COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES
AFFAIRE DE LA DÉLIMITATION
DE LA FRONTIÈRE MARITIME
DANS LA RÉGION DU GOLFE DU MAINE
ARRETDU 12 OCTOBRE1984RENDU PAR LA CHAMBRE
CONSTITUÉEPAR ORDONNANCEDE LA COUR
DU 20 JANVIER1982
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS
CASE CONCERNING DELIMITATION
OF THE MARITIME BOUNDARY
IN THE GULF OF MAINE AREA
(CANADA/UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
JUDGMENT OF 12 OCTOBER1984GNEN BY THE CHAMBER
CONSTITüTED BY THE ORDERMADE BY THECOURT
ON 20 JANUARY 1982 Mode officiel de ci:ation
Délimitationde lafrontièremaritime dans la régiondu golfe du Maine,
arrêt,I.J. Recueil 1984,p. 246.
Officia1cita:ion
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary inthe Gulf of Maine Area,
Judgment1.C.J. Reports 1984,p. 246.
"ode vente:505 1
Sales nurnber INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
YEAR 1984 1984
12October
General List
12 October 1984 No. 67
CASE CONCERNING DELIMITATION
OF THE MARITIME BOUNDARY IN
THE GULF OF MAINE AREA
(CANADA/UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
SpecialAgreementbetweenCanadaand the UnitedStates ofAmerica requesting
a chamberof the Court to draw, in the Gulfof Maine area,a single line to delimit
both the continentalshelf and the 200-mile exclusivefishery zone- Delimitation
between a predefined point anda predefined area - Jurisdiction of the Cham-
ber.
Delimitationarea - Zone betweenthecoastsof the Gulfand outerzone - Local
physicalandpoliticalgeography - Rejectionofthedistinctionbetweenprimary and
secondaty coasts- Unityandcontinuityofthecontinentalshelf- Superjacentwater
massanddistributionofitsfishery resources-Arguments ofthePartiesconcerning
human and economicgeography.
Originsanddevelopmentofthedispute - Issue bythePartiesofpermitsforpetrol
and gas exploration - Divergences apparentin the correspondence betweenthe
authoritiesofthetwoGovernmentswithregardtothecontinentalshelf- Creationby
both States of a 200-mile exclusivefishety zone Extension of the dispute to this
zone - Interim jïsheries agreements and unilateral delimitatioproposais.
Rulesandprinciplesofinternationallawgoverningthematter - Treatyrulesand
rulesofcustomaty internationallaw - 1958Conventionon the ContinentalShelj-
Enunciation of afundamental principle of law and simultaneousprescription of a
technicalmethod tobe appliedto the delimitation in certaincircumstances- Basic
rule supplied by customaty international law and contribution of international
jurisprudenceto itsformation - Conventionadoptedin 1982by the Third United
Nations Conferenceon the Law of the Sea - Fundamental normrecognizedby the
Parties - Redefinition of such norm - Absence in internationallaw of a body of
detailed rules concerningthe delimitation of the maritimeprojections of adjacent
States.
Equitablecriteriaandpractical methodsapplicabletothedelimitation - Method
definedbyArticle 6,paragraphs1and2, ofthe 1958 Conventiononthe Continental GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 247
Shelf inforce betweenthe Parties - Equitablecriterionunderiyingthis method -
Applicationof the methodofArticle 6 mandatoryif the only questionweredelimi-
tation of the continentalshelf - Need in the present caseto delimit both the
continentalshelf and thesuperjacent watermass - Rejection of the argument that
application of the method of Article 6 should be mandatoryfor any maritime
delimitationasparticularexpressionof a generalnorm of customaryinternational
law - Rejection of the argument that the methodin questionis obligatoryin the
present casebyacquiescenceorestoppel - Equitablecriteriawhichcouldbeapplied
and practicalmethods which could beused - Selection accordingto the specific
requirementsof the case - Applicationof criteriaand methodsbasedprimariiy on
geography.
Examination of theproposeddelimitation linessuccessivelyput forward by the
Parties.
Criteriaand methodsadopted bythe Chamber - Single delimitation linedrawn
accordingly - Constructionof such line in three segments.
Verificationoftheequitablecharacteroftheresult - Non-existenceinthepresent
caseofany realdangerofinequitableconsequences - Needfor CO-operatiob netween
the Parties.
JUDGMENT
Present : Judge AGO, President of the Chamber; Judges GROS,MOSLER,
SCHWEBEL ; Judge ad hoc COHEN ;Registrar TORRES BERNARDEZ.
In the case concerningdelimitation of the maritime boundary in the Gulf of
Maine area,
between
Canada,
represented by
The Honorable Mr. Mark MacGuigan, P.C., Q.C.,M.P., Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada,
H.E. Mr. L. H. Legault, Q.C., Ambassador, Legal Adviser, Department of
External Affairs,
as Agent and Counsel,
Mr. Blair Hankey, Department of External Affairs,
as Deputy-Agent and Counsel,
Mr. L. Alan Willis, Department of Justice,
as Counsel and SpecialAdviser,
Mr. W. 1.C. Binnie,Q.C., AssociateDeputy Minister,Department of Justice,
Mr. DerekW.Bowett,Q.C.,WhewellProfessorof International Law, Queens'
College,Cambridge, GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 248
Mr. Ian Brownlie,Q.C., D.C.L., F.B.A., Chichele Professor of Public Inter-
national Law in the University of Oxford, Fellow of Al1Souls College,
Oxford,
Mr. Yves Fortier, Q.C., Member of the Quebec Bar, Past President of the
Canadian Bar Association,
Mr. Gunther Jaenicke, Professor of International Law at the University of
Frankfurt-am-Main,
Mr. Ronald St. J. Macdonald, Q.C., Dalhousie University,
Mr. Antonio Malintoppi, University of Rome (deceased, 29 May 1984),
Mr. ProsperWeil,professeur à l'université dedroit,d'économieet de sciences
socialesde Paris,
as Counsel,
Mr. Lawrence Herman, Member of the Ontario and Saskatchewan Bars,
Mr. D. M. McRae, Professor, Universityof British Columbia,
Miss Jan Schneider, Member of the New York and District of Columbia
Bars,
as Senior Legal Advisers,
Commander E. J. Cooper, Consultant in Maritime Boundary Delimitation,
Ottawa,
Mr. M. Sinclair, Halifax Fisheries ResearchLaboratory, Department of
Fisheries and Oceans,
as Experts,
Mr. A. R. Longhurst, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Dartmouth,
Mr. R. D. W. Macdonald, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa,
Mr. M. P. Shepard, Fisheries Consultant, Victoria,
Mr. D. F. Sherwin,Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa,
Ms. Patricia Smith, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa,
Mr. R. Trites, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Dartmouth,
as Scientificand Technical Advisers,
Mr. Ross Hornby, Department of External Affairs,
Ms. Valerie Hughes, Member of the Ontario Bar,
Ms. Sarita Verma, Department of External Affairs,
as Legal Advisers,
Mr. C. Hanson Dowell, Q.C., SpecialAdviser, Government of Nova Sco-
tia,
Mr. D. A. MacLean, Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries,Govemment
of Nova Scotia,
Mr. Henri LégaréD , eputy Minister,Department of Fisheries,Government of
New Brunswick,
as Advisers,
Ms. Anne Brennan, Department of External Affairs,
as Administrative Secretary, and
the United States of America,
represented by
The Honorable Davis R. Robinson, LegalAdviser,United States Department
of State,
as Agent and Counsel,
Mr. David A. Colson, Assistant Legal Adviser for Oceans, International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Office of the Legal Adviser, United
States Department of State,
as Deputy-Agent and Counsel,
Mr. Bruce C. Rashkow, Director of the Office of Canadian Maritime Boun-
dary Adjudication, Office of the Legal Adviser, United States Department
of State,
as Special Counsel,
The Honorable John R. Stevenson, Member of the Bars of New York and
District of Columbia,formerly LegalAdviser,United States Department of
State,and formerly United StatesAmbassador to theThird United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea,
Mr. Mark B. Feldman, Member of the Bars of New York and the District of
Columbia, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown UniversityLaw Center,
Washington, D.C., and formerly Deputy LegalAdviser, Officeof the Legal
Adviser, United States Department of State,
Mr. Ralph 1. Lancaster, Member of the Bars of Maine and Massachusetts,
Regent for Canadaand the New England Statesof theAmerican Collegeof
Trial Lawyers, and formerly President of the Maine Bar Association,
Mr. JohnNorton Moore, Memberof the Barsof Florida, Illinois, Virginiaand
theDistrict ofColumbia, Walter L.BrownProfessorof Lawand Director of
theCenter of Oceans Lawand Policy,University ofVirginia Schoolof Law,
formerly Counselor on International Law, Office of the Legal Adviser,
United States Department of State, and formerly United States Ambassa-
dor to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea,
Mr. Stefan Riesenfeld, Member of the Bar of Minnesota, Professor of Law,
University of California, School of Law, Berkeley, California, and the
Hastings Collegeof the Law, San Francisco, California, S.J.D. (Harvard),
J.U.D. (Breslau), Dott. in Giur. (Milano), and formerly Counselor on
International Law, Officeof the LegalAdviser, United States Department
of State,
as Counsel,
Lieutenant-Commander Peter Ward Cornfort, Judge Advocate General's
Corps, United States Navy, on detail to the Office of Canadian Maritime
BoundaryAdjudication, Officeof the LegalAdviser,United States Depart-
ment of State,
Mr. MichaelJohn Danaher, Officeof theAssistant LegalAdviserfor Oceans,
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Office of the Legal
Adviser, United States Department of State,Ms. Mary Wild Ennis, Officeof Canadian Maritime Boundary Adjudication,
Office of the Legal Adviser, United States Department of State,
Lieutenant Neil F. Gitin, Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States
Naval Reserve,on detail to the Office of Canadian Maritime Boundary
Adjudication, Office of the Legal Adviser, United States Department of
State,
Mr. Ray A. Meyer, Office of Canadian Maritime Boundary Adjudication,
Office of the LegalAdviser, United States Department of State,
as Attorney-Advisers,
Lieutenant Brian P. Flanagan, United States Coast Guard, on detail to the
Office of Canadian Maritime Boundary Adjudication, Office of the Legal
Adviser, United States Department of State,
Mr. Richard H. Davis, Supervisory Cartographer, Marine Chart Division,
National Ocean Service,National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration, United States Department of Commerce,
Mr. William Hezlep, Officeof the Geographer, Bureau of Intelligence and
Research, United States Department of State,
Mr.Jonathan T. Olsson, Officeof theGeographer, Bureauof Intelligenceand
Research, United States Department of State,
Ms. Sandra Shaw, Chief, Cartography Division, Officeof the Geographer,
Bureau of Intelligence and Research, United States Department of
State,
Mr. Robert W. Smith,Chief, International Boundary and ResourceDivision,
Office of the Geographer, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, United
States Department of State,
as Special Advisers,
Mr. Robert L. Edwards, SpecialAssistant to the Assistant Administrator of
Fisheries, Northeast Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, United States
Department of Commerce,
as Expert,
Assisted by
Mr. Steven J.Burton, Professor of Law, University of Iowa Collegeof Law,
Iowa City, Iowa,
Mr. Jonathan Charney, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Schoolof
Law, Nashville, ~ennessee,
Mr. Ralph J. Gillis, Member of the Bars of Massachusetts and the District of
Columbia, Plymouth, Massachusetts,
Mr. Bernard H. Oxman, Professor of Law, University of Miami, Schoolof
Law, Miami, Florida,
Mr.Ted L.Stein, Professorof Law, University ofWashington, Schoolof Law,
Seattle, Washington,
as Legal Consultants, Mr. Geoffrey Bannister,Dean of the Collegeof Liberal Arts and the Graduate
School, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts,
Mr. Louis DeVorsey, Jr., Professor of Geography, University of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia,
Mr. K. O. Emery, Henry Bryant BigelowOceanographer, Woods Hole Ocea-
nographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts,
Mr. Richard C. Hennemuth, Laboratory Director, Woods Hole Laboratory,
Northeast Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service,National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Depart-
ment of Commerce,
Mr. James Kirkley, Woods Hole Laboratory, Northeast Fisheries Center,
National Marine Fisheries Service,National Oceanographic and Atmos-
pheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce,
Mr. Kim D. Klitgord, Geophysicist, United States Geological Survey,United
States Department of the Interior,
Mr. Daniel McFadden, James R. Killian Professor of Economics, Massachu-
setts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
Mr. Richard B. Morris, Gouverneur Morris Professor of History, Columbia
University, New York, New York,
Lieutenant-Commander Robert Pawlowski,CommissionedCorps,Northeast
Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceano-
graphic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of
Commerce,
Mr.Giulio Pontecorvo,Professorof Economics,Graduate SchoolofBusiness,
Columbia University, New York, New York,
Mr.John S.Schlee,Geologist,United States Geological Survey,United States
Department of the Interior,
Mr. William L. Sullivan,Jr., PolicyAdviser for InternationalMarine Affairs,
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, United States
Department of Commerce,
Mr. Manik Talwani, Geological Consultant, Houston, Texas,
Mr. Elazar Uchupi, Senior Scientist, Geologyand Geophysics Department,
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts,
Mr. James Wilson, Professor of Economics, University of Maine, Orono,
Maine,
Mr.Julian Wolpert, Henry G. Bryant Professorof Geography, Public Affairs,
and Urban Planning, Woodrow Wilson Schoolof Public and International
Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey,
as Advisers,
THECHAMBE OF THE INTERNATION CAOURT OFJUSTICE formed to dealwith
the case above mentioned,
composed as above,
after deliberation, GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 252
deliversthefollowingJudgment :
1. By a joint letter dated 25 November 1981, filed in the Registry of the
Court the same day, the Ambassador of Canada to the Netherlands and the
Ambassador of the United States of Amenca to the Netherlands transmitted
to the Registrar a certified copy of a Special Agreement dated 29 March
1979, and subsequently modified, by which Canada and the United States
of America agreed to submit to a Chamber of the Court, composed of five
persons, to be constituted pursuant to Article 26, paragraph 2, and Article 31
of the Statute of the Court, and in accordance with the Special Agreement, a
question as to the course of the singlemaritime boundary that divides the con-
tinental shelf and fisheries zones of the two Parties in the Gulf of Maine area.
Bythe sameletter, theGovernment of Canada alsonotified the Court, in accord-
ance with Article 35 of the Rules of Court, of its intention to exercise the
power conferred by Article 31 of the Statute of the Court to choose a judge
ad hoc.
2. By a letter dated 18 December 1981,the Acting President of the Court
requested the Agents of both Parties to submit to the Court, in writing, supple-
mentary explanations or clarifications on a number of points relating to, inter
alia, certain provisions of the Special Agreement. The relevant explanations or
clarifications were given in a letter from the Ambassadors of both Parties at
The Hague, dated 6 January 1982 and filed in the Registry on 8 January
1982.
3. By an Order dated 20 January 1982, the Court, having considered the
above-mentioned letter,wasoftheopinion that therepliescontained in itwereto
be read togetherwith the terms of the SpecialAgreementfor the purposes of this
case,and decided to accede to therequestof theGovernments of Canada and the
United States of Amenca to form a special Chamber of fivejudges to deal with
the case, declared that Judges Gros,Ruda, Mosler, Agoand Schwebelhad been
electedto the Chamber, noted that theActing President of the Court, in exercise
of his powers under Article 31, paragraph 4, of the Statute of the Court, had
requested Judge Ruda to giveplacein duecourseto thejudge adhocto be chosen
by the Government of Canada,and that Judge Ruda had indicated hisreadiness
to do so, and declared that a Chamber to deal with the case had been duly
constituted by the Order with the composition indicated therein.
4. By a letter dated 26 January 1982, the Ambassador of Canada at The
Hague, referringto Article 31of the Statute and Article 35of the Rules of Court,
informed the Court that theperson chosenby Canada to sitasjudge ad hocin the
case was Professor MaxwellCohen ;by a letter from the Agent of the United
Statesdated 26January 1982the Court wasinformed that the United Stateshad
no observations to make on that choice.
5. The text of the Special Agreement of 29 March 1979is as follows:
"The Government of Canada and the Government of theUnited Statesof
America,
Recognizing that they have been unable to resolve by negotiation the
differences between them concerning the delimitation of the continental
shelfand thefisherieszonesof Canadaand the United States ofAmerica in
the Gulf of Maine area,
Desiring to reach an early and amicable settlement of these differ-
ences, Have agreed as follows :
Article 1
The Parties shallsubmit the question posed in Article II to a Chamber of
the International Court of Justice, composed of five persons, to be consti-
tuted after consultation with the Parties, pursuant to Article 26 (2) and
Article 31 of the Statute of the Court and in accordance with this Special
Agreement.
Article II
1. The Chamber is requested to decide,in accordancewith the principles
and rules of international law applicable in the matter as between the
Parties, the following question :
What is the course of the single maritime boundary that divides the
continental shelf and fisheries zonesof Canada and the United States of
America from a point in latitude 44" 11'12"N, longitude 67" 16'46" W
to a point to be determined by the Chamber within an area bounded by
straight lines connecting the following sets of geographic coordinates :
latitude 40" N, longitude 67" W ; latitude 40" N, longitude 65" W ;
latitude 42" N, longitude 65" W ?
2. The Chamber is requested to describe the course of the maritime
boundary in terms of geodetic lines, connecting geographic coordinates of
points. The Chamber is also requested, for illustrative purposes only, to
depictthecourse of theboundaryon Canadian Hydrographic ServiceChart
No. 4003 and United States National Ocean Survey Chart No. 13006,in
accordance with Article IV.
3. The Parties shall request the Chamber to appoint a technical expert
nominated jointly by the Parties to assist it in respect of technical matters
and, in particular, in preparing the description of the maritime boundary
and the charts referred to in paragraph 2. The Registrar is requested to
provide the expert with copies of each Party's pleadings whensuch plead-
ingsare communicated to the other Party. The expert shallbepresent at the
oral proceedings and shall be available for such consultations with the
Chamber as it may deem necessary for the purposes of this Article.
4. The Parties shallaccept asfinaland binding upon them the decisionof
the Chamber rendered pursuant to this Article.
Article III
1. South and Westof the maritime boundary to be determined by the
Chamber in accordance with this SpecialAgreementCanada shallnot, and
north and east ofsaidmaritimeboundary the United StatesofAmerica shall
not, claim or exercise sovereign rightsorjurisdiction for any purpose over
the waters or seabed and subsoil.
2. Nothing in this Special Agreement shall affectthe position of either
Party with respect to the legalnature and seaward extent of the continental GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 254
shelf, of fisheriesjurisdiction, or of sovereignrights orjurisdiction for any
other purpose under international law.
Article IV
The Chamber and any technical expert or experts are requested to utilize,
and the Parties in their presentations to the Chamber shall utilize, the
following technical provisions :
(a) Al1geographiccoordinates ofpoints referred to shalIberendered on the
1927North American Datum.
(b) Al1straight linesshallbegeodeticlines.Curvedlines,including parallels
of latitude, ifnecessaryforthejudgment, shallbecomputed on the 1927
North American Datum.
(c) Notwithstanding the fact that the Parties utilize different vertical
datums in the Gulf of Mainearea, the twodatums shallbe deemed to be
common.
(d) Should reference to the low water baseline of either Party be required,
the most recent largest scalecharts published by the Party concerned
shall be utilized.
(e) If a point or points on a particular chart are not on the 1927North
American Datum, the Chamber shall request the Agent of the appro-
priate Party to fumish the Chamber with the corrected datum
points.
(fl Inrecognition of thefact that theParties do not utilizethe samestandard
set of symbols on nautical charts, the Chamber, or any technical expert
orexperts shall,if necessary,conferwith the Agentsand their advisersto
insure proper interpretation of the symbol or feature.
(g) The Chamber, or any technicalexpert or experts, is requested to consult
with the Parties as maybe necessaryconcerninganycommon computer
programs of the Parties for technical calculations, and to utilize such
programs as appropriate.
Article V
1. Neither Party shall introduce into evidence or argument, or publicly
disclose in any manner, the nature or content of proposals directed to a
maritime boundaries settlement, or responses thereto, in the course of
negotiations or discussions between the Parties undertaken since 1969.
2. Each of the Parties shall notify and consult the other prior tointro-
ducing into evidence or argument diplomatic or other confidential corres-
pondence between Canada and the United States of America related to the
issue of maritime boundaries delimitation.
Article VI
1. Without prejudice to any question as to burden of proof, the Parties
shallrequest the Chamber to authorize the followingprocedure with regard
to the written pleadings : (a) a Memorial to be submitted by each Party not later than sevenmonths
after the Registrar shall have receivedthe notification of thename or
names of the judge or judges ad hoc ;
(b) a Counter-Memorial to be submitted by each Party not later than six
months after the exchange of Memorials ;and
(c) any further pleadings found by the Chamber to be necessary.
2. The Chamber may extend these time-limits at the request of either
Party.
3. The written pleadings submitted to the Registrar shall not be com-
municated to the other Party until the correspondingpleading of that Party
has been received bythe Registrar.
Article VI1
1. Following the decision of the Chamber, either Party may request
negotiationsdirected toward reachingagreement on extension of the mari-
time boundary as far seaward as the Parties may consider desirable.
2. If the Parties have not reached agreement on the extension of the
maritime boundary within one year of the date of such a request, either
Party may notify the other of its intention to submit the question of the
seawardextensionof themaritimeboundaryfor decisionby abinding third
party settlement procedure.
3. If the Parties areunable to agree on the terms of such a submission
within three months of such a notification, either Party may submit the
questionoftheseaward extensionofthemaritimeboundary to the Chamber
of fivejudges constituted in accordance with this Special Agreement.
4. The provisions of this Special Agreement shallbe applied, mutatis
mutandis, to the proceedings under this Article, and the decision of the
Chamber shall be final and binding upon the Parties.
Article VIII
This SpecialAgreement shallenter into forceon thedate of theentry into
force of the Treaty between the Government of Canada and the Govern-
ment of the United States of America to Submit to BindingDispute Settle-
ment the Delimitation of theMaritime Boundaryin theGulf of MaineArea
signed thisday. It shall remain in force unlessand until its terminated in
accordance with the provisionsof the said Treaty or until the said Treaty is
terminated."
6. Pursuant to Article 40,paragraph 3, of the Statute and to Article 42of the
Rules of Court, copies of the notification and Special Agreement weretrans-
mitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Members of the
United Nations and other States entitled to appear before the Court.
7. Byan Order madeby theCourt on 1February 1982pursuant to Article92
of the Rules of Court, and thereafter by Orders made by the President of the
Chamber on 28July 1982,5November 1982,and 27July 1983,time-limits were
fixed or extended for the filing of Memorials and Counter-Memorials, and the
filingof Replies wasfound to be necessaryand a time-lirnitfixed therefor. TheMemorials,Counter-Memorialsand Repliesof thePartiesweredulyfiled within
the time-limits so fixed or extended.
8. Byan Order made by the Chamber on 30 March 1984Commander Peter
BryanBeazleywasappointed astechnical expertto assisttheChamberin respect
of 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. Beforetaking up his duties, the technical expert made a
solemn declaration, the text of which was setout in the Order.
9. On 2-6, 10-13, 16,18-19April and 3-5 and 9-11 May 1984,the Chamber
heldpublic sittingsat which it wasaddressedby the followingrepresentativesof
the Parties:
For Canada : H.E. Mr. L. H. Legault,
The Hon. Mr. M. MacGuigan, P.C., Q.C.,
M.P.,
Mr. B. Hankey,
Mr. W. 1.C. Binnie, Q.C.,
Mr. Y. Fortier, Q.C.,
Mr. 1.Brownlie,Q.C.,
Mr. D. W. Bowett, Q.C.,
Mr. P. Weil,
Mr. A. Malintoppi,
Mr. G. Jaenicke.
For the United States of America : The Hon. Mr. D. R. Robinson,
Mr. J. R. Stevenson,
Mr. D. Colson,
Mr. M. Feldman,
Mr. K. Lancaster,
Mr. B. Rashkow,
Mr. S. Riesenfeld.
TheGovernmentof theUnited Statescalledanexpert, Mr. R.Edwards,whowas
questioned by Mr. Lancaster, counsel for the United States, and Mr. Fortier,
counsel for Canada.
10. In the course of the hearings questions were put to both Parties by
membersoftheChamber. Prior to thecloseofthehearings,oralorwritten replies
to those questions were given by the Agents or counsel of the Parties.
11. The Governments of the United Kingdomand Bangladesh,in relianceon
Article53,paragraph 1,of the Rulesof Court, askedto be furnished with copies
of the pleadings and annexed documents in the case. By letters of 6 and 13
December 1982,after the viewsof the Parties had been sought, and objection
made by them, the Registrar informed those Governments that the President of
the Chamber had decided that it wouldnot be appropriate togrant the requests
of those two Governments at that time. On 2April 1984the Chamber decided,
after ascertainingthe viewsof the Partiespursuant to Article 53,paragraph 2,of
the Rules of Court, that the pleadings and annexed documents should be made
accessible to the public, and available to third States, with effect from the
opening of the oral proceedings, and they were thus at the same time made
available to the States mentioned above. 12. In the course of the written proceedings, the following Subrnissions were
presented by the Parties :
On behaif of Canada,
in the Memorial :
"In viewof the facts and arguments set out in this Memorial,
May it please the Court to declareand adjudge that :
The course of the single maritime boundary referred to in the Special
AgreementconcludedbyCanada and theUnited Stateson 29March 1979is
definedby geodeticlinesconnectingthefollowinggeographicalcoordinates
of points :
44" 11'12" N 67" 16'46" W
44" 08' 51" N 67" 16'20" W
43" 59' 12" N 67" 14'34" W
43" 49' 49" N 67" 12' 30"W
43" 49' 29" N 67" 12' 43"W
43" 37' 33" N 67" 12'24" W
43" 03' 58" N 67" 23' 55" W
42" 54' 44"N .67" 28' 35"W
42" 20' 37" N 67" 45' 36"W
41" 56'42" N 67" 51' 29"W
41" 22' 07" N 67" 29'09" W
40" 05' 36"N 66" 41' 59" W ;
in the Counter-Memorial :
"In viewofthefacts and argumentssetout intheCanadian Memorial and
in this Counter-Memorial,
May itplease the Court,rejectingal1contrary claimsand Submissions set
forth in the United States Memorial,
To declareand adjudgethat :
The course of the single maritime boundary referred to in the Special
AgreementconcludedbyCanada and theUnited Stateson29March 1979is
definedby geodeticlinesconnectingthefollowinggeographicalcoordinates
of points :"
[herefollows a list of coordinates identicalto those in the Memoria;]
in the Reply :
"In viewofthefactsand argumentssetout in the Canadian Memorial,the
Canadian Counter-Memorial and in this Reply,
May itplease the Court,rejectingal1contrary claimsand Submissions set
forth in the United States Memorial and Counter-Memorial,
To declareand adjudge that :
The course of the single maritime boundary referred to in the Special
Agreement concluded byCanadaand theUnited Stateson29March 1979is
definedby geodeticlinesconnectingthe followinggeographicalcoordinates
of points:"
[herefollows a list of coordinates identicalto those in the Memorial]. GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT)
On beha[fof the United States,
in the Memorial :
"In viewofthe facts set forth in Part 1of this Memorial, the statement of
the lawcontained in Part II of this Memorial,and the application of the law
to the facts as stated in Part III of this Memorial ;
Consideringthat the Special Agreement between the Parties requests the
Court, in accordance with the principles and rules of international law
applicable in the matter as between the Parties, to decide the courseof the
single maritime boundary that divides the continental shelf and fisheries
zones of theUnited States of Amenca and Canada from a point in latitude
44" 11'12"N, longitude 67" 16' 46"W to a point to be determined by this
Court withinan areabounded by straight linesconnectingthe followingsets
of coordinates :latitude 40" N, longitude 67" W ;latitude 40" N, longitude
65" W ; latitude 42' N, longitude 65" W ;
May it please the Court,on behalf of the United States of America, to
adjudgeand declare :
A. Concerning the applicablelaw
1. That delimitation of a single maritime boundary requires the appli-
cation of equitable principles, taking into account the relevant circum-
stances in the area, to produce an equitable solution.
2. That the equitable principles to be applied in this case include :
(a) the principle that the delimitation respect the relationship between the
relevant coasts of the Parties and the maritime areas lying in front of
those coasts, including nonencroachment, proportionality, and, where
appropriate, natural prolongation ;
(b) the principle that the delimitation facilitate conservation and manage-
ment of the natural resources of the area ;
(c) the principle that the delimitation minimize the potential for disputes
between the Parties ; and
(d) The principle that the delimitation take account of the relevant circum-
stances in the area.
3. That the equidistance method is not obligatory on the Parties or
preferred, either by treaty or as a rule of customary international law, and
that any method or combination of methods of delimitation may be used
that produces an equitable solution.
B. Concerning the relevant circumstancesto be taken into account
1. That the relevant geographical circumstances in the area include :
(a) the broad geographical relationship of the Parties as adjacent
States ;
(b) the general northeastern direction of the east Coastof North America,
both within the Gulf of Maine and seaward of the Gulf ;(c) the location of the international boundary terminus in the northern
corner of the Gulf of Maine ;
(d) the radical changesin the direction of the Canadian coast beginning at
the Chignecto Isthmus, 147miles northeast of the international boun-
dary terminus ;
(e) theprotrusion oftheNova Scotiapeninsula 100nautical milessoutheast
of the international boundary terminus, creating a short Canadian
coastlineperpendicular to the general direction of the coast, and across
from the international boundary terminus ;
(fl the concavity in the coast created by the combination of the protrusion
of the Nova Scotia peninsula and the curvature of the New England
coast ;
(g) the relative length of the relevant coastlines of the Parties ; and
(h) the Northeast Channel, Georges Bank, and Browns Bank andGerman
Bank on the Scotian Shelf, as special features.
2. That the relevant environmental circumstances in the area include :
(a) thethree separate and identifiable ecologicalrégimesassociated,respec-
tively, with the Gulf of Maine Basin, Georges Bank, and the Scotian
Shelf ; and
(b) the Northeast Channel as the natural boundary dividing not only sep-
arate and identifiable ecological régimesof Georges Bank and the
Scotian Shelf,but also most of the cornrnerciallyimportant fish stocks
associated with each such régime.
3. That the relevant circumstances in the area relating to the predomi-
nant interest of the United Statesasevidenced bythe activitiesof theParties
and their nationals include :
(a) the longer and larger extent of fishing by United States fishermen since
before the United States became an independent country ;
(b) the sole development, and, until recently, the almost exclusive domi-
nation of the Georges Bank fisheries by United States fishermen ;
and
(c) the exercise by the United States and its nationals for more than 200
years of the responsibility for aids to navigation, search and rescue,
defense, scientific research, and fishenes conservation and manage-
ment.
C. Concerningthe delimitation
1. That the application of equitable principles taking into account the
relevant circumstancesin the area to produce an equitable solution is best
accomplished by a single maritime boundary that is perpendicular to the
general direction of the coast in the Gulf of Maine area, commencing at the
starting point for delimitation specified in Article II of the Special Agree-
ment and proceedinginto the triangle describedin that Article,but adjusted
during its course to avoid dividingGerman Bankand BrownsBank,both of
which would be left in their entirety to Canada. 2. That the boundary should consist of geodetic lines connecting the
following geographic coordinates:
Latitude (North) Longitude (West)
(a) 44" 11' 12" 67" 16'46"
(b) 43" 29' 06" 66" 34'30"
(c) 43" 19'30" 66" 52'45"
(d) 43" 00' 00" 66" 33'21"
(e) 42" 57' 13" 66" 38'36"
(fl 42" 28'48" 66" 10'25"
(g) 42" 34' 24" 66" 00'00"
(h) 42" 15'45" 65" 41' 33"
(i) 42" 22'23" 65" 29' 12"
(j,l 41" 56'21" 65" 03'48"
(k) 41 " 58'24" 65" 00'00"" ;
in the Counter-Memorial :
"ln viewofthe facts set forth in Part 1of the United States Memorial and
this Counter-Memorial, the statement of the lawcontained in Part II of the
United States Memorial and this Counter-Memorial, and the application of
the1awto thefactsasstatedin Part III ofthe United States Memorial and of
this Counter-Memorial ;"
[herefollow the identical subrnissionsset out in the Mernorial] ;
in the Reply :
"In view of the facts set forth in the United States Memorial, Counter-
Memorial, and this Reply,the statement of the lawcontained in the United
States Memorial, Counter-Memorial, and this Reply,and the application of
the law to the facts as stated in the United States Memorial, Counter-
Memorial, and this Reply ;"
(herefollow the identical subrnissionsset out in the Mernorial].
13. In the course of the oral proceedings, the following submissions were
presented by the Parties :
On behalf of Canada,
at the hearing of 5 May 1984(afternoon) :
"In view of the facts and arguments set out in the Canadian Memorial,
Counter-Memorial and Reply, and by Canada in these oral proceedings,
May itplease the Court,rejecting al1contrary claims and Submissions set
forth in the United States Memorial, Counter-Memorial and Reply, and by
the United States in these oral proceedings,
To declareand adjudge that :
The course of the single maritime boundary referred to in the Special Agreement concluded byCanadaand theUnited States on 29March 1979is
defined bygeodeticlinesconnectingthe geographical CO-ordinatesofpoints
described in the Submission appended to Canada's Memorial, Counter-
Memorial and Reply" ;
On behalf of the UnitedStates of America,
at the hearing of 11 May 1984 :
"In viewof the facts, the statement of the law, and the application of the
lawto thefacts setforth in the United States Memorial,Counter-Memorial,
Reply, and the oral presentations by United States Counsel ;
Considering thatthe Special Agreement betweenthe Parties requests the
Chamber, in accordance with the principles and rules of international law
applicable in the matter as between the Parties, to decide the course of the
single maritime boundary that divides the continental shelf and fisheries
zonesof the United States of America and Canada from a point in latitude
44" 11'12"N, longitude 67" 16'46" W to a point to be determined by this
Chamber within an area bounded by straight linesconnectingthe following
sets of coordinates :latitude 40" N, longitude 67" W ; latitude 40" N.
longitude 65" W ;latitude 42" N, longitude 65" W ;
May iplease the Chamber,on behalf of the United States of America, to
adjudgeand declare :
A. Concerningthe applicable law
1. That delimitation of a single maritime boundary requires the appli-
cation of equitable principles, taking into account the relevant circum-
stances in the area, to produce an equitable solution.
2. That the equitable principles to be applied in this case include :
(a) the principle that the delimitation respect the relationship between the
relevant coasts of the Parties and the maritime areas lying in front of
thosecoasts, includingnon-encroachment ; proportionality ;and natu-
ral prolongation in its geographic sense, or coastal-front extension ;
(b) the principle that the delimitation facilitate consemation and manage-
ment of the natural resources of the area ;
(c) the principle that the delimitation minimize the potential for disputes
between the Parties ; and
(d) the principle that the delimitation take account of the relevant circum-
stances in the area.
3. That the equidistance method is not obligatory on the Parties or
preferred, either by treaty or as a rule of customary international law, and
that any method or combination of methods of delimitation may be used
that produces anequitablesolutionin application of theseprinciples.taking
account of the relevant circumstances.B. Concerning the relevant circumstancesto be taken into account
1. 'That the relevant geographical circumstances in the area include :
(a) theextensionofthe coastalfront ofMaine and NewHampshire through
the Gulf of Maine and beyond ;
(b) the broad geographical relationship of the Parties as adjacent
States ;
(c) the general northeastem direction of the east coast of North America,
both within the Gulf of Maine and seaward of the Gulf ;
(d) the location of the international boundary terminus in the northern
corner of the Gulf of Maine ;
(e) the radical changes in the direction of the Canadian coast beginning at
the Chignecto Isthmus, 147miles northeast of the international boun-
dary terminus ;
(f theprotrusion of theNova Scotiapeninsula 100nautical milessoutheast
of the international boundary terminus, creating a short Canadian
coastline perpendicular to the general direction of the coast, and across
from the international boundary terminus ;
(g) the concavity in thecoast created by thecombination of the protrnsion
of the Nova Scotia peninsula and the curvature of the New England
coast ;
(h) the relative length of the relevant coastlines of the Parties ; and
(i) the Northeast Channel, Georges Bank,and Browns Bank and German
Bank on the Scotian Shelf, as special features.
2. That the relevant environmental circumstances in the area include :
(a) thethree separate and identifiable ecologicalrégimesassociated,respec-
tively, with the Gulf of Maine Basin, Georges Bank, and the Scotian
Shelf ; and
(b) the Northeast Channel as the natural boundary dividing not only sep-
arate and identifiable ecological régimesof Georges Bank and the
Scotian Shelf,but also most of the commercially important fish stocks
associated with each such régime.
3. That the relevant circumstances in the area relating to the predomi-
nant interest of theUnited Statesas evidencedbythe activitiesof theParties
and their nationals include :
(a) the longer and larger extent of fishingby United States fishermen since
before the United States became an independent country ;
(b) the sole development, and, until recently, the almost exclusive domi-
nation of the Georges Bank fisheries by United States fishermen ;
and
(c) the exercise by the United States and its nationals for more than 200
years of the responsibility for aids to navigation, search and rescue,
defense, scientific research, and fisheries conservation and manage-
ment. C. Concerningthe delimitation
1. That the application of equitable principlestaking into account the
relevant circumstancesin the area to produce an equitable solution is best
accomplishedby a single maritime boundary that is perpendicular to the
general directionof theoastin the Gulf of Maine area, commencingat the
startinp point for delimitation specified in Articlef the SpecialAgree-
mentand proceedinginto the triangle describedinthat Article,but adjusted
duringitscourseto avoid dividingGerman Bankand BrownsBank,both of
which wouldbe left in their entirety to Canada.
2. That the boundary should consist of geodetic lines connecting the
following geographiccoordinates :
Latitude (North) Longitude (West)
(a) 44" 1If 12" 67" 16'46"
(b) 43" 29'06" 66" 34'30"
(c) 43" 19'30" 66" 52'45"
(d) 43" 00'00" 66" 33'21"
(e) 42" 57' 13" 66" 38'36"
(fl 42" 28' 48" 66" 10'25"
(g) 42" 34' 24" 66" 00'00"
(h) 42" 15'45" 65" 41'33"
(i) 42" 22'23" 65" 29' 12"
li, 41" 56'21" 65" 03'48"
(k) 41 "58'24" 65" 00'OO"."
14. The case concerning the delimitation of the maritime boundary in
the Gulf of Maine area was brought before the Court on the basis of the
first of the possibilities envisaged under Article 40, paragraph 1, of its
Statute, namely by notification of a special agreement, in this case the
Special Agreement signed at Washington on 29 March 1979 by the Gov-
ernments of Canada and of the United States of America and notified to
the Court on 25 November 1981.
15. By an Order of 20 January 1982, the Court in application of para-
graph 2 of Article 26 and of Article 31 of its Statute, formed a special
Chamber composed of five Members to deal with the case. Under the terms
of Article II,paragraph 1, of the Special Agreement, this Chamber is
"requested to decide, in accordance with the principles and rules of
international law applicable in the matter as between the Parties, the
following question :
What is the course of the single maritimeboundary that divides
the continental shelf and fisheries zones of Canada and the United
States of America, from a point inlatitude 44" 11'12" N, longitude
67" 16'46" W to a point to be determined by the Chamber within an GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 264
area bounded by straight lines connecting the following sets of
geographical CO-ordinates :latitude 40" N, longitude 67" W ;lati-
tude 40" N, longitude 65" W ; latitude 42" N, longitude 65"
W ?"
16. Article II, paragraph 4, declares that :"The Parties shall accept as
final and binding upon them the decision of the Chamber rendered pur-
suant to this Article." Article III, paragraph 1,furthermore confirms the
final and binding character of the "single maritime boundary" to be
delimited by the Chamber, specifying that south and Westof this "mari-
time boundary" Canada shall not, and north and east of it the United
States of America shall not, "claim or exercise sovereign rights or juris-
diction for anypurpose overthe waters or sea-bed and subsoil". It isalsoto
be noted that Article III, paragraph 2, expressly reserves the positions of
each of the two Parties by providing that :
"Nothing in this Special Agreement shall affect the position of
either Party with respect to the legalnatureand seaward extent of the
continental shelf, of fisheries jurisdiction, or of sovereign rights of
jurisdiction for any other purpose under international law."
17. The task of delimitation of the maritime boundary within the limits
indicated under Article II, paragraph 1,is not the only onefor which the
Special Agreement makes provision. Article VII, paragraph 1, provides
that :
"Following the decision of the Chamber, either Party may request
negotiations directed toward reaching agreement on extension of the
maritime boundary asfar seaward as the Parties may consider desir-
able."
And the following paragraphs provide that if the Parties do not reach
agreement in thisconnection within specifiedtime-limits, either directly or
by submitting the questionfor decision byabinding third-party settlement
procedure, either Party may "subrnit thequestion of the seaward extension
of the maritime boundary to the Chamber of fivejudges constituted in
accordance with the Special Agreement" (para. 3).The provisions of the
Special Agreement are then to be applied, mutatis mutandis, to the new
proceedings undertaken in this way and the decision of the Chamber
therein shall also be "final and binding upon the Parties" (para. 4). This
question is, however, unrelated to the determination of the Chamber's
jurisdiction in the present case. Such competence can in principle only
derive from the provisions of the Statute and Rules governing the Court's
jurisdiction ;the application of theseprovisions isno differentwhetherthe
Court is sitting in its full composition or as a Chamber. As for the Special Agreement, it defines no limitation of the jurisdiction of the Chamber
other than that resulting from the very terms of the question set forth in
Article II, paragraph 1, which will be studied further below.
18. The Special Agreement (Art. II, para. 3) requests the Chamber to
appoint a technical expert nominatedjointly by the Parties to assist it in
respect of technical matters and, in particular, in preparing thedescription
of the maritime boundary and the charts on which its course has to be
indicated. The technical expert was in fact appointed by an Order of 30
March 1984and the conditions laid down for hisparticipation in the work
of the Chamber have duly been complied with. Otherwise, the Special
Agreement requests the Chamber and the expert to comply with certain
technical provisions, set forth under Article IV, (a) to (g), and imposes
upon the Parties certain restrictions in regard to evidence and argument
(Art. V).
19. The Court, and consequently the Chamber, having been seised by
means of a special agreement, no preliminary question arises in regard to
itsjurisdiction to deal with the case.Aquestion might conceivably arise as
a result of the use, at least in the French text of the SpecialAgreement, of
the termfronrière maririme ("maritime boundary"), which might suggest,
incorrectly, the idea of a realfrontière(boundary) between two sovereign
States. However, it is clear to the Chamber that the task which it has been
given only relates to a delimitation between the different forms of partial
jurisdiction, i.e., the "sovereign rights" which, under current international
law,both treaty-law and general law,coastal States are recognized to have
in the marine and submarine areas lying outside the outer limit of their
respective territorial seas,up to defined limits.The rights of third States in
the areas in question cannot therefore be in any way affected by the
delimitation which the Chamber is required to effect. Apart from this
consideration,the onlyproblem whichmay theoretically arise at the outset
in this context could be how far the Chamber is obliged to abide by the
provisions of the Special Agreement in regard to the starting-point of the
delimitation line to be drawn and the triangle within which this line is to
end.
20. According to the information provided by the Parties themselves,
the starting-point in question (44" 11' 12"north, 67" 16'46" west), called
point A, is simply the first point of intersection of the two lines repre-
senting the limits of the fishing zones respectivelyclaimed by Canada and
the United States when, at the end of 1976, and with effect from the
beginning of 1977, they decided upon the extension of their fisheries
jurisdiction up to 200nautical miles.The reason for choosing thispoint of
intersection - rather than the international boundary terminus fixed
under the Treaty between the two States dated 24 February 1925, and
situate in the Grand Manan Channel, which might have seemed more
logical - is that to seaward of this last-mentioned point are Machias Seal
Island and North Rock, the sovereignty over which is in dispute, and that
the Parties wishto reservefor themselvesthe possibility of adirectsolution GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 266
of this dispute. It would seemthat the choice of point A was influenced by
no other consideration apart from that indicated above.
21. As to the triangle enclosing the area within which the delimitation
line to be drawn by the Chamber is to terminate, according to the Parties it
was established to avoid the possibility of the Chamber's decision in this
case prejudging such questions as that of the determination of the outer
edge of the continental margin, questions to be dealt with by negotiations
in the first instance. It goes without saying that the position and limits of
the triangle were established in the light of the respective claims of the
Parties at the time when the SpecialAgreement wasconcluded, namely in
1979.But evenat present, thelinesrepresenting the maximum claimsof the
two Parties still terminate within the triangle- closeto the northeast apex
and the southwest apex, respectively.
22. The application of the rules of international lawand themethods of
delimitation considered the most appropriate in thiscasemight present the
Chamber with the temptation to adoptanother starting-point of thelineto
be drawn, or to draw a line terminating at a point outside the triangle.
However, even disregarding the somewhat improbable nature of this
hypothesis, the decisivereason whysuch solutions should not bepursued is
the fact that for the delirnitation of a maritime boundary - whether it
concern the territorial sea or the continental shelf or the exclusive eco-
nomic zone - both conventional and customary international law accord
priority over al1others to thecriterion that this delimitation must above al1
be sought, while always respecting international law, through agreement
between the parties concerned. Recourse to delimitation by arbitral or
judicial means is in the final analysis simply an alternative to direct and
friendly settlement between the parties.
23. If therefore Canada and the United States of America have chosen
to reserve for themselves,as the subject of future direct negotiation with a
view to an agreement, the determination of the course of the delimitation
line between the international boundary terminus and point A, and the
course of the delimitation beyond the end-point of the Chamber's line in
the triangle, it must be concluded that their intention otherwise to have
recourse tojudicial settlement must be taken within the limits in which it
was conceived and expressed. The two States have already, by mutual
agreement, taken a step towards a solution of their dispute, which does of
courserequire to besupplemented by a decisionof the Chamber, but which
should nevertheless not bedisregardedby it.The Chamber concludes that,
in the task conferred upon it, it must conform to the terms by which the
Parties have defined this task. If it did not do so, it would overstep its
jurisdiction.
24. There is a profound difference, in two important respects, between
therequests submittedby theParties in thecasespreviouslybrought before the Court, namely those relating to the delimitation of the North Sea
ContinentalShelf and the delimitation of the ContinentalShelf (Tunisia/
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), and the request currently submitted to the
judgment of the Chamber and relating to the delimitation to be effected in
the Gulf of Maine area.
25. To begin with, in the other casesjust mentioned, the Court was not
required to drawa lineof delimitation itself,but merelyto undertake a task
preliminary to the determination of such a line, i.e., to indicate the prin-
ciples and rules of international law applicable to that delimitation, to
which, in the Tunisia/Libya case, was added the request that the Court
should clarify the practical method for the application of these principles
and rules in the specificsituation. The Parties had reserved for themselves
the final task, namely the determination of the delimitation line, to be
undertaken jointly and on the binding basis of the indications received
from the Court. However,in the present case,this task isdirectly entrusted
to the Chamber, without any indication being given in the Special Agree-
ment as to the sources from which it should derive its determination of
applicable principles and methods. Seenfrom this first aspect, the request
submitted to the Chamber is analogous rather to the request made to the
Court of Arbitration whch was asked to draw the delimitation line of the
continental shelf between France and the United Kingdom.
26. The second aspect which distinguishes this case from al1 those
previously adjudicated is the fact that, for the first time, the delimita-
tion which the Chamber is asked to effect does not relate exclusively to
the continental shelf, but to both the continental shelf and the exclusive
fishing zone, the delimitation to be by a single boundary. Moreover,
during the oral proceedings, the Parties added - by reference to Article III,
paragraph 1, of the Special Agreement - that the single boundary line
to be drawn should be applicable to al1 aspects of the jurisdiction of
the coastal State, not only jurisdiction as defined by international law
in its present state, but also as it will be defined in future. In order
to determine this single boundary, the Chamber is only asked to decide
"in accordance with the principles and rules of international law
applicable in the matter as between the Parties", without there being
any additional indication, whether of a formal or substantial character,
given in the text of the Special Agreement with regard to these "rules
and principles".
27. With regard to this second aspect, the Chamber must observe that
the Parties have simply taken it forgranted that it would be possible, both
legally and materially, to draw a single boundary for two different juris-
dictions. They have not put forward any arguments in support of this
assumption. The Chamber, for its part, is of the opinion that there is
certainly no rule of international law to the contrary, and, in the present
case, there isno material impossibility in drawinga boundary of thiskind.
There can thus be no doubt that the Chamber can carry out the operation
requested of it. GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 268
28. The area within which the delimitation sought in the present case is
to becarried out, in other words, the geographical area directlyconcerned
in this delimitation, lies within the ill-defined limits of what the Parties
have, in the title and preamble of the SpecialAgreement, called the "Gulf
of Maine area" - without, however, there giving any definition of this
expression. The Chamber considers it indispensable to achieve a greater
degree of precision as to the geographical concepts used in this contextby
way of basis for the operation which it has to perform.
29. As can be seen from the maps inserted or appended to the present
Judgment, the Gulf of Maine properly so called is a broad oceanic inden-
tation in the eastern coast of the North American Continent, having
roughly the shape of an elongated rectangle. At its southwesternend, once
past Nantucket Island, the elbow of Cape Cod is reached ;from here on,
the indentation follows the approximately north-south segment at the end
of this peninsula. Within the peninsula and the imaginary line linking its
tip with CapeAnnfurther to the north are the twocontiguousbays of Cape
Cod and Massachusetts. At the back of Massachusetts Bay is the city of
Boston. The characteristic of the western side of the above-mentioned
rectangle, which is one of its two short sides, is the general south-south-
east/north-north-west direction of the Massachusetts coast abutting on
the Gulf of Maine.
30. There then followsthe short New Hampshire coastline and, with it,
thedirection of the coast of the Gulf begins slightlyto alter course, bending
gently towards the north-east. This trend continues with the first segment
of the Maine coastline. But soon the coast of this State, which becomes
broken and fringed with islands, bends again to pursue a steady course
west-south-west/east-north-east. From Cape Elizabeth to the interna-
tional boundary between the United States ofAmerica andCanada, which
terminates in the Grand Manan Channel, the coast of Maine forms along
this line the first of the long sides of the rectangle. It should be noted that
beyond that frontier the adjacent coast of the province of New Brunswick
also follows the same direction. But between this coast and the coast of
Nova Scotia, which lies opposite and runs almost parallel to it, is the
opening of the Bay of Fundy - more or less at the latitude of the inter-
national boundary terminus - cutting deep inland. The waters of the Bay
of Fundy mergewith those of the Gulf in the stretch of seabetween Grand
Manan Island, off the coast of New Brunswick, and Brier Island, the
prolongation of Digby Neck and Long Island, which run along the north-
ern coast of Nova Scotia.
31. The question has been raised whether the Bay of Fundy should be
considered to be a part of the Gulf of Maine or whether this bay shouldbe
regarded as a closed bay, considered as though it were sealed off by a
straight line. The fact that such a line may be taken into consideration in
constructing the rectangle within the Gulf to define its geometric formin The rnapsincorporatedin thepresent Judgment were prepared onthe basis of
documents submitted tothe Court bytheParties,and their solepurposeistoprovide
a visualillustrationof the relevant paragraphsof the Judgment.order to facilitate the searchfor a delimitation line does not mean that the
closing line is no longer an imaginary line drawn across the waters but
becomes a real coastal line. Nor does it mark a separation of the waters on
each side of itjudging by the evidence presented, there is no appreciable
difference in quality between the waters in the north-east part of the Gulf
and the waters in the outer part of the Bay. In fact, the part of the Bay
which isclosest to itsopening into the Gulf iswide,the depth of the waters
is the same, and the distance between the mainland coasts exceeds twice
the extent of the territorial sea. However, further into the Bay, thewater is
less deep, and the shores are closer together so that the Bay contains only
maritime areas lying no further than 12 miles from the low water
mark.
32. Almost opposite the international boundary terminus, the coast of
Nova Scotiaswingssharply roundin an overall south-easterly direction,so
that if the line of this direction were extended back in the opposite direc-
tion,it wouldmeet theIineofthe coast of Maine, described inparagraph 30
above, at almost a right angle. The imaginary line which runs from the
international boundary terminus acrossthe Canadian island called Grand
Manan Island to Brier Island and Cape Sable at the two extremities of
Nova Scotia, forms the second - eastern - short side of the rectangle,
opposite to the western side formed by the coast of Massachusetts. The
quasi-parallel direction of these two opposite coasts is striking ; the dis-
tance between Cape Ann and Whipple Point on Brier Island is 206 miles,
that between the nearest point on Cape Cod and Chebogue Point on the
coast of Nova Scotia is201miles,and that between the elbowof CapeCod
and Cape Sable is barely more (219 miles).
33. The second long side of the rectangle does not at any point corres-
pond to a landmass. It is formed only by an imaginary line drawn across
the waters from the south-eastern point on Nantucket Island, to Cape
Sable at the south-western end of Nova Scotia. The two Parties agree that
this is the seaward "closingline" of the Gulf of Maine. Sincethis linejoins
the twoultimatepoints on land on each sidein thedirection of theAtlantic,
it effectively indicates, in the context of the delimitation area, the boun-
dary between theinner zone, or the Gulf of Maine in the true sense,and the
outer or Atlantic zone of the area in question.
34. To sum up, the Gulf of Maine takes the form of a large, roughly
rectangular indentation, bordered on three sides by land - except where
thecontiguous bays ofCape Cod/Massachusetts liealongthe westernside,
and the Bay of Fundy opens outat the inner end of the eastern side - and
on the fourth side open to the Atlantic Ocean.
35. In the above description of the Gulf of Maine there are several
references to the rectangle which appears to afford a good simplified
representation of theconfiguration of thatGulf, asoutlinedby its coasts. It
is on the basis of this approximation to a specific geometrical figure thatthe two opposite terrestrial sides of the Gulf, in essence the shores of
Massachusetts on the onehand and of Nova Scotia on the other, have thus
been presented asthe short sidesof the rectangle, and thesimilarterrestrial
side formed by the shores of Maine, which connects the other two at the
back of the Gulf, as the long side.
36. It must nevertheless be made clear that the use of these appellations,
borrowed from the terminology ofgeometry, must not be interpreted as an
espousal of the idea that some of the coastal fronts of the Gulf of Maine
should be considered as "primary" fronts and others as "secondary", so
that the former would be regarded as of greater importance than thelatter
for the purposes of the delimitation to becarried out in thewaters off these
coasts. The very legitimacy of such a distinction which, throughout the
case, has been the subject of lengthy debate between the United States,
which supports it, and Canada, which is opposed to it, is very dubious.
Terminology of this kind may of course be employed to bring out any
difference observed between thelengths of certain stretches of coast, when
a maritime area is being described. Yet even so, while it might be logical,
from oneparticular aspect, to attachimportance to such adifference, there
is nothing to preclude the possibility of the so-called "secondary" coasts
being of equal if not of evengreater importance than the "primary" coasts
from other aspects. Above al], geographical facts are not in themselves
eitherprimary or secondary :the distinction in question is the expression,
not of any inherent property of the facts of nature, but of a human value
judgment, which willnecessarily be subjective and which may Varyon the
basis of the same facts, depending on the perspectives and ends in view.
The same may be said as regards the idea put forward in the course of the
proceedings that certain geographical features areto be deemed aberrant
by reference to the presumed dominant characteristics of an area, coast or
even continent.
37.As in other previous cases, the Parties have repeatedly charged each
other with trying to refashion nature or geography in thecase of thisor that
feature of the area. It isnot possible to accept the United States claim that
the south-westward protrusion of the Nova Scotian peninsula from the
Chignectou isthmus is an anomaly, a geographical distortion to be treated
as such, and to be considered an irregular derogation from the general
south-south-west/north-north-east trend of the eastern seaboard of the
North American Continent. It is likewisenot possible to accept Canada's
claim that the existence of so substantial a peninsula as Cap Cod may be
ignored because it forms a salient on the Massachusetts coast on the
western side of the Gulf of Maine. The Chamber must recall that the facts
of geography are not the product of human action amenable to positive or
negativejudgment, but the result of natural phenomena, so that they can
only be taken as they are. 38.Up to the present referencehas been madeonlyto the great expanse
ofwater within the limits of the Gulf of Maine.Yet that expanse isfar from
being the whole of what must be regarded as the delirnitation area in this
case. On the contrary, for the purposes of this operation, the part of this
area which includes the wholeof the Georges Bank - themain focus of the
dispute - is obviously another maritime expanse, one lying over against
the Gulf of Maine, outside its closing line.
39. Bearing in mind the existence of the triangle mentioned in the
question put tothe Chamber in the SpecialAgreement between the Parties,
one must logically deduce that the delimitation area comprises not only the
sea areas surrounded by the coasts of the Gulf of Maine, but also those
lying to seaward of, and over and against, the Gulf, between bounds
converging towards the outer edges of the triangle, for no delimitation by
the Chamber may go beyond these bounds.
40.The delimitation areaas defined in the foregoingparagraphs isnot to
be confused with what the Parties - each in their own terms - have called
the "Gulf of Maine area". Theyhavedesignated aspart of this "area" some
portions of the Canadian and American coasts lying outside the Gulf,
portions which they haveduring the proceedings occasionally described as
"coastal wings" of the Gulf, together of course with the related sea areas.
Thus theeastern coastal wingof the Gulf of Mainehas sometimesbeen the
whole southeastern coast of Nova Scotia as far as Cape Canso, or some-
times merely part of it as far as Halifax or, more modestly, Lunenburg,
according to the requirements of the particular arguments being put
foward by theone Party or theother. Similarlythe name of westerncoastal
wing has been given to the Atlantic coast either of Massachusetts or of
Rhode Island as far as Newport, or even beyond. It is easy to see from a
map how these extensions tend to produce a shift towards one side or
another when it comes to determining the central axis of the so-called
"area". The Parties have alsoreferred to thesecoastal wings,oneinorder to
emphasize the importance for the economy of the neighbouring areas of
the fishing resources of the area to be delimited, or even the economic
dependence on those resources of the populations of the adjoining coastal
areas ; the otherfor the opposite purpose ofhighlighting thefactthat those
areas, their industries and their general economy draw principally upon
other sources than the relatively remote ones of the area in question.
41. The involvement of coasts other than those directly surrounding the
Gulf does not and may not have the effect of extending the delimitation
area to maritime areas which have in fact nothing to do with it. It is
ultimately only the concept of the delimitation area which is a legal
concept, albeit one developed against the background of physical and
political geography. In contrast, the concept of the "Gulf of Maine area",asusedin thepresent proceedings, seemselasticin extent and arbitrary to a
degree, a concept which in any event appertains to what may be called
socio-economic or human geography, rather than to pure geography.
Without wishingto deny aprior tiat data derived from such domains may
be important for certain purposes, it is obvious that, when it comes to
determining the boundaries of the delimitation area, material from these
fields cannot be substituted for findings dictated on the basis of more
appropriate considerations.
42. However, up to thispoint the Chamber's definition and description
of the delimitation area has only brought out aspects inherent in physical
geography. Political geography has been employed solelyfor the purpose
of noting the location within the area in question of the international
boundary terminus between the United States and Canada. It had merely
to be made clear that the boundary between the two States - whose
historical development, recounted in the pleadings, is apparently without
influence on the issues to be decided - follows in its final stretches the
windingcourse of the Saint-Croix River,ending in theestuary of that river,
following which it continues as far as its terminal point in the Grand
Manan Channel. It is this latter point which marks the angle between the
long and short sides of the rectangle which, as we have seen, can be
inscribed within the Gulf of Maine.
43. It should, moreover, be added that the Chamber has only had in
mind physical geography to the extent that its purpose is to describe the
present-day aspect of the land and water surfaces of the globe. Inorder to
grasp not only the outward aspects but the whole of the characteristic
features of thedelimitation area, there still remain to be exarninedarious
aspects of what lies below the surface, rather under the heading of geo-
morphology and ecology than that of geology.
44. With regard to geology,the Chamber must observe that, despite the
effortsmade to argueeither that there are geologicalaffinities between the
platforms of Georges Bank and Nova Scotia, or that there is a geological
continuity between Georges Bank and Massachusetts, both Parties recog-
nize that the geologicalstructure of the strata underlying the whole of the
continental shelf of North America, including the Gulf of Main area, is
essentially continuous. They are in fact in agreement that geological fac-
tors are not significant in the present case.
45.As regardsthe geomorphological aspects, the conclusion that can be
drawnfrom thestudiesundertaken and taken into careful considerationby
the Parties in their pleadings is, in sum, the unity and uniformity of the
whole sea-bed, as regards both the underlying shelf of the Gulf of Maine
proper, and the shelf below the ocean beyond the Gulf, right up to the
continental margin, its edge, rise and slope. The continental shelf of thewhole of this area is no more than an undifferentiated part of the conti-
nental shelf of the eastern seaboard of North America, from Newfound-
land to Florida. According to generally accepted scientific findings, this
shelf is a single continuous, uniform and uninterrupted physiographical
structure, even if here and there it features somesecondarycharacteristics
resulting mainly from glacial and fluvial action. In this wider context the
continental shelf of the area relevant to the present proceedings may be
defined as the natural prolongation of the land mass around the Gulf of
Maine ;neither Party disputes the fact that there is nothing in this single
sea-bed, lacking any marked elevations or depressions, to distinguish one
part that might be considered as constituting the natural prolongation of
thecoasts of the United States fromanother part which couldbe regarded
as the natural prolongation of thecoasts of Canada. Of course, within this
single, uniform expanse of sea-bed it is possible to pick out features
described as shelves,banks, basins, channels, and the Parties have given a
detaileddescription of these, occasionally - and verycautiously - seeking
in the existence of one or other of these geomorphological features some
support for their respective positions. These are ultimately a somewhat
insignificant body of rugosities,evenif they do influence, and are probably
in fact produced by, the water circulation. But the bathymetric differences
between one spot and another - differences which do not show up on a
drawing unless there isgreat vertical exaggeration - arenot such as to cast
doubt on the soundness of the basic finding that the sea-bed of the
delimitationarea, asof al1the neighbouringarea - part ofwhichiscovered
with thick sedimentary layers potentially rich in hydrocarbon resources -
does not show any trace of any natural differentiation as between the
respective continental platforms of the two Parties.
46. Even the most accentuated of these features, namely the Northeast
Channel, does not have the characteristics of a real trough marking the
dividing-line between two geomorphologically distinct units. It is quite
simply a natural feature of the area. It might also be recalled that the
presence of much more conspicuous accidents, such as the Hurd deep and
Hurd Deep Fault Zone in thecontinental shelfwhichwas the subject of the
Anglo-French arbitration, did not prevent the Court of Arbitration from
concluding that those faults did not interrupt the geologicalcontinuity of
that shelfand did not constitutefactors to beused to determinethemethod
of delimitation. To return to the sea-bed of the area of delimitation in the
present case, no really abrupt change in thenormal declivityof the sea-bed
is found before the vicinity of the hypotenuse of the triangle within which
the end-point of the present delimitation is supposed to be located. It is
only thereabouts that the continental slope descends more or less in
parallel with the general direction of the mainland Coast,abruptly at first
as far as the 1,000metres isobath, after which the "rise" continues down- ward, though much more gradually, towards the 2,000metres isobath and
beyond, towards the abyssal plain.
47. The situation in the present case as regards the sea-bed of the
delimitation area is thereforedifferent from the situationthat may prevail
in areas where a natural separation does exist from the factual viewpoint
between the respective continental platforms of the Parties in dispute.
From that angle, the present case is closer to other concrete cases, includ-
ing most recently that of the delimitation of the continental shelf between
Tunisia and Libya, i.e., situations characterized, as the Court pointed out
inits Judgment of 24February 1982,by theabsence of "any element which
interrupts the continuity of the continental shelf"common to both Parties
(I.C.J. Reports 1982,p. 58, para. 68). When drawing a legal delimitation
line on such a shelf, there is no choice but to proceed without reference to
any real factor of natural separation of the continental shelf of the two
countries, because no such factors are discernible.
48. In addition to the sea-bed itself there is another component element
of the delimitation area which, with its characteristics,must especially be
taken into account in the Dresent case. namelv what the Parties have. in
both their pleadings and their oral arguments,>alled the "water column".
'This term in fact refers to the enormous mass of water covering the whole
of the sea-bed in the area in question. It need hardly be pointed out that
thisgreat mass of water is taken into consideration not assomeinert mass,
but as the habitat of an exceptionally extensivewealth of fauna and flora.
Even more, perhaps, than the hydrocarbon potential of the sedimentary
basins under the area, it is the fishing resources of the delimitation area
which, as appears from the proceedings, have led to the extraordinarily
acute divergences of interests of the Parties and the no less strenuous
opposition which each puts up against the claim of the other.
49. But, confining itself for the moment to the mere description of the
distinctive aspects of the aquatic mass or water column reposing on the
sea-bed of the delimitation area, the Chamber considers that it should
concentrate on one of those aspects which seems to be of particular
importance.
50. As stated above, the Parties are basically in agreement that the
sea-bed of the area in question does not feature any genuinely natural
divisive element. Both have had to admit that, from the viewpoint of
natural characteristics, the sea-bed of the Gulf is a single,uniform-looking
shelf, one that also forms part of a larger continental shelf. This concur-
rence as to the nature of the sea-bed has no counterpart when it comes to
the superjacent water column. Here Canada, in its successive pleadings
and oral arguments, has laid increasing emphasis on the overall uni.ary
character of the "water column", in particular from the viewpoint of the
distribution of fishing resources, even though it rightly stresses the exis-
tence on Georges Bank of a main concentration of the biomass and,
consequently, of the reserves of several commercially important species.Canada's pleadings acknowledge that there is a distinct ecosystem on
Georges Bank, which is geographically defined by the Greath South
Channel and the Northeast Channel. But on the basis of its experts'
research it also submitsthat, despite the particularly congenial conditions
favouring the above-mentioned concentration, Georges Bank formspart
of a continuous oceanic system belonging to the Nova Scotian biogeogra-
phical province. This province, according to Canada, stretches from New-
foundland to the vicinity of the coastal alignment between Cape Cod and
Nantucket Island. East of the Great South Channel separating Georges
Bank from the Nantucket Shoals the continuity is said to give way to a
transition from northern cold-water fauna and flora to southern warm-
water varieties typical of a different, Virginian, mid-Atlantic biogeogra-
phical province. At any rate, it is only thereabouts that, according
to Canada, any kind of oceano-biological boundary is discernible; that
boundary, however, would lieat the extreme western limit of the delimi-
tation area and therefore could not be relevant to the delimitation that has
to be carried out within the area itself.
51. For its part, the United States, on the basis of its own detailed
analysis, detects three identifiable and different oceanographic and eco-
logical régimes inthe waters of the area, each with a particular type of
hydrological circulation, temperature, salinity,density and vertical strati-
fication and its own type of tidal activity. At al1levels of the food chain,
says the United States, distinct ecological communities have developed
within these various régimes :that of the Gulf of Maine basin, that of the
Scotian Shelf and that of Georges Bank, this last-mentioned being linked
to that of the Nantucket Shoals. Thus the three ecological régimes,it is
submitted, are divided by natural boundaries, the most important and
clearly apparent of which runs along the Northeast Channel, which is
sometimes over 200 metres deep and which is said in fact to form a line of
separation within the area in the case of most of its commercially impor-
tant fish stocks.
52.In this respect it should be observed that the United States. realizing
that this channel does not possess the characteristics of a geological fault
which would make it possible to ascribe to it, under appropriate circum-
stances, the function of a natural boundary between distinct areas of
sea-bed, has expounded the thesis that the Northeast Channel forms a
recognizable limit in the marine environment. On that ground. according
to the United States. the Northeast Channel must be seen as a natural
boundary that can serve as a basis for drawing a single maritime delimi-
tation linevalid at oneand the sametimeforthe exclusivefisheryzone and.
if need be, the exclusive economic zone, as well as for the underlying
sea-bed and subsoil.
53. During the oral proceedings. each Party put up a spirited defence of
its position, one contending for : (a) the non-existence of any natural
boundary in the marine environment within the delimitation area, or at
least up to the south-western limit of that area, and in consequeilce for thenatural unity of the area's oceanographic and ecological régime ; theother
for : (6) the existence within the waters of the area of three distinct prov-
inces separated by dividing lines, the most clearly pronounced of which is
the Northeast Channel separating Georges Bank from the Scotian Shelf ;
however, the result was not such as to clear away al1doubt, at least as
regards certain of the technical aspects debated.
54. The Chamber is not however convinced of the possibility of dis-
cerning any genuine, sureandstable "natural boundaries" in sofluctuating
an environment as the waters of theocean, their flora and fauna. It has thus
reached the conviction that it would be vain to seek, in data derived from
the biogeography of the waters covering certain areas of sea-bed, any
element sufficient to confer the property of a stable natural boundary -
and what is more, one serving a double purpose - on a geomorphological
accident which influences superadjacent waters but which is clearly in-
adequate to be seen as a natural boundary in respect of the sea-bed
itself.
55.The Chamber accordinglyconsiders that the conclusion to be drawn
in respect of the great mass of water belonging to the delimitation area is
that it too essentially possesses thesame character of unity and uniformity
already apparent from an examination of the sea-bed, sothat, in respect of
the waters too, one must take note of the impossibility of discerning any
natural boundary capable of serving as a basis for carrying out a delimi-
tation of the kind requested of the Chamber.
56. It must, however, be emphasized that a delimitation, whether of a
maritime boundary or of a land boundary, is a legal-political operation.
and that itisnot the case that where a natural boundary is discernible, the
political delimitation necessarily has to follow the same line. But in any
event the problem does not arise in the present instance, since, as we have
noted. there are no geological, geomorphological, ecological or other fac-
tors sufficiently important, evident and conclusive to represent a single,
incontrovertible natural boundary.
57.At this stage the Chamber might consider whether the definition of
the outer limits of the area within which it is called mon to delimit the
singlemaritime boundary between Canadaand the ~nhed States, and the
description of itsphysical aspects as regards both surface and depth, ought
not to be followed by taking into consideration other aspects also. What
the Chamber has in mind here is the human environment. and more
particularly its socio-economic conditions.
58.The Parties did take this course ;they evendealt with those aspects in
extenso. They exchanged lengthy argument on whether the fishermen of
onenationality or the other werefirston thescene in the waters of the area.
They argued over the importance of the catches of the fisheries, particu-
larly those of Georges Bank, for the port activity, ship-building, food
industry and dependent industries of the land areas around the Gulf of
Maine, and of the neighbouring areas. They also argued asto their role for
the food supplies of their populations and for their exports. Comparative
analyses were made of the respective importance of the resources drawn GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 278
from those fisheries for what was called the one-dimensional economy of
Lunenburg County and for the diversified, urbanized economy of Mas-
sachusetts. On either side, statistics, tables and graphics were produced in
thisconnection. On one side,gloomypredictions wereput forward regard-
ing the consequences for the Nova Scotian economy of exclusion of Can-
adian fishermen from the Georges Bank fisheries ; the other side empha-
sized the deleterious effect on the conservation of the Bank's fish stocks
that would result from failure to ensure a system of single-State manage-
ment. The Chamber is bound to point out that the Parties sometimes gave
the impression of over-emphasizing these prospects, for it must not be
forgotten that the institution by these two North American States of a
200-mile exclusive fishery zone only dates back eight years, and that
previouslyinthat zone,which at the timewasstillhigh seas,American and
Canadian fishing boats plied their trade alongside large high-sea fishing
fleets from distant countries. And the eviction of the latter - the justifi-
cation givenfor whichwas the need to avoid the over-fishingto which their
presence contributed - was carried out without apparent concern for the
repercussions on certain coastal areas and industries of the countries in
question.
59. However, the crux of the matter lies elsewhere. It should be empha-
sizedthat thesefishing aspects, andothers relating to activitiesin the fields
of oil exploration, scientific research, or common defence arrangements,
may require an examination of valid considerations of a political and
economic character. The Chamber is however bound by its Statute, and
required by the Parties, not to take a decision ex aequo et bono, but to
achieve a result on the basis of law. The Chamber is, furthermore, con-
vinced that for the purposes of such a delimitation operation as is here
required, international law, as willbe shown below, does nomore than lay
down in general that equitable criteria are to be applied, criteria which are
not spelled out but which are essentially to be deterrnined in relation to
what may be properly called the geographical features of the area. It will
onlybe when the Chamber has, on the basis of these criteria, envisaged the
drawing of a delimitation line, that it may and should - still in conformity
with a rule of law - bring in other criteria which may also be taken into
account in order to be sure of reaching an equitable result.
III
60.The dispute between Canada and the United States, now referred to
the Chamber forjudgment, isof recent origin - although the United States
has suggested that the dispute could be traced back to the attitude of the
Parties at the time of the Truman Proclamations in 1945.By these pro-
clamations, published on 28September 1945,theUnited States asserted itsjurisdiction over the natural resources of the continental shelf under the
high seas contiguous to its coasts, and announced the establishment of
conservation zones for the protection of fisheries in certain areas of the
high seas contiguous to the United States. The United States emphasizes
that these Proclamations were shown to Canada in advance of their being
issued and Canada made no objection to them, either then or since ; and
that the United States made it clear at the time that, in its view, the
continental shelf extended to the 100-fathoms depth line. The Chamber
will return to this question in paragraphs 153ff., below.
61.Infact, thisdispute first developed in relation to the continental shelf
of what is now the delimitation area, and did soas soon asexploration for
hydrocarbon resources was begun on each side, particularly in the subsoil
of certain parts of Georges Bank. Exploration for hydrocarbon resources
of the continental shelf in the Gulf of Maine area began in the 1960s.The
United States ratified the 1958Geneva Convention on the Continental
Shelfin 1961and became aparty when it came into forcein 1964.Canada,
confronted byconstitutional difficulties related to itsfederalstructure, did
not ratify theConventionuntil 1970,sothat at the timeits firstexploration
permits were issued, it was not a party. The Canadian Government
accompanied its ratification by a declaration which the United States did
not accept, but which did not prevent the entry into force of the Conven-
tion as between the two countries. In 1953,the United States had enacted
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the primary text governing activi-
ties on its continental shelf,but because the status of Georges Bank as the
principal fishing bank on the East Coast raised important environmental
concerns, exploration proceeded slowlyand development has been defer-
red.The first United Statespermitsfor geophysicalexploration in thisarea
wereissuedin 1964.On the Canadian side,thefirstregulationsauthorizing
oil and gas operations in off-shore areas were issued in 1960(Canada Oil
and Gas Regulations), and in 1964the Canadian Government began to
issue exploration permits in the Gulf of Maine area. Canada has made it
clear that when issuing such permits, in the absence of any delimitation of
the continental shelf agreed with the United States, it treated the equi-
distancelineasa working boundary, drawing itsinspirationfrom Article 6
of the 1958Convention on the Continental Shelf, at least to the extent of
including, in any perrnits issued extending to areas beyond that line, a
caveat to the effect that the permit was issued "subject to the lands
contained in the grid areas being Canadian lands". Before the Chamber,
Canada described the delimitation line which it had in mind, and consid-
ered that it had respected, asa "strict equidistance" line. There is no need
topasscommentupon that definitionforthe timebeing ;the Chamber will
comeback to the point when considering directly the various methods that
could in principle be applied to the deliniitation. 62.The question of the line used by the United Statesas a workinglimit
in the direction of Canada for the issue of permits in this area is contro-
verted betweenthe Parties. Canada has claimed that adefacto equidistance
line was used by the United States Bureau of Land Management (the
so-called "BLM line") or by companies to whom United States permits
were granted (the so-called "company median line"). The United States
has denied that these lines had any officia1status or even existence. The
Chamber will return to this point in connection with the arguments as to
the relevance of the conduct of the Parties (Section V,paragraphs 126ff.,
below).
63. In 1965,the issue of Canadian exploration permits gave rise to an
exchange of correspondence, initially between a Mr. Hoffman, whose
position was that of Assistant Director for Lands and Minerals of the
United States Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the
Interior, and a Mr. Hunt, whose position was Chief of the Resources
Division of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources
of Canada. The correspondence began with a request by the Bureau of
Land Management for information asto the location of Canadian oil and
gas exploratory permits. Reliance has been placed by Canada on this
correspondence as constituting or indicating acquiescence by or estoppel
against the United States ;however the Chamber will not examine these
exchanges at this stage, or discuss the significance attributed to them
during thecase by Canada, which has beencontested by the United States.
The Chamber willcome back to them when examining the state of the law
in force between the Parties. It could not, however, be said that a dispute
had at that time already crystallized between the two States.
64.On 16August 1966,the United States Embassyin Ottawa requested
informationfrom the Canadian Department of Mines and Technical Sur-
veysas to Canadian hydrocarbon exploration on the Pacific Coast and in
the Gulf of Maine area. On 30 August 1966 a reply from the Under-
Secretarv of the Canadian De~artment of External Affairs outlined the
relevant Canadian policies and practices and enclosed a map showing the
sea-bed area covered by the Canadian perrnits, but not indicating whether
any activity by Canadian permittees was in progress or imminent in that
area. After certain diplomatic consultations and contacts in 1966-1968,
including a United States aide-mémoire of 10 May 1968suggesting that
negotiations be opened and that there be a temporary suspension of
activities on the northern half of Georges Bank, the United States on 5
November 1969presented a diplomatic Note requesting a moratorium on
minera1explorations and exploitation on Georges Bank. That Note con-
tained a forma1reservation of United States rights and stated that :
"until the exact location of the United States-Canada Continental
Shelf boundary is agreed upon, the United States cannot acquiesce in any Canadian authorization of exploration or exploitation of the
natural resources of the Georges Bank Continental Shelf".
On 1December 1969,Canada replied observing that the United States had
not previously protested against Canadian oil and gas permits. While
accepting the proposa1that negotiations on the delimitation of the conti-
nental shelf should be undertaken as suggested by the United States,
Canada declined to agree to a moratorium. The Chamber considers that it
wasat this stage - Le.,after the American diplomatic Note of 5November
1969refusing to acquiesce inanyauthorization givenbyCanada to explore
or exploit thenatural resources of Georges Bank, and afterCanada's reply
of 1December 1969,refusing, inter aliato agreeto anykind of moratorium
- that the existence of the dispute became clearly established. It may
however be useful to note once again that, at that time, it was still only a
dispute relating to the continental shelf.
65.On 21 February 1970,the United States Government recorded in the
Federal Register that the United States had protested against Canadian
authorizations relating to Georges Bank. Forma1negotiations between the
United States and Canada on the continental shelf boundary began in
Ottawa on 9 July 1970.The Canadian position was that no special cir-
cumstances existed in the area and the boundary should thus be the
equidistance line, as contemplated by Article 6 of the 1958Geneva Con-
vention on the Continental Shelfto whichCanada hadjust become aparty.
When ratifying the Convention, Canada had appended adeclarationtothe
effect that. in its view:
"the presence of an accidental feature such as a depression or channel
in a submerged area should not be regarded as constituting an inter-
ruption in the natural prolongation".
The United States formally objected to this declaration on 16July 1970.
The United Statesposition in thenegotiations asserted theinequitableness
of the equidistance line in view of the existence of special circumstances
and that the boundary should follow the Northeast Channel. No drilling
activities were authorized by either State at this time, but seismic surveys
were carried out on Georges Bank by United States companies in 1968,
1969and 1975.
66.Various exchangesof diplomatic correspondence took placein 1974.
On 18January 1974,the United Statesinformed Canada (among others) of
United States legislationconcerning theAmerican lobster (homarusameri-
canus), based upon Article 2,paragraph 4,of the 1958GenevaConvention
on the Continental Shelf(concerning the livingresourcesof the shelf),and
gave notice that fishing for American lobster by foreign nationals on the
United States continental shelfwasprohibited. Theboundary indicated bythe United States for purposes of enforcement of this legislation was the
100-fathomcontour of Georges Bank, and this line has been referred to in
these proceedings as the "lobster line". In September 1974,however, in
order toimprove the prospects for negotiation, the United Statesinformed
Canada that it would not enforce the requirements of the lobster law
against Canadian fishermen. The lobster-protection legislation remained
in force until it was superseded by the declaration of the general200-mile
fishery zone (paragraph 68, below). On 17 September 1974Canada for-
mally notified the United States of its reservation concerning continental
shelfexploration activities under apermit (No.OCS E-1-74)issued by the
United Statesto Digicon Inc. In reply, the Department of State referred to
its Note of 5 November 1969,and asserted that the areas subject to the
permit in question were subject to thejurisdiction of the United States.
67. On 15May 1975,the United States notified Canada of its plans to
issuea Cal1forNominations - thefirststeptowardsthegranting of oiland
gas leases - in respect of areas on Georges Bank ; by a Note dated 3June
1975,Canada took the position that it could not acquiesce in acts by the
United Statesintended toconstitute an exerciseofjurisdiction in respect of
anypart of thecontinental shelf under Canadianjurisdiction. In 1976,206
tracts of sea-bed on Georges Bank were selected for "intensive study" in
the process of preparing the draft environmental impact statement before
leasing could be carried out ;28 of these tracts were on the northeastern
part of Georges Bank, in the area claimed as Canadian continental shelf.
Canada protested on 2 February 1976, and on 10 February 1976 the
United Statesrestated its position that al1the tracts being studied wereon
the United States continental shelf ;however the disputed tracts were
temporarily withdrawn in December 1976from the proposed saleofleases,
inorder to avoidmaking thenegotiations more difficult. The United States
has explained that, under its policy of restraint, the leases granted were
restricted to the undisputed portions of Georges Bank. At this time there
werealsoexploratorynegotiations in progress, beginning on 15December
1975and continuing into 1976,both on continental shelf delimitation and
CO-operativefisheries arrangements and on zones of shared hydrocarbon
resources ; but no basis for solution of the boundary problem was
found.
68. The situation thus remained more or lessunchanged when, around
the turn of the year 1976-1977,somenewevents occurred and added to the
continental shelfdimension of the dispute anewdimension concerning the
waters and their living resources. Early in 1977,basing themselves on the
consensus meanwhileachievedat theThird United Nations Conference on
the Law of the Sea, the two States, at an interval of three months, each
proceeded to establish a 200-mile fishery zone off its shores, the UnitedStates on 13April 1976,with the adoption of the Fishery Conservation and
Management Act whichcame into force on 1March 1977,and Canada on
1November by the publication of the text of a proposed Order in Council
under theTerritorial Seaand Fishing Zones Act, effective 1January 1977.
This Order defined the limits for the future Canadian zone ;a noticein the
United States FederalRegisteron 4November 1976stated the limits of the
United States 200-mile fishery zone and continental shelf in areas bor-
dering Canada. Thus the dispute which had previously been confined to
thecontinental shelfboundary issuewasautomatically enlarged to include
the issue of the boundary to be established in the superjacent waters. That
only made the negotiations between the two Parties more arduous. Later,
on 10 March 1983,in the course of the present proceedings, the United
States was to proclaim an exclusiveeconomic zone, which coincided with
the previously constituted fishing zone, but this did not of course modify
the terms of the Special Agreement.
69. Negotiations at this time wereconcentrated on the establishment of
interim fishery arrangements, and on 24 February 1977an Interim Recip-
rocal Fisheries Agreement was signed,and was provisionally implemented
pending its entry into force on 26July 1977.This Agreement provided for
the preservation of the "existing patterns" of fisheries of the east and West
coast of each State, both within and beyond theboundary regions ; on the
Atlantic coast, the method used in the Agreement was to incorporate the
1976 quotas set by the International Commission for the Northwest
Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF) as the ceiling for trans-boundary fishing
privileges. The Agreement expired at the end of 1977,but its terms and
conditions were maintained defacto pending negotiations on its renewal ;
agreement was reached for its renewal in an amended form, but as a result
of the occurrence of a number of serious disputes during its provisional
implementation, the new Agreement never entered into force. On 2 June
1978its provisional implementation was suspended, and trans-boundary
fishingceased. The two States have howevermaintained aninterim régime
of flag-State enforcement procedures in the boundary regions along the
lines of the 1977Agreement, first pending the entry into force of a 1979
Fisheries Agreement (paragraph 75, below), and subsequently, when that
Agreement failed to come into force, pendingthe present proceedings. On
27 July 1977 special negotiators were appointed by the Governments to
report on the principles of a comprehensive settlement on maritime boun-
daries and related matters asappropriate ;ajoint report was presented in
October 1977.
70. It is important to stress that, within the dual dimension character-
izing the dispute between the two States following the proclamation by
each of them of an exclusive fishery zone, the United States attributed
importance in particular to the fishing aspect, whilst Canada long contin-
ued to givepriority to the original aspect, i.e., the continental shelf. It wastherefore from this double perspective, involving both the delimitation of
the continental shelf and, more especially, its new intention to set up a
200-mile exclusive fishery zone, that the United States formalized its
position by publishing in the Federal Register of 4 November 1976 the
CO-ordinatesof aline delimiting both the continental shelf and the fishery
zones. This line generally corresponded to the line of greatest depth ; it
carefully separated, in the inner zone of the Gulf of Maine, the fishing
grounds of the northeastern part from those of the southwestern part, and
in the outer zone, Browns Bank from Georges Bank. Skirting the outer
edgeof the latter Bank, it thus reached the slope of thecontinental margin
via the Northeast Channel. It iseasyto discern the dominant idea underly-
ing this United States line.
71. Canada, on the other hand, having published on 1November 1976
the CO-ordinatesof aline which, ashas been seen,was described asstrictly
equidistant, and which was intended to indicate graphically its position in
regard to thedelimitation of thecontinental shelfin thearea, decided on 14
October 1977to modify its line. Following the Decision rendered on 30
June 1977by the Court of Arbitration in the Anglo-French Continental
ShelfDelimitation case,whilethe negotiations referred to inparagraph 69
were in progress, Canada indicated that its boundary claim would be
adjusted to reflect what it regarded as the legal significance of that deci-
sion ; and it gaveforma1notice of such adjustment by adiplomatic Note to
the United States Govemment dated 3 November 1977. It was there
explained that in the view of Canada the application to the factual situ-
ation in the Gulf of Maine area of the principles of law enunciated and
elucidated in the Anglo-French Decision justified the drawing of a line
other than the strict equidistance line, in viewof the existence of "special
circumstances" ascontemplated by Article 6 of the 1958Geneva Conven-
tion. The circumstances in question were the projections seawards of the
exceptionally long peninsula of Cape Cod and the islands of Nantucket
and Martha's Vineyard, added to the marked protrusion of the United
States coastline southeast of Boston ; the delimitation line should there-
fore be an equidistance line drawn without reference to these coastal
projections. Canada however indicated that pending the then current
negotiations, it would not publicly assert or enforce its claim beyond the
equidistance line already published in 1976.
72. By a Note of 2 December 1977, the United States Government
rejected the Canadian claim ; it reiterated its rejection of the previous
Canadian lineasnot in conformity with equitableprinciples because of the
special circumstances of the area, and expressed the viewthat a line which
accorded with equitable principles wasone taking into account thecoastal
configuration of the area,particularly thedistorting effect of the concavity
of the United Statescoastline and theprotrusion on thepeninsula of Nova
Scotia.
73. Asfor the position of the United States,it was only at the beginning
of the present proceedings before the Chamber that it proposed any (seeparagraphs68-70)
United States line -------
Canadian line - .- . - .- .correction ofits lineof 1976.At that time, the United Statesalso thought it
advisable to take its stand primarily on a geometrical method, that of the
perpendicular to thegeneraldirection of thecoast. However,aswillbeseen
in greater detail later, the "adjusted perpendicular" then proposed was
nonetheless decisivelyinfluenced in theadjustments it featured, andin its
resulting rather complicated course,by the original intention of separating
the "ecological régimes" whichthe United States regards as distinct in
respect of the fishing resources of the area.
74. On 25 January 1978, Canada requested that certain tracts on
Georges Bank, over which continental shelf leases were to be offered for
sale on 31January 1978by the United States, should be withdrawn from
the sale ;these tracts lay to the south-west of the original equidistance line
claimed by Canada, but on the Canadian side of the revised line of 3
November 1977,whichhadnot yetbeen made public. On 28January 1978
the deletion of the tracts inquestion from thesale wasannounced, asbeing
"within the area claimed by Canada to be subject to negotiation between
the United States and Canada", but the United States made it clear in a
Note of 3February 1978that it would not giveany credence or recognition
to thenew Canadian position. On 15September 1978,Canada madepublic
its claim of 3 November 1977,by way of the publication in the Canada
Gazette of a proposed Order in Council extending the Canadian fishing
zone, which Order was published in final form on 25 January 1979.By a
Note of 20 September 1978,the United States reiterated its view that the
new Canadian claim waswithout foundation ;it asserted in theNote that
Georges Bank is a natural prolongation of United States territory, that in
view of the special circumstances in the Gulf of Maine area, the equidis-
tance line would not be in accordance with equitable principles, and that
there wasnojustification in international lawfor discountingthe effectof
Cape Cod or Nantucket Island in determining themaritimeboundary. The
United States objected further that expansion of the Canadian claimin the
midst of negotiations was not in keeping with the obligations of States
under the 1958Geneva Convention, and indicated that it would continue
to exercise fisheriesjurisdiction in the area of the expanded claim.
75. Sincethe submission, on 15October 1977,of thejoint report of the
two special negotiators (approved by both Governments on 21 October
1977),negotiations between them had continued, though only slowlyand
with difficulty. In March 1979agreement was reached to submit for the
approval of the Governments of Canada and the United Statesa package
of twolinked treaties :theTreaty to Subrnitto BindingDispute Settlement
the Delimitation of theMaritime Boundary in the Gulf of Mainearea, and
the Agreement on East Coast Fisheries Resources ;these two instruments
were signed on 29 March 1979, and it was also agreed that further
exchanges of diplomatic correspondence on the legal merits of the posi-tions of the two Governments were not necessary in viewof the package
proposed.
76. The two treaties were drawn so as to be interdependent, being
expressed to come into force together ;however ratification of them both
was not achieved. On 6 March 1981 the Fisheries Agreement was with-
drawn by the President of the United States from consideration by the
United States Senate, and proposals weremade toCanada foramendment
of the boundary settlement Treaty so as to enable it to be put into force
independently. The United States Government gave the Canadian Gov-
ernment assurances that if the boundary settlement Treaty were ratified,
the United States would refrain from enforcement activities against Can-
adian fishingvesselsin al1areasclaimed by Canada until the boundary was
established by adjudication. Instruments of ratification of the boundary
settlement Treaty were exchanged on 20 November 1981, and on 25
November 1981 the special agreement for the reference of the case to a
chamber of the Court was notified to the Registry.
77. The description, in terms of geographic CO-ordinates,of the line
proposed hasconstituted part of the forma1subrnissionsof eachParty (see
paragraphs 12and 13, above).The Canadian line,wluch Canada describes,
as it did the one preceding it, as an equidistance line, consists of a line
constructed almost entirely from the nearest points of the baselines from
which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. In this instance, this
means solelyislands, rocks orlow-tide elevations.An exception ishowever
made for thebasepoints selectedon thecoast of Massachusetts, whichhave
been transferred from the outer end of the peninsula of Cape Cod and
Nantucket Island, much further to the West,to the eastern end of the Cape
CodCanal.This istheline whichCanada notified to the United States on 3
November 1977and made public in the Canada Gazetteon 15September
1978.The line which the United States puts fonvard as the appropriate
boundary is somewhat more complex in its construction, though its jus-
tification is simple : it is presented as a perpendicular to the general
direction of the coast from the starting-point agreed upon by the Parties,
adjusted to take account of the relevant circumstances of the area, i.e., to
avoid the splitting of fishingbanks. It differs from the "Northeast Channel
line" - the line adopted by the United States on 4 November 1976wluch,
as the United States has explained, generally followed the line of deepest
water through the Gulf of Maine basin and the Northeast Channel, and
was approximately equidistant between the 100-fathom depth contours
there. According to its authors, this initial line was based upon the
"equidistance/special circumstances" rule of Article 6 of the 1958Geneva
Convention, taking into account, as special circumstances, the configura-
tion of the coasts, the location of the land boundary, the position of the
fishing banks in the area, and the Northeast Channel. In contrast, theperpendicular to the general direction of the Coast,now advanced by the
United States, has been substituted for theline of 1976,firstly because the
earlier line was not as broad a claim as that to which the United States
believed it is legally entitled; and secondly because of the considerable
development of the law between 1976and the date of filing of the Mem-
orials. In reply to a question by a member of the Chamber, the United
States further drew attention to explanations of the line given in Depart-
ment of State Memoranda of 1976/1977,and explained that the Northeast
Channel line - which followed the line of deepest water from the inter-
national boundary terminus to the Atlantic Ocean - gave more effect to
the geological and geomorphological circumstances of the Gulf of Maine
area than proved, in the light of the Court's 1982Judgment on the Con-
tinental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jarnahiriyu), to be warranted.
78. In sum, one may Saythat the two successive lines put forward by
Canada were both proposed delimitation lines drawn primarily with the
continental shelfin mind, evenif they areboth singleboundaries which are
supposed to apply to the fishery zone also. The Two United States delimi-
tation lines,on thecountrary, areboth proposals for single-boundary lines
drawn up initially on the basis of different considerations, but both treat-
ing the fishery régimeas essential. In any case, it is certain that the gap
between the Parties' respective positions has become noticeably wider
between the moment when the dispute appeared in their relations and the
moment of its being referred forjudgment to the Chamber. There was no
sight of any rapprochementduring the proceedings, except for a certain
tendency on each side to stress the merits of its initial proposa1 and to
emphasize the intentions that had lain behind it.The submissions formu-
lated by both Canada and the United States at the end of the oral pro-
ceedingsonly servedto confirm the linewhich each Party had presented in
its initial written submissions.
79. Asalready stated, Article II, paragraph 1,of the SpecialAgreement
provides that "The Chamber isrequested to decide [thequestionsubmitted
to it] in accordance withiheprinciples and rulesof internationallawapplic-
able inthe matter as betweenthe Parties" (emphasis added). The time has
therefore come to begin consideration of the problem of ascertaining the
rules of law, in the international legal order, which govern the matter at
issue in the present case. In the Chamber's opinion, the association of the
terms "rules" and "principles" isno more than the useof adual expression
to convey one and the same idea, since in thiscontext "principles" clearly
means principles of law,that is,it also includes rules ofinternational lawin DELIMITATIOL NINESPROPOSED BY THE PARTIES BEFORE
THE CHAMBER
(seeparagraphs 71, 77-78)
United States line - -- -- - -
Canadian line - '- .- . - .whose case the use of the term "principles" may be justified because of
their more general and more fundamental character.
80. One preliminary remark is necessary before wecome to the essence
ofthe matter, sinceit seemsabove al1essential to stressthedistinction tobe
drawn between what are principles and rules of international law govern-
ing thematter and what could be better described as the various equitable
criteria and practicalmethods that may be used to ensure inconcret0 that a
particular situation is dealt with in accordance with the principles and
rules in question.
81. In a matter of this kind, international law - and in this respect the
Chamber has logicallyto refer primarily to customary international law -
can of its nature only provide a fewbasiclegal principles, which lay down
guidelines to be followed with a view to an essential objective. It cannot
also be expected to specify the equitable criteria to be applied or the
practical,often technical, methods tobe usedfor attaining that objective -
which remain simply criteria and methods even where they are also, in a
different sense, called "principles". Although the practice is still rather
sparse, owing to the relative newness of the question, it too is there to
demonstratethat each specificcase is, in the final analysis, different from
al1the others, that it is monotypic and that, more often than not, the most
appropriate criteria. and the method or combination of methods most
likely to yield a result consonant with what the law indicates, can only be
determined in relation to each particular case and its specific character-
istics. This precludes the possibility of those conditions arising which are
necessaryfor theformation ofprinciples and rules of customary lawgiving
specific provisions for subjects like those just mentioned.
82. The same may not, however, be true of international treaty law.
There is, for instance, nothing to prevent the parties to a convention -
whether bilateral or multilateral - from extending the rules contained in
that convention to aspects which it is less likely that customary interna-
tional lawmight govern. In that event, however,the text of the convention
must be read with caution. The first thing to remember in exarnining the
text, and sometimes even a singleclause,is the distinction, the importance
of which hasjust been indicated, between principles and rules of intema-
tional law enunciated in the convention and criteria and methods for
whose application it might provide in particular circumstances.
