewing and both Parties were free to make
observations during the visits. Moreover, the official accounts of the visits were

apparently modified in light of comments provided by the Parties4.
Fourthly, Canada's proposed film raisesimportant evidentiary questions for
the Court. Any depiction of the subject addressedin the proposed Canadian film
will presumably be basedupon an intentional selection of material and method

of presentation'. Consequently, there will be no safeguards to assure that the
material presented is a complete and accurate representation of what is

' DiversionO/ Warer/romrheMeuse,P.C.I.J.. SeriesC.. No. 81.pp.217-218,222-224,
553-554(1937): 31 A.J.I.L.696, 697(1937).
I.C.J. P1eading..o* Channel,Vol. III, pp. 194-198. ol. IV. pp.251-277,Vol. V,
nnr.--..-4-.
' 3 HagueCI. Rep. (Scott),1916,pp. 121,12s.
A Recueildescontplerrendu de lavisiredeslieuï etdesprorocoledesséance dsurribunnl
orbirrol.conrlild en vcrludeIoeonvenliondu 14mars1908.pour juger deIoquestiondeIo
délimirorio nirnrccrroinepnrriedelo/ronlièremaririmeentrela Norvègeel IoSuède. Van
Langenhuysen Frères,The Hague - 1909,pp. 1-38.
11might be notedthai underthedomcsticlegalsystemsboth of Canada andolthe
UnitedStates.films of thesort Canada proposes mab yedeniedadmissioninto evidence
for a variety of reasonsrelaiing to their untrurtworthy or prejudicial characterSee
Weinstein.J. B. and M. A. Berger : We-insrein'svidenee:Commentoryon Rules O/
Evidenee/orihe UniredSroiesCourrsand Mogisrrores V.ol. 5. Matthew Bender.1983.
section IWI :SchiR,S. A.: Evidencein rheLirignrion Proeess, Vol. 2. The Carswell
CompanyLimited. Toronto, 1978,pp. 757-765. CORRESPONDBNCE 333

purported io bcshuii,n.'lesiing the acciirac) ;ind F~irncssoia film.ni>[~uhjectio
proper bafeguards in iis productiiin. clin cliuic hurdcni and uncertainties for the
other Party 35 wclla, ior the Coiirt.It mieht bc nrws\ar\ for the United States.
for example, during the oral proceediigs, to seek to examine those who
produced the film or othewise participated'. The burdens and uncertainties
associated with testing the accuracy and fairncss of a narrated motion picture
are comoounded where. as in this case. the film is made snecificallvfor use in a
pending'judicial procekding. Such a film necessarily ;nvolves elements of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
persuasion that transfonn what might otherwise be an objective representation
in10a subiective visual oleadine. Indeed. effectiverebiittal of the Canadian film
might reaSonably requi;e prodiction of yet another film by the United States,
produced under equivalent circumstances and conditions. however inappropri-

ale that additional filmmight also be under the objections raised by the United
States herein.
hifihly. therc is a fundamcntal disagrcement heiwr.cn ihc Parties ;ir ro ihc
rclcvanceand L.orrectncsjof Canada's arguments rcgdrding purporied economic
dc~cndenceand rel~ii\,cricalth which. in ihc ;ontehi of Canadd's Memon31and
Countcr-~em~>rial, are includcd under ihc rubject oi'.'tIunt~n Cieography"'.
T,i the citent th:it these issucsare relsvant to ihesc procecdings. a proporiiion
thai the United States dispuies. the writisn oleadinas and a~oroori;ite docunten-
tary and oral evidence should, in the viewof the ~iited ~taies,be the means by
which these matters are presented to the Court, and no1 with the addition of
some unilaterally determined and theatrically staged scenes of the area and ils
inhabitants. Canada's oresentalion of a film on such matters. without DroDer
safeguards and or \i,iih;iui the Cnitcd Suies ha~ingdn appropnate oppo;tu~iiy
io prepdre and present rcbutial e\idence. could. in the viewof the Cnitcd St~tes,
have the poicniial <iilirlvcrsclv;iiTect-nr the Court's. .oocr consideraiion oi
these issu&.
Finally, the United States respectfully submits that the Court should refuse
any admission of the proposed Canadian film because of the precedent that
would be established. The introduction of films such as that ~rooosed hv
, ~r~~~~ ~,
Canada, uiihoui nccessary sdi'cguïrds,carrier a ribkof politic17ingprocecdings
before the Court. Moreovcr. the Gcncrlil i2s~cmhlyh.13expresscd conccrn over
the expense of bringing cases before the Court3. A precedent that encouraged
the production of films of the nature proposed by Canada could suhstantially
increase costs and add an unnecessary element of uncertainty and potential
unfairness to proceedings before the Court. In so doing, the goal of encouraging
the peaceful resolution of disputes by recourse to the Court could, in the viewof
the United States, be hindered.
The United States respectfully requests that the Chamber consider ils
objections to any presentation of the Canadian film ;rs soon as possible, after
receiving whatever further views of the Parties may bLa .ppropriate.

'It mightbe further noted that in order to evaluatethe accuracy of afilmand to
determineils admissibilityin judicialproceedings.the legalsystemsboth in the United
Statesand inCanadaauthorizeexamination of thepersonnwhaproduced thefilmor have
knowledgeof its technicalaspects.such as lighting,editing. projecti,r development.
5 Weinstein,op.cil.. supra;Schiiï,op.cil.supra.
1, Canadian Memarial, paras.46-63, 110-121, 149-178,311, 326; 111,Canadian
60R 697 779IR)al,paras. 157-163,165,246-250,263-277,295-301,304-321,496, 540,
---,Resolution3232(XXIX)6, thpreambularparagraph,12November1974.334 GULF OF MAINE

21 October 1983.

1 have the honour to acknowledge receipt with thanks of the letter dated
12October 1983and signed by you and by the Agent of Canada in the case
concerning Delimitarionof the Maritime Boundaryin the Guljof Maine Area,
requesting the appointment of Commander Peter Beazley,RN (retired), as the
technical expert contemplated by Article II, paragraph 2, of the Special
Agreement in this case, whichletter has been laidbefore the Chamber formed to
deal with the case.

72. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENTOF CANADA'

21 October 1983.

1 have the honour to inform Your Excellency that 1 have laid before the
Chamber your letter dated 26 September 1983and the letter from the Agent of
the United States of America in the caseconcerning Delimitarionofthe Maritime
Boundaryin theCulfof Maine Area dated 18October 1983,a copy of which was
transmitted 10you with myletter of 19October 1983.At a recent meetingof the
Chamber, these letters were examined; the Chamber noted that Your Excellen-
cv'sGovernment has undertaken theoreoarationof a filmwhich it contemolates
&esenting dunng the oral proceeding\ 1; the case,and that the ~ot,ernm;nr of
the United States, for the reasons set out in 11%Agent'$letier. oblects to such
presentation of a film.
The Chamber is of the opinion that, without prejudice to any question of

admissibilityof the film,it is not forthe Chamber to interfere in the preparation
by the Parties of the presentation of their case. Accordingly, it would be
premature for the Chamber to make any ruling at this stage; il is when or if the
question actually anses, in the course of the oral proceedings,of the propriety or
admissibilityof a filmas part of a Party'scase, that it willbe for the Chamber to
ruleon the matter. The Chamber has requested meto drawthe Parties'attention
to this, and in addition, for their guidance, to draw attention to the texts and
precedents which may be relevant.
In the few cases in the past in which filmshave been presented before the
Court, which are referred to in the letter of 18October 1983from the Agent of
the United States, such films have had the character of a form of evidence,
comparable to a document produced before the Court. In the one case, no
objection wastaken by the other Party to the presentation of the film,whichhad
not been prepared for the purposes of the case but taken from the Party's
archives. In the other case, objection was at first made by the other Party, but

after a copy of the film had been made available 10il by the Party seeking to
present the film,that objection was withdrawn, and the film then shown to the
Court.

'A communicationin the same tems wassent to the Agentof the Governmentof
Canada.
A similarcommunicationwasEentto the Agent of the Govemment of the United
Statesof America. CORRESPONDENCE 335

In the light particularly of this latter case, the Parties should as soon as

possible agree on the United States viewingthe film in question and thereafter
explore whether they can reach anreement on its utilization. In the absence of
sgrccmcnt bctwccnthe Pariies. ii;IIIuliimaicly bc for the Chanibcr to dccirlcon
ihc admissibility of the lilm in quc>iionas a docunicnt. giving such wcight as 11
thinks appropnxte io ihc ~ICWF cxprcsscd b) ihc Parties. Iiwill hs rcîallcd ihat
where &w documents are concerned, under Article 56, paragraph 2, of the
Rules, in the absence of agreement hetween the Parties, the Court will only
authorize their production if it considers it necessary.

73. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA'

(relex)

5 December 1983.

With referenceto the telephoneconversation ofthe Deputy-Agents in the Gulf
of Maine case with the Denutv-Reeistrar. 1 am to inform vou. with the ~~
~uihori~~tionof Presidcnt A&. ihat the fullCouri i\ duc 10 conridcr 3sa matter
of prioniy. heginning in ihc Iast ucck of Januq I<)X.it.he Italian rcquesi for
~crmissionio inieri,enc in ihe <'onrin<,nruSl/i<~llcascbctireen Libv:iand hlalis

in al1probability, consideration of such a req;est would take atieast until the
middle of March. The earliest possibility for the Chamher to hegin ils oral
proceedings in the Gulfof Moine case would therefore not present itself hefore
the end of March or the beginning of April. However, no decision on the matter
can be taken without previous knowledgeof any decisions that the full Court
might take pursuant to Article 54of ils Ruleswith regard to its overallcaseload.
With the forthcomine session of the Court beeinnine on 23 Januarv 1984.no
furthcr indisstion canhc cxpccicd by CJniidii Gd thèl1nited States hefore ihai
date. The Presidcnt of ihc Ch~mbcr inicnds Io raisc the issue uith the Prcsidcni

of the Court at the outset of that session.

74. THE AGENT OF THE WVERNMENT OF CANADA 'IO THE REGISTRAR

12December 1983.

Further to the Court's Order of 27July 1983,and in accordance with Articles
49. 50. 52and other relevant Articlesof the Rules of Court. 1am filinewith vou
todii) the originsl of Canarlx's Rcply' in the ciiscconccrning ~i,lenir;;ion ujrhr
.Iforrrina Boun<loryin rlicGuljojhfornr Arru, dul) signed hy me Agent ior
Canada. ti)acihcr wiih the oriainiils of ihs Annexes ihercto. in iuo volumes
Those Annëxes incorporating 2ocuments adduced in support of contentions
contained in the pleading have heen duly certified by me.

The Canadian Reply and the Annexes thereto are each accompanied hy a
certified copy for communication to the Government of the United States of

' A communicationinthesameterms was sentto the Agent oftheGovernment ofthe
UnitedStatesof Amenca.
' V, pp. 3-371.336 GULFOF MAINE

America, together with one hundred and twenty-fiveadditional copies to meet
the reauirements of the Re~istrv.
~inèteen case-bound co$es of the Canadian Reply will he provided in early

January for the convenience of the Court. The French-languag-.version of the
Canadian Reply will also he deposited in early January.
Iam depositing with you today copies of the whole documents from which
extracts have been annexed to the Reply of Canada. These documents are also
king provided 10 the Agent for the United States. A complete list' of the
documents in question is attached herewiih.
Also enclosed are ten copies of a preliminary errata' shed indicating
corrections 10be made to the Reply of Canada. A final list of corrections tu be
made 10 al1of the present pleadings will be provided in due course, in such
~ ~ ~rs as mav he reauir.d h- -, ,--~i~
1have the honour Io refer IOyour letier of 8 Nwember 1983' concerning ihe
Small Hall of Justice ai the Peîce Palace. In vicwof the size OF thc delegations
contcm~laied bv Canada and hv ihe Unii~d S~ ~ ~. itisclear th31ihc Small Hall
of ~usiitecannot accommodai~ihcsc delegations, Aswclla~ans mrmkrr of the

diplomatie corps. press ar public \vho mas uih to attend the oral proceedings.

75. THE AGENT Of THE GOYERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA
IO THE REGlSTRAR

12 December 1983.

In accordance with the Order of 27 July 1983 issued by the President of the
Chamber formed to deal with the case concernina Delimitarionof the Maritime
Roirnduryin theGu/J'o/.WuinzAwa, the Uniied ~t:tes isfilingwith )ou today ihe
onginal of the United Stater Rcpl) in this casc. topthcr with tir Anncres. in
two volumes. dulv sianed and sertilied. In addition. the Re~l! and ils Annexe5
are accompanied.by a certified copy Forcommunication to'the Government of
Canada, together with one hundred twenty-fivecopies to meet the requirements
of the Registry.
The United States is also depositing today copies of the whole documents
which have been referred 10 in the Reply and ils Annexes. A list is enclosed.
Copies of these documents are king provided to the Agent of Canada, as well.
As in the past, the United States will provide the Registry with copies of the
figurescontained in the Repiy and ils Annexes for the Registry'stranslation into

French. 1also note that the United States will provide the Registry with hard-
bound copies of the Reply and its Annexes, for use hy the Judges of the Court,
within a few weeks.
In conneciion wiih ihc filingof ihc United St3ies Repl). 1redffinn Ihc United
States viewihdt copics oFthc plcadings and annexcd document\ ~houldbe made
available to othcr Staics entiileIO amear hefure the Court and ~ccessible IOthe
public only upon the opening of théheating.
In anticipation of that hearing, 1 have the honor 10 refer to your letter of

' Not reproduced.
' V,pp. 375-707.
' Not reproduced. CORRESPONDENCE 337

8November 1983containing information regarding theseatingcapacity and size
of the Small Hall of Justice. 1 anticipate that at any one time during oral
argument the United States will have between 20and 30 persons in The Hague

working directly on this case. Most of these persons will be present during the
oral proceedings. 1also anticipate that some private lJnited States citizens with
an interest in the casewillappearfrom limeto timewiih an expectation that they
will beallowed 10viewthe oral proceedings in accordance with Article 59of the
Rules of the Court. It is also possible that other government officiaiswith an
interest in the case may wish to viewthe oral proceedings from time to lime. We
further assume that Canada willhavecomparable needsand that the Court itself
may wishto reservespace forothers havingan interest in this case.Accordingly,
on the basis of your letter of 8 November and its enclosures, it appears that the
seating capacity of the Small Hall of Justice will be insufficient for the oral
proceedings in this case.

12 December 1983,

1have the honour 10acknowledge receipt of your letter of 12December 1983,
with enclosures, concerning the filing of the Reply of Canada in the case
concerning Delimitarion of theMaritime Boundary in theCuifof Maine Area, and
to acknowledgereceipt also ofthe signedoriginal ofthat Replywith ilsAnnexes,

a certified copy thereof for communication to the Government of the United
States of America. and 125 additional co~ies. in accordance with Article 52.
pîragrîph 1,of the Rules of Ci)uri. I noie'ihat the French-languagc \ersion of
ihc Canadian Repl) rillbe deliiered shortly. 3s will hard-bound copies of the
Reply3nd Annexes. for ihe son\enicn<-cuf mrmbers of the Chamber. for which
1am-ohlieed to vou
1noie Ihat ihi~eply oiCanada has ihui been duly filedwirhin ihe lime-limit
fired by the Order made by the President ofthr: Chiniber on 27 Jul) 1983.The
Renlv of ihe United Staies was also iilçd in the Reci,trv iodav. and thus also
wiihcnthe lime-limit fixed. -, , .
1also acknowledge receipt of a preliminary errata sheet to the Reply, the

corrections on which willbe treated as made to the pleading prior to ils deposit;
further corrections will of course be suhject to Article 52, paragraph 4, of the
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --~.
The copy of the Canadian Reply destined for the Government of the United
States was delivered to the De~utv-Aaent of that Government at a meetine held
in my office this morning, in'thé pGsence of Mr. Hankey, ~e~ut~-~~entof
Canada. At the same time, the certified copy of the Counter-Memorial of the
United States was delivered to Mr. Hankey, together with seven plaincopies
thereof. Also deliveredto Mr. Hankev was a coov of a letter addressed to me bv
the United States Agent, dated 12~&mber 16f3, and of the lis1of documenis
enclosed therewith. Acopy of your letter of 12December 1983,and enclosures,
was similarly handed by me al that meeting to the Deputy-Agent of the United

States.
1have the further honour to acknowledgethe deposit in the Registryof copies
of documents referred to in the Reply and ils Annexes, together with a list
thereof.338 GULFOFMAINE

The news expressedhy Mr. Hankey, on behalf ofthe Government of Canada,

as to the possibility of making copies of the pleadings and annexed documents
availahle to third States or accessibleto the public under Article 53of the Rules
of Court - views shared hy the Agent of the United States - have been duly
noied
The vieus e~prcssed in your letier as tu the expecied needsof ihe Parties. in
term, of \pace, fur the oral proccedingsin thecli\willheduly communicïted 10
the President and memhers of the Chamber

77. THE REGISTRARTO THE AGENTOf THEGOVERNMENTOF THE UNITEDSTATES
OF AMERICA

12Decemher 1983

1have the honour to acknowledge receipt ofyour letter of 12December 1983,
with enclosures, concerning the filing of the Reply of the United States of
Amenca in the case concerning Delimitationof the Maritime Boundaryin rhe
GulfoJMaine Area, and 10acknowledge receipt also of the signed original of
that Reply with ils Annexes, a certifiedcopy thereof for communication 10the

Government of Canada, and 125 additional copies, in accordance with Arti-
cle 52.oaraeraoh 1.of the Rules of Court. l note that hard-hound cooies of the
Repl)'akd tke ~iinexçs, fur thccunvrniencr <il'mrmhcr\ol'ihe~hamhrr. uill hc.
~pplicd shurily, as uill additional copies oi ihc nguro containcd ihcrein. for
whieh I am ohiiged 10you.
1note that the Reply of the United States has thus been duly filedwithin the
time-limit fixedby the Order made by the President of the Chamber on 27July
1983.The Reply of Canada was also filed in the Registry today, and thus also
within the time-limit fixed.
A copy of the United States Reply destined for the Government of Canada
was delivered to the Deputy-Agent of that Government at the meeting attended
by Mr. Colson, Deputy-Agent of the United States, in myofficethis morning. At

the same time, the certified copy of the Reply of Canada was deliveredto Mr.
Colson, together with fiveplain copies thereof, and a copy of a letter addressed
to me by the Canadian Agent, dated 12December 1983,and of an errata sheet
and lis1of documents enclosed therewith. A copy of your letter of 12December
1983,and enclosure, wassimilarly handed hy meat that meeting 10the Deputy-
Agent of Canada.
1have the furtherhonour 10acknowledgethe deposit in the Registry of copies
of documents referred to in the Reply and ils Annexes, together with a lis1
thereof.
The views of the United States, set out in your letter, as to the possibility of
making copies of the pleadings and annexed documents availahle to third States
or accessible to the public under Article 53 of the Rules of Court - views in

which the Deputy-Agent of Canada concurred orally at the meeting today -
have been duly noted.
The viewsexpressed inyour letter as to the expected needs of the Parties, in
terrnsof space, fortheoral proceedings in the casewillbe dulycommunicated to
the President and members of the Chamber. 78. THE AGENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF IHE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA AND
THE WVERNMENT OF CANADA TO THE REGISTRAR

13Decemher 1983.

In the uriiicn prorccdings in ihc conccrning Ilrlt,?i~rorii,/ rhhfurrrimc
Boundor)rnrhr u'ulj'<>/.lluinrAruir.the P;irtici ha\,c tiled Mcmorials. Counier-
Mcmorials. and Replie. uith ihc Court utthin ihc iime-liniiis rsiahlishcd hv
Orders of the ~resident of the Chamher formed to deal with the case.

In accordance with Article 54 (1) of the Rules of the Court, the case is now
ready for heanng. The Parties consider that an early hearing and judgment in
this case isan urgent matter. The Parties request that the heanng be held as soon
as practicahle and that an Order setting the date for the opening of the oral
proceeding he issued.
In viewof the considerations set forth in your telegram' of 5 Decemher 1983,
the Parties understand that the earliest ~ossihiiitvfor the Chamher to heein the
heanng is the end of March or the hegiinG of April, 1984.The Parties Gish to
emphasize the importance they attach to an Order ai the earliest possible time
settine.the date when the hearinz is to heein so that finalarraneements for the
riailing, hoicl duci,mnioddiions ;nd <iihe;ncccssdr) Cacilitiesc; he complcicd
and ihc schedulci of the pdrticipsni\. including ihcir faciulil.scicniitic2nd lsgal

consultants, can be set

79. THE REGISTRAR 'IO THE AGENT OF THE GOV!2RNMENTOF THE UNITW STATES
OF AMERICA'
(telex)

21 December 1983.

Further to my telexmessageof 14December 1have the honour to inform you
that the President of the Chamber is prepared to meet the Agents of the Parties
together at the Peace Palace on Tuesday 24 January 1984as from 3 p.m.

80. THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO THE REGISTRAR

9 January 1984

In my letter to you of 15Decemher 1982.1requested information necessaryto
enahle hoth Canada and the Court to assesscertain unsuhstantiated contentions
advanced hy the United States, and also to enahle Canada to comply with ils
obligations under Article 49 (2)of the Rules of the Court. On 20January 1983,
the Agent for the United States transmitted a numhei.of documents relating to
some of the questions raised in my letter.
Full documentation, however, has not yet heenmade availahle to Canada on
one important mader. This matter was raised inparagraph 3ofthe Annex to my

' See No. 73,supra.
A communicationin the sameterms was sentto the Agentof the Governmentof
Canada.340 GULF OF MAINE

~ ~t~r of 15December 1982.It oertains to areuments concernine United States
geophysical survey permit;, which argumenïs were advancedby the United

States in its Memonal and Counter-Memorial, and again in ils Reply.
In order Io enable the Court to assessthe arguments presented by the United
States concerning these permits, and to enable Canada to fully comply with its
obligations under Article 49 (2) ofthe Rules of the Court, Canada needscopies
of al1 of the "plats" and program maps submitted to the United States in
connection with applications for geophysical survey permits in the Gulf of

Maine area for the period 1967through 1975.Canada has been informed that
most of these maps are available from the Chief, Officeof Program Services,
Atlantic OCS Region, Minerals Management Service, 1961Kidwell Drive, Suite
601, Vienna, Virginia 22180. In any event, given permission from the United
States Department of the Interior, al1of the maps needed by Canada sbould be
available from theCompanythat did the surveys(Digicon Geophysical Corpora-
tion, 3701 Kirby Drive, Houston, Texas 77098).

The maps in question may, with difficulty, be reconstructed from the 1975
cumulative shot point map deposited by Canada with the Court. However,
submissions advanced by both the United States and Canada can best be
assessed by referring to the original maps for each separate survey so as to be
able to analyse the historical record of the surveys.
In addition, the United States has oKered no information as to how il

calculated the mileagefigureslistedfor the geophysical surveyson what issaid to
be the "Northeast Portion of Georges Bank" in Annex 40 to the United States
Memonal. Canada cannot calculate such mileages without further data, and
~ ~ ~ ~ ~s orevious reau.st~ ~ ~the necessarv information.
1would again be grateful if you would transmit this request to the Agent for
the United States, informina him that Canada has immediate need for the

materials requested to prepire its oral pleadings. As previously stated, al1
appropriate measures will be taken to protect any requirements of confiden-
tiality.

I February 1984.

1have the honour to acknowledee the provision of 125copies of the French-
I~nguagsi,ersionof the Rcpl) of~inada'in ihc cüzcconccr&ng I)t,lrmiwrionuj
theMoriritnc Boi'ndor?rnrlir C'~iljoJ'A!i>;nA ercu.including one siyned original.

and une ccriifiedcopr for ihc Govcrnmcni of ihc Uniicd Siaici of Amcrica The
last-mentioned hasbeen duly transmitted to the Agent of the United States.

82. THE AGENTOF THE COMRNMENT OF THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA
TO THE REGISTRAR

8 February 1984.

In the meetingon 24January 1984between the President of the Cbamber and
the Agents of the Parties in the case concernina Delimiioiionof the Maritime
~oundar~in theGulfof Maine Areo, 1undertool<10clarify as soon as possible342 GULF OF MAINE

militates in favour of allowine the Parties the maximum oossible freedom in

presenting their cases,suhject zways to thejudicial charactk of the proceedings
and the Statute and Rules of the Court. In deference to the strong objections
raised bv the United States. Canada has no1oressedits viewsconcernini an on-
site visi; h) the Court, despite its opinion thjt such a risit w~uld have-ahisted
the Court in sppreciating certain iireumstances rclr\ant to the dclimitation of
the msririmc buundsr,.. Canada dw, noi hclic\e th;ii further conslraini, on ihz
presentation of ils case in the manner il deems fit would be consistent with the
spirit of the international judicial process. Moreover, Canada doubts whether
such constraints would further the peacefulsettlement of international disputes.
The auestion ofthe leeal relevanceof the material containedin the filmcan be
dciermikd hy thc C'ourïonce ithas \ieucd the film,,ust as the Court \\,IIIhave
to determine the legal relevance oiall the e\idenw and argunient presrnted hy
both Pÿrtics in thr cours: of thc wntten and oral procerdinps. The UniteJ Statei
willh;i\,eamplc opportunit) during the (~ralprocceding>to present ils vieu~on

the material contained in the film
Ihooe that after viewingthe rilm,ou willaaree that the Court should h3b.e3n
oooor<unitv 10 view and-decide for itself. h the lieht of anv areuments or
e;idcnce [Latma) bepreïcntcd hy the United States. the rcle\ancc ofihc graphie
e\,idense containcd in this filmA proiedur~l di\pute on this matter ii,ould no1
iazilitatc the tabkuithe Court and is s~mrthine that both Parties ihould seekICI
avoid.

84. THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNIT!2D STATESOF AMERICA
TO THE REGISTRAR

27 February 1984.

1 have the honor to refer to the letter of 12 January 1984 from the Agent
of Canada relating 10 the case concerning the Delimitation of the Maritime
Boundaryin rheGuifof Maine Areo.
In his letter, the Agent ofCanada has made another request for information
that isasextraordinary as that set forth in his letter to you of 15December 1982.
The Agent of Canada again asserts that the requested information regarding
United States geophysical exploration permits is necessary 10 enahle Canada
fully to comply with ils obligations under Article 49 (2)of the Rules of Court.
Such an assertion is particularly singular in that Rule 49 of the Rules of Court
applies only to the written proceedings and Rule 49 (2) itselfrelates solely to
Counter-Memorials. The Counter-Memorials, of course, were filed on 28 lune
1983.Furthermore, as we understand the Rules of Court, the written proceed-

ings were closed upon the simultaneous filing of Replies hy the Parties on
12December 1983,or one month before the 12January 1984letter of the Agent
of Canada.
In his recent letter, the Agent of Canada, without reference 10any Rule of
Court, also invokes a purported inability ofthe Court to "assess the arguments
presented by the United States concerning these permits". The Agent of the
United States respectfully submits that it is for the Court 10express any such
concerns, to the extent they might exist, through whatever means it finds
appropriate, but that il is not the province of the Agent of Canada to do so on
behalf of the Court.
Accordingly, the United States again objects 10Canada's resort 10a request CORRESPONDENCE 343

that falls outside the Rules and procedures of the Court. Were it not for the
allegation in paragraph 242 of the Canadian Reply that "the United States did
notauthorize eeoohvsical survevs on the true northeastern oortion of Georees
Bank during tRekié\,ant period". ihat is. in Canada's dcfin;iion, priurIO 1972,
ihe LinitcdSiates simplymighi resl upon ilsohjç~ii~nIoCdnddii'jshiraordinary