83. With these premises established, a chamber of the Court, in its
reasoning on the matter, must obviously begin by referring to Article 38,
paragraph 1,ofthe Statute of the Court. For thepurpose of the Chamber at
the present stage of its reasoning, which is to ascertain the principles and
rules of international law which in general govern the subject of maritime
delimitation, reference will be made to conventions (Art. 38, para. 1(a))
and international custom (para. 1 (b)), to the definition of which the
judicial decisions (para. 1(d))either of theCourt or of arbitration tribunalshave already made a substantial contribution. So far as conventions are
concerned, only "general conventions", including, interalia, the conven-
tions codifying the lawof the sea to which thetwoStates areparties, can be
considered. This is not merely because no particular conventions bearing
on the matter at issue(apart from the SpecialAgreement of 29March 1979)
are in force between the Parties to thepresent dispute, but mainly because
it is in codifying conventions that principles and rules of general appli-
cation can be identified. Suchconventionsmust, moreover, be seenagainst
the background of customary international law and interpreted in its
light.
84. Chronologically speaking, the first multilateral convention to be
considered is, therefore, the Convention on the Continental Shelf of 29
April 1958, which both Parties have in time ratified and which they
acknowledge to be in force between them. The Chamber will examine
below the consequences of this finding for the present case. This Conven-
tion, as its title indicates, concerns only the sea-bed and its subsoil. The
Chamber notes that, at the time of its conclusion, no problem of deter-
mining boundaries for the waters superjacent to the continental shelf had
yet arisen. It would also point out in this connection that even the 1982
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is not yet in
force, and which is intended to endorse the institution of an exclusive
economic zone, still does not provide for the delimitation of both objects
by a single line, an idea of which the present case is the first example.
85. The relevant provisions of the 1958Convention are paragraphs 1
and 2 of Article 6, which read :
"1. Where the same continental shelf is adjacent to the territories
of two or more States whose coasts are opposite each other, the
boundary of the continental shelf appertaining to such States shallbe
determined by agreement between them. In the absence of agreement,
and unlessanotherboundary lineisjustified by specialcircumstances,
the boundary is the median line, every point of which is equidistant
from thenearest points of the baselines from which the breadth of the
territorial sea of each State is measured.
2. Where the same continental shelfis adjacent to the territories of
two adjacent States, the boundary of the continental shelf shall be
determined by agreement between them. In the absence of agreement,
and unlessanotherboundary lineisjustified by specialcircumstances,
the boundary shall be determined by application of the principle of
equidistance from the nearest point of the baselines from which the
breadth of the territorial sea of each State is measured."
86. Perusal of these texts discloses a concrete example in practice of
something whch the Chamber has contemplated above as a theoretical
hypothesis. These two paragraphs enunciate at the same time somethng GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 292
which is a principle of international law governing the problem of deter-
mining continental shelf boundaries between two or more States and, as
indicated in paragraph 80 above, something which appears rather as an
equitable criterion backed by a practical method to be used in certain
circumstances for effecting the delimitation.
87. Theprinciple ofinternational lawstated in thefirstsentence of each
of the two paragraphs is simple, yet its importance must not be underes-
timated. It must not be seen as a mere "self-evident truth". The thrust of
this principle is to establish by implication that any delimitation of the
continental shelf effected unilaterally by one State regardless of the views
of the otherState or Statesconcerned isin international lawnot opposable
to those States. The same principle also entails application of the related
rules as to the duty to negotiate with a viewto reaching agreement, and to
do so in good faith, with a genuine intention to achieve a positive
result.
88. As hasjust been observed, the second sentence of paragraphs 1and
2 of Article 6 of the 1958Convention contemplates the use of specified
criteria and methods for effecting the delimitation in cases where it has
proved impossible to reach agreement. No assessment of their advantages
and disadvantages, or of the extent to which they are or are not binding in
the present dispute, is necessary at the present stage of the Chamber's
deliberations. Suchassessment willbe appropriate later, when theproblem
arises of the criteria and methods to be used for delimitation.
89. With regard solely, for the present, to the problem arising at this
stage, that is toSaythat of ascertaining the principles and rules of inter-
national law applicable to maritime delimitation, the inevitable conclu-
sion, which is definite, yet simple, is that the Convention clearly affirms a
principle the substance and implications ofwhichhave already been stated
in paragraph 87 above :the principle, in brief, that any delimitation must
be effected by agreement between the States concerned, either by the
conclusion of a direct agreement or, if need be, by some alternative
method, which must, however, be based on consent. To this one might
conceivably add - although the 1958Convention does not mention the
idea, so that it entails going alittle farin interpreting the tex- that a rule
which may be regarded as logically underlying the principlejust stated is
that any agreement or other equivalent solution should involve the appli-
cation of equitable criteria, namely criteria derived from equity which -
whether theybedesignated "principles" or "criteria", the latter term being
preferred by the Chamber for reasons of clarity - are not in themselves
principles and rules of international law.
90. In contrast, the principle of international law - that delimitation
must be effected by agreement - which, as the Chamber has noted above,
is expressed in Article 6 of the 1958Convention, and additionally, it may
be thought, the implicit rule it enshrines, are principles already clearly affirmed by customary international law,principles which, forthat reason,
areundoubtedly of general application, valid for al1States and in relation
to al1kinds of maritime delimitation.
91. Following thisreviewof the implications forthe present problem of
the endeavour made in 1958to codify the subject, it will now be appro-
priate to consider the bearing on the same problem of the Court's Judg-
ment of 20 February 1969in the North Sea Continental Shelfcases. That
Judgment, while wellknown to have attributed more marked importance
to the link between the legal institution of the continental shelf and the
physical fact of thenatural prolongation than has subsequently been given
to it, is nonetheless the judicial decision which has made the greatest
contribution to the formation of customary law in this field. From this
point of view, its achievements remain unchallenged. Rehearsing the his-
torical development of general international law on the subject, that
Judgment begins by considering the Truman Proclamation of 28 Septem-
ber 1945,which stated that, for the United States and its neighbours, the
delimitation of lateral boundaries between the continental shelves of
adjacent States should be decided by mutual agreement and "in accor-
dance with equitable principles". "These two concepts" the Court noted,
"have underlain al1the subsequent history of the subject" (I.C.J. Reports
1969, p. 33, para. 47). Turning to the work of the International Law
Commission,the 1969Judgment notes that, according tothe Commission,
concepts such as that of proximity and its corollaries, and other alleged
principles variously advanced, do not comprise mandatory rules of inter-
national law. After this the Judgment restates and endorses the dual
principle "that delimitation must be the object of agreement between the
States concerned, and that such agreement must be arrived at in accor-
dance with equitable principles" (ibid., p. 46, para. 85). From this it
deduces the dual obligation for these States to "enter into negotiations
with a viewto arriving at an agreement" and to "act in such a way that, in
the particular case, and taking al1the circumstances into account, equi-
table principles are applied" (ibid., p. 47, para. 85), no matter what
methods are used for this purpose.
92. Subsequently, the Court of Arbitration's Decision of 30 June 1977
on the delimitation of thecontinental shelfbetween France and the United
Kingdom confirms on this point the Court's conclusions in the North Sea
Continental Shelf cases and enunciates as follows the general rule of cus-
tomary international lawon the matter :"failing agreement, theboundary
between Statesabutting on the same continental shelf is to be determined
on equitable principles" (Decision, para. 70).
93. The next relevant decision is the Court's Judgment of 24 February
1982in the case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab
Jumahiriya). In that case, it should be recalled, the Court had to render a
judgment on the basis of a Special Agreement which, besides requesting
the Court to determine "the principles and rules of international 1aw"
applicable to the delimitation, further requested that the Court takeaccount of "equitable principles and the relevant circumstances which
characterize the area, as well as the recent trends admitted at the Third
Conference on the Law of the Sea" (Special Agreement, Art. 1, Z.C.J.
Reports 1982,p. 21,para. 1).Referring back to the earlier Judgment in the
North Sea ContinentalSheifcases, and to the proceedings and conclusions
of the Third Conference, the 1982Judgment stresses the importance of
"the satisfaction of equitable principles ...in the delimitation process"
(ibid., p.47, para. 44).
94. Turning lastly to the proceedings of the Third United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea and the final result of that Conference,
the Chamber notes in the first place that the Convention adopted at the
end of the Conference has not yet come into force and that a number of
States do not appear inclined to ratify it. This, however,in no way detracts
from the consensus reached on large portions of theinstrument and, above
all, cannot invalidate the observation that certain provisions of the Con-
vention, concerningthecontinental shelfand the exclusiveeconomic zone,
which may, in fact, be relevant to the present case, were adopted without
any objections. The United States, in particular, in 1983,thatisto Sayafter
the SpecialAgreement had come into force, proclaimed an economic zone
on the basis of Part V of the 1982 Convention. This proclamation was
accompanied by a statement by the President to the effect that in that
respect the Convention generally confirmed existing rules of international
law.Canada, whichhasnot at present madea similar proclamation, has for
its part also recognized the legal significance of the nature andpurpose of
the new200-milerégime.Thisconcordance ofviewsisworthy ofnote, even
though the present Judgment is not directed to the delimitation of the
exclusive economic zone as such. In the Chamber's opinion, these provi-
sions, even if in some respects they bear the mark of the compromise
surrounding their adoption, may nevertheless be regarded asconsonant at
present with general international law on the question.
95. In this connection, attention should be drawn to the identical defi-
nition, in Article 74, paragraph 1, and Article 83, paragraph 1, relating
respectivelyto the exclusiveeconomic zone and to the continental shelf,of
the rule of international law respecting delimitation. That identical defi-
nition is as follows :
"The delimitation of [theexclusiveeconomic zone][thecontinental
shelf]between Stateswith opposite or adjacent coasts shallbe effected
byagreement on thebasis ofinternational law,asreferred toinArticle
38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to
achieve an equitable solution."
It is thus limited to expressing the need for settlement of the problem by
agreement and recalling the obligation to achieve an equitable solution.
Although the text is singularly concise it serves to open the door to
continuation of thedevelopment effected in thisfield byinternational case
law. 96. It shouldbenoted that thesymmetry of the two texts, relatingto the
delimitation of the continental shelf and of the exclusiveeconomic zone, is
most interesting in acaselikethepresent one,where a singleboundary line
is to be drawn both for the sea-bed and for the superjacent fishery zone,
which isincluded in the exclusiveeconomic zone concept. The identity of
the language which is employed, even though limited of course to the
determination of the relevant principles and rules of international law, is
particularly significant.
97. The Chamber has now to assess the respective positions of the
Parties in the present dispute in the light of the findings that have so far
been made.
98. While stressing that, unfortunately, the points on which they disa-
greed were more numerous than those on which they agreed, the Parties
were at pains to state, when considering the "rules and principles of
international law" which,they held, should governmaritimedelimitations,
that theywereat one in believingin the existenceof a "fundamental norm"
of international law. According to them, this norm must apply to any de-
limitation and, a fortior ti,the drawing of a single maritime boundary
like that sought in the Gulf of Maine area.
99. According to Canada's definition, the "fundamental norm" in ques-
tion requires that this course be
"determined according to the applicable law, in conformity with
equitable principles, having regard to al1relevant circumstances, in
order to achieve an equitable result".
According to the United States definition, which recalls those in the
Court's Judgments of 1969and 1982,
"the delimitation of a single maritime boundary requires the appli-
cation of equitable principles, taking account of al1circumstances
prevailing in the area concerned, in order to achieve an equitable
solution".
Whilethe difference apparent at first sightdue to the absence in theUnited
States definition of the words "according to the applicable law" is not
negligible, the oral arguments have shown that it is in fact unimportant,
since the United States stated explicitly that it too believed that delimi-
tation shouldbe effected on the basis of the applicableprinciples and rules
of international law.
100. The common conclusion of the Parties as to the "fundamental
norm" governing, in their opinion, the question of maritime delimitations
seems,therefore, to be closelyrelated tothe conclusion reached by analysis
ofinternational caselawand also,in theend,to that arrived at by theThird
Conference on the Law of the Sea.
101. However, if both Parties recognize the existence in internationallaw of a "fundamental norm" governing maritimedelimitations, that is as
far as their agreement goes.There is no longer agreement when each of the
Parties separately seeks to ascertain whether international law might also
contain other rules, possibly accompanied by corollaries, of mandatory
application in the same field.
102. In this connection Canada concentrated its efforts on deducing
these other rules of maritime delimitation from the concept of geographic
adjacency, since it was convinced that this concept constituted the "basis
of the title" of the coastal State to thepartial extension of itsjurisdiction to
the continental shelf and the waters of which it formed the bed.
103. This argument calls for several comments. Regarding adjacency,
the Chamber acknowledgesthat in most cases this concept can be credited
with the ability to express, perhaps better than that of natural prolonga-
tion, the link between a State's sovereignty and its sovereign rights to
adjacent submerged land. It can alro be acknowledged to express correctly
the link between the State's territorial sovereignty and its sovereignrights
over waters covering such submerged land. It should not be forgotten,
however,that "legal title" tocertain maritime or submarine areas isalways
and exclusively the effect of a legal operation. The same is true of the
boundarv of the extent of the title. That boundarv results from a rule of
law, and not from any intrinsic merit in the purely physical fact. In the
Chamber's opinion it is therefore correct to Say that international law
confers on the coastal State a legal title to an adjacentcontinental shelf or
toa maritime zoneadjacenttoits coasts ;it wouldnot becorrect tosaythat
international lawrecognizesthe title conferredontheState bytheadjacency
of that shelfor that zone, as if the mere naturalfact of adjacencyproduced
legal consequences.
104. It mightbe objected that theseremarks are self-evident and that no
one seeks to contradict them. The points concerned must, however, be
clearly stated in order to show that there is a logical gulf between recog-
nizing the precise and circumscribed legalrealitiesjust mentioned and the
idea of constructing solelyon that basis an alleged Iegalprinciple which is
sometimes given the name of "adjacency", sometimes "proximity" and
sometimes, more especially, "distance", which is, besides, quite another
thing. This is because it is from a principle thus established that Canada
seeks to deduce the existence in customary international law of rules for
delimitation between States whose continental shelves or adjacent mari-
time zones overlap. Following ths line enables the Party in question
eventually to assert that international law enshrines a rule that would
concretely determine which of the two neighbouring States whose claims
are at variance is to be recognized as having a more valid claim than the
other to the attribution of certain maritime or submarine areas. Under this
rule the Stateany part of whose coasts is lessdistant from the zones thanthose of the other State would ipsojure be entitled to have the zones
recognized as its own.
105. The Chamber need not comment on the assertion that such a rule
exists, since the Court refused in the-North Sea Continental Shelf cases
to
"imply any fundamental or inherent rule the ultimate effect of which
would be to prohibit any State (otherwise than by agreement) from
exercising continental shelf rights in respect of areas closer to the
Coastof another State" (I.C.J. Reports 1969, pp. 30-31, para. 42).
At that time the Court wished to stress that the submarine areas apper-
taining to the coastal State were not always those closest to its coasts.
106. With regard to the reasonicg by whichthe Party concerned arrived
at the conclusion mentioned above, the Chamber merely notes that it
amounts to just one more, still unconvincing, endeavour to instil the idea
that "equidistance" - rather than "distance" - is a concept endorsed by
customary international law, since the objective is to assert that whatever
lieslessfar from the coasts of one State than from those of another should
automatically appertain to the former State. It is another attempt to turn
equidistance into a genuine rule of law,one to which general international
lawhas supposedly given expression whileyettempering it to take account
ofspecialcircumstances, and thus into something other than itisin reality:
a practical method that can be applied for the purposes of delirnita-
tion.
107. It will not be disputed that this method has rendered undeniable
service in many concrete situations, and is a practical method whose use
under certain conditions could becontemplated andmade mandatory by a
convention like that of 1958.Nevertheless this concept, as manifested in
decided cases,has not therebybecomea ruleof general international law,a
norm logically flowing from a legally binding principle of customary
international law,neither hasit been adopted into customary lawsimplyas
amethod to be givenpriority or preference. The Chamber can best express
its thinking on this subject by quoting the comment made by the Court, in
its Judgment of 20 February 1969, on the similar contention by Den-
mark :
"In the records of the International Law Commission, which had
the matter under consideration from 1950to 1956,there is no indi-
cation at al1that any of its Members supposed that it was incumbent
on the Commission to adopt a rule of equidistance because this gave
expression to, and translated into linear terms, a principle of proxi-
mity inherent in the basic concept of the continental shelf, causing everypart of the shelf to appertain to the nearest coastal Stateand to
no other, and because such a rule must therefore be mandatory as a
matter of customary international law. Such an idea does not seem
ever to have been propounded." (I.C.J. Reports1969,p. 33, para. 49.)
108. The United States,for itspart, has not merely disputed the deter-
mining force in international law of any principle of adjacency, proximity
or distance, or of any legal rule allegedly derived therefrom. It has sought
support for its contentions in the distinction, which the Chamber has
already called unacceptable both in geography and in law, between coasts
defined as "primary", simply because they follow the general direction of
themainland coastline asawhole,or areparallel toit, and coastsdefinedas
"secondary", simply because they deviate from that direction. Answering
theobjection,made by reference to case-law,that theequality of al1coasts
must be measured "in the same plane", the United Statesargued that only
"comparable" coasts are entitled to comparable treatment and that not al1
coasts are comparable. On this basis, therefore, which Canada has
described asan "ad hocconstruction", the United States haspurported to
establish the principle of the preferential nature of the relationship
between "primary" coasts and the maritime and submarine areas situated
frontallybefore them. In terms of practical consequences, thispreferential
relationship should allegedly prevail over the relationship with "second-
ary" coasts, even if these are closer. The maritime areas lying off the
primary coast should therefore be reserved to that coast and not to the
secondary coast, irrespective of the latter's proximity. The "proximity"
concept should therefore yield to that of the "geographic natural prolon-
gation" of the principal coasts and that of the "extension of the coastal
front" of the State to which they belong.
109. In the Chamber's opinion, the apriorinature of thesepremises and
these deductions is as patent as that of the thesis elaborated by the other
Party. In both cases the outcome of the Parties'efforts can be said to have
been preconceived assertions rather than any convincingdemonstration of
the existence of the rules that each had hoped to find established by
international law.
110. Each Party'sreasoning isinfact based on afalsepremise. Theerror
liesprecisely in searching general international law for, as it were,a set of
rules which are not there. This observation applies particularly to certain
"principIes" advanced by the Parties as constituting well-established rules
of law,e.g.,the idea advocatedby Canada that a singlemaritime boundary
should ensure the preservation of existing fishing patterns whch are vital
to the coastalcommunities in the areaconcerned, or theidea advocated by
the United States that such a boundary should make it possible to ensure
the optimum conservation and management of livingresources and at the
sametimereduce the potential for future disputes between the Parties. One
could add to these the ideas of "non-encroachment" upon the coasts of anotherState or of "no cutting-off" of the seaward projection of thecoasts
of another State, and others which the Parties put fonvard in turn, which
may in given circumstances constitute equitable criteria, provided, how-
ever,that noattempt ismade to raise them to the status ofestablished rules
endorsed by customary international law.
111. A body of detailed rules is not to be looked for in customary
international law which in fact comprises a limited set of norms for
ensuring the CO-existenceand vital CO-operationof the members of the
international community, together with a set of customary rules whose
presence in theopiniojurisof States can be tested byinduction based on the
analysis of a sufficiently extensive and convincing practice, and not by
deduction from preconceived ideas. It is therefore unrewarding, especially
in a new and still unconsolidated field like that involving the quite recent
extension of the claims of States to areas which wereuntil yesterday zones
of the high seas, to look to general international law to provide a ready-
made set of rules that can be used for solving any delimitation problems
that arise. A more useful course is to seek a better formulation of the
fundamental norm, on which the Parties were fortunate enough to be
agreed, and whoseexistencein the legalconvictionsnot only of the Parties
to thepresent dispute, but of al1States,isapparentfrom anexamination of
the reâlities of international legal relations.
112. The Chamber therefore wishes to conclude this reviewof the rules
ofinternational law on the question to which the dispute between Canada
and the United States relates by attempting a more complete and, in its
opinion, more precise reformulation of the "fundamental norm" already
mentioned. For this purpose itwill,interalia, drawalso uponthe definition
of the "actual rules of law ... which govern the delimitation of adjacent
continental shelves - that is to Say,rules binding upon States for al1de-
limitations" which was given by the Court in its 1969Judgment in the
North Sea ContinentalShelfcases (I.C.J. Reports1969,pp. 46-47,para. 85).
What general international law prescribes in every maritime delimitation
between neighbounng States could therefore be defined as follows :
(1) No maritime delimitation between States with opposite or adjacent
coasts may be effected unilaterally by one of those States. Such delirnita-
tion must be sought and effected by means of an agreement, following
negotiations conducted in good faith and with the genuine intention of
achieving a positive result. Where, however, such agreement cannot be
achieved, delimitation should be effected by recourse to a third party
possessing the necessary competence. (2) In either case, delimitation is to be effected by the application of
equitable criteria and by the use of practical methods capable of ensuring,
with regard to thegeographicconfiguration of the area and other relevant
circumstances, an equitable result.
113. The function of the foregoing discussion has been to define, in the
light of the sources examined, the principles and rules of international law
or, more precisely, the fundamentalnorm of customary international law
governing maritime delimitation. As has been shown, that norm is ulti-
mately that delimitation, whether effected by direct agreement or by the
decision of a third Party, must be based on the application of equitable
criteria and the use of practical methods capable of ensuring an equitable
result. The Chamber must nowproceed to consider theseequitable criteria
and the practical methods which are in principle applicable in the actual
delimitation process.
114. On the basis of the conclusions already reached, the Chamber has
found that general customary international law is not the proper place in
which to seek rules specifically prescribing the application of any parti-
cularequitablecriteria, or the useof anyparticular practical methods, for a
delimitation of the kind requested in the present case. As already noted,
customary international law merely contains a generalrequirement of the
application of equitable criteria and the utilization of practical methods
capable ofimplementing them. It istherefore specialinternational lawthat
must be looked to, in order to ascertain whether that law, asat present in
force between the Parties to this case, does or does not include some rule
specificallyrequiring the Parties, and consequentlythe Chamber, to apply
certain criteria or certain specific practical methods to the delimitation
that is requested.
115. The startingpoint for this analysis may once again be an exami-
nation of the 1958Convention on the Continental Shelf,more specifically
of the second sentence of each of paragraphs 1and 2 of Article 6which, as
wehave seen,do not, likethe first sentence, enunciate a principle or rule of
international law, but contemplate, inter alia he use of a particular
practical method for the actual implementation of the delimitation pro-
cess. As already stated, this method employs a single technique for con-
tinental shelf delimitation, but in the form of a median line in maritime
areas between opposite coasts, and a lateral equidistance line where the
coasts of the two States are adjacent. This method is inspired by and
derives from a particular equitable criterion :namely, that the equitable
solution, at least prima facie,is an equal division of the areas of overlap of
the continental shelvesof the two litigant States. The applicability of thismethod is, however, subject to the condition that there are no special
circumstances in the case which would make that criterion inequitable, by
showing such division to be unreasonable and so entailing recourse to a
differentmethod or methods or, at the veryleast, appropriate correction of
the effect produced by the application of the first method.
116. In the light of these explanations the question therefore arises
whether the fact(alreadynoted by the Chamber) that the 1958Convention
on the Continental Shelf is in force between the Parties does or does not
makeitobligatory to use,forthedelimitation requested in thepresent case,
the method specified in Article 6 of that Convention and, by implication,
the application of the criterion on which it is based.
117. No doubts have been expressed on either side as to the fact that
both Parties regard themselvesas bound by the Convention to which they
have both acceded. This case does not involve any problems of the kind
which arose in the caseconcerning the delimitation of thecontinental shelf
between France and the United Kingdom because of reservations
expressed by the former country but not accepted by the latter. The
declaration made by Canada at the time of becoming party to the Con-
vention, and objected to by the United States, is not such asto prevent the
application of the Convention to a particularsituation concerning the two
States, nor has the United States claimed othenvise.
118. The Chamber therefore takes the view that if a question as to the
delimitation of the continental shelf only had arisen between the two
States, there would be no doubt as to the mandatory application of the
method prescribed in Article 6 of the Convention, always subject, of
course, to the condition that recourse is to be had to another method or
combination of methods where special circumstances so require.
119. The purpose of thepresent proceedings isnot, however, to obtain a
delimitation of thecontinental shelfalone, asit might havebeen if they had
taken place prior to the adoption by the two Parties of an exclusivefishery
zone and the consequent emergence of the idea of delimitation by a single
line.Their purpose is - and both Parties have abundantly emphasized the
fact - to draw a singledelimitation line for both the continental shelf and
the superjacent fishery zone. It is doubtful whether a treaty obligation
which is in terms confined to the delimitation of the continental shelf can
be extended, in a manner that would manifestly go beyond the limits
imposed by the strict criteria governing the interpretation of treaty instru-
ments, to a field which is evidently much greater, unquestionably hetero-
geneous,and accordingly fundamentally different. Apartfrom thisformal,
but important, consideration, there is the more substantive point that such
an interpretation would, in the final analysis, make the maritime water
mass overIyingthe continental shelf a mere accessory of that shelf. Such aresult would be just as unacceptable as the converse result produced by
simply extending to the continental shelf the application of a method of
delimitation adopted for the "water column" only and its fish re-
sources.
120. In this connection, the Chamber would also observe that it is not
possible to employ, in refutation of the foregoing, the argument that the
method contemplated by Article 6 of the Convention on the Continental
Shelf is also provided for, in similar terms, in Article 12 and Article 24,
paragraph 3,of the Convention of the samedate on theTerritorial Seaand
the Contiguous Zone. The situation of the territorial sea and the conti-
guous zone, conceived as subject to the sovereignty of the coastal State, or
subject to the exerciseof customscontrols and similar measures, intended
to prevent violations of its territorial sovereignty, cannot be treated as an
analogy. There isnothing here whichis comparable with the reservation of
the exclusiverights of exploitation of resources of a maritime area extend-
ing to 200miles ;there is therefore nothing which couldjustify the idea of
an extension thereto of criteria and delimitation methods expressly con-
templated for the narrow strip of sea defined for a quite different pur-
pose.
121. Furthermore the Chamber cannot accept thearguments of Canada
that, when a singlemaritime boundary is to be determined, the provisions
of Article 6 of the 1958Convention apply directly, i.e., as treaty-law, "to
the continental shelf as a component of the single maritime boundary",
and also, but as a "particular expression of a general norm", to the
superjacent fishery zone, as the other component.
122. Leaving aside the substantive point made at the end of paragraph
119above, the Chamber is bound to note that the assertion that, even for
the delimitation of an exclusive maritime fishery zone, by virtue of a
generalnorm ofinternational law"the equidistancemethod is tobe usedin
those cases where it produces an equitable result", i.e., in so far as special
circumstances do not require its use to be abandoned, has no convincing
basis. To accept this idea would amount to transforming the "combined
equidistance-special circumstances rule" into a rule of general interna-
tional law,and thus onecapable ofnumerousapplications, whereasthere is
no trace in international custom of such a transformation having
occurred.
123. The Chamber cannot but note in this connection that although it
was proper for Canada to derive from the Decision of the Court of Arbi-
tration on the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between France and
the United Kingdom the expression combining in one concise definition
al1the different ideas found in Article 6 of the 1958Convention, it would
be straining the scope of that Decision to interpret it as meaning that the
"combined equidistance-special circumstances rule" (Decision, para. 68)is in the process of becoming a norm of general application. What that
Decision did state is that the rule in question
"givesparticular expressionto ageneralnorm that, failingagreement,
theboundary betweenStates abuttingon the samecontinental shelfis
to be determined on equitable principles" (Decision, para. 70),
which is a different matter. On the contrary, the finding of the Court of
Arbitration clearly shows the different levels at which the various rules
concerned are situated :theprovisions ofArticle 6of the 1958Convention
at the levelof special international law, and, at the levelof general inter-
national law, the norm prescribing application of equitable principles, or
rather equitablecriteria,without anyindication as to thechoiceto bemade
among these latter or between the practical methods to implement them.
The Chamber considers that such is the current state of customary inter-
national law.
124. In short, theChamber does not believethat there is any argument
to justify the attempt to turn the provisions of Article 6 of the 1958
Convention into a general rule applicable as such to every maritime
delimitation. The treaty provisions in question, as the 1969Judgment of
the Court pointed out, can have no mandatory force as regards delimita-
tion, evendelimitation of thecontinental shelfalone,between Stateswhich
are not parties to the 1958Convention. Similarly, they cannot have such
mandatory forceevenbetween States whichareparties to theConvention,
as regards a maritime boundary concerning a much wider subject-matter
than the continental shelf alone.
125. The Chamber must therefore conclude in this respect that the
provisions of Article 6 of the 1958Convention on the Continental Shelf,
although in force between the Parties, do not entai1either for them or for
the Chamber any legaI obligation to apply them to the single maritime
delimitation which is the subject of the present case.
126. The Chamber, having reached this conclusion as to the absence
between the Parties of any legal obligation deriving from treaty to apply
specific practical methods to the determination of the single boundary
between their respective maritime zones, must also examine a related
question. It must ascertain whether, as between the Parties, any other
factors have intervened which rnight, independently of any forma1 act
creating rules or instituting relations under special international law,
nevertheless give rise to an obligation of this kind. The question, which
the Parties have argued at length during the present case, is whether the
conduct of the Parties over a givenperiod of their relationship constitutedacquiescence by one of them in the application to the delimitation of a
specificmethod advocated by theother Party, or precluded it from oppos-
ing such action, or whether such conduct might have resulted in a modus
vivendi,respected in fact, with regard to a line corresponding to such an
application.
127. It was more specificallyCanada which argued that the conduct of
the United States involvedakind ofsubstantive consent bythat country, in
one of these forms, to the application of the equidistance method, parti-
cularly as regards the delimitation to be effected in the Georges Bank
sector. The Chamber will therefore begin itsexamination of this aspect of
the question by looking at this argument.
128. According to Canada the conduct of the United States may be
taken into consideration in three ways, of varying importance : first, as
evidence of genuine acquiescence in the idea of a median line as the
boundary between the respective maritimejurisdictions, and of a resultant
estoppel against the United States ;secondly, as an indication, at least, of
the existence of a modus vivendior of a de facto boundary, which the two
States have allowed to come into being ;and, thirdly and lastly, as mere
indicia of the type of delimitation that the Parties themselveswould have
considered equitable. It should be noted that this Canadian argument
concerned, at the time of the conduct in question, the continental shelf
proper and, inter alia, that of Georges Bank. The United States strongly
disputes the contention that its conduct could have the legal or other
consequences attributed to it by Canada.
129. In the Canadian argument the terms "acquiescence" and "estop-
pel" are used together and practically for the same purposes. Canada
defines as follows the rules relating to acquiescence, regarded as a recog-
nition of rights :
"One government's knowledge, actual or constructive, of the con-
duct or assertion of rights of the other party to a dispute, and the
failure to protest in the face of that conduct, or assertion of rights,
involves a tacit acceptance of the legal position represented by the
other Party'sconduct or assertion ofrights." (Hearing of4April1984,
afternoon.)
In the case of estoppel, Canada acknowledgesthatin international law the
"doctrine" is still developing. According to Canada, however, al1condi-
tions permitting theinvocation of that principle are satisfied in the present
case, even if only the strictest are selected. Canada stated in the oral
proceedings that estoppel is "the alter ego of acquiescence", though it
added that evenif it were to be held that theconditions forthe recognition
of an estoppel weremore stringent than thosefor acquiescence(the United
States argues that a party wishing to invoke this form of preclusion must
have relied on the other party's statements or conduct either to its owndetriment or to the other's advantage), this latter criterion must be
regarded as satisfied in the present case.
130. The Chamber observes that in any case the concepts of acquies-
cence and estoppel, irrespective of the status accorded to them by inter-
national law, both follow from the fundamental principles of good faith
and equity. They are, however, based on different legal reasoning, since
acquiescence is equivalent to tacit recognition manifested by unilateral
conduct which the other party may interpret as consent, while estoppel is
linked to the idea ofpreclusion. According to oneview,preclusion isin fact
the procedural aspect and estoppel the substantive aspect of the same
principle. Without engaging at this point on a theoretical debate, which
would exceed the bounds of its present concerns, the Chamber merely
notes that, since the same facts are relevant to both acquiescence and
estoppel, except asregardsthe existence of detriment, it is able to take the
two concepts into consideration as different aspects of one and the same
institution.
131. The relevant facts may be summarized asfollows.Canada began in
1964to issue,onits own sideofwhatit regarded asthe median linedividing
Georges Bank, long-term options (permits) for the exclusiveexploitation
of hydrocarbons. From 1964 onwards seismic research was carried out
under the authority of Canada in the northeastern portion of the Bank.
Canada alleges that it was known to the United States authorities that it
had issued permits relating to the northeastern portion of Georges Bank.
The Canadian Government had, moreover, published informationon the
subject in theMonth& Oil and Gus Report. The United States replies that
the issue of offshore permits under Canadian legislation was not common
knowledge, and merely constituted an interna1 administrative activity
incapable of forming the basis of acquiescence or estoppel at the interna-
tional level. Before any effect could result at this level it would, at least,
have been necessary for the Canadian Department of External Affairs to
send a diplomatic communication to the United States Department of
State.
132. According to Canada, however, the United Statesauthorities were
aware of the facts in question by 1April 1965at the latest. At that date the
Bureau of Land Management of the United States Department of the
Interior wrote to the Canadian Department of Northern Affairs and
National Resources enquiring asto the location of two Canadian offshore
permits with reference to the median line referred to in Article 6 of the
Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf.The Canadian Department
replied by sending it documents showing the areas for which the perrnits
had been issued. By a letter dated 14May 1965,known as the "Hoffman
letter" from the name of its signatory, the Bureau of Land Management
acknowledged receipt of the documents and mentioned, inter alia,the
question of the exact position of a median line, and the Department of
Northern Affairs replied on 16June 1965that the median line used wasconstructed in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention on the Con-
tinental Shelf. This was followed by correspondence, now at diplomatic
level, between the United States Embassy in Ottawa and the Canadian
Department of External Affairs, which supplied certain items of detailed
information. A letter written on behalf of the Canadian Under-Secretary
of State for External Affairs, in which the median line was explicitly
mentioned, isdated 30August 1966,but the United States didnot takethis
opportunity to protest or reserve its rights. It did so only in its aide-
mémoiredated 5 November 1969,which does not refer to any previous
reservation. Canada also affirms that it wasonly on 18February 1977that
mention was first made in diplomatic correspondence of the claim
advancedby the United States in 1976to a boundary along theNortheast
Channel.
133. The United States argues in reply that the authors of the 1965
correspondence werernid-levelgovernment officialswhohad no authority
to define international boundaries or take a position on behalf of their
Governments on foreign claims in this field. The United States disputes
especially the argument that the "Hoffman letter" can be regarded as
constituting explicit or tacit acquiescence in the Canadian claims. As Mr.
Hoffman explained in his letter, he had noauthority to commit the United
States as to the position of a median line. Moreover, the United States
aide-mémoireof 5 November 1969explicitly referred to the previous one,
of 10 May 1968,whereby the United States proposed that the Govern-
ments should undertake discussions at an early date on the delimitation of
the continental shelf in the Gulf of Maine and in the area of the Straits of
Juan de Fuca. This aide-mémoiresaid nothing about a median line or
about any other principle or method of delimitation.
134. According to the United States, Canada never issued an officia1
proclamation or anyother publication for thepurpose ofmaking its claims
known internationally ; the United States could not, therefor infer the
existence of such claims by such indirect means. By 1964Canada had not
published any officia1claim to the continental shelf under its own legis-
lation. On the contrary, if had not even taken an officia1stand on the
Truman Proclamation and its possible implications for the continental
shelf in the Georges Bank area which, according to the United States, was
included in its entirety therein.
135. Canada argues that, in the practice followed from 1964until the
end of 1970,the United States did not oppose the Canadian contention
and did not implement a boundary based on the Northeast Channel. The
permits issued by the United Statesauthorities didnot relate toareas north
of a median line on Georges Bank. Canada further quotes the aide-
mémoireof 5 November 1969,which shows that the United States had
refrained from authorizing the exploitation of minerals in the northern
continental shelf of Georges Bank.
136. The United States replies that at the time in question it was con-fronted on Georges Bank with Canadian seismic exploration of minor
importance, which involved neither drilling nor the extraction of petro-
leum. No special action was therefore necessary on its part. Moreover,
from 1965onwardsUnited States exploration permitshad been issued for
thenortheastern part of Georges Bank, beyond a median line, e.g.,permit
EL/65 issued to Shell. The aide-mémoireof 5 November 1969 already
mentioned, clearlyconstitutedopposition to the Canadian programme for
the Bank :it stated specifically that the United States :
"cannot acquiesce in any Canadian authorization of exploration or
exploitation of the natural resources of the Georges Bank continental
shelf".
137. The facts being as described, the Chamber does not feel able to
draw the conclusion that the United States acquiesced in delimitation of
the Georges Bank continental shelf by a median line, setting aside for the
moment both the fact that the platform of Georges Bank isonly a limited
portion of thecontinental shelfof thearea tobe delimited, and the fact that
at the present time the continental shelf is only one of the two subjects of
the delimitation requested of the Chamber.
138. In the view of the Chamber, it may be correct that the attitude of
the United States on maritime boundaries with its Canadian neighbour,
until the end of the 1960s, revealed uncertainties and a fair degree of
inconsistency. Notwithstanding this, the facts advanced by Canada do not
warrant the conclusion that the United States Government thereby re-
cognized the median line once and for al1as a boundary between the
respectivejurisdictions overthecontinental shelf ;nor do they warrant the
conclusion that mere failure to react to the issue of Canadian exploration
permits, from 1964until the aide-mémoireof 5 November 1969,legally
debarred the United States fromcontinuingto claim a boundary following
the Northeast Channel, or even including al1the areas southwest of the
"adjusted perpendicular".
139. The Chamber considers that the terms of the "Hoffman letter"
cannot be invoked against the United States Government. It is true that
Mr. Hoffman's reservation, that he was not authorized to commit the
United States, only concerned the location of a median line ;the use of a
median line as a method of delimitation did not seem to be in issue, but
there isnothing to showthat that method had been adopted at government
level. Mr. Hoffman, like his Canadian counterpart, was acting within the
limits of his technical responsibilities and did not seem aware that the
question of principle which the subject of the correspondence might imply
had not been settled, and that the technical arrangements he was to make
with his Canadian correspondents should not prejudge his country's posi-
tion in subsequent negotiations between governments. This situation,
however,beinga matter of United States interna1administration, does notauthorize Canada to rely on the contents of a letter from an officia1of the
Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior, which
concernsa technical matter, asthough it werean officia1declaration of the
United States Government on that country'sinternationalmaritime boun-
daries.
140. Furthermore, while it may be conceded that the United States
showed a certain imprudence in maintaining silence after Canada had
issued the first permits for exploration on Georges Bank, any attempt to
attribute to such silence, a brief silenceat that, legal consequences taking
the concrete form of an estoppel, seems to be going too far.
141. From 1965onwards, aswehave seen, theUnited Statesalso issued
exploration permits for thenortheastern portion of Georges Bank, that is
to Say in the area claimed by Canada. Here again it would have been
prudent of the United States to inform Canada officiallyof those activities,
but its failure to do sooes not warrant the conclusion that it thereby gave
Canada the impression that it accepted the Canadian standpoint, and that
legaleffects resulted. Once again the United States attitude towards Can-
ada was unclear and perhaps ambiguous, but not to the point of entitling
Canada to invoke the doctrine of estoppel.
142. When Canada, at the level of its Department of External Affairs
and of the United States Embassy in Ottawa, clearly stated its claims for
the first time (letter of 30August 1966),it might admittedly have expected
a reaction on the part of the United States Department of State. The
United States concedes that it was thus officially informed of Canada's
viewson the problem ofdelimitation. Eventhough the correspondence was
conducted, not between the Secretary of State for External Affairs per-
sonally and the United States Ambassador personally, but between civil
servants subordinate to them, the letter did in fact emanate from the
administrative servicecompetent for the conduct of foreign relations and
was in fact addressed to the Ambassador representing the Government of
the United States. In waiting until10 May 1968before suggesting,through
diplomatic channels, the opening of discussions, while the question
remained pending, and then waiting a further year and a half, until
November 1969,before stating clearly that no Canadian permit for the
exploration or exploitation of the natural resources of the Georges Bank
continental shelf would be recognized, the United States cannot be
regarded as having endeavoured to keep Canada sufficientlyinformed of
its policy. Itis even possible that Canada was reasonably justified in
hoping that the United States would ultimately come round to its view.To
conclude from this, however, in legal terms, that by its delay the United
States had tacitly consented to theCanadian contentions, or had forfeited
its rights is, in the Chamber's opinion, overstepping the conditions
required for invoking acquiescence or estoppel.
143. Canada has referred, in support of its arguments, to a number of
precedents and in particular to certainjudgments of the Court. The UnitedStates argues that such case law, and the reasoning therein, do not
strengthen Canada's arguments. The Chamber willnot discuss this subject
in any great detail but will merely show that these precedents are incon-
clusive with respect to the present case.
144. To support the argument that a State'sconduct may produce legal
consequences initsrelations with other States, Canada has availed itself,in
particular, of the Judgment in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case. It is
true that in that Judgment the Courtfound that theNonvegian authorities
had applied their systernof delimitation consistently and uninterruptedly
from 1869until the timewhen the dispute arose and that general toleration
of that Norwegian practice was an unchallenged fact (1.C.J. Reports 1951,
p. 138).TheCourtfound that suchgeneral toleration,combined withother
factors,warranted Norway'senforcement of its system against the United
Kingdom (ibid.,p. 139).The Chamber considers that the elements of fact
and of law in the Fisheriescase and those in the present dispute are clearly
too dissimilar for a comparison thereof to produce legal consequences
valid for the present case. Neither the long duration of the Norwegian
practice (70 years), nor Nonvay's activities in manifestation of that prac-
tice, warrant the drawing of conclusions from the 1951 Judgment that
would be relevant in the present case.
145. It is apparently the Judgrnent in the North Sea Continental Shelf
cases that gave the most precise definition of the conditions for invoking
thedoctrine ofestoppel ;but evendisregardingthe elernentofdetriment or
prejudice caused by a State's change of attitude, which distinguishes
estoppel stricto sensufrom acquiescence, it nevertheless presupposes clear
and consistent acceptance (I.C.J. Reports 1969,p. 26).In the present case
the conduct of the United States, because of its unclear nature, does not
satisfy the conditions prescribed in the 1969Judgment, either for estoppel
or for acquiescence.
146. In the Grisbadarna case concerning the delimitation of fishing
grounds between Norway and Sweden, the conduct of the two States did
play a major part ;the relevance of that case to the present one is however
debatable, since the problems of rights over maritime areas differed in
many respects from those of the present day. That case concerned terri-
torial waters, whereas the present one concerns vast areas of sea that have
only recently corne under the jurisdiction of the adjacent States. The
differencesbetween the twocasesare sogreat that it isdifficult to establish
a parallel between them. Even if these differences are minimized, it is not
possible to conclude, on the basis of the Grisbadarnaprecedent, from a
comparison of theconduct of Swedenand Norway with that of the Parties
to the present case, that the conduct of the United States was sufficiently
clear, sustained and consistent to constitute acquiescence.
147. The facts of the Temple of Preah Vihear case (cf. I.C.J. Reports1962,pp. 22,23 and 32)differ so much from those of thepresent case that
the conclusions drawn from it are - it would seem - inapplicable. Nor is
the Judgment in the caseconcerning the ArbitralAward Made by the King
of Spain on 23 December1906a valid precedent. Acquiescence did play a
part in that case, but in reaching that conclusion the Court relied on
explicit declarations of Nicaragua, and on conduct that had continued
over a very long period, something which does not apply in the present
case.
148. On the basis of al1theforegoing considerations the Chamber finds,
therefore, that in the present casethe conditions have not been met for an
acquiscence on the part of the United States whch would, even in the
absence of other bases, have the effect, in the bilateral relations between
the United States and Canada, of making the application of the median
line to the determination of their respective maritimejurisdictions man-
datory.The same is true as regards the possibility of an estoppel, without
prejudice to the problems that the application of this concept in interna-
tional law may raise generally.
149. Independently of the arguments derived from the conduct of the
Parties for the purpose of establishing the existence of acquiescence or
estoppel, Canadahas also requested the Chamber to find that the conduct
of the Parties proved at least the existence of a "modus vivendimaritime
limit" or a "defacto maritime limit" based on the coincidence between the
Canadian equidistanceline (the "strict equidistance" line) and the United
States "BLM line",whichitisclaimed wasrespected by the twoParties and
by numerous oil companies from 1965to 1972,at least. Canada bases this
conclusion on the reasoning and pronouncements of the Court in the
Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) case (1.C.J. Reports
1982,pp. 83-85).The United Statesnot only denies that itspetroleum and
gas permits respected any particular line (see the analysis of the facts
relating to acquiescence and estoppel above), but also denies the very
existence of the "BLM line".
150. Without going into these differences of detail, the Chamber notes
that, even supposing that there was a de facto demarcation between the
areas for which each of the Parties issued permits (Canada from 1964and
the United States from 1965 onwards), this cannot be recognized as a
situation comparable to that on which the Court based its conclusions in
the Tunisia/Libya case. It is true that the Court relied upon the fact of the
division between the petroleum concessions issued by the two States con-
cerned. But it took special account of the conduct of the Powers formerly
responsible for the external affairs of Tunisia - France - and of Tripoli-
tania - Italy -, whichit found amounted to amodusvivendi,and which the
two States continued to respect when, after becorning independent, they
began to grant petroleum concessions.
151. Moreover, in theChamber's opinion theperiod from 1965to 1972,"at least", which, according to Canada, is the one in which the modus
vivendi was instituted, is too brief to have produced a legal effect of this
kind, even supposing that the facts are as claimed. In addition, Canada's
efforts to extend this period by attaching it to the preceding period
encounter the objections to itwhich the Courthas alreadyformulated with
regard to acquiescence, and which would obviously hold good for the
modus vivenditoo.
152. Canada invokes the conduct of the Parties finally in support of its
arguments that both in fact regarded the use of an equidistance line as an
equitable culmination of thedelimitation process. Thisargument is based,
in the final analysis, on the facts already advanced in support of the
acquiescence, estoppel and modus vivendi claims : in the view of the
Chamber these facts cannot support this idea any more than the others.
Each Party has adopted aclear position on what it would consider ajust or
equitable balance between their respective interests, and the Chamber
cannotbut take note of this. Bywayof conclusion it can merely reconfirm
its previous comment on the reliance placed on the conduct of the Parties
for the purposes examined above.
153. Finally, the Chamber cannot fail to mention the fact that the
United States,for its part, has invoked Canada's conduct in relation to its
own claims to the continental shelf. It has emphasized that at the time of
the Truman Proclamation in 1945 Canada was informed, first, of the
intention of the United States to carry out the delimitation of the conti-
nental shelfby agreement and in accordance with equitable principles and,
secondly, of its determination to regard the 100-fathom depth line as the
boundary of its continental shelf zone - a boundary which includes
Georges Bank. Canada argues in reply that the Truman Proclamation did
not mention the 100-fathom depth, but the United States counters that
argument by pointing out that the depth in question was mentioned in a
Department of State press communiqué which accompanied the Procla-
mation. A copy of the latter, together with an explanatory memorandum,
had been communicated to Canada for comments approximately five
months before the publication of the Proclamation. Canada did not react.
While not arguing from this that Canada consented to a boundary along
the 100-fathom depth line, the United States does claim that Canada
acquiescedin the requirementfordelimitation by agreement in accordance
with equitable principles. In additionCanada was aware, it is argued, that
any unilateral measure it might take within the 100-fathomline would be
unacceptable to the United States. Canada disputes this, claiming that it
had not been informed of the reference to the 100-fathomdepth line,which
was not contained in the Proclamation itself, and that the explanatory
memorandum receivedat the same time merely indicated that questions of
delimitation could be left until some future time.
154. However that may be, the Chamber reiterates that theprimary rule
for the delimitation of maritime areas between neighbouring States is thatit must be effected by agreement and that, in as much as the argument of
the United States based on Canada's failure to react to the Truman
Proclamation amounts to claiming that delimitation must be effected in
accordance with equitable principles, the United States position on that
point merely refers back to the "fundamental norm" which Canada also
relieson in the case.Thiscomment does not derogate in any way from the
observation made above that it is impossible toconclude from theconduct
of the Parties that there is a binding legal obligation, in their bilateral
relations, to make useof aparticular method for delimiting their respective
maritime jurisdictions.
155. Having concluded the two-stage analysis carried out in the fore-
going paragraphs, the Chamber is now able to give a definitive answer to
the question posed in paragraph 114above. It hasjust been noted that the
Parties to the present case, in the current state of the law governing
relations between them, are not bound, under a rule of treaty-law or other
rule, to apply certain criteria or to use certain particular methods for the
establishment of a singlemaritimeboundary for both the continental shelf
and the exclusive maritime fishery zone, as in the present case. Conse-
quently, the Chamber also is not so bound.
156. The Chamber may therefore begin by taking into consideration,
without its approach being influenced by predetermined preferences, the
criteria and especially the practical methods that may theoretically be
applied to determining the course of the single maritime boundary
between the United States and Canada in the Gulf of Maine and in the
adjacent outer area. It will then be for the Chamber to select, from this
range of possibilities, the criteria that it regards as the most equitable for
the task to be performed in the present case, and the method or combi-
nation of practical methods whose application will best permit of their
concrete implementation.
157. There has been no systematic definition of the equitable criteria
that may be taken into consideration for an international maritime delimi-
tation, and this would in any event be difficult apriori because of their
highly variable adaptability to different concrete situations. Codification
efforts have left this field untouched. Such criteria have however been
mentioned in the arguments advanced by the parties in cases concerning
the determination of continental shelf boundaries, and in thejudicial or
arbitral decisions in those cases. There is, for example, the criterion
expressed by the classic formula that the land dominates the sea ; the GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 313
criterion advocating, in cases where no special circumstances require cor-
rection thereof, the equal division of the areas of overlap of the maritime
and submarine zonesappertaining tothe respectivecoasts of neighbouring
States ;the criterion that, whenever possible, the seaward extension of a
State'scoast should not encroach upon areas that aretoo closeto thecoast
of anotherState ;the criterion of preventing, asfar aspossible, any cut-off
of the seaward projection of the coast or of part of the coast of either of the
Statesconcerned ;and thecriterion whereby,in certaincircumstances, the
appropriate consequences may be drawn from any inequalities in the
extent of the coasts of two States into the same area of delimitation.
158. With regard to these and other possible criteria, the Chamber does
not think it would be useful to undertake a more or less complete enu-
meration in the abstract of thecriteria that are theoretically conceivable,or
an evaluation, also in the abstract, of their greater or lesser degree of
equitableness. As the Chamber has emphasized a number of times, their
equitablenessor otherwise can only be assessed in relation to the circum-
stances of each case, and for one and the samecriterion it is quite possible
to arrive at different, or even opposite, conclusions in different cases. The
essential fact to bear in mind is, as the Chamber has stressed, that the
criteria in question are not themselves rules of law and therefore manda-
tory in the different situations, but "equitable", or even "reasonable",
criteria, and that what international lawrequires is that recourse be had in
each case to the criterion, or the balance of different criteria, appearing to
be most appropriate to the concrete situation.
159. Unlike the equitable criteria by which the delimitation must be
guided, the practical methods that can be used for effecting the material
delimitation have of course been the subject of certain apriori analyses. In
this connection, mention may be made of the observations in the Court's
Judgment in the NorthSea ContinentalShelfcases regarding the workdone
on the subject by the International Law Commission and its request for
advice from a Committee of Experts (1.C.J. Reports1969,p. 35,para. 53).
During thecourse of that work mention was made of the use, according to
circumstances, of themethod of the lateral equidistanceline or the median
line, the method which was finally adopted by the Commission (and later
by the 1958Convention) as applicable, provided always that special cir-
cumstances do notjustify the useof another method. But,as the Court also
recalled, mention was then made concurrently of other possible methods :
that ofdrawingalineperpendicular to acoast, orto the generaldirection of
a coast ; that of drawing a boundary prolonging an existing division of
territorial waters, or the direction of the final segment of a land boundary,
or the overall direction of such boundary. This list was moreover by no
means exhaustive. These different methods, and others, have been used in
turn in differentdelimitations effected bydirect agreement between neigh-
bouring States ;in this connection statistical considerations afford no
indication either of the greater or lesser degree of appropriateness of anyparticular method, or of any trend in favour thereof discernible in inter-
national customary law.
160. The Chamber nevertheless considers that it must repeat, with
reference to these practical methods, the observation already made with
reference to theequitable criteria whoseeffectiveapplication shouldbe by
the use of these methods. This is another area in which comparisons in the
abstract are most unlikely to yield useful results. On the general level al1
that can be done is to comment on the possible consequences of the rapid
changes that have taken place in what is the very subject-matter of a
maritime delimitation. The methods taken into consideration in a still
relativelyrecent past - in thisparticular fieldideas ageveryquickly - were
few in number and of very similar inspiration. This limited choice was
justifiable when thesemethodshad to be applied oversmall distances, e.g.,
along boundaries between the territorial seas of adjacent States ;but the
same choice may seem lessjustifiable when boundaries have to be estab-
lished which cover hundreds of nautical miles and are intended, not to
delimitjurisdiction over the waters immediately abuttingon the Coast,but
in fact to share out the potential mineral wealth of continental shelves
extending to the continental margin, or the biological resources of mari-
time and ocean areas of hitherto unimagined proportions. Obviously the
preference giventoaparticular method fordrawinga boundary overavery
short distance from the coasts may no longer be justifiable where the
delimitation has to extend a great distance from its starting-point and
where different factors have to be taken into account.
161. It is true that, until the emergence of the present dispute, the
probIem of "long distance" delimitation,sotospeak,had onlycome before
an international judicial or arbitral body in relation to the continental
shelf.This is the first time that a delimitation has been sought by request-
ingachamber of the Court to drawa singlelinewhichwillbevalid both for
the continental shelf and for the superjacent waters. It is, of course, quite
possible, even at the theoretical level, that one method may seem prefer-
ableforthedelimitation of thecontinental shelf,whereas another would be
appropriate for the delimitation of an exclusivefisheryzone or an exclusive
econornic zone. It will be remembered that a question put to the Parties
during the hearings in thepresent casewas :in the event thatone particular
method, or set of methods, should appearappropriate for the delimitation
of the continental shelf,and another for that of the exclusivefishery zone,
what they considered to be the legal grounds that might be invoked for
preferring one ortheother in seekingto determinea singleline. Inits reply,
theUnited Statesnoted that in suchcircumstancesthere appeared tobe no
legalgrounds to be invoked apriori for preferring one or another method,
and that the applicable principles and relevant circumstances should be GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 315
considered as an integrated whole. In the view of the United States,
circumstances relevant to the functional effectiveness of a boundary rela-
ting to both the water column and the sea-bed should be given greater
weight than circumstances relating to only one of them. Canada expressed
the opinion that preference as to method should depend on the degree of
relevance to be attached to a givenfactor in relation to thedelimitation of
al1or any part of the boundary. It explained that such degree might differ
in each of the two areas under consideration :the Gulf of Maine itself, as
far seaward as the Cap.eSable-Nantucket closing line, and the outer area
that includes Georges Bank. It concluded that preference as to method
should be dictated by the relevant circumstances of each of the two
areas.
162. Here again the essential consideration is that none of thepotential
methodshas intrinsic merits which would makeit preferable to another in
the abstract.The most that can be saidisthat certain methods are easier to
apply and that, because of their almost mechanical operation, they are less
likely to entai1doubts and arouse controversy. That explains to a certain
extent why they havebeen used more frequently or whythey have in many
cases been taken into consideration in preference to others. At any rate
there is no single method which intrinsically brings greaterjustice or is of
greater practical usefulness.
163. The Chamber considers, therefore, that there are not two kinds of
methods, those which are intrinsically appropriate, on the one hand, and
thosewhichareinappropriate or lessappropriate,on theother. The greater
or lesser appropriateness of one method or another can only be assessed
with reference to the actual situations in which they are used, and the
assessment made in one situation may be entirely reversedin another.Nor
is there any method of which it can be said that it must receivepriority, a
method with whose application every delimitation operation could begin,
albeit subject to its effects being subsequently corrected or it being even
discarded in favour of another, if those effects turned out to be clearly
unsatisfactory in relation to the case.In each specificinstance the circum-
stances may make a particular method seem the most appropriate at the
outset, but there must alwaysbea possibility of abandoning it in favour of
another if subsequently this proved justified. Above al1 there must be
willingness to adopt a combination of different methods whenever that
seems to be called for by differences in the circumstances that may be
relevant in the different phases of the operation and with reference to
different segments of the line. 164. Bearing in mind the considerations set forth in the preceding
section, the Chamber now proposes, before turning to the concluding
phase of its work, to examine the respective criteria and methods whose
application to the delimitation is proposed by each of the Parties, and to
undertake a comparative analysis of the four lines resulting from the
application by them of these criteria and methods.
165. The review carried out in previous paragraphs of the origin and
development of the dispute between the Parties showed that when the
dispute definitively acquired its present dual dimension the two Parties
took care to specify and publish their respective claims. To support those
claims they proposed the application of very different criteria and the use
of very different practical methods. On these bases each Party proposed
two delimitation lines, one after the other, constructed according to
entirely or partially different methods, although each, in its new choice,
showed continuity with its previous approach.
166. The Chamber would first recall that the United States, whose
particular interest in the "maritime" or "fisheries" aspect of the subject of
the dispute it has already emphasized, originally proposed in 1976 the
application of a criterion which, as appears particularly from the recent
explanations given by that Party, accorded decisive importance, for the
purposes of delimitation, to natural factors, that is, the geomorphological,
and, indeed especially, the ecological aspects of the area. The method
proposed by that Party for the practical implementation of this criterion
amounted, therefore, to adopting a line which corresponded approxi-
mately toaline of thegreatest depths. The main objective thus pursued was
to keep intact theunity of each of thevarious ecosystemswhich, according
to that Party, were clearly distinguishable throughout the area to be
delimited. The line resulting from the useof thismethod remained more or
less equidistant throughout its entire length from the 100-fathom lines. It
ran first in a south-south-westerly, then a south-south-easterly direction in
the inner part of the Gulf in such a way that on the left Canada would
receive German Bank on the Scotian Plateau, and the United States the
Gulf of Maine basin, on the right. On reaching the closing line of the Gulf
in Georges Basin it curved to follow the Fundian Channel, and then the
Northeast Channel, as far as the continental margin.
167. The United States, when reiterating in the oral proceedings the
meritsit discerned inthat line, alsorepeated that it wasin conformity with
Article 6 of the 1958Convention. In so doingit obviously emphasized not
so much its own endorsement of themethod referred to in that Article, but
primarily the importance to be attached, in the present case, to the cor-
rection of that method, whichisalsoprovided forinthat Article and which,
in its opinion, is made necessary in the present case by the special cir-
cumstances of the area. In the Chamber's opinion, this reference to the
1958Convention seems to be a courteous gesture in the direction of aninstrument recognized as being still in force between the Parties rather
than a manifestation of anyintention to implement its substance. Inactual
fact, the 1976line was not inspired by the idea of a delimitation primarily
concerning the continental shelf, which isthe sole purpose of Article 6, or
indeed by the idea of a delimitation resulting from any particular geo-
metrical method, but by the objective of a distribution of fishery resources
according to a "natural" criterion.
168. The possibility of applying this criterion, which was originally
advocated by the United States and to which it is still, to a certain extent,
attached, and especiallyof applying it soexclusivelyto thepresent delimi-
tation, prompts serious reservations. In so saying, the Chamber leaves
aside any consideration as to the uncertainty of thedistribution of the fish
resources of the area according to the different ecosystems identified by
the United States experts, and the reservations that may be prompted by
the thesis of single-Statemanagement asjustifying the award to one Party
in toto of the resources of Georges Bank, which is the real subject of the
dispute. The fundamental fact remains that the criterion underlying the
United States lineof 1976wastoo much geared to one aspect of the present
problem forit to be capable ofbeing considered equitable in relation tothe
characteristics of the case. This criterion may have been justified for a
delimitation concerning exclusive fishery zones alone, but less so for a
"single" delimitation, in whose purpose the continental shelf and espe-
cially the resources of its subsoil also play a most important part. When
such a delimitation is made it isjust possible that the choice of a criterion
and a practical method that are manifestly appropriatefor fisherydelimi-
tation maybe the right onefordetermining aparticular segment of theline,
were it to appear that, in the area delimited by that segment, the conti-
nental shelfisnot of decisiveimportance. The exceptional aspect of such a
solution must, however,be acknowledged,and itisobviouslyimpossible to
employ, for the determination of the entire length of a singledelimitation
linewhich,asin the present case,simultaneouslyconcerns twodistinct and
important objects, a criterion and a method that would be suitable for
delimiting the one but not for delimiting the other.
169. The new line proposed when the Memorial of the United States
was filed in September 1982seems, especiallyat first sight, to be based on
an entirely different conception. This conception belongs to a more recent
context, comprising the recent important arbitral andjudicial decisions of
1977and 1982on the delimitation of the continental shelf, together with
important delimitations effected by agreement, such as that of the Franco-
Spanishmaritime boundary in the Bayof Biscayand, latterly, theadoption
by theThird United Nations Conference on the Law of the Seaof the new
codification convention which covers, and extends, the field of the 1958
Conventions, and departs substantially from them in the content of the
relevant articles. GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 318
170. An effort was clearly made by the United States to remedy the
earlier omission of other important geographical aspects, and by a new
approach to the problem which the other Party has criticized as macro-
geography. The United States thus fixed its final position on the central
idea of the general direction of the coast, on which it has based a series of
observations and distinctions which may be summarized as follows :
(a) recognition of thepriority to be given,in al1respects, to consideration
of the general southwest and northeast direction of the eastern sea-
board of the American Continent ;
(b) a distinction - already mentioned above - between "primary coasts"
and "secondary coasts", accordingas they follow the general direction
of the coast or, on the contrary, deviate from it ;
(c) the classification, interalia,of the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia asone
of the "primary" coasts and of thecoast ofNova Scotia abuttingon the
Gulf of Maine - like the coast of Massachusetts abutting on that Gulf
- as "secondary" coasts ;
(d) a finding that the coast of Maine abutting on the Gulf follows a
direction corresponding to the "general direction" and is, therefore, a
"primary" coast ; and that Georges Bank,situated off and oppositethe
coast of Maine, is oriented in the same direction.
The "equitable criterion" that must be applied in delimiting the single
maritime boundary in the area thus becomes that of the projection or
frontal extension of the primary coastal front, which the United States
identifies with that of natural prolongation, not in the geological or geo-
morphological sense, but "in the geographical sense". As has also been
pointed out, the United States puts forward, as additional equitable cri-
teria, those of avoidance of encroachment and cut-off and that of pro-
portionality.
171. Using this set of criteria, the dominant one now being that of the
frontal projection of theprimary coastal front,theUnited States therefore
proposes, asa method for determining thecourse of the boundary line, the
vertical line, perpendicular to the general direction of the coast. To be
consistent with the system, this perpendicular would have to be drawn
from the terminal point of the international boundary, thus being a per-
pendicular to the continuous horizontal line formed by the coasts desig-
nated as principal coasts of Maine and New Brunswick. This is imprac-
ticable, however, since the perpendicular drawn from this point would
intersect Grand Manan Island and what is more the Nova Scotia penin-
sula,cutting off part of itsterntory. Moreover, if the United States were to
adopt a line of this kind it would infringe the express clause of the Special
Agreement which provides that the starting-point of the line of delimita-
tion to be drawn shallbeaparticular point situated about 39milesfrom the
terminal point of the international boundary. The United States therefore
declaresits willingnessto accept an initialadjustment of the line originally
drawn in accordance with the criterion theoretically selected - an initialadjustment that is necessary, in its opinion, for adaptation to the relevant
circumstances of the area. It therefore accepts that the vertical line, per-
pendicular to the coast, be drawn from point A.
172. It becomes clear that other adjustments are also necessary, how-
ever, to deal with another relevant circumstance, the circumstance which
principally inspired the line first proposed by the United States in 1976,
namely, total respect for the unity of the ecosystems or ecological régimes
identified in the delimitation area. Two additional modifications of the
perpendicular, now starting at point A, are therefore proposed. Their
purpose is to ensure that jurisdiction over the two fishing banks on the
Nova Scotia plateau (German Bank and Browns Bank), should belong
entirely to Canada,and soto affirm and confirm the principle that a single
State should be entrusted with themanagement of the fish resources of the
principal banks of the area. This also creates the basis for the parallel
award to the United States of exclusivejurisdiction over Georges Bank. It
is also apparent that the new line no longer follows the thalweg of the
Northeast Channel, asdid the previous one, but is situated in proximity to
its northeastern edge.
173. This results in the double-stepped configuration of the present
United States proposa1for the delimitation of the single maritime boun-
dary with Canada. Rather than being an application of the "adjusted
perpendicular" method, as defined by its proponent, this proposa1in fact
represents a compromise solution between two fundamentally different
methods : the geometrical method of the perpendicular to the general
direction of the coast and the ecologicalmethod, soto speak, of respect for
the unity of thedistinct ecosystems,which, it isheld, are identifiable in the
delimitation area, and distribution on that basis between the two neigh-
bouring States.
174. The Chamber has already expressed its views on the criterion
which,irrespective of how it ispresented, is essentially ecologicalor, if one
so prefers, ecogeographical. The criterion and method more recently
advanced, and which are intended to be combined in some way with the
first, prompt an entirely different comment. Compared with the criterion
of recognizing the predominant influence, for the purposes of a maritime
delimitation, of seaboards which, in the delimitation area, follow the
general direction of the mainland coast, and with the resulting method
involvingthe use, at least at theoutset, of the perpendicular to the general
direction of the coast, the present case seems to the Chamber a clear
illustration of the soundness of the observation made at the start, namely,
that the advantages and disadvantages of a particular criterion and a
particular method cannot be assessed and judged in the abstract but only
with reference to their application to a specific situation.
175. On the subject of the method, and of that only, the method of the
perpendicular to acoast on which the territories of two States meet and the
othermethod, whichisreallyavariation of thefirst, of theperpendicular tothe general direction of the coast, are, as has been seen, two of the four
methods on which the International Law Commission asked the Commit-
teeof Experts forits views.The method of theperpendicular wasprobably
the oldest method to come to mind when problems arose in the delimita-
tion by adjacent States of their territorial sea. The same method was also
found to be conveniently, though only partially, applicable to the delimi-
tation of the continental shelf in some bilateral agreements.
176. It is almost an essential condition for the use of such amethod in a
specific case that the boundary to be drawn in the particular case should
concern twocountries whoseterritories liesuccessivelyalong amore orless
rectilinear coast,for acertain distance at least. The ideal case, so to speak,
would be one inwhich thecourse of theline would leavean angleof 90" on
either side. On the otherhand, it ishard to imagine a caselessconducive to
theapplication of thismethod of delimitation than the Gulf of Maine case,
in which the starting-point of the line to be drawn is situated in one of the
angles of the rectangle in which the delimitation is to be effected. This
situation cannot be remedied by introducing as a criterion the abstract
concept of the "general direction" of the coast, whch may indeed be used
as a corrective where the real direction of the coast at which the land
boundary ends deviates only insignificantly from this "general direction".
It isnot in fact apparent how the method of the perpendicular drawn with
reference to the general direction of the coast of a continent could be
applied to aportion, a limited but nevertheless substantial portion, of that
coast, where the real geographical configuration differs somarkedly from
such general direction.
177. That being so, an argument ignoring even the existence of real
coasts, and disregarding them on account of their allegedly "secondary"
character, cannot resolve the insurmountable difficulties that result from
the forced application of a criterion and of a method which are not at al1
appropriate having regard to the real geographical configuration of the
area. Nor willalterations made aposterioriin theperpendicular in order to
convert it into an exclusivelymaritime boundary line, and make it more
compatible with ecology, make this criterion and this method any less
markedly unsuited to the present case. In a word, the method of delimi-
tation by the perpendicular to the coast or to the general direction of the
coast might possibly be contemplated in cases where the relevant circum-
stances lent themselves to its adoption, but is not appropriate in cases
where these circumstances entai1 so many adjustments that they com-
pletely distort its character.
178. The Chamber willnow examine the linesproposed successively,at
theend of 1976and at theend of 1977,thus in quick succession,by Canada.
The Chamber believesthey can be considered together, since the two lines GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) '321
are essentiallybased on the samecriterion and both purport to be the result
of applying a singlemethod. This criterion, already mentioned above, has
been defined as that of the equal division of the disputed areas, and the
method is that broadly designated by the term "equidistance".
179. It shouldfirstbeconsidered whether,just as it was right to express
reservations as to whether a criterion and a method that are manifestly
appropriate for only the water portion of the complex object to be delimi-
ted can beappliedtothe determination of a singleboundary, there maynot
also be some doubt about the application to the determination of such
single boundary of a criterion - and especially of a method - which had
been intended to be applied only to the land portion of the object to be
delimited. The Chamber may,however,disregard thisaspect of the matter,
as it willhave an opportunity to comment on it elsewhere(see paragraph
202, below).
180. The Chamber has already demonstrated, in paragraphs 121ff., the
unacceptability of the Canadian argument that the application to the
delimitation between the United States and Canada of the "equidistance
method", is mandatory. As we have seen, this method is claimed to be
mandatory, under Article 6of the 1958Convention as regards theportion
of the delimitation concernin~ "he continental shelf and. in the case of the
superjacent fishery zone, under what is alleged to be apracticallyidentical
ruleofcustomaryinternational lawprescribing the application of the same
method to everymaritime delimitation, except in so faras special circum-
stances warrant the use of a different method. The only further comment
the Chamber has on this question is that, while it is of the opinion that
Canada has relied on a false premise in successively proposing two dif-
ferent lines, one called a strict equidistance line and the other a corrected
equidistance line, this does not imply that Canada was bound to refrain
from using any suchmethod fordrawingthe boundary linethat itintended
to propose. The absence of an obligation to do something must not be
confused with an obligation not to do it. Each Party has the undeniable
right to propose the free adoption of the method or methods it considers
most appropriatefor delimiting the singlemaritime boundary which is the
subject of this case. The Party must merely meet two conditions : (a) it
must show that the useof the method chosen, whilein no way mandatory,
isnevertheless speciallyrecommended by itsequity and by its adaptability
to the circumstances of the case ;(b)it must ensure that the application of
that method which isproposed in concrete terms has due regard to those
circumstances and is, moreover, correctly carried out.
181. That being so, the way in which Canada believes it can apply the
method chosen to the specific circumstances must be exarnined more
closely.It has been said that Canada, when first drawing the delimitation
line that it thought appropriate to the present case, manifested the inten-tion to keep to a line which it defined as a line of strict equidistance. One
year later, however,it changed its position because it had in the meantime
discerned the possibility of taking certain special circumstances into
account and modifying accordingly the line already put forward.
182. Canada, however, instead of taking into account other special
circumstances which might be present in the area to be delirnited and
which might - with perhaps greater justification - have suggested the
desirability, or even the necessity, of correcting the original line by dis-
placing it towards the Nova Scotiacoast, only took into account a special
circumstance whichmight operate inits favour and enable itto displace the
line still more towards the opposite coast of Massachusetts. In Canada's
opinion, the special circumstance of decisivesignificance was the protru-
sion formed by the island of Nantucket, and more especially by the
peninsula of Cape Cod. To establish the course of its corrected equidis-
tance line, Canada therefore feltjustified in removing these alleged geo-
graphical anomalies and substituting the Cape Cod Canal for the outer
coast of the peninsula of the same name as western basepoint for calcu-
lating equidistance. Nor did Canada feel obliged also to displace the
eastern basepoint for the calculation of the same line from Seal Island to
the coast of Nova Scotia.The effect of thisalteration on the Georges Bank
dividing line need not be emphasized ;the effect is considerable, which
does not mean it isjustified.
183. Theseare not, however,theonlyreservations tobe suggestedin this
context by an examination of the line proposed by Canada, since, in the
Chamber's opinion, merely reverting from acorrected equidistance line to
a strict equidistance line like that originally proposed by the same Party
would not be enough automatically to make the Canadian suggestion
suited to the geographical configuration of the area, or evenconvertitinto
a correct application of the method which Canada carefully derived from
the text of Article 6 of the 1958Convention.
184. An initial comment immediately suggests itself. When the con-
figuration of the Gulf of Maine was described above, as were the features
of the elongated rectangle representing that configuration in simplified
geometrical form,attention wasdrawn to thefact that theonly part of that
rectangle to beformedbya Canadian coast isthe short right side,asviewed
by an observer from outside, whereas the short left sideand the entire long
sideconnectingthe other two are formed by coasts of the United States. If
we then move from geometrical figures to geographical realities it is also
obvious that the length of the coasts belonging to the United States, as
measured on theperimeter of the Gulf, is considerablygreater than that of
the coasts belonging to Canada, even if part of the Bay of Fundy coasts is
included in the calculation of this perimeter. This difference in length is a
special circumstance of some weight, which, in the Chamber's view,jus-
tifies a correction of the equidistance line, or of any other line. In several
specificcases the respective lengths of the coasts of the two Parties in thedelimitation area have been taken into consideration as a ground for
correcting a line basically derived from the application of a givenmethod.
Some cases involvedsettlement by agreement (e.g.,that of the shelfboun-
dary between France and Spain in the Bay of Biscay) while others were
submitted to judicial decision (e.g., that of the delimitation of the conti-
nental shelf between Tunisia and Libya). Yet, in comparison with these
various cases,in the present case the difference in the length of the coasts
of the two States within the delimitation area is particularly notable.
185. In making this comment the Chamber remains aware of the fact
that to take into account the extent of the respective coasts of the Parties
concerned does not in itself constitute either a criterion serving as a direct
basis for a delimitation, or a method that can be used to implement such
delimitation. The Chamber recognizes that this concept is put forward
mainly as a means of checking whether a provisional delimitation estab-
lished initially on the basis of other criteria, and by the use of a method
which has nothing to do with that concept, can or cannot be considered
satisfactory inrelation to certain geographical features of the specificcase,
and whether it is reasonable or otherwise to correct it accordingly. The
Chamber's views on this subject may be summed up by observing that a
maritime delimitation can certainly not be established by a direct division
of the area in dispute proportional to the respective lengths of the coasts
belonging to the parties in the relevant area, but it is equally certainthat a
substantialdisproportiontothe lengthsof those coasts that resulted from a
delimitation effected on a different basis would constitute a circumstance
calling for an appropriate correction. In the Chamber's opinion, the need
to take this aspect into account constitutes a valid ground for correction,
more pressing even than others to which the United States has attached
great importance when criticizingthe Canadian position and theproposed
delimitation reflecting that position, even if thehamber cannot deny, or
at any rate not as radically as Canada has done, that those criticisms may
be justifiable.
186. In the Chamber'sopinion, however,the delimitation lineproposed
by Canada prompts other objections. In this connection one preliminary
comment is necessary. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 6 of the 1958Con-
vention on the Continental Shelf contemplate two distinct hypothetical
situations. As the Chamber has already observed (Section V, paragraph
115 above), this does not mean that the basic criterion, that of equal
division, which underlies these provisions is not one and the same, or that
themethod by which thiscriterion isapplied does not involvethe useof the
same technique. The distinction between the two hypotheses in question is
due to the difference between the geographical situations to which the two
texts refer. In the case of a delimitation between two adjacent coasts, the
application of the technique referred to produces a lateral equidistance GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 324
line,whereas in caseswhere the two coasts are opposite, the application of
the same technique produces a median line.
187. The authors of the 1958text were right to make a precise distinc-
tion between two different situations. Subsequently, international juris-
prudence has done much to clarify the necessary distinction between the
situations to which the method in question may be applied. While noting
that the various methods used shared the same inspiration, that jurispru-
dence, including the Decision of the Court of Arbitration on the Delimi-
tation of the Continental Shelfbetween France and the United Kingdom,
emphasized this point. By reference to an observation in the 1969Judg-
ment of the Court inconnection withone characteristic of the equidistance
method, the Court of Arbitration found that that characteristic of the
method emphasized the "difference between a geographical situation of
'opposite' States and one of 'adjacent States' inthe delimitation of con-
tinental shelf boundaries" (Decision, para. 86). Further on, in the final
summing-up of its theory, the Court of Arbitration concluded :
"Furthermore, in appreciating the appropriateness of the equidis-
tance method as a means of achieving an equitable solution, regard
must be had to the difference between a 'lateral' boundary between
'adjacent' Statesand a 'median'boundary between 'opposite' States."
(Ibid, para. 97.)
It is alsoobvious - but thispoint meritsparticular emphasis because of its
relevanceto thepresent case - that,as thejurisprudence referred to, and in
addition the Court's Judgment in the Continental Shelf (Tunisu/Libyun
ArabJamahiriya) case,has shown,the coasts of two States may be adjacent
at certain placesand oppositeat others.On thislatter hypothesis, however,
difficulties might arise,of apractical nature in particular,inceeveryeffort
should be made to prevent the partial relationship of adjacency from
ultimately predominating over the partial relationship of oppositeness, or
vice-versa.It might become apparent that adjustments were necessary for
thispurpose, or even, asa last resort, recourse to a different method, since
in some cases a radical change in the mutual relationship between the
coasts of the two States concerned might be one of the special circum-
stancescontemplated by Article 6 itself asaground for having recourse to
a method of delimitation other than that indicated as priority method by
that text.
188. In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is clear how impor-
tant it isthat Canada seemsnot to have appreciated the significanceof the
change in the respective positions of the coasts of the United States and
Canada whichoccurs at aparticular point within theGulf. The description
ofthe delimitation area, in Section II (paragraph 32)above, showsthat in
theinnermost part of the Gulf of Mainethe straight linerunning alongthe GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 325
Maine coast fromCape Elizabeth to the international boundary terminus,
and the equally straight line alongthe Nova Scotia coast and extending it
across the waters and across Grand Manan Island to that terminus, meet
almost at right angles. It was therefore correct to regard the coasts of the
two States at that place as "adjacent" coasts, between which it was quite
conceivable to consider drawing a lateral equidistance line, the problem
being however how far such line should go.
189. But in putting forward its proposals for the delimitation, Canada
has failed to take account of the fact that, as one moves away from the
internationalboundary terminus, and approachesthe outer opening of the
Gulf, the geographical situation changes radically from that described in
the previous paragraph. The quasi-right-angle lateral adjacency relation-
ship between part of the Nova Scotiacoasts, and especially between their
extension across the opening of the Bay of Fundy and Grand Manan
Island, and theMaine coasts,giveswayto afrontalopposition relationship
between the remaining coasts of Nova Scotia and those of Massachusetts
which now face them. It is this new relationship that is the most charac-
teristic feature of the objective situation in the context of which the
delimitation is being effected. Moreover, when the geographical charac-
teristics of the delimitation area were described it was shown that the
relationship between the lines that can be drawn, between the elbow of
Cape Cod and CapeAnn (on the United States side), and between Cape
Sable and Brier Island (on the Canadian side), is one of marked quasi-
parallelism. In this situation, even a delimitation line on the basis of the
equidistance method would have to be drawn taking into account the
change in thegeographical situation, which Canada did not do when it was
necessary. Inany event what had to be avoided wasto draw, thewholeway
to the opening of the Gulf, a diagonal line dominated solely by the rela-
tionship between Maine and Nova Scotia, even where the relationship
between Massachusetts and Nova Scotia should have predominated.
190. The consideration set forth in Section V as regards the equitable
criteria and practical methods applicable in the abstract to maritime
delimitation, and the critical assessment in Section VI of the particular
criteria and methods proposed by the Parties for application to the de-
limitation at present required, will now serve the Chamber as a guide in
approaching its task of carrying out that delimitation. The conclusion
reached by the Chamber shows clearly that it must undertake this final
stage of the task entrusted to it and formulate its own solution indepen-
dently of the proposals made by the Parties. 191. That being so, the Chamber has evidently to keep in mind its
obligation to comply with the fundamental norm provided by general
international law where this subject-matter is concerned. In this final
phase of the decision-making process, the Chamber must therefore arrive
at the concrete determination of the delimitation line that it is required to
draw (a) while basing itself for the purpose on the criteria which it finds
most likely to prove equitable in relation to the relevant circumstances of
the case and (b)while making use, in order to apply these criteria to the
case, of the practical method or combination of methods which it deems
the most appropriate ;al1this with the final aim in view of reaching an
equitable result in the above circumstances.
192. Hence as regards, in the first place, the choice of the criteria on
which the Chamber should base its decision, al1the foregoing considera-
tions point to the advisability of its formally precluding the application of
any criteria, however apparently equitable in themselves, which can now
be seen as inappropriate to the delimitation of one or other of the two
objects that the Parties' Special Agreementrequests it to delimit. In this
connection, the Chamber must again stress the responsibilitylaid upon it
by the fact that the delimitation that it is required to carry out is, for the
first timein internationaljudicial orarbitral practice, adelimitation of two
distinct elements by means of a singleline.This isan unprecedented aspect
of the case which lends it its special character and accordingly differen-
tiates it from those that werethe subject ofprevious decisions. To note this
fact does not of course in any way imply that the criteria applied in those
decisionsmust ispf oact oeheld inapplicableto the presentcase ;al1that is
meant isthat thefact that the criteria in question werethen found equitable
and appropriate for the delimitation of the continental shelf does not
imply that they must automatically possessthe sameproperties in relation
to the simultaneous delimitation of the continental shelf and the superja-
cent fishery zone. It is necessary that the adaptability of those criteria to
this essentially different operation should first be verified in relation to its
specific requirements.
193. In other words, the very fact that the delimitation has a twofold
object constitutes a special aspect of the case which must be taken into
consideration even before proceeding to examinethe possible influence of
other circumstances on the choice of applicable criteria. It follows that,
whatever may have been held applicable in previous cases, it is necessary,
in a case like the present one, to rule out the application of any criterion
found to be typically and exclusivelybound up with the particular charac-
teristicsof one aloneof the twonatural realities that have to be delimited in
conjunction. In commenting on the delimitation criteria proposed by the
Parties, the Chamber has already pointed out the difficulty, if not the
impossibility, of adopting, for the purpose of such a dual delimitation, a
criterion disclosed by objective analysis to be essentially ecological. It so
described thecriterion initially proposed by the United States, whereby it
should take asitsmain guideline the idea of a correspondence between the
line to be drawn and the natural separation of the various ecosystemsformed by the aquaticfauna of thedelimitation area. Asthe Chamber then
observed, a criterion of this kind could scarcely be adapted also to a
delimitation whichhad not only to divideavolume ofwater but had also to
effecta division of theunderlyingcontinental shelf,in respect of which the
criterion in question could not be appropriate. Conversely, it may be
remarked that, in a concrete situation where distinctive geological char-
acteristics can be observed in the continental shelf, such as rnight have
special effect in determining the division of that shelf and the resources of
its subsoil, there wouldin al1likelihood be no reason to extend the effectof
those characteristics to the division of the superjacent volume of water, in
respect of which they would not be relevant. These are merely two ofmany
examples that could be cited.
194. In reality, a delimitation by a singleline,such asthat which has to
be carried out in the present case, Le.,a delimitation which has to apply at
oneand the sametime to the continental shelfand to thesuperjacent water
column can only be carried out by the application of a criterion, or
combination of criteria, which does not give preferential treatment to one
of these two objects to the detriment of the other, and at the same time is
such as to be equally suitable to the division of either of them. In that
regard, moreover, it can be foreseen that with the gradua1adoption by the
majority of maritime States of an exclusive economic zone and, conse-
quently, an increasingly general demand for single delimitation, so as to
avoidasfar aspossible the disadvantagesinherent in aplurality of separate
delimitations, preference will henceforth inevitably be given to criteria
that, because of their more neutral character, are best suited for use in a
multi-purpose delimitation.
195. To return to the immediateconcerns of the Chamber, it is,accord-
ingly,towards anapplication to the present case of criteria more especially
derived from geography that it feels bound to turn. What is here under-
stood by geography isof course mainly the geography of coasts, which has
primarily a physical aspect, to which may be added, in the second place, a
~oliticalasDect.Within this framework. it isinevitable that the Chamber's
basic choiLeshould favour a criterion long held to be as equitable as it is
simple, namely that in principle, whle having regard to the special cir-
cumstances of the case,one should aim atan equal division of areas where
the maritime projections of the coasts of the States between which delimi-
tation is to be effected converge and overlap.
196. Nevertheless, it is notalways the case that the choice of this basic
criterion appears truly equitable when it, and it alone, is exclusively
applied to a particular situation. The multiplicity and diversity of geogra-
phical situations frequently cal1for this criterion to be adjusted or flexibly
applied to make it genuinely equitable, not in the abstract,but in relation
to the varying requirements of a reality that takes many shapes and forms.
To mention only the situation involved in the present proceedings, it is a
fact that the Parties, and one of them in particular, with the aid of com-
parisons with situations considered in previous cases,persistently empha- sizedthe importance they attached to oneconcrete aspect or another of the
geographical situation in the present case. The Chamber cannot but re-
cognize, to a certain extent, that the concerns thus expressed were not
wholly unfounded. It does not here intend to enter into detailed consi-
derations, for itwillbe sufficient to note in general at this stage that, in the
present case, the situation arising out of the physical and political geo-
graphy of the delimitation area does not present ideal conditions for the
full, exclusive application of the criterion specified at the end of the
previousparagraph. Somecorrections must bemade tocertain effectsof its
application that might be unreasonable, so that the concurrent use of
auxiliary criteria may appear indispensable. Having regard to the special
characteristics of the area, the auxiliary criterion which the Chamber has
particularly in mind is that whereby a fair measure of weight should be
given to a by no means negligible difference within the delimitation area
between the lengths of the respectivecoastlines of thecountriesconcerned.
It also has in mind the likewise auxiliary criterion whereby it is held
equitablepartially to correct any effect of applyingthebasiccriterion that
would result in cutting off one coastline, or part of it, from its appropriate
projection across the maritime expanses to be divided, or then again the
criterion - it too being of an auxiliary nature - involving the necessity of
granting some effect, however limited, to the presence of a geographical
feature such as an island or group of small islands lying off a coast, when
strict application of the basic criterion might entai1giving them full effect
or, alternatively, no effect.
197. At this point, accordingly, the Chamber finds that it must finally
confirm its choice, which is to take as its starting-point the above-men-
tioned criterion of the division - in principle, equal division - of the areas
of convergence and overlapping of the maritime projections of the coast-
lines of the States concerned in the delimitation, a criterion which need
only be stated to be seen as intrinsically equitable. However, in the
Chamber's view, the adoption of this starting-point must be combined
with the parallel and partial adoption of the appropriate auxiliary criteria
in so far as it is apparent that this combination is necessitated by the
relevant circumstances of the area concerned, and provided they are used
only to the extent actuallydictated by this necessity. By this approach the
Chamber seekstoensure themost correct application in thepresent case of
the fundamental rule of international law here applicable, which requires
that any maritime delimitation between States should be carried out in
accordance with criteria that are equitable and are found more specifically
to be so in relation to the particular aspects of the case under considera-
tion.
198. The equitable nature of the criteria adopted in the light of the
circumstances of the case willemerge the more convincingly - one might
almost Saytangibly - after the transition from the preliminary phase of
choosing equitable criteria to the next phase, in which these criteria are tobe reflected in the drawing of a particular delimitation line with the aid of
appropriate practical methods.
199. Asregards thesepractical methods,it can be said at the outset that,
giventhe equitable criteria which the Chamber feelsbound to apply in the
case referred to it forjudgment, the choice to be made is predetermined.
Methodsmustbe chosen which areinstruments suitable for givingeffect to
those criteria and not other criteria of a fundamentally different kind. Just
as the criteria to which they must give effect are basically founded upon
geography, the practical methods in question can likewiseonlybemethods
appropriate for use against abackground of geography. Moreover, likethe
underlyingcriteria,themethods employed to givethem effect must, in this
particular case,bejust as suitable for thedelimitation of the sea-bed and its
subsoil as for the delimitation of the superjacent waters and their fishery
resources. In the outcome, therefore, only geometrical methods will
serve.
200. It would howeverbegoingtoo far to infer from thisfinding that the
practical methods suitable for use in the present case must necessarily be
identifiable with the method adopted in Article 6 of the 1958Convention,
sothat al1that the Chamber need do (evenif, as alreadystressed,it has no
obligation so to proceed) is to make use of that method, subject to the
correction of certain effects as required by any special circumstances. In
fact there are also other methods, differingfrom it in varying degree even
whileprompted bysimilar considerations, whichmayprove equally appro-
priate or evendistinctly preferable, giventhat the task isto delimit not only
a continental shelf, as provided for in the 1958Convention, but also the
volumeof superjacent waters. Nor should oneoverlook thepossibility that,
over the whole course of a long delimitation line, various, though related,
methods may successivelyappear more appropriate to the different seg-
ments.
201. In this connection, the Chamber would emphasize the necessity of
not allowing oneself to be too easily swayed by the perfection which is
apparent apriori, fromthe viewpoint ofequallydividing adisputed area, in
aline drawn in strictcompliance with the canons of geometry, Le.,alineso
constructed that each point in it isequidistant from the most salient points
on the respective coastlines of the parties concerned. In an apposite pas-
sageof the 1969Judgment on the North Sea ContinentalShelfcases (I.C.J.
Reports 1969,p. 36, para. 57), the Court showed how, in determining the
course of a delimitation line intended to "effect an equal division of the
particular area involved" between twocoasts, no account need be taken of
the presence of "islets, rocks and minor coastal projections, the dispro-
portionally distorting effect of which can be eliminated by other means".
In pursuance of this remark, the Chamber likewise would point out the
potential disadvantages inherent in any method which takes tiny islands,
uninhabited rocks or low-tide elevations, sometimes lying at a consider-
able distance from terra firma, as basepoint for the drawing of a lineintended to effect an equal division of a given area. If any of these geo-
graphical features possess some degree of importance, there is nothing to
prevent their subsequently being assigned whatever limited corrective
effectmay equitably be ascribed to them, but that isan altogetherdifferent
operation from making aseriesofsuch minor featuresthe verybasis forthe
determination of the dividing line, or from transforming them into a
successionofbasepoints for the geometrical construction of the entire line.
It is very doubtful whether a line so constructed could, in many concrete
situations,constitute aline genuinely givingeffect to thecriterion of equal
division of the area in question, especially when it is not only a terrestrial
areabeneath the seawhichhas to be divided but alsoamaritime expanse in
the proper sense of the term, sincein the latter case the result may be even
more debatable.
202. Furthermore, a line which, on account of the refinements in the
technical method used to determine its course, follows a complicated or
even a zigzag path, made up of a succession of segments on different
bearings, might, if need be, seem acceptable as a boundary dividing the
sea-bed alone, i.e., a boundary to be observed in the exploration and
exploitation of the resources located in givenareas of the subsoil. But there
would seem to be far lessjustification for adopting such a line as a limit
appropriate to maritime fishery zones, i.e., areas whose exploitable
resources are not, for the most part, resources attached to the soil. Exploi-
tation of the sea'sfishery resources calls for the existence of clearboun-
daries of a constant course, that do not compel those engaging in such
activity to keep checking their position in relation to the complicated path
of the line to be respected.
203. In sum,just like the criteria to be applied to the delimitation, the
methods to be used for the purpose of putting those criteria into practice
cannot fail to beinfluenced by the specialcharacteristics and requirements
pertaining to the delimitation by a singleboundary of both the continental
shelf and the superjacent water column which, far from being a genuine
column of definite shape, is in reality a volume of liquid in movement,
forming the habitat of mobile fauna. Undeniably, a degree of simplifica-
tion is an elementary requisite to the drawing of any delimitation line in
such an environment.
204. The correctness of the foregoing observations will appear even
more evident as the Chamber now passes from abstract considerations to
the concrete choice and practical application of the methods it deems
appropriate for use in the case referred to it forjudgment, thereby effec-
tively implementing the equitable criteria by which it has resolved to be
guided.
205. Regarding the choice and use of methods, one general observation
must be made. The delimitation line to be drawn in a given area will
depend upon the coastal configuration. But the configuration of the Gulf
of Maine coastline, on which the delimitation to be effected between the
maritime and submarine zonesof the twocountries depends throughout itsdivisonof thearea of overlappingcreated by the lateral superimposition of
the maritime projections of the coasts of the two States.
210. Asit indicated inits comment on thelineproposed by Canada, the
Chamber hasobjectionsasto the advisability - or eventhe possibility - of
making use, were it only in this sector, of the technical method whereby a
lateral equidistance line, as defined by geometry and by the terms of
paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the 1958Convention on the Continental Shelf,
would be drawn between the two adjacent coasts, and it has two grounds
for these objections. In the first place, the Chamber must point out that a
line drawn in accordance with the indications given by that provision
("equidistance from the nearest points of the baselines from which the
breadth of the territorial sea of each State is measured") might well epi-
tomize the inherent defects of acertain manner of interpretingand apply-
ing the method here considered, as stressed in paragraph 201 above ;
inasmuch as the likely end-result would be the adoption of a line al1of
whose basepoints would be located on a handful of isolated rocks, some
very distant from the Coast,or on a few low-tide elevations : these are the
very type of rninor geographical features which, as the Court and the
Chamber have emphasized, should be discounted if it is desired that a
delimitation line should result sofar as feasible in an equal division of the
areas in which the respective maritime projections of the two countries'
coasts overlap.
211. In the second place - and here is the main reason for the Cham-
ber'sobjections - the determination in the sector envisaged of the course
of a lateral equidistance line,from whatever basepoints established, would
encounter the difficulty of thepersistent uncertainty as to sovereigntyover
Machias Seal Island and the Parties' choiceof point A as the obligatory
point of departure for the delimitation line. Point A was taken into con-
sideration for the purposes of the Special Agreement only as the point
where the lines then representing in graphical terms the Parties' respective
claims happened to intersect. Hence it is not, as it should be in order to
constitute an equidistant point, derived from two basepoints of which one
isin the unchallenged possession of the United States and the other in that
of Canada. And it is equally certain that point A is not a point that can be
located on the path of any equidistance line traced by the Chamber or
constitute the starting-point of any such line.
212. The Chamber is therefore of the opinion that, on these grounds,
and the better, moreover, to ensure the effective implementation of the
criterion by which it has every reason to be guided, it is necessary to
renounce the idea of employing the technical method of equidistance. It
considers that preference must be givento amethod which, whileinspired
by the same considerations, avoids the difficulties of application pointed
out above and is at the same time more suited to the production of the
desired result. The essential premise of the operation, as the Chamber sees
it, is to take note of the fact that the point of departure of the delimitationline to be drawn, and hence of its first segment, must be point A and no
other point, whatever its justification. That understood, the Chamber
considers that the practical method to be applied must be a geometrical
one based on respect for the geographical situation of the coasts between
which the delimitation is to be effected, and at the same time suitable for
producing a result satisfying the repeatedly mentioned criterion for the
division of disputed areas.
213. Accordingly, to put the above requirements into practice, one may
justifiably draw from point A two lines respectively perpendicular to the
two basic coastal lines here to be considered, namely the line from Cape
Elizabeth to the international boundary terminus and the line from that
latter point to Cape Sable. These perpendicularsform, at point A, on one
side an acute angle of about 82" and on the other a reflex angle of about
278". It is the bisector of this second angle which the Chamber considers
that it should adopt for the course of the first segment of the delimitation
line. The Chamber believes that this practical method combines the
advantages of simplicity and clarity with that of producing, in theinstant
case, a result which is probably as closeas possible to an equal division of
thefirst area to be delirnited. It also believes that,in relation to the sector
under consideration,theapplication of this equitable criterion is not open
to any serious objections.
214. The Chamber has thus fixed the direction of the first of the two
segments of the delimitation line to be drawn within the Gulf of Maine,
and has done so from the starting-point given by the Parties. As for this
segment's finishing point, this will be automatically determined by the
intersection of the linecarrying it with the linewhich is to contain the next
segment. Accordingly the Chamber will now turn its attention to the
establishment of thissecond segment, which,though it may bethe shortest,
willcertainly be thecentral and most decisivesegment for the wholeof the
delimitation line.
215. For the purpose of this operation, the Chamber considers, on
account of the considerations already set forth, that it has first to make its
choice of an appropriate practical method for use in provisionally estab-
lishing a basic delimitation, and that it must then ascertain what correc-
tions to it are rendered indispensable by the special circumstances of the
case. A two-stage operation is therefore entailed.
216. The first stage involves the choice and concrete utilization of the
practical method to ubeapplied for the above-mentioned purposes. In that
connection, the Chamber has found repeated occasion to express its con-
viction that the choice of method to be used is essentially dependent upon
geography. In this context, it need onlyrecall thereiterated emphasis it has
laid on the necessity of according full weight to the relationship now
confronting the Chamber - a distinctly different one from that which
existed between part of the coast of Nova Scotia and the coast of Maine -
namely the relationship between the coasts abutting on the Gulf of Maine,
of Massachusetts on the one hand and of Nova Scotia on the other. More GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 334
specifically, the Chamber would once again stress the quasi-parallelism
between the line which, on the Massachusettscoast, links the promontory
of CapeAnn to the elbow of Cape Cod and the line which, on thecoast of
Nova Scotia,joins up Brier Island and Cape Sable. To use once more the
terminology to be found in conventions and case law, there can be no
doubt, in the Chamber's opinion, that, in thelocationsindicated, thecoasts
of the two States are opposite coasts. Here they do not possess that
relationship of lateral adjacency which underlay the determination of the
first segment of the delimitation line but face each other in confrontation.
In such a geographical situation, the application of any method of geo-
metrical origin, no matter which,including that propounded in paragraph
1of Article 6 of the 1958Convention, can in practice only result in the
drawing of a median delimitation line. In this specificcase, such aline can
only be one approximately parallel to the approximately parallel lines of
the two opposite coasts.
217. The second stagecallsperhapsfor more thoroughexamination. To
adopt the actual median line as final without more ado would be simple
and might at first sight appear very plausible in the light of the equitable
criterion, so abundantly endorsed by the Chamber, of the equal division -
sofar asfeasible - of areas where themaritimeprojections of the coasts of
the two States overlap. Indeed it would be difficult to imagine a better
opportunity for applyingthiscriterion than that offered by the existenceof
two opposite and practically parallel coasts, midway between which it is
proposed to draw a median line. However, this would be to cling to a very
superficial viewof the matter. A solution of that kind would be absolutely
legitimate if the international boundary between the United States and
Canada ended in the very middle of the coast at the back of the Gulf, in
Penobscot Bay for example, when the starting-point of the line would
accordingly have been situated offshore from that bay and practically
opposite themidpoint of thedistance between the coasts of Massachusetts
and Nova Scotia. It could then have been said that theprolongation of the
median line between those coasts to the point where it met the coast at the
back of the Gulf definitively represented the perfect delimitation line
between the respective maritime areas of the two countries id the Gulf.
218. However,itisafar cryfrom thishypothesis to geographical reality.
The back of the Gulf isentirely occupied by thecontinuous coast of Maine,
Le.,a component state of the United States, and the terminal point of the
international boundary with Canada is situated much farther to the north-
east, in the Grand Manan Channel, at a corner of the rectangle which
geometricallyrepresentsthe shape of the Gulf proper. That being so,itisin
the Chamber's viewimpossibleto disregard the circumstance, which is of
undeniable importance in the present case, that there is a difference in
length between the respective coastlines of the two neighbouring States
which border on the delimitation area. Not to recognize thisfact would be
a denial of the obvious. The Chamber therefore reaffirms the necessity of
applying to the median line as initially drawn a correction which, thoughlimited, willpay due heed to the actual situation. In Section VI,paragraph
157,the Chamber has recognizedin principletheequitablecharacter of the
criterion whereby appropriate consequences may be deduced from any
inequalities in the lengths of the two States' respectivecoastlines abutting
on the delimitation area. As the Chamber has expressly emphasized, it in
no way intends to make an autonomous criterion or method of delimita-
tion out of the concept of "proportionality", even if it be limited to the
aspect oflengths of coastline. However, this does not preclude the justified
use of an auxiliary criterion serving only to meet the need to correct
appropriately, on the basis of the inequalities noted, the untoward con-
sequences of applying a different main criterion.
219. The auxiliary criterion in question is, moreover, not the only one
that could equitably be employed for that purpose. The United States has
endeavoured particularly to secure acceptance of its contention that it is
necessary, in the present instance, to reject the applicability of any cri-
terion or method likely - as in the case of equidistance, in particular- to
have the effect of cutting off a given coast or part of a coast from the
seaward projection to whichit is said tobe entitled. The Chamber isable to
concur only in some measure with the argument of the United States. It
cannot soconcur when the United States seeksto draw a paralle1between
thedetrimental effectsuponits interests that would in itsviewbeproduced
by any application of theequidistancemethod in thepresent case owingto
the "concavity" of the coast of the United States, and those that such an
application would have produced for the Federal Republic of Germany on
account of the concavity of the German coast, if the Courtin 1969had not
adopted another solution. In fact, the Chamber considers that there are
appreciable differences between the two situations. Be that as it may,
however,in the viewof the Chamber, the facts of the present case must be
considered in themselves.
220. That said, the Chamber cannot endorse Canada's refusa1 to
acknowledgethat there isany substance in theconcern to which the United
Stateshas givenexpression. Evenadivisionbymedian line - whichassuch
would be more acceptable than a division by lateral equidistance line
where such a line is not called fo- might produce an unreasonable effect
if uncorrected, in that it would attribute to Canada, simply because the
coast of Nova Scotia abuts upon the Gulf, precisely the same overall
maritimeprojection in the delimitation area as that country would obtain
if the entire eastern sideof the Mainecoast belonged toCanada instead of
the United States.Here the Chamber, in noting this fact, does not intend to
draw from it any direct conclusions, for it naturally does not propose to
double, on the basis of a new criterion, the correction which it considers
that it has already to make to the median line on account of the difference
noted in the respective lengths of the coastlines of the two countries. The
point in question does however serve to strengthen its conviction of the
need to make that correction.
221. To return to this specific task of correction, the Chamber notes
that, according to the technical information at its disposal,the total lengthof the United States coastline in the Gulf, as measured along the coastal
fronts from the elbow of Cape Cod to Cape Ann, from Cape Ann to Cape
Elizabeth and from the latter to the international boundary terminus, is
approximately 284 nautical miles. The overall length of the Canadian
coastline, assimilarlycalculated alongthe coastal frontsfromthe terminal
point of the international boundary to the point on the New Brunswick
coast off which there cease tobe any waters in thebaymoredistant than 12
miles from a low-water line (45" 16'31" N and 65" 41'01" W), then from
that point across to the corresponding point on the Nova Scotian coast
(44" 53' 49"N and 65"22'47" W),thence to BrierIsland, and from there to
Cape Sable, is approximately 206 nautical miles. In this respect, the
Chamber wishes to emphasize that the fact that the two coasts opposite
each other on the Bay of Fundy are both Canadian is not a reason to
disregard the fact that the Bayispart of the Gulf of Maine, nor a reason to
takeonly oneof thesecoasts intoaccountforthe purpose ofcalculating the
length of the Canadian coasts in the delimitation area. There is no justi-
fication forthe idea that if a fairly substantialbay opening on to a broader
gulf is to be regarded as a part of it, its shores must notl1belong to the
same State. The Chamber would also recall that in the 1982Judgment in
the case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jama-
hiriya),the Court was not deterred from including in its calculation of the
length of the coasts of Tunisia in the delimitation area the whole of the
coastal fronts ofTunisia on that area,including those of the Gulf of Gabes,
by the fact that the coasts of the Gulf are wholly Tunisian.
222. The ratio between the coastal fronts of the United States and
Canadaon the Gulf of Maineas defined in the previous paragraph, is thus
1.38to 1.In the viewof the Chamber, this ratio should be reflected in the
location of the second segment of the delimitation line. For thispurpose,
the Chamber considers that the appropriate method should be toapplythe
ratio selected to a line drawn across the Gulf where the coasts of Nova
Scotia and Massachusetts are nearest to each other, i.e., between a point
near the northeastern tip of CapeCod, at 42" 00'31" N, 70"01' 36"W,and
CheboguePoint,Nova Scotia(43" 43'57" N, 66" 07' 18"W).In the viewof
the Chamber it would then be proper to shift the median line drawn
initially between the opposite and quasi-parallellines mentioned in para-
graph 216 above, which join, on the Massachusetts coast, the elbow of
Cape Cod to Cape Ann and, on the coast of Nova Scotia, Cape Sable to
Brier Island, insuch a way asto reflect this ratio along the line Cape Cod-
Chebogue Point. Here, however, the Chamber has employed the condi-
tional tense because there still remains one aspect which, though minor,
might have some influence on the calculations. This is the presence off
Nova Scotia of Seal Island and certain islets in its vicinity. The Chamber
considers that Seal Island (together with its smaller neighbour, Mud
Island), by reason both of its dimensions and, more particularly, of its
geographical position, cannot be disregarded for the present purpose.According to the information available to the Chamber it is some two-
and-a-half miles long, rises to a height of some 50feet above sea level,and
isinhabited al1the year round. It isstillmorepertinent to observe that as a
result of its situation off Cape Sable, only some nine miles inside the
closing line of the Gulf, the island occupies a commanding position in the
entry to the Gulf. The Chamber however considers that it would be
excessiveto treat the coastline of Nova Scotia as transferred south-west-
wards by the wholeof thedistance between SealIsland and that coast, and
therefore thinks it appropriate to give the island half effect, so that, as
explained in the Report of the technical expert, the ratio to be applied for
the purposes of determining the location of the corrected median line will
be approximately 1.32to 1inplace of 1.38to 1.Sinceit isonlyaquestion of
adjustingtheproportion by reference to which thecorrected median lineis
to be located, the result of the effect to be given to the island is a small
transverse displacement of that line, not an angular displacement ;and its
practical impact therefore is limited.
223. The central segment of the delimitation line will thus correspond,
over its entire length, with the corrected median line as so established. It
will begin where this line intersects, within the Gulf, the bisector drawn
from point A and constituting the first segment, and end on reaching the
oft-mentioned closing line of the Gulf. It will be noted that the meeting-
point of the first and second segments of the delimitation line, i.e., the
pivota1point where this line changes direction, is located about as far into
the Gulf as Chebogue Point, a feature of the Nova Scotian coast which
marksthetransition from thepart ofthiscoastin an adjacencyrelationship
with the coast of Maine to the part facing the Massachusetts coast in a
relationship of oppositeness.
224. There now remains to be determined the course of the third seg-
ment of the delimitation line, i.e., the longest portion of its entire course.
This is the segment concerning that part of the delimitation area whch lies
outside and over against the Gulf of Maine. Nevertheless, it appears
beyond question that, in principle, the determination of the path of this
segment must depend upon that of the two previous segments of the line,
those segments withn the Gulf which havejust been described and whose
path so obviously depended on the orientation of those coasts of the
Parties thatabut uponthe waters of the Gulf. In fact, theportion of theline
now to be determined willinevitably, throughout its length, be situated in
the open ocean. From the geographcal point of view, there is no point of
reference, outside the actual shores of the Gulf, that can serveas abasis for
carrying out the finaloperation required. That being so,it appears obvious
that the only kind of practical method whch can be considered for this
purpose is, once again, a geometrical method. Within the range of suchmethods, the most appropriate is that recommended above al1 by its
simplicity, namely in this instance the drawing of a perpendicular to the
closing line of the Gulf.
225. Indeed, a line on an azimuth thus determined offers a number of
advantages in thepresent case.The direction of the closinglineof the Gulf,
with which that line would form a right angle,corresponds generally to the
direction of thecoastline at theback of the Gulf, andit willbe recalled that
the United States had proposed, as a basis of departure for the second
delimitation lineitadvanced,aperpendicular to thedirection of that Coast.
As for Canada, attention may be drawn to the fact that the strict equi-
distance line for which it originally contended, before falling back on the
proposa1of a new corrected equidistance line using Cape Cod Canal as a
basepoint, would necessarily have been eventually governed by the two
most advancedbasepoints consisting of the southeastern tip of Nantucket
Island, on the onehand,and Cape Sableon the other. The final segment of
the linewould therefore have exactlycoincided with aperpendicular to the
closing line of the Gulf. More generally, it is noteworthy that theDeputy-
Agent of Canada stated at the hearing of 4 April 1984(morning) :
"The line in the outer area is roughly perpendicular to the closing
lineof theGulf,tothecoasts of Maine and New Brunswickat the back
of theGulf, and to the averagegeneral direction of the Atlantic coasts
of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts and Rhode Island on either sideof
the Gulf."
The orientation of thefinal segment of the lineproposed by the Chamber is
therefore practically the same as the orientation given by the two Parties
to the final portion of the lines they respectively envisaged. Hence the
Chamber can see no reason for adopting a different orientation.
226. Suchbeing the Chamber's choice,the essential questionremains to
be resolved, namely that of determining the precise point on the closing
line of the Gulf from whch the perpendicular to that lineshouldbe drawn
seawards. However, if it is considered necessary to remain guided by
geography, al1the considerations already set forth in regard to the deter-
mination of the final segment of the line militate in favour of having this
new choice coincide with the very point where the corrected median line
encounters the closing line of the Gulf. Indeed the Chamber has borne
constantly in mind the problem of determining the final segment of the
delimitation line when applying itself someticulously to the task of estab-
lishing the previous segments. It would be unthinkable that,in that part of
the delimitation area which lies outside and over against the Gulf, the
dividing line should not follow or continue the line drawn within the Gulf
by reference to the particular characteristics of its coasts. If one were to
seek for a typical illustration of what is meant by the adage "the land
dominates the sea", it is here that it would be found. GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 339
227. Starting from the point indicated in the previous paragraph, the
envisaged segment of the delimitation line crosses Georges Bank between
points on the 100-fathoms depth line with the following CO-ordinates :
The Chamber willreturnin Section VI11below (paragraphs 238 ff.) to the
consequences of this line for the division of the fishing and minera1
resources of the Bank.
228. As for the terminusad quem of ths final segment of the delimita-
tion line, a point which has to be situated within the triangle defined by
the Special Agreement between the Parties, the decisive criterion, in the
Chamber's view,should be recognition of the fact that the delimitation to
bedrawnmust equitably dividethe areasinwhich themaritimeprojections
of the twoneighbouringcountries' coasts overlap. It willtherefore coincide
with the last point theperpendicular reaches within the overlapping of the
respective 200-milezones claimed by the two States and established from
appropriate basepoints on their coastlines.
229. In conclusion, taking point Aasafixedpoint and assigningletter B
to the meeting-point between the first two segments as above defined,
letter Cto themeeting-point between the second and third segmentson the
closing line of the Gulf, and letter D to the point where the first segment
reaches, to seaward, the last place on itspath where the claims of the two
Parties overlap, the delimitation line fixed by the Chamber between the
maritimejurisdictions of Canada and the United States will be the line
successively connecting points A, B, C and D.
230. Thefundamental rule of general international lawgoverning mari-
time delimitations, the rule which provided the Chamber with its starting-
point for the reasoning so far followed, requires that the delimitation line
be established while applying equitable criteria to that operation, with a
view to reaching an equitable result. It is precisely by the adoption of a
basic criterion whose equitable character is generally admitted and has
been sanctionedby the authority of the Court, and by alsoresorting, where
necessity arose, to auxiliary criteria which are also equitable, and, finally,
by putting those criteria into practice through the methods judged most
appropriate to that end, that the Chamber has succeeded in drawing the
delimitation line requested of it by the Parties. Its last remaining task
before formulating its final decision willbe to ascertain whether the result
thus arrived at may be considered asintrinsicallyequitable, in the light ofal1the circumstances which may be taken into account for the purposes of
that decision.
231. In fact, such verification is not absolutely necessary where thefirst
two segments of the line are concerned. Within the Gulf, i.e., landward of
its closing line, it would scarcely be possible to assess the equitable char-
acter of thedelimitationtherecarried outon the basis of any other than the
dominant parameters provided by the physical and political geography of
the area. And it isprecisely those parameters which served the Chamber as
a guide in determining theparts of the line which are to take effect in this
portion of the delimitation area. Moreover, attention may be drawn to the
fact that the Parties did not make any special reference to the fishing
resources of this portion of the delimitation area when pointing out the
general importance of those resources for their economies ;neither did the
Parties refer to anyexplorationscarried out in thissector with aviewto the
discovery and exploitation of petroleum resources.
232. The question may take on a different complexion, however, in
regard to the third segment of the line,whoseeffect willbe felt in that part
of the delimitation area which lies outside and far from the shores of the
Gulf and which, not so long ago, was part of the high seas. For present
purposes, it must be borne in mind that thisfinal segment of the line is the
one of greatest interest to the Parties, on account of the presence of
Georges Bank. This Bank is the real subject of the dispute between the
United States and Canada in the present case, the principal stakein the
proceedings, from the viewpoint of the potential resources of the subsoil
and also, in particular, that of fisheries that are of major economicimpor-
tance. Some enquiry whether, in addition to the factors provided by the
geography of the Gulf itself, there are no others that should be taken into
account, is therefore an understandable step. It might well appear that
other circumstances ought properly to be taken into consideration in
assessing the equitable character of the result produced by this portion of
the delimitation line, which is destined to divide the riches of the waters
and shelf of this Bank between the two neighbouring countries. These
othercircumstances maybe summedup bywhat theParties havepresented
asthe data provided byhuman and economicgeography, and they are thus
circumstances which, though in the Chamber's opinion ineligible for con-
sideration as criteria to be applied in the delirnitation process itself, ma-
asindicated in Section II,paragraph 59,above - be relevant to assessment
of the equitable character of adelirnitationfirst established on the basis of
criteria borrowed from physical and political geography.
233. In the eyesof the United States,the main consideration here is the
historical presence of man in the disputed areas. It believes the decisive
factor here to be the activities pursued by the United States and its
nationals since the country's independence and even before, activities
which they claim to have been alone in pursuing over the greater part of
that long period. This reasoning is simple and somewhat akin to theinvocation of historic rights, though that expression has not been used.
This continuous human presence took theform especiallyof fishing,and of
the conservation and management of fisheries, but it also included other
maritime activities concerning navigational assistance, rescue, research,
defence,etc.Al1theseactivities,saidgreatlyto exceedin duration and scale
the more recent and limited activities of Canada and its nationals, must,
according to the United States, be regarded as a major relevant circum-
stanceforthe purpose of reaching an equitable solution to thedelirnitation
problem.
234. On the other hand it was Canada which. in the course of the
proceedings, laid the greater emphasis on what it considered to be the
decisive importance of socio-economic aspects. However, it was not a
question, in its view,of invoking any historic rights such asmight compete
with those rights on which theUnited States wasin effectrelying.The only
period which in Canada's eyes should be regarded as relevant was the
recent one leading up to, or even continuing beyond, the time when both
States finally decided to go ahead with the institution of exclusivefishery
zones. Canada was of the view that attention should be especially con-
centrated on two aspects :the distribution of fish stocks in the various
parts of the area, and the fishing practices respectively established and
followedby thetwo Parties.Asalready noted in Section IV,paragraph 110,
it sought to erect intoan equitable principle, of deterrnining force for the
purposes of delimitation, the idea that any single maritime boundary
should ensure the maintenance of the existing fishing patterns that are in
its viewvital to the coastal communities of the region in question. In other
words, the Chamber, in carrying out the delimitation, should aim to avoid
in any wayharming theeconomic and social development of thecentres of
population in Nova Scotia, bearing in mind that that development had
been possible thanks to the contribution made by the product of the
Canadian fisheries established on the Georges Bank, especially in the last
15 years.
235. The Chamber cannot adopt these positions of the Parties. Con-
cerning that of the United States, it can only confirm its decision not to
ascribe any decisive weight, for the purposes of the delimitation it is
charged to carry out, to the antiquity or continuity of fishing activities
carried on in the past within that part of the delimitation area which lies
outside the closinglineof the Gulf. Until veryrecently, asthe Chamber has
recalled, these expanses were part of the high seas and as such freely open
to thefishermen not onlv of the United Statesand Canadabut alsoofother
countries, and theyweriindeed fishedby verymany nationals of thelatter.
The Chamber of course readily allows that, during that period of free
competition, the United States, as the coastal State, may have been able at
certain places and times - no matter for how long - to achieve an actual
predominance for its fisheries. But after the coastal States had set up
exclusive 200-mile fishery zones, the situation radically altered. Third
States and their nationals found themselvesdeprived of any right of accessto the sea areas within those zones and of any position of advantage they
might have been able to achievewithin them. As for the United States, any
merefactual predominance whichithad been able to securein thearea was
transformed into a situation of legal monopoly to the extent that the
localities in question became legallypart of its own exclusivefishery zone.
Conversely,to the extent that they had becomepart of the exclusivefishery
zone of the neighbouring State, no reliance could any longer be placed on
that predominance. Clearly, whatever preferential situation the United
States may previously have enjoyed, this cannotconstitute in itself a valid
ground forits nowclaimingtheincorporation into itsownexclusivefishery
zone of any area which, in law, has become part of Canada's.
236. In any case, the purpose of the delimitation cannot conceivably be
held toliein themaintenance ofsuch aposition, orevenofitsrestoration in
the event of its having weakened in the course of time. To a certain extent,
moreover, the same considerations hold good as regards the position of
Canada, even if it appears undeniable that, from some aspects, the devel-
opment of this country's fisheriesis more notably a phenomenon of the
present dayand has been having anobvious socio-economic impact on the
communities inhabiting certain counties of Nova Scotia. But the fact
remains that Canada, like the United States, has preferred the policy of
reserving for itself an "exclusive" fishery zone to that of free-for-al1com-
petition in theexploitation of an open sea.To take such astep may giverise
to drawbacks alongside the unquestionable advantages. However, there is
no reason to consider dejure that the delimitation which the Chamber has
now to carry out within the areas of overlapping apparent as between the
respective exclusive fishery zones must result in each Party's enjoyingan
access to the regional fishing resources which will be equal to the accessit
previously enjoyed defacto. Neither is there any reason why the delimi-
tation should provide a Party in certain places with a compensation
equivalent to what it loses elsewhere.
237. It is, therefore, in the Chamber's view,evident that the respective
scale of activities connected with fishing - or navigation, defence or, for
that matter, petroleum exploration and exploitation - cannot be taken
into account as a relevant circumstance or, if the term is preferred, as an
equitablecriterion to be applied indetermining the delimitation line.What
the Chamber would regard asalegitimate scrupleliesratherin concern lest
the overall result, even though achieved through the application of equi-
table criteria and the use of appropriate methods for givingthem concrete
effect, should unexpectedly be revealed as radically inequitable, that is to
Say,as likely to entai1 catastrophic repercussions for the Iivelihood and
economic well-being of the population of the countries concerned. 238. Fortunately, there is no reason to fear that any such danger will
arise in the present case on account of the Chamber's choice of delimita-
tion line or, more especially,the course of its third and final segment. This
crosses the waters covering Georges Bank at such a distance from that
feature'sextremity in thedirection of the Northeast Channel asto leaveon
the Canadian sidethegreater part of the "Northern Edgeand Peak" of the
Bank, where the greatest concentrations of the sedentary species - in
particular scallop - exploited by Canadian fishermen are to be found. In
fact, according to the information furnished by Canada, in the period
1972-1976,i.e.,prior to the twoneighbouring countries'institution of their
exclusive fishery zones, Canadian fishermen were responsible for the
major part of scallop landings ;the Canadian catches were taken mainly
from the "Northern Edge and Peak" of Georges Bank, while those of the
United States came mainly from the vicinity of the Great South Channel.
Thus Canada may still be sure of very nearly al1the major locations of its
catches ;and it willbe remembered that it isprecisely the product of these
fisheriesthat Canada regardsas important forthe economy of Nova Scotia
andits ports. Conversely,the localities in whch the samesedentary species
have been traditionally fished by the United States, which are clustered
mainly in the vicinity of the Great South Channel, willlie entirely on the
United States side of the dividing line. As regards lobster-fishing, the
Canadian fisheries are mainly concentrated in Corsair Canyon, on the
northeastern side of the line, whereas those of the United States are
concentrated rather on its southwestern side. In the case of other fisheries,
more particularly those concerning free-swimming fish, the calculation is
not so simple, and is necessarily less precise. By and large, however, an
examination of the statistics, which are sometimes difficult to compare,
leads the Chamber to the conclusion that nothing less than a decision
which would have assigned the whole of Georges Bank to one of the
Parties might possibly have entailed serious economic repercussions for
the other.
239. As regards the other major aspect to be viewed from the same
angle, it may be pointed out that the delimitation line drawn by the
Chamber so divides the main areas in which the subsoil is being explored
for its minera1resources as to leaveon either sidebroad expanses in which
prospecting has been undertaken in the past and may be resumed to the
extent desired by the Parties.
240. Moreover the Chamber considers that there is no need to overes-
timate any difficulties that may arise from the division of Georges Bank,
with the resources of its waters and subsoil,resulting from thedelimitation
line which it has drawn in accordance with law and with the equitable
criteria whose application is called for by the law itself. It is unable to
discern anyinevitablesource ofinsurmountable disputes in the fact that its
decision has not endorsed the single management of this Bank's fisheries,
and the assignment to one country of the task of conserving them, which
the United States would have preferred to see instituted. Nor can it
imagine that incidents due tonavigationalerrors orpossible infringements GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 344
occurring after the establishment of the delimitation line could not be
settled directly and adequately. Canadaand theUnited States have to their
credittoo long atradition of friendly and fruitfulCO-operationin maritime
matters, as in so many other domains, for there to be any need to fear an
interruption of that CO-operation,which clearly now becomes al1the more
necessary, not only in the field of fisheries but also in that of hydrocarbon
resources. By once morejoining in a common endeavour, the Parties will
surelybe able to surmont any difficulties and take the right steps to ensure
the positive development of their activities in the important domains
concerned.
241. In short,the Chamber seesin the abovefindingsconfirmation ofits
conviction that in thepresent case there are absolutely no conditions of an
exceptional kind whichmightjustify anycorrection of thedelimitation line
it has drawn. The Chamber may therefore confidently conclude that the
delimitation effected incompliance with thegoverningprinciples and rules
of law, applying equitable criteria and appropriate methods accordingly,
has produced an equitable overall result.
242. In accordance with Article II, paragraph 2, of the Special Agree-
ment, the course of the boundary is defined below, in the operative clause
of the present Judgment, in terms of geodetic lines connecting geographic
CO-ordinatesof points. Furthermore, as requested in that paragraph, the
courseof theboundary has been depicted,for illustrative purposes only,on
copies of Canadian Hydrographic Service Chart No. 4003, and United
States National Ocean SurveyChart No. 13006,which have been supplied
by the Parties respectively l.An explanatory Report by the technical
expert is annexed to the Judgment. In accordance with Article IV of the
Special Agreement, the said geographic CO-ordinatesof points are ren-
dered on the 1927American Datum.
' Copies of these charts, reproduced in black and white and reduced in sizefor easeof
handling,will be found in a pocket at the back of the fasciclecontaining thisJudgrnent,
orinside the back cover of the volume of I.C.J. Reports 1984, as the case may be. For
clarity, the delimitation line is reproduced on these copies as a red line. (Note by the
Registry.) GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT)
243. For these reasons,
By four votes to one,
Decides
That the course of the single maritime boundary that divides the con-
tinental shelf and the exclusivefisheries zones of Canada and the United
States of America in the area referred to in the Special Agreement con-
cluded by those two States on 29 March 1979shall be defined by geodetic
lines connecting the points with the following CO-ordinates:
Latitude North Longitude West
A 44" 11'12" 67" 16'46"
B 42" 53' 14" 67" 44' 35"
C 42" 31'08" 67" 28' 05"
D 40" 27' 05" 65" 41' 59"
IN FAVOUR : President Ago ; Judges Mosler, Schwebel ; Judge ad hoc
Cohen ;
AGAINST :Judge Gros.
Done in French and in English, the French text being authoritative, at
the Peace Palace, The Hague, this twelfth day of October one thousand
nine hundred and eighty-four, in three copies, one of which will be placed
in the archives of the Court and the others transmitted to the Government
of Canada and the Government of the United States of America respec-
tively.
(Signed) Roberto AGO,
President of the Chamber.
(Signed) Santiago TORRES BERNARDEZ,
Registrar.
Judge SCHWEBEaL ppends a separate opinion to the Judgment of the
Chamber.
Judge GROSappends a dissenting opinion to the Judgment of the
Chamber.
(Initialied)R.A.
(Initialled)S.T.B. GOLFE DU MAINE (RAPPORT TECHNIQUE)
Délimitationde lafrontièremaritime
dans la régiondu golfe duMaine
RAPPORT TECHNIQUE
[Traduction]
1. Ainsi que le prévoient l'articleII, paragraphe 2, et l'artIV,eali-
néa h), du compromis, et pour assurer la concordance entre la ligne de
délimitation et la méthode utiliséepour sa construction, il est entendu
que toutes les lignes sont des lignes géodésiques.
2. En vue de l'application pratique des méthodes indiquéesdans l'arrêt
pour la détermination des deux premiers segments de la ligne, les calculs
ont étéfaits sur le quadrillage UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator)
s'appuyant sur un méridien central 68" ouest. Léstracésde la ligne de
fermeturedu golfeet de la perpendiculaireà cette ligneont étdéterminés
d'après les azimuts géodésiques.Les calculs se réfèrentà l'ellipsoïde de
Clarke de 1866. Lespoints de base ayant été déterminés à une seconde
d'arc près, lespositions finales de la ligne de délimitation sont elles aussi
définiesen secondes d'arc entières.
3. Les positions desdifférentspoints côtierssont dans ces conditions les
suivantes :
Nom Latitude nord Longitude ouest Carte
Extrémité S-E de
l'île de Nantuc-
ket 41" 15' 04" 69" 58'01" 13241Etats-Unis
Position de la laisse
de basse mer pour
la détermination
de la limite de 200
milles 41O 15'56" 69" 57' 37" 13241 Etats-Unis
Coude du cap Cod 41" 38' 35" 69" 57' 15" 13248 Etats-Unis
Position sur le cap
Cod la plus pro-
che de la pointe
Chebogue 42" 00' 31" 70" 01' 36" 13246Etats-Unis GOLFE DU MAINE (RAPPORT TECHNIQUE) 348
Nom Latitudenord Longitudeouest Carte
Cap Ann 42" 38' 12" 70" 34' 27" 13279Etats-Unis
Cap Elizabeth 43" 33' 41" 70" 12'02" 13290Etats-Unis
Point terminal de la
frontière interna-
tionale (TP 15)
Côte nord de la baie
de Fundy 4010 Canada
Côte sud de la baie
de Fundy 4010 Canada
Ile Brier (Whipple
Point) 4324 Canada
Pointe Chebogue 4326 Canada
Cap de Sable . 4216 Canada
Ile Seal (pointe sud-
ouest) 4330 Canada
4. Toutes lespositions sont établiesen fonction de la station origine de
la triangulation nord-américaine de 1927. Les positions des cartes cana-
diennes ont étécorrigées d'après leindications fournies dans la lettre de
l'agentdu Canada au Greffieren datedu 18avril 1984.L'annexedonne les
coordonnéesUTM des diverses positions.
5. Les deux positions dans la baie de Fundy ont été déterminéepsar
report en tenant compte du fait que lapointe la plus orientale d'une limite
de 12milles(en fonction des laisses de basse mer deQuaco Ledge et de la
rive sud de la baie) se trouverait approximativement à 45" 04' 21" de
latitude nord et 65" 31' 11" de longitude ouest.
6. Pour lecalculdelaproportion deslongueursdecôte,lesdistances vraies
suivantes, exprimées en millesmarins, ont étéobtenues :
Du coude du cap Cod au cap Ann 65,7
Du cap Ann au cap Elizabeth 57,9
Du cap Elizabeth au point terminal de la frontière
terrestre 160,O
TOTALpour la façade côtière des Etats-Unis 283,6 (284)
Du point terminal de la frontièreinternationalàla
rive nord de la baie de Fundy 59,9
De la rive nord à la rive sud de la baie de Fundy 26,l
De la rive sud de la baie de Fundy à Whipple
Point 59,O
De Whipple Point au cap de Sable 60,9
TOTALpour la façade côtière du Canada 205,9 (206).Par conséquent le rapport entre les longueurs des façades côtières des
Etats-Unis et du Canada est de
1,38à 1.
7. Pour déterminerle tracéde la bissectrice,constituant le premier seg-
ment de la ligne, les gisements par rapport au quadrillageUTM se défi-
nissent comme suit :
Point terminal de la frontière terrestre au cap Elizabeth 243" 16'24"
Point terminal de la frontière terrestre au cap de Sable 145" 09' 30"
(par conséquentIesperpendiculaires à ceslignestracéesà partir du point A
sont, respectivement, à
et la bissectrice correspond au gisement suivant dans le quadrillag:
194" 12'57").
8.Pourdéterminerla directionde lalignemédiane,qui constituela base
du deuxième segment de la ligne de délimitation, il convient de tenir
compte d'un changement d'échelleentre les extrémités sud-estet nord-
ouest des deux lignes qui en commandent le tracé
Du coude du cap Cod au cap Ann 336" 36' 32.15
Du cap de Sable à Whipple Point 325" 07' 14','9
9. Un point situé àmi-chemin entre Whipple Point et la lignecap Ann-
cap Cod aura dans le quadrillage,à partir de Whipple Point, un gisement
de
240" 51'53','7
et coupera la ligneà la position
1) 42' 32'29','6N 70" 30' 49Y8W.
Après correction d'échelle, lepoint milieu de la ligne se trouvà
2) 43" 24' 27','0N 68" 29' 03:O W.
IO. Demêmeu , npoint àmi-cheminentre lecoude du capCod et la ligne
Whipple Point-cap de Sable se trouve sur le gisement inverse qui coupela
ligneà
3) 43"24'38','4N 65"38'31f,'7W
et le point milieu corrigéest
4) 42" 32'50:'l N 67' 49' 42','9W. 11. Legisement dans lequadrillage de la droitejoignant cesdeux points
milieux corrigés estla direction de la ligne médiane, savoir:
150" 52' 34','3.
12. Pour déterminerlaposition du deuxièmesegment de la ligne,j'inter-
prète les instructions données par la Chambre comme signifiant qu'un
demi-effet doit être attribuél'îleSeal en appliquant la proportion selon
laquelle la ligne entre la pointe Chebogue et lepoint le plusproche du cap
Cod (la ligne de positionnement) doit êtredivisée.Pour cela, l'îledoit
êtreconsidéréeen rapport avec la pointe Chebogue et la ligne de posi-
tionnement plutôt qu'avec la côte la plus proche de ladite île.
13. La longueur (géodésique) vraiede la ligne de positionnement est
de
372 088 mètres
et le gisement dans le quadrillageàpartir de la pointe Chebogue est de
Une ligne parallèleàla ligne cap de Sable-WhipplePoint (représentant la
façade côtière de la Nouvelle-Ecosse) tracéeà partir de l'extrémitésud-
ouest de l'îleeal coupe la ligne de positionnementà la distance vraie de
14234 mètresde Chebogue Point. Un point situé sur la ligne de position-
nement à 7117 mètres de la pointe Chebogue représenterait dans ces
conditions une position théorique donnant un demi-effet à l'île. Si l'on
applique la proportion de1,38à 1 àla ligne de positionnement entre lecap
Cod et lepoint donnant un demi-effet àl'île,la ligne setrouve diviàéun
point à 153 349 mètres du point de demi-effet, soit
160 466 mètres (distance dans le quadrillage 160418 mètres)
à partir de la pointe Chebogue. Cela représente une division de toute la
ligne de positionnement selon un rapport de 1,319 à 1 (1,32 à 1). Les
coordonnées de ce point sont
(5) 43" 00' 19','8N 67' 49' 56','7W.
14. Une ligne ayant dans le quadrillage un gisement de 150" 52'34'à'3
partir de ce point coupe la bissectrice tracée de à la position
B 4L053'14"N 67'44'3.5" W
constituant le premier point de changement de direction de la ligne de
délimitation.Une ligne de même gisementcoupela ligne géodésiqueentre
Nantucket et le cap de Sable à la position
C 42" 31' 08" (,35) N 67" 28' 05"(,33) W
qui constitue le second point de changement de direction de la ligne de
délimitation. 15. L'azimutde laligne géodésiquentreNantucket et lecap de Sablà
la position C est
N E
56" 39'49"
S W
de sorte que la perpendiculaire requise a un azimut de
S 33" 20' 11" E.
Le dernier endroit sur le parcours de cette perpendiculaire où les reven-
dications des deux Parties se chevauchent est un point situé0 milles
marins du point le plus proche de la laisse de basse mer des Etats-Unis
d'Amérique.Le point pertinent de la laisse de basse mer est indiquéau
paragraphe 3 ci-dessus, et l'intersection entre la perpendiculaire et un arc
de 200 milles marins tracéa partir de ce point se trouve a la position
qui est en outre dans la zone spécifiée'article II du compromis.
16. La ligne de délimitationest donc définiepar des lignesgéodésiques
joignant successivementlespositions suivantes, dont lescoordonnéessont
indiquéesen fonction de la station origine de la triangulation nord-amé-
ricaine de 1927:
A 44" 11' 12''N 67" 16'46" W
B 42" 53' 14"N 67" 44' 35" W
C 42" 31'08" N 67" 28' 05" W
D 40" 27'05" N 65" 41' 59" W.
Cette ligne coupe l'isobathe des 100mètresqui définitlebanc de Georges
sur la carte canadienne 8005, aux positio:s
mais ces positions ne font pas partie de la définitionde la ligne de déli-
mitation.
Fait en un exemplaire, en langue anglaise,à La Haye, le 3 octobre
1984.
(Signé)P. B. BEAZLEY. ANNEXE AU RAPPORT TECHNIQUE
Liste des coordonnées rectangulaires sur la projection de Mercator
de certaines positions mentionnées dans le rapport. Méridien central
68" ouest ;ellipsoïde de Clarke de 1866.
Position Abscisse Ordonnée
Coude du cap Cod 337 251.1 4 611 778,O
Position sur le cap Cod la plus
proche de la pointe Chebogue
Cap Ann
Cap Elizabeth
TP 15
Whipple Point
Pointe Chebogue
Cap de Sable
IleSeal
A
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
B
C
(La position C se trouve sur la ligne géodésiqentre le cap de Sable et
Nantucket à 7 mètres environ de la ligne de quadrillage joignant ces
points.)
COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES
AFFAIRE DE LA DÉLIMITATION
DE LA FRONTIÈRE MARITIME
DANS LA RÉGION DU GOLFE DU MAINE
ARRETDU 12 OCTOBRE1984RENDU PAR LA CHAMBRE
CONSTITUÉEPAR ORDONNANCEDE LA COUR
DU 20 JANVIER1982
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS
CASE CONCERNING DELIMITATION
OF THE MARITIME BOUNDARY
IN THE GULF OF MAINE AREA
(CANADA/UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
JUDGMENT OF 12 OCTOBER1984GNEN BY THE CHAMBER
CONSTITüTED BY THE ORDERMADE BY THECOURT
ON 20 JANUARY 1982 Mode officiel de ci:ation
Délimitationde lafrontièremaritime dans la régiondu golfe du Maine,
arrêt,I.J. Recueil 1984,p. 246.
Officia1cita:ion
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary inthe Gulf of Maine Area,
Judgment1.C.J. Reports 1984,p. 246.
"ode vente:505 1
Sales nurnber COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
1984 ANNÉE 1984
12octobre
Rôle général
no67 12 octobre 1984
AFFAIRE DE LA DÉLIMITATION
DE LA FRONTIÈRE MARITIME
DANS LA RÉGION DU GOLFE DU MAINE
Compromis entre le Canada et les Etats-Unis d'Amérique demandant qu'une
chambre de la Cour trace,dans la régiondu golfe du Maine, une ligne unique
délimitantàlafois leplateau continentalet lazone depêcheexclusivede 200 milles
- Délimitationd'un point prédétermin jésqu'à une zoneprédéterminé -e Com-
pétencede la Chambre.
Aire deladélirnitation Zone compriseentrelescôtesdugolfe etzone extérieure
- Géographiephysique etpolitique deslieux - Rejet de la distinctionentre côtes
principales et côtes secondaires- Unitéet continuitédu plateau continental -
Masse d'eausurjacenteet distributionde ses ressources halieutiques- Argumen-
tation des Parties concernantla géographiehumaine et économique.
Origines et évolutiodu diffërend - Délivrance par les Parties dpeermis d'ex-
ploration pétrolièreet gazière - Divergences apparuesdans la correspondance
échangée entrelesautoritésdesdeux gouvernementsausujetduplateau continental
- Créationpar les deux Etats d'une zone depêcheexclusive de 200 milles -
Extension du différend àcette zone- Accords provisoires relatifsauxpêcheries et
propositions unilatéraledse délimitation.
Règleset principesde droit internationalrégissant lamatière- Règlesconven-
tionnelleset règlesde droit international coutumie- Conventionde 1958 sur le
plateau continental - Enoncéd'un principefondamental dedroit et prescription
parallèle d'une méthode technique à appliquer à la délimitation danscertaines
conditions - Règlede base fournie par le droitinternational coutumieret contri-
bution de lajurisprudenceinternationale àsaformation - Convention adoptée en
1982par la troisième conférence deN sations Uniessur ledroitde la mer- Norme
fondamentale reconnue par les Parties - Redéfinition de cette norme - Absence
dansledroitinternationald'un corpsderègles détaillées concernaln atdélimitation
desprojectionsmaritimes d'Etats limitrophes.
Critèreséquitablesetméthodespratiquesapplicables à ladélimitation- Méthode
définiepar l'article,paragraphes I et 2, de la conventionde 1958 sur leplateau INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
YEAR 1984 1984
12October
General List
12 October 1984 No. 67
CASE CONCERNING DELIMITATION
OF THE MARITIME BOUNDARY IN
THE GULF OF MAINE AREA
(CANADA/UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
SpecialAgreementbetweenCanadaand the UnitedStates ofAmerica requesting
a chamberof the Court to draw, in the Gulfof Maine area,a single line to delimit
both the continentalshelf and the 200-mile exclusivefishery zone- Delimitation
between a predefined point anda predefined area - Jurisdiction of the Cham-
ber.
Delimitationarea - Zone betweenthecoastsof the Gulfand outerzone - Local
physicalandpoliticalgeography - Rejectionofthedistinctionbetweenprimary and
secondaty coasts- Unityandcontinuityofthecontinentalshelf- Superjacentwater
massanddistributionofitsfishery resources-Arguments ofthePartiesconcerning
human and economicgeography.
Originsanddevelopmentofthedispute - Issue bythePartiesofpermitsforpetrol
and gas exploration - Divergences apparentin the correspondence betweenthe
authoritiesofthetwoGovernmentswithregardtothecontinentalshelf- Creationby
both States of a 200-mile exclusivefishety zone Extension of the dispute to this
zone - Interim jïsheries agreements and unilateral delimitatioproposais.
Rulesandprinciplesofinternationallawgoverningthematter - Treatyrulesand
rulesofcustomaty internationallaw - 1958Conventionon the ContinentalShelj-
Enunciation of afundamental principle of law and simultaneousprescription of a
technicalmethod tobe appliedto the delimitation in certaincircumstances- Basic
rule supplied by customaty international law and contribution of international
jurisprudenceto itsformation - Conventionadoptedin 1982by the Third United
Nations Conferenceon the Law of the Sea - Fundamental normrecognizedby the
Parties - Redefinition of such norm - Absence in internationallaw of a body of
detailed rules concerningthe delimitation of the maritimeprojections of adjacent
States.
Equitablecriteriaandpractical methodsapplicabletothedelimitation - Method
definedbyArticle 6,paragraphs1and2, ofthe 1958 Conventiononthe Continentalcontinental en vigueurentre les Parties - Critère équitable dont cette méthode
s'inspire- Caractèrecontraignant qu'aurait l'applicatiodne laméthodepréconisée
par l'article6 s'il ne se posait en l'espèce qu'une question d délimitationdu seul
plateau continental - Nécessitéd,anslecasconcret,de délimiter à lafois leplateau
continentalet lamassed'eau surjacente - Rejet delathèseque laméthodeprévue à
l'article6 devrait s'appliquer obligatoiremen àt toute délimitationmaritime en tant
qu'expression particulière &ne normegénérale du droiin tternationalcoutumier -
Rejet de la thèse quela méthodeen question serait obligatoire dans le cas d'espèce
par l'effet d'unacquiescement oude I'estoppel - Critères équitables susceptibles
d'êtres appliqué etsméthodespratiques pouvantêtreutilisées - Choix enfonction
des exigencesspécifiquesdu casd'espèce - Application de critères etde méthodes
s'appuyant surtout sur la géographie.
Examen despropositionsde lignes dedélimitationsuccessivement avancéespar
les Parties.
Critèreset méthodes retenuspar la Chambre - Ligne de délimitationunique
tracée en conséquence - Construction de cetteligne en trois segments.
Vérificationdu caractère équitable du résultatobtenu - Inexistence dans le
cas d'espèce detout danger réelde conséquences inéquitables - Nécessitéd'une
coopérationentre les Parties.
Présents : M. A~o.président de la Chambre ;MM. GROS,MOSLERS,CHWEBEL,
juges ;M. COHENj,uge ad hoc ; M. TORRES BERNARDEG Z,reffier.
En l'affairede la délimitationde la frontière maritimedans la régiondu golfe
du Maine,
entre
le Canada:
représentépar
l'honorable Mark MacGuigan, C.P., C.R., député, ministrede la justice et
procureur générad l u Canada,
S. Exc. M.l'ambassadeur L. H. Legault, C.R., conseillerjuridique, ministère
des affaires extérieures.
comme agent et conseil,
M. Blair Hankey, ministèredes affaires extérieures,
comme agent adjoint et conseil,
M. L. Alan Willis, ministèrede la justice,
comme conseilet conseiller spécial,
M. W. 1.C. Binnie, C.R., sous-ministre associé, ministèrede la justice,
M. Derek W. Bowett,Q.C.,professeur de droit, titulaire dela chaireWhewell,
Queens' College,Cambridge, GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 247
Shelf inforce betweenthe Parties - Equitablecriterionunderiyingthis method -
Applicationof the methodofArticle 6 mandatoryif the only questionweredelimi-
tation of the continentalshelf - Need in the present caseto delimit both the
continentalshelf and thesuperjacent watermass - Rejection of the argument that
application of the method of Article 6 should be mandatoryfor any maritime
delimitationasparticularexpressionof a generalnorm of customaryinternational
law - Rejection of the argument that the methodin questionis obligatoryin the
present casebyacquiescenceorestoppel - Equitablecriteriawhichcouldbeapplied
and practicalmethods which could beused - Selection accordingto the specific
requirementsof the case - Applicationof criteriaand methodsbasedprimariiy on
geography.
Examination of theproposeddelimitation linessuccessivelyput forward by the
Parties.
Criteriaand methodsadopted bythe Chamber - Single delimitation linedrawn
accordingly - Constructionof such line in three segments.
Verificationoftheequitablecharacteroftheresult - Non-existenceinthepresent
caseofany realdangerofinequitableconsequences - Needfor CO-operatiob netween
the Parties.
JUDGMENT
Present : Judge AGO, President of the Chamber; Judges GROS,MOSLER,
SCHWEBEL ; Judge ad hoc COHEN ;Registrar TORRES BERNARDEZ.
In the case concerningdelimitation of the maritime boundary in the Gulf of
Maine area,
between
Canada,
represented by
The Honorable Mr. Mark MacGuigan, P.C., Q.C.,M.P., Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada,
H.E. Mr. L. H. Legault, Q.C., Ambassador, Legal Adviser, Department of
External Affairs,
as Agent and Counsel,
Mr. Blair Hankey, Department of External Affairs,
as Deputy-Agent and Counsel,
Mr. L. Alan Willis, Department of Justice,
as Counsel and SpecialAdviser,
Mr. W. 1.C. Binnie,Q.C., AssociateDeputy Minister,Department of Justice,
Mr. DerekW.Bowett,Q.C.,WhewellProfessorof International Law, Queens'
College,Cambridge,M. Ian Brownlie, Q.C., D.C.L., F.B.A., professeur de droit international,
titulaire de la chaire Chichele,llow d'Al1Souls College,Oxford,
M. Yves Fortier, C.R., membre du barreau du Québec,ancien présidentde
l'associationdu barreau canadien,
M. Gunther Jaenicke, professeur à l'universitéde Francfort-sur-le-Main,
M. Ronald St. J. Macdonald, C.R., professeur à l'universitéDalhousie,
M. Antonio Malintoppi (décédé l2e9 mai 1984),professeur àl'universitéde
Rome,
M. Prosper Weil,professeur à l'universitéde droit, d'économie te sciences
socialesde Paris,
comme conseils,
M. Lawrence Herman, membre des barreaux de l'Ontario et du Saskatche-
wan,
M. D. M. McRae, professeur à l'université deColombie britannique,
MmeJan Schneider, membre des barreaux de New York et du district de
Columbia,
comme conseillersjuridiques extraordinaires,
le capitaine de frégateE. J. Cooper, consultant sur les délimitationsdes
frontièresmaritimes, Ottawa,
M. Sinclair,laboratoire des recherchessur lespêcheriesde Halifax, ministère
des pêcheset des océans,
comme experts,
M. A. R. Longhurst, institut océanographiqueBedford, Dartmouth,
M. R. D. W. Macdonald, ministèredes pêches etdes océans,Ottawa,
M. M. P. Shepard, consultant sur les pêcheries, Victoria,
M.D.F. Shenvin,ministèredel'énergied ,esminesetdesressourcesnaturelles,
Ottawa,
MmePatricia Smith, ministèredes pêcheset des océans, Ottawa,
M. R. Trites, institut océanographiqueBedford, Dartmouth,
comme conseillers scientifiques et techniques,
M. Ross Hornby, ministèredes affaires extérieures,
MmeValerie Hughes, membre du barreau de l'Ontario,
MmeSarita Verma, ministère desaffaires extérieures,
comme conseillersjuridiques,
M. C. Hanson Dowell, C.R., conseiller spécia, ouvernement dela Nouvelle-
Ecosse,
M. D. A. MacLean, sous-ministre, ministèredes pêchesG, ouvernement de la
Nouvelle-Ecosse,
M. Henri Légaré,sous-ministre, ministère des pêchesG ,ouvernement du
Nouveau-Brunswick,
comme conseillers,
MmeAnne Brennan, ministèredes affaires extérieures,
comme secrétaire administrative, GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 248
Mr. Ian Brownlie,Q.C., D.C.L., F.B.A., Chichele Professor of Public Inter-
national Law in the University of Oxford, Fellow of Al1Souls College,
Oxford,
Mr. Yves Fortier, Q.C., Member of the Quebec Bar, Past President of the
Canadian Bar Association,
Mr. Gunther Jaenicke, Professor of International Law at the University of
Frankfurt-am-Main,
Mr. Ronald St. J. Macdonald, Q.C., Dalhousie University,
Mr. Antonio Malintoppi, University of Rome (deceased, 29 May 1984),
Mr. ProsperWeil,professeur à l'université dedroit,d'économieet de sciences
socialesde Paris,
as Counsel,
Mr. Lawrence Herman, Member of the Ontario and Saskatchewan Bars,
Mr. D. M. McRae, Professor, Universityof British Columbia,
Miss Jan Schneider, Member of the New York and District of Columbia
Bars,
as Senior Legal Advisers,
Commander E. J. Cooper, Consultant in Maritime Boundary Delimitation,
Ottawa,
Mr. M. Sinclair, Halifax Fisheries ResearchLaboratory, Department of
Fisheries and Oceans,
as Experts,
Mr. A. R. Longhurst, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Dartmouth,
Mr. R. D. W. Macdonald, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa,
Mr. M. P. Shepard, Fisheries Consultant, Victoria,
Mr. D. F. Sherwin,Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa,
Ms. Patricia Smith, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa,
Mr. R. Trites, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Dartmouth,
as Scientificand Technical Advisers,
Mr. Ross Hornby, Department of External Affairs,
Ms. Valerie Hughes, Member of the Ontario Bar,
Ms. Sarita Verma, Department of External Affairs,
as Legal Advisers,
Mr. C. Hanson Dowell, Q.C., SpecialAdviser, Government of Nova Sco-
tia,
Mr. D. A. MacLean, Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries,Govemment
of Nova Scotia,
Mr. Henri LégaréD , eputy Minister,Department of Fisheries,Government of
New Brunswick,
as Advisers,
Ms. Anne Brennan, Department of External Affairs,
as Administrative Secretary, et
les Etats-Unis d'Amérique,
représentéspar
l'honorable Davis R. Robinson, conseillerjuridique, département d'Etat des
Etats-Unis,
comme agent et conseil,
M. David A. Colson,conseillerjuridique adjoint pour lesaffaires concernant
les océans, l'environnementinternational et les questions scientifiques,
bureau du conseillerjuridique, départementd'Etat des Etats-Unis,
comme agent adjoint et conseil,
M. Bruce C. Rashkow,directeur du bureau chargéde l'affaire de la délimi-
tation maritime avec le Canada, bureau du conseillerjuridique, départe-
ment d'Etat des Etats-Unis,
comme conseil spécial,
l'honorable John R. Stevenson, membre des barreaux de New York et du
district de Columbia, ancien conseillerjuridique, départementd'Etat des
Etats-Unis, et ancienambassadeur des Etats-Unis à la troisième conférence
des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer,
M. Mark B. Feldman, membre des barreaux de New York et du district de
Columbia, professeur adjoint de droit, centrejuridique de l'université de
Georgetown, Washington, D.C., et ancien conseillerjuridique adjoint,
bureau du conseillerjuridique, département d'Etat des Etats-Unis,
M. Ralph 1.Lancaster, membre des barreaux du Maine et du Massachusetts,
régentpour le Canada et lesEtats de la Nouvelle-Angleterrede l'American
College of Trial Lawyers, ancien présidentde la Maine Bar Association,
M. John Norton Moore, membre des barreaux de Floride, d'Illinois,de Vir-
ginieet du district de Columbia,professeur de droit <(Walter L. Brown ))et
directeur du centre de droit et de politique des océans,facultéde droit de
l'universitéde Virginie,ancien conseiller endroit international, bureau du
conseillerjuridique, départementd'Etat des Etats-Unis, et ancien ambas-
sadeur des Etats-Unis à la troisième conférence des Nations Unies sur le
droit de la mer,
M. Stefan Riesenfeld, membre du barreau du Minnesota, professeur à la
facultéde droit de l'universitéde Californie, Berkeley (Californie), età la
facultéde droit Hastings, San Francisco (Californie), S.J.D. (Harvard),
J.U.D. (Breslau), docteur en droit (Milan) et ancien conseiller en droit
international, bureau du servicejuridique, département d'Etat des Etats-
Unis,
comme conseils,
lecapitaine de corvette Peter Ward Comfort,Judge Advocate Generai'sCorps,
marine de guerre des Etats-Unis, détachéauprès du bureau chargéde
l'affairede la délimitation maritimeavec le Canada, bureau du conseiller
juridique, département d'Etat des Etats-Unis,
M. Michael John Danaher, bureau du conseillerjuridique adjoint pour les
affaires concernant les océans, l'environnementinternational et les ques-
tions scientifiques,bureau du conseillerjuridique, départementd'Etat des
Etats-Unis, and
the United States of America,
represented by
The Honorable Davis R. Robinson, LegalAdviser,United States Department
of State,
as Agent and Counsel,
Mr. David A. Colson, Assistant Legal Adviser for Oceans, International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Office of the Legal Adviser, United
States Department of State,
as Deputy-Agent and Counsel,
Mr. Bruce C. Rashkow, Director of the Office of Canadian Maritime Boun-
dary Adjudication, Office of the Legal Adviser, United States Department
of State,
as Special Counsel,
The Honorable John R. Stevenson, Member of the Bars of New York and
District of Columbia,formerly LegalAdviser,United States Department of
State,and formerly United StatesAmbassador to theThird United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea,
Mr. Mark B. Feldman, Member of the Bars of New York and the District of
Columbia, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown UniversityLaw Center,
Washington, D.C., and formerly Deputy LegalAdviser, Officeof the Legal
Adviser, United States Department of State,
Mr. Ralph 1. Lancaster, Member of the Bars of Maine and Massachusetts,
Regent for Canadaand the New England Statesof theAmerican Collegeof
Trial Lawyers, and formerly President of the Maine Bar Association,
Mr. JohnNorton Moore, Memberof the Barsof Florida, Illinois, Virginiaand
theDistrict ofColumbia, Walter L.BrownProfessorof Lawand Director of
theCenter of Oceans Lawand Policy,University ofVirginia Schoolof Law,
formerly Counselor on International Law, Office of the Legal Adviser,
United States Department of State, and formerly United States Ambassa-
dor to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea,
Mr. Stefan Riesenfeld, Member of the Bar of Minnesota, Professor of Law,
University of California, School of Law, Berkeley, California, and the
Hastings Collegeof the Law, San Francisco, California, S.J.D. (Harvard),
J.U.D. (Breslau), Dott. in Giur. (Milano), and formerly Counselor on
International Law, Officeof the LegalAdviser, United States Department
of State,
as Counsel,
Lieutenant-Commander Peter Ward Cornfort, Judge Advocate General's
Corps, United States Navy, on detail to the Office of Canadian Maritime
BoundaryAdjudication, Officeof the LegalAdviser,United States Depart-
ment of State,
Mr. MichaelJohn Danaher, Officeof theAssistant LegalAdviserfor Oceans,
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Office of the Legal
Adviser, United States Department of State,MmeMary Wild Ennis,bureau chargéde l'affairede la délimitation maritime
avec le Canada, bureau du conseillerjuridique, département d'Etat des
Etats-Unis,
lelieutenant devaisseauNeil F. Gitin,JudgeAdvocateGenerai'sCorps,réserve
navale des Etats-Unis, détaché auprès du bureau chargé de l'affairede la
délimitation maritime avec le Canada, bureau du conseiller juridique,
département d'Etat des Etats-Unis,
M. Ray A. Meyer,bureau chargéde l'affairede la délimitation maritimeavec
le Canada, bureau du conseillerjuridique, département d'Etat des Etats-
Unis,
comme avocats-conseillers,
le lieutenant de vaisseau Brian P. Flanagan, garde-côtes des Etats-Unis,
détaché auprès du bureau chargéde l'affaire de la délimitationmaritime
avec le Canada, bureau du conseillerjuridique, département d'Etat des
Etats-Unis,
M. Richard H. Davis, chef cartographe, division des cartes marines, service
national des océans,administration nationale pour l'atmosphère etles
océans,départementdu commerce des Etats-Unis,
M. William Hezlep, service géographiqueb , ureau de l'information et de la
recherche, département d'Etat des Etats-Unis,
M.Jonathan T. Olsson, servicegéographiqueb ,ureau del'information etdela
recherche, département d'Etat des Etats-Unis,
MmeSandra Shaw,chef de la division cartographique, service géographique,
bureau de l'information et de la recherche, département d'Etat des Etats-
Unis,
M. Robert W. Smith, chef de la division des frontières internationales et des
ressources,servicegéographiqueb ,ureau del'information etdelarecherche,
départementd'Etat des Etats-Unis,
comme conseillers spéciaux,
M. Robert L. Edwards, assistant spécialde l'administrateur adjoint des
pêches,centre des pêcheriesdu Nord-Est, service national des pêches
maritimes,administration nationale pour l'atmosphère etlesocéans,dépar-
tement du commerce des Etats-Unis,
comme expert,
assistéspar
M. StevenJ. Burton, professeur àla facultédedroit del'universitéde l'Iowa,
Iowa City (Iowa),
M. Jonathan Charney, professeur à la facultéde droit de l'université Van-
derbilt, Nashville (Tennessee),
M. Ralph J. Gillis, membre des barreaux du Massachusetts et du district de
Columbia, Plymouth (Massachusetts),
M. Bernard H. Oxman, professeur à la facultéde droit de l'université de
Miami, Miami(Floride),
M. Ted L. Stein, professeur à la facultéde droit de l'universitéde l'Etat de
Washington, Seattle (Washington),
comme expertsjuridiques,Ms. Mary Wild Ennis, Officeof Canadian Maritime Boundary Adjudication,
Office of the Legal Adviser, United States Department of State,
Lieutenant Neil F. Gitin, Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States
Naval Reserve,on detail to the Office of Canadian Maritime Boundary
Adjudication, Office of the Legal Adviser, United States Department of
State,
Mr. Ray A. Meyer, Office of Canadian Maritime Boundary Adjudication,
Office of the LegalAdviser, United States Department of State,
as Attorney-Advisers,
Lieutenant Brian P. Flanagan, United States Coast Guard, on detail to the
Office of Canadian Maritime Boundary Adjudication, Office of the Legal
Adviser, United States Department of State,
Mr. Richard H. Davis, Supervisory Cartographer, Marine Chart Division,
National Ocean Service,National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration, United States Department of Commerce,
Mr. William Hezlep, Officeof the Geographer, Bureau of Intelligence and
Research, United States Department of State,
Mr.Jonathan T. Olsson, Officeof theGeographer, Bureauof Intelligenceand
Research, United States Department of State,
Ms. Sandra Shaw, Chief, Cartography Division, Officeof the Geographer,
Bureau of Intelligence and Research, United States Department of
State,
Mr. Robert W. Smith,Chief, International Boundary and ResourceDivision,
Office of the Geographer, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, United
States Department of State,
as Special Advisers,
Mr. Robert L. Edwards, SpecialAssistant to the Assistant Administrator of
Fisheries, Northeast Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, United States
Department of Commerce,
as Expert,
Assisted by
Mr. Steven J.Burton, Professor of Law, University of Iowa Collegeof Law,
Iowa City, Iowa,
Mr. Jonathan Charney, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Schoolof
Law, Nashville, ~ennessee,
Mr. Ralph J. Gillis, Member of the Bars of Massachusetts and the District of
Columbia, Plymouth, Massachusetts,
Mr. Bernard H. Oxman, Professor of Law, University of Miami, Schoolof
Law, Miami, Florida,
Mr.Ted L.Stein, Professorof Law, University ofWashington, Schoolof Law,
Seattle, Washington,
as Legal Consultants, M. Geoffrey Bannister, doyen du collègede lettres et de l'institut d'études
supérieuresde l'universitéde Boston, Boston (Massachusetts),
M. Louis DeVorsey,Jr., professeur de géographie àl'universitéde Géorgie,
Athens (Géorgie),
M. K. O. Emery, océanographe <Henry Bryant Bigelow )a l'Institut océa-
nographique de Woods Hole, Woods Hole (Massachusetts),
M. Richard C. Hennemuth, directeur du laboratoire de Woods Hole, centre
des pêcheriesdu Nord-Est, seMce national des pêches maritimes,admi-
nistration nationale pour l'atmosphère etlesocéans,départementdu com-
merce des Etats-Unis,
M. James Kirkley,laboratoire de Woods Hole,centre des pêcheriesdu Nord-
Est, servicenational des pêches maritimesa,dministration nationale pour
l'atmosphère etles océans,département du commerce des Etats-Unis,
M. Kim D. Klitgord, géophysicien, commission géologiqudees Etats-Unis,
départementde l'intérieur des Etats-Unis,
M. Daniel McFadden, professeur <<James R. Killian )de scienceséconorni-
ques à l'Institut de technologiedu Massachusetts, Cambridge (Massachu-
setts),
M. Richard B. Morris, professeur <(Gouverneur Morris )d'histoireà l'Uni-
versitéColumbia, New York (New York),
le capitaine de corvette Robert Pawlowski, détachéauprès du centre des
pêcheriesdu Nord-Est, servicenational des pêches maritimesa ,dministra-
tion nationale pour l'atmosphèreet les océans,départementdu commerce
des Etats-Unis,
M. Giulio Pontecorvo, professeur de sciences économiques à l'institut d'ad-
ministration des affaires de l'université Columbia, New York (New
York),
M. John S. Schlee, géologue, commission géologiqudees Etats-Unis, dépar-
tement de l'intérieur,
M. William L. Sullivan,Jr., conseillerpour les affaires maritimes internatio-
nales, administration nationale pour l'atmosphère etles océans,départe-
ment du commerce,
M. Manik Talwani, expert géologue,Houston (Texas),
M. Elazar Uchupi,expertscientifiquedu servicedegéologieetdegéophysique
de 1'Institut océanographiquede Woods Hole, Woods Hole (Massachu-
setts),
M. James Wilson, professeur de sciences économiques à l'université du
Maine, Orono (Maine),
M. Julian Wolpert, professeur <<Henry G. Bryant O de géographie,d'admi-
nistration publique et d'urbanismeàl'institut WoodrowWilsond'adrninis-
tration publique et d'affairesinternationales de l'universitéde Princeton,
Princeton (New Jersey),
comme conseillers.
LACHAMBRE CONSTITUÉE PAR LA COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE pour
connaître de l'affaire susmentionnée,
ainsi composée,
aprèsdélibéré, Mr. Geoffrey Bannister,Dean of the Collegeof Liberal Arts and the Graduate
School, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts,
Mr. Louis DeVorsey, Jr., Professor of Geography, University of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia,
Mr. K. O. Emery, Henry Bryant BigelowOceanographer, Woods Hole Ocea-
nographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts,
Mr. Richard C. Hennemuth, Laboratory Director, Woods Hole Laboratory,
Northeast Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service,National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Depart-
ment of Commerce,
Mr. James Kirkley, Woods Hole Laboratory, Northeast Fisheries Center,
National Marine Fisheries Service,National Oceanographic and Atmos-
pheric Administration, United States Department of Commerce,
Mr. Kim D. Klitgord, Geophysicist, United States Geological Survey,United
States Department of the Interior,
Mr. Daniel McFadden, James R. Killian Professor of Economics, Massachu-
setts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
Mr. Richard B. Morris, Gouverneur Morris Professor of History, Columbia
University, New York, New York,
Lieutenant-Commander Robert Pawlowski,CommissionedCorps,Northeast
Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceano-
graphic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department of
Commerce,
Mr.Giulio Pontecorvo,Professorof Economics,Graduate SchoolofBusiness,
Columbia University, New York, New York,
Mr.John S.Schlee,Geologist,United States Geological Survey,United States
Department of the Interior,
Mr. William L. Sullivan,Jr., PolicyAdviser for InternationalMarine Affairs,
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, United States
Department of Commerce,
Mr. Manik Talwani, Geological Consultant, Houston, Texas,
Mr. Elazar Uchupi, Senior Scientist, Geologyand Geophysics Department,
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts,
Mr. James Wilson, Professor of Economics, University of Maine, Orono,
Maine,
Mr.Julian Wolpert, Henry G. Bryant Professorof Geography, Public Affairs,
and Urban Planning, Woodrow Wilson Schoolof Public and International
Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey,
as Advisers,
THECHAMBE OF THE INTERNATION CAOURT OFJUSTICE formed to dealwith
the case above mentioned,
composed as above,
after deliberation, rend i'arrêt suivant
1. Par lettre conjointe du 25 novembre 1981déposée auGreffe de la Cour le
mêmejour les ambassadeurs du Canada et des Etats-Unis d'Amérique aux
Pays-Bas ont transmis au Greffier la copie certifiéeconforme d'un compromis
daté du 29 mars 1979 et ultérieurement amendé, par lequel le Canada et les
Etats-Unis d'Amérique sont convenus de soumettre à une chambre de la Cour,
composéede cinq personnes et constituéeen application de l'article 26, para-
graphe 2,et de l'article 31du Statutde la Cour etconformément aux dispositions
du compromis, une question relative au tracéde la frontière maritime unique
divisant le plateau continental et les zones de pêchedes deux Parties dans la
régiondu golfe du Maine. Par la mêmelettre, le Gouvernement du Canada
notifiait également à la Cour, conformément à l'article 35 du Règlement de la
Cour,sonintention d'exercerlafacultéquelui confèrel'article 31du Statut de la
Cour de désigner un juge ad hoc.
2. Par lettre du 18décembre1981le Président en exercicede la Cour a invité
les agents des deux Parties à donner par écrit à la Cour des explications ou
éclaircissementscomplémentairessur divers points concernant notamment cer-
taines dispositions du compromis. Les explications ou éclaircissements en ques-
tion ont étéfournisdans une lettredesambassadeursdesdeux Parties à La Haye
portant la date du 6janvier 1982et parvenue au Greffe le 8janvier 1982.
3. Par ordonnance du 20janvier 1982,la Cour, ayant examiné la lettre sus-
visée,a considéréque les réponses qu'ellecontenait étaient à rapprocher des
termes du compromis aux fins de la présente affaire ;décidéd'accéder à la de-
mande des Gouvernements du Canada et des Etats-Unis d'Amérique tendant à
former une chambre spécialede cinqjuges pour connaîtrede l'affaire etdéclaré
que MM. Gros, Ruda, Mosler, Ago et Schwebel,juges, avaient été élus pour y
siéger ;pris acte de ce que, dans l'exercicedespouvoirs conféréspar l'article 31,
paragraphe 4, du Statut, le Président en exerciceavait priéM. Ruda de cédersa
place, le moment venu, aujuge ad hocdésignépar le Gouvernement du Canada,
et que M. Ruda s'étaitdéclaré prêt àle faire; et déclaré laChambre composée
comme indiquédûment constituéepour connaître de l'affaire.
4. Par lettre du 26janvier 1982,l'ambassadeur du Canada aux Pays-Bas, se
référant à l'article 31 du Statut àtl'article 35 du Règlement, a fait savoiràla
Cour que la personne choisie par le Canada pour siéger commejuge ad hoc en
l'affaireétaitM. MaxwellCohen ;par lettre de l'agent des Etats-Unis en date du
26janvier 1982,la Cour a étéaviséeque les Etats-Unis n'avaient pas d'obser-
vation à formuler au sujet de cette désignation.
5. Le texte du compromis du 29 mars 1979est le suivant :
<(Le Gouvernement du Canada et le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis
d'Amérique,
Reconnaissant qu'ils n'ont pu résoudre par voie de négociation leurs
différendsen matièrede délimitationdu plateau continental et deszones de
pêchede l'un et l'autre pays dans la régiondu golfe du Maine,
Désirant parvenir àun règlement amical de ces différendsdans les meil-
leurs délais, GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 252
deliversthefollowingJudgment :
1. By a joint letter dated 25 November 1981, filed in the Registry of the
Court the same day, the Ambassador of Canada to the Netherlands and the
Ambassador of the United States of Amenca to the Netherlands transmitted
to the Registrar a certified copy of a Special Agreement dated 29 March
1979, and subsequently modified, by which Canada and the United States
of America agreed to submit to a Chamber of the Court, composed of five
persons, to be constituted pursuant to Article 26, paragraph 2, and Article 31
of the Statute of the Court, and in accordance with the Special Agreement, a
question as to the course of the singlemaritime boundary that divides the con-
tinental shelf and fisheries zones of the two Parties in the Gulf of Maine area.
Bythe sameletter, theGovernment of Canada alsonotified the Court, in accord-
ance with Article 35 of the Rules of Court, of its intention to exercise the
power conferred by Article 31 of the Statute of the Court to choose a judge
ad hoc.
2. By a letter dated 18 December 1981,the Acting President of the Court
requested the Agents of both Parties to submit to the Court, in writing, supple-
mentary explanations or clarifications on a number of points relating to, inter
alia, certain provisions of the Special Agreement. The relevant explanations or
clarifications were given in a letter from the Ambassadors of both Parties at
The Hague, dated 6 January 1982 and filed in the Registry on 8 January
1982.
3. By an Order dated 20 January 1982, the Court, having considered the
above-mentioned letter,wasoftheopinion that therepliescontained in itwereto
be read togetherwith the terms of the SpecialAgreementfor the purposes of this
case,and decided to accede to therequestof theGovernments of Canada and the
United States of Amenca to form a special Chamber of fivejudges to deal with
the case, declared that Judges Gros,Ruda, Mosler, Agoand Schwebelhad been
electedto the Chamber, noted that theActing President of the Court, in exercise
of his powers under Article 31, paragraph 4, of the Statute of the Court, had
requested Judge Ruda to giveplacein duecourseto thejudge adhocto be chosen
by the Government of Canada,and that Judge Ruda had indicated hisreadiness
to do so, and declared that a Chamber to deal with the case had been duly
constituted by the Order with the composition indicated therein.
4. By a letter dated 26 January 1982, the Ambassador of Canada at The
Hague, referringto Article 31of the Statute and Article 35of the Rules of Court,
informed the Court that theperson chosenby Canada to sitasjudge ad hocin the
case was Professor MaxwellCohen ;by a letter from the Agent of the United
Statesdated 26January 1982the Court wasinformed that the United Stateshad
no observations to make on that choice.
5. The text of the Special Agreement of 29 March 1979is as follows:
"The Government of Canada and the Government of theUnited Statesof
America,
Recognizing that they have been unable to resolve by negotiation the
differences between them concerning the delimitation of the continental
shelfand thefisherieszonesof Canadaand the United States ofAmerica in
the Gulf of Maine area,
Desiring to reach an early and amicable settlement of these differ-
ences, Sont convenus de ce qui suit
Article I
LesPartiessoumettent laquestion posée àl'articleIIàunechambre de la
Cour internationale de Justice, composéede cinq personnes et constituée
après consultation avec les Parties, en application du paragraphe 2 de
l'article 26 et de l'article 31 du Statut de la Cour et conformément aux
dispositions du présentcompromis.
Article II
1. LaChambre estpriéede statuer,conformément auxrèglesetprincipes
du droit international applicables en la matière entre les Parties, sur la
. .
question suivante :
Quel est le tracéde la frontière maritime unique divisant le plateau
continental et les zones de pêchedu Canada et des Etats-Unis d'Amé-
rique à partir d'un point situé par 44" 11'12" de latitude nord et
67" 16'46" de longitude ouestjusqu'à un point devant êtrefixépar la
Chambre à l'intérieurd'une zone délimitée par des lignes droites reliant
lescoordonnéesgéographiquessuivantes :40" de latitude nord et 67" de
longitude ouest ; 40" de latitude nord et 65" de longitude ouest ; 42' de
latitude nord et 65" de longitude ouest ?
2. La Chambre est priéede décrirele tracéde la frontière maritime en
termes de lignes géodésiques reliant les coordonnéesgéographiquesdes
points. La Chambre est également priée, à seules fins d'illustration, d'in-
diquer letracédelafrontièresur lacarte no4003du Servicehydrographique
du Canada et sur la carte no 13006de la United States National Ocean
Survey,conformémentaux dispositions de l'article IV.
3. LesPartiesprientla Chambre denommer un expert technique, désigné
conjointement par les Parties, pour l'aider dansla considérationdes ques-
tions techniques et notamment dans la préparationde la description de la
frontière maritime et des cartes mentionnéesau pAragr-phe 2. Le Greffier
est priéde fournir à l'expert techniquedes exemplaires des piècesde pro-
cédurede chaaue Partielorsaue lesditesviècessont communiauéesàl'autre
Partie. L'expe;t assiste àla p;océdureo;ale et se tieàtla disbosition de la
Chambre pour toute consultation que cette dernièreestime nécessaireaux
fins du présentarticle.
4. Les Parties acceptent comme définitiveet obligatoirepour elles-mêmes
la décisionde la Chambre rendue en application du présent article.
Article III
1. Au sudet à l'ouestde lafrontière maritimedevant êtredélimitée par la
Chambre en application du présent compromis le Canada ne peut, et au
nord et à l'est de ladite frontière maritime les Etats-Unis d'Amériquene
peuvent, à quelque finque ce soit, revendiquer ou exercerdejuridiction ou
de droits souverains sur les eaux ou sur le fond marin et le sous-sol de la
mer.
2. Aucune disposition du présent compromisne modifie la position de
l'uneou l'autre Partieàl'égardde la naturejuridique ou de l'étendueversle Have agreed as follows :
Article 1
The Parties shallsubmit the question posed in Article II to a Chamber of
the International Court of Justice, composed of five persons, to be consti-
tuted after consultation with the Parties, pursuant to Article 26 (2) and
Article 31 of the Statute of the Court and in accordance with this Special
Agreement.
Article II
1. The Chamber is requested to decide,in accordancewith the principles
and rules of international law applicable in the matter as between the
Parties, the following question :
What is the course of the single maritime boundary that divides the
continental shelf and fisheries zonesof Canada and the United States of
America from a point in latitude 44" 11'12"N, longitude 67" 16'46" W
to a point to be determined by the Chamber within an area bounded by
straight lines connecting the following sets of geographic coordinates :
latitude 40" N, longitude 67" W ; latitude 40" N, longitude 65" W ;
latitude 42" N, longitude 65" W ?
2. The Chamber is requested to describe the course of the maritime
boundary in terms of geodetic lines, connecting geographic coordinates of
points. The Chamber is also requested, for illustrative purposes only, to
depictthecourse of theboundaryon Canadian Hydrographic ServiceChart
No. 4003 and United States National Ocean Survey Chart No. 13006,in
accordance with Article IV.
3. The Parties shall request the Chamber to appoint a technical expert
nominated jointly by the Parties to assist it in respect of technical matters
and, in particular, in preparing the description of the maritime boundary
and the charts referred to in paragraph 2. The Registrar is requested to
provide the expert with copies of each Party's pleadings whensuch plead-
ingsare communicated to the other Party. The expert shallbepresent at the
oral proceedings and shall be available for such consultations with the
Chamber as it may deem necessary for the purposes of this Article.
4. The Parties shallaccept asfinaland binding upon them the decisionof
the Chamber rendered pursuant to this Article.
Article III
1. South and Westof the maritime boundary to be determined by the
Chamber in accordance with this SpecialAgreementCanada shallnot, and
north and east ofsaidmaritimeboundary the United StatesofAmerica shall
not, claim or exercise sovereign rightsorjurisdiction for any purpose over
the waters or seabed and subsoil.
2. Nothing in this Special Agreement shall affectthe position of either
Party with respect to the legalnature and seaward extent of the continental largedu plateau continental, de lajuridiction en matièrede pêches, u de la
juridiction ou des droits souverains à toute autre fin en vertu du droit
international.
Article IV
La Chambre et l'expertou lesexperts techniques sont priés,et lesParties
dans leurs présentations à la Chambre sont tenues, de se conformer aux
dispositions techniques suivantes :
a) Toutes les coordonnéesgéographiquesdes points mentionnéssont éta-
bliesenfonction dela station originedelatriangulation nord-américaine
de 1927.
b) Toutes les lignesdroites sont des lignes géodésiquesS.iellessont néces-
sairesaux fins de l'arrêt,lescourbes, ycompris lesparallèlesde latitude,
sont calculées enfonction de la station origine de la triangulation nord-
américainede 1927.
c) Bienque les Parties utilisent des niveaux de référencdifférentsdans la
régiondu golfe du Maine, les deux sont considéréscomme étantcom-
muns.
d) S'ilest nécessairede seréféreàr la laissede basse merde l'une ou l'autre
Partie, les cartes les plus récenteset à plus grande échelle possible
publiéespar la Partie en cause sont utilisées.
e) Si un ou plusieurs points sur une carte donnée ne sont pas établisen
fonction de la station origine de la triangulation nord-américaine de
1927,la Chambredemande à l'agentde la Partieen cause de lui fournir
les points origine corrigés.
fl Comme les Parties n'utilisent pas les mêmes symboles normalisés sur
leurs cartes marines, la Chambre, l'expert ou les experts techniques
consultent au besoin les agents et leurs conseillerspour assurer l'inter-
prétation correctedu symbole ou du signe en question.
g) La Chambre, l'expertou lesexperts techniquessont priésdeconsulter au
besoin lesParties au sujet de tout programme informatique misau point
conjointement par les Parties aux fins de calculs techniques, et d'utiliser
de tels programmes au besoin.
Article V
1. Ni l'une ni l'autre Partiene communique à titre de preuve ou d'argu-
ment ni ne divulguepubliquement de quelquemanièreque ce soit la nature
ou lecontenu despropositions envued'un règlementdu différendrelatif àla
délimitation des frontièresmaritimes, ou des réponses à ces propositions,
faites au cours des négociationsou discussions entreprises depuis 1969.
2. Chaque Partienotifie et consultel'autre Partie avant de communiquer
à titre de preuve ou d'argument la correspondance diplomatique ou toute
autre correspondance confidentielle entre le Canada et les Etats-Unis
d'Amériqueportant sur la question de la délimitation des frontièresmari-
times.
Article VI
1. Sans préjugeraucune question relative à la charge de la preuve, les
Parties prient la Chambre d'autoriser la procédure suivanteau regard des
piècesde procédureécrite : GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 254
shelf, of fisheriesjurisdiction, or of sovereignrights orjurisdiction for any
other purpose under international law.
Article IV
The Chamber and any technical expert or experts are requested to utilize,
and the Parties in their presentations to the Chamber shall utilize, the
following technical provisions :
(a) Al1geographiccoordinates ofpoints referred to shalIberendered on the
1927North American Datum.
(b) Al1straight linesshallbegeodeticlines.Curvedlines,including parallels
of latitude, ifnecessaryforthejudgment, shallbecomputed on the 1927
North American Datum.
(c) Notwithstanding the fact that the Parties utilize different vertical
datums in the Gulf of Mainearea, the twodatums shallbe deemed to be
common.
(d) Should reference to the low water baseline of either Party be required,
the most recent largest scalecharts published by the Party concerned
shall be utilized.
(e) If a point or points on a particular chart are not on the 1927North
American Datum, the Chamber shall request the Agent of the appro-
priate Party to fumish the Chamber with the corrected datum
points.
(fl Inrecognition of thefact that theParties do not utilizethe samestandard
set of symbols on nautical charts, the Chamber, or any technical expert
orexperts shall,if necessary,conferwith the Agentsand their advisersto
insure proper interpretation of the symbol or feature.
(g) The Chamber, or any technicalexpert or experts, is requested to consult
with the Parties as maybe necessaryconcerninganycommon computer
programs of the Parties for technical calculations, and to utilize such
programs as appropriate.
Article V
1. Neither Party shall introduce into evidence or argument, or publicly
disclose in any manner, the nature or content of proposals directed to a
maritime boundaries settlement, or responses thereto, in the course of
negotiations or discussions between the Parties undertaken since 1969.
2. Each of the Parties shall notify and consult the other prior tointro-
ducing into evidence or argument diplomatic or other confidential corres-
pondence between Canada and the United States of America related to the
issue of maritime boundaries delimitation.
Article VI
1. Without prejudice to any question as to burden of proof, the Parties
shallrequest the Chamber to authorize the followingprocedure with regard
to the written pleadings : a) un mémoire soumispar chacunedesParties au plus tard sept mois après
que leGreffiera reçu notification du nom dujuge adhocou des noms des
juges ad hoc ;
b) un contre-mémoiresoumis par chacunedes Parties au plus tard sixmois
après l'échangedes mémoires ;
c) toute autre piècede procédurejugée nécessairepar la Chambre.
2. Lachambre peut prolonger cesdélais àla demande de l'une ou l'autre
Partie.
3. Les pièces de procédure écrite présentéesau Greffier ne sont pas
communiquées àl'autre Partie tant que le Greffier n'a pas reçu la piècede
procédure correspondante de l'autre Partie.
Article VI1
1.A la suite de la décisionde la Chambre, l'une ou l'autre Partie peut
demander la tenue de négociations envued'uneententesur l'extension de la
frontière maritime verslelarge sur une aussi grande distance que les Parties
lejugent souhaitable.
2. Si les Parties ne parviennent pas à s'entendre sur l'extension de la
frontièremaritime dans l'année quisuitladated'une telle demande, chaque
Partie peut notifier l'autre Partie de son intention de soumettre la question
de l'extension de la frontière maritime vers le large à la procédure de
règlement obligatoire par tierce partie.
3. Siles Parties ne parviennent pas às'entendre sur les conditions d'une
telle soumission dans les trois mois qui suivent cette notification, l'une ou
l'autre Partie peut soumettre la question de l'extension de la frontière
maritime vers le largeà la chambrede cinq juges constituéeen conformité
avec le présent compromis.
4. Les dispositions du présent compromis s'appliquent, mutatis mutan-
dis,àlaprocédureétabliedans leprésent articleetla décisionde la Chambre
est définitive etobligatoire pour les Parties.
Article VIII
Leprésent compromis entre en vigueur àla date de l'entréeen vigueur du
traité entre le Gouvernement du Canada et le Gouvernement des Etats-
Unis d'Amérique visant à soumettre au règlement obligatoire le différend
relatif la délimitation de la frontière maritime dans la régiondu golfe du
Maine signé encejour. Il demeure en vigueur jusqu'à ce qu'il soit abrogé
conformément aux dispositions dudit traité oujusqu'à l'abrogation dudit
traité))
6. Conformément à l'article 40, paragraphe 3, du Statut età l'article 42 du
Règlement,copie de lanotificationet du compromisaététransmiseau Secrétaire
généraldel'organisation des Nations Unies, aux Membresdes Nations Unies et
aux autres Etats admis à ester devant la Cour.
7. Par ordonnance rendue par la Cour le ler février 1982 conformément à
l'article 92du Règlement,puis par ordonnances du président de la Chambre des
28juillet 1982, 5 novembre 1982et 27juillet 1983,des délaisont étéfixésou
prorogéspour le dépôtde mémoires etde contre-mémoires, ainsi que pour le
dépôt de répliques à la demande des Parties, ces répliques ayant étéjugées (a) a Memorial to be submitted by each Party not later than sevenmonths
after the Registrar shall have receivedthe notification of thename or
names of the judge or judges ad hoc ;
(b) a Counter-Memorial to be submitted by each Party not later than six
months after the exchange of Memorials ;and
(c) any further pleadings found by the Chamber to be necessary.
2. The Chamber may extend these time-limits at the request of either
Party.
3. The written pleadings submitted to the Registrar shall not be com-
municated to the other Party until the correspondingpleading of that Party
has been received bythe Registrar.
Article VI1
1. Following the decision of the Chamber, either Party may request
negotiationsdirected toward reachingagreement on extension of the mari-
time boundary as far seaward as the Parties may consider desirable.
2. If the Parties have not reached agreement on the extension of the
maritime boundary within one year of the date of such a request, either
Party may notify the other of its intention to submit the question of the
seawardextensionof themaritimeboundaryfor decisionby abinding third
party settlement procedure.
3. If the Parties areunable to agree on the terms of such a submission
within three months of such a notification, either Party may submit the
questionoftheseaward extensionofthemaritimeboundary to the Chamber
of fivejudges constituted in accordance with this Special Agreement.
4. The provisions of this Special Agreement shallbe applied, mutatis
mutandis, to the proceedings under this Article, and the decision of the
Chamber shall be final and binding upon the Parties.
Article VIII
This SpecialAgreement shallenter into forceon thedate of theentry into
force of the Treaty between the Government of Canada and the Govern-
ment of the United States of America to Submit to BindingDispute Settle-
ment the Delimitation of theMaritime Boundaryin theGulf of MaineArea
signed thisday. It shall remain in force unlessand until its terminated in
accordance with the provisionsof the said Treaty or until the said Treaty is
terminated."
6. Pursuant to Article 40,paragraph 3, of the Statute and to Article 42of the
Rules of Court, copies of the notification and Special Agreement weretrans-
mitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Members of the
United Nations and other States entitled to appear before the Court.
7. Byan Order madeby theCourt on 1February 1982pursuant to Article92
of the Rules of Court, and thereafter by Orders made by the President of the
Chamber on 28July 1982,5November 1982,and 27July 1983,time-limits were
fixed or extended for the filing of Memorials and Counter-Memorials, and the
filingof Replies wasfound to be necessaryand a time-lirnitfixed therefor. Thenécessaires. Les mémoires, contre-mémoire et répliquesdes Parties ont été
dûment déposésdans les délaisainsi fixésou prorogés.
8. Par ordonnance de la Chambre du 30 mars 1984 le capitaine de frégate
PeterB.Beazleyaéténomméexperttechniquaeu servicedela Chambrepour les
questions techniques, et en particulier pour la description de la frontièremari-
time et les cartes viséeà l'articlII,paragraphe 2, du compromis. Avant de
prendre sesfonctions,l'expert afait ladéclarationsolennelledont letextefigure
dans l'ordonnance.
9. Des audiencesont ététenuesdu 2 au 6,du 10au 13,le 16,du 18au 19avril
et du 3 au 5 et du 9 au 11 mai 1984,durant lesquelles ont été entendusles
représentants suivants des Parties:
Pour le Canada : S. Exc. M. L. H. Legault,
l'honorable M. MacGuigan, C.P., C.R., dé-
puté,
M. B. Hankey,
M. W. 1. C. Binnie, C.R.,
M. Y. Fortier, C.R.,
M. 1. Brownlie, Q.C.,
M. D. W. Bowett, Q.C.,
M. P. Weil,
M. A. Malintoppi,
M. G. Jaenicke.
Pour les Etats-Unis d'Amérique : l'honorable D. R. Robinson,
l'honorableJ. R. Stevenson,
M. D. Colson,
M. M. Feldman,
M. K. Lancaster,
M. B. Rashkow,
M. S. Riesenfeld.
Le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis a fait comparaître un expert, M. R. Edwards,
qui a étéinterrogépar M. Lancaster, conseil des Etats-Unis, et par M. Fortier,
conseil du Canada.
10. Au cours des audiences,les membres de la Chambre ont posédes ques-
tions à l'une et l'autre Partie. Les agentset conseils des Parties y ont répondu
oralement ou par écritavant la clôture de la procédureorale.
11. Les Gouvernements du Bangladeshet du Royaume-Uni, s'appuyant sur
l'article 53,paragraphe 1,du Règlement,ont demandéà avoir communication
des piècesde procédure etde leurs annexes. LesParties ayant été consultées et
l'une d'ellesayant élevéune objection, leGreffier a informéces gouvernements
par lettres du 6 et du 13décembre1982respectivement que le présidentde la
Chambre avait décidé qu'iln'étaitpas appropriédefaire droit pour le moment à
leur demande. Le 2 avril 1984,la Chambre a décidéa ,près s'être renseignée
auprèsdes Parties,conformément à l'article53,paragraphe 2,de sonRèglement,
quelespiècesde procédureet documents annexesseraient rendus accessiblesau
public, ainsi qu'auxEtats tiersà partir de l'ouverturede la procédure orale,ce
qui a permis aux Etats susmentionnésd'y avoir également accès.Memorials,Counter-Memorialsand Repliesof thePartiesweredulyfiled within
the time-limits so fixed or extended.
8. Byan Order made by the Chamber on 30 March 1984Commander Peter
BryanBeazleywasappointed astechnical expertto assisttheChamberin respect
of 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. Beforetaking up his duties, the technical expert made a
solemn declaration, the text of which was setout in the Order.
9. On 2-6, 10-13, 16,18-19April and 3-5 and 9-11 May 1984,the Chamber
heldpublic sittingsat which it wasaddressedby the followingrepresentativesof
the Parties:
For Canada : H.E. Mr. L. H. Legault,
The Hon. Mr. M. MacGuigan, P.C., Q.C.,
M.P.,
Mr. B. Hankey,
Mr. W. 1.C. Binnie, Q.C.,
Mr. Y. Fortier, Q.C.,
Mr. 1.Brownlie,Q.C.,
Mr. D. W. Bowett, Q.C.,
Mr. P. Weil,
Mr. A. Malintoppi,
Mr. G. Jaenicke.
For the United States of America : The Hon. Mr. D. R. Robinson,
Mr. J. R. Stevenson,
Mr. D. Colson,
Mr. M. Feldman,
Mr. K. Lancaster,
Mr. B. Rashkow,
Mr. S. Riesenfeld.
TheGovernmentof theUnited Statescalledanexpert, Mr. R.Edwards,whowas
questioned by Mr. Lancaster, counsel for the United States, and Mr. Fortier,
counsel for Canada.
10. In the course of the hearings questions were put to both Parties by
membersoftheChamber. Prior to thecloseofthehearings,oralorwritten replies
to those questions were given by the Agents or counsel of the Parties.
11. The Governments of the United Kingdomand Bangladesh,in relianceon
Article53,paragraph 1,of the Rulesof Court, askedto be furnished with copies
of the pleadings and annexed documents in the case. By letters of 6 and 13
December 1982,after the viewsof the Parties had been sought, and objection
made by them, the Registrar informed those Governments that the President of
the Chamber had decided that it wouldnot be appropriate togrant the requests
of those two Governments at that time. On 2April 1984the Chamber decided,
after ascertainingthe viewsof the Partiespursuant to Article 53,paragraph 2,of
the Rules of Court, that the pleadings and annexed documents should be made
accessible to the public, and available to third States, with effect from the
opening of the oral proceedings, and they were thus at the same time made
available to the States mentioned above. 12. Dans laprocédure écrite,lesconclusionsci-aprè osnt étprésentéep sar les
Parties :
Au nom du Canada,
dans le mémoire :
(Vu les faits et les arguments énoncésdans le présent mémoire,
Plaise à la Cour dire etjuger que :
Le tracéde la frontièremaritime unique viséepar le compromis conclu
entre le Canada et lesEtats-Unis d'Amériquele 25 mars 1979est définipar
leslignesgéodésiquesreliant lepsoints dont lescoordonnées géographiques
sont les suivantes :
44" 11'12" Nord 67" 16'46" Ouest
44" 08' 51"Nord 67" 16'20" Ouest
43" 59'12" Nord 67" 14'34" Ouest
43" 49'49" Nord 67" 12'30" Ouest
43" 49'29" Nord 67" 12'43" Ouest
43" 37'33" Nord 67" 12'24" Ouest
43" 03'58" Nord 67" 23'55" Ouest
42" 54'44" Nord 67" 28'35" Ouest
42" 20'37" Nord 67" 45'36" Ouest
41 "56'42" Nord 67" 51'29" Ouest
41 "22'07" Nord 67" 29'09" Ouest
40" 05' 36"Nord 66" 41'59" Ouest ));
dans le contre-mémoire :
<Vulesfaitsetlesargumentsénoncéd sanslemémoiredu Canada etdans
le présent contre-mémoire,
Plaisea la Cour,rejetant toutes lesprétentionset conclusionscontraires
avancéesdans le mémoire desEtats-Unis,
Dire etjuger que :
Le tracéde la frontièremaritime unique viséepar le compromis conclu
entre le Canada et lesEtats-Unis d'Amériquele 29 mars 1979est définipar
leslignesgéodésiquesreliant lepsoints dont lescoordonnéesgéographiques
sont les suivantes :))
[suit une liste decoordonnéesidentique à celledu mémoire];
dans la réplique :
<Vulesfaitset lesarguments énoncéd sansle mémoireet dans lecontre-
mémoiredu Canada, ainsi que dans la présente réplique,
Plaise à la Cour,rejetant toutes lesprétentions etconclusionscontraires
avancéesdans le mémoireet dans le contre-mémoire desEtats-Unis,
Dire etjuger que :
Le tracéde la frontièremaritime unique viséepar le compromis conclu
entre le Canada et lesEtats-Unis d'Amériquele 29 mars 1979est définipar
leslignesgéodésiquesreliant lepsoints dont lescoordonnéesgéographiques
sont les suivantes :))
[suit une liste decoordonnéesidentique à celledu mémoire]. 12. In the course of the written proceedings, the following Subrnissions were
presented by the Parties :
On behaif of Canada,
in the Memorial :
"In viewof the facts and arguments set out in this Memorial,
May it please the Court to declareand adjudge that :
The course of the single maritime boundary referred to in the Special
AgreementconcludedbyCanada and theUnited Stateson 29March 1979is
definedby geodeticlinesconnectingthefollowinggeographicalcoordinates
of points :
44" 11'12" N 67" 16'46" W
44" 08' 51" N 67" 16'20" W
43" 59' 12" N 67" 14'34" W
43" 49' 49" N 67" 12' 30"W
43" 49' 29" N 67" 12' 43"W
43" 37' 33" N 67" 12'24" W
43" 03' 58" N 67" 23' 55" W
42" 54' 44"N .67" 28' 35"W
42" 20' 37" N 67" 45' 36"W
41" 56'42" N 67" 51' 29"W
41" 22' 07" N 67" 29'09" W
40" 05' 36"N 66" 41' 59" W ;
in the Counter-Memorial :
"In viewofthefacts and argumentssetout intheCanadian Memorial and
in this Counter-Memorial,
May itplease the Court,rejectingal1contrary claimsand Submissions set
forth in the United States Memorial,
To declareand adjudgethat :
The course of the single maritime boundary referred to in the Special
AgreementconcludedbyCanada and theUnited Stateson29March 1979is
definedby geodeticlinesconnectingthefollowinggeographicalcoordinates
of points :"
[herefollows a list of coordinates identicalto those in the Memoria;]
in the Reply :
"In viewofthefactsand argumentssetout in the Canadian Memorial,the
Canadian Counter-Memorial and in this Reply,
May itplease the Court,rejectingal1contrary claimsand Submissions set
forth in the United States Memorial and Counter-Memorial,
To declareand adjudge that :
The course of the single maritime boundary referred to in the Special
Agreement concluded byCanadaand theUnited Stateson29March 1979is
definedby geodeticlinesconnectingthe followinggeographicalcoordinates
of points:"
[herefollows a list of coordinates identicalto those in the Memorial].Au nom des Etats-Unis,
dans le mémoire :
<(Vu les faits énoncésdans la première partie du présentmémoire,l'ex-
posédu droit figurant dansla deuxièmepartie et les conclusions sur l'ap-
plication du droit aux faits de la troisièmepartie ;
Considérantque,aux termes du compromis entre les Parties, la Cour est
priéede dire, conformément auxrègleset principes du droit international
applicables en la matièreentre les Parties, quel est le tracéde la frontière
maritime unique divisant le plateau continental et les zones de pêchedes
Etats-Unis d'Amérique et du Canada à partir d'un point situé par
44" 11'12" de latitude nord et 67" 16'46" de longitude ouest jusqu'à un
point devant êtrefixépar la Cour àl'intérieurd'unezone délimitée par des
lignes droites reliant les coordonnées géographiques suivantes :40" de
latitude nord et 67" de longitude ouest ; 40" de latitude nord et 65" de
longitude ouest ; 42" de latitude nord et 65" de longitude ouest ;
Au nom des Etats-Unis d'Amérique,plaise a la Cour dire etjuger
A. Quant au droit applicable
1. Que la délimitation d'unefrontière maritime unique nécessitel'appli-
cation de principes équitables,compte tenu des circonstances pertinentes
propres à la région,de façon à aboutir à une solution équitable ;
2. Que les principes équitables à appliquer en l'espècesont notamment
les suivants :
a) la délimitationdoit respecter le lien existant entre les côtes pertinentes
desPartieset leszonesmaritimes situéesdevant cescôtes,cequirecouvre
les notions de non-empiétement,de proportionnalité et,le cas échéant,
de prolongement naturel ;
b) la délimitation doitfaciliter la conservation et la gestion des ressources
naturelles de la région ;
c) la délimitationdoit réduireleplus possible les risquesde litigesentre les
Parties ; et
d) ladélimitationdoit tenir comptedes circonstancespertinentes propres à
la région.