request. In view of Canada's continuing mistaken assertions in this regard,
however, sincethe 12January 1984letter the United States, al considerable lime
and expense, has undertaken a full review of al1 the available information
comprising the record of United States geophysicalexploration on the northeast
portion of Georges Bank. For purposes of evaluating the geophysicalexplora-
tion activity of the United States, the northeast portion of Georges Bank for
these purposes is the area defined as such by Canada, that is, as generally set
forth in paragraph 236ofcanada's Reply,that part ol'Georges Bank claimed by
Canada.
United Sidies permits under whichgcoph)sical explordtion uas conducted on
the noriheast portion of Ccoracs Rdnk ucre Iistcd iiiAnncx 40 IO the United
States ~emohal. which suhse&entlv was uodated iiiAnnex 26 of the United
States Counter-Memorial to rkect ihe addition of one permit that had been
issued after the filingof the Memorials. These Annexesalso listed the "approxi-
mate" number of survey milescarried out on the northeast portion of the-Bank
under each permit.
The overall resultsof the exhaustivereviewsince 12January 1984confirm that
the United States issued permits authorizing exploration on the northeast
portion of Georges Bank as early as 1965,and that operations were carried out
under such permits beginning in 1967.The recent reviewemployed technically
more precise methods of measurement, which revealedthat Annex 40, although
in the aeereeate substantiallv correct. contained inaccuracies in the aooroxima-
uu
lions of the numbcr of wrv& miles set forih The revicu furihsr disClbsedih.11
Annex 40 \hould be revised to rcflect the addiiion01 numbçr of permiis no1
previously enumerated. The overall results of the recent review show that over
21,000 milesof geophysicalexploration. rather than the 19,585milesreported in
Annex 40 to the United States Memorial, were conducted up to 1982 on the
northeast portion of the Bank under United States permits, and that consider-
able exploration - some 3,880 miles,or 880 more miles than were reported in
Annex 40 - was conducted prior to 1972.
Enclosure 1 to this letter has ken prepared Io suinmarire the results of the
review undertaken by the United States as a result of Canada's request of
12 Januarv 1984. The evidence uoon the basis of which Enclosure 1 and ils
attachmefiis usre prepared is containcd prinïipally in plais (or ..prs-plois") and
program maps. submiiied in conncciion wiih permit iipplisaiions. thiit depici
proposcd surtey lines.as uell as in "posi.ploir" ihai ilepicisuri,c) Iinesactually
conducicd (ihese plats. program maps,and "post-plois" collecti\ely hereiniilier
the "Supporting Malerials"). The "prc-plots" and piogr;im niaps for the ).cars
1967 ihrouah 1975are those ihÿt I understdnd the Azcni -f Canada io haie
requested fi his letter of 12January 1984.
Under United States laws and regulations, the Supporting Materials may
contain data that some might regard as proprietary. As such, the public release
of the Suooortine Materials. in the absenceof a definitivedomestic Court ruline.
could expo tse-unitsd S~~ICSor United Siatcs ofisials IOthc risk ofcbims ;f

civiland evcn cnminal Iiabiliiics.Accordingly. ue are no1in a position io relcase
ihc Su~porting Maienals to ihe Couri and io Cdiiadti u~~thoutaorirooriaie
assurances thaï their possible confidential nature will he stnctly pre&ed and
their use correspondingly limited. With these concerns in mind, the Unitsd States, in order that the Court and
Canada may recognize the veracity of United States assertions concerning this
matter, is prepared to submit the Supporting Materials 10 the Court and to
Canada for examination provided that the necessary assurances are obtained.
Specifically, 1 propose that the Court and Canada sgree that the Supporting

Mate~~ls and anv information contained therein be made available s~b~ect to
the follouing restrictions With respect to the Couri, Ive seek its concurrence
that: (1) the possible sonfidcnti~l nature of the Supporting Materilils and any
inlormation contained thcrein willhe strictlv srifecuarded and nrotected. i?) anv
copies or other reproductions of the supporti;ig ~aterials' likewise'&iil bé
treated as confidential, with al1 Supporting Materials returned to the United
States, and al1copies or other reproductions thereof destroyed, at the conclusion
of this case: and (3) anv reference that the Court mieht wish to make to the
Supporting ~ateriais or'to any information containcd ihcrcin in a public sitting
or in ils judgment will safeguïrd and proteci the possihle confidenti~lityof the

Supporting Materials and the information contained therein. As for Canida, we
seek its assurances thrit. (1) the Supporting Matenals will beused solely hy the
Agent of Canada and those individuals under the supervision of the Agcnt of
Canada and onlv for puruoscs of this casc: (2)the possibleconfidentidl nature of
the Suooortine ~ateiials and anv information contained therein will bestrictlv
safcgu;;ded Gd prorestcd; (3j any copies or other reproductions of lhé
Sup~ortinr Materials Iikewisewill be trrated as confidential. uith *IISu~portinp
~iierials Ïeturned 10 the United States. and al1cooies or other reoro'dhctioni

thereof destroyed, at the conclusion of this casé; and (4) the'~u~~ortin~
Matenals and any information contained therein will not he used dunng the
forthcomina oral ~roceedines without the agreement of the United States.
Canada, an> the ~ourt regi;ding procedures tj maintain thc possibleconliden-
tial nature of the Supporting Materials and the information coni~ined thcrein.
In the cvent these reauircments pose 3nvdilficultiesfor the Court or for Cïnadï.
1 would be pleased to discuss othe; means of protecting the Supporting
Materials and the information contained therein.
1would be most grateful if you would transmit this letter and Enclosure Il,

with its accompanying atiachments', to the Agent of Canada in response to his
letter of 12 January 1984. 1 will fonvard 10 the Court and to the Agent of
Canada the Supporting Materials associated with Enclosure 1upon receipt of
the necessary assurances.

[Arrachmenr 1' ro Enclosure 1,seepp. 345-348,infra]

' Nol reproduccd.
Attachrnents2 and 3 are nol reproduced ApprorimnrcNo.O/
LineMiles in N.E.

Porrionof
CcorgrsBmk

Permir Dore Permii Work Work Pasr1978 Pasr1976
Number Approved Company Alen' CommeneedComplered Remorks Line Line

E3-67 06-29-67 Ray Geophysical N, M 07-03-67 10-16-67 Seismic 230 60
(flgroup) (Vibroseis)
El -68A 02-01-68 Delta N, M, S 03-01-68 11-06-68 Seismic 240 60
(Vibroseis)
(flgroup)
E2-68 04-23-68 ES1 N, M 06-06-68 12-04-68 Gravity
Magnetics
E3-68B 06-05-68 Shell N, M. S 06-05-68 09-06-68 Seismic
(Sparker)

08-19-69 10-19-69 Gravity
Magnetics
El-70 03-30-70 Digicon 3 N Seismic
(flgroup) (Airgun)
El-71 05-13-71 Digicon N, M Seismic
(Airgun)
(flgroup)
E2-71 05-27-71 Digicon N, M Gravity
iflgroup) Magnetics
E2-72 05-04-72 Digicon N, M Seismic
(Airgun)
(flgrou~)
E3-72 08-18-72 Shell N Seismic
(Airgun)
El-73 05-16-73 Shell N. M Seismic
(Airgun)

'Permitareasare abbreviatedas fol:ows
N: North Atlantic. M:Mid-Atlantic.S South Atlantic. [ArraclimenrI] (conr.) td
Approi-;morNa.of m.
LineMilex in N.E.
Porrioof
G~ove5Bank

Dore Wark Work Pasr1978 Posr1976
Approved Company CommeneedConiplci~d Remorkr Line Line
06-22-73 10-18-73 Seismic 60 20
05-30-73 Digicon (Airgun)
(flgroup)
02-13-74 Digicon 02-20-74 12-07-74 Seismic
(r/group) (Airgun)
05-12-75 Shell 06-05-75 11-19-75 Seismic
Magnetics
05-15-75 Digicon 05-17-75 11-17-75 Seismic

(flgroup) (Airgun)
06-03-75 Mobil 06-19-75 09-01-76 Seismic
(Airgun)
07-10-75 CS1 08-12-75 12-03-75 Seismic
(Airgun)
Seismic
07-10-75 Exxon 07-10-75 02-28-76
09-10-75 Magnetics
(Amended) Gravity
09-15-75 CS1 Seismic
(for Exxon) (Airgun)
09-29-75 Digicon Seismic
(Airgun)

03-02-76 .Shell Seismic
04-29-76 Texaco Seismic
(Airgun)
Magnetics ApproximareNo. O/
LineMilesin N.E.
Porrionqf
GeorgerBank

Work Work Par 1978 Pas11976
CommencedCompleied Remarks Line Lin<
Company
Mobil Aeromagnetic

ON1 High Resol.
Shell Geologic

Chevron Seismic
(Airgun)
Digicon Seismic
(Airgun)

E32-76 09-28-79 Exxon Seismic
retro- Gravity
active to Magnetics
10-28-76

El-77 02-17-77 Seibiiiiç
(Airgun)
Exxon Seismic
(Airgun)

Shell Seismic
(Airgun)
Digicon Seismic
(f/Chevron)

Digicon Seismic
(Airgun) [ArrachmenrIl (conr.)
ApproximoteNo.of
Line Miler N.E.
Portioof
GeorgesBank

Permir Date Work Work Posr1978 Posr1976
Number Approved Compony CommeneedComplered Rcmnrks Line Line

E9-77 08-17-77 Digicon 08-15-77 08-26-77 Seismic 27 O
(Airgun)
E13-77 09-14-77 Exxon 10-19-77 10-23-77 Seismic
Gravity

Magnetics
USGS by Seismic
Geoatlantic (Airgun)
Exxon Seismic
Gravity

Magnetics
GSI Seismic
(Airgun)
USGS by Seismic
Prakla-Seismos Gravity

Magnetics
Exxonby Seismic
PettyRay (Airgun)
GECO(USA) Seismic
Gravity

Total mileage[Arrachmenr4 ro Enclosure Il
AFFlDAVlT

My name is Harry A. Dupont. 1am retired from the Conservation Divisionof
the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the functions of which now are
divided within the United States Department of the lnterior between the
Minerals Management Servicefor offshoreoperations and the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) for onshore operations. 1 served as the Oil and Gas

Supervisor for the Eastern Region of the Conservation Division of the USGS
from the latter part of 1967 until late 1978. My responsibilities included
supervision of oil and gas drilling and producing operations on leased Federal
and lndian lands onshore in the Eastern Region of the United States, comprised
generally of the states east of the MississippiRiver. 1;ils0was responsible, from
the latter part of 1967 until 1977, for the review and issuance of permits to
conduct geophysical exploration on the "outer Continental Shelf" off the east
coast of the United States, extending [rom Maine to the Atlantic coast of
Flonda. The authority to approve permits for geophysical exploration was

delegated to the Oil and Gas Supervisor of each region hy the Secretary of the
Intenor, as published in the FederalRegisrer.
1prepared the document entitled "Attachment V", ùated November 14,1969,
that avnears in the~f~ ~ ~~r Permit E2-69. Attachment V is not vart of Permit
~2-69,~b"twas a document that 1prepared indicating that this pérmitextended
into the northern portion of Georges Bank, which Canada had covered with its
oermits. Pnor to oreoarine that document. 1selected n number of oints on the
Basisof informaiion that-had been provided to my officeby BLM that BLM
descnbed as representing the limit of Canada's permits on Georges Bank. 1had

taken note of these so that 1could know whether permits1wasapproving
covered areas that Canada might claim.
The program map submitted with the application for Permit E2-69 indicated
that the applicant planned to conduct two seismic surveylinesthat would extend
heyond the points selected into the northern portion of Georges Bank. 1noted
this fact on the document referred to as Attachment V hy using the phrase
"BLM line" simply as a means of identifying the source from which my office
had receivedinformation concerning the limitsof Canadian permits on Georges

Bank.
1made the pencillednotations "Pt on BLM line"that appear in two placeson
the program map suhmitted with the application for Permit E3-69.The purpose
of these two notations was to indicate the extent to which the grid of proposed
survey lines extended into the northern portion of Georges Bank. The applica-
tion for Permit E3-69 was suhmitted hy the Chevron Oil Corporation, on
behalf of Digicon Geophysical, 10conduct magnetic and gravity operations on
Georges Bank. 1did not restrict the area of Permit E3-69hecauseof any median
line.
At no time during the penod 1 was Eastern Region supervisor did 1 ever

consider any type ofmedian lineto he the offshorehoundary betweenthe United
States and Canada, and I did not restrict any permits that 1issued because of
any median line. 1always had presumed that any offshoreboundary betweenthe
United States and Canada would have taken ndvantage of the Northeast
Channel, heyond Georges Bank.
1 certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on Fehruary 17, 1984.

(Signed) Harry A. DUPONT.350 GULF OF MAINE

85. THE COUNSELLOROF THE EMBASSYOF CANADA TO THE NETHERLANDS
'IO THE REGISTRAR

9 March 1984

1 am pleased to attach herewith the text of a press release regarding the
Opening of Oral Proceedings in the Gulf of Maine Maritime Boundary case
which will be released in Ottawa today.

Openingof Oral Proceedingsin rhe Gulf of Maine Maritime Boundary case

The Honourable Allan J. MacEachen, Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary
of State for External Affairs, and the Honourahle Mark MacGuigan, Minister
of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, announced today that the Oral
Proceedings in theGulfof Maine Maririme Boundary case hetween Canada and
the United States are expected to commence in The Hague, April 2, 1984,
according to information releasedhy theinternationalCourt of Justice March 5,
1984.
The Honourable Mark MacGuigan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, has also announced that he will attend the proceedings in The

Hague. He will open the case for Canada April 2, 1984.
The Agent for Canada in the case is L. H. Legault Q.C., LegalAdviser to the
Department of External Affairs. The names of other counsel appearing on
behalf of Canada will be announced shortly. The Agent for the United States is
Davis Robinson, Legal Adviser to the Department of State.
The case will be heard hy a special Five-Member Chamber of the Interna-
tional Court of Justice. The President of the Chamber is Judge Roberto Ago of
Italy. Other members of the Chamber are Judge André Gros (France), Judge
Hermann Mosler (FRG), Judge Stephen Schwebel (USA) and ludge ad hoc
Maxwell Cohen (CD.-~ ~,
~hchcaringi follou thrre rounds ol'wrilien plcadings ~uhmittcdin Scpicmber
1982.June 1983and Dscivnhcr 1983.Thc decision IObe rcndered hy the Court

will settle a disoute heiwccn Canada and the United Siaics over the locsiion of
ihc boundary that divides the continental shelfand ihe ?OO.milcfishingzonesof
the tu.0 countnes oB the coasts of the Maritime provincesand ihc Ncu, Englïnd
States.The case centres on the rich fisheryresou~cesand potential hydrocarhon
resources of Georges Bank. Canada claims almost one-half of the Bank and the
United States asserts a claim to ils entirety.

86. THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENTOF CANADA TO THE REGISTRAR

7 March 1984.

1 refer 10 the meeting of 24 January 1984 between the President of the
Chamber and the Agents for the Parties in the case conceming the Delimirarion
of rke Maritime Boundary in rhe Gulj of Maine Area, when both Parties CORRESPONDENCE 351

undertook 10 clarify their intentions regarding the calling of experts and
witnessesal the oral proceedings. 1refer also to the letter to you from the Agent
of the United States advising that the United States intends to cal1one expert
during the first round of the oral proceedings.

1am now able to advise you that, pursuant to Article 63of the Rules of Court,
Canada may cal1one expert in the second round in rebuttal of the testimony of
the United Statesexoert. The Canadian exoert will be Dr. Michael M. Sinclair.
Chief, ~nvertebrates'and Marine Plants Division, Halifax Fisheries ~esearch
Laboratory, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Canada~reserves the right Io cal1additional experts or witnesses in rebuttal
once the plans of the United States regarding any further experts or witnessesare
known.
A communication in conformity with Article 57 of the Rules of Court will be
fonvarded to you at a later date.

87. THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO THE REGISTRAR

12 March 1984

I hd\e the honour io rcfer tu ihe lettrr of27 bcbrudry 1984rrom the Agent of
the United Stïtes rclative to the cï\e Loncerningthe Drlrmrrurinno/rhr Murtitmr
Boundary in rheCura/ Maine Area. That lette;purports to respond to a request
by the Agent for Canada in a letter to the Court of 9January 1984,repeating an
earlier request of 15 December 1982, for documenrary evidence to support
contentions advanced bv the United Statesconcernine the extent of the survevs
authorized pursuint toéarly United Staics g~~phs~iCas~unry permiti.
Itu,ilbe recalled thatin 3n aide-memoire of 5 Noiembcr 1969(diwussed in
the Canadian Memorial and found in Anne* 13 ihereto). the tiniied Staics
assured Canada. with resvect to the "northern oortion of the Georees Bank

continental sheir", that :the United States h& refrained from ashorizing
minerai exploration or exploitation in the area"'. The United States Memorial
and Counler-Memorial made allegations that appeared to be contrary to this
earlier assurance. Canada accordingly requested pertinent supporting docu-
ments in order to reconcile the conflicting declarations of the United States.
After a delay of seven weeks the United States has still no1 provided the
supporting documents requested by Canada. Instead it has submitted a fourth
written pleading in violation of the Rules of Court. Canada objects to this
procedure and reservesal1ils rights in the matter. 1do not, of course, propose to
deal with the substance of this fourth United States oleadinr!here. 1would onlv
note thal 11ir drafted in ihe mosi imbiguous ternis a"d ~c~v&cs\rniidlquestio&
unclarified. al\ra)s without providing documents in support of the nc\vconten-
tions made.
The Agent for the United States asserts that he has no1 provided the

supporting documents requested by Canada because these documents "may
contain data that some might regard as proprietary" under United States laws,
and regulations. Canada finds this assertion perplexing for two reasons. Firsr,
the United States itself has already submitted some of these maps in Annex 40 to
its Memorial and has also supplied certain "Reproduction Maps" to the Court
and to Canada in'response to Canada's earlier request. (Although the United

' II. p356.352 GULF OF MAINE

States Agent now claims in his letter of 27 February that two of the three
"Reproduction Maps" suppliedby the United States and reliedupon by Canada
in its Replyare erroneous, he has failed even10provide the correct documenta-

tion to replace this allegedlyerroneous materialSecondly, a numher of United
States and Canadian oil companies involved in the geophysical surveys on
Georees Bank have alreadv voluntanlv orovided Canada with information on
theseSurveys and indeed have supplied kanada with program maps.
The United States Agent has characterized as "extraordinary" Canada's
reauest for su~~orlina documents in relation to contentions advanced bv the
~niied Siaics.Thai rcQueji.of COU~SiC~a,nything bu1e~rraordinary.In ~Jnidiiin
and Cniied Sraici lau, and in inlcrnaiiondl Iawas uellilis ihe ordinar) nile oi
litiaaiion ihai the pnriv ad~ansinxa ctintcniion $hallIiaveihe burden of ~roiina
th't contention. The obligation6 provide appropriate documentary evidence i.s
clearly reflected in Article 50 of theRules of Court. Indeed, where necessarythe
assistance of the Court in ohtaining such evidence maybe invoked pursuant to
Article 49 ofthe Statute and Articles 57 and 62 of the Rules.
What is truly extraordinary is the continuing reluctance of the United States

to provide the Court and Canada with the fulldocumentation necessaryto allow
an evaluation of the conflictingformal declarations hy the United States. As has
already been made clear in my letters of 15December 1982and 9 January 1984,
Canada is prepared to give whatever assurances are necessary to ensure the
protection of legitimate needs of confidentiality, consistent with Canada's own
riaht 10use the information so nrovided for the ourooses of this litieation. With
r&peci. hou.evcr.Canada cons;ders ilexirïorditkr~ ihai one ~ariyshould scek
Io impose unilaicral conditions upon the other k'3ri).and upon the Couri wiih
regard to the treatment of material relevant to this case.
As wasoointed out in mv letter of 9 Januarv 1984.the maos in auestion mav.
with difficulty,he reconstrkted from maps Gready'depositédby'canada wiih
the Court, and Canada has proceeded both with this reconstruction and with
efforts to ohtain additional maos from oil comoanies that narticioated in the
surve)i in question. If ncccssïr) Canada ii,illrrdi the oral proceedings upon

ihc numcrous maps ülread" deposited wiih ihe Cauri, upon mdps reconstrucicd
from that material, and upon a numher of new maps provided sinceJanuary by
oil companies (without any restrictions being placed upon their use). Canada
will filesuch additional material with the Court at an early date. If the United
States is no1 prepared to consent to the receipt of this material hy the Court,
Canada will, ai the appropriate time, seek the approval of the Court in
accordance with Article 56 of the Rules of Court.
Canada, of course, maintains the arguments concerning the surveys con-
ducted pursuant to United States geophysical survey permits and Canadian
licences,as set forlh in ils Reply.
1 should he grateful if you would transmit this letter to the Agent of the
United States.

88. THE AGENT OF THE COVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATE SF AMERICA
TO THE REGISTRAR

16March 1984.

I have rhe honor 10rrfcrIO jour letier of 21Ociober 1983regarding ihe film
thai the C;o\ernmeni niCanada was ihen prepJring for possiblepreseniaiion IOthe Chamber in the caseconcerning Delimirarionofthe Maririme Boundaryin rhe

Cu(/of Maine Area.
In my letter to you of 18 Octoher 1983, the United States indicated that if
Canada were to seek to produce the proposed filin as evidence in the oral
proceedings, the United States would ohject on six separate grounds. By his
letter of 21 Fehruary 1984,acopy of which was sent to the Court, the Agent for

Canada transmitted to me a copy of the film in question. We thus received the
film less than six weeks prior to the anticipated opening of oral argument and
more than two years after the Chamher was formcd to deal with this case.
The United States hasnow viewed the film. As one would expect, after having
been in oroduction for well over six months. the film is technicallv imoressive
and ui high artistic mcrit Howe\er. fur Our part. WC dan discern in ;tnuihing of

an evidentiary characier. The film. from our perspectise. is nothinp. more than a
staged. subjective and selective piece of auÏal and visual advocacy, prepared
specifically for the Canadian case during its pndency. We certainly do not
believe the film is "necessary" within the meaning of Article 56(2) of the Rules.
On the basis of Our review of the film, we can only confirm the positions of

nrinciole set forth in Our letter of 18 October 1983. Indeed. we find the film
objectionable on each and çtcry one of the grounds dcrcnbeh in that letter
In vour letter of 21 Octoher 1983.)ou suggestedthat after the United States
had seenthe film. the Partir, should cxolore whcther thev could reachaereement
on its utilization1 accordingly telephoned the Agent for Canada on? March
1984,informed him of Our continuing objections, and askedwhether in the light

of those objections, he would agree not to seek to show the film before the
Chamher. He indicated that he could no1 agree.
As a result1 suggestedto the Agent for Canada that the United Stateswould
he willing, suhject to certain conditions, including acceptance of such a
sueeestionbv the Chamber. to aereeto ioin with Canada in an informal showine

of& filmt<ithc Chamber sepa&tc and 3p3rt fruin the oral argument and thaï
neither Party uould make any reference Io the film or 115contents during the
r>rocecdines.In suh~cuucntteleohoneconversations on 9. 12.and 13March, the
~aieentforCanada and 1 furthe;discussed what we mieht iointlv recommend for
the~~hamber's conideration. As lhe proposal develo&i, it iicluded a further
understandina that at such an informal showina. neither Party would make any

comment on the Canadian film or its contents:
Thc Agent of the United Siaies hoped thar sucha proposal ifscceptable to the
Chamber. uould ratisfy Canada's perceivcd need to show the tilm. would
Drcsersethe United States' ~rinrioled obicctions. and would mare the Chamber
and the Parties from the pr6speci of a déhateon the film thaicould disrupt the

course of the oral proceedings.
In Our conversation of 13 March, the discussion narrowed to the issue of
timine. The Aeent of the United States maintained that under anv ioint
prop~al. the rhouing should takc place as a prçliminary matter ai the Court's
conveniencr during the ueek prcseding the opening ofor~l argument.The Agent
for Canada look the Dosition that thc infonn31 virwina ol'thc film should iakc

place during the period scheduled for the oral procee&ngs or thereafter. The
Agent of the United States argued that the United States' objections would be
compromised if the United States participated in ajoint proposal to the Court
that did no1cal1for a showine of the film as a oreliminaw matter in advance of
the or31procerrlings. thercaft~r leaving the iss~of'thcfilm to ihe ui\dom of the

Chamher The Agent for Canada. on the oiher hand. .irgued thai in Iight of the
other conditions of the proposal, hecould no1agreeto an informal viewing prior
to the opening of the oral proŒedings without prejudicing his position. The354 GULF OF MAINE

discussions ended at that point and 1 told the Agent for Canada that 1would
write a letter to the Court to inform it of what had transpired and to set forth the

position of the United States. 1also indicated that 1would respond directly to
the letter' of the Agent for Canada of 21 February 1984.
As set forth above. the United States. havine seen the film.is of the viewthat
each of the ;inticipatrd objections enumeraiedin the letier of the Agen1oi the
Unitrd Siates of 18October 1983io the Registrar applieh io ihe Canadian film
However. .çsoi.c the faci thai the cood faiih elloris of both Parlies Io reach
agreement on a joint proposal have-fallen short, the United States, in order 10
faciiitate the work of the Chamber and possihly to avoid a dispute over a film
that the United States considers both irrelevant and unnecessary, hereby
reaffirmsils willingnessforthe Chamber, should the Chamber wish to do so, to
see the film separate and apart from, and in advance of, the oral argument.
While specificallypreserving ils principled objections, the United States would
accept an informal showing as a preliminary matter' without comment on the

film or its contents by either Party and without requinng the Chamber to take
any position on the film.
In the eventualitv that Canada seeksto oroduce the film durina the course of
the oral proceedings, the United States reierves al1its rights and would expect
that Canada would provide the United States and the Chamber with adequate
advance notice

TO THE REGISTRAR

[Attached to letter of 16March 1983.1

Atiached is acopy of a Iciier' of 15March 1984 thdtI hai,e iransmittedIO the
Repistrar concerning Uniird States intentions wiih regard IOthe Canadian film
That letter is self-explanatory.
Your letter of 21 February 1984contains the following statements:

"In deference to the strong objections raised by the United States,
Canada has not pressed its viewsconcerning an on-site visit by the Court
despite ils opinion that such a visit would have assisted the Court in
aooreciating certain circumstances relevant to the delimitation of the
n;aritirnehound;iry. Canada does no1belle\? ihat furiher conrirainis on ihr
presentation of 11scïsc in the manner 11deems fituould be consistent u,iih
the spirit of ihe inlernarlonal judiçial promis."

For the record, 1wish to note that the United States position before the Court
regarding the issue of an on-site visit was based upon an agreement to which
Canada was a party and which wejointly communicated to the President of the
Chamber at the lime of the meeting held pursuant 10Article 31 of the Rules of
Court on Il May 1982.
With further referenceto the auoted statements from vour 21 Februarv 1984
letter, Canada is of course entitlid to a legitimate opport;nity to present iis case
"in the manner it deems fit". As you recognize in your letter, Canada's

' SR NO. 83.supro,and No. 89, injra.
SeeNo. 88.supra[letterdated16March 19841 CORRESPONDENCE 355

presentation is "suhject always to the judicial character of the proceedings and
the Statute and Rules of the Court". To the extent that this character or these
Statute and Rules might constitute "constraint", such constraints are in the
interest of justice and faimess.
1 regret that Our good faith efforts to find a joint solution ta the film, as

described in my letter of 15March 1984to the Registrar, have eluded success.

90. THEAGENTOF THE GOVZRNMENTOF CANADA TO THEREGJSTRAR

19March 1984.