3. Que la méthode de l'équidistance n'estni obligatoire ni préférable
pour les Parties, que ce soit en vertu d'un traitéou d'une règlede droit
international coutumier,et que toute méthodeoucombinaisondeméthodes
de délimitationde nature à produire une solution équitable peut êtreuti-
lisée.
B. Quant aux circonstancespertinentes à prendre en considération
1. Que les circonstances géographiquespertinentes de la région com-
prennent :
a) la relation géographiqued'ensemble entre les Parties en tant qu'Etats
limitrophes ;
b) ladirection générale nord-est delacôteorientale del'Amériquedu Nord,
tant à l'intérieurqu'à l'extérieurdu golfe du Maine ; GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT)
On beha[fof the United States,
in the Memorial :
"In viewofthe facts set forth in Part 1of this Memorial, the statement of
the lawcontained in Part II of this Memorial,and the application of the law
to the facts as stated in Part III of this Memorial ;
Consideringthat the Special Agreement between the Parties requests the
Court, in accordance with the principles and rules of international law
applicable in the matter as between the Parties, to decide the courseof the
single maritime boundary that divides the continental shelf and fisheries
zones of theUnited States of Amenca and Canada from a point in latitude
44" 11'12"N, longitude 67" 16' 46"W to a point to be determined by this
Court withinan areabounded by straight linesconnectingthe followingsets
of coordinates :latitude 40" N, longitude 67" W ;latitude 40" N, longitude
65" W ; latitude 42' N, longitude 65" W ;
May it please the Court,on behalf of the United States of America, to
adjudgeand declare :
A. Concerning the applicablelaw
1. That delimitation of a single maritime boundary requires the appli-
cation of equitable principles, taking into account the relevant circum-
stances in the area, to produce an equitable solution.
2. That the equitable principles to be applied in this case include :
(a) the principle that the delimitation respect the relationship between the
relevant coasts of the Parties and the maritime areas lying in front of
those coasts, including nonencroachment, proportionality, and, where
appropriate, natural prolongation ;
(b) the principle that the delimitation facilitate conservation and manage-
ment of the natural resources of the area ;
(c) the principle that the delimitation minimize the potential for disputes
between the Parties ; and
(d) The principle that the delimitation take account of the relevant circum-
stances in the area.
3. That the equidistance method is not obligatory on the Parties or
preferred, either by treaty or as a rule of customary international law, and
that any method or combination of methods of delimitation may be used
that produces an equitable solution.
B. Concerning the relevant circumstancesto be taken into account
1. That the relevant geographical circumstances in the area include :
(a) the broad geographical relationship of the Parties as adjacent
States ;
(b) the general northeastern direction of the east Coastof North America,
both within the Gulf of Maine and seaward of the Gulf ;C) le fait que le point terminal de la frontière internationale se trouve dans
l'anglenord du golfe du Maine ;
d) leschangementsradicaux de direction de la côte canadienne à partir de
l'isthme Chignectou, à 147 milles au nord-est du point terminal de la
frontière internationale ;
e) la protubérancede la presqu'îlede Nouvelle-Ecosse à 100millesmarins
au sud-estdu point terminal dela frontière internationale, faisantappa-
raître un petit segmentdecôtecanadienne perpendiculaire àladirection
générale de la côte, en face du point terminal de la frontière internatio-
nale ;
fl la concavitéde la côte résultantde l'effetcombinéde laprotubérancede
la presqu'île de Nouvelle-Ecosse et de la courbure de la côte de la
Nouvelle-Angleterre ;
g) les longueurs relatives des côtes pertinentes des Parties; et
h) lechenalNord-Est, lebanc de Georgeset lesbancs de Brownet German
sur le plateau Scotian, en tant que caractéristiquesspéciales.
2. Que les circonstances pertinentes de la région relativesau milieu
comprennent :
a) la présencede trois écosystèmes distincts et reconnaissables seratta-
chant respectivement aubassindu golfedu Maine,aubancde Georgeset
au plateau Scotian ; et
b) la présencedu chenal Nord-Est comme limite naturelle séparant non
seulement les écosvstèmesdistincts et reconnaissables du banc de
Georgeset duplateau Scotian,mais aussilaplupart desstocksdepoisson
d'importance commerciale serattachant à chacun de ces systèmes.
3. Que les circonstances pertinentes de la région relativesa l'intérêt
prédominant desEtats-Unis dont témoignent les activitéd ses Parties et de
leurs ressortissants comprennent :
a) le fait que les pêcheursaméricainspratiquent la pêchedepuis plus
longtempset dans desrégionsplus vastesetl'ontfait avant mêmequeles
Etats-Unis soient indépendants ;
b) la miseen valeurdespêcheries du bancde Georgespar lesseulspêcheurs
américains et, jusqu'àune date récente,leur prépondérance etquasi-
exclusivité; et
c) les responsabilités exercéedsepuis plus de deux cents ans par les Etats-
Unis etleursressortissants encequi concernelesaidesàla navigation, le
sauvetage en mer,la défense,la recherche scientifique etla conservation
et la gestion des pêcheries.
C. Quant à la délimitation
1. Que la meilleure application possible de principes équitables tenant
compte descirconstancespertinentes propres àla régionde façon àaboutir
à une solution équitable consiste à tracer une frontière maritime unique
perpendiculaire à la direction généralede la côte dans la régiondu golfedu
Maine, depuis lepoint de départde la délimitationspécifié à l'articleII du
compromisjusqu'au triangle définidans cet article,lecoursdela ligneétant
ajustépour éviterdediviserlebancGerman etlebanc deBrown,qui doivent
l'un et l'autre revenir intégralementau Canada.(c) the location of the international boundary terminus in the northern
corner of the Gulf of Maine ;
(d) the radical changesin the direction of the Canadian coast beginning at
the Chignecto Isthmus, 147miles northeast of the international boun-
dary terminus ;
(e) theprotrusion oftheNova Scotiapeninsula 100nautical milessoutheast
of the international boundary terminus, creating a short Canadian
coastlineperpendicular to the general direction of the coast, and across
from the international boundary terminus ;
(fl the concavity in the coast created by the combination of the protrusion
of the Nova Scotia peninsula and the curvature of the New England
coast ;
(g) the relative length of the relevant coastlines of the Parties ; and
(h) the Northeast Channel, Georges Bank, and Browns Bank andGerman
Bank on the Scotian Shelf, as special features.
2. That the relevant environmental circumstances in the area include :
(a) thethree separate and identifiable ecologicalrégimesassociated,respec-
tively, with the Gulf of Maine Basin, Georges Bank, and the Scotian
Shelf ; and
(b) the Northeast Channel as the natural boundary dividing not only sep-
arate and identifiable ecological régimesof Georges Bank and the
Scotian Shelf,but also most of the cornrnerciallyimportant fish stocks
associated with each such régime.
3. That the relevant circumstances in the area relating to the predomi-
nant interest of the United Statesasevidenced bythe activitiesof theParties
and their nationals include :
(a) the longer and larger extent of fishing by United States fishermen since
before the United States became an independent country ;
(b) the sole development, and, until recently, the almost exclusive domi-
nation of the Georges Bank fisheries by United States fishermen ;
and
(c) the exercise by the United States and its nationals for more than 200
years of the responsibility for aids to navigation, search and rescue,
defense, scientific research, and fishenes conservation and manage-
ment.
C. Concerningthe delimitation
1. That the application of equitable principles taking into account the
relevant circumstancesin the area to produce an equitable solution is best
accomplished by a single maritime boundary that is perpendicular to the
general direction of the coast in the Gulf of Maine area, commencing at the
starting point for delimitation specified in Article II of the Special Agree-
ment and proceedinginto the triangle describedin that Article,but adjusted
during its course to avoid dividingGerman Bankand BrownsBank,both of
which would be left in their entirety to Canada. 2. Quela frontièreconsisterait en lignesgéodésiquesreliant lescoordon-
nées géographiques suivantes :
Latitude nord Longitude ouest
a) 44" 11'12" 67" 16'46"
b) 43" 29'06" 66" 34' 30"
c) 43" 19'30" 66" 52'45"
d) 43" 00'00" 66" 33'21"
e) 42O57'13" 66" 38' 36"
f) 42" 28'48" 66" 10'25"
g) 42" 34'24" 66" 00' 00"
h) 42" 15'45" 65" 41' 33"
i) 42" 22' 23" 65" 29' 12"
j) 41" 56'21" 65" 03'48"
k) 41'58'24" 65" 00'00" )>;
dans le contre-mémoire :
Vulesfaits énoncés dans la premièrepartie du mémoiredesEtats-Unis
et du présent contre-mémoire,l'exposé dduroit figurant dans leur deuxième
partie et lesconciusions sur l'application du droit aux faits de leur troisième
partie ;>)
[le texte des conclusions est ensuite identique à celui qui figure dans le
mémoire] ;
dans la réplique:
<<Vu les faits énoncésdans le mémoire,le contre-mémoire etla présente
réplique desEtats-Unis, l'exposé dudroit qui y figure et lesconclusions sur
l'application du droit aux faits présentésdans ces écritures ;)>
[le texte des conclusions est ensuite identique à celui qui figure dans le
mémoire].
13. Dans la procédure orale, les conclusions suivantesont étéprésentéespar
les Parties :
Au nom du Canada,
à l'audience du 5 mai 1984(après-midi) :
<Considérantles faits et les arguments exposésdans le mémoire,le
contre-mémoire et larépliquedu Canada, ainsi que dans les exposésoraux
du Canada,
Plaise à la Cour,rejetant toutes revendications et conclusions contraires
exposéesdans le mémoire,le contre-mémoireet la réplique desEtats-Unis
ainsi que dans les plaidoiries des Etats-Unis,
Dire etjuger que :
Le tracéde la frontière maritime unique viséepar le compromis conclu 2. That the boundary should consist of geodetic lines connecting the
following geographic coordinates:
Latitude (North) Longitude (West)
(a) 44" 11' 12" 67" 16'46"
(b) 43" 29' 06" 66" 34'30"
(c) 43" 19'30" 66" 52'45"
(d) 43" 00' 00" 66" 33'21"
(e) 42" 57' 13" 66" 38'36"
(fl 42" 28'48" 66" 10'25"
(g) 42" 34' 24" 66" 00'00"
(h) 42" 15'45" 65" 41' 33"
(i) 42" 22'23" 65" 29' 12"
(j,l 41" 56'21" 65" 03'48"
(k) 41 " 58'24" 65" 00'00"" ;
in the Counter-Memorial :
"ln viewofthe facts set forth in Part 1of the United States Memorial and
this Counter-Memorial, the statement of the lawcontained in Part II of the
United States Memorial and this Counter-Memorial, and the application of
the1awto thefactsasstatedin Part III ofthe United States Memorial and of
this Counter-Memorial ;"
[herefollow the identical subrnissionsset out in the Mernorial] ;
in the Reply :
"In view of the facts set forth in the United States Memorial, Counter-
Memorial, and this Reply,the statement of the lawcontained in the United
States Memorial, Counter-Memorial, and this Reply,and the application of
the law to the facts as stated in the United States Memorial, Counter-
Memorial, and this Reply ;"
(herefollow the identical subrnissionsset out in the Mernorial].
13. In the course of the oral proceedings, the following submissions were
presented by the Parties :
On behalf of Canada,
at the hearing of 5 May 1984(afternoon) :
"In view of the facts and arguments set out in the Canadian Memorial,
Counter-Memorial and Reply, and by Canada in these oral proceedings,
May itplease the Court,rejecting al1contrary claims and Submissions set
forth in the United States Memorial, Counter-Memorial and Reply, and by
the United States in these oral proceedings,
To declareand adjudge that :
The course of the single maritime boundary referred to in the Special entre le Canada et les Etats-Unis d'Amérique le29 mars 1979est définipar
les lignes géodésiquesdécritesdans la conclusion jointe au mémoire, au
contre-mémoire et à la répliquedu Canada ));
Au nom des Etats-Unis &Amérique,
à l'audience du 11 mai 1984 :
(<Vules faits énoncésdans le mémoire,le contre-mémoire,la réplique et
les plaidoiries des conseils des Etats-Unis, l'exposédu droit qui y figure et
les conclusions sur l'application du droit aux faits présentés ;
Considérant que,aux termes du compromis entre les Parties, la Chambre
est priéede dire, conformément aux règleset principes du droit interna-
tional applicables en la matièreentre les Parties, quel est le tracéde la fron-
tièremaritime unique divisant le plateau continental et les zones de pêche
des Etats-Unis d'Amérique et du Canada à partir d'un point situépar
44" 11' 12" de latitude nord et 67" 16' 46"de longitude ouest jusqu'à un
point devant êtrefixépar la Cour à l'intérieurd'une zone délimitéepar des
lignes droites reliant les coordonnées géographiques suivantes : 40" de
latitude nord et 67" de longitude ouest ; 40" de latitude nord et 65" de
longitude ouest ; 42" de latitude nord et 65" de longitude ouest ;
Au nom des Etats-Unis d'Amérique,plaise à la Cour dire etjuger :
A. Quant au droit applicable
1. Que la délimitation d'une frontière maritimeunique nécessiteI'appli-
cation de principes équitables, compte tenu des circonstances pertinentes
propres à la région,de façon à aboutir à une solution équitable.
2. Que les principes équitables àappliquer en l'espècesont notamment
les suivants :
a) la délimitation doit respecter le lien existant entre les côtes pertinentes
des Parties et leszonesmaritimes situéesdevant cescôtes,cequi recouvre
lesnotions de non-empiétement,de proportionnalité et de prolongement
naturel au sens géographique,autrement dit de projection de la façade
côtière ;
b) la délimitation doit faciliter la conservation et la gestion des ressources
naturelles de la région ;
c) la délimitation doit réduirele plus possible les risques de litiges entre les
Parties ; et
d) la délimitation doit tenircompte descirconstancespertinentes propres à
la région.
3. Que la méthode de l'équidistancen'est ni obligatoire, ni préférable
pour les Parties, que ce soit en vertu d'un traitéou d'une règle de droit
international coutumier, et que touteméthodeoucombinaison de méthodes
de délimitation qui soit de nature à produire une solution équitable en
application de ces principes, compte tenu des circonstances pertinentes,
peut êtreutilisée. Agreement concluded byCanadaand theUnited States on 29March 1979is
defined bygeodeticlinesconnectingthe geographical CO-ordinatesofpoints
described in the Submission appended to Canada's Memorial, Counter-
Memorial and Reply" ;
On behalf of the UnitedStates of America,
at the hearing of 11 May 1984 :
"In viewof the facts, the statement of the law, and the application of the
lawto thefacts setforth in the United States Memorial,Counter-Memorial,
Reply, and the oral presentations by United States Counsel ;
Considering thatthe Special Agreement betweenthe Parties requests the
Chamber, in accordance with the principles and rules of international law
applicable in the matter as between the Parties, to decide the course of the
single maritime boundary that divides the continental shelf and fisheries
zonesof the United States of America and Canada from a point in latitude
44" 11'12"N, longitude 67" 16'46" W to a point to be determined by this
Chamber within an area bounded by straight linesconnectingthe following
sets of coordinates :latitude 40" N, longitude 67" W ; latitude 40" N.
longitude 65" W ;latitude 42" N, longitude 65" W ;
May iplease the Chamber,on behalf of the United States of America, to
adjudgeand declare :
A. Concerningthe applicable law
1. That delimitation of a single maritime boundary requires the appli-
cation of equitable principles, taking into account the relevant circum-
stances in the area, to produce an equitable solution.
2. That the equitable principles to be applied in this case include :
(a) the principle that the delimitation respect the relationship between the
relevant coasts of the Parties and the maritime areas lying in front of
thosecoasts, includingnon-encroachment ; proportionality ;and natu-
ral prolongation in its geographic sense, or coastal-front extension ;
(b) the principle that the delimitation facilitate consemation and manage-
ment of the natural resources of the area ;
(c) the principle that the delimitation minimize the potential for disputes
between the Parties ; and
(d) the principle that the delimitation take account of the relevant circum-
stances in the area.
3. That the equidistance method is not obligatory on the Parties or
preferred, either by treaty or as a rule of customary international law, and
that any method or combination of methods of delimitation may be used
that produces anequitablesolutionin application of theseprinciples.taking
account of the relevant circumstances.B. Quant aux circonstancespertinentes à prendre en considération
1. Que les circonstances géographiquespertinentes de la région com-
prennent :
a) la projection de la façade côtière du Maine et du New Hampshire à
travers le golfe du Maine et au-delà de celui-ci ;
b) la relation géographique d'ensembleentre les Parties en tant qu'Etats
limitrophes ;
c) ladirection générale nord-esd telacôteorientale del'Amériquedu Nord,
tant à l'intérieur qu'à l'extérieu dru golfe du Maine ;
d) le fait que le point terminal de la frontière internationale se trouve dans
l'angle nord du golf du Maine ;
e) leschangementsradicaux de direction de la côte canadienne à partir de
l'isthme Chignectou, à 147 milles au nord-est du point terminal de la
frontière internationale ;
f) la protubérancede la presqu'îlede Nouvelle-Ecosse à 100millesmarins
au sud-est du point terminal de la frontière internationale, faisant appa-
raître un petit segmentde côtecanadienne perpendiculaire àla direction
générale de la côte, en face du point terminal de la frontière internatio-
nale ;
g) laconcavitéde la côterésultantde l'effetcombinéde la protubérancede
la presqu'île de Nouvelle-Ecosse et de la courbure de la côte de la
Nouvelle-Angleterre ;
h) les longueurs relatives des côtes pertinentes des Parties ;et
i) lechenalNord-Est, lebanc de Georges et lesbancs de Brownet German
sur le plateau Scotian, en tant que caractéristiquesspéciales.
2. Que les circonstances pertinentes de la région relativesau milieu
comprennent :
a) la présencede trois écosystèmesdistincts et reconnaissables se ratta-
chant respectivementau bassin du golfedu Maine,aubanc deGeorgeset
au plateau Scotian ; et
b) la présencedu chenal Nord-Est comme limite naturelle séparant non
seulement les écosystèmesdistincts et reconnaissables du banc de
Georgesetdu plateau Scotian, maisaussilaplupart desstocks depoisson
d'importance commerciale se rattachant à chacun de ces systèmes.
3. Que les circonstances pertinentes de la région relativesà l'intérêt
prédominantdes Etats-Unis dont témoignent les activitéd ses Parties et de
leurs ressortissants comprennent :
a) le fait que les pêcheurs américains pratiquent la pêchedepuis plus
longtempset dansdes régionsplus vastes et l'ontfait avant mêmeque les
Etats-Unis soient indépendants ;
b) lamiseen valeurdespêcheriesdu bancde Georgespar lesseulspêcheurs
américainset, jusqu'à une date récente,leur prépondéranceet quasi-
exclusivité ; et
c) les responsabilités exercéed sepuis plus de deux cents ans par les Etats-
Unis etleurs ressortissants encequi concerne lesaides à la navigation, le
sauvetageen mer, la défense, la recherche scientifiqueet la conservation
et la gestion des pêcheries.B. Concerning the relevant circumstancesto be taken into account
1. 'That the relevant geographical circumstances in the area include :
(a) theextensionofthe coastalfront ofMaine and NewHampshire through
the Gulf of Maine and beyond ;
(b) the broad geographical relationship of the Parties as adjacent
States ;
(c) the general northeastem direction of the east coast of North America,
both within the Gulf of Maine and seaward of the Gulf ;
(d) the location of the international boundary terminus in the northern
corner of the Gulf of Maine ;
(e) the radical changes in the direction of the Canadian coast beginning at
the Chignecto Isthmus, 147miles northeast of the international boun-
dary terminus ;
(f theprotrusion of theNova Scotiapeninsula 100nautical milessoutheast
of the international boundary terminus, creating a short Canadian
coastline perpendicular to the general direction of the coast, and across
from the international boundary terminus ;
(g) the concavity in thecoast created by thecombination of the protrnsion
of the Nova Scotia peninsula and the curvature of the New England
coast ;
(h) the relative length of the relevant coastlines of the Parties ; and
(i) the Northeast Channel, Georges Bank,and Browns Bank and German
Bank on the Scotian Shelf, as special features.
2. That the relevant environmental circumstances in the area include :
(a) thethree separate and identifiable ecologicalrégimesassociated,respec-
tively, with the Gulf of Maine Basin, Georges Bank, and the Scotian
Shelf ; and
(b) the Northeast Channel as the natural boundary dividing not only sep-
arate and identifiable ecological régimesof Georges Bank and the
Scotian Shelf,but also most of the commercially important fish stocks
associated with each such régime.
3. That the relevant circumstances in the area relating to the predomi-
nant interest of theUnited Statesas evidencedbythe activitiesof theParties
and their nationals include :
(a) the longer and larger extent of fishingby United States fishermen since
before the United States became an independent country ;
(b) the sole development, and, until recently, the almost exclusive domi-
nation of the Georges Bank fisheries by United States fishermen ;
and
(c) the exercise by the United States and its nationals for more than 200
years of the responsibility for aids to navigation, search and rescue,
defense, scientific research, and fisheries conservation and manage-
ment. C. Quant a la délimitation
1. Que la meilleureapplication possible de principes équitables tenant
compte descirconstancespertinentes propres à la régionde façonà aboutir
à une solution équitable consisteà tracer une frontière maritime unique
perpendiculaireàladirection généralede la côtedans la région du golfe du
Maine,depuis lepoint de départ dela délimitationspécifié àl'articleII du
compromisjusqu'au triangledéfind i anscetarticle,lecoursde la ligneétant
ajustépouréviterde diviserlebancGermanetlebancdeBrown,quidoivent
l'un et l'autre revenir intégralementau Canada.
2. Que la frontière consisteraiten lignes géodésiquerseliant les coor-
données géographiquessuivantes :
Latitude nord Longitude ouest
a) 44" 11'12" 67" 16'46"
b) 43" 29'06" 66" 34'30"
c) 43" 19'30" 66" 52'45"
d) 43" 00'00" 66" 33'21"
e) 42" 57'13" 66" 38'36"
fl 42" 28'48" 66" 10'25"
) 42" 34'24' 66" 00'00"
h) 42" 15'45" 65" 41'33"
i) 42'22'23" 65" 29' 12"
j) 41" 56'21" 65" 03'48"
k) 41" 58'24" 65" 00'00". 1)
14. L'affaire de la délimitation de la frontière maritime dans la région
du golfe du Maine a été portéedevant la Coursur la base de la première des
hypothèses envisagées à l'articl40, paragraphe 1, de son Statut, à savoir
par notification d'un compromis, en l'espècede l'accord spécial signéà
Washington, le 29 mars 1979, par les Gouvernements du Canada et des
Etats-Unis d'Amérique, et notifié à la Cour le 25 novembre 1981.
15. Par son ordonnance du 20 janvier 1982 la Cour a coiistitué pour
connaître de l'affaire, en application de l'article 26, paragraphe 2,et de
l'article 31 de son Statut, une chambre spéciale composée de cinq
membres. En vertu de l'article II, paragraphe 1, du compromis, cette
chambre est
<<priée de statuer, conformément aux règles et principes du droit
international applicables en la matière entre les Parties, sur la ques-
tion suivante :
Quel est le tracé de la frontière maritime unique divisant le
plateau continental et les zones de pêchedu Canada et des Etats-
Unis d'Amérique à partir d'un point situé par 44" 11'12" de
latitude nord et 67" 16'46" de longitude ouest jusqu'à un point C. Concerningthe delimitation
1. That the application of equitable principlestaking into account the
relevant circumstancesin the area to produce an equitable solution is best
accomplishedby a single maritime boundary that is perpendicular to the
general directionof theoastin the Gulf of Maine area, commencingat the
startinp point for delimitation specified in Articlef the SpecialAgree-
mentand proceedinginto the triangle describedinthat Article,but adjusted
duringitscourseto avoid dividingGerman Bankand BrownsBank,both of
which wouldbe left in their entirety to Canada.
2. That the boundary should consist of geodetic lines connecting the
following geographiccoordinates :
Latitude (North) Longitude (West)
(a) 44" 1If 12" 67" 16'46"
(b) 43" 29'06" 66" 34'30"
(c) 43" 19'30" 66" 52'45"
(d) 43" 00'00" 66" 33'21"
(e) 42" 57' 13" 66" 38'36"
(fl 42" 28' 48" 66" 10'25"
(g) 42" 34' 24" 66" 00'00"
(h) 42" 15'45" 65" 41'33"
(i) 42" 22'23" 65" 29' 12"
li, 41" 56'21" 65" 03'48"
(k) 41 "58'24" 65" 00'OO"."
14. The case concerning the delimitation of the maritime boundary in
the Gulf of Maine area was brought before the Court on the basis of the
first of the possibilities envisaged under Article 40, paragraph 1, of its
Statute, namely by notification of a special agreement, in this case the
Special Agreement signed at Washington on 29 March 1979 by the Gov-
ernments of Canada and of the United States of America and notified to
the Court on 25 November 1981.
15. By an Order of 20 January 1982, the Court in application of para-
graph 2 of Article 26 and of Article 31 of its Statute, formed a special
Chamber composed of five Members to deal with the case. Under the terms
of Article II,paragraph 1, of the Special Agreement, this Chamber is
"requested to decide, in accordance with the principles and rules of
international law applicable in the matter as between the Parties, the
following question :
What is the course of the single maritimeboundary that divides
the continental shelf and fisheries zones of Canada and the United
States of America, from a point inlatitude 44" 11'12" N, longitude
67" 16'46" W to a point to be determined by the Chamber within an devant êtrefixépar la Chambre à l'intérieur d'une zonedélimitée
par des lignes droites reliant les coordonnées géographiques sui-
vantes :40" de latitude nord et 67" de longitude ouest ; 40" de
latitude nord et 65" de longitude ouest ; 42" de latitude nord
et 65" de longitude ouest ? ))
16. Leparagraphe 4du mêmearticleIIdispose :<<LesPartiesacceptent
comme définitive et obligatoire pour elles-mêmes la décisionde la
Chambre rendue en application du présent article. ))L'article III, para-
graphe 1, confirme en outre le caractère définitif et obligatoire de la
(frontière maritime unique ))devant êtredélimitéepar la Chambre, en
précisantqu'au sud et à l'ouest de cette frontière ))le Canada ne pourra,
et au nord et à l'estlesEtats-Unis d'Amérique nepourront, (<àquelque fin
que ce soit, revendiquer ou exercer dejuridiction ou de droits souverains
sur leseaux ou sur lefond marin et lesous-solde la mer D.Ilconvient aussi
de noter que l'article III, paragraphe 2, réserve expressémentlespositions
de chacune des deux Parties dans les termes suivants :
(<Aucune disposition du présent compromisne modifie la position
de l'une ou l'autre Partie à l'égardde la nature juridique ou de
l'étendue versle large du plateau continental, de la juridiction en
à toute
matièrede pêches,oude lajuridiction ou des droits souverains
autre fin en vertu du droit international. ))
17. La tâche concernant la délimitation à effectuer dans les limites
indiquées à l'article II, paragraphe 1, n'est pas la seule prévuepar le
compromis. L'article VII, paragraphe 1, dispose en effet :
(<Alasuitede ladécisionde laChambre,l'une ou l'autre Partiepeut
demander la tenue de négociationsen vue d'une entente sur l'exten-
sionde lafrontièremaritimeverslelargesur une aussigrande distance
que les Parties lejugent souhaitable. ))
Et les paragraphes qui suivent prévoientque, si les Parties ne parviennent
pas, dans des délaisdéterminés, à s'entendre à ce sujet soit directement,
soit par la soumission de la question à une procédure derèglement obli-
gatoire par tierce partie, l'une ou l'autre Partie pourra (soumettre la
question de l'extension de la frontière maritime vers lelarge à la chambre
de cinqjuges constituéeen conformité avecleprésent compromis ))(par. 3).
Les dispositions du compromis devront alors s'appliquer, mutatis mutan-
dis, àlanouvelleprocédureainsiengagéeetladécision delaChambre à son
sujet sera également <définitiveet obligatoire pour les Parties (par. 4).
Cette question est toutefois sans rapport avec la détermination de la
compétencede la Chambre dans l'affaire actuelle. Cette compétencene
peut en principe que résulterdes dispositions du Statut et du Règlement
régissantla compétencede la Cour, dont l'application ne diffèrepas selon
quela Cour siègedans sa composition plénièreou en chambre. Quant au GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 264
area bounded by straight lines connecting the following sets of
geographical CO-ordinates :latitude 40" N, longitude 67" W ;lati-
tude 40" N, longitude 65" W ; latitude 42" N, longitude 65"
W ?"
16. Article II, paragraph 4, declares that :"The Parties shall accept as
final and binding upon them the decision of the Chamber rendered pur-
suant to this Article." Article III, paragraph 1,furthermore confirms the
final and binding character of the "single maritime boundary" to be
delimited by the Chamber, specifying that south and Westof this "mari-
time boundary" Canada shall not, and north and east of it the United
States of America shall not, "claim or exercise sovereign rights or juris-
diction for anypurpose overthe waters or sea-bed and subsoil". It isalsoto
be noted that Article III, paragraph 2, expressly reserves the positions of
each of the two Parties by providing that :
"Nothing in this Special Agreement shall affect the position of
either Party with respect to the legalnatureand seaward extent of the
continental shelf, of fisheries jurisdiction, or of sovereign rights of
jurisdiction for any other purpose under international law."
17. The task of delimitation of the maritime boundary within the limits
indicated under Article II, paragraph 1,is not the only onefor which the
Special Agreement makes provision. Article VII, paragraph 1, provides
that :
"Following the decision of the Chamber, either Party may request
negotiations directed toward reaching agreement on extension of the
maritime boundary asfar seaward as the Parties may consider desir-
able."
And the following paragraphs provide that if the Parties do not reach
agreement in thisconnection within specifiedtime-limits, either directly or
by submitting the questionfor decision byabinding third-party settlement
procedure, either Party may "subrnit thequestion of the seaward extension
of the maritime boundary to the Chamber of fivejudges constituted in
accordance with the Special Agreement" (para. 3).The provisions of the
Special Agreement are then to be applied, mutatis mutandis, to the new
proceedings undertaken in this way and the decision of the Chamber
therein shall also be "final and binding upon the Parties" (para. 4). This
question is, however, unrelated to the determination of the Chamber's
jurisdiction in the present case. Such competence can in principle only
derive from the provisions of the Statute and Rules governing the Court's
jurisdiction ;the application of theseprovisions isno differentwhetherthe
Court is sitting in its full composition or as a Chamber. As for the Specialcompromis, il ne fixe à la compétencede la Chambre aucuneautre limite
que celle qui résulte des termes mêmed se la question posée àl'article II,
paragraphe 1, termes sur lesquels la Chambre reviendra ci-après.
18. Lecompromis (art. II, par. 3)prie en outre la Chambre de nommer
un expert technique, désignéconjointement par les Parties, pour l'aider
dans la considération des questions techniques et notamment dans la
préparation de la description de la frontière maritime et des cartes sur
lesquelles son tracé doit êtreindiqué.L'expert technique a étéeffective-
ment nommépar l'ordonnance du 30 mars 1984et les conditions prévues
pour saparticipation aux travaux de la Chambre ont étédûmentremplies.
Pour le reste, lecompromis prie la Chambre et l'expert de se conformer à
certainesdispositions d'ordre technique, énumérée àsl'articleIV,lettres a)
à g), et impose aux Parties certaines restrictions en matière de preuve et
d'argument (art. V).
19. La Cour, et par conséquent laChambre,ayant étésaisiepar voiede
compromis, il ne sepose pas de questions préliminaires en cequi concerne
sa compétence pour connaître de l'affaire. A la rigueur, une question
pourrait surgir du fait de l'emploi,dans letexte français du compromis,des
termes frontière maritime O, lesquels pourraient évoquer l'idéeerronée
d'une véritablefrontièreentre deux souverainetés. Maisilest évident.Dour
la Chambre, que la tâche dont elle se trouve chargée neconcerne q;e la
délimitationentre les différentes formes de iuridiction ~artielleà savoir
entre les droits souverains que le droit internat:onal, aussi bien
conventionnel quegénéralr,econnaîtaujourd'hui aux Etats côtiers dans les
étendues maritimes et sous-marines situées, jusqu'àdes limites détermi-
nées,au-delà de la marge extérieurede leurs mers territoriales respectives.
Les droits des Etats tiers dans les zones en question ne peuvent donc,
d'aucune manière, êtretouchéspar la délimitation que la Chambre est
requise de tracer. Cette précision misà part, le seul problème théorique-
ment susceptible d'êtresoulevéau préalabledans cecontextepourrait être
celuide savoir dans quelle mesure la Chambre est obligéede s'entenir aux
dispositions du compromisen cequiconcerne lepoint dedépartde laligne
de délimitation à tracer et le triangleàl'intérieurduquel cette ligne est
censéeaboutir.
20. D'aprèsles renseignements fournis par les Parties elles-mêmes,le
point de départ en question, dénommépoint A (44" 11'12" de latitude
nord, 67" 16'46" delongitude ouest), n'ad'autre qualification que d'êtrele
premier point d'intersection des deux lignes représentant les limites des
zones de pêche respectivement revendiquéespar le Canada et par les
Etats-Unis lorsqu'à fin 1976, et avec effet début 1977, ils ont décidé
d'étendre à 200 milles marins leur juridiction en matière de pêche. La
raisondu choixdecepoint d'intersection - plutôt quedu point terminal de
lafrontière internationale, telquefixéenapplication du traitédu 24février
1925 entre les deux Etats et situédans le chenal Grand-Manan, ce qui
aurait pu paraître plus logique - est qu'au large de ce dernier point se
trouvent l'îleMachias Seal et le rocher Nord, sur lesquels la souveraineté
est en litige, et que les Parties entendent se réserverla possibilité d'une Agreement, it defines no limitation of the jurisdiction of the Chamber
other than that resulting from the very terms of the question set forth in
Article II, paragraph 1, which will be studied further below.
18. The Special Agreement (Art. II, para. 3) requests the Chamber to
appoint a technical expert nominatedjointly by the Parties to assist it in
respect of technical matters and, in particular, in preparing thedescription
of the maritime boundary and the charts on which its course has to be
indicated. The technical expert was in fact appointed by an Order of 30
March 1984and the conditions laid down for hisparticipation in the work
of the Chamber have duly been complied with. Otherwise, the Special
Agreement requests the Chamber and the expert to comply with certain
technical provisions, set forth under Article IV, (a) to (g), and imposes
upon the Parties certain restrictions in regard to evidence and argument
(Art. V).
19. The Court, and consequently the Chamber, having been seised by
means of a special agreement, no preliminary question arises in regard to
itsjurisdiction to deal with the case.Aquestion might conceivably arise as
a result of the use, at least in the French text of the SpecialAgreement, of
the termfronrière maririme ("maritime boundary"), which might suggest,
incorrectly, the idea of a realfrontière(boundary) between two sovereign
States. However, it is clear to the Chamber that the task which it has been
given only relates to a delimitation between the different forms of partial
jurisdiction, i.e., the "sovereign rights" which, under current international
law,both treaty-law and general law,coastal States are recognized to have
in the marine and submarine areas lying outside the outer limit of their
respective territorial seas,up to defined limits.The rights of third States in
the areas in question cannot therefore be in any way affected by the
delimitation which the Chamber is required to effect. Apart from this
consideration,the onlyproblem whichmay theoretically arise at the outset
in this context could be how far the Chamber is obliged to abide by the
provisions of the Special Agreement in regard to the starting-point of the
delimitation line to be drawn and the triangle within which this line is to
end.
20. According to the information provided by the Parties themselves,
the starting-point in question (44" 11' 12"north, 67" 16'46" west), called
point A, is simply the first point of intersection of the two lines repre-
senting the limits of the fishing zones respectivelyclaimed by Canada and
the United States when, at the end of 1976, and with effect from the
beginning of 1977, they decided upon the extension of their fisheries
jurisdiction up to 200nautical miles.The reason for choosing thispoint of
intersection - rather than the international boundary terminus fixed
under the Treaty between the two States dated 24 February 1925, and
situate in the Grand Manan Channel, which might have seemed more
logical - is that to seaward of this last-mentioned point are Machias Seal
Island and North Rock, the sovereignty over which is in dispute, and that
the Parties wishto reservefor themselvesthe possibility of adirectsolutionsolutiondirecte de celitige.Aucune autre considérationque celleindiquée
ci-dessus ne paraît avoir influencé le choixdu point A.
21. Quant au triangle renfermant lazone àl'intérieurde laquelle laligne
dedélimitation à tracer par laChambredoitaboutir, ilaétéétabls i,elonles
Parties, dans l'intention d'éviterque la décisionde la Chambre en l'espèce
ne préjugedès maintenant des questions telles que la détermination du
rebord extérieur de la marge continentale, questions pour la solution
desquellesune phase de négociations estd'abord prévue.Ilva de soique la
position et les limites du triangle ont étéétablies compte tenu des reven-
dications respectives des Partiesàl'époquede la conclusion du compro-
mis,c'est-à-direen 1979.Mais, mêmeactuellement, leslignesreprésentant
les propositions maximales des deux Parties aboutissent à l'intérieurdu
triangle; elles lefont respectivementàproximitéde l'anglenord-est et de
l'angle sud-ouest de celui-ci.
22. La Chambre pourrait êtretentée, aucas où l'application des règles
de droit international et des méthodes de délimitation estimées lesplus
appropriées enl'espècel'yamènerait, d'adopter un autre point de départ
de la ligneà tracer, ou bien d'en tracer une qui aboutiraità un point à
l'extérieurdu triangle. Mais, abstraction faite mêmedu caractère plutôt
improbable de cette hypothèse, la considération décisivepour ne pas
s'acheminer versde telles solutions est le fait que le droit international
conventionnel etledroitinternational coutumier s'accordent à reconnaître
comme critère prioritaire par rapport àtout autre, aux fins d'une délimi-
tation maritime - qu'elle soit relativeà la mer territoriale, au plateau
continental ou àla zone économiqueexclusive -, celuid'après lequelcette
délimitation doit êtrerecherchéeavant tout, et toujours dans le respect
du droit international, par la voie de l'accord entre les parties intéres-
sées. Lerecours à une délimitationpar voie arbitrale oujudiciaire n'esten
dernière analyse qu'un succédanéau règlementdirect et amiable entre les
parties.
23. Si donc le Canada et les Etats-Unis d'Amériqueont choisi de se
réserverpour une éventuelle négociationdirecte aux fins d'un accord
la détermination du tracé de laligne de délimitationentre le point termi-
nal de la frontière internationale et le point A, ainsi que celle du tracéde
la ligne de délimitation au-delà du point final,à l'intérieur dutriangle,
de la ligne que la Chambre doit établir, il faut en déduire que leur
intention de recourir, pour le reste,à la voie judiciaire, doit êtreinter-
prétéedans les limites dans lesquelles elle a étéconçue et exprimée.Les
deux Etats ont déjàaccompli par voie d'accord un pas vers une solu-
tion de leur différend qui demande certes à êtrecomplétépar un pro-
noncé de la Chambre, mais qui ne doit pas pour autant s'en trouver
écarté. LaChambre en conclut donc que, dans l'exécutionde la tâche
qui lui a étéconfiée, elledoit s'en tenir aux termes par lesquels les
Parties ont défini celle-ci. Si elle ne le faisait pas, elle dépasserait sa
compétence.
24. Comparéeaux demandes avancéespar les Parties dans les affaires
précédemment portées devant la Cour, àsavoir la délimitationdu Plateau GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 266
of this dispute. It would seemthat the choice of point A was influenced by
no other consideration apart from that indicated above.
21. As to the triangle enclosing the area within which the delimitation
line to be drawn by the Chamber is to terminate, according to the Parties it
was established to avoid the possibility of the Chamber's decision in this
case prejudging such questions as that of the determination of the outer
edge of the continental margin, questions to be dealt with by negotiations
in the first instance. It goes without saying that the position and limits of
the triangle were established in the light of the respective claims of the
Parties at the time when the SpecialAgreement wasconcluded, namely in
1979.But evenat present, thelinesrepresenting the maximum claimsof the
two Parties still terminate within the triangle- closeto the northeast apex
and the southwest apex, respectively.
22. The application of the rules of international lawand themethods of
delimitation considered the most appropriate in thiscasemight present the
Chamber with the temptation to adoptanother starting-point of thelineto
be drawn, or to draw a line terminating at a point outside the triangle.
However, even disregarding the somewhat improbable nature of this
hypothesis, the decisivereason whysuch solutions should not bepursued is
the fact that for the delirnitation of a maritime boundary - whether it
concern the territorial sea or the continental shelf or the exclusive eco-
nomic zone - both conventional and customary international law accord
priority over al1others to thecriterion that this delimitation must above al1
be sought, while always respecting international law, through agreement
between the parties concerned. Recourse to delimitation by arbitral or
judicial means is in the final analysis simply an alternative to direct and
friendly settlement between the parties.
23. If therefore Canada and the United States of America have chosen
to reserve for themselves,as the subject of future direct negotiation with a
view to an agreement, the determination of the course of the delimitation
line between the international boundary terminus and point A, and the
course of the delimitation beyond the end-point of the Chamber's line in
the triangle, it must be concluded that their intention otherwise to have
recourse tojudicial settlement must be taken within the limits in which it
was conceived and expressed. The two States have already, by mutual
agreement, taken a step towards a solution of their dispute, which does of
courserequire to besupplemented by a decisionof the Chamber, but which
should nevertheless not bedisregardedby it.The Chamber concludes that,
in the task conferred upon it, it must conform to the terms by which the
Parties have defined this task. If it did not do so, it would overstep its
jurisdiction.
24. There is a profound difference, in two important respects, between
therequests submittedby theParties in thecasespreviouslybrought beforecontinental de la mer du Nord et la délimitation du Plateau continental
(Tunisie/Jamahiriya arabelibyenne),celle qui est actuellement soumise au
jugement de laChambre à propos deladélimitation àétablirdans larégion
du golfe du Maine se distingue profondément sous deux aspects impor-
tants.
25. Tout d'abord, dans les autres cas qui viennent d'êtreévoqués,la
Cour n'était pas requisede tracer elle-mêmune lignededélimitation,mais
uniquement de remplir une tâche préliminaire par rapport à la détermi-
nation du tracé d'unetelle ligne,à savoir indiquer les principes et règles
du droit international applicablesà la délimitation, ceàquoi, dans l'af-
faire Tunisie/Libye, s'étaitajoutéelademande de clarifier la méthodepra-
tique pour l'application de ces principes et de ces règlesdans la situation
concrète.Les Parties s'étaient réservéour elles-mêmesc ,onjointement et
sur la base obligatoire des indications reçues de la Cour, la tâche finale
consistant à déterminer le tracéde la ligne de délimitation. Par contre,
dans la présenteespèce,cette tâche est directement confiéeàla Chambre,
sans qu'aucune indication ne soit d'ailleurs fournie par le compromis
quant aux sourcesauxquelles elledoit s'adresserpour ladétermination des
principes et desméthodes applicables. Souscepremier aspect la demande
adressée à la Chambre se rapproche plutôt de celle qui a étésoumise au
tribunal arbitral chargéde tracer la lignede délimitationdu plateau conti-
nental entre la France et le Royaume-Uni.
26. Ledeuxièmeaspect,quidistinguelaprésenteaffaire de toutes celles
précédemmenjtugées, est représenté par lefait que, pour la premièrefois,
la délimitation à laauelle il est demandé à la Chambre de ~rocéderne
concerneplus uniquement le plateau continental, mais àla fois le plateau
et la zone de ~êcheexclusive.cette délimitation devantainsi résulterd'une
ligne unique. De surcroît, au cours des débatsoraux, les Parties ont ajouté
- en faisant référenceàl'article III, paragraphe 1,du compromis- que la
ligneunique à établir doits'appliqueà tout élémendtejuridiction relevant
de 1'Etatcôtier, non seulement selon le droit international dans son état
actuel,maisaussi dans son étatàvenir. Pourla déterminationde cette ligne
unique, iln'estdemandé à la Chambre que destatuer conformémentaux
règlesetprincipes du droit international applicablesen la matièreentre les
Parties O,sans qu'aucune indication supplémentaire, ni de caractère for-
mel, nide caractère substantiel, soit donnéedans le texte du compromisà
propos de ces règleset principes D.
27. S'agissantde cedeuxièmeaspect,la Chambre doit constaterque les
Parties sesont bornéesà tenir pour admisela possibilitétantjuridique que
matériellede tracer une ligne unique pour deux juridictions différentes.
Ellesn'ont pasproposé d'arguments à l'appui. LaChambre quant à elleest
d'avis que le droit international ne comporte certes pas de règlesqui s'y
opposent. D'autre part, dans lecas d'espèce,il n'existe pas d'impossibilité
matériellede tracer une ligne de cette nature. Il est donc hors de doute que
la Chambre peut accomplir l'opérationqui lui est demandée. the Court, namely those relating to the delimitation of the North Sea
ContinentalShelf and the delimitation of the ContinentalShelf (Tunisia/
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), and the request currently submitted to the
judgment of the Chamber and relating to the delimitation to be effected in
the Gulf of Maine area.
25. To begin with, in the other casesjust mentioned, the Court was not
required to drawa lineof delimitation itself,but merelyto undertake a task
preliminary to the determination of such a line, i.e., to indicate the prin-
ciples and rules of international law applicable to that delimitation, to
which, in the Tunisia/Libya case, was added the request that the Court
should clarify the practical method for the application of these principles
and rules in the specificsituation. The Parties had reserved for themselves
the final task, namely the determination of the delimitation line, to be
undertaken jointly and on the binding basis of the indications received
from the Court. However,in the present case,this task isdirectly entrusted
to the Chamber, without any indication being given in the Special Agree-
ment as to the sources from which it should derive its determination of
applicable principles and methods. Seenfrom this first aspect, the request
submitted to the Chamber is analogous rather to the request made to the
Court of Arbitration whch was asked to draw the delimitation line of the
continental shelf between France and the United Kingdom.
26. The second aspect which distinguishes this case from al1 those
previously adjudicated is the fact that, for the first time, the delimita-
tion which the Chamber is asked to effect does not relate exclusively to
the continental shelf, but to both the continental shelf and the exclusive
fishing zone, the delimitation to be by a single boundary. Moreover,
during the oral proceedings, the Parties added - by reference to Article III,
paragraph 1, of the Special Agreement - that the single boundary line
to be drawn should be applicable to al1 aspects of the jurisdiction of
the coastal State, not only jurisdiction as defined by international law
in its present state, but also as it will be defined in future. In order
to determine this single boundary, the Chamber is only asked to decide
"in accordance with the principles and rules of international law
applicable in the matter as between the Parties", without there being
any additional indication, whether of a formal or substantial character,
given in the text of the Special Agreement with regard to these "rules
and principles".
27. With regard to this second aspect, the Chamber must observe that
the Parties have simply taken it forgranted that it would be possible, both
legally and materially, to draw a single boundary for two different juris-
dictions. They have not put forward any arguments in support of this
assumption. The Chamber, for its part, is of the opinion that there is
certainly no rule of international law to the contrary, and, in the present
case, there isno material impossibility in drawinga boundary of thiskind.
There can thus be no doubt that the Chamber can carry out the operation
requested of it. 28. L'aireà l'intérieurde laquelle la délimitationrecherchéedans lecas
d'espècedoit êtreeffectuée,autrement dit la zone géographique directe-
ment concernéepar cette délimitation, se situe dans le cadre des confins
vaguesdeceque lesParties ont appelé,dans letitre etdans lepréambuledu
compromis, la << régiondu golfe du Maine )),sans d'ailleurs en donner
aucune définition.La Chambre estime indispensable d'arriver àune plus
grande précision à propos des notions géographiquesqui interviennent
dans ce contexte en tant que fondement de l'opérationqu'elle doit effec-
tuer.
29. Comme on peut le voir sur les cartes insérées ou jointes au présent
arrêt,le golfe du Maine proprement dit se présente comme une vaste
échancrure océaniauede la côte orientale du continent nord-américain.
échancrure ayant grosso modo la forme d'un rectangle allongé. Sur sa
marge sud-ouest, une fois dépassée l'îlede Nantucket on atteint le coude
du cap Cod. A partir de ce point, l'échancrure suitle segment approxi-
mativement vertical qui termine cettepéninsule.A l'intérieurde celle-ciet
de laligneidéalequi laprolongedepuis sapointejusqu'au capAnn plus au
nord, se suivent les deux baies contiguës du cap Cod et du Massachusetts.
Au fond de la baie du Massachusetts se trouve la ville de Boston. La
direction généralesud-sud-est/nord-nord-ouest de la côte du Massachu-
setts donnant sur legolfedu Mainecaractériselecôtégauche du rectangle
mentionné ci-dessus, et forme le premier de ses petits côtés.
30. Suit la brèvecôte du New Hampshire, et avec ellela direction de la
côte du golfecommence quelque peu às'infléchiren dessinant une courbe
légèreversle nord-est. Cette inflexion sepoursuit aveclepremier segment
delacôte du Maine. Maisbientôt lacôte de cet Etat, qui devient accidentée
et bordée d'îles, s'incurveencore pour suivre un tracéconstant ouest-
sud-ouest/est-nord-est. Du cap Elizabeth à la frontière internationale
entre les Etats-Unis d'Amérique et le Canada, qui a son point terminal
dans le chenal Grand-Manan, la côte du Maine forme le premier grand
côtédu rectangle. 11està remarquer qu'au-delà de la frontière indiquéela
côtejouxtant la province du Nouveau-Brunswick suit elle aussi la même
direction. Mais entre cette côteet lacôte de la Nouvelle-Ecosse aui lui fait
face presque parallèlement s'ouvre,plus ou moinsjuste à la hauteur du
point terminal de la frontière internationale, la baie de Fundy qui pénètre
en longueur à l'intérieurdes terres. Les eaux de la baie de Fundy se
confondent avec celles du golfe dans le bras de mer entre l'îlede Grand-
Manan, au large de la côte du Nouveau-Brunswick, et l'île Brier,prolon-
geant Digby Neck et l'île Long, qui avancent le long de la côte septen-
trionale de la Nouvelle-Ecosse.
31. La question s'est poséede savoir si la baie de Fundy doit être
considérée commefaisant partie du golfe du Maine ou s'ilfaut y voir une
baie closequ'on supposerait ferméepar une ligne droite. En réalité, lfait
qu'unetellelignepuisseêtreprise enconsidérationpour laconstruction du
rectangle s'inscrivanà l'intérieurdu golfe et caractérisantcelui-cien tant GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 268
28. The area within which the delimitation sought in the present case is
to becarried out, in other words, the geographical area directlyconcerned
in this delimitation, lies within the ill-defined limits of what the Parties
have, in the title and preamble of the SpecialAgreement, called the "Gulf
of Maine area" - without, however, there giving any definition of this
expression. The Chamber considers it indispensable to achieve a greater
degree of precision as to the geographical concepts used in this contextby
way of basis for the operation which it has to perform.
29. As can be seen from the maps inserted or appended to the present
Judgment, the Gulf of Maine properly so called is a broad oceanic inden-
tation in the eastern coast of the North American Continent, having
roughly the shape of an elongated rectangle. At its southwesternend, once
past Nantucket Island, the elbow of Cape Cod is reached ;from here on,
the indentation follows the approximately north-south segment at the end
of this peninsula. Within the peninsula and the imaginary line linking its
tip with CapeAnnfurther to the north are the twocontiguousbays of Cape
Cod and Massachusetts. At the back of Massachusetts Bay is the city of
Boston. The characteristic of the western side of the above-mentioned
rectangle, which is one of its two short sides, is the general south-south-
east/north-north-west direction of the Massachusetts coast abutting on
the Gulf of Maine.
30. There then followsthe short New Hampshire coastline and, with it,
thedirection of the coast of the Gulf begins slightlyto alter course, bending
gently towards the north-east. This trend continues with the first segment
of the Maine coastline. But soon the coast of this State, which becomes
broken and fringed with islands, bends again to pursue a steady course
west-south-west/east-north-east. From Cape Elizabeth to the interna-
tional boundary between the United States ofAmerica andCanada, which
terminates in the Grand Manan Channel, the coast of Maine forms along
this line the first of the long sides of the rectangle. It should be noted that
beyond that frontier the adjacent coast of the province of New Brunswick
also follows the same direction. But between this coast and the coast of
Nova Scotia, which lies opposite and runs almost parallel to it, is the
opening of the Bay of Fundy - more or less at the latitude of the inter-
national boundary terminus - cutting deep inland. The waters of the Bay
of Fundy mergewith those of the Gulf in the stretch of seabetween Grand
Manan Island, off the coast of New Brunswick, and Brier Island, the
prolongation of Digby Neck and Long Island, which run along the north-
ern coast of Nova Scotia.
31. The question has been raised whether the Bay of Fundy should be
considered to be a part of the Gulf of Maine or whether this bay shouldbe
regarded as a closed bay, considered as though it were sealed off by a
straight line. The fact that such a line may be taken into consideration in
constructing the rectangle within the Gulf to define its geometric formin Les cartes incorporéesu présent arrê otnt étéétablies d'après ledsocuments
soumis a la Courpar lesPartieset ontpour seul objet d'illustrer graphiquement les
paragraphespertinents de l'arrêt.
27 The rnapsincorporatedin thepresent Judgment were prepared onthe basis of
documents submitted tothe Court bytheParties,and their solepurposeistoprovide
a visualillustrationof the relevant paragraphsof the Judgment.que figure géométriquedestinée à faciliter la recherche d'une ligne de
délimitationne signifie pas que cette ligne de fermeture cesse d'être une
ligne imaginaire tracéeau-dessus des eaux, pour devenir une ligne côtière
proprement dite. Elle ne marque pas non plus une séparation des eauxde
part et d'autre. D'aprèslestémoignages recueillis,iln'yapas de différence
sensibledequalitéentre leseaux delapartie nord-est du golfeetleseaux de
la partie antérieure de la baie. Au demeurant, la partie de la baie qui est la
plus proche deson ouverture sur le golfe est large, la profondeur des eaux
est la mêmeque dans ce dernier et la distance de terre ferme àterre ferme
est supérieureaudouble de l'étenduede lamer territoriale.Parcontre,plus
à l'intérieur, la profondeur deseauxdiminue et les rives serapprochent de
manière tellequ'iln'yaplus, dans la baie, d'étenduesmaritimes dépassant
les 12milles à partir de la laisse de basse mer.
32. Presque en face du point terminal de la frontière internationale, la
côte de la Nouvelle-Ecosse s'incurve franchement en direction globale
sud-sud-est, de sorte que le prolongement de cette direction dans le sens
opposé rencontre à angle quasiment droit la ligne de la côte du Maine,
décriteci-dessus au paragraphe 30. La ligne imaginaire qui, en traversant
l'île canadienne de Grand-Manan, unit le point terminal de la frontière
internationale à l'île Brier et au cap de Sable, aux deux extrémitésde la
Nouvelle-Ecosse, forme le second des petits côtés du rectangle, le côté
droit, en face du côté gauche formépar la côte du Massachusetts. Le
quasi-parallélisme des deux côtes opposées du Massachusetts et de la
Nouvelle-Ecosse est frappant ; la distance entre le cap Ann et Whipple
Point sur l'île Brierest de 206milles,celle entre le point leplus rapproché
de la côte du cap Cod et la pointe Chebogue sur la côte de la Nouvelle-
Ecosseestde 201milles,etcelleentre lecoude du cap Codetle capde Sable
est à peine supérieure(219milles).
33. Quant au second des grands côtésopposésdu rectangle, il ne cor-
respond sur aucun point à des terres. Il n'est formé que par une ligne
imaginaire unissant par-dessus les eaux l'extrémitésud-est de l'îlede Nan-
tucketau capde Sable, àl'extrémitésud-oues dtelaNouvelle-Ecosse.C'estlà
que les deux Parties sont d'accord pour situer la <ligne de fermeture ))du
golfedu Maine versl'extérieur. Puisqu'elljoint entre euxlesdernierspoints
terrestres existant de part et d'autre en direction de l'Atlantique, cetteligne
marque effectivement, dans le cadre de l'aire de la délimitation, la limite
entrela zoneintérieure,à savoirlegolfedu Maineproprement dit, et lazone
extérieure ouatlantique de l'airedont il s'agit.
34. En résumé, le golfe du Maine apparaît donc bien comme une vaste
échancruregrossomodo rectangulaire, bordéede terres sur trois côtés -
sauf là où s'étendentles baies contiguës du cap Cod - Massachusetts du
côtégaucheetla baie de Fundydans lapartie laplus interne du côtédroit -
et ouverte du quatrième côté surl'océanAtlantique.
35. Dans la description du golfe du Maine qui précède,il a été fait à
plusieurs reprises allusion au rectangle qui paraît bien représenter,sous
une forme simplifiée,la configuration de ce golfe tel qu'il se dessine à
l'intérieurdes côtes qui le bordent. C'est sur la base de ce rapprochementorder to facilitate the searchfor a delimitation line does not mean that the
closing line is no longer an imaginary line drawn across the waters but
becomes a real coastal line. Nor does it mark a separation of the waters on
each side of itjudging by the evidence presented, there is no appreciable
difference in quality between the waters in the north-east part of the Gulf
and the waters in the outer part of the Bay. In fact, the part of the Bay
which isclosest to itsopening into the Gulf iswide,the depth of the waters
is the same, and the distance between the mainland coasts exceeds twice
the extent of the territorial sea. However, further into the Bay, thewater is
less deep, and the shores are closer together so that the Bay contains only
maritime areas lying no further than 12 miles from the low water
mark.
32. Almost opposite the international boundary terminus, the coast of
Nova Scotiaswingssharply roundin an overall south-easterly direction,so
that if the line of this direction were extended back in the opposite direc-
tion,it wouldmeet theIineofthe coast of Maine, described inparagraph 30
above, at almost a right angle. The imaginary line which runs from the
international boundary terminus acrossthe Canadian island called Grand
Manan Island to Brier Island and Cape Sable at the two extremities of
Nova Scotia, forms the second - eastern - short side of the rectangle,
opposite to the western side formed by the coast of Massachusetts. The
quasi-parallel direction of these two opposite coasts is striking ; the dis-
tance between Cape Ann and Whipple Point on Brier Island is 206 miles,
that between the nearest point on Cape Cod and Chebogue Point on the
coast of Nova Scotia is201miles,and that between the elbowof CapeCod
and Cape Sable is barely more (219 miles).
33. The second long side of the rectangle does not at any point corres-
pond to a landmass. It is formed only by an imaginary line drawn across
the waters from the south-eastern point on Nantucket Island, to Cape
Sable at the south-western end of Nova Scotia. The two Parties agree that
this is the seaward "closingline" of the Gulf of Maine. Sincethis linejoins
the twoultimatepoints on land on each sidein thedirection of theAtlantic,
it effectively indicates, in the context of the delimitation area, the boun-
dary between theinner zone, or the Gulf of Maine in the true sense,and the
outer or Atlantic zone of the area in question.
34. To sum up, the Gulf of Maine takes the form of a large, roughly
rectangular indentation, bordered on three sides by land - except where
thecontiguous bays ofCape Cod/Massachusetts liealongthe westernside,
and the Bay of Fundy opens outat the inner end of the eastern side - and
on the fourth side open to the Atlantic Ocean.
35. In the above description of the Gulf of Maine there are several
references to the rectangle which appears to afford a good simplified
representation of theconfiguration of thatGulf, asoutlinedby its coasts. It
is on the basis of this approximation to a specific geometrical figure that avec une figuregéométriquedonnéeque les deux côtésterrestres du golfe
qui se font face, constituésessentiellement par les rives du Massachusetts
d'une part et par cellesde la Nouvelle-Ecosse de l'autre, ont étéprésentés
comme les petits côtés,et lecôté, terrestrelui aussi, constituépar les rives
du Maine, qui relie lesdeux autres dans le fonddu golfe, comme le grand
côté durectangle.
36. Il faut toutefois préciserque l'emploide ces appellations, emprun-
téesà la terminologie de la géométrie, nedoit pas être interprétécomme
une adhésion à l'idéeque certaines façades côtières du golfe du Maine
devraient êtreconsidéréescomme (<principales iet d'autres comme se-
condaires i)lespremièresétantcensées avoirune importance majeure par
rapport aux secondes aux fins de la délimitationà établirdans leseaux qui
les baignent. En elle-même,la légitimité d'une telledistinction - qui
pendant le procèsa étél'objet de discussions prolongéesentre les Etats-
Unis qui la soutenaient et leCanada qui s'yopposait - est fort discutable.
Rien n'interdit, certes, d'utiliser une terminologiede ce genre pour mettre
en évidence,dans la description d'une régionmaritime, la différenceque
l'on relèveentre la longueur de certaines de sescôteset celled'autres. Mais
si l'on peut logiquement donner une importance particulière, sous un
aspect déterminé, à une telle différence, rienne dit par contre que, sous
d'autres aspects, les côtes dites(<secondaires >)ne doivent pas avoir une
incidence égaleet mêmesupérieure à celle des côtes dites <principales i).
Surtout, lesfaits géographiquesnesontpas en eux-mêmessoitprincipaux,
soit secondaires. En ce qui les concerne, la distinction dont il est question
exprime non pas une qualité inhérente à des réalités naturelles, maisun
jugement de valeur porté par l'esprit humain, jugement nécessairement
subjectif et qui peut aussi varier par rapport aux mêmes réalités seloln es
perspectives et les finsà propos desquelles il intervient. Il en va de même
quant à l'idée avancée au cours du débat deconsidérer certaines particu-
laritésgéographiquescomme aberrantes par rapport aux caractères esti-
mésdominants d'une région, d'unecôte, d'un continent entier.
37. Comme dans d'autres affaires précédemmentjugées, les Parties se
sont réciproquement reproché à plusieurs reprises d'avoir voulu, pour
certainsaspects de la région, refairela nature ou refaçonner la géographie.
On ne saurait en effet suivreles Etats-Unis quand ilsprétendentprésenter
comme une anomalie, comme une distorsion géographique à prendre en
considération comme telle, l'avancée vers lesud-ouest de la Nouvelle-
Ecosse àpartir de l'isthme Chignectouetvoient dans cefaitunedérogation
irrégulièreà la direction généralesud-sud-ouest/nord-nord-est de la côte
orientale du continent nord-américain. Et l'onne saurait non plus suivrele
Canada dans sa prétention de considérer commenégligeable l'existence
d'une péninsule aussiimportante que le cap Cod, parce que formant une
saillie sur la côte du Massachusetts qui borde à gauche le golfe du Maine.
La Chambre se doit de rappeler que les faits géographiques nesont pas le
produit d'une activitéhumaine passible d'un jugement positif ou néga-
tif, mais le résultat de phénomènes naturelset ne peuvent donc qu'être
constatéstels qu'ils sont.the two opposite terrestrial sides of the Gulf, in essence the shores of
Massachusetts on the onehand and of Nova Scotia on the other, have thus
been presented asthe short sidesof the rectangle, and thesimilarterrestrial
side formed by the shores of Maine, which connects the other two at the
back of the Gulf, as the long side.
36. It must nevertheless be made clear that the use of these appellations,
borrowed from the terminology ofgeometry, must not be interpreted as an
espousal of the idea that some of the coastal fronts of the Gulf of Maine
should be considered as "primary" fronts and others as "secondary", so
that the former would be regarded as of greater importance than thelatter
for the purposes of the delimitation to becarried out in thewaters off these
coasts. The very legitimacy of such a distinction which, throughout the
case, has been the subject of lengthy debate between the United States,
which supports it, and Canada, which is opposed to it, is very dubious.
Terminology of this kind may of course be employed to bring out any
difference observed between thelengths of certain stretches of coast, when
a maritime area is being described. Yet even so, while it might be logical,
from oneparticular aspect, to attachimportance to such adifference, there
is nothing to preclude the possibility of the so-called "secondary" coasts
being of equal if not of evengreater importance than the "primary" coasts
from other aspects. Above al], geographical facts are not in themselves
eitherprimary or secondary :the distinction in question is the expression,
not of any inherent property of the facts of nature, but of a human value
judgment, which willnecessarily be subjective and which may Varyon the
basis of the same facts, depending on the perspectives and ends in view.
The same may be said as regards the idea put forward in the course of the
proceedings that certain geographical features areto be deemed aberrant
by reference to the presumed dominant characteristics of an area, coast or
even continent.
37.As in other previous cases, the Parties have repeatedly charged each
other with trying to refashion nature or geography in thecase of thisor that
feature of the area. It isnot possible to accept the United States claim that
the south-westward protrusion of the Nova Scotian peninsula from the
Chignectou isthmus is an anomaly, a geographical distortion to be treated
as such, and to be considered an irregular derogation from the general
south-south-west/north-north-east trend of the eastern seaboard of the
North American Continent. It is likewisenot possible to accept Canada's
claim that the existence of so substantial a peninsula as Cap Cod may be
ignored because it forms a salient on the Massachusetts coast on the
western side of the Gulf of Maine. The Chamber must recall that the facts
of geography are not the product of human action amenable to positive or
negativejudgment, but the result of natural phenomena, so that they can
only be taken as they are. 38. Il n'a étéquestion jusqu'ici que de la vaste étenduedes eaux com-
prisesà l'intérieur deslimites du golfedu Maine. Cetteétendueest cepen-
dant loin de représenter la totalitéde ce qui estconsidérer commel'aire
de la délimitation dans le cas d'espèce.Au contraire, aux fins de cette
opération, lapartiede cettezone à l'intérieurde laquelle sesitue en totalité
le banc de Georges, objet essentiel du litige, est constituéepar une autre
étenduemaritime, situéeau-delà de la ligne de fermeture extérieuredu
golfe du Maine et en face de celui-ci.
39. Compte tenu de l'existencedu triangle mentionnédans la question
posée à la Chambre dans le compromis entre les Parties, on est logique-
ment amené à conclure que l'airede la délimitationdont il s'agitenglobe,
non seulement les espaces maritimes bordés par les rivages terrestres du
golfe du Maine, mais aussi des étendues maritimes situéesau large et en
face de ce golfe et qui sont comprises entre des limites convergeant vers
les bords extérieurs du triangle. Aucune délimitation a effectuer par la
Chambre ne saurait en effet dépasserces limites.
40. L'aire de la délimitation, telle qu'elle résultedes paragraphes pré-
cédents,ne doit pas êtreconfondue avec ce que les Parties ont appelé la
régiondu golfe du Maine ))sans d'ailleurs êtred'accord sur son exten-
sion.LesPartiessesont plu àdésignercomme entrant dans la << région )en
question desportions descôtescanadiennes et américaines extérieuresau
golfe, portions quependant le procès ellesont parfois décritescomme des
<ailescôtières1)du golfe,accompagnéesnaturellement desétenduesmari-
times y afférentes.On a ainsi décrit commeailecôtièredroite du golfe du
Maine, et suivant les besoins de l'argumentation chaque fois développée
par l'uneou par l'autre Partie, tantôt toute la côte sud-est de lauvelle-
Ecossejusqu'au cap Canso, tantôt une partie seulement de la côtejusqu'à
Halifax ou, plus modestement, jusqu'à Lunenberg. D'autre part, on a
présenté commeaile côtièregauche dudit golfe soit la côte du Massachu-
setts surl'Atlantique, soitcelledu Rhode Islandjusqu'à Newport etparfois
mêmeau-delà. Sur une carte, il est aiséde se rendre compte de l'effet de
déplacementvers l'un des côtésou vers l'autre que ces extensionsprodui-
sent en ce qui concerne la détermination de l'axe central de la prétendue
<région ))Les Parties se sont aussi référéetoutes deux àces ailescôtières
du golfe, l'une pour souligner l'importance des ressources halieutiques
tiréesdelazone à délimiterpour l'économiedesrégionsavoisinantes, voire
la dépendance économique des habitants des côtes géographiquement
adjacentes à l'égarddecesressources ; l'autredans lebut opposédemettre
en évidenceque ces régions,leurs industries et leur économieen général
s'alimentent principalement à d'autres sources que celles, relativement
éloignéesd , e la zone en question.
41. Le fait d'impliquer des côtes autres que celles qui entourent direc-
tement legolfen'a etsurtout nepeut pas avoirpour effet d'étendrel'airede
ladélimitation à desespaces maritimes qui n'ont en réalitérien àfaire avec
elle.Et en définitive seulela notion d'aire de ladélimitationest une notion
juridique, quoique établiesur la toile defond de la géographie physiqueet
politique. Par contre, la notion de << régiondu golfe du Maine O,telle 38.Up to the present referencehas been madeonlyto the great expanse
ofwater within the limits of the Gulf of Maine.Yet that expanse isfar from
being the whole of what must be regarded as the delirnitation area in this
case. On the contrary, for the purposes of this operation, the part of this
area which includes the wholeof the Georges Bank - themain focus of the
dispute - is obviously another maritime expanse, one lying over against
the Gulf of Maine, outside its closing line.
39. Bearing in mind the existence of the triangle mentioned in the
question put tothe Chamber in the SpecialAgreement between the Parties,
one must logically deduce that the delimitation area comprises not only the
sea areas surrounded by the coasts of the Gulf of Maine, but also those
lying to seaward of, and over and against, the Gulf, between bounds
converging towards the outer edges of the triangle, for no delimitation by
the Chamber may go beyond these bounds.
40.The delimitation areaas defined in the foregoingparagraphs isnot to
be confused with what the Parties - each in their own terms - have called
the "Gulf of Maine area". Theyhavedesignated aspart of this "area" some
portions of the Canadian and American coasts lying outside the Gulf,
portions which they haveduring the proceedings occasionally described as
"coastal wings" of the Gulf, together of course with the related sea areas.
Thus theeastern coastal wingof the Gulf of Mainehas sometimesbeen the
whole southeastern coast of Nova Scotia as far as Cape Canso, or some-
times merely part of it as far as Halifax or, more modestly, Lunenburg,
according to the requirements of the particular arguments being put
foward by theone Party or theother. Similarlythe name of westerncoastal
wing has been given to the Atlantic coast either of Massachusetts or of
Rhode Island as far as Newport, or even beyond. It is easy to see from a
map how these extensions tend to produce a shift towards one side or
another when it comes to determining the central axis of the so-called
"area". The Parties have alsoreferred to thesecoastal wings,oneinorder to
emphasize the importance for the economy of the neighbouring areas of
the fishing resources of the area to be delimited, or even the economic
dependence on those resources of the populations of the adjoining coastal
areas ; the otherfor the opposite purpose ofhighlighting thefactthat those
areas, their industries and their general economy draw principally upon
other sources than the relatively remote ones of the area in question.
41. The involvement of coasts other than those directly surrounding the
Gulf does not and may not have the effect of extending the delimitation
area to maritime areas which have in fact nothing to do with it. It is
ultimately only the concept of the delimitation area which is a legal
concept, albeit one developed against the background of physical and
political geography. In contrast, the concept of the "Gulf of Maine area",qu'ellea été utiliséedans le cadre du présentprocès,apparaît comme une
notion aux confins très élastiques,présentant un haut coefficient d'arbi-
traire, une notion qui en tout cas relèvede cequ'on a appelélagéographie
socio-économiqueouhumaine plutôt que delagéographietout court. Sans
vouloir en nierà priori l'importance éventuelleàdesfinsdéterminées,ilest
évidentque l'on ne saurait remplacer par des donnéespuiséesdans ces
domaines lesconstatations qui s'imposent, sur des bases plus appropriées,
en ce qui concerne la détermination des confins de l'aire de la délimi-
tation.
42. La définitionetla description de l'airede délimitationauxquellesla
Chambre a procédéjusqu'ici n'ont toutefois mis en évidenceque des
aspects inhérents à la géographie physique.Il n'a étéfait appel à la géo-
graphiepolitique elle-mêmeque pour relever la localisation, dans l'aireen
question, du point terminal de la frontièreinternationale entre les Etats-
Unis d'Amériqueet le Canada. Il s'agissait simplement de faire ressortir
que la frontière entre les deux Etats - dont la formation historique,
retracéedans les écritures, n'aapparemment pas d'incidence sur les ques-
tions à résoudre - suit dans ses derniers segments le cours sinueux du
fleuve Sainte-Croix et aboutit finalement dans l'estuaire de ce fleuve, à
travers lequel elle continue, jusqu'à son point terminal dans le chenal
Grand-Manan. C'est cedernier point qui constitue le sommet de l'angle
entre le grand côtéet le petit côtédroit du rectangle qu'on a vu pouvoir
s'inscrireà l'intérieur dugolfe du Maine.
43. Mais il faut encore ajouter que, dans la géographiephysique,'la
Chambre n'a envisagéque la partie de cette science qui a pour objet
la description de l'aspect actuel de la surface des terres et des eaux du
globe. Restent à examiner, pour connaître non pas seulement les aspects
extérieurs mais tout l'ensemble des caractéristiques propres de l'aire
de la délimitation, les aspects de ce qui se trouve sous la surface et qui
est plutôt du ressort de la géomorphologie etde l'écologieque de la géo-
logie.
44. Pour ce qui touche àla géologie,la Chambre doit constater qu'en
dépit des efforts qui ont été faits poursoutenir, d'une part, l'existence
d'affinités géologiques entre le socle du banc de Georges et celui de la
Nouvelle-Ecosse, et pour affirmer, de l'autre, la continuité géologique
entre le banc de Georges et le Massachusetts, les deux Parties reconnais-
sent que la structure géologiquedes couches qui s'étendentsous la totalité
de la marge continentale de l'Amériquedu Nord, y compris la régiondu
golfe du Maine, est essentiellement continue. Elles sont en définitive
d'accord pour constater la non-incidence desfacteurs géologiquesdans le
cas d'es~èce.
45. En ce qui concerne les aspects géomorphologiques,la conclusion
que l'on peut tirer des études entreprises et attentivement prises en con-
sidération par les Parties dans leurs écritures peut se résumer en une
constatation de l'unitéet de l'uniformité desfonds marins, et ceci aussi
bien pour ce qui concerne la plate-forme sous-jacente au golfe du Maine
proprement dit que pour celle qui se trouve sous les étendues océaniquesasusedin thepresent proceedings, seemselasticin extent and arbitrary to a
degree, a concept which in any event appertains to what may be called
socio-economic or human geography, rather than to pure geography.
Without wishingto deny aprior tiat data derived from such domains may
be important for certain purposes, it is obvious that, when it comes to
determining the boundaries of the delimitation area, material from these
fields cannot be substituted for findings dictated on the basis of more
appropriate considerations.
42. However, up to thispoint the Chamber's definition and description
of the delimitation area has only brought out aspects inherent in physical
geography. Political geography has been employed solelyfor the purpose
of noting the location within the area in question of the international
boundary terminus between the United States and Canada. It had merely
to be made clear that the boundary between the two States - whose
historical development, recounted in the pleadings, is apparently without
influence on the issues to be decided - follows in its final stretches the
windingcourse of the Saint-Croix River,ending in theestuary of that river,
following which it continues as far as its terminal point in the Grand
Manan Channel. It is this latter point which marks the angle between the
long and short sides of the rectangle which, as we have seen, can be
inscribed within the Gulf of Maine.
43. It should, moreover, be added that the Chamber has only had in
mind physical geography to the extent that its purpose is to describe the
present-day aspect of the land and water surfaces of the globe. Inorder to
grasp not only the outward aspects but the whole of the characteristic
features of thedelimitation area, there still remain to be exarninedarious
aspects of what lies below the surface, rather under the heading of geo-
morphology and ecology than that of geology.
44. With regard to geology,the Chamber must observe that, despite the
effortsmade to argueeither that there are geologicalaffinities between the
platforms of Georges Bank and Nova Scotia, or that there is a geological
continuity between Georges Bank and Massachusetts, both Parties recog-
nize that the geologicalstructure of the strata underlying the whole of the
continental shelf of North America, including the Gulf of Main area, is
essentially continuous. They are in fact in agreement that geological fac-
tors are not significant in the present case.
45.As regardsthe geomorphological aspects, the conclusion that can be
drawnfrom thestudiesundertaken and taken into careful considerationby
the Parties in their pleadings is, in sum, the unity and uniformity of the
whole sea-bed, as regards both the underlying shelf of the Gulf of Maine
proper, and the shelf below the ocean beyond the Gulf, right up to the
continental margin, its edge, rise and slope. The continental shelf of theau-delà du golfejusqu'à la marge continentale, son rebord, sontalus et son
glacis.Leplateau continental de l'ensembledecette zone ne forme qu'une
partie fondamentalement indistincte du plateau continental de la côte
orientale de l'Amériquedu Nord, de Terre-Neuve à la Floride. Ceplateau
constitue, d'aprèsdes constatations scientifiques généralementadmises,
une structure physiographique continue, uniforme et ininterrompue,
mêmes'ilprésente çà et là des caractéristiques secondaires résultant sur-
tout de l'actionglaciaire et fluviale. Dans ceplusvastecontexte,leplateau
continental delazone pertinente auxfins duprésentprocèspeut êtredéfini
commele prolongement naturel de la masse terrestre qui entoure le golfe
du Maine, et ceci sans rien - et aucune des Parties ne le conteste - qui
permette de distinguer sur ce fond unique, caractérisépar l'absence de
reliefs et de dépressions marquées, une étendueque l'on pourrait consi-
dérercommeleprolongementnaturel des côtesdesEtats-Unis etune autre
qui apparaîtrait comme le prolongement naturel des côtes canadiennes.
Biensûrilest possible de discerner surcefond uniqueetuniforme cequ'on
appelle des plateaux, desbancs, des bassins, deschenaux, et les Parties en
ont fait une description détailléec,herchant parfois, mais avec beaucoup
de prudence, un appuipour leurs thèses respectivesdans l'existencede tel
ou teldecesaccidents géomorphologiques.11s'agit,en effet,d'un ensemble
finalement assez peu significatif d'inégalitésde relief qui alimentent tou-
tefois la circulation des eaux et qui en mêmetemps en sont vraisembla-
blement l'effet. Mais lesdifférencesbathymétriques entreun endroit et un
autre, différencesqu'une représentation graphique ne saurait faire appa-
raître sans de trèsfortesamplifications, ne sont pas de naturà faire douter
dubien-fondédelaconstatationde base quelesfonds marins del'airede la
délimitation, commede toute la régionavoisinante d'ailleurs - fonds en
partie recouverts d'épaisses couchessédimentaires recelant potentielle-
ment des richessesen hydrocarbures - ne présentent aucun élémen dt'une
quelconque distinction naturelle entre les socles continentaux respectifs
des deux pays en litige.
46. Mêmeleplus accentuéde cesaccidents, c'est-à-direlechenal Nord-
Est, ne possèdepas les caractéristiquesd'une véritablefosse qui marque-
rait la séparationentre deux unitésgéomorphologiques distinctes. Ily a là
tout simplement un trait naturel de la région.On peut d'ailleurs rappeler
que la présenced'accidents beaucoup plus accentués, telsque la fosse
centrale et la zone de failles géologiques présentesdans le plateau qui
faisait l'objet de l'arbitrage franco-britannique, n'a pas empêchéle tribu-
nal arbitral de conclure que les failles en question n'interrompaient pas la
continuitégéologiquedudit plateau et ne constituaient pas des facteurs
utiles pour arrêter la méthodede délimitation.Pour en revenir aux fonds
marins de l'airede la délimitationdans l'affaire actuelle,on n'ytrouve un
véritable changement abrupt de la pente normale qu'aux approches de
I'hypothénusedu triangle à l'intérieurduquelladélimitation àeffectuer est
censéeaboutir. Ce n'est que là que le talus continental descend plus ou
moins parallèlement à la direction généralede la côte du continent,
d'abord de façon abrupte jusqu'à l'isobathe des 1000mètres,aprèsquoi lewhole of this area is no more than an undifferentiated part of the conti-
nental shelf of the eastern seaboard of North America, from Newfound-
land to Florida. According to generally accepted scientific findings, this
shelf is a single continuous, uniform and uninterrupted physiographical
structure, even if here and there it features somesecondarycharacteristics
resulting mainly from glacial and fluvial action. In this wider context the
continental shelf of the area relevant to the present proceedings may be
defined as the natural prolongation of the land mass around the Gulf of
Maine ;neither Party disputes the fact that there is nothing in this single
sea-bed, lacking any marked elevations or depressions, to distinguish one
part that might be considered as constituting the natural prolongation of
thecoasts of the United States fromanother part which couldbe regarded
as the natural prolongation of thecoasts of Canada. Of course, within this
single, uniform expanse of sea-bed it is possible to pick out features
described as shelves,banks, basins, channels, and the Parties have given a
detaileddescription of these, occasionally - and verycautiously - seeking
in the existence of one or other of these geomorphological features some
support for their respective positions. These are ultimately a somewhat
insignificant body of rugosities,evenif they do influence, and are probably
in fact produced by, the water circulation. But the bathymetric differences
between one spot and another - differences which do not show up on a
drawing unless there isgreat vertical exaggeration - arenot such as to cast
doubt on the soundness of the basic finding that the sea-bed of the
delimitationarea, asof al1the neighbouringarea - part ofwhichiscovered
with thick sedimentary layers potentially rich in hydrocarbon resources -
does not show any trace of any natural differentiation as between the
respective continental platforms of the two Parties.
46. Even the most accentuated of these features, namely the Northeast
Channel, does not have the characteristics of a real trough marking the
dividing-line between two geomorphologically distinct units. It is quite
simply a natural feature of the area. It might also be recalled that the
presence of much more conspicuous accidents, such as the Hurd deep and
Hurd Deep Fault Zone in thecontinental shelfwhichwas the subject of the
Anglo-French arbitration, did not prevent the Court of Arbitration from
concluding that those faults did not interrupt the geologicalcontinuity of
that shelfand did not constitutefactors to beused to determinethemethod
of delimitation. To return to the sea-bed of the area of delimitation in the
present case, no really abrupt change in thenormal declivityof the sea-bed
is found before the vicinity of the hypotenuse of the triangle within which
the end-point of the present delimitation is supposed to be located. It is
only thereabouts that the continental slope descends more or less in
parallel with the general direction of the mainland Coast,abruptly at first
as far as the 1,000metres isobath, after which the "rise" continues down-glacis descend encore, mais beaucoup plus lentement, vers l'isobathe des
2000 mètres et au-delà vers la plaine abyssale.
47. La situation dans lecasd'espèce,encequi concerne lesfonds marins
de l'airede la délimitation,diffèredonc de cellequi peut seprésenterdans
des régionsoù une séparation naturelleexiste dans lesfaitsentre les socles
continentaux respectifs de I'un et de l'autre des pays en litige. Sous cet
aspect, la présenteespèceserapprocheplutôt d'autres cas concrets dont le
plus récenta étécelui de la délimitation du plateau continental entre la
Tunisieet la Libye, à savoir de situations caractérisées,commela Cour l'a
relevédans son arrêtdu 24février1982,par l'absencede tout élémenq tui
vienne rompre l'unitédu plateau continental )icommun aux deux pays en
litige(C.I.J. Recueil1982, p. 58,par 68).Sur un plateau seprésentantainsi,
une ligne de délimitationjuridique ne saurait êtretracée qu'endehors de
toute référence à un véritable facteur naturel de séparation du plateau
continental des deux pays, puisqu'il n'y a point trace d'un tel facteur.
48. En plus des fonds marins proprement dits, il est un autre élément
constitutif del'airedeladélimitation,duqueletdescaractéristiquesduquel
ilfaut avant tout tenir compte en l'espèce.11s'agitde ceque les Parties ont
désignédans leurs écritureset dans leurs exposésoraux par le terme de
<<colonne d'eau )iappellation qui se réfèreen réalité à l'énorme masse
aquatiquequi recouvre la totalité desfonds marins sous-jacents àl'aireen
question. Il esà peine nécessairede relever que cette masse aquatique est
prise enconsidération,nonpas certes en tantque masseinerte, maisen tant
qu'habitat d'une faune et d'une flore vivantes, de proportions exception-
nelles et d'une grande richesse. Les ressources halieutiques de l'aire de la
délimitation,peut-êtreplus encore que les richessespotentielles en hydro-
carbures que recèleraient les grands bassins de sédimentation qui s'y
trouvent, sont apparues dans le débatcomme étant àl'origine des diver-
gences extraordinairement accentuéesdes intérêts desdeux Parties et de
l'intensitéde l'opposition suscitéepar leurs revendications respectives.
49. Mais pour en rester, pour le moment, à la simple description des
aspects distinctifs de la masse aquatique ou colonne d'eau à laquelle les
fonds marins de l'aire de la délimitation servent de support, la Chambre
croit devoir s'arrêteàI'unde cesaspects quiparaît revêtirune importance
toute particulière.
50. Comme il est dit plus haut, les Parties sont fondamentalement
d'accord pour reconnaître l'absence, dans les fonds marins de la zone en
question,d'un véritable élémen ntaturel de partage. L'une et l'autre ont dû
admettre que, du point de vuenaturel, le fond marin du golfeconstitue un
plateau unique d'aspect uniforme, faisant d'ailleurs partie d'un plateau
continental plus vaste. Or, cetteunitéde vuesàpropos desfonds marins ne
se retrouve pas en ce qui concerne la masse d'eau au-dessus d'eux. A ce
sujet,la Partie canadienne a progressivement accentué,dans ses écritures
successiveset dans sesexposésoraux, lecaractèreglobalement unitaire de
la colonne d'eau )de la zone concernée,et cecienparticulier du point de
vuede la distribution des ressources halieutiques, mêmesi, et pour cause,
cette Partie insiste sur l'existence d'une concentration principale sur le ward, though much more gradually, towards the 2,000metres isobath and
beyond, towards the abyssal plain.
47. The situation in the present case as regards the sea-bed of the
delimitation area is thereforedifferent from the situationthat may prevail
in areas where a natural separation does exist from the factual viewpoint
between the respective continental platforms of the Parties in dispute.
From that angle, the present case is closer to other concrete cases, includ-
ing most recently that of the delimitation of the continental shelf between
Tunisia and Libya, i.e., situations characterized, as the Court pointed out
inits Judgment of 24February 1982,by theabsence of "any element which
interrupts the continuity of the continental shelf"common to both Parties
(I.C.J. Reports 1982,p. 58, para. 68). When drawing a legal delimitation
line on such a shelf, there is no choice but to proceed without reference to
any real factor of natural separation of the continental shelf of the two
countries, because no such factors are discernible.
48. In addition to the sea-bed itself there is another component element
of the delimitation area which, with its characteristics,must especially be
taken into account in the Dresent case. namelv what the Parties have. in
both their pleadings and their oral arguments,>alled the "water column".
'This term in fact refers to the enormous mass of water covering the whole
of the sea-bed in the area in question. It need hardly be pointed out that
thisgreat mass of water is taken into consideration not assomeinert mass,
but as the habitat of an exceptionally extensivewealth of fauna and flora.
Even more, perhaps, than the hydrocarbon potential of the sedimentary
basins under the area, it is the fishing resources of the delimitation area
which, as appears from the proceedings, have led to the extraordinarily
acute divergences of interests of the Parties and the no less strenuous
opposition which each puts up against the claim of the other.
49. But, confining itself for the moment to the mere description of the
distinctive aspects of the aquatic mass or water column reposing on the
sea-bed of the delimitation area, the Chamber considers that it should
concentrate on one of those aspects which seems to be of particular
importance.
50. As stated above, the Parties are basically in agreement that the
sea-bed of the area in question does not feature any genuinely natural
divisive element. Both have had to admit that, from the viewpoint of
natural characteristics, the sea-bed of the Gulf is a single,uniform-looking
shelf, one that also forms part of a larger continental shelf. This concur-
rence as to the nature of the sea-bed has no counterpart when it comes to
the superjacent water column. Here Canada, in its successive pleadings
and oral arguments, has laid increasing emphasis on the overall uni.ary
character of the "water column", in particular from the viewpoint of the
distribution of fishing resources, even though it rightly stresses the exis-
tence on Georges Bank of a main concentration of the biomass and,
consequently, of the reserves of several commercially important species.banc de Georges de la biomasse, et par conséquent desréservesde plu-
sieurs espècescommercialementimportantes. Les écrituresde cette Partie
n'ont pas manqué de reconnaître que le banc de Georges forme un éco-
systèmedistinct, définigéographiquementpar le Grand chenal Sud et par
lechenal Nord-Est. Mais les étudesde sesexperts l'ont amenée à soutenir
que le banc, en dépit des conditions particulièrement favorables dont
bénéficie la concentration constatée, ferait partie d'un systèmeocéanique
continu appartenant àla province biogéographiquenéo-écossaise.Cette
province s'étendraitde Terre-Neuve jusqu'aux approches de l'alignement
côtier cap Cod-île deNantucket. A l'estdu Grand chenal Sud, séparantle
banc de Georges des hauts-fonds de Nantucket, une discontinuité se
manifesterait et une transition se produirait entre les espèces végétalst
animales d'eaufroide du nord et lesespècesd'eauchaude du sud, typiques
d'une province biogéographique différente,virginienne et mi-atlantique.
Ce n'est donc, en tout cas, qu'à cettehauteur que se révéleraitla présence
d'une espècede frontière dans la biologie océanique ; mais cette frontière
se trouveraità la limite extérieure gauchede l'aire de la délimitationet ne
pourrait pas concerner la délimitation recherchéà l'intérieurde cette aire.
51. Les analyses détailléefaites de leurcôtépar les Etats-Unis d'Amé-
rique ont par contre amenécette Partie à distinguer dans les eaux de la
régiontrois régimesocéanographiques et écologiquesdifférentset recon-
naissables, dont chacun présenterait un type particulier de circulation, de
tem~érature.de salinité.de densité.de stratification verticale des eaux et
d'aGion ma;égraphique:A tous les'échelonsde la chaîne alimentaire, des
communautésécologiquesdistinctes se seraient développées à l'intérieur
de ces différentsrégimes,à savoir celui du bassin du golfedu Maine, celui
du plateau Scotian et celui du banc de Georges, ce dernier liéà celui des
hauts-fonds deNantucket. Desfrontièresnaturellespartageraient ainsiles
trois régimes écologiques, etla plus importante de ces frontières, la plus
clairement apparente, se situerait le long du chenal Nord-Est, dont la
profondeur dépasse parfois 200 mètres et qui en fait séparerait,dans la
région,la plupart des réservesde poisson d'importance commerciale.
52. Une réflexion s'impose à ce sujet. Reconnaissant que ce chenal ne
présentepas les caractères d'une faille géologiquequi permettrait de lui
attribuer le cas échéantla fonction de limite naturelle entre des fonds
marinsdistincts, lesEtats-Unis d'Amériqueont développé la thèsed'après
laquellele chenal Nord-Est constituerait une limite reconnaissable dans
l'environnement marin. A cetitre,d'après cettePartie,ilfaudrait yvoirune
frontière naturelle pouvant servir de base au tracé d'uneligne unique de
délimitation maritime,ligne valable à la fois pour la zone de pêcheexclu-
siveet, éventuellement,pour la zone économiqueexclusive,ainsi que pour
les fonds marins sous-jacents.
53. Les deux thèses respectives des Parties, à savoir a) la thèse de
l'inexistence d'une quelconque frontière naturelle dans l'environnement
marin de l'airede la délimitation,du moinsjusqu'à sa limite sud-ouest, et
par conséquentde l'uniténaturelle du régimeocéanographique et écolo-Canada's pleadings acknowledge that there is a distinct ecosystem on
Georges Bank, which is geographically defined by the Greath South
Channel and the Northeast Channel. But on the basis of its experts'
research it also submitsthat, despite the particularly congenial conditions
favouring the above-mentioned concentration, Georges Bank formspart
of a continuous oceanic system belonging to the Nova Scotian biogeogra-
phical province. This province, according to Canada, stretches from New-
foundland to the vicinity of the coastal alignment between Cape Cod and
Nantucket Island. East of the Great South Channel separating Georges
Bank from the Nantucket Shoals the continuity is said to give way to a
transition from northern cold-water fauna and flora to southern warm-
water varieties typical of a different, Virginian, mid-Atlantic biogeogra-
phical province. At any rate, it is only thereabouts that, according
to Canada, any kind of oceano-biological boundary is discernible; that
boundary, however, would lieat the extreme western limit of the delimi-
tation area and therefore could not be relevant to the delimitation that has
to be carried out within the area itself.
51. For its part, the United States, on the basis of its own detailed
analysis, detects three identifiable and different oceanographic and eco-
logical régimes inthe waters of the area, each with a particular type of
hydrological circulation, temperature, salinity,density and vertical strati-
fication and its own type of tidal activity. At al1levels of the food chain,
says the United States, distinct ecological communities have developed
within these various régimes :that of the Gulf of Maine basin, that of the
Scotian Shelf and that of Georges Bank, this last-mentioned being linked
to that of the Nantucket Shoals. Thus the three ecological régimes,it is
submitted, are divided by natural boundaries, the most important and
clearly apparent of which runs along the Northeast Channel, which is
sometimes over 200 metres deep and which is said in fact to form a line of
separation within the area in the case of most of its commercially impor-
tant fish stocks.