I have the honour Io rcfer ti)the lcttcr' 01'15Mar~.h1984from the Agcnt of

the United Statci in the case conccrning the Delimitation of the hlaritimc
Boundary in the Maine arca, rcgarding the nlm prcpared hy Canada for pos\ible
prcsentation as part of ils case in the oral procerdings
In responsc to the suggcslion in your lettcr of ?I Octokr 1983. 10 the elïrct
that "thc Parties should 3s soon as porçible aercc on the United States viswine
the film in question and thereafteré~~lorewhether they can reach agreemeni
on its utilization", a copy of the film was sent to the United States Agent on
21 February 1984.and a copy of my letter of transmittal was forwarded to you.
Subseauentlv. as related hv the United States Aeent in his letter of 15March

1984,the partce; entered into discussions as to whether some agreed procedure
could be adopted for the viewingof the film hy the Court. These discussions,
however. didnot lead 10anv ae~eement.
Thc conditions aitachcd to the fir.1proposil hy the United States Agent did
not include any condition 3s 10 the timing ofa poçiible informal showing of the
Canadian film.The United States Aacnt stipulatcd onls (11that Canada u,ould
not seek to introduce the film as a iormal Dar1of the-o;al areum~~t. (iil ,\,t
neither Party would make any reference to'the film or ils contents dunng the
proceedings, and (iii) that the United States should have the riaht to rebut the

filmed nrësentation in a half-hour statement to be delivered followine the "
inlomal showing I expres\ed m> gratitude for the constructive naturc of this
propusal. but alço cxprcssed rescrrdtions as tu 11%conipuihility with thejudicial
nature of the procccdines. After aiving the matter iurthcr thoueht. I roncludcd
that it was for the Court. and-nocthe Parties. to deterrnke whether the
proccdure cnvisaged was perrni\\ihlc I thcrcforc called the United Siaie\ Agni
severaldays later ind acceptcd his proposal. subjcct Io certain conJitions of m)
own. These were that 1 should have the rieht to see his oronosed rebuttal
statement well in advance, and the right to Zve a hrief cointe;-rehuttal. The

United States Agent, however, was unahle to accept this amendment of bis
proposal.
In subsequent telephone conversations, the United States Agent proposed
that the showing should take place as a preliminary matter at the Court's
convenience during the week preceding the opening of the oral argument. He
ahandoned his condition regarding an oral rehutt;il by him and suggested
instead that he should givehis viewsconcerning thefilinin a letter to the Court. 1
agreed to this condition but reserved the right 10 respond to his letter, if
necessary. I was unahle, however, ta accept that the showing take place as a

preliminary matter pnor to the opening of the oral argument. 1stressed that this

' See No.88. supra [letterdated 16March 1984)356 GULF OF MAINE

would constitute a severanceof the filmfrom the Canadian case,as though there
had ken a ruling that il was inadmissible and irrelevant.
The purpose of this letter is to confim that 1maintain my objection to the

procedure las1suggestedhy the United States. The showingof the Canadian film
as a nreliminarv matter would~ ~ ~n~omoatible both with the Rules of the Court
andbith the Position of the chamber,'conveyed in your letter of 21 October

1983,that it would rule on the "admissibility of a film as part of a party's case"
"when or if the question actually arises, in the course of the oral pro&edingsW.
It is, of course, for each Party 10decide the appropriate sequence in which il
willseek to introduce matenal prepared for ils case. Canada prepared a filmon

the Physical and Human Geography of the Gulf of Maine area in order 10
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ons made in t~e~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -tes Counter-Memonal. The oral
proceedings, likethe written proceedings,contain a rebuttal or reply phase, and
Canada. like the United States, willdecidewhat evidenceil willseek 10produce

at each stage,consistent alwayswith the need to provide the Court and the other
Party of due notice of its intentions, and consistent too with Canada's abiding
concern to facilitate the task of the Court.

91. THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENTOF CANADA TO THE AGENTOF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA

19March 1984

Thank you for your letter' of 15 March 1984,with which youtransmitted a

copy of a letter of evendate, from yourself to the Registrar of the International
Court of Justice, regarding the film prepared hy Canada for possible use in the
caseconcerningDelimitationofthe MaritimeBoundaryintheCulfof MaineArea.

For the record, 1mus1point out that there was never any agreement between
Canada and the United States regarding the question of an on-site visit by the
Court. The United States, for ils own reasons, expressed opposition to such a
visit. Canada, for ils own reasons, expressed reservations. There was in this a

measure of coincidence of viewsbut no "agreement" inthe sense in which you
a-,,-~~~o~-se~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
Laler. afier the deposii of ihe second sel of u,riiicn plcïdjngs. Canada decidcd
to withdraw 11sreservations. in the liahi of the dercnpiion of Nova Scoiiiimvrn

in the United States ~ounter-~emosal and its ~nnexes. 1 communicatedthat
decision IO you In Washington on 9 July 1983,and subsequcnily 10 the President
of ihe Chamber a1Ourjoxntmeeting u,iih him in The Hague on 27July 1983 In
withdrawing my reservations without actually pressing for an on-site visit, 1was

most conscious of your very strong opposition to any such visit.
1do agree, naturally, that any constraints imposed by the Judicial Character
of the Proceedingsand hy the Statute and Rules of the Court are in the interest
ofjustice and fairness. It is, ofcourse, for the Court, and no1the Parties, to rule

on what precise constraints are required to ensure justice and fairness.
1thank you as well for your good faith efforts with regard to the question of
the Canadian film. Like you, 1 regret that Our joint exploration of various
possihilitiesthat might be put to the Chamber did oot end in success.A copy of

my letter' to the Registrar in this matter is attached for your information..

' SFe Na. 89, supro.
See No. 90,supra.358 GULF OF MAINE

(4) arguments and evidencerelating to these matters contained in the Canadian

Memorial, Counter-Memorial. and Replv. as wellas in supportinn materials
submitted by Canada.

94. THE AGENT OF THE MVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATESOF AhlERICA
TO THE REGISTRAR

22 March 1984

1have the honor to refer to the letter' of 12March 1984from the Agent for
Canada relating to the case concerning the Deliniifalion oJ the Maritime
Boundaryin rhe GuljoJMaine Area. That letter responds to my letter of 27 Feb-
ruary 1984,in which1offered to make available to the Court and to Canada, in
response to the request of the Agent for Canada of 12January 1984,certain
supporting malerials (the "supporting materials") provided thai the United
States ohtained assurances that the possible confidential nature of the support-
ing materials would be safeguarded. The supporting materials relate to geo-

physical exploration authorized or conducted, or hoth, in the Georges Bank
Area pursuant to permits issued hy the United States.
In his letter of 12March 1984,the Agent for Canada has made a numher of
inaccurate and unfair allegations with respect to the response of the United
States to his request of 12 January. This letter should no1 be regarded as a
response to those allegations.
Nevertheless, the United States welcomes the decision of the Agent for
Canads IO provide iisiursnccs rcgarding the use of ihc supporting maicrials
son>i,tcni with the conccrn set iiirth In my Iciicr 0127 1-ebruary1934pcriaining
IO any possible l~abilityofthc Unlied Sisics Go\crnmeni inconneciion rith an?
release of the supporting materials in the absence of permittee consent.
Accordinelv. we now will make ao~rooriate arranEements immediatelv to
provide théiupporting materials to th ~bent for canada. Once the partie; are
in The Hague, wecan consult with the Agent of Canada with respectto specific
procedure; to govern any use of the supporting materials and the inforiation
contained therein, consistent with the need to safeguard their possible confiden-

tiality during the course of the oral proceedings.
The United States reserves its position regarding the maps and other
information that the Agent for Canada has indicated that he has receivedfrom
certain oil companies. In view of the possihility that thisaterial might be
deemed to be publicly available, we are studying the question of whether the
United States has been or will be relieved of any possible obligation of
confidentiality imposed by United States Laws and Regulations with regard to
this material. It is conceivable that Canada already has obtained from oil
companies or elsewhere some or al1 of the supporting matenals now to be
provided to Canada by the United States on the basis of the letter of the Agent
forCanada of 12March 1984.To the extent that the Agent for Canada provides
the Court and the United States with copies of the materials already available to
him, the need for safeguarding the United States with respect to the supporting
materials may belimited to a significantdegree. On the other hand, the United
States would not be relieved of any possible obligation of confidentiality with
regard to those of the supporting materials that are provided to the Agent for
Canada only by the United States in response to his request of 12January 1984.

'See Na. 87,supro. CORRESPONDENCE 359

I should noie thai the United Sixte5uill make ihc same supporting materials

immediately availahle Io ihe Chamber ai the Chamber's convenience li~llowing
whatever consullations may be appropriate.
1 would he most grateful if you would transmit this letter to the Agent for
Canada in response 10his letter of 12March 1984.

95. THE REGISTRAR TO THE DIRECTOR OF PROTOCOL AT THE MlNlSTRY OF
FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE NITHERLANDS

27 March 1984.

1 have the honour 10 refer Io the Exchange of Letters which look place

between the President of the Court and the Netherlands Minister for Foreign
Aiïairs on 26 June 1946 establishing the Privileges and lmmunities in the
Netherlands of the International Court of Justice. and to inform you that
on 28 March 1984 Mr. P. B. Beazley, Commander R.N. (retd.), of British
nationality, will be travelling 10The Hague from England for the purpose of
taking up duties as a technical expert engaged10assis1the Chamber of the Court
dealing with the case concerning Delimitation of rhe Maririme Boundery in the
Gulfof Moine Areo (CanadalUnired Stares of America).
Between that date and the end of the case, a period of several months,
Commander Beazley will have several occasions to travel in an out of the
Netherlands insonneciion wiih his5crvicc IO the aforcsaid Chambcr and isIo be
regardcd while so irai,elling and u.hilc prrseni in this country as an expert on
mission u,iihin the meaninp of ihe Cisncral Principles (in linel annexed io ihr
above-mentioned Exchaneë of Letters.

1 therefore request youto be so good as to ensure that he is accorded such
immunitiesand facilitiesas may prove necessaryfor the fulfilmentof hismission.

96. THE AGENTOF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATESOF AMERlCA
TO THE REGISTRAR

28 March 1984.

Iha\c ihc honor IO refer io ihe tclephonr confcren~betueen thc Prcsident of
ihe Chamber and the Agents for ihc P.irties in ihe case concerning Drlrmrrarion
uf rh~MuriritneBoundarvrnihe (TuIfof ,MurneAreuon 14March 1984.in which
the President of the Chamber suggested that the oral proceedings should

conclude no later than II May and that there should be no third round. The
United States wishes hereby Io indicate its acceptance of these suggestions.
1am in receipt of a letter' to the Registrar of 21 March 1984from the Agent
for Canada who has likewiseindicated Canada's desireto accede10the wishesof
the President. As you are aware, a brief third round of argument had originally
heen proposed as a result of an agreement between the Parties intended to
facilitate the resolution of the question of the order <ifpresentation. One of the
objectives of the proposed third round was to mitigatc any element of surprise
that might be associated with the late inlroduction of new documents or

' Nol reproduced.360 GULF OF MAINE

arguments. The United States is confident that through consultations hetween
the Agents, the potential element of any undue surprise. about which the Agent
for Canada has expressed concern, will be mitigated.

97. THE REGlSTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENTOF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERlCA

28 March 1984.

1have the honour to acknowledge receipt of the letter of today's date in which
vou. interaliaindicaie vour Government's acceotance of the sueeestions of the
~reiident of the chamber as regards the closingdate of the oraÏproceedings in
the case concerningDelimirurionof ihe Maririme Boundaryin rheCulfof Maine
Area and the exclusion of a third-round of argument.
1am transmitting a copy of your letter to the Agent of Canada.

98. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA'

28 March 1984

1 have the honour to confirm that the President of the Chamber has fixed
3 p.m. on Monday, 2 April 1984 as the lime for the opening of the oral
proceedings' in the caseconcerningDelimitarionof rheMaririme Bounduryinrhe
Gulf of Maine Area.

99. THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO THE REGISTRAR

29 March 1984.

In accordance witb Article 56 of the Rules of Court 1enclose the documents
not oreviouslv oroduced bv either Partv to which Canada oronoses to refer in
the first round if ihe oral r;roceediinthe cÿieconcerntng th; I)climtrar,onof

rhe Maririnie 8oundaryin rheGd/ ~i /urnc Area
Copies of these documenis ha\e kcn pro\tded tu thc Unitcd SI~ICS

[List of docwttenüenclosed/

1. Nova Scotia: Official Highways Map.
2. H. Mitchell: U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey 1879.
3. Mobil 12/06/83 U.S. North Atlantic. OCS 82 LIMITED Line, Location
Index (1969 to 1976).

'A communicationinthesamelems was sentto thAgent oftheGovernmentofthe
UnitedStatesofAmenca.
' VI, pp.12-460,and supra, pp3-275. CORRESPONDENCE

4. 1974East Coast. Area D-E-tension. Dieicon Inc. man No. 42-4.~ - ~
5. 1974East ~oast; Area D Extension: ~igicon Inc. map No. 43-1.
6. 1974East Coast, Area D Extension, Digicon Inc. map No. 43-4.
7. 1975Atlantic Ocean Grouo (Georees ~anks). ~ieicon Inc. mao No. 53-3.
.. -
8. Data shot in 1969hy Digico" (PI;. 20).
9. Data shot in 1970by Digicon (Proi. 21).
10. Data shot in 1971 bv ~iëicon (pro;'.22 and 122)
II. Data shot in 1972hi ~igicon ri. 28 and 58):
12. Data shot in 1974by Digicon (Proj. 53, 54 and 48).
13. Exploration Surveys lni. Sea Gravity Progr;im. Continuous Profiling

Underway Gravity and Marine Magnelometer Survey. Northeast U.S.
Atlantic Continental Shelf.
14. Project Base map 159, 1974-1975 Surveys.
15. Reconstruction of data~ ~ot~in 1969bv Dieicon.
16. Reconstruciion of da13shot in 1970aid 1971by Digicon
17 Reconsiruciion of data shoi in 1972by Digicon.
18 Reconsiruciion of d~iî shoi in 1969-1975hv Diricon.
'
19. Project history map, 1967-1971,Assembly41.
20. Project history map, 1967-1971,Assembly 42.
21. Project history map, 1970,Assembly43.
22. Project history map, 1967.1972,Assembly 52.
23. Project history map, 1967.1972,Assembly 53.
24. SeismicSurvey by G.S.I. for Humble Oil. 1966.

100. THEREGISTRARTO THE AGENT OT FHE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA

30 March 1984.

1 have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 29 March 1984
enclosing the documents not previously produced hy either Party to which
Canada proposes to refer in the first round of the oral proceedings in the case
concerning Delimirarionojrhe MaririmeBoundaryinrheGulfof MaineAreaand

note your provision of copies of these documents to the United States.
The documents 1 have received under cover of your letter are entitled as
follows:

(See No. 99. supra.]

101. THEREGISTRARTO THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THEUNITW STATES
OF AMERICA

30 March 1984.

1 have the honour to send you herewith a copy of a letter dated 29 March
1984, receivedyesterday from the Agent of Canada in the case concerning

Delimirarionof rhe Maritime Boundaryin rhe Gui/o/ Maine Area, with which
were enclosed the followingdocuments:
/Sep No. 99. supra.]362 GULF OF MAINE

102. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE WVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA

30 March 1984.

1 have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter' dated 28 March

1984,handed to me on 29 March 1984,providing the Chamber with a listLof
Counsel and others who have assisted the United States in the case concerning
Delimitarion (f the Maritime Boundaryin the Gufof Maine Area.
This lis1 has heen duly transmitted Io the Chamher and ta the Agent of
Canada.

30 mars 1984.

Me référantau oarderaohe V des orincices eénérauxde l'accord du 26 iuin
1946enire le Guu\~crnementdes Pa).;-Bas ci . IcCour ~ntcrnitiunalc de Juslice.
j'aiI'honneurde porter ;iotre connais,anic que. cn prCvisiondes ;iudten~.esqui
se tiendrimt i pdrlir du 2 avril l9b4 en I';iff,iirede la Bi.li,>iir<iri,.i,/tr,Itiiro,iri<'rc

maririmedunsiu r6giondugo& du Maine,le Gouvernement des ~tats-Unis m'a
fait tenir la liste1 ci-inclusedes conseils et autres personnes qui assistent les
Etats-Unis en ladite affaire.
Je ne manquerai pas de vous faire part de toute modification éventuellede
ladite liste.

104. THE AGENT OF THE WVERPIMENT OF THE UNITEDSTATFS OF AMERICA
TO THE REGISTRAR

31 March 1984.

1have thehonor to refer to my letters of 22 March 1984and 27 February 1984
concerning certain "Supporting Materials" relating 10geophysical exploration

authorized or conducted, or both, in the Georges Bank area pursuant to permits
issued by the United Stdtes. As 1 noted in my letter of 27 February 1984,the
Supporting Materials may contain data that some might allege as having a
proprietary nature. 1 further pointed out that public release of the Supporting
Materials could, therefore, in the absence of a definitivedomestic court ruling,
expose the United States or United States officials to the risk of claims of
liahility. In my lettcr of 27 February, 1outlined certain assurances that 1 had
anticipated might be acceptable to the Agent for Canada and the Chamber,
therehy reducing the exposure of the United States and its officialsto such risks.
In his letter Io you of 12 March 1984,the Agent for Canada indicated his
decision 10provide "whatever assurances are necessary 10ensure the protection
of legitirnateneeds ofconfidentiality, consistent with Canada's ownright to use
the information so provided for purposes of this litigation". In addition, the

'Not reproduced.
Non reproduiie. CORRESPONDENCE 363

Agent for Canada stated that Canada had received from certain oil companies
materials that we expected might correspond to some or al1of the Supporting
Materials. My letter to you of 22 March noted that, on the basis of these
considerations, the United States would make appropriate arrangements imme-
diately to provide the Supporting Materials to the Agent forCanada,and, once
we were in The Hague, to consul1with him with respectto specificprocedures

for their use.
Consistent with myundertaking of 22 March, the United States has provided
the Agent for Canada with copies of the Supporting Materials. The Agent for
Canada has also supplied the United States with copies of the materials that
Canada had received from the oil companies.
Following the meeting with the President of the Chamber on 30 March 1984,
in whichcertain difficultieswere noted with regard to the Suooortine Matenals.
I consiilicd further wiih ihr Agent for ~anzda conccrniii this haiicr. and
convcrn~tionsuere hcld witha reprcscntati\e ol'one<ifthe Exccutivcagcncicsof
my Government.
There is considerable duolication beiween the Sunoortine Materials and the
maienals supplied to canada by the oil compsnics, ;,hich laitcr maicnals have
alrcady ken made a\,ailahle hy Canada Io ihc Chxmhcr. IIir myjudgment that
in Iirht ofihis and oihcr factors. ihr.imnoriancc of ihc Chambcr hniinc ktiirit
the Fullrecord of the relevant documents relating to United States gcophysical
exploration authorized or conducted, or both, on Georges Bank pursuant to
United States permits, outweighs other considerations. Accordingly, the Sup-

porting Materials will be filed with you pursuant to Article 56 of the Rules of
Court within a few days.

2 April 1984

1have the honour to transmit to you herewith a sealed original Order2 made
on 30 March 1984 by the Chamkr forrned to deal with the case concerning
Delimitationof the Maritime Boundaryin the Guljcf Maine Area, appointing
Commander Peter Bryan BeazleyR.N. (retd.) as the technical expert contem-
plated by Article II3 of the SpecialAgreementsignedon 29March 1979.Further
printed copies of the Order will be available in due course.

2 April 1984

1 have the honour to draw your attention to the following provisions of

Article 71 of the Rules of Court: "1. A verbatim recordshall bemade by the Registrar of everyhearing, in
the officiallanguage of the Court which has been used ...
4. Codes of the transcriot.shall be circulated to the .ude-s sittin- in the
cax, and to the parties. The lattcrma). under the wper\ijion of the Court,
correct the transcriptc of speechr, and slatements made on their behalf. hut
in no case may such corrections affect the sense and bearing thereof . .."

The transcript of the oral proceedingsopening on Monday 2April1984, in the
case concerning Delimirationof the Muriiime Bounduryin the Gulf of Maine
Area, will be circulated to the Parties as follows: the transcript of a hearing held
from 10a.m. 10 1p.m. will be available in the evening of the same, and that of
a hearing held from 3 to 6 p.m. will be available during the morning of the
.....wi------,.
In order to facilitate any supervision whichthe Chamber may feelit proper 10
exercise.1shall be oblieed if you will hand your corrections 10my secretary as
soon as possible after ïhe circulation of each transcript, and in any event~not
later than 6 p.m. on the day following such circulation.

107. THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO THE RECISTRAR

2 April 19ô4

In accordance with Article 56 of the Rules of Court 1enclose the extracts of
two additional documents not oreviouslv oroduced bv either Partv to which
Canada proposes to refer in th~first round of the ~ra~~rocecdin~sin the case
concrrning the Bzliniirorionnfrbe Alur~limeBoun<luriinrhp Cul/ O/ .\!ofne.4rea.
Copies of thesc documenis hd\e kn proulded ro the Unired Siates.

Extrdct from Henry F. Howe: PrologueroNew England. New York, Farrar and

Rhinehard, 1943,p. 10:
"Georges Bankoffthe Maine and Massachusetts coasts. The progression of
fishing boats southward following the line of shoals down from the
Newfoundland and Nova Scotia areas toward New Eneland is a natural
one, and it is quite probable that some of these unremehered fishermen
coasted along these shores before the time of Verrazano. All this, at any
rate, constituÏes a background of hearsay that mus1have influenced King
Franco.~~1of~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~sionine Giovanni da Ver~~zano to eoon a
\o)age uf expluraiiun in 1523 A commerci;il impulse undoubirdl) -
promptcd the viiy~girThis wdj the firstdclibcratc attempit<ilrarn uhat 13).

between Florida-arÏd Newfoundland."
Extract from Ross D. Eckert: TheEnclosureofOcean Resources: Economic and
the Law of the Sea, Stanford, Hoover Institution Press, 1979,p. 99:

"Mediterranean coast near Gibraltar: between Iraq and Kuwait over
islands in the Persian Gulf: between the United States and Canada over the
Georges Bank area txtween Maine and Nova Scotia: and numerous
disputes between Egypt and lsrael over deposits in the Gulfof Suezas well
as off the coast of Sinai in the Red Sea. The prospect of oil deposits has
even produced division within countries. Metropolitan Denmark has had CORRESPONDENCE 365

disagreements with Eskimos in Greenland and with the inhabitants of the
~aeÏoes over the division of oil revenues. In the North Sea, huge oil and

gas deposits opposite the Coast of Scotland hiive led to debates over its
secession from the United Kingdom.
2. Economicsof the Conimon Pool

Economic analysis demonstrates that exploitation of a hydrocarbon
deposit, whether on land or at sea, will be inefficient unless control is
assigned to a single decision maker by property rights or by regulations.

On land, the inefficiencyanses where multiple oil or gas producers have
exclusive rights to their parcels of land overlying the reservoir, but none
have the exclusiverights Io extract hydrocarbons. The firstproducer to sink
a well obtains some fluids or gas without pumping since the reservoir
oressures oush hvdrocarbons out the hole. As extraction continues. the
rescrioir pressurc declines dnd puniping must \uhsiiiuir lor thc naiur~l

forces of the field Houeber. sinking multiple indcpendcnily ouned wells
will cause oressures to decline more Ïaoidlvowine <O the laraer numher of
holes. and'the vanous producers thur ire ?orce~io spend more and more
for pumping Furihermore. as additional wellsare dnlled. the tirri producer
rralizes ihai some of the 011ihai would hï\e Roued out of his uell insie3d
moves in the direction of his neiehbo-s'~ ~~d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~wells. This

realization leads each producer to increase his rate of pumping defensively,
which raises the oumping costs of al1producers. The oil would have been
extracted at a rate thatwould avoid'ine~fi~ ~n~, u~de~ ~he condition of
cxclusi\c owncrihip. Hui with nonexclusii~eor cominunal 'ownerrhip'. ii1s
insirad sxtrïcied through rosi-in~.rc~singconiperition which in the end
dissipairs ïII cconomic rcni. Thc amount of oil recoi,ered is ihc same undcr

each mode of ownership. but exclusi\e properiy righis idcdlly accomplish
the job witboui ihç u3str of rçsuurcrs.
The uneconomically rapid exploitation of common pools can rarely be
eliminated bv indevendent actions. The rational action for each oroducer is
io rahe hi. Lie oipumping. hecduse ï reductioii mcans thai hi; neighbors
uill capturc the 011 thar he foregocs Group actions ro convert the muliiple

parcels of land to singleownership are an obviousattraction since the value
of the drilling rights is greatest when they are held by jus1 one producer.
This gain from sole ownership would be the maximum that any driller
would pay to his cohorts in a bargain to acquire the exclusiverights, which
equals the cost savings of avoiding . .."

108. THE REGISTRAR TO THE THlRD SECRETARYOF THE ;MBASîYOF THE PEOPLE'S
REPUBLIC OF BANGLADESH m THE NETHERLANDS'

2 April 1984.

1have the honour to refer to your letter of 2 Novçmber 1982, by which you
asked that copies of the pleadings and annexed documents submitted to the
Court by the Parties to the case concerning the Delimitation of the Maritime

Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (CanadaiUnited States of America) be

' A similar cammuniwiion was sent Io the Legal Advirer of the Foreign and
Commonwealth Offic of the UnitedKingdom.366 GULF OF MAINE

supplied to the Government of Bangladesh, pursuant 10 Article 53,paragraph 1,
of the Rules of Court. By my letter of 6 Decemher 1982, 1informed you that
taking the views of the Parties to the case in10 account, the President of the
Chamher had decided that it would not be appropriate 10grant the request of
the Government of Bangladesh at that time. 1 added however that when the
stage of the oral proceedings was reached, the requesi would he re-examined in

the lieht of the views of the Parti~ ~~~ thnt time.
I niw ha& ihc honour IO inform you th:,[ the Chamher has decided to makc
ihe pleadings and anncxcd dosumrnis acccs~ihlc IO the public and availahle to
ihird Staics wiih efict from ihe opcning of the orïl procccdings in the case. ihat
is io Say l'rom today's date. A set of the pleïdings ~nd anncxed docunicnts is
ihcreCorcheing dcspïtched IO )ou undcr scpJraic co\.cr.

4 Apnl 1984.

Further to our meeting of 31 March 1984,in which the United States Agent
and 1reviewedwith you and President Ago certain questions regarding the use
of United States geophysical survey permit documents. 1 attach a lis1 of
documents which had already ken submitted to the Court by either Canada or
the United States pnor to the forthcoming deposit of such further documents hy

the United States Agent pursuant to his letter to you of 31 March 1984.
In Canada's view, the concerns expressed hy the United States Agent with
regard to the documents now to bedeposited hy him under Rule 56do not apply
10the documents referred to in the attached list.

List of documents relating to United States geophysical survey permits
already submitted to the Court and which hoth Parties, and the Court, are free

to refer to or make such use of as may be deemed appropriate, without
conditions ofany kind other than those imposed hy the Statute or the Rules of
the Court:
1. United States geophysical survey permits documents annexed to the United

States Memonal (Annexes 40 and 41)'.
2. United States geophysical survey permits documents annexed to the United
States Counter-Memorial (Annexes 26 and 15 2,including materials enclosed
with the United States Agent's letter of 20 January 19833 pertaining 10
permits and listed but no1 included in Annex 15).
3. United States geophysical survey permits documents annexed 10 the Cana-
dian Counter-Memonal (Annexes 73 and 74)4.
4. United States geophysical survey permitsdocuments annexed 10 the Cana-
dian Reply (Vol. II, Part III,including Documentary Appendices 1-9)'.

Il. pp338-345.
' IV,pp. 468-469 and 461
SeeNo. 49. suoro.
III. p438.
V, pp.324-335.5. United States geophysical survey permits documents deposited with the
Canadian Reply (see attached list ').
6. United States geophysical surveypermits documents deposited by Canada on
29 March 19842.

110. THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNlED STATES 01:AMERlCA
TO THE REGISTRAR

9 April 1984.

In accordance with Article 56 of the Rules of Court. 1enclose documents to
which the United States proposes to referduring the oral proceedingsin the case
concerning the Belimirarionofrhe MoririmeBoundaryin rhe Culfof Maine Area.
I have attached the required certification3.
Copies of these documents have heen provided 10Canada.