52.In this respect it should be observed that the United States. realizing
that this channel does not possess the characteristics of a geological fault
which would make it possible to ascribe to it, under appropriate circum-
stances, the function of a natural boundary between distinct areas of
sea-bed, has expounded the thesis that the Northeast Channel forms a
recognizable limit in the marine environment. On that ground. according
to the United States. the Northeast Channel must be seen as a natural
boundary that can serve as a basis for drawing a single maritime delimi-
tation linevalid at oneand the sametimeforthe exclusivefisheryzone and.
if need be, the exclusive economic zone, as well as for the underlying
sea-bed and subsoil.
53. During the oral proceedings. each Party put up a spirited defence of
its position, one contending for : (a) the non-existence of any natural
boundary in the marine environment within the delimitation area, or at
least up to the south-western limit of that area, and in consequeilce for thegique de cette aire ;et b) la thèsede la distinction, dans la masse d'eau de
l'airedeladélimitation,de trois régionsdistincteset séparées pas deslignes
dedivision dont laplusclairementmarquéeserait celledu chenalNord-Est
séparantle banc de Georges du plateau Scotian, se sont vigoureusement
affrontéesau cours des exposésoraux, sans toutefoisfaire disparaître tout
doute, au moins quant àcertains des aspects techniques débattus.
54. La Chambre n'est toutefois pas convaincue qu'il soit possible de
reconnaître de véritables frontières naturelles stables et sûres dans un
milieuaussi mouvant etchangeant que leseaux de l'océan, leur floreet leur
faune. Elle est ainsi parvenue à la conclusion qu'il serait vain de vouloir
rechercher, dans des données empruntées à la biogéographie des eaux
recouvrant certains fonds marins, un élémentpermettant d'accorder une
valeur de frontière naturelle stable - et ceci à un double effet - à un
accident géomorphologiqueinfluençant leseaux surjacentes, maisévidem-
ment insuffisant comme tel pour que l'on puisse y voir une frontière
naturelle séparant les fonds marins eux-mêmes.
55. En ce qui concerne l'imposante masse aquatique de l'aire de la
délimitationqui intéresse le cas d'espèce, laChambre estime donc que la
conclusion à en tirer est la suivan:on ne peut que constater ici encore le
mêmecaractèreessentiel d'unitéet d'uniformitéqui marquait déjàlefond
de la mer et prendre note de l'impossibilitéde repérer,dans leseaux aussi,
une frontière naturelle susceptible de servir de base à une opération de
délimitation comme celle qui est requise de la Chambre.
56. Il faut d'ailleurs préciserqu'une délimitation,qu'elle soitmaritime
ou terrestre, est une opérationjuridico-politique et que rien ne dit que, là
même où unefrontière naturelle apparaît, la délimitationdoive nécessai-
rement en suivreletracé. Maisde toute manière ceproblèmene sepose pas
en l'espèce,vu l'inexistence constatée de facteurs géologiques,géomor-
phologiques, écologiquesou autres suffisamment importants, évidents et
concluants pour pouvoir représenter une frontière naturelle unique et
indiscutable.
57. La Chambre pourrait maintenant se demander si la définition des
confins extérieurset la description des aspects physiques de la surface et
des profondeurs de l'aire où elle estappelée à délimiterla frontière mari-
time unique américano-canadienne ne devraient pas êtresuivies d'une
prise enconsidération d'autresaspects. La Chambre seréfèreici au milieu
humain et notamment aux conditions socio-économiquescaractérisantce
milieu.
58. C'est ainsi qu'ont procédéles Parties ; elles se sont même très
largement attachées à traiter de ces aspects. Elles ont longuement discuté
entre ellesde l'antérioritéde laprésencedespêcheursde l'uneou de l'autre
nationalité dans les eaux de l'aire concernée. Ellesont débattu de la
question de l'importance des prises effectuéesdans les pêcheries,du banc
de Georges notamment, pour l'activitéportuaire, la construction navale,
l'industrie alimentaire et les industries tributaires des régionsbordant le
golfe du Maine et des régionsavoisinantes. Elles ont aussi débattu deleur
rôle dans l'alimentation de leurs habitants et pour l'exportation. Desnatural unity of the area's oceanographic and ecological régime ; theother
for : (6) the existence within the waters of the area of three distinct prov-
inces separated by dividing lines, the most clearly pronounced of which is
the Northeast Channel separating Georges Bank from the Scotian Shelf ;
however, the result was not such as to clear away al1doubt, at least as
regards certain of the technical aspects debated.
54. The Chamber is not however convinced of the possibility of dis-
cerning any genuine, sureandstable "natural boundaries" in sofluctuating
an environment as the waters of theocean, their flora and fauna. It has thus
reached the conviction that it would be vain to seek, in data derived from
the biogeography of the waters covering certain areas of sea-bed, any
element sufficient to confer the property of a stable natural boundary -
and what is more, one serving a double purpose - on a geomorphological
accident which influences superadjacent waters but which is clearly in-
adequate to be seen as a natural boundary in respect of the sea-bed
itself.
55.The Chamber accordinglyconsiders that the conclusion to be drawn
in respect of the great mass of water belonging to the delimitation area is
that it too essentially possesses thesame character of unity and uniformity
already apparent from an examination of the sea-bed, sothat, in respect of
the waters too, one must take note of the impossibility of discerning any
natural boundary capable of serving as a basis for carrying out a delimi-
tation of the kind requested of the Chamber.
56. It must, however, be emphasized that a delimitation, whether of a
maritime boundary or of a land boundary, is a legal-political operation.
and that itisnot the case that where a natural boundary is discernible, the
political delimitation necessarily has to follow the same line. But in any
event the problem does not arise in the present instance, since, as we have
noted. there are no geological, geomorphological, ecological or other fac-
tors sufficiently important, evident and conclusive to represent a single,
incontrovertible natural boundary.
57.At this stage the Chamber might consider whether the definition of
the outer limits of the area within which it is called mon to delimit the
singlemaritime boundary between Canadaand the ~nhed States, and the
description of itsphysical aspects as regards both surface and depth, ought
not to be followed by taking into consideration other aspects also. What
the Chamber has in mind here is the human environment. and more
particularly its socio-economic conditions.
58.The Parties did take this course ;they evendealt with those aspects in
extenso. They exchanged lengthy argument on whether the fishermen of
onenationality or the other werefirston thescene in the waters of the area.
They argued over the importance of the catches of the fisheries, particu-
larly those of Georges Bank, for the port activity, ship-building, food
industry and dependent industries of the land areas around the Gulf of
Maine, and of the neighbouring areas. They also argued asto their role for
the food supplies of their populations and for their exports. Comparative
analyses were made of the respective importance of the resources drawn analyses comparatives ont étéfaites quant à l'importance respective des
ressources tiréesde ces pêcheriespour l'économie qualifiée d'unidimen-
sionnelle du comtéde Lunenburg et pour l'économie diversifiée eu trba-
niséedu Massachusetts. Des statistiques ont étéproduites à ce propos de
part et d'autre, des tableaux et des diagrammes démonstratifs ont été
fournis. On afait d'uncôtéde sombres prévisionsquant aux conséquences
qu'aurait pour l'économie de la Nouvelle-Ecosse une exclusion des
pêcheurscanadiensdespêcheriesdu banc de Georges ;on a de l'autrecôté
souligné les conséquences fâcheusesqu'aurait pour la conservation des
ressourceshalieutiques de cebanc lefait de nepasen confier lagestion àun
seul Etat. La Chambre ne peut s'empêcherde relever que les Parties ont
parfois donnél'impression d'insisterpar tropsur cesperspectives, car ilne
faut pas oublier que la créationpar les deux Etats nord-américains d'une
zone exclusive de pêchede 200 millesn'est finalement vieille que de huit
ans et que les bateaux de pêcheaméricainset canadiens ont exercéaupa-
ravant leur activitédans cette zone - alorspartie de la haute mer - à côté
d'importantes flottes de pêchehauturière venues de pays lointains. Et
l'évictionde ces dernières - mesure que l'on justifia par la nécessité
d'éviter lasurexploitation à laquelle leur présencecontribuait - fut faite
sans souci apparent des conséquencesqui en résultaient pour certaines
régions côtières etcertaines industries de ces derniers pays.
59. Mais l'important n'est pas là. Ce qu'il faut souligner c'est que ces
aspects concernant les activitésde pêche, ainsique d'autres relatifs aux
activités exercées enmatière d'exploration des richesses potentielles en
hydrocarbures, en matière de recherche scientifique, d'organisation de la
défensecommune,etc., peuvent donner lieu à l'examende considérations
valablesd'un caractèrepolitiqueet économique. LaChambre est tenue par
son Statut et requise par les Parties non pas de décider ex aequo et bono,
mais d'asseoir le résultat a atteindre sur une base de droit. Et elle est
convaincuequ'aux fins d'une opérationde délimitationtelle que cellequi
lui est demandée,le droit international - comme elle le montrera par la
suite - se limite àprescrire en générall'application de critèreséquitables
qu'ilne définitpas, mais quisont à détermineressentiellement en fonction
des caractéristiques de la géographieproprement dite de la région.Ce ne
sera que lorsque la Chambre aura envisagésur la base desdits critères
l'établissementd'unelignede délimitation,qu'ellepourra etdevra - et ceci
toujours en exécution d'une règle de droit - faire intervenir d'autres
critèressusceptibles d'êtrepris aussi en considération, afin d'être sûrede
parvenir à un résultat équitable.
III
60. Le différendentre le Canada et les Etats-Unis d'Amérique.qui se
trouve maintenant soumis au jugement de la Chambre, est d'origine
récente,bien que les Etats-Unis aient voulu faire remonter cette origine à
l'attitude des Parties lors des proclamations Truman de 1945. Par ces
proclamations, publiées le28 septembre 1945,les Etats-Unis affirmaient GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 278
from those fisheries for what was called the one-dimensional economy of
Lunenburg County and for the diversified, urbanized economy of Mas-
sachusetts. On either side, statistics, tables and graphics were produced in
thisconnection. On one side,gloomypredictions wereput forward regard-
ing the consequences for the Nova Scotian economy of exclusion of Can-
adian fishermen from the Georges Bank fisheries ; the other side empha-
sized the deleterious effect on the conservation of the Bank's fish stocks
that would result from failure to ensure a system of single-State manage-
ment. The Chamber is bound to point out that the Parties sometimes gave
the impression of over-emphasizing these prospects, for it must not be
forgotten that the institution by these two North American States of a
200-mile exclusive fishery zone only dates back eight years, and that
previouslyinthat zone,which at the timewasstillhigh seas,American and
Canadian fishing boats plied their trade alongside large high-sea fishing
fleets from distant countries. And the eviction of the latter - the justifi-
cation givenfor whichwas the need to avoid the over-fishingto which their
presence contributed - was carried out without apparent concern for the
repercussions on certain coastal areas and industries of the countries in
question.
59. However, the crux of the matter lies elsewhere. It should be empha-
sizedthat thesefishing aspects, andothers relating to activitiesin the fields
of oil exploration, scientific research, or common defence arrangements,
may require an examination of valid considerations of a political and
economic character. The Chamber is however bound by its Statute, and
required by the Parties, not to take a decision ex aequo et bono, but to
achieve a result on the basis of law. The Chamber is, furthermore, con-
vinced that for the purposes of such a delimitation operation as is here
required, international law, as willbe shown below, does nomore than lay
down in general that equitable criteria are to be applied, criteria which are
not spelled out but which are essentially to be deterrnined in relation to
what may be properly called the geographical features of the area. It will
onlybe when the Chamber has, on the basis of these criteria, envisaged the
drawing of a delimitation line, that it may and should - still in conformity
with a rule of law - bring in other criteria which may also be taken into
account in order to be sure of reaching an equitable result.
III
60.The dispute between Canada and the United States, now referred to
the Chamber forjudgment, isof recent origin - although the United States
has suggested that the dispute could be traced back to the attitude of the
Parties at the time of the Truman Proclamations in 1945.By these pro-
clamations, published on 28September 1945,theUnited States asserted itsleurjuridiction sur les ressources naturelles du plateau continental sous-
jacent àla haute mer contiguë à leurs côtes et annonçaient l'établissement
de zones de conservation pour la protection des pêchesdans certaines
étenduesde haute mer voisines des Etats-Unis. Les Etats-Unis insistent
sur le fait que ces proclamations furent communiquéesau Canada avant
leur publication et que le Canada n'élevapas d'objection à leur sujet,
ni sur le moment ni par la suite ; et que les Etats-Unis précisèrent à
l'époqueque selon eux le plateau continental s'étendait jusqu'à l'isobathe
des 100 brasses. La Chambre reviendra sur cette question aux para-
graphes 153et suivants.
61. En réalité,ce différend se manifesta d'abord au sujet du plateau
continental de ce qui est actuellement l'airede la délimitation,et ceci dès
les débutsde l'activitéexploratrice menéede part et d'autre en vue de
décelerdes ressources en hydrocarbures, particulièrement dans lesous-rol
de certaines parties du banc de Georges. La prospection des ressources en
hydrocarbures du plateau continental dans la régiondu golfe du Maine
débuta dans les annéessoixante. Les Etats-Unis ratifièrent en 1961 la
convention de Genèvede 1958sur le plateau continental et y devinrent
partie quand elleentra en vigueur en 1964.LeCanada, aux prises avecdes
difficultésd'ordre constitutionnel liées son régimefédéral,ne ratifia la
convention qu'en 1970,de sorte qu'à l'époque oùil délivra ses premiers
permis d'exploration le Canada n'étaitpas partie à cet instrument. Le
Gouvernement canadien assortit sa ratification d'une déclarationque les
Etats-Unis n'acceptèrent pas mais qui n'empêchapas l'entrée en vigueur
de la convention entre les deux pays. En 1953, les Etats-Unis avaient
adopté I'Outer Continental Sheif Lands Act,texte de base régissantles
activitéssur leur plateau continental mais,comme lebancde Georges était
le principal fond de pêchede la côte est, ce qui soulevait d'importants
problèmesde protection de l'environnement, laprospection ne progressa
que lentement et la mise en valeur fut différée. Les premiers permis amé-
ricains de recherches géophysiquesdans ce secteur furent accordés en
1964.Du côté canadien,les premiers règlementsautorisant lesopérations
pétrolièreset gazièresen mer furent promulgués en 1960(Règlementssur
le pétroleet le gaz du Canada), et en 1964 le Gouvernement canadien
commença à octroyer des permis d'exploration dans la régiondu golfe du
Maine. Le Canada précise qu'enattribuant ces permis, et vu l'absence de
toute délimitationdu ~lateau continental convenue avec les Etats-Unis. il
s'est servi en pratique d'une ligned'équidistance,en s'inspirant de l'ar-
ticle 6 de la convention de 1958sur le plateau continental, dans la mesure
au moinsoù tout permis seprolongeant par-delà la ligneportait la mention
qu'il étaitdélivré<<sous réserveque les terres englobéesdans l'étendue
quadrilléesoient des terres du Canada D.Devant la Chambre, le Canada a
décritlalignede délimitationainsi envisagéeet qu'ilestime avoir respectée
comme une ligne de << stricte équidistanceD.Il n'y a pas lieu de se pro-
noncer pour le moment sur cette définition ;la Chambre y reviendra
lorsqu'elleprendra directement en considération les différentesméthodes
susceptibles en principe d'êtreutiliséesaux fins de la délimitation.jurisdiction over the natural resources of the continental shelf under the
high seas contiguous to its coasts, and announced the establishment of
conservation zones for the protection of fisheries in certain areas of the
high seas contiguous to the United States. The United States emphasizes
that these Proclamations were shown to Canada in advance of their being
issued and Canada made no objection to them, either then or since ; and
that the United States made it clear at the time that, in its view, the
continental shelf extended to the 100-fathoms depth line. The Chamber
will return to this question in paragraphs 153ff., below.
61.Infact, thisdispute first developed in relation to the continental shelf
of what is now the delimitation area, and did soas soon asexploration for
hydrocarbon resources was begun on each side, particularly in the subsoil
of certain parts of Georges Bank. Exploration for hydrocarbon resources
of the continental shelf in the Gulf of Maine area began in the 1960s.The
United States ratified the 1958Geneva Convention on the Continental
Shelfin 1961and became aparty when it came into forcein 1964.Canada,
confronted byconstitutional difficulties related to itsfederalstructure, did
not ratify theConventionuntil 1970,sothat at the timeits firstexploration
permits were issued, it was not a party. The Canadian Government
accompanied its ratification by a declaration which the United States did
not accept, but which did not prevent the entry into force of the Conven-
tion as between the two countries. In 1953,the United States had enacted
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the primary text governing activi-
ties on its continental shelf,but because the status of Georges Bank as the
principal fishing bank on the East Coast raised important environmental
concerns, exploration proceeded slowlyand development has been defer-
red.The first United Statespermitsfor geophysicalexploration in thisarea
wereissuedin 1964.On the Canadian side,thefirstregulationsauthorizing
oil and gas operations in off-shore areas were issued in 1960(Canada Oil
and Gas Regulations), and in 1964the Canadian Government began to
issue exploration permits in the Gulf of Maine area. Canada has made it
clear that when issuing such permits, in the absence of any delimitation of
the continental shelf agreed with the United States, it treated the equi-
distancelineasa working boundary, drawing itsinspirationfrom Article 6
of the 1958Convention on the Continental Shelf, at least to the extent of
including, in any perrnits issued extending to areas beyond that line, a
caveat to the effect that the permit was issued "subject to the lands
contained in the grid areas being Canadian lands". Before the Chamber,
Canada described the delimitation line which it had in mind, and consid-
ered that it had respected, asa "strict equidistance" line. There is no need
topasscommentupon that definitionforthe timebeing ;the Chamber will
comeback to the point when considering directly the various methods that
could in principle be applied to the deliniitation. 62. Les Parties se sont affrontées au sujet de la ligne que les Etats-
Unis ont utilisée enpratique comme limite en direction du Canada pour
la délivrance de permis dans ce secteur : le Canada soutient qu'une
ligne d'équidistancede facto était appliquéepar le Bureau of Land Mana-
gement des Etats-Unis (ligne dite <<BLM ))ou par les compagnies titu-
laires de permis américains (la<<Companymedian line >) -ligne médiane
utiliséepar les compagnies). Les Etats-Unis démentent que cette ligne
ait eu une valeur officielle quelconque ou qu'elle ait mêmeexisté. La
Chambre reviendra sur cette question à propos des arguments relatifs à
la pertinence de la conduite des Parties (section V, paragraphes 126 et
suivants).
63. En 1965.la délivrancede ~ermis d'ex~loration canadiens entraîna
un échangedecorrespondance, à l'origineentre M. Hoffman, qui occupait
alors les fonctions d'Assistantirectorfor Lands and Minerals du Bureau
of Land Management au département de l'intérieur desEtats-Unis, et
M. Hunt, chef de la division des ressources au ministèredu Nord canadien
et des ressources nationales du Canada. La correspondance commença par
une demanded'information du Bureau of Land Management au sujet de la
localisation des permis de recherches pétrolièreset gazièrescanadiens. Le
Canada s'appuie sur cette correspondance comme preuve ou indication
d'un acquiescement des Etats-Unis ou d'une forclusion ou d'un estoppel
opposable à ces derniers; la Chambre cependant ne s'attachera pas à
examiner ces échanges à ce stade, ni à discuter la valeur qui leur a été
attribuée pendant le procèspar le Canada et que les Etats-Unis ont con-
testée. LaChambre compte y revenir lorsqu'elle examinera l'étatdu droit
en vigueur entre lesParties. On ne saurait dire toutefois qu'un différendse
soit déjà cristallisé ce moment entre les deux Etats.
64. Le 16août 1966l'ambassade des Etats-Unis à Ottawa demanda au
ministèrecanadien des mines et des relevéstechniquesdes renseignements
sur les activitéscanadiennes d'exploration se déroulant sur la côte du
Pacifique et dans la régiondu golfe du Maine. Le 30 août 1966le sous-
secrétairedu ministèredes affairesextérieuresdu Canada répondit à cette
demande par un exposégénéral surlespratiqueset politiques canadiennes
et transmit une carte indiquant leszones pour lesquelles des permis cana-
diens avaient étédélivrés,sans précisersi les titulaires de ces permis se
livraient déjàou étaientsur le point de se livrerdes opérationsdans ces
zones. Après certaines consultationset contactsdiplomatiques qui eurent
lieu en 1966-1968,ycompris l'envoi d'unaide-mémoire desEtats-Unisen
date du 10 mai 1968 suggérant l'ouverture de négociations ainsi que la
suspension temporaire des activitéssurla moitiénord du banc de Georges,
les Etats-Unis présentèrentle 5 novembre 1969 une note diplomatique
demandant un moratoire sur les recherches et l'exploitation de minéraux
sur le banc. Cette note réservaitformellement les droits des Etats-Unis et
spécifiait:
tant qu'il n'aurapas été convenu de l'emplacementexact de la ligne
délimitant le plateau continental entre les Etats-Unis et le Canada 62.The question of the line used by the United Statesas a workinglimit
in the direction of Canada for the issue of permits in this area is contro-
verted betweenthe Parties. Canada has claimed that adefacto equidistance
line was used by the United States Bureau of Land Management (the
so-called "BLM line") or by companies to whom United States permits
were granted (the so-called "company median line"). The United States
has denied that these lines had any officia1status or even existence. The
Chamber will return to this point in connection with the arguments as to
the relevance of the conduct of the Parties (Section V,paragraphs 126ff.,
below).
63. In 1965,the issue of Canadian exploration permits gave rise to an
exchange of correspondence, initially between a Mr. Hoffman, whose
position was that of Assistant Director for Lands and Minerals of the
United States Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the
Interior, and a Mr. Hunt, whose position was Chief of the Resources
Division of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources
of Canada. The correspondence began with a request by the Bureau of
Land Management for information asto the location of Canadian oil and
gas exploratory permits. Reliance has been placed by Canada on this
correspondence as constituting or indicating acquiescence by or estoppel
against the United States ;however the Chamber will not examine these
exchanges at this stage, or discuss the significance attributed to them
during thecase by Canada, which has beencontested by the United States.
The Chamber willcome back to them when examining the state of the law
in force between the Parties. It could not, however, be said that a dispute
had at that time already crystallized between the two States.
64.On 16August 1966,the United States Embassyin Ottawa requested
informationfrom the Canadian Department of Mines and Technical Sur-
veysas to Canadian hydrocarbon exploration on the Pacific Coast and in
the Gulf of Maine area. On 30 August 1966 a reply from the Under-
Secretarv of the Canadian De~artment of External Affairs outlined the
relevant Canadian policies and practices and enclosed a map showing the
sea-bed area covered by the Canadian perrnits, but not indicating whether
any activity by Canadian permittees was in progress or imminent in that
area. After certain diplomatic consultations and contacts in 1966-1968,
including a United States aide-mémoire of 10 May 1968suggesting that
negotiations be opened and that there be a temporary suspension of
activities on the northern half of Georges Bank, the United States on 5
November 1969presented a diplomatic Note requesting a moratorium on
minera1explorations and exploitation on Georges Bank. That Note con-
tained a forma1reservation of United States rights and stated that :
"until the exact location of the United States-Canada Continental
Shelf boundary is agreed upon, the United States cannot acquiesce dans legolfedu Maine, lesEtats-Unis ne pourront consentir à aucune
autorisation canadienne visant l'exploration ou l'exploitation des res-
sources naturelles du plateau continental du banc de Georges o.
Le lerdécembre1969leCanada fit observer enréponseque les Etats-Unis
n'avaient jamais jusque-là protestécontre la délivrancede permis cana-
diens d'exploration pétrolière etgazière.Tout en acceptant la proposition
d'une négociation surla délimitation du plateau continental telle que
proposéepar les Etats-Unis, le Canada rejetait la demande de moratoire.
La Chambre est d'avis que c'est à ce stade - c'est-à-dire après la note
diplomatique des Etats-Unis du 5 novembre 1969 refusant d'accepter
toute autorisation canadienne d'exploration ou d'exploitation des res-
sources naturelles du banc de Georges, et aprèsla réponsedu Canada du
lerdécembrede la mêmeannée, oùil refusait, entre autres, dedonner son
accord à un quelconquemoratoire - que I'existencedu différendsetrouve
clairement fixée.Il peut cependant êtreutile de noter une fois de plus qu'à
ce moment-là il ne s'agissaitencore que d'un différendrelatif au plateau
continental.
65. Le21 février1970leGouvernement des Etats-Unis fit publier dans
le FederalRegister que les Etats-Unis avaient protesté contre des autori-
sations canadiennes portant sur le banc de Georges. Des négociations
officiellesentre lesEtats-Unis et leCanada, au sujet de lalimite du plateau
continental, s'ouvrirentà Ottawa le 9juillet 1970. LeCanada considérait
qu'iln'yavait pas de circonstances spécialesdansla régionet que la limite
devait donc êtrela ligne d'équidistance envisagéepar l'article 6 de la
convention de Genèvesur leplateau continental de 1958 à laquelle ilvenait
de devenir partie. Il avait joint à sa ratification de cet instrument une
déclaration spécifiantque, de l'avisdu Gouvernement canadien,
((l'existence d'un accident du relief tel qu'une dépression ou un
canyon dans une zone submergéene doit pas êtreconsidérée comme
constituant une interruption du prolongement naturel )).
Les Etats-Unis élevèrentdesobjections formelles contre cette déclaration
le 16juillet 1970.Au coursdes négociations,lesEtats-Unis affirmèrentque
laligned'équidistance était inéquitable en raison de l'existencede circons-
tances spécialeset que lafrontièredevait suivrelechenal Nord-Est. Aucun
des deux Etats n'autorisa de forages à cette époque,mais des compagnies
américainespratiquèrent des levés sismiquessur le banc de Georges en
1968, 1969et 1975.
66. Toute une correspondance diplomatique fut échangée en1974.Le
18janvier, les Etats-Unis avisèrentle Canada (entre autres) de l'adoption
d'une législationaméricaine surle homard américain(Homarus america-
nus),fondéesur l'article2,paragraphe 4, de laconvention de Genèvesurle
plateau continental de 1958 (concernant les ressources biologiques du
plateau) et firent savoir qu'il étaitdésormaisinterdit aux ressortissants
étrangersdeprendre du homard sur leplateau continental des Etats-Unis. in any Canadian authorization of exploration or exploitation of the
natural resources of the Georges Bank Continental Shelf".
On 1December 1969,Canada replied observing that the United States had
not previously protested against Canadian oil and gas permits. While
accepting the proposa1that negotiations on the delimitation of the conti-
nental shelf should be undertaken as suggested by the United States,
Canada declined to agree to a moratorium. The Chamber considers that it
wasat this stage - Le.,after the American diplomatic Note of 5November
1969refusing to acquiesce inanyauthorization givenbyCanada to explore
or exploit thenatural resources of Georges Bank, and afterCanada's reply
of 1December 1969,refusing, inter aliato agreeto anykind of moratorium
- that the existence of the dispute became clearly established. It may
however be useful to note once again that, at that time, it was still only a
dispute relating to the continental shelf.
65.On 21 February 1970,the United States Government recorded in the
Federal Register that the United States had protested against Canadian
authorizations relating to Georges Bank. Forma1negotiations between the
United States and Canada on the continental shelf boundary began in
Ottawa on 9 July 1970.The Canadian position was that no special cir-
cumstances existed in the area and the boundary should thus be the
equidistance line, as contemplated by Article 6 of the 1958Geneva Con-
vention on the Continental Shelfto whichCanada hadjust become aparty.
When ratifying the Convention, Canada had appended adeclarationtothe
effect that. in its view:
"the presence of an accidental feature such as a depression or channel
in a submerged area should not be regarded as constituting an inter-
ruption in the natural prolongation".
The United States formally objected to this declaration on 16July 1970.
The United Statesposition in thenegotiations asserted theinequitableness
of the equidistance line in view of the existence of special circumstances
and that the boundary should follow the Northeast Channel. No drilling
activities were authorized by either State at this time, but seismic surveys
were carried out on Georges Bank by United States companies in 1968,
1969and 1975.
66.Various exchangesof diplomatic correspondence took placein 1974.
On 18January 1974,the United Statesinformed Canada (among others) of
United States legislationconcerning theAmerican lobster (homarusameri-
canus), based upon Article 2,paragraph 4,of the 1958GenevaConvention
on the Continental Shelf(concerning the livingresourcesof the shelf),and
gave notice that fishing for American lobster by foreign nationals on the
United States continental shelfwasprohibited. Theboundary indicated by La limite spécifiéepar les Etats-Unis aux fins de l'application de cette
législationétaitl'isobathe des 100brasses du banc de Georges, appeléela
(ligne du homard ))au cours de la présente instance. En septembre 1974,
cependant, et afin d'améliorerles perspectives de négociation, lesEtats-
Unis informèrentleCanada qu'ilsn'appliqueraient pas lesprescriptions de
laloi surlehomard auxpêcheurscanadiens.La législationsurlaprotection
du homard resta en vigueurjusqu'au moment où ellefut remplacéepar la
proclamation de la zone de pêchegénéralede 200 milles (paragraphe 68
ci-après). Le 17 septembre 1974 le Canada fit part officiellement aux
Etats-Unisde ses réserves à propos des activitésd'exploration du plateau
continental auxquelles se livrait la compagnie Digicon au titre d'un per-
mis (no OCS E-1-74) délivrépar les Etats-Unis. Le département d'Etat,
en réponse, renvoya à sa note du 5novembre 1969et affirma que leszones
sur lesquelles portait le permis en question étaient sousjuridiction amé-
ricaine.
67. Le 15mai 1975les Etats-Unis avisèrentle Canada de leur intention
de lancer un appel dit Cal1for Nominations - première étapevers l'oc-
troi de concessions pétrolières et gazières - pour des zones du banc de
Georges ;par note du 3juin 1975,le Canada fit savoir qu'il ne pouvait
acquiescer a des actes des Etats-Unis visant à constituer un exercice de
juridiction sur unepartie quelconque du plateau continental relevant de la
juridiction canadienne. En 1976,deux cent six lots de fonds marins du
banc de Georges furent sélectionnésen vue d'une <étudeintensive ))en
préparation du projet de bilan des effets sur l'environnement a établir
avant tout octroi de concession ; vingt-huit de ces lots se trouvaient sur la
partie nord-est du banc de Georges, dans la zone revendiquéecomme
plateau continental canadien. Le Canada protesta le 2 février1976et, le
10 févrierde la mêmeannée,les Etats-Unis réitérerenq t ue selon eux tous
les lots dont il s'agissaitfaisaient partie du plateau continental des Etats-
Unis ; les lots en litige n'en furent pas moins temporairement retirésde
l'adjudication prévuepour décembre1976,de manière à ne pas gêner les
négociations ; les Etats-Unis ont expliquéque, dans un souci d'apaise-
ment, les concessions avaient été limitéesaux parties du banc de Georges
qui n'étaientpas en litige. Simultanément, des négociationsde caractère
exploratoire, entamées le 15 décembre 1975, se poursuivirent jusqu'en
1976au sujet, d'une part, de la délimitationdu plateau continental et des
arrangements coopératifs de pêche et,d'autre part, de la possibilitéd'éta-
blir des zones de partage des ressources en hydrocarbures ;ces entretiens
n'apportèrent cependant aucun élémentde solution au problème de la
frontière.
68. La situation étaitdonc à peu prèsinchangéequand, fin 1976-début
1977,de nouveaux événementsintervinrent et ajoutèrent a la dimension
plateau continental ))du différendune nouvelle dimension, relative aux
eaux et à leurs ressources biologiques. Au débutde 1977,seprévalantdu
consensus réalisé entre-temps à la troisièmeconférencedesNations Unies
sur ledroitde la mer, lesdeux Etats procédèrent, à trois moisde distance, à
l'instauration d'une zoneexclusivedepêchede200milles au large de leursthe United States for purposes of enforcement of this legislation was the
100-fathomcontour of Georges Bank, and this line has been referred to in
these proceedings as the "lobster line". In September 1974,however, in
order toimprove the prospects for negotiation, the United Statesinformed
Canada that it would not enforce the requirements of the lobster law
against Canadian fishermen. The lobster-protection legislation remained
in force until it was superseded by the declaration of the general200-mile
fishery zone (paragraph 68, below). On 17 September 1974Canada for-
mally notified the United States of its reservation concerning continental
shelfexploration activities under apermit (No.OCS E-1-74)issued by the
United Statesto Digicon Inc. In reply, the Department of State referred to
its Note of 5 November 1969,and asserted that the areas subject to the
permit in question were subject to thejurisdiction of the United States.
67. On 15May 1975,the United States notified Canada of its plans to
issuea Cal1forNominations - thefirststeptowardsthegranting of oiland
gas leases - in respect of areas on Georges Bank ; by a Note dated 3June
1975,Canada took the position that it could not acquiesce in acts by the
United Statesintended toconstitute an exerciseofjurisdiction in respect of
anypart of thecontinental shelf under Canadianjurisdiction. In 1976,206
tracts of sea-bed on Georges Bank were selected for "intensive study" in
the process of preparing the draft environmental impact statement before
leasing could be carried out ;28 of these tracts were on the northeastern
part of Georges Bank, in the area claimed as Canadian continental shelf.
Canada protested on 2 February 1976, and on 10 February 1976 the
United Statesrestated its position that al1the tracts being studied wereon
the United States continental shelf ;however the disputed tracts were
temporarily withdrawn in December 1976from the proposed saleofleases,
inorder to avoidmaking thenegotiations more difficult. The United States
has explained that, under its policy of restraint, the leases granted were
restricted to the undisputed portions of Georges Bank. At this time there
werealsoexploratorynegotiations in progress, beginning on 15December
1975and continuing into 1976,both on continental shelf delimitation and
CO-operativefisheries arrangements and on zones of shared hydrocarbon
resources ; but no basis for solution of the boundary problem was
found.
68. The situation thus remained more or lessunchanged when, around
the turn of the year 1976-1977,somenewevents occurred and added to the
continental shelfdimension of the dispute anewdimension concerning the
waters and their living resources. Early in 1977,basing themselves on the
consensus meanwhileachievedat theThird United Nations Conference on
the Law of the Sea, the two States, at an interval of three months, each
proceeded to establish a 200-mile fishery zone off its shores, the Unitedcôtes, les Etats-Unis le 13avril 1976,par l'adoption du Fishery Conserva-
tionandManagement Act, entréenvigueur le lermars 1977,et leCanada le
lei novembre par lapromulgation d'un décretd'application de la loi sur la
mer territoriale et les zones de pêche,devant prendre effet le lerjanvier
1977.Le décreten question définissaitles limites de la future zone cana-
dienne ; un avis paru au Federal Register des Etats-Unis le 4 no-
vembre 1976spécifiait les limitesde la zone de conservation des pêches
de 200 milles des Etats-Unis ainsi que du plateau continental dans les
régionsbordant leCanada. Ledifférend,qui neportaitjusque-là que sur la
frontière à tracer pour le plateau continental, acquit ainsi une dimension
plus largeen s'étendant désormais àla délimitationà établirpourla masse
d'eau surjacente. Lesnégociationsentre les deux parties n'en deviendront
que plus ardues. Par la suite, le 10mars 1983,au cours de la procédure,les
Etats-Unis devaient proclamer une zone économique exclusive, dont
l'étendue coïncideaveccellede lazonedepêche précédemmentcréée, mais
sansque cefait évidemmentpuisse avoirpour conséquencede modifier les
termes du compromis.
69. Al'époque considérélee,snégociationsportaient surtout sur l'adop-
tion d'un régime de pêcheintérimaireet ellesaboutirent, le 24février 1977,
à la signature d'un accord intérimaire réciproquede pêchequi fut provi-
soirement appliquéenattendant son entréeenvigueur, fixéeenprincipe au
26 juillet 1977. L'accord prévoyait la préservation des << structures éta-
blies))de pêcheau large des côtes est et ouest de chaque Etat, dans les
régionsfrontières et au-delà :sur la côte atlantique, la méthode utilisée
dans l'accord consistait à retenir les contingents établisen 1976 par la
Commission internationale des pêcheriesde l'Atlantique du Nord-Ouest
(CIPAN), en tant que plafonds applicables aux privilègesde pêchetrans-
frontière. L'accordvint à expiration à la fin de 1977,mais ses modalités
furent maintenues de facto en attendant les négociationssur son renou-
vellement ; lesParties semirent d'accord pour le reconduire aveccertaines
modificationsmais, uncertainnombre de diffërends sérieuxayant surgiau
cours de son application provisoire, le nouvel accord n'entra jamais en
vigueur.Le2juin 1978son application provisoire futsuspendueet lapêche
transfrontière prit fin. Les deux Etats maintinrent cependant un régime
intérimaire de police excercéepar 1'Etat du pavillon dans les régions
frontières, qui s'inspirait des principes de l'accord de 1977, d'abord en
attendant l'entrée en vigueurd'un accord de pêche,prévuepour 1979
(paragraphe 75 ci-après), puis, quand cet accord ne prit pas effet, en
attendant la présente instance.Le 27juillet 1977les deux gouvernements
nommèrent des négociateurs spéciaux chargésde faire rapport sur les
principes d'un règlementd'ensemble desfrontièresmaritimesetproblèmes
connexes ; un rapport conjoint fut présentéen octobre 1977.
70. Ce qu'ilimporte de relever, c'estque, dans la double dimension qui
caractérisaitle différendentre les deux Etats lorsqu'ils établirent l'un et
l'autre une zone exclusive de pêche, lesEtats-Unis donnèrent surtout de
l'importance à l'aspect concernant la pêche,tandis que le Canada accor-
dait pendant longtemps la priorité à l'aspect originel, relatif au plateauStates on 13April 1976,with the adoption of the Fishery Conservation and
Management Act whichcame into force on 1March 1977,and Canada on
1November by the publication of the text of a proposed Order in Council
under theTerritorial Seaand Fishing Zones Act, effective 1January 1977.
This Order defined the limits for the future Canadian zone ;a noticein the
United States FederalRegisteron 4November 1976stated the limits of the
United States 200-mile fishery zone and continental shelf in areas bor-
dering Canada. Thus the dispute which had previously been confined to
thecontinental shelfboundary issuewasautomatically enlarged to include
the issue of the boundary to be established in the superjacent waters. That
only made the negotiations between the two Parties more arduous. Later,
on 10 March 1983,in the course of the present proceedings, the United
States was to proclaim an exclusiveeconomic zone, which coincided with
the previously constituted fishing zone, but this did not of course modify
the terms of the Special Agreement.
69. Negotiations at this time wereconcentrated on the establishment of
interim fishery arrangements, and on 24 February 1977an Interim Recip-
rocal Fisheries Agreement was signed,and was provisionally implemented
pending its entry into force on 26July 1977.This Agreement provided for
the preservation of the "existing patterns" of fisheries of the east and West
coast of each State, both within and beyond theboundary regions ; on the
Atlantic coast, the method used in the Agreement was to incorporate the
1976 quotas set by the International Commission for the Northwest
Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF) as the ceiling for trans-boundary fishing
privileges. The Agreement expired at the end of 1977,but its terms and
conditions were maintained defacto pending negotiations on its renewal ;
agreement was reached for its renewal in an amended form, but as a result
of the occurrence of a number of serious disputes during its provisional
implementation, the new Agreement never entered into force. On 2 June
1978its provisional implementation was suspended, and trans-boundary
fishingceased. The two States have howevermaintained aninterim régime
of flag-State enforcement procedures in the boundary regions along the
lines of the 1977Agreement, first pending the entry into force of a 1979
Fisheries Agreement (paragraph 75, below), and subsequently, when that
Agreement failed to come into force, pendingthe present proceedings. On
27 July 1977 special negotiators were appointed by the Governments to
report on the principles of a comprehensive settlement on maritime boun-
daries and related matters asappropriate ;ajoint report was presented in
October 1977.
70. It is important to stress that, within the dual dimension character-
izing the dispute between the two States following the proclamation by
each of them of an exclusive fishery zone, the United States attributed
importance in particular to the fishing aspect, whilst Canada long contin-
ued to givepriority to the original aspect, i.e., the continental shelf. It wascontinental. C'estdoncdans cettedoubleoptique, et de la délimitationdu
plateau continental, et surtout de l'intention nouvelle de créerune zone
exclusive de pêchede 200 milles, que les Etats-Unis prirent position en
publiant dans le Federal Register du 4 novembre 1976 les coordonnées
d'uneligne délimitant à la fois leplateau continental et leszones de pêche.
Cette ligne correspondait généralement à la ligne des plus grandes pro-
fondeurs :ellemettait un soin particulieràséparer,dans la zoneintérieure
du golfe du Maine, les lieux de pêchede la partie nord-est et ceux de la
partie sud-est et, dans la zone extérieure,le banc de Brown du banc de
Georges. Contournant le bord extérieurde ce banc, elleatteignait donc le
talus de la marge continentale par le chenal Nord-Est. On voit clairement
de quelle idéedominante s'inspirait cette ligne des Etats-Unis.
71. Le Canada, par contre, qui avait rendu publiques, le lei novembre
1976,les coordonnéesd'une ligne, qualifiéepar lui, comme on l'a vu, de
lignedestricteequidistance, devanttraduiregraphiquement sa thèsequant
à la délimitationdu plateau continental dans la région,prit le 14octobre
1977la décisionde modifier ladite ligne. Après la sentence du tribunal
arbitral sur la délimitation du plateau continental entre la France et le
Royaume-Uni, rendue le 30juin 1977,c'est-à-dire pendant que se dérou-
laient lesnégociations mentionnées auparagraphe 69, leCanada annonça
que sa revendication de frontière serait revue en fonction de la portée
juridique qu'il attribuaià cette décision ;et la revision fut officiellement
notifiéeau Gouvernement des Etats-Unis par note diplomatique du 3 no-
vembre 1977.Il étaitexpliquédans cette note que, de l'avis du Canada,
l'application des principes de droit énoncéset mis en lumière dans la
sentence arbitrale susviséeà la situation existant en fait dans la régiondu
golfe du Maine justifiait le tracéd'une ligne autre que la ligne d'équidis-
tance stricte, étantdonnél'existencede <<circonstances spéciales)>au sens
de l'article6 de la convention de Genèvede 1958.Lescirconstances dont il
s'agissaitétaient laprojection en mer de la péninsule exceptionnellement
longue du cap Cod ainsi que des îles de Nantucket et de Martha's
Vineyard, ajoutée à l'avancéemarquéedu littoral des Etats-Unis ausud-est
de Boston ; la ligne de délimitation devait donc consister en une ligne
d'équidistance tracéesans tenir compte de ces saillants de la côte. Le
Canada indiquaitnéanmoins que, pendant lesnégociations alorsen cours,
il s'abstiendrait de revendiquer publiquement les zones situéesau-delàde
la ligne déjàpubliéeen 1976ou d'y exercer sajurisdiction.
72. Par note du 2 décembre 1977, le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis
rejeta la demande du Canada ; il renouvela son refus de l'ancienne ligne
canadienne, considéréepar lui comme non conforme aux principes équi-
tables, en raison des circonstances spécialespropres à la région,affirmant
qu'une ligne répondant à ces principes devrait tenir compte de la confi-
guration côtière de la régionet en particulier de l'effet de déformation
produit par la concavitédu littoral des Etats-Unis et par la protubérance
de la péninsulede Nouvelle-Ecosse.
73. Les Etats-Unis, pour leur part, ne devaient proposer une correction
de leur ligne de 1976 qu'au début de la présente instance devant latherefore from this double perspective, involving both the delimitation of
the continental shelf and, more especially, its new intention to set up a
200-mile exclusive fishery zone, that the United States formalized its
position by publishing in the Federal Register of 4 November 1976 the
CO-ordinatesof aline delimiting both the continental shelf and the fishery
zones. This line generally corresponded to the line of greatest depth ; it
carefully separated, in the inner zone of the Gulf of Maine, the fishing
grounds of the northeastern part from those of the southwestern part, and
in the outer zone, Browns Bank from Georges Bank. Skirting the outer
edgeof the latter Bank, it thus reached the slope of thecontinental margin
via the Northeast Channel. It iseasyto discern the dominant idea underly-
ing this United States line.
71. Canada, on the other hand, having published on 1November 1976
the CO-ordinatesof aline which, ashas been seen,was described asstrictly
equidistant, and which was intended to indicate graphically its position in
regard to thedelimitation of thecontinental shelfin thearea, decided on 14
October 1977to modify its line. Following the Decision rendered on 30
June 1977by the Court of Arbitration in the Anglo-French Continental
ShelfDelimitation case,whilethe negotiations referred to inparagraph 69
were in progress, Canada indicated that its boundary claim would be
adjusted to reflect what it regarded as the legal significance of that deci-
sion ; and it gaveforma1notice of such adjustment by adiplomatic Note to
the United States Govemment dated 3 November 1977. It was there
explained that in the view of Canada the application to the factual situ-
ation in the Gulf of Maine area of the principles of law enunciated and
elucidated in the Anglo-French Decision justified the drawing of a line
other than the strict equidistance line, in viewof the existence of "special
circumstances" ascontemplated by Article 6 of the 1958Geneva Conven-
tion. The circumstances in question were the projections seawards of the
exceptionally long peninsula of Cape Cod and the islands of Nantucket
and Martha's Vineyard, added to the marked protrusion of the United
States coastline southeast of Boston ; the delimitation line should there-
fore be an equidistance line drawn without reference to these coastal
projections. Canada however indicated that pending the then current
negotiations, it would not publicly assert or enforce its claim beyond the
equidistance line already published in 1976.
72. By a Note of 2 December 1977, the United States Government
rejected the Canadian claim ; it reiterated its rejection of the previous
Canadian lineasnot in conformity with equitableprinciples because of the
special circumstances of the area, and expressed the viewthat a line which
accorded with equitable principles wasone taking into account thecoastal
configuration of the area,particularly thedistorting effect of the concavity
of the United Statescoastline and theprotrusion on thepeninsula of Nova
Scotia.
73. Asfor the position of the United States,it was only at the beginning
of the present proceedings before the Chamber that it proposed any (Voirparagraphes68 à 70)
Ligne des Etats-Unis - -- - - - -
.-.-.-.
Ligne du Canada -
43 (seeparagraphs68-70)
United States line -------
Canadian line - .- . - .- .Chambre. A cemoment-là lesEtats-Unis croiront euxaussiopportun de se
fonder, au départ, sur une méthodegéométrique, celle de la perpendicu-
laritépar rapport à la direction généraledela côte.Toutefois, comme on le
verra plus en détailpar la suite, la ligne perpendiculaire ajustée ))alors
avancée n'ensera pas moins influencéede façon déterminante, dans les
ajustements qu'elle comportera et dans le cheminement assez compliqué
qui en découlera,par l'intention initiale de séparerles régimes écolo-
giques >que les Etats-Unis tiennent à distinguer à propos des ressources
halieutiques de la région.
74. Le 25janvier 1978le Canada demanda que certains lots du banc de
Georges sur lesquels les Etats-Unis devaient mettre en vente des conces-
sions sur le plateau continental le 31janvier 1978fussent retirésde cette
adjudication ;ceslotssetrouvaient au sud-ouest de la ligne d'équidistance
revendiquée àl'origine par le Canada, mais du côté canadien de la ligne
reviséedu 3 novembre 1977, qui n'avait pas encore fait l'objet d'une
publication. Le 28janvier 1978le retrait deslots en question fut annoncé,
pour la raison qu'ils étaientsitués <(dans la zone qui, selon la revendica-
tion du Canada, devrait faire l'objet de négociationsentre les Etats-Unis
et le Canada D,mais les Etats-Unis précisèrentdans une note du 3 février
1978qu'ils ne sauraient donner leur adhésionni leur consentement à la
nouvelle position canadienne. Le 15 septembre 1978 le Canada rendit
publique sa revendication du 3 novembre 1977 en faisant paraître dans
la Gazette du Canada un projet de décret élargissantla zone de pêche
canadienne ; le texte définitifdevait être promulguéle 25janvier 1979.Par
note du 20 septembre 1978 les Etats-Unis réitérèrentque la nouvelle
prétention canadienne étaitsans fondement ; ils affirmaient dans cette
note que le banc de Georges constituait un prolongement naturel du ter-
ritoire des Etats-Unis, que, vu les circonstances spécialesde la régiondu
golfe du Maine, la ligne d'équidistancene serait pas conforme aux prin-
cipes équitableset qu'il n'y avait aucune raison, en droit international,
d'écarter l'effetdu cap Cod ou de l'île de Nantucket pour déterminer la
frontière maritime. Les Etats-Unis faisaient valoir en outre que l'élar-
gissement des prétentions canadiennes en cours de négociation était
contraire aux obligations que la convention de Genève de 1958 impose
aux Etats, et précisaient qu'ilscontinueraient à exercer la juridiction
en matière de pêchedans la zone nouvellement revendiquée par le
Canada.
75. Aprèsque, le 15octobre 1977,lesdeuxnégociateursspéciauxeurent
présenté leurrapport conjoint (approuvé par les deux gouvernements le
21 octobre 1977),les négociationsse poursuivirent, bien que lentement et
difficilement. En mars 1979il fut convenu de soumettre en bloc à l'ap-
probation des Gouvernements du Canada et des Etats-Unis deux traités
liésl'unet l'autre :le traitévisantà soumettre au règlementobligatoire le
différendrelatif àladélimitationde lafrontièremaritime dans la régiondu
golfedu Maine,et l'accord surlesressourceshalieutiques de lacôte est ;ces
deux instruments furent signésle29 mars 1979 ;les deux pays reconnais-
saient qu'iln'yavait pas lieu de continuer à échanger unecorrespondancecorrection ofits lineof 1976.At that time, the United Statesalso thought it
advisable to take its stand primarily on a geometrical method, that of the
perpendicular to thegeneraldirection of thecoast. However,aswillbeseen
in greater detail later, the "adjusted perpendicular" then proposed was
nonetheless decisivelyinfluenced in theadjustments it featured, andin its
resulting rather complicated course,by the original intention of separating
the "ecological régimes" whichthe United States regards as distinct in
respect of the fishing resources of the area.
74. On 25 January 1978, Canada requested that certain tracts on
Georges Bank, over which continental shelf leases were to be offered for
sale on 31January 1978by the United States, should be withdrawn from
the sale ;these tracts lay to the south-west of the original equidistance line
claimed by Canada, but on the Canadian side of the revised line of 3
November 1977,whichhadnot yetbeen made public. On 28January 1978
the deletion of the tracts inquestion from thesale wasannounced, asbeing
"within the area claimed by Canada to be subject to negotiation between
the United States and Canada", but the United States made it clear in a
Note of 3February 1978that it would not giveany credence or recognition
to thenew Canadian position. On 15September 1978,Canada madepublic
its claim of 3 November 1977,by way of the publication in the Canada
Gazette of a proposed Order in Council extending the Canadian fishing
zone, which Order was published in final form on 25 January 1979.By a
Note of 20 September 1978,the United States reiterated its view that the
new Canadian claim waswithout foundation ;it asserted in theNote that
Georges Bank is a natural prolongation of United States territory, that in
view of the special circumstances in the Gulf of Maine area, the equidis-
tance line would not be in accordance with equitable principles, and that
there wasnojustification in international lawfor discountingthe effectof
Cape Cod or Nantucket Island in determining themaritimeboundary. The
United States objected further that expansion of the Canadian claimin the
midst of negotiations was not in keeping with the obligations of States
under the 1958Geneva Convention, and indicated that it would continue
to exercise fisheriesjurisdiction in the area of the expanded claim.
75. Sincethe submission, on 15October 1977,of thejoint report of the
two special negotiators (approved by both Governments on 21 October
1977),negotiations between them had continued, though only slowlyand
with difficulty. In March 1979agreement was reached to submit for the
approval of the Governments of Canada and the United Statesa package
of twolinked treaties :theTreaty to Subrnitto BindingDispute Settlement
the Delimitation of theMaritime Boundary in the Gulf of Mainearea, and
the Agreement on East Coast Fisheries Resources ;these two instruments
were signed on 29 March 1979, and it was also agreed that further
exchanges of diplomatic correspondence on the legal merits of the posi-diplomatique sur le bien-fondéjuridique des positions des deux gouver-
nements, compte tenu de la solution globale proposée.
76. Lesdeux traitésétaient présentéscommie nterdépendants etdevant
entrer en vigueur ensemble ;toutefois il ne fut pas possible de les ratifier
tous deux. Le 6 mars 1981le président desEtats-Unis retira l'accord de
pêche,qui avait étésoumis pour examen au Sénatdes Etats-Unis, et des
propositions furent faites au Canada en vue de modifier le traité de
règlement de la frontière pour qu'il puisse entrer en vigueur à part. Le
Gouvernement des Etats-Unis donnait au Gouvernement du Canada
l'assurance que, si le traité de règlement de la frontière étaitratifié,les
Etats-Unis s'abstiendraient de prendre des mesures de police contre les
bateaux de pêchecanadiens setrouvant dans toutes leszonesrevendiquées
par le Canada tant que la frontière n'aurait pasfait l'objet d'une décision.
Les instruments de ratification du traité de règlement de la question
frontalièrefurent échangélse20novembre 1981et,le25novembre 1981,le
compromis destiné à soumettre l'affaireà une chambre de la Cour fut
notifiéau Greffe.
77. La définition en coordonnéesgéographiquesde la ligne proposée
par chaque Partie faitpartie intégrantede ses conclusions formelles (voir
les paragraphes 12 et 13ci-dessus). La ligne canadienne, que le Canada
qualifie, comme la précédente,de ligne d'équidistance,consiste en une
ligne construite dans sa quasi-totalitàpartir des points les plus proches
deslignesde base d'oùest mesuréelalargeur dela mer territoriale. Ils'agit,
en l'occurrence, uniquement d'îles, de rochers ou de hauts-fonds décou-
vrants. Une exception est faite cependant pour les points de base choisis
sur la côte du Massachusetts, qui ont ététransférésde l'extrémité exté-
rieure de la péninsuledu cap Cod et de l'îlede Nantucket, considérable-
ment plus à l'ouestà l'embouchure estdu canal du cap Cod. La ligneainsi
tracée est celleque leCanada anotifiéeaux Etats-Unis le3novembre 1977
et a rendue publique dans laGazette du Canadadu 15septembre 1978.La
ligne qui, d'après les Etats-Unis, constituerait une limite appropriée est
d'une construction un peu plus complexe, bien que sajustification soit
simple : elle est présentéecomme consistant en une perpendiculaire à la
direction généralede la côte, tracéeau point de départ convenu par les
Parties, cette perpendiculaire étantensuite ajustéepour tenir compte des
circonstances pertinentes propresa la région,autrement dit pour éviterde
diviser des bancs de pêche. Elle diffède la <ligne du chenal Nord-Est ))
adoptéepar les Etats-Unis le 4 novembre 1976 :d'après lesEtats-Unis,
cettedernièresuivaitgénéralemenltalignedeplusgrande profondeurdans
le bassin du golfe du Maine et le chenal Nord-Est et se situaià distance
plus ou moins égaledesisobathes de 100brasses, àl'intérieurdudit bassin.
Toujours d'aprèsses auteurs, cette première ligneaurait étéconforme àla
règle<<équidistance/circonss péaciales>énoncée par l'article 6 de la
convention de Genève de 1958 et aurait retenu, comme circonstancestions of the two Governments were not necessary in viewof the package
proposed.
76. The two treaties were drawn so as to be interdependent, being
expressed to come into force together ;however ratification of them both
was not achieved. On 6 March 1981 the Fisheries Agreement was with-
drawn by the President of the United States from consideration by the
United States Senate, and proposals weremade toCanada foramendment
of the boundary settlement Treaty so as to enable it to be put into force
independently. The United States Government gave the Canadian Gov-
ernment assurances that if the boundary settlement Treaty were ratified,
the United States would refrain from enforcement activities against Can-
adian fishingvesselsin al1areasclaimed by Canada until the boundary was
established by adjudication. Instruments of ratification of the boundary
settlement Treaty were exchanged on 20 November 1981, and on 25
November 1981 the special agreement for the reference of the case to a
chamber of the Court was notified to the Registry.
77. The description, in terms of geographic CO-ordinates,of the line
proposed hasconstituted part of the forma1subrnissionsof eachParty (see
paragraphs 12and 13, above).The Canadian line,wluch Canada describes,
as it did the one preceding it, as an equidistance line, consists of a line
constructed almost entirely from the nearest points of the baselines from
which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. In this instance, this
means solelyislands, rocks orlow-tide elevations.An exception ishowever
made for thebasepoints selectedon thecoast of Massachusetts, whichhave
been transferred from the outer end of the peninsula of Cape Cod and
Nantucket Island, much further to the West,to the eastern end of the Cape
CodCanal.This istheline whichCanada notified to the United States on 3
November 1977and made public in the Canada Gazetteon 15September
1978.The line which the United States puts fonvard as the appropriate
boundary is somewhat more complex in its construction, though its jus-
tification is simple : it is presented as a perpendicular to the general
direction of the coast from the starting-point agreed upon by the Parties,
adjusted to take account of the relevant circumstances of the area, i.e., to
avoid the splitting of fishingbanks. It differs from the "Northeast Channel
line" - the line adopted by the United States on 4 November 1976wluch,
as the United States has explained, generally followed the line of deepest
water through the Gulf of Maine basin and the Northeast Channel, and
was approximately equidistant between the 100-fathom depth contours
there. According to its authors, this initial line was based upon the
"equidistance/special circumstances" rule of Article 6 of the 1958Geneva
Convention, taking into account, as special circumstances, the configura-
tion of the coasts, the location of the land boundary, the position of the
fishing banks in the area, and the Northeast Channel. In contrast, thespéciales,laconfigurationdes côtes,lalocalisation de lafrontièreterrestre,
la position des bancs de pêchede la régionet le chenal Nord-Est. En
revanche la perpendiculaire à la direction généralede la côte que les
Etats-Unis préconisent aujourd'hui a étésubstituée à la ligne de 1976,
d'abord parce que celle-ciétait en deçàde ce qui, d'aprèsles Etats-Unis,
doit leur revenir dedroit ;ensuite en raison de l'évolutionconsidérabledu
droitentre 1976etla datedu dépôt desmémoires en l'affaire.En réponse à
une question d'un membre de la Chambre, les Etats-Unis ont en outre
appelél'attention surlesexplications donnéesau sujet de la ligne dans des
mémorandadu départementd'Etat de 1976-1977et ont exposéquela ligne
du chenal Nord-Est, qui suivait la ligne des plus grands fonds depuis le
point terminal de la frontière internationale jusqu'à l'océanAtlantique,
tenait davantage compte des conditions géologiqueset géomorpholo-
giques dans la régiondu golfe du Maine qu'il n'a semblé justifié après
l'arrêt rendupar la Cour en 1982 dans l'affaire du Plateau continental
(Tunisie/Jamahiriya arabe libyenne).
78. En résuméo , n peut dire que les deux lignes de délimitationsucces-
sivementavancéespar leCanada sont toutesdeuxdespropositionsétablies
surtout enconsidérationdu ~lateaucontinental.mêmesiellessetraduisent
par deslignesuniques quisont censéess'appliquer aussi àlazone de pêche.
Les deux lignes de délimitation desEtats-Unis sont, par contre, des pro-
positions de lignes uniques procédant au départ deconsidérationsdiffé-
rentes, mais qui toutes deuxattribuent une valeur essentielle au régimedes
pêcheries.En tout cas, il est certain que la distance entre les positions
respectives des Parties, entre le moment où le différendest apparu dans
leursrelations et lemoment où il a été soumis aujugement de la Chambre,
s'est singulièrement accrue.Aucun signe de rapprochement n'a étécons-
tatéau cours de l'instance, si ce n'est un certain penchant dont les deux
Parties ont fait montre à souligner chacune les méritesde sa proposition
initialeetà mettre en évidence l'intentionqui l'avaitinspirée.Les conclu-
sionsformuléespar leCanadaet par les Etats-Unis à la fin de la procédure
orale n'ont fait que confirmer les lignes respectivement présentéesdans
leurs premières pièces écrites.
79. L'article II, paragraphe 1,du compromis, comme il a été rappelé,
indique que :((La Chambre est priéede statuer [surla question qui lui est
posée]conformémentauxrèglesetprincipesdudroitinternational applicables
en la matière entre les Parties.>)(Les italiques sont de la Chambre.) Le
moment est donc venu de passer à l'examen du problème de la détermi-
nation des règlesde droit qui, dans l'ordre juridique international, régis-
sent la matière en cause en la présente espèce.Quant à l'association des
termes règles ))et principes ))il ne s'agit,de l'avisde la Chambre, que
d'une expression doublepour énoncerla même idéec,ar dans ce contexte
on entend manifestement par principes des principes de droit, donc aussiperpendicular to the general direction of the Coast,now advanced by the
United States, has been substituted for theline of 1976,firstly because the
earlier line was not as broad a claim as that to which the United States
believed it is legally entitled; and secondly because of the considerable
development of the law between 1976and the date of filing of the Mem-
orials. In reply to a question by a member of the Chamber, the United
States further drew attention to explanations of the line given in Depart-
ment of State Memoranda of 1976/1977,and explained that the Northeast
Channel line - which followed the line of deepest water from the inter-
national boundary terminus to the Atlantic Ocean - gave more effect to
the geological and geomorphological circumstances of the Gulf of Maine
area than proved, in the light of the Court's 1982Judgment on the Con-
tinental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jarnahiriyu), to be warranted.
78. In sum, one may Saythat the two successive lines put forward by
Canada were both proposed delimitation lines drawn primarily with the
continental shelfin mind, evenif they areboth singleboundaries which are
supposed to apply to the fishery zone also. The Two United States delimi-
tation lines,on thecountrary, areboth proposals for single-boundary lines
drawn up initially on the basis of different considerations, but both treat-
ing the fishery régimeas essential. In any case, it is certain that the gap
between the Parties' respective positions has become noticeably wider
between the moment when the dispute appeared in their relations and the
moment of its being referred forjudgment to the Chamber. There was no
sight of any rapprochementduring the proceedings, except for a certain
tendency on each side to stress the merits of its initial proposa1 and to
emphasize the intentions that had lain behind it.The submissions formu-
lated by both Canada and the United States at the end of the oral pro-
ceedingsonly servedto confirm the linewhich each Party had presented in
its initial written submissions.
79. Asalready stated, Article II, paragraph 1,of the SpecialAgreement
provides that "The Chamber isrequested to decide [thequestionsubmitted
to it] in accordance withiheprinciples and rulesof internationallawapplic-
able inthe matter as betweenthe Parties" (emphasis added). The time has
therefore come to begin consideration of the problem of ascertaining the
rules of law, in the international legal order, which govern the matter at
issue in the present case. In the Chamber's opinion, the association of the
terms "rules" and "principles" isno more than the useof adual expression
to convey one and the same idea, since in thiscontext "principles" clearly
means principles of law,that is,it also includes rules ofinternational lawin (Voirparagraphes 71, 77et 78)
Ligne des Etats-Unis -- - - -- -
Ligne du Canada - . -. - .- .
47 DELIMITATIOL NINESPROPOSED BY THE PARTIES BEFORE
THE CHAMBER
(seeparagraphs 71, 77-78)
United States line - -- -- - -
Canadian line - '- .- . - .des règlesdu droit internationalpour lesquellesl'appellation de principes
peut êtrejustifiéeen raison de leur caractère plus général et plusfonda-
mental.
80. Une remarque préliminaire s'imposeavant d'aborder le fond de la
question. Il paraît en effet essentiel de souligner avant tout la distinàtion
faire entre ce qui constitue des principes et règlesdu droit international
régissantla matière et ce qui serait plutôt des critères équitableset des
méthodes pratiques susceptibles les uns et les autres d'êtreutiliséspour
faire en sorte qu'une situation déterminée soit concrètementrégléeen
conformitéavec les principes et règlesen question.
81. Ledroit international, etendisant celailest logiqueque la Chambre
se réfèreen premier lieu au droit international coutumier, ne peut, par sa
nature même,fournir dans une matière comme celle du présent arrêtque
quelques principesjuridiques de base qui énoncent desdirectives à suivre
envued'unbut essentiel.Ilnefaut pas s'attendre à cequ'ilspécifieaussiles
critèreséquitables à appliquer et les méthodes pratiques et souvent tech-
niques à utiliser pour atteindre lebut en question, critèreset méthodesqui
restent tels même lorsqu'onles qualifie aussi, mais dans un autre sens, de
(<principes D. La pratique, d'ailleurs, bien qu'encore peu abondante à
cause de la nouveauté relative de la matière, estlà pour démontrer que
chaque cas concret est finalement différent desautres, qu'il estun unicum,
et que les critères lesplus appropriés etla méthode ou la combinaison de
méthodes la plus apte à assurer un résultat conforme aux indications
donnéespar le droit, ne peuvent le plus souvent êtredéterminésque par
rapport au cas d'espèceet aux caractéristiquesspécifiques qu'ilprésente.
Les conditions pour la formation de principes et règlesde nature coutu-
mièredonnant des prescriptions précisessur des sujets comme ceux qui
viennent d'être mentionnés ne sauraient donc êtreréunies.
82. Dans le droit international conventionnel, en revanche, les choses
peuvent se présenter différemment,car rien n'empêche,par exemple, les
partiesà une convention - soit bilatéralesoit multilatéral- d'étendre la
réglementationqu'ellesyprévoient à des aspects que ledroitinternational
coutumier pourrait plus difficilement aborder. Maisalorslaprudence doit
être derigueur dans la lecture du texte de la convention. Tout d'abord il
faut garder présent àl'esprit, lors de l'examende ce texte et parfois d'une
seuleetmêmeclause,ladistinction surl'importance de laquelle l'attention
vient d'être attirentredes principeset règlesde droitinternational que la
convention énoncerait et des critères et méthodes dont elle entendrait
prévoir l'applicationdans des circonstances déterminées.
83. Cesprémisses poséesi,lva de soique, pour une chambre de la Cour,
le point de départ du raisonnement en la matière ne peut êtreque la
référence àl'article 38,paragraphe 1,du Statut de celle-ci.Aux fins que la
Chambre envisage au stade actuel de son raisonnement, à savoir la déter-
mination desprincipes et règlesdedroit international régissanten général
la matière des délimitationsmaritimes, il sera fait référenceaux conven-
tions (lettre a) de l'article 38àla coutume internationale (lettre b)à la
définitionde laquelle lesdécisionsjudiciaires(lettre d))émanantsoit de lawhose case the use of the term "principles" may be justified because of
their more general and more fundamental character.
80. One preliminary remark is necessary before wecome to the essence
ofthe matter, sinceit seemsabove al1essential to stressthedistinction tobe
drawn between what are principles and rules of international law govern-
ing thematter and what could be better described as the various equitable
criteria and practicalmethods that may be used to ensure inconcret0 that a
particular situation is dealt with in accordance with the principles and
rules in question.
81. In a matter of this kind, international law - and in this respect the
Chamber has logicallyto refer primarily to customary international law -
can of its nature only provide a fewbasiclegal principles, which lay down
guidelines to be followed with a view to an essential objective. It cannot
also be expected to specify the equitable criteria to be applied or the
practical,often technical, methods tobe usedfor attaining that objective -
which remain simply criteria and methods even where they are also, in a
different sense, called "principles". Although the practice is still rather
sparse, owing to the relative newness of the question, it too is there to
demonstratethat each specificcase is, in the final analysis, different from
al1the others, that it is monotypic and that, more often than not, the most
appropriate criteria. and the method or combination of methods most
likely to yield a result consonant with what the law indicates, can only be
determined in relation to each particular case and its specific character-
istics. This precludes the possibility of those conditions arising which are
necessaryfor theformation ofprinciples and rules of customary lawgiving
specific provisions for subjects like those just mentioned.
82. The same may not, however, be true of international treaty law.
There is, for instance, nothing to prevent the parties to a convention -
whether bilateral or multilateral - from extending the rules contained in
that convention to aspects which it is less likely that customary interna-
tional lawmight govern. In that event, however,the text of the convention
must be read with caution. The first thing to remember in exarnining the
text, and sometimes even a singleclause,is the distinction, the importance
of which hasjust been indicated, between principles and rules of intema-
tional law enunciated in the convention and criteria and methods for
whose application it might provide in particular circumstances.
83. With these premises established, a chamber of the Court, in its
reasoning on the matter, must obviously begin by referring to Article 38,
paragraph 1,ofthe Statute of the Court. For thepurpose of the Chamber at
the present stage of its reasoning, which is to ascertain the principles and
rules of international law which in general govern the subject of maritime
delimitation, reference will be made to conventions (Art. 38, para. 1(a))
and international custom (para. 1 (b)), to the definition of which the
judicial decisions (para. 1(d))either of theCourt or of arbitration tribunalsCour, soitde tribunauxarbitraux, ontjusqu'ici sensiblement contribué.En
ce qui concerne les conventions, ne peuvent entrer en ligne de compte que
les<<conventions générales )etnotamment lesconventions de codification
du droit de la mer auxquelles les deux Etats seraient parties. Il en est ainsi
non pas seulementparce que, en dehors du compromisdu 29mars 1979,il
n'y a pas de conventions spécialesen vigueur entre les Parties au présent
différendet intéressantla matière, mais surtout parce que c'est dans les
conventions de codification que l'on peut décelerdes principes et règles
généralement applicables.C'est d'ailleurssur la toile de fond du droit
international coutumier qu'il faut situer et interpréter les conventions de
cette nature.
84. Dans un ordre chronologique, la première convention multilatérale
à prendre en considérationest donc la convention du 29 avril 1958sur le
plateau continental, qui a étéenson temps ratifiéepar les deux Parties, et
dont ces dernières reconnaissent qu'elle est en vigueur entre elles. La
Chambre reviendra par la suitesur lesconséquencesde cetteconstatation
pour le cas d'espèce. L'objetde cette convention, comme son titre l'in-
dique, est uniquement le fond de la mer avec son sous-sol. La Chambre
relèvequ'à l'époqueaucun problèmede détermination de limites concer-
nant leseaux sujacentes au plateau continental ne s'étaitencoreprésenté.
Elle fait d'ailleurs observer,à ce propos, que la convention des Nations
Unies sur le droit de la mer de 1982elle-mêmeq , ui n'estpas actuellement
en vigueur et qui entend consacrer l'institution d'une zone économique
exclusive,ne prévoitpas encore l'idéed'une délimitation des deux objets
selon une ligne unique, dont le cas présent est le premier exemple.
85. Les dispositions pertinentes de la convention de 1958sont les deux
premiers paragraphes de l'article 6, qui sont libellésainsi :
<<1. Dans le cas où un mêmeplateau continental est adjacent au
territoire de deux ou plusieurs Etats dont les côtes se font face, la
délimitationdu plateaucontinentalentre ces Etats est déterminéepar
accord entre ces Etats. A défautd'accord, et à moins que des circons-
tances spécialesnejustifient une autre délimitation,celle-ci est cons-
tituéepar la ligne médianedont tous les points sont équidistants des
points les plus proches des lignes de base à partir desquelles est
mesurée lalargeur de la mer territoriale de chacun de ces Etats.
2. Dans le cas où un même plateaucontinental est adjacent aux
territoires de deux Etats limitrophes, la délimitationdu plateau con-
tinental est déterminéepar accord entre ces Etats. A défautd'accord,
et à moins que des circonstances spécialesne justifient une autre
délimitation,celle-ci s'opèrepar application du principe de l'équi-
distance des points les plus proches des lignes de base à partir des-
quelles est mesurée lalargeur de la mer territoriale de chacun de
ces Etats.))
86. La lecture de ces textes fait apparaître dans sa réalisation concrète
quelquechose dont la Chambre a envisagélapossibilité à titre d'hypothèse
théorique.En effet, lesdeux dispositions icireproduites énoncent à la fois,have already made a substantial contribution. So far as conventions are
concerned, only "general conventions", including, interalia, the conven-
tions codifying the lawof the sea to which thetwoStates areparties, can be
considered. This is not merely because no particular conventions bearing
on the matter at issue(apart from the SpecialAgreement of 29March 1979)
are in force between the Parties to thepresent dispute, but mainly because
it is in codifying conventions that principles and rules of general appli-
cation can be identified. Suchconventionsmust, moreover, be seenagainst
the background of customary international law and interpreted in its
light.
84. Chronologically speaking, the first multilateral convention to be
considered is, therefore, the Convention on the Continental Shelf of 29
April 1958, which both Parties have in time ratified and which they
acknowledge to be in force between them. The Chamber will examine
below the consequences of this finding for the present case. This Conven-
tion, as its title indicates, concerns only the sea-bed and its subsoil. The
Chamber notes that, at the time of its conclusion, no problem of deter-
mining boundaries for the waters superjacent to the continental shelf had
yet arisen. It would also point out in this connection that even the 1982
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is not yet in
force, and which is intended to endorse the institution of an exclusive
economic zone, still does not provide for the delimitation of both objects
by a single line, an idea of which the present case is the first example.
85. The relevant provisions of the 1958Convention are paragraphs 1
and 2 of Article 6, which read :
"1. Where the same continental shelf is adjacent to the territories
of two or more States whose coasts are opposite each other, the
boundary of the continental shelf appertaining to such States shallbe
determined by agreement between them. In the absence of agreement,
and unlessanotherboundary lineisjustified by specialcircumstances,
the boundary is the median line, every point of which is equidistant
from thenearest points of the baselines from which the breadth of the
territorial sea of each State is measured.
2. Where the same continental shelfis adjacent to the territories of
two adjacent States, the boundary of the continental shelf shall be
determined by agreement between them. In the absence of agreement,
and unlessanotherboundary lineisjustified by specialcircumstances,
the boundary shall be determined by application of the principle of
equidistance from the nearest point of the baselines from which the
breadth of the territorial sea of each State is measured."
86. Perusal of these texts discloses a concrete example in practice of
something whch the Chamber has contemplated above as a theoretical
hypothesis. These two paragraphs enunciate at the same time somethnget ce qui est un principe de droit international régissant leproblème de la
détermination deslimites de plateau continental entre deux ou plusieurs
Etats, et ce qui, comme indiquéplus haut au paragraphe 80, se présente
plutôt comme un critère équitable accompagnéd'une méthodepratique à
utiliser, dans certaines conditions, aux fins d'opérer la délimitation.
87. Le principe de droit international qui se trouve énoncédans la
premièrephrase des deux dispositions est simple, mais il ne faut pas pour
autant en sous-estimer l'importance. Il nefautpas y voir une pure << vérité
allant de soiD.Ceprincipe entendsurtout prescrire par implicationqu'une
délimitation du plateau continental qu'un Etat établirait par voie unila-
térale,sans sesoucier des vuesdel'autre ou des autresEtats concernéspar
la délimitation, est inopposable à ces derniers en droit international. Le
mêmeprincipe entraîne égalementl'application des règles connexes pré-
voyant l'obligation de négocier en vuede la réalisation d'un accord, et
de négocierde bonne foi, avec le propos réelde parvenir à un résultat
positif.
88. La seconde phrase des paragraphes 1 et 2 de l'article 6 de la con-
vention de 1958prévoit,comme on vient de le dire, l'utilisation de critères
et méthodes déterminés pour tracer une délimitation dans les cas ou il
aurait étéimpossible de parvenir à un accord. Une prise en considération
de leurs avantages et désavantages, ainsique de leur valeur plus ou moins
contraignante dans le présent litige, ne s'impose pas au stade actuel du
raisonnement de la Chambre. Cette prise en considération trouvera sa
place plus loin, au moment ou précisémentl'on abordera le problème des
critères etméthodes àutiliser aux fins d'une délimitation.
89. Pour en rester pour lemoment au problèmeposé ici, à savoirceluide
la détermination desprincipes et règlesdu droit international concernant
la matière de la délimitation de frontières maritimes, la conclusion qui
s'impose est aussinette que simple :c'est cellequi met en évidence l'af-
firmation par la convention du principe déjà énoncéet illustrédans sa
substance et dans ses implications au paragraphe 87 ci-dessus et qui se
résume à ceci: toute délimitation doit se faire consensuellement entre les
Etats concernés, que ce soit par la conclusion d'un accord direct, ou
éventuellementpar une voie de substitution, mais ayant toujours une base
consensuelle. A celaon peut àla rigueur ajouter, bien que laconvention de
1958n'en fasse pas mention, et en allant donc un peu loin dans l'inter-
prétation de son texte, que l'on peut estimer qu'une règle logiquement
sous-jacente au principe que l'on vient de rappeler demande que tout
accord ou toute autre solution équivalentese traduise par l'application de
critères équitables,à savoir de critères empruntés à l'équité, maisqui -
qu'on lesqualifie de <principes ))ou de critères D,comme la Chambre le
croit préférable pour des raisonsde clarté - ne sont pas eux-mêmesdes
principes et règlesde droit international.
90. Par contre, le principe de droit international - à savoir que la
délimitation doit s'effectuer par accord - qui, comme la Chambre l'a
souligné,est énoncé àl'article6 de la convention, ainsi que, si l'on veut,la
règlequi lui est sous-jacente, sont des principes déjàclairement affirmés GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 292
which is a principle of international law governing the problem of deter-
mining continental shelf boundaries between two or more States and, as
indicated in paragraph 80 above, something which appears rather as an
equitable criterion backed by a practical method to be used in certain
circumstances for effecting the delimitation.
87. Theprinciple ofinternational lawstated in thefirstsentence of each
of the two paragraphs is simple, yet its importance must not be underes-
timated. It must not be seen as a mere "self-evident truth". The thrust of
this principle is to establish by implication that any delimitation of the
continental shelf effected unilaterally by one State regardless of the views
of the otherState or Statesconcerned isin international lawnot opposable
to those States. The same principle also entails application of the related
rules as to the duty to negotiate with a viewto reaching agreement, and to
do so in good faith, with a genuine intention to achieve a positive
result.
88. As hasjust been observed, the second sentence of paragraphs 1and
2 of Article 6 of the 1958Convention contemplates the use of specified
criteria and methods for effecting the delimitation in cases where it has
proved impossible to reach agreement. No assessment of their advantages
and disadvantages, or of the extent to which they are or are not binding in
the present dispute, is necessary at the present stage of the Chamber's
deliberations. Suchassessment willbe appropriate later, when theproblem
arises of the criteria and methods to be used for delimitation.
89. With regard solely, for the present, to the problem arising at this
stage, that is toSaythat of ascertaining the principles and rules of inter-
national law applicable to maritime delimitation, the inevitable conclu-
sion, which is definite, yet simple, is that the Convention clearly affirms a
principle the substance and implications ofwhichhave already been stated
in paragraph 87 above :the principle, in brief, that any delimitation must
be effected by agreement between the States concerned, either by the
conclusion of a direct agreement or, if need be, by some alternative
method, which must, however, be based on consent. To this one might
conceivably add - although the 1958Convention does not mention the
idea, so that it entails going alittle farin interpreting the tex- that a rule
which may be regarded as logically underlying the principlejust stated is
that any agreement or other equivalent solution should involve the appli-
cation of equitable criteria, namely criteria derived from equity which -
whether theybedesignated "principles" or "criteria", the latter term being
preferred by the Chamber for reasons of clarity - are not in themselves
principles and rules of international law.
90. In contrast, the principle of international law - that delimitation
must be effected by agreement - which, as the Chamber has noted above,
is expressed in Article 6 of the 1958Convention, and additionally, it may
be thought, the implicit rule it enshrines, are principles already clearlypar ledroit international coutumier,desprincipesqui, à cause de cela, sont
certainement d'application générale, etvalables à l'égardde tous les Etats
ainsi que par rapport à toutes sortes de délimitations maritimes.
91. Aprèscet examen de la portéede l'effort de codification de 1958 à
propos du problème considéréici, il y a lieu d'évoquer laportéequant au
mêmeproblème de l'arrêtde la Cour du 20 février1969relatif au Plateau
continentalde la mer du Nord. Cet arrêt, connupour avoir donnéau lien
entre l'institution juridique du plateau continental et le fait physique du
prolongement naturel du territoire une importance plus marquéeque celle
qui lui a étéaccordéepar la suite, représente néanmoinsla décisionjudi-
ciaire qui a le plus contribué à la formation du droit coutumier en la
matière.De ce oint devue.sesacauisdemeurent incontestés. En retracant
l'évolution his;orique du droit intirnational coutumier à ce sujet, cet &rêt
part de la prise en considération de la proclamation Truman du 28 sep-
tembre 1945,qui déclaraitqu'entre les Etats-Unis et leurs voisins la déli-
mitation du plateau continental des Etats limitrophes devait s'opérerpar
voie d'accord et <conformément à des principes équitables D. (De ces
deux notions D, relèvela Cour, <a procédétoute l'évolutionhistorique
postérieure (C.I.J. Recueil 1969, p. 33, par. 47). Evoquant ensuite les
travaux de laCommission du droit international, l'arrêtde 1969relèveque,
d'après la Commission, des notions telles que la proximité et ses corol-
laires, et d'autres prétendus principes avancéstantôt d'une part, tantôt
d'une autre, ne comportent pas de règles obligatoires de droit interna-
tional. Après quoi l'arrêtrappelle de nouveau, en s'yassociant, le double
principe que la délimitationdoit êtrel'objet d'un accord entre les Etats
intéresséset que cet accord doit seréaliser selondesprincipeséquitables ))
(ibid.,p.46,par. 85).Ilen déduitladouble obligationpour ces Etats d'~en-
gager une négociation en vue de réaliser unaccord ))et d'~agir de telle
sorte que, dans le cas d'espèce etcompte tenu de toutes les circonstances,
desprincipeséquitables soient appliqués )>(ibid, p.47,par. 85),quelles que
soient les méthodesutiliséespour ce faire.
92. Plus tard, la décisiondu 30 juin 1977 du tribunal arbitral sur la
délimitation du plateau continental entre la France et le Royaume-Uni est
venue confirmer sur cepoint lesconclusions de la Cour dans lesaffaires du
Plateau continentalde la mer duNord et énoncerla règlegénéraledu droit
international coutumier en la matièredans les termes suivants :<<la limite
entre des Etats qui donnent sur le mêmeplateau continental doit,
en l'absence d'accord, êtredéterminéeselon des principes équitables ))
(par. 70).
93. On peut évoquerensuite l'arrêtde laCour du 24février1982relatif à
l'affaire du Plateau continental(Tunisie/Janzahiriya arabe libyenne). La
Cour, il convient de lerappeler, devait statuer sur la base d'un compromis
qui, en lui demandant de déterminer (les principes et règles de droit
international » applicables à ladélimitation,précisaitque la Cour tiendrait
compte (ides principes équitableset des circonstancespertinentes propres affirmed by customary international law,principles which, forthat reason,
areundoubtedly of general application, valid for al1States and in relation
to al1kinds of maritime delimitation.
91. Following thisreviewof the implications forthe present problem of
the endeavour made in 1958to codify the subject, it will now be appro-
priate to consider the bearing on the same problem of the Court's Judg-
ment of 20 February 1969in the North Sea Continental Shelfcases. That
Judgment, while wellknown to have attributed more marked importance
to the link between the legal institution of the continental shelf and the
physical fact of thenatural prolongation than has subsequently been given
to it, is nonetheless the judicial decision which has made the greatest
contribution to the formation of customary law in this field. From this
point of view, its achievements remain unchallenged. Rehearsing the his-
torical development of general international law on the subject, that
Judgment begins by considering the Truman Proclamation of 28 Septem-
ber 1945,which stated that, for the United States and its neighbours, the
delimitation of lateral boundaries between the continental shelves of
adjacent States should be decided by mutual agreement and "in accor-
dance with equitable principles". "These two concepts" the Court noted,
"have underlain al1the subsequent history of the subject" (I.C.J. Reports
1969, p. 33, para. 47). Turning to the work of the International Law
Commission,the 1969Judgment notes that, according tothe Commission,
concepts such as that of proximity and its corollaries, and other alleged
principles variously advanced, do not comprise mandatory rules of inter-
national law. After this the Judgment restates and endorses the dual
principle "that delimitation must be the object of agreement between the
States concerned, and that such agreement must be arrived at in accor-
dance with equitable principles" (ibid., p. 46, para. 85). From this it
deduces the dual obligation for these States to "enter into negotiations
with a viewto arriving at an agreement" and to "act in such a way that, in
the particular case, and taking al1the circumstances into account, equi-
table principles are applied" (ibid., p. 47, para. 85), no matter what
methods are used for this purpose.
92. Subsequently, the Court of Arbitration's Decision of 30 June 1977
on the delimitation of thecontinental shelfbetween France and the United
Kingdom confirms on this point the Court's conclusions in the North Sea
Continental Shelf cases and enunciates as follows the general rule of cus-
tomary international lawon the matter :"failing agreement, theboundary
between Statesabutting on the same continental shelf is to be determined
on equitable principles" (Decision, para. 70).
93. The next relevant decision is the Court's Judgment of 24 February
1982in the case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab
Jumahiriya). In that case, it should be recalled, the Court had to render a
judgment on the basis of a Special Agreement which, besides requesting
the Court to determine "the principles and rules of international 1aw"
applicable to the delimitation, further requested that the Court takea la région, ainsique des tendances récentesadmises a la troisièmecon-
férencesur ledroit delamer >)(compromis, art. 1,C.1J. Recueil1982,p.21,
par. 1). Se référantdonc à l'arrêtprécédentdans les affaires du Plateau
continentalde la mer du Nord, ainsi qu'aux travaux et aux conclusions de
la troisième conférence,l'arrêtde 1982souligne l'importance du (<respect
des principes équitables dans le processus de délimitation (ibid.,p. 47,
par. 44).
94. En ce qui concerne enfin les travaux de la troisièmeconférencedes
Nations Unies sur ledroitde la mer et lerésultat final auquelellea abouti,
la Chambre relèveavant tout que la convention adoptée à la fin de la
conférencen'est pas encore entrée en vigueur et que divers Etats ne se
montrent guère enclins à la ratifier. Mais ceci n'enlève rienau fait du
consensus qui a étéréunisur des parties importantes de l'instrument et
n'empêchesurtout pas de constater que certaines dispositions de la con-
vention relatives au plateau continental eà lazoneéconomiqueexclusive,
qui justement peuvent avoir un intérêt pourle cas d'espèce, n'ontpas
rencontré d'objectionslors de leur adoption. Les Etats-Unis, en particu-
lier, ont proclamé en1983,donc après l'entréeen vigueur du compromis,
unezoneéconomiquesur labase delacinquièmepartiede laconvention de
1982.Cette proclamation était accompagnéed'une déclaration du Prési-
dent, d'après laquelle laconvention confirme de façon générale, encette
matière, les règlesde droit international existantes. Le Canada qui, a
l'heure actuelle, n'a pasfaitde proclamation analogue,a lui aussi reconnu
de son côtéla signification juridique de la nature et du but du nouveau
régimedes 200 milles. Ces constatations concordantes méritent d'être
notées, même si le présentarrêtn'a pas pour objet de délimiterla zone
économique en tant que telle. De l'avis de la Chambre, les dispositions
dont il s'agit, bien que portant parfois la marque du compromis qui a
présidé à leur adoption, peuvent êtreconsidérées commeconformes
actuellement au droit international généralen la matière.
95. A cepropos, il importe d'observer que les articles 74, paragraphe 1,
et 83,paragraphe 1,relatifs respectivementà lazoneéconomiqueexclusive
et au plateau continental, donnent une définition identique de la règlede
droit international en matière de délimitation.Cette définition identique
est la suivante:
(<La délimitation [de la zone économique exclusive] [du plateau
continental] entre Etats dont lescôtes sont adjacentes ou sefont face
est effectuéepar voie d'accord conformémentau droit international
tel qu'il estvisé l'article 38du Statut de la Cour internationale de
Justice, afin d'aboutiràune solution équitable.
Elle se limite donc a exprimer l'exigence du règlement consensuel du
problème et à rappeler le devoir d'aboutirà une solution équitable. Bien
quele texte soit singulièrement succinct,ilfautconstaterquepar sa teneur
il ouvre la portà la poursuite du développementrésultantde lajurispru-
dence internationale en la matière.account of "equitable principles and the relevant circumstances which
characterize the area, as well as the recent trends admitted at the Third
Conference on the Law of the Sea" (Special Agreement, Art. 1, Z.C.J.
Reports 1982,p. 21,para. 1).Referring back to the earlier Judgment in the
North Sea ContinentalSheifcases, and to the proceedings and conclusions
of the Third Conference, the 1982Judgment stresses the importance of
"the satisfaction of equitable principles ...in the delimitation process"
(ibid., p.47, para. 44).
94. Turning lastly to the proceedings of the Third United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea and the final result of that Conference,
the Chamber notes in the first place that the Convention adopted at the
end of the Conference has not yet come into force and that a number of
States do not appear inclined to ratify it. This, however,in no way detracts
from the consensus reached on large portions of theinstrument and, above
all, cannot invalidate the observation that certain provisions of the Con-
vention, concerningthecontinental shelfand the exclusiveeconomic zone,
which may, in fact, be relevant to the present case, were adopted without
any objections. The United States, in particular, in 1983,thatisto Sayafter
the SpecialAgreement had come into force, proclaimed an economic zone
on the basis of Part V of the 1982 Convention. This proclamation was
accompanied by a statement by the President to the effect that in that
respect the Convention generally confirmed existing rules of international
law.Canada, whichhasnot at present madea similar proclamation, has for
its part also recognized the legal significance of the nature andpurpose of
the new200-milerégime.Thisconcordance ofviewsisworthy ofnote, even
though the present Judgment is not directed to the delimitation of the
exclusive economic zone as such. In the Chamber's opinion, these provi-
sions, even if in some respects they bear the mark of the compromise
surrounding their adoption, may nevertheless be regarded asconsonant at
present with general international law on the question.
95. In this connection, attention should be drawn to the identical defi-
nition, in Article 74, paragraph 1, and Article 83, paragraph 1, relating
respectivelyto the exclusiveeconomic zone and to the continental shelf,of
the rule of international law respecting delimitation. That identical defi-
nition is as follows :
"The delimitation of [theexclusiveeconomic zone][thecontinental
shelf]between Stateswith opposite or adjacent coasts shallbe effected
byagreement on thebasis ofinternational law,asreferred toinArticle
38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to
achieve an equitable solution."
It is thus limited to expressing the need for settlement of the problem by
agreement and recalling the obligation to achieve an equitable solution.
Although the text is singularly concise it serves to open the door to
continuation of thedevelopment effected in thisfield byinternational case
law. 96. Ilimporte égalementde noter que lasymétriedesdeuxtextesrelatifs
àla délimitationdu plateau continental et à celle de la zone économique
exclusiveest trèsintéressantedans un cas comme la présenteespèce, oùil
s'agitde tracer une ligneunique de délimitationpour lelit de la meretpour
la zone de pêche su jacente, laquelle est comprise dans la notion de zone
économiqueexclusive.L'identitédulangageemployé - limité, bienenten-
du, à la seule détermination des principes et règlespertinents du droit
international - est particulièrement significative.
97. La Chambre doit maintenant se demander comment apparaît la
position respective des Parties au présent différend au regard desconsta-
tations faites jusqu'ici.
98. Tout en soulignant que malheureusement les points de désaccord
entre elles étaient plus nombreux queles points d'accord, les Parties ont
tenu à déclarer,lorsqu'ellesont examinéles <(règles etprincipes du droit
international )qui, selon elles,devaient régirla matièred'unedélimitation
maritime. leur concordance de vues sur l'existenced'une << norme fonda-
mentale ))du droit international. Cette norme doit, d'aprèselles, s'appli-
quer àtoute délimitationet à fortiori au tracéd'unelimitemaritime unique
comme celle qui est recherchéedans la régiondu golfe du Maine.
99. D'après la définition qu'en adonnéele Canada, la norme fonda-
mentale en question affirme que ce tracé doitêtre
déterminéselon le droit applicable, conformément à des principes
équitables,en tenant compte de toutes les circonstances pertinentes,
de manière à aboutir à un résultatéquitable )).
D'aprèsla définitiondonnéepar les Etats-Unis d'Amérique, qui évoque
celles qui figuraient dans les arrêtsde la Cour de 1969et de 1982,
<<la délimitation d'une frontière maritime unique nécessite l'appli-
cation de principes équitables, compte tenu des circonstances per-
tinentes propres à la région, de façon à aboutir à une solution
équitable )).
La divergence qui ressortirait de prime abord de l'absence, dans la défi-
nition des Etats-Unis, du membre de phrase (selon le droit applicable )),
tout en n'étantpas négligeable, esten fait apparue comme dénuéed'im-
portance au cours des exposésoraux, la Partie américaineayant indiqué
explicitement qu'elleestimait aussi que la délimitation devait être faitsur
la base des principes et règlesapplicables du droit international.
100. La conclusion commune des Parties quant àla norme fondamen-
tale régissantd'aprèselles la matière d'une délimitationmaritime semble
donc s'apparenter sensiblement à la conclusion qui a été tirédee l'analyse
de lajurisprudence internationale, et finalement aussi àcelleà laquelle est
parvenue la troisièmeconférencesur le droit de la mer.
101. Mais la concordance de vues entre les Parties, au sujet de la 96. It shouldbenoted that thesymmetry of the two texts, relatingto the
delimitation of the continental shelf and of the exclusiveeconomic zone, is
most interesting in acaselikethepresent one,where a singleboundary line
is to be drawn both for the sea-bed and for the superjacent fishery zone,
which isincluded in the exclusiveeconomic zone concept. The identity of
the language which is employed, even though limited of course to the
determination of the relevant principles and rules of international law, is
particularly significant.
97. The Chamber has now to assess the respective positions of the
Parties in the present dispute in the light of the findings that have so far
been made.
98. While stressing that, unfortunately, the points on which they disa-
greed were more numerous than those on which they agreed, the Parties
were at pains to state, when considering the "rules and principles of
international law" which,they held, should governmaritimedelimitations,
that theywereat one in believingin the existenceof a "fundamental norm"
of international law. According to them, this norm must apply to any de-
limitation and, a fortior ti,the drawing of a single maritime boundary
like that sought in the Gulf of Maine area.
99. According to Canada's definition, the "fundamental norm" in ques-
tion requires that this course be
"determined according to the applicable law, in conformity with
equitable principles, having regard to al1relevant circumstances, in
order to achieve an equitable result".
According to the United States definition, which recalls those in the
Court's Judgments of 1969and 1982,
"the delimitation of a single maritime boundary requires the appli-
cation of equitable principles, taking account of al1circumstances
prevailing in the area concerned, in order to achieve an equitable
solution".
Whilethe difference apparent at first sightdue to the absence in theUnited
States definition of the words "according to the applicable law" is not
negligible, the oral arguments have shown that it is in fact unimportant,
since the United States stated explicitly that it too believed that delimi-
tation shouldbe effected on the basis of the applicableprinciples and rules
of international law.
100. The common conclusion of the Parties as to the "fundamental
norm" governing, in their opinion, the question of maritime delimitations
seems,therefore, to be closelyrelated tothe conclusion reached by analysis
ofinternational caselawand also,in theend,to that arrived at by theThird
Conference on the Law of the Sea.
101. However, if both Parties recognize the existence in internationalreconnaissance de l'existence en droit international d'une norme fonda-
mentaleconcernant lesdélimitationsmaritimes, ne va pas au-delà de cette
reconnaissance. Elledisparaît lorsque lesdites Partiess'attachent, chacune
de son côté, à rechercher si ledroit international ne comporterait pas aussi
d'autres règles, accompagnées le caséchéantde corollaires, à appliquer
obligatoirement dans le mêmedomaine.
102. Dans cette recherche, le Canada s'est spécialement appliqué à
déduirecesautres règlesrelatives àune délimitation maritimede la notion
d'adjacence géographiquequi, d'après saconviction, constitue le << fonde-
ment du titre ))de 1'Etatcôtierà l'extensionpartielle desajuridiction sur le
plateau continental et sur les eaux auxquelles il sert de lit.
103. Cette thèseappelle quelques commentaires. Pour autant que l'on
invoque la notion d'adjacence, la Chambre admet que, par rapport à la
généralité des cas,on puisse reconnaître àcette notion lavertu d'exprimer,
peut-êtremieuxque cellede prolongement naturel, lelienexistant entre la
souverainetéde 1'Etatet lesdroits souverainsqui sont lessienssur lesterres
submergéesadjacentes. D'autre part, on peut reconnaître que cette notion
exprime aussi d'une manièrecorrecte le lien existant entre la souveraineté
territoriale de 1'Etatet les droits souverains qui sont les siens sur les eaux
qui recouvrent lesdites terres submergées. Maisilne faut pasoublierque le
titre juridique sur certaines étendues maritimes ou sous-marines est
toujours et uniquement l'effet d'uneopérationjuridique. Il en va de même
pour lalimitejusqu'à laquellecetitre s'étend. C'est d'une règlededroitque
cette limite découle, et nond'une quelconque vertu intrinsèque que pos-
séderait lefait purement physique. De l'avis de la Chambre, il est donc
correct de dire que le droit international attribue à 1'Etatcôtier un titre
juridique sur un plateau continental adjacent ou sur une zone maritime
adjacente à ses côtes ; il ne le serait pas de dire que le droit international
reconnaît le titreattribué a I'Etatpar I'adjacence de ce plateau et de cette
zone, comme si le seul fait naturel de I'adjacenceentraînait par lui-même
des conséquencesjuridiques.
104. On pourrait objecter à ces remarques qu'elles vont de soi et que
personne n'entend dire autre chose. Il faut tout de mêmeque cela soit
clairement exprimépour que l'on serendecompte qu'ilyaun saut logique
entre lareconnaissance desréalitéjsuridiques, préciseset circonscrites. que
l'on vient d'évoquer,et l'idéede construire là-dessus sans autre un pré-
tendu principejuridique d'ailleurs qualifiétantôt d'<(adjacence )>,tantôt
de <(proximité O,tantôt et surtout de distance ))ce qui de surcroît n'est
pas la même chose.Car c'est d'un principe ainsi établique le Canada
voudrait déduire l'existence en droit international coutumier de règles
concernant la délimitation entre des Etats dont les plateaux continentaux
ou leszones maritimes adjacentes sechevauchent. C'estpar cette voie que
la Partie en question en arrive à affirmer la reconnaissance par le droit
international d'une règlequi déterminerait concrètement auquel desdeux
Etats voisins, dont les prétentions s'opposent, il faudrait reconnaître une
prétention plus valable que celle de l'autre, aux fins de l'attribution de
certaines zones marines ou sous-marines. En vertu de cette règle,1'Etatlaw of a "fundamental norm" governing maritimedelimitations, that is as
far as their agreement goes.There is no longer agreement when each of the
Parties separately seeks to ascertain whether international law might also
contain other rules, possibly accompanied by corollaries, of mandatory
application in the same field.
102. In this connection Canada concentrated its efforts on deducing
these other rules of maritime delimitation from the concept of geographic
adjacency, since it was convinced that this concept constituted the "basis
of the title" of the coastal State to thepartial extension of itsjurisdiction to
the continental shelf and the waters of which it formed the bed.
103. This argument calls for several comments. Regarding adjacency,
the Chamber acknowledgesthat in most cases this concept can be credited
with the ability to express, perhaps better than that of natural prolonga-
tion, the link between a State's sovereignty and its sovereign rights to
adjacent submerged land. It can alro be acknowledged to express correctly
the link between the State's territorial sovereignty and its sovereignrights
over waters covering such submerged land. It should not be forgotten,
however,that "legal title" tocertain maritime or submarine areas isalways
and exclusively the effect of a legal operation. The same is true of the
boundarv of the extent of the title. That boundarv results from a rule of
law, and not from any intrinsic merit in the purely physical fact. In the
Chamber's opinion it is therefore correct to Say that international law
confers on the coastal State a legal title to an adjacentcontinental shelf or
toa maritime zoneadjacenttoits coasts ;it wouldnot becorrect tosaythat
international lawrecognizesthe title conferredontheState bytheadjacency
of that shelfor that zone, as if the mere naturalfact of adjacencyproduced
legal consequences.
104. It mightbe objected that theseremarks are self-evident and that no
one seeks to contradict them. The points concerned must, however, be
clearly stated in order to show that there is a logical gulf between recog-
nizing the precise and circumscribed legalrealitiesjust mentioned and the
idea of constructing solelyon that basis an alleged Iegalprinciple which is
sometimes given the name of "adjacency", sometimes "proximity" and
sometimes, more especially, "distance", which is, besides, quite another
thing. This is because it is from a principle thus established that Canada
seeks to deduce the existence in customary international law of rules for
delimitation between States whose continental shelves or adjacent mari-
time zones overlap. Following ths line enables the Party in question
eventually to assert that international law enshrines a rule that would
concretely determine which of the two neighbouring States whose claims
are at variance is to be recognized as having a more valid claim than the
other to the attribution of certain maritime or submarine areas. Under this
rule the Stateany part of whose coasts is lessdistant from the zones thandont une partie quelconque des côtes se trouverait, par rapport auxdites
zones, à une distance moindre que celle des côtes de l'autre Etat, aurait
ipsojure droit à la reconnaissance des zones en question comme étant
siennes.
105. La Chambre ne commentera pas l'assertion qui est faite de l'exis-
tence d'une telle règle,vu le refus par la Cour, dans l'affaire du Plateau
continental de la mer du Nord, de
~ostuler une r"glefondamentale ou inhérentedont l'effet serait en
définitived'interdireàtout Etat d'exercer,sauf par voie d'accord, ses
droits relatifs au plateau continental sur des zones plus proches de la
côte d'un autre Etat que de la sienne (C.I.J. Recueil 1969,p. 30-31,
par. 42).
La Cour a alors tenu à souligner que les régionssous-marines relevant de
1'Etatcôtier n'étaientpas toujours les plus proches de ses côtes.
106. A propos de l'enchaînement par lequel la Partie intéressée est
arrivéeà la conclusion indiquéeci-dessus, la Chambre sebornera à obser-
verqu'iln'ya là finalement qu'un nouvel effort pour faire apparaître l'idée
non pas de la <(distance O,mais de 1'0équidistance O,comme étantsanc-
tionnéepar ledroit international coutumier lui-même,puisque son but est
d'affirmer que les étenduessituées à une distance d'un Etat inférieure à
celle qui les sépare descôtes d'un autre Etat doivent automatiquement
releverdu premier. C'estune tentative de plus pour faire de l'équidistance
une véritablerèglede droit que le droit international coutumier aurait
exprimée,tout en la tempérant par la prise en compte de circonstances
spéciales,et donc autre chose que ce qu'elle est en réalité,à savoir une
méthodepratique utilisable aux fins de la délimitation.
107. Que celle-ci ait pu rendre des services indéniablespar son appli-
cation dans bien des situations concrètes, qu'elle soitune méthodepra-
tique dont une convention comme celle de 1958 peut prévoir etrendre
obligatoire l'utilisation dans certaines conditions, personne ne saurait le
contester. Il n'empêchequ'une telle notion, telle que la jurisprudence
internationale l'amiseen évidence,n'estpas pour autant devenue une règle
du droit international général, unenorme découlant logiquement d'un
principejuridiquement obligatoire du droitinternational coutumier et qüe
ce dernier ne l'a d'ailleurs pas non plus adoptée au simple titre d'une
méthodeprioritaire ou préférable.La Chambre ne saurait mieux exprimer
sa pensée à ce sujet qu'en rappelant le commentaire fait par la Cour,
toujours dans son arrêtdu 20 février1969, àpropos de la thèseanalogue
avancéepar le Danemark :
<<A lirelesdocuments de la Commission du droitinternational,qui
s'estoccupéede la question de 1950 à 1956,rien n'indique qu'il soit
venu à l'esprit d'aucunde ses membres qu'elle dût adopter une règle
fondéesur l'équidistancepour le motif qu'une telle règleconstituait
l'expression linéaire d'unprincipe de proximité inhérent la concep-
tion fondamentale du plateau continental - d'après lequeltoutethose of the other State would ipsojure be entitled to have the zones
recognized as its own.
105. The Chamber need not comment on the assertion that such a rule
exists, since the Court refused in the-North Sea Continental Shelf cases
to
"imply any fundamental or inherent rule the ultimate effect of which
would be to prohibit any State (otherwise than by agreement) from
exercising continental shelf rights in respect of areas closer to the
Coastof another State" (I.C.J. Reports 1969, pp. 30-31, para. 42).
At that time the Court wished to stress that the submarine areas apper-
taining to the coastal State were not always those closest to its coasts.
106. With regard to the reasonicg by whichthe Party concerned arrived
at the conclusion mentioned above, the Chamber merely notes that it
amounts to just one more, still unconvincing, endeavour to instil the idea
that "equidistance" - rather than "distance" - is a concept endorsed by
customary international law, since the objective is to assert that whatever
lieslessfar from the coasts of one State than from those of another should
automatically appertain to the former State. It is another attempt to turn
equidistance into a genuine rule of law,one to which general international
lawhas supposedly given expression whileyettempering it to take account
ofspecialcircumstances, and thus into something other than itisin reality:
a practical method that can be applied for the purposes of delirnita-
tion.
107. It will not be disputed that this method has rendered undeniable
service in many concrete situations, and is a practical method whose use
under certain conditions could becontemplated andmade mandatory by a
convention like that of 1958.Nevertheless this concept, as manifested in
decided cases,has not therebybecomea ruleof general international law,a
norm logically flowing from a legally binding principle of customary
international law,neither hasit been adopted into customary lawsimplyas
amethod to be givenpriority or preference. The Chamber can best express
its thinking on this subject by quoting the comment made by the Court, in
its Judgment of 20 February 1969, on the similar contention by Den-
mark :
"In the records of the International Law Commission, which had
the matter under consideration from 1950to 1956,there is no indi-
cation at al1that any of its Members supposed that it was incumbent
on the Commission to adopt a rule of equidistance because this gave
expression to, and translated into linear terms, a principle of proxi-
mity inherent in the basic concept of the continental shelf, causing partie du plateau relèverait de 1'Etatriverain le plus proche à l'ex-
clusion de tout autre Etat - et étaiten conséquence obligatoire en
droit international coutumier. Cette idéene semblejamais avoir été
avancée. ))(C.I.J. Recueil 1969,p. 33, par. 49.)
108. Les Etats-Unis, de leur côté,ne se sont pas bornés à contester la
valeur déterminanteen droitinternationaldetout principe d'adjacence, de
proximitéou de distance et de toute règlejuridique que l'on voudrait en
déduire.Ilsont cherché unappui pour leurs thèsesdans ladistinction, dont
la Chambre a déjàeu l'occasion de relever le caractère à son avis inac-
ceptable en géographieautant qu'endroit,entre des côtes définies comme
<<principales O,du simplefait qu'elles suivraientla direction généralede la
côte du continent ou lui seraient parallèles, etdes côtes définies comme
<<secondaires ))uniquement parce qu'elles s'écarteraientde cette direc-
tion. En réponse à l'objection qui, par référence à une jurisprudence
précédente,arappeléquel'égalité de toutes lescôtesdoit semesurer << dans
le mêmeplan ))la Partie américaine a rétorquéque seules des côtes
<<comparables ))ont droit à un traitement comparable, et que toutes les
côtes ne sont pas comparables.Sur cesprémisses,que la Partiecanadienne
aqualifiéesde construction adhoc O,lesEtats-Unisontdonc cru pouvoir
établirleprincipe du caractèreprivilégié du rapport entre lescôtes <<prin-
cipales ))et les zones maritimes et sous-marines situées frontalement
devant elles. Ce rapport privilégiédevrait, quant àses conséquencespra-
tiques, prendre le pas sur le rapport avec des côtes <secondaires o, même
plus rapprochées.Les aires maritimes situéesen face de la côte principale
devraient donc êtreréservées à celle-ci et non pas à la côte secondaire,
indépendammentdelaproximitédecettedernière.L'idéede << proximité
devrait ainsi céderlepas à cellede <(prolongement naturel géographique ))
des côtes principales, et d7<e<xtension de la façade maritime ))de 1'Etat
auquel elles appartiennent.
109. Le caractère à priori de ces prémisses etdéductions paraît à la
Chambre tout aussi évidentque les thèsesde l'autre Partie. Dans les deux
cas il est possible d'affirmer que les efforts accomplis se sont traduits par
des affirmations de principe plutôt que par une démonstration convain-
cante de l'existence des règlesqu'on avait espéré trouverétabliespar le
droit international.
110. Ces raisonnements faits de part et d'autre sont fondés sur une
prémisse erronée. L'erreur réside préciséme dnatns le fait que l'on veut
repérerdans ledroitinternational générau lnesorte desériede règlesquine
s'y trouvent point. Cette remarque vise tout particulièrement certains
<<principes ))avancéspar lesParties commedevant constituer desrèglesde
droit bien établies.On peut citer, à titre d'exemple, l'idéeprônéepar la
Partie canadienne selon laquelle une frontière maritime unique devrait
assurer le maintien des structures de pêche existantes, qui sontd'une im-
portance vitale pour les collectivitéscôtièresdans la régionconsidéréeo ,u
l'idéeprônéepar la Partie américaine qu'unetelle frontière devrait per-
mettre d'assurer aumieux la conservation et la gestion des ressourcesbio- everypart of the shelf to appertain to the nearest coastal Stateand to
no other, and because such a rule must therefore be mandatory as a
matter of customary international law. Such an idea does not seem
ever to have been propounded." (I.C.J. Reports1969,p. 33, para. 49.)
108. The United States,for itspart, has not merely disputed the deter-
mining force in international law of any principle of adjacency, proximity
or distance, or of any legal rule allegedly derived therefrom. It has sought
support for its contentions in the distinction, which the Chamber has
already called unacceptable both in geography and in law, between coasts
defined as "primary", simply because they follow the general direction of
themainland coastline asawhole,or areparallel toit, and coastsdefinedas
"secondary", simply because they deviate from that direction. Answering
theobjection,made by reference to case-law,that theequality of al1coasts
must be measured "in the same plane", the United Statesargued that only
"comparable" coasts are entitled to comparable treatment and that not al1
coasts are comparable. On this basis, therefore, which Canada has
described asan "ad hocconstruction", the United States haspurported to
establish the principle of the preferential nature of the relationship
between "primary" coasts and the maritime and submarine areas situated
frontallybefore them. In terms of practical consequences, thispreferential
relationship should allegedly prevail over the relationship with "second-
ary" coasts, even if these are closer. The maritime areas lying off the
primary coast should therefore be reserved to that coast and not to the
secondary coast, irrespective of the latter's proximity. The "proximity"
concept should therefore yield to that of the "geographic natural prolon-
gation" of the principal coasts and that of the "extension of the coastal
front" of the State to which they belong.
109. In the Chamber's opinion, the apriorinature of thesepremises and
these deductions is as patent as that of the thesis elaborated by the other
Party. In both cases the outcome of the Parties'efforts can be said to have
been preconceived assertions rather than any convincingdemonstration of
the existence of the rules that each had hoped to find established by
international law.
110. Each Party'sreasoning isinfact based on afalsepremise. Theerror
liesprecisely in searching general international law for, as it were,a set of
rules which are not there. This observation applies particularly to certain
"principIes" advanced by the Parties as constituting well-established rules
of law,e.g.,the idea advocatedby Canada that a singlemaritime boundary
should ensure the preservation of existing fishing patterns whch are vital
to the coastalcommunities in the areaconcerned, or theidea advocated by
the United States that such a boundary should make it possible to ensure
the optimum conservation and management of livingresources and at the
sametimereduce the potential for future disputes between the Parties. One
could add to these the ideas of "non-encroachment" upon the coasts oflogiques et réduireen même temps lepotentiel de différendsfuturs entre
les Parties. On pourrait y ajouter les idéesd<non-empiétement ))sur les
côtes d'un autre Etat ou de <(non-amputation de la projection maritime
des côtes d'un autre Etat, et d'autres encore, avancéesà tour de rôle par
les Parties, et qui peuvent constituer dans des circonstances déterminées
des critères équitables, maisà la condition qu'on ne veuillepas les ériger
en règlesétabliesque ledroit international coutumier aurait faites siennes.
111. Il ne faut pas rechercher dans le droit international coutumier un
corps de règles détaillées.Ce droit comprend en réalité un ensemble
restreint de normespropres à assurerla coexistenceetlacoopérationvitale
des membres de la communautéinternationale, ensemble auquel s'ajoute
une sériede règlescoutumièresdont laprésencedans l'opinioju>isdesÉtats
se prouve par voie d'induction en partant de l'analyse d'une pratique
suffisamment étoffée ec tonvaincante,et non pas par voie de déductionen
partant d'idéespréconstituées à priori. Il est donc vain, surtout dans une
matière nouvelle et encore peu consolidée comme celle qui est liée à
l'extension toute récente des revendications des Etats à des aires qui
constituaient hier encore des zones dehaute mer, de vouloir puiser dans le
droit international coutumierun ensembledéjà tout forméde règlesprêtes
à êtreappliquées àla solution de tous les problèmesde délimitationqui se
présentent. Mieux vaut s'attacher à la recherche d'une meilleure formu-
lation de la norme fondamentale, sur laquelle les Parties avaient d'ailleurs
eu la chance de se trouver d'accord, et dont un examen de la réalitédes
rapports juridiques internationaux révèle l'existencedans la conviction
juridique non seulement des Parties au présent différend,mais de l'en-
semble des Etats.
112. La Chambre voudrait par conséquent conclure cette prise en
considération des règlesdu droit international régissant lamatière dans
laquelle le différendaméricano-canadiense situe par un essai de reformu-
lation pluscompletet àson avisplusprécisdela norme fondamentale dont
ils'agit.Acettefin ellevoudrait notamment s'inspirer ausside ladéfinition
des véritablesrèglesde droit en matière de délimitation des plateaux
continentaux limitrophes, c'est-à-dire de règlesobligatoires pour les Etats
pour toute délimitation donnéeparla Cour dans son arrêtde 1969sur le
Plateau continentalde lamerduNord(C.I.J. Recueil1969,p.46-47,par. 85).
L'on pourrait donc donner la définition suivante de ce que le droit inter-
national général prescritdans toute délimitation maritime entre Etats
voisins :
1) Aucune délimitation maritime entre Etats dont les côtes sont adja-
centes ou sefont face ne peut êtreeffectuéeunilatéralementpar l'unde ces
Etats. Cette délimitation doit êtrerecherchée et réaliséa eu moyen d'un
accord faisant suite à une négociation menéede bonne foi et dans l'in-
tention réelled'aboutir à un résultatpositif. Au cas où, néanmoins, untel
accord ne serait pas réalisable, la délimitation doit êtreeffectuée en
recourant àune instance tierce dotéede la compétencenécessairepour ce
faire. anotherState or of "no cutting-off" of the seaward projection of thecoasts
of another State, and others which the Parties put fonvard in turn, which
may in given circumstances constitute equitable criteria, provided, how-
ever,that noattempt ismade to raise them to the status ofestablished rules
endorsed by customary international law.
111. A body of detailed rules is not to be looked for in customary
international law which in fact comprises a limited set of norms for
ensuring the CO-existenceand vital CO-operationof the members of the
international community, together with a set of customary rules whose
presence in theopiniojurisof States can be tested byinduction based on the
analysis of a sufficiently extensive and convincing practice, and not by
deduction from preconceived ideas. It is therefore unrewarding, especially
in a new and still unconsolidated field like that involving the quite recent
extension of the claims of States to areas which wereuntil yesterday zones
of the high seas, to look to general international law to provide a ready-
made set of rules that can be used for solving any delimitation problems
that arise. A more useful course is to seek a better formulation of the
fundamental norm, on which the Parties were fortunate enough to be
agreed, and whoseexistencein the legalconvictionsnot only of the Parties
to thepresent dispute, but of al1States,isapparentfrom anexamination of
the reâlities of international legal relations.
112. The Chamber therefore wishes to conclude this reviewof the rules
ofinternational law on the question to which the dispute between Canada
and the United States relates by attempting a more complete and, in its
opinion, more precise reformulation of the "fundamental norm" already
mentioned. For this purpose itwill,interalia, drawalso uponthe definition
of the "actual rules of law ... which govern the delimitation of adjacent
continental shelves - that is to Say,rules binding upon States for al1de-
limitations" which was given by the Court in its 1969Judgment in the
North Sea ContinentalShelfcases (I.C.J. Reports1969,pp. 46-47,para. 85).
What general international law prescribes in every maritime delimitation
between neighbounng States could therefore be defined as follows :
(1) No maritime delimitation between States with opposite or adjacent
coasts may be effected unilaterally by one of those States. Such delirnita-
tion must be sought and effected by means of an agreement, following
negotiations conducted in good faith and with the genuine intention of
achieving a positive result. Where, however, such agreement cannot be
achieved, delimitation should be effected by recourse to a third party
possessing the necessary competence. 2) Dans le premier cas comme dans le second, la délimitation doit être
réaliséepar l'application de critères équitables et par l'utilisation de
méthodespratiques aptes à assurer, compte tenu de la configuration géo-
graphique de la régionet des autres circonstancespertinentes de l'espèce,
un résultat équitable.
113. 11a étéprocédé jusqu'icià la définition, sur labase de ce que font
ressortir les sources examinées,desprincipes et règlesde droit internatio-
nal ou, plus exactement, de la norme fondamentale du droit international
coutumier régissant lamatière de la délimitation maritime. Cette règle,
a-t-on vu, revient en définitivà prescrire que la délimitation, qu'elle se
fasse par accord direct ou par décisionde tierce partie, doit reposer sur
l'application de critères équitables et sur l'utilisation de méthodespra-
tiques aptesà assurer un résultat équitable.La Chambredoit donc passer,
maintenant, àla prise en considération desdits critères équitableset des-
dites méthodespratiques en principe applicables à l'opérationde délimi-
tation.
114. Les conclusions auxquelles la Chambre est auparavant parvenue
l'ontamenée àconstater que cen'estpasdans ledroit international général
coutumier qu'ilfaut rechercher d'éventuelles règlesprescrivant spécifique-
ment l'application de tel ou tel critère équitable oul'utilisation de telle ou
telle méthode pratique aux fins d'une délimitation comme celle qui est
requise dans lecas d'espèce.Ledroitinternational coutumier, on l'a vu, se
borne à prescrire en générall'application de critères équitableset l'utili-
sation de méthodes pratiques propres à traduire concrètement ces cri-
tères.11faut donc se reporter au droit international particulier pour voir
s'ily existe ou non, dans l'étatdu droit actuellement en vigueur entre les
Parties au présentprocès, unequelconque règlededroit requérantspécifi-
quement des Parties, et par conséquentde la Chambre, l'application à la
délimitationrecherchéede certains critèresou de certainesméthodespra-
tiques déterminées.
115. Le point de départ de cette analyse peut une fois de plus êtrela
prise en considérationde la convention de 1958sur leplateau continental
etplus précisémend t eladeuxièmephrase de chacundesparagraphes 1et 2
de l'article 6 qui, comme il a pu être constaté,n'énonce pas commela
première un principe ou une règle de droit international, mais prévoit
notamment l'utilisation d'une certaine méthodepratiquepour l'exécution
concrètede l'opérationde délimitation.Il s'agit, on l'vu, de la méthode
qui emploie pour une délimitationde plateau continental une technique
qui est unique, mais qui setraduitpar letracéd'uneligne médianedans les
zones maritimes comprises entre des côtes qui se font face et d'une ligne
d'équidistance latéraledans le cas où les côtes des deux Etats sont adja-
centes. Cette méthode s'inspire et découled'un critère équitabledéter-
miné :celui qui tient pour équitable, de prime abord du moins, une (2) In either case, delimitation is to be effected by the application of
equitable criteria and by the use of practical methods capable of ensuring,
with regard to thegeographicconfiguration of the area and other relevant
circumstances, an equitable result.
113. The function of the foregoing discussion has been to define, in the
light of the sources examined, the principles and rules of international law
or, more precisely, the fundamentalnorm of customary international law
governing maritime delimitation. As has been shown, that norm is ulti-
mately that delimitation, whether effected by direct agreement or by the
decision of a third Party, must be based on the application of equitable
criteria and the use of practical methods capable of ensuring an equitable
result. The Chamber must nowproceed to consider theseequitable criteria
and the practical methods which are in principle applicable in the actual
delimitation process.
114. On the basis of the conclusions already reached, the Chamber has
found that general customary international law is not the proper place in
which to seek rules specifically prescribing the application of any parti-
cularequitablecriteria, or the useof anyparticular practical methods, for a
delimitation of the kind requested in the present case. As already noted,
customary international law merely contains a generalrequirement of the
application of equitable criteria and the utilization of practical methods
capable ofimplementing them. It istherefore specialinternational lawthat
must be looked to, in order to ascertain whether that law, asat present in
force between the Parties to this case, does or does not include some rule
specificallyrequiring the Parties, and consequentlythe Chamber, to apply
certain criteria or certain specific practical methods to the delimitation
that is requested.
115. The startingpoint for this analysis may once again be an exami-
nation of the 1958Convention on the Continental Shelf,more specifically
of the second sentence of each of paragraphs 1and 2 of Article 6which, as
wehave seen,do not, likethe first sentence, enunciate a principle or rule of
international law, but contemplate, inter alia he use of a particular
practical method for the actual implementation of the delimitation pro-
cess. As already stated, this method employs a single technique for con-
tinental shelf delimitation, but in the form of a median line in maritime
areas between opposite coasts, and a lateral equidistance line where the
coasts of the two States are adjacent. This method is inspired by and
derives from a particular equitable criterion :namely, that the equitable
solution, at least prima facie,is an equal division of the areas of overlap of
the continental shelvesof the two litigant States. The applicability of thisdivision par parts égalesdes zones de chevauchement des plateaux conti-
nentaux des deux Etats en litige. La méthodeen question n'est cependant
applicable qu'à la condition qu'il n'y ait pas dans le cas d'espèce de
circonstances spécialesqui rendraient ledit critère inéquitable, en faisant
apparaître le caractère déraisonnable d'unetelle division et en imposant
donc lerecours à une ou plusieurs méthodes différentesou, tout au moins,
une correction adéquatedu résultatque l'application de la première pro-
duirait.
116. Cesprécisionsétantdonnées,le problèmesepose ainsi de savoir si
le fait que, comme la Chambre l'a rappelé,la convention de 1958sur le
plateau continental est en vigueur entre les Parties impose ou non l'utili-
sation, pour la délimitationdont il est question dans lecas d'espèce,de la
méthode mentionnée à l'article6 de ladite convention et, par implication,
du critère qui se trouveà son origine.
117. Aucun doute n'a étémanifesté, nipar l'une ni par l'autre des
Parties, quant au fait qu'elles se considèrent liéespar la convention à
laquelle elles ont l'une et l'autre adhéré.Des problèmes tels que ceux qui
s'étaient posédsans lecas de ladélimitationdu plateau continental entre la
France et leRoyaume-Uni à causedes réservesexprimées par lepremier de
ces deux pays et que l'autre n'avaitpas acceptées ne seposent pas dans le
casprésent.La déclarationfaitepar leCanada au moment de sonadhésion
à la convention et qui a soulevé desobjections de la part des Etats-Unis
n'est pas de nature à empêcherl'application de la convention à une
situation concrète concernant les deux Etats, et les Etats-Unis ne l'ont
d'ailleurs pas prétendu.
118. La Chambre estdonc d'avisque, siunequestion dedélimitationdu
plateau continental, et du plateau continental seulement, s'était posée
entre les deux Etats, l'aspect contraignant de l'application de la méthode
prévue à l'article 6 de la convention ne ferait pas de doute, ceci, bien
entendu, toujours dans lerespect delacondition prévoyantlerecours à une
autre méthode ou combinaison de méthodeslà où des circonstances spé-
ciales l'exigeraient.
119. Le présent procès n'atoutefois pas pour objet une délimitation
circonscrite au plateau continental, comme cela aurait pu êtrele cas s'il
s'étaitdéroulé à un moment précédant l'adoptionpar les deux Parties
d'une zone de pêche exclusiveet la survenance, par conséquent,de l'idée
d'une délimitationpar ligne unique. Son objet actuel est précisément et
les Parties n'ont pasmanquéde le souligner l'uneet l'autre avecinsistance
- de tracer une ligne unique de délimitation, à l'effet tant du plateau
continental que de la zone de pêchesurjacente.Il est douteux qu'une obli-
gation conventionnelle ne concernant expressémentque la délimitation
du plateau continental soit susceptible d'êtreétendue,par une extension
qui dépasseraità l'évidenceles limites imposéespar les critères stricts qui
régissentl'interprétation desinstruments conventionnels, à un domaine
visiblement plus vaste, indéniablement hétérogène etp , ar conséquent,
foncièrement différent.A cette considération d'ordreformel, mais impor-
tante, il faut ajouter celle, d'ordre plus substantiel, qu'une semblablemethod is, however, subject to the condition that there are no special
circumstances in the case which would make that criterion inequitable, by
showing such division to be unreasonable and so entailing recourse to a
differentmethod or methods or, at the veryleast, appropriate correction of
the effect produced by the application of the first method.
116. In the light of these explanations the question therefore arises
whether the fact(alreadynoted by the Chamber) that the 1958Convention
on the Continental Shelf is in force between the Parties does or does not
makeitobligatory to use,forthedelimitation requested in thepresent case,
the method specified in Article 6 of that Convention and, by implication,
the application of the criterion on which it is based.
117. No doubts have been expressed on either side as to the fact that
both Parties regard themselvesas bound by the Convention to which they
have both acceded. This case does not involve any problems of the kind
which arose in the caseconcerning the delimitation of thecontinental shelf
between France and the United Kingdom because of reservations
expressed by the former country but not accepted by the latter. The
declaration made by Canada at the time of becoming party to the Con-
vention, and objected to by the United States, is not such asto prevent the
application of the Convention to a particularsituation concerning the two
States, nor has the United States claimed othenvise.
118. The Chamber therefore takes the view that if a question as to the
delimitation of the continental shelf only had arisen between the two
States, there would be no doubt as to the mandatory application of the
method prescribed in Article 6 of the Convention, always subject, of
course, to the condition that recourse is to be had to another method or
combination of methods where special circumstances so require.
119. The purpose of thepresent proceedings isnot, however, to obtain a
delimitation of thecontinental shelfalone, asit might havebeen if they had
taken place prior to the adoption by the two Parties of an exclusivefishery
zone and the consequent emergence of the idea of delimitation by a single
line.Their purpose is - and both Parties have abundantly emphasized the
fact - to draw a singledelimitation line for both the continental shelf and
the superjacent fishery zone. It is doubtful whether a treaty obligation
which is in terms confined to the delimitation of the continental shelf can
be extended, in a manner that would manifestly go beyond the limits
imposed by the strict criteria governing the interpretation of treaty instru-
ments, to a field which is evidently much greater, unquestionably hetero-
geneous,and accordingly fundamentally different. Apartfrom thisformal,
but important, consideration, there is the more substantive point that such
an interpretation would, in the final analysis, make the maritime water
mass overIyingthe continental shelf a mere accessory of that shelf. Such a interprétationferait en définitivede la masse d'eaumaritime surjacente au
plateau continental un simple accessoire de ce plateau. Ce résultatserait
tout aussi inadmissible que le serait celui que produiraità l'inverse,une
simpleextension au plateau continental de l'application d'uneméthodede
délimitation que l'on aurait adoptée par rapport à la seule <<colonne
d'eau )et à ses ressources halieutiques.
120. A ce propos, la Chambre voudrait aussi remarquer que l'on ne
saurait prendre argument, à l'encontre de ce qui précède,du fait que la
méthodepréconiséepar l'article 6 de la convention sur le plateau conti-
nental est aussi prévue,dans des termes comparables, par l'article 12 et
l'article 24, paragraphe 3, de la convention de mêmedate sur la mer
territoriale et la zone contiguë.Il est en effet impossible de considérer
commesimilaireslessituations de lamer territoriale et de lazonecontiguë,
conçuescomme soumises àlasouverainetéde1'Etatriverain ou àl'exercice
de mesures de contrôle douanier et autres, destinées à prévenir des viola-
tions éventuellesde sa souverainetéterritoriale. Rien de comparable donc
avec la réservede droits exclusifs d'exploitation des ressources d'une
étenduemaritime allantjusqu'à 200milles ;rien, par conséquent,pouvant
justifier l'idée d'une extensioà cette dernière de critères etméthodesde
délimitation expressémentconçus pour l'étroitebande maritime établie
pour une tout autre finalité.
121. La Chambrene saurait suivre, d'autre part, l'argumentation déve-
loppéepar le Canada d'après laquelle,lors de la détermination d'une
délimitationpar ligne unique, les dispositions de l'article 6 de la conven-
tion de 1958s'appliqueraient directement, c'est-à-dire à titre convention-
nel, <au plateau continental commeétantl'undes éléments de lafrontière
maritime unique ))et aussi,maisen tant qu'a expression particulièred'une
norme générale »,à la zone de pêchesurjacente, comme à l'autre de ces
éléments.
122. Abstraction faite de la considération de fond figurant à la fin du
paragraphe 119ci-dessus, la Chambre doit relever que l'assertion d'après
laquelle, mêmepour la délimitation d'une zone maritime de pêche exclu-
sive,<<la méthodede l'équidistancedoitêtreutilisée lorsqu'elleproduit un
résultat équitableO, c'est-à-dire tant que des circonstances spécialesn'en
exigent pas l'abandon, et ceci en vertu d'une norme généralede droit
international, ne s'appuie pas sur une base convaincante. Accepter cette
idée reviendrait à transformer la <<règlecombinéeéquidistance-circons-
tances spéciales )en une règledu droit international général,susceptible
sur ce plan d'applications multiples, alors que dans la coutume interna-
tionale il n'y a pas trace d'une telletransformation.
123. La Chambre doit relever, à ce sujet, que si la Partie canadienne a
correctement emprunté à la décisiondu tribunal arbitral pour la délimi-
tation du plateau continental entre la France et le Royaume-Uni l'expres-
sion amalgamant dans une définition synthétiquel'ensemble d'idées dif-
férentesqui se rencontrent dans l'article 6 de la convention de 1958,ce
serait par contre solliciterlaportéedelamêmedécisioq nuede luiattribuer
l'idéeque la <règlecombinant équidistance-circonstances spéciales (dé-result would be just as unacceptable as the converse result produced by
simply extending to the continental shelf the application of a method of
delimitation adopted for the "water column" only and its fish re-
sources.
120. In this connection, the Chamber would also observe that it is not
possible to employ, in refutation of the foregoing, the argument that the
method contemplated by Article 6 of the Convention on the Continental
Shelf is also provided for, in similar terms, in Article 12 and Article 24,
paragraph 3,of the Convention of the samedate on theTerritorial Seaand
the Contiguous Zone. The situation of the territorial sea and the conti-
guous zone, conceived as subject to the sovereignty of the coastal State, or
subject to the exerciseof customscontrols and similar measures, intended
to prevent violations of its territorial sovereignty, cannot be treated as an
analogy. There isnothing here whichis comparable with the reservation of
the exclusiverights of exploitation of resources of a maritime area extend-
ing to 200miles ;there is therefore nothing which couldjustify the idea of
an extension thereto of criteria and delimitation methods expressly con-
templated for the narrow strip of sea defined for a quite different pur-
pose.
121. Furthermore the Chamber cannot accept thearguments of Canada
that, when a singlemaritime boundary is to be determined, the provisions
of Article 6 of the 1958Convention apply directly, i.e., as treaty-law, "to
the continental shelf as a component of the single maritime boundary",
and also, but as a "particular expression of a general norm", to the
superjacent fishery zone, as the other component.
122. Leaving aside the substantive point made at the end of paragraph
119above, the Chamber is bound to note that the assertion that, even for
the delimitation of an exclusive maritime fishery zone, by virtue of a
generalnorm ofinternational law"the equidistancemethod is tobe usedin
those cases where it produces an equitable result", i.e., in so far as special
circumstances do not require its use to be abandoned, has no convincing
basis. To accept this idea would amount to transforming the "combined
equidistance-special circumstances rule" into a rule of general interna-
tional law,and thus onecapable ofnumerousapplications, whereasthere is
no trace in international custom of such a transformation having
occurred.
123. The Chamber cannot but note in this connection that although it
was proper for Canada to derive from the Decision of the Court of Arbi-
tration on the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between France and
the United Kingdom the expression combining in one concise definition
al1the different ideas found in Article 6 of the 1958Convention, it would
be straining the scope of that Decision to interpret it as meaning that the
"combined equidistance-special circumstances rule" (Decision, para. 68)cision arbitrale, par. 68) fût en passe de devenir une norme d'application
générale. Cequela décisionmentionnée amis en évidence estque la règle
en question
((constitue l'expression particulière d'une norme générale suivant
laquelle la limite entre des Etats qui donnent sur le mêmeplateau
continental doit, en l'absence d'accord, êtredéterminéeselon des
principes équitables ))(ibid p.ar. 70),
cequiest autre chose.Au contraire,la constatation faite par letribunal met
en évidenceleplan différent surlequel se situent les diversesrèglesdont il
s'agit:lesdispositions de l'article6de la convention de 1958sur leplan du
droit international particulier, et sur leplan du droit international général
la norme prescrivant l'application de principes ou, mieux, de critères
équitables, sansdonner d'indications quant au choix à faire dans le cadre
de ces derniers, ni entre lesméthodes pratiquespar lesquellesils devraient
se traduire. La Chambre considèreque tel est l'état actueldu droit inter-
national coutumier.
124. En résumé, laChambre estime qu'aucun raisonnement ne peut
légitimerla prétention de faire du contenu des dispositions figurant à
l'article 6 de la convention de 1958une règle générale applicable en tant
que telleà toute délimitationmaritime. Les dispositions conventionnelles
en question, comme l'arrêtde la Cour de 1969 l'asouligné, nesauraient
avoir de valeur contraignante pour la délimitation,mêmedu seul plateau
continental, entre des Etats non parties à la convention de 1958.D'une
manièreanalogue, elles ne sauraient avoir un tel caractère contraignant,
mêmeentre Etats parties à la convention, aux fins d'une délimitation
maritime concernant un objet plus vaste que le seul plateau continental.
125. La Chambre ne peut donc que conclure, sous cet angle, que les
dispositions de l'article6 de la convention de 1958 sur le plateau conti-
nental, tout en étanten vigueur entre les Parties, ne comportent pas pour
cesdernières,nipour laChambre, uneobligationjuridique de lesappliquer
à la délimitation maritime unique qui fait l'objet du présentprocès.
126. Parvenue àcette conclusion en ce qui concerne l'absence,entre les
Parties, d'une obligationjuridique d'origine conventionnelle d'appliquer
des méthodes pratiques déterminéesau tracéde la ligne unique de déli-
mitation de leurs zones maritimes respectives, la Chambre doit encore se
poser une question connexe. Elle doit examiner si, entre lesdites Parties,
d'autres facteurs ne seraientpas intervenus, qui auraient pu, indépendam-
ment detout acteformel decréationde règlesoud'instauration derapports
de droit international particulier, êtrequand même àl'origine de l'exis-
tenced'uneobligation de cegenre. Il s'agiticidelaquestion, que lesparties
ont longuement débattuependant leprésentprocès,de savoir silaconduiteis in the process of becoming a norm of general application. What that
Decision did state is that the rule in question
"givesparticular expressionto ageneralnorm that, failingagreement,
theboundary betweenStates abuttingon the samecontinental shelfis
to be determined on equitable principles" (Decision, para. 70),
which is a different matter. On the contrary, the finding of the Court of
Arbitration clearly shows the different levels at which the various rules
concerned are situated :theprovisions ofArticle 6of the 1958Convention
at the levelof special international law, and, at the levelof general inter-
national law, the norm prescribing application of equitable principles, or
rather equitablecriteria,without anyindication as to thechoiceto bemade
among these latter or between the practical methods to implement them.
The Chamber considers that such is the current state of customary inter-
national law.
124. In short, theChamber does not believethat there is any argument
to justify the attempt to turn the provisions of Article 6 of the 1958
Convention into a general rule applicable as such to every maritime
delimitation. The treaty provisions in question, as the 1969Judgment of
the Court pointed out, can have no mandatory force as regards delimita-
tion, evendelimitation of thecontinental shelfalone,between Stateswhich
are not parties to the 1958Convention. Similarly, they cannot have such
mandatory forceevenbetween States whichareparties to theConvention,
as regards a maritime boundary concerning a much wider subject-matter
than the continental shelf alone.
125. The Chamber must therefore conclude in this respect that the
provisions of Article 6 of the 1958Convention on the Continental Shelf,
although in force between the Parties, do not entai1either for them or for
the Chamber any legaI obligation to apply them to the single maritime
delimitation which is the subject of the present case.
126. The Chamber, having reached this conclusion as to the absence
between the Parties of any legal obligation deriving from treaty to apply
specific practical methods to the determination of the single boundary
between their respective maritime zones, must also examine a related
question. It must ascertain whether, as between the Parties, any other
factors have intervened which rnight, independently of any forma1 act
creating rules or instituting relations under special international law,
nevertheless give rise to an obligation of this kind. The question, which
the Parties have argued at length during the present case, is whether the
conduct of the Parties over a givenperiod of their relationship constituted qu'ellesont suiviependant une périodedonnéede leurs rapports n'aurait
pas entraînépour l'une d'ellesun acquiescement à l'application à la déli-
mitation d'une méthodespécifiqueprônéepar l'autre Partie, ou une for-
clusion quant a la possibilitéde s'yopposer, ou encore de savoir si cette
conduite n'aurait pas eu pour effet d'instaurer autour d'une ligne corres-
pondant à une telle application un modus vivendirespectéen fait.
127. C'est le Canada qui a développé tout particulièrement lathèse
d'après laquelle la conduite des Etats-Unis aurait entraîné l'apparition,
sousl'une de ces diverses formes, d'une sortede consentement de fond de
leurpart à l'application de laméthodedel'équidistance,en cequi concerne
surtout la délimitation à tracer dans le secteur du banc de Georges. C'est
doncpar la prise enconsidérationdecette thèseque la Chambreabordera
l'examen de cet aspect de la question.
128. D'aprèsleCanada,donc, laconduite des Etats-Unis peut êtreprise
en considération à trois titres d'importance différent: premièrement, en
tant que preuve d'un véritableacquiescement de leur part à l'idéed'une
ligne médianecomme limite entre lesjuridictions maritimes respectives
et d'un estoppel qui en résulterait pour les Etats-Unis ; deuxièmement,
comme indice au moins de l'existence d'un modus vivendi ou d'une
limite de facto, que les deux Etats auraient laissés'instaurer ; et enfin,
troisièmement, en tant que simple indice du type de délimitation que
les Parties elles-mêmes jugeraient équitable. II està remarquer que cette
thèsecanadienne concernait, à l'époquede la conduite envisagée, le pla-
teau continental proprement dit et notamment celui du banc de Georges.
Les Etats-Unis, quant à eux, contestent fermement que leur conduite ait
pu avoir les conséquencesjuridiques ou autresque leur prêtele Canada.
129. Dans les exposéscanadiens, les termes acquiescementet estoppel
sont employésensemble et pratiquement aux mêmesfins. Le Canada
définitde la manièresuivante les règles relatives àl'acquiescement, con-
sidéré commeune reconnaissance de droits :
Lorsque le gouvernement d'un Etat, partie à un différend, a
connaissance,directementou par déduction,de la conduite de l'autre
partie ou d'une affirmation de droits de sa part, et qu'il s'abstient de
protester contre cette conduite ou cette affirmation, c'est que ce
gouvernement accepte tacitement la positionjuridique que traduit la
conduite del'autrepartie ousonaffirmation dedroits. ))(Audience du
4 avril 1984,après-midi.)
Quant à l'estoppel,le Canada admet qu'en droit international cette <<doc-
trine )continue d'évoluer.D'aprèslui, cependant, en la présente espèce
toutes les conditions permettant d'invoquer ce principe se trouveraient
réunies, même si l'on neretenait que les plus strictes. Le Canada a dit en
plaidoirie que l'estoppelest<l'alteregode l'acquiescement o.Il a toutefois
ajoutéque mêmesi l'on devait retenir que les conditions pour la recon-
naissance d'une situation d'estoppelsont plus sévèresque celles requises
pour un acquiescement - les Etats-Unis soutiennent en effet que la partie
qui voudrait invoquer cetteforme deforclusion devrait sefonder sur lefaitacquiescence by one of them in the application to the delimitation of a
specificmethod advocated by theother Party, or precluded it from oppos-
ing such action, or whether such conduct might have resulted in a modus
vivendi,respected in fact, with regard to a line corresponding to such an
application.
127. It was more specificallyCanada which argued that the conduct of
the United States involvedakind ofsubstantive consent bythat country, in
one of these forms, to the application of the equidistance method, parti-
cularly as regards the delimitation to be effected in the Georges Bank
sector. The Chamber will therefore begin itsexamination of this aspect of
the question by looking at this argument.
128. According to Canada the conduct of the United States may be
taken into consideration in three ways, of varying importance : first, as
evidence of genuine acquiescence in the idea of a median line as the
boundary between the respective maritimejurisdictions, and of a resultant
estoppel against the United States ;secondly, as an indication, at least, of
the existence of a modus vivendior of a de facto boundary, which the two
States have allowed to come into being ;and, thirdly and lastly, as mere
indicia of the type of delimitation that the Parties themselveswould have
considered equitable. It should be noted that this Canadian argument
concerned, at the time of the conduct in question, the continental shelf
proper and, inter alia, that of Georges Bank. The United States strongly
disputes the contention that its conduct could have the legal or other
consequences attributed to it by Canada.
129. In the Canadian argument the terms "acquiescence" and "estop-
pel" are used together and practically for the same purposes. Canada
defines as follows the rules relating to acquiescence, regarded as a recog-
nition of rights :
"One government's knowledge, actual or constructive, of the con-
duct or assertion of rights of the other party to a dispute, and the
failure to protest in the face of that conduct, or assertion of rights,
involves a tacit acceptance of the legal position represented by the
other Party'sconduct or assertion ofrights." (Hearing of4April1984,
afternoon.)
In the case of estoppel, Canada acknowledgesthatin international law the
"doctrine" is still developing. According to Canada, however, al1condi-
tions permitting theinvocation of that principle are satisfied in the present
case, even if only the strictest are selected. Canada stated in the oral
proceedings that estoppel is "the alter ego of acquiescence", though it
added that evenif it were to be held that theconditions forthe recognition
of an estoppel weremore stringent than thosefor acquiescence(the United
States argues that a party wishing to invoke this form of preclusion must
have relied on the other party's statements or conduct either to its ownque les déclarations ou la conduite de l'autre partie ont opérésoià son
propre détriment,soit à l'avantage de l'autre- ce dernier critère devrait
êtretenu pour satisfait en l'espèce.
130. La Chambre constate en tout cas que les notions d'acquiescement
et d'estoppel,quel que soit le statut que leur réserve ledroit international,
découlent toutes deux des principes fondamentaux de la bonne foi et de
l'équité. Ellesrocèdentcependantde raisonnementsjuridiques différents,
l'acquiescement équivalant à une reconnaissancetacite manifestée par un
comportement unilatéral que l'autre partie peut interpréter comme un
consentement ;l'estoppelétantpar contre liàl'idéede forclusion. D'après
une certainefaçon de voir laforclusion seraitd'ailleurs l'aspectprocédural
etl'estoppell'aspectdefond du mêmeprincipe.Sans vouloir entrer icidans
un débatthéoriquedépassantleslimitesde sespréoccupationsactuelles,la
Chambre se bornera à relever que, les mêmesfaits étant pertinents aussi
bien pour l'acquiescement que pour l'estoppel,sauf pour ce qui est de
l'existenced'unpréjudice,ellepeut considérerles deux notions commedes
aspects distincts d'une mêmeinstitution.
131. Les faits pertinents peuvent êtrerésumés comme suit. LeCanada
commença à délivreren 1964,en deçà de ce qui étaitselon lui une ligne
médianedivisantlebancde Georges, desoptions à long terme(O permis O)
en vue de l'exploitation exclusive d'hydrocarbures. A partir de 1964des
recherches sismiques furent entreprises sous l'autoritédu Canadadans la
partie nord-est du banc. Le Canada allègueque la délivrancede permis
canadiens portant sur la partie nord-est du banc de Georges étaitconnue
des autorités américaines. Le Gouvernement canadien avait du reste
publié desinformations à ce sujet dans leMonthly Oilund GusReport. Les
Etats-Unis répondent àcela que l'octroi de permis offshore en vertu de la
législation canadienne était un fait dépourvu de notoriétéet qu'il ne
s'agissaitque d'une activitéadministrative interne insusceptible d'êtrela
base d'un acquiescement ou d'un estoppelsur le plan international. Pour
qu'uneffet quelconque aitpu seproduire surceplan ilaurait toutau moins
étéindispensable qu'une communication diplomatiquefût adresséepar le
ministère des affaires extérieuresdu Canada au département d'Etat des
Etats-Unis.
132. D'aprèsleCanada, cependant, lesautorités desEtats-Unis avaient
eu connaissance des faits en question depuis le ler avril 1965au moins. A
cette date le Bureau of Land Management du département de l'intérieur
des Etats-Unis avait écrit auministèredu Nord canadien et des ressources
nationales pour s'enquérirde la position de deux permis offshore cana-
diens par rapportà la ligne médianevisée àl'article 6 de la convention de
Genèvesur le plateau continental. Ce ministère lui avaitfait parvenir en
réponsedes documents sur la localisationdes permis. Par lettre du 14mai
1965,dite <<lettre Hoffman ))du nom de son signataire, le Bureau of Land
Management accusa réception des documents et évoquaentre autres la
question de laposition exacted'une lignemédiane,et leministèredu Nord
canadien répondit le 16 juin 1965 que la ligne médiane utilisée était
construite conformément à l'article 6 de la convention sur le plateaudetriment or to the other's advantage), this latter criterion must be
regarded as satisfied in the present case.
130. The Chamber observes that in any case the concepts of acquies-
cence and estoppel, irrespective of the status accorded to them by inter-
national law, both follow from the fundamental principles of good faith
and equity. They are, however, based on different legal reasoning, since
acquiescence is equivalent to tacit recognition manifested by unilateral
conduct which the other party may interpret as consent, while estoppel is
linked to the idea ofpreclusion. According to oneview,preclusion isin fact
the procedural aspect and estoppel the substantive aspect of the same
principle. Without engaging at this point on a theoretical debate, which
would exceed the bounds of its present concerns, the Chamber merely
notes that, since the same facts are relevant to both acquiescence and
estoppel, except asregardsthe existence of detriment, it is able to take the
two concepts into consideration as different aspects of one and the same
institution.
131. The relevant facts may be summarized asfollows.Canada began in
1964to issue,onits own sideofwhatit regarded asthe median linedividing
Georges Bank, long-term options (permits) for the exclusiveexploitation
of hydrocarbons. From 1964 onwards seismic research was carried out
under the authority of Canada in the northeastern portion of the Bank.
Canada alleges that it was known to the United States authorities that it
had issued permits relating to the northeastern portion of Georges Bank.
The Canadian Government had, moreover, published informationon the
subject in theMonth& Oil and Gus Report. The United States replies that
the issue of offshore permits under Canadian legislation was not common
knowledge, and merely constituted an interna1 administrative activity
incapable of forming the basis of acquiescence or estoppel at the interna-
tional level. Before any effect could result at this level it would, at least,
have been necessary for the Canadian Department of External Affairs to
send a diplomatic communication to the United States Department of
State.
132. According to Canada, however, the United Statesauthorities were
aware of the facts in question by 1April 1965at the latest. At that date the
Bureau of Land Management of the United States Department of the
Interior wrote to the Canadian Department of Northern Affairs and
National Resources enquiring asto the location of two Canadian offshore
permits with reference to the median line referred to in Article 6 of the
Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf.The Canadian Department
replied by sending it documents showing the areas for which the perrnits
had been issued. By a letter dated 14May 1965,known as the "Hoffman
letter" from the name of its signatory, the Bureau of Land Management
acknowledged receipt of the documents and mentioned, inter alia,the
question of the exact position of a median line, and the Department of
Northern Affairs replied on 16June 1965that the median line used wascontinental. Vint ensuite une correspondance, diplomatique cette fois-ci,
entre l'ambassade des Etats-Unis à Ottawa et le ministère des affaires
extérieuresdu Canada, qui apporta certaines informations de détail.Une
lettre envoyéeau nom du sous-secrétaired'Etat aux affaires extérieuresdu
Canada, où la ligne médianeétaitexpressémentmentionnée,porte la date
du 30 août 1966,mais les Etats-Unis ne saisirent pas cette occasion pour
protester ou réserverleursdroits. Ilsne leferont quedans un aide-mémoire
du 5 novembre 1969 qui ne renvoie à aucune réserveprécédemment
exprimée. LeCanada affirme en outre que la première mention dans la
correspondance diplomatique de la revendication américaine, avancéeen
1976,d'une limit; le long du chenal Nord-Est, remonte au 18 février
1977.
133. Les Etats-Unis opposent à ces faits que les auteurs de la corres-
pondance de 1965étaient des fonctionnaires de rang moyen qui n'étaient
pas habilitésà définir deslimites internationales àiprendre position au
nom de leurs gouvernements au sujet de revendications étrangèresen la
matière. Les Etats-Unis contestent surtout que la lettre Hoffman
puisse êtreconsidéréecomme comportant un acquiescement exprès ou
tacite aux prétentions canadiennes. Ainsi que M. Hoffman le spécifiait
dans salettre, iln'avaitpas non plus lepouvoir d'engager lesEtats-Unis au
sujet de la position d'une ligne médiane. L'aide-mémoire américain du
5 novembre 1969renvoyait d'ailleurs expressément auprécédent,datédu
10mai 1968,dans lequellesEtats-Unis proposaient queles gouvernements
entament au plustôt des négociationsau sujetde ladélimitationdu plateau
continental dans le golfe du Maine et dans la régiondu détroit Juan de
Fuca. Ledit aide-mémoirene disait rien d'une ligne médianeni de tout
autre principe ou méthode de délimitation.
134. Selon les Etats-Unis le Canada n'a jamais fait de proclamation
officielleni procédéà une autre publication pour faire connaîtreinterna-
tionalement ses prétentions ; les Etats-Unis ne pouvaient donc pas en
déduirel'existence par cette voie indirecte. En 1964 le Canada n'avait
encore émisaucune revendication officielle sur le plateau continental en
vertu de sa propre législation.Bien au contraire il n'avait mêmpas pris
position officiellementà l'égardde la proclamation Truman et de ses
implications possibles pour leplateau continental du banc de Georges qui,
d'aprèsles Etats-Unis, y était inclus dans sa totalité.
135. De soncôtéleCanada soutientque, dans lapratique suiviede 1964
à fin 1970,les Etats-Unis ne sont pas allésà l'encontre des thèsescana-
dienneset n'ont pas miseffectivement en application une limitefondéesur
lechenalNord-Est. Lesconcessionsoctroyéespar lesautoritésaméricaines
ne dépassaient pas en direction du nord une ligne médiane sur lebanc de
Georges. LeCanada citeen outre l'aide-mémoire américain du 5novembre
1969, dont il ressort que les Etats-Unis s'étaient abstenus d'autoriser
l'exploitation de matières minéralesdans la partie nord du plateau conti-
nental du banc de Georges.
136. Les Etats-Unis font valoir en réponsequ'ils étaient alors enpré-constructed in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention on the Con-
tinental Shelf. This was followed by correspondence, now at diplomatic
level, between the United States Embassy in Ottawa and the Canadian
Department of External Affairs, which supplied certain items of detailed
information. A letter written on behalf of the Canadian Under-Secretary
of State for External Affairs, in which the median line was explicitly
mentioned, isdated 30August 1966,but the United States didnot takethis
opportunity to protest or reserve its rights. It did so only in its aide-
mémoiredated 5 November 1969,which does not refer to any previous
reservation. Canada also affirms that it wasonly on 18February 1977that
mention was first made in diplomatic correspondence of the claim
advancedby the United States in 1976to a boundary along theNortheast
Channel.
133. The United States argues in reply that the authors of the 1965
correspondence werernid-levelgovernment officialswhohad no authority
to define international boundaries or take a position on behalf of their
Governments on foreign claims in this field. The United States disputes
especially the argument that the "Hoffman letter" can be regarded as
constituting explicit or tacit acquiescence in the Canadian claims. As Mr.
Hoffman explained in his letter, he had noauthority to commit the United
States as to the position of a median line. Moreover, the United States
aide-mémoireof 5 November 1969explicitly referred to the previous one,
of 10 May 1968,whereby the United States proposed that the Govern-
ments should undertake discussions at an early date on the delimitation of
the continental shelf in the Gulf of Maine and in the area of the Straits of
Juan de Fuca. This aide-mémoiresaid nothing about a median line or
about any other principle or method of delimitation.
134. According to the United States, Canada never issued an officia1
proclamation or anyother publication for thepurpose ofmaking its claims
known internationally ; the United States could not, therefor infer the
existence of such claims by such indirect means. By 1964Canada had not
published any officia1claim to the continental shelf under its own legis-
lation. On the contrary, if had not even taken an officia1stand on the
Truman Proclamation and its possible implications for the continental
shelf in the Georges Bank area which, according to the United States, was
included in its entirety therein.
135. Canada argues that, in the practice followed from 1964until the
end of 1970,the United States did not oppose the Canadian contention
and did not implement a boundary based on the Northeast Channel. The
permits issued by the United Statesauthorities didnot relate toareas north
of a median line on Georges Bank. Canada further quotes the aide-
mémoireof 5 November 1969,which shows that the United States had
refrained from authorizing the exploitation of minerals in the northern
continental shelf of Georges Bank.
136. The United States replies that at the time in question it was con-sence, sur le banc de Georges, d'une activitécanadienne de recherches
sismiques d'importance mineure, ne comportant ni l'exécutionde forages,
ni l'extraction de pétrole.Aucune mesure particulière ne s'imposait donc
de leur part. En outre, dès 1965, des permis d'exploration américains
avaient étéaccordéssur la partie nord-est du banc de Georges, au-delà
d'une lignemédiane,par exemplelepermis EL/65 octroyé à Shell.L'aide-
mémoiredéjà mentionné du5 novembre 1969 s'opposait clairement au
programme canadien en ce qui concernele banc. Il y étaitspécifié que les
Etats-Unis
(<nepourront consentir à aucune autorisation canadienne visant l'ex-
ploration ou l'exploitation des ressources naturelles du plateau conti-
nental du banc de Georges D.
137. Les faits étantceux qui ont étérelatés, laChambre n'estime pas
pouvoir en tirer la conclusion que les Etats-Unis auraient acquiescé à la
délimitationdu plateau continental du banc de Georges au moyen d'une
ligne médiane,et ceci sans tirer argument, pour le moment, d'une part du
fait que lesocledu banc de Georges n'estqu'une portion limitéeduplateau
continental de l'airede la délimitation,et d'autre part de ce que leplateau
continental n'est actuellement que l'un seulement des deux objets de la
délimitationque la Chambre est priée d'effectuer.
138. De l'avis de la Chambre il est peut-êtrevrai que l'attitude des
Etats-Unis en matière de limites maritimes avec le voisin canadien s'est
caractériséejusqu'àlafindesannéessoixantepar desincertitudeset par un
certain manquede cohérence.Cette remarque n'empêchepas toutefois de
constater que lesfaits alléguésar leCanada nepermettent pas deconclure
que le Gouvernement des Etats-Unisaurait par là reconnu une fois pour
toutes la ligne médianecommelimite desjuridictions sur leplateau conti-
nental ;ilsne permettent pas non plus de conclure quelasimpleabsence de
réaction àla délivrancedepermisd'exploration canadiens, de 1964jusqu1à
l'aide-mémoiredu 5 novembre 1969,ait eu commeconséquencejuridique
que les Etats-Unis ne pouvaient plus désormaisrevendiquer une limite
suivant le chenal Nord-Est, ni mêmecomprenant toutes les zones au
sud-ouest de la <<perpendiculaire ajustée )).
139. La Chambre estime que les termes de la lettre Hoffman ne
peuvent pas être opposésau Gouvernement des Etats-Unis. La réserve
expriméepar M.Hoffman, suivant laquelle iln'était pashabilité à engager
les Etats-Unis, ne concernait, il est vrai, que l'emplacement d'une ligne
médiane ; laligne médianeentant que méthodede délimitationne parais-
saitpasêtreen cause,maisrien n'indique quecette méthode aitétéadoptée
à l'échelongouvernemental. M. Hoffman, comme son homologue cana-
dien d'ailleurs, agissaitdans lecadre de sesattributions techniques, et il ne
paraissait pas avoirétéavertide ceque laquestion de principe que pouvait
mettre en jeu l'objet de la correspondance n'étaitpas réglée,et que les
arrangements techniques qu'il devait adopter avec ses correspondants
canadiens ne devaient pas préjugerla position des Etats-Unis dans les
négociations ultérieuresentre gouvernements. Maiscette situation,proprefronted on Georges Bank with Canadian seismic exploration of minor
importance, which involved neither drilling nor the extraction of petro-
leum. No special action was therefore necessary on its part. Moreover,
from 1965onwardsUnited States exploration permitshad been issued for
thenortheastern part of Georges Bank, beyond a median line, e.g.,permit
EL/65 issued to Shell. The aide-mémoireof 5 November 1969 already
mentioned, clearlyconstitutedopposition to the Canadian programme for
the Bank :it stated specifically that the United States :
"cannot acquiesce in any Canadian authorization of exploration or
exploitation of the natural resources of the Georges Bank continental
shelf".
137. The facts being as described, the Chamber does not feel able to
draw the conclusion that the United States acquiesced in delimitation of
the Georges Bank continental shelf by a median line, setting aside for the
moment both the fact that the platform of Georges Bank isonly a limited
portion of thecontinental shelfof thearea tobe delimited, and the fact that
at the present time the continental shelf is only one of the two subjects of
the delimitation requested of the Chamber.
138. In the view of the Chamber, it may be correct that the attitude of
the United States on maritime boundaries with its Canadian neighbour,
until the end of the 1960s, revealed uncertainties and a fair degree of
inconsistency. Notwithstanding this, the facts advanced by Canada do not
warrant the conclusion that the United States Government thereby re-
cognized the median line once and for al1as a boundary between the
respectivejurisdictions overthecontinental shelf ;nor do they warrant the
conclusion that mere failure to react to the issue of Canadian exploration
permits, from 1964until the aide-mémoireof 5 November 1969,legally
debarred the United States fromcontinuingto claim a boundary following
the Northeast Channel, or even including al1the areas southwest of the
"adjusted perpendicular".
139. The Chamber considers that the terms of the "Hoffman letter"
cannot be invoked against the United States Government. It is true that
Mr. Hoffman's reservation, that he was not authorized to commit the
United States, only concerned the location of a median line ;the use of a
median line as a method of delimitation did not seem to be in issue, but
there isnothing to showthat that method had been adopted at government
level. Mr. Hoffman, like his Canadian counterpart, was acting within the
limits of his technical responsibilities and did not seem aware that the
question of principle which the subject of the correspondence might imply
had not been settled, and that the technical arrangements he was to make
with his Canadian correspondents should not prejudge his country's posi-
tion in subsequent negotiations between governments. This situation,
however,beinga matter of United States interna1administration, does notà l'administration interne des Etats-Unis, ne permet pas au Canada de
s'appuyer surlecontenu d'une lettre d'un fonctionnaire du Bureau of Land
Management du départementde l'intérieur, relative à un aspect technique,
comme s'il s'agissait d'une déclarationofficielle du Gouvernement des
Etats-Unis sur les limites maritimes internationales de ce pays.
140. D'autre part, et sans vouloir nier qu'ilyait eu quelqueimprudence
de la part des Etats-Unis à garder le silence après que le Canada eut
accordéles premiers permis d'exploration sur lebanc de Georges, ilparaît
tout au moins disproportionné de vouloir attribuerà ce silence, decourte
duréeau surplus, des conséquencesjuridiques pouvant se concrétiserpar
un estoppel.
141. Apartir de 1965lesEtats-Unis, commeon l'avu,ont accordé à leur
tourdespermisd'exploration dans lapartie nord-est du bancde Georges et
doncdans la zone réclamée par le Canada. Là encore il eût étéprudentde
leur part de faire connaître officiellement ces activitéselui-ci. Cepen-
dant ce manque de communication ne permet certes pas de conclure que
les Etats-Unis ont par là donné au Canada l'impression qu'ilsacceptaient
la thèsecanadienne et qu'ilenrésultait deseffetsjuridiques. L'attitude des
Etats-Unis à l'égarddu Canada était une fois de plus peu claire, voire
équivoque, maispas au point que le Canada soit fondé à invoquer la
doctrine de l'estoppel.
142. Certes, au moment où le Canada, au niveau de son ministère des
affaires extérieures etde l'ambassade des Etats-Unisà Ottawa, a énoncé
clairement pour la premièrefois ses prétentions, il aurait pu s'attendàe
une réactiondu départementd'Etat des Etats-Unis. Les Etats-Unis recon-
naissent qu'ilsétaientainsi officiellement avisésdes vuesduCanada sur le
problèmede la délimitation.Que la correspondance eût étééchangéen ,on
pas entre le secrétaired'Etat aux affaires étrangèreslui-mêmeet l'ambas-
sadeur des Etats-Unis lui-même, maisentre des fonctionnaires qui leur
étaient subordonnés,ne change rien au fait que la lettre émanait de
l'administration compétente pour la conduite des affaires étrangères du
Canada et était adressée à l'ambassade représentantle Gouvernement
des Etats-Unis. Avoir attendu le 10mai 1968pour suggérerpar voiediplo-
matique l'ouverture de négociations,la question demeurant ouverte, puis
encore un an et demi,jusqu'à novembre 1969,pour indiquer clairement
qu'aucune autorisation canadienne d'exploration ou d'exploitation des
ressources naturelles du plateau continental du banc de Georges ne serait
reconnue, ce n'est pas s'être efforcde tenir le Canada suffisamment au
courant de lapolitiquedes Etats-Unis. Il est même possibleque le Canada
ait pu raisonnablement espérerque lesEtats-Unis serangeraient pour finir
à ses vues. Mais en tirer sur le planjuridique la conclusion que les Etats-
Unis avaient, par ce retard, tacitement acquiescéaux thèsescanadiennes
ou qu'ils avaient perdu leurs droits, c'est aller au-delà des conditions
requises pour qu'on puisse parler, de l'avis de la Chambre, d'acquiesce-
ment ou d'estoppel.
143. Le Canada a invoquédivers précédents en faveurde ses thèses,et
en particulier certains arrêts dela Cour. Les Etats-Unis contestent queauthorize Canada to rely on the contents of a letter from an officia1of the
Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior, which
concernsa technical matter, asthough it werean officia1declaration of the
United States Government on that country'sinternationalmaritime boun-
daries.
140. Furthermore, while it may be conceded that the United States
showed a certain imprudence in maintaining silence after Canada had
issued the first permits for exploration on Georges Bank, any attempt to
attribute to such silence, a brief silenceat that, legal consequences taking
the concrete form of an estoppel, seems to be going too far.
141. From 1965onwards, aswehave seen, theUnited Statesalso issued
exploration permits for thenortheastern portion of Georges Bank, that is
to Say in the area claimed by Canada. Here again it would have been
prudent of the United States to inform Canada officiallyof those activities,
but its failure to do sooes not warrant the conclusion that it thereby gave
Canada the impression that it accepted the Canadian standpoint, and that
legaleffects resulted. Once again the United States attitude towards Can-
ada was unclear and perhaps ambiguous, but not to the point of entitling
Canada to invoke the doctrine of estoppel.
142. When Canada, at the level of its Department of External Affairs
and of the United States Embassy in Ottawa, clearly stated its claims for
the first time (letter of 30August 1966),it might admittedly have expected
a reaction on the part of the United States Department of State. The
United States concedes that it was thus officially informed of Canada's
viewson the problem ofdelimitation. Eventhough the correspondence was
conducted, not between the Secretary of State for External Affairs per-
sonally and the United States Ambassador personally, but between civil
servants subordinate to them, the letter did in fact emanate from the
administrative servicecompetent for the conduct of foreign relations and
was in fact addressed to the Ambassador representing the Government of
the United States. In waiting until10 May 1968before suggesting,through
diplomatic channels, the opening of discussions, while the question
remained pending, and then waiting a further year and a half, until
November 1969,before stating clearly that no Canadian permit for the
exploration or exploitation of the natural resources of the Georges Bank
continental shelf would be recognized, the United States cannot be
regarded as having endeavoured to keep Canada sufficientlyinformed of
its policy. Itis even possible that Canada was reasonably justified in
hoping that the United States would ultimately come round to its view.To
conclude from this, however, in legal terms, that by its delay the United
States had tacitly consented to theCanadian contentions, or had forfeited
its rights is, in the Chamber's opinion, overstepping the conditions
required for invoking acquiescence or estoppel.
143. Canada has referred, in support of its arguments, to a number of
precedents and in particular to certainjudgments of the Court. The Unitedcettejurisprudence et le raisonnement qui y est suivi renforcent les posi-
tions canadiennes. Sans vouloir entrer dans de trop grands détails à ce
sujet, la Chambre se bornera à relever le caractère peu concluant de ces
précédents pourla présenteaffaire.
144. En vued'étayer l'argument selon lequel laconduite d'un Etat peut
engendrer des conséquencesjuridiques dans les rapports de cet Etat avec
d'autres, le Canada s'estprévaluen particulier de l'arrêtrendu en l'affaire
des Pêcheriesentre la Grande-Bretagne et la Norvège.La Cour y a certes
conclu que les autorités norvégiennesavaient appliqué leur systèmede
délimitation d'une façon suivie et constante de 1869 à la naissance du
différend,et que la tolérance générale à l'égardde cette pratique norvé-
gienne étaitun fait incontesté (C.I.J. Recueil 1951, p. 138).Ella estimé
que cette tolérancegénérale, en liaison aved'autres facteurs,permettaità
la Norvège d'opposer son système au Royaume-Uni (ibid., p. 139). La
Chambre considèreque les élémentsde fait et de droit dans l'affaire des
Pêcherieset dans le litige actuel sonàl'évidencetrop dissemblables pour
qu'on puisse tirer de leur comparaison des conséquencesjuridiques va-
lables pour la présenteaffaire. Ni la longue duréede la pratique norvé-
gienne (soixante-dix ans) ni lesactivités norvégiennespar lesquelles cette
pratique s'était manifestéene permettent de déduiredel'arrêtde 1951des
conclusions qui seraient pertinentes ici.
145. C'est l'arrêtdans les affaires du Plateau continental de la mer du
Nord qui paraît avoir énoncédans les termes lesplus précislesconditions
permettant d'invoquer la doctrine de I'estoppel.Mais mêmeen laissant de
côtél'élémend tu détriment ou préjudice causépar le changement d'atti-
tude d'un Etat, élémenq t ui distingue l'estoppelau sensstrict de I'acquies-
cement, ce dernier n'en suppose pas moins une acceptation claire et cons-
tante (voir C.I.J. Recueil 1969, p. 26). Dans l'affaire actuelle,la conduite
des Etats-Unis, vu son caractère incertain, ne remplit pas les conditions
exigéesdans l'arrêtde 1969,que ce soit au sujet de I'estoppelou de I'ac-
quiescement.
146. Dans l'affaire des Grisbadarna sur la délimitation de zones de
pêcheentre la Norvège et la Suèdela conduite des deux Etats a effecti-
vementjouéungrand rôle. Lapertinence decetteaffaire encequiconcerne
la présenteespèceest toutefois discutable, attendu que les problèmesdes
droits sur des espaces marinsdifféraientàbien des égardsde cequ'ilssont
aujourd'hui. Le litige portait sur les eaux territoriales, alors que, dans la
présente affaire,il concerne de vastes étendues maritimes qui ne sont que
depuis peu soumises à lajuridiction des Etats adjacents. Les différences
entre les deux affaires sont si grandes qu'on peut difficilement établir un
parallèle entre elles. Mêmesi l'on voulait minimiserces différences, une
comparaison entre le comportement de la Suèdeet de la Norvège et celui
des Parties en la présenteespècenepermet pas de conclure, mêmed'après
la jurisprudence des Grisbadarna, que la conduite des Etats-Unis ait été
suffisamment claire, cohérenteet persistante pour constituer un acquies-
cement.
147. Lesfaits en l'affairedu TempledePréahVihéardiffèrenttellementStates argues that such case law, and the reasoning therein, do not
strengthen Canada's arguments. The Chamber willnot discuss this subject
in any great detail but will merely show that these precedents are incon-
clusive with respect to the present case.
144. To support the argument that a State'sconduct may produce legal
consequences initsrelations with other States, Canada has availed itself,in
particular, of the Judgment in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case. It is
true that in that Judgment the Courtfound that theNonvegian authorities
had applied their systernof delimitation consistently and uninterruptedly
from 1869until the timewhen the dispute arose and that general toleration
of that Norwegian practice was an unchallenged fact (1.C.J. Reports 1951,
p. 138).TheCourtfound that suchgeneral toleration,combined withother
factors,warranted Norway'senforcement of its system against the United
Kingdom (ibid.,p. 139).The Chamber considers that the elements of fact
and of law in the Fisheriescase and those in the present dispute are clearly
too dissimilar for a comparison thereof to produce legal consequences
valid for the present case. Neither the long duration of the Norwegian
practice (70 years), nor Nonvay's activities in manifestation of that prac-
tice, warrant the drawing of conclusions from the 1951 Judgment that
would be relevant in the present case.
145. It is apparently the Judgrnent in the North Sea Continental Shelf
cases that gave the most precise definition of the conditions for invoking
thedoctrine ofestoppel ;but evendisregardingthe elernentofdetriment or
prejudice caused by a State's change of attitude, which distinguishes
estoppel stricto sensufrom acquiescence, it nevertheless presupposes clear
and consistent acceptance (I.C.J. Reports 1969,p. 26).In the present case
the conduct of the United States, because of its unclear nature, does not
satisfy the conditions prescribed in the 1969Judgment, either for estoppel
or for acquiescence.
146. In the Grisbadarna case concerning the delimitation of fishing
grounds between Norway and Sweden, the conduct of the two States did
play a major part ;the relevance of that case to the present one is however
debatable, since the problems of rights over maritime areas differed in
many respects from those of the present day. That case concerned terri-
torial waters, whereas the present one concerns vast areas of sea that have
only recently corne under the jurisdiction of the adjacent States. The
differencesbetween the twocasesare sogreat that it isdifficult to establish
a parallel between them. Even if these differences are minimized, it is not
possible to conclude, on the basis of the Grisbadarnaprecedent, from a
comparison of theconduct of Swedenand Norway with that of the Parties
to the present case, that the conduct of the United States was sufficiently
clear, sustained and consistent to constitute acquiescence.
147. The facts of the Temple of Preah Vihear case (cf. I.C.J. Reportsdeceuxde laprésentecause(voir C.I.J. Recueil 1962,p. 22,23 et 32)que les
conclusions que l'on en a tirées luisont - semble-t-il- inapplicables.
L'arrêtdans l'affaire de la Sentencearbitrale renduepar leroid'Espagnele
23 décembre1906 n'est pas non plus un précédentvalable. L'acquiesce-
ment yajouéun rôle, mais pour le lui reconnaître la Cour s'estfondée sur
desdéclarationsexpressesduNicaragua etsurun comportement qui s'était
prolongéfort longtemps, ce qui n'est pas le cas en la présente affaire.
148. Sur labase de l'ensemble desconsidérationsexposées,la Chambre
tient que, dans le cas d'espèce,ne se trouvent pas réunies lesconditions
d'un acquiescement de la part des Etats-Unis, qui, même à défautd'autres
bases, aurait pour effet de rendre obligatoire, sur le plan des rapports
bilatéraux entre les Etats-Unis et le Canada, l'application de la ligne
médiane àla détermination desjuridictions maritimes respectives de ces
deux Etats. Ilen va de même en cequiconcerne l'éventualité d'un estoppel,
etcecisanspréjudicedesproblèmesquepeut poser engénéral l'application
de cette notion en droit international
149. Indépendamment des arguments tirésde la conduite des Parties
pour établirl'existenced'un acquiescement ou d'un estoppel,le Canada a
aussi priéla Chambre de dire que la conduitedes Parties prouvait tout au
moins l'existence d'une <<frontièrede modus vivendi ou d'une << frontière
maritime defacto fondée surla coïncidence qui aurait existéentre I'an-
cienne ligne d'équidistancedu Canada (ligne dite de stricte équidistance)
et la(<ligneBLM des Etats-Unis, coïncidence qui aurait été respectéepar
lesdeux Partieset par bon nombre de sociétéspétrolière dse 1965à 1972au
moins. LeCanada avance cette conclusion entirant parti du raisonnement
et des prononcés de la Cour en l'affaire du Plateau continental(Tunisiel
Jamahiriya arabe libyenne) (C.I.J. Recueil 1982, p. 83-85). Quant aux
Etats-Unis, non seulement ils contestent que leurs permis pétroliers et
gaziers aient respecté telleou telle ligne particulière (voir ci-dessus l'ana-
lyse des faits relatifs
àl'acquiescement et à l'estoppel; ils nient en outre
l'existence mêmede la <<ligne BLM >).
150. Sans entrer dans ces divergencesde détail,la Chambre relèvequ'à
supposer mêmequ'une démarcation sesoit en fait concrétiséeentre les
zones pour lesquelles les Parties ont respectivement délivrédes permis (le
Canada depuis 1964,lesEtats-Unis depuis 1965),onne sauraitreconnaître
en cela une situation comparable àcelle sur laquelle la Cour a fondéses
conclusions dans l'affaire Tunisie/Libye. Il est vrai qu'en cette affaire la
Cour a pris argument du fait constituépar la séparation des zones des
concessions pétrolières octroyéep sar les deux Etats en cause ;mais elle a
pris particulièrement en considération le comportement des Puissances
antérieurement responsables des affaires extérieures de la Tunisie, la
France, et de la Tripolitaine, l'Italie, dans lequel ellea reconnu l'existence
d'un modus vivendi,comportement que les deux Etats, devenus indépen-
dants, ont continué à respecter quand ils ont commencé à accorder des
concessions pétrolières.
151. La périodede 1965 à 1972 au moins O, qui est d'aprèsle Canada1962,pp. 22,23 and 32)differ so much from those of thepresent case that
the conclusions drawn from it are - it would seem - inapplicable. Nor is
the Judgment in the caseconcerning the ArbitralAward Made by the King
of Spain on 23 December1906a valid precedent. Acquiescence did play a
part in that case, but in reaching that conclusion the Court relied on
explicit declarations of Nicaragua, and on conduct that had continued
over a very long period, something which does not apply in the present
case.
148. On the basis of al1theforegoing considerations the Chamber finds,
therefore, that in the present casethe conditions have not been met for an
acquiscence on the part of the United States whch would, even in the
absence of other bases, have the effect, in the bilateral relations between
the United States and Canada, of making the application of the median
line to the determination of their respective maritimejurisdictions man-
datory.The same is true as regards the possibility of an estoppel, without
prejudice to the problems that the application of this concept in interna-
tional law may raise generally.
149. Independently of the arguments derived from the conduct of the
Parties for the purpose of establishing the existence of acquiescence or
estoppel, Canadahas also requested the Chamber to find that the conduct
of the Parties proved at least the existence of a "modus vivendimaritime
limit" or a "defacto maritime limit" based on the coincidence between the
Canadian equidistanceline (the "strict equidistance" line) and the United
States "BLM line",whichitisclaimed wasrespected by the twoParties and
by numerous oil companies from 1965to 1972,at least. Canada bases this
conclusion on the reasoning and pronouncements of the Court in the
Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) case (1.C.J. Reports
1982,pp. 83-85).The United Statesnot only denies that itspetroleum and
gas permits respected any particular line (see the analysis of the facts
relating to acquiescence and estoppel above), but also denies the very
existence of the "BLM line".
150. Without going into these differences of detail, the Chamber notes
that, even supposing that there was a de facto demarcation between the
areas for which each of the Parties issued permits (Canada from 1964and
the United States from 1965 onwards), this cannot be recognized as a
situation comparable to that on which the Court based its conclusions in
the Tunisia/Libya case. It is true that the Court relied upon the fact of the
division between the petroleum concessions issued by the two States con-
cerned. But it took special account of the conduct of the Powers formerly
responsible for the external affairs of Tunisia - France - and of Tripoli-
tania - Italy -, whichit found amounted to amodusvivendi,and which the
two States continued to respect when, after becorning independent, they
began to grant petroleum concessions.
151. Moreover, in theChamber's opinion theperiod from 1965to 1972,cellependant laquelle lemodusvivendiseserait instauré,estd'autre part, de
l'avis de la Chambre, trop courte pour avoir pu produire un tel effet
juridique, àsupposer mêmeque les faits soient tels qu'ilsont étéallégués.
Les efforts canadiens pour rallonger cette périodeen la rattachant àcelle
qui l'a précédée se heurtent en outre aux objections qu'à son égardla
Chambre a déjà formuléesausujet de I'acquiescementet qui, évidemment,
vaudraient aussi pour le modus vivendi.
152. Le Canada invoque enfin la conduite des Parties à l'appui de son
argumentation d'après laquelle toutes deuxauraient vu en fait dans I'uti-
lisation d'une ligne d'équidistanceun aboutissement équitable duproces-
sus de délimitation. Cette argumentation se fonde, en définitive,sur les
faits déjàutiliséspour soutenir les thèsesde I'acquiescement,de I'estoppel
et du modus vivendi.Il ne paraît pas à la Chambre que ces faits puissent
davantage étayer cetteautre idée.Les Parties ont respectivement adopté
une position claireà l'égardde ce qui constitueraitpour elles un équilibre
juste, ou équitable, entre leurs intérêtrespectifs, et la Chambre ne peut
qu'enprendre note. Ellene peut, en conclusion, que confirmer de nouveau
l'observation qu'elle a faite au sujet de l'invocation de la conduite des
parties aux fins précédemmentexaminées.
153. Pour finir, la Chambre ne saurait passer sous silence le fait que les
Etats-Unis, de leur côté,ont aussi invoquéla conduite du Canada par
rapport à leurs propres prétentions sur le plateau continental. Ils ont
soulignéque, au moment de la proclamation Truman de 1945,leCanada
avait été informé, premièrementd,e leur intention de réaliserla délimita-
tion du plateau continental par voie d'accord et conformément à des
principes équitables et, deuxièmement,de leur détermination de considé-
rer I'isobathe des 100 brasses - incluant le banc de Georges - comme
la limite de leur zone de plateau. Le Canada objecte que la procla-
mation Truman ne mentionnait pas I'isobathe des 100brasses, mais les
Etats-Unis répondent à cela que cette isobathe étaitviséedans un com-
muniquéde presse du départementd'Etat accompagnant la proclamation.
Un exemplaire de celle-ci, accompagné d'une note explicative, avait
été transmisau Canada pour observations environ cinq mois avant la
publication de la proclamation. Le Canada n'a pas réagi.Les Etats-Unis
n'en concluent pas que le Canada ait consenti à une limite le long de
I'isobathe des 100 brasses ; ils soutiennent néanmoins qu'il a admis la
nécessité d'unedélimitation par accord conformément à des principes
équitables. LeCanada restait en outre averti, d'aprèsles Etats-Unis, que
toute mesure unilatérale qu'ilprendrait endeçà de la lignedes 100brasses
serait inacceptable pour les Etats-Unis. Le Canada conteste cette
affirmation, faisant valoir qu'il n'avait pas été informde la mention de
I'isobathe des 100 brasses, qui ne figurait pas dans la proclamation
elle-même,et que la note explicative reçue en mêmetemps indiquait
seulement que lesquestions de délimitationpourraient êtreremises à plus
tard.
154. Quoi qu'il en soit, la Chambre rappelle que la première règle
concernant la délimitationd'espacesmaritimes entre Etats voisins est que"at least", which, according to Canada, is the one in which the modus
vivendi was instituted, is too brief to have produced a legal effect of this
kind, even supposing that the facts are as claimed. In addition, Canada's
efforts to extend this period by attaching it to the preceding period
encounter the objections to itwhich the Courthas alreadyformulated with
regard to acquiescence, and which would obviously hold good for the
modus vivenditoo.
152. Canada invokes the conduct of the Parties finally in support of its
arguments that both in fact regarded the use of an equidistance line as an
equitable culmination of thedelimitation process. Thisargument is based,
in the final analysis, on the facts already advanced in support of the
acquiescence, estoppel and modus vivendi claims : in the view of the
Chamber these facts cannot support this idea any more than the others.
Each Party has adopted aclear position on what it would consider ajust or
equitable balance between their respective interests, and the Chamber
cannotbut take note of this. Bywayof conclusion it can merely reconfirm
its previous comment on the reliance placed on the conduct of the Parties
for the purposes examined above.
153. Finally, the Chamber cannot fail to mention the fact that the
United States,for its part, has invoked Canada's conduct in relation to its
own claims to the continental shelf. It has emphasized that at the time of
the Truman Proclamation in 1945 Canada was informed, first, of the
intention of the United States to carry out the delimitation of the conti-
nental shelfby agreement and in accordance with equitable principles and,
secondly, of its determination to regard the 100-fathom depth line as the
boundary of its continental shelf zone - a boundary which includes
Georges Bank. Canada argues in reply that the Truman Proclamation did
not mention the 100-fathom depth, but the United States counters that
argument by pointing out that the depth in question was mentioned in a
Department of State press communiqué which accompanied the Procla-
mation. A copy of the latter, together with an explanatory memorandum,
had been communicated to Canada for comments approximately five
months before the publication of the Proclamation. Canada did not react.
While not arguing from this that Canada consented to a boundary along
the 100-fathom depth line, the United States does claim that Canada
acquiescedin the requirementfordelimitation by agreement in accordance
with equitable principles. In additionCanada was aware, it is argued, that
any unilateral measure it might take within the 100-fathomline would be
unacceptable to the United States. Canada disputes this, claiming that it
had not been informed of the reference to the 100-fathomdepth line,which
was not contained in the Proclamation itself, and that the explanatory
memorandum receivedat the same time merely indicated that questions of
delimitation could be left until some future time.
154. However that may be, the Chamber reiterates that theprimary rule
for the delimitation of maritime areas between neighbouring States is thatcettedélimitationdoit s'opérerpar voied'accord etque, dans la mesure où
l'argument tirépar lesEtats-Unisde l'absence d'une réactioncanadienne à
la proclamation Truman aboutit à affirmer que la délimitationdoit être
effectuéeconformément à desprincipes équitables,la position américaine
sur ce point ne fait que renvoyerà la norme fondamentale invoquéeen
l'espèce aussibienpar leCanada quepar lesEtats-Unis. Cette remarque ne
modifie d'ailleurs en rien laconstatation faite auparavant sur I'impossi-
bilitéde conclure de la conduite des Partiesàl'existence dans leurs rap-
ports bilatérauxd'une obligationjuridique qui s'imposeraitelles,quant à
l'utilisation d'uneméthode particulièrepour la délimitationde leursjuri-
dictions maritimes respectives.
155. A la suite de l'analyse en deux étapessuccessives qu'elle a faite
dans lesparagraphes qui précèdent,la Chambre est maintenant en mesure
de donner une réponsedéfinitive à la question poséeau paragraphe 114
ci-dessus. Ellevientjustement de constater que, dans l'étatdu droit régis-
sant les rapports entre les Parties au présentprocès,celles-ci nesont pas
obligées,en vertu d'une règleconventionnelle ou autrement établie,d'ap-
pliquer certains critères ou d'utilisercertaines méthodes déterminéespour
tracer entre ellesune limitemaritimeuniquevalant àla foispour leplateau
continental et la zone maritime de pêcheexclusive,comme c'est le cas en
l'espèce.Parconséquent,laChambre n'estpas non plus tenue par une telle
obligation.
156. La Chambre pourra donc prendre en considération pour com-
mencer, sans que son approche soit influencée par des préférences à
priori, les critères, etsurtout les méthodespratiques théoriquement sus-
ceptibles d'être appliquéeà la détermination du tracéde la délimitation
maritime unique américano-canadienne dans le golfe du Maine et dans
l'aire extérieure adjacente.l lui appartiendra ensuite de choisir, dans
cet éventailde possibilités,les critères quàson jugement apparaîtront
comme les plus équitablespar rapport à la tâcheà remplir dans leprésent
procès, ainsi que la méthodeou la combinaison de méthodes pratiques
dont l'application permettra le mieux de traduire ces critères dans le
concret.
157. Lescritèreséquitablessusceptibles d'êtreprisenconsidérationaux
fins d'une délimitation maritime internationale n'ont pas él'objet d'une
définition systématique,d'ailleurs diffiàidonner à prioriàcausede leur
adaptabilitétrès variablà des situations concrètes différentes.Lesefforts
de codification n'ont pas touché à ce sujet. Mais ces critères ont été
mentionnésdans lesarguments présentéspar lesparties à desprocèssur la
détermination de limites de plateau continental, ainsi que dans les déci-
sionsjudiciaires ou arbitrales prisesl'issuede ces procès.On peut rap-
peler entre autres celui exprimépar la formule classique que la terreit must be effected by agreement and that, in as much as the argument of
the United States based on Canada's failure to react to the Truman
Proclamation amounts to claiming that delimitation must be effected in
accordance with equitable principles, the United States position on that
point merely refers back to the "fundamental norm" which Canada also
relieson in the case.Thiscomment does not derogate in any way from the
observation made above that it is impossible toconclude from theconduct
of the Parties that there is a binding legal obligation, in their bilateral
relations, to make useof aparticular method for delimiting their respective
maritime jurisdictions.
155. Having concluded the two-stage analysis carried out in the fore-
going paragraphs, the Chamber is now able to give a definitive answer to
the question posed in paragraph 114above. It hasjust been noted that the
Parties to the present case, in the current state of the law governing
relations between them, are not bound, under a rule of treaty-law or other
rule, to apply certain criteria or to use certain particular methods for the
establishment of a singlemaritimeboundary for both the continental shelf
and the exclusive maritime fishery zone, as in the present case. Conse-
quently, the Chamber also is not so bound.
156. The Chamber may therefore begin by taking into consideration,
without its approach being influenced by predetermined preferences, the
criteria and especially the practical methods that may theoretically be
applied to determining the course of the single maritime boundary
between the United States and Canada in the Gulf of Maine and in the
adjacent outer area. It will then be for the Chamber to select, from this
range of possibilities, the criteria that it regards as the most equitable for
the task to be performed in the present case, and the method or combi-
nation of practical methods whose application will best permit of their
concrete implementation.
157. There has been no systematic definition of the equitable criteria
that may be taken into consideration for an international maritime delimi-
tation, and this would in any event be difficult apriori because of their
highly variable adaptability to different concrete situations. Codification
efforts have left this field untouched. Such criteria have however been
mentioned in the arguments advanced by the parties in cases concerning
the determination of continental shelf boundaries, and in thejudicial or
arbitral decisions in those cases. There is, for example, the criterion
expressed by the classic formula that the land dominates the sea ; thedomine la mer ;celui prônant, dans les cas où des circonstances spéciales
n'en requièrentpas la correction, la division par parts égalesdes zones de
chevauchement entre leszones maritimes et sous-marines relevant respec-
tivement des côtes d'Etats voisins ;celui recommandant, dans la mesure
du possible, le non-empiétement de la projection en mer de la côte d'un
Etat surdesétenduestrop proches de lacôted'un autreEtat ;celuitendant
à éviter,autantque possible, un effet d'amputation de la projection mari-
time de lacôte ou d'unepartie de lacôte de l'undes Etats concernés ; celui
visant à tirer, dans certaines conditions, les conséquences appropriées
d'éventuelles inégalitédsans l'extension des côtes de deux Etats dans la
mêmeaire de délimitation.
158. A propos de ces critèreset d'autres critèrespossibles, la Chambre
n'estimepas qu'ilsoit utile de procéderdans l'abstrait à une énumération
plus ou moins complète de ceux qui sont en théorie concevables,ni à une
évaluation, toujours dans l'abstrait, de leur caractère plus ou moins équi-
table.Comme la Chambre l'asouligné à plusieurs reprises, ce n'estque par
rapport aux circonstances de chaque espèceque leur aspect équitableou
inéquitablepeutserévélee rt iln'est nullement excluque, d'un cas àl'autre,
on parvienne, au sujet d'un mêmecritère, à des conclusions différentes
sinon opposées.Ce qu'il faut par contre retenir c'est le fait, sur lequel la
Chambre a insisté,que lescritèresen question ne sont pas eux-mêmesdes
règlesde droit et donc d'application obligatoire dans lesdifférentes situa-
tions, mais des critères<équitables >)voire <raisonnables ))et que ceque
le droit international demande c'est de s'inspirer, dans chaque cas, du
critèreou de l'équilibreentre critèresdifférentsapparaissant comme celui
qui convient le mieux à la situation concrète.
159. En ce qui concerne les méthodes pratiques utilisables pour effec-
tuer matériellement ladélimitation,on sait que celles-ci,à la différence des
critèreséquitablesdont la délimitation doit s'inspirer, ont fait l'objet de
certaines analyses àpriori. Onpeut rappeler icilesobservations faites dans
l'arrêtde laCourdans lesaffaires du Plateau continentaldelamerduNord à
propos des travaux portant sur ce sujet de la Commission du droit inter-
national et de la consultation demandée par celle-ci à un comitéd'experts
(C.I.J. Recueil 1969, p. 35, par. 53). Dans ces travaux, il avait étéfait
mention entre autres de la méthode du tracé, selon les cas,d'une ligne
d'équidistance latéraleou d'une ligne médiane, méthode finalementrete-
nueparla Commission, puis par laconvention de 1958,commeapplicable,
à condition toutefois que des circonstances spéciales nejustifient pas le
recours à une méthode différente.Mais, comme la Cour l'a aussi rappelé,
dans les travaux en question il était faitétatparallèlement d'autres mé-
thodes possibles :celle du tracéd'une ligne perpendiculaire à la côte ou à
la direction générale de la côte; celle du tracéd'une limite prolongeant la
direction d'une ligne déjàexistante de partage des eaux territoriales, ou la
direction du dernier segment de la frontière terrestre, ou la direction
globale de cette frontière. Et cette énumérationn'avait aucun caractère
exhaustif. On retrouve d'ailleurs ces différentes méthodes, et d'autres
aussi, utiliséestour à tour dans différentes délimitationseffectuéespar GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 313
criterion advocating, in cases where no special circumstances require cor-
rection thereof, the equal division of the areas of overlap of the maritime
and submarine zonesappertaining tothe respectivecoasts of neighbouring
States ;the criterion that, whenever possible, the seaward extension of a
State'scoast should not encroach upon areas that aretoo closeto thecoast
of anotherState ;the criterion of preventing, asfar aspossible, any cut-off
of the seaward projection of the coast or of part of the coast of either of the
Statesconcerned ;and thecriterion whereby,in certaincircumstances, the
appropriate consequences may be drawn from any inequalities in the
extent of the coasts of two States into the same area of delimitation.
158. With regard to these and other possible criteria, the Chamber does
not think it would be useful to undertake a more or less complete enu-
meration in the abstract of thecriteria that are theoretically conceivable,or
an evaluation, also in the abstract, of their greater or lesser degree of
equitableness. As the Chamber has emphasized a number of times, their
equitablenessor otherwise can only be assessed in relation to the circum-
stances of each case, and for one and the samecriterion it is quite possible
to arrive at different, or even opposite, conclusions in different cases. The
essential fact to bear in mind is, as the Chamber has stressed, that the
criteria in question are not themselves rules of law and therefore manda-
tory in the different situations, but "equitable", or even "reasonable",
criteria, and that what international lawrequires is that recourse be had in
each case to the criterion, or the balance of different criteria, appearing to
be most appropriate to the concrete situation.
159. Unlike the equitable criteria by which the delimitation must be
guided, the practical methods that can be used for effecting the material
delimitation have of course been the subject of certain apriori analyses. In
this connection, mention may be made of the observations in the Court's
Judgment in the NorthSea ContinentalShelfcases regarding the workdone
on the subject by the International Law Commission and its request for
advice from a Committee of Experts (1.C.J. Reports1969,p. 35,para. 53).