List of Documents Proposed to Be lntroduced in111Evidence by the United
States during Oral Proceedings before the International Court of Justice in the
Case concerning Delimirarionof the Maritime Boundaryin the Cul/ of Maine
Area

1. Letler 10 Santiago Torres Bernirdez4, Registrar, from Davis R. Robinson,
Agent of the United States, 27 February 1984,with Enclosure and following
atÏachments:
Attachment I :Revised Annex40,containing a lis1of 41 geophysicalexplora-
tion permits approved between 1967and 1982,inclusive.and under which
exploration was conducted on the northeastem portion of Georges Bank;
Attachment 2: A lis1of 12eeonhvsicalexoloration nermits ao~roved betu,een

1965 and 1983, inclusiye, Lnder whiih explor~tion on ihe northeastern
portion of Georges Bank was authorized but under which no exploration
actually was conducted in that area;
Attachment 3:Copy ofan article from the I Apnl 1968issueof TheOil Daily;
Attachment 4: ARidavit of Harry A. DuPont;
Attachment 5: Copy of an article from the 14Junç 1971issueof TheOiland
CasJournal.
2. Letter of 12 March 1984 to Santiago Torres Bernardez5, Registrar, from
L. H. Legault, Agent for Canada.

3. Letter of 22 March 1984 to Santiago Torres Bernardez6. Reaistra-. from
Davis R. Robinson, Agent of the ~nited States.
4. Letter of 31 March 1984 to Santiago Torres Bernardez', Registrar, from
Davis R. Robinson, Agent of the United States.

' Nol reproduced.
' Not reoroduced.a.
See NO .4,supro.
' See No. 87,supro.
SeeNo. 94,supro.
' SeeNo. 104,supro.368 GULF OF MAINE

Corrrspondeiiçe rehiing io ihc applicaiion for snd approv:il of auihorilv b)
thc Unitîd Slaics Department of ihc lntenor Ioconduci gei>ph)sicdic.~ploralion
on the continent31shelf in the area oiGr.orges Bank for the followingpcmiis

Correspondence Reloringro Permif~Lisiedon RevisedAnnex 40

PermirNun~ber Dore Approved Compony
06-29-67 Ray Geophysical (f/group)
02-01-68 Delta (f/group)
04-23-68 ES1
06-05-68
07-16-69
IO. 03-30-70 Digicon (flgroup)
05-13-71 Digicon (f/group)
II. Digicon (f/group)
12. 05-27-71
05-04-72 Digicon (f/group)
Shell
Shell
Digicon (f/group)
Digicon (i/group)
SheII
Digicon (f/group)
Mobil
GSI
Exxon

GSI (for Exxon)
Digicon
Shell

Texaco
Mobil
ONI
Shell
Chevron
Digicon
Exxon

Digicon
Exxon
Shell
Digicon (f/Chevron)
Digicon
Digicon
Exxon

USGS by Geoatlantic
Exxon
GSI
USGS by Prakla-Seismos
Exxon by Petty Ray
GECO (USA) CORRESPONDENCE 369

PermirNumber DoreApproved Company
46. El-65 03-31-65 Shell
47. El-66 03-09-66 Mobil
48. E5-66 04-08-66 CS1 (flgroup)
49. El-67 03-30-67 Hunible (f/group)

50. E2-69 04-28-69 Digicon (flgroup)
51. E3-69 07-11-69 Digicon (flgroup)
52. E29-76 10-12-76 Mobil
53. E15-77 09-26-77 Petty Ray (for Texaco)
54. E2-79 04-13-79 Teledyne (for Exxon)
55. E17-81 12-14-81 Petty Ray (for Exxon)
56. E7-82 03-31-82 Digicon (for Arco)
57. E3-83 05-03-83 Western

Plats, Program Maps, or Post Plots for the followinggeophysicalexploration
permits(designated "Supporting Materials" inletter to Registrarof 27February

Plars, Program Maps or Posr Piors Relaring ro RevisedAnnex 40

PermirNumber DoreA~~ro~ed Com. .nv

Ray Geophysical (flgroup)
Delta (flgroup)
ES1
Shell
ES1
Digicon (flgroup)
Digicon (flgroup)
Digicon (f/group)
Digicon (flgroup)
Shell
Shell
Digicon (flgroup)
Digicon (f/group)
Shell
Digiçon (flgroup)
Mobil
GSI

Exxon
09-10-75
(amended)
09-15-75 GSI (for Exxon)
09-29-75 Digiçon
Shell
Texaco
Mobil
ON1
Shell
Chevron
Digicon370 GULF Of MAINE

PermiiNumber DoreApproved Compony

85. E32-76 09-28-79 Exxon
retroactiv10
10-28-76
86. EI-77 02-17-77 Digicon
87. E3-77 06-08-77 Exxon
88. E4-77 06-09-77 Shell
89. E8-77 10-10-77 Digicon
90. E9-77 08-17-77 Digicon
91. E13-77 09-14-77 Exxon
92. E4-78 05-05-78 USGS by Geoatlantic
93. El 1-78 08-01-78 Exxon
94. E12-78 IO-11-78 GSI

95. E17-78 12-12-78 USGS by Prakla-Seismos
96. EI-81 02-20-81 Exxon by Petty Ray
97. EIO-82 05-17-82 GECO (USA)
PlarsandProgramMaps RelaringroAriachmeni 2 10LprrerroRegislrarof

27 Februory1984
PermirNumber DeieApproved Compony

98. EI-67 03-30-67 Humble (flgroup)
99. E2-69 04-28-69 Digicon (flgroup)
100. E3-69 07-11-69 Digicon (f/group)
Other Documents:

101. "Background Paper -The Management of Shared Stocks The Canadian
Experience", distributed by the Canadian Department of Fishenes and
Oceans at the Preparatory Experts Meeting for FA0 Global Conference
on Fishery Management and Development, Rome, 1983.
102. Computer printout of United States and Canadian fishing vesselssighted
by the United States Coast Guard on the eastern part of Georges Bank
(bounded by 67"45'W, 65" 40'W. 42" 20'N, 40"00'N) during the period

I March 1979through 31 August 1983.
103. Mohl, Bruce A., "Boom Goes Halifax", BostonGlobe, 26 February 1984.
104.EnergyunderrheSen, Ministry of Supply and ServicesCanada, 1982.
105. "Nova Scotia Natural Gas:an Alternative for the Northeast", Remarks by
Honourable John M. Buchanan, P.C., Q.C., Premier of the Province of
Nova Scotia, given at Bangor, Maine, 18January 1984.
106. "Mobil Field May Extend Further", The Journalof Commerce, 5 March
1984.
107. Watkins, Lyndon, "Shell Canada Resource Strikes Gas 0%East Coast",
ToronroGlobeand Mail, 4 November 1983.
108.Talk BusinessinNovaScotia, lndustrial Development Branch, Nova Scotia
Department of Development.
109.Nova Scotia Today, Nova Scotia Department of Government Services,
Halifax, 1983.

110.Nova ScoriaCanada, Nova Scotia Department of Development, Halifax,
1982.
II1. Lannin, Joanne, "Canadian Fish", Maine Sunday Telegram, II March
1984.
112. "Subsidies Keeping Canadians in Business?',Maine Sunday Telegram,
1I March 1984.113. Harvey, Andrew S. and MacDonald, W. Stephen, "ln-Migration Alters
Mix of Demands for Public Services", UrbanForum, Canadian Council on
Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 3, No. 1, Spring 1977,pp. 37-39.
114. McKersie, Robert B. and Sengenberger, Werner, Job Lossesin Major
Indusrries,OECD, Paris, 1983.
115. lndusrryin Transition, OECD, Paris, 1983.

116. Certain 1982and 1983scallop landings statistics for Canada and southwest
Nova Scotia, Department of Fisheries and Oceans unpublished data.
117. Table entitled "Labor Force Growth by Sector (1891-1981)".compiled by
Cambridge Systematics Inc., Cambridge, Mass., 1983.
118. Nova Scoria InformarionProfile, lndustrial Promotion Branch, Nova
Scotia Department of Development, Halifax, 1983.
119. Appropriation Bill, Department of the Interior, Public Law 94-146,
Secs. 101-108,97 Stat. 933-936.

11 1. THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENTOF CANADA TO THE REGlSTRAR

18April 1984.

1 have the honour to provide the following adjustments requested by the
Court's Expert, Commander P. B. Beazley,in order to relate certain Canadian
Hydrographic Servicecharts to the 1927North American datum:

Chart 4216 - quoted position of Cape Sable is the 1957 field value. The
current accepted NAD position is 43" 25'03".233N., 65' 37' 23".857W.
The Canadian Hydroyraphic Servicesuggests sul>tracting0.1 second from
any scaled longitude to hring to current N.A.D. value. No correction

necessary for latitude.
Chart 4340 - quoted position of "Head" is 1948field value. The current
accepted NAD position is 44O 37' 06.817 N., 66' 41' 36,969 W. The
Canadian Hydrographic Servicesuggestssubtracting I.Osecond in latitude
and 0.6 second in longitude from scaled positions of triangulation points to
bring to current N.A.D. value.

Chart 4323 - chart is a reproduction of a former Admiralty chart and the
graticule was probably added alter initial construction. Analysis shows
mean correction of minus 3.0 seconds in latitude and minus 3.0 seconds in
longitude (i.e. subtract 3 seconds from scaled values). The accuracy of
positions is probably six seconds in latitude and longitude.

Chart 4324 - chart is a renroduction of a former Admiraltv c.a~ ~~.~ - -- -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1927N.A.D. values add 4 seconds in latitude and subtract 2.0 seconds in
longitude to scaledvalues.The accuracy o~ po~itions isprobably sixseconds
in latitude and lon-itude.
Chart 4326 - chart is a reriroduction of a former Admiralt~ chart. To obtain
1927N.A.D. valuesaddl0.0 secondsin latitude and 2secondsin longitude.

Accuracy of positions is probably six seconds in latitude and longitude.
Chart 4330 - chart is a reproduction of a former Admiralty chart. To obtain
1927N.A.D. values subtract 1.0second in latitude and add 3.0 seconds in
longitude. Accuracy of positions is probably six seconds in latitude and
longitude.372 GULF OF MAINE

112. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA'

19April 1984.

In accordance with the announcement2 made at the close of this morning's
sitting by the President of the Chamber in the caseconcerningDelimi~ationofrhe
Maririme Boundaryin the Cul/ o/ Maine Area, 1 enclose herewith copies in
English and French of the questions' put al this stage by members of the
Chamber to one or other, or both. of the Parties.
You are at liberty to furnish your replies4either orally or in writing within the
framework of the hearing.

24 April 1984.

1have the honour to confirm our telephone conversation of 24 April 1984,
wherein 1 advised you that in view of recent developments which have placed
heavy demands upon the Court's schedule, and in view of Canada's desire to
take up as little of the Chamber's lime as possible inthe second round of the oral
proceedings in the case concerning the Delinlitationofthe Maritime Boundaryin
the Cul/of Maine Area, 1have decided not to further burden the situation by
asking the Chamber to view a film.
This decision was taken in order to facilitate the task of the Chamber in the

difficuli circumstances that have emerged, and does not represent any accep-
tance by Canada of the arguments made by the United States in its letter of
26 September 1983 and in ils subsequent correspondence concerning the
admissibiliiy of the film.
I have advised the Agent of the United States of America of this decision.

114. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENTOF CANADA'

25 April 1984.

Further to the letter of 19 April 1984 hy which 1 transmitted to you the
questionsput by members of the Chamber in the caseconcerning Delimitationof
the Maritime Boundar},in ihe Culjof Maine Area, 1 have Io inform you that
Judge Cohen desires to enlarge upon his fourth question.
A revixd text of Judge Cohen's questions is accordingly enclosed and 1shall
see that the annex6 to the verbatim record of the sitting of 19 April 1984 is
suitably amended.

' A letterin the rametermswas sent10 the Agent ofthe Governmentof the United
St'tSeeVI,ep.46û.
' SeeVI. pp.461465.
Seepp. 18,35,39,72, 139,161.211.234, 258,266,270,supra.
' A letterin thrame tcms war sentto theAgent of theGovernmentof the United
Statesof America.
"1. pp. 464-465. CORRESPONDENCE 373

QuestionsPur to the Parties by Judge Cohen

1.1sthere ;runif)ing, doniinant, lcgtl principlc thai is io pro\,idc ihc biisisfor
ihc Iocaiion <ifa singlem3ritime boundar) thai unites the old Continsntal Shelf
1)octrinc and ihe «Id Coast31 Fiihenes Docirinc to ihc ncu 200-milc7onc'?
2. 1sthe criticisn~of the cquidiriani meihod sudicienr ifIIrests on the cui-off
oiihc adiaceni neighbour'scoastal sharc ,ince e\cr) cquidistÿnt Iine, ilit is noi
exactlv in the centre of the concavitv. is bound to swing somewhat over to the
oiher ;ide'! '.Perpendic~lar" and .'sjuidistani" are \,er)-unlikely Io be the same
or ne:irly ihc same in rcal situations Wh31dcgrce of CUI-otfis ~cccpiriblc'!

3. Whai rtilçin faci and in Ixu does the Souihern ço;isiof Nova Scotia 3nd the
opposite Northern Coastof Massachusetts play, either with respect to the Gulf
or seaward?
4. Why have both Parties underplayed the role of joint management for al1
mobile transhoundary fishenes? In view of the long record of CO-operative
"manaeement" and common fact-findine in the carrvine out of both oarties'
obligacons under the Boundary Waters 6eaty of 195!iald hy the lnteiational
Joint Commission, would there no1have been a credible opportunity to examine
ioint manaeement of offshoremieratorv fisheriesand related bioloeicallenviron-
mental makers in the Gulf of ~aiie area - and conversely,-why must it
therefore be assumed that such CO-operativeor joint management of biological
resources would create more opportunities for disputes rather than avoid them,
given the record of both countries on similar matters under the International

Joint Commission; the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, etc.?