During thecourse of that work mention was made of the use, according to
circumstances, of themethod of the lateral equidistanceline or the median
line, the method which was finally adopted by the Commission (and later
by the 1958Convention) as applicable, provided always that special cir-
cumstances do notjustify the useof another method. But,as the Court also
recalled, mention was then made concurrently of other possible methods :
that ofdrawingalineperpendicular to acoast, orto the generaldirection of
a coast ; that of drawing a boundary prolonging an existing division of
territorial waters, or the direction of the final segment of a land boundary,
or the overall direction of such boundary. This list was moreover by no
means exhaustive. These different methods, and others, have been used in
turn in differentdelimitations effected bydirect agreement between neigh-
bouring States ;in this connection statistical considerations afford no
indication either of the greater or lesser degree of appropriateness of any accord direct entre Etats voisins;età ce sujet des considérationsd'ordre
statistique ne sauraient êtreun indice ni de la nature plus ou moins
appropriée de l'une ou de l'autre desdites méthodes ni d'une tendance
quelconque en faveur de celle-cique révéleraitle droit international cou-
tumier.
160. La Chambre estime toutefois devoir répéter à propos de ces
méthodes pratiques l'observation déjà formulée à propos des critères
équitablesdont l'application concrète devrait se traduire par l'utilisation
desdites méthodes. A ce sujet aussi des comparaisons dans l'abstrait
seraient très rarement susceptibles d'aboutià des résultatsutiles. Tout ce
que l'on peut faire en généralc'est une observation relative aux consé-
quences possibles de l'évolutionrapide qui s'estproduitequant à cequi est
l'objet même d'une délimitationmaritime. Les méthodesprises en consi-
dérationdansun passéqui est encore relativement récent - souscet aspect
les idées vieillissenttrès vite- étaient peu nombreuses et procédaient
d'inspirations trèsvoisines. Ce choix limitésejustifiait lorsqu'il s'agissait
d'appliquer ces méthodes sur de petites distances, par exemple sur la
longueur des frontières entre les mers territoriales d'Etats limitrophes.
Maislemêmechoix peut paraître moinsjustifiéquand ils'agitd'établirdes
tracésportant sur des centaines de milles marins et destinés non pas à
délimiter lajuridiction sur les eaux immédiatement attenantes àla côte,
mais à partager en fait les richesses minérales potentielles de plateaux
continentaux s'étendant jusqu'à la marge continentale ou les ressources
biologiques d'espaces maritimes et océaniques aux proportions jamais
envisagéesauparavant. Il est évidentque la préférence accordée à une
méthode déterminée pour tracerune délimitation sur une très courte
distance à partir des côtes peut ne plus avoir sa raison d'être lorsquela
délimitationdoit s'étendretrèsloin de sonpoint dedépartet lorsqu'ilfaut
tenir compte de facteurs différents.
161. On pourrait ajouter qu'en fait, jusqu'à l'apparition du différend
actuel, le problème d'une délimitation, pour ainsi dire de longue dis-
tance )),ne s'était posédevant une instancejudiciaire ou arbitrale inter-
nationale qu'en cequi concerne le plateau continental. C'est la première
fois aujourd'hui qu'une délimitation est recherchée par la voie d'une
demande, adressée àune chambrede la Cour, de tracer une ligne unique,
valable àla foisDourle lat te aucontinental etDourleseaux dont ilforme le
lit.Or, iln'estpas excluque,sur leplan théoriquedéjà,une méthodepuisse
paraître préférable pour la délimitation du plateau continental, tandis
qu'une autre leserait pour ladélimitationdeszones de pêche exclusivesou
des zones économiques exclusives.On se rappellera que, pendant les
audiences du présentprocès,ilaétédemandé aux Parties de dire, au casoù
une méthode déterminéeou une combinaison de méthodes paraîtrait
appropriéepour la délimitation du plateau continental et une autre pour
celle des zones de ~êcheexclusives. ,uLls seraient à leur avis les motifs
juridiques que l'on pourrait invoquer en faveur de l'une plutôt que de
l'autre pour la détermination d'une ligne unique. Dans leur réponseles
Etats-Unis ont indiquéque dans cecas aucun motifjuridique ne paraissaitparticular method, or of any trend in favour thereof discernible in inter-
national customary law.
160. The Chamber nevertheless considers that it must repeat, with
reference to these practical methods, the observation already made with
reference to theequitable criteria whoseeffectiveapplication shouldbe by
the use of these methods. This is another area in which comparisons in the
abstract are most unlikely to yield useful results. On the general level al1
that can be done is to comment on the possible consequences of the rapid
changes that have taken place in what is the very subject-matter of a
maritime delimitation. The methods taken into consideration in a still
relativelyrecent past - in thisparticular fieldideas ageveryquickly - were
few in number and of very similar inspiration. This limited choice was
justifiable when thesemethodshad to be applied oversmall distances, e.g.,
along boundaries between the territorial seas of adjacent States ;but the
same choice may seem lessjustifiable when boundaries have to be estab-
lished which cover hundreds of nautical miles and are intended, not to
delimitjurisdiction over the waters immediately abuttingon the Coast,but
in fact to share out the potential mineral wealth of continental shelves
extending to the continental margin, or the biological resources of mari-
time and ocean areas of hitherto unimagined proportions. Obviously the
preference giventoaparticular method fordrawinga boundary overavery
short distance from the coasts may no longer be justifiable where the
delimitation has to extend a great distance from its starting-point and
where different factors have to be taken into account.
161. It is true that, until the emergence of the present dispute, the
probIem of "long distance" delimitation,sotospeak,had onlycome before
an international judicial or arbitral body in relation to the continental
shelf.This is the first time that a delimitation has been sought by request-
ingachamber of the Court to drawa singlelinewhichwillbevalid both for
the continental shelf and for the superjacent waters. It is, of course, quite
possible, even at the theoretical level, that one method may seem prefer-
ableforthedelimitation of thecontinental shelf,whereas another would be
appropriate for the delimitation of an exclusivefisheryzone or an exclusive
econornic zone. It will be remembered that a question put to the Parties
during the hearings in thepresent casewas :in the event thatone particular
method, or set of methods, should appearappropriate for the delimitation
of the continental shelf,and another for that of the exclusivefishery zone,
what they considered to be the legal grounds that might be invoked for
preferring one ortheother in seekingto determinea singleline. Inits reply,
theUnited Statesnoted that in suchcircumstancesthere appeared tobe no
legalgrounds to be invoked apriori for preferring one or another method,
and that the applicable principles and relevant circumstances should bepouvoir êtreinvoqué à priori pour donner la préférence à une méthode
plutôt qu'à uneautre, et que les principes applicables et les circonstances
pertinentes devaient êtrepris comme un tout. Selon les Etats-Unis les
circonstances relativesàl'efficacitéfonctionnelle d'une limite portanàla
fois sur la colonne d'eauet sur lefond de la mer devraient sevoir attribuer
un plus grand poids que cellesqui ne concernent qu'un de cesélémentsL . e
Canada a dit qu'à son avis la préférenceà accorder à une méthode plutôt
qu'à une autre devrait dépendre du degréde pertinence qu'il convient
d'attribuerà un facteur donné pourle tracé, soitde toute la frontière, soit
d'une de ses parties. Il a précisé qu'en l'espèce ce degreut varier pour
chacun des deux secteurs à considérer :celui du golfe du Maine propre-
ment dit, délimitépar la ligne de fermeture cap de Sable-Nantucket, et
celui de l'extérieurqui comprend lebanc de Georges. Il en a conclu que la
préférencedonnée àune méthode plutôt qu'à uneautre devrait êtredictée
par les circonstances pertinentes propres a chacun de ces deux sec-
teurs.
162. En effet, laconsidérationessentielleest une fois de plus qu'aucune
des méthodesdont il peut être questionn'a en elle-même de vertus intrin-
sèquesqui permettraient dans l'abstrait de donner la préférence à l'une
plutôt qu'à une autre. De certaines méthodes on peut tout au plus dire
qu'ellessont d'application plus facile et que, cause de leur fonctionne-
ment quasi mécanique, ellesrisquent moins de laisser subsister des doutes
et d'entraîner descontestations. Cela explique, dans une certaine mesure,
que l'on ait eu plus souvent recourà elles,ou quedans nombre de cas on
les ait prises en considérationen prioritépar rapportà d'autres. Mais en
toute hypothèse il n'ya pas de méthode quiporte en soi la marque d'une
plus grande justice ni d'une plus grande utilité pratique.
163. La Chambre estime donc qu'il n'ya pas d'une part des méthodes
appropriéesensoi,et d'autre part desméthodesnon appropriées oumoins
appropriées.Le caractèreplus ou moins approprié d'une méthodo eu d'une
autre ne peut êtreappréciéque par rapport aux situations concrètes dans
lesquelles on les utilise et lejugement porté dans une situation peut se
trouver entièrement inversédans une autre. Il n'y a pas non plus une
méthodedont on puisse dire absolument qu'elle doit êtreprise en consi-
dérationen priorité, une méthodepar l'application de laquelle toute opé-
ration de délimitation devraitpouvoir commencer, quitte à en corriger les
effets ou même àl'écarterensuite en faveur d'une autre si lesdits effets se
révélaientcarrément insatisfaisants par rapport àla situation existant en
l'espèce.Dans chaque cas concret, les circonstances peuvent au départ
faire apparaître une certaine méthode comme mieux appropriée ;mais il
faut toujours se réserverla possibilitéd'y renoncer en faveur d'une autre
méthode si cela se justifiait par la suite.l faut surtout être disposé à
adopter une combinaison de méthodes distinctes, toutes les fois que l'on
constaterait que cela serait requis par la différence des circonstances qui
peuvent se révéleprertinentes dans lesdifférentesphasesde l'opération et
par rapport aux différentssegments de la ligne. GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 315
considered as an integrated whole. In the view of the United States,
circumstances relevant to the functional effectiveness of a boundary rela-
ting to both the water column and the sea-bed should be given greater
weight than circumstances relating to only one of them. Canada expressed
the opinion that preference as to method should depend on the degree of
relevance to be attached to a givenfactor in relation to thedelimitation of
al1or any part of the boundary. It explained that such degree might differ
in each of the two areas under consideration :the Gulf of Maine itself, as
far seaward as the Cap.eSable-Nantucket closing line, and the outer area
that includes Georges Bank. It concluded that preference as to method
should be dictated by the relevant circumstances of each of the two
areas.
162. Here again the essential consideration is that none of thepotential
methodshas intrinsic merits which would makeit preferable to another in
the abstract.The most that can be saidisthat certain methods are easier to
apply and that, because of their almost mechanical operation, they are less
likely to entai1doubts and arouse controversy. That explains to a certain
extent why they havebeen used more frequently or whythey have in many
cases been taken into consideration in preference to others. At any rate
there is no single method which intrinsically brings greaterjustice or is of
greater practical usefulness.
163. The Chamber considers, therefore, that there are not two kinds of
methods, those which are intrinsically appropriate, on the one hand, and
thosewhichareinappropriate or lessappropriate,on theother. The greater
or lesser appropriateness of one method or another can only be assessed
with reference to the actual situations in which they are used, and the
assessment made in one situation may be entirely reversedin another.Nor
is there any method of which it can be said that it must receivepriority, a
method with whose application every delimitation operation could begin,
albeit subject to its effects being subsequently corrected or it being even
discarded in favour of another, if those effects turned out to be clearly
unsatisfactory in relation to the case.In each specificinstance the circum-
stances may make a particular method seem the most appropriate at the
outset, but there must alwaysbea possibility of abandoning it in favour of
another if subsequently this proved justified. Above al1 there must be
willingness to adopt a combination of different methods whenever that
seems to be called for by differences in the circumstances that may be
relevant in the different phases of the operation and with reference to
different segments of the line. 164. Tout engardant présentes àl'esprit lesconsidérationsexposées àla
section précédente,la Chambre se propose maintenant de se livrer, avant
de se consacrer à la phase conclusivede sa tâche,à un examen des critères
et des méthodes respectivementproposéspar les Parties pour êtreappli-
qués à la délimitation età une analyse comparative des quatre lignes par
lesquelles cette application de leur part s'est traduite.
165. L'examen fait plus haut de l'origine etdu développementdu dif-
férend qui opposeles Parties a mis en évidenceque lorsque ce différend a
définitivement pris sadouble dimension actuelle, les deux Parties se sont
attachées à préciser eà rendre publiques leurs revendications respectives.
Pour lesétayer,ellesont proposé l'applicationde critèreset l'utilisation de
méthodespratiques profondément dissemblables. A la suite de quoi cha-
cune des Parties a pour sa part successivement proposé deux lignes de
délimitationconstruitesd'après desméthodes totalement ou partiellement
différenteset ceci bien aue les Parties. dans leur nouveau choix. aient fait
preuve de continuité rapport à leur approche précédente. '
166. La Chambre rappellera donc d'abord que les Etats-Unis, dont elle
a eu l'occasion de mettre en évidence l'intérê tut spécialpour l'aspect
<<marin i)ou (<pêcheries ide l'objet du différend,ont initialement pro-
posé,en 1976,l'application d'un critèredont il est apparu, surtout d'après
les explications récentesde cette Partie, qu'il visàidonner valeur déter-
minante, aux fins de la délimitation, à des facteurs naturels,à savoir les
aspects géomorphologiqueset en fait surtout écologiquesde la région. La
méthodeproposéeparcette Partiepour la traductionpratiquede cecritère
revenait donc àadopter un tracéquicorrespondait approximativement àla
ligne des plus grandes profondeurs. Le but principal ainsi poursuivi était
degarder intacte l'unitéde chacundes diversécosystèmes qui,d'après cette
Partie, se laissent clairement distinguer dans l'ensemble de l'aire de
délimitation.La ligne résultantde l'utilisation decette méthode restait,le
long de son parcours, plus ou moins à distance égaledes isobathes des
100brasses. Elle avançait en direction d'abord sud-sud-ouest puis sud-
sud-est dans la partie interne du golfe en laissant sur sa gauche le banc
German sur leplateau Scotian auCanada et sursa droite lebassin du golfe
du Maineaux Etats-Unis. Parvenue àla lignede fermeture du golfedans le
bassin de Georges, elle s'incurvait pour suivre le chenal Fundian puis
le chenal Nord-Est jusqu'à la marge continentale.
167. En soulignant encore, en plaidoirie, les méritesqu'à leur avis il
aurait fallu reconnaîtreà cette ligne, les Etats-Unis ont aussi cru pouvoir
réitérer qu'ellétait conformeaux dispositions de l'article6 de la conven-
tion de 1958.Cefaisant, ilsont évidemmentmis l'accentnon pas tellement
sur une adhésionde leur part à la méthode mentionnéedans ledit article,
mais surtout sur l'importance àdonner,dans lecas présent,au correctif de
cette méthode également prévupar cette disposition et exigéselon eux
en l'espècepar les circonstances spécialesde la région.De l'avis de la
Chambre, ce rappel de la convention de 1958paraît êtredavantage un 164. Bearing in mind the considerations set forth in the preceding
section, the Chamber now proposes, before turning to the concluding
phase of its work, to examine the respective criteria and methods whose
application to the delimitation is proposed by each of the Parties, and to
undertake a comparative analysis of the four lines resulting from the
application by them of these criteria and methods.
165. The review carried out in previous paragraphs of the origin and
development of the dispute between the Parties showed that when the
dispute definitively acquired its present dual dimension the two Parties
took care to specify and publish their respective claims. To support those
claims they proposed the application of very different criteria and the use
of very different practical methods. On these bases each Party proposed
two delimitation lines, one after the other, constructed according to
entirely or partially different methods, although each, in its new choice,
showed continuity with its previous approach.
166. The Chamber would first recall that the United States, whose
particular interest in the "maritime" or "fisheries" aspect of the subject of
the dispute it has already emphasized, originally proposed in 1976 the
application of a criterion which, as appears particularly from the recent
explanations given by that Party, accorded decisive importance, for the
purposes of delimitation, to natural factors, that is, the geomorphological,
and, indeed especially, the ecological aspects of the area. The method
proposed by that Party for the practical implementation of this criterion
amounted, therefore, to adopting a line which corresponded approxi-
mately toaline of thegreatest depths. The main objective thus pursued was
to keep intact theunity of each of thevarious ecosystemswhich, according
to that Party, were clearly distinguishable throughout the area to be
delimited. The line resulting from the useof thismethod remained more or
less equidistant throughout its entire length from the 100-fathom lines. It
ran first in a south-south-westerly, then a south-south-easterly direction in
the inner part of the Gulf in such a way that on the left Canada would
receive German Bank on the Scotian Plateau, and the United States the
Gulf of Maine basin, on the right. On reaching the closing line of the Gulf
in Georges Basin it curved to follow the Fundian Channel, and then the
Northeast Channel, as far as the continental margin.
167. The United States, when reiterating in the oral proceedings the
meritsit discerned inthat line, alsorepeated that it wasin conformity with
Article 6 of the 1958Convention. In so doingit obviously emphasized not
so much its own endorsement of themethod referred to in that Article, but
primarily the importance to be attached, in the present case, to the cor-
rection of that method, whichisalsoprovided forinthat Article and which,
in its opinion, is made necessary in the present case by the special cir-
cumstances of the area. In the Chamber's opinion, this reference to the
1958Convention seems to be a courteous gesture in the direction of antémoignage formeld'hommage adressé à un instrument reconnu comme
étant toujours en vigueur entre les Parties qu'une manifestation de l'in-
tention d'en appliquer la substance. Dans sa réalité, la lignede 1976
n'étaitpas inspiréepar l'idéed'une délimitation concernant avant tout
le plateau continental, seul objet de l'article 6, ni d'ailleurs par l'idée
d'une délimitation résultant d'une quelconque méthodegéométrique,
mais par l'objectif d'une répartition des ressources halieutiques d'après
un critère naturelo.
168. Quant à ce critère,prôné à l'origine par les Etats-Unis et auquel
cette Partie se révèle,dans une certaine mesure, encore attachée, la pos-
sibilitéd'en faireapplication et surtout une application aussi exclusàvla
présente délimitation appellede sérieusesréservesC . edisant, la Chambre
fait abstraction de toute considération sur le caractère peu sûr de la
répartition desressources halieutiques de larégiond'aprèslesécosystèmes
distincts repérépar lesexperts américains,etdes réservesquepeut appeler
la thèsede la gestion par un seul Etat commejustifiant l'attributioà une
seule Partie des ressources du banc de Georges. Reste le faitfondamental
que lecritèredont s'inspirait la ligneaméricainede 1976étaitpar trop axé
sur une seuleface du problème actuel pour pouvoir êtreconsidérécomme
équitablepar rapport aux caractéristiquesde l'espèce.Cecritèreaurait pu
trouver unejustification aux finsd'une délimitationne concernant que des
zones exclusivesde pêche, maismoins aux fins d'une délimitation uni-
que )),dans l'objet de laquelle le plateau continental et surtout les res-
sources de son sous-sol entrent aussi pour une part trèsimportante. Lors
d'une telle délimitationil n'estpasàla rigueur exclu que le choix d'un cri-
tèreetd'une méthodepratique visiblement appropriés pour ladélimitation
des pêcheries puisse serecommander pour la déterminationd'un segment
donné dela ligne, là où il apparaîtrait que, dans la zone délimitéepar ce
segment, le plateau continental ne présenteraitpas d'intérêdtéterminant.
Mais l'aspect exceptionneld'une telle solution ne saurait êtreniéet il est
évidentque l'on nepourrait pas utiliser, pour la détermination du tracé
global d'unelignede délimitation uniqueconcernant à la fois,comme c'est
le cas en l'espèce, deuximportants objets distincts, un critère et une
méthodequi conviendraient pour la délimitation de l'un et non pas de
l'autre.
169. La nouvelle ligne,mise en avant avecle dépôt, en septembre 1982,
du mémoire desEtats-Unis, paraît, surtout à premièrevue,procéderd'une
conception nettement différente. Cette conception se situe dans un con-
texte plus récent,dont font partie les nouvelles et importantes décisions
arbitrales et judiciaires de 1977et de 1982en matière de délimitationdu
plateau continental, plus d'importantes délimitations réaliséespar voie
d'accord, commecellede la limite maritimefranco-espagnole dans legolfe
de Gascogne et, finalement, l'adoption, par la troisième conférence des
Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer, de la nouvelle convention de codi-
fication qui couvre, en l'amplifiant, le domaine ayant fait l'objet des
conventions de 1958et s'éloigne sensiblementde celles-cidans le contenu
des articles pertinents.instrument recognized as being still in force between the Parties rather
than a manifestation of anyintention to implement its substance. Inactual
fact, the 1976line was not inspired by the idea of a delimitation primarily
concerning the continental shelf, which isthe sole purpose of Article 6, or
indeed by the idea of a delimitation resulting from any particular geo-
metrical method, but by the objective of a distribution of fishery resources
according to a "natural" criterion.
168. The possibility of applying this criterion, which was originally
advocated by the United States and to which it is still, to a certain extent,
attached, and especiallyof applying it soexclusivelyto thepresent delimi-
tation, prompts serious reservations. In so saying, the Chamber leaves
aside any consideration as to the uncertainty of thedistribution of the fish
resources of the area according to the different ecosystems identified by
the United States experts, and the reservations that may be prompted by
the thesis of single-Statemanagement asjustifying the award to one Party
in toto of the resources of Georges Bank, which is the real subject of the
dispute. The fundamental fact remains that the criterion underlying the
United States lineof 1976wastoo much geared to one aspect of the present
problem forit to be capable ofbeing considered equitable in relation tothe
characteristics of the case. This criterion may have been justified for a
delimitation concerning exclusive fishery zones alone, but less so for a
"single" delimitation, in whose purpose the continental shelf and espe-
cially the resources of its subsoil also play a most important part. When
such a delimitation is made it isjust possible that the choice of a criterion
and a practical method that are manifestly appropriatefor fisherydelimi-
tation maybe the right onefordetermining aparticular segment of theline,
were it to appear that, in the area delimited by that segment, the conti-
nental shelfisnot of decisiveimportance. The exceptional aspect of such a
solution must, however,be acknowledged,and itisobviouslyimpossible to
employ, for the determination of the entire length of a singledelimitation
linewhich,asin the present case,simultaneouslyconcerns twodistinct and
important objects, a criterion and a method that would be suitable for
delimiting the one but not for delimiting the other.
169. The new line proposed when the Memorial of the United States
was filed in September 1982seems, especiallyat first sight, to be based on
an entirely different conception. This conception belongs to a more recent
context, comprising the recent important arbitral andjudicial decisions of
1977and 1982on the delimitation of the continental shelf, together with
important delimitations effected by agreement, such as that of the Franco-
Spanishmaritime boundary in the Bayof Biscayand, latterly, theadoption
by theThird United Nations Conference on the Law of the Seaof the new
codification convention which covers, and extends, the field of the 1958
Conventions, and departs substantially from them in the content of the
relevant articles. 170. Un effort a manifestement été faitpar les Etats-Unis pour remé-
dierà l'omissionantérieure d'autres aspectsgéographiquesimportants en
adoptant une nouvellefaçond'aborder leproblème,quelaPartie adverse a
critiquécommeétant dela macrogéographie. LesEtats-Unis ont ainsi fixé
leur position finalesur l'idéecentrale de ladirection générade lacôte,sur
laquelle ils ontfondéune sériede constatations et de distinctions que l'on
peut résumer commesuit :
a) reconnaissance de la priorité à donner, à tous égards, à la prise en
considération de la direction générale sud-ouest/nord-est de la côte
orientale du continent américain ;
b) distinction - déjàmentionnéeplushaut - entre <<côtes principales et
<côtes secondaires D,selon qu'elles suiventla direction généralede la
côte ou au contraire s'en écartent ;
c) classification, en particulier, de la côte de la Nouvelle-Ecosse donnant
sur l'Atlantique parmi lescôtes principales >et de la côte de la même
péninsuledonnant sur legolfedu Maine - comme, d'ailleurs,de lacôte
du Massachusetts sur le mêmegolfe - parmi les côtes <<secondaires ;
d) constatation que la côte du Maine donnant sur le golfe suit une direc-
tion correspondant à la <<direction générale )) et est donc une côte
<principale ;que, d'ailleurs,la mêmedirection caractériseégalement
le banc de Georges, situéau large en face de la côte du Maine.
Le critère équitablequi doit présider à la délimitation de la frontière
maritime unique dans la région devient ainsi celuide la projection ou
extension frontale de la façade côtière principale, que les Etats-Unis
identifient aveccelui du prolongement naturel au sens non pas géologique
ou géomorphologique mais au sens géographique D. Comme critères
équitablesadditionnels les Etats-Unis avancent, on l'aaussi indiqué,ceux
du non-empiétement, de la non-amputation et de la proportionnalité.
171. S'inspirant donc de cet ensemble de critères, dont celui de la
projection frontale de la façade côtièreprincipale, désormais prépondé-
rant, les Etats-Unis proposent comme méthodepour la détermination du
tracéde la ligne de délimitation celle d'une ligne à direction générale
verticale, perpendiculaireà la direction généralede la côte. Cette perpen-
diculaire, pour rester dans lalogiquedu système,devrait êtretracée àpartir
du point terminal de la frontière internationale, et êtreainsi perpendicu-
laireà la ligne horizontale continue forméepar les côtes estimées princi-
pales du Maine et du Nouveau-Brunswick. Toutefois cela est irréalisable
en pratique, car la perpendiculaire tracéeà partir de ce point traverserait
l'îlede Grand-Manan et surtout la péninsulede la Nouvelle-Ecosse, l'am-
putant d'une partie de son territoire. Au demeurant, s'ilsvoulaient adopter
unelignesemblable, lesEtats-Unis setrouveraientencontradiction avecla
clauseexplicitedu compromis qui veut quelepoint dedépartde la lignede
délimitation à tracer soit un point prédéterminé, situéà environ 39 milles
marins du point terminal de la frontière internationale. Dans ces condi-
tions, lesEtats-Unis sedéclarentprêts à accepter un premier ajustement de GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 318
170. An effort was clearly made by the United States to remedy the
earlier omission of other important geographical aspects, and by a new
approach to the problem which the other Party has criticized as macro-
geography. The United States thus fixed its final position on the central
idea of the general direction of the coast, on which it has based a series of
observations and distinctions which may be summarized as follows :
(a) recognition of thepriority to be given,in al1respects, to consideration
of the general southwest and northeast direction of the eastern sea-
board of the American Continent ;
(b) a distinction - already mentioned above - between "primary coasts"
and "secondary coasts", accordingas they follow the general direction
of the coast or, on the contrary, deviate from it ;
(c) the classification, interalia,of the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia asone
of the "primary" coasts and of thecoast ofNova Scotia abuttingon the
Gulf of Maine - like the coast of Massachusetts abutting on that Gulf
- as "secondary" coasts ;
(d) a finding that the coast of Maine abutting on the Gulf follows a
direction corresponding to the "general direction" and is, therefore, a
"primary" coast ; and that Georges Bank,situated off and oppositethe
coast of Maine, is oriented in the same direction.
The "equitable criterion" that must be applied in delimiting the single
maritime boundary in the area thus becomes that of the projection or
frontal extension of the primary coastal front, which the United States
identifies with that of natural prolongation, not in the geological or geo-
morphological sense, but "in the geographical sense". As has also been
pointed out, the United States puts forward, as additional equitable cri-
teria, those of avoidance of encroachment and cut-off and that of pro-
portionality.
171. Using this set of criteria, the dominant one now being that of the
frontal projection of theprimary coastal front,theUnited States therefore
proposes, asa method for determining thecourse of the boundary line, the
vertical line, perpendicular to the general direction of the coast. To be
consistent with the system, this perpendicular would have to be drawn
from the terminal point of the international boundary, thus being a per-
pendicular to the continuous horizontal line formed by the coasts desig-
nated as principal coasts of Maine and New Brunswick. This is imprac-
ticable, however, since the perpendicular drawn from this point would
intersect Grand Manan Island and what is more the Nova Scotia penin-
sula,cutting off part of itsterntory. Moreover, if the United States were to
adopt a line of this kind it would infringe the express clause of the Special
Agreement which provides that the starting-point of the line of delimita-
tion to be drawn shallbeaparticular point situated about 39milesfrom the
terminal point of the international boundary. The United States therefore
declaresits willingnessto accept an initialadjustment of the line originally
drawn in accordance with the criterion theoretically selected - an initialla ligne tracéeaudépartenconformitéaveclecritère théoriquementchoisi
- un premier ajustement rendu nécessaire, disent-ils,pour s'adapter aux
circonstances pertinentes de la région. Ilsacceptent donc que la ligne
verticale perpendiculaire à la côte soit tracéà partir du point A.
172. Mais d'autres ajustements se révèlent aussiindispensables afin de
tenir compte d'une autre circonstance pertinente, et plus précisémentde
cellequi avaitinspiréde façon dominante la premièreproposition de tracé
avancéepar les Etats-Unis en 1976, à savoir le respect complet de l'unité
des écosystèmesou régimesécologique qsue l'ondistingue dans l'airede la
délimitation. Deux déplacements supplémentairesde la perpendiculaire
partant maintenant du point A sontdonc proposés.Leurbut est de faireen
sorte que lajuridiction sur les deux bancs de pêche existant surle plateau
Scotian, le bancGerman et lebanc de Brown,soitentièrement réservée au
Canada, etqu'ainsi s'affirmeet seconfirme leprincipe de l'attributioà un
seulEtat de la gestion des ressources halieutiquesdesprincipaux bancs de
la région.Les prémissessont ainsi poséespour la reconnaissance parallèle
aux Etats-Unis de lajuridiction exclusivesur le banc de Georges. On peut
d'ailleurs remarquer que la nouvelle ligne ne suit plus, comme la précé-
dente, le thalweg du chenal Nord-Est, mais se situe au voisinage de son
bord nord-oriental.
173. Il en résulte ainsi letracé en double escalier qui caractérise la
proposition actuellement soutenue par les Etats-Unis aux fins de la déli-
mitation de la frontière maritime unique avec le Canada. Plutôt qu'une
application de la méthodede la perpendiculaire ajustée D,ainsi qu'on
voudrait la définir, cette proposition représente en fait une solution de
compromis entre deux méthodes foncièrement différentes :celle, géomé-
trique, de la perpendiculaire à la direction généralede la côte et celle,
écologiquesi l'on veut,du respect de l'unité etde la répartition sur cette
base, entre les deux Etats voisins, des écosystèmesque l'on croit pouvoir
distinguer dans l'aire de la délimitation.
174. La Chambre a déjàeu l'occasionde manifester sa pensée àpropos
ducritèrequi,quelleque soitlaprésentationqu'on luiaitdonnée,est certes
essentiellement écologiqueou, si l'on préfère, écogéographique. Maiesn ,
ce qui concerne le critère et la méthodeplus récemment misen avant et
destinésà secombinerenquelque sorte aveclepremier,laremarque àfaire
est tout autre. Etant donnéle critèrede l'influenceprédominante à accor-
der, aux fins d'une délimitation maritime,aux littoraux qui, dans l'airà
délimiter, suivent la direction généralede la côte continentale, et la
méthodequi en résultede l'utilisation, au départdu moins, de la perpen-
diculaireà la direction généralede la côte, le cas d'espèceapparaît à la
Chambre commel'illustration évidentedu bien-fondéde laremarque faite
au début, à savoir que les mériteset les défauts d'un critère et d'une
méthode donnésne peuvent êtremesuréset jugés dans l'abstrait, mais
uniquement par rapport à leur applicationà une situation concrète.
175. Pour ne s'arrêtericiqu'àdesconsidérationsrelatives àlaméthode,
celle de la perpendiculaireà une côte le long de laquelle se touchent les
territoires de deux Etats et celle, qui n'en estfinalement qu'une variation,adjustment that is necessary, in its opinion, for adaptation to the relevant
circumstances of the area. It therefore accepts that the vertical line, per-
pendicular to the coast, be drawn from point A.
172. It becomes clear that other adjustments are also necessary, how-
ever, to deal with another relevant circumstance, the circumstance which
principally inspired the line first proposed by the United States in 1976,
namely, total respect for the unity of the ecosystems or ecological régimes
identified in the delimitation area. Two additional modifications of the
perpendicular, now starting at point A, are therefore proposed. Their
purpose is to ensure that jurisdiction over the two fishing banks on the
Nova Scotia plateau (German Bank and Browns Bank), should belong
entirely to Canada,and soto affirm and confirm the principle that a single
State should be entrusted with themanagement of the fish resources of the
principal banks of the area. This also creates the basis for the parallel
award to the United States of exclusivejurisdiction over Georges Bank. It
is also apparent that the new line no longer follows the thalweg of the
Northeast Channel, asdid the previous one, but is situated in proximity to
its northeastern edge.
173. This results in the double-stepped configuration of the present
United States proposa1for the delimitation of the single maritime boun-
dary with Canada. Rather than being an application of the "adjusted
perpendicular" method, as defined by its proponent, this proposa1in fact
represents a compromise solution between two fundamentally different
methods : the geometrical method of the perpendicular to the general
direction of the coast and the ecologicalmethod, soto speak, of respect for
the unity of thedistinct ecosystems,which, it isheld, are identifiable in the
delimitation area, and distribution on that basis between the two neigh-
bouring States.
174. The Chamber has already expressed its views on the criterion
which,irrespective of how it ispresented, is essentially ecologicalor, if one
so prefers, ecogeographical. The criterion and method more recently
advanced, and which are intended to be combined in some way with the
first, prompt an entirely different comment. Compared with the criterion
of recognizing the predominant influence, for the purposes of a maritime
delimitation, of seaboards which, in the delimitation area, follow the
general direction of the mainland coast, and with the resulting method
involvingthe use, at least at theoutset, of the perpendicular to the general
direction of the coast, the present case seems to the Chamber a clear
illustration of the soundness of the observation made at the start, namely,
that the advantages and disadvantages of a particular criterion and a
particular method cannot be assessed and judged in the abstract but only
with reference to their application to a specific situation.
175. On the subject of the method, and of that only, the method of the
perpendicular to acoast on which the territories of two States meet and the
othermethod, whichisreallyavariation of thefirst, of theperpendicular to de la perpendiculaire à la direction généralede la côte sont, on s'en
souviendra, deux des quatre méthodes àpropos desquelles la Commission
du droitinternational avait demandéaucomitéd'expertsde seprononcer.
La méthode de la perpendiculaire est vraisemblablement la méthode la
plus ancienne qui soit venue à l'esprit dèslemoment où desproblèmes de
délimitationde la mer territoriale entre Etats limitrophes se sont posés. La
mêmeméthodes'estrévéléu etilement, quoique partiellement, applicable
aussi à la délimitation du plateau continental dans des accords bilaté-
raux.
176. La condition presque sinequa non de l'utilisation d'une telle
méthodedans un cas concret serait que la délimitation à tracer en l'oc-
currenceconcerne deuxpays dont lesterritoires sesuivent, surunecertaine
longueur du moins, le long d'une côte plus ou moins rectiligne. Le cas en
quelque sorte idéal serait celuioù le tracéde la ligne laisserait d'un côtéet
del'autre deuxanglesde 90". Parcontre, on peut difficilement imaginer un
cas se prêtantmoins à l'application de cette méthodede délimitationque
celui du golfe du Maine, où le point de départde la ligneà tracer se situe
juste dans l'un des anglesdu rectangle dans lequel la délimitationdoitêtre
établie.Et l'on ne remédiepas à cette situation en introduisant comme
critèrelanotion abstraitede la(<direction générale)ide lacôte, utilisable si
l'on veutcomme correctif lorsqueladirection réellede lacôte où aboutit la
frontière terrestre ne s'écarte qu'insensiblementde cette direction géné-
rale 1)En fait, l'onne voit pas comment laméthodede laperpendiculaire à
ladirection générale delacôted'un continentpourraitêtre appliquée àune
portion, limitée maistout de mêmeconsidérable, de cette côte, où la
configuration géographique réelle dévie sniettement d'une telle direction
générale.
177. Dans ces conditions, une argumentation consistant à négligerjus-
qu'àl'existencede côtespourtant bien réelles, àlesfaireoublier à cause de
leur caractère prétendument (secondaire )i,ne peut pas pallier les diffi-
cultés insurmontables venant de l'application forcée d'un critère etd'une
méthodequi ne sont pas du tout appropriésvu la configuration géogra-
phique réellede lazone.Cenesont pas non plus lesdéplacementsapportés
à posteriori àla perpendiculaire pour en faire une ligne de délimitation
exclusivement maritime et pour la rendre plus compatible avec l'écologie
qui peuvent rendre ce critèreet cette méthode moins nettement inadaptés
au cas d'espèce. En unmot, la méthodede la délimitation par la perpen-
diculaireà la côte ou à la direction généralede la côte pourrait éventuel-
lement entrer en considération là où les circonstances pertinentes se prê-
teraientà son adoption mais non pas là où ces circonstances lui imposent
tant d'ajustements qu'ils en défigurent totalement la caractère.
178. La Chambre passe maintenant à l'examen des lignes successive-
ment proposées,fin 1976 et fin 1977, à peu d'intervalle donc l'une de
l'autre, par le Canada. Elle estime pouvoir les prendre en considérationthe general direction of the coast, are, as has been seen, two of the four
methods on which the International Law Commission asked the Commit-
teeof Experts forits views.The method of theperpendicular wasprobably
the oldest method to come to mind when problems arose in the delimita-
tion by adjacent States of their territorial sea. The same method was also
found to be conveniently, though only partially, applicable to the delimi-
tation of the continental shelf in some bilateral agreements.
176. It is almost an essential condition for the use of such amethod in a
specific case that the boundary to be drawn in the particular case should
concern twocountries whoseterritories liesuccessivelyalong amore orless
rectilinear coast,for acertain distance at least. The ideal case, so to speak,
would be one inwhich thecourse of theline would leavean angleof 90" on
either side. On the otherhand, it ishard to imagine a caselessconducive to
theapplication of thismethod of delimitation than the Gulf of Maine case,
in which the starting-point of the line to be drawn is situated in one of the
angles of the rectangle in which the delimitation is to be effected. This
situation cannot be remedied by introducing as a criterion the abstract
concept of the "general direction" of the coast, whch may indeed be used
as a corrective where the real direction of the coast at which the land
boundary ends deviates only insignificantly from this "general direction".
It isnot in fact apparent how the method of the perpendicular drawn with
reference to the general direction of the coast of a continent could be
applied to aportion, a limited but nevertheless substantial portion, of that
coast, where the real geographical configuration differs somarkedly from
such general direction.
177. That being so, an argument ignoring even the existence of real
coasts, and disregarding them on account of their allegedly "secondary"
character, cannot resolve the insurmountable difficulties that result from
the forced application of a criterion and of a method which are not at al1
appropriate having regard to the real geographical configuration of the
area. Nor willalterations made aposterioriin theperpendicular in order to
convert it into an exclusivelymaritime boundary line, and make it more
compatible with ecology, make this criterion and this method any less
markedly unsuited to the present case. In a word, the method of delimi-
tation by the perpendicular to the coast or to the general direction of the
coast might possibly be contemplated in cases where the relevant circum-
stances lent themselves to its adoption, but is not appropriate in cases
where these circumstances entai1 so many adjustments that they com-
pletely distort its character.
178. The Chamber willnow examine the linesproposed successively,at
theend of 1976and at theend of 1977,thus in quick succession,by Canada.
The Chamber believesthey can be considered together, since the two linesensemble, car cesdeux ligness'inspirentpour l'essentieldu mêmecritèreet
entendent l'une comme l'autre apparaître comme le résultat de l'applica-
tion d'une mêmeméthode.Ce critère, auquel il a déjàétéfait allusion
auparavant, a étédéfini commeétantcelui de la division par parts égales
des zones contestées, etcetteméthodeest cellequ'on désigne globalement
par le terme d'équidistance.
179. 11y aurait lieu de se demander au préalablesi, de mêmeque l'on a
eu raison d'exprimer des réservesquant à l'applicationàla détermination
d'une ligne de délimitation unique d'un critère et d'une méthodemani-
festement appropriéspour la seulepartieaquatique de l'objet complexede
la délimitation,l'on nedevrait pas exprimer aussi un doute quant à l'ap-
plication à la détermination de cette ligne unique d'un critère et surtout
d'une méthodequi avaient étéconçus pour s'appliquer àla seule partie
terrestre de l'objetde la délimitation.Mais la Chambre peut laisser de côté
cet aspect, sur lequel elle aura la possibilitéde s'exprimer dans un autre
contexte (paragraphe 202 ci-après).
180. LaChambre adéjàeu l'occasion, auxparagraphes 121et suivants,
de mettre en évidencel'inacceptabilitéde la thèse développée par le Ca-
nada, d'après laquelle l'applicationà la délimitation Etats-Unis/Canada
de la méthodede l'équidistanceserait obligatoire.Cecaractèreobligatoire
découlerait,on l'avu, pour la partie de cette délimitation qui concerne le
plateau continental, de l'énoncéde l'article6de la convention de 1958,et,
pour ce qui a trait à la zone de pêchesurjacente, d'une prétendue règle
pratiquement identique du droit international coutumier qui imposerait
d'appliquer la mêmeméthode à toute délimitationmaritime, pour autant
que des circonstances spécialesnejustifient pas le recoursà une méthode
différente.La Chambre ne reviendra donc pas là-dessus, si ce n'est pour
préciserque si, à son avis, c'est sur la base d'une fausse prémisseque le
Canada s'est successivementattaché àtracer deux lignes différentes,qua-
lifiéesl'unede ligned'équidistancestricteetl'autre de ligned'équidistance
corrigée,cette constatation n'implique certespas que le Canada aurait dû
s'abstenir d'utiliser uneméthode semblablepour tracer la ligne de déli-
mitation qu'ilentendait proposer. Il ne faut pas confondre l'absenced'une
obligation de faire avecune obligation dene pas faire. Personne ne saurait
contester à l'une ouà l'autre Partie le droit de proposer la libre adoption
de la méthode ou des méthodesqu'elle estimeêtreles mieux appropriées
pour la délimitation de la frontière maritime unique faisant l'objet du
présentprocès.Cette Partie devra seulement respecter deux conditions :
a) montrer que l'utilisation de la méthode choisie, tout en n'étant nul-
lement obligatoire, serecommande spécialementpar son équitéet par son
adaptabilité aux circonstances de l'espèce; 6) s'assurer que l'application
concrètement proposéede cette méthode tient dûment compte desdites
circonstances et est en plus correctement exécutée.
181. Cela étantposé, l'applicationque leCanada a estimé pouvoirfaire
au casconcret delaméthodechoisiedoitêtreexaminéedeplus près. Ilaété
dit que, dans le premier tracéde la ligne de délimitation qu'il estimait
convenir au casd'espèce, leCanada avaitmanifestél'intentionde s'entenir GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) '321
are essentiallybased on the samecriterion and both purport to be the result
of applying a singlemethod. This criterion, already mentioned above, has
been defined as that of the equal division of the disputed areas, and the
method is that broadly designated by the term "equidistance".
179. It shouldfirstbeconsidered whether,just as it was right to express
reservations as to whether a criterion and a method that are manifestly
appropriate for only the water portion of the complex object to be delimi-
ted can beappliedtothe determination of a singleboundary, there maynot
also be some doubt about the application to the determination of such
single boundary of a criterion - and especially of a method - which had
been intended to be applied only to the land portion of the object to be
delimited. The Chamber may,however,disregard thisaspect of the matter,
as it willhave an opportunity to comment on it elsewhere(see paragraph
202, below).
180. The Chamber has already demonstrated, in paragraphs 121ff., the
unacceptability of the Canadian argument that the application to the
delimitation between the United States and Canada of the "equidistance
method", is mandatory. As we have seen, this method is claimed to be
mandatory, under Article 6of the 1958Convention as regards theportion
of the delimitation concernin~ "he continental shelf and. in the case of the
superjacent fishery zone, under what is alleged to be apracticallyidentical
ruleofcustomaryinternational lawprescribing the application of the same
method to everymaritime delimitation, except in so faras special circum-
stances warrant the use of a different method. The only further comment
the Chamber has on this question is that, while it is of the opinion that
Canada has relied on a false premise in successively proposing two dif-
ferent lines, one called a strict equidistance line and the other a corrected
equidistance line, this does not imply that Canada was bound to refrain
from using any suchmethod fordrawingthe boundary linethat itintended
to propose. The absence of an obligation to do something must not be
confused with an obligation not to do it. Each Party has the undeniable
right to propose the free adoption of the method or methods it considers
most appropriatefor delimiting the singlemaritime boundary which is the
subject of this case. The Party must merely meet two conditions : (a) it
must show that the useof the method chosen, whilein no way mandatory,
isnevertheless speciallyrecommended by itsequity and by its adaptability
to the circumstances of the case ;(b)it must ensure that the application of
that method which isproposed in concrete terms has due regard to those
circumstances and is, moreover, correctly carried out.
181. That being so, the way in which Canada believes it can apply the
method chosen to the specific circumstances must be exarnined more
closely.It has been said that Canada, when first drawing the delimitation
line that it thought appropriate to the present case, manifested the inten-à une lignequ'il définissaitcommeligned'équidistance stricte.Un an après
il a cependant modifiésaposition à cause de la possibilité,entrevue entre
temps, de tenir compte de certainescirconstances spécialeset de modifier
en conséquence laligne présentée auparavant.
182. Toutefois, au lieu de prendre en considération d'autres circons-
tances spéciales éventuellementprésentesdans l'airede la délimitation, et
qui auraient pu, avecpeut-être plusde fondement, suggérerl'opportunité,
voire la nécessité,de corriger la ligne d'origine en la déplaçant dans la
direction de la côte de la Nouvelle-Ecosse, la Partie en question n'a tenu
compte que d'une circonstance spécialesusceptible dejouer ensafaveuret
de lui permettre de déplacer encorela ligne dans la direction de la côte
opposéedu Massachusetts. La circonstance spécialeayant un caractère
déterminantétait, auxyeux du Canada, la saillie forméepar l'îlede Nan-
tucket et surtout par la péninsule du cap Cod. Pour établir le tracéde sa
ligned'équidistance corrigée,lCeanada s'estdonc cruautorisé à supprimer
ces prétendues anomaliesgéographiques et à substituer, comme point de
base occidental pour le calcul de l'équidistance, lecanal du cap Codà la
côte extérieurede la péninsuleportant le mêmenom. La mêmePartie ne
s'est pas par contre crue obligéede déplaceren mêmetemps le point de
base oriental pour le calcul de la même lignede l'îleSeal à la côte de la
Nouvelle-Ecosse. L'effet du déplacementeffectuésur la ligne de partage
du banc de Georges n'apas besoin d'êtresouligné :il est important, cequi
ne veut pas dire qu'il soit justifié.
183. Mais ce ne sont pas là les seules réservesque sous cet aspect
l'examende la ligne proposéepar le Canada peut suggérer.De l'avisde la
Chambre, en effet, il ne suffirait pas de revenir d'une ligne d'équidistance
corrigée àune ligne d'équidistance stricte, commecelle qui avait étépro-
posée à l'originepar la mêmePartie, pour que la suggestion canadienne se
révèleautomatiquement appropriée à la configuration géographique des
lieux, ni mêmepour qu'elle constitue une application correcte de la
méthodeque le Canada s'est montré soucieux d'emprunter au texte de
l'article 6 de la convention de 1958.
184. Une premièreremarque vient immédiatement à l'esprit. En décri-
vant, ci-dessus, la configuration du golfe du Maine et les caractéristiques
du rectangle allongéqui traduit cette configuration sous une forme géo-
métriquesimplifiée,l'attention a étéattirée surlefait que, de cerectangle,
seul le petit côtédroit, par rapporàl'observateur qui regarde du dehors,
est formé par une côte canadienne, tandis que le petit côté gauche et la
totalitédu grand côtéqui relielesdeux autressont forméspar descôtesdes
Etats-Unis. Et si l'on passe des figures géométriquesà la réalitégéogra-
phique, l'on ne peut pas non plus manquer de relever que la longueur des
côtes appartenant aux Etats-Unis, mesuréesur le périmètredu golfe, est
considérablement supérieure à celle des côtes appartenant au Canada, et
cela même si1'011inclut dans le calcul de cepérimètre unepartie descôtes
de la baie de Fundy. Il y a dans cette différencede longueur une circons-
tance spécialequi pèse d'uncertain poids et qui, de l'avisde la Chambre,
appelle une correction de la ligne d'équidistance oude toute autre ligne.tion to keep to a line which it defined as a line of strict equidistance. One
year later, however,it changed its position because it had in the meantime
discerned the possibility of taking certain special circumstances into
account and modifying accordingly the line already put forward.
182. Canada, however, instead of taking into account other special
circumstances which might be present in the area to be delirnited and
which might - with perhaps greater justification - have suggested the
desirability, or even the necessity, of correcting the original line by dis-
placing it towards the Nova Scotiacoast, only took into account a special
circumstance whichmight operate inits favour and enable itto displace the
line still more towards the opposite coast of Massachusetts. In Canada's
opinion, the special circumstance of decisivesignificance was the protru-
sion formed by the island of Nantucket, and more especially by the
peninsula of Cape Cod. To establish the course of its corrected equidis-
tance line, Canada therefore feltjustified in removing these alleged geo-
graphical anomalies and substituting the Cape Cod Canal for the outer
coast of the peninsula of the same name as western basepoint for calcu-
lating equidistance. Nor did Canada feel obliged also to displace the
eastern basepoint for the calculation of the same line from Seal Island to
the coast of Nova Scotia.The effect of thisalteration on the Georges Bank
dividing line need not be emphasized ;the effect is considerable, which
does not mean it isjustified.
183. Theseare not, however,theonlyreservations tobe suggestedin this
context by an examination of the line proposed by Canada, since, in the
Chamber's opinion, merely reverting from acorrected equidistance line to
a strict equidistance line like that originally proposed by the same Party
would not be enough automatically to make the Canadian suggestion
suited to the geographical configuration of the area, or evenconvertitinto
a correct application of the method which Canada carefully derived from
the text of Article 6 of the 1958Convention.
184. An initial comment immediately suggests itself. When the con-
figuration of the Gulf of Maine was described above, as were the features
of the elongated rectangle representing that configuration in simplified
geometrical form,attention wasdrawn to thefact that theonly part of that
rectangle to beformedbya Canadian coast isthe short right side,asviewed
by an observer from outside, whereas the short left sideand the entire long
sideconnectingthe other two are formed by coasts of the United States. If
we then move from geometrical figures to geographical realities it is also
obvious that the length of the coasts belonging to the United States, as
measured on theperimeter of the Gulf, is considerablygreater than that of
the coasts belonging to Canada, even if part of the Bay of Fundy coasts is
included in the calculation of this perimeter. This difference in length is a
special circumstance of some weight, which, in the Chamber's view,jus-
tifies a correction of the equidistance line, or of any other line. In several
specificcases the respective lengths of the coasts of the two Parties in theDans plusieurs cas concrets, la longueur respective des côtes des deux
parties dans la zoneà délimiter aétéprise en considération commeraison
de corriger une ligne résultant fondamentalement de l'application d'une
méthode donnée.Tantôt il s'agissaitd'un cas réglé par voie d'accord (par
exemple celui de la limite du plateau franco-espagnol dans le golfe de
Gascogne), tantôt d'un cas soumis à décisionjudiciaire (par exemplecelui
de la délimitation du plateau continental tuniso-libyen). Or, par compa-
raison avec ces différents cas, dans la présente espècela différencede
longueur des côtes des deux Etats comprises dans l'airede la délimitation
est particulièrement notable.
185. En faisant cetteremarque, la Chambre reste consciente du fait que
la mise en considération de l'extension des côtes res~ectives des Parties
intéressées neconstitue en soi ni un critère dont on puisse directement
s'ins~irer aux fins d'une délimitation. ni une méthode utilisable Dour
effectuer en pratique cette délimitation. La Chambre reconnaît que, en
avançant cette idée,on énoncesurtout un moyen de vérifiersi une déli-
mitation provisoirement établieenfaisantd'abord appel à d'autres critères
et par l'utilisation d'une méthode n'ayant rien à faire avec ladite idée
apparaît ou non comme satisfaisante par rapport à certaines caractéris-
tiques géographiquesdu cas concret et s'il est ou non raisonnable d'ap-
porter descorrectionsen conséquence. La pensée de la Chambre à cesujet
peut se résumerpar la remarque qu'une délimitation maritime ne saurait
certainement pas êtreétablie en procédant directement àune divison de
la zone en contestation, proportionnellement à l'extension respective des
côtes des parties de l'aire concernée, maisqu'une disproportion substan-
tiellepar rapportà cette extension,qui résulteraitd'unedélimitation établie
sur une base différente, représenterait non moins certainement une cir-
constance appelant une correction adéquate.La nécessité de tenir compte
de cet aspect représente,de l'avisde la Chambre, un motif de correction
valable et mêmeprioritaire par rapport à d'autres motifs sur lesquels les
Etats-Unis ont beaucoup insistédans le contexte de leurs critiques de la
thèse canadienne et de la proposition de délimitation par laquelle elle
s'est traduite, mêmesi la Chambre ne saurait non plus exclure le fonde-
ment de ces derniers motifs, aussi radicalement du moins que l'a fait le
Canada.
186. Il est néanmoins d'autres objections qu'appelle, de l'avis de la
Chambre, la ligne de délimitation proposéepar le Canada. A ce propos,
une observationpréliminaire doit êtrefaite. Les paragraphes 1et 2 de l'ar-
ticle 6 de la convention de 1958sur leplateau continental envisagent deux
hypothèses distinctes. Comme la Chambre l'a déjàrelevé àla section V,
paragraphe 115ci-dessus, ceci ne veut pas dire que le critèrede base de la
répartition par parts égalesdont ces dispositions s'inspirent ne soit pas
unique, et que la méthodepar laquelle ledit critèreest appliquéne se tra-
duise pas par l'emploide la même technique. Ladistinction entre lesdeux
hypothèses considérées esd tue à la différence qui existe entre les situa-
tions géographiquesauxquellesles deux dispositions se rapportent respec-
tivement. Pour le cas d'une délimitation entre deux côtes adjacentes,delimitation area have been taken into consideration as a ground for
correcting a line basically derived from the application of a givenmethod.
Some cases involvedsettlement by agreement (e.g.,that of the shelfboun-
dary between France and Spain in the Bay of Biscay) while others were
submitted to judicial decision (e.g., that of the delimitation of the conti-
nental shelf between Tunisia and Libya). Yet, in comparison with these
various cases,in the present case the difference in the length of the coasts
of the two States within the delimitation area is particularly notable.
185. In making this comment the Chamber remains aware of the fact
that to take into account the extent of the respective coasts of the Parties
concerned does not in itself constitute either a criterion serving as a direct
basis for a delimitation, or a method that can be used to implement such
delimitation. The Chamber recognizes that this concept is put forward
mainly as a means of checking whether a provisional delimitation estab-
lished initially on the basis of other criteria, and by the use of a method
which has nothing to do with that concept, can or cannot be considered
satisfactory inrelation to certain geographical features of the specificcase,
and whether it is reasonable or otherwise to correct it accordingly. The
Chamber's views on this subject may be summed up by observing that a
maritime delimitation can certainly not be established by a direct division
of the area in dispute proportional to the respective lengths of the coasts
belonging to the parties in the relevant area, but it is equally certainthat a
substantialdisproportiontothe lengthsof those coasts that resulted from a
delimitation effected on a different basis would constitute a circumstance
calling for an appropriate correction. In the Chamber's opinion, the need
to take this aspect into account constitutes a valid ground for correction,
more pressing even than others to which the United States has attached
great importance when criticizingthe Canadian position and theproposed
delimitation reflecting that position, even if thehamber cannot deny, or
at any rate not as radically as Canada has done, that those criticisms may
be justifiable.
186. In the Chamber'sopinion, however,the delimitation lineproposed
by Canada prompts other objections. In this connection one preliminary
comment is necessary. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 6 of the 1958Con-
vention on the Continental Shelf contemplate two distinct hypothetical
situations. As the Chamber has already observed (Section V, paragraph
115 above), this does not mean that the basic criterion, that of equal
division, which underlies these provisions is not one and the same, or that
themethod by which thiscriterion isapplied does not involvethe useof the
same technique. The distinction between the two hypotheses in question is
due to the difference between the geographical situations to which the two
texts refer. In the case of a delimitation between two adjacent coasts, the
application of the technique referred to produces a lateral equidistance l'application de ladite technique aboutira à une ligne d'équidistance laté-
rale, tandis que,pour lecasoùlesdeuxcôtes sefont face,l'application dela
mêmetechnique se traduira par une ligne médiane.
187. Les rédacteursdu texte de 1958eurent raison d'y formuler avec
précisionla distinction à faire entre deux situations différentes. De son
côté,la jurisprudence internationale a efficacement contribué depuis à
clarifier la distinction qui doit êtrefaite entre les situations auxquelles la
méthode en question peut s'appliquer. Tout en relevant que la méthode
utiliséeprocédait d'unemêmeinspiration, cettejurisprudence, et dans son
cadre la décisiondu tribunal arbitral sur la délimitationdu plateau conti-
nental entre la France etleRoyaume-Uni, ainsistésur cepoint. Seréférant
à une remarque faite dans l'arrêtde la Cour de 1969 à propos d'une
caractéristiquede la méthodede l'équidistance, letribunal a constatéque
cette caractéristique de ladite méthode soulignait la <différenceessen-
tielle, en ce qui concerne la délimitationdu plateau continental, entre la
situation géographique des Etats qui se font face ))et celle des Etats
<limitrophes (décisionarbitrale, par. 86).Plusloin, et dans l'exposé final
de sa théorie, le même tribunal a conclu :
<(De plus, pour établir si la méthode de l'équidistance permet
d'aboutir à une solution équitable, il faut tenir compte de la dif-
férence qui existe entre une limite t<latérale entre Etats limi-
trophes et une limite médiane ))entre Etats <(se faisant face ))
(ibid., par. 97).
Il va de soi d'autre part- mais c'est un point à souligner tout particuliè-
rement vu son intérêtpar rapport à la présenteespèce - que, comme la
jurisprudence qui vient d'être évoquée, à quoi il faut ajouter l'arrêtde
la Cour en l'affaire du Plateau continental (Tunisie/Jamahiriya arabe
libyenne), n'a pas manqué de le mettre en évidence,les côtes de deux
Etats peuvent être à certains endroits des côtes adjacenteset à d'autres des
côtes se faisant face. Dans cette dernière hypothèse,cependant, des diffi-
cultéssurtout pratiques peuvent se produire, car il faut s'attacher tout
particulièrement à éviter que l'effet du rapport partiel d'adjacence
finisse par dominer sur celui du rapport partiel d'opposition frontale et
vice versa. Des ajustements pourront apparaître nécessaires à cet effet,
voire, à la rigueur, le recours à une méthode différente, cardans cer-
tains cas un changement radical du rapport réciproqueentre les côtes des
deux Etats concernéspeut constituer une de ces circonstances spéciales
que l'article 6 lui-même prévoic tomme raison de recourir àune méthode
de délimitationautre que celle indiquée à titre prioritaire par la disposi-
tion en question.
188. A la lumièredes considérations qui précèdent,on peut se rendre
compte de l'importance du fait que le Canada semble avoir négligé l'effet
du changement dans la position respective des côtes des Etats-Unis et
du Canada qui seproduit àun moment donné àl'intérieur mêmd eu golfe.
De la description de l'aire de la délimitationdonnée à la section II, para-
graphe 32,il ressort quedans la partie la plus intérieuredu golfedu Maine GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 324
line,whereas in caseswhere the two coasts are opposite, the application of
the same technique produces a median line.
187. The authors of the 1958text were right to make a precise distinc-
tion between two different situations. Subsequently, international juris-
prudence has done much to clarify the necessary distinction between the
situations to which the method in question may be applied. While noting
that the various methods used shared the same inspiration, that jurispru-
dence, including the Decision of the Court of Arbitration on the Delimi-
tation of the Continental Shelfbetween France and the United Kingdom,
emphasized this point. By reference to an observation in the 1969Judg-
ment of the Court inconnection withone characteristic of the equidistance
method, the Court of Arbitration found that that characteristic of the
method emphasized the "difference between a geographical situation of
'opposite' States and one of 'adjacent States' inthe delimitation of con-
tinental shelf boundaries" (Decision, para. 86). Further on, in the final
summing-up of its theory, the Court of Arbitration concluded :
"Furthermore, in appreciating the appropriateness of the equidis-
tance method as a means of achieving an equitable solution, regard
must be had to the difference between a 'lateral' boundary between
'adjacent' Statesand a 'median'boundary between 'opposite' States."
(Ibid, para. 97.)
It is alsoobvious - but thispoint meritsparticular emphasis because of its
relevanceto thepresent case - that,as thejurisprudence referred to, and in
addition the Court's Judgment in the Continental Shelf (Tunisu/Libyun
ArabJamahiriya) case,has shown,the coasts of two States may be adjacent
at certain placesand oppositeat others.On thislatter hypothesis, however,
difficulties might arise,of apractical nature in particular,inceeveryeffort
should be made to prevent the partial relationship of adjacency from
ultimately predominating over the partial relationship of oppositeness, or
vice-versa.It might become apparent that adjustments were necessary for
thispurpose, or even, asa last resort, recourse to a different method, since
in some cases a radical change in the mutual relationship between the
coasts of the two States concerned might be one of the special circum-
stancescontemplated by Article 6 itself asaground for having recourse to
a method of delimitation other than that indicated as priority method by
that text.
188. In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is clear how impor-
tant it isthat Canada seemsnot to have appreciated the significanceof the
change in the respective positions of the coasts of the United States and
Canada whichoccurs at aparticular point within theGulf. The description
ofthe delimitation area, in Section II (paragraph 32)above, showsthat in
theinnermost part of the Gulf of Mainethe straight linerunning alongthela ligne droite qui suit la côte du Maine du cap Elizabeth au point termi-
nal de la frontière internationale, et la ligne égalementdroite qui fait de
mêmepour lacôte de laNouvelle-Ecosse etlaprolongeau-dessusdeseaux
et de l'îlede Grand-Manan jusqu'au mêmepoint terminal, se rencontrent
à angle presque droit. Il étaitdonc normal de considérer en cet endroit
les côtes des deux Etats comme des côtes <<adjacentes O,entre lesquelles
l'idéede tracer une ligne d'équidistance latérale était parfaitementconce-
vable, le problème étant toutefois de savoir jusqu'où cette ligne devrait
aller.
189. Or, en présentant ses propositions quant à la délimitation, le
Canada a omis de tenir compte du fait qu'à mesureque l'on s'éloignedu
point terminal de la frontière internationale et que l'on serapproche de
l'ouverture du golfe la situation géographiquechange du tout au tout par
rapport à celle décriteau paragraphe précédent.Le rapport d'adjacence
latéraleà angle quasiment droit entre une partie des côtes de la Nouvelle-
Ecosse, et surtout entre leur prolongement au-dessus de l'ouverture de la
baiede Fundy et de l'îlede Grand-Manan, d'unepart, et lescôtesdu Maine
de l'autre, faitplacàun rapport d'opposition frontaleentre lerestant des
côtes de la Nouvelle-Ecosse et celles du Massachusetts qui se dressent
maintenant devant elles. Cenouveau rapport marque de façon caractéris-
tique la situation objective dans lecadre de laquelle la délimitation doit se
poursuivre. En outre il a étémis en évidence,dans la description des
caractéristiquesgéographiquesde l'airede la délimitation,que la relation
entre les lignes que l'onpeut tracer, du côté des Etats-Unis entre le coude
du cap Cod et lecapAnn, et du côtéduCanada entre lecap de Sableet l'île
Brier, est une relation d'un quasi-parallélismemarqué.Dans ces condi-
tions, même celuiqui voudrait établir une lignede délimitationsur la base
de la méthode de l'équidistance serait contraint de le faire en tenant
compte du changement intervenu dans la géographie des lieux,ce que le
Canada n'a pas fait là où cela s'imposait. Il fallait en tout cas éviterde
prolongerjusqu'à la sortie du golfeune ligne diagonaledominéepar l'effet
unique du rapport Maine-Nouvelle-Ecosse, même là où le rapport Mas-
sachusetts-Nouvelle-Ecosse aurait dû devenir le rapport dominant.
190. Lesconsidérationsdéveloppées à la section à propos des critères
équitables et des méthodes pratiques applicables dans l'abstrait à une
délimitationmaritimeetl'examencritiquefait à la section VIdescritèreset
méthodes concrètement proposéspar les Parties pour leur applicationà la
délimitationrequise dans lecas d'espèce vontmaintenant servir de guideà
la Chambre pour aborder sa tâche consistant à procéder à cette délimita-
tion. La conclusion àlaquelle la Chambre est arrivéemontre clairement
qu'elle doit se consacrer à cette étape finale du mandat à elle confié
et formuler sa propre solution indépendamment des propositions des
Parties. GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 325
Maine coast fromCape Elizabeth to the international boundary terminus,
and the equally straight line alongthe Nova Scotia coast and extending it
across the waters and across Grand Manan Island to that terminus, meet
almost at right angles. It was therefore correct to regard the coasts of the
two States at that place as "adjacent" coasts, between which it was quite
conceivable to consider drawing a lateral equidistance line, the problem
being however how far such line should go.
189. But in putting forward its proposals for the delimitation, Canada
has failed to take account of the fact that, as one moves away from the
internationalboundary terminus, and approachesthe outer opening of the
Gulf, the geographical situation changes radically from that described in
the previous paragraph. The quasi-right-angle lateral adjacency relation-
ship between part of the Nova Scotiacoasts, and especially between their
extension across the opening of the Bay of Fundy and Grand Manan
Island, and theMaine coasts,giveswayto afrontalopposition relationship
between the remaining coasts of Nova Scotia and those of Massachusetts
which now face them. It is this new relationship that is the most charac-
teristic feature of the objective situation in the context of which the
delimitation is being effected. Moreover, when the geographical charac-
teristics of the delimitation area were described it was shown that the
relationship between the lines that can be drawn, between the elbow of
Cape Cod and CapeAnn (on the United States side), and between Cape
Sable and Brier Island (on the Canadian side), is one of marked quasi-
parallelism. In this situation, even a delimitation line on the basis of the
equidistance method would have to be drawn taking into account the
change in thegeographical situation, which Canada did not do when it was
necessary. Inany event what had to be avoided wasto draw, thewholeway
to the opening of the Gulf, a diagonal line dominated solely by the rela-
tionship between Maine and Nova Scotia, even where the relationship
between Massachusetts and Nova Scotia should have predominated.
190. The consideration set forth in Section V as regards the equitable
criteria and practical methods applicable in the abstract to maritime
delimitation, and the critical assessment in Section VI of the particular
criteria and methods proposed by the Parties for application to the de-
limitation at present required, will now serve the Chamber as a guide in
approaching its task of carrying out that delimitation. The conclusion
reached by the Chamber shows clearly that it must undertake this final
stage of the task entrusted to it and formulate its own solution indepen-
dently of the proposals made by the Parties. 191. Cela étant,ilvade soique la Chambredoit demeurerconsciente de
l'obligation qu'ellea de seconformer àlanorme fondamentale fournie par
le droit international général en lamatière. En cette phase finale du
processus d'élaborationde la décision, laChambre doit donc parvenir à
déterminer concrètement la ligne de délimitation qu'elle est requise de
tracer,a) en sebasant àcette fin sur lescritèresqui luiapparaissent lesplus
aptes à révéler leurcaractère équitable par rapport aux circonstances
pertinentes du cas d'espèce,et6)en utilisant, pour traduire concrètement
cescritères, laméthodeou lacombinaison de méthodespratiquesjugéepar
elle la mieux appropriée en l'espèce, letout en vue de parvenir, dans
lesdites circonstances,à un résultat équitable.
192. En ce qui concerne donc, en premier lieu, le choix des critères sur
lesquels la Chambredoit fonder sa décision,tout ce qui précède concorde
pour lui recommander d'exclurepurement et simplement l'application de
critèresqui,tout en pouvant apparaître en eux-mêmescomme équitables,
neseraientplus adaptés àladélimitationde l'uncomme de l'autre desdeux
objetspour lesquelsladélimitationest demandéepar lecompromis conclu
par les Parties. A ce sujet, la Chambre tient à souligner à nouveau la
responsabilitéqui luiincombedu fait que ladélimitationqu'elle est requise
d'accomplir est, pour la première foisdans la pratique judiciaire et arbi-
trale internationale, une délimitation par ligne unique de deux éléments
différents. Cefait représente une particularitéjusqu'ici inédite, qui carac-
térise cecas et le différenciede ceux qui ont fait l'objet de décisions
précédentes.Bien sûr, cette constatation n'entraîne nullement que les
critèresquifurent appliquésdans de tellesdécisionsdoivent, deceseulfait,
êtreexclus de toute applicationà la présenteespèce ; autrement dit lefait
que lescritères en questionse soient alors révélésquitableset appropriés
pour la délimitation du plateau continental ne signifie pas qu'ils doivent
automatiquement l'être ausse in ce qui concerne une délimitation simul-
tanée du plateau continental et de la zone de pêche surjacente.L'adapta-
bilitédesdits critèràscette opérationessentiellement différentedoitavant
tout êtrevérifiéepar rapport aux exigences spécifiquesde celle-ci.
193. En d'autres termes, dans le fait que la délimitation a un double
objet, il y a déjà une particularité du casd'espècequi doit êtreprise en
considération avant mêmede passer à l'examen de l'incidence possible
d'autres circonstances sur le choix des critèresappliquer. Il en découle
donc qu'abstraction faite de ce qui a pu avoir étéretenu dans des affaires
précédentesil conviendrait d'exclure l'application, dans un cas comme
celui-ci, d'un quelconque critère qui apparaîtrait typiquement et exclusi-
vement liéaux caractéristiques propres d'une seuledes deux réalitésnatu-
rellesàdélimiterensemble. La Chambre adéjàrelevé, à proposdes critères
de délimitation proposéspar lesParties,la difficulté,sinon l'impossibilité,
d'adopter, pour une délimitation àdouble effet, un critèrequi serévélait
l'analyse objective comme essentiellement écologique. Elle avait ainsi
qualifiéle critère initialement proposépar les Etats-Unis, qui consistaàt
se fonder principalement sur une correspondance de la délimitation à
tracer avec la séparation naturelle des divers écosystèmesforméspar la 191. That being so, the Chamber has evidently to keep in mind its
obligation to comply with the fundamental norm provided by general
international law where this subject-matter is concerned. In this final
phase of the decision-making process, the Chamber must therefore arrive
at the concrete determination of the delimitation line that it is required to
draw (a) while basing itself for the purpose on the criteria which it finds
most likely to prove equitable in relation to the relevant circumstances of
the case and (b)while making use, in order to apply these criteria to the
case, of the practical method or combination of methods which it deems
the most appropriate ;al1this with the final aim in view of reaching an
equitable result in the above circumstances.
192. Hence as regards, in the first place, the choice of the criteria on
which the Chamber should base its decision, al1the foregoing considera-
tions point to the advisability of its formally precluding the application of
any criteria, however apparently equitable in themselves, which can now
be seen as inappropriate to the delimitation of one or other of the two
objects that the Parties' Special Agreementrequests it to delimit. In this
connection, the Chamber must again stress the responsibilitylaid upon it
by the fact that the delimitation that it is required to carry out is, for the
first timein internationaljudicial orarbitral practice, adelimitation of two
distinct elements by means of a singleline.This isan unprecedented aspect
of the case which lends it its special character and accordingly differen-
tiates it from those that werethe subject ofprevious decisions. To note this
fact does not of course in any way imply that the criteria applied in those
decisionsmust ispf oact oeheld inapplicableto the presentcase ;al1that is
meant isthat thefact that the criteria in question werethen found equitable
and appropriate for the delimitation of the continental shelf does not
imply that they must automatically possessthe sameproperties in relation
to the simultaneous delimitation of the continental shelf and the superja-
cent fishery zone. It is necessary that the adaptability of those criteria to
this essentially different operation should first be verified in relation to its
specific requirements.
193. In other words, the very fact that the delimitation has a twofold
object constitutes a special aspect of the case which must be taken into
consideration even before proceeding to examinethe possible influence of
other circumstances on the choice of applicable criteria. It follows that,
whatever may have been held applicable in previous cases, it is necessary,
in a case like the present one, to rule out the application of any criterion
found to be typically and exclusivelybound up with the particular charac-
teristicsof one aloneof the twonatural realities that have to be delimited in
conjunction. In commenting on the delimitation criteria proposed by the
Parties, the Chamber has already pointed out the difficulty, if not the
impossibility, of adopting, for the purpose of such a dual delimitation, a
criterion disclosed by objective analysis to be essentially ecological. It so
described thecriterion initially proposed by the United States, whereby it
should take asitsmain guideline the idea of a correspondence between the
line to be drawn and the natural separation of the various ecosystemsfaune aquatique de l'airede la délimitation.Un critèrede cegenre, comme
laChambre l'aalors observé,pourrait difficilement êtreadaptéaussi à une
délimitationqui, en plus d'une division de la masse d'eau, devrait paral-
lèlement opérer une division du plateau continental sous-jacent, pour
lequel lecritère en question ne saurait êtreapproprié.A l'opposé,on peut
observer que, dans une situation concrète oùl'on relèverait,dans leplateau
continental, des caractéristiquesgéologiques distinctives,qui pourraient
êtrespécialementdéterminantes pour une division de ce plateau et des
ressources de son sous-sol, il n'y aurait vraisemblablement pas de raison
d'étendrel'effetdescaractéristiquesen question à une division de la masse
d'eau sujacente, pour laquelle ellesne seraient guèrepertinentes. Et ce ne
sont là que des exemples parmi tant d'autres.
194. En réalitéu,ne délimitationpar ligneunique, comme cellequi doit
êtreréalisée dans le cas d'espèceà savoir une délimitation valantàla fois
pour le plateau continental et la colonne d'eau surjacente, ne saurait être
effectuéeque par l'application d'un critère oud'une combinaison de cri-
tères qui ne favorisepas l'un de ces deux objets au détrimentde l'autre et
soit en mêmetemps susceptible de convenir également à une division de
chacun d'eux. A ce propos, il est d'ailleuàsprévoirque, avec l'adoption
progressive, par la plupart des Etats maritimes, d'une zone économique
exclusiveet, par conséquent,avec la généralisationde la demande d'une
délimitation unique, évitant autant qu'il est possible les inconvénients
inhérents à une pluralité de délimitations distinctes, la préférence ira
désormais,inévitablement, à des critères seprêtantmieux, par leur carac-
tèreplus neutre, à une délimitationpolyvalente.
195. Mais, pour en revenir aux préoccupations actuelles de la
Chambre, c'est donc vers une application au cas présentde critèresrele-
vant surtout de la géographie qu'elleestime devoir s'orienter. Etil est évi-
dent que, par géographie,ilfaut entendre iciessentiellement la géographie
des côtes, qui comporte avant tout un aspect physique, auquel s'ajoute,à
titre complémentaire, un aspect politique. Dans ce cadre, son choix de
base ne peut que se porter sur le critèreà propos duquel l'équité esd te
longue date considéréecomme un caractère rejoignant la simplicité : à
savoir le critère qui consistà viser en principe- en tenant compte des
circonstances spécialesde l'espèce - àune division par parts égalesdes
zones de convergence et de chevauchement des projections marines des
côtes des Etats entre lesquels la délimitationest recherchée.
196. Toutefois, le choix de ce critère de base ne se révèlepas toujours
êtreréellementéquitablelorsqu'il estappliqué à titreabsolument exclusifà
une situation concrètedéterminée.La multiplicitéetla diversitédessitua-
tions géographiques exigentfréquemmentdes adaptations, des assouplis-
sements dudit critère pour qu'il soit rendu vraiment équitable, non pas
dans l'abstrait, mais par rapport aux exigences variables d'une réalité
multiforme. Pour s'en tenir au cas faisant l'objet du présentprocès,c'est
un fait que les Parties, et l'une d'elles en particulier, ont avec insistance,
et à l'aide de comparaisons avec des situations prises en considé-formed by the aquaticfauna of thedelimitation area. Asthe Chamber then
observed, a criterion of this kind could scarcely be adapted also to a
delimitation whichhad not only to divideavolume ofwater but had also to
effecta division of theunderlyingcontinental shelf,in respect of which the
criterion in question could not be appropriate. Conversely, it may be
remarked that, in a concrete situation where distinctive geological char-
acteristics can be observed in the continental shelf, such as rnight have
special effect in determining the division of that shelf and the resources of
its subsoil, there wouldin al1likelihood be no reason to extend the effectof
those characteristics to the division of the superjacent volume of water, in
respect of which they would not be relevant. These are merely two ofmany
examples that could be cited.
194. In reality, a delimitation by a singleline,such asthat which has to
be carried out in the present case, Le.,a delimitation which has to apply at
oneand the sametime to the continental shelfand to thesuperjacent water
column can only be carried out by the application of a criterion, or
combination of criteria, which does not give preferential treatment to one
of these two objects to the detriment of the other, and at the same time is
such as to be equally suitable to the division of either of them. In that
regard, moreover, it can be foreseen that with the gradua1adoption by the
majority of maritime States of an exclusive economic zone and, conse-
quently, an increasingly general demand for single delimitation, so as to
avoidasfar aspossible the disadvantagesinherent in aplurality of separate
delimitations, preference will henceforth inevitably be given to criteria
that, because of their more neutral character, are best suited for use in a
multi-purpose delimitation.
195. To return to the immediateconcerns of the Chamber, it is,accord-
ingly,towards anapplication to the present case of criteria more especially
derived from geography that it feels bound to turn. What is here under-
stood by geography isof course mainly the geography of coasts, which has
primarily a physical aspect, to which may be added, in the second place, a
~oliticalasDect.Within this framework. it isinevitable that the Chamber's
basic choiLeshould favour a criterion long held to be as equitable as it is
simple, namely that in principle, whle having regard to the special cir-
cumstances of the case,one should aim atan equal division of areas where
the maritime projections of the coasts of the States between which delimi-
tation is to be effected converge and overlap.
196. Nevertheless, it is notalways the case that the choice of this basic
criterion appears truly equitable when it, and it alone, is exclusively
applied to a particular situation. The multiplicity and diversity of geogra-
phical situations frequently cal1for this criterion to be adjusted or flexibly
applied to make it genuinely equitable, not in the abstract,but in relation
to the varying requirements of a reality that takes many shapes and forms.
To mention only the situation involved in the present proceedings, it is a
fact that the Parties, and one of them in particular, with the aid of com-
parisons with situations considered in previous cases,persistently empha-ration dans des affaires précédentes, mis l'accentsur l'importance attri-
buéepar elles à tels ou tels autres aspects concrets de la situation géogra-
phique en la présente espèce. La Chambre, quant à elle, ne peut que
reconnaître, dans une certaine mesure, que les préoccupations quise sont
ainsi expriméesne sont pas entièrement dépourvuesde fondement. La
Chambre n'entend pasentrer icidans desconsidérationsde détail,mais en
général elleconstate déja que,dans la présente affaire,la situation àula
géographie physiqueet politique de l'airede la délimitationne réunit pas
lesconditions idéalespour une application intégraleet exclusivedu critère
mentionné à la fin du paragraphe précédent. Des correctionsdoivent être
apportées à certains effets de son application qui pourraient êtredérai-
sonnables,et l'intervention concurrente de critères complémentairespeut
donc apparaître indispensable. Ayant présentes à l'esprit les caractéris-
tiques spécialesde la zone, la Chambre a notamment en vue le critère
complémentairequi consiste à donner du poids, dans de justes propor-
tions,à une différencenon négligeable, à l'intérieurde l'airede la délimi-
tation, entre les longueurs des côtes respectives des pays intéressés.De
même, ellea en vue le critère, complémentaireaussi, qui tient pour équi-
table la correction partielle d'un effetde l'application du critère de base
qui aboutirait àamputer une côte ou une partie de côte de sa projection
adéquatedans les étenduesmaritimes à diviser, ou encore le critère, tou-
jours complémentaire,qui repose sur la nécessitd'attribuer un effet,fût-il
limité,à la présenced'un accident géographique,tels une île ou un groupe
de petites îles au large d'une côte, lorsque l'application rigidedu critèrede
base pourrait amener, soit à leur donner un plein effet, soià ne leur en
donner aucun.
197. Aussila Chambre estime-t-elle devoir maintenant confirmer défi-
nitivement son choix, consistant àpartir du critère déja mentionnéde la
division, en principe par parts égales,des zones de convergence et de
chevauchement des projections maritimes des côtes des Etats impliqués
dans la délimitation, critèredont le caractère équitableest inhéreàtson
simple énoncé. Maisde l'avis de la Chambre l'adoption de ce point de
départ doit êtrecombinée avec celle, parallèle et partielle, des critères
complémentairesappropriés, pourautant que cette combinaison se révèle
vraiment imposéepar lescirconstancespertinentes de lazone concernée et
se tienne dans les limites réelles d'une telleexigence. C'est par cette voie
que la Chambre entend réaliser,en l'espèce,l'application la plus correcte
dela règlefondamentale du droit international en la matière,qui requiert
que toute délimitation maritime entre Etats soit faite d'après des critères
équitables et apparaissant concrètement comme tels par rapport aux
aspects particuliers de l'espèce considérée.
198. Lecaractèreéquitabledescritèresadoptésen fonction des circons-
tances du cas spécifiqueva ressortir de façon plus convaincante, et on
pourrait presque dire plus tangible, lorsquedu choix préalable descritères
équitables a appliquer 1'01passe à la phase suivante :celle consistantà sizedthe importance they attached to oneconcrete aspect or another of the
geographical situation in the present case. The Chamber cannot but re-
cognize, to a certain extent, that the concerns thus expressed were not
wholly unfounded. It does not here intend to enter into detailed consi-
derations, for itwillbe sufficient to note in general at this stage that, in the
present case, the situation arising out of the physical and political geo-
graphy of the delimitation area does not present ideal conditions for the
full, exclusive application of the criterion specified at the end of the
previousparagraph. Somecorrections must bemade tocertain effectsof its
application that might be unreasonable, so that the concurrent use of
auxiliary criteria may appear indispensable. Having regard to the special
characteristics of the area, the auxiliary criterion which the Chamber has
particularly in mind is that whereby a fair measure of weight should be
given to a by no means negligible difference within the delimitation area
between the lengths of the respectivecoastlines of thecountriesconcerned.
It also has in mind the likewise auxiliary criterion whereby it is held
equitablepartially to correct any effect of applyingthebasiccriterion that
would result in cutting off one coastline, or part of it, from its appropriate
projection across the maritime expanses to be divided, or then again the
criterion - it too being of an auxiliary nature - involving the necessity of
granting some effect, however limited, to the presence of a geographical
feature such as an island or group of small islands lying off a coast, when
strict application of the basic criterion might entai1giving them full effect
or, alternatively, no effect.
197. At this point, accordingly, the Chamber finds that it must finally
confirm its choice, which is to take as its starting-point the above-men-
tioned criterion of the division - in principle, equal division - of the areas
of convergence and overlapping of the maritime projections of the coast-
lines of the States concerned in the delimitation, a criterion which need
only be stated to be seen as intrinsically equitable. However, in the
Chamber's view, the adoption of this starting-point must be combined
with the parallel and partial adoption of the appropriate auxiliary criteria
in so far as it is apparent that this combination is necessitated by the
relevant circumstances of the area concerned, and provided they are used
only to the extent actuallydictated by this necessity. By this approach the
Chamber seekstoensure themost correct application in thepresent case of
the fundamental rule of international law here applicable, which requires
that any maritime delimitation between States should be carried out in
accordance with criteria that are equitable and are found more specifically
to be so in relation to the particular aspects of the case under considera-
tion.
198. The equitable nature of the criteria adopted in the light of the
circumstances of the case willemerge the more convincingly - one might
almost Saytangibly - after the transition from the preliminary phase of
choosing equitable criteria to the next phase, in which these criteria are torefléter lesdits critèresdans un tracéde délimitation déterminégrâce à
l'utilisation de méthodes pratiques appropriées.
199. En ce qui concerne ces méthodes pratiques, on peut dire tout
d'abord que, vu les critères équitables sur lesquels la Chambre estime
devoir se fonder dans le cas soumis à sonjugement, leur choix se trouve
tout indiqué. Cesméthodesdoiventêtredesinstruments aptes à traduire en
pratique ces critères-làet non pas des critèresqui en différeraientfonciè-
rement. Tout comme les critères à l'application effective desquels les
méthodes pratiques se rattachent s'appuient fondamentalement sur la
géographie, lesméthodesen question ne peuvent être,elles aussi, que des
méthodesqui seprêtent àêtreutiliséessurla toilede fondde lagéographie.
Et, tout comme lescritèresdont on s'inspire,lesméthodesemployéespour
les mettre en Œuvre doivent, dans le cas d'espèce,convenir aussi bienàla
délimitation des fonds marins et de leur sous-sol qu'à celle des eaux
surjacentes et de leurs ressources halieutiques. Elles ne peuvent donc être,
en définitive,que des méthodesgéométriques.
200. Cette constatation ne doit toutefois pas amener à la conclusion,
excessive, que les méthodes pratiques susceptibles d'êtreutilisées en
l'espècedoivent nécessairement s'identifieràla méthodeadoptéepar l'ar-
ticle 6 de la convention de 1958et que la Chambre, sans y êtreaucune-
ment obligée - et ellel'adéjàsouligné-, n'aurait en fait qu'à utilisercette
méthode,quitte à en corriger certains effets là où des circonstances spé-
ciales l'exigeraient. Il y a en réalitéd'autres méthodesencore, plus ou
moins différentesbien qu'ellesprocèdent aufond d'une même inspiration,
qui peuvent se révéler égalemenatppropriées et mêmenettement préfé-
rables, vu qu'il s'agitde délimiternon pas seulementun plateau continen-
tal comme la convention de 1958le prévoyait,mais aussi la masse d'eau
surjacente. Il ne faut pas non plus oublier que, dans le tracéglobal d'une
longue ligne de délimitation, des méthodesdiverses, encore qu'apparen-
tées,peuvent successivementapparaître mieux appropriées pourlesdivers
segments.
201. A ce sujet, la Chambre tient surtoutàsouligner qu'ilne faut pas se
laisser trop facilement séduirepar les apparences de perfection que l'on
reconnaîtraità priori, aux fins d'une divisionpar parts égales d'une zone
contestée,à une ligne tracéeen suivant rigoureusement les canons de !a
géométrie, à savoir à une ligne construite de manière telle que tous ses
points setrouvent àégaledistance despoints lesplus avancésdescôtesdes
parties intéresséepar ladélimitation.Dans un passage pertinent de l'arrêt
de 1969relatif aux affaires du Plateau continentaldelamerdu Nord(C.I.J.
Recueil1969,p. 36,par. 57),la Cour a fait ressortir que,pour déterminerle
tracéd'une ligne de délimitation destinée à <(diviser également l'espace
dont il s'agit entre deux côtes, il n'yapas lieu de tenir compted((îlots,
des rochers, ou des légerssaillants de la côte, dont on peut éliminer l'effet
exagéré de déviationpar d'autres moyens ))S'enrapportant àcette remar-
que, la Chambre tient pour sa part à relever les inconvénientsque peut
engendrer une méthode consistantprécisément à retenir commepoints de
base, pour le tracé d'une ligne recherchant une division à égalitéd'unbe reflected in the drawing of a particular delimitation line with the aid of
appropriate practical methods.
199. Asregards thesepractical methods,it can be said at the outset that,
giventhe equitable criteria which the Chamber feelsbound to apply in the
case referred to it forjudgment, the choice to be made is predetermined.
Methodsmustbe chosen which areinstruments suitable for givingeffect to
those criteria and not other criteria of a fundamentally different kind. Just
as the criteria to which they must give effect are basically founded upon
geography, the practical methods in question can likewiseonlybemethods
appropriate for use against abackground of geography. Moreover, likethe
underlyingcriteria,themethods employed to givethem effect must, in this
particular case,bejust as suitable for thedelimitation of the sea-bed and its
subsoil as for the delimitation of the superjacent waters and their fishery
resources. In the outcome, therefore, only geometrical methods will
serve.
200. It would howeverbegoingtoo far to infer from thisfinding that the
practical methods suitable for use in the present case must necessarily be
identifiable with the method adopted in Article 6 of the 1958Convention,
sothat al1that the Chamber need do (evenif, as alreadystressed,it has no
obligation so to proceed) is to make use of that method, subject to the
correction of certain effects as required by any special circumstances. In
fact there are also other methods, differingfrom it in varying degree even
whileprompted bysimilar considerations, whichmayprove equally appro-
priate or evendistinctly preferable, giventhat the task isto delimit not only
a continental shelf, as provided for in the 1958Convention, but also the
volumeof superjacent waters. Nor should oneoverlook thepossibility that,
over the whole course of a long delimitation line, various, though related,
methods may successivelyappear more appropriate to the different seg-
ments.
201. In this connection, the Chamber would emphasize the necessity of
not allowing oneself to be too easily swayed by the perfection which is
apparent apriori, fromthe viewpoint ofequallydividing adisputed area, in
aline drawn in strictcompliance with the canons of geometry, Le.,alineso
constructed that each point in it isequidistant from the most salient points
on the respective coastlines of the parties concerned. In an apposite pas-
sageof the 1969Judgment on the North Sea ContinentalShelfcases (I.C.J.
Reports 1969,p. 36, para. 57), the Court showed how, in determining the
course of a delimitation line intended to "effect an equal division of the
particular area involved" between twocoasts, no account need be taken of
the presence of "islets, rocks and minor coastal projections, the dispro-
portionally distorting effect of which can be eliminated by other means".
In pursuance of this remark, the Chamber likewise would point out the
potential disadvantages inherent in any method which takes tiny islands,
uninhabited rocks or low-tide elevations, sometimes lying at a consider-
able distance from terra firma, as basepoint for the drawing of a linecertain espace,de toutespetites îles,desrochers inhabités,deshauts-fonds,
situésparfois à une distance considérable de la terre ferme. Rien n'em-
pêched'attribuer à l'unde ces accidents géographiquesayant quelque im-
portance l'effet de correction limité qui peut équitablement lui revenir,
maisceciest autre chosequede faire d'unesériede cesaccidentsmineursla
base mêmede la détermination de la ligne de division, autre chose que de
transformer ceux-cien une successionde points d'appui pour la construc-
tion géométriquedu tracéentier.Ilestfort douteux qu'une ligneconstruite
de la sorte puisse, dans maintes situations concrètes,constituer une ligne
donnant réellement effet au critère de la division par parts égalesde
l'espace dont il s'agit, surtout lorsque ce n'est pas seulement un espace
terrestre sous-marin qui esà diviser mais en outre un espaceproprement
maritime, pour lequel le résultat peutse révélerencore plus contestable.
202. 11faut ajouter qu'une Iigne qui, à cause des raffinements de la
méthode techniqueutiliséepour déterminer son tracé, setrouverait avoir
uncheminement compliqué,parfois zigzaguant, forméd'unesuccessionde
segments aux orientations changeantes, pourrait àla rigueur êtreaccep-
table comme limite divisant uniquement le fond terrestre de la mer, c'est-
à-dire comme limite àrespecter aux fins de la prospection et de l'exploi-
tation des ressources situéesen desendroits déterminédu sous-sol.Mais il
semble beaucoup moins justifié d'adopter une telle ligne comme limite
appropriéede zones maritimes de pêche, à savoir de zones dont les res-
sources exploitables ne sont pas, pour la plupart, des ressources fixées au
sol.L'exploitation des richesseshalieutiques de la merdemande l'existence
de limites claires et constantes, n'obligeant pas ceux qui se consacreàt
cette actività des vérificationscontinues de leur position par rapport au
tracé compliquéde la ligne à respecter.
203. En définitive,tout comme lescritères àappliquer à la délimitation,
lesméthodes àutiliser pour traduire en pratique cescritèresnepeuvent pas
ne pas êtreinfluencéespar les caractéristiques et les exigences propres
d'une délimitationpar ligneuniquedu plateau continental et de lacolonne
d'eausurjacentequi,loin d'être unevéritablecolonneauxcontours définis,
est en réalité une masseliquide mouvante, constituant l'habitat d'une
faune mouvante. Une exigence élémentairede simplification est donc
indéniablement requise pour tracer une ligne de délimitationdans un tel
milieu.
204. Le bien-fondé des remarques faites jusqu'ici apparaîtra avec en-
core plus d'évidencesi l'on passe maintenant d'une considération abs-
traiteà un choix concret et à une mise en pratique des méthodesque la
Chambre estime approprié d'utiliser dans le cas soumis à sonjugement,
pour donner ainsi une application réelleaux critèreséquitablesdont ellea
décidéde s'inspirer.
205. A propos de ce choix et de cette utilisation, une remarque d'en-
semble doit êtrefaite. Une ligne de délimitation à tracer dans une aire
déterminéeest fonction de la configuration des côtes. Or, la configuration
des côtes du golfe du Maine, de laquelle dépend, et dans sa totalité, la
délimitation àréaliserentre des zones maritimeset sous-marines des deuxintended to effect an equal division of a given area. If any of these geo-
graphical features possess some degree of importance, there is nothing to
prevent their subsequently being assigned whatever limited corrective
effectmay equitably be ascribed to them, but that isan altogetherdifferent
operation from making aseriesofsuch minor featuresthe verybasis forthe
determination of the dividing line, or from transforming them into a
successionofbasepoints for the geometrical construction of the entire line.
It is very doubtful whether a line so constructed could, in many concrete
situations,constitute aline genuinely givingeffect to thecriterion of equal
division of the area in question, especially when it is not only a terrestrial
areabeneath the seawhichhas to be divided but alsoamaritime expanse in
the proper sense of the term, sincein the latter case the result may be even
more debatable.
202. Furthermore, a line which, on account of the refinements in the
technical method used to determine its course, follows a complicated or
even a zigzag path, made up of a succession of segments on different
bearings, might, if need be, seem acceptable as a boundary dividing the
sea-bed alone, i.e., a boundary to be observed in the exploration and
exploitation of the resources located in givenareas of the subsoil. But there
would seem to be far lessjustification for adopting such a line as a limit
appropriate to maritime fishery zones, i.e., areas whose exploitable
resources are not, for the most part, resources attached to the soil. Exploi-
tation of the sea'sfishery resources calls for the existence of clearboun-
daries of a constant course, that do not compel those engaging in such
activity to keep checking their position in relation to the complicated path
of the line to be respected.
203. In sum,just like the criteria to be applied to the delimitation, the
methods to be used for the purpose of putting those criteria into practice
cannot fail to beinfluenced by the specialcharacteristics and requirements
pertaining to the delimitation by a singleboundary of both the continental
shelf and the superjacent water column which, far from being a genuine
column of definite shape, is in reality a volume of liquid in movement,
forming the habitat of mobile fauna. Undeniably, a degree of simplifica-
tion is an elementary requisite to the drawing of any delimitation line in
such an environment.
204. The correctness of the foregoing observations will appear even
more evident as the Chamber now passes from abstract considerations to
the concrete choice and practical application of the methods it deems
appropriate for use in the case referred to it forjudgment, thereby effec-
tively implementing the equitable criteria by which it has resolved to be
guided.
205. Regarding the choice and use of methods, one general observation
must be made. The delimitation line to be drawn in a given area will
depend upon the coastal configuration. But the configuration of the Gulf
of Maine coastline, on which the delimitation to be effected between the
maritime and submarine zonesof the twocountries depends throughout itspays, est telle qu'elle exc1,utque la lignà tracer puisse êtreune ligne à
directionfondamentalement unique,et cecinon pas seulement sur toute la
distance entre le point de départ et le triangle d'aboutissement, mais déjà
po ur la partie comprise entre lepoint dedépartet la ligne de fermeture du
golfe.
206. La Chambre s'est déjà penchée surcet aspect à la section VI,
paragraphes 188et 189, lorsqu'elle a commenté laligne de délimitation
proposéepar le Canada. Elle a alors marquéson désaccord précisément à
propos du faitque la Partie enquestion avaitproposé une délimitationqui
négligeaitde tenir comptede laréalité du changement de situation que l'on
relève,à une hauteur donnée,dans la géographiedudit golfe.Vu l'impor-
tance de l'aspect en question, la Chambre estime opportun de résumerici
son point de vue en réitérantl'observation que c'est seulement dans le
secteur nord-est du golfe que le rapport dominant entre les côtes des
Etats-Unis et du Canada est celui d'adjacence latérale d'une partie des
côtes du Maine et d'une partie de cellesde la Nouvelle-Ecosse. Par contre,
dans le secteur plus proche de la ligne de fermeture du golfe, le rapport
dominant est celui d'opposition frontale entre les parties des côtes se
faisant face de la Nouvelle-Ecosse et du Massachusetts. Dans le ~remier
secteur, donc, c'estla géographie mêmq eui imposeque, quelle que soit la
méthodepratique que l'on choisissed'utiliser, la lignede délimitation soit
une ligne de délimitation latérale.Dans le second, c'estencore la géogra-
phie qui prescrit que la ligne de division soit plutôt une ligne de délimi-
tation médiane - stricteou corrigée,c'est cequiresteàétablir- entre côtes
sefaisant face, etc'esttoujours la géographiequi exigequecette ligne,vule
parallélismepresque parfait des deux côtes ici opposées, suive aussiune
direction pratiquement parallèle à celle de ces dernières.
207. Pour laChambre ilest donc évidentque, entre lepoint A et la ligne
Nantucket-cap de Sable, considérée comme ligne de fermeture du golfe,le
tracéde la ligne de délimitation ne peut pas êtreune ligne à direction
unique. Une ligne ainsiconçue nepourrait avoirpour effet que de négliger,
ou bien la côte de la Nouvelle-Ecosse donnant sur le golfe, ou bien la côte
du Massachusetts. Les deux effets seraient à rejeter. La Chambre est donc
d'avis que la conclusion que la géographieimpose est que la partie de la
ligne de délimitation à tracer à l'intérieur des limitesdu golfe du Maine
proprement dit doit êtreune ligne endeux segments, quitte àrechercher le
point pivot le plus approprié pour la rencontre de ces deux segments.
208. C'est donc sur la base de cette conclusion que la Chambre va
maintenant s'attacher àla déterminationsuccessivedes deux segments de
la partie de la ligne comprise entre le point A et la ligne de fermeture du
golfe. Suivra ensuitela déterminationdu troisième segment, à tracer entre
cette même ligne et le triangle d'arrivée.
209. Lepremier de ces deux segments est donc celui du secteur le plus
intérieurdu golfe,leplus rapprochédu point terminal de la frontière inter-
nationale. La Chambre est convaincue que ce secteur constitue l'espace
le mieux approprié pour procéder autant que possible, aucune circons-
tance spéciale nes'yopposant, à une divisionen parts égalesde la zone de332 GOLFE DU MAINE (ARRÊT)
chevauchement crééepar la superposition latéraledes projections mari-
times des côtes des deux Etats.
210. Comme elle l'a laisséentendre dans ses observations sur la ligne
proposéepar leCanada, la Chambre adesobjections quant à l'opportunité
et àlapossibilité même d'utilisern,e fût-ce que dans cesecteur, laméthode
technique consistant à tracer entre les deux côtes adjacentes une ligne
d'équidistance latéraletelle qu'elle est définiepar la géométrieet par les
termesdu paragraphe 2de l'article6delaconvention de 1958sur leplateau
continental, et ceci pour une double raison. En premier lieu, la Chambre
doit relever qu'une ligne tracéesuivant les indications données par cette
disposition (Ol'équidistancedespoints lesplusprochesdes lignesdebase à
partir desquelles est mesurée lalargeur de la mer territoriale de chacun de
ces Etats O)risque en fait d'êtreune bonne illustration des défauts inhé-
rents à une certaine manière d'interpréter et de mettre en pratique la
méthodeici considéréequi ont étémis en évidenceau paragraphe 201
ci-dessus. Ce que l'on risquerait, ce serait en effet d'aboutàrl'adoption
d'une lignequi trouverait tous ses points de base sur quelques rochers
isolésparfois très éloignédse la côte ou sur quelques hauts-fonds, exac-
tement le type d'accident géographiquemineurdont, comme la Cour et la
Chambre l'ont soulignéi,l convient de faire abstraction si l'on veutqu'une
lignede délimitation aboutisseautant que possible à une division parparts
égales des zonesde chevauchement des projections maritimes respectives
des côtes des deux pays.
21 1. En deuxièmelieu - etc'estlà laraisonprincipale desobjections de
la Chambre à ce sujet- la détermination dans le secteur dont il s'agitdu
tracé d'uneligne d'équidistance latérale,t ceciquels que soient lespoints
de base à partir desquels il serait établi, présentela difficultéduà l'in-
certitude qui persiste au sujetde lasouverainetésur l'îlehias Seal,etau
choix fait par les Parties du point A comme point de départobligatoire de
lalignede délimitation.Lepoint An'aétéprisenconsidération auxfins du
compromis qu'àtitre d'intersection accidentelledeslignesqui traduisaient
alors graphiquement les revendications respectives des deux Parties. Il
n'est donc pas, comme il devrait l'êtrepour constituer un point d'équi-
distance, établià partir de deux points de base dont l'un appartiendrait
sans conteste aux Etats-Unis et l'autre sans conteste au Canada. Et il est
égalementcertain que le point A n'est pas un point qui puisse se trouver
situésur le parcours d'une ligne d'équidistancequi serait tracéepar la
Chambre, ni êtrele point de départ d'uneligne de cette nature.
212. La Chambre estdonc d'avisque,pour cesraisons, et d'ailleurspour
mieux assurer l'application réelledu critère dont elle a tout motif de
s'inspirer, il faut renonceà l'idée d'utiliserici la méthode technique de
l'équidistance.La Chambre estime devoir donner la préférence à une
méthodequi,tout enprocédantde lamêmeinspiration, évitelesdifficultés
d'application qui ont étsignaléesetsoit en même tempsapte à produire le
résultatrecherché. La prémisse nécessaird ee l'opérationconsiste, de l'avis
de la Chambre, àprendre acte du fait que le point de départde la ligne de
délimitation a tracer et, donc, de son premier segment, doit êtrelepoint Adivisonof thearea of overlappingcreated by the lateral superimposition of
the maritime projections of the coasts of the two States.
210. Asit indicated inits comment on thelineproposed by Canada, the
Chamber hasobjectionsasto the advisability - or eventhe possibility - of
making use, were it only in this sector, of the technical method whereby a
lateral equidistance line, as defined by geometry and by the terms of
paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the 1958Convention on the Continental Shelf,
would be drawn between the two adjacent coasts, and it has two grounds
for these objections. In the first place, the Chamber must point out that a
line drawn in accordance with the indications given by that provision
("equidistance from the nearest points of the baselines from which the
breadth of the territorial sea of each State is measured") might well epi-
tomize the inherent defects of acertain manner of interpretingand apply-
ing the method here considered, as stressed in paragraph 201 above ;
inasmuch as the likely end-result would be the adoption of a line al1of
whose basepoints would be located on a handful of isolated rocks, some
very distant from the Coast,or on a few low-tide elevations : these are the
very type of rninor geographical features which, as the Court and the
Chamber have emphasized, should be discounted if it is desired that a
delimitation line should result sofar as feasible in an equal division of the
areas in which the respective maritime projections of the two countries'
coasts overlap.
211. In the second place - and here is the main reason for the Cham-
ber'sobjections - the determination in the sector envisaged of the course
of a lateral equidistance line,from whatever basepoints established, would
encounter the difficulty of thepersistent uncertainty as to sovereigntyover
Machias Seal Island and the Parties' choiceof point A as the obligatory
point of departure for the delimitation line. Point A was taken into con-
sideration for the purposes of the Special Agreement only as the point
where the lines then representing in graphical terms the Parties' respective
claims happened to intersect. Hence it is not, as it should be in order to
constitute an equidistant point, derived from two basepoints of which one
isin the unchallenged possession of the United States and the other in that
of Canada. And it is equally certain that point A is not a point that can be
located on the path of any equidistance line traced by the Chamber or
constitute the starting-point of any such line.
212. The Chamber is therefore of the opinion that, on these grounds,
and the better, moreover, to ensure the effective implementation of the
criterion by which it has every reason to be guided, it is necessary to
renounce the idea of employing the technical method of equidistance. It
considers that preference must be givento amethod which, whileinspired
by the same considerations, avoids the difficulties of application pointed
out above and is at the same time more suited to the production of the
desired result. The essential premise of the operation, as the Chamber sees
it, is to take note of the fact that the point of departure of the delimitationet non pas un autre point, quelle qu'en puisse êtrelajustification. Cette
précision faite, la méthode pratique à appliquer doit être,d'après la
Chambre, une méthodegéométrique, se fondant sur lerespect de la situa-
tiongéographiquedescôtesentre lesquellesladélimitationdoitêtretracée,
et apte en même temps àassurer un effet conforme au critèrede division
des espaces contestésplusieurs fois invoqué.
213. Pourmettre enpratique cequi vient d'êtreexposé,il apparaît donc
justifiéde tracerà partir du point A, deux lignes respectivement perpen-
diculaires aux deux lignes côtièresfondamentales qui entrent ici en con-
sidération,à savoir la ligne allant du cap Elizabeth aupoint terminal de la
frontièreinternationale etla ligneallant de cemêmepoint au cap de Sable.
Ces deux perpendiculaires forment entre elles, au point A, d'un côté un
angle aigu d'environ82" et de l'autre un angle obtus d'environ 278". C'est
labissectrice de cesecond angle quela Chambre estime devoir retenir pour
le tracé du premier segment de la ligne de délimitation. La méthode
pratique ainsi utiliséeréunit, de l'avis de la Chambre, l'avantage de la
simplicitéet de laclartà celuideproduire, dans lecasconcret,un effet qui
est vraisemblablement le plus proche possible de celui d'une division par
parts égalesde lapremièrezone àdélimiter.Et,del'avisde laChambre,par
rapport au secteur considéré,l'application de ce critère ne devrait pas
prêter à de sérieuses objections.
214. LaChambre a donc fixéla direction du premier des deux segments
de la ligne de délimitatioà tracerà l'intérieurdu golfe du Maineà partir
du point de départfixépar les Parties. Quantà son point d'arrivée,il sera
automatiquement déterminépar la jonction de la ligne sur laquelle ce
segment se trouve aveccelleoù va sesituer lesegment ultérieur.C'estdonc
à l'établissementde ce deuxième segment, leplus court peut-être,mais à
coup sûr lesegment central et leplus déterminantde l'ensemblede la ligne
de délimitation, que la Chambre va maintenant se consacrer.
215. A cette fin, la Chambre estime, en raison des considérations déjà
exposées, qu'il convientd'arrêter d'abordson choix sur une méthode
pratique appropriée, à utiliser pour établir provisoirement une délimita-
tion de base, puis de prendre en considération les correctifs que les cir-
constances spécialesde l'espècepourront rendre indispensable de lui
apporter. Il s'agira donc d'une opération en deux étapes.
216. La première concerne le choix et l'application concrète de la
méthodepratique à utiliser aux fins indiquées. A ce sujet, la Chambre a
exprimé à plusieurs reprises sa conviction que le choix de la méthodeà
utiliser est essentiellement fonction de la géographie.Dans ce contexte, il
lui suffit de rappeler la nécessité,sur laquelle elle a beaucoup insisté,de
reconnaître tout son poidsàlarelation - nettement différentepar rapport
à cellequi existait entre la côte de laNouvelle-Ecosse etla côte du M-ine
en présencede laquelle la Chambre se trouve maintenant, entre les côtes
qui donnent sur le golfe du Maine, du Massachusetts d'une part et de la
Nouvelle-Ecosse d'autre part. Plus spécifiquement, la Chambre tient àline to be drawn, and hence of its first segment, must be point A and no
other point, whatever its justification. That understood, the Chamber
considers that the practical method to be applied must be a geometrical
one based on respect for the geographical situation of the coasts between
which the delimitation is to be effected, and at the same time suitable for
producing a result satisfying the repeatedly mentioned criterion for the
division of disputed areas.
213. Accordingly, to put the above requirements into practice, one may
justifiably draw from point A two lines respectively perpendicular to the
two basic coastal lines here to be considered, namely the line from Cape
Elizabeth to the international boundary terminus and the line from that
latter point to Cape Sable. These perpendicularsform, at point A, on one
side an acute angle of about 82" and on the other a reflex angle of about
278". It is the bisector of this second angle which the Chamber considers
that it should adopt for the course of the first segment of the delimitation
line. The Chamber believes that this practical method combines the
advantages of simplicity and clarity with that of producing, in theinstant
case, a result which is probably as closeas possible to an equal division of
thefirst area to be delirnited. It also believes that,in relation to the sector
under consideration,theapplication of this equitable criterion is not open
to any serious objections.
214. The Chamber has thus fixed the direction of the first of the two
segments of the delimitation line to be drawn within the Gulf of Maine,
and has done so from the starting-point given by the Parties. As for this
segment's finishing point, this will be automatically determined by the
intersection of the linecarrying it with the linewhich is to contain the next
segment. Accordingly the Chamber will now turn its attention to the
establishment of thissecond segment, which,though it may bethe shortest,
willcertainly be thecentral and most decisivesegment for the wholeof the
delimitation line.
215. For the purpose of this operation, the Chamber considers, on
account of the considerations already set forth, that it has first to make its
choice of an appropriate practical method for use in provisionally estab-
lishing a basic delimitation, and that it must then ascertain what correc-
tions to it are rendered indispensable by the special circumstances of the
case. A two-stage operation is therefore entailed.
216. The first stage involves the choice and concrete utilization of the
practical method to ubeapplied for the above-mentioned purposes. In that
connection, the Chamber has found repeated occasion to express its con-
viction that the choice of method to be used is essentially dependent upon
geography. In this context, it need onlyrecall thereiterated emphasis it has
laid on the necessity of according full weight to the relationship now
confronting the Chamber - a distinctly different one from that which
existed between part of the coast of Nova Scotia and the coast of Maine -
namely the relationship between the coasts abutting on the Gulf of Maine,
of Massachusetts on the one hand and of Nova Scotia on the other. More soulignerunefois deplus lequasi-parallélismeentre laligne-qui,surlacôte
du Massachusetts, unit lecapAnn au coude du cap Cod, et la lignequi,sur
la Côte de la Nouvelle-Ecosse,unit l'île Brieraucap de Sable. Pour utiliser
ànouveauune terminologieconsacréepar lestextes etpar lajurisprudence,
aucun doute ne peut exister, d'après la Chambre, quant au fait qu'à la
hauteur indiquéelescôtesdesdeux Etats sefont face.Leurrelation icin'est
pas ce rapport d'adjacence latéralequi a étéà la base de la détermination
dupremier segmentdelalignede délimitation ;elleestdevenueun rapport
d'opposition frontale. Or, dans une tellesituation géographique,lerésultat
de l'utilisation de toute méthode d'inspiration géométrique, quelle qu'elle
soit,ycompris celleénoncée auparagraphe 1de l'article6de laconvention
de 1958,ne peut setraduire dans lesfaits que par une lignede délimitation
médiane. Etconcrètement cette lignenepourra êtrequ'une ligne approxi-
mativement parallèle aux lignesapproximativement parallèles des deux
côtes opposées.
217. La deuxième étapeexige peut-être unexamen plus approfondi.
Adopter simplement et à titre définitifla ligne médianeproprement dite
serait chose facile et pourrait de prime abord paraître très plausiblà la
lumière du critère équitable,si largement prôné par la Chambre, de la
division,autant quepossible par parts égales,des zones de chevauchement
des projections maritimes des côtes des deux Etats. On ne saurait en effet
imaginer de meilleure occasion, pour l'application de cecritère,que l'exis-
tence de deux côtes opposées etpratiquement parallèles,entre lesquellesil
s'agitd'établirà mi-chemin une ligne de délimitationmédiane.Toutefois
ceserait s'enteniràun aspect bien superficieldeschoses.Une tellesolution
serait absolument légitimedans l'hypothèseoù la frontière internationale
entre les Etats-Unis et le Canada aboutirait au beau milieu de la côte qui
borde le fond du golfe, dans la baie Penobscot par exemple, et où, par
conséquent,lepoint dedépart dela ligne se trouverait devant cette baie et
pratiquement en face du milieu de la distance qui sépareles côtes du
Massachusetts et de la Nouvelle-Ecosse. On pourrait alors dire que le
prolongement de la ligne médianetracéeentre ces côtesjusqu'au point où
cette ligne rejoindrait la côte du fond du golfereprésenterait endéfinitive
la ligne de délimitation parfaite entre les zones maritimes respectives des
deux pays dans le golfe.
218. Mais la réalitégéographique est fort différente de l'hypothèse
formulée. Lefond du golfeest entièrement occupépar la côte continue du
Maine, d'un Etat membre des Etats-Unis donc, et la frontière internatio-
nale avec le Canada aboutit beaucoup plus au nord-est, dans le chenal
Grand-Manan, à l'angle du rectangle qui représente géométriquement
la forme du golfe proprement dit. Dans ces conditions, de l'avis de la
Chambre, on ne saurait négligerla circonstance, d'une importance indé-
niable dans lecas présent,qu'il existeune différencede longueur entre les
côtes des deux Etats voisins donnant sur l'aire de la délimitation.Ne pas
reconnaître cette réalité serait nier l'évidee.aChambre réaffirmedonc
la nécessitéd'apporter une correction à la ligne médiane initialement
tracée, correction limitée, mais tenant dûment compte de la situation GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 334
specifically, the Chamber would once again stress the quasi-parallelism
between the line which, on the Massachusettscoast, links the promontory
of CapeAnn to the elbow of Cape Cod and the line which, on thecoast of
Nova Scotia,joins up Brier Island and Cape Sable. To use once more the
terminology to be found in conventions and case law, there can be no
doubt, in the Chamber's opinion, that, in thelocationsindicated, thecoasts
of the two States are opposite coasts. Here they do not possess that
relationship of lateral adjacency which underlay the determination of the
first segment of the delimitation line but face each other in confrontation.
In such a geographical situation, the application of any method of geo-
metrical origin, no matter which,including that propounded in paragraph
1of Article 6 of the 1958Convention, can in practice only result in the
drawing of a median delimitation line. In this specificcase, such aline can
only be one approximately parallel to the approximately parallel lines of
the two opposite coasts.
217. The second stagecallsperhapsfor more thoroughexamination. To
adopt the actual median line as final without more ado would be simple
and might at first sight appear very plausible in the light of the equitable
criterion, so abundantly endorsed by the Chamber, of the equal division -
sofar asfeasible - of areas where themaritimeprojections of the coasts of
the two States overlap. Indeed it would be difficult to imagine a better
opportunity for applyingthiscriterion than that offered by the existenceof
two opposite and practically parallel coasts, midway between which it is
proposed to draw a median line. However, this would be to cling to a very
superficial viewof the matter. A solution of that kind would be absolutely
legitimate if the international boundary between the United States and
Canada ended in the very middle of the coast at the back of the Gulf, in
Penobscot Bay for example, when the starting-point of the line would
accordingly have been situated offshore from that bay and practically
opposite themidpoint of thedistance between the coasts of Massachusetts
and Nova Scotia. It could then have been said that theprolongation of the
median line between those coasts to the point where it met the coast at the
back of the Gulf definitively represented the perfect delimitation line
between the respective maritime areas of the two countries id the Gulf.
218. However,itisafar cryfrom thishypothesis to geographical reality.
The back of the Gulf isentirely occupied by thecontinuous coast of Maine,
Le.,a component state of the United States, and the terminal point of the
international boundary with Canada is situated much farther to the north-
east, in the Grand Manan Channel, at a corner of the rectangle which
geometricallyrepresentsthe shape of the Gulf proper. That being so,itisin
the Chamber's viewimpossibleto disregard the circumstance, which is of
undeniable importance in the present case, that there is a difference in
length between the respective coastlines of the two neighbouring States
which border on the delimitation area. Not to recognize thisfact would be
a denial of the obvious. The Chamber therefore reaffirms the necessity of
applying to the median line as initially drawn a correction which, thoughréelle.A la section VI,paragraphe 157,la Chambre a reconnu en principe
le caractère équitable du critère permettant de tirer les conséquences
appropriéesd'éventuelles inégalité dsans l'extension descôtes respectives
desdeux Etatsdonnant sur l'airedeladélimitation.CommelaChambre l'a
expressément soulignéil n'est nullement dans son intention de faire de
l'idéede la proportionnalité, même limitée a l'aspect de la longueur des
côtes, un critère ou une méthode autonome de délimitation. Mais cette
précision n'empêchp eoint dejustifier le recourà un critèrecomplémen-
taire qui ne répond qu'à lanécessitéde corriger d'une manière adéquate,
sur la base des inégalités constatéesl,es conséquencesinappropriées de
l'application d'un critère principal différent.
219. Le critère complémentaire en question n'est d'ailleurspas le seul
qui puisse aider équitablement à la poursuite d'une telle finalité. Les
Etats-Unis se sont efforcéstout spécialementde faire prévaloirleur thèse
de la nécessitéde rejeter, en l'espèce, l'applicabilitéde tout critère et de
toute méthode susceptible - comme l'équidistancenotamment - de pro-
duire un effet d'amputation d'une côte ou d'une partie de côte de la
projection maritime à laquelle elle aurait droit. La Chambre ne saurait
suivre l'argumentation des Etats-Unisque dans une certaine mesure. Elle
ne peut le faire en ce qui concerne le parallèle que les Etats-Unis ont
cherché à établir entreles effets préjudiciables qu'à leur avisproduirait
pour eux en l'espèceune application hypothétique de la méthode de
l'équidistance,à cause de la <concavité>> de leur côte, et ceux qu'une telle
application aurait produits pour la République fédéraled'Allemagne a
causedela concavitédela côteallemande, sila Cour n'avaitpasadoptéune
autre solution en 1969.En réalité,de l'avis de la Chambre, il existe des
différences sensiblesentre les deux situations mais, quoi qu'il en soit, les
faits de la présenteespècedoivent êtreconsidérés en eux-mêmes.
220. Cela dit la Chambrene saurait suivredeCanada dans son refus de
reconnaître toute consistance aux préoccupations manifestées par les
Etats-Unis. Mêmeune division suivant une ligne médiane - et de ce fait
plus acceptablequ'une division suivantune ligned'équidistance latérale là
où elle n'aurait pas de raison d'être- risquerait de produire, si on ne lui
apportait aucune correction, un effet déraisonnable. Elle attribuerait en
effet au Canada, du fait de la seule présencedans le golfe de la côte de la
Nouvelle-Ecosse, exactement la mêmeprojection maritime globale dans
l'airedeladélimitationquecepaysobtiendrait si toute lapartiedroitede la
côte du Maineappartenaitau Canada au lieud'appartenir aux Etats-Unis.
En soulignant ce fait, la Chambre n'entend pas en tirer ici des consé-
quences directes, car ellene se propose évidemmentpas de multiplier par
deux, sur la base d'un nouveau critère,la correction qu'elle estime déjà
devoir apporter à la ligne médianeen raison de la différence constatée
dans l'extension respective des côtes des deux pays. Mais sa conviction
de la nécessitéd'effectuer ladite corrections'entrouve encore renforcée.
221. Revenant donc à cette tâche spécifiquede correction, la Chambre
relève que, d'aprèsles informations techniques dont elle dispose, la lon-limited, willpay due heed to the actual situation. In Section VI,paragraph
157,the Chamber has recognizedin principletheequitablecharacter of the
criterion whereby appropriate consequences may be deduced from any
inequalities in the lengths of the two States' respectivecoastlines abutting
on the delimitation area. As the Chamber has expressly emphasized, it in
no way intends to make an autonomous criterion or method of delimita-
tion out of the concept of "proportionality", even if it be limited to the
aspect oflengths of coastline. However, this does not preclude the justified
use of an auxiliary criterion serving only to meet the need to correct
appropriately, on the basis of the inequalities noted, the untoward con-
sequences of applying a different main criterion.
219. The auxiliary criterion in question is, moreover, not the only one
that could equitably be employed for that purpose. The United States has
endeavoured particularly to secure acceptance of its contention that it is
necessary, in the present instance, to reject the applicability of any cri-
terion or method likely - as in the case of equidistance, in particular- to
have the effect of cutting off a given coast or part of a coast from the
seaward projection to whichit is said tobe entitled. The Chamber isable to
concur only in some measure with the argument of the United States. It
cannot soconcur when the United States seeksto draw a paralle1between
thedetrimental effectsuponits interests that would in itsviewbeproduced
by any application of theequidistancemethod in thepresent case owingto
the "concavity" of the coast of the United States, and those that such an
application would have produced for the Federal Republic of Germany on
account of the concavity of the German coast, if the Courtin 1969had not
adopted another solution. In fact, the Chamber considers that there are
appreciable differences between the two situations. Be that as it may,
however,in the viewof the Chamber, the facts of the present case must be
considered in themselves.
220. That said, the Chamber cannot endorse Canada's refusa1 to
acknowledgethat there isany substance in theconcern to which the United
Stateshas givenexpression. Evenadivisionbymedian line - whichassuch
would be more acceptable than a division by lateral equidistance line
where such a line is not called fo- might produce an unreasonable effect
if uncorrected, in that it would attribute to Canada, simply because the
coast of Nova Scotia abuts upon the Gulf, precisely the same overall
maritimeprojection in the delimitation area as that country would obtain
if the entire eastern sideof the Mainecoast belonged toCanada instead of
the United States.Here the Chamber, in noting this fact, does not intend to
draw from it any direct conclusions, for it naturally does not propose to
double, on the basis of a new criterion, the correction which it considers
that it has already to make to the median line on account of the difference
noted in the respective lengths of the coastlines of the two countries. The
point in question does however serve to strengthen its conviction of the
need to make that correction.
221. To return to this specific task of correction, the Chamber notes
that, according to the technical information at its disposal,the total lengthgueur totale des côtes des Etats-Unis dans le golfe, mesurée lelong des
façades côtières du coude du cap Cod au cap Ann, du cap Ann au cap
Elizabethet de celui-ciau point terminal de la frontière internationale, est
d'environ 284 milles marins. La longueur totale des côtes canadiennes,
mesuréed'une manière analogue le long des façades côtières du point
terminal de la frontière internationale au point sur la côte du Nouveau-
Brunswickoù iln'yaplus, dans labaie, d'étendues maritimesdépassantles
12milles àpartir de la laisse de basse mer (45" 16' 31"delatitudenord et
65"41'01 "delongitude ouest), puis decepoint au point correspondant sur
lacôtedela Nouvelle-Ecosse(44" 53'49" delatitudenord et 65" 22' 47"de
longitude ouest), etensuite de cepointàl'îleBrieret de l'îleBrieraucapde
Sable, est d'environ 206 milles marins. A ce propos, la Chambre tient à
souligner que le fait que les rives se faisant face de la baie de Fundy sont
toutes deux canadiennes ne saurait constituer une raison, ni de mécon-
naître que la baie fait partie du golfe du Maine, ni de ne prendre en
considérationqu'uneseuledecesrivesauxfins du calculde lalongueurdes
côtes canadiennes dans l'aire de la délimitation. Rien en effet ne saurait
justifier l'idéeque, pour qu'une baie relativement importante ouvrant sur
un golfeplus étendupuisse êtreconsidéréecommefaisant partie de celui-
ci, ilfaudraitque sesrivesn'appartiennent pas au mêmeEtat.LaChambre
rappelleen outrequedans l'arrêtde 1982enl'affairedu Plateaucontinental
(Tunisie/Jamahiriya arabe libyenne)la Cour a inclus dans le calcul de la
longueurdes côtesde laTunisie dans l'airede ladélimitation la totalitédes
façades côtièresde la Tunisie sur cette aire, y compris celles du golfe de
Gabès, sans en êtreempêchéepar le fait que les côtes du golfe sont
entièrement tunisiennes.
222. La proportion entre les longueurs des façades côtièresdes Etats-
Unis et du Canada dans le golfe du Maine, telles que définies aupara-
graphe précédent,est ainsi de 1,38 à 1. De l'avis de la Chambre, cette
proportion devrait entrer en ligne de compte pour déterminer laposition
du deuxième segmentde la ligne de délimitation.La Chambre estime que
la méthode appropriée à cette fin devrait consistàrappliquer la propor-
tion finalement retenue àune ligne tracéeà travers legolfeentre lespoints
où les côtes de la Nouvelle-Ecosse et du Massachusetts sont les plus
proches l'unede l'autre, c'est-à-direentre un point situéprèsde l'extrémité
nord-est du cap Cod, par 42" 00' 31"de latitude nord et 70" 01' 36"de
longitude ouest, et la pointe Chebogue, Nouvelle-Ecosse (43" 43' 57" de
latitude nord et 66" 07' 18" de longitude ouest). Selon la Chambre il
conviendrait par conséquentde déplacer laligne médianetracée initiale-
ment entre les lignes opposéeset quasi parallèles mentionnéesau para-
graphe 216ci-dessus qui relient, sur la côte du Massachusetts, lecoude du
cap Cod aucapAnn, et,sur la côte de la Nouvelle-Ecosse,lecap de Sable à
l'île Brier,jusqu'àun point divisant lalignecapCod-pointe Chebogue dans
ladite proportion. Toutefois, si la Chambre a employéici le conditionnel,
c'est qu'il existeencore un aspect mineur qui pourrait avoir quelque inci-
dence sur le calcul. Il s'agitde la présence, au largede la Nouvelle-Ecosse,
de l'île Seal. La Chambre considère que, en raison de ses dimensions etof the United States coastline in the Gulf, as measured along the coastal
fronts from the elbow of Cape Cod to Cape Ann, from Cape Ann to Cape
Elizabeth and from the latter to the international boundary terminus, is
approximately 284 nautical miles. The overall length of the Canadian
coastline, assimilarlycalculated alongthe coastal frontsfromthe terminal
point of the international boundary to the point on the New Brunswick
coast off which there cease tobe any waters in thebaymoredistant than 12
miles from a low-water line (45" 16'31" N and 65" 41'01" W), then from
that point across to the corresponding point on the Nova Scotian coast
(44" 53' 49"N and 65"22'47" W),thence to BrierIsland, and from there to
Cape Sable, is approximately 206 nautical miles. In this respect, the
Chamber wishes to emphasize that the fact that the two coasts opposite
each other on the Bay of Fundy are both Canadian is not a reason to
disregard the fact that the Bayispart of the Gulf of Maine, nor a reason to
takeonly oneof thesecoasts intoaccountforthe purpose ofcalculating the
length of the Canadian coasts in the delimitation area. There is no justi-
fication forthe idea that if a fairly substantialbay opening on to a broader
gulf is to be regarded as a part of it, its shores must notl1belong to the
same State. The Chamber would also recall that in the 1982Judgment in
the case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jama-
hiriya),the Court was not deterred from including in its calculation of the
length of the coasts of Tunisia in the delimitation area the whole of the
coastal fronts ofTunisia on that area,including those of the Gulf of Gabes,
by the fact that the coasts of the Gulf are wholly Tunisian.
222. The ratio between the coastal fronts of the United States and
Canadaon the Gulf of Maineas defined in the previous paragraph, is thus
1.38to 1.In the viewof the Chamber, this ratio should be reflected in the
location of the second segment of the delimitation line. For thispurpose,
the Chamber considers that the appropriate method should be toapplythe
ratio selected to a line drawn across the Gulf where the coasts of Nova
Scotia and Massachusetts are nearest to each other, i.e., between a point
near the northeastern tip of CapeCod, at 42" 00'31" N, 70"01' 36"W,and
CheboguePoint,Nova Scotia(43" 43'57" N, 66" 07' 18"W).In the viewof
the Chamber it would then be proper to shift the median line drawn
initially between the opposite and quasi-parallellines mentioned in para-
graph 216 above, which join, on the Massachusetts coast, the elbow of
Cape Cod to Cape Ann and, on the coast of Nova Scotia, Cape Sable to
Brier Island, insuch a way asto reflect this ratio along the line Cape Cod-
Chebogue Point. Here, however, the Chamber has employed the condi-
tional tense because there still remains one aspect which, though minor,
might have some influence on the calculations. This is the presence off
Nova Scotia of Seal Island and certain islets in its vicinity. The Chamber
considers that Seal Island (together with its smaller neighbour, Mud
Island), by reason both of its dimensions and, more particularly, of its
geographical position, cannot be disregarded for the present purpose.surtout de sa position géographique,cette île (avec le petit îlot qui l'avoi-
sine, Mud Island) ne saurait êtrenégligéeaux fins envisagéesici. D'après
lesrenseignements dont la Chambre dispose, l'îleSealest longue d'environ
2 milles et demi, atteint une élévation d'environ50 pieds au-dessus du
niveau de la mer, et est habitée à longueur d'année. Fait encore plus
pertinent :en raison de sa situation au large du cap de Sable,à quelque
9 milles seulement à l'intérieurde la ligne de fermeture du golfe, l'île oc-
cupe une position clé àl'entréede celui-ci. Estimant toutefois qu'il serait
excessif de considérer la ligne côtière de la Nouvelle-Ecosse comme
déplacée vers lesud-ouest de la totalitéde la distance séparantl'île Seal
de ladite côte, la Chambre juge approprié de donner àcette île un demi-
effet, de telle sorte que, ainsi qu'il est expliquédans le rapport de l'expert
technique annexéau présentarrêt,la proportion àappliquer pour déter-
miner la position de la ligne médianecorrigée se trouvefinalement rame-
néede 1,38à 1 à1,32(environ) à 1.Et puisqu'il ne s'agit icique d'ajuster la
proportion par référence àlaquelle laposition de la lignemédianecorrigée
serafixée,l'effetattribuà l'îlen'entraîne qu'unelégèrtranslation decette
ligne, sans modification de son inclinaison; ses conséquencespratiques
sont donc limitées.
223. Le tracéde ce segment central de la ligne correspondra donc, sur
toute sa longueur,à la ligne médianecorrigée ainsiétablie. Leditsegment
ira du point oùcette lignecroisà,l'intérieur dugolfe,labissectrice traàée
partir du point A et formant lepremier segment, au point oùcettemédiane
corrigéeatteint la ligne de fermeture du golfeplusieurs foismentionnée.Il
est à remarquer que le lieu de jonction entre le premier et le deuxième
segment de la ligne de délimitation,à savoir le point pivot où cette ligne
prend sanouvelledirection, setrouve plusoumoins àlamêmehauteurque
la pointe Chebogue, qui marque, sur la côte de la Nouvelle-Ecosse, le
passage de la partie de cette côte qui se trouvait plutôt dans un rapport
d'adjacence aveclacôte du Maine à lapartiede la mêmecôte qui se trouve
plutôt dans un rapport d'opposition frontale avec la côte du Massachu-
setts.
224. Reste maintenant à déterminerle tracédu troisième segmentde la
ligne de délimitation, portion la plus longue du cheminement entier de
cette ligne. Il s'agit du segment qui concerne la partie de l'aire de la
délimitation se trouvantà l'extérieurdu golfe du Maine et en face de ce
dernier. Ilparaît toutefois évident qu'enprincipeladétermination du tracé
du segment enquestionestfonction de celuides deux segmentsprécédents
de la ligne, ceux que l'on vientde décrire l'intérieurdu golfe et dont le
cheminement dépendait si évidemmentde l'orientation descôtesdes Par-
ties qui donnent sur les eaux du golfe. En fait, la portion de la lignà
déterminermaintenant doit sesituer,sur toute salongueur,en plein océan.
Du point de vuegéographique,il n'ya aucunpoint de référencee ,ndehors
des côtes mêmesdu golfe, qui puisse servir de base à l'exécutionde
l'opération finalerequise. Dans ces conditions, il paraît clair qu'aucune
méthodepratique ne saurait êtreprise en considération à cette fin, hors,
une fois encore, une méthodegéométriqueD . ans lecadre des méthodesdeAccording to the information available to the Chamber it is some two-
and-a-half miles long, rises to a height of some 50feet above sea level,and
isinhabited al1the year round. It isstillmorepertinent to observe that as a
result of its situation off Cape Sable, only some nine miles inside the
closing line of the Gulf, the island occupies a commanding position in the
entry to the Gulf. The Chamber however considers that it would be
excessiveto treat the coastline of Nova Scotia as transferred south-west-
wards by the wholeof thedistance between SealIsland and that coast, and
therefore thinks it appropriate to give the island half effect, so that, as
explained in the Report of the technical expert, the ratio to be applied for
the purposes of determining the location of the corrected median line will
be approximately 1.32to 1inplace of 1.38to 1.Sinceit isonlyaquestion of
adjustingtheproportion by reference to which thecorrected median lineis
to be located, the result of the effect to be given to the island is a small
transverse displacement of that line, not an angular displacement ;and its
practical impact therefore is limited.
223. The central segment of the delimitation line will thus correspond,
over its entire length, with the corrected median line as so established. It
will begin where this line intersects, within the Gulf, the bisector drawn
from point A and constituting the first segment, and end on reaching the
oft-mentioned closing line of the Gulf. It will be noted that the meeting-
point of the first and second segments of the delimitation line, i.e., the
pivota1point where this line changes direction, is located about as far into
the Gulf as Chebogue Point, a feature of the Nova Scotian coast which
marksthetransition from thepart ofthiscoastin an adjacencyrelationship
with the coast of Maine to the part facing the Massachusetts coast in a
relationship of oppositeness.
224. There now remains to be determined the course of the third seg-
ment of the delimitation line, i.e., the longest portion of its entire course.
This is the segment concerning that part of the delimitation area whch lies
outside and over against the Gulf of Maine. Nevertheless, it appears
beyond question that, in principle, the determination of the path of this
segment must depend upon that of the two previous segments of the line,
those segments withn the Gulf which havejust been described and whose
path so obviously depended on the orientation of those coasts of the
Parties thatabut uponthe waters of the Gulf. In fact, theportion of theline
now to be determined willinevitably, throughout its length, be situated in
the open ocean. From the geographcal point of view, there is no point of
reference, outside the actual shores of the Gulf, that can serveas abasis for
carrying out the finaloperation required. That being so,it appears obvious
that the only kind of practical method whch can be considered for this
purpose is, once again, a geometrical method. Within the range of suchcetype, la mieux appropriéeest cellequi serecommande avant tout par sa
simplicité,et qui consiste en l'espèàtracerune perpendiculaire à la ligne
de fermeture du golfe.
225. A vrai dire, la ligne dont l'azimut serait ainsi déterminé présente
dans le cas d'espèceune série d'avantages.La direction de la ligne de
fermeture du golfe, avec laquelle la ligne en question formerait donc un
angle de 90°, correspond d'assez prèsà la direction de la côte du fond du
golfe,et l'on serappellera que les Etats-Unis avaientproposé, commebase
de départ pour la deuxième lignede délimitation avancéepar eux, une
perpendiculaire à la direction de cette côte. Quant au Canada, il est à
relever que la ligne d'équidistance stricteque cette Partie avait prônàe
l'origine- c'est-à-dire avant de se rabattre sur la proposition d'une nou-
velle ligne d'équidistancecorrigéeutilisant comme point de base le canal
ducap Cod - aurait nécessairementétécommandéepour finirpar lesdeux
pointsde base lesplus avancésde l'extrémité sud-esd te l'îlede Nantucket
d'un côté etdu cap de Sable de l'autre. Le dernier segment de cette ligne
aurait ainsi coïncidéexactement avec une perpendiculaire à la ligne de
fermeture du golfe. De façon plus générale d'ailleursi,l està noter que
l'agent adjoint du Canada a déclaré, à l'audience du 4 avriI 1984,
matin :
<<Dans le secteur extérieur, versle large, la ligne est en gros per-
pendiculaireà lalignede fermeture du golfe,auxcôtes du Maineet du
Nouveau-Brunswick dans le fond du golfe, et àla direction générale
moyenne des côtes atlantiques de la Nouvelle-Ecosse, du Massachu-
setts et du Rhode Island de part et d'autre du golfe.
L'orientation du dernier segment de la ligne proposéepar la Chambre
est donc pratiquement la mêmeque celle que les deux Parties impriment
à la dernière portion des lignes respectivement envisagéespar elles. On
n'aperçoit en conséquence nulle raisond'adopter une orientation diffé-
rente.
226. Lechoixde laChambre allant dans lesensquiaétéindiquéi,lreste
néanmoins à résoudrel'essentielà savoir la détermination du point exact,
sur la lignede fermeturedu golfe,àpartir duquellaperpendiculaire à cette
ligne doit se diriger vers le large. Sitoutefois l'on estime nécessairede s'en
tenir encore à la géographie,toutes les considérations déjàexposées à
propos de la détermination du tracédu dernier segment de la ligne con-
cordent pour faire coïncider ce nouveau choix avec le point même où la
ligne médianecorrigéerencontrait la ligne de fermeture du golfe. C'esten
effet en ayant toujours présent à l'esprit la détermination du dernier
segment de la lignede délimitationque la Chambre s'estattachéeavectant
d'attentionà établir le tracédes segments précédents.Il serait impensable
que, dansla partie de l'airede la délimitationqui se trouve en dehors et en
face du golfe, la ligne de division ne suive ni ne continue celle tracàe
l'intérieurdu golfe,en fonction des caractéristiquesparticulièresdescôtes
de celui-ci. Si l'on cherchait une illustration typique de la signification de
l'adage <la terre domine la mer O, c'est ici qu'on la trouverait.methods, the most appropriate is that recommended above al1 by its
simplicity, namely in this instance the drawing of a perpendicular to the
closing line of the Gulf.
225. Indeed, a line on an azimuth thus determined offers a number of
advantages in thepresent case.The direction of the closinglineof the Gulf,
with which that line would form a right angle,corresponds generally to the
direction of thecoastline at theback of the Gulf, andit willbe recalled that
the United States had proposed, as a basis of departure for the second
delimitation lineitadvanced,aperpendicular to thedirection of that Coast.
As for Canada, attention may be drawn to the fact that the strict equi-
distance line for which it originally contended, before falling back on the
proposa1of a new corrected equidistance line using Cape Cod Canal as a
basepoint, would necessarily have been eventually governed by the two
most advancedbasepoints consisting of the southeastern tip of Nantucket
Island, on the onehand,and Cape Sableon the other. The final segment of
the linewould therefore have exactlycoincided with aperpendicular to the
closing line of the Gulf. More generally, it is noteworthy that theDeputy-
Agent of Canada stated at the hearing of 4 April 1984(morning) :
"The line in the outer area is roughly perpendicular to the closing
lineof theGulf,tothecoasts of Maine and New Brunswickat the back
of theGulf, and to the averagegeneral direction of the Atlantic coasts
of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts and Rhode Island on either sideof
the Gulf."
The orientation of thefinal segment of the lineproposed by the Chamber is
therefore practically the same as the orientation given by the two Parties
to the final portion of the lines they respectively envisaged. Hence the
Chamber can see no reason for adopting a different orientation.
226. Suchbeing the Chamber's choice,the essential questionremains to
be resolved, namely that of determining the precise point on the closing
line of the Gulf from whch the perpendicular to that lineshouldbe drawn
seawards. However, if it is considered necessary to remain guided by
geography, al1the considerations already set forth in regard to the deter-
mination of the final segment of the line militate in favour of having this
new choice coincide with the very point where the corrected median line
encounters the closing line of the Gulf. Indeed the Chamber has borne
constantly in mind the problem of determining the final segment of the
delimitation line when applying itself someticulously to the task of estab-
lishing the previous segments. It would be unthinkable that,in that part of
the delimitation area which lies outside and over against the Gulf, the
dividing line should not follow or continue the line drawn within the Gulf
by reference to the particular characteristics of its coasts. If one were to
seek for a typical illustration of what is meant by the adage "the land
dominates the sea", it is here that it would be found. 227. En partant du point indiquéau paragraphe précédent,le segment
considéréde la ligne de délimitationtraverse lebanc de Georges entre des
points sur l'isobathe des 100 brasses dont les coordonnées sont les sui-
vantes :
42" 11:8Nord 67" 1l:0 Ouest
41" 10:l Nord 66" 17:9Ouest
La Chambre reviendra à la section VI11ci-après (paragraphes 238 et
suivants)sur lesconséquencesde cetracéencequi concernela division des
ressources et des richesses minéralesdu banc.
228. Quant au point d'arrivéede ce dernier segment de la ligne de
délimitation,pointd'arrivéequi doitse trouverà l'intérieurdu triangle fixé
par lecompromisdes Parties, lecritèredéterminantdoitêtre,del'avisde la
Chambre,la reconnaissance du fait que ladélimitation àtracer doit diviser
équitablementles zones de chevauchement des projections maritimes des
côtes des deux pays voisins. Ce point d'arrivée coïncideradonc avec le
dernier point de chevauchement des zones de 200 milles respectivement
revendiquéespar les deux Etats, et établies à partir de points de base
appropriés sur leurs côtes, auquel la perpendiculaire en q<estion abou-
tira.
229. Pour conclure, enconsidérantlepoint A commeun point fixeet en
appelant point Blepoint de jonction du premier et du deuxième segment
ainsi qu'ilsont étdéfinis,point C le point dejonction du deuxièmeet du
troisième segment surlaligne de fermeture du golfe,et point lepoint où
letroisième segmentatteint, verslelarge,ledernier lieude chevauchement
des revendicationsdes deux Parties situé sur son cheminement,la ligne de
délimitation desjuridictions maritimes du Canada et des Etats-Unis fixée
par la Chambre sera celle comprise entre les points A, B, C et D.
230. La règlefondamentale du droit international général régissant la
matièredesdélimitationsmaritimes, règlequia servi à la Chambre depoint
dedépartdu raisonnement suivijusqu'ici, exigequelalignede délimitation
soit établieen appliquantà cette opération des critères équitables,et ceci
en vue de parvenir à un résultat équitable.C'est en ayant précisément
recouru à un critèrede base dont le caractère équitableest généralement
admis et sanctionnépar l'autoritéde la Cour,enfaisant aussi intervenir, là
où la nécessités'en présentait, des critères complémentaires également
équitables, et enfin en traduisant concrètement ces critères par les
méthodesjugées les plus appropriées à cette fin, que la Chambre est
parvenue à tracerla lignede délimitationque les Parties lui ont demandée.
La dernière tâche qu'il lui resteà accomplir avant d'arrêterdéfinitive-
ment sa conclusion consiste à vérifiersi le résultat ainsi obtenu peut être GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 339
227. Starting from the point indicated in the previous paragraph, the
envisaged segment of the delimitation line crosses Georges Bank between
points on the 100-fathoms depth line with the following CO-ordinates :
The Chamber willreturnin Section VI11below (paragraphs 238 ff.) to the
consequences of this line for the division of the fishing and minera1
resources of the Bank.
228. As for the terminusad quem of ths final segment of the delimita-
tion line, a point which has to be situated within the triangle defined by
the Special Agreement between the Parties, the decisive criterion, in the
Chamber's view,should be recognition of the fact that the delimitation to
bedrawnmust equitably dividethe areasinwhich themaritimeprojections
of the twoneighbouringcountries' coasts overlap. It willtherefore coincide
with the last point theperpendicular reaches within the overlapping of the
respective 200-milezones claimed by the two States and established from
appropriate basepoints on their coastlines.
229. In conclusion, taking point Aasafixedpoint and assigningletter B
to the meeting-point between the first two segments as above defined,
letter Cto themeeting-point between the second and third segmentson the
closing line of the Gulf, and letter D to the point where the first segment
reaches, to seaward, the last place on itspath where the claims of the two
Parties overlap, the delimitation line fixed by the Chamber between the
maritimejurisdictions of Canada and the United States will be the line
successively connecting points A, B, C and D.
230. Thefundamental rule of general international lawgoverning mari-
time delimitations, the rule which provided the Chamber with its starting-
point for the reasoning so far followed, requires that the delimitation line
be established while applying equitable criteria to that operation, with a
view to reaching an equitable result. It is precisely by the adoption of a
basic criterion whose equitable character is generally admitted and has
been sanctionedby the authority of the Court, and by alsoresorting, where
necessity arose, to auxiliary criteria which are also equitable, and, finally,
by putting those criteria into practice through the methods judged most
appropriate to that end, that the Chamber has succeeded in drawing the
delimitation line requested of it by the Parties. Its last remaining task
before formulating its final decision willbe to ascertain whether the result
thus arrived at may be considered asintrinsicallyequitable, in the light of considérécomme étanten lui-mêmeéquitable, à la lumièrede toutes les
circonstances pouvant entrer en ligne de compte pour cette conclusion.
231. Enfait,cette vérificationne s'imposepas absolument pour lesdeux
premiers segments de la ligne.A l'intérieurdu golfeàsavoir au-dessus de
lalignede fermeture decedernier, lecaractèreéquitableounon du résultat
de l'opérationde délimitationque l'ony a exécutée pourrait difficilement
être appréciépar rapport àdes paramètres autres que ceux, dominants,
fournis par la géographie physique etpolitique des lieux. Ce sont préci-
sémentces paramètres qui ont servide guide à la Chambre dans la déter-
mination des parties de la ligne destinéesproduire leur effet dans cette
portion de l'aire de la délimitation. Et il convient de souligner que les
Parties ne visaient pasparticulièrement lesressources halieutiques de cette
portion de l'airede la délimitationlorsqu'ellesont évoquél'importance en
général desdites ressources pour leur économie ;et ellesn'ont pas fait état
de prospections effectuéesdans ces espaces en vue de la recherche et de
l'exploitation d'hydrocarbures.
232. La question peut par contre se poser différemment en ce qui
concerne le troisième segmentde la ligne, qui doit produire son effet dans
la partie de l'airede la délimitation situéeen dehorsdu golfe et loin de ses
côtes et qui, il y a peu de temps encore, étaitde la haute mer. Aux fins ici
considéréeso ,n ne doitpas perdrede vueque cedernier segment de laligne
estceluiqui présenteleplus d'intérêptour lesPartiesà causede laprésence
dans cette zone du banc de Georges. Celui-ci est le véritable objetdu
différendqui oppose les Etats-Unis au Canada dans la présente affaire,
l'enjeu principal du procès, et ceci en ce qui concerne les ressources
potentielles du sous-sol, et surtout les pêcheriesd'une importance écono-
mique dominante. Il est donc compréhensibleque l'on se demande si, en
plus deséléments fournis par lagéographiedugolfeproprement dit, iln'est
pas d'autres facteurs dont il faudrait tenir compte. D'autres circonstances
pourraient en effet paraître susceptibles d'êtres prien considérationici
pour juger du caractère équitable ou non du résultat produit par cette
portion de la ligne de délimitation quiest destinéàdiviser entre les deux
pays voisins les richesses des eaux du banc et celles de son plateau. Ces
autres circonstances se trouvent résuméespar ce que les Parties ont pré-
senté comme des données fourniespar la géographiehumaine et écono-
mique :circonstances donc qui, de l'avisde la Chambre, ne peuvent pas
entrer en considération en tant que critèresà appliquer à l'opérationde
délimitationelle-même,maisdontjustement on peut seservir,comme cela
a été indiqué à la section II, paragraphe 59, pour juger du caractère
équitable de la délimitation établie à l'origine sur la base de critères
empruntés à la géographie physiqueet politique.
233. Pour les Etats-Unis, la considération principale est ici la présence
historique de l'hommesur leslieuxcontestés.En l'espèce,lefacteur décisif
est à leurs yeux l'activité exercépar les Etats-Unis et par leurs ressor-
tissants, depuis leur accèà l'indépendanceet mêmeavant cela, activité
dont ils disent avoir eu pratiquement l'exclusivitépendant la plus grande
partie decette longue période. Leurraisonnement est simple et serappro-al1the circumstances which may be taken into account for the purposes of
that decision.
231. In fact, such verification is not absolutely necessary where thefirst
two segments of the line are concerned. Within the Gulf, i.e., landward of
its closing line, it would scarcely be possible to assess the equitable char-
acter of thedelimitationtherecarried outon the basis of any other than the
dominant parameters provided by the physical and political geography of
the area. And it isprecisely those parameters which served the Chamber as
a guide in determining theparts of the line which are to take effect in this
portion of the delimitation area. Moreover, attention may be drawn to the
fact that the Parties did not make any special reference to the fishing
resources of this portion of the delimitation area when pointing out the
general importance of those resources for their economies ;neither did the
Parties refer to anyexplorationscarried out in thissector with aviewto the
discovery and exploitation of petroleum resources.
232. The question may take on a different complexion, however, in
regard to the third segment of the line,whoseeffect willbe felt in that part
of the delimitation area which lies outside and far from the shores of the
Gulf and which, not so long ago, was part of the high seas. For present
purposes, it must be borne in mind that thisfinal segment of the line is the
one of greatest interest to the Parties, on account of the presence of
Georges Bank. This Bank is the real subject of the dispute between the
United States and Canada in the present case, the principal stakein the
proceedings, from the viewpoint of the potential resources of the subsoil
and also, in particular, that of fisheries that are of major economicimpor-
tance. Some enquiry whether, in addition to the factors provided by the
geography of the Gulf itself, there are no others that should be taken into
account, is therefore an understandable step. It might well appear that
other circumstances ought properly to be taken into consideration in
assessing the equitable character of the result produced by this portion of
the delimitation line, which is destined to divide the riches of the waters
and shelf of this Bank between the two neighbouring countries. These
othercircumstances maybe summedup bywhat theParties havepresented
asthe data provided byhuman and economicgeography, and they are thus
circumstances which, though in the Chamber's opinion ineligible for con-
sideration as criteria to be applied in the delirnitation process itself, ma-
asindicated in Section II,paragraph 59,above - be relevant to assessment
of the equitable character of adelirnitationfirst established on the basis of
criteria borrowed from physical and political geography.
233. In the eyesof the United States,the main consideration here is the
historical presence of man in the disputed areas. It believes the decisive
factor here to be the activities pursued by the United States and its
nationals since the country's independence and even before, activities
which they claim to have been alone in pursuing over the greater part of
that long period. This reasoning is simple and somewhat akin to the cherait quelque peu d'une invocation de droits historiques, bien que cette
expression n'ait pas étéutilisée.Cette présencehumaine constante s'est
traduite avant tout par des activitésde pêche,de conservation et de ges-
tion des pêcheries, mais ellea aussi comportéd'autres activités maritimes,
concernant l'aide à la navigation, les secours, la recherche, la défense,
etc. Toutes ces activités,qui, d'après cette Partie, dépassentde loin, en
duréeet en importance, celles plus récenteset plus limitéesdu Canada
et des Canadiens, doivent selon elle représenter une circonstance perti-
nente principale aux fins d'une solution équitable en matière de délimi-
tation.
234. C'estd'autre part leCanada qui, pendant leprocès,a leplus insisté
sur l'importance,àson avisdécisive,desaspects socio-économiques. Mais,
d'aprèscette Partie, il ne s'agit pas de faire valoir des droits historiques
pouvant entrer en compétition avecles droits dont se réclament en faitles
Etats-Unis. Pour leCanada, ce n'estque la périoderécente qui peut entrer
en lignede compte, àsavoir lapériodequiserapproche de celleoù lesdeux
Etats ont finalement décidéde procéderchacun à la création d'une zone
exclusive de pêche, etqui même s'est poursuivieultérieurement. Deux
aspects surtout luiparaissent devoir retenir l'attent:la distribution des
réserveshalieutiquesdans lesdiverses parties de la région,et lespratiques
depêche respectivementétabliesetsuiviespar lesdeux Parties. Comme ila
déjàétérappelé à la section IV,paragraphe 110,ce pays a cherché à ériger
en <principe équitable déterminant aux fins de la délimitation l'idée
qu'une frontièremaritimeunique devrait assurer lemaintiendesstructures
de pêcheexistantes, qui sont selon lui d'une importance vitale pour les
collectivités côtièresdans la région considérée. Lbeut que l'opérationde
délimitation devrait poursuivre serait en d'autres termes de ne porter
aucune atteinte au développementéconomiqueetsocial des centres habi-
tésde la Nouvelle-Ecosse, développementqui a pu êtreréalisé grâce àla
contribution que lui a apportéele produit des pêcheriescanadiennes éta-
blies, dans les derniers quinze ans surtout, sur le banc de Georges.
235. La Chambre ne saurait s'associer à ces positions des Parties. Au
regard de celledes Etats-Unis, ellene peut queconfirmer sa décisionde ne
pas attribuer un quelconquepoids déterminant,aux fins de la délimitation
qui lui est confiéeà l'ancienneté età la constance des activitésde pêche
exercéespar lepassédans lazone de l'airede la délimitationsituée au-delà
de la ligne de fermeture du golfe.Jusqu'à une époquetrèsrécente, comme
la Chambre l'a rappelé,les espaces maritimes dont il s'agit étaient des
espaces de haute mer, ouverts librement aux activitésde pêche,non seu-
lement des Etats-Unis et du Canada, mais aussi des autres pays, et les
ressortissants de ces derniers venaient nombreux pêcherdans ceseaux. La
Chambre n'a évidemmentpas de difficulté à admettre que les Etats-Unis,
payscôtier,aient su,à cetteépoquede libreconcurrence, créer, àun certain
moment et a certains endroits, une condition deprimautéde fait àl'avan-
tage de leurs pêcheries, quelle qu'enait pu êtrela durée.Mais, après la
création deszones de pêche exclusivesde 200millespar lesEtats côtiers, lainvocation of historic rights, though that expression has not been used.
This continuous human presence took theform especiallyof fishing,and of
the conservation and management of fisheries, but it also included other
maritime activities concerning navigational assistance, rescue, research,
defence,etc.Al1theseactivities,saidgreatlyto exceedin duration and scale
the more recent and limited activities of Canada and its nationals, must,
according to the United States, be regarded as a major relevant circum-
stanceforthe purpose of reaching an equitable solution to thedelirnitation
problem.
234. On the other hand it was Canada which. in the course of the
proceedings, laid the greater emphasis on what it considered to be the
decisive importance of socio-economic aspects. However, it was not a
question, in its view,of invoking any historic rights such asmight compete
with those rights on which theUnited States wasin effectrelying.The only
period which in Canada's eyes should be regarded as relevant was the
recent one leading up to, or even continuing beyond, the time when both
States finally decided to go ahead with the institution of exclusivefishery
zones. Canada was of the view that attention should be especially con-
centrated on two aspects :the distribution of fish stocks in the various
parts of the area, and the fishing practices respectively established and
followedby thetwo Parties.Asalready noted in Section IV,paragraph 110,
it sought to erect intoan equitable principle, of deterrnining force for the
purposes of delimitation, the idea that any single maritime boundary
should ensure the maintenance of the existing fishing patterns that are in
its viewvital to the coastal communities of the region in question. In other
words, the Chamber, in carrying out the delimitation, should aim to avoid
in any wayharming theeconomic and social development of thecentres of
population in Nova Scotia, bearing in mind that that development had
been possible thanks to the contribution made by the product of the
Canadian fisheries established on the Georges Bank, especially in the last
15 years.
235. The Chamber cannot adopt these positions of the Parties. Con-
cerning that of the United States, it can only confirm its decision not to
ascribe any decisive weight, for the purposes of the delimitation it is
charged to carry out, to the antiquity or continuity of fishing activities
carried on in the past within that part of the delimitation area which lies
outside the closinglineof the Gulf. Until veryrecently, asthe Chamber has
recalled, these expanses were part of the high seas and as such freely open
to thefishermen not onlv of the United Statesand Canadabut alsoofother
countries, and theyweriindeed fishedby verymany nationals of thelatter.
The Chamber of course readily allows that, during that period of free
competition, the United States, as the coastal State, may have been able at
certain places and times - no matter for how long - to achieve an actual
predominance for its fisheries. But after the coastal States had set up
exclusive 200-mile fishery zones, the situation radically altered. Third
States and their nationals found themselvesdeprived of any right of access situation a radicalement changé.Les Etats tiers et leurs ressortissants se
sont trouvés privésde tout droit d'accèsaux espaces maritimes compris
dans lesdites zones et de tout avantage qu'ilsavaient pu y acquérir.Quant
aux Etats-Unis, la condition de simple primauté de fait qu'ils avaient pu
s'assurer sur les lieux s'est transforméeen une situation de monopole de
droit dans la mesure où les lieux en question sont juridiquement devenus
parties de leur propre zone de pêche exclusive.Au cas par contre où ces
mêmeslieuxseraient devenusparties de lazoneexclusivede pêchede 1'Etat
voisin, cette condition de primautéaurait aujourd'hui perdu toute valeur.
Il est évidentque toute situation privilégiqui aurait pu exister aupara-
vant en faveur des Etats-Unis n'estpas en soi une raison valable pour que
ceux-ci puissent prétendre aujourd'hui inclure dans leur propre zone
exclusivede pêche une zonequi, en droit, serait devenue partie de la zone
exclusive de pêchedu Canada.
236. On ne saurait en tout cas concevoir l'opérationde délimitation
comme ayantpour but de maintenir une situation de cegenre,ou mêmede
la rétablirau cas où, avec le temps, elle se serait atténuée.Ces considéra-
tions peuvent êtrerépétéeps,our unepart, encequiconcerne laposition du
Canada, mêmes'il paraît indéniable que, sous certains aspects, le déve-
loppement pris par lespêcheriesde ce pays a un caractère d'actualitéplus
marqué et si son incidence socio-économiquepour les collectivitéshu-
maines de certains comtésde la Nouvelle-Ecosse paraît évidente.Il n'en
demeure pas moins que le Canada, comme les Etats-Unis, a choisi la voie
consistantà se réserver unezone de pêche exclusiveaulieu de celle d'une
exploitation compétitivedans des espaces ouverts à la participation de
tous. Cette mesure peut engendrer des inconvénients àcôtéde ses avan-
tages indéniables. Mais rien ne dit évidemmentque la délimitation, en
droit,que la Chambre est maintenant appelée à effectuer dans leszones de
chevauchement qui sont apparues entre les zones exclusives de pêche
instituéesde part et d'autre, doive assureà chacune des Parties un accès
aux ressources halieutiques de la régionégal à celui dont elle jouissait
auparavant defacto. Rien nedit non plus qu'elle doiveassureà une Partie,
dans certaines zones, une compensation équivalente pour ce qu'elle per-
drait dans d'autres zones.
237. 11est donc évident, auxyeux de la Chambre, que l'ampleur res-
pective de ces activitéshumaines liées à la pêche- ou à la navigation,à
la défense, ou d'ailleurà la recherche etàl'exploitation d'hydrocarbures
- ne saurait entrer en considération en tant que circonstance pertinente
ou, si l'on préfère, entant que critèreéquitableàappliquer àla détermi-
nation de la ligne de délimitation. Le scrupule que la Chambre estime
justifié d'avoir estcelui de s'assurer que le résultatglobal, bien qu'issu de
l'application de critèreséquitables etde l'utilisation de méthodesappro-
priées destinées à les traduire concrètement, ne se révèlepas d'une
manièreinattendue comme radicalement inéquitable, c'est-à-dire comme
susceptible d'entraîner des répercussions catastrophiques pour la sub-
sistance et le développement économique des populations des pays in-
téressés.to the sea areas within those zones and of any position of advantage they
might have been able to achievewithin them. As for the United States, any
merefactual predominance whichithad been able to securein thearea was
transformed into a situation of legal monopoly to the extent that the
localities in question became legallypart of its own exclusivefishery zone.
Conversely,to the extent that they had becomepart of the exclusivefishery
zone of the neighbouring State, no reliance could any longer be placed on
that predominance. Clearly, whatever preferential situation the United
States may previously have enjoyed, this cannotconstitute in itself a valid
ground forits nowclaimingtheincorporation into itsownexclusivefishery
zone of any area which, in law, has become part of Canada's.
236. In any case, the purpose of the delimitation cannot conceivably be
held toliein themaintenance ofsuch aposition, orevenofitsrestoration in
the event of its having weakened in the course of time. To a certain extent,
moreover, the same considerations hold good as regards the position of
Canada, even if it appears undeniable that, from some aspects, the devel-
opment of this country's fisheriesis more notably a phenomenon of the
present dayand has been having anobvious socio-economic impact on the
communities inhabiting certain counties of Nova Scotia. But the fact
remains that Canada, like the United States, has preferred the policy of
reserving for itself an "exclusive" fishery zone to that of free-for-al1com-
petition in theexploitation of an open sea.To take such astep may giverise
to drawbacks alongside the unquestionable advantages. However, there is
no reason to consider dejure that the delimitation which the Chamber has
now to carry out within the areas of overlapping apparent as between the
respective exclusive fishery zones must result in each Party's enjoyingan
access to the regional fishing resources which will be equal to the accessit
previously enjoyed defacto. Neither is there any reason why the delimi-
tation should provide a Party in certain places with a compensation
equivalent to what it loses elsewhere.
237. It is, therefore, in the Chamber's view,evident that the respective
scale of activities connected with fishing - or navigation, defence or, for
that matter, petroleum exploration and exploitation - cannot be taken
into account as a relevant circumstance or, if the term is preferred, as an
equitablecriterion to be applied indetermining the delimitation line.What
the Chamber would regard asalegitimate scrupleliesratherin concern lest
the overall result, even though achieved through the application of equi-
table criteria and the use of appropriate methods for givingthem concrete
effect, should unexpectedly be revealed as radically inequitable, that is to
Say,as likely to entai1 catastrophic repercussions for the Iivelihood and
economic well-being of the population of the countries concerned. 238. Heureusement, aucun danger de cette nature n'est àcraindre, dans
le cas présent, à cause du choix que la Chambre a fait de la ligne de
délimitation et,enparticulier, de son troisièmeetdernier segment. Celui-ci
traverse lazonedes eaux surjacentes aubancde Georges à une distance de
son extrêmepointevers le chenal Nord-Est qui laisse du côté canadien la
plus grande partie du rebord et la pointe nord du banc, où se trouvent les
zones de plus forte concentration des espèces sédentaires - pétoncles
notamment - exploitéespar les pêcheurscanadiens. En fait, d'aprèsles
informations fournies par leCanada,pendant la période1972-1976,c'est-
à-direavant la miseen vigueur, par lesdeux pays voisins,de leurs zones de
pêche exclusives,lamajeurepartie desdébarquementsdepétonclesont été
le fait de pêcheurs canadiens; les prises canadiennes provenaient surtout
des zones du rebord et de la pointe nord >du banc de Georges, et celles
des Etats-Unis provenaient surtout de la régiondu Grand chenal Sud. La
totalitéoupresquedes zonesdeprisescanadiennes importantes demeurent
ainsi assuréesau Canada, et l'on sait l'importance que celui-ci attribue
précisément auproduit de ces pêcheriespour l'économiede la Nouvelle-
Ecosse et de ses ports. D'autre part les zones des pêcheriesdes mêmes
espècessédentairesexploitéespar les Etats-Unis, qui sont surtout concen-
tréesdans le voisinage du Grand chenal Sud, se trouvent entièrement de
l'autre côtéde la lignede division. En ce qui concerne la pêche au homard
les pêcheriesdu Canada sont largement concentréesdans le canyon Cor-
sair, du côténord-est de la ligne, tandis que les pêcheriesdes Etats-Unis
pour la même espèce sont plutôt concentrées du côté sud-ouest. Pour les
autres pêcheries, etnotamment les pêcheries mobiles,le calcul est moins
facile et nécessairementmoins précis. Maisdans l'ensemble l'examendes
statistiques - parfois difficilement comparables - conduit la Chambre à
conclureque, à larigueur, seuleune mesure qui aurait consistéà attribuerà
une Partie la totalité dubanc de Georges aurait pu entraîner de sérieuses
répercussionséconomiques pour l'autre Partie.
239. En ce qui concerne l'autre aspect important à considérer sousle
même angle, on peut releverque la ligne de délimitation tracéepar la
Chambre divise les principales zones de recherches de richesses minérales
du sous-sol, en laissant de part et d'autre de vastes espaces dans lesquels
des recherches ont étéentreprisespar lepassé,qui pourraient êtrereprises
dans la mesure où les Parties le souhaiteraient.
240. La Chambre, d'autre part, estime qu'iln'ya pas lieu de surestimer
lesinconvénientsque peut présenterla division du banc de Georges et des
ressources de ses eaux et de son sous-sol résultant de la ligne de délimi-
tation qu'elle a tracéeconformément au droit et aux critères équitables
dont ledroit prévoit l'application. Elne saurait voir une sourceinévitable
et insurmontablede litigesdans lefait qu'unegestion unique des pêcheries
établiessur ce banc et l'attribution à un seul pays de la tâche de leur
conservation, dont les Etats-Unis auraient souhaité la réalisation,ne se
trouvent pas consacréespar la décisionintervenue. Elle ne saurait pas
davantage penser que des incidents dus à des erreurs de navigation et à 238. Fortunately, there is no reason to fear that any such danger will
arise in the present case on account of the Chamber's choice of delimita-
tion line or, more especially,the course of its third and final segment. This
crosses the waters covering Georges Bank at such a distance from that
feature'sextremity in thedirection of the Northeast Channel asto leaveon
the Canadian sidethegreater part of the "Northern Edgeand Peak" of the
Bank, where the greatest concentrations of the sedentary species - in
particular scallop - exploited by Canadian fishermen are to be found. In
fact, according to the information furnished by Canada, in the period
1972-1976,i.e.,prior to the twoneighbouring countries'institution of their
exclusive fishery zones, Canadian fishermen were responsible for the
major part of scallop landings ;the Canadian catches were taken mainly
from the "Northern Edge and Peak" of Georges Bank, while those of the
United States came mainly from the vicinity of the Great South Channel.
Thus Canada may still be sure of very nearly al1the major locations of its
catches ;and it willbe remembered that it isprecisely the product of these
fisheriesthat Canada regardsas important forthe economy of Nova Scotia
andits ports. Conversely,the localities in whch the samesedentary species
have been traditionally fished by the United States, which are clustered
mainly in the vicinity of the Great South Channel, willlie entirely on the
United States side of the dividing line. As regards lobster-fishing, the
Canadian fisheries are mainly concentrated in Corsair Canyon, on the
northeastern side of the line, whereas those of the United States are
concentrated rather on its southwestern side. In the case of other fisheries,
more particularly those concerning free-swimming fish, the calculation is
not so simple, and is necessarily less precise. By and large, however, an
examination of the statistics, which are sometimes difficult to compare,
leads the Chamber to the conclusion that nothing less than a decision
which would have assigned the whole of Georges Bank to one of the
Parties might possibly have entailed serious economic repercussions for
the other.
239. As regards the other major aspect to be viewed from the same
angle, it may be pointed out that the delimitation line drawn by the
Chamber so divides the main areas in which the subsoil is being explored
for its minera1resources as to leaveon either sidebroad expanses in which
prospecting has been undertaken in the past and may be resumed to the
extent desired by the Parties.
240. Moreover the Chamber considers that there is no need to overes-
timate any difficulties that may arise from the division of Georges Bank,
with the resources of its waters and subsoil,resulting from thedelimitation
line which it has drawn in accordance with law and with the equitable
criteria whose application is called for by the law itself. It is unable to
discern anyinevitablesource ofinsurmountable disputes in the fact that its
decision has not endorsed the single management of this Bank's fisheries,
and the assignment to one country of the task of conserving them, which
the United States would have preferred to see instituted. Nor can it
imagine that incidents due tonavigationalerrors orpossible infringementsd'éventuellesinfractions qui seproduiraient à la suite de l'établissementde
la lignededélimitationnepuissent êtrerégléd sirectement etd'une manière
adéquate. Le Canada et les Etats-Unis ont à leur actif une trop longue
tradition de coopérationamicale etfructueuse dans ledomaine maritime et
dans tant d'autres pour que l'on ait à redouter une interruption de cette
coopération,qui se révèlemaintenant d'autant plus nécessaire,et cela non
seulement dans le domaine des pêcheries, mais aussidans celui des res-
sources en hydrocarbures. Unissant une fois de plus leurs efforts, les
Parties seront certainement à mêmede surmonter les difficultés éven-
tuelles et d'adopter les mesures opportunes pour un développementbéné-
fique de leurs activitésdans les importants domaines concernés.
241. En résumél,a Chambre trouve, dans lesconstatations qu'elle vient
defaire, une confirmation de sa conviction de l'absence totale, dans le cas
d'espèce,desconditions de nature vraiment exceptionnelle qui pourraient
justifier une quelconque correction de la ligne de délimitation qu'elle a
tracée.La Chambre peut donc conclure en toute sécuritéque la délimita-
tion effectuéedans le respect des principes et règlesde droit régissantla
matière, en appliquant donc des critères équitables et en utilisant les
méthodes appropriées, a en outre produit un résultat d'ensemble équi-
table.
242. Conformément à l'article II, paragraphe 2, du compromis, le tracé
de la limite est défini ci-après,dans ledispositif du présentarrêt,en termes
de lignesgéodésiques reliantlescoordonnéesgéographiquesde points. De
plus, età seules fins d'iiiustrati~n, comme le prévoit leditparagraphe du
compromis, le tracéde la limite a étéindiqué suu rn exemplaire de la carte
no4003 du service hydrographique du Canada et sur un exemplaire de la
carte no 13006 de la United States National Ocean Survey, fournis par
chacune des Parties respectivement1. Un rapport explicatif rédigépar
l'expert technique est annexé à l'arrêt.Conformément à l'article IV du
compromis les coordonnées géographiques des points sont établies en
fonction de la station origine de la triangulation nord-américaine de
1927.
' On trouveraunexemplaire decescartes, en noiretblanc et enformat réduitpouren
faciliter la manipulation, dans unepochette setrouvant àla fin du présenàfasciculeou
la fin du volume C.I.J. Recueil 1984 selon le cas. Pour plus de clarté,la ligne de
délimitationest indiquéeen rouge sur ces cartes. [Note du Greffe.] GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT) 344
occurring after the establishment of the delimitation line could not be
settled directly and adequately. Canadaand theUnited States have to their
credittoo long atradition of friendly and fruitfulCO-operationin maritime
matters, as in so many other domains, for there to be any need to fear an
interruption of that CO-operation,which clearly now becomes al1the more
necessary, not only in the field of fisheries but also in that of hydrocarbon
resources. By once morejoining in a common endeavour, the Parties will
surelybe able to surmont any difficulties and take the right steps to ensure
the positive development of their activities in the important domains
concerned.
241. In short,the Chamber seesin the abovefindingsconfirmation ofits
conviction that in thepresent case there are absolutely no conditions of an
exceptional kind whichmightjustify anycorrection of thedelimitation line
it has drawn. The Chamber may therefore confidently conclude that the
delimitation effected incompliance with thegoverningprinciples and rules
of law, applying equitable criteria and appropriate methods accordingly,
has produced an equitable overall result.
242. In accordance with Article II, paragraph 2, of the Special Agree-
ment, the course of the boundary is defined below, in the operative clause
of the present Judgment, in terms of geodetic lines connecting geographic
CO-ordinatesof points. Furthermore, as requested in that paragraph, the
courseof theboundary has been depicted,for illustrative purposes only,on
copies of Canadian Hydrographic Service Chart No. 4003, and United
States National Ocean SurveyChart No. 13006,which have been supplied
by the Parties respectively l.An explanatory Report by the technical
expert is annexed to the Judgment. In accordance with Article IV of the
Special Agreement, the said geographic CO-ordinatesof points are ren-
dered on the 1927American Datum.
' Copies of these charts, reproduced in black and white and reduced in sizefor easeof
handling,will be found in a pocket at the back of the fasciclecontaining thisJudgrnent,
orinside the back cover of the volume of I.C.J. Reports 1984, as the case may be. For
clarity, the delimitation line is reproduced on these copies as a red line. (Note by the
Registry.) 243. Par ces motifs,
par quatre voix contre une,
Décide
Que le tracéde la frontière maritime unique divisant le plateau conti-
nental et les zones de pêche exclusivesdu Canada et des Etats-Unis
d'Amériquedans la zone spécifiéedans le compromis conclu le 29 mars
1979entre ces deux Etats est définipar des lignes géodésiques reliantles
points dont les coordonnées sont indiquéesci-après :
Latitudenord Longitudeouest
A 44" 11' 12" 67" 16'46"
B 42" 53' 14" 67" 44' 35"
C 42" 31' 08" 67" 28' 05"
D 40" 27' 05" 65" 41' 59"
POUR :M. Ago, présiden; MM. Mosleret Schwebel,juges;M. Cohen,juge
ad hoc ;
CONTRE :M. Gros, juge.
Fait en français et en anglais, le texte françaisfaisant foi, au palais de la
Paix, à La Haye, le douze octobre mil neuf cent quatre-vingt-quatre, en
trois exemplaires, dont l'un restera déposéaux archives de la Cour et dont
les autres seront transmis respectivement au Gouvernement du Canada et
au Gouvernement des Etats-Unis d'Amérique.
Le président de la Chambre,
(Signé)Roberto AGO.
Le Greffier,
(Signé)Santiago TORRES BERNARDEZ.
M. SCHWEBEL j,ge, jointà l'arrêt l'exposde son opinion indivi-
duelle.
M. GROS,juge, joint à l'arrêtl'exposéde son opinion dissidente.
(Paraphé) R.A.
(Paraphé) S.T.B. GULF OF MAINE (JUDGMENT)
243. For these reasons,
By four votes to one,
Decides
That the course of the single maritime boundary that divides the con-
tinental shelf and the exclusivefisheries zones of Canada and the United
States of America in the area referred to in the Special Agreement con-
cluded by those two States on 29 March 1979shall be defined by geodetic
lines connecting the points with the following CO-ordinates:
Latitude North Longitude West
A 44" 11'12" 67" 16'46"
B 42" 53' 14" 67" 44' 35"
C 42" 31'08" 67" 28' 05"
D 40" 27' 05" 65" 41' 59"
IN FAVOUR : President Ago ; Judges Mosler, Schwebel ; Judge ad hoc
Cohen ;
AGAINST :Judge Gros.
Done in French and in English, the French text being authoritative, at
the Peace Palace, The Hague, this twelfth day of October one thousand
nine hundred and eighty-four, in three copies, one of which will be placed
in the archives of the Court and the others transmitted to the Government
of Canada and the Government of the United States of America respec-
tively.
(Signed) Roberto AGO,
President of the Chamber.
(Signed) Santiago TORRES BERNARDEZ,
Registrar.
Judge SCHWEBEaL ppends a separate opinion to the Judgment of the
Chamber.
Judge GROSappends a dissenting opinion to the Judgment of the
Chamber.
(Initialied)R.A.
(Initialled)S.T.B. Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary
in the Gulf of Maine Area
TECHNICAL REPORT
PRESENTED TO THE CHAMBER OF THE COURT BY COMMANDER PETER
BRYAN BEAZLEY, O.B.E.,F.R.I.C.S.,R.N.(RETD.)THE TECHNICAL EXPERT
APPOINTED ,URSUANT TO ARTICLE II, PARAGRAPH 3, OF THE SPECIAL
AGREEMENT. BY THE ORDER OF THE CHAMBER DATED 30 MARCH 1984
1. To conform to Article II (2) and Article IV (b)of the Special Agree-
ment, and to achieve consistency between the delimitation line and the
method of its construction, al1lines are taken to be geodetic lines.
2. For practical application of the methods described in the Judgment
for determination of the first two segments of the line calculations have
been made on the Universal Transverse Mercator grid using a Central
Meridian of 68" West. The course of the closing line of the Gulf and the
perpendicular toithave been determined using geodetic azimuths. Com-
putations were based on the Clarke 1866spheroid. The basepoints having
been determined to a second of arc the final positions of the delimitation
line have been defined in whole seconds of arc also.
3. Positionsof the variouscoastalpoints were found to be as foll:ws
Name LatitudN LongitudeW Chart
SE tip of Nantucket
Island 41" 15'04" 69" 58'01" 13241US
LWL position for
determining 200'
limit 41'15'56" 69'57'37" 13241US
Cape Cod elbow 41" 38' 35" 69" 57' 15" 13248US
Position on CapeCod
nearest to Chebo-
gue Point 42"00'31" 70°01'36" 13246US GOLFE DU MAINE (RAPPORT TECHNIQUE)
Délimitationde lafrontièremaritime
dans la régiondu golfe duMaine
RAPPORT TECHNIQUE
[Traduction]
1. Ainsi que le prévoient l'articleII, paragraphe 2, et l'artIV,eali-
néa h), du compromis, et pour assurer la concordance entre la ligne de
délimitation et la méthode utiliséepour sa construction, il est entendu
que toutes les lignes sont des lignes géodésiques.
2. En vue de l'application pratique des méthodes indiquéesdans l'arrêt
pour la détermination des deux premiers segments de la ligne, les calculs
ont étéfaits sur le quadrillage UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator)
s'appuyant sur un méridien central 68" ouest. Léstracésde la ligne de
fermeturedu golfeet de la perpendiculaireà cette ligneont étdéterminés
d'après les azimuts géodésiques.Les calculs se réfèrentà l'ellipsoïde de
Clarke de 1866. Lespoints de base ayant été déterminés à une seconde
d'arc près, lespositions finales de la ligne de délimitation sont elles aussi
définiesen secondes d'arc entières.
3. Les positions desdifférentspoints côtierssont dans ces conditions les
suivantes :
Nom Latitude nord Longitude ouest Carte
Extrémité S-E de
l'île de Nantuc-
ket 41" 15' 04" 69" 58'01" 13241Etats-Unis
Position de la laisse
de basse mer pour
la détermination
de la limite de 200
milles 41O 15'56" 69" 57' 37" 13241 Etats-Unis
Coude du cap Cod 41" 38' 35" 69" 57' 15" 13248 Etats-Unis
Position sur le cap
Cod la plus pro-
che de la pointe
Chebogue 42" 00' 31" 70" 01' 36" 13246Etats-Unis348 GULF OF MAINE (TECHNICA REPORT)
Latitude N Longitude W
Cape Ann 42" 38' 12" 70" 34' 27"
Cape Elizabeth 43" 33'41" 70" 12'02"
International Boun-
dary Terminus
(TP15)
North coast of Bay of
Fundy 4010 Canadian
South coast of Bay of
Fundy 4010Canadian
Brier Island (Whipple
Point) 4324 Canadian
Chebogue Point 4326 Canadian
Cape Sable 4216 Canadian
Seal Island (SW
point) 4330 Canadian
4. Al1positions areon 1927North American Datum. Corrections have
been applied to positions from theCanadian charts as indicated in the
Agent for Canada's letter to the Registrar dated 18April 1984.The Annex
lists the rectangular UTM CO-ordinatesof some of these positions.
5. The two positions in the Bay of Fundy were determined byplotting
taking account of the fact that the most easterly point of a 12-milelimit
(depending on the low-waterlines of Quaco Ledge and the southern shore
of the Bay) was found to be at 45" 04' 21"N, 65" 31' 11" W approxi-
mately.
6. For calculation of the ratio of coastal lethe following true dis-
tances in nautical miles were determine:
Cape Cod Elbow to Cape Ann 65.7
Cape Ann to Cape Elizabeth 57.9
Cape Elizabeth to Boundary Terminus 160.0
TOTALUnited States coastline 283.6 (284)
Boundary terminus to N coast of Bay of Fundy 59.9
N coast to S coast of Bay of Fundy 26.1
S coast of Bay of Fundy to Whipple Point 59.0
Whipple Point to Cape Sable
TOTAL Canadian coastline GOLFE DU MAINE (RAPPORT TECHNIQUE) 348
Nom Latitudenord Longitudeouest Carte
Cap Ann 42" 38' 12" 70" 34' 27" 13279Etats-Unis
Cap Elizabeth 43" 33' 41" 70" 12'02" 13290Etats-Unis
Point terminal de la
frontière interna-
tionale (TP 15)
Côte nord de la baie
de Fundy 4010 Canada
Côte sud de la baie
de Fundy 4010 Canada
Ile Brier (Whipple
Point) 4324 Canada
Pointe Chebogue 4326 Canada
Cap de Sable . 4216 Canada
Ile Seal (pointe sud-
ouest) 4330 Canada
4. Toutes lespositions sont établiesen fonction de la station origine de
la triangulation nord-américaine de 1927. Les positions des cartes cana-
diennes ont étécorrigées d'après leindications fournies dans la lettre de
l'agentdu Canada au Greffieren datedu 18avril 1984.L'annexedonne les
coordonnéesUTM des diverses positions.
5. Les deux positions dans la baie de Fundy ont été déterminéepsar
report en tenant compte du fait que lapointe la plus orientale d'une limite
de 12milles(en fonction des laisses de basse mer deQuaco Ledge et de la
rive sud de la baie) se trouverait approximativement à 45" 04' 21" de
latitude nord et 65" 31' 11" de longitude ouest.
6. Pour lecalculdelaproportion deslongueursdecôte,lesdistances vraies
suivantes, exprimées en millesmarins, ont étéobtenues :
Du coude du cap Cod au cap Ann 65,7
Du cap Ann au cap Elizabeth 57,9
Du cap Elizabeth au point terminal de la frontière
terrestre 160,O
TOTALpour la façade côtière des Etats-Unis 283,6 (284)
Du point terminal de la frontièreinternationalàla
rive nord de la baie de Fundy 59,9
De la rive nord à la rive sud de la baie de Fundy 26,l
De la rive sud de la baie de Fundy à Whipple
Point 59,O
De Whipple Point au cap de Sable 60,9
TOTALpour la façade côtière du Canada 205,9 (206).Therefore the ratio of coastline lengths United States : Canada is
7. Todeterminethecourseofthebisector,forming thefirst segment of the
line, UTM grid bearings were determined :
Boundary terminus to Cape Elizabeth 243" 16'24"
Boundary terminus to Cape Sable 145" 09' 30".
Therefore the perpendiculars from A to these lines are, respectively,
and the course of the bisector lies along the grid bearing
194" 12'57".
8. Todetermine thedirectionof themedian line,which formsthe basis of
the second segment of the delimitation line, it is necessary to make
allowance for a change of scale factor between the southeastern and
northwestern ends of the two controlling lines. The grid bearings of the
controlling lines are:
Cape Cod Elbow to Cape Ann 336" 36'32'.'5
Cape Sable to Whipple Point 325" 07' 14'.'9.
9. A mid-point between Whipple Point and the CapeAnn to Cape Cod
line will lie on a grid bearing from Whipple Point of
and will intersect the line at position
(1) 42" 32'29.6 N 70" 30'49'.'8W.
The mid-point of ths line after correcting for scale factor is
(2) 43" 24'27'.'0N 68" 29'03.0 W.
10. Similarly a mid-point between Cape Cod Elbow and the Whipple
Point to Cape Sable line lies on the reciprocal bearing which intersects
at
(3) 43" 24' 38-4 N 65" 38' 31f.'7W
and the corrected mid-point is
(4) 42"32'50f.'1N 67"49'42'.'9WPar conséquent le rapport entre les longueurs des façades côtières des
Etats-Unis et du Canada est de
1,38à 1.
7. Pour déterminerle tracéde la bissectrice,constituant le premier seg-
ment de la ligne, les gisements par rapport au quadrillageUTM se défi-
nissent comme suit :
Point terminal de la frontière terrestre au cap Elizabeth 243" 16'24"
Point terminal de la frontière terrestre au cap de Sable 145" 09' 30"
(par conséquentIesperpendiculaires à ceslignestracéesà partir du point A
sont, respectivement, à
et la bissectrice correspond au gisement suivant dans le quadrillag:
194" 12'57").
8.Pourdéterminerla directionde lalignemédiane,qui constituela base
du deuxième segment de la ligne de délimitation, il convient de tenir
compte d'un changement d'échelleentre les extrémités sud-estet nord-
ouest des deux lignes qui en commandent le tracé
Du coude du cap Cod au cap Ann 336" 36' 32.15
Du cap de Sable à Whipple Point 325" 07' 14','9
9. Un point situé àmi-chemin entre Whipple Point et la lignecap Ann-
cap Cod aura dans le quadrillage,à partir de Whipple Point, un gisement
de
240" 51'53','7
et coupera la ligneà la position
1) 42' 32'29','6N 70" 30' 49Y8W.
Après correction d'échelle, lepoint milieu de la ligne se trouvà
2) 43" 24' 27','0N 68" 29' 03:O W.
IO. Demêmeu , npoint àmi-cheminentre lecoude du capCod et la ligne
Whipple Point-cap de Sable se trouve sur le gisement inverse qui coupela
ligneà
3) 43"24'38','4N 65"38'31f,'7W
et le point milieu corrigéest
4) 42" 32'50:'l N 67' 49' 42','9W.350 GULF OF MAINE (TECHNICA RLEPORT)
11. The grid bearing between these two corrected mid-points is the
direction of the median line which is
150" 52' 3403
12. To determine the locationof the secondsegment of the line 1under-
stand my instructions from the Charnber to be to give half-effect to Seal
Island when applying the ratio in which the line from Chebogue Point to
the nearest point onCape Cod (thelocation line)is tobedivided. To effect
this, Seal Island must be related to Chebogue Point and the location line
rather than to the Coastnearest to the island.
13. The true (geodetic) length of the location line was found to be
372 088 metres
and the grid bearing from Chebogue Point is
239" 04' 36.1.
A line parallel to the line from Cape Sableto Whipple Point (representing
the coastal front of Nova Scotia) drawn from the southwestern point of
Seal Island intersects the location line at a true distance of 14234 metres
from CheboguePoint.A position 7 117metres alongthelocation linefrom
Chebogue Point would then represent a notional half-effect position for
the island. Applying the ratio of 1.38:1on the location line between Cape
Cod and the half-effect position of the island divides the line at aposition
153349 metres from the half effect position, or
160 466 metres (grid distance 160418 metres)
from CheboguePoint. This representsa division of the wholelocation line
in the ratio 1.319:1(1.32:1).The CO-ordinatesof this point are
14. A line of grid bearing 150" 52'34'.'3from this point intersects the
bisector from A at position
B 42" 53'14" N 67" 44' 35" W
which is the first turning point on the line of delimitation. A line on the
same grid bearing intercepts the geodetic line (geodesic) between Nan-
tucket and Cape Sable at position
C 42" 31' 08"(.35) N 67" 28' 05"(.33) W
which is the second turning point on the line of delimitation. 11. Legisement dans lequadrillage de la droitejoignant cesdeux points
milieux corrigés estla direction de la ligne médiane, savoir:
150" 52' 34','3.
12. Pour déterminerlaposition du deuxièmesegment de la ligne,j'inter-
prète les instructions données par la Chambre comme signifiant qu'un
demi-effet doit être attribuél'îleSeal en appliquant la proportion selon
laquelle la ligne entre la pointe Chebogue et lepoint le plusproche du cap
Cod (la ligne de positionnement) doit êtredivisée.Pour cela, l'îledoit
êtreconsidéréeen rapport avec la pointe Chebogue et la ligne de posi-
tionnement plutôt qu'avec la côte la plus proche de ladite île.
13. La longueur (géodésique) vraiede la ligne de positionnement est
de
372 088 mètres
et le gisement dans le quadrillageàpartir de la pointe Chebogue est de
Une ligne parallèleàla ligne cap de Sable-WhipplePoint (représentant la
façade côtière de la Nouvelle-Ecosse) tracéeà partir de l'extrémitésud-
ouest de l'îleeal coupe la ligne de positionnementà la distance vraie de
14234 mètresde Chebogue Point. Un point situé sur la ligne de position-
nement à 7117 mètres de la pointe Chebogue représenterait dans ces
conditions une position théorique donnant un demi-effet à l'île. Si l'on
applique la proportion de1,38à 1 àla ligne de positionnement entre lecap
Cod et lepoint donnant un demi-effet àl'île,la ligne setrouve diviàéun
point à 153 349 mètres du point de demi-effet, soit
160 466 mètres (distance dans le quadrillage 160418 mètres)
à partir de la pointe Chebogue. Cela représente une division de toute la
ligne de positionnement selon un rapport de 1,319 à 1 (1,32 à 1). Les
coordonnées de ce point sont
(5) 43" 00' 19','8N 67' 49' 56','7W.
14. Une ligne ayant dans le quadrillage un gisement de 150" 52'34'à'3
partir de ce point coupe la bissectrice tracée de à la position
B 4L053'14"N 67'44'3.5" W
constituant le premier point de changement de direction de la ligne de
délimitation.Une ligne de même gisementcoupela ligne géodésiqueentre
Nantucket et le cap de Sable à la position
C 42" 31' 08" (,35) N 67" 28' 05"(,33) W
qui constitue le second point de changement de direction de la ligne de
délimitation.351 GULF OF MAINE (TECHNICA LEPORT)
15. The azimuth of the geodeticlinebetween Nantucket andCape Sable
at position C is
N E
56" 39'49"
S W
so that the required perpendicular has an azimuth of
The last place on the path of this perpendicular where the 200-milezones
claimed by the two Parties overlap is a point 200 nautical miles from the
nearest point of the low-water line of the United States of America. The
relevant point of the low-water line is givenat paragraph 3 and the
point of intersection between the perpendicular and a 200-nautical mile
arc drawn from that point is position
which also lies within the area laid down in Article II of the Special
Agreement.
16. The delimitationline isthereforedefined bygeodeticsjoining in
succession the following positions the CO-ordinatesof which are given in
1927North American Datum :
This line crosses Georges Bank, as defined by the 100-fathom contour on
Canadian chart 8005, at positions
but these positions do not form part of the definition of the delirnitation
line.
Done in one copy, in English, at The Hague, 3 October 1984.
(Signed) P. B. BEAZLEY. 15. L'azimutde laligne géodésiquentreNantucket et lecap de Sablà
la position C est
N E
56" 39'49"
S W
de sorte que la perpendiculaire requise a un azimut de
S 33" 20' 11" E.
Le dernier endroit sur le parcours de cette perpendiculaire où les reven-
dications des deux Parties se chevauchent est un point situé0 milles
marins du point le plus proche de la laisse de basse mer des Etats-Unis
d'Amérique.Le point pertinent de la laisse de basse mer est indiquéau
paragraphe 3 ci-dessus, et l'intersection entre la perpendiculaire et un arc
de 200 milles marins tracéa partir de ce point se trouve a la position
qui est en outre dans la zone spécifiée'article II du compromis.
16. La ligne de délimitationest donc définiepar des lignesgéodésiques
joignant successivementlespositions suivantes, dont lescoordonnéessont
indiquéesen fonction de la station origine de la triangulation nord-amé-
ricaine de 1927:
A 44" 11' 12''N 67" 16'46" W
B 42" 53' 14"N 67" 44' 35" W
C 42" 31'08" N 67" 28' 05" W
D 40" 27'05" N 65" 41' 59" W.
Cette ligne coupe l'isobathe des 100mètresqui définitlebanc de Georges
sur la carte canadienne 8005, aux positio:s
mais ces positions ne font pas partie de la définitionde la ligne de déli-
mitation.
Fait en un exemplaire, en langue anglaise,à La Haye, le 3 octobre
1984.
(Signé)P. B. BEAZLEY. ANNEX TO THE TECHNICAL REPORT
List of UTM rectangular CO-ordinatesof certain positions mentioned in
the Report. Central Meridian 68" W ; Clarke's 1866spheroid.
Position Easting Northing
Cape Cod Elbow 337 251.1 4 611778.0
Position on Cape Cod nearest to
Chebogue Point
Cape Ann
Cape Elizabeth
TP15
Whipple Point
Chebogue Point
Cape Sable
Seal Island
A
(1)
t2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
B
C
(position C is on the geodesic between Cape Sable and Nantucket about 7
metres from the grid line joining those points). ANNEXE AU RAPPORT TECHNIQUE
Liste des coordonnées rectangulaires sur la projection de Mercator
de certaines positions mentionnées dans le rapport. Méridien central
68" ouest ;ellipsoïde de Clarke de 1866.
Position Abscisse Ordonnée
Coude du cap Cod 337 251.1 4 611 778,O
Position sur le cap Cod la plus
proche de la pointe Chebogue
Cap Ann
Cap Elizabeth
TP 15
Whipple Point
Pointe Chebogue
Cap de Sable
IleSeal
A
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
B
C
(La position C se trouve sur la ligne géodésiqentre le cap de Sable et
Nantucket à 7 mètres environ de la ligne de quadrillage joignant ces
points.)
Judgment of 12 October 1984 given by the Chamber constituted by the order made by the Court on 20 January 1982
Judgment of 12 October 1984