11.5. THE AGENT OF THE WVERNMENT OF CANAD.\ TO THE REGISTRAR

1 May 1984.

In accordance with Article 56of the Rules of Court, 1enclosethe documents
not previously produced by either Party to which Canada proposes to refer in
the second round of the oral proceedings inthe caseconcerning the Delimitarion
of the Maritime Boundaryin the Gulfof Maine Area.
Copies of documents not already in the possession ofthe United States have
been provided to the United States.

List of Dosumenis Proposed to Be Introduxd inio E\idence b) Ciinada dunng
the Second Round of ihc Oral Procerdings kiorc the Iniern3iion31Court of
Jusiicc in the Case conccrninc the Dr11n:irorion~f rhr MiiririnreBou~idursin rhr
-GUYof Maine ~re;

*I. Digicon - 1975Atlantic Ocean Group Map No. 53-1.
*2. Digicon - 1975Atlantic Ocean Group Map No. 53-2.
'3. Digicon - 1975Atlantic Ocean Group Map No. 53-3.
'4. Digicon - 1975Atlantic Ocean Group Map No. 53-4.
5. Letter of 16 August 1968 from H. F. Simmons. Shell Oil Company, to
Commander, Eastern Sea Frontier, United States Navy.
6. Letter of 18August 1968from H. F. Simmons,ShellOilCompany, to Harry
Dupont, Oil and Gas Supervisor, United States (;eological Survey.
7. Letters (Iwo) of 13 September 1968 from H. F. Simmons, Shell Oil
Company, to Harry Dupont, Oil and Gas Supervisor, United States
Geological Survey.374 GULF OF MAINE

8. R. G. Halliday: "Notes on the Status of Cod and Haddock Stocks of the
Scotian Shelf", ICNAF Res. Doc. 7317,Serial No. 2909 (D.c. 3). Annual
Meeting, June 1973.
9. Socio-Economic Review Panel: The I'enlure DevelopmenrProjecr, submit-
ted to the Canada-Nova Scotia OffShore Oil and Gas Board, Halifax,
January 1984.

Copies of thesemaps weredcposited with the Registryon 12December 1983.
The copies now beingdeposited wereobtained from an oil Companyand include
that company's colour codings and mileage calculations.

116. THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO THE REGISTRAR

4 May 1984

I have thc honour to enclosea document for deposit in accordance with Rule
56of the Rulesof Court, which Canada intends to useduring the second round
of the oral proceedings in the case concerning thDelimiraiionof ihe Maritime

Boundaryin the Gulfof Maine Area.
The document was provided 10Canada by the United States, and a copy of
this letter and the document has been forwarded to the Agent of the United
States.

Total Catch for the United States on Georges Bank for 1982.1983'
Sl~risrical nAreo TorolFinjsh sca/lops

1982

*Source: Northeast Fisheries Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts

5 May 1984.

1 have the honour to enclose, in accordance with Rule 60 of the Rules of
Court, the Final Submission' of Canada in the caseconcerning the Delimitation
of rheMaririme Boundaryin theGuljof Maine Area.

' See o.142,~uoro CORRESPONDENCE 375

118. THE AGENTOF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO THE REGISTRAR

8 May 1984

1have the honour to transmit herewith Canada's reply to the question' posed
by the President of the Chamber to Mr. Fortier on 5 May 1984.

Responseio the Questionof the Presidenr of rite Chamber. 5 May 1984

TheYarmouth Arch isa deep geological structure beginning under the middle
of Georges Bank. It trends from there northeastward IOthe Yarmouth area of
Nova Scotia (hence ils name). Some scientists consider that the Yarmouth Arch
demonstrates the continuity between Nova Scotia structural trends and those

under Georges Bank (J. A. Wade: "Stratigraphy <ifGeorges Bank Basin",
Canadian Counter-Memorial2, Annexes, Vol. 1,p. I<),para. 33 and note 34).
More important, the Yarmouth Arch is an uplifted fcature of older crustal
rocks that partially separates two basins of younger sedimentary rocks: namely,
the Scotian Basin, lying under the Scotian Shelf, the Northeast Channel and
eastern Georeeu Bank: and. Georees Bank Basin. lvin.,undeu western Georees L
Hank. ihc Great ~ouihCh;inncl aid ;ireÿj iurihcr rouihucrt. 11is iair IOs~y ihdt

uiihoui the Yarmouih Arch. ihcrc w~iuldbc n<isepsrrite Georges Ilxnk Basin,
and the Scoii3n Harinuould e\iend from Nc\vl'ounJIand IO south of Naniuckct.
Sedimeniary basins are significant because they coniain the geological features
in which hydrocarbons are found.
In light of these facts, the Canadian Memorial, Counter-Memonal and Reply
and Canada's argument in these oral proceedings have suggested that to the
extent discontinuities exist in the otherwise continuous continental shelf of

eastern North America, they are not under the Northeast Channel, but under
G~ore=~~Bank where the Scotian Basin and Georees~ ~ ~ Basin are oartiallv
scp3r~tcd. ;ilappriiiim:iicly the midille of ihe ~Jnk. by lhc ~armouih ~rch
(Canÿdi~nMcmorial '.pÿr;?.k0; C3n;idi:inCo.~niçr-\lcniori;iI'. p;ir;is 173-174;
C:in:idian Counler-Mcmorix12. Annexer. riiirJs 31. 38 and 10:Crinridl~n
Reply4, para. 168; VI, p. log).'
The Yarmouth Arch. the Scotian Basin and Georges Bank Basin are best
illustrated in Figure 16 of the Canadian Counter-Memorial (reproduced as

Figure 52 of the oral proceedings).

THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNIlFD STATES
TO THE REGISTRAR

8 May 1984.

In accordance with Article 56 of the Rules of Court, I enclose documents to
which the United States proposes to refer during the second round of the oral376 GULF OF MAINE

prowcdings in ihr caïc concrrning theDelrrrirrorrdrhr lilrirtmc Boundur,in
rhc,(;it/j<Mutne Areu. I ha\c aitachcd thc rcquirc<lceriitication'.
Copies of ihesc docum~nis hdve bccn pr~>viiledto Canada

1. Prci,iuusl) unpublishcd cdich si;iii,tics b) ,taiisticdI unit arelis for the
United Statcs of Arncriclion Cieixges Wiinkfur 1965-lYb3.
2. "Continental Shelf Houndarv Ne~otiation\ wiili C~niida". Januar) 1976.
Public paper of the Departm~nt of State.

3. "Maritime Boundary Negotiations with Canada", September 1976.Public
paper of the Department of State.
4. "Maritime Neeotiations with Canada: The Gulf of Maine Area". 17Mav
1977.Public piper of the Department of State.
5. Jamieson, G. S., M. J. Lundy, G. L. Kerr, and N. B. Witherspoon, Fishev
Characrerisiics andSrock Status oJ Georges BankScallops, CAFSAC
Research Document 81/70, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, Halifax, 1982.
6. Peart, T. F.,StructureConducfand Performanceof Atlantic FishingEnter-
prisesand FinancingIrrstitutions(1968-77) TogetherwithGovernmentPolicy
O~iionsfor Fleei Financinr Assistance.over Pcriod 1978-1985. .Deo.. of
~ishenes and ~nvironrnenc October 1978.
7. La Forest, G. V.: "Canadian lnland Waters of the Atlantic Provinces and
the Bayof Fundy Incident", I TheCanadianYearbookofInternational Lans
(1963).OD. 149-171.
, rr
8.intcrniiiiundl Norihueri Atlantic Fisherirs Confcrcnce, hlinutcs of the Fifth
Session, DOC ?O,Zn 1dnu;ir) 1940.
Y. Intrrnütionlil Northwest Atlïniic Fishsrics Confcrencc. Xlinutcs 01'the
Ninth Session, DOC/28, 1 February 1949.
10. Centre for International Studies, The International Joint Commission
Seventy YearsOn, Robert Spencer, John Kirton, Kim Richard Nossal,
eds., University of Toronto Press, 1981.
11. Leigh, Michael, EuropeanInregraiion andthe CommonFisheriesPolicy,
Croomhelm Ltd., Kent, England, 1981.

lm. THE AGENTOF THE MVERNMENT OF CANADA TO THE REGISTRAR

8 May 1984.

In reviewingthe statements made on behalf of Caitada on the closing day of
our second round, 1 have discovered that certain errors found their way into
three of these statements at the last minute.
The first error occurred in my concluding statement (p. 140, supra).In the
verbatim record, you will find a sentence reading as follows"Secondly, when
the Parties estahlished their 200-milefishing zones in 1976,they both took the
position that the lateral limitsof thesezones inthe Gulf of Maine area shobed
the same as those applicable Io the continental shelf." This sentence should have
read: "Secondly, when the Parties took the first steps toward the establishment

of their 200-mile fishery zones in 1976, they hoth look the position that thelateral limits of these zones in the Gulf of Maine area should be the same as
those applicable to the continental shelf."
The second error occurred in the statement concerning the conduct of the
Parties (p. 109,supra). In the verbatim record, you willfinda sentencereading as
follows: "This line wasput on the map by the oil company which provided the

map when they applied to the United States Government for permits." This
sentence should have read "This line wasput on the map by the oil company
which provided the map and applied to the United States Government for
permits."
The third error occurred in the statement concerning proportionality (p. 133,
suora). In the verbatim record. vou will find two sentences readine as follows:
'.[CSeaux de la haie Jc F'und) ont donc Icméme,t.itut juridiqucjue les rauh
rele\ant de la 7oneJc pkhc de200 millc,. Etc'estîusri bienpour IcJriiii interne
canadien au'sux ciïcts du droit international " Th15ihould hxvc bccn a sinile
sentence and should have read as follows: "Les eaux de la haie de Fundy ont
donc en ce qui concerne la ligne de fermeture le mêniestatut juridique que les
eaux relevant de la zone de pêchede 200 milles,et ce tant pour le droit interne
canadien que pour le droit international."
These errors, of course, were entirelyinadvertent. It is incumbent upon me as

Agent for Canada to bring them to your attention and request that you also
brine them to the attention of the Chamber and of the other Partv. torether with
my bynccreregrets for any mi~underst~ndingthcy ma' ha\e sau;ed. ishuuld he
mosi gratcful if thc nccessarycorrections could be madc to the i,erhdiirnrecord
in due course.

121. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE WVERNMZNT OF CANADA

8 May 1984.

1have the honour to acknowledge the communication on 5 May 1984,with
reference to Article 60 of the Rules of Court, of the written text of the Final
Submission of Canada in the case concerning Delimirarion of the Maririme
Boundary in the Guifof Maine Area.
A copy of that tex1has heen transmitted to the Agent of the United Statesof
America.

122. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMFNT OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA

9 May 1984.

1have the honour to transmit to you herewith a copy of a written reply' hy
Canada to the question put to MI. Fortier, counsel for Canada, on 5 May 1984
by the President of the Chamber fomed to deal with the case concerning
Delimirarionof the Maritime Boundaryin the Guifof Maine Area. This reply was
transmitted to me hy the Agent of Canada yesterday.

' SeeNo. 118,supra378 GULF OF MAINE

123.THE AGENT OFTHE GOVERNMENTOFTHE UNITED STATFSOF AMERICA
m THE REGISTRAR

II May 1984.

1have the honor to provide 10you, in accordance with Rule60of the Rulesof
Court. the Final Submissions' of the United States of America in the case
conccrning ihcUelrni~rati~oj'rhcMurttrmr.BotinJunin rheGuifuj .%luinArtvi
A cop) ni ihis letter has been provided to the Agent for Cana&.

124.THEREGISTRARTOTHEAGENTOFTHEGOVERNMENTOF CANADA

II May 1984.

1have the honour to transmit 10you herewith a copy of a letter dated 1I May
1984 from the Agent of the United States of America in the case concerning
Delimitationof rheMaritime Boundaryin theGulfof Maine Area,and of the tex1
of the final submissions of the United States in that case, enclosed with the
Agent's letter.

125. LtlTER OF THE AGEhT OFTHE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO THE AGENT
OFTHE GOVERNMENTOF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TRANSMITEO
m THE REGISTRAR

1I May 1984.

Iam writing with referenceto the statement made byAmbassador Stevenson,
on 9 May 1984, on hehalf of the United States in the case conceming
Delimirarionof rheMaritime Boundaryin rheGuifof Moine Area.
In a section of his statement entitled "The Chamber Should Take into
Account the Possible Ex~ansion of Coastal-State Jurisdiction in the Area",
Ambassadnr Stc\,enson p~ofesscdconcern about ihe hypothrsi, ihït the United
States might somehou bepu1"in the position oiïrguing uiih Canada ahoui Our

n~hts to nd\,ie,ateihrouah and overily thç ared" noriheïst of the Iincclainied hy
canada (p. 204, supraj or, presumably, any other line to be fixed by the
Chamber as the single maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine area. Such
concern is quite unfounded. The purpose of this letter is to reaffirm, if such
reaffirmation is truly required, that Canada recognizes the rights of navigation
and ovemight within the 200-mile exclusiveeconomic zone as these rights are
defined in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and
reflected in customary international law.

' Seepp. 272-274supra 126. THE REGISTRA RO THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMIlN OF THE UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA'
(telex)

5 October 1984

1wish to inform you that the Chamber of the Court constituted in the case
Belimitationof the Maritime Boundaryin the Gulf of Maine Area
concerning
(CanadalUnited States of Amerka) will hold a public sitting on Friday
12October 1984 for the purpose of delivering its judgment2.

5 décembre 1984

Le Greffier de la Cour internationale de Justice aonneur de transmettre ci-
joint un exemplaire de I'arrêtrendu le 12 octobre 1984 par la Chambre
constituéepar la Cour internationale de Justice pour connaitre de i'afaire de la
DPIimitationde lafrontière marilimedansla régiondugolfedu Maine.

' A communicationin the samc terms was sent to the Agenofthe Governmentof
Canada.
I.C.J. Rrporr1984,p. 246.
' Une communication analoguea étéadresséeauxautres Etats MembresdesNations
Uniesetaux Etatsnon membres desNationsUniesadmis à esterdevantlCour. Leméme
envoia été faituSecrétairgénéradle I'Organisatiandes NationsUnies.